a quick stab at a different topic

[hsu@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU (William Tsun-Yuk Hsu)]

IED sez:
> 2.) What is the first object of music, to entertain or to enlighten?

Some quick and incoherent remarks on this:
First, what do you mean by the "object of music"? You could be referring
to Jeff Winslow's fabled "the intention of the music maker when he
came up with this neat noise" or Mike Krantz's "the listener's intention
when he puts this tape of Diamanda Galas having an orgasm." In other
words, are you asking "Why should people make music?" or "Why should
people listen to music?"

Since I believe in personal freedom, I think people should make music
for whatever reason. Also, people should be allowed to consume music
for whatever reason, e.g., impress your yuppie friends, background music
for screwing, unwinding after a tough day at the office. I happen to
enjoy music that demands attention as a thing in itself, music that
refuses to be merely used for extra-musical purposes. (I like good
dance music as much as the next guy, but it has to be more than just
mush you can bop to.) 

Most people are prejudiced against unusual musics because they only
use music for some limited purpose, and consider music that does not
serve that purpose "trash". 

Music is some abstract thing that anyone will have problems defining.
Music does not have an object; the people who make and consume music
do. 

Let's argue about something else.

Bill


I couldn't resist a footnote department: Going back to IED's first question,
let's assume that the purpose of music is to enlighten (whatever that
means.) Let's assume also that is IED's answer. If so, isn't the Dreaming
a better album than HoL since it opens up so many possibilities? If anyone
responds to this footnote, may his mailer die so we won't prolong this
discussion. Let's really argue about something else.