I’m sorry it’s been a little over a week since I did one of these, I just haven’t had much inspiration lately but I got some great ideas in class today I just hope I remember them. Also, I’m done using numbers for these entries as I have done more entries than the numbers reflect.
I wanted to talk about context, content, intent, and perception as these are all issues in defining music.
Context is important to content in order to understand something properly, like a piece of music for example, and intent is part of the context of the content. (I am beginning to realize this all sounds somewhat lyrical). The problem with intent is that it is very different from perception. What one intends by a statement, song, poem, artwork, etc, does not always line up with the perception of the people, well…perceiving it. This all brings in two figures we discussed in the Philosophy of Art that we also touched upon in Music and Philosophy: Tolstoy and Danto. Tolstoy, as we know believed if the precise and exact emotion the artist was trying to express in his\her art was not the emotion that anyone who viewed it took away from it or interpreted it as, fails as an artist. I disagree with this to an extent and say that it would be worse if people looked upon the art and felt nothing at all let alone the precise intended emotion. As long as they feel something the art is somewhat affective, I also feel that if the art was meant to inspire grief but it only inspires sorrow, it is close enough to the intention. I would also side with Danto more and put the blame on the perceiver (audience) and not the intender (artist). Blame is actually too strong of a word. What I mean is, Danto believed that for one to truly appreciate art in its fullest purpose, one needs to be versed in the art world or as the phrase goes one must be cultured. One must understand the historical context, the artist, the artist’s background, etc. I think that this is all important but not fully necessary. In addition, most museums these days have pamphlets or audio tours providing all the background information for you. Most times art is rejected due to simple poor communication. Art is for everyone and not some art exclusive world.
This all being said, I have a query for all of you.
I have heard talk recently about rap being more sound art than music. What are your opinions on this?
First, I want to say a few things. I personally am not a big fan of most rap though I do like some. However, personal feelings aside: calling rap sound art rather than music is not an insult. It is in no way degrading it (for that would imply sound art is a lesser art form than music), or insulting it, or anything negative at all. Many people have a problem with seeing rap as music and I think this would solve the problem. It would be lyrical sound art like Revolution 9 by the Beatles.
At the very least, the argument can be made that rap pieces are not songs in the same way that classical pieces are not songs. The words “song” and “sing” are synonymous with each other and sound very much alike except for having different vowels. Sing is the verb and Song is the noun. I would argue that if there is no singing, then it is not a song. Now some rap pieces do have singing and therefore I would categorize those as songs. However, I suppose all of this depends on ones definition of singing
My point is I am not against rap, I am just pontificating on a conversation that cropped up at lunch one day.
No comments:
Post a Comment