tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762198568823780520.post326652391909212693..comments2023-04-06T12:03:33.053-04:00Comments on Musicological Musings: In Offense of Christmas MusicJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03944122589301295332noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762198568823780520.post-25821481153637600752009-12-27T15:54:24.084-05:002009-12-27T15:54:24.084-05:00Dear Anonymous -
You claim that John's reason...Dear Anonymous - <br />You claim that John's reasoning here is circular: "So does that mean you would like it if you chose to consume it, but you do not choose to consume it because you dislike it. This seems very circular." I simply do not see where the circularity in his statement is. If John's definition of noise is that which is unwanted and there are sounds, like Christmas music, which are unwanted, Christmas music unwillingly consumed must be considered "noise." <br /><br />My issue with the argument is actually not with the content or logic of John's post (though I'm far too sentimental ever make a similar claim!) but rather with Schafer's philosophy of music/sound. If we accept the idea that any sound presently unwanted is "noise" then our definition of music must be in constant flux. At one moment Mozart could be considered glorious and at another simply "noise." Don't get me wrong -- I've most certainly been in situations where even my most favorite pieces just don't do it for me. ANY musicology student who has written a thesis (or any extended academic work) on a single piece has surely experienced this. There are simply days when that about which we are passionate loses its magic. But aren't those days really based more on your level of exhaustion, your hours in the library, seminars debating with frustrating colleagues, and paper deadlines? Who am I, then, to define the dichotomy between music and noise based on that which is wanted and that which isn't. That is to say, do you really feel comfortable having the distinction between music and noise based on your level of exhaustion, irritability and mood?<br /> <br />Further -- what does this mean for other forms of art...specifically public art? Don't public artists seek to create art in unexpected, or perhaps even, unwanted spaces? Are we to consider this not art but "stuff"? <br /><br />I'm not sure I have a good answer here, but I'm finding Schafer's definition highly problematic. <br /><br />MelodyMelodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09198047934880085090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-762198568823780520.post-29481507366729066302009-12-09T13:38:23.081-05:002009-12-09T13:38:23.081-05:00So you dislike Christmas music because you typical...So you dislike Christmas music because you typically consume it unwillingly. And yes, some of that you cannot control (if it is background music in a store). But you could still choose to consume it. So does that mean you would like it if you chose to consume it, but you do not choose to consume it because you dislike it. This seems very circular. Also, the rest of the year, popular music of some kind or another is background music-music you are, by your own definitions, forced to consume- and even sometimes, gasp, classical music. Does that mean you dislike all popular music and all classical music because you are unwillingly forced to consume it as well, since you dislike all Christmas music for this reason? I do not see how one could be disliked and one could still be liked if your reasoning for disliking the first is that it is forced upon you, when that reason does not change for other genres.. Following the line of reasoning, that seems to be a logical next step. So what is the difference? Is that really the reason you dislike Christmas music? Are emotions held to the same logical standards that reason and intellect are?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com