The wikipedia page we had to read about music kinda made me mad in a way. It seems like the idea of music has been bent so much that there cannot even be a clear definition of what it is anymore.
You have a person who releases butterflies on a stage and them flying away is supposed to be considered music? That is just completely ridiculous. Butterflies dont even make noise. This is almost as ridiculous as the way that the idea of art has been stretched. I remember in the beginning of the year when we took a trip to Mass Moca and one of the exhibits was a bubblegum machine filled with used tampons. How is that art? I believe that example and the one of butterflies being music are NOT examples of these ideas being expanded, they are more examples of these ideas being corrupted.
And dance? Yes, dance can be a form of art, but not of music. Music is what you play in the background while the person is dancing.
It's not that I'm being close-minded or anything, it is just extremely obvious that butterflies flying and people dancing are not examples of music.
Just like when people listen to the sounds of thunderstorms on CD. The fact that this is put on CD does not make it music. It makes it plainly a thunderstorm, on CD.
Music can be any mix of instruments and vocals. But that's where it ends. Dancing=art. Thunderstorms=nature sounds. Releasing butterflies on a stage and watching them fly away=weird.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dance is what music does to the body.
In some African cultures, there is one word for both music and dance.
Even saying that they use one word for music and dance doesnt make them the same thing. They are still two separate things, united by one word.
I know it doesn't make them the same thing, but think of the symbolic significant. Dance cannot exist with out music.
Post a Comment