Actually I was just trying to get to the bottom of Julians email, so
frankly I blame him for this mess!
But while I'm here :)
> That's interesting. I agree that one can read music like this, but
> would we
> call it "listening"? So the question is about your word (in
> quotations) "hear"
> here. These are two different ways of using the word "hear".
Hearing is of course a physical phenomenon, so I'm not really trying
to suggest that "inner hearing" is the same as "external hearing" but
this is not to deny that it exists, that we make use of it, and,
importantly for this conversation, that it can be pleasurable. Just
lie back on the couch, close your eyes, and transport yourself to a
tropical island listening to gamelan :)
> I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's passage on playing mental chess and
> mental tennis. He seems to think both are possible, but for me the
> former
> makes sense and not the latter.
Well, I would agree that mental tennis is not real tennis but I
wouldn't say that it doesn't make sense. Bob sled drivers for example
are well known for spending hours mentally visualizing their descents
in preparation for the actual run. But I'll stop being contrary and
say that I agree with you in principle :)
> If live-coding is about the relationship between the program and the
> task-
> domain, it becomes a "formal art" like Chess. The sound is a
> "representation"
> of the thought, just like the chessboard and pieces are merely a
> tool for
> extended cognition (external representation) and not a necessary
> part of
> the game.
>
> As a musician are you happy with that conclusion?
Nope, not happy at all. I want to hear it all with my external ears
bleeding and my external chest thumping :)
> smack smack : )
And justifiably so, I promise to be quiet now :)
Received on Tue Jan 08 2008 - 01:07:04 GMT