[lbo-talk] Rhythm, dance, and music

[Carrol Cox]

Re "potential": As long as music was _only_ for dancing (or ritual) there
were constraints on it -- to take an extreme example, 4'33" was hardly
possible. And whether later music is danceable or not, it developed in the
concert hall. That allowed a great deal that would not have done in a church
or at a dance. But I'm not going o argue it much: I really am musically
illiterate. In literature I can explain _why_ I like something; not so in
music.

Carrol

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Smith
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:04 PM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Rhythm, dance, and music

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:45:02 -0500
"Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:


> I don't know a damn thing about music... 
> But I don't like any reduction of any thing, music, literature, etc.
> to some essence. 

I certainly agree with you on the second point, though
with all modesty, I think maybe I do know a thing or 
two about music. Some music, anyway. 

But you do seem to be arguing both sides of the question 
here. I can't remember the exact phrase, but didn't you 
say something about music not realizing its "potential"
until it was "emancipated from dance," vel sim.? There's
a whiff of essentialism about that, to my nose anyway; 
as if there were something purely "musical" that you get 
when you refine away all the extra-musical dross. 

If you're combatting the notion that dance itself 
is somehow the "essence" of music, you have the high 
ground; but as far as I know, there's nobody in the 
trenches on the other side. 
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk