i agree w/ philip that the media would be a bad source of definitions, especially since it's so easily swayed by what the people want (they won't be willing to broadcast anything that won't hold the public's interest or else they'll lose to competitors) and by capital (money speaks, in short! just look at the commercial radio stations).
and the academics -- that's another boo-boo. the academics can easily be elitists, excluding the up-and-coming or underground stuff in favor of the classics (look at the cannon of literature, it's still there, and nobody knows why!). the academics can also easily be a dogmatic group that prefers to stick to the traditional definition of things instead of following the evolution of the stuff.
but of course initially, the academics are a good source of definitions, categories, criteria -- since, after all, they spent practically their whole lives studying their stuff (whether it be music, film, language, or any other field). but i think that after that, we as listeners and consumers of music have the burden of observing and analyzing the different paths/mutations/evolutions that it takes, thereby building from the initial textbook definitions.
because as we all know, the lines are continually blurring. the standard music genres that were once easily identifiable and conveniently categorized are now fusing with each other to create something else, then developing other things on top of that. so i think that the audience are the ones who are really in a good position to "define" (as much as they can!) what's happening with the stuff, being feverishly and passionately atune to the music as much as they are.
-------
misha d. pallorina
philippines
http://www.thehungersite.com
http://www.thebiblesite.com
Philip Sherburne wrote:
>
>> let the academics and the media try to define, the music
>> producers, true
>> listeners, and DJs should simply say that about all music
>>
>> there is only good and bad
>
>i'm sorry, but i've heard this comment, or comments like it, too many times
>in the past week, and i have to respond. to be blunt, i think it's fucking
>idiotic. why do people seem so afraid of analyzing, categorizing, and
>differentiating music? "defining" music, eg genres, formal criteria, etc.,
>does NOT have to be a negative thing. indeed, there's a reason this is the
>"acid-jazz" list, not the "good music" (or "bad music," depending on your
>perspective) list.
>
>if there were only good and bad music, there wouldn't be much use talking
>about it, would there?
>
>not trying to be a dick here... i just think this anxiety is a bit off the
>mark. "definition" (which i would include as a part of any broader analysis)
>something we all do, not just "academics and the media."
>
>cheers
>philip
__________________________________
www.edsamail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 11 2001 - 03:29:30 CEST