Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Marc Chagall (aka : מאַרק שאַגאַל , Марк Захаравiч Шагал) (A 20th century Jewish/Belarus-born painter, who moved to Paris) wrote : "...One cannot be precise, and still be true..." John Updike wrote : "...Truth should not be forced, it should simply manifest itself..." Emily Dickenson wrote : "...The truth must dazzle gradually/Or every man be blind..." And, with regard to the concept of "Abstract Audio"... Vincent Van Gogh wrote : "...My great longing is to make those very incorrectnesses, those deviations, remodellings, changes in reality, so that they may become, yes, lies if you like - but lies more true than the literal truth..." Pablo Picasso later appropriated the above concept for himself (what a surprise!), reducing it to the following comparatively crude jingle : "...Art is a lie that tells the truth..."

The Truth or False categories exist only in world of well defined coordinate systems and certainty of evolutions. In music the rules are different.  Glenn Gould considered composers, musicians and listeners as one homogeneous melt of consciousness that deal with musicality (it is not HOW he said it but it is the way how I interpret it as I agree with him). If so, then “expressed” in audio/music is not something that is precisely named or identified but rather something that might be EMBRACED by the rest fraction of the “homogeneous melt of consciousness”. The question might be: what is “embraceable”? This is VERY interesting question. Since we talk about audio then we most likely talk about listeners and the “embraceable” for listeners is not something that is Truth or Lies.  The “embraceable” is like feeding a Cat. She eats whatever she want but what she wants is defined but the naturally of her experiences. She does not understand rational but she knows how to correlate chewing with pressure. The very same is with music. Musically is in away an abstract decoding of expressed sensations about world.

Would it be different if the sensations were expressed by more common communication protocol – language for instance, in dry prose? Sure it will be more “true” but it gives a very little room for listener to exercise the “freedom of embracing” and “succession”. One of my ideas of “audio listening techniques” implies a familiarity with the price up to the point of re-composition of the program. How much Truth or Lies in the “re-composable listening”? How much “expressed precision” in artistic expressivity where you have a sense of ownership?  Sure, it is all implied but for a person who talks the expressed implications ARE the passed ideas. All the rest is juts rendering of the implications into a social framework of understanding or appreciation – the framework that has more to do with the ego of speaker then with the value of the ideas itself…

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site