Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!oak.berkeley.edu!maverick From: maverick@oak.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: Do you have to be a Musician to enjoy Music? Keywords: good grief! Message-ID: <25951@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 4 Jul 90 23:26:21 GMT References: <15069018:49:52KRW1@lehigh.bitnet>, Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: maverick@oak.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) Lines: 23 X-Local-Date: 4 Jul 90 16:26:21 PDT In article , hm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Harry Stanley Marshall) writes: > I don't think someone has to be a musician to "derive pleasure" from > music, nor to say "I like that music" or "I don't like that music." > But I do think one has to be a musician to try to rate the value of > music or to try to rate how good the musicians are. Music has no value outside of the involvement of particular people. It has a value for each of its creators, and a value for each of its perceivers. This value varies with everything in their personal makeup, including whether they are musicians or not. Why any of these values should be the "right" value is unclear. I realize there are people who believe that good music is music without parallel fifths, or variations on this sort of rule (which might explain your point of view), but I disagree. I don't think there is a fundamental difference between liking/disliking and "rating the value" of music. Anyway, as Duchamp pointed out for the visual realm, half of the artistic creation in a given piece is carried out by the perceiver, so anyone who is involved with musical experience is perforce a musician. True, anyone who reacts strongly to music will probably get physically involved and become in [what I take to be] your sense as well a musician, but it doesn't always happen that way.