Here’s my rather simple position on a semantic issue that troubles me. Music is regularly defined as the art of sounds, making an honorable reference to Rameau. It’s almost like defining photography as the art of pixels or painting as the art of colours. Sound is the \u00ab\u00a0physical medium\u00a0\u00bb of music, it is not \u00ab\u00a0the music\u00a0\u00bb. Messiaen defined music as the art of rhythm. I’m more comfortable with this definition.
\nHaving said that, it’s not a question of denigrating the art of sound, which is a real discipline with great artists, great technicians and important festivals.
\nThe origin of this semantic shift is quite easy to explain. It appears at the moment when the lights chasing obscurantism, made a praiseworthy effort to give a physical dimension to ideas and therefore to the arts. Here again the approach is commendable and there is no question of discussing \u00ab\u00a0the lights era\u00a0\u00bb. The problem is that in the 18th century there was also a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water.
\nSo in the first approach, to make music and not the art of sounds, we have to go back to its definition, \u00ab\u00a0that which concerns the muses\u00a0\u00bb. It’s a long program quite different from the art of sounds or language, but much more motivating.<\/p>\n
Voici ma position assez simple sur un \u00e0-peu-pr\u00e8s s\u00e9mantique qui me g\u00eane. On d\u00e9finit r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement la musique comme l’art des sons, en faisant une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence honorable \u00e0 Rameau. C’est \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s comme si l’on d\u00e9finissait la photo comme l’art des pixels ou la peinture comme l’art des couleurs. Le son est le \u00ab\u00a0support physique\u00a0\u00bb de la musique, ce n’est pas \u00ab\u00a0la musique\u00a0\u00bb. Messiaen d\u00e9finissait la musique comme l’art du rythme. Je suis plus \u00e0 l’aise avec cette d\u00e9finition.<\/em> Here’s my rather simple position on a semantic issue that troubles me. Music is regularly defined as the art of sounds, making an honorable reference to Rameau. It’s almost like defining photography as the art of pixels or painting as … Continuer la lecture
\nCeci dit, il ne s’agit pas de d\u00e9nigrer l’art des sons qui est une v\u00e9ritable discipline avec de grands artistes, de grands techniciens et d’importants festivals.<\/em>
\nL’origine de ce glissement s\u00e9mantique assez facile \u00e0 expliquer. Il appara\u00eet au moment o\u00f9 les lumi\u00e8res faisant la chasse \u00e0 l’obscurantisme, font un effort louable pour donner une dimension physique aux id\u00e9es et donc aux arts. L\u00e0 encore la d\u00e9marche est louable et il n’est pas question de discuter \u00ab\u00a0les lumi\u00e8res\u00a0\u00bb. Le probl\u00e8me est qu’au 18eme si\u00e8cle on a eu aussi un peu tendance \u00e0 jeter le b\u00e9b\u00e9 avec l’eau du bain.<\/em>
\nEn premi\u00e8re approche donc, pour faire de la musique et non de l’art des sons, il faut revenir \u00e0 sa d\u00e9finition, \u00ab\u00a0ce qui concerne les muses\u00a0\u00bb. C’est un long programme assez diff\u00e9rent de l’art des sons ou du langage, mais nettement plus motivant.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"