This statement looks intelligent and interest but upon reading carefully says absolutely nothing. I don't even get what you are trying to say. Music is a group activity. Mozart played with orchestras, beyonce has scores of musicians to bounce off ideas of, Fela Kuti played with many bands - what does making music alone mean?
Reich's view was at the very least based on an observation, a learned and studied observation as a practioner and scholar.
Sure, some musicians clearly make music with others.
But some do not.
And for someone, no matter how learned or studied, even if they're a famous practitioner or a scholar, to dictate what music is for everyone is absurdly arrogant and myopic, to say the least.
If Reich has an argument to support his claim, he should state it, and his supporters should produce that argument, not point to him being a scholar, etc, as supposed evidence that he's right. That's an argument from authority and is a logical fallacy.
Different people have different goals and different aims. What meaning any particular person finds in an activity varies from person to person, and the wider and richer the activity is, the harder it is to make the case that there's only one right way to do it or that it means only one thing to everyone. Music and other arts are examples of such rich, wide-ranging activities.
True. And I should rightly retract and accept that shortcoming but you've provided me with no real argument other than negating mine. No examples of what you're talking about, not data point to chew on, fuck all.
It still an empty statement in and of itself.
> Different people have different goals and different aims. What meaning any particular person finds in an activity varies from person to person, and the wider and richer the activity is, the harder it is to make the case that there's only one right way to do it or that it means only one thing to everyone. Music and other arts are examples of such rich, wide-ranging activities.
Another completely empty statement. If I had a few days to live, I'd learn nothing from it. T'would be a waste of precious time and energy. Blanket statements, without form, without focus, without context are more meaningless than a false truth. Looks intelligent, but ultimately meaningless.
I vehemently disagree. that's like writing when you don't know how to read. Possible, but meaningless.
I can't read sheet music. The condition to understanding Bach's music on your own is to first understand sheet music. So to make his music you must read and understand his language. Is that music? It's subject to whoever interprets it. If we go nearly extinct what would be a more useful piece of evidence of what music is, Bach's Sheets or Madonna's "LIKE A VIRGIN" MTV special?
But I completely and utterly disagree with his view that "the purpose of music was for humans to play and sing together as a group activity"
Music, and any other complex human activity (like visual art, or literature) is just way too rich and varied to have any one or definitive purpose.
What might make sense or be the purpose of music for one person might not for another. Someone (like myself) might enjoy making music alone, and who is Reich to presume to tell me that we're doing it wrong?
Of course, he's welcome to make music in groups if he wants. I'm not going to tell him he's doing it wrong either.
Parenthetically, I enjoy making music in groups too, but that's just not the only way I enjoy making music, and don't think I'm missing "the purpose of music" when I'm working alone.