Re: unfortunately, more
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:38:23 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 8/16/99 5:51:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjv@caesun.msd.ray.com writes:
<< Actually, Jim, I don't think you'd have little clue more of what
hearing the song was about by hearing it. (heh, parse that) What's more
important to know is the historical significance of the song. What did
the song mean to the people at that time? More apparent evidence of this
can be found by examining what it means to view a certain work of art at a
certain time. For example that painting of Picasso's the one with the
four naked women (some french title) is very differnent to us in the late
20th century than it was to those seeing it in the early 20th century.
More important than seeing it, is know the historical signficance about
it.
-j
>>
Yeah, I agree, but I felt I could "get at" the historical significance of the
song by listening to it just because it's not that remote -- it's still a
part of my personal history. I grew up exposed to guys like Bing Crosby and
Dean Martin, all part of the same set, I think.
It'd be more difficult to get at the historical significance of a piece of
music by listening if it was more remote culturally. Say...Indian music
played on a sitar. The feelings that arouses in me would probably be
somewhat different than those aroused in a person of that culture. So
something more distant, say a verbal description of the meaning of the song
to the people in that culture, would probably be more useful.
Jim