>>It says that
>>music is the variable manipulation of sound frequencies as
>an
>>expressive art.
>
>And which fulfills our expectations of "music." This is not a
>small point.

Actually this is categorically false, because there is no universal 'our' for whom all 'expectations' of 'music' can be defined. The open nature of the definition is intentional so as not to limit the possibilities. Atonality was previously outside of 'our' 'expectations' of 'music'. Thank goodness that didn't hold artists back.

>>With 'all of sound' as potentially
>>manipulated, identified as variable or the varied nature of
>>sound, historically human beings have grown in the levels of
>>variability.
>
>Eh...

From hey when i change the shape of my mouth it produces sounds, to hmmmm i could simulate a sound wave digitally send it via wireless technology to a system which converts that digital source to the wave which vibrates the speaker.... it's a long history.

>>Electronic takes that a step further.
>
>You're claiming that electronic music has superseded all older
>forms of music, then.

That's a hierarchical. I say the step further is a continuation.

>Like jazz is the "culmination" of all
>before it (which I also think is wrong), electronic is,
>because of the near-infinite range of sounds available, also a
>culmination.

Is it possible to culminate at near infinity?

>So how is this different than just "more = better?"

Because it's continuation not hierarchy. The misnomer of the hierarchical view is that it doesn't fold back. That what can be explored vis a vis electronic by example doesn't filter back into the original traditions and help them move forward too. Jazz players listening to what can be done electronically, rethinking breath and taking circular breathing techniques to the max as an example. No electronic instrument can do that, but at the same time the artists may have never been pushed that far without the ability to play with an elelctronic instrument that takes them there. Ya dig?

>I think the relationships between various forms of music are
>much more complex and nuanced than what you described before,
>and that reduction to these two categories is probably not
>that useful a way of thinking about them.

But this isn't a discussion of those nuances. Right now I haven't even gotten to form, style and genre in the discussion. I raised it at the onset to show where I'm coming from personally, but I haven't actually made any points to that at this stage. I'm starting with a language. Showing how that language works for discussing tradition and the newer forms. From there I'll get to how to use that language as a bridge. But first things first.

>I'd do some reading in general critical theory, and work with
>that language, especially in aesthetics and genre.

But you haven't even gotten into the language based on that comment, because it's not about aesthetics or genre. You're worried about things that have little to do with what I'm presenting right now. Seriously, check the part 1 and the part 2 in the og links. Tell me what you think specifically of those things, not just what stood out in the first few paragraphs.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."