>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.

The word "previously" is the key. Obviously expectations change. That doesn't make them less real, does it? Nor any less important in the definition of form. So, what's false?

>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.

Er...which part? Digitally generated sound has been around precisely as long as digital technology. It's not that long a history at all, and it's very well documented. But your point is that the "palette" (I think the word you meant earlier) is bigger now than ever before.



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

I believe you introduced the hierarchy when you used the word "peak," right?

>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?

Except that circular breathing, to use your example, is an ancient technique, used by wind players all over the world. As for taking it to the max, I read in wikipedia that "In 1997, a Guinness World Record was set for longest held musical note. Kenny G used circular breathing to sustain an E-flat on a saxophone for 45 minutes and 47 seconds. In February 2000, Vann Burchfield set a new Guinness world record for circular breathing, holding one continuous note for 47 minutes, 6 seconds, surpassing Kenny G’s record."

Which raises the problem of diminishing returns. I don't particularly care to hear a 47-minute held note, but it's interesting to know that it can be done. But maybe you're thinking more musically: what sort of circular breathing territory will electronic music reveal that hasn't already been explored?

>>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.

Then why did you spend those first few paragraphs discussing aesthetics and genre?