I was curios to find out your views on music. Do you feel that one form of music is purer than another? That a certain style of music is art and another is just noise and shouldn't even be considered music?!?!

i don't feel that some music's more "purer" than other music....

Art is a form of expression, and music, poetry paintings are a form of art. It's like the old saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", what might appeal to one, might not to another.

I enjoy real talent, meaning someone that can really sing, play an instrument, write music, u know, someone like PRINCE! I guess we all have different opinions when it comes to peoples talents. It is unfortunate to see technology take over true and pure musicianship.

People are drawn to artistry that they can relate to for one reason or another. A true poet writes from the heart, and the reader may be drawn to the words. A painter paints what they c, the viewer might c it too. A musician plays with expression and a style, that the listener either likes or does not. (Now this reminds me of an old thread on the old Prince.org.) Style vs. Sound. Sound is a form of expression, so that makes it a style.

I'm not sure I understand the question. But purists in general are usually stuck doing the same old thing all the time with no growth. Music doesn't evolve without non-purists. And then there are times when music is watered down...sometimes it can be a fine line to walk.

micorison requesting radio silence...
[This message was edited Fri May 3 14:42:50 PDT 2002 by micorison]

micorison said:

Depends on the definition of "pure" since the original poster didn't expound on it. But Miles was no purist in the general sense of the word. If that was the case he wouldn't have pissed off the purists who were pissed off at him going into his electric period, and doing funk. Jazz evolved because of artists like Miles who took chances. That's the case for any type of successful artist who takes chances.