Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ghostlinkz
@ghostlinkz.eth
https://frame.weponder.io/api/polls/6182
14 replies
18 recasts
63 reactions
Caden Chase
@cbxm
absolutely not. you think music just falls out of a coconut tree? "pure" is a fallacy: knowing ANYTHING interferes with "pure appreciation of music" and beside the premise itself being impossible, i have a person conviction that the opposite is true.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ghostlinkz
@ghostlinkz.eth
I def don't think music falls out of a tree. I used "pure" because I believe that appreciating music often involves a human connection with the artist. Understanding who they are as a person and their experiences enhances the connection to their music https://warpcast.com/ghostlinkz.eth/0x62cdb123
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Caden Chase
@cbxm
I believe your clarification of "pure", AND I want to take my own argument even further: if anything, you cannot have a "pure appreciation" for any piece of music, UNLESS you know everything about the artist and the reasons the song was composed how it was.
2 replies
1 recast
1 reaction
Caden Chase
@cbxm
this is to say: i think the implied definition of "pure" here is definitionally subjective (ie. it is OUR interpretation, unmuddied by bias) where *i* feel "pure appreciation" should be "raising an opinion that is rooted in the source material", but the source material is an infinitely dense human experience. therefore "pure appreciation" remains impossible, but the premise is still posed backwards.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ghostlinkz
@ghostlinkz.eth
This is true. Adding pure wasn't necessary, but at least we are emphasizing that without knowing much about the artists, you can't really claim to fully appreciate the music
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction