Monday, November 29, 2010
Has this been bugging anyone else? The fact that both Levinson and Kivy are trying to define a Musical Work such that it represents our use of the term in everyday language, even though it has become evident that what people are attempting to refer to varies from person to person. It seems their argument has been reduced to an argument about what the "general intuition is", and I'm just wondering whether this is futile, as no intuition is being globally accepted. Am I missing something critical? something in their arguments that does not depend on mere intuition? When saying things like "I could have written that work" our intuition seems to go with Kivy's. When saying "that work is unoriginal" we seem to be going with Levinson's. Both seem to be meaningful, though they have contradictory consequences. So something other than a further intuition seems necessary to determine which is the proper use of the term. Has any been given?