>> For example, I know it's a big deal these days for musicians to >> claim that somebody who disagrees with their politics can't play >> their songs (at things like political rallies). Basically, they're >> declaring who can and can't listen to their music.
> It's not who can or can't listen, but who can or can't play that > music for an audience. And usually it forms a link in the heads of > the listeners between the one who chose to play the tape and the > artist, almost as if the artist supports or endorses the political > rally for instance. That's why I referred to both "playing" and "listening" in my original statement -- I did that on purpose. The _purpose_ of music is to be heard, not to merely be played (e.g., when no one is listening). The musicians are in fact deciding who can and can't listen to their music -- essentially saying, "If you believe differently than me and _I_ think you might interpret my music to mean something other than how _I_ want you to interpret it, then you can't listen to it." They have special words to describe non-musicians (like politicians) who try to do the same thing, and those words are not flattering. _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
