There was a short period when this piece of music was breaking new ground:
Some say it was intended to make fools of people that mistake the notion of refreshment with novelty. Others think it was composed by a fool. Some count it as a masterful and wickedly sublime statement critical of aestheticians who rely on the hope that something beyond their horizon will fill a void in their soul. To others it is
representative of the idea that the destination may not be as fulfilling as the journey.
Certainly, it is for each and every person who encounters it, an opportunity to imbue their
reaction with the ideas and prejudices they harbor.
What ever it is, it was once, not to long ago, novel and esteemed as "new". Now it's just a YouTube cover song video.
The "re" in
refreshing
refers to an idea. It is a Latin prefix. The idea that new is compulsory has nothing to do with the idea expressed by "re" when it is combined with the root "fresh". Your stated opinion seems
wildly ironic as you are demonstrating that you have decided to accord a new and novel definition to an ancient word, "refresh", and the idea it represents.
BTW, people can do 4:33 on a synthesizer but it never gets the same enthusiastic applause.
:-S edit spelling
post edited by mike_mccue - 2014/02/04 08:19:11