Bach's Bungalow

[prémont]

I think that is essentially what it means, which supports my point that music is to a certain degree abstract. Not in the sense of some vague blob on a canvas, but as an idea without physical form. Even if the music is symbolizing some very real non-abstract objects in a Platonic sense, one does not fully perceive them that way, (at least I don't) one just gets a sense. Therefore, our perception of them is in the abstract. This is actually the full quote:

"Music is not a sound but an idea, but ordinary people can't listen to it that way." - Schoenberg

In a way there have to be a physical correlate in the composers brain to the musical idea, just as music may be "written" electronically on a hard disc - if of course with another code. So in this way the music is real and not abstract. At least just as real as this post. Unfortunately we can't read the code directly from the brain of other individuals. If we could, maybe music could be communicated directly 1-1 and its non-abstract existence would become obvious.

Another thing is that I often wonder about how precisely the music is "written" in the composers brain particularly concerning performance details not written in the score. Sometimes composers have said that some performer's way with the music is better than the way the composer himself had thought of.

Maybe some of GMG's composers can say something about this.

[AnotherSpin]

In a way there have to be a physical correlate in the composers brain to the musical idea, just as music may be "written" electronically on a hard disc - if of course with another code. So in this way the music is real and not abstract. At least just as real as this post. Unfortunately we can't read the code directly from the brain of other individuals. If we could, maybe music could be communicated directly 1-1 and its non-abstract existence would become obvious.

Another thing is that I often wonder about how precisely the music is "written" in the composers brain particularly concerning performance details not written in the score. Sometimes composers have said that some performer's way with the music is better than the way the composer himself had thought of.

Maybe some of GMG's composers can say something about this.

That's precisely the point.

A composer channels and gives form to ideal harmony—if we're talking about a composer like Bach, of course.
 
Many who carry the title "composer" are doing something entirely different, but that's another matter.

Still, beyond the composer, there is also someone who invites us to hear this ideal harmony — the interpreter. And that's where things get truly fascinating. The possibilities are endless. Every interpretation, every act of listening opens a new window. Which is perhaps why it's so hard to fully rely on someone else's recommendations. In the end, it comes down to what we want, what we expect, and what we secretly hope to hear.

[atardecer]

In a way there have to be a physical correlate in the composers brain to the musical idea, just as music may be "written" electronically on a hard disc - if of course with another code. So in this way the music is real and not abstract. At least just as real as this post. Unfortunately we can't read the code directly from the brain of other individuals. If we could, maybe music could be communicated directly 1-1 and its non-abstract existence would become obvious.

Another thing is that I often wonder about how precisely the music is "written" in the composers brain particularly concerning performance details not written in the score. Sometimes composers have said that some performer's way with the music is better than the way the composer himself had thought of.

Maybe some of GMG's composers can say something about this.

Perhaps, but if we go back to the definition of the word, the definition differentiates between an idea and a physical object. The second definition also differentiates between art that is representing external reality and art that is not, therefore if a composer is inspired by a thought in their mind (even if the thought can be shown to have physical existence) it is not representing external reality, but something that exists in their mind. As far as what we perceive internally it may be that all things that exist in thought can be mapped solely in the mind, it may not. Some things may originate from a non-local source. Many artists describe their process as similar to receiving information outside themselves from a kind of antenna.

I find it interesting all the mental gymnastics people are going through to try to avoid acknowledging the abstract component of music.

[atardecer]

To put this another way simply. If we take any pieces of music as examples that are about specific things, in the external reality, (or otherwise). If we take away the words and the descriptive titles from this music and then perform only the music to a large number of people that are not familiar with the words or titles, do you think every person will be able to describe specifically what those pieces of music are about? 

If the answer is no, then that means that music is essentially an abstract art form.