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. 

[atardecer]

I found this quote by Nietzsche, it comes across as similar to AnotherSpin's Platonic objects idea of music. For the record I do not reject the Platonic idea, considering it possible. I choose to remain agnostic towards such ideas until they can be proven or disproven.

"Music is distinguished from all the other arts by the fact that it is not a copy of the phenomenon, or, more accurately, the adequate objectivity of the will, but is the direct copy of the will itself, and therefore exhibits itself as the metaphysical to everything physical in the world, and as the thing-in-itself to every phenomenon. We might, therefore, just as well call the world embodied music as embodied will; and this is the reason why music makes every picture, and indeed every scene of real life and of the world, at once appear with higher significance, certainly all the more, in proportion as it's melody is analogous to the inner spirit of the given phenomenon."
- Nietzsche

[AnotherSpin]

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. 

You're saying that music is not literal, that it doesn't describe the world of things. It's hard to dispute that.

But it should also be recognized that music does not originate from thought — its source is something greater than thinking. Thinking is only a part of consciousness, and a functional one at that — meaning it is tied to the things of the apparent world, which is not reality in its entirety.

[AnotherSpin]

I found this quote by Nietzsche, it comes across as similar to AnotherSpin's Platonic objects idea of music. For the record I do not reject the Platonic idea, considering it possible. I choose to remain agnostic towards such ideas until they can be proven or disproven.

"Music is distinguished from all the other arts by the fact that it is not a copy of the phenomenon, or, more accurately, the adequate objectivity of the will, but is the direct copy of the will itself, and therefore exhibits itself as the metaphysical to everything physical in the world, and as the thing-in-itself to every phenomenon. We might, therefore, just as well call the world embodied music as embodied will; and this is the reason why music makes every picture, and indeed every scene of real life and of the world, at once appear with higher significance, certainly all the more, in proportion as it's melody is analogous to the inner spirit of the given phenomenon."
- Nietzsche

That's fine. Concepts exist in the mind and nowhere else — and music is not there.

[aukhawk]

Here's  the River Jordan, red  with the blood of Christ

But if - like me - you are unfamiliar with that text, or its association with that melody, the music works just fine as an abstract thing.

[Mandryka]

This is my favourite BWV 584 -- or one of them. Doeselaaer at Alkmaar. There's some thing about this performance which is both noble and intense, full of the complex and ambiguous associations an 18th century Lutheran would have associated with the chorale.

https://youtu.be/nFm7u_9YReE?t=904

I've time-stamped the exact spot that I want you to see.

[prémont]

This is my favourite BWV 584 -- or one of them. Doeselaaer at Alkmaar. There's some thing about this performance which is both noble and intense, full of the complex and ambiguous associations an 18th century Lutheran would have associated with the chorale.

https://youtu.be/nFm7u_9YReE?t=904

I've time-stamped the exact spot that I want you to see.

Mine too. The remainder of this cd as well.

[AnotherSpin]

This is my favourite BWV 584 -- or one of them. Doeselaaer at Alkmaar. There's some thing about this performance which is both noble and intense, full of the complex and ambiguous associations an 18th century Lutheran would have associated with the chorale.

https://youtu.be/nFm7u_9YReE?t=904

I've time-stamped the exact spot that I want you to see.

BWV 584?

[prémont]

BWV 584?

Surely a typo. BWV 684 (most probably) or BWV 548 were meant, but that doesn't matter. The entire CD is exceptional.

[AnotherSpin]

Surely a typo. BWV 684 (most probably) or BWV 548 were meant, but that doesn't matter. The entire CD is exceptional.

Yes, based on what was written above, BWV 684 is meant

[Mandryka]

Yes, based on what was written above, BWV 684 is meant

Yep sorry about that.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

I bought the box below years ago largely because of the recording in question.

[atardecer]

This is my favourite BWV 584 -- or one of them. Doeselaaer at Alkmaar. There's some thing about this performance which is both noble and intense, full of the complex and ambiguous associations an 18th century Lutheran would have associated with the chorale.

https://youtu.be/nFm7u_9YReE?t=904

I've time-stamped the exact spot that I want you to see.

Yes, that is an excellent BWV 684, one of my favorite pieces from Clavier-Übung III. To me the religious associations are interesting, but aren't what draw me to this music. In other words the religious associations are not as interesting as the music itself. I'm not sure Bach was religious in the exoteric sense most people understand religion in today, I suspect it was more in the esoteric sense. His interest in symbolism, numerology, the fact that he also composed Catholic music, these facts point to a free-thinking mind. A mind more active, curious and vibrant than we see generally in religious people today. I think if one focuses on the music too much through the lens of Lutheran Christianity, rather than creating a better understanding of Bach, I think that focus is just as likely to create a limited understanding.

[Mandryka]

I bought the box below years ago largely because of the recording in question.

Can you hear the river, and the mixture of joy and sadness at the thought of Jesus's blood?

There's another recording in the same series which has a trio sonata which I like. Wouter van den Broek at Vollenhove.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Can you hear the river, and the mixture of joy and sadness at the thought of Jesus's blood?

There's another recording in the same series which has a trio sonata which I like. Wouter van den Broek at Vollenhove.

Yes I do hear although I am atheist.

[AnotherSpin]

Atheism is the worst form of religious obsession — severely limiting.

[prémont]

Atheism is the worst form of religious obsession — severely limiting.

Atheism is the recognition that religion is man-made. For my part, people can believe in whatever religion they want, as long as they don't harm others in their belief in the infallibility of their own religion.