...froth, frivolity, fundamentalism, fun and mentalism, and maybe even an occasional atrabilious atavism!
GMG member and all-around snood of comedy Sean claimed recently that discussion here at GMG has deteriorated over the last decade, and is a symbol of a general Spengleresque Untergang des Abendlandes! :o :o :o ??? ??? ???
Given that such hypertrophic and pleonastic opinions are meant to be taken with a few pounds of sodium chloride, or maybe with metallic sodium and un verre d'eau, or even with a lawyer on his way to a sanity hearing, nevertheless we (and who precisely "we" are presents another topic, but would lead us astray at the moment) felt compelled to found a topic guaranteed to raise GMG to the heights of the deepest discussions, and thereby parry any contention that decline and fall are lufting in our clouds of circumratiocination!
And so, we (see the above comment on "we") begin with a question most terrifying in such discussions, a question to which a multiplicity of answers could be seen as possible, hence the terror! Now you might think the question will be "What is music?" But this is GMG!!!
We want the deeper question! ??? ??? ???
WHY does music exist?
There! We await your responses, serious or grave! 8)
Quote from: Cato on December 29, 2013, 04:13:42 AM
...froth, frivolity, fundamentalism, fun and mentalism, and maybe even an occasional atrabilious atavism!
GMG member and all-around snood of comedy Sean claimed recently that discussion here at GMG has deteriorated over the last decade, and is a symbol of a general Spengleresque Untergang des Abendlandes! :o :o :o ??? ??? ???
Given that such hypertrophic and pleonastic opinions are meant to be taken with a few pounds of sodium chloride, or maybe with metallic sodium and un verre d'eau, or even with a lawyer on his way to a sanity hearing, nevertheless we (and who precisely "we" are presents another topic, but would lead us astray at the moment) felt compelled to found a topic guaranteed to raise GMG to the heights of the deepest discussions, and thereby parry any contention that decline and fall are lufting in our clouds of circumratiocination!
And so, we (see the above comment on "we") begin with a question most terrifying in such discussions, a question to which a multiplicity of answers could be seen as possible, hence the terror! Now you might think the question will be "What is music?" But this is GMG!!!
We want the deeper question! ??? ??? ???
WHY does music exist?
There! We await your responses, serious or grave! 8)
I suppose I should offer an answer as fertilizer ??? for the discussion!
I suspect several impulses are involved: the impulse to mimic, the impulse to improve or to order the chaos of nature, and the impulse to communicate.
Of course, the origin of such impulses is an even deeper question.
The act of making music engages one's entire self, taking you into another stream of time (and a stream of time in which the jabber ceases to exist, incidentally). Once you have experienced that, it's like a new country which you are eager to continue to explore.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2013, 04:54:09 AM
The act of making music engages one's entire self, taking you into another stream of time (and a stream of time in which the jabber ceases to exist, incidentally). Once you have experienced that, it's like a new country which you are eager to continue to explore.
Yes, that is a phenomenon I have experienced both in composing music and in writing stories.
It is also a phenomenon which should be familiar to the attentive listener, reader, museum visitor, etc. E.g. last year I played the
Sanctus of the
Missa Solemnis by
Beethoven for my 8th Grade Latin II students. When it was finished, I asked them to estimate how much time had passed.
They were all off by up to 20 minutes!
Quote from: Cato on December 29, 2013, 05:47:45 AM
Yes, that is a phenomenon I have experienced both in composing music and in writing stories.
It is also a phenomenon which should be familiar to the attentive listener, reader, museum visitor, etc.
Aye. And while, in studying the art of composition, I came to see the potential value in
pulling one's mind out of the musical time, and bending thought upon it in real-world time, I have also (over the years, and in various environments) experienced how with certain
in-some-ways clever listeners, it is a dodge . . . it is (or, can be) a resistance to attention upon the art itself. It is seductive, because giving the artwork its space can be scary,
and the sound of one's own voice can be such a comfort . . . .
Music is the backbone of the mind.
Quote from: James on December 29, 2013, 08:01:46 AM
Music's genesis throughout the ages has and continues to feed many purposes and hungers across cultures. Some of it higher minded, some lower. Relating to the body, to the mind, to the spirit etc in varying degrees & mixtures. It elevates the species from the others. For those who truly take it seriously (both creators & listeners) .. it is a self discovery, a quest for knowledge, wisdom, insight, creative potential etc. I have personally benefited and improved the quality of my life from a close acquaintance with it. For me, listening, composing and especially playing it myself .. is very therapeutic & healing, it just clears all the garbage from my mind, puts me in a 'zone' .. and calms me tremendously. I have benefited in many other ways from a deep involvement & interest in this art, the deepest and richest of all the arts. And one of the greatest human activities & achievements in history. I need it like I need food & water.
That is a good response. In a play I've been writing about the nature of music, I include the following exchange about what music means to several of the characters:
QuoteED It's like a calling.
JONAS A benediction.
CLAUDE An appetite that can never be sated. A reason to carry on despite all our own mistakes and those of the fools of the world. A reliquary of so much the human spirit has produced that's good and holy. An orgasm without end.
The following is an old debate:
"Resolved: music's expressive abilities are extremely primitive. It can sound happy or sad, peaceful or angry, or simply neutral. For anything more specific, the composer must turn to words, either in a program or by setting a poem.
E.g. it is impossible to deduce the story of Pelleas and Melisande by listening to Schoenberg's tone poem by that name. One can hear powerful emotional music, but music's primitive nature can do no more, and so poetry is on a higher level than music."
(And it is that last part that causes the chairs to fly!) 0:)
Quote from: James on December 29, 2013, 05:12:17 PM
It was just one of the spices that Arnie brought together for the genesis of that piece. It simply inspired his musical thinking, the mind's inner eye & ear.
Interesting: so
Maeterlinck's drama is more of a catalyst for
Schoenberg than a
sine qua non for the work?
That the music already resided in the unconscious, albeit embryonically, and simply needed a key to unlock it is a rather Platonic idea!
"It was just" is a phrase which can frequently signal fatuity.
"Why does music exist?"
Because.
Just because it does. I can't think of a better answer.
But there is a better question that several have answered here: "What does music do for you?" For me, as for Karl, music engages my entire being--body, mind (left and right brain), and spirit--and forces me to bring myself to some sort of coordination, cooperation, synthesis. It also raises my level of "life force" to a much higher level than "ordinary life." I've said to friends that I feel like I have some kind of alternate identity: "Mild-Mannered jochanaan" and "Music Man!" :laugh:
Quote from: jochanaan on December 30, 2013, 05:05:03 PM
"Why does music exist?"
Because.
Just because it does. I can't think of a better answer.
But there is a better question that several have answered here: "What does music do for you?" For me, as for Karl, music engages my entire being--body, mind (left and right brain), and spirit--and forces me to bring myself to some sort of coordination, cooperation, synthesis. It also raises my level of "life force" to a much higher level than "ordinary life." I've said to friends that I feel like I have some kind of alternate identity: "Mild-Mannered jochanaan" and "Music Man!" :laugh:
Very nice: your commented highlighted above reminded me of a professor I knew, who once said: "In a sense, an evolutionary sense, music is completely worthless."
Reductionists often fall into the trap of excluding things which would unbalance their inverted pyramid of theory. I suppose one could go on and on about how music is not essential for survival in the African savannahs, etc. etc. etc.
But how does one therefore explain its existence and persistence and its growth in complexity over the millenia?
And it is explained by what you have mentioned: there is something of value - survival value even, for the evolutionary biologists - in Music, something intrinsically important for the entire human being, who needs more than food for the stomach to survive.
I'll submit a proposition that is at least somewhat relevant to the main topic of this thread
The more likely a piece of music is to receive what might be called a "definitive performance", the less likely it is to be worth hearing more than once.
Very nice! I have frequently had a corollary thought, that well-made music can sustain a variety of interpretations.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 31, 2013, 04:16:10 PM
I'll submit a proposition that is at least somewhat relevant to the main topic of this thread
The more likely a piece of music is to receive what might be called a "definitive performance", the less likely it is to be worth hearing more than once.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 31, 2013, 04:18:03 PM
Very nice! I have frequently had a corollary thought, that well-made music can sustain a variety of interpretations.
Many thanks for these thoughts!
A tangential idea: mediocre music - when heard at a concert and played well - can sound better than it is!
Music is only as good as the performance is - some pieces need more help, and others are marvelous even when the performance isn't perfect.
There are pieces which are like Hamlet . . . even in a ruinous performance, something magnificent.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 31, 2013, 04:16:10 PM
The more likely a piece of music is to receive what might be called a "definitive performance", the less likely it is to be worth hearing more than once.
Assuming a "definitive listening", sure. Otherwise, plenty of opportunity to delight in focusing in a different one of a myriad details with each listening, like looking at a multifaceted jewel from a different angle each time...
Quote from: North Star on December 31, 2013, 04:40:58 PM
Music is only as good as the performance is. . . .
I would not agree with that. Music exists not only as sound but as notation. Mahler never heard Das Lied von der Erde, but surely he composed a piece of music. When I go into a sheet music store, I can purchase a piece of music too. There is a performance-listener axis to music, but there are also equally legitimate axes of composition and score study which are independent of performance.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 01, 2014, 12:18:48 PM
I would not agree with that. Music exists not only as sound but as notation. Mahler never heard Das Lied von der Erde, but surely he composed a piece of music. When I go into a sheet music store, I can purchase a piece of music too. There is a performance-listener axis to music, but there are also equally legitimate axes of composition and score study which are independent of performance.
That's absolutely true, but my reply was in the context of hearing a performance, as that was discussed above my post. Likewise, one can be a great architect even if none of one's plans is ever executed.
Quote from: North Star on January 01, 2014, 01:14:34 PM
That's absolutely true, but my reply was in the context of hearing a performance, as that was discussed above my post. Likewise, one can be a great architect even if none of one's plans is ever executed.
And many great architects never do see their plans executed. While I'm pleased you agree with me, everything in your post depended on that opening premise, which gave rise to my reservation.
Quote from: Cato on December 31, 2013, 03:01:42 AM
And it is explained by what you have mentioned: there is something of value - survival value even, for the evolutionary biologists - in Music, something intrinsically important for the entire human being, who needs more than food for the stomach to survive.
Music is pleasurable and of course, people are going to seek out pleasure because pleasure in general makes people psychologically healthy.
Music exists because it is (some of it is) pleasurable to humans, so the real question (more specific question) is why music is pleasurable... though this was probably addressed already (didn't really read through the thread yet).
Quote from: Greg on January 01, 2014, 02:03:33 PM
Music is pleasurable and of course, people are going to seek out pleasure because pleasure in general makes people psychologically healthy.
Music exists because it is (some of it is) pleasurable to humans, so the real question (more specific question) is why music is pleasurable...
All right, just so long as you don't expect a simple, tidy answer.
The more interesting question to me, and one that classical music forums don't seem to address, is how to bridge the gap between the small minority of music lovers devoted to classical and the overwhelming majority that loves its own music (rock, pop, hip-hop, R+B, country, salsa, boy bands, what have you), while often looking at classical music as something to be despised and feared. Classical boards like this one generally fight internecine wars about tonal vs. atonal, HIP vs. non-HIP, sung vs. unsung, this recording/composer or that, but the underlying premise for most of us I think is that we feel blessed to have found classical music while the majority around us couldn't care less. Given too that classical audiences tend to be older, how is this music to survive for the indifferent younger generations who mostly think of us as snobs and of our music as dusty elitist museum pieces by dead white European males?
Perhaps it's simply that classical music isn't the universal language after all. It's just "our" music and we are a particular social and economic group like every other music clique. And there is no particular reason classical music should be promoted over any other kind of music except for the fact that until recently "our" group was the one in charge.
The younger generation(s) may have little to no interest in classical music at the age of twenty. However I do not believe twenty-year-olds have been a major component of the classical music audience for over a century, if ever. The core "market" is middle-aged people and seniors. Given the ageing populations of most Western states, those are things we are unlikely to run out of in the foreseeable future.
If your question is instead how to make classical music "cool" and attract young and hip audiences, you will need to clarify on whether you believe the classical music tradition ought to be changed to fit society or the other way 'round. I refer you also to Pliable (http://www.overgrownpath.com/).
No time or energy to contribute to this topic in detail, sorry
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 01, 2014, 05:17:32 PM
The more interesting question to me, and one that classical music forums don't seem to address, is how to bridge the gap between the small minority of music lovers devoted to classical and the overwhelming majority that loves its own music (rock, pop, hip-hop, R+B, country, salsa, boy bands, what have you), while often looking at classical music as something to be despised and feared. Classical boards like this one generally fight internecine wars about tonal vs. atonal, HIP vs. non-HIP, sung vs. unsung, this recording/composer or that, but the underlying premise for most of us I think is that we feel blessed to have found classical music while the majority around us couldn't care less. Given too that classical audiences tend to be older, how is this music to survive for the indifferent younger generations who mostly think of us as snobs and of our music as dusty elitist museum pieces by dead white European males?
Not a complete answer, but a recent blog post which touches on this issue:
While classical music debates nothing changes (http://www.overgrownpath.com/2011/01/while-classical-music-debates-nothing.html?spref=fb)QuoteThe commercial-intermediary complex is an interlinked hornet's nest of management agents, publishers, media companies, concert promoters, and PR and marketing consultancies. Their business model is the re-purposing of mass marketing techniques (PR spin, chart radio, TV talent shows, payola etc) for use with classical music. This despite there being very little tangible evidence that such re-purposing works, in fact there is more evidence suggesting it doesn't.
The short answer I wanted to offer,
Larry, is that experience of performance of the music is the maker of friends for the music.
Hence the aptness of this blog post's cry of
Down with the middle-men!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 01, 2014, 05:17:32 PM
The more interesting question to me, and one that classical music forums don't seem to address, is how to bridge the gap between the small minority of music lovers devoted to classical and the overwhelming majority that loves its own music (rock, pop, hip-hop, R+B, country, salsa, boy bands, what have you), while often looking at classical music as something to be despised and feared. Classical boards like this one generally fight internecine wars about tonal vs. atonal, HIP vs. non-HIP, sung vs. unsung, this recording/composer or that, but the underlying premise for most of us I think is that we feel blessed to have found classical music while the majority around us couldn't care less. Given too that classical audiences tend to be older, how is this music to survive for the indifferent younger generations who mostly think of us as snobs and of our music as dusty elitist museum pieces by dead white European males?
Well, I was one of the former (into rock, pop, heavy metal), and because of ignorance, thought classical to be for "old people", and for rich snobs, etc.
I became a convert to classical music by chance and exploration, with no coercion from anyone.
I'll be turning 40 this year, and it was just around the age of 30 (shortly after) that I "discovered" classical music.
Honestly, I was surprised by how many younger people actually are into classical music now.
I don't ever see classical music dying away.
I've always listened to it. I've always listened to everything.
Quote from: amw on January 01, 2014, 05:54:30 PM
Perhaps it's simply that classical music isn't the universal language after all. It's just "our" music and we are a particular social and economic group like every other music clique.
If your question is instead how to make classical music "cool" and attract young and hip audiences, you will need to clarify on whether you believe the classical music tradition ought to be changed to fit society or the other way 'round....
No time or energy to contribute to this topic in detail, sorry
One would want a philosophy of classical music to be open to anyone with ears, but...is it realistic, given the facts of what people listen to.
Art music in one sense should be "accessible" to anyone who can hear.
In another sense, those ears will usually need to be attached to a certain attention span, a certain ability to follow patterns, a certain amount of aural memory, etc.
I have wrestled with this issue for 5 decades: my own background from a lower-middle-class family and neighborhood might seem to have prevented me from having any connection to classical music. My parents were about as unmusical as you could get! And yet that attention span, that aural memory, an innate musicality (I suppose), and access to the Dayton Public Library combined to develop my talent...despite my parents' general anti-intellectualism and their tepid bank account.
Ultimately, one could say the amount of intellectual effort (in general) needed for classical music is greater than that needed for guys grunt-chanting obscenities while two morons bang trash cans with rocks in the background, or for 3-screams-and-a-chord pop ditties.
So, one could say that, as a result classical music is at a disadvantage in connecting with some (many?) people who are looking for only the following on a simple level:
Quote from: Greg on January 01, 2014, 02:03:33 PM
Music is pleasurable and of course, people are going to seek out pleasure because pleasure in general makes people psychologically healthy.
Music exists because it is (some of it is) pleasurable to humans, so the real question (more specific question) is why music is pleasurable... though this was probably addressed already (didn't really read through the thread yet).
So can one say that those who sense pleasure from classical music are willing and capable to make the effort to derive it?
Quote from: amw on January 01, 2014, 05:54:30 PM
Perhaps it's simply that classical music isn't the universal language after all. It's just "our" music and we are a particular social and economic group like every other music clique. And there is no particular reason classical music should be promoted over any other kind of music except for the fact that until recently "our" group was the one in charge.
I'll study your link and Karl's when I get the chance. But I can't think of another type of music where its adherents are more likely to believe in their own music's inherent superiority over other types. I don't deny I share this belief myself.
Quote from: Cato on January 01, 2014, 06:41:09 PM
And yet that attention span, that aural memory, an innate musicality (I suppose), and access to the Dayton Public Library combined to develop my talent...despite my parents' general anti-intellectualism
[...]
Ultimately, one could say the amount of intellectual effort (in general) needed for classical music is greater than that needed for guys grunt-chanting obscenities while two morons bang trash cans with rocks in the background, or for 3-screams-and-a-chord pop ditties.
Truly, we classical musicians are blessed to have you as our advocate.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 01, 2014, 06:52:33 PM
I'll study your link and Karl's when I get the chance.
We've actually linked to the same thing—although not the same post (I didn't pick a single post because there are many that ask these questions, as one browses—they do however start to repeat themselves after a while).
Why music? I consider "why" questions to be "how" questions only more fierce! with more moving parts, often parts treated as agents. People are fond of regresses that pseudo-solve (or solve pseudo...), so people are greedy because they have an acquisitive bump, love music because a soul module does the loving for them that they can't quite manage.
I don't need no love of music, I got something that takes care of that, have your girl call my girl etc.
Our brains do feature lots of calling back and forth giving us the sensation of an internal multitude calling the shots. Rather than see this as a resource to help me love music and do other tricks I'm inclined to go whole hog and just accept that the committee of the whole is me, or (to put it more fiercely) me is such a thing as only a committee of this kind could assemble. That's whow it's done. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: amw on January 01, 2014, 07:15:18 PM
Truly, we classical musicians are blessed to have you as our advocate.
Thank you! ;)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 01, 2014, 06:52:33 PM
... I can't think of another type of music where its adherents are more likely to believe in their own music's inherent superiority over other types. I don't deny I share this belief myself.
There are "musical-warfare" types in the pop world: I still recall reading an interview (in the 1970's or 1980's ?) with "eternal teenager" and rock 'n' roll midwife
Dick Clark, where he said that he absolutely hated classical music. (Yes, he said "hate.") He hated it because it "didn't mean anything" to most people, and it meant absolutely meant nothing to him. Rock 'n' roll was therefore the better, higher music because it "speaks to everyone."
I once knew a young school administrator who also used the word "hate" when it came to classical music: whenever he heard me playing it in my German classes, he would comment about the suffering or even torture my students were enduring. To him classical music was the evilest of inventions, which not only made people suffer but then made them feel inferior for disliking it.
Quote from: ChamberNut on January 01, 2014, 06:10:10 PM
Honestly, I was surprised by how many younger people actually are into classical music now.
I don't ever see classical music dying away.
I absolutely agree. I would even suggest that the percentage of young people who enjoy classical music today is equal to or greater than that of older generations. Classical will never be (and never has been) the popular form of music for the masses, but when I go to festival auditions and see hundreds of teenagers not only playing classical music, but performing at a competition level, I'm convinced that the classical tradition is in good shape.
As someone who works with young people every day, I'm impressed with the variety of music kids are into today and their openess to new musical experiences. So much more music is now available to them than in the past. At one time, it wasn't cool to walk to school with your violin. Now, kids enjoy Lindsey Stirling and the Piano Guys on YouTube and easily gravitate to more traditional classical performers. Film scores are very big with kids these days, and frequently serve as a stepping stone into classical.
This article from a local paper helps support my optimism:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/medford/topstories/x825441301/NOTE-WORTHY-STUDENT-Iverson-Eliopoulos-at-forefront-of-Medford-music-scene (http://www.wickedlocal.com/medford/topstories/x825441301/NOTE-WORTHY-STUDENT-Iverson-Eliopoulos-at-forefront-of-Medford-music-scene)
The last few posts remind me of the song "I Hate Music" by Leonard Bernstein:
Quote
I hate music but I like to sing
La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la
But that's not music
Not what I call music, no sir
Music is a lot of men and a lot of tails
Making lots of noise like a lot of females
Music is a lot of folks in a big dark hall
Where they really don't want to be at all
With a lot of chairs and a lot of heirs
And a lot of furs and diamonds
Music is silly
I hate music but I like to sing
La, la, la, la, la
(I couldn't find the copyright information right away, but I think this post counts as "fair use.")
Quote from: jochanaan on January 02, 2014, 08:59:58 AM
The last few posts remind me of the song "I Hate Music" by Leonard Bernstein:(I couldn't find the copyright information right away, but I think this post counts as "fair use.")
And your post in turn reminds me of the Replacements song "I Hate Music".
"I hate music
Sometimes I don't
I hate music
It's got too many notes"
Quote from: sanantonio on January 02, 2014, 10:41:40 AM
Somehow this thread, whose title does not segregate classical music from all other kinds, took a detour into the well trod path of "the future of classical music". Do we really have to indulge in that hackneyed discussion?
I liked the post quoting the song by Leonard Bernstein.
My answer to the question posed by the OP, is that Music exists in order to express what man needs to express but cannot accomplish using anything other than music. However, what it is exactly that music expresses is hard to pin down, and that is another discussion I have no interest in opening.
I also have zero interest in "classical" music, "pop" music, music called "jazz", or "rock" or any other label applied to Music. Part of the problem, for me is the attempt to compartmentalize music into tiny boxes by academics, critics, fans, and even practitioners.
I love music - in any form it is found simply because whatever it expresses speaks to me at a very deep level.
I believe
Duke Ellington divided music into two kinds: good and bad. 0:)
And we can agree that - within limits - even "bad music" (Now
there is a debate!) will have its fans.
You have a most excellent encapsulation there: the deeper question remains of
why an impulse exists which insists that Music must express...our inner something. From the viewpoint of socio-biology it could be that our happiness through music makes for better humans.
Cato asks: why does music exist?
marvin answers: because apparently silence and speech are not enough.
Quote from: sanantonio on January 02, 2014, 10:41:40 AM
Somehow this thread, whose title does not segregate classical music from all other kinds, took a detour into the well trod path of "the future of classical music". Do we really have to indulge in that hackneyed discussion?
We can indulge in whatever discussion people on the board wish to indulge in. And if this board were to avoid all well-trod paths, there would likely be no activity on it again.
To return...
I came across a quotation from scientist Steven Pinker: "Music is cheesecake for the mind." ??? ??? ??? :o :o :o
i.e. Music is not an essential part of our humanity or development, but something that is simply nice to have now and then.
This reminded me of the old saying that music begins where words end. However, I have often wondered if just the opposite is true, i.e. whether music predates the development of language, or at least is ancillary to its development. Archeologists have found the now famous Neanderthal (or in some opinions Cro-Magnon) flute and dated it from 43,000-83,000 years of age. Assorted theories place language development in early Homo Sapiens from 200,000 to "only" 50,000 years ago.
If the "bone flute" actually was a flute, it would seem that Pinker is wrong: possibly music was invented by some early Mozart or (more likely, given the hazardous nature of life in the caves or plains) Gesualdo as an ancillary way not only to communicate (how many words did Grog the Caveman have back in 50,000 B.C.?) for survival, but also functioned precisely the way it does for our purposes: the elucidation of mute, inchoate feelings.
I'd certainly agree that music has existed far longer than language, and that our ancestors communicated feelings with music, and perhaps used primitive wind instruments in hunting.
Music making -- and music appreciation -- could be an byproduct of human evolution. Music making signaled "fitness" to potential mates and thus the ability to produce and appreciate music eventually spread to the entire species because the music makers in ancestral groups kept getting rewarded with reproductive success.
Quote from: -abe- on January 16, 2014, 04:36:13 PM
Music making -- and music appreciation -- could be an byproduct of human evolution. Music making signaled "fitness" to potential mates and thus the ability to produce and appreciate music eventually spread to the entire species because the music makers in ancestral groups kept getting rewarded with reproductive success.
Stone Age Rock Stars?
Quote from: Szykneij on January 18, 2014, 01:46:25 PM
Stone Age Rock Stars?
One of the mysteries of human evolution is why the human brain grew so large and capable. One idea is that the human mind assumed its present size as ancestral men and women who were talented in some way (speech, art making, sociability, etc) kept getting rewarded with reproductive success with the result that those traits came to be seen as signals of fitness, as markers of attractiveness. Eventually these talents spread to all humans in varying degrees. Basically the question of why music is so compelling to the human mind could all come down to mating. Perhaps your joke is spot on...we're all descendants of stone age rock stars. :D
Also I'm probably mangling ideas I encountered in this book, which is quite informed but also speculative (and interesting):
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Z5FGCDKPL.jpg)
Scientific studies have proven that making music increases the size of areas of the brain. I'm willing to consider the possibility that music making played an important part in the overall brain development of the species.
Quote from: James on January 19, 2014, 10:35:16 AM
Music definitely opens up areas of the brain & consciousness.
Art music however has always had higher minded aspirations for its genesis and relates to us beyond just those primitive instincts.[/font]
Yes, and of course many other human advances (e.g. Mathematics) depend on "unneeded" abilities stemming from basic "survival of the fittest" advances in evolution.
Of course, our investigation into the philosophy of music here can debate whether "unneeded" is a valid word, given our modern knowledge that music and musical training indeed affect the brain. The ancients believed in the healing ability of music: a good number of universities offer degrees in Music Therapy (like the University of Dayton, Michigan State).
I am reminded of stories about ancient experiments in the acquisition of language, where a baby is reared in silence so that one can determine which language the child's first babblings sound like.
If one could prevent a child from hearing Music e.g. for 10 years, what might be the result? Would the child be emotionally/intellectually stunted? Would it make no difference to his/her development?
Questions upon a discussion elsewhere about Pre-Socratic philosophy and what Plato/Socrates thought about music...
If philosophy is concerned with finding the Truth about Life, or at least in searching for the correct way to discover that, how is Music involved? Or can Music be involved at all? While checking some musicology websites, I came across a plea from a (college?) student about ideas on how to write an essay about "Truth in Music."
S/he had no idea what the question meant.
What does it mean to say that e.g. "Beethoven's search for Truth can be heard in his music." Is that a question which makes sense to you? How?
Of course, if Music can be "true," can it - must it - have the possibility of being false?
Music tells no lies but if a composer copies another's work, his claim to it would be false.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on January 21, 2014, 01:52:41 PM
Music tells no lies ...
Okay, so can you explain
how Music "tells the truth"?
Music would seem unable either to "lie" or "tell truth." The most it can do is open our minds to consider the questions -- or perhaps for the Divine Nature to slip something in...
Quote from: Cato on January 21, 2014, 12:58:56 PM
Questions upon a discussion elsewhere about Pre-Socratic philosophy and what Plato/Socrates thought about music...
If philosophy is concerned with finding the Truth about Life, or at least in searching for the correct way to discover that, how is Music involved? Or can Music be involved at all? While checking some musicology websites, I came across a plea from a (college?) student about ideas on how to write an essay about "Truth in Music."
S/he had no idea what the question meant.
What does it mean to say that e.g. "Beethoven's search for Truth can be heard in his music." Is that a question which makes sense to you? How?
Of course, if Music can be "true," can it - must it - have the possibility of being false?
Admittedly, I may be the kind of prosaic soul for whom the question cannot make sense unless the term "truth" is defined. If "truth" is defined simply as the correspondence of a proposition to reality (which, I believe, is how most of us habitually define it), the whole idea about a "search for truth (in general)" makes little sense, as there is no truth outside of a specific proposition--what is probably meant is something closer to "search for meaning." If one understands "truth" in a Heideggerian way--as an active process of meaning making--then the idea of music
making truth (as opposed to "being true" or "being false") makes more sense. Then, it would involve someone arriving at an understanding of her/his own reality through music that would be impossible otherwise. As I suggested above, I think this is a very different concept of "truth" than what we normally think of. In terms of the more standard concept of "truth," I think it has nothing whatsoever to do with music.
Quote from: Cato on January 19, 2014, 11:38:39 AM
I am reminded of stories about ancient experiments in the acquisition of language, where a baby is reared in silence so that one can determine which language the child's first babblings sound like.
None, of course. Languages are highly evolved constructs and depend on a whole series of factors, none of which is even remotely related to a child's first babblings. ;D ;D ;D A child reared in silence will be severely handicapped when it comes to talking and understanding talking, and not only that. Bottom line, a child will speak his parents' language, period.
Quote
If one could prevent a child from hearing Music e.g. for 10 years, what might be the result? Would the child be emotionally/intellectually stunted? Would it make no difference to his/her development?
That's a rhetorical question. Nobody can prevent a child from hearing music.
Quote from: Cato on January 21, 2014, 12:58:56 PM
If philosophy is concerned with finding the Truth about Life, or at least in searching for the correct way to discover that, how is Music involved? Or can Music be involved at all?
Music has nothing whatsoever to do with Truth about Life because music is part of Life itself.
Thinking about Life is one thing,
living Life (which includes making music) is quite another. ;D
Quote
While checking some musicology websites, I came across a plea from a (college?) student about ideas on how to write an essay about "Truth in Music."
S/he had no idea what the question meant.
Well, that's only too typical of (college) students nowadays: to ask for ideas on how to write an essay about things they are clueless about. ;D
And the worst thing about internet is that they eventually get a lot of responses from even bigger morons than them. ;D ;D
Quote
What does it mean to say that e.g. "Beethoven's search for Truth can be heard in his music."
It means absolutely nothing. Blah-blah-blah at its worst. ;D ;D ;D
Quote
Of course, if Music can be "true," can it - must it - have the possibility of being false?
Which is truer,
Parsifal or
La Sonnambula ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Cato on January 21, 2014, 03:28:42 PM
Okay, so can you explain how Music "tells the truth"?
It doesn't.
Music exists.
Quote from: Florestan on January 26, 2014, 10:55:04 AM
Music has nothing whatsoever to do with Truth about Life because music is part of Life itself. Thinking about Life is one thing, living Life (which includes making music) is quite another. ;D
Well, that's only too typical of (college) students nowadays: to ask for ideas on how to write an essay about things they are clueless about. ;D
And the worst thing about internet is that they eventually get a lot of responses from even bigger morons than them. ;D ;D
It means absolutely nothing. Blah-blah-blah at its worst. ;D ;D ;D
Which is truer, Parsifal or La Sonnambula ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Wow! Today must be Philosophize About Music Sunday! Many thanks to
Florestan and the others for the nice responses!
For your next assignment, two words:
Theodor Adorno!
Quote from: Florestan on January 26, 2014, 10:55:04 AM
Music has nothing whatsoever to do with Truth about Life because music is part of Life itself. Thinking about Life is one thing, living Life (which includes making music) is quite another. ;D
But music - like any art - inspires and influences our thinking, even if it is in ways that are not exactly predictable.
I think many would accept that Beethoven's various struggles can be heard in his music. Maybe my lack of extensive studies in Philosophy is showing, but to me, "struggle" is very different than "search for Truth." Your postulate seems like trying to fit a square peg (Beethoven) for a round hole (somebody has an assignment to write an essay about Truth in Music).
JMO and sorry for the slow response.
There's a useful working definition of truth in Aristotle:
Quote from: Aristotle Metaphysics IV
To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.
If that's right, then the question about truth is really the question whether music says things about the world.
I don't know the answer to this, I've never studied aesthetics. But some ways which music can be meaningful is to do with the way it juxtaposes emotions -- here's an example from Beethoven op 132
Quote from: Velimir on March 27, 2009, 11:51:57 AM
Although the posts in this thread have thus far concentrated on the radiant out-of-body experience that is the Heiliger Dankgesang, listening to the quartet as a whole leaves the impression that whatever was bothering Ludwig Van in the beginning is still bothering him at the end.
The overall structure leaves a very strange and unsettling impression. Listening, we progress from a world of angst at the beginning, to the mundane, nagging second movement, to the radiant central movement, which feels like peaceful meditation on a mountain-top - and then we go back down, into the mundane world again and finally back to the angst of the beginning. The positive, "healthy" coda to the finale sounds tacked on and illusory, coming as it does after a strange manic episode where the tempo increases to the point of fury. And viewed within the overall context of the quartet, the HD also feels oddly illusory, an interval of peace in a world of torment.
I found this note on Op. 132 in the diary of the Polish writer Witold Gombrowicz: "This quartet has been labeled the 'convalescent quartet.' It was generally agreed that the first allegro was illness; scherzo - the recovery; adagio, molto, andante - the thanksgiving hymn of recuperation; the final allegro - health and happiness. This precious quartet about a clouded, desperate sky...they have dressed in a bathrobe, slippers, nightcap, and stuffed with pills."
Another way is to do with the juxtaposition of music which has a pre-existing social meaning -- there's an analysis of the fugue in the Jupiter symphony like along these lines, in Zaslaw's book. And I've seen analyses of Brandenburg 5/i along these lines too.
Quote from: Pat B on January 26, 2014, 08:33:25 PM
I think many would accept that Beethoven's various struggles can be heard in his music. Maybe my lack of extensive studies in Philosophy is showing, but to me, "struggle" is very different than "search for Truth." Your postulate seems like trying to fit a square peg (Beethoven) for a round hole (somebody has an assignment to write an essay about Truth in Music).
Which is why the college student was so baffled by the assignment, because the professor - apparently with no explanation of how one should deal with his topic - assumed that one can "hear" somehow "Truth in Music."
Unless you are
Theodor Adorno! ??? ??? ???
Adorno was part of the Frankfurt gang of philosophers stewing together Freudian, Marxist, and Hegelian theories to analyze society.
Adorno (and I should dust off my copies of some of his books, which I recall shaking my head about 40-50 years ago) claimed that music became "truer" the more it "struggled" against the conventions expected of it in harmony, counterpoint, etc.
He believed, however, that the composer would fail (should fail, is doomed to fail?) to break free completely.
One can agree that hearing "violent music" can be like hearing a struggle of some sort, although one can never know anything more specific, unless the composer provides a program, or a text. Or unless you are
Theodor Adorno, who would tell you that the struggling sounds you hear are actually a struggle against society!
This is only the tip of the iceberg, but you might sense where
Adorno is heading toward.
I should mention that
Schoenberg did not think much of
Adorno: somewhere in
Style and Idea (I think) he chastises the philosopher (and others also, I believe) for emphasizing the "twelve-tone" in "twelve-tone composition" instead of the "composition."
And thanks to
Mandryka for the comments on juxtaposition of emotions: is that meant to be a Hegelian dialectic? ;)
Quote from: Pat B on January 26, 2014, 08:33:25 PM
I think many would accept that Beethoven's various struggles can be heard in his music. Maybe my lack of extensive studies in Philosophy is showing, but to me, "struggle" is very different than "search for Truth." Your postulate seems like trying to fit a square peg (Beethoven) for a round hole (somebody has an assignment to write an essay about Truth in Music).
JMO and sorry for the slow response.
I forget the composer and exact circumstances, but as I recall when a certain composer was asked "what was his biggest struggle," he replied: "Getting the notes right."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 30, 2014, 03:04:53 PM
I forget the composer and exact circumstances, but as I recall when a certain composer was asked "what was his biggest struggle," he replied: "Getting the notes right."
There's a charming story about pianist Rudolf Serkin. A music teacher came to him and began to talk about her theories, which included mental development, breathing and such like. Mr. Serkin listened for a while, then interrupted, "Yes, yes, but what about their fingers?" :)
Quote from: sanantonio on January 02, 2014, 10:41:40 AM
I liked the post quoting the song by Leonard Bernstein.
My answer to the question posed by the OP, is that Music exists in order to express what man needs to express but cannot accomploish using anything other than music. However, what it is exactly that music expresses is hard to pin down, and that is another discussion I have no interest in opening.
I also have zero interest in "classical" music, "pop" music, music called "jazz", or "rock" or any other label applied to Music. Part of the problem, for me is the attempt to compartmentalize music into tiny boxes by academics, critics, fans, and even practitioners.
I love music - in any form it is found simply because whatever it expresses speaks to me at a very deep level.
Quote from: Cato on January 02, 2014, 10:59:15 AM
I believe Duke Ellington divided music into two kinds: good and bad. 0:)
You have a most excellent encapsulation there: the deeper question remains of why an impulse exists which insists that Music must express...our inner something. From the viewpoint of socio-biology it could be that our happiness through music makes for better humans.
I agree, I think music does have a
primal function whether lengthier works or short simpler works, whether classical or popular. People feel the music through the reception and performance of it, not by reading a score. The performance is the full experience, as with any performance art. We feel and understand the musical lines and structures through hearing it, the tension and release of the music is what we follow. And the greater concentration through more complex classical works could even enhance people's critical appreciation of smaller works of popular music. Better that than becoming snobby about any style.
Also as far as music opening up the human mind, this can be the case. But in many cases it can also close up the mind, with the tendency of people to prefer one stylistic convention and demand that from any genre they listen to. The opening up of the mind is probably more when people develop the ability to listen to different kinds of styles according to the different perspectives that they use while also seeing the the broader overview of musical communication which could unite things and not letting the detail get in the way of this.
Don't know where else to put this, so:
Overheard between two big guys with beer bellies, on exiting a double-bill of Purcell's Dido and Aeneas and Gluck's The Drunkard Reformed at a local university's Opera Theater production today:
BIG GUY #1: So you got some kulcha today.
BIG GUY #2: Yeah, I'm good for ten years.
Quote from: starrynight on February 02, 2014, 12:04:45 PM
...But in many cases it can also close up the mind, with the tendency of people to prefer one stylistic convention and demand that from any genre they listen to...
Is that the fault of the music, the performers, or the listeners? I tend to blame the latter.
Quote from: jochanaan on February 03, 2014, 08:01:33 AM
Is that the fault of the music, the performers, or the listeners? I tend to blame the latter.
I agree. Though sometimes it could have a reciprocal effect where musicians keep within a narrow range for the niche market they are aiming for / are marketed to as well.