"Who ever learned anything from music except the emotional power of music ?... It's a thin rather than an intellectually thick art form... Music is simply a cultural narcotic, but without the long-range costs that other drugs exact"
--Sigmund Freud
****************
To what extent was he right about this ? Or was he completely wrong ?
The older I get the more true it seems.
Completely wrong.
In the first place, I learn things from music all the time beyond its "emotional power."
In the second, trying to reduce music to a "cultural narcotic" is one the least imaginative remarks I have read in a long time.
Quote"Who ever learned anything from music except the emotional power of music ?
Obviously many people have, but not so much Freud. He speaks of music as if it had no laws and structure, and I would say this is just one example among many of Freud's megalomaniac tendency to make discoveries of his own mental processes and conclude that they apply to all humans. Another example is the Oedipus complex, which he claimed to exist in every human being - so that if you haven't found it in yourself, you must look harder.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 11:43:34 AM
Or was he completely wrong ?
Completely, totally and utterly wrong.
--Bruce
Quote from: bhodges on June 05, 2008, 12:05:12 PM
Completely, totally and utterly wrong.
--Bruce
Why so categorical, Bruce ?
Would you at least agree that the "ideas" in music don't mean anything and have no purpose in and of themselves ? Our ability to sense that music is meaningful is not the same as an ability to sense its meaning.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 12:22:36 PM
Why so categorical, Bruce ?
Would you at least agree that the "ideas" in music don't mean anything and have no purpose in and of themselves ? Our ability to sense that music is meaningful is not the same as an ability to sense its meaning.
Because Freud's opinion is just that: his
opinion. And I don't agree with the sentences above at all, either.
--Bruce
Quote from: bhodges on June 05, 2008, 12:24:37 PMAnd I don't agree with the sentences above at all, either.
Then why is it that child prodigies, with the skill of adults and the experience of children, appear in music but never in literature or philosophy ?
Are any of these child prodigies intellectually lacking?
Mike
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 11:43:34 AM
"Who ever learned anything from music except the emotional power of music ?... It's a thin rather than an intellectually thick art form... Music is simply a cultural narcotic, but without the long-range costs that other drugs exact"
--Sigmund Freud
****************
sounds about right to me
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 12:29:50 PM
Then why is it that child prodigies, with the skill of adults and the experience of children, appear in music but never in literature or philosophy ?
Never? Wikipedia (I know, I know, but still) has a whole list of child prodigies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies), including some in literature and "Law/philosophy". Of course, music prodigies have a whole page of their own. :)
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 12:22:36 PM
...Would you at least agree that the "ideas" in music don't mean anything and have no purpose in and of themselves ?
What meaning would you assign to them? What purpose would you have them serve? ???
(Edit: I asked that badly. I should ask, "What meaning and purpose would you assign to them
if you could?")
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 12:22:36 PM
Our ability to sense that music is meaningful is not the same as an ability to sense its meaning.
I would say rather that the ability to divine meaning is not at all the same as the ability to reduce it to words. Some meanings are too large and definite to be reduced to words.
And yes, Freud was wrong. Music is much more than a narcotic or hallucinogen, cultural or otherwise. If it were merely cultural, why do some of us embrace musics that are so totally rejected by the culture we find ourselves in?
Speculation today suggests that music is more than just a 'cultural narcotic' or as Pinker calls it, "auditory cheesecake." However music is not a biological imperative.
I draw attention to this lecture I will be attending.
Aniruddh D. Patel
"Music is quintessentially human but not innate"
Music is neither a biological adaptation nor a hedonic diversion that simply piggybacks on preexisting cognitive systems. Instead, it is a transformational cognitive technology which builds on preexisting brain systems and which transforms our experience of the world. I will illustrate this point by discussing empirical research on the biological basis of (1) musical syntactic processing, (2) musical tone deafness, and (3) synchronized movement to a musical beat.
One empirical point disproving Freud is the well-known correlation between musicality and math skills in children. If - if - music is helping kids become better at math, surely that helps chip away at Freud's view, which (as always with Freud!) is wrong-headed.
I also recommend seeking out the Oliver Sacks stories about patients learning to talk or even walk again with the help of music. "Who ever learned anything from music except the emotional power of music?" I think learning to walk counts. :)
freud mastered an instrument? his evaluation is based upon years of practice and experience? ;)
i wonder what his musical background was...lacking something i suppose.
Quote from: jochanaan on June 05, 2008, 01:33:40 PM
What meaning would you assign to them? What purpose would you have them serve? ???
None, because it's impossible... No matter how serious and elaborate, a piece of music cannot create its own metaphysical frame entirely from within the music. Even those of us who who appreciate music in all its forms must recognize that music is not a rational art and cannot express an actual idea.
Quote from: btpaul674 on June 05, 2008, 01:52:48 PM"Music is quintessentially human but not innate.... Music is neither a biological adaptation nor a hedonic diversion that simply piggybacks on preexisting cognitive systems. Instead, it is a transformational cognitive technology which builds on preexisting brain systems and which transforms our experience of the world.
Very interesting Paul.... Thanks.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 02:17:08 PM
None, because it's impossible... No matter how serious and elaborate, a piece of music cannot create its own metaphysical frame entirely from within the music. Even those of us who who appreciate music in all its forms must recognize that music is not a rational art and cannot express an actual idea.
It's difficult to make a specific objection to a statement because it is so hard find any definite meaning in it. Why does music have to create "its own metaphysical frame" to mean something? What is a "metaphysical frame?"
Music is a series of sounds that gives pleasure. Some of us enjoy experiencing an emotional responses that the music causes (through biological means or cultural association). Some like the intellectual satisfaction of recognizing simple or complex patterns in the music. (Many of us like both) Sometimes the music means something specific (when the bugle sounds "retreat" that means run like hell, when you hear the plagal cadence, that means the mass is over and you can finally go home) usually it doesn't. All of this philosophical gibberish neither adds nor subtracts anything.
Quote from: scarpia on June 05, 2008, 02:56:38 PM
Why does music have to create "its own metaphysical frame" to mean something? What is a "metaphysical frame?"
Maybe
that's where the "vibrational fields" cavort and gambol . . . ?
Quote from: david johnson on June 05, 2008, 01:55:23 PM
freud mastered an instrument? his evaluation is based upon years of practice and experience? ;)
i wonder what his musical background was...lacking something i suppose.
Ah-
ha! Suggesting that Freud was perhaps musically impotent? . . . !
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 11:43:34 AM
To what extent was he right about this ? Or was he completely wrong ?
He was. Freud lived in an age where the idea of genius (and the corresponding experience of transcendence and spiritual development) was being demolished left and right, and music, like all arts, or religion for that matter, served no practical purpose for the scientifically minded. Our present age is the result.
Quote from: btpaul674 on June 05, 2008, 01:52:48 PM
However music is not a biological imperative.
Genius, however, is. Music is merely a vessel among many.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 05, 2008, 03:33:35 PM
He was. Freud lived in an age where the idea of genius (and the corresponding experience of transcendence and spiritual development) was being demolished left and right, and music, like all arts, or religion for that matter, served no practical purpose for the scientifically minded. Our present age is the result.
Genius, however, is. Music is merely a vessel among many.
Hmm... very good points there Josquin.
But do you agree with philosopher and aesthetician Suzanne Langer who wrote in her 1943:
"In music we have an unconsummated symbol, a significant form without conventional significance. It exists probably below the threshold of consciousness, certainly outside the pale of discursive thinking and thus no assignment of meaning is permanent beyond the sound that passes..."
Quote from: btpaul674 on June 05, 2008, 01:52:48 PM
"Music is quintessentially human but not innate"
Music is neither a biological adaptation nor a hedonic diversion that simply piggybacks on preexisting cognitive systems. Instead, it is a transformational cognitive technology which builds on preexisting brain systems and which transforms our experience of the world. I will illustrate this point by discussing empirical research on the biological basis of (1) musical syntactic processing, (2) musical tone deafness, and (3) synchronized movement to a musical beat.
Can somebody explain what that means?
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 03:42:29 PM
"In music we have an unconsummated symbol, a significant form without conventional significance. It exists probably below the threshold of consciousness, certainly outside the pale of discursive thinking and thus no assignment of meaning is permanent beyond the sound that passes..."
And that?
Quote from: M forever on June 05, 2008, 04:05:42 PM
And that?
M,
The reason I brought up the Langer is that it seems to me a perfect and eloquent nutshell of what music is.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 05, 2008, 03:03:25 PM
Ah-ha! Suggesting that Freud was perhaps musically impotent? . . . !
chuckle, chuckle. it is obvious. penissiomo envy, i guess.
dj
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 04:08:07 PM
M,
The reason I brought up the Langer is that it seems to me a perfect and eloquent nutshell of what music is.
Maybe - but I don't understand what she says. Can you explain it?
Quote from: M forever on June 05, 2008, 04:56:01 PM
Maybe - but I don't understand what she says. Can you explain it?
M,
I am not sure but it seems to me she is saying that music is of vastly lesser importance then the world of ideas. It belongs to the domain of the senses, not of the intellect, and while emotion can be powerfully felt it is by definition subjective, nothing more than sensuousness and has no depth of meaning beyond that.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 05:30:42 PM
M,
I am not sure but it seems to me she is saying that music is of vastly lesser importance then the world of ideas. It belongs to the domain of the senses, not of the intellect, and while emotion can be powerfully felt it is by definition subjective, nothing more than sensuousness and has no depth of meaning beyond that.
And yet, music is nothing BUT ideas, worked out according to the accepted methods. Debussy's ".......Faun" and Beethoven's 5th Symphony are nothing more than a plan for how to make a system, the language of music, work for you in presenting your ideas to the listener in a (hopefully) cogent way. And although the Romantics had totally discarded it long before Freud's time, music in the Classical Era, at least, was considered part of a rhetorical structure that actually did express rhetorical, philosophical ideas. Composer and listener were inextricably twined. When the art of philosophical listening disappeared by early/mid-19th century, that went by the wayside. :(
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Philharmonia Orchestra / Giulini Itzhak Perlman - Bia 432 Op 61 Concerto in D for Violin & Orchestra 1st mvmt - Allegro ma non troppo (cadenza: Kreisler)
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 11:43:34 AM
"Who ever learned anything from music except the emotional power of music ?... It's a thin rather than an intellectually thick art form... Music is simply a cultural narcotic, but without the long-range costs that other drugs exact"
--Sigmund Freud
****************
To what extent was he right about this ? Or was he completely wrong ?
The older I get the more true it seems.
Now, what you're more or less saying with this out-of-context snippet of pot-stirring material is that it is nearly (or not so nearly) impossible to appreciate music in anything other than an emotional sense. To put a finer point on it, you're agreeing with the sentiment that no one appreciates music in an 'intellectually thick' way, as there is nothing to appreciate beyond the emotional power of the sounds. For this statement to be true, you'd have to discard a lot of music. For example, who ever appreciated Stockhausen's
Klavierstück VI in a deep-seated emotional way? Or, for that matter, Boulez' second piano sonata? That is not to say that either piece isn't enjoyable; no, that is, rather, to say that both pieces of music require a substantial intellectual investment, lest they become background noise of the first order. Wait, before you say, "PSmith08, you silly sot, Freud was talking about learning - not enjoyment." That's true, he was. The natural response is simply this: real appreciation requires some sort of give-and-take, just like learning; in other words, learning and appreciation are, essentially, the same function, to different degrees, of course. I'll go you one better, though, and say that a mathematically inclined person could learn rather a lot about closed systems (e.g., sets, rings, and fields) from listening to music with highly structured and internalized rules, or, at least, real-world applications or analogues of such systems. So, taking a canonical example, if I compared Bach's
Die Kunst der Fuge to a ring with certain axioms and operations, then I could learn a lot about that ring by seeing its properties put into motion; though 'put into motion' is probably an infelicitous turn of phrase, as I would really be seeing those properties concretely presented, or at least as concretely as either Bach or abstract algebra will allow. And, with that, the counterexample to your argument is given. I could say, 'QED,' and go back to lurking as I am wont to do, but I am clearly both very bored and in possession of a lot of free time tonight, so I will go on in this extravaganza of argumentation. Let us, for a moment, assume that Freud is right (though, from what I just showed, he isn't): what of music as a cultural narcotic? Does its status as such imply a value judgment? Not as I see it. So, then, even if Freud's statement is correct, it's meaningless. Nice try, though, E-man.
Quote from: PSmith08 on June 05, 2008, 05:42:02 PMFor this statement to be true, you'd have to discard a lot of music.
For example, who ever appreciated Stockhausen's Klavierstück VI in a deep-seated emotional way? Or, for that matter, Boulez' second piano sonata? That is not to say that either piece isn't enjoyable; no, that is, rather, to say that both pieces of music require a substantial intellectual investment, lest they become background noise of the first order
Patrick,
That is NOT at all what I'm saying but let me quickly address this because this was not the original point.
I sincerely believe that an intellectual understanding of the technical side of a composition is utterly irrelevant to its emotional purpose. Perhaps it's greatly fascinating to some people, which is fair enough, but for me it seems kind of trivial next to the fact of being profoundly moved on an emotional level. Of course, the intellect can aid the artistic purpose, so far as it can provide the framework for the composer to articulate himself, but the it counts for nothing without inspiration (which is where we get into the non-physical realm). It can also aid the listener so far as, if you have an intellectual understanding of music, you are more adept at actually hearing it and being aware of what it is. But again, this is not an end in itself, rather, once you hear, you can then be touched by the music if it has anything to say to you. Someone without an intellectual grasp of symphonic form or whatever will perhaps not be moved so easily, simply because the music may not "sink in" at first... but after a few listens, they too can "hear" the music, and without necessarily rationalizing what is going on structurally, the emotional message is available to them too. So the intellectual aspect helps in terms of decoding the sound on a physical level... as do ears, but
the point lies beyond that.
Anyhow, this is a VERY difficult subject to argue because there are so many blurred lines that it's hard to really define what you're talking about. For instance, I don't consider the structural architechture of a piece of music to be irrelevant, as I think it appeared to some people. Far from it, I think it's extremely important. Utterly crucial. And to build the architechture of a large-scale work I'm sure would require great intelligence on the part of the composer. My POINT is, as far as the listening expreience goes, what is important is that the architechture is
felt, and whether it is consciously observed is academic! Of course, this gets confusing if someone is conscious of the structural implications of the music, notices how much power this gives the work, then assumes that they feel that power because they are aware of the musical thought behind it. I would suggest that this power is accessible to anyone with a natural musical "ear" and the patience to listen, and that the relevant "connections" will be made on a subconscious level, which is where the visceral power of the music really operates. And musical "knowledge" is a different thing entirely from an ear for music.. although to confuse matters further, many people with a musical ear are likely to have aquired some knowledge... and then credit this knowledge with their ability to appreciate music beyond Britney Spears or whatever. I would suggest they could love classical music without this "knowledge".. perhaps they would have had less motivation to listen in the first place, but again, I believe the emotion is communicated with or without "knowledge".
OK, here's an example... an artist might have the gift of being able to visualize objects as a few basic shapes onto which smaller details are added. Maybe they break all objects down in this way as a habit, and maybe it gets annoying for them, I don't know. My point is, because they are more consciously aware of the underlying architecture of a tree, does that make it any more beautiful for them? Of course, this architecture may be crucial to why it is beautiful, but does rationalizing it improve one's aesthetic experience?
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 04:08:07 PM
M,
The reason I brought up the Langer is that it seems to me a perfect and eloquent nutshell of what music is.
Quote from: M forever on June 05, 2008, 04:56:01 PM
Maybe - but I don't understand what she says. Can you explain it?
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 05:30:42 PM
M,
I am not sure but it seems to me she is saying that music is of vastly lesser importance then the world of ideas.
So you don't really understand what she meant either, but you still think it is a "perfect and elegant nutshell of what music is"?
What happened to you? What caused this deep trauma? were you dropped on your head when you were born?
You have absofuckinglutely no clue "what music is", you may like listening to it but it is obvious from your contributions here that you don't understand anything about music at all, let alone what it is "in a nutshell" - the only nutshell here is your obviously underdeveloped brain.
I like to eat but I can't cook and I don't know much about the subject, so I don't pontificate and blabla about it. What deep trauma makes you think you could even begin to understand and decide what music actually is and defecate your nonsense into the internet for other people to read?
Quote from: M forever on June 05, 2008, 06:28:14 PM
So you don't really understand what she meant either, but you still think it is a "perfect and elegant nutshell of what music is"?
What happened to you? What caused this deep trauma? were you dropped on your head when you were born?
You have absofuckinglutely no clue "what music is", you may like listening to it but it is obvious from your contributions here that you don't understand anything about music at all, let alone what it is "in a nutshell" - the only nutshell here is your obviously underdeveloped brain.
I like to eat but I can't cook and I don't know much about the subject, so I don't pontificate and blabla about it. What deep trauma makes you think you could even begin to understand and decide what music actually is?
M,
I understand and love music VERY DEEPLY but at the same time I know that Kierkegaard was right when he described the lowest degree of spiritual judgment as the "aesthetic" level - the pursuit sensory pleasure and enjoyment.
Music is not culture, it is the
mist that plays above culture.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 06:33:05 PM
I understand and love music VERY DEEPLY
As a former musician, somebody who actually know what music is and how it is made, I can attest you, you don't understand music at all. I don't know what mental defect causes you to think you do, "VERY DEEPLY", but you don't. You don't understand the cultural context of music either at all. You are just a driveling idiot when it comes to that, a deeply disturbed person who needs to make dramatic and absolute statements about a subject he doesn't understand at all. Being able to piss doesn't make you an urologist. It doesn't mean that you understand the context. Your contributions here are nothing but piss without understanding behind it.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 06:00:54 PM
That is NOT at all what I'm saying but let me quickly address this because this was not the original point.
I couldn't bear to bring myself to read this closely enough to articulate a second in-depth response, so I'll just have to make do with the cursory impressions I got from a glancing read. Since you said so, I'll take you at your word and assume that this really is your point:
QuoteMy POINT is, as far as the listening experience goes, what is important is that the architecture is felt, and whether it is consciously observed is academic! Of course, this gets confusing if someone is conscious of the structural implications of the music, notices how much power this gives the work, then assumes that they feel that power because they are aware of the musical thought behind it. I would suggest that this power is accessible to anyone with a natural musical "ear" and the patience to listen, and that the relevant "connections" will be made on a subconscious level, which is where the visceral power of the music really operates.
You mean to say that your point is that music is best understood at the most superficial and shallowest level? That is, consciously following the structures of English, what seems to be the content here.
QuoteAnyhow, this is a VERY difficult subject to argue because there are so many blurred lines that it's hard to really define what you're talking about.
Given the admitted level of difficulty for this subject, one is forced to wonder why you chose it.
Quote from: M forever on June 05, 2008, 06:37:50 PM
As a former musician, somebody who actually know what music is and how it is made, I can attest you, you don't understand music at all. I don't know what mental defect causes you to think you do, "VERY DEEPLY", but you don't. You don't understand the cultural context of music either at all. You are just a driveling idiot when it comes to that, a deeply disturbed person who needs to make dramatic and absolute statements about a subject he doesn't understand at all. Being able to piss doesn't make you an urologist. It doesn't mean that you understand the context. Your contributions here are nothing but piss without understanding behind it.
M,
'Very deeply' means that I'm someone of great aesthetic sensitivity.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 06:33:05 PM
M,
I understand and love music VERY DEEPLY but at the same time I know that Kierkegaard was right when he described the lowest degree of spiritual judgment as the "aesthetic" level - the pursuit sensory pleasure and enjoyment.
Music is not culture, it is the mist that plays above culture.
Pink, you are openly plagiarizing again!!!
PUT A STOP TO IT THIS INSTANT!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: M forever on June 05, 2008, 06:37:50 PMYou don't understand the cultural context of music either at all
M,
And why is this important ?
I agree that most music requires repeated listenings but has it ever been anything but, fundamentally, entertainment? Yes, it can have a grander, more uplifting vision but in the end its purpose is to be paid attention to. It doesn't serve any purpose outside of eliciting an emotional response, or in some cases, exorcising emotions from the creator.
My dictionary defines
Entertainment as...
"that which engages the attention agreeably, amuses, diverts or pleases" It's a fairly simple definition, and I don't see how music, of any kind, does not fit under its' umbrella. It may not be the primary function of a work, but it doesn't have to be. Certainly certain kinds of entertainment - sports events, monster truck rallies, TV reality shows etc. - are not "art". But I'm not saying that the terms are interchangeable - not all entertainment is art.
And it defines
Music as the...
"the conscious production or arrangement of sounds in a manner that affects the sense of beauty" If anyone knows of any musical compositions that do not fall into the definition of "entertainment" above, feel free to prove me wrong that the reverse is not true.
The great masterpieces of Western music are MORE than entertainment, yes, but they are an entertainment nonetheless.
Quote from: donwyn on June 05, 2008, 07:11:17 PM
Pink, you are openly plagiarizing again!!!
PUT A STOP TO IT THIS INSTANT!!!!!!!!!!
Give him a little credit. That article's a little over eight years old, and in a magazine that isn't necessarily read by everyone here. He's plagiarizing, it's true, and there's something fundamentally intellectually dishonest about it; still, he's showing a little finesse.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 07:12:33 PM
I agree that most music requires repeated listenings but has it ever been anything but, fundamentally, entertainment? Yes, it can have a grander, more uplifting vision but in the end its purpose is to be paid attention to. It doesn't serve any purpose outside of eliciting an emotional response, or in some cases, exorcising emotions from the creator.
[...]
The great masterpieces of Western music are MORE than entertainment, yes, but they are an entertainment nonetheless.
I am not sure you fit your self-projection as the aesthete
par excellence with such a superficial approach, but apparently you do. That is, ultimately, the devilish flaw in your reasoning tonight. A
refined notion of aesthetics has something more than snap, visceral judgments for support.
Quote from: PSmith08 on June 05, 2008, 07:19:43 PM
Give him a little credit. That article's a little over eight years old, and in a magazine that isn't necessarily read by everyone here. He's plagiarizing, it's true, and there's something fundamentally intellectually dishonest about it; still, he's showing a little finesse.
It would be 'cute' if it were the first time he's done such a thing. But he's been pulling this stunt for some time now, going way back to old GMG. It's getting mighty old...
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 07:01:53 PM
M,
'Very deeply' means that I'm someone of great aesthetic sensitivity.
Man, you are from
fucking New Jersey, what the hell do you think you know about "culture"? If this subject interests you so much, at least as an outsider looking in, then I can tell you that where I am from, music is the essence, the heart and soul of culture, so much so that our music resonates in all corners of the world. Maybe you can detect that with your "aesthetic sensibility".
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 07:32:56 PM
Excuse me ?
Yes, I was born and raised in New Jersey and I currently reside in the lovely city of Parsippany... But what the heck does my residence have to do with my refined aesthetic understanding ?
Pink, you need to just pack it in. As usual you are your own worst enemy. Leave off the plagiarizing for once and maybe you'll have some credibility.
Quote from: donwyn on June 05, 2008, 07:27:11 PM
It would be 'cute' if it were the first time he's done such a thing. But he's been pulling this stunt for some time now, going way back to old GMG. It's getting mighty old...
This I know, this I know.
Quote from: M forever on June 05, 2008, 07:27:57 PM
Man, you are from fucking New Jersey, what the hell do you think you know about "culture"? If this subject interests you so much, at least as an outsider looking in, then I can tell you that where I am from, music is the essence, the heart and soul of culture, so much so that our music resonates in all corners of the world. Maybe you can detect that with your "aesthetic sensibility".
What?! Bruce Springsteen
can't stand with Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner? I am shocked, Sir! Shocked and appalled!
Quote from: donwyn on June 05, 2008, 07:38:57 PMAs usual you are your own worst enemy.
Downyn,
You have no idea how many people tell me this.
O.k...
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 07:32:56 PM
M,
Excuse me ?
Yes, I was born and raised in New Jersey and I currently reside in the lovely city of Parsippany... But what the heck does my residence have to do with my refined aesthetic understanding ?
Everything. I am sorry to hear that your uncle abused you.
Quote from: PSmith08 on June 05, 2008, 07:43:30 PM
What?! Bruce Springsteen can't stand with Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner? I am shocked, Sir! Shocked and appalled!
Springsteen didn't sing about his "refined aesthetic sensibility", nor did he sing about cultures and cultural contexts that were alien to him. He gave highly sensitive expressions of his own immediate reality, and that's why his music is a relevant artistic expression - again something that is outside of what Operahaven with his dictionary definitions of "culture" would be able to understand.
Quote from: M forever on June 05, 2008, 07:48:38 PM
Springsteen didn't sing about his "refined aesthetic sensibility", nor did he sing about cultures and cultural contexts that were alien to him. He gave highly sensitive expressions of his own immediate reality, and that's why his music is a relevant artistic expression - again something that is outside of what Operahaven with his dictionary definitions of "culture" would be able to understand.
That's the shame of it. If one is too busy playing the effete, refined sophisticate, then there's a solid chance that he'll miss out on something like "Atlantic City," or - my favorite off the
Nebraska record - "Johnny 99."
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 07:46:37 PM
Downyn,
You have no idea how many people tell me this.
O.k...
I'm not sure exactly what sentiment you're trying to convey with this but try to think of my comment as a neighborly gesture. It's not my desire to condemn you but to try to open your eyes a little.
Others on this board deserve respect and it's a sign of
disrespect to them to pull the wool over their eyes by plagiarizing. So, keep it on the straight and narrow, dude...
Quote from: donwyn on June 05, 2008, 08:09:11 PMBut try to think of my comment as a neighborly gesture.
Yes Downyn, that's how I took it.
Please don't shave your head and start gunning down strangers from a tall public building, just because they didn't get your "aesthetic refinedness", OK?
Music is bananas.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 08:18:09 PM
What on earth are you talking about ? ::)
I am about as clean-cut and quiet and shy and harmless as they come...
Apparently, you've never heard the refrain of the shocked neighbors whenever someone has a serious freakout: "He was the last person we would have ever expected to do something like this."
Quote from: M forever on June 05, 2008, 08:21:08 PM
To a monkey like you, yes it is.
To me it seems like you're the one more related to those kind of cultureless animals, given your thoughtless name. Monkeys Forever anyone?
Quote from: Auferstehung on June 05, 2008, 08:20:17 PM
Music is bananas.
BRIAN R. |
Symphony in E flat major, "Banana Symphony"as performed by the Chiquita Festival Orchestra of HondurasI. Largo - Maestoso - Moderato - Allegro con animo "Unpeeling the banana" [07:16]
II. Andante cantabile, quasi una fantasia "Eating the banana" [09:23]
III. Allegro con fuoco "Dropping the banana peel on the floor" [03:57]
IV. Scherzo: Molto moderato in tempo di marcia "Waiting for someone to slip on the banana peel" [13:11]
V. Vivacissimo "Somebody slips on the banana peel and falls on their ass" [02:31]
VI. Finale: Allegro "Going to get another banana" [06:28]
Coming soon to OperaShare and all other fine purveyors of live music broadcasts! :D
Quote from: 解放臺灣-統壹中華 on June 05, 2008, 08:29:12 PM
To me it seems like you're the one more related to those kind of cultureless animals, given your thoughtless name. Monkeys Forever anyone?
Oh wow, what an extremely original and daring comeback. And you have changed your username again on top of that!
Quote from: M forever on June 05, 2008, 08:33:26 PM
Oh wow, what an extremely original and daring comeback. And you have changed your username again on top of that!
Yes, because then you wouldn't know how to personal-attack my name back, given the lowness of your "insults".
Quote from: Brian on June 05, 2008, 08:31:23 PM
BRIAN R. | Symphony in E flat major, "Banana Symphony"
as performed by the Chiquita Festival Orchestra of Honduras
I. Largo - Maestoso - Moderato - Allegro con animo "Unpeeling the banana" [07:16]
II. Andante cantabile, quasi una fantasia "Eating the banana" [09:23]
III. Allegro con fuoco "Dropping the banana peel on the floor" [03:57]
IV. Scherzo: Molto moderato in tempo di marcia "Waiting for someone to slip on the banana peel" [13:11]
V. Vivacissimo "Somebody slips on the banana peel and falls on their ass" [02:31]
VI. Finale: Allegro "Going to get another banana" [06:28]
Coming soon to OperaShare and all other fine purveyors of live music broadcasts! :D
Holy crap that is one of the funniest shit i've ever read online in a while. Nice one, Brian! :D
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 08:30:18 PM
Patrick,
Do you actually see that possibility in me ? The wish to humiliate and torture others ?
No. I do, however, see a strong desire for attention in you, and since I've got nothing better to do tonight than sit around and curse Sony for letting the Mitropoulos
Das Buch mit sieben Siegeln lapse and Decca for a similar offense with the Dohnányi
Rheingold, I thought I'd oblige.
I live to serve, E-man.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 03:42:29 PM
...But do you agree with philosopher and aesthetician Suzanne Langer who wrote in her 1943:
"In music we have an unconsummated symbol, a significant form without conventional significance. It exists probably below the threshold of consciousness, certainly outside the pale of discursive thinking and thus no assignment of meaning is permanent beyond the sound that passes..."
She makes a couple of good points. However, I feel you're misinterpreting her apparent conclusion, even based on this non-contextual excerpt. Saying that music is "without conventional significance" or "outside the pale of discursive thinking" is not at all the same thing as saying it has no meaning beyond sensual appeal. And "below the threshold of consciousness" is exactly where most of us find our deepest meanings.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 07:12:33 PMI agree that most music requires repeated listenings but has it ever been anything but, fundamentally, entertainment? Yes, it can have a grander, more uplifting vision but in the end its purpose is to be paid attention to. It doesn't serve any purpose outside of eliciting an emotional response, or in some cases, exorcising emotions from the creator.
My dictionary defines Entertainment as... "that which engages the attention agreeably, amuses, diverts or pleases"
It's a fairly simple definition, and I don't see how music, of any kind, does not fit under its' umbrella. It may not be the primary function of a work, but it doesn't have to be. Certainly certain kinds of entertainment - sports events, monster truck rallies, TV reality shows etc. - are not "art". But I'm not saying that the terms are interchangeable - not all entertainment is art.
I read Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams. Not only did it engage my attention by its sexual nature, but his conclusions also amused, diverted and pleased me. Therefore Freud's work is entertainment. By your logic, I find an epidemic disease to be entertainment.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 07:12:33 PM
I agree that most music requires repeated listenings but has it ever been anything but, fundamentally, entertainment?
For as long as there has been recorded Western music,
Eric. Ever heard of the Mass,
Eric? On a number of points, it fails to fit into the pigeon-hole of your dictionary's definition of
entertainment.
For the thousandth time,
Eric: Music is bigger than your limited personal uses for it.
You are mistaken, Eric; the Mass is not "just drama." And Beethoven's Opus 123 is not "just a music drama."
Glad to see you agreeing that of course, music is bigger than your limited personal uses for it; only you did just slip immediately back into navel-gazing mode ::)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 06, 2008, 04:11:19 AM
For as long as there has been recorded Western music, Eric.
And most likely long before that. If we look at the function of music in hunter-gatherer societies, we see that it plays a very important function there, too, usually in context with tribal rituals and magic.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 06, 2008, 05:09:43 AM
You are mistaken, Eric; the Mass is not "just drama." And Beethoven's Opus 123 is not "just a music drama."
Glad to see you agreeing that of course, music is bigger than your limited personal uses for it; only you did just slip immediately back into navel-gazing mode ::)
??? I don't get the reference. Was one of Eric's posts deleted? If so, why? ???
Quote from: jochanaan on June 06, 2008, 02:52:29 PM
??? I don't get the reference. Was one of Eric's posts deleted? If so, why? ???
Jochanaan,
I stated that I adored Beethoven's
Missa Solemnis but still considered it just a music drama.
M,
Plato said in the Republic that........ "when a man abandons himself to music he begins to melt and liquefy"
Is he also wrong (along with Freud) in your opinion ?
Quote from: Operahaven on June 06, 2008, 03:43:29 PM
M,
Plato said in the Republic that........ "when a man abandons himself to music he begins to melt and liquefy"
Is he also wrong (along with Freud) in your opinion ?
Since we have no idea what music sounded like in Plato's days, it's hard to put that comment in the same context as Freud's, don't you think?
Quote from: jochanaan on June 06, 2008, 02:52:29 PM
??? I don't get the reference. Was one of Eric's posts deleted? If so, why? ???
Jo,
It appears it WAS deleted (I can't find it) but it was not done so by a mod, which leaves Eric himself. Not sure why, I thought it was a good statement, and I agreed with it. The purpose of music (and all sorts of ritual ceremony) and even the great art built into the building itself, was for the entertainment value to bring people into church. If you are a believer, all of this is merely trappings. A musical "Mass" is not the sacrament, it is merely an adjunct.
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Philharmonia Orchestra / Giulini Itzhak Perlman - Bia 432 Op 61 Concerto in D for Violin & Orchestra 2nd mvmt - Larghetto -
attacca -
You are very wrong about that. People didn't have to be brought into church (at least until very recently) or other places of tribal worship by making it attractive and entertaining, e.g. by the inclusion of nice music in the proceedings. They had to go anyway, no matter how fun it was or not, or be outcasts, with very dire consequences. Music and other elaborate forms of ritual ceremony have a communicative function, to create an emotional, physical shared group experience beyond just listening to words. We know that music has an extremely important function as a means of "mass communication" and it appears that people have played music in one form or another for tens of thousands of years. It appears that what made behaviorally, rather than just anatomically "modern" man is the development of complex forms of communication such as language which allows the building up of a shared culture which is communicated to other members of the group through language and other forms of communication and because of the overlapping of generations, it is handed down from one generation to the next, through verbal and other communicative means. We have all the reason to believe that music has played a very important role in that context for a very, very long time.
M,
No.
I still think Steven Pinker is correct on the topic of music:
"The intense pleasures of music are essentially by-products. The arts are a means by which we identify pleasure-giving patterns in the brain. Music purifies these patterns, concentrates them, allowing the brain to stimulate itself without the messiness of electrodes or drugs . . . [to] give itself intense artificial doses of the sights and sounds and smells that ordinarily are given off by healthful environments. We enjoy strawberry cheesecake, but not because we evolved a taste for it. We evolved circuits that gave us trickles of enjoyment from the sweet taste of ripe fruit, the creamy mouth feel of fats and oils from nuts and meat, and the coolness of fresh water. Cheesecake packs a sensual wallop unlike anything in the natural world because it is a brew of megadoses of agreeable stimuli which we concocted for the express purpose of pressing our pleasure buttons. Pornography is another pleasure technology. In the creation and experience of art, our minds rise to a biologically pointless challenge: figuring out how to get at the pleasure circuits of the brain and deliver little jolts of enjoyment without the inconvenience of wringing bona fide fitness increments from the harsh world. Music is a pleasure short-cut like puzzles, games, alcohol, drugs, and sweet, rich desserts. Art produces, causes, emotions in us.... Music appears to be a pure pleasure technology - a cocktail of recreational drugs that we ingest through the ear to stimulate a mass of pleasure circuits at once. Compared with language, vision, social reasoning, and physical know-how, music could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged..."
Complete bullshit. That should be obvious to anyone who has at least a slight understanding of music. Which excludes you, obviously. People who don't understand the many layers of musical reception, experience, and communication shouldn't make dramatic statements about the subject.
Pinker is wrong.
Consult Huron, Patel, Sloboda, etc etc.
I also draw attention to my first post on pg. 1.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 06, 2008, 06:39:14 PM
I still think Steven Pinker is correct on the topic of music:
[...]
In the creation and experience of art, our minds rise to a biologically pointless challenge: figuring out how to get at the pleasure circuits of the brain and deliver little jolts of enjoyment without the inconvenience of wringing bona fide fitness increments from the harsh world. Music is a pleasure short-cut like puzzles, games, alcohol, drugs, and sweet, rich desserts. Art produces, causes, emotions in us.... Music appears to be a pure pleasure technology - a cocktail of recreational drugs that we ingest through the ear to stimulate a mass of pleasure circuits at once. Compared with language, vision, social reasoning, and physical know-how, music could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged..."
You can keep thinking, but I don't know how far that's going to get you, since - for all of Pinker's words - he doesn't actually get very far. Firstly, and you can protest all you want, but you've haven't made a cogent or coherent counterargument, you have to discard a lot of music to get to the point where any of your half-baked theorists' notions can be, even remotely, correct. Does Sylvano Bussotti's
Rara Requiem or
Passion selon Sade create the same aural pleasure that Mozart or Wagner does? No. Those works do not. And yet people enjoy them. Your superficiality is wrecked when it comes to those shoals. You can argue for a superficial appreciation of music only so long as the music is pleasing in a traditional and superficial sense; once you go beyond that point, you're in trouble.
If you're going to continue to valve off whatever pressure you've built up in the real world with these provocative epigrams, then you could be so kind as to choose epigrams, properly attributed, that have some merit. That's my advice to you.
Quote from: M forever on June 06, 2008, 06:48:33 PM
Complete bullshit. That should be obvious to anyone who has at least a slight understanding of music. Which excludes you, obviously. People who don't understand the many layers of musical reception, experience, and communication shouldn't make dramatic statements about the subject.
M,
Now that Plato, Freud and Pinker are wrong on music, do you at least agree that no art form is superior to human decency ?
Nobody says anybody is "right" or "wrong" about music. Music is a very complex cultural phenomenon which can not be discussed in simplistic statements. It is obviously completely beyond your horizon anyway. Your last sentence there is just verbal diarrhoea.
Quote from: PSmith08 on June 06, 2008, 10:48:03 PMDoes Sylvano Bussotti's Rara Requiem or Passion selon Sade create the same aural pleasure that Mozart or Wagner does?
No. Those works do not.
And yet people enjoy them. Your superficiality is wrecked when it comes to those shoals. You can argue for a superficial appreciation of music only so long as the music is pleasing in a traditional and superficial sense; once you go beyond that point, you're in trouble
Patrick,
That's not what I'm saying.
My whole point in this discussion is that, ultimately, music is about pleasure. If you choose to hear a piece, it's because you want a particular experience that that piece provides. The result of that experience will, however indirectly, bring you pleasure, or you wouldn't choose it.
Any music that provides you with experiences that you're glad to have can be said to be about pleasure, however harrowing, challenging, innovative, retrospective, alienating, or welcoming the music itself might (seem to) be.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 07, 2008, 10:11:54 AM
Patrick,
That's not what I'm saying.
My whole point in this discussion is that, ultimately, music is about pleasure. If you choose to hear a piece, it's because you want a particular experience that that piece provides. The result of that experience will, however indirectly, bring you pleasure, or you wouldn't choose it.
Any music that provides you with experiences that you're glad to have can be said to be about pleasure, however harrowing, challenging, innovative, retrospective, alienating, or welcoming the music itself might (seem to) be.
Spot on. For a listener this sums it up succinctly and clearly. For a player, like M, I'm sure it doesn't; composers too would disagree. Hard to find fault if you're just a listener though, as according to M your comprehension would be pretty much nil (not that he'd get far as a pro without our support, however).
Quote from: ezodisy on June 07, 2008, 10:23:22 AM
as according to M your comprehension would be pretty much nil
That's not what M said.
Quote from: M forever on June 07, 2008, 10:25:26 AM
That's not what M said.
my apologies then. Though I admit I have little understanding of music, one thing I do know is why I listen to it and what limits it has for me personally (which of course I extend well out beyond myself ;) ).
Perhaps, if one listens to music only in order to gain pleasure, it becomes easy to think that only pleasure is to be gained from music. But many of us listen to it--and play it--for other reasons too. Or else why would I and others deliberately seek out music that is not "pleasurable" in the traditional sense on first hearing?
Story time: Once in my grandmother's last years, I went to visit her and found that she and I could not communicate. She was too much in the world of the distant past for me to say anything about my world. Finally, in desperation, I began to sing to her The Old Rugged Cross, which I knew she would know or at least respond to. She said, "That's pretty." Encouraged, I went on to sing "Holy, Holy, Holy." She sang with me! It was the only time during the visit--and the last time--that we communicated at all, yet for that moment, despite her cracked voice, we were sharing something very precious to both of us.
Now tell me one more time about how pleasure is the be-all and end-all in music...
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 11:43:34 AM
"Who ever learned anything from music except the emotional power of music ?... It's a thin rather than an intellectually thick art form... Music is simply a cultural narcotic, but without the long-range costs that other drugs exact"
--Sigmund Freud
****************
To what extent was he right about this ? Or was he completely wrong ?
The older I get the more true it seems.
Based on his comment my guess is Freud didn't watch much opera :-\.
marvin
M,
I would like to say one last thing:
You were very insulting and rude to me on this thread, suggesting that I don't understand music... What NONSENSE!
I adore music...You don't know who I am, OK ?
And let me just say that anyone who ranks Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande, Verdi's Falstaff, Strauss' Elektra, Schoenberg's Moses und Aron, Berlioz' Les Troyens, Monteverdi's The Coronation Of Poppea, and Wagner's Gotterdammerung as his top favorite operas is no dummy, OK ?
Have a good evening.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 07, 2008, 04:52:51 PM
You were very insulting and rude to me on this thread, suggesting that I don't understand music... What NONSENSE!
I didn't say that.
The fact, however, that you keep repeating that is, from your own words, proof that you are an individual of very limited intellectual capability with only very basic understanding of the complexity of the cultural phenomenon we call "music". That you like to listen to music doesn't mean that you understand that phenomenon completely -
and you are certainly far from being able to judge the role music plays in human cultures in general.
Like I said, I like to eat, that doesn't mean I know everything about eating and cooking and food and everything that's connected with it.
I still like to eat though. However, I don't feel the need to hold dramatic speeches about that and related subjects.
I said that music is a very, very, very complex cultural phenomenon which can not be easily understood and discussed in simplistic terms. Nobody completely "understands" music and its role in our cultures, so why does someone like you, who is only an interested amateur with very little understanding of the subject, have to make these dramatic statments about it?
It shows that you are not very intelligent and intellectually self-critical that you feel the need to produce yourself in this way.
Sometimes, it is just better to shut up about stuff you don't understand. I don't blabla out dramatic statements about subjects I don't get either. What mental problems of yours lead to your need to make a fool out of yourself in this way, I don't know, and I don't want to know.
Quote from: M forever on June 07, 2008, 05:12:06 PMYou are an individual of very limited intellectual capability
Is my worth as a person proportional to the level of my conceptual and reasoning abilities ?
Was Freud right about anything?
I don't rank people according to their "worth", but it makes sense that somebody like you would ask such a silly question.
Personally, I don't think a person's "worth" has much to do with how "intellectual" they are. You apparently do, and so you feel the need to pretend to be very intellectual about something you hardly understand at all. That makes you come across as totally ridiculous. I don't see why you should do that to yourself. There is no need to. Or maybe there is. But nobody here is interested in your personal dramas and traumas. This is a chitchat forum for discussing music (and a few other subjects), not a therapy forum for people like you. You don't have anything of interest for other people to say about music. Everything you say is about yourself only. And that, frankly, is not very interesting.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on June 07, 2008, 05:49:46 PM
Was Freud right about anything?
Well apparently Mahler found help from him when he found out Alma wasn't being loyal to him.
Quote from: M forever on June 07, 2008, 05:54:41 PMPersonally, I don't think a person's "worth" has much to do with how "intellectual" they are. You apparently do, and so you feel the need to pretend to be very intellectual about something you hardly understand at all. That makes you come across as totally ridiculous.
I don't see why you should do that to yourself. There is no need to
M,
Believe it or not I actually feel a bit better now.... Thank you for this.
The problem is that in most Western societies, men are programmed from childhood to base their self-esteem on how well they grasp abstract concepts, reason analytically, adjust in social situations and so on..
I berate myself constantly for my intellectual slowness.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 07, 2008, 04:52:51 PM
M,
I would like to say one last thing:
You were very insulting and rude to me on this thread, suggesting that I don't understand music... What NONSENSE!
I adore music...You don't know who I am, OK ?
And let me just say that anyone who ranks Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande, Verdi's Falstaff, Strauss' Elektra, Schoenberg's Moses und Aron, Berlioz' Les Troyens, Monteverdi's The Coronation Of Poppea, and Wagner's Gotterdammerung as his top favorite operas is no dummy, OK ?
Have a good evening.
Pink, forgive me, but what is your aim with all of this? To convert everybody?
Let's say you finally succeed in a wholesale, worldwide conversion to your way of musical thinking. Then what? Would you finally feel validated in your feelings? About music, I mean.
If the entire world finally succumbed to "Pink's Pleasure Law Of Music" what would you hope to gain? If it's your aim to eliminate all 'musical technicians' (musicians/composers/critics like Freud) then who'd be left to CREATE the music, INTERPRET the music, and COMMENT on the music??
Music just doesn't spring into being out of thin air! It has to be first molded and crafted by the composer, using inspiration AND technical ability; then studied/examined by an interpreter with the aim of assimilating the musical language into said interpreter's personal library which is then drawn upon to reproduce the music; and lastly oggled over and critiqued by all manner of folk from critics (like Freud and a whole host of others you repeatedly "quote") to laymen like you and me.
See how technical it all is??
And being a listener yourself if your brain couldn't analyze and decipher and decode and whatever else you wouldn't even be able to RECOGNIZE emotion in music (art) at all!!
So zero would be gained by erasing from our consciousness the technical side of the creation/recreation of music. We'd all be walking around bumping our heads together and wondering where all our aesthetic pleasure went...
Quote from: Operahaven on June 07, 2008, 06:26:30 PM
The problem is that in most Western societies, men are programmed from childhood to base their self-esteem on how well they grasp abstract concepts, reason analytically, adjust in social situations and so on..
LOL Tell that to my grade-school (that's "elementary" school for you younger folks) classmates back in rural Nebraska who were constantly teasing me because I liked to read the encyclopedia! ::) Tell that to any number of guys in city high schools who deliberately lower their grades or drop because it's not "cool" to be intellectual or understand abstract concepts! You may have been "programmed" as you describe, but the trend in much of the US is definitely the reverse: being intellectual is "weird," not "cool." :'(
Sorry for that off-topic rant :-[ ; you inadvertently hit a nerve. I have developed my own intellectual capacity not because it was "cool," but in the face of considerable opposition from people who neither understood nor wanted to understand. Fortunately, most of my current friends like and respect such things--that's one reason they're my friends. 8)
[End of off-topic rant. ;D]
Quote from: jochanaan on June 08, 2008, 08:04:53 AM
You may have been "programmed" as you describe, but the trend in much of the US is definitely the reverse: being intellectual is "weird," not "cool." :'(
It is like that everywhere IMO, and always has been (outside of elite educational institutions).
Quote from: Lethe on June 08, 2008, 08:17:41 AM
It is like that everywhere IMO, and always has been (outside of elite educational institutions).
I agree, especially on the "always has been". I attended "elementary school" starting in 1955, and it took no time at all to become an outsider because I applied myself and always finished pick of the litter. As Jo says, liked to read the encyclopedia and such. I picked up the nickname "Doctor Gurn" as early as 3rd grade. And not always said fondly, I might add. Of course, even then my attitude was "screw 'em", but I know that not everyone can do that. Pity, really. :(
8)
----------------
Listening to:
La Gaia Scienza - Schubert D 929 Piano Trio in Eb 1st mvmt - Allegro
It's not necessarily like that everywhere. When I went to school in Berlin, being smart was seen as being "cool", too, just like being able to play an instrument or do other things, or being good at sports. It didn't really matter so much. Actually being good at sports is something which is respected but it is not seen as so dramatically important as it is here. And you can't get into university because you are good at throwing a leather egg.
Quote from: M forever on June 08, 2008, 10:24:27 AM
It's not necessarily like that everywhere. When I went to school in Berlin, being smart was seen as being "cool", too, just like being able to play an instrument or do other things, or being good at sports. It didn't really matter so much. Actually being good at sports is something which is respected but it is not seen as so dramatically important as it is here. And you can't get into university because you are good at throwing a leather egg.
That is a good ideal, and one that should be emulated here, but it isn't. Being good at sports, or else being a rebel against anything that represents establishment values, is the ONLY thing that's cool.
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Lafayette Quartet / Kubalek - Dvorak Quintet in A for Piano & Srings No 2 Op 81 1st mvmt
Sorry to hear that. In my school, music evenings (on which the schol orchestra and chorus and individual groups played) were just as well attended as football (you would say "soccer") games between schools, pretty much the entire school came to both and other types of events and cheered.
In response to M forever's perceptions, I'd say Operahaven is probably just young or inexperienced in scientific reasoning. Which is more true?
No. M was right. Operahaven said so himself. I freed him from a vicious circle in which he was trapped, thinking that he needed to show intellectuality about something that he doesn't understand to prove his "worth".
Quote from: M forever on June 07, 2008, 10:06:22 AM
Nobody says anybody is "right" or "wrong" about music. Music is a very complex cultural phenomenon which can not be discussed in simplistic statements. It is obviously completely beyond your horizon anyway. Your last sentence there is just verbal diarrhoea.
Although its comforting to say a person cannot be 'right' or 'wrong' about music, I assert that it is more plausible to say a person is 'wrong' about music. This may be argued further.
M, I'd also be aware of you tossing around music as a 'cultural phenomenon.' I believe types of music can be classified as 'cultural phenomena,' however I don't see music as an entity itself being a cultural phenomenon.
As for your inquiry about what Dr. Patel means, I will tell you exactly what he means after I attend his lecture.
Thanks.
Quote from: M forever on June 08, 2008, 10:24:27 AM
It's not necessarily like that everywhere. When I went to school in Berlin, being smart was seen as being "cool", too, just like being able to play an instrument or do other things, or being good at sports. It didn't really matter so much. Actually being good at sports is something which is respected but it is not seen as so dramatically important as it is here. And you can't get into university because you are good at throwing a leather egg.
You are very lucky, M. I hope you never forget it. 8)
whoa..... being smart was considered "cool"?
that sounds like an alien planet.... interesting 8)
Quote from: btpaul674 on June 08, 2008, 01:08:11 PM
M, I'd also be aware of you tossing around music as a 'cultural phenomenon.' I believe types of music can be classified as 'cultural phenomena,' however I don't see music as an entity itself being a cultural phenomenon.
What exactly does
that mean?
Quote from: btpaul674 on June 08, 2008, 01:08:11 PM
As for your inquiry about what Dr. Patel means, I will tell you exactly what he means after I attend his lecture.
Well, uh...you quoted him, didn't you? Why did you quote him when you didn't understand what he meant either? Because it sounded so nice and intellectual?
Quote from: Operahaven on June 06, 2008, 03:43:29 PM
M,
Plato said in the Republic that........ "when a man abandons himself to music he begins to melt and liquefy"
Is he also wrong (along with Freud) in your opinion ?
Eric, Freud's remark makes a sociological assertion about music (which possibly he did not mean to be taken as the dogma which, peculiarly, you are trying to make it); Plato's is a pleasantly vague simile. The two statements operate on entirely different planes, in the first place.
In the second, how exactly does one interpret Plato's simile, so as to weigh whether he is "wrong"?
Well, I have never seen any human being melt upon the application of music; so Plato is obviously wrong.
Quote from: kristopaivinen on June 08, 2008, 11:24:16 AM
In response to M forever's perceptions, I'd say Operahaven is probably just young or inexperienced in scientific reasoning. Which is more true?
Well,
Eric isn't young enough to merit youth's benefit of doubt; he's just stuck in lazy (and self-referential) ruts of thought.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 09, 2008, 03:30:18 AM
...Well, I have never seen any human being melt upon the application of music; so Plato is obviously wrong.
Oh, I don't know; some music induces a pleasantly liquid sensation in me, as if I were dissolving into the ether... There's a metaphor and a simile for you! :D
And, it being June, playing Blue Shamrock will force my sweat glands into a state approaching overdrive.
Say, jochanaan! What about an English horn edition of Blue Shamrock? ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on June 09, 2008, 10:05:25 AM
And, it being June, playing Blue Shamrock will force my sweat glands into a state approaching overdrive.
Say, jochanaan! What about an English horn edition of Blue Shamrock? ;D
Well, here in Denver it might not be too liquefying! ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on June 09, 2008, 03:32:15 AM
Well, Eric isn't young enough to merit youth's benefit of doubt; he's just stuck in lazy (and self-referential) ruts of thought.
No.
Given the outlandishness of some of his recent statements, I am convinced that he does it to spark 'discussion,' but not of the kind found in a Platonic dialog. No, imagine the final, fatal interview between Settembrini and Naphta in Mann's
Der Zauberberg. That is the conversation sparked. In most cases, we are forced to sit by as a collective Castorp and watch the endgame play itself out to the conclusion we all saw in the distance.
Patrick,
No.
And it's not like we are discussing politics, sex or religion here..... No, the fundamental question is whether or not music is a biological imperative.
Do you have a counterargument to Mr. Patel's thesis:
"Music is quintessentially human but not innate..... Music is neither a biological adaptation nor a hedonic diversion that simply piggybacks on preexisting cognitive systems. Instead, it is a transformational cognitive technology which builds on preexisting brain systems and which transforms our experience of the world"
Quote from: Operahaven on June 09, 2008, 04:14:27 PM
Patrick,
No.
And it's not like we are discussing politics, sex or religion here..... No, the fundamental question is whether or not music is a biological imperative.
Do you have a counterargument to Mr. Patel's thesis:
"Music is quintessentially human but not innate..... Music is neither a biological adaptation nor a hedonic diversion that simply piggybacks on preexisting cognitive systems. Instead, it is a transformational cognitive technology which builds on preexisting brain systems and which transforms our experience of the world"
No.
I suppose it's our new style to put a 'No' at the top of every reply, which, while I'll admit that it has an air of Mynheer Peeperkorn to it, strikes me as nonsensical. While I refuse, on principle, to have the content of my content dictated by you except in the broadest sense, I will say that it's strange to have you pushing Patel's position on me, since it really undermines your attempts at an argument to this point. I'll, in a Fermat-like (or is it Iago-like) fit of taciturnity, leave it to you to figure out how, which cannot help but make my confusion with your request manifest.
In any event, I stand by my meta-commentary on these notes toward a discussion of a new aesthetic.
In other words, "What you know, you know..."
Patrick,
Is music a biological imperative ?
Is it possible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without music ?
Quote from: Operahaven on June 09, 2008, 04:45:08 PM
Patrick,
Is music a biological imperative ?
Why does it matter? What effect would accrue as a result of some biological impulse to melody and harmony? Your question is, to my mind, meaningless. That is to say that the answer has no real value: If music is some biological imperative, then why dither around about it like some of us like to do? If not, well, then are we going to stop making it out of some sense of biologically reductive utilitarianism? Heavens, no. Music will continue without an answer to this question, therefore the question is irrelevant to any discussion. Also, it's a meta-question, which requires a different dialectical syntax than the one with which you have bludgeoned this point
ad extremum.
QuoteIs it possible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without music ?
Not having tried, I wouldn't know. Once again, why does it matter? First of all, it's a question beyond any semblance of a real answer - making it, actually, more meaningless than your first query. That is to say that music, of one form or another, has been around long enough that it would be well nigh impossible to consider a time or place without music to consider whether one could, given the proper context, "live a rich and fulfilling life." Secondly, your terms are so relative as to be - well - meaningless without some sort of framing or specificity. What I consider a rich and fulfilling life could be dread torture to another. Your question, once again, doesn't do anything except take up bandwidth. If these are the premises of your "discussion" here, which term I use out of a sense of charity and compassion, then I recommend shifting the topic. You have, like the man in a particular sermon, built a theoretical house on sand.
If you're going to dictate the content of my content, then you could at least give me something with which to work, as opposed to intellectually vacuous propositions without substance or consequence.
QuoteIs it possible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without music ?
there's actually no way to test this.....
Quote from: PSmith08 on June 09, 2008, 04:39:08 PM
while I'll admit that it has an air of Mynheer Peeperkorn to it, strikes me as nonsensical.
No. ;D
If anything it reminds me of Naptha's "False!", but that is giving O.H. too much credit. Peeperkorn doesn't exactly fit, either — he had personality, didn't he?
Okay, back to the topic. I can't help but comment when Mann is involved. :D
Patrick,
You're right of course.... How could I have forgotten that this is part of the enduring "nature vs. nurture" question about human behavior... :-[
As usual I am confusing cause and effect.... The fact that music often has the effect of entertaining does not mean that its causes are only cultural, not at all biological. For example, dining out in a restaurant is entertaining and is not essential, but that doesn't mean that the need for food is cultural rather than biological. This raises the question of what needs music might fulfill... Now that I think about it this is so darn complex because culture itself can be considered to be of biological derivation... :-[
Corey,
Are you saying that I have no personality ?
Quote from: Operahaven on June 09, 2008, 06:03:05 PM
Corey,
Are you saying that I have no personality ?
No. In the
The Magic Mountain, the Peeperkorn character is the quintessence of a "personality", so it's not an insult to have a weak personality in comparison with his description. But PSmith and I are just engaging in some referential humor, don't take it too seriously.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on June 09, 2008, 05:38:49 PM
there's actually no way to test this.....
Ask someone who's been deaf since birth? (My father is literally tone-deaf--ie: he can't hear pitches--and he seems to have had a pretty rich and fulfilling life without music.)
Quote from: edward on June 09, 2008, 06:23:43 PM
Ask someone who's been deaf since birth? (My father is literally tone-deaf--ie: he can't hear pitches--and he seems to have had a pretty rich and fulfilling life without music.)
Yes, plenty of people get along just fine without music in their lives.
Quote from: Corey on June 09, 2008, 05:46:30 PM
No. ;D
If anything it reminds me of Naptha's "False!", but that is giving O.H. too much credit. Peeperkorn doesn't exactly fit, either — he had personality, didn't he?
Okay, back to the topic. I can't help but comment when Mann is involved. :D
I understand. After a solid academic year's worth of work on
Der Tod in Venedig, Mann has sort of taken over my life. Well, in any event, I was referring to Peeperkorn's disjointed syntax. The exchange of "no," while certainly friendly to Settembrini and Naphta's
agon for the mind - if not the heart - of young Castorp, seems more like something Peeperkorn would say, right before ingesting another regalement.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 09, 2008, 05:59:06 PM
Patrick,
You're right of course.... How could I have forgotten that this is part of the enduring "nature vs. nurture" question about human behavior... :-[
As usual I am confusing cause and effect.... The fact that music often has the effect of entertaining does not mean that its causes are only cultural, not at all biological. For example, dining out in a restaurant is entertaining and is not essential, but that doesn't mean that the need for food is cultural rather than biological. This raises the question of what needs music might fulfill... Now that I think about it this is so darn complex because culture itself can be considered to be of biological derivation... :-[
I'm not kidding when I say that your meta-explorations of music require a different dialectical syntax than the one you have heretofore used. You're thinking about an accident of a substance without thinking about the substance.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 09, 2008, 04:14:27 PM
...Mr. Patel's thesis:
"Music is quintessentially human but not innate..... Music is neither a biological adaptation nor a hedonic diversion that simply piggybacks on preexisting cognitive systems. Instead, it is a transformational cognitive technology which builds on preexisting brain systems and which transforms our experience of the world"
You choose a strange thesis to support your original claim that music is "a narcotic" without intellectual value. "...a transformational cognitive technology" that "...transforms our experience of the world" -- That sounds like a lot more than mere "entertainment."
Let me ask you a question in return: Do you believe that humans have souls, or spirits? Or something that isn't just our bodies? For the record, I do, and it transforms my own worldview. It makes me unable to accept that we are merely our biology...
And my experiences as a performing musician have convinced me that music encourages, almost forces, our bodies, minds and spirits to re-unify and act together. The effect is most profound for musical performers, yet it exists even in those who just listen. This is how music can heal the world.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 09, 2008, 04:45:08 PM
Is music a biological imperative ?
Yes.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 09, 2008, 04:45:08 PM
Is it possible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without music ?
Probably not. All people of all ethnic, racial or social groups have music. It is one of the fundamental elements of "modern man" which is shared by all people, like language and a few other traits. People have probably sung and danced for tens of thousands of years.
Is talking about stuff that is beyond your horizon with borrowed vocabulary and arguments a biological imperative for you?
Is it possible for you to live a rich and fulfilled life without pretending to be smarter than you really are?
Quote from: Operahaven on June 09, 2008, 04:45:08 PM
Is it possible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without music ?
Heaven help the deaf.
Quote from: jochanaan on June 09, 2008, 08:10:27 PMLet me ask you a question in return: Do you believe that humans have souls, or spirits?
Jochanaan,
Well, I believe in the existence of supernatural beings but disbelieve that we were endowed with immortality beyond this temporal life..
Quote from: M forever on June 09, 2008, 08:16:51 PMProbably not.
Then how do you explain Edward's father ?
C'mon. Everyone knows a happy someone who doesn't particularly care for music. Or doesn't find it that important.
In order to reply to a slurry of posts with people talking about biological adaptations and biological imperatives, perhaps a bit of reading might help clear up what is exactly meant under these terms.
Here is a good article on the subject from 1999. Mind you this research is now 9 years outdated, which is considerable. But it poses some of the same questions we are answering today.
http://www.musiccog.ohio-state.edu/Music220/Bloch.lectures/2.Origins.html
Please read Huron's book,
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10903
And Ani Patel's new book, which is a bit more relevant to our topic here.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Medicine/Neuroscience/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTEyMzc1Mw==
This bad boy is one of the most recent footholds in music cognition literature.
There is also the distinction between people who live without music and people who can't hear sounds. This distinction doesn't seem to be made here. Some people, such as Dr. Temple Grandin, suffer from Asperger's type of autism. She thinks music is 'pretty' but doesn't understand why people love it so much. Sacks has a good section of his book about her, as well as numerous other people. It's a famous case.
There are plenty of studies of deaf people who enjoy music. Most of the case studies reveal individuals who 'feel' the music rather than hear.
M, as far as the intellectual 'screen' we are discussing here, my goal is to parse this information as much as possible, not to confound it with 'intellectual' banter.
I quote Patel directly because I want to put it in his words. If you want me to parse his statement, here is what his lecture is about: Music isn't biologically necessary for survival (implies it is not genetically encoded; also in support of an evolutionary standpoint) nor is music just a casual diversion. (Has more meaning than say, dropping acid or for mere pleasure.) Patel says it is a 'technology' created by humans that builds off of existing cognitive systems (language, creation, memory, thought processing) which enhances our world (alters perspective, helps with memory, creates prejudices/breaks prejudices, used as a tool/used as entertainment etc etc [any applicable possible human act])
This is Patel's current conclusion from his evidence.
Quote from: btpaul674 on June 10, 2008, 07:21:27 AM
There is also the distinction between people who live without music and people who can't hear sounds.
Although, of course,
Beethoven,
Smetana &
Evelyn Glennie are famous examples of people who people who can't hear sounds and yet do not
live without music.
Quote from: mn dave on June 10, 2008, 07:18:36 AM
C'mon. Everyone knows a happy someone who doesn't particularly care for music.
The simple fact; thank you,
Dave!
Is it possible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without sculpture?
Eric thinks that Freud was right in setting music down as a "cultural narcotic"; additionally, he apparently thinks it impossible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without music.
So what Eric seem to be implying is, all the world needs narcotics.
Not sure just what Eric's been smoking . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on June 10, 2008, 07:32:59 AM
Eric thinks that Freud was right in setting music down as a "cultural narcotic"; additionally he apparently thinks it impossible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without music.
But is it possible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life while listening to Freud?
Or does anyone who attempts this end up like a character in a Woody Allen movie?
Quote from: bwv 1080 on June 10, 2008, 09:20:40 AM
But is it possible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life while listening to Freud?
Or does anyone who attempts this end up like a character in a Woody Allen movie?
:D
Quote from: btpaul674 on June 10, 2008, 07:21:27 AMMusic isn't biologically necessary for survival (implies it is not genetically encoded; also in support of an evolutionary standpoint)
That is very true.
QuotePatel says it is a 'technology' created by humans that builds off of existing cognitive systems (language, creation, memory, thought processing) which enhances our world (alters perspective, helps with memory, creates prejudices/breaks prejudices, used as a tool/used as entertainment etc etc [any applicable possible human act])
This is Patel's current conclusion from his evidence.
That really makes a lot of sense also.
But why is it so difficult for
M to understand and accept this ?
Quote from: edward on June 09, 2008, 06:23:43 PM
Ask someone who's been deaf since birth? (My father is literally tone-deaf--ie: he can't hear pitches--and he seems to have had a pretty rich and fulfilling life without music.)
ahhhhhhhhh ok, gotcha. Didn't consider the deaf.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 10, 2008, 07:32:59 AM
Eric thinks that Freud was right in setting music down as a "cultural narcotic"; additionally, he apparently thinks it impossible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without music.
So what Eric seem to be implying is, all the world needs narcotics.
Not sure just what Eric's been smoking . . . .
Whatever it is, his dealer fleeced him.
Quote from: mn dave on June 10, 2008, 07:18:36 AM
C'mon. Everyone knows a happy someone who doesn't particularly care for music. Or doesn't find it that important.
Actually, I don't. When you start probing, you find that, with the probably exception of those deaf from birth (as the estimable Ms. Glennie is not, I should point out), just about everyone has some kind of music they care for. Many don't care for OUR music, yet like some kind of music from somewhere. My stepfather is a good example. A rancher from a Western state, classical music means nothing to him--but he dearly loves old Gospel hymns and Lawrence Welk-style swing, the sort of music that was popular in his early years.
Leonard Bernstein stated it well in a song: "I Hate Music--but I love to sing." :)
Quote from: jochanaan on June 10, 2008, 12:33:03 PM
Actually, I don't. When you start probing, you find that, with the probably exception of those deaf from birth (as the estimable Ms. Glennie is not, I should point out), just about everyone has some kind of music they care for. Many don't care for OUR music, yet like some kind of music from somewhere. My stepfather is a good example. A rancher from a Western state, classical music means nothing to him--but he dearly loves old Gospel hymns and Lawrence Welk-style swing, the sort of music that was popular in his early years.
Leonard Bernstein stated it well in a song: "I Hate Music--but I love to sing." :)
Sure, if you probe. But does he listen to it now? He puts it on once a month--maybe? But is that someone who can't live without music?
If so, I'm sure there's someone else you can think of. ;)
Quote from: mn dave on June 10, 2008, 12:36:39 PM
Sure, if you probe. But does he listen to it now? He puts it on once a month--maybe?
He listens to Lawrence Welk whenever it's on TV if he can. Perhaps he can "get along" without it, but I suspect his life would be much poorer and less joyful.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 10, 2008, 09:48:01 AM
That is very true.
That really makes a lot of sense also.
But why is it so difficult for M to understand and accept this ?
I can't speak to M, or even
M, but the fact that a small minority of people don't respond to music doesn't much disturb me. The majority of people do, and the majority of cultures have developed some kinds of art forms like music, dance, art, and poetry. Whether this is a biological imperative or not I'm not qualified to say, but it certainly seems to have been a common cultural phenomenon in many diverse and independent societies.
I looked at the passage from Patel quoted by Operahaven, who says it makes a lot of sense, but to me it sounds like a lot of sociological jargon and it appears most crucially not to consider music as an art. And to think of it as an art is the best response I can give to Freud's theory that music is a narcotic.
Freud's objection to music seems to be that it lacks ideas in the intellectual sense, unlike perhaps King Lear where we learn to be kind to our old parents and Hamlet where we learn to be true to ourselves. But music is not the only art form that does not necessarily present intellectual ideas; could not the same be said of painting, sculpture, and ballet? In fact the Victorian aesthetician Walter Pater developed a theory that music is the ideal art precisely because it has no intellectual ideas, and thus there is no distinction between content in music and form:
QuoteAll art constantly aspires towards the condition of music. For while in all other kinds of art it is possible to distinguish the matter from the form, and the understanding can always make this distinction, yet it is the constant effort of art to obliterate it. That the mere matter of a poem, for instance, its subject, namely, its given incidents or situation — that the mere matter of a picture, the actual circumstances of an event, the actual topography of a landscape — should be nothing without the form, the spirit, of the handling, that this form, this mode of handling, should become an end in itself, should penetrate every part of the matter: this is what all art constantly strives after, and achieves in different degrees.
Or rather, one might say that with music, the content is the materials and language of the musical discussion. Last weekend I spent time with Beethoven's A major sonata, op. 101, and I was struck in the first movement by the fact that in this almost four-minute piece, one does not hear a tonic chord in root position until the movement is ¾ over. I'm sure there will be a lot of eye-rolling in some quarters over this statement. Technical mumbo-jumbo, nothing to do with emotions, and all the rest. But any "technical" device a composer uses has an aesthetic or emotional result, and this first movement of the op. 101 has been greatly loved for its unusually lyric quality (it was a favorite of Glenn Gould, who had serious reservations about a lot of the most popular Beethoven). In this movement, instead of firmly establishing the tonic key at the outset with root position triads, Beethoven starts on the dominant, but is able to imply A major with sufficient stability that he can write a nearly seamless exposition that modulates to the dominant key without having ever explicitly stated the tonic. That, along with other aspects of the piece, such as its gently rocking 6/8 rhythm frequently characterized by ties over the bar (which thus diffuses our sense of strong downbeats), contributes to the feeling many listeners get that this is a particularly treasurable lyric poem in music.
Now I strongly doubt that Beethoven said to himself, "Ach! today I will write a piece where I withhold the tonic chord in root position for 50 measures!" But being a composer thoroughly immersed in the implications of the tonal language he used, Beethoven's musical intelligence recognized on some level that this would be a very productive means of realizing the emotional state he intended his listeners to experience. By withholding the tonic in root position for so long, Beethoven eliminates any kind of heavy-handedness in his handling of the tonal language. And just like the painter's tools of his art – his ideas - are things like color, perspective, design, etc., the composer's tools are things like melody, harmony, rhythm, and tonality. The composer's intelligence shapes these into a work of art, creating sculptures or paintings in tones. This calls for a high degree of awareness and intellect, and thus is the opposite of anything that could be called a narcotic.
Not on the composer's part, that is. But what about the listener's? Does the listener need to know terms and concepts like tonic chords and 6/8 rhythm? Perhaps not, and I would never suggest that a technical education is necessary to enjoy music; but I think even a non-technical listener who is made aware of Beethoven's use of musical language is likely to have a deeper regard for what goes into shaping a work of art. That withholding of the tonic chord in op. 101 is hardly arbitrary. It is instead a perfect example of Beethoven's musical intellect working on its highest level.
I believe Freud also called religion the opiate for the masses; I'm sure many would argue.
Freud was always skilled at making poignant remarks without further explanation.
With regard to his comment on music, he can shove it.
Quote from: Operahaven on June 10, 2008, 09:48:01 AM
But why is it so difficult for M to understand and accept this ?
I don't know if I accept this or not. I never said I do or don't. You don't know that either. You don't know much about anything, it seems. You certainly know shit about music. You probably can't even play 3 coherent notes on an instrument. But you think you can completely understand the subject and make dramatic statements about it. Apparently, you are suffering from some deep trauma which gives you that need to pretend to be very intellectual about things you don't understand. I thought we had already been over that and you had realized that there is no need for you to get on other people's nerves in this way. But you persistently do, even after people have given you the priviledge of their attention and patentiently explained to you all that stuff.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 10, 2008, 07:12:39 PM
I can't speak to M, or even M, but the fact that a small minority of people don't respond to music doesn't much disturb me. The majority of people do, and the majority of cultures have developed some kinds of art forms like music, dance, art, and poetry. Whether this is a biological imperative or not I'm not qualified to say, but it certainly seems to have been a common cultural phenomenon in many diverse and independent societies.
ALL known cultures have developed music.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 10, 2008, 07:12:39 PM
I looked at the passage from Patel quoted by Operahaven, who says it makes a lot of sense, but to me it sounds like a lot of sociological jargon and it appears most crucially not to consider music as an art. And to think of it as an art is the best response I can give to Freud's theory that music is a narcotic.
Saying music is an art doesn't answer any questions we have about why it exists or how we use and listen to it. And from Patel's standpoint, if it was a form of 'jargon' as you say, it would be 'cognitive' or 'psychological' jargon, not 'sociological' jargon. Moreover, Patel does address music as an art. Art is a human technology. And I reiterate, Art does not explain music.
Freud also isn't aware of advances in cognitive science. I see little relevance in most of his works, though I acknowledge their importance.
Sforzando, I think I get what you are saying in the rest of your post. Now I am a little toasted right now, :-[ If I may summarize, you are saying
"The knowledge of technical nomenclature of musical events is not necessary for the enjoyment of music, but it is necessary to help make deeper assessments and create higher-level abstractions of the operating aesthetics"
Then I agree. After I learned terms like 'cadential 6/4' 'retrograde inversion' 'transpositional operation (in tonal music)' and 'deceptive cadence' and
to hear them my listening experience was enhanced 1000 fold. Hell, every time a cadential 6/4 with scale degree 5 jumping down an octave then up a 4th I want to scream (in a good way) . Every time I hear a picardy third I want to smash nearby objects (in a bad way).
In other words, you can't play music either. But you think you know what it is because you read some very intellectual quotes.
Quote from: M forever on June 10, 2008, 08:39:30 PM
In other words, you can't play music either. But you think you know what it is because you read some very intellectual quotes.
;D
Oh, but I can. I am giving a recital of Rautavaara's piano music next spring.
Nice try, cheeky slag.
I am planning to start a new career as ballet dancer next spring, too. OK, before that, I will have to lose 150 pounds and learn how to actually dance, but I can just do it like you and read a few books, collect a few cool quotes that no one really gets but that people won't question because they don't want to admit they didn't get it (which is the smoke screen effect people like you use these quotes for).
In other words, come back when you actually have some experience as a performing musician, not when you plan to. That really isn't so interesting for other people.
Or - do you actually have something of your own to contribute here? I mean, something you haven't just copied and pasted from somewhere else? Something that is the result of your own thinking and experience?
Quote from: M forever on June 10, 2008, 09:30:44 PM
I am planning to start a new career as ballet dancer next spring, too. OK, before that, I will have to lose 150 pounds and learn how to actually dance, but I can just do it like you and read a few books, collect a few cool quotes that no one really gets but that people won't question because they don't want to admit they didn't get it (which is the smoke screen effect people like you use these quotes for).
Man, just diet and exercise and that 150 will fly off! No supplements or programs necessary. Oh, anyway, they are pretty cool quotes. I think a lot of people do get them. No, really. It's all the english language. And we are all capable of abstraction.
Quote from: M forever on June 10, 2008, 09:30:44 PM
In other words, come back when you actually have some experience as a performing musician, not when you plan to. That really isn't so interesting for other people.
Me being a performance major validates me as a scholar of music? Well that's why I haven't earned the Wallace Berry award. ass! 8)
Quote from: M forever on June 10, 2008, 09:30:44 PM
Or - do you actually have something of your own to contribute here? I mean, something you haven't just copied and pasted from somewhere else? Something that is the result of your own thinking and experience?
I think I have, actually. Would Patel's lecture even be in discussion had I not posted?? There is no way to know! And you have helped this thread by....
Quote from: btpaul674 on June 10, 2008, 08:34:16 PM
Every time I hear a picardy third I want to smash nearby objects (in a bad way).
You want to smash nearby objects every time Bach ends a piece in minor mode with a final chord in the tonic major? Would you make an exception for the Eb minor prelude from WTC I, or the opening chorus of the St. Matthew Passion?
My primary point, in response to Freud, was that in musical composition at least, a great work will reveal a highly organized set of structures that reflects a high degree of musical intellect.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 10, 2008, 07:12:39 PM
I looked at the passage from Patel quoted by Operahaven, who says it makes a lot of sense, but to me it sounds like a lot of sociological jargon and it appears most crucially not to consider music as an art.
You have found the key,
Sforz:
Eric just likes to bask in the warmth of the sociologcal jargon.
Quote from: M forever on June 10, 2008, 08:39:30 PM
In other words, you can't play music either. But you think you know what it is because you read some very intellectual quotes.
What a delightful laugh so early in the day, thanks,
M!
Quote from: op.110 on June 10, 2008, 07:51:53 PM
I believe Freud also called religion the opiate for the masses; I'm sure many would argue.
Marx, I think.
Quote from: M forever on June 10, 2008, 08:30:43 PMEven after people have given you the priviledge of their attention and patiently explained to you all that stuff. You should be ashamed of yourself.
M,
You're right and I apologize.
Quote from: M forever on June 10, 2008, 08:30:43 PMYou don't know much about anything, it seems.
Do you think I'm a total loser ?
Quote from: op.110 on June 10, 2008, 07:51:53 PM
I believe Freud also called religion the opiate for the masses...
That was Karl Marx. And he was wrong too, at least in that statement.
Here's what you need:
food
clothing
shelter
Anything else is gravy. 8)
Quote from: jochanaan on June 11, 2008, 08:57:07 AM
That was Karl Marx. And he was wrong too, at least in that statement.
Well, he was also wrong back when he was trying to win that beautiful lounge suite:
http://www.youtube.com/v/GB8VZT_UsE8
Quote from: MN Dave on June 11, 2008, 08:59:21 AM
Here's what you need:
food
clothing
shelter
Anything else is gravy. 8)
Wrong. Since we are animals with a very complex social life and a very high degree of interdependency, highly evolved forms of communication and socialization are as essentil to our survival in and as a group as food and shelter (clothing isn't if we live in a benign climate although covering part of the nakedness is something most cultures do to some degree or another, but not all of them). Music can not be separated from other forms of communication and social experience such as language. We simply don't know exactly how these phenomena evolved, and making hollow speeches about the subject in highly professoral language doesn't change that.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 11, 2008, 08:59:21 AM
Here's what you need:
food
clothing
shelter
Anything else is gravy. 8)
And some of us think clothing is optional! ;D
Quote from: M forever on June 11, 2008, 02:25:03 PM
Wrong.
Well, perhaps only slightly wrong, M.
I left out the bear.
(http://scottfredrickson.com/wp-content/uploads/161_bears/grizzly.jpg)
You know...for company. ;D
That's a great photo of M during happier times, Dave!
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 11, 2008, 04:56:45 PM
That's a great photo of M during happier times, Dave!
His woodsy companion sure has some claws on him.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 11, 2008, 05:02:18 PM
His woodsy companion sure has some claws on him.
And a nice jacket, too. :D
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Divertimentos & Sestetto - L'Archibudelli - L'Archibudelli (HIP) - K 320d 364alt Grande Sestetto in Eb (from Sinfonia Concertante) 2nd mvmt - Andante
Quote from: MN Dave on June 11, 2008, 08:59:21 AM
Here's what you need:
food
clothing
shelter
Anything else is gravy. 8)
Modifications under advisement:Quote
Here's what you need:
food
shelter
some medium of communication (music an elective within this group; Stravinsky preferred; Wagner generally not indicated)
Quote from: MN Dave on June 11, 2008, 08:59:21 AM
Here's what you need:
food
clothing bear
shelter
Anything else is gravy. 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 12, 2008, 03:45:55 AM
Modifications under advisement: "some medium of communication (music an elective within this group; Stravinsky preferred; Wagner generally not indicated)"
Hmmm...Better, but even Bach and Mozart would seem to cause a prohibitive number of misunderstandings here... Or maybe not. ;D
Quote from: M forever on June 09, 2008, 08:16:51 PM
Yes.
Probably not. All people of all ethnic, racial or social groups have music. It is one of the fundamental elements of "modern man" which is shared by all people, like language and a few other traits. People have probably sung and danced for tens of thousands of years.
Is talking about stuff that is beyond your horizon with borrowed vocabulary and arguments a biological imperative for you?
Is it possible for you to live a rich and fulfilled life without pretending to be smarter than you really are?
Also, don't forget that Orwell's
1984 was a world without music!
Quote from: Operahaven on June 05, 2008, 11:43:34 AM
"Who ever learned anything from music except the emotional power of music ?... It's a thin rather than an intellectually thick art form... Music is simply a cultural narcotic, but without the long-range costs that other drugs exact"
--Sigmund Freud
****************
To what extent was he right about this ? Or was he completely wrong ?
The older I get the more true it seems.
I'm late to this thread, but I find it amazing that someone who was contemporary with Mahler, Bruckner, Brahms, Schoenberg, Richard Strauss, and so many other brilliant composers should feel this way about music. I suppose that he must have had a tin ear.
Freud lived on the threshold of the understanding that some things that seemed to be deeply hidden in our psyche and which people thought could only be emotionally experienced could be "unearthed" and analyzed. That was his big thing in a time when groundlaying artistic and scientific breakthroughs were made everywhere. It is only understandable that he, a typical child of his time, would try to overemphasize the importance of rationality and reject emitionality and irrationality in order to give his discoveries more room and more importance. Pretty much everybody back then tried to figure out the world completely and come up with complete solutions for everything, so it can't be held too much against him that he saw things more or less exclusively from his angle. That was just normal. Of course, that makes many of his insights rather one-sided and outdated. But I think he still took some very important first steps.