music , mind , thought and emotion


There is not a society on this planet, nor probably ever has been, which is without some form of musical expression, often closely linked with rythm and dance. My question is less concentrated on the latter two however.
What I am pondering boils down to:
What is music and what does it do to us
Why do we differentiate music from random noise so clearly and yet can pick up certain samples within that noise as musical.
By listening to music, we find some perhaps interesting, some which we would call musical. What differentiates "musical music" from "ordinary music" and this again from "noise"?
In a more general sense again:
If music has impact on us, what is the nature of our receptors for it. Or better: Who, what are we, that music can do to us what it does?
What would be the nature of a system, which practically all of us would agree upon, that it imparts musicality best?
And finally, if such a sytem would exist, can this quality be measured?
detlof

Showing 3 responses by marakanetz

Music is just one of the ways to communicate. Instead of speach there could be a sound or a group of. Sometimes like a speach or conversation it has a meaning and sometimes it doesn't.
I believe that music cannot be judged as musical or non-musical.
Music can describe a subject, colour and can also have a characteristics to be either poetical and lyrical or prosaic and descriptive. Music can also be abstract and undefined.

Music can also be scientifically expressed as a result of a physical process that transforms mechanical or electric energy into the audiable oscilations that stress the air with certain force and enrgy. It can be also visualized as an array of linear sinusoidal functions.

As a clear example that by means of sounds you can express a colour even with different ways of representation(Miles Davis's "Aura") and even "Pictures from Exhibition" of Mussorgski. Thus the music can drive the human's fantasy not only visualizing the unaudiable subjects as colour or pictures but make it audiable.

Certainly hearing the Mile's representation of colours it's difficult to hear any particular colour without looking at the track listing but after understanding the concept of Mile's masterpiece you realize that he's realy representing in his own way red blue green etc...

When you visit Tret'yakoff Galery in Moscow be ready to have a pocket player to turn Mussorgski's "Pictures from Exhibition" when you start walking by the pictures he's audialized. Simply an outstanding experience! You will never forget the view of these pictures and the way they were described by one of the great russian composers.

Music can also be heard as a story, tale or the poem

Jazz, Rock'n'roll, Blues, Metal, Pop etc... are the simplified versions of music that basically focuses on entertainment on its original meaning.

In many cases when I listen to the music I always try to find some meaning that it could be some village or city, colour or picture. Very often I might realize that the music is based on some portraits of Picasso where not everything is perfect.
Leo Brouer(cuban guitar composer) made out his version of famous cuban lulliby that also doesn't seem to be perfect meaning that "you can't just sleep and see your dreams nowdays, cub"

All other different characteristics such as consonance, dissonance, musical un-musical are only statistical values.
Detlof,

What is the unity measure of quality or how would you define for example QP(quality point)?

I believe that this value can only be measurad statistically.

Now realize how many people will say that I love my small boom-box with the huge CD collection that I listen every day... Basing on that research you can come to a conclusion that Bose system is the best.

As I've mentioned before that music is more likely communication and the quality of the system is mainly statistics.

Music can also have a statistical factor of human's appreciation vs. system which needs to be determined from the different "angles".

For example:

Who has larger appreciation factor to the music the one who has 20 records and/or CDs and $40,000 system or the one who has 2000 records and/or CDs and $1,000 system?

One would say: "Certainly in the second case the appreciation factor is bigger!" and I would say: "Wait-a-minute, how would you know? Maybe the second one is just a crazy record collector that almost never listens to them but the first one has his favourite music played many times per day!" And vice versa I would say: "Wait-a-minute, maybe in the first case one only listens to the recordings but doesn't care too much about the music or how it's being performed?"

And finally, What is true:
Music for the System or System for the Music??
I liked your ear-definition, Onhwy61!
speach, screams, thuds, winds or ANY sounds including music represent a data for ear to be transfered to the brain. A musical instrument can be called a transmitter of music if operated by musician into our brains and certainly musician's as well.
There are even some exceptions that took place in our history: for example Beethoven is considered to be a composer and musician who later-on became deaf and was only receiving very very little information from ear to the brain or let's say through vibrations occured in the piano cover to his head.
Nowdays not only musicians exist with musical instruments or voices as primary sources, but there are secondary as well: recording and reproducing equipment...