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 11 responses by unsound

For most people music is a language. Especially since the almost global acceptance of the chromatic scale. 4/4 time is as common as typical speech patterns. Just as a sour taste makes our mouths pucker, certain sounds make us tap our feet or even dance. Just as artists have learned that mixing yellow and green produces blue, composers have learned that minor chords evoke pathos. Words with out commonality are appreciated by few. The same joke heard repeatedly usually looses it's effect. The same words used to create a new joke enjoys new appreciation. The combination of the familiar with the unique will usually enjoy the biggest audience. Hendrix may have created a new sound, but it was based on 12 bar blues. Stevie Wonder played the same music on different instuments (the moog). The harmonic complexities of the saxophone were origianlly played to traditional music. When the sound of the saxophone became common it gave birth to Parker and Hornathology. With out a common element it is most challanging to communicate (though not impossible)and at the same time a common element with out an original inflection becomes tiresome if heard too often no matter how profound or well(I know, rather qualifying)it was done. Music may seem more abstract than other art forms and yet it shares more than less with other art forms. This was elequently pointed out in the previous post re: colors. We can see comedy and tragedy, we can feel pain and pleasure, we can taste bitter and sweet, it should be easy to understand why we can discern noise and music. It's interesting to note that there isn't necessarily right or wrong in these contrasts and in fact they can in proper sequence compliment each other. While on some level we have produced tools that consistently evoke a consistent reaction, these tools have a shelf life. As the minds, thoughts and emotions of humans is not static, neither can music be static if it is to fullfill it's roll.
Now how mathematicians can percieve art in equations is beyond me. One day I'd like to gain appreciation of that!
Winters come early this year. What started out as snow has turned into slush. Better clear the roads, lest an accident occur.
I think musicians might be more in tune with music in the conceptual and and mechanicaly produced sense and Audiophiles might tend to be more in tune to reproducing the experience of the event.
My EMOTIONal response to the direction of this thread is that the THOUGHTs presented here don't seem to MIND that there is little refererence to MUSIC. Seems like the time is upon us to don the boots and bring out the shovels.
Asa, I think you confused fear with caution. Thinking is effected by more than the brain as refelected in research that indicates that serotonin is effected quite literally by gut reactions. As to what brain/mind is formed by the experience of music, there are too many personal variables to answer (do we need an answer?). As such I think your next question is dependent on an unknow premise. Listening to music might be more about surreality than reality. I believe the act of recieving music (art) is also one of letting ones self control disolve (at various degrees) into an individual journey navigated by all those involved in the artistic expression in concert with the recieving individuals artistic impression. As such there may not be much control in the "choosing". The inverse may also be true, for example some music is political in nature (though still true art) and may stir completley different reactions to different individuals. The artist may not have any more more control than the audience in the journey. How do we know what to expect from a new performance? Our perspective / interpertation may change upon new insight of a previously experienced one. I think the improvisations inherent in Jazz capitalize on this premise. Regarding the premise of ability to percieve music-beauty and compassion-beauty are related has to hold true if one doesn't want to limit the artistic spectrum. Of course the inverse is true. Art can offer music-ugly and compassion-ugly. George Crumb's work "Dark Angels" comes to mind. And then there are those who for what ever reason (disease,denial?) will be out side the realm. Of course beauty/ugly are the same thing on some level, but I use the words in there more common usage. Answering your last question after your last question, Yes! It's the journey that makes the music compelling.
Asa, No, I don't mean unknowable just impractical to quatinfy on any general level. Personal variables as in different genetic predispostions to different environmental stimulations at different specific times. Obviously we differ on the subject of "personal variables". As for what happens in the brain during "non-thinking mode of perception" I don't know. To think about what one is not thinking about is challangeing to say the least. Perhaps research on individuals in a comatose state when subjected(?) to music might give us further insight. It's certainly out of my expertise, to suggest otherwise would be fool hardy of me. My mention of serotonin being a by product of gut reaction was effort to demostrate that we are affected on every level. Even a meal or beverage can influence us in very real and marked ways. Forgive me but, "life is within you, and without you" on many levels. As for matter, if art is an expressive / interpertive vehicle, outside of the conceptual mode, art is matter to matter. The exception might be mathmatics (being the ignorant insensetive clod that I am, I've yet to appreciate this art form). My reference to surreality was meant in the interpertive sense. I think we actually agree on "choosing". Much in the same way we choose a "journey". We may choose the vehicle, we may choose the path, we may choose the time, but inevitably unexpected events happen in that vehicle on that path during that time. Things that are beyond the scope of our choice. We do choose the unexpected. You have no compassion for the ugly? While most Westerners don't embrace sadness because it's considered unhealthy, they can still appreciate it's beauty. Despite claims (not necessarilly yours) to the contrary we have always appreciated the beauty in both tradgedy and comedy. After all American music is very much based on the blues. With all due respect I don't belive it's appropriate for you to categorize my thinking and then dismiss it, especially when you claim that you don't understand it. Whether it's right or wrong in the human experience the truth can change, but at any particular time the truth is the truth. I don't think every interpertation is valid in the big picture, though it can be in the small one. If the interpertation has been based on incomplete or modified or with out understanding of the source (taken out of context)or on just plain faulty premises then the interpertation is suspect. Ironicaly, a faulty interpertaion may be inspirational for future art. Asa, I've tried to answer your questions. I fear that I may never satiate your inquiry. Forgive me, but I must bow out of this discussion. Your questions deserve time for thought that I can't quite afford at present. Good listening.
Asa, my "touche' was meant two fold, first as reflection upon previous posts that Ozfly and I submitted and to congratulate Ozfly on the points of his last post, nothing more. I think you believe that I think that some subjects are unknowable, when in fact all I'm saying is that "I" don't know. I hope that all is knowable. I have availed myself to my feelings of my feelings but have not afforded myself the opportunity to analyze them into true thought. At present I'm not up to the challange because it seems daunting for the very reasons you mention. With all due sincere respect, I really have much more pressing matters right now. Perhaps the future will afford me the opportunity to pursue these interesting considerations. Good listening.
6chac, I hardly think I'm running from myself. I'm comfortable with how I feel about my feelings. That I'm unsure as to whether there is there is a need to quantify that, is a reflection on my inner peace not an escape from my feelings. To quantify my "thoughtless" journey would require much thought into a clinical realm that might best be accomplished with the help of others. Could end up being a rather selfish burden. In the interim I'm content with myself. Thank you for your poetic words. Peace.