Interesting observation Onhwy61. Is perception and measurement the same? Perhaps so, in some ways. I was referring to the objective sense of scientific measurement. Certainly, air pressure can be measured by either the ear or an instrument, but that does not measure the music itself. In other words, art itself cannot be measured objectively though certain perceptions of art can be. Thanks for the clarification.
We'll likely need to leave the discussion of soul for another time and place. My personal belief is that the soul extends beyond the mind. The general proposition about the inability to measure art does not rely on that, or I belive any, specific interpretation of soul.
|
The ear is nothing more than a bio-mechanical measurement device which feeds data into the brain. Ozfly, if you really believe that measurements are destructive, and I'm not sure I disagree with that statement, then you would have to abandon your hearing apparatus and take the music to the level of thought only. The fluctuations in air pressure only become music after the ear gathers the data and the brain organizes it into patterns. I honestly don't know where your soul enters the equation, but there's never anything between you and the music, it's always in your mind. It's the only place where it can exist. |
Gregm, mesurement is not just unnecessary, it is unwanted, intrusive and destructive. Measurement, in any objective sense, is the antithesis of art. We don't yet know enough to allow art and science to comfortably merge and co-exist. That struggle is near and dear to us as audiophiles, where we constantly balance the known science (e.g., ohm's law) with the unknown art (e.g., pc's affecting the sound). We live in the grey zone and are yet too ignorant to see through the fog. Until then, I want nothing objective to get between me and the music; let it touch my soul directly. |
Interesting, Travis. This may go some way answering the last sentence in the original thread ("...can....(it).. be measured"). In the light of the above, it can only be identified by emotional experience and, perhaps, the measurement becomes unecessary. |
Detlof, interestingly enough, according to a piece recently out (see it here), Glenn Gould was interviewed very late in his life (according to the interviewer, conducted in his usual summer wear, "two sweaters, a woolen shirt, scarf, gloves, a long black coat, and a slouch hat" - reminds me of how you mentioned you saw him once in Austria) and he had something similar to say: "I believe that the justification of art is the internal combustion it ignites in the hearts of men and not its shallow, externalized, public manifestations. The purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but rather the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity." As well as being in line with your most recent comment above, I think it works remarkably well as an answer to the second part of your original question of "What is music and what does it do to us?" And if one accepts it as it is, it may become less important to answer the first part of the question. Travis |
Music, to soothe the savage beast.
What is the beast?
When the beast is gone, the white dove flies skyward in silence, a halo of Light all around.
What is the purpose of Music?
What did you feel when you just read what detlof wrote, what bach wrote - both in words/notes - now into your mind...
Maybe the question is not what music brings "in", but once there, in our minds, what leaves?
If so, when that leaves, what remains? |
To me music can be as a catalyst, which opens my mind, which silences thought and all wanting and in the openess it can afford, and in what rushes in, there is a taste sometimes of the essence of our existence. Words here are nothing but a clumsy translation, hypostasising a myriad of emotions of all hues, images and flashes of insight, which come and go. What remains often however, is a deep gratefulness of simply being alive. Music (and rythm )touch me more, than anything else ever could. I've had this since earliest childhood and it has never been otherwise. When someone very close to me died and I was raging in anger and despair, in the night after she died, I dreamt that I myself was dead and in some "other place", where I suddenly met Bach and we both played four handed on an organ. We made the most swinging and beautiful Jazz I had ever heard in my life, before or afterwards, dreaming or not, and when I woke up, I was still sad and bereaved but calm in my loss. The rage was gone and never came back.... Music...my questions still stand. |
PEOPLE, WHAT IS THE WINNING PRIZE FOR LOTTO THIS WEEK. I'S RAHTER GET THE TICKET. HA...HA... HA...HA...HA... |
|
I really must get back to the silence for awhile, but let me seek return back to detlof (now that we are all here...)
What is the purpose of music?
We've had some interesting discussions above about where it might have originated as far as patterning in our cultural/primordial past, but, here, in our present, why are we drawn to music and not just sound?
What is "in" music that causes us to feel that it is a meaningful activity? Is it just because it makes me calm - its own sort of pleasure (absense of thinking pain) - or is there something else that is happening? Just an emotional tonic?
If our listening is more than just listening to sound patterns - that we derive meaning from the experience - then what is that meaning?
Why does it happen at all?
What is the purpose of Music?
Detlof asked many questions, but before we can answer some of the others, maybe we need to answer his question: "What is music and what does it do to us?"
Be well. |
Friends, sorry, didn't mean to offend. Life is too noisy at them moment, all thoughts get drowned in the din. |
Oz, maybe I misunderstood detlof myself, because I agree with everything you just said, which, I thought, was what I just said!! Oh well...
I read detlof's comment, "silence, where music happens" to mean that music, impliedly, does not occur where silence is absent, namely, when notes are going on (or words). In conjuction with his negative take on "talking", this seemed to be a reasonable interpretation. Maybe I didn't get it, though (wouldn't be the first time...)
Maybe what he was saying was that the "way" we were using words was "enslaving" the Truth (the analogy: discordant notes getting in the way of falling into the beauty of Music).
OK, I can get that, but here's something interesting...
I'm always rattling on about solid state, saying it has distortive aspects that keep you from falling into the music. Now, if detlof was saying the same thing about how we were talking - our distortive "Jesus in pocket" talk was getting in the way of talking about the Silence - then that means that while I've been decrying SS distorions in components I've actually been creating more here on threads!!
Seemingly ironic, until you consider....
This thread was DEAD. Yes, Oz had said some beautiful things about the surf and patterns, but notwithstanding detlof's many questions, the responses went dead for four days - usually terminal on a subject like this. So, unless detlof meant his questions to be answered in the silence he talks of - highly doubtful given the number of probing questions posed - that means that the recent allegedly discordant words have actually been catalyzing dialogue. Because, if I'm not mistaken...
detlof is back, Oz is here, 6ch is happy and behaving himself, Gregm has just said some penetrating words, and
we are together, again, talking about the music that we love (and love to share the thought-words on)and the thread is going on, like the notes of Music...
So, effectively, were the words "discordant"? As we are apt to say, isn't the proof in the pudding (or, listening?)
Hmmmm. |
Asa, music is not so fragile that it can be found only in silence. Words are ways to organize thoughts -- we can debate whether words free or enslave them (I'd argue for both). Why wouldn't words help, not harm, the understanding so long as we don't rely on them alone? "Creating non-silence" disturbs only the silence, not the totality of perception.
Of course, maybe I misunderstood. But generally, I have to agree with Detlof that words are necessary (even thoughts are couched in the structures of words though feelings are not). |
Asa, you write beautifully! I've never seen One like you!
"The only non-attachment that a Bodhisattva has is one towards saving all beings from suffering, even while not being attached to it ; desire without desire, search without search = non-search/non-desire/non-dual."
"Do not make the Silence "grave" as if it is holy and only holy, somehow apart from the notes and words. It is not the holy Other."
Asa, look at the two quote of yours. Aren't they the same meaning?!
I am willing to break my word for getting back into the "thinking" as you stated. Just to say: "I heard..."
Regards |
I'm not sure, detlof, who you were talking about when you said there was too much talking :0). Yes, there was, but I get tired of every time something gets a little more complicated, digging for a shiny thing with fingernails bare, someone jumps out from the bushes with some Zen garble or "Jesus in their pocket" (...love that one!). I apologize if I offended you (assuming that I did because you have yet to respond to my above inquiries, which I think have "some" merit). Basically, hadn't heard from you, thread went dead for 4 days, only Oz replying, so didn't think you'd mind a "stir of words". Did you want "prettier" words, words like water, words that feel like the music you long for? Ones where you could more easily intuit the Search, or that it is still there?
Back to thinking:
So, if music is found in silence, then how could we talk about it in words at all? Are words always a "harsh clamor" upon an experience of the Truth/Music/Beauty? Are we left with poetry, or poetics, or poetic-sounding words?
Music does not just happen in silence, although deeper meanings can be found there. Music is found both in the silence and the notes which arise from that ground; Truth is found both in the Silence and the thought-notes which arise from that ground; "beauty" is found in them both and in all things and thoughts because all things and thoughts, and notes, arise from that Silence. Yet, by saying "silent" I create not-silence. In doing so, is the world split asunder, me from It?
Do not make the Silence "grave" as if it is holy and only holy, somehow apart from the notes and words. It is not the holy Other. That is what St. Augustine told you so he could sell more seats (bless his soul...).
Words carry "propulsion" and move minds; notes carry "propulsion" and move minds.
The notes are not separate from the Music; the Music is not "grave" and the notes not. That is its own subtle split. Neanderthal saw the sky and made it the Other sky, a "grave" force to be appeased with fire and hearts (and which BTW lead to some engrained archetrypal lens...do you see that lens?)
Truth is found in the notes and the Silence.
Truth is found where you look for it.
The world is oscillating (can you feel it, the notes chaotic as post modern predator mind finds his mirror in medieval predator mind, the meekest minds of animals withering...?) and human minds that are so moved - see the black vault of descending sky - want to hear the poetics of the silence, as their last sauve, so tired from the nihilism, from the words, from what yawns, so I leave them to that, heads down.
A break from audiogon "thinking" is on order.
Did you hear that? A leaf fell, damp ground, the wind.
Adieu, my friends |
Detlof, I have 3 cents in my pocket, what do you have in yours? OK, OK, Just kidding... hahaha... :-) Cheers! |
Indeed, Detlof "words are like leaves, and where they most abound much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found..."
But perhaps there *is* an underlying "sense" to words, here, beyond meeting? Not always in the content of the words, I agree, but in the context of *pushing* the meeting *further* or not losing this unexpected contact.
As you note, this doesn't justify hubris. Maybe partly explains -- but this, my, comment is still off the mark.
Music happens more, as the mind is silenced more and emotion rises more independently. Maybe then, for a moment, thoughts (are allowed to) become dreams. |
Words are meddled lightly on grave subjects. There is too much talking, as if you all had Buddha, Jesus in your pockets. It is a paradox: Words are necessary,how else could we meet, but then they are completely off the mark, because it is in silence, that music happens. Forgive me, because, though I may be right, I am certainly unjust. All the same, your talk reminds me of theologists who philophise lightly about the GODHEAD, but probably would pee their pants en face of the tremendum. I would. |
"I did not write/speak to/for you. So I did not say a word, to you... in the end. :-)" But, 6, your word DID reach many others!
I, for one, still wonder if the mind is always free or sometimes "licentious", overpowering even :)? |
6ch: you always crack me up; you go away for days, then come back with some big explanatory response - to what, I don't know. You imply that you are teaching me, but what statements of mine do you address? You tell me before there are no levels -trying to "teach" me that then - but then here you say that Bodhisattva has a level - you are playing Zen games (with yourself). Besides, where you got the idea that I thought a Bodhisattva was something other than a human (making him/her other-worldly in a "mountain hole", wherever you got that...) is beyond me.
Here's what I think. I think you go off for a couple of days, get a little Zen bliss high, then come back to me as your foil (to be your mirror) so you can see how "enlightened" you are. Do you need to teach me in order to prove to yourself you are "enlightened"?
I disagree with you: all is not mind, that is mind talking. Mind (thinking) arises from Ground (you've seen that haven't you, in minds that you "see"?) of Silence, yet ground is never separate from mind. Jesus could talk (mind) without karma because all instinctual remnants (Tibetan "defilements") had faded from him; he had transcended all prior minds' attachment throughout all evolution (which, yes, is only HERE/NOW). He had moved past amoeba mind by surrendering to it; not surrender as in it "wins" but by accepting it (its an illusion; its "energy" perpetuated by your resistance to it).
I disagree with you that everyone is "Jesus", or rather knows what he knew in his bones, becoming his bones. I know you want to be the Laughing Buddha gadfly, but samsara exists in most people, and so the Buddha told us. Denial of that is samsara itself. Why did Jesus/Buddha talk at all? The Bodhisattva vow says that one will not stay in Nirvana until all sentient beings (not just humans BTW) are saved from suffering, which, of course, means that some/most beings are suffering. Buddhas don't suffer; they have transcended its attachment - that's what makes them "Buddha". You can be there - yes, RIGHT NOW/HERE - but, for all my affection for you, my friend, you are not there, and that needs to be clearly said. Glad you are enjoying the bliss of your peak exprerience, though. As I said, try to cut back on the Zen books a bit...
Ozfly: thank you for your lucid response. And for more surf.
Yes, primordial patterns of sound exist in us, its not just from culture (although that's where Jung saw it). Like Kant's space/time matrix, or Chomsky's language template, a template for pattern recognition exists (bewteen those two BTW). My point, however, was that the evolutionary forces that "created" this patterning lens in the mind's perception was one that strongly selected an active patterning of sound, yet when we listen to music we are not just actively listening to sound (a twig moving) but the opposite: letting that active orientation go. The forces of survival that lead to active patterning would not seem to be the forces that would lead to the "letting go" of an attachment to that patterning.
Loved what you said though. |
Where there is a beginning, there is an end.
Asa, Bodhisattva has Bodhisattva's problem (stuck). let me explain: For examples.
1) A student speak to himself, I need to study hard, in order to get good grades.
2) That poor man is hungry and cold, let's give him some food.
3) The fireman said to himself: "I've got to save that house".
My point is the mind is driving the everything. It's the way it is! Denying that is denying you, yourself. It is always there! Always free! It is you (your mind) who ties you down. in words, promises (that is why marriage called "tie the knot", etc...
Asa, Who do you think Bodhisattva is? He is a human being! with "an opened heart": Firemen, you, etc... Do you think he was borned out of the mountain's hole or something? It's a state of mind and the level that he is in! Once he realized that it is his own state of mind, he then "free". It is everyday people! You and I, and so is everyone else! Example: You graduate from graduate school, you get a degree, people called you doctor, lawyer, technician, etc... But that does not change your name, doensn't it Mark!
Asa, as you've already known, the way I write by now (stink). As I would say: "I am only 5'4" tall" up there, then I would added later "or short", that is why I said word is leading. See how free I am? But if you could do it better, who stop you?! In fact you wrote beautifully, as I've said many times.
Asa, "In the end, he did not say a word" is a state of mind. after this, I will not get into (or get out) the "neurotic thing", Clueless, you like that, huh? ;-). Let just say that I am UN-STUCK, myself for I have said all my pieces. In a few days, everybody do your own things and FORGOT, would that be enough to say "in the end, he did not say a word"?. Or would I be dead or went crazy, afterward? Buddha, don't lie, so is Jesus, so is Lao Tzu. Don't be confused! Also, I did not write/speak to/for you. So I did not say a word, to you... in the end. :-)
Good bye everyone
Ozfly, you've been using it, it is you, you've just proved it. :-)
He has found me, and I has found him: "The teacher of teachers, the healer of healers". I am not lonely no more. Hahahaha... It's his problem, now. Hahahahahaha... |
Asa, interesting surf questions.
The surf is the heartbeat of the world. It exists regardless of how it is appreciated. Although I hate to categorize or pigeon-hole people too much (far too many complexities really), a Jungian based profiling methodolgy (the Meyers-Briggs tests) splits people into 16 types. These types hold constant proportionally across any human culture so, I believe, reveals fundamental human, rather than cultural, differences and similarities. Why the differences? From a Darwinian perspective, I think we needed different ways to think and act in order to survive as a species. No one way wins alone in all situations. Hence, the fundamental need for cooperation. Hold that thought for a minute.
Getting back to the surf, I would contend that everyone appreciates it in some way. However, I don't believe that it is in the same way. (By the way, ditto for musical appreciation). Is an appreciation of the surf, or rhythm, fundamental to survival? Probably. Pacing our physical labors is rhythmic and the reproductive act itself is rhythmic. And, by the way, survival based or not, our first nine months is nothing but rythmic inside the womb. On a more macro level, we need to cooperate to survive, but we are different from one another which leads to tension. Does rhythm help hold us together as a tribe? I believe so. The pre-tribe stuff doesn't matter as much since you had to reproduce within a tribal setting to keep the genes going.
So how is the surf perceived? Differently by different people, but in a fundamentally comfortable way. For me, surf is best when I disappear into it. Just as music is best when I lose myself in it.
More of my two cents. I hope it makes sense. I'm still in a rush right now due to the move so I apologize if this isn't as coherent as it could be. |
Asa, I apologize but am in the process of moving into a new home and have just enough time to say I'll get with you all tomorrow. I've not even had time to do more than scan the responses (and laugh a bit). No offense or neglect meant -- some great stuff here. "I'll be baack" |
Ok, I'll go home now...
Smell of the mitt and mowed grass, dragonflies clicking overhead, the smell of the creek, the worn path around the house from playing tag at dusk, the call of my Mother down the block for supper, mitt over the bat over my shoulder as "i" walk home. |
Oh, 6ch, I didn't know that you could be a smart alleck too! :0)
You know, 6ch, you'd better be careful, or you might, just might become, become a curmudgeon like me; like waking and looking in the mirror and there, there's a pumpkin on your head.
"awe": Been holding onto that one, one? Where was it being held, being held? Remember what i said about holding onto those /'s and "'s?
HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.......................
It is funny, though, the awe thing i mean.... :0) |
Good day 6ch :-)
Detlof!! you cruelly draw me into this thread, knowing I can't possibly stop, and I purposely only came when there was a four day lapse, and only because your question was so good, and only because Ozfly said so good, and....
Rub, rub, rub that bottle... |
Yes I'm here and silenced in awe {-: |
Oh, let me rub the bottle that is the recepticle of 6ch! I asked him and now he won't tell me, and I just, just...
Answer...
But wait for your response, Gregm. |
|
Asa, thanks -- I can't answer yet though I'd like to, spontaneously... must put thoughts in order. 6 has info; he must be cajoled into revealing it ;) |
Thanks, 6ch. Was asking detlof, but, yes, I would be interested to your answer (can it be in words...?)
OK, I will bite...
Detlof!!
Ozfly, so good start, very smart, where are you? Nothing made you think? |
"What was/is its purpose? Beauty and an Opening of the Heart?"
Asa, if you really want the answer to its purpose. E-mail me off-line. |
That is beautiful. Asa... "Beauty and an Opening of the Heart?" |
Greg, you made my brain think hard. Thank you. Some of what you say are things I don't know, but I will try to answer.
Yes, # 2 option above is correct. The evolutionary development of receptivity to beauty has been developing right along side the Darwinian side (active analytic cognition). When you are an amoeba you are completely focused on the exterior with a binary thought pattern that shifts only two ways (light/dark, pery/predator etc.). With modern humans, the influence of the environment on our evolution has lessened with the inverse increase in our power over matter (technology). This, in turn, leads towards a situation where humans are less prey of the environment and have space in their mind opened towards "beauty"; in the lessened instinctual thoughts towards the external a space is opened in which the dynamic arc towards receptivity towards beauty emerges.
My question would then be, when does sound become "harmony"? It only happens in the mind, ie I can't walk out my front door and point to "harmony", so what accounted for that shift in perception? What caused us to see sound as harmony (read: music). I believe my argument against a Darwinistic catalyst above still holds in the comtext of this question. What caused the primordial mind to structure sound into patterns that had meaning, apart from telling him that the leaf moving behind him was a predator? Why did he become suseptible/open/receptive to that "harmonic" meaning?
Yes, we hear music in the matrix of its structure of sound, but the "cosmic rules" that dictate that structure (a whole different discussion on what they are), do not determine meaning.
Structure does not fall from the sky; it is created by the mind. The will towards that creation is prior to the structure that is produced, regardless of a template for structure. What will manifected in us that caused us to structure sound from that focused on sound instinctually, and towards a structure that moved towrds receptivity towards "harmony"? The structure changed, yes, but that was only a symptom of a change in the orientation of the mind towards sound. The will changed. What caused that reorientation, one that had a contrary purpose from Darwinistic-engrained instincts. Didn't it have to be a "cosmic force" not accounted by Darwinism?
What is a force that moves the mind towards meaning, even as that move makes him/her less viable against the environment?
(Hint: Next answer could be that "harmony" lead towrds social cohesion in group, thus having a social Darwinistic cause. I don't agree but its a good argument...)
Detlof: what is the meaning of "harmony"? Or rather, the meaning of its experience? What was/is its purpose? Beauty and an Opening of the Heart? |
Asa, I think Subaru's comment could find an easier parallel in the idea of 'harmony & "appropriate" rythm' put forth in ancient greek tragedy. There, harmony (i.e. beauty or perceived "correctness") is interactive UNLESS the forces of nature or the "cosmic rules" foresee otherwise. (We cannot overcome the natural and cosmic rules.) But we are bound/expected to distinguish beauty from its opposite (i.e. dynamic approach)... That presupposes we specifically pursue your 2nd point. Not the first, nor the basic premise.
I may have missed the point, however..:) |
Thanks for the laugh, Subaru! Very funny.
Does evolutionarily developed recognition of patterns in sound necessarily lead to (even though it may form the underlying matrix) to the receptivity to beauty that we presently experience. The former (pocreation,prey/predator reactions) all represent an active mind directed at the environment to manipulate some object there. Receptivity to beauty/music, however, is characterized by a "letting go" of the active, analytical, objectifying mind as one sinks deeper. What Darwinistic mechanism would account for such a shift, especially if physical viability is decreased by the latter?
Logically speaking, there are two possibilies:
1. Darwinistic evolution of sound perception is not determinant of music appreciation, and each is a separate dynamic of evolution, or
2. Darwinistic evolution on sound recognition (active) is integral with music appreciation (receptive), and, contrary to being a separate mechanism, is one that forms the devolpment for the latter; active mind is not determitive of receptivity, but forms the ground for its emergence.
My evidence? What I've been saying all along (listening Zaikesman?):
When you first sit down to listen, you listen predominantly with the thinking mind; seeing sound as source-objects, interested in detail and accuracy that bounds those projections from the space around it, your language to describe it dominated by visual terms (predators are visually orientated), seeing the sound as if it were "out there", a la Valin's "statue garden", external to you, in the environment outside, something to manipulate. Then, as you sink deeper you "let go" of this urge to think-the-sound, you move from active to receptive, your mind more sensitive to emotions towards the music in the relief of thoughts being absent (hence, the emotion-based language used to describe this level's experience), with thinking fading the dichtomy between inside/outside collapsing, the music is not out there, but integral with you.
The journey your mind takes every time you sit down for that late Friday night listening session is reflective of the evloutionary journey the collective human mind has taken to...get to the place where you can experience music/beauty as you do.
This is not a coincidence.... |
Procreation requires rhythm. Humans added harmony. Once you get tired (or old enough) you don't need the rhythm part anymore. Hence most asian or Western European music.
I REALLY gotta get some sleep.... |
Ozfly, loved what you said about surf. What mind state - what type of receptivity - does the surf catalyze? When you are looking at the surf, and you forget you are looking, is there surf and you, or does surf/you only exist after you look and you then look back and think about it. When you are experiencing beauty most deeply, does the perciever/percieved dichotomy collapse in only percieving?
Question: detlof looks to cross-cultural connection and continuity (Oz, your tribal reference), but shouldn't, evolutionarilty speaking, the desire towards music go back further if so engrained? And, if so, what is the Darwinian incentive?
In other words, music is experienced in a passive, receptive mode of mind and body - hardly what evolution would select as a viable behavior for either a predator or prey. Remember, its not just rest that defines being drawn to music (animals sleep to rest), but its leisure in in what one is drawn to. So, what evolutionary mechanism would favor that dynamic? If only instinctual prey/predator (the "hard wired" part) then what selects such an unviable luxury of a being being drawn to music?
But then, remember, what we are drawn to is music, but by another name, more fundamental, it is being drawn to beauty. Is being drawn to beauty hard wired (doesn't seem so from above) or learned? Does this explain why humans listen to music and Bonobo Chimps do not? But...who "teaches" me to look at a sunset and see its beauty? Does anyone ever need to be taught?
If the inertia to be drawn to music/beauty is not instinctual per se, and it is not learned through listening to anothers thoughts on the experience (socialization), then where does it come from? Perhaps, consider this: there is a dynamic to evolution that parallels the Darwinian instincts of the deep mind, and parallels the evolution of thinking, and yet, just now, latent in all forms, is emerging more prominent in homo sapiens, so now we sit here and discuss it? Are we, below developing instincts to hunt and flee, below the developmemnt of advanced thinking, have also always been moving towards a fuller and fuller receptivity to beauty? Beside the arc of Darwinism has there also been an arc towards beauty?
When you look at surf, or sink deeply into the music - immersed in beauty - the mind is silent. In that moment, the mind is absent prey-predator impulse, or thinking, and is open to what is, in this case melody.
Have we been evolving towards the ability to silence the animal mind, the socialized mind, and, in so doing, "see" more beauty, hear more beauty?
The Chimp can't let his mind fade, but you can.
The answer is not in the instinctual past, or in the socialized present, it is in our collective future.
So, why do we all want to listen to our stereos and sink without thought into that beauty?
It is a Taste of who we could be.
Then, in that silent space, where your mind is silent, what are you connected to? Does it have something to do with what 6ch said of the opened heart?
Hmmm. |
Love to join you, but Zurich is a long way off........ |
6chac (and anyone else--especially Detlof): Who's going to CES? This is a great philsophical question, and would be much more fun to continue in person. |
Detlof,
"Pity I cannot meet you all in person. We'd have great discussions over much ... along! Cheers to all!"
With respect, same here :-) |
T bone, I'haven't but I'm full of ideas. If I didn't have to write up a lot of other stuff, I would already have come out with them. Will have to wait until the middle of next week. Great and inspiring posts so far, thanks to all of you. Feel in excellent company and at home. Please keep the ideas coming. Cheers and thanks to all! |
A most excellent post. I think Ozfly and Unsound have summed it up nicely in saying (forgive me if I have misunderstood) that melody and rhythm are fundamentally understood by humankind and that a great deal of what we "really" appreciate in listening to or participating in music is based on our intellectual appreciation of the place of that music within our own musical history. I also like Gregm's comment that harmony is better understood as being what is "the correct sequence or correlation of things". I think that sense of the word harmony effectively differentiates "musical music" from "ordinary music" and noise. That which is most harmonious - that which is most correct in its sequence and correlation - is that which pleases us most. I am in the harmony as nurture vs. nature camp. I would cite African music as an example in that it runs on a different tonal scale (here I would disagree with Unsound in saying that the chromatic (I assume meaning diatonic) scale is globally accepted) and with an entirely different rhythmic base than western music (some would say arrhythmic but I would say multi-rhythmic) but even if westerners cannot sing along with it, anyone who grows up with African scales and rhythms finds it completely harmonious.
I am not certain that one piece of music would convey the same emotion to all people around the world who listen to it if they have not been subjected to it before. If someone can tell me/us who don't know, I would like to know if a song in an African pentatonic scale had a "minor" key interpretation in western music, would it have the same pathological and emotional meaning in Africa (and I'm sure I'm being overly broad here) as it does to those brought up in the western musical tradition?
Unsound, regarding art in equations... "art" in music is taking the pieces we already know and rearranging them in a way which makes us "see" something in a new way. I have to imagine that to serious mathematicians, there are few new building blocks but the ways of using them eloquently are still being discovered, and a new discovery which excites the senses and stirs the emotions is indeed a thing of beauty.
And I agree with Gregm that Detlof likely has something prepared for us... I, for one, am looking forward to it. |
|
Hey, Gregm. I am only 5'4" tall, ok? :-) |
Judit, you are right on. They said that the eyes is the windows to the soul. But the ears actually closest to the soul.
- Eyes only see things in front.
- Ears can hear 360 degrees.
- Eyes closed when one sleep.
- Ears is conscious when one asleep.
Most men/women with large beautiful eyes are usually handsome/beautiful.
Most men/women with large nice ears are usually rich or lucky.
...Most of these hi-end audiophile guys...If you know what I mean...;-) |
Ahhh, 6! You have now revealed yourself:)! Good for Matt... that picture of Jesus says it all!!! Clink |
1. Hearing is the very last sense to go before death. Babies already recognize the sound of their mother's voice by the time they are born. People in comas hear others speaking to them even though they cannot call themselves back to consciousness. Sound mediates human attachment. Is this why speech evolved as the principle mode of communication between individuals rather than, e.g. sign language?
2. Music taps into our emotional vocabulary directly. I am not so sure this is "learned". Soulful, joyful, noble, strident, melancholy, grieving, agonizing - we have an amazing consensus among ourselves about the particular emotion a musical passage conveys. Music establishes emotional state rapidly and unambiguously.
So, then, why does one singer's voice appear more beautiful than another's? What is a Stradivarious, or a Steinway? And why do we agree that some instruments are more beautiful than others? Why is Stan Getz called "The Sound"? What does he do while playing a sax that allows him to create a more vivid image in our spiritual gestalt?
I think the answer may lie in the sophisticated way we distinguish signal from noise using a sensor that is automated to drive the circuitry of human experience and survival. Probably a disappointingly shallow answer.
|
Einstein: "In music I do not look for logic. I am quite intutitive on the whole and know no theories." So you're not alone 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! |
