Wow, I always thought the ears (sense) is closest to the soul, so is the music, so is audiophile people. Ya just have to dig 'em out. :-) |
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?? |
Matt8268, I went to Catholic school in my childhood. There is a picture that always impressed me. You probably saw it. Jesus Chris with the opened heart. :-) |
Hey all: Detlof has something in store... Speach, speach, Detlof! (Pls don't you hate me, Detlof.)
BTW, where are the the others? Don't we all buy systems to listen to music? This thread is about music... |
Hello Rives, You spoke my mind! Now, can I get that free consultant? :-) |
To me the music/emotion link is a great question that has no answer (yet). I do know that music can follow heartrate, so that if you're feeling amped you want to listen to music with a faster beat. But I still have not figured out how music can tap my emotions in a way I describe as triggering nostalgia for memories I never had.
It is definitely instinctive and not learned to a great degree. This leads me to believe evolution (God if you're a Christian reader) was involved. Possibly music is and always has been a way to influence many people at once, building community and common thought. And those who naturally didn't experience that way were weeded out (or put more bluntly, didn't reproduce). |
This is easy: What my 12 year old listens to is noise; I listen to music. I think that sums it up.
Seriously, though--while my statement is trite, there is truth to it. Music is emotional and it touches every individual in a different way. I often find it difficult to understand people that do not place any value on music--that simple don't care--but those are the same people that look at me and wonder "how can you invest so much time and energy into music?"
I think both Ozfly and Marakanetz had well thought out ideas on the subject, and I don't think I could ad anything in the vein they discussed this. I would like to examine the subject from a different angle (back to my 12 year old).
So my example of my 12 year old that listens to Eminem (when he knows Dad isn't around) is clear that music speaks to people and moves them on different levels. (It moves me to turn that thing off!) It also shows that whatever moves us is something that we get some sort of emotional outlet, release, comfort--or whatever. Music is an emotional mover. Wouldn't it be fun to watch a movie that played Gladiator fight them songs to the lovemaking scenes and soft violins playing romatically while some wild chase scene is occurring (this has been done in many movies during violent scenes--and you can feel the tragedy rather than the usual adrenaline/excitement emotion). Think of how significant music is used to translate emotion.
While I don't care for certain types of music (and sometimes can't really find the music quality) I think it is very short sided to condemn it (except for the possible explicit language that I don't think is healthy to listen to on a regualar basis--this view comes from being a father). So some people want to turn up the volume and bang their heads to heavy metal. This is what is emotionally satisfying or moving to them. I will never forget a guy that came into a friend of mine's stereo store. He said: "I want something that plays LOUD". He didn't look like he had much, but my friend showed him the loudest system they had: Klipschorns with 600 watts of McIntosh power. He said thank you and left. He later returned and said: "I've been to 10 other stores and asked the same question--when I asked them about the Klipsch and McIntosh combination--all of them said--yeah that WILL play loud." He bought the system with cash. Now, the point is--is that music--getting something to play as loud as possible. Well, to me no it isn't. But to this person it was. He wanted to play heavy metal and concert level volumes in the first row. He could be deaf now--I wonder if there's product liability in selling something that plays that loud.
I was going to write what music moves me and how--but I think I've already babbled too much. |
Gregm, I think we are together on your points. My hypothesis is that melody is a "natural" fascination but I suspect you appreciate the nuances and structure more today.
6chac, I know that something is with me, I just hope it's useful someday ;-) |
Wow, just finished reading your post, Ozfly. May the force be with you. :-) |
Marakanetz, you are on the way to the top of the mountain, my friend. :-) |
Wow... Ben, I've to have that CD! Can you give me the name of it? Thanks. |
Gregm, I've lost all my "Ten Bull" to you. Can I please have one, back? Only one? Thanks. :-) |
Music & the visual arts, impart immediate effect upon us -- as opposed to, say, literature that requires a vehicle (reading).
Music in particular, being non-visual (whereas our basic defenses mostly are) can inspire spontaneous emotional action -- taking us unawares, before we have the time activate our behaviourist controls, as it were. The difference with noise, or even fearful sounds, is that the structure of sound that we call music MUST appeal to a number of innate characteristics of our race, and thereby impact upon emotions. One of these is the sense of sublime rythm (the latter in the ancient greek sense -- not timing...), or harmonious balance. Harmony in its original sense referred to the correct sequence and correlation of things. It is or not at all. Maybe this joins 6's "no-states/stages" because stages are a limitation by definition. Music appeals to an innate quest for balance, maybe? After all we are delivered with a physical two-dimensional balance, so music, our creation, reflects and can can speak to, this balance...
But the archetypal impact of music throughout the ages is probably and primarily emotional: think of follia, of ritual music, of walking over hot coals "under (partly musically generated) trance"... -- or the 3rd Reich's (ab)use of Wagner (not the best pieces at that!)...
Coming to Oz's point about learning to appreciate (Oz is more detailed on the subject, above)I beg to agree & slightly disagree, from personal experience.
When I first heard parts of Mahler's 5th symphony, I did not know Mahler, nor "classical music" nor, of course, had I any affinity with the finer points of musical appreciation... In fact, I couldn't talk yet, I was 1 yr old so cognitive skills had't been developed (I'm getting better now).
I was, reportedly, mesmerised: glued to a position with my mouth open -- and my parents used to play Mahler & Tchaikovski on an old auto player that repeated the record, so I would keep quiet & not come to mischief.
So, I hadn't yet developed an understanding/appreciation for this type of music.
On the other hand, as Oz suggests, appreciating O. Coleman required investment on my part; it is "sophisticated", i.e. does not speak to me spontaneously.
A note on the reproduction of music: I believe that there is no subjective "best" way/sound to reproduce music, to each one of us her/his own. This is a function of experience & inculcation.
But I also believe that there are objectively "better" systems in reproducing music. This is not a function; it's a matter of approaching reality. It's a matter that borrows on 6's last point.
The reason I dare assert the above is that I listen to acoustic music primarily -- and I also listen to a lot of live music. So I have an easy aural benchamrk. So, a violin is a violin or isn't. Dynamics are or not...etc. Even electric instruments are relatively easy to recognise sonically. BUT i don't have to worry about the producer's sound effects... where, I wouldn't have a benchmark!
This holds despite the recording or the remastering (we all know that, don't we advise as to the "quality" of the recording?).
I admit that music is stronger than its reproduction; I have been moved with a small Sony and with my own. Just that with my system these occasions are more frequent; sometimes the sensation of being there is enough to move me -- due to misplaced nostalgia?
If you've read this far, thank you. This subject fascinates me. Clink! |
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. |
Lugnut, I could not disagree with you:-) |
Detlof to me music is a mystery,my relationship with it has been a lifetime love affair however to quote Van Morrison
"It ain't why.......................It just is"
As for systems well yes I suppose there may be aspects that may enhance our enjoyment but at the basic levels you are talking I don't think it matters.
If there is a piece of music that touches you then it touches you however you hear it.
To boil it down to nothing.
Imagine you lose a close friend or split up with your partner and you hear their favourite song.
Do you really think it matters if it's on a $10 radio,a boom box or a state of the art sysytem?
I like hi-fi but I only use to enhance the experience of listening to music.
What effect that music has is down to the music and/or me. |
Your thread title explains it all. Music comes from the mental exercise of tapping ones emotions. If what you hear connects with some small part of your emotion it will, at the least, capture your attention momentarily. Should a composer/artist tap into the motherload of your emotions you will be captivated. This same phenomenon occurs with poetry and traditional art. |
Detlof, There is no "what is" (matters or light/dark, etc..) only "how is". You can't define "it" (the one Asa talked about) in the higher definition (except/accept human def., languages). You only recognize "it" when you see "it" (in this case hear it).
When one listens to the music, "it" is all music. When one not listens to the music, "it" is all "one". Once one passes "that", one is a "free" man. Think of it as water and waves. When one are sad/happy (dark/light) the waves is high. When one are happy/sad the waves is lower. Ask oneself this, when one in not sad, not happy, where is the wave? Once one get that, all one's burning questions is answered! Music's, noises, "light/dark", "mirror", "beneath, it is not", "beneath is not"; all these are tools, and only tools they are...
One is a potential non-audiophile, then...Because; all one listen is music, then. There are no stages, no states, and no levels. Because, it there are stages, there are higher/lower stages. If there are states, there is higher/lower states, levels, etc. Only musical...or not musical.
I am writing all this. Asking for 3 cents in return is not too much, is it not? :-) |
I think that certain things are hardwired and certain things are learned. The hardwired pieces are appreciation for rhythm and melody. Maybe it comes from reacting to the rhythms of nature -- surf, wind, etc. In any event, moving your body to a rhythm seems very natural. Humans are not alone in moving to a beat -- maybe it's a survival trait that helps tribes bond. Speaking of survival, there is a certain rhythm to mating (i.e. the act) so that may be related to the need for this hardwiring. Melody seems like a natural thing since babies enjoy it so much and it is soothing. Why would it be linked to our survival as a species and be hardwired? I'm at a loss. Maybe it's related to language itself and the cadence of the spoken word -- every language has differences in this so it would be imperative for humans to perceive these differences since very subtle variations have different meanings. Again, it's a survival of the fittest thing -- but here, "fit" means having an inate ability to perceive subtle differences in tone and rhythm.
Beyond that, I think much is learned. For example, the enjoyment of the subtlties of an orchestra or appreciation of the nuances of a jazz bass. Different cultures and groups focus and emphasize different aspects of this. By the way, this is not to say that even this is unrelated to survival. For example, a more analytic mind may pick up micro detail that is very enjoyable for that person. The analytic ability is important for the species -- some have more than others. The more sensory mind may pick up the macro mood or "meshing" that is very enjoyable for that person. Again, the Emotional IQ ability is important for the species and again, some have more than others.
In terms of musical systems -- I would suspect that the abilitiy to convey most of the information accurately is a key. Most of the information is in the midrange. So, that's a start. Beyond that, it may depend on whether people enjoy tha macro vs. micro, etc. I do believe that the macro tends to prevail for musicality (by the way, there was an excellent threas on that a year or so ago).
Whew! I'm taking a deep breath now and firmly saying that all of the above is IMHO. Very philosphical and interesting question. I'm looking forward to a long and interesting thread here. |
