2. music
  3. 185273-89202

Sound and music

Forgetting about the sound of our systems for a moment, there is a larger question of how sound by itself integrates into our appreciation and comprehension of music. Those notes written by composers have no really significant meaning unless physically heard. 
 How much of a part does the sensual  aspect of music play in its apprehension, and what part does the stringing of those notes together play? A musician can read a score and visualize ( or audio-ize) the meaning of the music but without the physical sound how much is missing?  
 This has significance in the debate over how one listens to a system: for the sound or for the music.

128x128rvpiano

Showing 3 responses by rvpiano

rvpiano's avatar
rvpiano OP
2,426 posts
 

Mahgister,

‘Thank you for your thoughts. 
 Yes, there is a lot more to music than just sound and form.

rvpiano's avatar
rvpiano OP
2,426 posts
 

@stuartk 

Although I appreciate your point, the best definition of music I know is that it’s “organized SOUND.”
 Is there music without sound?

rvpiano's avatar
rvpiano OP
2,426 posts
 

@stuartk 

As a retired concert pianist I do look at music from the perspective of a performer.  I performed classical music which in most cases adheres strictly to the printed page (although there are exceptions.). I gather from your posting that you deal in improvisation, quite a difference, as you make it up as you go along. 
I acknowledge this difference but I still say there is no music without sound. 
in poetry we have a different aesthetic because words have concrete meaning even if they’re arranged in meter. The case in music is that there are symbols which represent emotions but not in a literal way. You as an improvising performer do approach notes differently. But even so, if these notes are not heard it is not music as we know it.

More to discover