music = meaning ???

[La Rocque]

Consider that music is by its very nature,essentially powerless to express
anything at all, wether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological
mood, a phenomenon of nature ,etc ... Expression has never been an inherent
property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is
nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an
illusion and not reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit
and inveterate agreement, we lent it, thrust upon it, and as a label of
convention - in short, an aspect unconsciously or by force of habit, we
have come to confuse with its essential being.

 

[Ethereal Sage]

I tend to disagree with your initial statement based on semantics, but am seeing the underlying idea you are putting forth.
Are you going to suggest the purpose of music, apart from expression?

 

[Blitzkrieg Pajo]

your kind of view is from the listener. but the musicians themselves write the music to express theirselves or to get rid of it or to get a better exposure with it. they don't force the listener to steal this kind of view or the opinions of them. but it feels good for the listener if they can identify theirselves with the meaning of the music. or if they don't about that they just like the music.

 

[opacity]

wasn't music initially made by people to help them reach a different level of consciouness or alter the mood, to concentrate? so people created a media that was supposed to have power alright.
music is not a selfstanding "thing", it's a tool, and it was created to definitely have a certain effect.

from my point of view....

edit: of course it's a phenomenon of nature, it's pure physics. and the only thing that was "learnt" and is culturally dependent are the intervals and tones (whether and how they touch us) - wtf is going on here?

 

[MagSec4]

Consider that music is by its very nature,essentially powerless to express
anything at all, wether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological
mood, a phenomenon of nature ,etc ... Expression has never been an inherent
property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is
nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an
illusion and not reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit
and inveterate agreement, we lent it, thrust upon it, and as a label of
convention - in short, an aspect unconsciously or by force of habit, we
have come to confuse with its essential being.

hehe

..are you on pcp?

 

[Monroe]

As I have told already I think music is the greatest way to express yourself (whether you are a listener or a musician). And brutal (heavy) music expresses pain and as for me I listen to it when I need some energy or to get rid of energy and when I feel blue. Almost always

 

[Dafne]

hehe

..are you on pcp?

 

[Taliesin]

And for those who havent done drugs lately.. What is pcp?

 

[Dafne]

edit: of course it's a phenomenon of nature, it's pure physics. and the only thing that was "learnt" and is culturally dependent are the intervals and tones (whether and how they touch us) - wtf is going on here?

everything in nature and human being is physix or chemistry if you examine it in the scientific way but i'm so glad we have that special and can't be caught perspective so that we can feel emotion when a train of electromagnetic waves hit our tympanum

 

[TheFourthHorseman]

And for those who havent done drugs lately.. What is pcp?

http://www.google.com/search?q=pcp&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Lazy!

 

[YaYo]

Consider that music is by its very nature,essentially powerless to express
anything at all, wether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological
mood, a phenomenon of nature ,etc ... Expression has never been an inherent
property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is
nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an
illusion and not reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit
and inveterate agreement, we lent it, thrust upon it, and as a label of
convention - in short, an aspect unconsciously or by force of habit, we
have come to confuse with its essential being.

Disagreed, completely. Music in and of itself invokes things, that's why it exists. You can argue that in the end it's just vibrations and doesnt really have meaning, but then the same can be said of absolutely everything and would be worthless to state (basically saying: if we go to the level where nothing has meaning, then music has no real meaning.. well yeh). Things only have meaning to us because of how we interpret them, but fundamentally music is built on interpretations of sound which we are born with and cant control. A minor chord is sad and a major chord is happy. There is of course variation beyond this, which has to be learnt to a degree (though how much control is there still, COULD someone learn to hear My Dying Bride as happy music? i'd say no.. you have to learn to appreciate them, but you'll always learn roughly the same way). It's like a frown vs a smile, they are in essence the same thing, just arrangement of muscles, but a baby doesnt have to learn which one is happy/sad, its inbuilt.

All our senses invoke feelings, that's how they work.. they invoke feelings which cause automatic reactions which are best suited to the typical situation where we would come across that noise. An unexpected sudden loud noise will put you on edge, doesnt matter if you know it came from a movie or album it'll still have that effect. Chocolate, music, etc are all just building on such natural interpretations of things.

So rather than saying evoking feelings isnt inherently a part of music i'd suggest exactly the opposite, that's what music IS.. if not, what else is it?

 

[King Chaos]

I agree with yayo.

I think if you look at stuff this deep you have too much free time. Everytime I look at the night sky I get lost in thought about all the shit that's above me, then I get mixed up thinking, should this immensity be called 'Above me'... cos it's not, I'm so small and nothing in comparison. Science ruins everything. No more mysteries.

did you know kids don't believe in ghosts anymore? they dont believe what science can't prove.

 

[Siren]

Science ruins everything. No more mysteries.

did you know kids don't believe in ghosts anymore? they dont believe what science can't prove.

It's not science that ruins everything, it's the way people choose to perceive things.
Too bad for those kids, cause there's a lot of stuff science hasn't explored yet, and a lot more it hasn't proved. And that doesn't mean they're not there.

 

[King Chaos]

there's a lot of stuff science hasn't explored yet, and a lot more it hasn't proved. And that doesn't mean they're not there.

*quite off topic*
That's what I keep saying. Something is considered paranormal if we're not familiar with it. Also if intelligent people are intimidated by it because it's something they can't comprehend. What's worse about this sort of thing is that most people go through unexplainable events and then fog it off saying they 'had too much to drink', or 'it could have been a dream'. I know what I saw when a demon/imp ran along my shelf and dived through a portal. Everyone thinks I'm joking but I really am not.

 

[Siren]

@KC: I wasn't talking exactly about that, but i agree with you. I would expect people to react like that, for various reasons. I wouldn't jump into believing you either, i'd first try to make sure you didn't mistake something else for it, or that it wasn't your imagination, but i would at least keep an open mind about it. It is true that people easily label things as "paranormal", but who are we to judge what is normal and what's not? Maybe our perception of "normal" is too limited after all..
I will insist on the point i made with my previous post though, and remind that many theories in science are accepted because they haven't been proven wrong.



Siren (sweet alcohol)

 

[MagSec4]

I find her points very true.

 

[Siren]

*gives Mags some of my fine beer*

 

[King Chaos]

Maybe our perception of "normal" is too limited after all..

Exactamundo!

Siren (sweet alcohol)

Exactamundo!

(I know it's difficult to believe the demon thing, but I try to look at it in so far as how I felt at the time... the only feeling I had was disbelief, which lead to some kind of doubt. Now I know i felt disbelief because I couldn't comprehend what I saw.)

 

[La Rocque]

Coda music = meaning ???

The words I started this tread with are not mine
I found them in a book and as I read these words they sort of
stopped me in my tracks They are very thought-provoking Do I agree with them?
Not really But I have the up most respect for the person who wrote them
as I have been moved in many ways by His music
Firebird:Suite
the Rite of Spring
I'm sure most forum members now know who's words I used
For those who do not
Igor Stravinsky

@MegSec4 am I on PCP? You may find this difficult to believe but
I don't drink, smoke or do drugs. If I did partake my posts
would probably be much more confusing/annoying
if that is possible?

a thought - maybe Igor was dusted when He wrote it?
dusted??? PCP is aka(also know as) angel dust,
so a person who is on PCP is said to be dusted -

 

[rahvin]

The words I started this tread with are not mine

that was obvious from the word "tacit". you have trouble spelling "upmost", not to mention figure out that you in fact mean "utmost", so you're not likely to use the term "tacit" in everyday conversation.

as for what stravinsky was on, my money is on the early twentieth century. it makes lots of people write in what we might think of as a slightly funny way nowadays, the twentieth century. then again, apparently you don't need it.

and when it comes to what you might be on, the average number of question marks in your non-interrogative clauses is a dead giveaway.