What do you like about music

[Gareth]

Music effects us in many different ways no doubt, but what do you like about it?

I like the part where you can express your feelings, and just how it suits your day, or cheers you up perhaps.

But playing classical music, made me realize that it doesn't racially effect anyone, no rebellion formed in it and yes, can make realize how much talent was formed centuries ago.......and all the rest. So what is your opinion?

Cheers
Gareth.

 

[Colorful Mage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music_riot

Classical music is as any other genre - It contains happy songs, depressing songs, bouncy songs, slow songs, etc. It can be just as contraversial as any other piece; you have to look at it in the context of the setting it was composed in, rather than looking at its effect on present society.

I like music as a form of communication, mostly because I believe that is what it is. Many musicians (at least, I do) find it much more satisfying to communicate with someone through music than through written or spoken language. It is not a perfect language, but one that is fun; music and english, for example, both have distinct purposes and reasons. We cannot do without either.

 

[acciaccatura]

This is a really tough question... it is difficult to convey what you specifically like about something that has been with you all your life as a natural companion. I couldn't live a decent, normal life without music, it is such a basic part of my existence. I guess music speaks to me in a way that words do not. Music finds all the nuance, all the in-betweens, everything that is written between the lines that you cannot really express otherwise.

Other art forms are very real - like, in a painting you can look at it and see what it is about - but music forces you to imagine, to enter into a world of sound that is more abstract than the most abstract of art. Even though music has form and syntax, it is depending on the performer to convey a message. That message has variability, depending on the individual interpretation - and I think the variability is what I like so much. No two performances of a piece of music are identical. The possibilities are endless, the imaginative potential enormous.

Now, if we could only get people to listen to real music, I think that people would act more intelligently in their everyday lives. Unfortunately, I think it is an uphill battle. Music has become a marginalized art form, completely overtaken by electronic gizmos and popular culture. Hopefully, there will one day again be a demand for music with more depth, but at this time it looks bleak.

Sorry for rambling and going off topic...

 

[Colorful Mage]

acciaccatura, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. To me, other forms of art are equal to music; they are equivalent in all but their presentation. To me, different forms of art are like different languages. I could say "Ne la chantez pas," or "Do not sing it." Both phrases would have identical meanings. The only difference in the two sentences is the presentation of them.

The only reason I like music much better than other forms of art is because I am a more proficient musician than I am a painter, or a linguist. For purely egotistical reasons (as they should be in this case), I study music because I can communicate better with it. I hold no illusions, however, that music is the superior art form. I believe exactly the opposite.

You say that if we could get people to listen to music, they would act more intelligently. I think that to exhibit a response to music such as intelligence, one must have an open mind. Thus, rather than trying to get people to listen to music, we should convince them to be open-minded, and let them discover music on their own. Only then will they benefit the most from it.



If you see any flaws in anything I said above, please point them out. I'd rather be wrong and learn than be wrong and walk away.

 

[Gareth]

SOme good points you have in there, but people have different opinions, they tend to like what they are good at. Acciaccatura said music is better than all the other arts, but there is a balance of symmetry with everything, I think Newton's Theory of to every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction, I think that also apply's to the arts, like hating say.......painting and liking music opposite but liking it just as much as you hate music.

Lol, did that even make sense???

 

[Colorful Mage]

I read your post a few times, and I'm struggling with getting the meaning. I'll figure it out eventually.

What I could figure out is very wise, though. I appreciate that you are able to see that everything is balanced (I think that is what you mean by symmetrical?) and equal. This seems to coincide with what I say.
Before you say that, though, you say that people have different opinions, so even though all the arts are equal in a sense, the preference of whichever type of art is dependant upon your viewpoint.

Thus, if I understand you correctly, the only thing seperating mine and acciaccatura's concepts of are and music is a subjective preference. Thus, rather than disagreeing with acciaccatura, I am merely stating my opinion and justifying it. It is natural social behavior to try to compare opinions. Either that, or I have no clue what you said. Sorry.

Your last sentence confused me most. "...just as much as you hate music." 'You' is being used as a general term for a person, right?

(EDIT: Actually, reading back over the posts, I believe that me and acciaccatura have the same preference when it comes to music; that is, both of us prefer it to the other forms of art. However, I think my opinion deviates a little when it comes to that the other forms of art, that I appreciate them as being equal to music and do my best to understand them as I would music.)

 

[Thomas Dressler]

There certainly is a difference between performing arts and visual arts, in that performances do have the extra dimension of an interpreter who presents the work to an audience (the performer.)

To me, the ultimate aim of ALL art (including music) is to communicate something. There are different definitions of beauty, depending on the aesthetic approach you take, but the one I take is that beauty is about the depth of communication. Sometimes things can be beautiful but ugly, because they communicate a strong emotion or idea. All of the arts are capable of this. For the visual arts, the artist's work stands by itself, exactly as the artist meant it to be presented. Performing arts need performers to interpret scripts, dances, and musical scores, and the success of a performance depends on good interpretation. I wouldn't say one kind of art is better than another, they are just different.

You may find it interesting to know that I taught music appreciation at the college level for several years. When teaching the historic style periods and what the musical characteristics of a given style were, I use paintings to illustrate the different stylistic elements. For example, the same elements of balance and form found in music of the Classical era can be seen in paintings of the same style period. The same is true of the Baroque era--the same lack of symmetry, emphasis on emotions and movement, etc, can be seen both in the visual arts and heard in the music. The different kinds of art help us to understand a given style.

Thomas Dressler

 

[acciaccatura]

Whoa, I think we have some misunderstandings here - I never said music was a 'superior' art form, merely that it does something different and covers a different area of the human mind than do other arts. Thomas Dressler hits the nail on the head when he distinguishes between performing arts and visual arts, and like i said, that extra level introduces an element of interpretation that is simply not present in other art forms. The question was, “what do you like about music?” - and that is what I find very rewarding in music. I like other art forms, too, but for different reasons.

In a painting - or even literature, the receiver interprets for himself, in private. In music, someone does that for you. No one can get a satisfactory musical experience out of simply looking at the score (though I suppose a few freaks kan reach katharsis when looking at Bach's handwritten music, and even fewer can imagine a musical production in its entirety without a performer), there must be someone there who has a different and sufficient artistic skill to convey a musical message OF HIS OWN. It is then up to the listener to receive and interpret that message. Music is a very complex mechanism that places high demands on all parties involved, but it is not superior to other art forms.

Someone clever once said that “music is the way between the tones” - somehow I find that description quite telling.

 

[Colorful Mage]

Ah, thank you Thomas and acciaccatura; I did indeed misinterpret acciaccatura's original post.

My deepest apologies.

 

[corno]

It is indeed an interesting discussion about performing art and "visual" art. Though I'm not sure that the "visual" aspect of visual art as compared to the performing aspect of the performance art is that different in nature - that is, a painting or sculpture as been "interpreted/made" by an artist before it's presented to the "public", just like much of the music being made and played today (pop music is rarely recorded by many different artists without it being a "remix" and not merely a "re-performance/recording" - the piece of music is linked with the artist as opposed to "classical music" - in the broadest sence - where the initial composer is long dead, and so is the performance practices of his/her time so it's up to others to interpret it before it is "presented" to the public) - a painting by Van Gogh is equal in "status" as a visual artform as a dancetrack of a contemporary arist is "audible art" - they are both "interpretations"/compositions of an artist/composer - and they are static in their expression.

The difference with music, in comparison with several other artforms is that a large part of it is second hand second handed art, that is your interpretation of a given piece of "performed" music (at a concert) is depending upon others interpretations of the written music (the notes) - especially valid for classical music). - not that I won't argue that looking at a painting by eg. da Vinci (The Last Supper eg.) also in the end would be your own interpretation of da Vinci interpretation of the subject, it's not an abstract painting, so it's not your own interpretation alone it all comes down to. - To sum up: the philosophical discussion could be whether you here are looking at "The Last Supper" as a historic event in time or you are looking at da Vinci's representation of it or a combination - and is there a difference in those ways of looking at it? Translated to music that would be discussing whether you're listening to the instruments playing the music or the music itself - is there a difference? Is the idea of music and the performance of it seperate things?

I'm agreeing with you that music, as well as art in general, is a conveyor of emotions, but eventhough the backgroundhistory about a given piece of music while being interesting and which might shed some light on what the composers intention with it was, the emotions conveyed by the music is not "given", and if 2 different people get 2 different meanings out of 1 piece of music/art that's not necessarily a bad thing - misinterpretation is of cause possible - but the multitude in meanings derived from a given piece of art is what makes it universal (not - in the popular conception - that it is possible to convey a whole range of emotions without using words). Facts are for science, and eventhough there is a part of music which is scientifical, the expressions/emotions contained within it and released in us, aren't!

Hmm... it's a little late here (2.30 am) so please bear with me if some of the above makes little sence.

 

[sondance]

The subject is difficult, as indicated by a few who have admitted they are not sure their response makes sense. By that I think we mean we want to make sense but we are reaching out to define an understanding that in some ways approaches the indescribable.

Perhaps it is difficult because the answer to the question occurs on several levels at once. There is an inherent liking of music for some folks. We cannot help ourselves.

Some of us are those who would sing anything fun to sing when we were kids. I, for one, recall singing "100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" over and over and over as our family traveled down Interstate 80 across the Bonneville Salt Flats in western Utah state. If you have not been there imagine driving down an arrow straight highway that shoots for about 50 miles across pure-white, salt encrusted soil, perfectly flat and stretching to the horizon in every direction. Then imagine you are 11 years old and stuck in the back seat. That setting has its own form of psycho-drama but add to that my incessant singing - I do not know how my parents survived.
Here is a description of the salt flats.
http://www.utah.com/playgrounds/bonneville_salt.htm

So that is one level of musical enjoyment - one that I still like - to absentmindedly allow a tune to fill my heart with simple joy.

As I got older and developed an ability to play though chords on the piano and guitar I found the joy of hearing different tones create new impressions. It is one thing to enjoy hearing someone else play and another to discover you can manipulate the notes yourself, even if you are playing the same thing. Cycle a diminished chord through its related major and minor keys and it can keep you busy all day, filled with wonder.

Now I am old enough to know my limitations - old enough to let the experts show me how it is done and to appreciate their art. This has multiple levels of its own: performance, composition and recording. I've experienced enough with recording to know it has its own musical artistry. Read about the placement of microphones in a large church to record the best sounds of a cathedral organ (in the organ forum) for an example. This last level touches on what has emerged as "home recording", much of which is available on this website. It serves an important purpose for those who can hear their compositions more broadly than a solo part on their chosen instrument. The reality is not everyone can access a symphony or chorus to give their work a larger expression.

Well fine. In the end I like music because if I want to rejoice or cry or lament or rock out, there is music that lets that expression become my own. It can be found by my keeping time to the beat of my heart, or a song on the radio as I drive down the freeway. It can be found when I am whistling as I wash my car, singing a lullaby as I tuck my kids into bed, or worshipping on Sunday. It has a universal appreciation across ages, eras and cultures. It brings healing to the soul more immediately than can other arts that require time for reflection. It can be found wherever I am. I do not need a venue or an ensemble or any materials at all. Not only can I create it with my own voice, but I can hear it in the waterfall, the rain, the crickets and frogs on a late summer's eve.

Hmmm, I think I like music a lot because it brings me joy.

 

[Gareth]

Yeah, music does alot to people, and what do you mean by you don't know how you parents survived, were they in a horrific accident?

 

[corno]

Gareth: I think he's refering to his incessant singing when talking about not knowing how his parents survived.

 

[sondance]

No accident except my birth.

 

[Swaft]

lol sondace.

To make a long story short, I love music because it makes me think about the meaning of life. I can also talk and express my emotions with it. Art itself is all about that. But since I can't draw, paint or sculpt I create music to free all these emotions caught inside. Music keeps me alive I would say.

However, I write too, but most of the time I prefer keeping these poems and proses in my head instead of writting them down. hehe.

 

[Gareth]

Lol, good one, sorry Sondance, it was kind of late at night, trust my reading!!

 

[AnnaBanana]

Well scientifically, I was watching a tv program and they said that to keep happy, you need to do something to create flow, which is where you are totally absorbed in this one thing. I think this is really what keeps me up, if I've had a bad day I'll go home and play.
Also, what I find with music is that it can express something that words or pictures or actions cannot. For instance, in a drama lesson our teacher played us a cello solo from Schinlers List by John Williams and asked us about waht we felt. All of us could build up an exact emotion, but found it hard to describe.
This is a really hard topic, I don't know really what my answer is, but I do know that music is the thing that means the most to me in the whole world.
Anna

 

[rojo]

music is the thing that means the most to me in the whole world.

Me too!

 

[giovannimusica]

Hi Gareth,

Good question - I like music since it appeals to both sides of my brain: the analytical left-half and the artistic right-half. Music is Physics, Mathematics, Medicine, Philosophy, History and artistic interpretation all rolled into one. I invite anyone to fill in what I've just shared.

Peace to all Mankind,

Giovanni

 

[Gareth]

How about music is everything, would that be much better, except biology