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. |
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! |
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... |
Ahhh, 6! You have now revealed yourself:)! Good for Matt... that picture of Jesus says it all!!! Clink |
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..:) |
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 ;) |
"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 :)? |
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. |
I second the malt. Another note, to repeat what I have written elsewhere; I astart enjoying music the most when my cognitive part intervenes the least. Then, I listen to the music rather than pondering on HOW am I perceiving/listening to the music (the "HOW" includes the system, the recording...).
Strange: As an art, music is particular in that it requires TWO types of musicians in order to be experienced: the composer AND the performer. Cheers! |
Bin One of the greatest threads with some of the greatest people. I love and miss your passion! Where have you all gone? You echo my occasional nostalgic musings! I am Detlof's old thread is back again (it would be even nicer if he were back, too). Rja: the "sinful" aspect relates to relaxation and the loss of control -- which, in the minds of some, may eventually lead to terrible things: boy meets girl and then something happens without prior consent by the powers that be (were). Don't forget too, that some dancing is very expressive erotically, and most traditional dancing is a collective affair: i.e. people being together and gesturing/moving freely, as evidenced by the "unusual" movement dancing requires. Unusual because we don't usually act this way (at a job interview, for example). You move your body... very suggestive! Cheers |
Detlof bemones the paucity of words;, yet his article above (or "post", if you will) manages to be very direct, explicit and very important.
*Explicit and important, because it can be read independently (hence my use of the word "article") and retain its full potency;
*Direct and important as well WITHIN the context of discussions dedicated to music and audiophile subjects.
But we rarely combine music and its universal powers and the simple subject of reproducing music, in a way that these become interdependent, and the former defines the latter.
Reading carefully however, the pointers are there for those that wish to acknowledge them (others will see these too, but will chose to ignore): personally relate to the subject of music; allow yourself the freedom from personally induced noise i.e. rules & regulations contained in our brain. Let me call this, "subjective distortion" -SD- products.
As Detlof implies, this transcendence may happen when one is physically alone -- and when it does because we allow it, we are in communion with everyone. As we all suspect, being in company means we are exclusively with that company; when alone and in private, one is with potentially with everyone.
Needless to say, the discussions on reproduction systems in relation to music, should start with a defined principle and free from SD. Then, we trickle down to analyses of the parts (what is the "best..." etc, "the bass" the "mid", the amp, etc, etc) -- not the other way round. But that would be the subject of another thread. |
