Page 1 of 2
#1
I don't know about they rest of you guys, but my ultimate goal with my guitar is to get my inner ear working like another limb. In other words, my aim is to be able to play what I hear inm y head exactly, as to express myself as I currently feel. Sounds cool, no?


Well, on February 13th, 4 people died that I knew, one was a good friend during school from age of 11 - 16. I went to his house played football and everythign kids do. One guy was one of my best friends. I'm not even going to bother with the details, but my question is; why doesn't my music sound how I feel??

I have a loop pedal (JamMan) and since they died I have been very productive creatively, making abuot 3 decent loops a day to get hours fun with. Now my favourite style of guitar to play is funk, with some rock input.
However, inside I feel so emotionally distraught, and when playign over tracks I have been playing what I hear in my head rather than what I feel.


I don't know if I'm getting my point across so lets break it down. Go on Youtube and listen to a backingtrack, any style, any key. Now can't you hear all these cool melodies and lead ideas to play over it? But is that how you currently feel inside?


So basically I can still hear nice melodies to go over a track, but its not how I feel. I can go on a reggae track and hear these sweet melodies to put over, but inside that couldn't be further from how I feel!!

So am I meant to play what I hear or what I feel?
#2
if you feel sad, you can't just go on about playing over a happy lollipop track.
harmony works hand in hand with melody.

and in case you don't know, harmony = chord progression
melody = lead
#3
Don't torture their memory for a good sound, or one that you think is appropriate or fitting.

If playing music soothes you, it's accomplished as much as it should and far more. It's the process that's important.
#4
why doesn't my music sound how I feel??


Because music is structured sound with no inherent emotion. Any "feeling" the listener derives from it is a subjective response to the elements that make up the music. The fact that the composer "feels" the music while he's playing it means nothing in and of itself, except to the extent that is alters the way he plays or composes it, which may not even be in a way that enhances the response of the listener.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#5
Quote by Archeo Avis
Because music is structured sound with no inherent emotion. Any "feeling" the listener derives from it is a subjective response to the elements that make up the music. The fact that the composer "feels" the music while he's playing it means nothing in and of itself, except to the extent that is alters the way he plays or composes it, which may not even be in a way that enhances the response of the listener.



Music is sound that is structured by a composer that may in fact have something to express, emotional or otherwise. What the composer "feels" when they are composing a piece or playing an instrument certainly does mean something as it is often part of what is expressed. What they feel affects the way they play and the notes they choose. It's irrelevant that the sound waves themselves don't "contain" emotion. It's what is expressed that people are referring to. Humans feel emotion.... humans express emotion..... humans that are artists often express it through their art. The fact that the listeners perception varies, or that sound waves don't "contain" the emotion is irrelevant to this fact and shouldn't be used to downplay the relevance of the artist.

The TS apparently feels that he wasn't successful at expressing himself.

Quote by Volvic


I don't know if I'm getting my point across so lets break it down. Go on Youtube and listen to a backingtrack, any style, any key. Now can't you hear all these cool melodies and lead ideas to play over it? But is that how you currently feel inside?




It's often not, which is why I end up making my own backing tracks or just composing something that does express what I feel. I think this is your problem, and someone already mentioned it.... your trying to express something that in your mind is not compatible with the current backing track, so you are unable to connect with it. Turn off that backing track and try coming up with a melody or chord progression of your own, that does fit what you are trying to express.

Quote by 20Tigers
Try it without a backing track. You are much more free to express yourself .


+1
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Mar 8, 2009,
#6
Try it without a backing track. You are much more free to express yourself without the limitations of fitting into a harmonic progression. When you get an idea you like try creating a loop or backing track for that idea.
Si
#7
Just play whatever, the question you should really ask yourself is: how do you want to sound?
When you feel sad do you want to play something sad? Or do you want to escape from it all and just play something you enjoy?
As the bassist from Korpiklaani said: "you can be in the middle of the worst hangover ever and write a song called Happy Little Boozer".
Gear List:
B.C. Rich NT Jr. V (With Seymour Duncan AHB-1 Blackout in bridge)
Electro-Harmonix Metal Muff
Marshall MG15DFX
Jazz III picks
DR strings
Planet Waves Cables
#8
Music is sound that is structured by a composer that may in fact have something to express, emotional or otherwise.


True, but irrelevant here.

What the composer "feels" when they are composing a piece or playing an instrument certainly does mean something as it is often part of what is expressed.


This is true in the sense that their desire to express something may influence what or how they compose. The listener, however, only has access to the final product. Their emotional reaction to it is determined by its structure and timbre and, above all else, the context in which it is presented. "Feeling" the music is only useful in allowing one to express himself if it somehow results in the final product being structured in a way that elicits the same feelings in the listener, which isn't guaranteed.

What they feel affects the way they play and the notes they choose


True, but not necessarily in a way that results in the listener experiencing the same emotion.

It's irrelevant that the sound waves themselves don't "contain" emotion.


It's not, because it means that the listener's emotional response must necessarily result from something else.

It's what is expressed that people are referring to. Humans feel emotion.... humans express emotion..... humans that are artists often express it through their art.


Again, irrelevant here.

The fact that the listeners perception varies, or that sound waves don't "contain" the emotion is irrelevant to this fact and shouldn't be used to downplay the relevance of the artist.


It doesn't downplay the artist, it just downplays the significance of the artist's feelings in the listeners perception of the music. If you want to invoke sadness in the listener, you're much better off studying the structure of music commonly considered sad than you are "feeling it" yourself.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Mar 8, 2009,
#10
+1 to both GuitarMunky and Archeo. all valid points.
Вяєҭҭ
ZeGuitarist's sister is hawt.
?)
#11
i personally think that you should look at why you're creating the music in the first place. Do you want to make yourself feel better by getting these painful emotions out or do you want to convey to other people how you're feeling?

What comes out shouldn't be forced and it shouldn't be an effort to make. If it's a funk rock song about a sad emotion then so be it. If when you pick up your instrument and play a song you can feel when you're playing then you're doing everything you can and you're being a true musician.

A song about heartbreak doesn' t have to be slow and deep in the same way that a song about joy doesn't have to be upbeat. What matters is what you feel when you're writing and playing it. Write something you love about the people you love. Forget everyone else and what they might think. Music isn't meant to touch the masses. It's just a happy coincidence.
#12
This is really the wrong place for this argument, but here's something I came across recently that really hits it:

"Something that wants to persuade us with singing, rather than convince us with reason, implements an art of pleasing that addresses the passions, that is, one that subjugates in suggesting and that enslaves the listener through the fraudulent and charlatan power of melody, weakens him through harmonic glamour or the fascinations of rhythm ... Thus, when a human being reaches the age of reason, he struggles against this unseemly and illegal seizure of his person, not wanting to give in to enchantment ... Being bewitched is not worthy of a rational person"

from Jankélévitch, Music and the Ineffable
#13
So am I meant to play what I hear or what I feel?


You play what you want to play. That's one of the beautiful things about music.

I would certainly try and reach the level where I can play anything I hear and express anything I feel in a number of ways, but you can do whatever you want.
#14
from what i got out of it the music he want to play is how he feels..
so its between him and his music..
what he plays will have emotion because he's trying play with emotion
he didn't say he wants to be able to play what he thinks other people will think is sad.
Quote by joshjhasarrived
Little does the government suspect that it's funds are being rapidly drained through funding infinite free cardboard boxes to bored teenagers on an internet forum.
#17
Quote by spacelove
you got owned
No he didn't. He just didn't respond to a stupid argument with anything more than an eyeroll. If anything did the owning.
Si
#18
I don't know the scientific explanation, and I'm sure someone on here is going to tell me how wrong I am, but oh well. When I hear something in my head, and I play it, about 90% of the time it's what I want to hear, and it matches my mood. Occasionally it'll be something not relevant to my feelings at all, and I'm trying to learn to disregard these, but for the most part my inner ear is in tune with my feelings.
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#21
Quote by 20Tigers
No he didn't. He just didn't respond to a stupid argument with anything more than an eyeroll. If anything did the owning.


This is generally the point at which someone would outline exactly why the argument is stupid. It should be no trouble for you to point out the flaw in my reasoning.

Munky suffers from delusions that he is the world's last defense against a regime that seeks to impose some sort of draconian law based on music theory. He honestly believes that anyone who disagrees with him must be trying to create a world where all music is composed by machines, box shapes are outlawed under penalty of death, and the Human element is removed entirely.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Mar 9, 2009,
#22
Archeo and GM, you guys argue like an old married couple.

So am I meant to play what I hear or what I feel?


Both.

Ditch the backing tracks. Rhythm, and tempo play an absolute HUGE role in mood and character. Really, it is not hard to take what is otherwise a real tearjerker, up the tempo and displace the rhythm and end up with a happy-go-lucky diddle tune. Try it for yourself.
#23
Quote by 20Tigers
No he didn't. He just didn't respond to a stupid argument with anything more than an eye roll.

Thank you, that was point exactly.

Quote by Archeo Avis
T
Munky suffers from delusions that he is the world's last defense against a regime that seeks to impose some sort of draconian law based on music theory. He honestly believes that anyone who disagrees with him must be trying to create a world where all music is composed by machines, box shapes are outlawed under penalty of death, and the Human element is removed entirely.

LOL

all I can say again is....
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Mar 9, 2009,
#24
Quote by Archeo Avis
This is generally the point at which someone would outline exactly why the argument is stupid. It should be no trouble for you to point out the flaw in my reasoning.

Munky suffers from delusions that he is the world's last defense against a regime that seeks to impose some sort of draconian law based on music theory. He honestly believes that anyone who disagrees with him must be trying to create a world where all music is composed by machines, box shapes are outlawed under penalty of death, and the Human element is removed entirely.

You've got a terrific imagination, we should write a concept album together.
#25
Quote by Archeo Avis
This is generally the point at which someone would outline exactly why the argument is stupid. It should be no trouble for you to point out the flaw in my reasoning.

Munky suffers from delusions that he is the world's last defense against a regime that seeks to impose some sort of draconian law based on music theory. He honestly believes that anyone who disagrees with him must be trying to create a world where all music is composed by machines, box shapes are outlawed under penalty of death, and the Human element is removed entirely.


right.........

anyways, the TS didn't mention any preoccupation about the listener. he simply stated he wasn't doing what he intended, and asked why.

you, for some reason, had to start an argument, and talk about how music has no feeling on its own.
you've been quite weird for some time now.
#26
anyways, the TS didn't mention any preoccupation about the listener. he simply stated he wasn't doing what he intended, and asked why.

you, for some reason, had to start an argument, and talk about how music has no feeling on its own.
you've been quite weird for some time now.


My initial response was entirely relevant to his question. Munky chose to disagree with me, which he is entitled to do, and I chose to disagree with him in turn. I'll agree to stop expressing viewpoints that you disagree with when everyone else agrees to stop expressing viewpoints that I disagree with.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#27
Archeo, rereading through some of the content of your post there was some good advice so I commend you on that. It wasn't packaged right though and so was was easy for some of us to miss.

Had you simply strung these two sentences together:
Quote by Archeo Avis
Any "feeling" the listener derives from it is a subjective response to the elements that make up the music.
Quote by Archeo Avis
If you want to invoke sadness in the listener, you're much better off studying the structure of music commonly considered sad than you are "feeling it" yourself.


But the statements before in between and after those two sentences are what I was referring to as the "stupid" part of the argument and I believe what GM was reacting to, things like:
Quote by Archeo Avis
Because music is structured sound with no inherent emotion....The fact that the composer "feels" the music while he's playing it means nothing in and of itself, except to the extent that is alters the way he plays or composes it, which may not even be in a way that enhances the response of the listener.


You see when people read a paragraph they tend to look at it as a whole. A paragraph for most people expresses a series of cohesive ideas each represented in the form of a sentences all of which come together to make one point.

When one reads your initial post it looks (especially to those that are familiar with some of your previous posts in other threads) that you are answering the TS's concern on why his music "doesn't sound how he feels" by telling him that there is no emotion in the music itself and what the composer wants to express is meaningless. Everything else in the post then reads like supporting ideas to this main premise.

Music, like all art, is an expression of a subjective experience or vision of the artist/composer. The ability to do this well is only achieved through sufficient practice.

The vision, subjective experience, or emotion the composer wishes to express through his art is of prime importance to the end result of the work. Whether it evokes the same response in the viewer/ listener is irrelevant. Except, perhaps, to the popular or critical success of the work which to many artists (not all) is meaningless.

Back to the TS's point my understanding of what he is saying is more a "rant" about how he is having difficulty in expressing himself artistically and not so much about wanting to make a song other's would perceive as "sad".

Given this understanding it is my opinion that even the two sentences of yours that I quoted above (which I credited as being good advice) still slightly misses the mark. Nevertheless I think it is worthy advice as the study of music he finds sad may indeed help him understand his own emotions on an artistic level and allow him ways to express himself and his vision better as an artist/composer.
Si
Last edited by 20Tigers at Mar 9, 2009,
#28
Quote by 20Tigers

Had you simply strung these two sentences together:

But the statements before in between and after those two sentences are what I was referring to as the "stupid" part of the argument and I believe what GM was reacting to, things like:

You see when people read a paragraph they tend to look at it as a whole. A paragraph for most people expresses a series of cohesive ideas each represented in the form of a sentences all of which come together to make one point.


Actually I disagree with both of those statements as well his entire premise, and don't see anything he's said in this thread as being "advice".

Quote by 20Tigers

When one reads your initial post it looks (especially to those that are familiar with some of your previous posts in other threads) that you are answering the TS's concern on why his music "doesn't sound how he feels" by telling him that there is no emotion in the music itself and what the composer wants to express is meaningless. Everything else in the post then reads like supporting ideas to this main premise.


That's how I read it.

Quote by 20Tigers

Music, like all art, is an expression of a subjective experience or vision of the artist/composer. The ability to do this well is only achieved through sufficient practice.

The vision, subjective experience, or emotion the composer wishes to express through his art is of prime importance to the end result of the work. Whether it evokes the same response in the viewer/ listener is irrelevant. .

Thank you. My point exactly.

Quote by 20Tigers

Back to the TS's point my understanding of what he is saying is more a "rant" about how he is having difficulty in expressing himself artistically and not so much about wanting to make a song other's would perceive as "sad".

That's how I understood it as well.

Quote by 20Tigers

Given this understanding it is my opinion that even the two sentences of yours that I quoted above (which I credited as being good advice) still slightly misses the mark. Nevertheless I think it is worthy advice as the study of music he finds sad may indeed help him understand his own emotions on an artistic level and allow him ways to express himself and his vision better as an artist/composer.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree that it's good advice, or even advice for that matter, though I do commend you on your attempt at diplomacy. The only thing I really got of what he said, and I suppose you could call this advice, is that it's pointless to express anything via your music, so don't even try.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Mar 9, 2009,
#29
I've got to say, it looks like you're all agreeing with Archeo, even if you don't know it (in fact, whatever he's trying to say and however you're taking it, it's a good illustration of the problems with communication, by any medium).

If I create a song that intend to be an aural representation of the intense joy I feel for reason X, I might use what sound to me to be uplifting chord progressions, or bouncy rhythms. I might play a lead line I find to be positively brimming with exuberance, I'm literally smashing at the strings with my pick, so strong is my feeling of joy. When I sing the no doubt ecstatic words, my voice might be hitting notes in a major-key melody, my tone warm, my intent to speak as if communicating some kind of quasi-religious experience.

Then I hand you the CD this song is on and you get sound waves. That's it. Now, when these hit your ears, your brain will very probably decode them into a message of happiness, because humans are similar and react in broadly similar ways to things like music. But there's nothing inherent in that music that will determine your reaction. There's nothing 'emotional' in it at all - it's just sound waves. Of course, like I said, because of the way I created this theoretical song, you are very likely to hear the emotion I intended, but that doesn't in any way mean the song itself (the sound) 'contains' emotion.

I could write a book and you could read it carefully, looking up every word in a dictionary and - if I've used the language correctly - it's likely that you'll come away from the book with the message I intended to convey with it. You could walk away with something totally opposite, even if you understood every word, maybe you thought I was being ironic. There's no inherent meaning in books either. They're just dark bits on light bits that form symbols that we - through a vaguely general concencus - give 'standardised' meaning to. There's nothing inherently 'meaningful' or 'emotional' in my tone of voice or my body language or in any other form of communication.

You could come up to me after hearing that ^^ song and praise me for the uplifiting message it contains and I could sneer and tell you that the entire thing was sataire and that you'd completely missed the point. And I could be lying about that. You can never know for sure exactly what meaning any artist intends with any particular piece of work and you most definitely cannot say that there is anything inherently 'emotional' about sound waves, light rays or any other 'products' of art. You can attempt to comminucate what you mean with these things, but you can't attach an emotion to a bit of vibrating air.
Quote by Ed O'Brien
“It’s not genius. It’s just that if you want something good to come out of something, you have to put in a lot of effort. That involves a lot of hard work, and a lot of blood, sweat and tears sometimes.”

http://urbanscarecrow.bandcamp.com/
Last edited by Damascus at Mar 9, 2009,
#30
Quote by Damascus
I've got to say, it looks like you're all agreeing with Archeo


no offense, but your incorrect here. If you see it that way, it's a misunderstanding on your part.
shred is gaudy music
#31
Quote by GuitarMunky
no offense, but your incorrect here. If you see it that way, it's a misunderstanding on your part.


I'm not so sure - the way I'm reading Archeo's posts is that he's saying that music is just structured sound and emotions can't be attached to structured sound waves. So far, so scientifically uncontroversial. From that, he reasonably concludes that it is entirely possible for the composer of a piece to feel one emotion, which influences the way in which he structures the sound and the listener to feel an entirely different (perhaps contradictory) emotion.

From reading your posts (and everyone else's), it's not clear to me that you're actually disagreeing with Archeo - unless you do actually think you can attach 'emotions' to sound waves. I may well be wrong, like you say, but it looks like the point of disagreement is whether there is any point in the composer attempting to convey emotion - you say there is, whereas you say Archeo says there is not, but I don't think Archeo is saying this at all.

It just looks like he's saying that the composer of a piece can never attach the emotions he feels when he composes to the recording of the piece and thus cannot determine for certain how a listener will react to his piece. This seems like such an obvious truism to me that it's barely worth stating, hence my belief that you're not actually disagreeing with each other, you're just disagreeing with a misreading of Archeo's position.
Quote by Ed O'Brien
“It’s not genius. It’s just that if you want something good to come out of something, you have to put in a lot of effort. That involves a lot of hard work, and a lot of blood, sweat and tears sometimes.”

http://urbanscarecrow.bandcamp.com/
#32
Like I said, It' s a misunderstanding on your part. Let's leave it at that.
shred is gaudy music
#33
What part of your position am I misunderstanding? And/Or what part of Archeo's position am I misunderstanding? I've laid out how I see both in my posts, which I hope were lengthy enough to be clear.
Quote by Ed O'Brien
“It’s not genius. It’s just that if you want something good to come out of something, you have to put in a lot of effort. That involves a lot of hard work, and a lot of blood, sweat and tears sometimes.”

http://urbanscarecrow.bandcamp.com/
Last edited by Damascus at Mar 9, 2009,
#34
I believe that you should play what you hear. Doesn't hearing what you want to play tie in with what you're feeling at the moment? Playing what you hear gives you a sense of knowing what you're doing. Playing by "feel", sounds to me, like you have no idea what you're doing and just jerkin off the fretboard looking for stuff that sound good.

However, it's not to say that playing by feel won't spurt out some great ideas...
If you play guitar, please don't waste your time in The Pit, and please instead educate yourself in the Musician Talk forum, where you can be missing out on valuable info.
Quote by DiminishedFifth
It's like you read my mind!

I got meself a self-approving sig. Kick. Ass.
#35
Quote by GuitarMunky
^


+1, music is art, and arch's point is irrlevant in the fact that the OP's own music should subjectively create an emotional response regardless, since he is writing his own music to elicit emotion. It has nothing to do with objective listeners.


Quote by Damascus
I've got to say, it looks like you're all agreeing with Archeo, even if you don't know it (in fact, whatever he's trying to say and however you're taking it, it's a good illustration of the problems with communication, by any medium).


western theory itself was created with the human ear and emotion in mind. Returning to the tonic isn't a universally satisfying mechanism, but you can generally say that in western music it is true. Obviously there are problems with communication, that doesn't mean music is not emotional.

Also, you've read the thread fine, but you are just missing the history of this topic and Munky's and Arch's respective points of view. I guess it hasn't been as in-depth in this thread so there are some implied things that are, well...implied.

(the rest of this isn't to you)


I'm pretty sure that from the very outset, music has been a spiritual/emotional expression, and that's ridiculous that this point keeps getting argued and brought up because someone wants to 'prove a point.'

It's especially funny that you are OBJECTIVELY arguing that music is subjective... From what grand point of view are you basing your argument? Is it completely emotionless and analytical? If music itself is subjective then who are you to say that music is just notes and rhythms...isn't that categorizing music? Isn't that just your subjective point of view?
Standard Fender Telecaster
Fender Blues Jr
Ibz10
Last edited by zipppy2006 at Mar 9, 2009,
#36
western theory itself was created with the human ear and emotion in mind. Returning to the tonic isn't a universally satisfying mechanism, but you can generally say that in western music it is true. Obviously there are problems with communication, that doesn't mean music is not emotional.


It just means that music does not 'contain' emotion. The majority of people interpret emotion within a piece of music, and/or feel a certain way because of certain music, but the point is that the music itself does not contain this. The music itself is just structured sound.

Also, you've read the thread fine, but you are just missing the history of this topic and Munky's and Arch's respective points of view. I guess it hasn't been as in-depth in this thread so there are some implied things that are, well...implied.


Right.


It's especially funny that you are OBJECTIVELY arguing that music is subjective... From what grand point of view are you basing your argument? Is it completely emotionless and analytical? If music itself is subjective then who are you to say that music is just notes and rhythms...isn't that categorizing music? Isn't that just your subjective point of view?


Why is it funny that you would objectively argue that something is subjective? The 'grand point of view' being argued from here as far as I can see is scientific discovery. We know how sound waves work. We know that a sound wave cannot contain or carry this thing we call 'emotion'. We also know that it is most often the case that when one human creates certain types of sound waves and another human hears these sound waves, the second human often interprets the sound waves in the same emotional context that the first human produced them.

(I know this wasn't 'to' me)

EDIT: Of course, you can say that you're using the word 'contain' in this context to mean that sound waves are often interpreted 'correctly' in terms of the emotion the composer intended to convey, in which case sound waves do 'contain' emotion - this seems to be what most people intuitively mean by music 'having emotion' and it's why I said that it looks like everyone's actually agreeing with each other, even if they think they're not. They're agreed on the actual facts, they're just using the terminology differently (the same way we'd both be in agreement if I said "dogs have four legs" and you said "snakes have four legs" if I meant 'dog' by dog and you meant 'dog' by snake - agreement over the actual matters of fact, disagreement over the terminology/semantics).
Quote by Ed O'Brien
“It’s not genius. It’s just that if you want something good to come out of something, you have to put in a lot of effort. That involves a lot of hard work, and a lot of blood, sweat and tears sometimes.”

http://urbanscarecrow.bandcamp.com/
Last edited by Damascus at Mar 9, 2009,
#37
there ya go, we know relatively nothing about emotion from a scientific viewpoint. In fact we only know about sound waves in terms of frequencies and amplitude and such. Its not at all unreasonable that sound alters other dimensions (which have basically been proven to exist). I probably shouldn't even argue this, but we really don't have a concept of emotion scientifically. I think that one way many people throughout the world create emotion in their lives is by listening or playing music. So now we have a correlation.

Clearly music is emotional. You can define music as 'notes' and the emotion as 'inerpretation,' but I just define music as both.


Quote by Damascus
I'm not so sure - the way I'm reading Archeo's posts is that he's saying that music is just structured sound and emotions can't be attached to structured sound waves. So far, so scientifically uncontroversial.


If you really want to play the science card, then this idea holds no water. Science hasn't proven or disproven anything of the sort. Music may be structured sound, but there is the law of causation. How did the sound come to be? Emotion? Maybe maybe not. It's quite plausible that music wouldn't exist without emotion. I don't see arch's points as any more 'scientific' than Munky's. Yes, we could just say 'linguistics' and end all debates, but I think that we all have the same concept of 'music' in mind. I think that to try to separate music from emotion is like trying to separate the bullet from the gun. Maybe they are technically different, but they are surely codependant, and when we think of one it implies the other.

Edit: I also think it is true that music transcends science and logic by definition in some ways. Much like any art does. So the science aspect isn't even very interesting to me, but I think that you have made assumptions even if we DO look at it scientifically.
Standard Fender Telecaster
Fender Blues Jr
Ibz10
Last edited by zipppy2006 at Mar 9, 2009,
#38
Quote by Damascus
The way I'm reading Archeo's posts is that he's saying that music is just structured sound and emotions can't be attached to structured sound waves....This seems like such an obvious truism to me that it's barely worth stating

You're almost right. The only thing you got wrong is that it isn't "barely worth stating" - it's not worth stating at all. It is such an obvious truism that it makes for a stupid argument.

Why state it at all? How is it relevant to anything apart from an in depth philosophical discussion on metaphysics, which is not what this thread is about?

The fact that a medium does not "carry" emotion physically doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that there is some necessary emotional disconnect between the artist and the viewer. If they share a common experience, understanding, or world view it can be enough to give the artwork a clear emotional message conveyed from one person to another even though they may live on different continents hundreds of years apart from one another.

That's the beauty of art. A work of art can capture an expression of passionate emotion, a message, or vision and can be shared over and over again with multitudes of people long after the artist has passed away.

Of course if someone sees the same work of art and feels the need to boil it down to it's physical parts and properties in order to determine that the emotions don't actually exist as a physical property in the piece of art itself and then runs around telling anyone that will listen the "truth" - "There's no emotion in that work of art it's just pigmented paint on canvas that refracts light into different colours which our brain then interprets and there's nothing there!! Really it's all our interpretation and our own ideas, values, and experiences that we project on to the specific structure of lightwaves we experience through our sense of vision. The emotion doesn't actually exist in the painting it's all in our own minds!!" When that happens all a sensible person can do is shake their head and tell the crazed lunatic they're a total fucking idiot. - not necessarily because they are "wrong" but just because they are a total fucking idiot.
Si
Last edited by 20Tigers at Mar 9, 2009,
#39
Quote by 20Tigers
You're almost right. The only thing you got wrong is that it isn't "barely worth stating" - it's not worth stating at all. It is such an obvious truism that it makes for a stupid argument.

Why state it at all? How is it relevant to anything apart from an in depth philosophical discussion on metaphysics, which is not what this thread is about?

The fact that a medium does not "carry" emotion physically doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that there is some necessary emotional disconnect between the artist and the viewer. If they share a common experience, understanding, or world view it can be enough to give the artwork a clear emotional message conveyed from one person to another even though they may live on different continents hundreds of years apart from one another.

That's the beauty of art. A work of art can capture an expression of passionate emotion, a message, or vision and can be shared over and over again with multitudes of people long after the artist has passed away.

Of course if someone sees the same work of art and feels the need to boil it down to it's physical parts and properties in order to determine that the emotions don't actually exist as a physical property in the piece of art itself and then runs around telling anyone that will listen the "truth" - "There's no emotion in that work of art it's just pigmented paint on canvas that refracts light into different colours which our brain then interprets and there's nothing there!! Really it's all our interpretation and our own ideas, values, and experiences that we project on to the specific structure of lightwaves we experience through our sense of vision. The emotion doesn't actually exist in the painting it's all in our own minds!!" When that happens all a sensible person can do is shake their head and tell the crazed lunatic they're a total fucking idiot. - not necessarily because they are "wrong" but just because they are a total fucking idiot.


Thank you
shred is gaudy music
#40
Quote by 20Tigers
You're almost right. The only thing you got wrong is that it isn't "barely worth stating" - it's not worth stating at all. It is such an obvious truism that it makes for a stupid argument.

Why state it at all? How is it relevant to anything apart from an in depth philosophical discussion on metaphysics, which is not what this thread is about?

The fact that a medium does not "carry" emotion physically doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that there is some necessary emotional disconnect between the artist and the viewer. If they share a common experience, understanding, or world view it can be enough to give the artwork a clear emotional message conveyed from one person to another even though they may live on different continents hundreds of years apart from one another.

That's the beauty of art. A work of art can capture an expression of passionate emotion, a message, or vision and can be shared over and over again with multitudes of people long after the artist has passed away.

Of course if someone sees the same work of art and feels the need to boil it down to it's physical parts and properties in order to determine that the emotions don't actually exist as a physical property in the piece of art itself and then runs around telling anyone that will listen the "truth" - "There's no emotion in that work of art it's just pigmented paint on canvas that refracts light into different colours which our brain then interprets and there's nothing there!! Really it's all our interpretation and our own ideas, values, and experiences that we project on to the specific structure of lightwaves we experience through our sense of vision. The emotion doesn't actually exist in the painting it's all in our own minds!!" When that happens all a sensible person can do is shake their head and tell the crazed lunatic they're a total fucking idiot. - not necessarily because they are "wrong" but just because they are a total fucking idiot.


That should be stickied, or something haha.
Standard Fender Telecaster
Fender Blues Jr
Ibz10
Page 1 of 2