-
The music.
A few weeks back I said that we cannot even speak about it.
And got a responce that "if you got brains, you can speak about it"
And another "I have no clue what you are talking about"
So, to make it more clear.
Let's toss out "music" entirely. It is a label. A container of meanings, most quite uncomfortably modern. Or unsuitably.
We didn't have it when it initially started working.
What the heck is it?
I just feel that every thought and opinion tries to narrow it down so it can bang it into some graspable shape to "get the leverage" to create another opinion. In words.
Yet, when it works, there are no words to describe what is happening.
So. What the hell is it?
-
06-17-2025 01:46 PM
-
Imitation of overtones?
-
Um. Let's be serious!
You can cash in big time when you get it right!
Moneywise!
-
I'm not being completely unserious... there was a time I would have said it's all about rhythm but I almost think that beyond certain evolutionary factors (recognizing overtones, desiring some level of temporal consistency) there's very little in the realm of "intentional production of sound" that isn't about being in touch with one's culture e.g. my neck of the woods has been listening to tonal western music for 400 years, not Indian karnatic. I think any artistic element is purely individual and not correlated with material success.
*It is also just funny to think of humans as naively using tones to try to recreate other tones for no reason
-
These two guys had the same question:
Originally Posted by emanresu
Last edited by Mick-7; 06-17-2025 at 03:05 PM.
-
Music is the skillful manipulation of sound and rhythm that is pleasing to the ear of the performer and the listener.
-
Originally Posted by emanresu
[intentionally blank]
-
The most abstract highest of the arts
is music because it is literally invisible
-
Apropos the invisibility of music, I'd say there's nothing like the dimension of seeing an artist engaging with their instrument, with all the attendant body and facial language. I love watching the sheer physicality of producing sound, one of the many reasons why AI sucks so bad. A random example follows:
-
Nice! Originally Posted by Peter C
I like watching Molly Miller play - so fun!
-
Yeah, Molly makes something old new again
-
" Alfie, is it just for the moment we live?"
love,
Bacharach/David
-
This is how I would conduct.What's it all about?
-
Not me. Originally Posted by emanresu
That's completely false that you can't explain music. This clearly shows you've never taken lessons from a good or great musician. Most greats use theoretical language to explain music. Everything can be broken down and explained. The fact that many subtleties fall in the spaces that pedagogy doesn't explain is irrelevant. Bring up any example of music and ask about a specific part and I will explain it to you.What the heck is it?
I just feel that every thought and opinion tries to narrow it down so it can bang it into some graspable shape to "get the leverage" to create another opinion. In words.
Yet, when it works, there are no words to describe what is happening.
So. What the hell is it?
-
I am here for this game. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Explain the opening phrase of Wagner's Tristan and Isolde
Go!
-
Man that was a doozie. Started with the melody suggesting A minor then resolving down a half step to G# minor. The melody went A, F, E, then resolved to D#, the 5th of G# minor.
-
So when you say "explain" ... what you mean is that you will narrate the sheet music? Originally Posted by Strat-itis
This is a famously controversial chord:
Tristan chord - Wikipedia
-
I transcribed it but yeah.
There's a creative component in music, that doesn't negate the organizational component.
A chord resolving down a half step is really common root movement. There wasn't even anything complicated in the inner voices. The melody just suggested natural minor which is also extremely common.
If you want me to expound on it I would say the immediate non diatonic movement introduces a mysterious sound.Last edited by Strat-itis; 06-17-2025 at 10:29 PM.
-
Far out. F half dim. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
You beat me to it! Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
My favourite interpretation comes from Barenboim's writings - basically it's a multilayered ... thing (force?, entity?) that goes beyond the mere sound.
While he does talk about things like metaphysical experiences and how music can be a mirror to life itself, one of my favourite ideas is that music is ephemeral - it only really exists in the moment it is performed.
Music depends on silence: the first note comes out of this silence and then the piece unfolds through the contrast between sound and silence to then finally disappear back into that silence. So music is air in motion, shaped into something meaningful by the performer and heard - experienced - in real time by the audience. Once the sound ends, the music is gone. What remains is the impression it leaves on the listener. (He also argues that recordings can never capture this, but that would be a conversation for a different topic..)
Do give his book (with Edward Said) Parallels and Paradoxes a read, it's very stimulating and enlightening. And he does talk quite a bit about conducting Wagner and how his understanding of music was shaped by this experience.
PS: so as to not make another post... while I love Molly Miller's tone, I absolutely can't stand her physical performance and to me it feels exaggerated and more about her than the music.
For contrast, take Yuja Wang as an example of another VERY physically expressive performer and yet she does it in a way that I find believable and deeply connected to the music itself. She expresses what she's playing rather than performing her presence on stage.
-
"You're wise? What's the capital of Nebraska? What's the capital of the Chase National Bank? Give up? Now, I'll try you on an easy one. How many Frenchmen can't be wrong?"--Groucho, Monkey Business
-
Art decorates space, Music decorates time
-
Hm. Once I created a band that played a certain style (very loosey-goosey) of folk music. I mean kinda folky but there really was not much common criteria when picking them tunes up.
Except area that it was from... which was huge. I searched through about 2000 songs to find 15 that I liked for the band.
All those 15ish are still one of my favorite songs of all time and work even when I am completely tired of music and would rather listen some silence.
There is absolutely no single thing to point at, to explain why these songs "rock so hard".. they just do. And there are so many that don't do it so well - very similar ones.
This is what I'm talking about. Not much to explain considering those simple notes or rhythms (you can but.. eh - useless), but somehow feels kinda awesome to listen to compared to the rest.
-
There is a huge field between talking about aspects of music and the big, existential question of, "what the hell is music?" Originally Posted by emanresu
It's not a paradox to talk about a ii-V progression and then appreciate a birdsong as music. I don't know if the birdsong IS music, but I sometimes enjoy them in a musical way.
I don't think music can ever be completely explained by using music theory, but theory is a great way to talk about recognizable things that happen in music.
Voices, to me, are a great example of a facet of music that I can't explain very well. There are some voices I absolutely love, and there are voices I can't stand, and some inbetween. It has nothing to do with vocal skill, either. There are enough contradictions in my own preferences that I know I can't explain it in a rational way.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos