Arnie (and the list) -
It's been a while since I got this forward from a friend, but I'd like to
respond to what you wrote...
> > I'm rather keen on this question, so I'll have a go! I am
trained
> >in structural analysis of music, which I think we can take as analogous to
> >the analysis of sentences: relationships among the tones themselves, with
> >no regard to "extra-musical" concerns for how these tones are or might be
> >heard by humans. What I found in my own analyses were some interesting
> >facts about the relationships among the musical sounds, but when I took a
> >step back, as it were, I found that this told me nothing about what I
found
> >compelling in the music (Debussy, "Cloches a travers les feuilles"). (I
> >did not and do not conclude this lightly.) Still, this is not surprising,
> >because that is not what the analysis was designed to reveal. But what
did
> >it reveal? Nothing very musically informative, I thought. So I began to
> >look for a way to account for what I took to be the more meaningful
aspects
> >of music - music as experienced, by myself and by others according to
their
> >(printed) reports.
> > According to traditional music philosophy, this might be an
> >interesting endeavor, but it would not be about the music-itself; it would
> >be about a subjective, or perhaps intersubjective, interpretation of music
> >- traditional musicologists would call it "extra-musical". But I've found
> >something that I think is interesting, some of which I've previously
> >related on this list. Basically, descriptions of music regularly depend
on
> >concepts of motion and space. But music does not actually move through
any
> >kind of space as it is commonly described (soundwaves move, of course, but
> >descriptions of *musical* motion are seldom directly about the (virtual)
> >motion of waves). This may not seem like much of a problem at first, but
> >it appears that it actually turns out to be somewhat huge.
> > We use metaphors to talk about music - so what? This is
certainly
> >not news (Zuckerkandl 1956). But part of the problem is that these
> >properties which we attribute to the music-itself - for example, that
tones
> >can be high and low, and that they can move and form patterns - are not in
> >fact properties of the tones-themselves or the music-itself. These
> >concepts arise from the mapping of spatial relations onto the domain of
> >musical experience, and to account for the logic of these cross-domain
> >mappings we must acknowledge the medium whereby these mappings take place
-
> >the embodied mind - and the motivations and constraints pertinent to the
> >source domain (spatial relations), target domain (musical tones), and the
> >medium (the flesh that does the listening and the mapping). Remove human
> >interpretation (and metaphoric reasoning), and musical motion and space
> >disappear.
> > I think the relevance for music philosophy is clear. For one
> >thing, any description/analysis of music, and any claims with regard to
> >musical meaning, that depend on concepts of motion and space are grounded
> >in this metaphoric reasoning, of which human interpretation is an
> >uneliminable part. For another thing, more broadly, when we remove the
> >metaphoric interpretation of musical acoustic information, we have very
> >little left of music to talk about. The music-itself is what?
Soundwaves,
> >which we do not hear as such, with frequencies, which we also do not hear
> >as such, of different durations, timbres, intensities, and loudness (and
> >direction). We do of course hear pitch, but pitches do not exist in
> >vertical relations except metaphorically (note that verticality is built
> >into the term 'pitch'), so that we hear a property that we call "pitch"
but
> >then interpret this metaphorically as "higher" and "lower" pitches.
> > It might be interesting to consider a couple of examples to see
> >where this view breaks down. I believe it may be possible to say
> >meaningful things about music in terms of the tones themselves - on
aspects
> >of duration, timbre, and intensity, for example - but I believe this is
> >only a small part of music philosophy and musical meaning.
To a certain extent, you could say tones themselves can define musical
meaning. I write electronic music and I find myself spending almost the same
amount of time to look for the right sounds (tones) as to write the actual
melodies. I would say tones are the fundamental building blocks for music.
It is like choosing ingredients to create a dish. Without the right
ingredients, the dish will never taste great. What moves people by hearing
music is by the tone quality - i.e. timbre, duration, velocity (dynamics),
spatial placement (panning) etc. - combined with how each tone is placed in
relation to other tones - pitch mapping. Think of four elemental dimensions
we have in the universe. Three define the space, one defines the time. Apply
this to music - tone quality:spatial definition, pitches:time. Of course with
pitches one can create a chord (polyphonic), thus they could be said
multi-dimensional opposed to time which is always one dimension.
What is music-itself? It is another element which human is capable of
recognizing, analyzing, and creating. As you mentioned, the value of music
lies in a subjective interpretation of music. Music-itself is merely an
object. Each person's experience with a specific piece of music is different.
Even the same person's experience with the same piece would vary each time.
Here, we're talking about each individual's preference and interpretation.
What moves us about music are fundamentally the elements I have mentioned
above combined with personal experiences.
Here is my question. I was playing back some songs in my head while I was
trying to fall asleep. How do we hear songs in our heads? I can clearly hear
pitches and somewhat form the right tones in my head. When I imagined some of
my favorite songs, I can almost feel the same unexplainable feelings which I
get from hearing the songs for real. I wonder if there is any explanation to
this. I also tried to play back some instances I remember from the past. The
picture is far from being real, but yet I can relive the moment. It's almost
like a very real, tangible dream. If computer's memory is like a high-quality
digital recording, our memory is like a degenerated analog recording. When we
play back our memory, we get so much noise, yet the essential feel is not
being lost. Now, are we playing back the memory and reacting to it at the
present moment, or are we playing back both the memory and the sensation from
the past? In other words, are we experiencing the feeling again or are we
remembering the feeling which we experienced before?
Akemi
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.
===================================================================
WEB SITE: http://pks.bu.edu/awbim
POST MESSAGE: Send a message to artwithbraininmind-l@pks.bu.edu
(UN)SUBSCRIBE: Send message to majordomo@pks.bu.edu with
'subscribe artwithbraininmind-l' in body to subscribe, or
'unsubscribe artwithbraininmind-l' in body to unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Sep 06 2008 - 04:03:08 EDT