The Quality of Music

Let me try this out:

I can explain myself, but you lack sufficient knowledge to completely understand my explanation, so (as I noted the other day) you will eventually have to trust that I know what I'm talking about.



Plus, I don't always side with Morval, so if you don't trust me, then maybe yo'll trust him when he calls bull****?

Pleasant doesn't necessarily mean nice. Angry music is pleasant to my ears.

As with all art, if you can give it meaning, it is art.

You prove my point. Yes, art may be entertainment; but entertainment is not necessarily art. Also, many people (yourself included) lack sufficient experience to determine when meaning is or is not present. Only whether it is communicated. you are allowed to "not get it." You are not allowed to say "there is nothing to get." This is why art can exist without your particular comprehension.



*edit*
I agree about Shadow of the Colossus, but this is not the appropriate thread. Also, your argument borders on fallacy so be careful.

I can hardly put faith in your opinion, can I? I mean, I do have the ability to think for myself, so if someone else says it's art, but I disagree with what they have to say, I can respect that THEY think it's art, but I can't honestly say that I think it's art based on THEIR opinion. I can simply say "Some think it's art, this is why. Others don't, this is why. My opinion is X, because Y."

Well as I say, meaning is subjective to the observer. You can point me towards something, say "this means X", and not only could I say "I don't think it means that", I could say "I think it means Y". I could draw a completely different meaning from it than yourself.

Many writers write a novel with one message, but critics have drawn other meanings from it as well. Fahrenheit 451 was written with the message "censorship is bad", but even Ray Bradbury himself has found another meaning in it in later years - "TV makes you dumb". I don't see why this can't be the same in other medias.

Goodness the semantics are getting out of hand.

I guess as the performer I am destined to be the mediator.

Trumpettree: Stop trying so hard to prove that you are right.

You are right. That should be satisfaction enough. You don't need to force your opinions upon others, especially when they are reluctant to hear them. This only causes frustration and strife.

Lelouch: Please trust me when I say that Trumpettree knows what he's talking about in regards to music. He is a dear schoolmate of mine and a very talented composer.

Now I will make this post pertinent to the discussion so as to avoid coming off as a rent-a-mod.

The overtone series proves the validity of tonalism because the overtone series is inherent in nature and naturally gives way to tonalism as we know it.

Thus when we find atonality pleasing to the ear it only proves that it is human nature to go against the "natural" order of things.

Equal temperment of the piano (as an unnatural tuning, it proves this) as well as Schoenbergs 12 tone system.

This is all based on the assumption that the overtone series and time are inherent in nature and that both suggest both regular rhythms and tonality.

I could be way off base on that but that's the conclusion I've come up with....

Only trumpettree will be able to analyze this statement and validate it with the evidence and facts that are inherent in western music tradition.

It's nothing to do with whether or not I believe what he's saying - I know he knows more than me when it comes to music. My point still stands, however, that while I can hold his opinion in regard when he decides that something is art, I cannot hold something as art myself on that basis. That's retarded, as I've already pointed out, anything can be art if someone thinks it's art. I watched an interview with a critic who thought that an empty washing-up liquid bottle was "art", and he could draw meaning from it, by a man who thought that art had to be painted before it could be called art. A friend of mine said that if something is "functional", it isn't art. I am of the firm belief that if one draws meaning from something, it is art (to them) whereas if they do not, it is not art (to them).

Likewise, you may consider something good music for your own reasons. I can respect your opinions, but unless I feel that way myself, it would be foolish of me to say that I can hold your opinions as my own.

Lelouch, Devia is right; I do not intend to continue this discussion any further then this final thought:

anything can be art if someone thinks it's art

You are right. The fact that you still are arguing with me displays a) you have not paid attention to everything I have posited, b) you believe you're position is justified anyway, and c) that even if I reason with you you will not bother changing your stance because, as I've noted, you believe you are justified.

In some respects you are--I have outlined a logical system which allows the two of us to weigh and compare OPINION in a manner that is consistent and, although only Morval can determine this, fair. I have already offered every argument necessary to debunk you past several posts. Again, try something else.

I close:

Something is ART when a human decides to create it. ART is art when the artist says it is.

ENJOYMENT is up to the audience. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it ceases to be music or art. See most everything I have written.

I have already proved that you are only in a position to determine aesthetic value, not intellectual value. Art requires both so you are not in a position to make the claim "this is not music" or "this is not art." You are entitled to hate it and tell people that you do, but you are not entitled to debase it on principle. If you argue it only proves you are ignorant and unwilling to think logically. I do not intend to do this anymore and I'm sure Morval will neither--as people who are considered "artists" of "music" our opinions are not any more VALID than yours, but they are more INFORMED.

What you appreciate as entertainment we make our LIVES. Your definition of what music is is poor and as an artist whose medium is sound only I am in a position say this:

Music = any sound produced by a human manipulating their environment.
The resultant art may be "audiophilic rape" but, sadly, it is still art.



Morval/Devia you are right on all counts, and that is why I like to converse with you.

I'm only posting right now because I wish to elaborate upon the examples that Lelouch provided. That's secret code for "I'm done being the mediator." You two will have to get along on your own now. (Is that possible?)

I watched an interview with a critic who thought that an empty washing-up liquid bottle was "art", and he could draw meaning from it, by a man who thought that art had to be painted before it could be called art. A friend of mine said that if something is "functional", it isn't art. I am of the firm belief that if one draws meaning from something, it is art (to them) whereas if they do not, it is not art (to them).

Just because something is functional doesn't mean it's not art. Art can have functionality, but functionality doesn't necessarily negate what it is that makes that art "art".

Also the "empty washing-up liquid bottle" is interesting because in a sense it was "painted" or created. It's just that the creators (i.e. the bottling company) did not intend for it to be art. They intended it to be purely functional. So while he thinks it's art, another person could not honestly say that they think of it as art unless they can derive a meaning from the bottle in the way that the person in question does. Conversely, assuming the person in question is not completelyinsane, he is justified in his opinion that the bottle is art. Poets can derive meaning from many objects where non-poets would not. That's what makes a poet a poet. They are clever with words that can invoke different meanings and they can manipulate those meanings.

I would elaborate more but time for me to go again.

Originally Posted by trumpettree

Morval/Devia you are right on all counts, and that is why I like to converse with you.

I like conversing with you as well. I suppose I'll see you in class Monday then? (if not before....)

I like the game you play in class but I propose a better one:

Let's see who can make the teacher cry first.

lol

Morval/Devia--I think we'll be spending our lives in competition with one another. You're on. But perhaps not cry, maybe momentarily lose complete emotional control: you know how much he has manipulated us already.

My score is almost ready, as well. Do you think this discussion has influenced your impending approach to it?

Lelouch--when I say thank you, I imagine you won't know why. But this debate/spectacle has brought a lot into focus for me. Thanks--it's been fun.




So," What's it going to be then, eh?"

yes, the discussion will inevitably change my approach to music. I have a grasp of sorts on your style, but these discussions will help for sure.

honestly, the teacher did lose momentary emotional control in class friday.....

Remember when he was comparing the two hero's of western thought?

He got a little angry.....

and that was right before I made my Moses vs Socrates comment.....

....While you were watching the smart kid I was manipulating the teacher....

It was not entirely on purpose but I did receive an unexpected result....

Surely you don't think you can manipulate anyone so early on? We'll see who does it best, then.

And for the record, I was watching you.

*irrelevant post

Although, you forget that my goal is not to manipulate people but change discourse in discussion. I suppose if the teacher gets angry that's an added bonus. To be honest, if any teacher is immune to emotion and manipulation, it is this teacher.

Pardon my absence, I've been in Paris over the weekend - unfortunately we didn't go to the Louvre but it'd have been nice to see what they have to say about what makes art, art

Originally Posted by trumpettree

Music = any sound produced by a human manipulating their environment.
The resultant art may be "audiophilic rape" but, sadly, it is still art.

As I explained, when an author writes something, all these analysts come along and try to draw meaning from the use of a particular word in a sentence when he could well have just wrote it to sound cool, and meant nothing further by it. If the creator didn't intend for something to be art, is it still art if OTHERS consider it art? Surely this must be the case if something automatically IS art just because the creator intended for it to be art.

Alternatively, if the creator did intend for it to be art, does it cease to be art if others don't think so? I think this is the case, personally. I honestly think one is not obligated to consider something art unless that particular observer himself considers it art, regardless of the artist's intention. Like abstract art. If someone else thinks a pile of wires that resemble a grill that a six year old took to with a hammer is some kind of emotional outburst on the part of the artist, all the power to them. I shall not, and I refuse to see why I should consider something like this (possibly not worksafe) any more respect than I would this.

Or perhaps it's the case that if at least one person thinks it's art, it must be art, even if that person is the creator and the creator alone? If so, everything must be art, because surely there's at least one person out there who could legitimately argue that anything conceivable is art. I certainly could just to play Devil's Advocate, and often have (to the point where I've argued that hardcore pornography is art of sorts ).

Now the earlier argument for enjoyment is certainly true. There are things I consider art which I don't particularly "enjoy" so to speak, although most of that is art in the sense of paintings, for example. I appreciate a good painting even if I don't like the painting itself, and I can appreciate a good writer or good book even if I'm not keen on the plot itself. And I suppose music that inspires negative emotions is music which one doesn't "enjoy", but then again I love the feeling that I get when my body is entirely consumed by rage. But that's me.

I'm not sure I have much more to say on the subject to be honest.

I take it you're both in a music class or something, then?

Originally Posted by Lelouch

Pardon my absence, I've been in Paris over the weekend - unfortunately we didn't go to the Louvre but it'd have been nice to see what they have to say about what makes art, art

OMG I want to go to France. Germany too.....

Lucky guy.

We are fellow musicians, but I usually play the music while he usually creates the ideas for me to play. We specialize like that. (although I've written a couple things, and he's plays pretty frequently)

Anyway, I think the idea of the bottle thing was to exaggerate the idea that a person can derive meaning where unintended and conversely the artist can intend all the meaning in the world but those ideas will fall upon "deaf" ears.

(I'm removing enjoyment from the equation as that word usually implies entertainment and art as being required to entertain, which it is not required to entertain to be considered art.) after all, certain things entertain certain people. Just pointing out that the word at one point implied more negative connotations depending upon the situation and has lost a bit of it's meaning to our ears/eyes.

Here is what my experience suggests:

Humans by nature want to connect. We all face the existential disconnect with the universe, and we wish to empathize with others in our condition. This is milking it, I know, but allow me to be wax eloquent when I idealize, okay? Thanks. An artist is a human who shapes the natural universe to their own design. This has spiritual overtones for a reason. I, a composer, manipulate sounds in the manner in which I desire and that means I create art. Art = human expression. ONLY THAT, which is why we value it so highly.

If I create something that I call art (or music--I guess the two are interchangeable here), and my audience too regards it as art, then we have art.

I I create something, and my audience disagrees, then we still have art--EVEN IF I AM THE ONLY ONE. The point of art is the possibility of transference--of meaning. Empathy.

So what of the third option, when the creator says "no art" but somehow I decide that I hold art in my hands? This one I think is the ambiguous stage. The creator did not intend for their to be a transference of meaning, thus none should be perceived. The context in which we are meant to experience the creation is not the context of "art." However, meaning was transferred, even if the transference is delusional. We must RESPECT the inherent value of the individual and (with solipsism, sadly) the individual's experience. The object is not intended to be perceived as art but it is not necessarily wrong for someone to imbibe it with meaning, and thus place it on level grounds with art.

[Thus, Morval/Devia, "enjoyment" must stay in the game (did you notice my spectrum?) because we must leave open the ability for some to not enjoy the work.]

And, lastly, if both the creator and the "audience" (perhaps, "perceiver of art-in-question") agree that the product is not art, then it is not art, *excepting the possible case aforementioned.


Several contradictions have occurred, Lelouch. I hope the position of someone who others perceive as an "artist" may offer possible clarifications. I really hope that, if nothing else, you take an new approach to "music." Even if you're looking only for entertainment--the more you know, the more you can be entertained by.




As for music "class," you could say we've had a few under our collective belts, couldn't you Morval? But these are not the thoughts of a student, they're the thoughts of someone trying to "get it." For the record, I wrote four symphonies before the eighth grade and Morval has played for Yo-yo Ma.

I think music is entirely subjective. People appreciate different aspects of music - some appreciate the technical aspects, how good they are at playing instruments and singing, others appreciate stage presence and emotion, others appreciate songs they can relate to. Something I think is utter rubbish, like Fall Out Boy for example, are doing really well because someone else will like something different to me. They'll probably be able to relate to that kind of music more than I can. You are allowed to have your opinion on what you think makes a good band, but it doesn't always have to be the same for everybody else.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by trumpettree

Humans by nature want to connect. We all face the existential disconnect with the universe, and we wish to empathize with others in our condition. This is milking it, I know, but allow me to be wax eloquent when I idealize, okay? Thanks. An artist is a human who shapes the natural universe to their own design. This has spiritual overtones for a reason. I, a composer, manipulate sounds in the manner in which I desire and that means I create art. Art = human expression. ONLY THAT, which is why we value it so highly.

If I create something that I call art (or music--I guess the two are interchangeable here), and my audience too regards it as art, then we have art.

I I create something, and my audience disagrees, then we still have art--EVEN IF I AM THE ONLY ONE. The point of art is the possibility of transference--of meaning. Empathy.

So what of the third option, when the creator says "no art" but somehow I decide that I hold art in my hands? This one I think is the ambiguous stage. The creator did not intend for their to be a transference of meaning, thus none should be perceived. The context in which we are meant to experience the creation is not the context of "art." However, meaning was transferred, even if the transference is delusional. We must RESPECT the inherent value of the individual and (with solipsism, sadly) the individual's experience. The object is not intended to be perceived as art but it is not necessarily wrong for someone to imbibe it with meaning, and thus place it on level grounds with art.

[Thus, Morval/Devia, "enjoyment" must stay in the game (did you notice my spectrum?) because we must leave open the ability for some to not enjoy the work.]

And, lastly, if both the creator and the "audience" (perhaps, "perceiver of art-in-question") agree that the product is not art, then it is not art, *excepting the possible case aforementioned.

There comes to be the issue, then, of aspects of something. Like, if a work as a whole was meant to be art, and I point at something in the back of a painting and say "this represents this that and the other", perhaps the work as a whole was meant to be imbued with meaning, but that part didn't mean anything in particular. Same with individual sentence analysis, or individual parts of a song.

Several contradictions have occurred, Lelouch. I hope the position of someone who others perceive as an "artist" may offer possible clarifications. I really hope that, if nothing else, you take an new approach to "music." Even if you're looking only for entertainment--the more you know, the more you can be entertained by.

Well if I like a song, I'll try to find out more about it, and in turn I come to enjoy it more. But if I hated it to begin with, then upon learning more about it, I simply learn about justification for its existence. Not necessarily a further enjoyment where none existed to begin with.

Originally Posted by Misa Misa

I think music is entirely subjective. People appreciate different aspects of music - some appreciate the technical aspects, how good they are at playing instruments and singing, others appreciate stage presence and emotion, others appreciate songs they can relate to. Something I think is utter rubbish, like Fall Out Boy for example, are doing really well because someone else will like something different to me. They'll probably be able to relate to that kind of music more than I can. You are allowed to have your opinion on what you think makes a good band, but it doesn't always have to be the same for everybody else.

True, opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one. But that doesn't mean I have to hold their opinion in any regard either unless they've said something valid that I agree with. Call it self-righteousness, but that's the way I and most everyone thinks. Naturally everyone thinks their opinion must be superior to everyone else's opinion, otherwise it follows that they'd change their opinion. If anyone comes across an opinion they see as more valid than their own, they usually do, too. But if I disagree, then Reginald - I disagree.

@Lelouch

You bring up good points.
This merely proves that when meaning is derived where none is intended that:

1) the person deriving unintended meaning is either very perseptive or very delusional or a mix of both. lol
2) the artist in question is either very sloppy for not seeing the possibility of multiple meanings being derived, or did see that possibility and respected it. or a mix of both. lol.
3) both 1 and 2
4) none of the above and moral nihilism is "correct". lol.

also, keep in mind lelouch that yes, two people may have opposing opinions. The problem is that you automatically assume that the ability to formulate an opinion automatically validates the person in question has possessing intellectual insight. This is not always the case and thus comes the frustration when the superego tries to convince the id that he is indeed, the id and not the super ego.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

1) the person deriving unintended meaning is either very perseptive or very delusional or a mix of both. lol

Possibly very sensitive, or is maybe picking up on subconscious intentions in the mind of the artist even though he didn't know them himself?

2) the artist in question is either very sloppy for not seeing the possibility of multiple meanings being derived, or did see that possibility and respected it. or a mix of both.

The case with Fahrenheit 451 and Ray Bradbury.

also, keep in mind lelouch that yes, two people may have opposing opinions. The problem is that you automatically assume that the ability to formulate an opinion automatically validates the person in question has possessing intellectual insight. This is not always the case and thus comes the frustration when the superego tries to convince the id that he is indeed, the id and not the super ego.

You mean that just because someone has an opinion doesn't automatically make it valid? Because that begs the question of what DOES make it valid, and who the arbitrator of valid opinions is (the observer, as far as I'm concerned).

lol I guess you missed the point Lelouch. Brush up on your Freudian verbiage.