# Music - Why Does It Matter?



## Kyle Preston (Aug 7, 2017)

Philosophically speaking, I'm unable to conjure good answers to this question. 

Descartes is one of my favorite thinkers. I'd like to adopt better mental habits based on first principles, a method he pioneered. This method forms a large part of the modern scientific method. 

And for we music makers, it doesn't get more first principled than asking _why does music matter?_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 7, 2017)

Why does the soul of humanity matter?


----------



## Illico (Aug 8, 2017)

What role does music play in your works?


----------



## lux (Aug 8, 2017)

This is also the question actual marketing heads should write on their walls and analyze in order to sort out of this horrible period for the music business.


----------



## aaronnt1 (Aug 8, 2017)

Music doesn't matter objectively, but it gives immense value to many people's lives.


----------



## gamma-ut (Aug 8, 2017)

Because we like it.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Aug 8, 2017)

He wrote some of the most toe curling dialogue in movie history - but this one works....


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Aug 8, 2017)

I think trying to rationalize and objectivize matters like this is a dangerous path to go down.


----------



## stixman (Aug 8, 2017)

Think of all those TVs adverts without music!


----------



## Kyle Preston (Aug 8, 2017)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I think trying to rationalize and objectivize matters like this is a dangerous path to go down.



Why?


----------



## pz_music (Aug 8, 2017)

Music is not Mathematics. Sure, one might be able to deduct some scientific reasons to why certain harmonies/melodies have their specific effects or why music overall is important to humans. But then again it is an artform which is more rooted in culture than science, I would say. Descartes wrote a whole compendium on music where he writes things like: 
"The ear is more satisfied by an octave than by a fifth as final discord."
Not sure we can apply such strict formulas to music.

I believe the "why" will be answered differently by every person asked, that's how subjective music or any form of art can be. 
If I'd be asked I'd say it matters because it speaks to our senses and emotions. It is both a form of expression, a language so to speak and a creative playground.


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 8, 2017)

Because the ability to feel from abstraction is what makes us human. Without that we are no higher than the rest of the animal kingdom. Music in particular, like visual art, can inspire us without a single word. It is beyond the incessant internal dialogue and straight to the emotional core.


----------



## MChangoM (Aug 8, 2017)

I can't think of any adaptation advantage for ancestors who might have gained survival benefit from music. An artifact of some other trait? If there must be an evolutionary force behind it (does there really have to be?), I like to think that the brain centers stimulated by making and listening to music make us happier and less fearful encouraging bold behaviors that might indeed have an evolutionary advantage. Or maybe aliens altered our brains for their entertainment. Yeah, that's probably it.


----------



## JJP (Aug 8, 2017)

Music is a form of communication and expression. Like other forms of art, it is a means to share and reflect on the human condition and express and explore thoughts emotions in ways different from language and visual representation. Thus it can incite, motivate, calm, and it could be argued that music has great similarities to language.

Therefore, you could ask a similar question and get similar answers...

"Why does conversation matter?"


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Aug 8, 2017)

Kyle Preston said:


> Why?



Not sure if the message board format does the topic justice. But I think that the inclination of modern society to rationalize and quantify all things often leads to a certain form of numbness. The educated man often forgets that some forms of understanding eventually just fall into place by doing, by committing, instead of intellectually dissecting them. Observer effect and nihilsm are sequelae of over-objectivization.

With things like music, I believe that their phenomenology is more crucial than trying to validate them by finding how they fit into imperatives of reason. That all probably sounds ridiculous, but here's an example: imagine having to explain to a person you really love why you do it. Like dissecting and rationalizing the whole phenomenon. The more complex and ambitious the attempt becomes, the closer you get to a point where the mere act of formalizing it makes everything you say sound shallow, silly, almost like a contradiction of what you feel. In extreme cases, it can even lead you to suddenly question the truthfulness, integrity or meaningfulness of what you're trying to explain. A dangerous path.

I'm sorry, this must be the most turgid and nebulous thing I've ever written.


----------



## Mike Fox (Aug 8, 2017)

I'm honestly not even sure why anything relating to the arts matters, strictly from an evolutionary standpoint. I understand that we look to art and music as a way to express and release, but If we evolved from a common ancestor, how, who, what, when, where, and why was the first stroke of artistic expression? Seems like a complete waste of energy, and counterintuitive.


----------



## Mike Fox (Aug 8, 2017)

D Halgren said:


> Because the ability to feel from abstraction is what makes us human. Without that we are no higher than the rest of the animal kingdom. Music in particular, like visual art, can inspire us without a single word. It is beyond the incessant internal dialogue and straight to the emotional core.


Elephants and dolphins do like to paint though!


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 8, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> Elephants and dolphins do like to paint though!



You got me there.


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 8, 2017)

JJP said:


> Music is a form of communication and expression. Like other forms of art, it is a means to share and reflect on the human condition and express and explore thoughts emotions in ways different from language and visual representation. Thus it can incite, motivate, calm, and it could be argued that music has great similarities to language.
> 
> Therefore, you could ask a similar question and get similar answers...
> 
> "Why does conversation matter?"



This! Basic forms of music were probably the original language.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Aug 8, 2017)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> With things like music, I believe that their phenomenology is more crucial than trying to validate them by finding how they fit into imperatives of reason.



I completely agree with this but I'm not sure why. I'm attempting to form an opinion that ignores these internal biases (even though I already believe music is important). Maybe this is a ridiculous endeavor. But I'm not sure why you think this is dangerous, we're all adults here right? 

Right? 

I 'll explain what I mean with an analogy. In 100ish AD (<-- technical term), Ptolemy constructed his model of the known universe:




​Like everyone else at the time, he assumed the Earth was the center of our *geocentric* universe. He then constructed a sophisticated model explaining the cycles of the known planets and the sun. His model was so good at predicting the motion of the heavens, it remained the standard for over 1,300 years. Whenever new evidence challenged his model, his defenders would just add more and more fudge factors (in the form of circular rings). Eventually, Copernicus and others demonstrated how wrong this assumption was, despite the fact that it sort-of worked for the most part. Unless you cared about details or truth. 

Ptolemy's error was believing the popular cultural-religious bias (human bias really), that *we* are the center of the universe and everything we do is super-important because we're awesome!

These are the kind of assumptions I'm trying to avoid, that music is important because *we* make it. It's easy to prove subjective things are important.

I'm not trying to "boxify" music. We all know it's a living, breathing and evolving language. I guess I'm just trying to root it in something other than my feelings.


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 8, 2017)

Kyle Preston said:


> I completely agree with this but I'm not sure why. I'm attempting to form an opinion that ignores these internal biases (even though I already believe music is important). Maybe this is a ridiculous endeavor. But I'm not sure why you think this is dangerous, we're all adults here right?
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...



Well, in that case we are just finite specks of dust on a rock and nothing we do matters. It is just a matter of time before it's all gone anyway.


----------



## Mike Fox (Aug 8, 2017)

D Halgren said:


> You got me there.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 8, 2017)

D Halgren said:


> Well, in that case we are just finite specks of dust on a rock and nothing we do matters. It is just a matter of time before it's all gone anyway.


True! Make your time count. Enjoy it.


----------



## ptram (Aug 9, 2017)

I don't know if music matters. But I'm in agreement with most religions, where music is at the beginning of universe via a primal "om", the scream of the dragon, the Fiat Lux and the Logos, the Big Bang, the vibrating energy strings, the laughing of Thoth, the songs from the World of Dreams, the harmony of the spheres, the time of Chronos, the singing cave, the noise the humans did and that caused the regenerating Flood.

So, it's just something in our blood, and couldn't do other than matter.

Paolo


----------



## Kyle Preston (Aug 10, 2017)

For any future readers who stumble on this thread via Google, I think I found a satisfactory first-principled answer. Probably not objective enough for the professional philosopher, but selfishly, I only wanted something that satisfied my own curiosity. Something I could plant a flag in and move on.

I recently rewatched _The Prestige_, an amazing film. Hugh Jackman's character has a line in the end that floored me:

_The audience knows the truth: the world is simple. It's miserable, solid all the way through. But if you can fool them, even for a second, then you can make them wonder, and then you... then you get to see something really special. 
_


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 10, 2017)

Kyle Preston said:


> For any future readers who stumble on this thread via Google, I think I found a satisfactory first-principled answer. Probably not objective enough for the professional philosopher, but selfishly, I only wanted something that satisfied my own curiosity. Something I could plant a flag in and move on.
> 
> I recently rewatched _The Prestige_, an amazing film. Hugh Jackman's character has a line in the end that floored me:
> 
> _The audience knows the truth: the world is simple. It's miserable, solid all the way through. But if you can fool them, even for a second, then you can make them wonder, and then you... then you get to see something really special. _



Kyle, I hope that I wasn't too flippant or dismissive in my last reply. I only meant to show that humans are only important to humans, and without that subjectivity, nothing that we do actually matters at all, especially on a cosmic scale. 

That Nolan quote is awesome! It is the truth of all artistic endeavor to lift the spirit, whether others or your own. It is also very much needed in the Dunkirk thread, where there is actually a debate as to whether one of the greatest minds in cinema is of any value. Unbelievable, next everyone will be saying Kubrick is a hack, or Tarkovsky is slow and unwatchable!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Aug 10, 2017)

I don't think anyone on the Dunkirk thread is questioning Nolan's talent, just people saying they don't enjoy his style. I do not like Kubrick or Nolan's work for the most part...does that mean they're a hack? or that I don't now what I'm saying? Absolutely not. They are brilliant and talented in their own right. It all comes down to individual tastes. What lifts one soul musically does not mean it will for anyone else. This is an interesting thread!


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 10, 2017)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I don't think anyone on the Dunkirk thread is questioning Nolan's talent, just people saying they don't enjoy his style. I do not like Kubrick or Nolan's work for the most part...does that mean they're a hack? or that I don't now what I'm saying? Absolutely not. They are brilliant and talented in their own right. It all comes down to individual tastes. What lifts one soul musically does not mean it will for anyone else. This is an interesting thread!



Point taken. I was being a little snarky about it. As long as you understand that Nolan and Kubrick are great technicians. I don't understand not liking their work, but I can accept that some don't. I will say that ultimately he got butts in seats. That is the business... Sorry for the derail Kyle.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Aug 10, 2017)

No worries @D Halgren! Though I have to point out, if Elon Musk gets his way, we will no longer be confined to _one_ tiny rock floating through space  -------->. And that's pretty cool.


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 10, 2017)

Kyle Preston said:


> No worries @D Halgren! Though I have to point out, if Elon Musk gets his way, we will no longer be confined to _one_ tiny rock floating through space  -------->. And that's pretty cool.



We definitely need to leave the womb if we are to survive. Although, my best friend says we are a virus that will infect the universe. He's a cheery mid westerner


----------



## Kyle Preston (Aug 10, 2017)

D Halgren said:


> We definitely need to leave the womb if we are to survive. Although, my best friend says we are a virus that will infect the universe. He's a cheery mid westerner



Is his name Agent Smith?


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 10, 2017)

No, Tom.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Aug 10, 2017)

D Halgren said:


> Point taken. I was being a little snarky about it. As long as you understand that Nolan and Kubrick are great technicians. I don't understand not liking their work, but I can accept that some don't. I will say that ultimately he got butts in seats. That is the business... Sorry for the derail Kyle.



I must admit (and I'm still not sure why all these years later), but I always liked A Clockwork Orange. It's beautifully twisted.


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Aug 11, 2017)

The truth is, we all matter. Unless you can go twice the speed of light, then we energy.


----------



## ghostnote (Aug 11, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Why does the soul of humanity matter?


Please explain what exactly a soul is.



> *Music - Why Does It Matter?*


Instinct: Rythm and bass. Ask yourself why David Guetta is more popular than King Crimson. Ordinary people like to dance, maybe to rock. Intelligent beeings like to analyze. All of them are creating music for their kind. We are all slaves to our instincts.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 11, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> Please explain what exactly a soul is.



The Bach Cello Suites.

Also, you're picking the wrong person to have the "there's no such thing as a soul" argument with.


----------



## aumordia (Aug 11, 2017)

My 6-mo likes when I sing to her, and she squeals along in delight with the choir at church, on those grounds alone I'd say music matters.

As for why the music industry matters... meh, not sure it does. Commercial entertainment is really not very important at all.

What really matters is people. People who like each other sing for each other. A group of people over centuries tends to develop a traditional repertoire of their own music, and participating in these traditional songs is a way of renewing cultural patrimony across generations. Their might be some degree of universal technical merit to certain of these creations, but that's really secondary to the particular value.

My favorite national anthem is always going to be America's national anthem, because it's _my_ national anthem, not because I like the chord progression or whatever. And it matters a whole heckuva lot to me, and lots of other Americans. Thus music has an organic significance in a manner more or less like this.

You can theorize and philosophize all you like, but this pragmatic view of music in particular, and art in general, is what endures the test of time, prattling of the soi dissant citoyens du monde notwithstanding.


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 11, 2017)

> Instinct: Rythm and bass. Ask yourself why David Guetta is more popular than King Crimson. Ordinary people like to dance, maybe to rock. Intelligent beeings like to analyze. All of them are creating music for their kind. We are all slaves to our instincts.



I have no idea who David Guetta is but I love Crimson and can name every member, all off-shoot bands, and have seen them live many times. As far as bass goes Tony Levin is one of the greatest ever. Rhythm, Bill Bruford, also one of the greatest. I even used to take lessons from Trey Gunn.


----------



## ghostnote (Aug 12, 2017)

Good for you Halgren. Tony Levin is great and so are all the other members.... that's not the point here. We're talking (at least I hope so) on a Philosophical level, and not about personal taste. Ask 100 random people about Guetta and King Crimson, I'm convinced that many will say "they know Guetta but have no clue who this King is". It all comes down on what they deliver and what people need. In this case, rythm and bass. The two key musical elements that have the biggest influence on our instincts. The Dark Knight worked great because of this. Again, not everybody has an evolved musical taste and can appreciate jazz, progressive or classic music.


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 12, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> Good for you Halgren. Tony Levin is great and so are all the other members.... that's not the point here. We're talking (at least I hope so) on a Philosophical level, and not about personal taste. Ask 100 random people about Guetta and King Crimson, I'm convinced that many will say "they know Guetta but have no clue who this King is". It all comes down on what they deliver and what people need. In this case, rythm and bass. The two key musical elements that have the biggest influence on our instincts. The Dark Knight worked great because of this. Again, not everybody has an evolved musical taste and can appreciate jazz, progressive or classic music.



I understand what you are saying, but I think we are running into a generational thing. If you asked 100 random people of a certain age...


----------



## ghostnote (Aug 12, 2017)

Of course I'm generalizing. It's about finding the common ground, not about musical elitists bragging and proclaiming what's good or not. It's about (and yes, I too do not like this term) seeing the bigger picture. There are people appreciating complex music, but the majority has (yes I find this sad too) no access to that and even can't connect even if they hear it. So they go for things which are easily recognizable, with rythm and lots of bass. Something they can dance to. Remember "The Intouchables"?

I remember reading something in a comments section of a Chopin concert on youtube. This one guy said he played the same piece on a piano at home when his sister entered their house whith a bunch of her girlfriends. They didn't notice him playing at first. He then started to play a common 4 chord progression known from various pop songs: They immediately noticed it and got in a conversation with him.

And this trend has been growing since the birth of the internet. Nowadays it's the audience who decides and the majority wants simple things.


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 12, 2017)

ghostnote said:


> Of course I'm generalizing. It's about finding the common ground, not about musical elitists bragging and proclaiming what's good or not. It's about (and yes, I too do not like this term) seeing the bigger picture. There are people appreciating complex music, but the majority has (yes I find this sad too) no access to that and even can't connect even if they hear it. So they go for things which are easily recognizable, with rythm and lots of bass. Something they can dance to. Remember "The Intouchables"?
> 
> I remember reading something in a comments section of a Chopin concert on youtube. This one guy said he played the same piece on a piano at home when his sister entered their house whith a bunch of her girlfriends. They didn't notice him playing at first. He then started to play a common 4 chord progression known from various pop songs: They immediately noticed it and got in a conversation with him.
> 
> And this trend has been growing since the birth of the internet. Nowadays it's the audience who decides and the majority wants simple things.



Well said, I agree that the lowest common denominator rules. Sad really.


----------



## ghostnote (Aug 12, 2017)

Thanks, yes its all about developing taste. I wonder how many people around on these forums who complain about mainstream music don't have even one suit in their closet, no fountain pen or even adequate manners. How many here are wearing a black belt to brown shoes? Do you get what I mean?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 12, 2017)

No manners, but no fountain pen?! (Excuse the mess.)


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 13, 2017)

Folk music is generally very simple music that can express profound ideas about humanity. Three chords made a lot of great rock and roll. There can be deep value in simplicity.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 14, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> Folk music is generally very simple music that can express profound ideas about humanity. Three chords made a lot of great rock and roll. There can be deep value in simplicity.



The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan!

Off the top of my head, I think Masters of War is only one chord. Sort of.


----------



## aumordia (Aug 14, 2017)

Zero chords and pentatonic modal melodies are the wellspring of centuries old traditional Scottish tunes, which, in turn, are the taproot of appalachian folk and roots music, from which blues, rock, country, western, and much pop derive. Simple music didn't just burst forth from Trevor Horn's head in the 80's.

Whether any of this would appeal to a Georgian in Georgia (talking about the country, not the state) is another matter. Isolating art from its context is a fool's errand, and the most important context -- as I've argued before -- is the people, both artist and audience.


----------



## Saxer (Sep 2, 2017)

Music is emotional communication. 
Without communication and emotional exchange people get mad or simply die.


----------



## rottoy (Sep 2, 2017)

Saxer said:


> Music is emotional communication.
> Without communication and emotional exchange people get mad or simply die.


But do emotional exchanges have true legato?


----------



## Saxer (Sep 2, 2017)

rottoy said:


> But do emotional exchanges have true legato?


Yepp, I read that "legato" is an italian synonymous for "in una relatione"


----------



## rottoy (Sep 2, 2017)

Saxer said:


> Yepp, I read that "legato" is an italian synonymous for "in una relatione"


My game is on point then!


----------

