# On The Origin Of Talent, Great Art, Music & Melody Species



## AlexandreSafi (Mar 25, 2014)

Yes... Notice the Darwin nod here!
Not going to pretend I know his stuff, but...

after the "melodic muscles" thread event, some could want this new thread, other could find it repetitive, unnecessary, others a mixed bag of non-sense leading nowhere! Yet with eyes wide open, I would personally would love to read your views "a bit" on this! In the hope that this could lead to a clearer understanding of how to encourage your own self to a life of better work, musicanship and artistry around us... 

Here I am, and here are all of my anarchic ideas on this impossible topic:
Beware they are either the result of complete ignorance on my part, or my complete overthinking about all this, which the latter it probably is...

WHAT IS TALENT:
- The talent i want to explore here isn't the one that shows you have a "special touch" for something, yet you're strangely not passionate at all about it...
*- The talent i'm interested in is the one, which all of us, I think, like to think we have in some shape or form that drives us, moves us, causes urgency in us, that makes us feel the love (to quote Elton John)... The talent that some could even say IS love itself...*
- The talent, also as a subjective concept: Talent as being also a product of an external human evaluation & judgement on who is "talented", and who isn't and why it is there or not in both cases... 

WHERE DOES GOOD MELODY COME FROM:
My theory is that Melody is simply a musical translation of the concept of MEANING as you see it and define it in a certain context given, and that Melody comes from actively engaging yourself in understanding emotionally & intellectually the concepts of "TRUTH & MEANING" & sometimes "BEAUTY & HARMONY" at their core in the world around you, not just in music, but in everywhere you can, in your personal life, yourself, and your priviledged experience...
Doesn't sound very linkable altogether, does it!

My View: 

_*Melody comes from finding the meaning in domains like psychology, your own psychology, having a trained philosophy about what life means and who you are, who someone else is, what something is or isn't, a set of beliefs about the world, and the ability to find your own definition of truth, meaning & beauty in art, myths, tragedies, events of the past, etc, and understanding your deep relationship with time (past-present-future) that then, altogether gets translated into musical notes...*_

I guess meaning simply "mastering your senses...", having beliefs, judgements, and sometimes idealizing things about life, and our existence enough to get inspired artistically... 

_*Musically, this also translates to the idea that you have to find your own meaning in the melodies and music you love that have been created in the past, define what you find relevant, repeat it, study it to some degree, and subconsciously memorize it so that you're able to attempt that and release it into your own creative work...*_

There is also a school of scientists & other less-scientifical, but spiritual masters who believe that aesthetics and inherent recognition of beauty (as in everyone perceiving a specific melody or thing as undeniably beautiful) as a true sign that the sense of *TRUTH, MEANING, BEAUTY & HARMONY* in art & nature, as we humans evaluate it, is also a fundamental constant, a law of the universe, like gravity, and it is recycled (without-the-need-of-brains) throughout the cycles of life & mirrors that same miraculous sense of beauty & harmony in the "fine-tuning" of the universe giving "life" it's order & meaning... Again, sense of TRUTH, MEANING, BEAUTY & HARMONY are here not even recognized and sensitized through genetic inheritance, or skills & education to allow them to be perceived, but rather a granted gift seeped deep in our shared consciousness, in all of us simultaneously...

2 clues in human's natural behaviour, they say, are given for that:
-Reverence
-Gratitude

In the sense that these properties aren't a learned thing in our brain and that consciousness itself has for example its inherent well-established sense of MEANING, before humanity got there, that isn't even a deterministic outcome relatable to the neuro-associative chemical networks nature of the brain... 

In other terms, Reverence and Gratitude, in the human experience are not just Genes & Brain cognition in action, but also indications of levels of understanding similar to one human, critic, composer, artist being capable of recognizing great inspiration, work, art, melody, that surpass the intellecutal justifications...

Could we once and for all dare ask the question of _"how did it happen that the 1st truly great melody (if anyone knows where to find it) [or even music for that matter] in the whole universe was made?"_ Was it truly just man-made, was it labored based on evolutionary processes or did it take some help from something of another dimension to come within us? Was it the result of associative skills developed to a level of mastery that creates talent / or was it the result of that necessary innate "gift" of talent that allows for that recognition of BEAUTY & MEANING...
Could it be both? 
Again, some would go and say that "only" skill(s) really produces talent!

Talent (in my own sense), the one I qualify, is the big mysterious given "thing", from our very birth, the 1st step that allows for an impulse on someone, you, me, to marvel, to look closer into a specific branch and understand intuitively that something deserves attention, appreciation for which it also produces on you reverence & gratefulness...

So here, talent breeds the path of passionate observation & interest, and then, if wildly and successfully encouraged, it is followed by the intellectual discernement by which the brain, as an evolutionary yet still "seemingly-given" tool, enables that cognitive process in one's specific & intimate object of contemplation leading to the concept of "skill"... 

Talent is the big unexplained reality of the impulse we all have, to go for something and to keep going at it if we listen & follow it!

Again I repeat, the 1st talent at it's primal, the* "Innate talent" *on emotional sensitivity-specific breeds a new form of Talent on the *"intellectual level"* when encouraged, this 2nd talent is the ability to evaluate in details great artistry, which then going further, breeds a new talent of a* "creative level" *turning the talented observer (distinguishing what is beautiful and relevant from what is not) into an insightful craftsman capable of great understanding on the emotional & intellectual level of art, that allows to perfectly reach back all the commoners, because he really knows his stuff he creates about, but also somehow knows that what he creates is right/necessary for the times he's in...

It's a cycle and this would suggest on the surface an evolutionary patient process that makes the ultimate talent look like a skill of absolute control gained by using our brain...

Our brains are indeed evolutionary, and yes that leads to all sorts of very relevant technical & emotional habits that define & shape our society, but for me, the existence of talent, the beginner's mind, the "almost-instinctual" recognition of beauty by humans & creativity in humans & in other whatever nature, ISN'T at its core from an evolutionary nature...

Talent is also, for me, that 2nd survival instinct, but it is one where you actually have free will to decide to act upon or not, but still one that sort of governs whether you'll be largely fulfilled in life or not... 

Deterministic view:
Yes, we'll see countless examples of the ones, in their childhood, that were fed (by parents & contextual environment) the stuff that then made them who they are up to their adult life, but then are we also allowed to think about the ones which totally rejected that similar path & went to a complete other way?...

Now, as i see it, as we grow, as we emotionally & intellectually mature and the more we train ourselves to recognize, feel & study the inherent properties in TRUTH, MEANING & BEAUTY around us, especially the types of ones we are the most fond of, the more we are in that "fine-tuning-universe-like" state to repeatedly create more of those elements...

Point is: You have to realize our inherent nature to feel moved about things, to have purpose and strong belief that the universe isn't purposeless to create TRUTH, MEANING, BEAUTY & HARMONY, and to have reverence, gratitude for what & who moved you to then make you have a strong sense of purpose & belief within you about the world to create music or anything else of value for that matter...

That goes for melody, great art, great technology!

As a matter of fact, can we actually take some time to analyse the link between the art & the personality of the artist himself? _"*I have non-voluntarily & unscientifcally observed that in music especially, great artists & melodists have absolutely fascinating personalities, with a deep reservoir of well-rounded/cultivated emotional sensitivites and passionate intelligence in those respects and are people with great MEANING & PURPOSE within them, better at knowing & being their own evolving selves than anybody else, knowing where they fit in the grand scheme of things and better in aknowledging how much they benefit from others, yet while being of course people that want to be relevant, exploring their uniqueness & the unknown, and all that while having indeed a great sense of character & charisma that inspire us...*"_
Think of all the ones you admire, their ideas (not just the musicians) and why them specifically? Why do you relate to them? Your shared values? Your shared beliefs?

I had precisely in the past, often wondered myself if one needs to be born with a specific personality, mood, character trait in order to be equipped for the right emotions to create meaningful work... This personality trait is a very important talent of its own that, I feel, can influence your music more than you think, now if that is also a talent, this goes back to the question of if one is only born with it or needs to acquire it through experience shaping you... For example how did Mozart's personality, born & acquired, but also sense of self-identity influence his use of emotions, his own brain, his talent, his enthusiasm, his composing, his ideas... 

Have you also even once considered what role does "musical taste" play in talent and great work... What does taste say about quality, relevance to the world, times we live in, acceptance/refusal?... If the talent is there, but the taste isn't shared among many, could taste endanger the talented's relevance to the world, or on the contrary will it always lead to true innovation and make people catch up or talent in more cases leads simply to great execution & perpetual of the taste of the artist from which everything is applied?... I guess this also leads to the question of "is taste totally undefendable, or is there room for change!" 


The real truth I feel about talent is that it involves many different complex elements cooperating within a human that he needs to act upon and make him act in a certain way that creates great work and sets example for others to follow... 

Another thing in this "talent" debate within our 5 senses reality of existence is "you'll just have to CHOOSE which approach you see as correct, according to your definition of talent, between the innate gift of Talent vs. Evolutionary Determinism Explainable Talent & Measurable Skills... 

Can we even really know, in all cases, if something is rather a skill or a talent? And when know, can we know where, again, it comes from?

Also look at this:
How does this 10-months baby came to react like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o-VplYrqBs

What does that say about the nature of memory, brain, emotions, "meaning" as an instinctual gift or an intellectual brain product? or the nature of "language, melody & music itself"?
What kind of level of understanding does this signify? / Is that an indication of any possible future talent, inclination? / A trait of personality? / A sense of non-intellectual understanding of things? / Is that determined by a certain set of very early skills in music and language ingrained in that baby that allows for talent? / What simply makes this baby "get" it?... 

You decide!

Now, what is my definition of talent?
Talent, your talent, is simply your personal experience of Love of a certain kind, which all of us seem to be here experiencing on a different level of hierarchical sensitivities starting from our birth...

Could one also argue that perception of talent in an artist is also encouraged or discouraged by one's authority in a field, his/her fame, "social proof" or lack of it (read R. Cialdini - Influence) in a career or not...
Are you yourself in a present state where you "know" you can "immediately" spot it in someone, or do you entertain "the idea" that your version of talent could evolve as you do... Do you sometimes feel that talented people struggle needlessly simply because it "looks like" other people are not equipped yet to recognize it in them... Now, according to which factors that evolution in perception would happen? Time, Fame again, that you see and admire or despise in someone else... Interesting isn't it! Sometimes it's like "talent" isn't even out there, it's like WE create it and vice-versa, but that again,  is more tragic!! 

The usual "talent" word is applied, thought of, and mentioned by many different people living by many different philosophies, standards, ideas of greatness and mediocrity, and so here it is interesting to see the impossibility of truly agreeing upon that concept itself...

The ultimate talent, as I see it, is this combination:

Innate personal impulse for specific Observation in tune with Positive Emotional Resonance->Emotional & Intellectual Understanding->Awareness of Times We Live In->Creative Ability

Something to ponder upon, presented in much simpler words than I ever could do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCNTg_8Nf-U

The END

Question:
DID YOU REALLY READ ALL THAT MIND**** OF MINE...? If so, then I'm so sorry, guess some people like me have "too" much time at their disposal!

Are all those "How's and Why's" legitimate questions to you?

_"Where we go from here is a choice I leave to you"_ -- Flying Off to bed... ~o) 

Good night from Switzerland! 
Alexandre


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 26, 2014)

I've thought a lot about all these things and written about them in the past in this same forum, I'm not going to repeat all those arguments.

But, I'll add two things that seem more important, now than ever, regarding music and what moves people towards music.

Melody.
And why melody? 
Because usually melodies are singable. And everything that is singable resembles human voice.

Anything that contains human voice or is a metaphor for human voice holds more power and it is much more attractive.

That is why pop songs are so popular.

And why does "human voice" matter?

Empathy.

You used the word "meaning". I prefer to use the key word "empathy".

We find meaning whenever we find empathy, whenever we RELATE to something, experience emotions, moods or affects when we listen to it, whenever we find ourselves into something and can learn and have a personal experience described in there.

A piece of music is greater, the more amount of "empathy" it generates inside a community.

We recognize "great music" and "talent" whenever we establish empathy with the work of that person, and then we quickly jump into a logic -> we like their music -> we like them.

Talent is just the ability to create things that are empathetic being that as an intuitive process or a craft/laborious one.

I think this is already a good base for a start...


----------



## G.E. (Mar 26, 2014)

Here's my take on it.
First of all,everything we perceive as love,emotion,passion,any kind of feeling really, is nothing but a bunch of chemicals and neurons firing together in our brain.Even if our human instinct is to perceive it as something much more than that,that doesn't change the facts.The brain is just an organic computer evolved to constantly change itself based on external stimuli.
These external stimuli are responsible for talent for the most part.These things can be anything that we associate with something positive and usually go back to early childhood.Something which happens randomly in our lives that forever change us.

In my opinion talent isn't the ability to do something but it's something which makes us want to do something.Let's take two 5 year old kids who both play piano for example.One is talented and the other one isn't.What's really the difference between them?
One kid for some reason WANTS to practice(and finds it extremely enjoyable and addictive) every chance he gets and the other one only goes to his lessons and practices for a few hours a week at home.The second one enjoys it to some degree but would much rather go outside and play with other kids instead of playing piano.The total time of practice isn't the only advantage the first kid has over the other.
Because he enjoys it so much ,he is much more focused,which contributes to building stronger synapses.So 1 hour of practice for the first kid actually has the value of 10 hours for the other kid because of that.It much more complicated than that but I'm neither willing or competent enough to explain everything.

Going back to the brain.I know it may seem like a boring and sad way to look at life but who says we can't think of everything as just a network of neurons and still be amazed by the infinite potential the human brain as? Who says we can't still appreciate art at an emotional level ?

This isn't really related to talent but I think it's worth bringing up anyway.re-peat said this as a response to Alex in the other thread:


> The reason I think you and I see things differently is because we see music fundamentally differently. I’ve noticed this before. You seem to want to rationalize, even mundanify (if that is a word?), every aspect of music and hope to want to explain the entire process, as it occurs during the creation, performance and production of it, in a somewhat clinical, down-to-earth fashion.
> Now, on most any other subject, I would enthusiastically go along with this — being extremely rational and unemotional about music, and deeply allergic to the association ‘music and feelings’ — but I have to confess that music, and particulary its gestation, is a complete mystery to me and the more I learn about it, the more mysterious it has become.



Everything about music IS EMOTION but it's not a mystery.There's no reason to look at it as something beyond neurons and synapses.You can choose to not think of it in that way for the sake of not ruining the magical idea you had of it, but at the same time you can't say that it's more than that.We simply respond to different vibrations in certain ways.But before I go on I just want to clarify AGAIN that there's no reason why we can't still be profoundly moved by music and looking at it in this way doesn't devalue its impact.I love to be emotionally moved by music.There's nothing quite like that feeling when you hear something so good that you literally get goosebumps on your skin.

Neuroscientists tried to analyze the pitch patterns in our speech and what they found out is amazing but not surprising.(I know when we talk it doesn't sound musical but we still use pitches)
They've recorded actors talking and expressing different emotions and then analyzed the intervals in their speech.It turns out that when we're sad we tend to talk in descending minor 3rds and when expressing anger we talk in ascending minor 2nds.Sounds familiar ? :D ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvCI-gNK_y4 ) 

But getting back on topic,talent can never be assessed/measured because it's something which constantly develops.But it's all related to your experiences.It starts off with the random thing which sparks the interest and it's followed by passionately pursuing that interest.The more I thought about it,I came to the conclusion that there is a requirement for talent after all which you either you have or don't.But that isn't some ingrained ability for music.It's just the desire to constantly explore music and being curious to see what possibilities are just beyond the corner.The more you explore,the more you understand.And every time you gain new understanding, you start to see things from a perspective which wasn't obvious to you before.Unfortunately we can't control what sparks our interest in things and how deeply it moves us so that's why not everybody has a talent for music.(or anything else)


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Mar 26, 2014)

Thank you sir! your 2 simple points (human voice & empathy) are quite frankly highly relevant & describe what i really hadn't thought about, in those terms, but they make a lot of sense...

Empathy is that giant tool as a starting point for communication and using your voice. Empathy does have its very close link when it comes to melody, Bravo...

Interestingly the voice is found in other things than humans like animals (cats, dogs, dolphins), birds, and the further we push this the more we see that some inspired composers like to listen to that variety of voice & sounds in nature itself... People like Howard Shore, James Horner & John Williams composing entire concertos out of forests, trees, waterfalls and yes birds...

The "all sound is music" philosophy!

Reminds me of that genius sound designer "Diego Stocco" (Experibass on Sherlock) too...

All this pushing the boundaries of where great sounds are and how great melodies emerge...

Thanks!


----------



## ModalRealist (Mar 26, 2014)

It is incorrect to say that we know that any experienced stimulus (e.g. music, or white noise, or the taste of beetroot) is "just neurons and synapses." As a matter of fact, there are major open questions about how our brains either are, or give rise to, conscious experience. Try looking up "the hard problem of consciousness." This does not mean, I should emphasise, that there is anything "mystical" going on. Only that our understanding of what neurons, synapses and the experience you have in the first person (e.g. the sound you hear) is as yet incomplete. (Credentials: I have the good fortune to be studying for my doctorate in this very area; I work in the philosophy faculty, and with the neuroscience department, at Oxford.)


----------



## G.E. (Mar 26, 2014)

ModalRealist @ Wed Mar 26 said:


> It is incorrect to say that we know that any experienced stimulus (e.g. music, or white noise, or the taste of beetroot) is "just neurons and synapses." As a matter of fact, there are major open questions about how our brains either are, or give rise to, conscious experience. Try looking up "the hard problem of consciousness." This does not mean, I should emphasise, that there is anything "mystical" going on. Only that our understanding of what neurons, synapses and the experience you have in the first person (e.g. the sound you hear) is as yet incomplete. (Credentials: I have the good fortune to be studying for my doctorate in this very area; I work in the philosophy faculty, and with the neuroscience department, at Oxford.)



I agree.There is much which is yet unknown about the brain but we do already know a lot.As long as you aren't saying there's something "mystical" going on,we're in agreement. :D


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Mar 26, 2014)

G.E. @ Wed Mar 26 said:


> Here's my take on it.
> First of all,everything we perceive as love,emotion,passion,any kind of feeling really, is nothing but a bunch of chemicals and neurons firing together in our brain.Even if our human instinct is to perceive it as something much more than that,that doesn't change the facts.The brain is just an organic computer evolved to constantly change itself based on external stimuli.
> These external stimuli are responsible for talent for the most part.These things can be anything that we associate with something positive and usually go back to early childhood.Something which happens randomly in our lives that forever change us.
> 
> ...



Oh dear, I was afraid this thread would lead to this debate again, but hey I needlessly caused this, making it look like this is what I fundamentally believe about: Magic, creationism & all that---and you seemed to have made a large part of your post about that, so don't worry I will not make that mistake again... :D 

I'm just going to say that in the end it really doesn't matter where anyone of us think love, inspiration, the human brain really comes from, or what it represents, but like I said, and as you of course declared & agreed with, in any cases we still can & actually NEED to feel appreciation, amazement (also empathy as musicologo said) at the structure of whatever EXISTS around us, including ourselves, and music for that matter, which all cause a "you or me", to understand someone/something and makes us feel a deep emotional response that, indeed, inspires you to start working smart and working passionately...

I say there is a talent there, a mark, an impulse, sometimes followed, sometimes repressed, for better or worse, but there is also a "human art" of using your talent, and I'm not even talking about developing skills about that talent itself already yet... 

My point, which you also stated in your thoughtful words, is that we all universally have that impulse to follow a specific pattern of interest, "one either has it, or not" (where that comes from again, is up to anyone's interpretation). Yet, i also wanted to add that if we wanted to take this talent to other forms of levels, there needs to be a form of (self-)education in "empathy, attention/focus & appreciation" in general, one needs to have in the way he engages with the world, *past-present & future*, so that he's fully "in-tune" with his talent and work...

And this leads me to your point on "*we can't control what sparks our interests in things*", if we're linking this sentence to our initial interest, then yes, of course, but I also believe that actually "going with the flow" encourages one to search other forms of interests which have nothing to do with music for example and they, in turn, create different associations between this & that in the brain, actually encouraging us to better execute our talent... 


I also think talent can be malleable... Something which looks totally static and unchangeable, but sometimes in another case, also can evolve and appear much stronger or weaker as you evolve with it, because your sensiblities and beliefs about the world themselves are subject to change, so therein lies the undeniable deterministic factor about what causes and stirs emotions in us, and it is always that part which i find the most interesting, because that means if we can see ourselves evolve, there is then a process of sensitizement or desensitizement which in itself can make you use your talent, in different ways, sometimes making you doubt whether there is even a fixed "one" talent involved in the first place...


People will like or dislike only the things they can distinguish from one another, through a process of repetition, and social conditioning, until possibly a new thing could be brought to them that moves and changes them, like the Inception of an idea... 

_anyway, I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, and I also think you indicated that talent and experience of life are closely linked, somewhere in your post, so I won't pretend you don't know that yourself..._

So again, talent can also be shaped by a set of "ideas" you have about the subjective world you live in, or decide you want to live in, the meaning of it, and the more you have a brain that has MEANING, a meaning that suits you, the more powerful the picture, the more effective the music is, the more powerful the talent is used and then in turn begets more of it...

_*"I believe we, as humans, are simply seekers of MEANING, we are hardwired for it...
And those that fail in creating effective music (...at least for themselves...), are those who, in very broad terms, haven't found it yet..."*_

Also, you rightfully bring up re-peat's post about the nature of "MUSIC" itself... Again I will say this, realistically, i know music is a powerful tool for living our lives, the vibrational aspect is very interesting indeed, this I know and I am sure about. Yet, what i'm also sure about is that i can't myself say MUSIC is NOT a mystery. It obviously is, not because i "want" to believe it's magic, but i simply understand that the emergence of it, just like the phenomenon of the origin of human language and again, why certain specific musical things affect us more than others are not explained... This is exactly the same as "the hard problem" in quantum physics, duly mentioned by *ModalRealist*, and what you admitted about "the human brain" still being not fully undestood by Science (love R. Dawkins, by the way, but anyhoo)...

Our only job is to welcome the music in our head, in the most prepared of ways, and create it out...
I just felt that the "preparation" part needs also largely be about the skill of *"human character" and our fundamental connection to nature & reality...* 
_
*"I guess my fundamental concern is that, it's about thinking big and large. We as composers, are like actors. We're the hidden one, we're the actor that keeps changing form faster than anybody, and we are actually supposed to stretch ourselves not just to humans interacting between one another, but knowing that we, as musicians, are here like observers, commentators not just of humanity, but life itself. We're also guardians & healers to support whatever exist around us, and so there is the "stay connected" empathetically and appreciatevely whoever we are or wherever we come from..."

"We, as musicians, need to remember what we represent here, and the stronger you're willing to decide what you represent, the more powerful I believe your choices in music and life will be... And now that, is a talent of its own..."*_

Great reading your post G.E. 
Thanks

Alexandre


----------



## markwind (Mar 26, 2014)

Very interesting input everyone, really enjoy the posts. And I truly admire how you picked up on the difference of opinions on that Alexandre, even more how you smoothened the potential friction that usually arises with such subjects.

Admirable discussion . Can't say there's anything that pops up with me that hasn't yet been said. So i'll read along in enjoyment.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Mar 26, 2014)

Thank you Mark!
Your post brings comfort!


----------



## G.E. (Mar 26, 2014)

Yeah,sorry Alexandre.In my head I'm still arguing with re-peat's notion of talent. :lol:
What's certain is that philosophers have thought about this for hundreds of years so I doubt anyone will crack the "mystery" of talent on a forum :D Not that I'm saying that's what you were trying to do.


----------



## rgames (Mar 26, 2014)

Well, I didn't read everything here but here's one important point about talent and its prized offspring, genius:

It's always brief.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 26, 2014)

G.E.,

If music is such an open book to you — there’s no mystery to it, you say — and moreover, if, as you state, _talent can be developed_, than why, if I may ask, aren’t you any better at it? I mean, no matter how good you already may be, surely, with what you say, you should be better still and be writing the most sublime music or at least approximating it, shouldn’t you? I know I would. If I had as much insight in the matter as you claim to have and if I were convinced that my talent could still be developed, that is. Oh, yes. Superbly structured, finely crafted orchestral pieces, or timeless pop songs, or scores which would turn Williams and Zimmer green with envy, or wonderful melodies that leave people the world over trembling with admiration, … Is that something we can expect from you during our lifetime? I suppose it is, isn’t it, if what you say is right and you are currently busy increasing your talent. 

Or is music, after all, too mysterious and unknown a world to conquer, and do you have to admit that talent is perhaps not as improvable as you pontificate it is?

And if there’s nothing mysterious about music, then please explain to me why “Ode an die Freude”, rather than thousands of other melodies from the past, has become the global anthem it is today, known in all corners of the world. Or why, of all the six “Pomp And Circumstance”-marches, it is the first which has entered the public’s heart, while the five others remain much, much lesser known. Or why Bach’s 2nd Brandenburg Concerto made it onto the Voyager Golden Record but none of Corelli’s Concerti Grossi did. Why is that?
I’d like to see you give a solid scientific explanation for these conundrums, with as much synapses, neurons and atoms as you like. (And please don’t say “Those are great pieces of music.”, because there’s nothing scientific about “greatness” as an argument.)

And another question. You say: “there is a requirement for talent that you either have or you don’t”. Hello? What’s that all about? So you have to have _a talent for talent_, is that it? I don’t get it, you see. Me saying “you either have talent or you don’t” is nonsense in your opinion (see the other thread), and now you yourself say that there is “some requirement” which you either have or not. Could you enlighten us on the difference, please?

And finally: “Everything about music is emotion”, right? I don’t agree with that one bit, but anyway. (The only lines in your earlier post I do agree with, is that insightful quote you inserted in the middle. Well done there. All the rest is, in its ignorance and presumptiousness, borderline offensive to me.) Anyway. So, music is all about emotion. OK. And everything about emotion is perception, yes? That’s what you said as well, isn’t it? So, by that logic: _everything about music is perception_? Mmm ... Can I call your 'bullshit' (see previous thread) and raise with a mammothshit?

Music isn’t always about emotion (or perception). To me for example, music is first and foremost about music. (At least, good music is.) Emotion is something extra we ourselves add to it, if so we wish. But that’s not music. The emotion we bring to music is different for each of us and it depends on our own intelligence, talent, experience, memories, hopes, desires, etc. .. but none of that is written in the music itself. What you bring to (and, in turn, derive from), say, the Adagietto from Mahler’s 5th is very likely entirely different from what I bring to it. In fact, I’m dead sure it is, because I don’t bring anything ‘emotional’ to it, only my intelligence, my talent and my intention to listen to the music itself. And the pleasure I derive from listening to it, is a purely, abstract musical experience: the joy and/or awe as a result of hearing my musical hunger satisfied by a wonderfully inspired, extremely well-written piece of music. 

If I may quote myself from something I wrote a long time ago in another galaxy: “Audiences that cheer and applaud ecstatically the moment Williams launches the Boston Symphony into the first bars of the ‘Star Wars’ music, are not really applauding the music itself — well, in part they do, naturally — but are most of all releasing the excitement they feel as a result of the many emotions and associations which this music invariably stirs up. The expression ‘carried away,’ which was used earlier, is in fact pretty accurate in this context: you get carried away from the objective, abstract musical content into the subjective world of emotion, association and imagination. Music has to have some real musical power and merit for that to happen of course, but the moment that it happens, it is a response that is, paradoxically perhaps, no longer a purely musical one.”

If you’re listening to music for that goosebumpy feeling you like so much, or for the shiver down your spine, you’re not really listening to the music, you are listening to yourself, in a sort of masturbatory way. That may be a very enjoyable, even profound experience — I indulge in it myself as well on many an occasion, I admit — but, please, don’t confuse that with _truly listening to music_.
In my opinion and in my life, music is far too intense an experience — and a purely musical one at that — to be distracted from, or contaminated by something as subjective, fleeting and unmusical as emotions.

But that's just me, of course. I do understand that we don't all deal with music in the same way, and if yours — like the majority of people's, I suppose —, happens to be mostly driven by emotional considerations or intuitions, I fully respect that.

Anyway, enough for now.

_


----------



## markwind (Mar 26, 2014)

re-peat @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> G.E.,
> 
> If music is such an open book to you — there’s no mystery to it, you say — and moreover, if, as you state, _talent can be developed_, than why, if I may ask, aren’t you any better at it?
> _



I hope you don't mind Piet for removing the rest of your post, I honestly didn't read through it but I was intrigued how you could ask such a strange question?

How come you interpret his post in such a way, as to think he would claim that, or even claim that his reasoning has that conclusion as a logical follow-up. I know you're a smart guy, your otherwise interesting and informative reasoning proves that to me, but when you reply to posts that you disagree with I truly wonder whether you even truly tried to understand the person you are replying to.

You might be smart in arguing your position and ideas (and I do I enjoy your sections which go beyond argueing against someone's point and more so about the matter), but up until now (in the discussions Ive read so far, which I admit, limits to 3 seperate discussions) I have seen nothing but poor interpretation of other people's ideas. Pulling alot of the other persons words into an extreme even though nothing of that sort was said, or as you do now, make a logical step following someone's reasoning that is similar to 2-4-6-8-10-156

It's a shame, because if it weren't for that often seen tendency I would have moreso enjoyed your posts. (you might not care of course, , but you'd have my enjoyment regardless).


*-after reading-* Edit; In the rest of your post, you make similar (and other) reasoning errors. 

- For instance the claim of something being nothing mysterious does not equal knowing all the factors. Mystery means knowing absolutely none of the factors. A mystery is having zero leads on that specific question. Having a lead, reduces the mystery. Saying something is a not a mystery is another way of saying that there are enough leads that can be explored. It doesn't mean they are already explored. So just to make sure we're on the same page (even if you disagree with the definition): To say something is not a mystery, does not equal saying you know how something works. It means you have a handle to a degree on what to do to find out what you want. - edit - i keep feeling like I need to completely cover my reasoning here, otherwise you'd employ your type of logic to completely change the meaning of what I am saying: This does not mean that GE has complete Neurological knowledge to go about his research, nor does it mean for me that i have the political, economical, biological, musical, historical, geographical understandings from the times those melodies you mention to increase my understanding why they are as great as they are (which is a totally valid field with social science to be asking). It does mean that If i were to have the time, the resources, and the willingness that I could explore these factors.. and thus they pose not much of a mystery as to why these are great. Should the factors that I try to find, lets say historical documents, be lost in time, leaving my research out to dry, then.. it might be considered a mystery - to an extent. The word mystery used in there would simply mean to have something be unknown to us and will remain to be unknown as we know what would need, but simply see no lead to obtain it. 

- The emotion -> perception errr He says nothing in his post about perception. He uses the word "perceive" twice, first paragraph, perceive which could have been replaced with any word, such as feeling or understanding. But perceive speaks more to our imagination. After your logical showcase that didnt have any proper basis, you continue to say that *Music Is about Music* as a means to argue the position of GE where he claims it is about emotion,then you add * at least good music. *Good.. is a value-attribute, good, is a positive feeling, bad is a negative feeling, indifferent is a .. neutral feeling (or absence of feeling, apathy). When GE says; Music is emotion, he means all value that music holds, is emotion. Emotion can be translated into music, and vise versa, music that doesn't translate a feeling of sorts might just as well not exist. However, all music is able to trigger (trigger!) some kind of emotion. Emotion is our experiental bridge that unifies us with the soundwaves that come to us. (in fact, emotion unifies us to an extend with whatever we actually feel something for, hence we use the phrase; to connect with something, and understand it as an emotional characteristic.).
You disagree on emotion yet all you talk about are values in your next paragraph (after your Music - Emotion - Perception logic), values are inherently emotional, even if you have rationalized certain values in later life, they are inherently emotional.

- And of course your last one: _In my opinion and in my life, music is far too intense an experience — and a purely musical one at that — to be distracted from, or contaminated by something as subjective, fleeting and unmusical as emotion_. This one is great.. so great. Intensity, there are only a couple of forms of intensity we as humans understand; Emotional, and physical. There are no other forms of intensified experiences. NONE. There is a rational understanding of intensity, such as the intensity of heat when I turn my oven on, but there is NONE other for our experiental intensity. 

A aspect of the problem here (ie. this discussion) lies most likely in how you classify/understand emotional. Emotional is anything that you experience that is not physical, but in countless shades. And I wouldn't be surprised if you disagree with that definition (which I won't argue, those are tricky definitions indeed). 

I believe firmly, that all arguments come forth because the primary concepts used within a discussion are not equally defined. Yet the definition is never fully revealed and thus we go on beating against each other verbally. Misunderstanding one another completely.


----------



## David Story (Mar 26, 2014)

Terrific post, thank you Piet.
Most of the way to an essay on the ART of music, something I had lost hope of seeing here. A bit harsh in it's tone, but that's part of his style. And no more harsh than the folks who try and say music is... (fill in the oversimplification).


----------



## re-peat (Mar 27, 2014)

markwind @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> (...) there are only a couple of forms of intensity we as humans understand; Emotional, and physical. There are no other forms of intensified experiences. NONE. There is a rational understanding of intensity, such as the intensity of heat when I turn my oven on, but there is NONE other for our experiental intensity. (...)


Mark,

Says who? How about intellectual intensity? Aesthetic intensity? And more to the point: how about musical intensity? The latter shares a lot with intellectual intensity (at least it does for me), except for this one undefinable but most important element: that 'mystery' thing I mentioned earlier. Something that can’t be captured by intellect or ratio alone (and certainly not by emotion), something for which language offers no satisfying describing vocabulary, something that can’t be expressed in any other way than a purely musical one.

See, when I listen to “Petrushka” or “Superman” or Mingus’ 1964 Paris Concert or Zappa’s “Läther” or Elgar’s “Enigma Variations” or Waxman’s “Objective Burma!” or Brahms’ pianoconcertos or Telemann’s “Tafelmusik” or Schubert’s “Great Symphony” or whatever, I don’t get into any emotional state at all. Never. My focus remains entirely and exclusively on and inside the music, and whatever ‘feelings’ I may get are strictly limited to the mysterious (there it is again) joy of absorbing that music and being absorbed by it. I marvel at the inspiration, I’m excited by the ideas, I enjoy following the structures, and …. I feel more complete because great music adds something to me which makes me more complete (and it certainly isn’t an emotional or intellectual thing). I know, vague. But like I said: words, intelllect and ratio fail to completely describe/reveal/define/explain the experience that is great music to me.

(Then again, I can also listen in a different, more instinctive way: profoundly enjoying blues music or certain types of folk music, totally able to deeply enjoy good pop, rock and light music in a completely non-intellectual fashion, or being completely electrified by the primitive tribal appeal and energy of good dance music … No problem. And the headbanger in me looooves AC/DC and Status Quo.)

But what I can’t do, is listen to Berlioz’s “Symphony Fantastique” or Beethoven’s Sixth, or Williams’ “Jaws” or “Hook” and think of the story behind the music. My brain won’t allow me to. I know “musical story-telling” is a very important matter for many people on this forum, and understandably so, but me, I don’t like music to tell stories. Well, I don’t mind if it does, but I’m not interested. And I don’t like music to spoon-feed me emotions either, and I certainly don’t like music which is specifically created to trigger some extra-musical response if it doesn't also offer something of pure musical value. (Which is why I find so much film music so very, very boring.) But this is just by the by, and not entirely relevant to the topc at hand, I guess.

What I want to say: there is something else, a deeply stirring intensity — see? — beyond the intellectual and, to me, far beyond the emotional (and obviously beyond the physical as well), something for which, in this particular context, I have only one word: music. In a Venn-diagram, music's circle would overlap for a significant part with the intellectual and the emotional circles, yes, but there would be an equally significant part left uncovered by either or both of those other circles, a part which is entirely music's own.

Science may be able to map out the brain in amazing detail and tell us all that goes into the complex and fascinating processes which happen there, and tomorrow, science will undoubtedly reveal more than what it can reveal today, sure. But science will never be omniscient. There’s this strange thing which we humans have — 'soul' is perhaps the word I'm looking for —, which is neither strictly intellectual or emotional, and soooo much more than the sum of both, but which very much defines us and makes us capable of things — art, for example, or kindness, or humour — at which science can only look, shake its head and say: “Yeah, that’s that ‘human’ thing again. Don’t know much about that.”

_


----------



## markwind (Mar 27, 2014)

re-peat @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> markwind @ Thu Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) there are only a couple of forms of intensity we as humans understand; Emotional, and physical. There are no other forms of intensified experiences. NONE. There is a rational understanding of intensity, such as the intensity of heat when I turn my oven on, but there is NONE other for our experiental intensity. (...)
> ...


Those fall within: Rational (knowledge), Emotional (experiental), or physical. Aesthetic intensity is no intensity unless rational or experiental. Or of course, say it would be incredibly bright then that aspect is also physical.

All forms you mention do not fall outside of what I had previously mentioned. 


> What I want to say: there is something else, a deeply stirring intensity — see? — beyond the intellectual and, to me, far beyond the emotional (and obviously beyond the physical as well), something for which, in this particular context, I have only one word: music. In a Venn-diagram, music's circle would overlap for a significant part with the intellectual and the emotional circles, yes, but there would be an equally significant part left uncovered by either or both of those other circles, a part which is entirely music's own.


I think between you and I there is a gap in how we define experiential, or how I carelesly throw them under the banner of emotional. Because I think I hear what you're saying, but I would categorize this paragraph as a testiment to an experience, which is feelings. The gap you mentioned, the uncovered part, wouldn't exist in how I classify these concepts. I think you categorize these differently and unless we come to the same definition on these, we are doomed to everlasting disagreement . But of course, I think I see what you mean in your approach to the concept, though it's still a little vague to me. 



> Science may be able to map out the brain in amazing detail and tell us all that goes into the complex and fascinating processes which happen there, and tomorrow, science will undoubtedly reveal more than what it can reveal today, sure. But science will never be omniscient. There’s this strange thing which we humans have — 'soul' is perhaps the word I'm looking for —, which is neither strictly intellectual or emotional, and soooo much more than the sum of both, but which very much defines us and makes us capable of things — art, for example, or kindness, or humour — at which science can only look, shake its head and say: “Yeah, that’s that ‘human’ thing again. Don’t know much about that.”
> _


Can't say I can argue with that. Being someone who studied social sciences, I wouldn't necessarily come from a physical/biological point of reference to try to understand these things, but rather from a social/cultural perspective. We might not learn anything about what "a soul" is, but from learning it's use and people's understanding of it, how they use and perceive it to permeate daily life, we do get to to understand something about it, or at least, how people have framed this concept which gives us a little insight over the people in question and the concept of soul. It would not, i agree, give us a certain measure of proof about it's existence, only its use.

Just like I learn now, how you frame (if I understood correctly) various concepts which teaches me something about you, and what you think about stuff like music. Even though I don't really agree, I can't be 100% dismissive of your view on it neither, it's one of those type of things.

I am not a seeker of the all time truth of things. I care more for the experience.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 27, 2014)

AlexandreSafi @ Wed Mar 26 said:


> Also look at this:
> How does this 10-months baby came to react like this?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o-VplYrqBs



Doesn't it sometimes look as if babies are old souls in a young body? ... which would be another answer to some questions in this thread.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 27, 2014)

markwind @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> (...) Aesthetic intensity is no intensity unless rational or experiental. (...)


Seems to me you’re missing out on the essence then, Mark.
Let’s look at, say, a Bach fugue. Several ways to do this: intellectually, you can find satisfaction in analyzing the thing (construction, development, technical mastery, etc.), emotionally you may find satisfaction in it because the music somehow transports you into a state of calm, balance and well-being ... But, then there’s this other thing, and it goes to the very heart of the power of the piece, and is as such far more difficult (if not impossible) to describe: the sheer abstract musical beauty of it.

Or take the phrasing of Frank Sinatra (in his good days), or the silences that punctuate a Miles Davis solo, or Stewart Copeland’s drumming, or McCartney’s bass playing in “Hey Bulldog”, or Bill Evans’ pianoplaying ... All of these things can be analyzed intellectually. But only to a certain (and fairly superficial) extent. All of these things can be experienced emotionally. But only to a certain (and rather volatile) degree. Because in all of these performances there’s another element at play which eludes both intellect and emotion, and it is precisely the very element which makes the experience so powerful (at least to me): its musical quality.

_


----------



## markwind (Mar 27, 2014)

re-peat @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> markwind @ Thu Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Aesthetic intensity is no intensity unless rational or experiental. (...)
> ...


This is where our conversation gets very tricky. 

There is a chance that I might be missing it and there is a chance that you might not understand me completely in how I classify the concept of emotion and thus think I would miss it. 

I would love to know which one it is, I truly do, but I am afraid I simply don't know how. Im afraid you and I use the concepts we'd need to describe it, different enough as to make a communicative bridge on this subject which is vague on its own incredibly difficult. Knowing this, let's try and keep in mind that miscommunication might very well be happening . 

Music to me, speaks emotional tellings. Which doesn't mean I feel emotional in a classical sense, it means it generates a certain feeling. Depending on the type of music, this can be Awe inspiring as the quality of the piece so extraordinarily well, or it can be incredibly moving if the emotional performance by the performer or musician is so incredibly well translated, and truly generate emotions in the classical sense. Both are to me a sensation of different feelings. Which Different music, generates different feelings, different styles, generates different feelings, different qualities in music generate different feelings. These three have a constant interaction with each other.
A beauty I would experience in Mozarts piece, I would not find in a contemporary production, yet I wouldn't measure a contemporary production in the same framework as Mozarts (not talking league, merely framework, Mozart is not the one standard to which all must be measured, for me).

Maybe I do miss what you are saying, and if so, I would like to open myself up to that way of perceiving it (I have that ability, which has its problems in everyday life ). If what I say here, still makes you think I miss it. Please try to explain the best you know how, I would appreciate it as to know whether I am indeed missing out on a certain experience, or that you and I do share a similar experience but classify this differently (which is truly possible.. that's human nature).


----------



## G.E. (Mar 27, 2014)

> if, as you state, talent can be developed, than why, if I may ask, aren’t you any better at it?


Ask me again in 10 years :D



> You say: “there is a requirement for talent that you either have or you don’t”. Hello? What’s that all about? So you have to have a talent for talent, is that it? I don’t get it, you see.


Maybe I haven't made myself as clear as I should have,but I don't know how to explain it better.Alexandre seems to get what I was talking about.(I think) You don't have to have talent for talent.Is that what you understood from what I wrote? :lol:

I'm not getting more into it because we obviously are on opposite sides and will never reach a consensus.You may consider my thoughts simply ignorant but I won't think so little of yours.I will just accept that we view the world around us from total different perspectives,that's all.
Quite honestly I'm tired of this discussion.Still,I would like to hear the music you wrote right after learning your first scale.If it's not much better now than it was back then,I have to agree that not everybody has talent and talent can't be developed. 



> art, for example, or kindness, or humour — at which science can only look, shake its head and say: “Yeah, that’s that ‘human’ thing again. Don’t know much about that.”


Actually science has an explanation for those human specific attributes and how they came to be. 
I don't claim to fully understand these things because I haven't spent my life studying them but I do have some level of understanding.


----------



## G.E. (Mar 27, 2014)

> Doesn't it sometimes look as if babies are old souls in a young body? ... which would be another answer to some questions in this thread.


Normally I wouldn't agree with you, but after watching this.... :lol: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7W3ICpONVs


----------



## re-peat (Mar 27, 2014)

Mark, 

I get the distinct and increasing feeling that we may both be very well talking about the same thing. The difference being that what you understand by ratio and emotion, covers more ground than how I see these things, and that I attribute something to (musical or artistic) beauty and creativity which falls well outside the province of either naked intellect and/or emotion.
I even think that some of the differences between what we say are basically semantic.

And I’m no truth-seeker either. Doesn’t the appeal, power and fascination of the unanswered question lie in the fact that it remains unanswered?

_


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Mar 27, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Doesn't it sometimes look as if babies are old souls in a young body? ... which would be another answer to some questions in this thread.



Hannes,

many years ago I did a photographic experiment. I took pictures of people aged 85 and above, the oldest was 98, then I took pictures of new born, not older than a few hours.

I showed nothing but a close up of the eyes...

Observers of the pictures confirmed what I saw, that the same wisdom sparkled of both, the new born and the old eyes!


----------



## markwind (Mar 27, 2014)

re-peat @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Mark,
> 
> I get the distinct and increasing feeling that we may both be very well talking about the same thing. The difference being that what you understand by ratio and emotion, covers more ground than how I see these things, and that I attribute something to (musical or artistic) beauty and creativity which falls well outside the province of either naked intellect and/or emotion.
> I even think that some of the differences between what we say are basically semantic.


Ironically that would make your definitions more on par with the science of psychology then me, as far as classifications go. I think I do encompass more under the banner of emotion then other people, which might be a little distorted on my end. I do believe in psychology there is a distinction between emotion and feeling. I instinctively go against that for some reason, not because any clear cut reasoning, just my instinctive way of classifying it. 

I would have to check this though, but I remember reading they made that distinction similarly. 


> And I’m no truth-seeker either. Doesn’t the appeal, power and fascination of the unanswered question lie in the fact that it remains unanswered?
> _


I would agree. Not to dismiss that as a possible pursuit for others, but for me personally I fully agree. That's where I'm a little "schizo" on the subject. I like the experience of art, in it's magical, it's world on its own as far as my experience for it goes. Similarly this applies to movies. But if I would enter a discussion about it's nature, I push that aside, and discuss it from a more rationalized point of view. Which is why I don't like to discuss this often. I only discuss it here, because, well honestly I truly love reading the thoughts of you and others on this forum, and I am just a sucker for trying to find where discussions go awry. Even still though, you won't find me wanting to discuss this week in and week out.

I like to bathe in it's sense of magic (in regards to quality) far more then I do in any understanding of it. It's why I started composing without thinking theory or technique (i know, I know, that's taking it too far , I'm slowly making up for that).


----------



## Dan Mott (Mar 27, 2014)

*But what I can’t do, is listen to Berlioz’s “Symphony Fantastique” or Beethoven’s Sixth, or Williams’ “Jaws” or “Hook” and think of the story behind the music. My brain won’t allow me to. I know “musical story-telling” is a very important matter for many people on this forum, and understandably so, but me, I don’t like music to tell stories. Well, I don’t mind if it does, but I’m not interested. And I don’t like music to spoon-feed me emotions either, and I certainly don’t like music which is specifically created to trigger some extra-musical response if it doesn't also offer something of pure musical value. (Which is why I find so much film music so very, very boring.) But this is just by the by, and not entirely relevant to the topc at hand, I guess. *


Hey Piet

I am actually really interested in this particular bit you wrote.

My question is. Why don't you like music to tell stories, nor music that gives off emotion?

Is it because you are not interested in anything that anyone has to say through music? As in, is it all a little typical or cliche for you?

Just curious. I do not think I have seen or heard anybody say what you said musically.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 27, 2014)

*INNER DIALOGUE*

BRAIN MIND: Hellooo ... anybody there?

HIGHER SOUL: ...

BRAIN MIND: Where are you?

HIGHER SOUL: What's up, son?

BRAIN MIND: I have come to the conclusion that you don't exist. All musical talent and inspiration can be explained with neurons and stimuli and cultural and genetical imprint. Ha!

HIGHER SOUL: ...

BRAIN MIND: What?

HIGHER SOUL: You must be very proud of yourself.

BRAIN MIND: (blocks ears and eyes) I don't hear you .. you don't exist .. it's an illusion ..

HIGHER SOUL: ...

BRAIN MIND: And ... what do you say?

HIGHER SOUL: ...

BRAIN MIND: La la la, I still don't hear you. Nobody there. I am right!

HIGHER SOUL: That is all you're about: being right.

BRAIN MIND: Of course, what else could there be?

HIGHER SOUL: And still you are talking to me.

BRAIN MIND: err ...

...

HIGHER SOUL: OK, I have a mystery for you to solve.

BRAIN MIND: Bring it up.

HIGHER SOUL: If music is all about firing the right neurons in order to trigger the right stimuli ... what for?

BRAIN MIND: Eventually to shoot out the best suited DNA of course.

HIGHER SOUL: If that is all to achieve - coldn't there have been much simpler and more convenient ways to do this?

BRAIN MIND: ... hmm ... 

....

BRAIN MIND: But what else is music there for and where is talent coming from?

HIGHER SOUL: That is what you need to experience and find out yourself.

...

LOWER SOUL: You two are a sad couple. Let's party!

BRAIN MIND: Who asked you?

HIGHER SOUL: Don't dismiss singing and dancing. It can be a way to feel me. A mother's song can bring me forth in a 10 month old baby.

BRAIN MIND: Ok then (goes off with LOWER SOUL)

HIGHER SOUL: ... but you need to find the right way to sing and dance. Nevermind, sooner or later both of you will find out, my offsprings ... (draws back into obscuration) ...

...


----------



## JohnG (Mar 27, 2014)

One question that springs to mind in this debate is "which emotions?" Are there categories of emotion and even for the "regular" ones, how does one avoid hack work and reach something loftier, or novel? 

While movie music certainly features plenty of cheap, sentimental twaddle, I keep thinking in reading this thread of sacred music. Possibly because the intentions are different, possibly because so many genius composers of older times wrote for it, religious music often feels as though it's seeking to excite a different response than just "sad / real sad / happy / real happy."

It is interesting to me that, in this discussion, Bach has come up (and usually does, it seems), because when I listen to Bach, I feel different categories of response than to just about any film or television music. I don't know if I can categorise or label those emotions, because they seem more elusive, but they have a different character altogether. 

Maybe that's part of what Piet is talking about?

Somehow related to this discussion, it seems to me that more interesting film scoring is taking place lately, amid all the rubbish, in which filmmakers are blurring the lines between "pure" music (music written for its own sake, to be listened to away from a separate story or image) and "film" music. Better scoring, these days, seems far less likely than in times past automatically to underline every emotional turn in a scene.

And to digress one step further, that change is one reason I'm rather suspicious of the old mantra, "serve the picture" when thinking about music and image / story. A lot of talented composers have been working those same tricks for many decades and many of them are beyond worn out.

So, sacred music is really interesting to me these days. Arvo Part's choral works, for one.

[Not all sacred music is great, of course, and I don't mean to draw a sharp line between that and pop / film music, because the line is blurred (nowadays especially). Some sacred music originated from popular tunes and vice versa, so I don't mean to oversimplify. And further, I am of course aware that not everything Bach wrote was sacred and that even the sacred music itself is still -- music!]


----------



## AC986 (Mar 27, 2014)

AlexandreSafi @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> Yes... Notice the Darwin nod here!



Darwin? whooahahhhaaaa. Be careful with anyone born in Shropshire. 

Here's a question for you.

Why did Bach write this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypTcPeY_6-4

And not this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdvkgWt-uew


----------



## re-peat (Mar 27, 2014)

John, 

Sacred music occupies a world all of its own of course, being what it is, carrying a weight no other music does (except perhaps for certain ritual music from non-Western cultures), considering what it was written for, and keeping in mind the profound spiritual task which it seeks to accomplish. I left it specifically out of the discussion thusfar mostly for those reasons and also because, being not very religious myself, I certainly didn’t want to cause too much offense in that area.
See, to me, if the B-minor Mass were set to texts from the Catulli Carmina is, that wouldn’t make one bit of difference. Awful to admit that, isn’t it?

I entirely agree on today’s film music and the long-overdue revision of what the expression “serving the picture” has to mean. What I believe it is, is that film music today is less unambigious than it used to be — ambiguity in music being a pet subject of mine, as you know —, and that’s something which I find very healthy. Film music is less and less a string of unequivocal pointers instructing me, often rather obnoxiously, how I am supposed to respond. It’s become more abstract, more subtly suggestive, instead of operatically overbearing and leaving little room for interpretation. (Having said that, some bloody fantastic things have been written in that ‘operatic’ style of course, pieces and cues which I’ll fondly treasure, and treasurely fondle, for the rest of my days.)

And to answer Dan: 

Anything in music that points outside music, usually distracts, and thus bothers me. Be it a storyline, or, like I said in the previous paragraph, any unambiguous suggestion to how I am supposed to react emotionally, or whatever. I don’t want any of that. I want to concentrate on just the music and nothing else.

(I fully agree with Stravinsky and Bernstein when they — controversially — say that music doesn’t mean anything and is, on its own, absolutely powerless to express anything at all, other than itself. Any true meaning in music, insofar as there is any, is a purely musical one.)

Take Richard Strauss’ “Till Eulenspiegel” for example. Totally fantastic, gloriously inspired piece of music, I believe. From start to finish. Trouble is, try listening to this rollercoaster of musical delicatessen — genuine abstract musical beauty of a very high order, in my opinion — without being constantly reminded of the story line. I know, I know: the music was very specifically written to do just that (evoke the story), and there’s no one better than Richard Strauss to pull something like that off, often in perplexing detail — and, yes, there is a certain pleasure to be derived from listening to how virtuosic he is at doing it — but … I’m not interested in any of that. I just want to listen to the music, which I consider more than interesting and strong enough on its own without the underlying narrative. (Besides, invent any other story to that music, or leave it out altogether, and it wouldn’t change a thing, would it?)

Good music, to me, is too perfectly complete an art to need anything else. Don’t dance to The Sacre, be quiet and listen. Don’t show a motion picture to “Superman”, “Hook” or “Jaws”, just dim the lights, or close your eyes, and listen. 

_


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Mar 27, 2014)

*On music:* _“I think ‘the thing’, in my mind, it isn’t the music, and it’s not even the orchestra, and it’s not even the audience: it’s the connection between the three things - the creator, the interpreter, the listener. The link, the nexus, is the issue. And that’s what’s so wonderful about music. That it does connect us and we become, maybe not friends, but we at least know something more about each other. It’s a great gift to us. Music is one of the gifts that we’ve been given from wherever it came from, like language and other things, that’s never going to leave us and it allows us to share something that’s like nothing else. We go before an audience and we are all joined, orchestra, audience, composer/conductor. What a gift.”_ -- *[John Williams on Classic FM Interview] (23rd August 2012)*


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 27, 2014)

As I've already pointed out before in another similar threads - we're disagreeing because we are not talking about the same things, and we're using different concepts and erroneous words.

One BIG example: notice how I'm always using a trio - emotions, moods and affects in my texts nowadays? 

Because we're using the words "emotion" or "feelings" for these 3 different things. Or even more different things.

For me Emotions are different than moods and different from Affects. Yet we use the same word for them all... This is just an example how things get complicated when one uses words like "soul", etc, etc that are ill defined. We will never understand each other unless we are talking about the same thing.



See ... When I listen to a "sad song", I don't need to FEEL sad. I can perceive a song "is sad", and I'm feeling neutral. Paradoxically, I can even feel "happy and relaxed" when listening to a "sad song" because I like sad songs.

I can be also be thrilled (like Piet) and feel complete when I listen to a "great work" of music, because I perceive there is great music, but I'm not FEELING thrilled, or happy, etc.. However the mere "recognition" that "that is great music" is a positive valence inside me, not an emotion though.

That's why I insist in using Emotion and Mood and Affect, to convey 3 different things.

This is just an example of a conceptual confusion in much of our arguments.


----------



## David Story (Mar 27, 2014)

That William's quote is a topic I've been telling people about since the 80s. The composer the performer and the audience are a Triune. The nature of our connection is mysterious. In simple language it's called music. 

It's also the core of why mockups are a dead end, the performer and composer are lumped together, breaking the connection. It becomes an engineering exercise, a superficial experience. Music with a damaged soul.

Now improvisation with electronics is an authentic way to communicate, fully musical. Like any other spontaneous creation, it exists in the moment. Hearing Joe Satriani live is different than a video. The live element is the one you can't reproduce. All The Music. The soul.

Does anyone think that advances in neuroscience and engineering will change Beethoven, Van Gogh, or Shakespeare? The search for knowledge is well and good. But it's a different journey than seeking meaning and artistic vision. The idea of timeless art being defined is silly. It's value is accepted by people of all eras based on it's mysterious power to communicate the ineffable.

The more you try and pin it down, the quicker it slips from your grasp. But you know it exists (see Hannes' Socratic dialog). Just ask a great player to run through one of your compositions. It becomes something new and strange.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Mar 27, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> *INNER DIALOGUE*
> 
> BRAIN MIND: Hellooo ... anybody there?
> 
> ...



+1

Marvelous, Hannes!
In my own reasons!

This is why storytelling is so amazing!
If that scene ever exists on tape, i want to score it! 
You are the director, you decide how you'd want it scored!
But I, personally, think "BRAIN MIND & HIGHER SOUL" will inevitably need a controversial "love" theme! 

Either strings or heavy electronics on this one...


----------

