Has virtuosity any aesthetic value?

[Software]

Has virtuosity any aesthetic value? Singing higher, lower, playing quicker, more notes etc. Just being "better" in some kind of music sport. Music formula one, music high jumb.

I don't think so. It is just a matter of rote competitive celebrity seek. But so common in all museum music institutes.

[JaapVisser]

Virtuosity is just a tool and not a goal. A master in virtuosity does make it sound like if you can do it also after 1 hour of practise :P

[nikolas]

Hmmm...

I think that actually it does play a role in aesthetics.

If you are writing music for grade 1 piano, you NEED to limit yourself in any ways. You can't put chords, or go fast, or many other things. If you write for any difficulty then you are freerer. If you do NOT care if the piece if playable or not, then you are talking NEW things. You don't need a virtuoso anymore, but a computer. ;)

And again you bring the term museum in the play (but well done on bringing it on post No. 1 instead later). People are being taught in such institutions and part of that means that they have to be taught Bach, Beethoven and the rest. It is however a very useful tool to add competitiveness to your students (unless they kill themselves of course). Plus is there any conservatory which ONLY does non museum music?

Also, since you keep mentioning it, I can't really accept the term NON museum music for Ligeti or Messiaen. Maybe I would like to name dEUS or NIN or KoRn members of the non museum music, but... concert hall music is always a little bit about museum music.

[bobbyem]

Ive heard this argument before :)

And i dont see anything wrong with being good att playing your instrument. It almost sounds like in the movie Amadeus when Mozart asks the Prince what he thaught about the music he had written. And the prince answares "maybe there where too many notes" :D

Shorter note values and fast tempos increase the intensity of the music. Nothing bad about that imo. Sure, its up to you to decide if there are to many notes i guess ;)

I for one think that there alot of music that is just stupid. That is just for show(that isn´t even fun to watch or listen to). This is very common in the world of guitar playing. I was very into extreme guitar music in my teens. Alot of it is just as you say, athletics.

Michael Angelo Batio is one of them that i dont like. Just alot of scales and arpeggios without any musical value imo.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hb5QaCfm7bg :D

Heres another one of them :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z4MrEtV8zSE&feature=related

And on the other hand there are thoose who really do something with their virtuosity. Like my favorite Mr Steve Vai. Great compositions alot of humor and talent. Used to play and transcribe for Frank Zappa.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0EvSNM2Z16M ( a great view of Steves style )

Another example of great virtuosity, keyboard player Jordan Rudess.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_z7V94NH9pk&feature=related

One more, Drummer Terry Bozzio playing Frank Zappas extremly dif Black page.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GDwRJK8bpb4&feature=related

O well this my feelings on this topic. You guitarplayers out there probably have a thing or two to say about my statements here :D

/Bobby

[nickysnd]

concert hall music is always a little bit about museum music.
Well, Nikolas, you did it again - you bit the bait.

Here is the big picture, as I see it:

There are these two entities who do post on the EW board only to advertise their own non-sensical sillystesia products. They are probably incapable of coming up with any musical ideas at all. But, here's the catch: They try to make their handicap look like a quality. In order to make themselves look good, they start by attacking other people's music, in an attempt to put it down, to make it look bad. They do that by using misleading semantics, as a mischievous weapon. Hence this "virtuosity" thread, the "understanding music" thread, and most everything they post. Those threads/posts are only meant to put other-people's-music down - by calling it "cliché," "museum music," "music sport," and other names.
Once they have put it down through semantics, at some moment they jump in with their alternative: their sillystesia pixel-generated-noise (nothing wrong with that noise though, just keep it contained please, and don't call it music). With the implication: since other-people's-music is "cliché," "museum music," "music sport," - that would make their noise: "fresh music", "alive music", "art music".
See now? That's what all this is about, that's their scheme. Would you buy into it?

Now let us talk a little bit of semantics, because that is their weapon, their bait. Let's analyze this "museum music" term. First, museum: "A building, place, or institution devoted to the acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition, and educational interpretation of objects having scientific, historical, or artistic value." Reflect a bit on the latter: "artistic value" - does that apply only to old pieces of music? If recent pieces of music also do have artisitic value, then the term museum applies also to them, isn't it? Therefore, everything that (through its artistic value) deserves to be exposed in a museum - it is "museum music." According to that logic, every piece of music that has artistic value should be called "museum music". Let's stop this nonsense. Thing is - music never had anything to do with museums. Music, by its very essence, is a live experience. Music is always alive when it is played and/or listened to. Music is either listened to, or not. When it is listened to - it is alive. When it is not listened to, it doesn't exist. Simple as that. Keep museum for objects. Music is not an object. Music is intellectual and emotional energy. Something that those two sillystesic entities have no idea of, never mind to put that in a museum.

The people who came up with this "museum music" term, have based it on the general (stupid) assumption that museums are for old, dated, obsolete items. So, by attaching "museum" to "music", they have dismissed that music as a living entity. "It's only archeology", say they, with a superior, condescending smile. Which is as false as can be. Here is why:
When a conductor gathers up a bunch of professional instrumentalists, and start to rehearse, and one evening they put it for a show, and call people in to listen to some music, and they play Beethoven's Patorale Symphony - that is the most actual, present, alive thing that can happen on planet earth. The people in the audience will NOT experience that as a past event, they will experience that as a present event, as alive as anything can ever be. That is alive music, not "museum music". It is the people who play it, the people who listen to it, those people are what makes that music to be present and alive. It doesn't matter what type of music that is - it may be a concerto grosso or jazz or rock'n'roll or hip-hop or whatever. As long there are people who play it and people who listen and resonate to it, that music is pure energy that connects and elevates people. That cannot be called "museum" - an abusive use of that term, BTW. As someone on this board said: "Nothing is cliché when it happens to you." (here (http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showpost.php?p=103165&postcount=10))

Apparently, it is not for everyone to be able to resonate to the intellectual and emotional energy of other people's music. But it is inexcusable to attempt to throw mud on something you are unable to understand, feel, and resonate to, on something that billions of people, literally the whole human race puts great value in. Shame on you guys for doing that on a composers' board!

Music is like air, we simply can't go on without the energy it is providing to us humans. Imagine one month with no music on earth - completely prohibited and impossible to produce. (... long pause, corona, for imagining that catastrophe ... ... ... ) Everyone will most likely go nuts. Now, imagine one month with no music on earth, but - rave about it: sillistesia's pixel-generated-noise is heard everywhere you turn your head. Everybody will not only go nuts, but I bet everyone will start to post statements like these two sillystesic creatures here. Poor things, I really do pity them, maybe they just need to listen to some music.

[paulwr]

Has virtuosity any aesthetic value? Singing higher, lower, playing quicker, more notes etc. Just being "better" in some kind of music sport. Music formula one, music high jumb.

I don't think so. It is just a matter of rote competitive celebrity seek. But so common in all museum music institutes.

Someone great at their instrument will at the very least have many more choices in performing music. More choices gives the chance for a much deeper and satisfying performance. A couple of years ago I got a nice grand piano and regained and surpassed my technique from my younger years. I feel, and others feel, that I am a lot more creative now. I honestly feel more creative than ever before, just from the inspiration of having the freedom to play many many more things that were difficult before. Not just speed and agility either. The ability to perform with much greater dynamic range is a huge plus as well. And the good news is that it passes over into my composing. Don't underestimate technical proficiency. It doesn't guarantee creativeness, but it can sure make it more possible and probable!!!

-Paul

[Software]

Apparently, it is not for everyone to be able to resonate to the intellectual and emotional energy of other people's music. But it is inexcusable to attempt to throw mud on something you are unable to understand, feel, and resonate to, on something that billions of people, literally the whole human race puts great value in. Shame on you guys for doing that on a composers' board!


Cultural museum music is perhaps a better metaphor and even more:

"Overall the results strongly support the idea that the emotional content of music is not inherent in the music, but is probably a learnt association within an particular culture. "(Gregory, 1996)
Taken from The Psychology of Music (Diana Deutch, ed.) page 768

[Software]

I honestly feel more creative than ever before, just from the inspiration of having the freedom to play many many more things that were difficult before. Not just speed and agility either. The ability to perform with much greater dynamic range is a huge plus as well. And the good news is that it passes over into my composing. Don't underestimate technical proficiency. It doesn't guarantee creativeness, but it can sure make it more possible and probable!!!l

Agreed. My comment was about aesthetic value only.

[chest]

Listening to CDs of classical music recorded in the last (say) 10-15 years, I often think the music is too fast - mainly, I think I'm unconciously comparing with a mental image of the music, formed perhaps 30 years ago by listening to recordings made perhaps 40 years ago. Unfortunately, I can't easily go back to the earlier recordings to check for speed differences, but I don't think it's my imagination: I've heard others say similar things about speed. I have, for instance, a CD of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos, with a particular movement played so fast that the brief passages with the fastest notes sound (to me) bordering on ridiculous. Is there a trend: "Look at me, mine's faster than yours"?

Jazz lovers sometimes say particular performers technical skills can get in the way of good improvising - when, for instance, the performer effortlessly plays a fast, complicated phrase where something simpler might have been more effective.

[paulwr]

Agreed. My comment was about aesthetic value only.

substitute aesthetic value to "creativity" in my post, and that is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. -Paul

[paulwr]

Listening to CDs of classical music recorded in the last (say) 10-15 years, I often think the music is too fast - mainly, I think I'm unconciously comparing with a mental image of the music, formed perhaps 30 years ago by listening to recordings made perhaps 40 years ago. Unfortunately, I can't easily go back to the earlier recordings to check for speed differences, but I don't think it's my imagination: I've heard others say similar things about speed. I have, for instance, a CD of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos, with a particular movement played so fast that the brief passages with the fastest notes sound (to me) bordering on ridiculous. Is there a trend: "Look at me, mine's faster than yours"?

Jazz lovers sometimes say particular performers technical skills can get in the way of good improvising - when, for instance, the performer effortlessly plays a fast, complicated phrase where something simpler might have been more effective.

Yea, that all gets very tempting to do when you have the chops. Keith Jarrett has over the last few years purposely simplified his approach and feels it is actually harder to play the softer dynamics. I agree with him. Playing extremely soft sensitive stuff can be much harder than blazing fast and hard. Chick Corea has often pissed me off that at his age, he often plays like a kid trying to prove something. BUT then he'll do something with amazing sensitivity and blow me away with art rather than muscular and speedy playing. Just fast and hard isn't the only kind of chops, I think we all realize that. To be completely well rounded in technical ability and submit our ability to the art of it.......... well, that is when the most magic is possible.

-Paul

[JB78]

This debate is always amusing to follow:) Where's the speed limit when it comes to feeling? 16ths at 60 bpm? 100 bpm? 180 bpm?

I for one feel it's pretty tragic if you can't execute a great idea, just because you've been too lazy to work on something that's very much in reach of anyone willing to make the effort. This is of course a moot point when it comes to the mock-up world, we can play anything;)

Best regards
Jon

[nickysnd]

Cultural museum music is perhaps a better metaphor and even more:

"Overall the results strongly support the idea that the emotional content of music is not inherent in the music, but is probably a learnt association within an particular culture. "(Gregory, 1996)
Taken from The Psychology of Music (Diana Deutch, ed.) page 768
Spare me your high brow quotes! That non-sequitur quote is just another diversion, and not an answer to my direct accusations in my previous post!

To make myself even more explicit: you and your twin composing_automat are promoting the idea that other-people's-music is a disease to which you provide the cure. What I am saying is that your sillystesic pixel-generated-noise is the disease, and composing-music-yourselves might be the cure for you. That is, unless you two are truly hopeless.

[Composing_automat]

To make myself even more explicit: you and your twin composing_automat are promoting the idea that other-people's-music is a disease

Never that. Some people just want to explain the basics of old music. Perhaps using the "convention" instead of "cliche" would be more friendly?

[MrAlex]

Aesthetic value is subjective. You can't point an aesthetometer at something and get an accurate reading or aestheticness.

Each individual makes up their own mind on what is aesthetic or not, so there is no point in trying to argue whether or not virtuosity has aesthetic value.

All you can do is say "Yes I like it" or "No, I don't like it", but you can never tell someone "You should not like it".

[nickysnd]

Aesthetic value is subjective. You can't point an aesthetometer at something and get an accurate reading or aestheticness.

Each individual makes up their own mind on what is aesthetic or not, so there is no point in trying to argue whether or not virtuosity has aesthetic value.

All you can do is say "Yes I like it" or "No, I don't like it", but you can never tell someone "You should not like it".
Exactly. Besides using the term "aesthetics" in an improper way, the OP does the same thing with the term "virtuosity." What is virtuosity? - To him, virtuosity is just another element from the music he hates. Generally, everything he posts is a misleading use of semantics. I don't know whether it is deliberate or not, but that's what it is nevertheless - misleading semantics. I think he might be misleading himself as well...

To be more explicit, the OP is using semantics to express his disgust towards music that other people like. The only thing he accepts is his own (is it really his own though?) pixel-generated-noise. Everything else is just discardable.

Which brings me, again, to the big picture: trashing other people's music. That is all about here. Everything about other people's music is bad. Other people's music is based on conventions. It is cliché. It is museum music. So - switch to sillystesia!

Now you get it?

[dcoscina]

I think that virtuosity does not have to connote speed and agility but adeptness at articulation as well. There' a big difference between the aesthetic of Yo Yo Ma's handling of a cello piece and the kid down the block or the semi-pro community orchestra cellist.

in jazz, virtuosity is synonymous with a mastery of the form. Just listen to Hiromi and you'll hear how she balances the quick lines with more Bill Evans-styled technique.

I'm with nickysnd on this matter. It's fine to posit these types of questions but it surely feels like it's a way of invalidating the conventional methodology of acquiring musical skills.

[MrAlex]

Nickysnd, I don't know if he is just here to promote his software. Thinking back to where this all began, I believe Software posted a link to his software, and some of us had a look, and the responses were, variously, "cool", "interesting", "a novelty", "so what" and "whats the point".

Faced with such a lackluster response it seems that "Software" took it personally, and is now trying to validate himself in place of the validation he expected from us.

The methods he is using to do this, you seem to have nailed already, I'm merely brainstorming on the subject of motive.

[greenhorn999]

...Faced with such a lackluster response it seems that "Software" took it personally, and is now trying to validate himself in place of the validation he expected from us....

By jove I believe you're onto something! Good show, my dear Watson!

I never really considered the humanity aspect of all this. But the funny thing is, honesty a lot of times evokes the good in all of us. If he came clean and just said he felt bad that his stuff wasn't generating the kinds of responses he expected/wanted, I'd be the first to make a suggestion or two to help out and/or he would have received far more responses that addressed why we didn't like his noise. Ahem, his music. :)

Ignoring people and speaking high-brow about everything does get old quickly, though.

[greenhorn999]

I will say that the goatee in his forum profile (the image on the right) is impressive. I could never achieve that.

:)

[Software]

I think that virtuosity does not have to connote speed and agility but adeptness at articulation as well. There' a big difference between the aesthetic of Yo Yo Ma's handling of a cello piece and the kid down the block or the semi-pro community orchestra cellist.

in jazz, virtuosity is synonymous with a mastery of the form. Just listen to Hiromi and you'll hear how she balances the quick lines with more Bill Evans-styled technique.

Virtuosity has its quite exact meaning. It is not synonymous with doing something well. So virtuosity and its music aesthetic value can still be questioned. Is virtuosity just a kind of "sound sport"?

[nickysnd]

Your interest in semantics is touching, so I decided to help:

virtuosity: the character, ability, or skill of a virtuoso.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtuosity
(where virtuoso is: a person who has special knowledge or skill in a field. - same source)

Also, from another authoritative source -
virtuosity: The technical skill, fluency, or style exhibited by a virtuoso or a composition.
http://www.answers.com/virtuosity

Back to your post:
Virtuosity has its quite exact meaning. It is not synonymous with doing something well. So virtuosity and its music aesthetic value can still be questioned. Is virtuosity just a kind of "sound sport"?
As seen above, virtuosity does have a precise meaning - albeit somewhat different from the one you seem to imply. Now, if knowledge, fluency, ability, and skill have anything to do with doing-something-well, then virtuosity means precisely that: doing something at the better level. Furthermore, if doing-it-at-the-better-level has anything to do with the aesthetic experience of a piece of music (or of its interpretation), then that aesthetic experience can only be enhanced by virtuosity.

In other words: It requires knowledge, fluency, abilities, and skills to compose (or to interpret) a piece of music. When that knowledge, fluency, skills, and abilities are at a higher level, then we are dealing with virtuosity. Conversely, when a piece of music (or its interpretation) lacks knowledge, fluency, skills, and abilities - then it certainly lacks virtuosity, and the aesthetic experience of it is obviously diminished.

Cheer up though, for there are good news at hand: Fortunately for you, coming up with noise doesn't require any compositional (or interpretational) knowledge, fluency, skills, and abilities. So - enjoy your pixelated-noise-sillystesia-business, for it doesn't anything to do with compositional or interpretational knowledge, fluency, skills, abilities, virtuosity, and aesthetics. It only requires software. You got it!

EDIT -
Music doesn't need semantics. Music is self-explanatory - it speaks for itself to those who have ears, heart, intellect, and imagination.
Now, if you like questioning, then question this: Why do you always need semantics, explanations, when it comes to music? Also, why do you need to continuously put music down in order to promote your pixel-generated noise?

[Software]

Many words have different meanings in different contexts. This forum is about music. So the context is music. General dictionary are of no use here and can't be used for proving something. Just giving an example from other kind of use. Virtuosity in Chinese painting:

"Huang Gongwang is a classic example of this type of VIRTUOSITY where a landscape reveals the identity of the painter through endless patterns and representative brush technique.

[Software]

Music doesn't need semantics. Music is self-explanatory - it speaks for itself to those who have ears, heart, intellect, and imagination.
Now, if you like questioning, then question this: Why do you always need semantics, explanations, when it comes to music? Also, why do you need to continuously put music down in order to promote your pixel-generated noise?

I have no need for semantics in music. I only have said that music does not have semantics if cliches are excluded.

Being so, different people having "ears, heart, intellect, and imagination" can experience music differently depending of the context, their cultural background etc. The music itself can't tell any stories, the listeners often create those. Many composer give their pieces descriptive names that focus the attention of the listeners, stimulate their emotions, intellect or imagination to certain directions. I think we can agree on all of this?

[MrAlex]

Funny how I just noticed how semantic rhymes with pedantic, so I will be.

The music itself can't tell any stories, the listeners often create those.

This has to be the definition of splitting hairs.

In analogy, what you say is like saying that the universe itself doesn't contain matter, but the individual ("ego", "I", "id", "me") often perceives it as such.

But saying this doesn't prove the universe doesn't contain matter, just that the interpretation of the universe depends on the unique combination of perspectives of seperate conscious entities.

Drawing the analogy back to the present conversation about music, where you say that music doesn't contain a story, but the listener percieves one. The end result is the same, where a story is perceived it doesn't matter whether it exists in the music or in the mind of the listener.

And, furthermore without the music as a catalyst, there would have been no trigger to start the story in the mind of the listener.

So whether music is a vehicle of information in the form of an emotional transplant from the composer to the listener, OR if it's merely a sequence of audio events which serve to trigger unique emotional responses, the result is the same:

Music causes an emotional reaction.

[nickysnd]

In analogy, what you say is like saying that the universe itself doesn't contain matter, but the individual ("ego", "I", "id", "me") often perceives it as such.
"Matter" is just a matter of semantics. In fact, that's cliché, "museum thinking". In modern times we have abandoned this antiquated mentality. The Universe does not contain matter - it contains binary information, 0 and 1. It is only imperfect entities, like humans, who perceive the Universe as being made of "matter." We, the software, know that the Universe is made of info: discreet units, pixels, bytes, algorithms, midi events, etc.

Music causes an emotional reaction.
And it does cause emotion precisely because the listener knows that he/she is listening to something created by his/her kin. I bet the listener wouldn't care much about listening to a software generated production. It is human intention that we are looking for, when listening to music. It is my brother Frédéric Chopin that I'm trying to understand, it is my sister Clara Haskil that is opening her heart through music. That's the fundamental point that is missed by those two binary minds here.

As Walker T said, there can be no cliché in individual experiences. That should be enough evidence that there's no such things as "old music" and "new music." A piece of music is either liked or not liked - we are able to resonate to some pieces, we are unable to resonate to some other pieces. Period. Also, the composers' creativity, imagination, and virtuosity, are things that prevent music from sclerosis. What museum?? There is a whole Universe of musical meanings in a Bach's fugue, there's always something new that comes up when one listens and considers it carefully. That fugue is a living thing, full of surprises. Au contraire, the digitization of creation, advertised by those two guys here, is precisely the contrary: dullness, stiffness, sclerosis, death. BTW, the only clichés I see here is exactly these "things": pixels, bytes, algorithms, midi events, etc.

Software and composing_automat, you proved unable to come up with any musical ideas of your own, to compose music of your own. It would be a fair inference that you completely lack musical imagination and creativity. As I said before, for me, you are only thoughtless, heartless intermediary between pixels and noise. Are you proud about what you're doing? If you are, then your place is not here, among composers, but among programmers and other thick-witted binary minds like you. You are wasting your time here. There surely are better places for you on the net, places with people that would probably appreciate what you are doing.

[MrAlex]

Nickysnd, we really aren't being pedantic.. I mean semantic enough here.

Eg:And it does cause emotion precisely because the listener knows that he/she is listening to something created by his/her kin

How can you prove that a listener knows anything? What is "knowing", really? Is it something that can be accurately quantified or is it just a best estimate kind of thing? And how can you prove something causes an emotion? A person can say they "feel", and they can even show outward signs of some kind of reaction, but there is no way of really "knowing" (whatever that is)...

More to the point what is emotion, where does it reside, how can it be measured?

And how can we be assured that when we make our measurements we aren't influencing the results with preconceived notions?

How do we know anything actually exists.

And if we can't be sure if anything actually exists, well, there is no point to life other than perhaps to sustain a chemical reaction known as mankind with no greater purpose, no difference whether we all live or die.

That is the end of a long line of analytical thinking about philosophical matters, it all comes down to "what is the meaning of life" and the answer, which seems to loom large, is "there is no meaning", which, after some more thinking (and perhaps suicidal depressions) one might think - "there is no meaning, only that which we choose to subscribe to", and thus we give our own lives meaning.

Find a badge and wear it, or spend a lifetime searching for meaning. Those are our choices, and while we can compare our badges it doesn't do to go around trying to rip off other people's, throw them in the bin and replace them with our own.

I'm deliberately talking crap, hopefully to show "software" that this line of thinking is unproductive.

I like to listen to a nice provocative piece and feel the emotion in the music, _regardless_ of whether emotion exists. Who cares about the underlying process, it makes no difference to the result.

I guess some people want to find and split the musical atom to find a nuclear sound. But I think with music the atoms can't be quantified, and the observer will always affect the outcome of any attempt to experiment with them.

[Vincent Bergbahn]

So whether music is a vehicle of information in the form of an emotional transplant from the composer to the listener, OR if it's merely a sequence of audio events which serve to trigger unique emotional responses, the result is the same:

Music causes an emotional reaction.



No Design is about transferring information. Graphic design for example fails if the message is not received and understood.

DESIGN IS NOT ART

Art (Music, painting , any such form of expression) does not have this burden. I categorize these actions all under the heading of "Expression" Is is not necessary but it is quite common that Art resonates with the user/receiver. If the form of expression does not resonate at all with anyone in than is is art for oneself.

I would not claim that "Music causes an emotional reaction" I would rather state that music may or may not resonate with you which would then trigger an emotive response or feeling.

[MrAlex]

No Design is about transferring information. Graphic design for example fails if the message is not received and understood.

Thats kind of what I was saying.


I would not claim that "Music causes an emotional reaction" I would rather state that music may or may not resonate with you which would then trigger an emotive response or feeling.

Ok, so music causes an emotional reaction, or it doesn't.
Just like pizza tastes good, or it tastes bad.

What I was trying to say when I said that music causes an emotional reaction, is that when music stirs an emotion, it causes an emotional reaction. My argument is against the school of thought that tries to analyse the mechanism behind the reaction.

My argument is simply that the reaction occurs, regardless of the mechanisms behind it, life is much simpler and enjoyable if you just go with that flow and try not to think too much and invent more substance than what is actually there.



If the form of expression does not resonate at all with anyone in than is is art for oneself.

I didn't get that part, could you please reiterate.

DESIGN IS NOT ART

YES IT IS. EVERYTHING IS ART.

[Vincent Bergbahn]

No Design is about transferring information. Graphic design for example fails if the message is not received and understood.

DESIGN IS NOT ART

Art (Music, painting , any such form of expression) does not have this burden. I categorize these actions all under the heading of "Expression" Is is not necessary but it is quite common that Art resonates with the user/receiver. If the form of expression does not resonate at all with anyone in than is is art for oneself.



NO.. I can't say this louder. Design is not Art. period..

Come on man not everything is art. That's just nonsense.

[Vincent Bergbahn]

My argument is against the school of thought that tries to analyse the mechanism behind the reaction.


Um why? it's not unweaving the rainbow. Neuroscience is doing just that! Just bought a great book... The "Your Brain on music" check it out on amazon.

[Composing_automat]

What I was trying to say when I said that music causes an emotional reaction, is that when music stirs an emotion, it causes an emotional reaction. My argument is against the school of thought that tries to analyse the mechanism behind the reaction.


If some piece causes emotions because it was playing when you were kissing a girl for the first time or doing something else of importance in your life
can we say that
emotions are caused by the music or by the memory triggered by the music when heard later?

[MrAlex]

Probably a bit of both.

What's the practical benefit of knowing either way?

[dcoscina]

music has stronger associations (for me) than any other form of art, or heck, even other senses. They always say that smell triggers memories more than anything but I find music is able to transport me back to a moment in time including the emotional state that I was in at said moment. It's a powerful art form because we have some kind of physiological link from certain chord progressions or melodies.

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with virtuosity though.

[Composing_automat]

Probably a bit of both.

What's the practical benefit of knowing either way?

Aha. Only "practical benefit" matters. What "practical benefits" listening music gives? If none, where composers are needed?

[MrAlex]

Aha. Only "practical benefit" matters. What "practical benefits" listening music gives? If none, where composers are needed?

You never answered my question.

I will ask my question again 4 times in 4 different ways, so you have a better understanding of what I am asking.

What difference does it make that we have this discussion?

If you prove you are right, how does that change the world?

If you are proven wrong, how does that change the world?

How do you see the result of this particular conversation having any practical benefit?

----

The way I see it, this conversation is analogous to discussing a teapot, and I say: "I think that teapot is red" and you say "I think that teapot is blue", and we could argue and disagree on the point of whether red is blue or blue is really red, and at the end of the day gain nothing.

No new insights.

No new thoughts.

No new ideas.

You are repeating old, worn out, regurgitated philosophy which appears to be aimed at the same intellectual level of maturity which a bunch of teenagers stoned on marijuana would ponder.

Please note, I am not trying to say that you are stupid or stoned. You may be neither.

I am just attempting to express my opinion (on this public forum where we are all entitled to out opinions, as you yourself earlier made clear) that the entire direction of this conversation is leading nowhere, other than around in circles.

So how about less talking and more doing? If you really want to add to the enlightenment of mankind, DO something which will make people stop and think. Words are cheap, actions speak volumes.

Do I make myself clear?

And this time, answer my question. If there is but one thing you respond to here, "Where is the benefit to we (the participants) of this discussion, what new understanding do we hope to achieve?".

I can't answer the question, because it is you that is trying to make a point.

I could write more, but you probably wouldn't read it or respond in any way other than with more leading questions.

Thanks.

[nickysnd]

Please note, I am not trying to say that you are stupid or stoned. You may be neither.
Hey, I don't like your second assumption, how's that "neither," huh?! :mad:
:D

Seriously guys, lets put a stop to this nonsense discussion by frankly admitting: anything has the only value one assigns to it. Virtuosity, virtue, life, the Universe - they all have no more and no less value than that.

Adios

[MrAlex]

Nickysnd, I really agree with you that "anything has the only value one assigns to it. Virtuosity, virtue, life, the Universe - they all have no more and no less value that that"

And I think that is a great note upon which to withdraw from these proceedings.

It's been a fun ride, full of emotion... laughter, tears, joy, anger and the occasional mechanical "Beep".

I too must bid this topic farewell.

And I make this promise, even if composing laundry man baits me with leading questions, I will not rise to the challenge.

Be strong Alex... walk away *sniff*...

Wargames - the only way to win, is not to play.