Interesting theory here

You know how when you listen to an amazing piece for the first time, let's say the first thing you loved which drew you to musical composition, it truly fills your heart with passion?

Knowledge takes away beauty,

Keep listening to the piece over and over and over and over again, and you start getting bored. You've heard and studied all the mechanics of it. The parts that gave you butterflies now have no effect on you, but you still know it's amazing for the reason of experience.

Is knowledge evil?

SIDE NOTE: Drugs and alchohol are therefore good because they destroy knowledge. Oh, wait, that's right.... drugs and alchohol gently caress you up! Where was I going with this?

Oh yes,

So is ignorance evil. (A lizard can't enjoy Brahms or Brittany, can he really? I don't think they're too smart.) You need a little bit of knowledge to know of, but not too much to completely know.

Beauty is evil.

Ignorance is also beauty,

Some real geniuses of music have been closed-minded or stubborn, so they didn't want to fill their head with garbage. Secretly they had the deepest passion for personal discovery. Go Beethoven! Kind of a half-and-half. If you can keep yourself balanced between ignorance and genius without being a total sophisticated sounding scallop, I congradulate you.

Stupidity takes away from reason just as knowledge takes away from beauty.

Stand up for your beliefs,

So should I point out, some guy who "knows what he's talking about" will post back arguing, maybe cursing God knows what, or they might just ignore this post as if it hadn't exsisted. AND Therefore, whoever agrees with my idea is an idiot. Go ahead, post crap. I'll take what I have to say to the grave. :w00t:

What I'm trying to say (for retarded people) throughout this session is that mainly foolish composers make better music than the wiser ones (who say "rather" and "indoutedably"... or whatever) because the music is more emotional. Smart people suck at being emotional because they can't emote to anything because they already know of it. It's kind of insufficient even for a genius to be surprized upon truth if he already knew fifty people were in his house, in the dark, hiding with a cake. It's kind of hard to keep crying after you've been crying for an hour. Unless you're on drugs, it's pretty hard to laugh nonstop for hours and hours. See where I am getting?

Being a sophisticated deutch all the time won't get you anywhere.

My conclusion involves Beethoven. It is that, specifically Beethoven wasn't a genius, but he was a loving awesome person. So were like hundreds of other composers.

The best ones weren't too dumb, and they weren't too smart. They naturally had a life of balance, of beauty and reason, of discovery and experience, of stupidity and genius. Would they obtain the balance through society's exactness or mind games? If you want to be dull, you would actually care.

By the way, everything I've just told you is an abstract mirror if you had not noticed before.

Nothing I told you just now can really be considered inattentive.

That was a joke by the way.

Har... har..... I'm sophisticated!

Eh... time to do something else.

I kinda agree with most part of your post, but not your results really... :-/

I do, indeed, think that composers, are usually doomed to overanalyse anything they listen to, and think in other ways than most audience would. So we agree.

But knowledgable composers lack in emotions in music, is somehow... weird. It's like saying that a non virgin, cannot really have enjoyable sex, since he's experienced to that. Or that hoes for that matter cannot have normal sex (which they can), or that married couples of many years, can't enjoy the same things pretty much...

On the contrary, if I may continue on my parralel connection with sex, one who doesn't know sex, simply cannot understand what they're missing, or know, and do not miss it. while those who do know, can't spend a day without it... (or something anyways! :D)

There are many composers that go too intelecutal, if you ask me, that is completely true, in my opinion of course. But I won't generalise more than that, or blame knowledge and education.

See? normal debate ;)

Well Mr. Sexy man, didn't you enjoy your first or beginning stage of sex experience better than you would enjoy it, years later after the feeling has died and died (and died ha ha) ? well I actually doubt it a bit because you aren't really that old :/ are you?

Please don't answer these questsions. They aren't real.

But can't this be said about a lot more though?

Perhaps you drink alchohol? People who drink tend to experience things over and over and can't generally be a judge on these laws. :D

It's not a bad thing!

Perhaps when you use the word knowledgable composers, you really mean well-rounded composers? They couldn't be too knowledgable. Skilled could be a word to also use in context, but if there were geniuses of music, they would try to test their limits of technicallity I'm sure. But I do agree, someone who knows what they're are doing are knowledgable, and these kinds of composers are well-balanced, therefore do promote their emotions.

So I am a little off in scale, but I do believe I over shot the truth. Were both heading in the same direction though ;)

You know how when you listen to an amazing piece for the first time, let's say the first thing you loved which drew you to musical composition, it truly fills your heart with passion?

Knowledge takes away beauty,

Keep listening to the piece over and over and over and over again, and you start getting bored. You've heard and studied all the mechanics of it. The parts that gave you butterflies now have no effect on you, but you still know it's amazing for the reason of experience.

Is knowledge evil?

SIDE NOTE: Drugs and alchohol are therefore good because they destroy knowledge. Oh, wait, that's right.... drugs and alchohol gently caress you up! Where was I going with this?

Oh yes,

So is ignorance evil. (A lizard can't enjoy Brahms or Brittany, can he really? I don't think they're too smart.) You need a little bit of knowledge to know of, but not too much to completely know.

Beauty is evil.

Ignorance is also beauty,

Some real geniuses of music have been closed-minded or stubborn, so they didn't want to fill their head with garbage. Secretly they had the deepest passion for personal discovery. Go Beethoven! Kind of a half-and-half. If you can keep yourself balanced between ignorance and genius without being a total sophisticated sounding scallop, I congradulate you.

Stupidity takes away from reason just as knowledge takes away from beauty.

Stand up for your beliefs,

So should I point out, some guy who "knows what he's talking about" will post back arguing, maybe cursing God knows what, or they might just ignore this post as if it hadn't exsisted. AND Therefore, whoever agrees with my idea is an idiot. Go ahead, post crap. I'll take what I have to say to the grave. :w00t:

What I'm trying to say (for retarded people) throughout this session is that mainly foolish composers make better music than the wiser ones (who say "rather" and "indoutedably"... or whatever) because the music is more emotional. Smart people suck at being emotional because they can't emote to anything because they already know of it. It's kind of insufficient even for a genius to be surprized upon truth if he already knew fifty people were in his house, in the dark, hiding with a cake. It's kind of hard to keep crying after you've been crying for an hour. Unless you're on drugs, it's pretty hard to laugh nonstop for hours and hours. See where I am getting?

Being a sophisticated deutch all the time won't get you anywhere.

My conclusion involves Beethoven. It is that, specifically Beethoven wasn't a genius, but he was a loving awesome person. So were like hundreds of other composers.

The best ones weren't too dumb, and they weren't too smart. They naturally had a life of balance, of beauty and reason, of discovery and experience, of stupidity and genius. Would they obtain the balance through society's exactness or mind games? If you want to be dull, you would actually care.

By the way, everything I've just told you is an abstract mirror if you had not noticed before.

Nothing I told you just now can really be considered inattentive.

That was a joke by the way.

Har... har..... I'm sophisticated!

Eh... time to do something else.

Do you study music theory, Sir? It feels like you're just making up an elaborate excuse for not studying music theory, Sir.

Beethoven wasn't a genius, but he was a loving awesome person

Beethoven was a f*cking scallop! Honestly!

It's spelled "indubitably".

And this thread was a huge let-down. I was expecting interesting music theory.

Well Mr. Sexy man, didn't you enjoy your first or beginning stage of sex experience better than you would enjoy it, years later after the feeling has died and died (and died ha ha) ? well I actually doubt it a bit because you aren't really that old :/ are you?

Actually... the first time you have sex usually pales in comparison to the heights of ecstasy you can reach when both lovers know both their own body and their partner's intimately.

The sex vs. music analogy is perfectly valid.

After being 8 years now, with my wife (not all the time as married but as a couple), I can't really imagine myself with anyone else. ;) And, yes, sex is still great! (<-joke as well!)

I think it's about time Spherenine kicks in and starts asking questions... :D

Well, not being a virgin anymore (and not for a long time) I can second the comments made by my fellow married men here.

And honestly, I don't get bored of a good piece of music even after years of listening to it.

Which could be one surefire way of identifying the "good" music from the "not so good". You WILL get tired of the "not so good" music when you start to understand it and see its flaws.

Maybe with theory, you can appreciate to a greater level... ideally, one should be able to say "well, this Britney Spears song is underdeveloped and too much repetitive, but I enjoy the groove pattern under it!" as well as "Wow, this Brahms quartet is really nice, but I would have done this note a little more stacatto"

I think knowledge should remain a tool rather than a way of thinkg ;)

Well that's my... theory.

I don't get bored with any music I've liked to be honest, nor do I over analyze everything I listen to, I'm perfectly capable of listening to music and enjoying it purely from an aural-emotional level. Infact, I think my "knowledge" has helped enjoy music more from even more styles and genres. Ignorance is never a good, if anything "classical musicians" seriously need to start opening their minds more.

So should I point out, some guy who "knows what he's talking about" will post back arguing, maybe cursing God knows what, or they might just ignore this post as if it hadn't exsisted. AND Therefore, whoever agrees with my idea is an idiot. Go ahead, post crap. I'll take what I have to say to the grave. :w00t:

What I'm trying to say (for retarded people) throughout this session is that mainly foolish composers make better music than the wiser ones (who say "rather" and "indoutedably"... or whatever) because the music is more emotional. Smart people suck at being emotional because they can't emote to anything because they already know of it. It's kind of insufficient even for a genius to be surprized upon truth if he already knew fifty people were in his house, in the dark, hiding with a cake. It's kind of hard to keep crying after you've been crying for an hour. Unless you're on drugs, it's pretty hard to laugh nonstop for hours and hours. See where I am getting?

Being a sophisticated deutch all the time won't get you anywhere.

My conclusion involves Beethoven. It is that, specifically Beethoven wasn't a genius, but he was a loving awesome person. So were like hundreds of other composers.

The best ones weren't too dumb, and they weren't too smart. They naturally had a life of balance, of beauty and reason, of discovery and experience, of stupidity and genius. Would they obtain the balance through society's exactness or mind games? If you want to be dull, you would actually care.

By the way, everything I've just told you is an abstract mirror if you had not noticed before.

Nothing I told you just now can really be considered inattentive.

That was a joke by the way.

Har... har..... I'm sophisticated!

Eh... time to do something else.

Pardon me, but what the hell are you talking about, kid

Pardon me, but what the hell are you talking about, kid

Huh?

Why so inflamatory, all of a suddent here? Doesn't everyone have an opinion?

Yes, everyone does have an opinion, his just isn't very concise and I have a hard time understanding what exactly he's trying to say. What's inflammatory about the word hell?

I was more concerned about the hell in combination with "kid". To me (not a native speaker, mind you) it seems a bit degrading to the poster you quoted. But it could be just me.

You know how when you listen to an amazing piece for the first time, let's say the first thing you loved which drew you to musical composition, it truly fills your heart with passion?

Knowledge takes away beauty,

Keep listening to the piece over and over and over and over again, and you start getting bored. You've heard and studied all the mechanics of it. The parts that gave you butterflies now have no effect on you, but you still know it's amazing for the reason of experience.

Is knowledge evil?

SIDE NOTE: Drugs and alchohol are therefore good because they destroy knowledge. Oh, wait, that's right.... drugs and alchohol gently caress you up! Where was I going with this?

Oh yes,

So is ignorance evil. (A lizard can't enjoy Brahms or Brittany, can he really? I don't think they're too smart.) You need a little bit of knowledge to know of, but not too much to completely know.

Beauty is evil.

Ignorance is also beauty,

Some real geniuses of music have been closed-minded or stubborn, so they didn't want to fill their head with garbage. Secretly they had the deepest passion for personal discovery. Go Beethoven! Kind of a half-and-half. If you can keep yourself balanced between ignorance and genius without being a total sophisticated sounding scallop, I congradulate you.

Stupidity takes away from reason just as knowledge takes away from beauty.

Stand up for your beliefs,

So should I point out, some guy who "knows what he's talking about" will post back arguing, maybe cursing God knows what, or they might just ignore this post as if it hadn't exsisted. AND Therefore, whoever agrees with my idea is an idiot. Go ahead, post crap. I'll take what I have to say to the grave. :w00t:

What I'm trying to say (for retarded people) throughout this session is that mainly foolish composers make better music than the wiser ones (who say "rather" and "indoutedably"... or whatever) because the music is more emotional. Smart people suck at being emotional because they can't emote to anything because they already know of it. It's kind of insufficient even for a genius to be surprized upon truth if he already knew fifty people were in his house, in the dark, hiding with a cake. It's kind of hard to keep crying after you've been crying for an hour. Unless you're on drugs, it's pretty hard to laugh nonstop for hours and hours. See where I am getting?

Being a sophisticated deutch all the time won't get you anywhere.

My conclusion involves Beethoven. It is that, specifically Beethoven wasn't a genius, but he was a loving awesome person. So were like hundreds of other composers.

The best ones weren't too dumb, and they weren't too smart. They naturally had a life of balance, of beauty and reason, of discovery and experience, of stupidity and genius. Would they obtain the balance through society's exactness or mind games? If you want to be dull, you would actually care.

By the way, everything I've just told you is an abstract mirror if you had not noticed before.

Nothing I told you just now can really be considered inattentive.

That was a joke by the way.

Har... har..... I'm sophisticated!

Eh... time to do something else.

Knowledge is ultimately harmless. It does exclude mystery, but the ultimate knowledge is that of mystery, and once knowledge of that is possessed, there is no part of knowledge more knowing. Time makes knowledge invalid, since change is the only unchanging thing. People will behold things of "beauty", but this view of beauty that you are contemplating is illusory - the ultimate beauty is the whole of the infinite. You say that ignorance is evil - ignorance of this definition of beauty keeps the universe alive.

I always talk about how logical reasoning and excessive attention to detail is a way to make up for a lack of intuition, but for the sake of saving you from a "wall of china", I will not delve into it more than that. You say that the Lizard cannot like Brahms. Well, it does not like Brahms over the squawk of Geese, because it knows the definition of beauty, because it has no logical reasoning. THere is not a happy medium, unless you care to distinguish between good and bad, which is when you will immediately lose sight.

The distinction between beauty and not beauty is a cause of conflict - yes, ignorance is this distinction, and it allows for people to say what is evil. So if you consider conflict evil, than this conventional defintion of beauty, which is ignorance, is evil.

But, ignorance is not necesssarily beauty, if you define what is ignorant. People who do use logical reasoning, who say what is good and bad, right and wrong, to me they are ignorant, because they do not behold the whole. And since I said that the whole is the only truly beautiful thing, they do not behold true beauty.

k.

(see signature)

Knowledge is ultimately harmless. It does exclude mystery, but the ultimate knowledge is that of mystery, and once knowledge of that is possessed, there is no part of knowledge more knowing. Time makes knowledge invalid, since change is the only unchanging thing. People will behold things of "beauty", but this view of beauty that you are contemplating is illusory - the ultimate beauty is the whole of the infinite. You say that ignorance is evil - ignorance of this definition of beauty keeps the universe alive.

I always talk about how logical reasoning and excessive attention to detail is a way to make up for a lack of intuition, but for the sake of saving you from a "wall of china", I will not delve into it more than that. You say that the Lizard cannot like Brahms. Well, it does not like Brahms over the squawk of Geese, because it knows the definition of beauty, because it has no logical reasoning. THere is not a happy medium, unless you care to distinguish between good and bad, which is when you will immediately lose sight.

The distinction between beauty and not beauty is a cause of conflict - yes, ignorance is this distinction, and it allows for people to say what is evil. So if you consider conflict evil, than this conventional defintion of beauty, which is ignorance, is evil.

But, ignorance is not necesssarily beauty, if you define what is ignorant. People who do use logical reasoning, who say what is good and bad, right and wrong, to me they are ignorant, because they do not behold the whole. And since I said that the whole is the only truly beautiful thing, they do not behold true beauty.

I'm trying to understand you here, so bear with me. And no offense, but you probably could have written that statement in a way that was a little clearer.

You say that logic cannot distinguish true beauty because time ultimately makes it invalid, right? Well time makes instinct invalid all the time(And in your words, instinct is the only way to distinguish true beauty?) Just ponder how many species have become extinct because the instincts they evolved pushed them off of the food chain.

It's spelled "indubitably".

What is spelled "indubitably"?

I'm trying to understand you here, so bear with me. And no offense, but you probably could have written that statement in a way that was a little clearer.

You say that logic cannot distinguish true beauty because time ultimately makes it invalid, right? Well time makes instinct invalid all the time(And in your words, instinct is the only way to distinguish true beauty?) Just ponder how many species have become extinct because the instincts they evolved pushed them off of the food chain.

My comment on time is as Heraclitus says; "Everything flows, nothing remains fixed." This would be in opposition to the validity of truths across time - only a snapshot in space time, is where the truth of that instant only can be captured. This is in opposition to a "Cause and effect", formulaic view (which for all logical purposes is better, but I am not fond of conventional logic), in which randomness and alternate potentiality is non-existant. The only thing that is always there, is the primal nature of things (which is not a specifically physical thing), which you experience every moment but probably fail to conciously notice.

By intuition I do not mean biological traits that appear through evolution. I do not mean anything that helps you survive. I basically just mean the primal depths of the subconcious, in which I assert that this "primal nature of things" is known.

To me, this is the superlative of everything.

Heraclitus said,"The Beginning is the end". The intellect of people will grow and grow, and they will be brighter than the people today, but search for what is, ends where it began - before intellect (in the example of humans and their evolution), there was no intellect. When you stop thinking, the way a frog would not think like a human, there isn't anything you can't know.

Again, not clear. In fact, I feel like I'm wasting my time having a philosophical discussion with someone who "is not fond of conventional logic". There are simply too many holes in what you say for me to spend an hour attacking every single one of them. I'll try and ignore your posts as best I can from now on.

Good day.

Again, not clear. In fact, I feel like I'm wasting my time having a philosophical discussion with someone who "is not fond of conventional logic". There are simply too many holes in what you say for me to spend an hour attacking every single one of them. I'll try and ignore your posts as best I can from now on.

Good day.

I would actually be very grateful if you WOULD attack them, so that I can understand more about the conventional viewpoint. As has been noted by some of the forum users I'm not one to engage in specific personal insults or quips, so rest assured that I would give the utmost respect to your argument.

im confused....

music sounds beautiful to me whether its a complex beethoven symphony or johnny cash's words reaching the soul

....exit debate :toothygrin:

I just don't have that kind of time. I've got rehearsals to run, pieces to finish, and an essay to start. You seem to understand the conventional viewpoint fine. From what I've read of your posts, you just choose to ignore it in favor of your own ideas.

I must say though, I like music better when it relates to the soul. So its not just stand alone music. I mean there is such a thing as a dynamic and stimulating piece that no one put any emotion into making. It's just not very common to hear because it, in my opinion, is BS. People react in their own way to various things, so If there is a big meaning behind the piece or "song", it's probably one of my favorites. That is why music with lyrics is so much more popular today, because people have an easier time understanding it. The amount of emotion does not really matter as much.

It makes me wonder now maybe that composer just did it for fun, or maybe, was he really that emotional?

It's fun to compare these ideas on composers with other people. Hence this.

Hum... Some people argue that stand alone music, or absolute music as it is normally called, is what relates the most to the soul as it's free of any kind of definition you can put into words(Aside from music theory mumbo jumbo).