I would just like to say...

Music is pointless. ...Physics makes it appealing to us.

Physics makes it appealing to you. What makes it appealing to me is the human element - the spirit, passion, energy behind it. Good luck explaining Coltrane's free improv in scientific terms. It's powerful, but, were it all simply physics - why would we all not feel that power? Why doesn't music affect/effect us all? The overtones are moving the same way, our eardrums vibrate at the same frequencies, yet I like, you don't, he/she/it hates.

There's something inherently spiritual in music, and the only pointless thing about it, is trying to quantify it in scientific terms.

...however, I meant musically.

Well, this may seem like I'm circumventing the issue, but when any composer sits down to write a piece -- moreover, when a composer receives inspiration from any given source, where does that derive from? How can inspiration be explained scientifically?

Physics makes it appealing to you.

Tonal music is appealing because of physics behind it regardless of if people know that.

What makes it appealing to me is the human element - the spirit, passion, energy behind it. Good luck explaining Coltrane's free improv in scientific terms. It's powerful, but, were it all simply physics - why would we all not feel that power? Why doesn't music affect/effect us all? The overtones are moving the same way, our eardrums vibrate at the same frequencies, yet I like, you don't, he/she/it hates.

Because it is trained....... If I listened to enough of Contrane (I do have Cold Trane btw...) I would too enjoy it.

There's something inherently spiritual in music, and the only pointless thing about it, is trying to quantify it in scientific terms.

People in this forum, state something then refuse to back anything up....

Well, this may seem like I'm circumventing the issue, but when any composer sits down to write a piece -- moreover, when a composer receives inspiration from any given source, where does that derive from? How can inspiration be explained scientifically?

Could someone who has never seen or heard a piece by Mozart write one in a similar style? Inspiration is from experience, Clich

Er.....to try and bring this thread back to what originally was about....

I agree very much with what Qccowboy....it's not necessary to like all types of music, or listen to every type of music all the time, unless of course you want to. Respecting all music should be encouraged, sure, but I would hate that anyone who doesn't listen to jazz or rock or something be called close minded....perhaps they just don't like it much :P.

Could someone who has never seen or heard a piece by Mozart write one in a similar style? Inspiration is from experience, Clich

People in this forum, state something then refuse to back anything up....

I have nothing I need to back up. You can try and get all academic on it, but I don't really care.

Also, what the frig is 'Cold Trane'? :whistling:

We had to develop these things ourselves, and not judging by what we had heard before.

Linguistics, heartbeats, birds, physics, Things that sound like they fit well together. Most people who are tone deaf aren't musicians.

Yes, it could happen.

Irrelevant.

I have nothing I need to back up.

Why do you speak? if you have no reason behind anything?

You can try and get all academic on it, but I don't really care.

It's hardly academic. :P

My bad, "Live Trane". Apologies for getting it wrong, don't know what came over me...

I'm off to bed, it's 3am.

I think ArcticWind's point is that reducibly, music satisfies us for reasons which are able to be scientifically rationalized, but it is not this in itself which leads us to derive pleasure from it, most of the time at least.

If my understanding is correct, I'll have to agree...although at the same time, I should emphasise that 99% of the time I find the emotional component of music to be its most important aspect.

I think ArcticWind's point is that reducibly, music satisfies us for reasons which are able to be scientifically rationalized

Fair enough - they tried to do the same thing with colours (supposedly blue is the colour we all should like). But all this science fails for consider the humanistic element, which is, as you said, 99% of the equation.

:whistling:

Anyway, since there's apparently nothing behind what I say, I'm going to bow out. *waves*

I think ArcticWind's point is that reducibly, music satisfies us for reasons which are able to be scientifically rationalized, but it is not this in itself which leads us to derive pleasure from it, most of the time at least.

I personally like knowing, but my argument is exactly that.

If my understanding is correct, I'll have to agree...although at the same time, I should emphasise that 99% of the time I find the emotional component of music to be its most important aspect.

Me too, but I find that even the emotion in music can be explained.

You're arguments are almost a little hedonistic.

I didn't know that physics, logic etc. are unimportant/ sorry.

Wow, this thread got hijacked hard. I'll bring more of my cents in later, I'm busy and I have to buy books for classes.

Who cares what the believe when they are writing it. The overtones of ANY note, provide the dominant 7 chord which wants to resolve. The minor triad is "sad" because the minor third clashes with the major third in the overtones. Harmony is defined by the harmonics of every note. These harmonics are natural. V goes to I because of that. Everything is based on the harmonics. Get rid of tonality (and the whole of tonality is within one note), and you get rid of the form of nature. Whether composers new this or not, it doesn't matter they are using it.

Sorry, but that's some of the most ridiculous stuff I've read here.

1. Western tonal music is not built on the harmonic series. Ultimately it is derived from it, but it has evolved -far- from it. Calling a 12 tone temperated system, containing the same intervals in every register and key "natural" is absurd.

2. Yes, something very close to a V7 chord appears in the harmonic series, but guess what, it doesn't want to resolve! It's just there, stable and happy. Show me an instrument where the overtones of a C "naturally" resolve into an F major chord.

3. Get an instrument (brass instruments work well for the purpose) and play some melodies containing the 7th, 11th and 13th overtone (and higher ones if it's possible). Most common people will hear those as "wrong" notes and quite atonal.

4. The harmonic series isn't even a universal principle. Most instruments deviate somehow from it, and some even have spectres that are -completely- different from the harmonic series. (Bells, for example)

5. The concept of consonances and dissonances is far from clear, and neither the pythagorean, nor the helmholtzian theory are completely satisfactory. It must be assumed that it's a highly subjective and cultural matter, and there is no clear, scientific definition of what is consonant and what is dissonant.

6. Most non-western music is totally different from common period classical music. No equal temperated system. No 12 tones. No major and minor. No cadence harmonic. No divisive rhythms. But magically -our- music is the only natural one?

7. Listen to "les espaces acoustiques" by G

Seriously, how did this thread turn into a philosophical member measuring contest over the overtone series. I'm actually in complete shock.

For the record, some of the people I despise the most in my experience in the academia side of music are the people who insist on trying to turn emotions and sounds into some sort of mathematic form. These are by far the biggest culprits of the pretentious attitude which has taken over "modernism". God knows I love Schoenberg and Berg (not Webern though, yech) and I think taking music to a more intellectual level is great, but these people have it backwards.

Anyway, please get back on topic, seriously. I don't want my thread becoming something completely different. If you want to wax about the overtone series and the Physics side of harmonics, equal temperment yadda yadda yadda, then make a thread about that. Mods, please do something about this. I haven't seen a hijacking this abrupt since Air Force One.

the universe produced me robin and i play like you...yet you play louder than me :(

You have the "experimentalists" who think a concerto for cellphone and orchestra is a good idea

+

9. If you want truly natural music, get a stick and beat a tree with it.

+

good name

???????

PROFIT!

Yes, something very close to a V7 chord appears in the harmonic series, but guess what, it doesn't want to resolve! It's just there, stable and happy. Show me an instrument where the overtones of a C "naturally" resolve into an F major chord.

C does lead to F... within the context of two chords (C and G) C we hear as tonic while G as dominant.

Get an instrument (brass instruments work well for the purpose) and play some melodies containing the 7th, 11th and 13th overtone (and higher ones if it's possible). Most common people will hear those as "wrong" notes and quite atonal.

The higher up in the series, the less we can here them.

Most instruments deviate somehow from it

No, they have different louder harmonics.

Most non-western music is totally different from common period classical music. No equal temperated system. No 12 tones. No major and minor. No cadence harmonic. No divisive rhythms. But magically -our- music is the only natural one?

Pentatonic scales are also based on the harmonic series.

Music is art. When art is made, it's artificial. Artificial is not natural.

If you want to remain ignorant of what art is, good for you.

9. If you want truly natural music, get a stick and beat a tree with it.

Your an idiot.

For the record, some of the people I despise the most in my experience in the academia side of music are the people who insist on trying to turn emotions and sounds into some sort of mathematic form. These are by far the biggest culprits of the pretentious attitude which has taken over "modernism". God knows I love Schoenberg and Berg (not Webern though, yech) and I think taking music to a more intellectual level is great, but these people have it backwards.

How does knowledge ruin music? The only thing I have said that isn't completely sound is the mothers heartbeat. That is my assumption. Music based on the harmonic series is sound. The only reason tonal music "fits" and sounds pleasing is because of the harmonic series.

I came here hoping for a discussion with people. All I get are closed minded people who desperately need to be "artistes". The only reason for this need is yet another need to be thought of as special, and not among normal people.

Your an idiot.

Your idiot? My idiot? Our idiot?

???

Edit: Oh, yeah, stop it before you embarrass yourself any further. If you came here to "discuss", I suppose our definitions vary in that, to me, discussing doesn't involve calling people names and citing things that are entirely subjective (or at least highly controversial!) as facts, much less using this as platform from which to claim others are at fault (or attack them). Also, don't hijack people's threads. It's frown-worthy!

Thanks.

Well done ;)

You get a golden star.

Well done ;)

You get a golden star.

Thanks.

No problem.

Your an idiot may be the most ironic declaration of all time.

Your an idiot may be the most ironic declaration of all time.

So a typo is the definition of an idiot? Wow, you do have stupidly high expectations.

I'm happy to see 2 people I value greatly in here, Robin and QCC, out of this discussion! They left early.

Just came to say that this discussion was rather ammusing, exactly because it was extremely off topic! I feel a tiny bit sorry for the original poster.

And now the Q&A of the day (as it would've been answered in this thread):

Q: What is your name please?

A: YES!

Have a nice day!

Sorry, I apologize for helping to derail the thread.

To say something on topic: I agree on the main point. While one can't ask everyone to like every kind of music, it would be nice if some people were a bit more curious and "adventurous" in their musical tastes, and expose themselves to something they're not used to from time to time. Even in the classical world I often see a huge gap between musicians of early music (i.e. music up to baroque) and classical/romantic music. I know someone who rejects any music composed after the 17th century, and there are lots of classically trained musicians who'd never listen to anything before baroque (or not even that). And then there are those musicians who only listen to their own instrument. Pianists who will just listen to the same Beethoven and Liszt Sonatas again and again. Hornists who are only interested in large orchestral works like Brahms, Mahler, Strauss. Singers who only listen to songs and operas.

But I too have to admit there are some kinds of music I'm simply not interested in, without really knowing them. Maybe I'd even like them if I listened to them more, but much too often I just listen to what I know I like, as it's much more easy and comfortable. I -try- to get away from that at least. There's just a much too great focus on first class artists and masterpieces, while music that is not perfect in every way, but may be something very unique and great in some aspects is often shunned.

I wasn't aiming at you, of course, Gardener. :)

But, on topic, I do agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion and taste, of course, but this shouldn't be used to reduce other music (like giancula, repeatedly does). Everyone to their taste, there is no "better" scale on music and even Britney, or 50 cent has some kind of value.