music only on scores? school of thought?

Not per se, but I do believe that every object is a crystallisation of the thought behind it. Physical substrata of thought (I don't understand why you included neurons), as you call them, would not be essential if we would be able to think of something and materialise it.

Alexandros

ok, some more food for thought. if universe is only physical and physics as such is a closed system, then thought is physical. neurons seem to be responsible for our thinking and most physicalists (in contrast to functionalists) assume that thought is identical with some of the brain processes with most possible candidate - neuron firings (exact agent in this actually doesn't matter - it might be some other things, as long as they are recognized by scientists as valid). so, doesn't this imply that thought as such, being already material, really doesn't need to be 'materialised' (expanded) in other media (on the basis of falsity of statement that it is not material)? so, we must come to think there are other agents like desire, need and so on that forces thought to accept another form. but if this is so, we break the chain of music being regarded as pure symbolic system (and make almost absurd the statement, that score is music) and immerse it ('music') in the endless vortex of physical interactions. at this point, where do we draw the line and accept something as music? is it a neuron firing (one form of thought), a score (another one), a soundwave (one more), which of them is more music? or is it in the becoming? or maybe nowhere/everywhere and it's really pointless to define music as thought, and we end up in another language game without touching on any real?

or maybe we should go (some) math and accept that the more complex the network the more real it is, even to the point of contradiction, paradox and indefiniteness?

i certainly don't know, the endless possibilities of arguing and thinking seem overwhelming, but at most times a man can't stand the real (complexity) and stays in symbolic language games (very finite and concrete) , where 'the dog' is a buddy with a brown fur wagging the tail, the music is a sounding note from one's armonica and , my oh my, come to think of it being a part of the real :)

It should also be noted that a score never represents sounds entirely. The amount of information that is contained in physical sounds (which we hear) is, so to speak, infinitely larger than what musical notation can represent. This further information is held in the built of instruments, in passed down performance techniques, in room architecture, personal interpretation, and so on. What we call a score only contains an incredibly small subset of this information, no matter how detailed we get.

Notating music therefore isn't so much a process of translation, as a process of extraction of a few musical concepts that seem for some (usually cultural) reason important to us to write down. Likewise, performing music is not just translating a score, but combining a variety of sources (amongst which one is the score) to create a certain sequence of sounds.

The interesting thing about the invention of musical notation in the "western world" was that, contrary to common thought, it actually led to a diminished preservation of music in contrast to the oral tradition that existed before it, due to it consisting of a very limited range of parameters. This is also why some of the earliest inventors and propagators of musical notation were condemned for this practice by their fellow monks, since they were afraid of losing their music through this inaccurate medium.

Consider that in the oral traditions of many cultures (which also means gregorian chant), music was taught with extreme accuracy and repeated over and over again until the students did it -exactly- like their masters, leaving almost no room for doubt. Obviously there are always going to happen some changes over time, but in such cultures they were remarkably small: When notation began to come up at various places in Europe at about the same time, several specific chants were written down independantly of each other at distant places, but remarkably they seemed to be almost completely identical in all those places, even if some of them hadn't had any contact with each other for many decades (or even up to centuries), which means that the same chants were handed down orally in different places for very long times with almost no changes happening to them.

That a serious oral tradition of music can be very exact can also be understood if you look at the way music is traditionally taught in India: A master teaches his student for several hours a day, for years, without speaking any word. He just plays the same musical passages over and over again while the student repeats until he does it exactly like the master.

Obviously, terms like "composition" or especially "interpretation" are almost meaningless in such traditions, since there is no distinction between the two: All aspects are passed on, no matter whether it's rhythm, timbre, agogic, ornamentation, pitch, whatever.

Musical notation however is pretty much defined by restricting itself to a set of well-defined parameters, while leaving out others. This opens the realm of interpretation of music. It also gives a composer a way of defining for her- or himself what her or his musical aims are, what to focus on, what to fix, what to leave up to others. I find this a very enriching aspect of notation, since it opens a whole big "area of conflict" (in a positive sense) between different musical personalities who all contribute to a final musical product.

One might look at a score as music, but one should realize that this is an extremely limited form of music one is looking at there, since it is lacking the artistic input of the performer, as well as inputs of so many other sources, from the teacher of the performer, over the builder of the violin to the person who built the concert hall.

Personally I think it is this interaction of different living musical influences that actually lets music flourish. It is this liveliness, which a score can't ever have, which to me is crucial to music. (This is just my personal feeling however and has nothing to do with the question of whether a score -can- be considered music.)

I just wanted to point these things out in contrast to the often held idea that a score serves to "hold down" music, when historically scores have actually relieved music from being "held down" too much and placed a greater focus on how it is performed. If you just want to hold down music, scores might not be the best way to go.

(Interesting side note there: Luciano Berio had such a fear of writing things down and getting into clich

One might look at a score as music, but one should realize that this is an extremely limited form of music one is looking at there, since it is lacking the artistic input of the performer, as well as inputs of so many other sources, from the teacher of the performer, over the builder of the violin to the person who built the concert hall.

Personally I think it is this interaction of different living musical influences that actually lets music flourish. It is this liveliness, which a score can't ever have, which to me is crucial to music. (This is just my personal feeling however and has nothing to do with the question of whether a score -can- be considered music.)

I absolutely agree with that, Gardener. I also believe in the "function" of socialisation of music and the arts in general, bringing people together so to speak...

Pliorius, thought might be physical, might be not. In any case, it's not something concrete as is matter, the latter being condensed energy, the former, as I perceive it, just energy.

so, we must come to think there are other agents like desire, need and so on that forces thought to accept another form. but if this is so, we break the chain of music being regarded as pure symbolic system (and make almost absurd the statement, that score is music) and immerse it ('music') in the endless vortex of physical interactions. at this point, where do we draw the line and accept something as music? is it a neuron firing (one form of thought), a score (another one), a soundwave (one more), which of them is more music? or is it in the becoming? or maybe nowhere/everywhere and it's really pointless to define music as thought, and we end up in another language game without touching on any real?

or maybe we should go (some) math and accept that the more complex the network the more real it is, even to the point of contradiction, paradox and indefiniteness?

Well, isn't it everywhere? Isn't everything in the universe vibrating and moving. Everything is (potentially) musical.

Alexandros

Sup

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/lament-virgin-008000-episode-1-a-18187.html

Sorry to chime in with just that, but I'm of the "hearing it isn't necessary for it to be music" group. :>

Guys,

Sorry for the continuous questions. I'm finally working on my thesis, and I'm trying to get as much in as possible, and get bibliography, references, etc... Any help will be most appreciated.

I seem to recall some kind of school of thought, which said that music exists without the need of a performance, or a recording. That a score doesn't need to be performed to be called music, and so on... Any ideas on which school of thought is that, or something similar to that (who said such things, etc)?

Thank you all and thanks for hanging on my ramblings...

Nikolas

Sorry I didn't get a chance to read everyone's posts and I'm not even sure if Nikolas is still part of this forum, but the first thing that came to mind when I read this was "Beethoven."

It is easier to picture music if you have already heard it.

I think picturing music is a lot like hearing it.