Experiment - inherent meaning in music

That's no fair. One of the melodies is more like a development of an incidental theme from the film, The Incredibles. I won't say which one, though.

Jessome, you need to stop watching movies before you go sit down to write melodies. :)

I thought it sounded awfully familiar...

Interesting theory.

I suspect, however, that it's probably not accurate.

Should I expand my experiment!!!???

Perhaps a Phase 2: Using the same melodies, I could ask what emotions they each extract from the listener. If your hypothesis is correct, one should evoke a particular sentiment, while the other will evoke...nothing? Apathy?

:dunno: Should I bother?

Do whatever you want! But I think that would be interesting...;)

Since I'm the one who started this whole awesomely controversial firestorm, I will post which one I think is the one that Robin worked on (how exciting and frightening! Will I be horribly wrong, or right? :O) I think it's the :censored: : it has a stronger pull in it somehow, as though it's trying harder to "take you somewhere" than the other one is: the first one seems more aimless. (How ironic this will be if I'm wrong, haha :) )

I don't mean to insult your intelligence but do you understand that it doesn't matter if you're personally right or wrong? Even if you're the only one to vote or not vote for the correct melody, Robin's point is still very much proven.

I just voted too.

Let's refrain from any talk of preferences or your feelings towards the melodies until the experiment is complete.

I don't want anyone to be influenced by the opinions of others.

;)

I wish I had the power to delete this thread.

Why?

Let's refrain from any talk of preferences or your feelings towards the melodies until the experiment is complete.

I don't want anyone to be influenced by the opinions of others.

;)

Why?

Because I find the idea exasperating and the quoted material from post 1 to be utterly traumatic, why'd you want to know?

Because I find the idea exasperating and the quoted material from post 1 to be utterly traumatic, why'd you want to know?

Just curious.... :dunno:

Same here.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence but do you understand that it doesn't matter if you're personally right or wrong? Even if you're the only one to vote or not vote for the correct melody, Robin's point is still very much proven.

I understand that, I just think it would be embarrassing if I were wrong, that's all, haha :whistling:

"Because I find the idea exasperating and the quoted material from post 1 to be utterly traumatic, why'd you want to know?"

...Gee, I'm sorry :sadtears: I didn't mean it to be all that...

I've been testing out my theory on other pieces, and asking their composers for feedback as I do so, to see if I could accurately find meaning in some pieces. I found a lot of meaning in one person's works here, and I'm proud to say that I've actually had some desirable results. One person on here, pequad, real name Caleb, has created some pieces which I tried to find meaning in, and found them. (They are very good pieces by the way) This one:

The first one, Valse, seemed like a piece that told a sad story to me: since it's a waltz, it seems sad because of missing a person. Normally when you waltz with someone, it's with someone you care about, and it's a happy occasion: but the tone is so dark, and angry, and frustrated, the waltz has been turned into grief of being able to never see this person again: death of a loved one! Caleb told me my analysis was correct, that he had been envisioning a grieving scene whilst writing this piece.

Also, the one called "Butterfly" made me strongly feel like I was becoming more and more happy and oblivious, which is what Caleb said he'd wanted to convey again. And with this one:

http://www.box.net/shared/1m31pj9t58

I said it was obviously relaxing, but that didn't seem like a particularly astute observation to me, so I thought for a bit: that slight dissonance that fades in and out every once in a while reminded me strongly of the baby you're trying to put to sleep waking up, then going back to sleep again. He said I was right again. I guess he and I just think alike? But this serves to illustrate the point of what I've been trying to say all along: someone can convey something musically, something with purpose. Caleb couldn't have done this by writing down a random melody with no meaning to it while thinking of whatever special thing it is he's thinking of, he had to put thought into it, and I can tell :)

Well, it's in minor.

Well, it's in minor.

I've been debating with people who don't believe any piece of music can convey anything specifically, in any way: if that's true, the fact it's in a minor key shouldn't give anything away, right? :blush:

Wow, people are making this so much more complicated than it needed to be. Gawd. Option 3 was clearly the correct answer.

Wow, people are making this so much more complicated than it needed to be. Gawd. Option 3 was clearly the correct answer.

What's the 3rd option? :O

I've been debating with people who don't believe any piece of music can convey anything specifically, in any way: if that's true, the fact it's in a minor key shouldn't give anything away, right? :blush:

Well, by use of certain symbolism, music can certainly convey some very broad ideas within a certain cultural context. In the cultural tradition that it seems you, Caleb and I share, "minor" is a common symbol for "sadness", as much as the organ is a common symbol for "religion". So sure, by using a minor key you can convey to a person of a similar cultural background that you had sadness in mind when writing your piece and you can convey some sense of religion to many people of the same cultural background simply by using an organ in your music. But those symbolisms are extremely limited, both in their range (they often aren't understood interculturally) and in detail (minor may represent "sadness" as a very broadly abstracted emotion, but most finer and more subtle expressions would immediately cause misunderstandings, even between people of a similar cultural background). Keep in mind that the Sch

Ironically, even though I agree with robin's goals here, it was easy for me to pick out the melody he worked on.

I think.

Well, by use of certain symbolism, music can certainly convey some very broad ideas within a certain cultural context. In the cultural tradition that it seems you, Caleb and I share, "minor" is a common symbol for "sadness", as much as the organ is a common symbol for "religion". So sure, by using a minor key you can convey to a person of a similar cultural background that you had sadness in mind when writing your piece and you can convey some sense of religion to many people of the same cultural background simply by using an organ in your music. But those symbolisms are extremely limited, both in their range (they often aren't understood interculturally) and in detail (minor may represent "sadness" as a very broadly abstracted emotion, but most finer and more subtle expressions would immediately cause misunderstandings, even between people of a similar cultural background). Keep in mind that the Sch

Well, isn't meaning in the listener's mind, not the music itself?

I agree with this 100% in principle.

In practice there can be "feelings" in music, as long as we understand that when we say "this music feels x" we really mean "this music makes most people feel mostly x" and that we understand this is a phenomenon of culture rather than a universal abstract.

For example the association of happy/sad with major/minor has flipped a few times in history, but an association one way or the other has existed (most of) the time.

Even if we acknowledge that the emotional associations of tonalities, or of specific intervals in melodies, are cultural, it is still useful to use this vocabulary (either "playing it straight" or toying with expectations). Why? Because even if is not some universal perfect abstraction handed down from the heavens, it does mostly-work-for-most-people.

Music that abandons these cultural givens entirely seems, well, culturally irrelevant.

I may be even more conservative than you & robin, as I think even if tonality is cultural there are "kinetic" elements of music that have universal (or "far closer to universal") effects on the listener; music getting faster or slower, more or less active, the specific ranges/registers which the music occupies or moves to. These are really closer to "aural" effects than "musical" effects.

For example in a flying scene in a movie - the bass drops out abruptly, the strings and winds zoom up - regardless of the tonality in play at the moment, what's happening is the SOUND is copying the kinetic feel of flying, that loopy-stomach feeling. And it works. :)

Is that "meaning" in your mind or the composer's? Well, hm, I guess it's in your mind but the composer clearly intended for you to think it, and he was successful wasn't he? ;)

Hmm, the last couple paragraphs weren't too clear were they?

Here is an example, two flying scenes by the same composer (yes John Williams, cliiiiche). You can clearly hear one is minor:

HP

While the other uses major (and borrows a little from Lydian mode):

ET

But actually, much the same thing is going on aurally. You can hear how he drops the bass right out of the "B" phrases in both cases, and returns it in the recap. There are also some other similarities: bass figures that avoid resolving onto the downbeat (creates an unsettled feeling), high woodwinds licks (soaring, altitude) and melodies that use a wide vertical range (sense of space). These are all "kinetic" techniques - it's about the level of activity of the music rather than the tonality.

Of course there are also tonal effects in common, like how he modulates to have the yells be hilariously harmonious within the new key :D

So returning to the question, which of these "effects" rely on the listener and composer to have a common cultural understanding, and which of them are more universal?

I dunno. :D

I'm getting anxious to share my data... I have 33 responses thus far, and am changing the deadline to TONIGHT!!!!

CLICK HERE TO TAKE THE SURVEY!!!!

Melody 1 MIDI

Melody 2 MIDI

Please do it if you haven't already!!

------------------

Once it's complete, I want to know who voted for which one and why. It seems some of you have interesting opinions about the melodies ...

BUT NOT YET!!! :w00t:

actually this whole thing is pretty off from the start. concept 'inherent meaning' is very dubious by and on itself, and not because it's musically related. for nothing, really, has any inherent meaning. 'meaning' is meaning precisely because it has meaning to something/someone. there's no meaning non related to someone/something that operates with it. so what this experiment will achieve is just various modes of how people make (or are made) meaning in them headz.

.... 'meaning' is meaning precisely because it has meaning to something/someone. there's no meaning non related to someone/something that operates with it. so what this experiment will achieve is just various modes of how people make (or are made) meaning in them headz.

I don't really follow what you're trying to say.

:dunno:

The hypothesis (Sarge's position) is that music can carry with it a specific "meaning" or "intended emotional evocation" - something the composer puts in, that the listener can detect. I.e. the composer writes a piece for his dead dog, and the listener should be able to pick up the sense of grief, or loss.

I think it's nonsense, and that (as I suspect you're trying to say) meanings can be inferred by anyone, anyhow - not necessarily the one the composer intended - if at all!

SO, so the experiment, I feel, is solid. We have one melody which is (as I composed it) inherently meaningful, the other is not. People should be able to pick up on the "meaningful" one, if Sarge is to be believed. ;)

I don't really follow what you're trying to say.

:dunno:

The hypothesis (Sarge's position) is that music can carry with it a specific "meaning" or "intended emotional evocation" - something the composer puts in, that the listener can detect. I.e. the composer writes a piece for his dead dog, and the listener should be able to pick up the sense of grief, or loss.

I think it's nonsense, and that (as I suspect you're trying to say) meanings can be inferred by anyone, anyhow - not necessarily the one the composer intended - if at all!

SO, so the experiment, I feel, is solid. We have one melody which is (as I composed it) inherently meaningful, the other is not. People should be able to pick up on the "meaningful" one, if Sarge is to be believed. ;)

i see that. my point was rather that initial goal 'inherent meaning in music' is heavily underconstructed, since meaning, as you said, is always a relation of objects to systems that value/use them. it is never inherent.

serge holds pretty normal position, in circles of same cultural pattern meanings will be more or less adequately trasparent and recognised. his only mistake is to take an absolutist stance on it. he's not hte firts to think about expression in music. if i remeber correctly there was a nice fight between formulists and expressionists (in musicology) hanslick vs. someone else i do not remember the name.

if we right this misconstructuion, we can start speaking how and why meaning is such and such to some agents, but there's nothing to disprove inheritness of meaning, since it is analytical nonsense. there's no need to make experiments trying to prove or disprove that 2+2=4. it's firstly a problem of (mis)using language.

I don't really follow what you're trying to say.

:dunno:

Meaning is only 'inherent' when a context exists to define that meaning. Context really only applies to a select group of people, and that select group of people will only understand the 'inherent meaning' insofar as they can relate it to the Context. Music doesn't inherently carry 'meaning' of any kind on its own. The listener is the one who creates, perceives, or otherwise builds upon meaning that already exists.

Thus, Weca's example of the two flying sequences from Harry Potter and E.T. The meaning only exists for those who have previously structured a context for what a flying sequence should evoke in a listener. The music merely aids in the perception of the sequence and the emotions that would otherwise tend to germinate from the sequence were one to experience it for themselves.

The bass dropping out in the 'B' segment of either sequence is common for such a context. Why? What about the bass has anything to do with the sequence? In experience with flying, many who have experienced it have physically encountered the 'floating' sensation of 'falling' through midair when an aircraft descends. Does the music then carry some intrinsic quality? Of course it does, because the perceptual 'grounding' of the bass in music can contextually be transmitted to a live event.

But for someone who has never experienced what it feels like to fly, this 'meaning' may never make sense to them. Not only is context a major factor, but the listener as well must have some extrasensory connection to both A) the feeling of 'floating' or 'falling' in an aircraft and B) the correlation of A to the absence of a bass 'grounding' them aurally.

Thus, music CAN carry inherent meaning as long as a context exists and a listener is capable of either hearing and understanding it or perceiving it through some experience where they have encountered the event before. Without either, the listener and the meaning to them is wholly lost in a furry of sounds they do not connect with the event. The absence of context and extrasensory connection is, perhaps, what Pliorius was referring to when he mentioned, "'Inherent meaning in music' is heavily underconstructed."