Why are "accepted" standards taken so seriously?

I think that is objective. It is almost like color. Brightness and darkness is objective. Harmony is the most objective part of music.

Color is hardly objective.

Color is hardly objective.

So if you took three thousand people and asked them: "Is this apple red?" Some of them might say no? (crazy people not allowed)

Well, yes. I'm sure there are plenty of medical reasons they might perceive the apple as being a different color than red. (color blind people aside) I think I read somewhere about a disease which causes one to be unable to discern between green and red. (or was it perceive green and red? ... well, something along those lines. I'm sure doc could chime in..)

Of course, no one will ever experience ''red'' the same way either... (musically) but that's kind of moot. :) /sarcasm

When I compose a piece, its name is the date I began to compose it. I would happily leave that as its only name and usually do except when posting it here. If I do not write a story about the piece and give it some name, no one will listen to it. Sometimes I even make up a story just to get people's attention.

The most important things in this world are not spoken. This is why there is music. But what is said in music is not what is always heard.

Music is a living entity that resists change. We as humans get used to certain patterns and demand them. The younger you are it seems the more structure is required. Look at the young girls who go crazy over some stupid little tune that would bore Bach to death. Yet these stupid little tunes with there million dollar backing, rake in the money and destroy the younger generation's apptitude for fine music. Or does the 'fine music' destroy their appitude for change?

I know what I like in music, and do not need a promoter to tell me what is good.

There have been many composers who do not follow the norm and receive little recognition. Some are found after they are dead and are immortalized. Bach was one of these.

I love String Quartets. I love gongs. The two would not fit together well IMO.

Lastly I repeat parts of my music for others. What I write for myself rarely repeats.

Just some ramblings of an old man on a wet Saturday morning.

Harmony is the most objective part of music.

:)

Are you kidding!?

I think harmony is the least objective part of music, and can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways by different people. There's NO objectivity in music....

Re: Colours.

Red is what everyone sees as red. We all have agreed that apples are red, and that blood is red. Problem is that no one else sees what YOU see, which means that you could actually have always been visualising red as something else (green for example), and on the contrary. Nobody could ever tell you that you are wrong. Nobody will ever know. Just a bit of tasteless clothing nothing more...

You see red as "red", and not as red.

Same with music. Nobody else feels like you do when you are listening to x track.

I think that there is nothing objective in any muisc.

The only thing I would say to a potential student of mine in composition, would have to do with coherency inside the piece. That is makes sense with itself and nothing more. In short:

That there is a reason for what (s)he's writting! Nothing else!

Re: Colours.

Red is what everyone sees as red. We all have agreed that apples are red, and that blood is red. Problem is that no one else sees what YOU see, which means that you could actually have always been visualising red as something else (green for example), and on the contrary. Nobody could ever tell you that you are wrong. Nobody will ever know. Just a bit of tasteless clothing nothing more...

You see red as "red", and not as red.

Same with music. Nobody else feels like you do when you are listening to x track.

I think that there is nothing objective in any muisc.

:) :) :) thank you. You expressed what I was trying to say. Albeit in a much less esoteric way. :P

The psychological reaction towards music is rightly called analogous to the reaction towards colour. There is no "this is how you should react, when seeing the colour blue, or hearing a minor chord", but the reaction could still be similiar with many people. The name (red, minor chord) is objective, the experience is not. People could, as a norm, be trained to react towards 'A Night on Bald Mountain' with happy feelings, and also to:

instantly think of glowing sun filled meadows with fluffy bunnies bouncing all over the place

But it is not this way with humans (but perhaps someone is, right now, experiencing just that.)

The name (red, minor chord) is objective, the experience is not.

I think that's exactly what we're all saying! Labels are labels, how they are perceived is completely subjective.

I do not see how anyone could listen to Mozart's funeral piece and think happy thoughts. When I hear A Night On Bald Mountain I always get a smile on my face. I doubt if any one would view Wagner's Ride of the Valkeryies as a lullaby. Some music works its way into the soul and reacts on a sub-conscious level. Whether we like a piece or not has very little impact on some music's ability to influence us. Most music is just throwaway nonsense written by those who are just trying to feed their children. Once every 100 years or so a piece of music is composed that is truly exceptional and deserves a place of honor. But many of these never get written down and disappear. (More ramblings)

(answering the original thread)

I think music is abstract and should remain so. Naming music in special names can take away some of the listening and performing experience. Music should invoke certain feelings. But, not necessarily the same feelings for everhy person. If you give a certain name the listener/performer will try to look for this certain feeling and so, might lose some of his own experiences.

Re: Colours.

Red is what everyone sees as red. We all have agreed that apples are red, and that blood is red. Problem is that no one else sees what YOU see, which means that you could actually have always been visualising red as something else (green for example), and on the contrary. Nobody could ever tell you that you are wrong. Nobody will ever know. Just a bit of tasteless clothing nothing more...

You see red as "red", and not as red.

Same with music. Nobody else feels like you do when you are listening to x track.

I think that there is nothing objective in any muisc.

The only thing I would say to a potential student of mine in composition, would have to do with coherency inside the piece. That is makes sense with itself and nothing more. In short:

That there is a reason for what (s)he's writting! Nothing else!

Yes, but what about dark, and bright? Would you consider that also to be subjective?

The name (red, minor chord) is objective

There is nothing objective about naming a color red, or naming a minor chord minor. We could have just as easily named the color "feezlebub" and a minor chord "garglebebop." That's entirely arbitrary. My belief is that red is red for everyone. If you could step into someone else's brain and eyeballs, you'd see the same color (unless you are physically color blind, where your eyes are not able to pick up certain primary colors, thereby confusing ones which have the missing color as a component). Of course I can't really know that, but the fact that it is so universal suggests to me that it is the same for everyone.

Someone (I think the same guy) mentioned that the REACTION is subjective, but the color itself is objective. That, I do agree with.REACTION is subjective. Bright, and dark, are not, for example.

Of course I can't really know that, but the fact that it is so universal suggests to me that it is the same for everyone.

That only means that we have had similiar training (we have learned to call the colours by the same names.) The name would be the same for someone seeing the red I see as blue. Or if he saw it as a colour I have never seen, he'd still call it "red". Imagine someone calling the colour you call red "blue": how would you settle this? Well, check with a few other people, and then correct the one that was wrong (and see... how this could be done, without ever "stepping into someone else's brain and eyeballs".) Why do I call this calling objective? Because norms are objective. That we call a certain colour red is objective. Yes, we could call it otherwise, but then the facts would change (and if one person was deviant, calling the colours by his own names: then we couldn't communicate with him without learning his language.) The idea that everyone experiences colours diffirently is just as rational as the opposite. But it's more philosophically wise to not assume anything. (As for music, it is the same thing with the distinction between dark and bright.)

PS (not aimed towards you Derek)

Any argument that begins with "I cannot imagine..." is a bad argument. You couldn't imagine that someone could be happy, hearing the Mozart Requiem?

Well, many others could! I've felt happy, while listening to it, many times.

Yes, but what about dark, and bright? Would you consider that also to be subjective?

Why? What will you prove with that? That there are a few certain facts in life? Yes. such as life and death! You see someone, or you don't. Unless you are phycho you don't have any doubts...

About dark or bright: Think of it this way, maybe you'll see what I mean:

Go to a blind person (from birth) and try to describe to him the colour red. Can you do it? Do give him the exact idea of what red is? Nope!

Now try to describe light and dark. Can you do it?

Bottom line: There are subjective things in life. so what? What are we talking about here now? Or just debating for the shake of debate?

(silly debate that won't end anywhere really, plus off topic to the start of the disucssion, which WAS interesting)

(answering the original thread)

I think music is abstract and should remain so. Naming music in special names can take away some of the listening and performing experience. Music should invoke certain feelings. But, not necessarily the same feelings for everhy person. If you give a certain name the listener/performer will try to look for this certain feeling and so, might lose some of his own experiences.

I agree with this thought... although I don't mind if the composer tries to direct my thoughts with a descriptive word or two, I personally find most modern titles cheesy, and program music annoying.

An interesting thread that starts to collapse into pseudo-philosophy-esque (sic) ramblings... again! Youngpseudophilosophers.com

An interesting thread that starts to collapse into pseudo-philosophy-esque (sic) ramblings... again! Youngpseudophilosophers.com

Yes, when people actually think, it's not interesting. :)

Yes, when people actually think, it's not interesting. :)

Nobody feels impressed with your modus cogitandi.

The emotional responses evoked by music are neurophysiological phenomena that are determined by the specific timing, learning history, genetics, the current temperature, the season of the year, the time of day and countless other parameters. These are the facts - a subtle interaction between limbic and upper brain structures interacting with emotional memory (in the limbic system). Nothing philosophical. No 'semantics'.

You can resume your whistling now. :)

Nobody feels impressed with your modus cogitandi.

The emotional responses evoked by music are neurophysiological phenomena that are determined by the specific timing, learning history, genetics, the current temperature, the season of the year, the time of day and countless other parameters. These are the facts - a subtle interaction between limbic and upper brain structures interacting with emotional memory (in the limbic system). Nothing philosophical. No 'semantics'.

You can resume your whistling now. :D

Was that a scallopslap? :) The philosophical problem, and it certainly is one: Is music a language? Is it rightly compared with language? Can music communicate emotions? What is the purpouse of music? (and these are all in response to some odditities in Lord Skyes writing, the purpouse wasn't to impress you) Of course I'll have to bring up a picture of the sociological, psychological, biological to answer this.

:)

I would have to refer you to some older threads with equally pointless arguments, started by Sauls some time ago. Luckily, these threads are also dead. :)

I'd love to read some serious, non-philosophical opinions on the topic. Other than that... :)

I'd love to read some serious, non-philosophical opinions on the topic. Other than that... :)

Odd. Have you even read the posts in this thread? I think we have enough of those "serious" opinions in here. Read and enjoy.

I actually did. And I actually enjoyed. Before the onset of the 'red/not red' argument. Let me rephrase:

"I'd love to read some more serious, non-philosophical opinions on the topic".

...although I don't mind if the composer tries to direct my thoughts with a descriptive word or two...

A good point.

What emotions would Therenody for the Victims of Hiroshima evoke, if not for the title?

I actually did. And I actually enjoyed. Before the onset of the 'red/not red' argument. Let me rephrase:

"I'd love to read some more serious, non-philosophical opinions on the topic".

You remind me of the shenanigans of Will Kirk. Posting in a thread only to remind everyone how pointless an argument is (when it's not), or complaining about where the thread is heading, etc etc. You don't like the rabble about colours? Well, don't read it! This is YC, threads never stay on topic.