Why are "accepted" standards taken so seriously?

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

Ahem, the mating of chimpanzees and whales? :thumbsup:

I think that the title was given after the composition. Penderecki might even have something completely different in mind (not the mating thing, I hope).

But this is a fine example of perception of music reduced into something way less abstract.

:thumbsup:

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....

Allow me to clarify my position. Reaction to harmony is subjective. That is, one person might hear a piece with a certain chord or progression and imagine one thing, and another person will imagine another, or feel differently.

I should have said, and I don't think there's any debate on this, that it is objective what an octave sounds like, or what a major chord sounds like. They sound the same to everyone. While our labels of "brighter" or "darker" may also be arbitrary, I think at least "consonance" and "dissonance" in harmony are objective. I think a better word for what I'm getting at is that harmony is static. There are a finite number of chords that we can use in a composition. Phrasing and rhythm, on the other hand, are so combinatorially vast as to be practically infinite.

Reaction to all parts of music, as I'm sure you and everyone here agrees, is 98% percent subjective.

The reason I think there is still a bit of objectivity in the mix is, as I mentioned before, with an example: nobody is going to imagine fluffy bunnies in a peaceful meadow when they listen to the Rite of Spring or Night on Bald Mountain. Maybe they'd imagine fluffy bunnies running away from a bird of prey about to kill them, but...you see what I'm getting at. There is a tiny bit of objectivity there: the observation that such pieces are "violent" or "harsh," etc. The degree to which one perceives the violence or harshness may be subjective, but the limit as one approaches "this piece makes me feel calm and peaceful" is mentally-insane, in the case of such pieces. *braces self for onslaught of adolescents who insist that Rite of Spring and other such pieces calm them down* :)

Conversely, the opposite is also true. Nobody would ever say that....Air on G by Bach for example made them feel like killing someone. Again, the limit as one approaches: "this piece makes me feel like brutally raping and murdering" is crazy. So, while the degree of perception of "violent" or "peaceful" may be subjective, there is an objective observation there influencing it all.

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.

Not really. My comments were (and still are) an attempt to re-direct the conversation towards something more productive (in my opinion).

Before you end up sounding aggressive and/or childish, spend your time and energy (and, please, stop wasting my own) in contributing in making this thread a worthwhile one.

I should have said, and I don't think there's any debate on this, that it is objective what an octave sounds like, or what a major chord sounds like. They sound the same to everyone.

There is a debate on this. Our opinions differ radically. But lord Manossg, as the knower of worthwileness, as the spokesman of the people, says it's not worthwhile. And, since it is a fact, that when we write on this subject, the omnipotent lord cannot but read it, it is we that waste his time: we anger the lord!

Hugowin: This debate was getting sillier by the moment, until actually Derek brought it back to music, at least, and will reply to him.

Thanks Mano. :)

Derek: It is interesting what you say, so I would probably paraphrase a little, and add a bit of my own to say this:

Music cannot have a subjective meaning (the bunnies), but it can evoke emotions (happiness, sadness, or dark/bright if you like).

These emotions do come on, first of all because there is a 1-2% of subjectiveness in music (dynamics, octaves, consonanse/dissonance, etc), but mainly because we have, all our lives, ascosiated music with images.

What is MOST interesting is breaking the above connections. Having happy music (the 6th symphony by Beethoven, such a lovely melody, that everyone will agree brings happy toughts in the mind, and I will agree as well), with images of... raping children, or bombs, or whatever...

The exact opposite: Happy images that we all know are happy, with terryifying music (and the right montage of course):

Brilliant, ain't it?

----

Purpose of music: Nobody will answer that. It depends on the purpose. For me, somehow, the world needs a tiny winny bit of tidying up. Music is organised, random sounds from the world are not. Organising the sounds (music) is a service to society!

Abstract music: again yes. Even the threnody of the victims of Hiroshima (cheers Robin) (and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dx0TN0I_Io to listen to it), brings a very exact imagery to our minds, simply because of the tittle. Take the tittle away and put it elsewhere YouTube - Children of Men scene (BIG SPOILER from "children of men", but it's the end of the scene where they use the music. :( Couldn't find it online, sorry))

no more Hiroshima, but certainly war and violence... Could we also take away the violence? I don't think so

Wow, so many angry people. Looks like I left for just a bit too long.

Anyway, here's my take on the developed topic at hand, about subjectivity... I think the human mind is powerful enough to interpret things radically different from another human. I could picture fluffy bunnies listening to NOBM. I don't in particular, but that's because I was brought up in a society where fluffy bunnies are more likely to be portrayed by happy, bouncy music and plenty of woodwind trills (they're so gay (in the happy sense)). I may, however, think violent thoughts when I hear a sweet, soothing aria, and this has happened in the past. Am I just mentally insane? If you think so, you would have to call everyone who disagrees with you mentally insane and that rather defeats the purpose. Theoretically, there is no definite objectivity in music, but on the other side of the scale, there is a lot more "relative" objectivity. That most humans can relate to. Most people are going to interpret a dirge pretty much the same way. In fact, my wind ensemble class once listened to the Pines of Rome as a group, and none of us knew what it was, but the director told us to write down what we thought... and almost everyone said "Disney" (that's a shock right there, who knew Disney had a characteristic sound?), and many people said "soldiers marching" during the trumpet feature and "a dark forest" during the slow, melancholy clarinet melody, among other things.

The point is, I think music... no, scrap that, sound in general can portray things much more accurately than you all seem to believe. This is the whole point of video game music, which is entirely programmatic and designed to make the audience think of an ocean or town or fighting - making the music sound so is a talent in itself and you would certainly think twice before hiring any average orchestral composer to do the job! :huh: Of course in a game you have the pictures to tell you what to think as well, but you're not going to have an air playing during a war scene. I would be quite willing to give supporting examples if requested.

...sound in general can portray things much more accurately than you all seem to believe. This is the whole point of video game music, which is entirely programmatic and designed to make the audience think of an ocean or town or fighting....

BUT, that very same music, when deprived of the visual stimulation may/will evoke very different responses from different listeners.

The exact opposite: Happy images that we all know are happy, with terryifying music (and the right montage of course):

:huh: That is awesome!!!

Wow, so many angry people. Looks like I left for just a bit too long.

Anyway, here's my take on the developed topic at hand, about subjectivity... I think the human mind is powerful enough to interpret things radically different from another human. I could picture fluffy bunnies listening to NOBM. I don't in particular, but that's because I was brought up in a society where fluffy bunnies are more likely to be portrayed by happy, bouncy music and plenty of woodwind trills (they're so gay (in the happy sense)). I may, however, think violent thoughts when I hear a sweet, soothing aria, and this has happened in the past. Am I just mentally insane? If you think so, you would have to call everyone who disagrees with you mentally insane and that rather defeats the purpose.

Your post seems to imply that objectivity, within a society, is defined by subjective and arbitrary societal norms. This is a dangerous position to take, because eventually if you got to debating about morality, you might have to assert that there are no absolutes...which itself IS an absolute, and thus you will have contradicted yourself. I am not saying you're taking your statement this far, but to assume absolutely everything is arbitrary can potentially break down the foundations of an argument.

:w00t: That is awesome!!!

2nd :)

Your post seems to imply that objectivity, within a society, is defined by subjective and arbitrary societal norms. This is a dangerous position to take, because eventually if you got to debating about morality, you might have to assert that there are no absolutes...which itself IS an absolute, and thus you will have contradicted yourself. I am not saying you're taking your statement this far, but to assume absolutely everything is arbitrary can potentially break down the foundations of an argument.

That's a fairly deep assumption based on my little bunny statement. Society may be somewhat arbitrary, but I would say it's partially based on morality, which I am very definite about. I won't say it's absolute, because morality doesn't even exist without two or more creatures with human or above intelligence. But logic is absolute, just as 1+1 is absolutely 2, and morality based on logic as opposed to a religious or other predetermined ethical code is therefore absolute. What people say or do in society, assuming it's all morally correct and so not affected by morality, can be somewhat arbitrary indeed.

But what's that have to do with me equating bunnies and flute trills? That, I think, would be somewhat logically founded, as opposed to equating bunnies and pounding timpani.

It's funny. I personally think opposite, that by calling a piece just "Symphony in A" or "Sonata in F" is ok, nothing wrong with that, but you can always be a bit more creative and a nickname. And if it sounds silly, good, but make sure that it's at least memorable. There are so many Symphony in Gs that calling it something like "Symphony in G - The Angry One" is much more memorable.

What I do find pretentious and outdated is when composers who speak and write English these days use Italian dynamic or expression markings. That's snobbish, I feel, though it could also just be unintentional normalness. Why call something "Moderato" when you can just as easily say, "Moderately". Now, if you're going for an international score-buying market, that's ok I suppose because it's just more generic, but if your giving your music to English musicians directly, why say Allegro Con Brio when you can just as well say Quickly With Spirit? Like the German composers writing in German, or the French in French, or the Italians in Italian. I'll never write anything with Italian terms. English is the only language I know of where I can say, "Slowly, like an agressive turtle" and get the performers to understand what I mean.

What I do find pretentious and outdated is when composers who speak and write English these days use Italian dynamic or expression markings. That's snobbish, I feel, though it could also just be unintentional normalness. Why call something "Moderato" when you can just as easily say, "Moderately". Now, if you're going for an international score-buying market, that's ok I suppose because it's just more generic, but if your giving your music to English musicians directly, why say Allegro Con Brio when you can just as well say Quickly With Spirit? Like the German composers writing in German, or the French in French, or the Italians in Italian. I'll never write anything with Italian terms. English is the only language I know of where I can say, "Slowly, like an agressive turtle" and get the performers to understand what I mean.

Actually, the Italian terminology is industry standard. By this I don't mean "music industry" but engraving standard.

There's absolutely nothing "snobbish" about it.

Actually, SOME German composers use German, SOME French composers use French. The vast majority use the industry-standard Italian.

Any musician from any country will understand the Italian score markings.

In the same way that French is the language of ballet, no matter what country you are in. In England, in Italy, in Germany, in Russia, it's a "pli

Kind of the same thing as "a bullet sounds the same in every language" yeah?

Well yes... forte is forte, and everybody knows it "loud" might not be so understandable really. Especially if written like this: "δυνατά" which is in Greek! Have fun trying to play a piece at a tempo:

"σχετικά γοργά αλλά όχι πάρα πολύ", which you may very well, not even see on your monitor (ASCII problems sometimes...)

I actually think the exact opposite. I find it ridiculous to write "γοργά" when you can say "allegro"... (in any language really vs Italian).

Of course some special instructions, or terms do go in the language of choice (english for me, and for many other composers.) I mean, how do you say in standard industry terms "use the bar to damp the chords and hit with your palm random chords, all caught with the bar", or something equally difficult...

I mean, how do you say in standard industry terms "use the bar to damp the chords and hit with your palm random chords, all caught with the bar", or something equally difficult...

well, that will teach you to write things that are unplayable :P

hehehe

I use Italian expressions not to be snobbish or pretentious, but because I prefer to. Because I think the language is beautiful. I'll use English only when I can't find an Italian equivalent. Heh, that doesn't sound like something I'd say, does it? No, I'm with QC here; I don't say "you got me!", I say "touch

I actually use Italian half of the time, and German the other half. Never English. They just sound better.

Indeed. There's a reason opera's are mainly a European thing. English doesn't sound near as nice when sung like that.

My two cents on the subjective/objective discussion: what any person perceives as reality is a reconstruction in the brain from sensory input. This reconstruction is partly hard-wired circuitry and partly learned. The possibility that any two people experience apples or Beethoven sonatas in the same way is negligible.

I find that I experience the same piece - I mean same as in replaying a CD or computer file and not separate live performances - differently at different times. I think the hallmark of great (even good) music is that there are always nuances that continue to delight the listener no matter how many times the piece is heard. For lesser music, most pop music, once is enough to exhaust it. Often a new serious piece may need a few listenings to develop its potential - I suspect one is learning the idiom of the composer - and you either grow to like it more or the opposite.

Indeed. There's a reason opera's are mainly a European thing. English doesn't sound near as nice when sung like that.

As far as I know, England is still a part of Europe.

My two cents on the subjective/objective discussion: what any person perceives as reality is a reconstruction in the brain from sensory input. This reconstruction is partly hard-wired circuitry and partly learned.

Wow! That's so cool... I love to learn! :dry:

^ was that sarcastic? I can't quite tell.

^ was that sarcastic? I can't quite tell.

No, not at all. I just don't know what I'd do without all these intelligent people here to tell me how the brain works. I didn't know that we had already figured that out!

I'd say, from doing quite a bit of skimming, and if you're going to criticize music that is made today to first know a tad more about it.

Get educated and go here to learn.

Art of the States

I suggest listening to anything that site has to offer.