According to John Coltrane:

"Overall, I think the main thing a musician would like to do is to give
a picture to the listener of the many wonderful things he knows and
senses in the universe. That's what music is to me--it's just another
way of saying that this is a big, beautiful universe we live in, that's
been given to us, and here's an example of just how magnificent and
encompassing it is. That's what I would like to do. I think that's one
of the greatest things you can do in life, and we all try to do it in
some way. The musician's is through his music."

I am not deliberatelly bashing John Cage just because he was admittedly tone deaf,

Where are you getting that from? Cage admitted to not having much feel for conventional harmony. He definitely was not tone deaf!

Now that we are several generations beyond the mid-20th century (Schoenberg could have been grandfather to any of my grandparents), the modernists seem pretty well digested and quite mainstream. Same tradition as Mozart and Bach.

George Crumb was avant-garde in the early 1970's. He represents the current avant-garde of classical music to the same extent the Beatles represent the most advanced modern rock, or Star Wars represents cutting age 21st Century cinema.

Where are you getting that from? Cage admitted to not having much feel for conventional harmony. He definitely was not tone deaf!

His words, not mine. He could have been lying, we will never know. An I am not saying that all of his works are not musical, he has a few prepared piano pieces that I think are rather interesting. Most, however, tend to fall in the realm of thought provoking experiments. I think he would be happy that we are discussing whether or not they constitute music or not. I think that was the point.

Comparing popular music to classical is like comparing a country in an industrial revolution to a major super power. One is progressing rapidly, and the other may need a regression or two before further progress can be made.

If you think about it, contemporary "art music" has taken a major regression in tonal complexity since the mid 20th century. In that time 12 tone was the "serious" style, later in the century minimalism became popular. (which is less complex than most baroque composers in terms of harmony). Many composers today are writing in styles that sound more like Shostakovich that anything else. And most of the rest are writing the equivalent of ultra tonal audience pleasers (you know, things titled "A Bird on the Wind" in 6/8). Only a small portion are writing in what can be considered an avant garde style (most of them go to UCSD ). The entire 20th century has been a mishmash of styles that changed faster than the listening public cared to keep up. I think that is probably why "classical" music lost the majority of its audience, not because the music was "good" or "bad". I hope this regression will help classical gain a audience more able to keep up with progression.

Yeah, I guess I should give him more credit. Although not a master of pitch, Cage was definitely a master of timbre. This is where I think his innovations have real merit.

Of course, post-modernist works are seldom played at all . . .

Not in public anyway.

Berio, Stockhausen, Carter, Babbitt, Wuorinen, Boulez, Schnittke, Sheng, Braxton, Taylor, etc.

Funny, I was listening to Berio's Folk Songs in the car on the way to work (one of his more accessible works). Well many of those '60s - '70s composers are dead or almost as well. I am thinking of the younger generations of composers and the current trends, integral serialism or musique concrete is not that popular in recent years. Guys like Philip Glass and Carlisle Floyd get the majority of commissions even today.

Thanks for the acknowlegement earlier Philip.

Something just occured to me about 'good music'!

You know when you hear a song you maybe haven't heard for years, and the first couple of bars are enough to zonk you straight back to a specific time and place, or to a certain event, or to a certain individual - to me that just shows the power of music.

The tunes that almost subliminally create a good memory are, ipso facto, examples of 'good' music, if only by association.

Conversely, we probably don't remember the 'bad' music we got dumped to!

Any song off 'Rumours' does the good thing for me! Anyone else catching my drift?

Steve

Music explains the inexplicable. I heard that in Shine, but I've always loved that line. That is what good music does, to me.

What is music anyway?

...............any linear series of sound as percieved by human intelligence ..............could be defined as music.

However a piano piece may only be percieved as music to humans..................insects or animals may hear or feel the same sound and not identify it as music......because of the limits of their of their own intellect and conscienceness.

what is 'good' music

Anything.......... Jon Oliva............... touches.

Hi Philip. I would like to add that nowadays -- but probably in older days as well -- so-called "artists" are, I think, few. Any fool can follow conventional teachings and use them, but it takes something else to use them uniquely or to not use such conventionalism at all but still be able to make music from the soul, using the qualities I mentioned in my previous post that you quoted.

It is very possible that an artist might have this "flow" or energy that guides him or her. Suppose this person has not been trained conventionally and formally, he or she can use self-taught skills that simply arrive as he practises, emotion, soul, those things mentioned before, and eventually come to the same rules -- and even technical skills -- that already have been established by the standards.

I have seen that it is possible to learn to do music in unconventional but extremely effective and fast ways. The kinds of ways that immediately affect the whole person and his or her doings, not just the logical conventional part which is of course very mind-numbing and slow.

The constant nagging of teachers about technique when playing something or rules to think of when doing composition easily prevent a person's creativity from existing and would make things more difficult. I think I'm starting to talk too much now

ORIGINAL: Philip


Albeit, music haunts me deeper and I crave to know the archetypes and genres of music.

Music seems the ultimate of subjective communication between persons:
Is music not specifically a peculiar love and worship, thus?
Is music not the ultimate in adoration, dramatization, faith, acceptable communication, etc. between persons ("persons" denoting metaphysical entities and God, here)?

Interesting, but it seems (at least to me) there are flaws in those phrases and their consequential natures. I don't know if music IS the ultimate of subjective communication between people. Perhaps it is if they are totally "in the zone" and actively knowing what they're doing, adapting to the musical situations, and to each other, using all those necessariy qualities we agreed on earlier. But I think this usually doesn't occur, since -- for various reasons -- musicians would take the "safe method" of "logic" and "rules" and know exactly what to do in advance which would more or less seem to remove the "ultimate of subjective communication" (at least in the way I understand).

If that is true, then the second phrase is eliminated due to the word 'thus' used. However, I think this phrase could be interpreted differently if I may. I think it IS about a peculiar love or worship but for music, for art, if the artist(s) is(/are) driven in such a way they experience it as such.

If the third question is a directly connected to the second -- connected to the first -- I'd again say 'no'. However, I would say 'yes' to it separately from the other ones more or less the same way I'd say 'yes' to the first one with the addition that if there's a situation that "persons" is referring to entities whose existence cannot be proven I would severely question the communication part (and I don't exactly know what you mean by 'etc.'). The question would be "Is there even communication between this person and uncertain metaphysical entities?" The mind may tell us -- or whoever in question -- it is true, but objectively we don't know if it is.

quote:

Music explains the inexplicable.



Since the inexplicable, by definition, cannot be explained, there is nothing inexplicable that can be explained. Therefore, music explains nothing.

...so if music explains the inexplicable, and that means music explains nothing:

Nothing=0

Music Explains (M) + Nothing = M + Inexplicable

so

Inexplicable = 0

and Since

M + 0 = M

then does music explain itself or does nothing explain music?

I'm confused now...

Thanks for the elaboration Bren,

The question would be "Is there even communication between this person and uncertain metaphysical entities?" The mind may tell us -- or whoever in question -- it is true, but objectively we don't know if it is.

Personally, I've never been very grammatical as an artist. I realize the concepts I've spewed out are more 'brainstorming' than grammatically correct.

Today I asked my 16-y/o son (a music geek) what music is: We hypothesized that there are 'corners' of the psyche (soul) involved in music. Musical Genres seem to align potently with personality aspects.

Certainly, ones music might be viewed as a peculiar or potent component of 'communication'.

There are techno-rock-songs that: 'wake me up' but have no meaning besides 'Dance'

There are lullaby songs, ocean-waves, train-clicking rhythms, that relaaaaaax the psyche.

Musicians oft seem to outdo themselves (with 'music') They unwittingly know how to 'hit home':

"ROCK AN ROOOOOOLL" .... "YO MAANH" ... "HEY YOOOOOOOOOUUUUU"

Their Music hits the sympathetic nervous system and parasympathetics. Harmones are probably 'more-in-action'; endorphin-release, tension and/or relaxation harmones (cortisol, insulin, etc.)

Music hits deep and I'm careful not to overdo techno-FRENZY-'Dance' 'ear-candy' ..., when there's no 'inspiring love' in a song ... I become a bit moody afterwards. Kind of like crashing off a sugar rush or something.

I'd like to hypothesize that the Techno-frenzy genre could use 'love-motifs' to prevent my crashes ... while dancing to the beat.

there are some good 'love' themes running through trance, i think. i'm not familiar enough with the genres, but a few times i've felt there were better messages coming across than in typical pop/rock/hip hop/country/blues/etc. a bit dreamy, perhaps, but welcome.

nothing and everything are one.