I believe that we all started this course with the knowledge that there is universality in the nature of music, yet is experienced in a uniquely subjective manner. Whether we are born with that knowledge or we acquire it experientially through osmosis, I believe any open-minded individual reflecting on the topic would agree with us. Levitin provides us with the neurobiological and cultural reasons for music’s uniquely subjective and universal nature, yesterday’s class provided a wonderful illustration of it. Groups of us enjoyed some of the same pieces of music – but it appeared that the scale of enjoyment or appreciation of the same work varied between us. The same is true for pieces that we didn’t enjoy – from it doesn’t do anything for me to dislike. The common denominator seems to be that we all have a reaction to music, an emotional response to it. We have some immediate response when exposed to new music. We can find a musical piece tolerable, likeable, fun, rapturous, distasteful, disturbing, or execrable.
My questions are: Can human beings with sufficient functioning aural and neurobiological systems be “indifferent” to music? Can we be totally non-responsive to music, or do our neurobiological systems require an autonomic response?
Could our natural responses to music, whether culturally influenced, or introduced post-maturity, be a biological recognition system, programmed to predispose us for openness with culturally-like Others? Could it be an elastic recognition system – allowing for the evolutionary possibilities of potential future allies in recognizing some acceptableness in culturally new, never exposed to, extremely different music?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
My Personal Definition of Music
This is my response to Kelsey McCullough’s Question - What is your personal definition of music?
My personal definition of music: Organized sound created by a being, with said music presenting the possibility of a positive co-creative interchange between beings; or, at the very least, expanding the sub-atomic vibration rate of the music maker.
I consider sound to be any sound wave capable of exciting a vibration frequency that influences beings at a sub-atomic level, not limited to their biological auditory components.
Music, for me, must provide a benefit to the music maker and/or the music receiver (if there is any being capable of such reception within theoretical earshot). Music must always be an expansive influence, never a limiting or detrimental influence.
Noise, is what I would call sound waves which negatively disrupt or injure the existing vibration frequency patterns of other beings.
My personal definition of music: Organized sound created by a being, with said music presenting the possibility of a positive co-creative interchange between beings; or, at the very least, expanding the sub-atomic vibration rate of the music maker.
I consider sound to be any sound wave capable of exciting a vibration frequency that influences beings at a sub-atomic level, not limited to their biological auditory components.
Music, for me, must provide a benefit to the music maker and/or the music receiver (if there is any being capable of such reception within theoretical earshot). Music must always be an expansive influence, never a limiting or detrimental influence.
Noise, is what I would call sound waves which negatively disrupt or injure the existing vibration frequency patterns of other beings.
Describing Petrucciani's Performance
Petrucciani begins the piece exercising the rules of pitch, key, scale, timbre, harmony, rhythm, and meter. When he abruptly altered the tempo while maintaining tonal quality and scales, he created interest. Because I could still follow the melody within his expression of the piece, I could still anticipate the key and harmony to come. He also created interest by abruptly using loudness to alter his attack of the piece. I especially enjoyed the shifts that occurred in me when he employed these particular tactics. This created an entirely different experience for me. His changes in key, tempo, and loudness throw me off balance and provide contrast. What I found the most challenging to recoup from were the two occasions I perceived as dissonant. One was a disharmonious note; the other was a discordant run. Both times his “breaking the rules” disrupted my experience of the piece. These “interruptions” caused me to lose the sense of meter and rhythm of the composition. Even though he throws us off balance by his use of contrast in keys, tempo, volume, harmony, and pitch, he does use all those elements to
return us to balance.
When I listen to Michel Petrucciani’s rendition of “My Romance,” it reminds me of Vince Guaraldi's “Christmas Time is Here” from A Charlie Brown Christmas (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545283), which elicits pleasant memories for me. I am unsure how much this influences my positive experience of Petrucciani’s performance.
My Question: Levitin says that "real music succeeds or fails because of the relationship between the major elements of music - pitch, timbre, key, harmony, loudness, rhythm, meter, and tempo" (Page 75).
Is a relationship between these same elements necessary for music to be successful for other species, or for our interpretation of other species' music as "successful real music"?
return us to balance.
When I listen to Michel Petrucciani’s rendition of “My Romance,” it reminds me of Vince Guaraldi's “Christmas Time is Here” from A Charlie Brown Christmas (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545283), which elicits pleasant memories for me. I am unsure how much this influences my positive experience of Petrucciani’s performance.
My Question: Levitin says that "real music succeeds or fails because of the relationship between the major elements of music - pitch, timbre, key, harmony, loudness, rhythm, meter, and tempo" (Page 75).
Is a relationship between these same elements necessary for music to be successful for other species, or for our interpretation of other species' music as "successful real music"?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Relationships with Music
This is in response to Kyle Innis’ question, “Does anyone have any insight on the negative, positive, and neutral effects to listening to certain genres?”
Like Kyle, there is no genre of music that I would want to exclude from my life. It is the expression of the instrumental music and/or vocal music that creates a positive or negative relationship with me. My personal resonance with, and interpretation of, the vibration of any musical composition creates the effect of my positive, negative, or neutral relationship with it.
I see each being’s body as a unique instrument, with every cell in the body affected by the vibration of sound. The ears act as our primary frequency analyzers, but every cell in the body that is capable of relational experiences with each sound reacts to it. While we may not be consciously aware of the more subtle reactions occurring on the sub-atomic or cellular levels, our body is registering them. The frequencies emanating from a work of music from any genre enter the body, strike a cord/s, creating reverberations, all of which are interpreted by the brain and recorded with the cells. I believe that it is the joint experience between the originating sound with the orchestra of our cells and our conductor brain that interprets this interactive symphonic experience as neutral – imperceptibly dissimilar or vibrationally unaltering; positive – vibrationally expansive; or negative – vibrationally limiting or disruptive.
There are certain pieces of music in every genre that I enjoy, as well as certain pieces of music in every genre that I dislike.
I dislike vulgar lyrics and lyrics which promote the degradation of life.
Musical compositions with considerable discordant melodies create sensations of distress and disease within my core.
Certain expressions of prolonged and overly repetitive high volume percussion and/or electronic instruments hurt my ears and can result in a headache. I do not enjoy the pain resulting from the experience so I say, "I don’t like that music" but in reality, I don't like how the music makes me feel.
I love meditational music, but not when I’m driving on high traffic roads. It is wonderful background for some homework activities, but disruptive for others. Our relationship with music is inconstant, never static, in the moment of every beat.
I see music as a co-creational relationship between individual originator and individual receiver. It is the totality of the experience of vibration/frequency exchange that determines its unique value to the listener.
I do believe that there are certain vibrational building block frequencies that soothe all beings in any genre. Conversely, creating sound patterns that disrupt or dissemble those building block frequencies would be perceived as disharmonious in any genre.
My Question: Do you think all animal life forms and plant forms experience music as positive and/or negative?
Like Kyle, there is no genre of music that I would want to exclude from my life. It is the expression of the instrumental music and/or vocal music that creates a positive or negative relationship with me. My personal resonance with, and interpretation of, the vibration of any musical composition creates the effect of my positive, negative, or neutral relationship with it.
I see each being’s body as a unique instrument, with every cell in the body affected by the vibration of sound. The ears act as our primary frequency analyzers, but every cell in the body that is capable of relational experiences with each sound reacts to it. While we may not be consciously aware of the more subtle reactions occurring on the sub-atomic or cellular levels, our body is registering them. The frequencies emanating from a work of music from any genre enter the body, strike a cord/s, creating reverberations, all of which are interpreted by the brain and recorded with the cells. I believe that it is the joint experience between the originating sound with the orchestra of our cells and our conductor brain that interprets this interactive symphonic experience as neutral – imperceptibly dissimilar or vibrationally unaltering; positive – vibrationally expansive; or negative – vibrationally limiting or disruptive.
There are certain pieces of music in every genre that I enjoy, as well as certain pieces of music in every genre that I dislike.
I dislike vulgar lyrics and lyrics which promote the degradation of life.
Musical compositions with considerable discordant melodies create sensations of distress and disease within my core.
Certain expressions of prolonged and overly repetitive high volume percussion and/or electronic instruments hurt my ears and can result in a headache. I do not enjoy the pain resulting from the experience so I say, "I don’t like that music" but in reality, I don't like how the music makes me feel.
I love meditational music, but not when I’m driving on high traffic roads. It is wonderful background for some homework activities, but disruptive for others. Our relationship with music is inconstant, never static, in the moment of every beat.
I see music as a co-creational relationship between individual originator and individual receiver. It is the totality of the experience of vibration/frequency exchange that determines its unique value to the listener.
I do believe that there are certain vibrational building block frequencies that soothe all beings in any genre. Conversely, creating sound patterns that disrupt or dissemble those building block frequencies would be perceived as disharmonious in any genre.
My Question: Do you think all animal life forms and plant forms experience music as positive and/or negative?
Monday, January 26, 2009
When a cat purrs, is it making music?
I’ve been thinking a lot about how to define music. How should we differentiate what constitutes music versus sound – as in what we call noise. The problem as I see it, is that it is all subjective and culturally influenced. How do we contextually structure or frame music to exclude “noise” or “sound” in a way that is inclusive of all cultures and all individuals? Some people would consider the sound produced by a train chugging on its journey as unpleasant noise, others will consider the same sound as rhythmic, comforting, and yes, musical.
I tried looking at purpose as a way to differentiate music from noise. Music, as the sound of our words as language, is meant to communicate something – joy, sadness, patriotism, relaxation – as lyrics in songs, it adds intensity to our stories. Music can be created with the specific intent to elicit a specific response, but so can language and all forms of artistic expression.
Can authorship be used as criteria to distinguish music from sound/noise? Is humankind the only beings capable of creating music? My thoughts immediately flew to birds/ songs, whales’ songs, wolves’ singing – all created beautiful music. Does their purpose for singing make it less musical? This led me to wonder if all living creatures make music. A bee buzzing, a mosquito humming – these are sounds we can hear, and subjectively some people would consider them part of the chorus of nature. So, do worms, clams, or fish produce sounds inaudible to the human ear, or currently beyond our technological ability (or interest) to measure?
What about wind as it rustles the leaves of the trees? What about the cadence of rain falling on a resonating surface? If it falls on an absorbing surface, would we still hear a rhythm? There is the babbling brook, waves crashing against the shore, horses’ hooves on a hard packed surface, a clock ticking.
Is it the created sound that defines it as music, or are the receptors within a being that declare it music?
I tried looking at purpose as a way to differentiate music from noise. Music, as the sound of our words as language, is meant to communicate something – joy, sadness, patriotism, relaxation – as lyrics in songs, it adds intensity to our stories. Music can be created with the specific intent to elicit a specific response, but so can language and all forms of artistic expression.
Can authorship be used as criteria to distinguish music from sound/noise? Is humankind the only beings capable of creating music? My thoughts immediately flew to birds/ songs, whales’ songs, wolves’ singing – all created beautiful music. Does their purpose for singing make it less musical? This led me to wonder if all living creatures make music. A bee buzzing, a mosquito humming – these are sounds we can hear, and subjectively some people would consider them part of the chorus of nature. So, do worms, clams, or fish produce sounds inaudible to the human ear, or currently beyond our technological ability (or interest) to measure?
What about wind as it rustles the leaves of the trees? What about the cadence of rain falling on a resonating surface? If it falls on an absorbing surface, would we still hear a rhythm? There is the babbling brook, waves crashing against the shore, horses’ hooves on a hard packed surface, a clock ticking.
Is it the created sound that defines it as music, or are the receptors within a being that declare it music?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)