Music-Philosophy Question

One of the tuning-list folks and I have been (briefly) discussing what I
think is an interesting music-philosophy question: To what degree is
communication a goal in music? To what degree should a musician
concentrate not only upon *expressing* a musical feeling or idea, but upon
*conveying* it to an audience? To what degree have you failed if you've
expressed something with music, but a sufficiently sensitive audience has
no idea what you're "talking about", so to speak?

Music-Philosophy question: I don't do much musical composing but enjoy
exploring musical sounds that objects can produce, such as tubes, vessels,
etc. I demonstrate the results to listeners sometimes. They seem to be
interested. I also want to express "feelings" with visual art pieces;
sculpture, paintings, and drawings. I hope that all viewers always
understand what I am "saying." Some understand but, probably, not
everyone. At an exhibition or a concert there are usually so many pieces to
look at or listen to that viewers do not have time to "think" or "feel" the
artists' ways. Some visual artists want viewers to get their own
"messages" even though different from the artists' messages. I think
communicating to an audience is just as important as expressing a feeling
or idea in the art pieces (musical or visual). The likelihood of reaching
everyone in the audience is very small. If the piece is different from an
individual's "likes" that individual may not be willing to accept something
different. Alita Morrison

----------
> From: Gary Morrison <mr88cet@texas.net>
> To: Tuning List <tuning@onelist.com>; Lisa Pignotti <pine@TEXAS.NET>; Jim
Morrison <JMorriPhot@aol.com>; Stacey Morrison
<stacey.e.morrison@jsc.nasa.gov>; Wayne Morrison <tewok@tis.com>; Danelle
Sasser <danelle@wolfpack.net>; Andy Moore <atmoore@concentric.net>; Bill
Meadows <mrbill@fantasia.sps.mot.com>
> Subject: [tuning] Music-Philosophy Question
> Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 5:47 AM
>
> From: Gary Morrison <mr88cet@texas.net>
>
> One of the tuning-list folks and I have been (briefly) discussing what I
> think is an interesting music-philosophy question: To what degree is
> communication a goal in music? To what degree should a musician
> concentrate not only upon *expressing* a musical feeling or idea, but
upon
> *conveying* it to an audience? To what degree have you failed if you've
> expressed something with music, but a sufficiently sensitive audience has

> no idea what you're "talking about", so to speak?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
> to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
> select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.
>

>To what degree have you failed if you've expressed something with music,
but a sufficiently sensitive audience has no idea what you're "talking
about", so to speak?

The Avocado (vis-a-vis)
---------------------------------
Pressed to articulate my first person understanding of what the avocado
tastes like� I rapidly found my lifelong aggregation of communicative
fidelities lurch grumble and stammer their way round some bizarre caricature
of ignorance and misunderstanding�knowing all the imbecilic while; "An
avocado taste like a damn avocado!"*

Dan

*And I seem incapable of not humiliating myself so�

Gary Morrison wrote:

> From: Gary Morrison <mr88cet@texas.net>
>
> To what degree is
> communication a goal in music? To what degree should a musician
> concentrate not only upon "expressing" a musical feeling or idea, but upon
> "conveying" it to an audience? To what degree have you failed if you've
> expressed something with music, but a sufficiently sensitive audience has
> no idea what you're "talking about", so to speak?

Our native americans see singing as analogous to breathing as something
that comes out of the body and spirit naturally. Duchamp suggested that art
was something people just do that others sometimes find useful. We should
encourage ourselves and others from becoming nothing more than whores to some
imaginary audience. Yamaguchi who just died said " Weather they notice me or
not I will go ahead and Bloom! The mediocre have plenty "fast food" to feed
on and I'm sure I am like all of you here on this list very hungry for some
real cuisine!
Thanks Gary for bringing this up as there is an unbalance of the
technical as opposed to the Poetic here on this list. For Gods Sake we are
artist are we not! Fire some more our way I welcome it!
-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
www.anaphoria.com

My own personal opinion is that communication *IS* a basic goal of music.
Music textbooks often define music as "a pattern of sound in time". I'm
afraid that that's just too general for me. That gets back to the ol' "if a
tree falls in a forest with nobody around, does make a sound?" question. My
answer to that is, you bet it makes a sound because sound is strictly a
physical phenomenon, but it doesn't make music, because music is a perceived
phenomenon.

So then, here are three possible expansions on that definition:
1. Music is a pattern of sound in time intended to express something.
2. Music is a pattern of sound in time intended to convey some meaning
to a listener.
3. Music is a pattern of pitches, harmonies, and rhythms intended to
convey some meaning to a listener.

I personally take definition #2. I think that conveying a meaning of some
sort to some audience is as fundamentally important to music as making sounds
over time, and as expressing something you feel.

Gary Morrison wrote:

> 1. Music is a pattern of sound in time intended to express something.
> 2. Music is a pattern of sound in time intended to convey some meaning
> to a listener.
> 3. Music is a pattern of pitches, harmonies, and rhythms intended to
> convey some meaning to a listener.
>
> I personally take definition #2.

No, I take that back. I'd have to go somewhere between (well, sorta
between!) #2 and #3. #2 includes speech, screams, and laughter, for example. I
don't think I'd call them music. So I'll refine that further:2.5: Music is a
voluntary pattern of sound in time intended to convey
a nonlinguistic, or not-entirely-linguistic, meaning to a listener.