Any time you post Titano, the only thing I really get from it is, oh, he’s still alive, good.
I’m on Matt Dillahunty’s Patreon project, where I pay a buck for each thing he posts, which are usually 20 minute lectures/talks on philosophy of whatever. Anyway, last night I listened one about Bible children’s books. Mostly he made fun of it, but then he pointed out how even the teachers, even in the secular world, contribute to how kids ridicule and self-ridicule, you are either into the wrong music, or too into any music, or you think you can sing better than you do, or sing well and that’s weird and you’ll never make it a career and you should do something else, or you can’t do anything else well so you might as well try that, or sports are more important than music and you aren’t coordinated either, and on and on.
This is schoolyard crap. Religion has taken it and packaged it and made it into creeds and has special hats and handshakes to show that you are in the good group and everyone else is not, some even say you will burn in hell for ever if you get it wrong. It’s time we all grew up.
Speaking of little things. If a 640 page book counts as “little”, I just finished the best book I’ve ever read. But then I’m not an avid reader. Although more than a book or two a year is WAY above average in this country.
It’s The Brothers K, by David James Duncan. It explores many of the questions of life by following a middle class family with growing kids during the 1960’s in Oregon. The father could have been a pro baseball player but never quite makes it, and all the kids have similar life lessons as they almost succeed or find success through failure or think they made it but get the rug pulled out and all that stuff that happens to everybody.
I’d really be interested to hear how a younger person reacts it.
My most recent "moment of true happiness" came when I recovered my "stereo mix" on my computer (which somehow had been deleted by an update) Now I can broadcast music again and make other people happy when they like my music. As an old musician, there was nothing more gratifying than be able to bring people into a better state of mind, as expressed by their applause of approval. Music is a true international natural language. We all seem to share an affinity to certain soundwaves when placed in a correct emotional code. One example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4ksM27dVfs or this wonderful inspiring video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zfgFfC5kOs and one of my all time favorites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAkEl6AV5YNot true at all, like any language music divides people based on their tastes and you get others who ridicule and belittle you for what you like to listen to. It's not an international language, there is no such thing. Playing what some like can also entail causing others to hate you because they seriously don't enjoy it. I would think a musician would know that.Oh, yes, good musicians know that and take care when composing. As with any art form good and bad music divides people by their tastes and affinity to certain variations. Some like to close their eyes and listen, while others want to see the spectacle of a Rock concert, complete with fireworks and smashing instruments in fits of rage. But all living things respond to sound waves, either positively or negatively. When the sounds are harmonious and executed with skill and understanding, it leads to an emotional experience, which can be shared by peoples all over the world. Why is it that in Japan classical music is a big favorite? Western classical is completely different from far Eastern music forms, yet, many great classical musicians come from Japan and even China. (see my signature line below) An experiment proved this. Two cloned plants were placed in separate but identical environments. In one environment they played a constant stream of Heavy Metal music, and in the other room a constant stream of Classical music. The plant in the HM room failed to thrive and grew away from the speakers as far as possible, whereas in the Classical room, the plants thrived and grew toward the speakers and some even placed their leaves against the speakers, a clear demonstration that in nature, some harmonies seem to be conducive to the organism's relationship to their environment. The word harmonious has a much deeper implication than just in the arts. You may want to look up the various definitions of the word harmony to understand the concept of harmony.
Noun 1. harmony - compatibility in opinion and action harmony - compatibility in opinion and action ≡ harmoniousness ↔compatibility - capability of existing or performing in harmonious or congenial combination ↔congruence, congruity, congruousness - the quality of agreeing; being suitable and appropriate 2. harmony - the structure of music with respect to the composition and progression of chords harmony - the structure of music with respect to the composition and progression of chords ≡ musical harmony ↔music - an artistic form of auditory communication incorporating instrumental or vocal tones in a structured and continuous manner ↔harmonisation, harmonization - a piece of harmonized music ↔four-part harmony - harmony in which each chord has four notes that create four melodic lines ↔preparation - (music) a note that produces a dissonant chord is first heard in a consonant chord; "the resolution of one dissonance is often the preparation for another dissonance" ↔resolution - (music) a dissonant chord is followed by a consonant chord 3. harmony - a harmonious state of things in general and of their properties (as of colors and sounds); congruity of parts with one another and with the whole ≡ concordance, concord ↔order - established customary state (especially of society); "order ruled in the streets"; "law and order" ↔peace - harmonious relations; freedom from disputes; "the roommates lived in peace together" ↔comity - a state or atmosphere of harmony or mutual civility and respect ↔accord, agreement - harmony of people's opinions or actions or characters; "the two parties were in agreement" 4. harmony - agreement of opinions ≡ concordance, concord ↔agreement - the verbal act of agreeing 5. harmony - an agreeable sound property ↔sound property - an attribute of sound ↔harmoniousness, consonance - the property of sounding harmonious ≠dissonance - disagreeable soundsThe word "chord" itself has application in science and mathematics.
Testing sounds on plants is hardly indicative of how things work among humans. Music is just something else that people enjoy but for some reason become incredibly divisive over to the point where you can face social isolation based on what you listen to. Is the sort of “schoolyard crap” that is just part of being human, and I doubt it will be something that humans will outgrow in the long run. Religion is just a massive example of that. I could even argue that the plant experiment proves nothing, in the same manner that the experiment with water and music proved nothing.
There really isn’t such a thing as good or bad music, that’s just an illusion we create to further our in-group superiority.
You are also incorrect in that all living things respond to sound waves. And any emotions are based less on the composition and execution and more on the history and culture of the individual.
Art isn’t a creation of the noblest kind, it’s just another tool to exile others socially. If all of it is deemed as good and valid then the world loses its meaning and value, yet when you make a distinction between good and bad you exile others. It’s just another failure of humanity.
Music is hardly an international language, for no such thing exists. That won’t change no matter how many idealistic platitudes artists spout.
Speaking of little things. If a 640 page book counts as "little", I just finished the best book I've ever read. But then I'm not an avid reader. Although more than a book or two a year is WAY above average in this country. It's The Brothers K, by David James Duncan. It explores many of the questions of life by following a middle class family with growing kids during the 1960's in Oregon. The father could have been a pro baseball player but never quite makes it, and all the kids have similar life lessons as they almost succeed or find success through failure or think they made it but get the rug pulled out and all that stuff that happens to everybody. I'd really be interested to hear how a younger person reacts it.A middle class family is hardly an indicator of the questions surrounding life. It's simply a clouded view of the actual picture.
Speaking of little things. If a 640 page book counts as "little", I just finished the best book I've ever read. But then I'm not an avid reader. Although more than a book or two a year is WAY above average in this country. It's The Brothers K, by David James Duncan. It explores many of the questions of life by following a middle class family with growing kids during the 1960's in Oregon. The father could have been a pro baseball player but never quite makes it, and all the kids have similar life lessons as they almost succeed or find success through failure or think they made it but get the rug pulled out and all that stuff that happens to everybody. I'd really be interested to hear how a younger person reacts it.A middle class family is hardly an indicator of the questions surrounding life. It's simply a clouded view of the actual picture. It's fiction child. Some things need a story to fully illuminate. Not everything has a simple answer.
Titanomachine said; There really isn’t such a thing as good or bad music, that’s just an illusion we create to further our in-group superiorityYou can't be serious. A Coca Cola sign is comparable to a Rembrandt? A Beethoven symphony is comparable to a "sing me another somebody done somebody wrong song"? Are you kidding me? Music is a form of mathematical application of sound waves and people who have studied the subject (and have talent) are better at it that a child picking up a guitar and strumming meaningless noises. Music is an Art form and requires skill and knowledge to create a meaningful experience to the listener. Unless they are too busy fighting each other. Even there music is used for psychological purposes. Sousa composed some pretty awesome marches. Obviously, you are not listening to the right music, you know the type where you close your eyes and experience "empathy". A couple of drunks in a bar, arguing who is the best guitar player in the world is hardly an objective or knowledgeable critique.
Yes it is. Anyone can make Art or Music, but what qualifies as "good" is really just a matter of personal taste. You can make it with little skill (or even none at all), but no matter how "good" or "bad" you think it is, it's still a matter of opinion. You cannot change the fact that art is purely subjective in quality and the same goes for music. No such thing as the "right" music, again it's merely your opinion. Empathy is more like an illusion, especially in music. You "feel" what you THINK they are trying to evoke but really you are just fooling yourself. Your words end up proving my point and undermining yours. But then again I guess artists and musicians need an illusory sense of good and bad products just to make what they put out not feel like a waste of time. The survival of such subjective forms depends on the illusion of "better" and "worse" even though there is no such thing in music or art. You can go on and on about brushwork and color schemes, but in the end you are just describing why you like it, not why it's good.Titanomachine said; There really isn’t such a thing as good or bad music, that’s just an illusion we create to further our in-group superiorityYou can't be serious. A Coca Cola sign is comparable to a Rembrandt? A Beethoven symphony is comparable to a "sing me another somebody done somebody wrong song"? Are you kidding me? Music is a form of mathematical application of sound waves and people who have studied the subject (and have talent) are better at it that a child picking up a guitar and strumming meaningless noises. Music is an Art form and requires skill and knowledge to create a meaningful experience to the listener. Unless they are too busy fighting each other. Even there music is used for psychological purposes. Sousa composed some pretty awesome marches. Obviously, you are not listening to the right music, you know the type where you close your eyes and experience "empathy". A couple of drunks in a bar, arguing who is the best guitar player in the world is hardly an objective or knowledgeable critique.
Speaking of little things. If a 640 page book counts as "little", I just finished the best book I've ever read. But then I'm not an avid reader. Although more than a book or two a year is WAY above average in this country. It's The Brothers K, by David James Duncan. It explores many of the questions of life by following a middle class family with growing kids during the 1960's in Oregon. The father could have been a pro baseball player but never quite makes it, and all the kids have similar life lessons as they almost succeed or find success through failure or think they made it but get the rug pulled out and all that stuff that happens to everybody. I'd really be interested to hear how a younger person reacts it.A middle class family is hardly an indicator of the questions surrounding life. It's simply a clouded view of the actual picture. It's fiction child. Some things need a story to fully illuminate. Not everything has a simple answer. Stories just end up muddying the point they try to make, they don't tell truths just the authors view.
Titanomachine said, Yes it is. Anyone can make Art or Music, but what qualifies as “good" is really just a matter of personal taste. You can make it with little skill (or even none at all), but no matter how “good" or “bad" you think it is, it’s still a matter of opinion. You cannot change the fact that art is purely subjective in quality and the same goes for music. No such thing as the “right" music, again it’s merely your opinion. Empathy is more like an illusion, especially in music. You “feel" what you THINK they are trying to evoke but really you are just fooling yourself.Yes, "enduring classics" are just created by people who are fooling themselves by finding a timeless enjoyment in the mathematical language of certain sound waves, because it continues to evoke emotional responses. But in reality music is just noise that some people like and others don't. Give me a break. Music is a melodic language, based on strict mathematical rules of harmony and disharmony, tension and release, soundscapes, individual inspired solo performances, orchestration, careful selection of the instruments which will generate the proper emotional response. Music can evoke a profound human experience. Music belongs to the disciplines of the Arts and Sciences. And you call it casual noisemaking? Do a little study before you make such ridiculous statements.
No such thing as "timeless", and there isn't anything mathematical about it. We just assign such an arbitrary label to it to give the illusion of "immortality", likely to do with humans being afraid of death. We like to preserve such things to make believe we can "live on" when we perish. They are "enduring" in the sense that they won't let us forget them. Some even prefer modern music to your classics, being a classic doesn't make it "good" (especially when it comes to art where there is no good or bad). It's not a language, no matter how much you or and other platitudinous musician wishes it to be. It is, and always will be, noise that some like and some don't. Some would regard your "enduring classics" as noise, but that doesn't make them wrong. It doesn't "evoke a profound human experience" and it doesn't generate the "proper emotional response", it's simply sounds that each person reacts to differently based on past experience and personal taste. You can't do anything about that. That's why people can hate one genre and like another, why a song that is "supposed" to soothe can actually energize. Music suffers from the same poor definition that "art" does. You are trying desperately to make an entirely subjective medium and experience into some kind of objective science, but you can't. No matter how hard you try music is simple and boils down to noise some people like and some don't. That all the effort you put into it can have the same effect as someone just beating on a bucket. Your efforts show the same issue that art suffers from when you lift the illusion of "Better" and "worse". You are quite frankly kidding yourself otherwise. To paraphrase some musicians, music belongs to everyone. It doesn't belong to science or art. You cannot prove a piece is good, only prove why you like it. And to correct your sig: Art is a creation of the ego for fear of death, for pursuit of profit, or for vanity. Yet the root is always selfish.Titanomachine said, Yes it is. Anyone can make Art or Music, but what qualifies as “good" is really just a matter of personal taste. You can make it with little skill (or even none at all), but no matter how “good" or “bad" you think it is, it’s still a matter of opinion. You cannot change the fact that art is purely subjective in quality and the same goes for music. No such thing as the “right" music, again it’s merely your opinion. Empathy is more like an illusion, especially in music. You “feel" what you THINK they are trying to evoke but really you are just fooling yourself.Yes, "enduring classics" are just created by people who are fooling themselves by finding a timeless enjoyment in the mathematical language of certain sound waves, because it continues to evoke emotional responses. But in reality music is just noise that some people like and others don't. Give me a break. Music is a melodic language, based on strict mathematical rules of harmony and disharmony, tension and release, soundscapes, individual inspired solo performances, orchestration, careful selection of the instruments which will generate the proper emotional response. Music can evoke a profound human experience. Music belongs to the disciplines of the Arts and Sciences. And you call it casual noisemaking? Do a little study before you make such ridiculous statements.
“duh duh duh daah daah daah duh duh duh”, there I spoke to you in a mathematical language of sound.
Why don’t you check out a few philosophers like Pythagoras and Plato and what they thought about music.
Music and mathematics, Music theory has no axiomatic foundation in modern mathematics, yet the basis of musical sound can be described mathematically (in acoustics) and exhibits "a remarkable array of number properties".[1] Elements of music such as its form, rhythm and metre, the pitches of its notes and the tempo of its pulse can be related to the measurement of time and frequency, offering ready analogies in geometry.
The attempt to structure and communicate new ways of composing and hearing music has led to musical applications of set theory, abstract algebra and number theory. Some composers have incorporated the golden ratio and Fibonacci numbers into their workand in general
Though ancient Chinese, Indians, Egyptians and Mesopotamians are known to have studied the mathematical principles of sound,[4] the Pythagoreans (in particular Philolaus and Archytas[5]) of ancient Greece were the first researchers known to have investigated the expression of musical scales in terms of numerical ratios,[6] particularly the ratios of small integers. Their central doctrine was that "all nature consists of harmony arising out of numbers".[7] From the time of Plato, harmony was considered a fundamental branch of physics, now known as musical acoustics. Early Indian and Chinese theorists show similar approaches: all sought to show that the mathematical laws of harmonics and rhythms were fundamental not only to our understanding of the world but to human well-being.[8] Confucius, like Pythagoras, regarded the small numbers 1,2,3,4 as the source of all perfectionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_mathematics Music, its functions, and its effects on human emotion has been studied from the days of Pythagoras, Plato, to date in universities as part of physics and mathematics, as well as psychology. Who on earth are you listening to that makes you have this attitude? No one disputes that any of the arts are subjective experiences and that there are preferences. But that has nothing to do with being good or bad art. As with poetry of words, the melodic harmony of sound waves can tell a profound story, which produces total empathy between the performer and the listener. If you have not had this experience, I pity you. I have been there, both as performer and listener. Have you?
Once again you fail to understand that music is simply noise that people either like or don’t .
Music tells no story, it’s just something we have to pass the time on this planet. It doesn’t tell a story so much as let people make up whatever they wish. If it was a language you could translate it, but like any art form it is terrible at communicating since everyone walks away with something different in the ends.
Sound doesn’t produce empathy, humans make it up. It’s how two people listening to the same music can walk away with something different. To think that such empathy exists is delusional. It’s like how the connection and love you supposedly feel for others or a partner is really all in your head, an illusion.
It shocks me that as someone who supposedly knows music greatly overestimates it’s efffect.
Plato and Pythagoras can say whatever they want, doesn’t make it true. His theory of forms was pretty crazy to be honest. Those who study it fail to understand it’s entirely subjective influence and poorly definite terminology. But then again you got it off Wikipedia so what can I expect. They are trying to apply math to where it has no power. As is apparent there is no mathematically perfect song, and math cannot account for the subjective experience of each person as well as their history. This is one field you can chalk up to quackery, like noetics. It’s like that experiment with water freezing when exposed to meta and the classics. It proved nothing in the end.
I pity folks like you who try to make the subjective objective. You are far too attached to “noise” and don’t understand how subjective it all is or how there is no good or bad art. All you can speak to is what music does to you, but that doesn’t make it fact.
Unlike you I don’t pretend to have connections that I know don’t exist. Empathy is just a guess, and it’s not even passable. I’m honest in saying I don’t know what others are feeling, because I’m not them. People lie or hide to avoid concerning others, but I don’t use empathy because it’s dishonest by nature.
I don’t share in delusions unlike you.
You also didn’t speak in sound, you wrote it in words. There was no sound. You can’t be this foolish.
You also didn't speak in sound, you wrote it in words. There was no sound. You can't be this foolish.But are you foolish enough to think you speak for the whole world?
You also didn't speak in sound, you wrote it in words. There was no sound. You can't be this foolish.But are you foolish enough to think you speak for the whole world? I know enough to know empathy is more of an illusion than an something that exists.
You also didn't speak in sound, you wrote it in words. There was no sound. You can't be this foolish.Say the words and you are speaking with sounds. Vocabulary exists of an ordered series of grunts and clicks, sounds. And if you do not possess empathy, you are lacking an important social asset. Do you even know what empathy means?
You also didn't speak in sound, you wrote it in words. There was no sound. You can't be this foolish.Say the words and you are speaking with sounds. Vocabulary exists of an ordered series of grunts and clicks, sounds. And if you do not possess empathy, you are lacking an important social asset. Do you even know what empathy means? Still just words, not music. The subjective nature of music makes it hard to define exactly. I know what empathy is, it's the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. So by that definition it's a lie. I don't have it in the sense that I don't pretend to know what others feel. Unless I can read their mind or have their feelings beamed into my head then saying I understand would be a lie. Empathy is dishonest.
I know enough to know empathy is more of an illusion than an something that exists.There are winners and there are losers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c4KhoCFxzA :kiss:
You also didn't speak in sound, you wrote it in words. There was no sound. You can't be this foolish.Say the words and you are speaking with sounds. Vocabulary exists of an ordered series of grunts and clicks, sounds. And if you do not possess empathy, you are lacking an important social asset. Do you even know what empathy means? Still just words, not music. The subjective nature of music makes it hard to define exactly. I know what empathy is, it's the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. So by that definition it's a lie. I don't have it in the sense that I don't pretend to know what others feel. Unless I can read their mind or have their feelings beamed into my head then saying I understand would be a lie. Empathy is dishonest. Empathy is not mind reading. If we start with DesCartes first meditation, that the one thing we can know is ourselves, then you know what you feel. There are limits to that, but it's the one thing you know better than anyone, as long as your mind is functioning. You also know you are human, and we've had a few million years of experience, so we know all humans have things in common. So you know quite a bit about others. You can watch them and know if they are in pain, even if you don't see where the pain is coming from, even if it is emotional pain. You can read their faces and see how they hold their bodies. So, empathy is one of the most real things there is, because it comes from you. Even if you are a brain in a vat or a programmed computer simulation, it's still you experiencing the experience of observing another human and being affected by it.