Feedback: 11/30/11

The presentations brought up several fantastic points. The first was the contrast between the presenters' opinions on which elements of music are most important. Jordan stated that she thinks the lyrics are the most important part of a song, yet others described the tone, "feeling", or moods it created as the greatest part. It was very interesting to see that music can affect people in different ways simply due to their interests. Their interests seem to influence which elements of music they decide to focus on. (e.g. Jordan saying she has always been a writer and focuses on the lyrics).

11/30

I liked everyone's presentation so far. I liked the different styles of music that everyone had and the combination of music that Kyle and Nate had in theirs. I liked the fact that Kyle used his guitar during his presentation to explain more about the music.

Feedback for 11-28-11

Kyle, I thought your presentation was very interesting. I liked that you passed out lyrics for the class and that you had a large selection of music to play for us. I would have liked to hear more on your "music of men and music of gods" idea and how it could relate to the philosophers we read in class.

11/28 Presentations

I thought everyone did an awesome job. I thought it was interesting, seeing the different opinions on lyrics versus other musical qualities. More specifically, the similarities in tastes of music between each person and the still present difference in the deeper taste of each individual. I think that each person had a great deal of passion for their music, which really showed in their presentation.

I think everyone did a really good job on their presentations. I enjoyed hearing everyone's different types of music.

Jordan- I love your music. I thought you did an amazing job being the first to go and being put on the spot like that. I've learned from experience that something like that isn't easy to do, especially when analyzing music taste. I think you picked really good examples, as well.

Nate- I like that you explained your musical tastes nonchalantly. I realized that we listen to similar music and both have influences from our parents.

Kyle- I really liked that you gave us a lyric sheet. It was interesting trying to follow along with which lyrics and instrumentals went where. I think you did a really good job analyzing why you like what you like. You were very clear and your presentation was enjoyable.

I also agree that everyone did really well on their presentations.

Kyle- I really liked how you compiled all those songs together, I thought that that was pretty cool, and I think that by having that many songs it gave us a good sense on your taste in music. It was also nice to have the lyrics to look at, too.

I enjoyed how Jordan said that lyrics were really important, and how Tyler's music didn't even have lyrics, and I think it was cool to see both ways of looking at lyrics vs. music.

11/28 Presentations

Overall, I thought everyone did a great job with their presentations.

Nate: I liked the different types of music that you played. I agree with Hunter that it shows that you really care about music and that it means something to you. I also liked the way the music was compiled into one track.

11/28 Presentations

Joe: I really enjoyed your presentation because I came in there hating electronic music, but based on your clip it made me want to get into it. I especially enjoyed that you spoke about rap because I think a lot of it gets swept under the rug with many of the popular artists today only rapping about money, sex, and drugs. It was especially interesting how you related your music taste back to your experiences, because memories are very important and influence who we are as a person.

Nate: It was funny how you said you listened to music that you used to hate, it made me think of music as a living entity that just grows on me. I also thought it was interesting about music influencing your relationships and who you make friends with. Overall, I liked your presentation and the way you made it more open and accessible to the listeners.

Tyler: Once again, you also opened me up to a few new genres. I'm not really a reggae fan, but you're so passionate about it, it almost felt as if you were speaking about a religion. Dub is extremely interesting and I liked the pieces you played. I could definitely tell you were extremely proud of the music you listened to and it showed in your presentation. The contrast between the music you listen to and your chosen career path was intriguing as well. It's definitely what stood out to me the most.

Don: I love the fact that you opened saying that the music you listen to is almost 'emotional depression', because you don't get your emotions out through speaking, but through music. It shows how much of a deep connection you have to the music you listen to.

Kyle: I like how you related music to a stream of consciousness, it definitely showed through in your presentation, because your music taste is so eclectic. It was also nice to see the relation of a musician to his music and how you did not like listening to 'simple' music, because you liked to challenge yourself when it comes to playing music, as well as when it comes to listening to music. What interested me the most was we have such similar tastes in music, yet we have different ways of approaching and relating to it.

Overall, I liked everyone's presentations, you all did a wonderful job. :)

11/28 Presentation

First I'd like to say I was impressed with all the presentations that happened Monday. I personally thought everyone I heard (Jordan, Joe, Nate, Tyler, and Kyle) did a good job and they were exceptionally well.


Jordan- First I'd like to say amazing job being put on the spot to go first. As Hunter said the whole nature based sounding quality to music theme was absolutely fascinating.

Joe- It was nice and more personal because you talked about experiences that went with the music. In example, being at work and talking about the ideas in the music then seeing how that idea models their music which made you enjoy it even more.

Nate- Influenced by parents, wide range of music. Intrigued me that it was really hard and you showed it through the presentation-- it reminded me of when I sat down to try and write the paper and deciding on what to write- it showed you really care about music and it really does something to you.

Tyler- I'd never really heard of Dub until your presentation, while I do feel it's not for me, I'm going to check more out because it was interesting. I also liked how it was different presentation wise, there was more song playing music wise compared to mine and others with 30 second clips.

Don- Myself.. thinking about my presentation in my view it wasn't strong, and for the most part it was all improvise using structure models that the earlier presenters gave and how I felt on spot.

Kyle- I reallly loved that you tried to capture yourself in a sort of sense making 1 track using multiple songs to create your own "personal" son. It all flowed well together maybe a bit chaotic but chaos is a lovely thing in my book. Then I loved how you went on talking about your own music playing taste in comparison to listening.

Response to Presentations 11/28

Jordan- I liked what you did with your nature-based ideas and musical style. I really enjoyed when you pointed out the idea that "nature is duplicated music" in music we listen to or choose to ignore-- really cool.

Joe- Wide rage of genres- really interesting. I like how you talked about who you were influenced by your parents and what they had listened to. I enjoyed the idea you had with the music you listen to that comes outside of the box.

Nate- Influenced by parents, wide range of music. Intrigued me that it was really hard and you showed it through the presentation-- it reminded me of when I sat down to try and write the paper and deciding on what to write- it showed you really care about music and it really does something to you.

Tyler- Really mellow- music connects to reason and logic-- liked that point quite a lot. Learned about Dub, which was pretty cool.

Don- Wide range of music, emotional person and presentation-- worked really well-- could see your emotion when the songs played and you put yourself into them without even knowing them. It was cool that you liked music that didn't have the typical time signatures-- wicked.

Kyle- Music varies, but are unique-- I like how you explained that simple music frustrates you because you could play it in chords-- interesting thought. The "setlist" was insane-- liked that the most. I liked how you talked about lyrical contrast within a piece and the music (I think it was Mars Volta)-- really cool.

Response: 11/27/11

The joint class brought forth a lot of great connections and concepts to consider. The lives and work of Hegel and Beethoven were bizarre and intriguing. Sonata form connected with Hegel's Dialect in a similar 3-step process both ending with their parts becoming "aufgehoben". The use of German vocabulary was a nice touch as well to tie into the unit.

I particularly enjoyed the group discussions and ending class discussion. It was a very effective method for students to branch off into separate trains of thought per group and then combine collaborate each group's perspective on the matters. During the discussion, many different points were brought up about the questions we received.

In our small group, the inevitability of music and philosophy reflecting the zeitgeist seemed to not be inevitable at all. The concept of the zeitgeist suggests that ideas come before humans and manifest our consciousnesses, yet we believed that we form our own ideas based on our experiences and preexisting culture in order to enhance/evolve our culture.

Finally, we talked about what the zeitgeist is today. I personally thought that if such a spirit existed, then the zeitgeist would be stretched too thin to have any effect on our minds today. Culture has been altered to the extent that all of the possible ideas branching from the existing cultures are capable of obtaining appreciation. One zeitgeist cannot simply dictate our creativity, unless it has evolved enough to encompass every blend of concepts imaginable. Perhaps it's true that the wheels have stopped spinning, but there are still endless combinations of our known attributes that may posses their own sense of uniqueness.

With a less serious tone, I think the concept of the zeitgeist could be taken to account for the common inspirations between artists in specific time periods. It's certainly not coincidence, but to give the zeitgeist mythological-like qualities such as possessing our minds with ideas which have lives of their own seems far-fetched.

Prompt for 11/27

I do believe that the Zeitgeist reflects music and today. Music for the most part reflects the ever changing cultural ideals. At this moment in time we are able to speak more freely about feelings through music. It also reflects the need for mass production. Music is now being released at greater speeds. In the past artists would take years to release and album and the singles from the album, but now more and more artists are feelings to need to produce music at faster rates. I think it also reflects the quality of popular music as opposed to the past, because in today's society we get so bored with things so quickly, so we always need something new.

response 11/27

I believe that the zeitgeist today is greed and power. It seems that those with more money they will ever need keep wanting more and more because the more money one has, the more powerful they are. When people think of success, they think of rich people. This greed is causing a great divide between the rich and poor. It is reflected in the music industry because it seems that all they care about is making money, not quality music. Fergie from Red Hot Chili Peppers can't sing in tune when performing live, but the group makes millions from crappy unimaginative and unoriginal music. It affects philosophical thought today-the innate human desire for power.

I really enjoyed Prof. Pane's piano playing and the joint class. It gave us all a different perspective.

Response 11/27

The duo class was pretty neat and something that I haven't experienced at Farmington yet.

For the Zeitgeist, I feel that it is complete consumerism. I don't know if a lot of people that attend class watch t.v. hopefully not, but from what I've seen of any T.V. show or movie that is put the air. But between actual show usually every 10-15 minutes all you see is "consume, consume!!" Buy Now!@! Order Now!@ it's just the same thing over and over for approximately 5 minutes. While in my view also killing the mind. I feel and I'll only say this about mainstream music.. it reflects this consumerism. All you hear from these songs that are 96% of the time 2-4 minutes are the same lines over and over again.. "I got them moves like Jagger.. I got them moves like Jagger.." it's terrible!!

A great song to reflect how the Zeitgeist is in my views would be Eternal Consumption Engine by Primus on their latest album. Though not a mainstream band for the most part, this song matches the style of a lot of these songs.

In I guess response to Mr.Sareyani feeling of Zeitgeist

Everyday not even at the universal level, we are destroying the Earth.. Humans are probably one if not the only creature on this Earth that makes their environment adapt to them and not the other way around. Maybe in some aspects we're at the age of great understanding maybe human wise.. but definitely not at the universal level in my personal views.

Reflecting on Question 1 of the prompt. I feel that Hegel and Beethoven are both egotistical, Hegel in "I've made this conscious awareness therefore there will be no more history." To me that is almost like bow down and bask in my presents for my amazing discovery.. While Beethoven (this goes from class of what my partner and I were talking about) when Beethoven played his 4th he was expecting everything to just cheer and go mad because of how amazing it was. The opposite happen to what he himself said was a masterpiece.

Zeitgeist

I was trying to think of what the zeitgeist may be in our time, so I went to wikipedia to get a full understanding of what precisely it is. On the page, I decided to read the personal appeal from programmer Brandon Harris.
"We’re not just building an encyclopedia, we’re working to make people free. When we have access to free knowledge, we are better people. We understand the world is bigger than us, and we become infected with tolerance and understanding."
I feel the zeitgeist is understanding, knowledge.. more or less, a/the universal consciousness. All facets of human knowledge are available at our fingertips, we're in the age of great understanding. It's also rather obvious that music and philosophy must reflect that, for the two tend to be the in the upper echelon of contemplation for what is? and why? in states of consciousness, it's only logical that they deal with the pressing call of our time.

Reaction to 11/21

Today's class was extremely interesting. In fact, discussing Hegel and Beethoven together really, really intrigued me. I feel the zeitgeist today would be the constant changes and additions to music, including the sub-genres of genres and new waves of playing instruments and completely destroying the norm. For instance, changing to different or odd time signatures or attempting to play something even more dissonant than ever before. 

It was also interesting to formulate ideas and concepts with music and philosophy points with a partner from Prof. Pane's class-- the ideas came together quite well, even with different ideas and concepts. Really cool.

11/22/11

Yesterday's class was very interesting, it was a new way to see how other teachers and students approach music. I was nice to hear the views of the other class and the piano playing to describe how each section works in the one piece of music.

Response to Prompt 11-27

I really enjoyed today's class. It was intriguing. I definitely can see how today's zeitgeist effects today's music. I see today's zeitgeist as constant development of technology. This effects music in a big way. There are so many things with in technology that is changing modern music. For example, the technology a studio uses to make a band sound amazing on their CD's or I tunes downloads, can change the way music is so much that they sound completely different when they preform live. It is just one of the many ways that technology has changed the way music is now a days.

Prompt for 11-27

Open reaction to the joint class - you may want to address one or more of the discussion questions:

1) What affinities do you see between Hegel and Beethoven?

2) Is it inevitable that music and philosophy should both reflect the zeitgeist?

3) What's the zeitgeist today, and how is it reflected in music today?

Response 11/16

Levitin believes that music evolved into more complex forms as time went on. Music went on to take on the aspects of society as it too evolved. The music adapted to what the people wanted to hear. For example during the 60's the music reflected the need for freedom of the time and continued on into present day music where themes that are explored would never have been talked about so obviously in past music types.

I completely agree with his view and I can see where he is coming from. However, many artists are now trying to duplicate past artistry and are using samples of past musicians. So, I believe that there is also a constant looking back at past musicians are the way music is formed as well as played.

response 11-16

From his writings, it is apparent Levitin believes in Darwin's theory of evolution. Levitin points out that "Everyone alive today is composed of genes that won a long-lasting, large-scale genetic competition" (250). Thus, the human traits and characteristics that we have today are the ones that have survived and evolved over the years.

Levitin thinks music has evolved because he believes, like Darwin, that music plays a key role in selecting a mate. Levitin provides the following quote from Darwin. "I conclude that musical notes and rhythm were first acquired by the male or female progenitors of mankind for the sake of charming the opposite sex. Thus, musical tones became firmly associated with some of the strongest passions an animal is capable of feeling, and are consequently used instinctively" (251). Levitin also points out that music has been around since the caveman – old instruments have been discovered such as flute-like objects. He thinks that over the years, music and dancing may be used to show creativity and intelligence as well as physical fitness to possible mates. Music thus plays a key role in the continuation of the human race.

I think Levitin's view has given me something to think about. As Levitin points out, famous rock stars have always been know to attract groupies – no matter what they look like. This reminds me of the words from the Dire Strait and Sting tune about the reasons for wanting to be a rock star: "Money for nothing, chicks for free."

I personally like music because it can help me escape the pressures and stresses of everyday life. Maybe this is another reason why music continues to evolve in humans- music is a way for humans to temporary escape and cope with life's hardships.

Response to 11/16/11 Prompt

This is going to appear as an insane digression, but it is something that I saw in the reading that I felt was important to note. On page 169, Higgins cites Kierkegaard:
The ethical individual knows himself, but this knowledge is not a mere contemplation (for with that the individual is determined by his necessity), it is a reflection upon himself which itself is an action, and therefore I have deliberately preferred to use the expression "choose oneself" instead of know oneself... Only within him can the individual acquire information about himself.
What I believe this does, is brings into the equation a commonality between Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche (the former whom is famous for his stress on the collective over the latter's stress on the individual). Within this enormous and ongoing philosophical debate the political and social implications are the focus, but in the end, I believe music, through this argument of Kierkegaard's (who happens to be Sartre's main influence) and Kundera's subsequent argument, we can scold Nietzsche for ignoring political and social implications, but also frown upon Sartre's pessimism about achieving perfection as an individual and argue that both the individual and collective are equally important. Essentially, we can see the parallels of Kierkegaard and Sartre in the sense that in choosing our future, we choose how our past affects us (that is, different futures representing different vantage points); we can also see Nietzsche's argument through Kierkegaard that understanding the individual is a necessary foundation to understanding and restructuring a society.
Through Kundera, Higgins illustrates the importance of understanding life as a structure of aesthetic evaluations. "A sense that one's life has aesthetic value is fundamental to one's ability to affirm it. To find our lives significant, we must find them somehow coherent... Poetic images stimulate our determination of our life's structure..., establish hope and the conviction that the particular life chosen remains worth pursuing..., [and] overcomes panic" (Page 170) We can see how essential it is for us to come to terms with the individual before we can find commonalities between one another, choose a goal, and fight for our common ideals.
Because I developed a hypothesis about a philosopher (Sartre) we haven't read in this class, I felt it necessary to seek out something that at least expresses his thoughts on music. Paul E. Robinson's premise of "Sartre on Music" has three parts; "the composer as a human being ought to do what is morally and politically justifiable; what is morally and politically justifiable today is to take the side of the oppressed; music can express and evoke the feelings of a time and place" (Sartre on Music, Paul E. Robinson, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , Vol. 31, No. 4 (Summer, 1973), pp. 451-457, http://www.jstor.org/stable/429317 ) This introduces the idea that music not only serves a purpose to how the individual feels, but that it serves a moral obligation as well, and I believe this is where Higgins may be going.

11-16-2011

Higgins says that music contributes to social interactions by forming a connection between people. Music has intertwining ideas and symbolism that helps people connect with each other. Music doesn't show anything than it actually is. I agree to this because it's nice to connect with someone about a favorite song or band. Each song means something different to everyone, but to be able to bond with someone over similar musical meanings only adds more to the significance of music in the social world.

11/16

Higgins feels that music contributes to ethics by realizing that music has the ability to form, change, and/or manipulate a person's perspective on surroundings and thoughts. With all of the contributing factors going into music (rhythm, melodic and harmonic arrangement, lyrics, vocals, sound quality, etc...) there is something that a person can relate to, ultimately coloring the way what ever is being sang or told to fit other situations that one also relates to (I personally feel that it is more so the melodies in music, which I feel colors the song or creates the mood [and the rhythm or beat of a song let's us know what intensity we should take the song]) and changes the way people look at things (life, war, love, etc...)

This could effect how each individual perceives what is going on.

Late response: 11/11

Langer's idea of music being a virtual reality was very interesting because it makes me wonder if music may do almost literally the same thing that engineered auditory illusions do. I actually enjoy the idea that we physicalize music with our own feelings, and that this physicalization will vary each time we hear it, and will always be different from perspective to perspective. The idea that rhythm plays the greatest part is also interesting, and considering today's music (as much as I may not care for it), this holds some serious weight. I would be inclined to believe that rhythm is the only part of song that connects with the listener, but after hearing a song that was recently released by a former classmate and especially because it appeals to a genre I don't typically care for, I'm more inclined to believe that rhythm and melody (or at least timbre if not melody in itself) together are both essential. So if anyone is actually reading this, I would suggest the following song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atEx6ZOX51s

If that link doesn't work, the track is called "Ray Charles" by Chiddy Bang. Just a warning, the lyrics are raunchy and possibly offensive (i.e. parental advisory), but I really suggest it for its rhythmic and melodic elements.

Response to 11/16

Higgins thinks that music contributes to the social ideologies of people because of the symbolism and ideas that are intertwined with the lyrics and the composition(s). I agree to this because I have feel that music is symbolic and it gives ideas to make people think certain ways. It doesn't portray something more than it really is, but merely gives us something else to think about.

11/16 Response

Higgins feels music contributes to ethics in three ways, "(1) music's psychophysiological power to influence the listener's outlook, (2) its ability to develop capacities of value to ethical living, and (3) its capacity to serve in metaphroic and symbolic roles that can assist our ethical reflections." (114)

Higgins feels that music allows one to be more self aware and be more harmonious, and this is extremely important to "behave as coordinated ethical agents." (118) To further extend upon this Higgins says that music encourages us to perceive that we can operate harmoniously. "Many cases, too, music demonstrates that such harmonious operation can be satisfying to all of these aspects." (118)

I can see where Higgins is coming from, listening to such a song as Feel Like I'm Fixing To Die by Country Joe McDonald. I can see how it would effect someone ethically especially during the time it came out revolving around the Vietnam War. Hearing the lyrics to this song I feel I'd have to go out and protest against the war for moral reasons, so in my views her thoughts are reasonable.

Prompt for 11-16

CHOOSE ONE:

How does Higgins see music as contributing to ethics? Does her view seem reasonable to you?

OR

What's Levitin's view about why music evolved? Does his view seem reasonable to you?

Response 11/14

Kivy's is definitely the most interesting and relatable to me. Basically that music does not really express an emotion, but expresses an emotional connection.

However, I still enjoy Langer's interpretation as well and enjoy the connection to our most basic human functions.

response to 11/14

i liked the idea that music is a part of our life.. like our aesthetics. levitin's whole idea is pretty cleaver actually. if you look at my last post, it would be the same answer to this.

11-14-11

I found Kivy's theory most intriguing. I think it is true that music does not directly express emotion but is rather expressive of emotions based on the connections our minds make to human behavior. I enjoyed the line "Music...appeals to our minds, not our hearts" (97). I agree, not because I feel music has no affect on the heart but because I believe music appeals to the mind before, as a result, sparking emotion in us. Our mind, after all, processes everything we are exposed to. Therefore, music does not directly impact our heart and body but must first go though some sort of cognitive interpretation before we feel anything as a result of the music; this process is interesting to me.
I also loved Higgins' arguments against Kivy's theory. "Music, however, is an intentional human act and one that aims at communication."(100). Though I agree with Kivy's theory I don't disagree with what Higgins is pointing out. Music is indeed meant for communication and the artist/composer is trying to convey some sort of communication though I don't believe it has to be limited to one intended emotion or message which Kivy also writes about. It seems to me, that maybe that emotion is not important, for example, the music that has been the most meaningful to me over the years has been music in which I feel a powerful communication, regardless of what the subject be. I think this is what I find meaningful: music as a medium that gives power to communication. To support this, I sometimes think it is impossible to know what exactly the artist is conveying in their music. But with this being said, it is still possible to feel a connection with it, which, I believe, is due to musics unique ability to let us communicate.

11-14-2011

I like Meyer's theory the best. I dislike when people, in general, try to put a label on music. While Langer tries to say music should evoke certain emotions, Meyer refuses to put that same label on it. Music makes different people feel different things. This is the arousal theory. It is up to the listener to feel what they do, not for the music to tell them what to feel. It's easy for someone to share a bad memory with a certain song, even if the song is supposed to uplift your spirits.
While Meyer's philosophy is my favroite, I also agree with Langer's. She says that music can symbolize or imitate a person's emotions. Her's is the closest to Meyer's, in that they let the music interperet what the person wants. She doesn't wuite put a label on what it should and should not do.

11/14

I personally found Myer's take on music and emotion interesting with the "Arousal Theory." There were specific, physical examples given on how one might react differently to music (the example of the beaten dog over the sound of the violin, possibly making the dog have a permanent fear of the sound of the violin), but I began to wonder about, without a physical memory to rely judgment on, how one hears a certain set of melodies and finds it uninteresting or perceives it differently. I feel there is a strong connection between melody and how a certain arrangement of melodies is able to represent a certain hidden feeling or emotion. There is no certain sound of sadness, but how do some people perceive it the same and others not? Is it because the people who perceive it the same live similar lives? Or is a combination of emotions through out life along with a mixture of other aspects creating a certain over all mood that one finds comforting? (some people prefer Hardcore while others of the same age might prefer disco)

response 11-14

I personally believe that Langer’s theory is best. I liked her statement that music symbolizes or imitates each person’s own emotional life – an illusion. I believe that each person has his own personal experiences and each person has his/her own individual emotions. When one hears music, the sounds imitate and symbolize the person’s own personal, emotional life and experiences. A happy Disney song may make one person happy while another may become sad due to a bad experience when they originally heard the song.

I don’t understand why Higgins believes Langer is too vague when it comes to musical symbols and the emotions they stand for. I think Langer is vague because the musical symbols, when they are performed, create different reactions and emotions in each person.

11/14 Response

I feel I agree with Leonardo Meyer's arousal theory most. Going back to chapter three with the writings of Descartes I absolutely agree with his passage.
"This which moves some to dance, causes others to wish to cry. The reason for this is that certain images in our memories are aroused: those who once found pleasure in dancing to a particular melody will want to do so again, when they hear it anew. And conversely, if someone has suffered while listening to the sounds of galliarde, he will certainly be sad when he hears it again." (67)

I absolutely agree with Descrates passage and the first image that came to my mind was from the movie A Clockwork Orange. When the main character of the movie is taken to a medical treatment facility to become "ultra-violent" by being shown violent images to make him repulsed at the idea. They also played his favorite tune, Beethoven's 9th symphony. After the treatment whenever he heard this symphony he basically shut down and was unable to do anything.

Back to Meyer's arousal theory, Higgins' says that Meyer doesn't say what emotions music should or shouldn't evoke. "Myer is not concerned to the label the emotions that music arouses. We differentiate our affective experiences, he tells us, by reference to the stimulus situation, that is, to objects and our assessment of their relation to us. We describe a certain affective state as 'fear' because it is aroused in the course of a situation in which an external object is seen as threatening to us." (89)
'
As Higgins says in her own views that all three are part of the concept. (105) The previous quote from Higgins about Meyer made me feel that while all three apply, arousal is more prominent in music and emotion.

Prompt for 11-14

Higgins presents four accounts of the relation between music and emotion - Langer's, Meyer's, Kivy's, and her own. Which of the four seems to you best, and why?

response for 11/11

i found it quite interesting that music is the basic things that we do.. like living and breathing. i agree to this because music is one of the biggest influences on my life.. and i don't know what i would honestly do without music. with or without lyrics, it still does something that no other form of art has been able to do so to me, and i definitely don't mind it.. but i daresay i try not to take it for granted too much, although it's hard to get caught up in the various genres and sub-genres.

11/11 response

Langer has an interesting take on music I find. The most fascinating thing to me is as ddelorenzo says. There are some songs where at least I can hardly tell the difference between the music and the lyrics because there is such blending and harmony between the two. Bringing on the point that even if the lyrics are stupid as long as they sync in with the music it's all the same. I felt that was a great point as there are some bands that the singer was a deterrent to the overall quality of the music because it just didn't fit.

Two examples one being in my view how the vocalist voice fits in would be a band like Radiohead... at least on the album Ok Computer. His voice is just completely synced up with the emotional core of the music. An example of the opposite would be a band such as in my view.. The Fall of Troy, his voice makes turn off the music. Though listening to everything else there is such great quality to it and it is unfortunate that the singer doesn't in my view capture the core of emotions that the band can present.

response to 11-11

One of Langer's views that I found interesting was her theory that once words are put to music, the words are no longer a separate literary form – they become part of the music-assimilated. Langer points out that the words to a song do not have to be literally great as long as they have the same emotional core as the music.

I kind of get what she is saying – there are some songs with some really stupid lyrics, but because they work with the music, they are pretty good together – "Yellow Submarine" by the Beatles comes to mind – the lyrics, stupid as they are, work well with the music and make a catchy fun tune.

11/11/11 Response

What I found most interesting about Langer was her theory about why music works. She pretty much said that music resembles some of our most basic bodily functions like breathing and the heartbeat. This was interesting to me because these are two things that as children even as adults we find extremely comforting so it was interesting to see her use this comparison.

Prompt for 11-11

Open reaction to Langer - what did you find interesting about her view of music?

11/7

Langer claims that music is an illusion because it creates an illusion of time and motion, known as virtual time. It is also an illusion because we can fill this time with our own memories and ideas, to make the music somehow significant to us. Something about music can bring these things out from our memory to create what the music is for us, and so the way that our minds create what music is I think is how it is like an illusion.

Response: 11/7/11

What Langer seems to be describing is how the brain functions in response to perception. It works through a web of associations and connections it has previously made and connects what you currently perceive and feel to your memory. For music, our non-unique associations that are shared between all listeners are limited to analysis, timbre, and other recurring elements found in a majority of musical works. Otherwise, music is unique to each listener based on their own personal associations and experiences.

Her concept of the illusion is not defined as something that is unreal. To her, it is a state of voluntary trance in which one possesses heightened perception with a specific focus. Music, by this definition, is certainly illusory.

11/7

Langer brings on the idea that since we all have different perceptions and music as discussed multiple times before brings out certain emotions and scenarios from our past, that it is an illusion that brings out these thoughts and emotions. While music is also a manipulation of time, mentally speaking it moves people putting them in different events that have happen throughout their lives.

11/7/11 Response

Langer believes that music is an illusion because she connects music to perception because music is perceived imaginatively. For example a person experiences music today in reference to scenes from a movie which may not be what the music is necessarily about. She then goes on to say that music gives an 'auditory apparition of time' because music gives the feeling of movement without actually being able to move a person physically and can cause a moment to seem to move faster or slower. So, it's all a matter of perception to the listener in essence.

Response to 11/7/11 Prompt

When Langer says that "music is an illusion," what she means is that upon entrance to the ears, it creates a virtual reality in the perception of time. What music cannot do, however, is physicalize itself, so being that this reality is void of any physical representation, the listener fills it with his or her own experiences and emotions. I suppose the main argument, then, is that this perception is different from person to person and that is why it is so easy to disagree with one another over not just the meaning of a song, but also the significance.

11/7/2011

I find that Langer feels that music is an illusion because because of how differently music can be percieved. No answer to what a piece of music means is accurate, for really emotions and opinions are never wrong, or right for that matter. Or it could mean that since music has no physicality to it's existence, in order for us to receive and acknowledge music, our minds create what isn't already there (like an illusion [if one is walking through a desert and the landscape never changes, one's mind may begin to wonder and create it's own false reality]). It is like sensory deprivation in a sense. So since there is no physicality in music, the visuals aren't there to see, so we make up visuals in our minds subconsciously that fits the music in one way or another (varying on the person, mood of song, and many other factors.)

11/7/2011

Langer believes music is an illusion in the sense that it evokes emotions and thoughts differently from person to person. Through the music, your mind calls upon images and emotions, creating ideas and new images. This is an illusion because everyone perceives it differently. This contrasts visual art, which is physical expression of a specific idea, as apposed to music which allows the individual to express and create their own ideas.

11-7-2011

According to Langer, music is an illusion because it's based on our perceptions and ideas. Everyone sees things differently, which creates different ideas. If we were to all see things the same, music would not be an illusion, because no ideas would be formed. With music, you hear what is going on. It's up to your mind to paint it's own picture of what is going on, whether it is what it's meant to be, or your own picture of it. Visual art lets you see other people's ideas, and it becomes a solid thing.

In my opinion, Langer is trying to distinguish between the actual music and what our minds create of it. Music is often thought of as something without substance, it does not have a physical forms. Though today, you could consider instruments, sheet music, or cd to be a physical form of music, the primary focus is on the sound, the non-physical occurrence of hearing music and not physically being able to touch it or hold it. I think this is what Langer is trying to focus on. When we hear music, something happens in our minds. We associate the music with emotions, experiences, and images. This is the illusion, the thing we create in response to the music. Music inspires this illusion but it is not the music itself thus we create something outside of the music itself. This experience is completely within our imagination and perspective and that is why believe Langer chooses the work illusion.

Response for 11-7-11

When Langer claims that music is an illusion, she is talking about the influence music has on the mind and emotions. When a person is listening to music, they are experiencing both real time and virtual time. Real time is self-explanatory. Virtual time consists of the emotions or memories that the music evokes while it is being listened to. When we listen to music, all our ideas and perceptions are transposed into the tones we hear and thus create our own personal illusion of what we think of the music.

11/7

I think Langer means that music is our own illusion. with music you hear it not see it so you paint your own illusion in your mind instead of visual art where your seeing someones personal illusion instead of your own. Music is the illusion that you create is what i think.

11/7/11

music is based on our perceptions and ideas, which is ideally an illusion. not only are we seeing certain things, were giving off real-life things which creates or paints pictures of ideas that can be or may not be tangible.

11-7

According to Langer, music “is the illusion begotten by sounds [. . .], a motion of forms that are not visible, but are given to the ear instead of the eye” (107). Langer writes that unlike other arts, such as paintings, we can not visually view an actual object with music; instead, we directly hear music and from our past experiences, form a perception and our own illusion based on experiences of our own lives. Langer writes that music is virtual, “unrelated to the space of actual experience” (117). Langer believes that our own real life experiences, which occur in real measured time, are symbolically reflected when we hear music, which is virtual time (symbolic transformation of perceptions (128)).

I am a little bit confused over her explanation between real and virtual time (she seems to have a hard time explaining it also because of her numerous attempts to explain it in chapter 7). However, I agree with her assessment that each of us interprets music based on our own life experiences. For example, sometimes I hear the song and the reason I actually like it is not because it is considered a great composition, but because of the memories the song has for me in my personal life.

Prompt for 11-7

What does Langer mean when she says music is an illusion?

11/02

Nietzsche doesn't like Brahms because he claims that there is too much yearning in his music, and it is the music of dissatisfied women, and that only certain people are affected by his music. I'm not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean, to be completely honest. Nietzsche also claims that Brahms' music is "impersonal", and later on says that Brahmas "mourns for himself", so I think what he means is that his music is not relatable, and that is why it is not good.

response 11/2

Nietzsche appears not to like Brahms because he believes Brahms is the "master of imitation" (187). He thinks that Brahms is just copying the older classical styles and there is really nothing original or special – Nietzsche calls Brahms' music indifferent, indecisive. Even though Brahms is supposed to be Wagner's antagonist, he does not believe Brahms is significant enough to even be considered that. Nietzsche writes Brahms off claiming he definitely is not an heir of Beethoven (188).

I think what I have generally learned from this regarding the philosophy of music is that everyone has their own strong personal taste and opinions regarding music. Even though I am not a huge Brahms fan, he is considered one of the great three B’s by many (Bach, Beethoven and Brahms). No one’s opinion is absolutely right. A person's feelings towards music are subjective, not objective.

Response to 11/2/11 Prompt

"When in this essay I declare war upon Wagner-- and incidentally upon a German "taste"-- when I use harsh words against the cretinism of Bayreuth, the last thing I want to do is start a celebration for any other musicians" (Page 186) Nietzsche goes on to say that if Wagner should be attributed to the "ruin of music", he should not be blamed for its cause of ruin, only for the acceleration. He distinguishes Wagner from other musicians by asserting that Wagner knows and embraces this fate because of his "naivete of decadence" while others-- "hesitate." Brahms only serves as Wagner's antagonist because it is needed, and this antagonist, too, must appeal to the same mass that Wagner has. "He is the melancholy of incapacity; he does not create out of an abundance, he languishes for abundance-- he is a master of imitation-- what remains as specifically his is yearning" (Page 187) He is essentially the polar opposite of Wagner; his melancholy propels his ability to spew out music imitative of happiness while Wagner's material happiness allows him to compose music imitative of melancholy. Nietzsche is addressing the fact that Wagner is not the sole danger to music, but that Brahms is the other half to that puzzle. What Nietzsche demands is a musician who can speak to both: "no god can save music" (Page 189) It really sets the tone for the will to power and the ubermensch.

11-2-11

I believe that Nietzsche liked Brahms at first because Wagner and Brahms music of the same time was competing together, and Nietzsche would of liked anyone who may of be against Wagner. However Nietzsche came to the realization that Brahms music was very sad and that Brahms mourns for himself. Nietzsche defines Brahms music as affecting a certain type of man a type of yearning and dissatisfaction. He states Brahms borrows music from a great old or exotic modern styles. He defines him as being the master of imitation. He compares his music to be fitting for a female Wagnerian.

Response 11/2/11

To Nietzsche, Brahms and Wagner are very similar, as they both try to deceive people through their music. Both wish to gain some sort of fame through it. Brahms served the purpose of posing a threat to Wagner as competition. Aside from this purpose, Nietzsche saw very little difference between Wagner and Brahms.

Response 11/2/11

Initially, I found many similarities to Brahms and Nietzsche because they were both outsiders and both German-born, so I would think that Nietzsche would enjoy Brahms' music, but I was wrong. He found Wagner and Brahms too similar, though he was glad that Wagner finally had some competition, because Wagner was quite jealous of Brahms' success. He found that both Brahms and Wagner were quite arrogant and while Brahms had the Apollonian aspect because Brahms music was severely structured it lacked the joy that Dionysian music could bring and ultimately Nietzsche was looking for the balance that he felt needs to exist between the two forms of music. He believes that Brahms' music is not original, which is what I THINK he means by his music being deceptive. The German people believe they are listening to something new, but in reality Brahms in Nietzsche's opinion is borrowing ideas from past music instead of attempting to create his own.

response for 11/2

he's in accurately portraying life and emotion. he's conning the people, if you will. which he isn't a fan of at all.  it seems that the past is only being repeated with actions such as this.

Nietzsche doesn't like Brahms because Brahm's, like Wagner, is trying to deceive people with his music. Nietzsche doesn't like this and calls Brahm's the antagonist for Wagner and believes "Fifty steps more, and you have got the female Wagnerian..."(187). Though Nietzsche despises Wagner and places him responsible for the "ruin of music" he believes that "the others" are not any less guilty and therefore uses Brahms as an example by associating him with Wagner.

Response to Prompt 11-02

Nietzsche doesn't like Brahms he doesn't have pride in his proverty. Instead he yearns for more abundance. He made for "too much" music (187).
I think what we can take from this is that there is such thing as too much music. It doesn't always have to be about an antagonist or a certain message that is the one way you can look at it. Music should speak to you and make you feel a certain way, but it's yourself, that should be the one who interpurts how it makes you feel.

11/2/2011

It seems as though Nietzche feels the music and Performance of Brahms is, in a sense, fake, or decieving (as Nietzche describes it in The Second Postscript). There is unnecessary liveliness, or claims of sadness and longing without having a pain to base an emotional claim off of. Nietzche says "If one is not rich, one should have pride enough for poverty." To me it sounds like he is stating that one must be able to feel and understand and relate to a feeling or emotion in music in order to accurately portray it.

10-31-11

Nietzsche describes Bizet's music as an "infinite melody".  He loves the music so much he buries his ears under this music to hear it's causes. He indicated that when he hears Bizet's music he experiences genesis. He trembles before dangers that accompany a risk, and he gets delighted by the strokes of good fortune that occur in the music. However Nietzsche doesn't intend for these feelings to happen to him these feelings just happen, because Bizet's music is good music. Nietzsche also says that this music doesn't sweat to him because this music is pleasant. This music builds, organizes and finishes which makes the music good music.

11-2-2011

To Nietzsche, Brahms and Wagner are very similar. Nietzsche enjoyed Brahms until he realized how much like Wagner he really was. His music was full of longing. Brahms doesn't necessarily defy music in anyway, but he does by Nietzsche's standards.

10-26-11

Nietzsche started to hate Wagner due to a lot of reason's one of the first reasons I noticed was that Wagner was German and wanted to make his own German opera. Also there was the opera itself that Nietzsche didn't like he stated that the music sicken him and it was to depressing. He also mentioned that the music ran all the way through and didn't take any breaks this was also sickening to Nietzsche. There also seemed to be unresolved issues between Nietzsche. I noticed there was a type of underlying jealously  Nietzsche may have had for Wagner.

10/31 and 11/2 responses

10/31
"What is good is light; whatever is divine moves on tender feet" The first principle of Nietzsche's aesthetics calls for the good not to weigh one down whatsoever. Applied musically, this calls for uplifting works, ones that do not stress the mind. Music must be pure and fertile, capable of invoking dance and joy in the listener.
11/2
Initially, Nietzsche embraced Brahms for his stand against Wagner, but ultimately realizes his self-righteous use of music as claim to fame. Also, the rigorous structure of Brahms music took away from its simple joy. Even though they opposed eachother, the similarities between Wagner and Brahms were too distinct for Nietzsche to enjoy Brahms and find his music original or beautiful.

Response for 11-2-11

Nietzsche describes Brahms as Wagner's antagonist, but though "an antagonist was needed, that does not make for necessary music." Nietzsche says how he was intrigued by Brahms until he realized how melancholic and full of longing his music was. While we went over the deception of Wagner's music last week, I'm not quite sure how Brahms' deceives its listeners or itself. However, Nietzsche claims that any type of deception from music is not a good thing, and how a person should avoid music that deceives.

Prompt for 11-2

OK, so now why doesn't N like Brahms? And is there anything of a general nature concerning philosophy of music that we can learn from this?