# Is classical music being given the wrong impression?



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

It seems that especially with the classical and baroque eras that the general idea is that music written in these eras was "music for music's sake" and our music teacher at school is always saying emotion wasn't envolved with these eras. But I think this is wrong, listen to all sorts of classical music and you'll hear the ardent passion, Mozart's minor piano concertos, for example, or the great D minor requiem. Much Bach is also infused with great emotion it's all just expressed in different ways.

What do you think?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

That music teacher should lose his license. I never heard anything more absurd.

I would play the Bach WTC or keyboard partitas or solo violin sonatas and partitas for the misguided pedagogue. Plenty of emotion.

What about Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata or a minor string quartet or
Haydn's "The Creation" or Mozart's string quintet in g minor or a minor keyboard sonata?

There's emotion splattered all over the place from the baroque and classical eras.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

Perhaps you could have your teacher read these:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/7687/doctrine-of-the-affections
http://www.whitwellessays.com/docs/doc_889.doc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_affections

Or just tell him/her to Google "Doctrine of the Affections" There are plenty of references.

Or perhaps he/she could listen a bit more closely to good performances of the music itself. The emotional content is self-evident to anyone with ears to hear it.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

It's not fair to say it wasn't emotional because although it wasn't completely based around emotion like music from the romantic era, it was still composed by people with emotions who would put their feelings into their work.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Most minds have been polluted by the banalities of pop music. The superficial and the obvious have been infused with feeling and emotion by their adoring public.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

If you're in a high school -- or even a college level -- general music appreciation class, then perhaps the teacher is exaggerating away from _the current trend where so many think any and all music is all about raw emotion, overtly expressed passion and personal expression: this is such a currently pervasive and widespread notion that it is the uppermost idea many have of any and all music, whether in its making or the listener's perception._

There is an old-school historic perspective in arts history, where long periods and eras are thought of, and somewhat defined, as having either Ethos (reason, emotional restraint) or Pathos (overtly expressed emotion -- passion) as the dominating aesthetic of the era.

"Ethos (/ˈiːθɒs/ or /ˈiːθoʊs/) is a Greek word meaning "character" that is used to describe the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community, nation, or ideology. *The Greeks also used this word to refer to the power of music to influence its hearer's emotions, behaviours, and even morals*

Pathos (/ˈpeɪθɵs/; plural: pathea; Greek: πάθος, for "suffering" or "experience;" adjectival form: 'pathetic' from παθητικός) *represents an appeal to the audience's emotions." **

The Baroque was considered to be an era of Pathos, i.e. emotively direct and expressive; the classical, an era of Ethos, i.e. reason, intellect and emotional restraint; the Romantic, again to Pathos; the 20th century back to Ethos.

To say there was no emotion in any of those eras thought of as periods where Ethos was the dominating aesthetic, is, *on the part of your teacher either just incorrect, or it might more be a matter of an an incorrect perception on your part of what that teacher is trying to get across.*

The eras where the dominating aesthetic was Ethos could readily be said to be eras where it was 'more about the music, the form,' and less about overt displays within the realms of personal emotion... but to say 'no emotion' about any of it is, well, pretty silly, I think... as silly to think that each and every era was all about emotion and personal expression first and foremost.

Within that aesthetic of Ethos, there was never any thought that there was 'no emotion' involved in the making of or perception of music, but the aesthetic was very much about restraint, not being highly personal, or directly 'emotive,' -- i.e. a matter of how much more or less, not 'without.'

To add to the confusion, there is now a trend in musicology to look at Mozart as the tip of the iceberg toward Romanticism and highly personal expressions of emotion. Certainly, though he was a composer in the height of the classical (Ethos) era, and one who was brilliant about pouring a lot into highly formal musical structures, there is great depth of emotion expressed within many of his middle and later works. It is all, outwardly and at the same time, 'music about music.'

Bach sounds to many like 'music about music,' yet he was in an era considered one of Pathos, much tipped toward music expressing emotion.

There is no simple construct, fitting neatly in a short multiple question quiz or final exam to a one-semester music appreciation course 

* Ethos + Pathos definition quotes from Wiki.

ADD: to Ethos / Pathos, another pair of opposites, also from the ancient Greeks.
Apollo / Dionysius...Apollonian / Dionysian.

Apollo is somewhat a near equivalent of Ethos; Dionysius a near equivalent of Pathos.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2014)

Welcome back, Burroughs. I was wondering where that Schumannite from my early days had gone.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> welcome back, burroughs. I was wondering where that schumannite from my early days had gone.


*I have returned!*


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> There is no simple construct, fitting neatly in a short multiple question quiz or final exam to a one-semester music appreciation course


Very inspiring ramblings Petr! Thank You!

/ptr


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I remember taking music appreciation in HS. After day 2 the teacher called me a "ringer".


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Search Results

ring·er1
ˈriNGər/
noun
noun: ringer; plural noun: ringers
1.
informal
an athlete or horse fraudulently substituted for another in a competition or event.
a person's or thing's double, esp. an impostor.
"he's a ringer for the French actor Fernandel"
a person who is highly proficient at a particular skill or sport and is brought in to supplement a team or group of people.
"league eligibility rules had grown flexible to accommodate new teams, and ringers began suiting up"
2.
a person or device that rings something.

SO... Which is it? 

Personally, I'm thinking more that Quasimodo thingie, that guy who asks Esmerelda, "Do you want to hear the bells?"


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Search Results
> 
> ring·er1
> ˈriNGər/
> ...


That part. Although I wasn't a "plant" put there by the teacher to liven things up. The teacher would have been very happy if I dropped the course.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

In that case, I am surely a 'ringer' in MS Access class.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The worst thing is being labeled a "cerebral ringer". Oh why was I born with this cursed gift!!!! :lol:


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Burroughs said:


> our music teacher at school is always saying .... "What do you think?"


What a pity your teacher isn't saying THIS!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

An aside... There are bad textbooks, bad or negligent teachers, and students who completely misunderstand good textbooks and good teachers as well.

I wonder why so often the reportage on 'the bad teacher' is instantly assumed to be about 'a bad teacher,' when so many times it is the post is a comment by a student who has misunderstood something, and is reporting 'what the student has misunderstood.'


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> The worst thing is being labeled a "cerebral ringer". Oh why was I born with this cursed gift!!!! :lol:


Quasimodo banged his head on the bells, at least in one or more film versions. Does that make him "a cerebral ringer?"


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2014)

Burroughs said:


> you'll hear the ardent passion, Mozart's minor piano concertos, for example, or the great D minor requiem. Much Bach is also infused with great emotion it's all just expressed in different ways.


No, _you'll _feel the passion - doesn't mean its there in the music, or that the composer intended some to be 'put' there. I don't doubt much emotion was expended in the composing

As for the idea that the teacher should lose his licence, that's absurd.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Emotionless, soulless garbage. He better stop listening right away.

Maybe he just meant that over-indulging in egotistical emotions like today's pop-culture was very much restrained….


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Emotionless, soulless garbage. He better stop listening right away.
> 
> Maybe he just meant that over-indulging in egotistical emotions like today's pop-culture was very much restrained….


I would almost bet good money that was exactly the inflection, and what the teacher was trying to get across. Even that first-wave EMO musical movement we call "The Romantic Era" had no such idea of what is now a sort of mass pre-occupation with self, the value of our emotions, and "self-expression."

"I'm all for self-expression. It just has to express something to me."


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Quasimodo banged his head on the bells, at least in one or more film versions. Does that make him "a cerebral ringer?"


Literally, yes.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> No, _you'll _feel the passion - doesn't mean its there in the music, or that the composer intended some to be 'put' there. I don't doubt much emotion was expended in the composing
> 
> As for the idea that the teacher should lose his licence, that's absurd.


Is emotion ever "in" any music? If it is, how do we know whether it's the same emotion we feel while listening, or one similar to it? Can we know what emotions a composer intends to express by his music? What would it mean for him to "expend" emotion in composing a piece? Would it mean that he feels what is - or is not - "in" the piece? Need he feel any emotion at all? what does it say about the music, the composer, or us listeners, if we find emotion in the music which the composer didn't feel and didn't intend?

Just askin'...


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I can only speak from personal experience with one music appreciation class but maybe the reason a certain number of teachers teach in such black-and-white terms is they don't feel the audience cares enough to explain further in depth. Now I know a really good teacher won't necessarily do this but in my recent basic music appreciation, the overall lack of interest from the other students was astonishing. Being the only one who knew anything about classical music made me come across as some kind of alien.


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Is emotion ever "in" any music? If it is, how do we know whether it's the same emotion we feel while listening, or one similar to it? Can we know what emotions a composer intends to express by his music? What would it mean for him to "expend" emotion in composing a piece? Would it mean that he feels what is - or is not - "in" the piece? Need he feel any emotion at all? what does it say about the music, the composer, or us listeners, if we find emotion in the music which the composer didn't feel and didn't intend?
> 
> Just askin'...


Well, since you asked...

There are several schools of thought. Broadly speaking, one says that music may be able to provoke or engender emotion in the listener, but it isn't there, intrinsic to the notes, and if we do feel emotion, it doesn't necessarily correspond to what the composer felt, or intended the listener to feel.

One differing view is that there is sufficient evidence of some music having similar effects on many listeners that this is evidence that there is, to all intents and purposes, emotion "in" the music. Others point to the fact that some emotions are not there in the music, but the music has acquired extra-musical associations with certain emotions, either over time, or by explicit connection to a 'programme' (take operatic stories, for example).

Personally, I think that some music has such a strong physiological impact on most listeners that it does 'carry' emotion, and composers' knowledge of that phenomena has been deliberately used to make that impact. The problem is that much music doesn't have such a clear cut impact, (or any at all) and listeners will report quite contradictory emotions when listening to the same piece.

According to the accompanying notes to my copy of Shostakovich's 5th Symphony, the composer reported (around 1937 when it was composed) that "In the finale, the tragically tense impulses of the earlier movements are resolved in optimism and joy of living." Much later, he was reported as saying something quite different:

"It's as if someone were beating you with a stick and saying, "Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing" [...] and you go off muttering, "Our business is rejoicing, our business is rejoicing."

Whilst DSCH is perhaps a special case, it seems a good illustration that whilst an individual listener's emotional response is perfectly valid - who can say otherwise? - it is fraught with difficulty to say with any certainty what the composer intended, or to generalise about the purposes of music belonging to musical periods (such as Baroque and Classical) - but don't get me started on another falsehood - that musical eras actually exist!


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Some baroque era music has meaning mainly the ones about th HOLY BIBLE & RELIGIONS.These music form are about JESUS & other holy bible people.Therefore the teacher just spoke his opinion.
View attachment 38080


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

mtmailey said:


> Some baroque era music has meaning mainly the ones about th HOLY BIBLE & RELIGIONS.These music form are about JESUS & other holy bible people.Therefore the teacher just spoke his opinion.
> View attachment 38080


I'm having a hard time deciphering this riddle.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

mtmailey said:


> Some baroque era music has meaning mainly the ones about th HOLY BIBLE & RELIGIONS.These music form are about JESUS & other holy bible people.Therefore the teacher just spoke his opinion.
> View attachment 38080


What the [email protected]? Is this William S. Burroughs? I never quite 'got' his writing.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I am reminded of a high school production of _Oklahoma!_ I attended a few years back (because a niece was involved). In the program book the teacher had proclaimed "Rogers and Hammerstein's _Oklahoma!_ was the first musical drama."

I think they are still removing parts of me from the ceiling.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mtmailey said:


> some baroque era music has meaning mainly the ones about th holy bible & religions.these music form are about jesus & other holy bible people.therefore the teacher just spoke his opinion.



View attachment 38080

.......,,,,,..huh?
...................................


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Most minds have been polluted by the banalities of pop music. The superficial and the obvious have been infused with feeling and emotion by their adoring public.


I can't tell if I'm just tired or if this comment is totally ridiculous, but what do you even mean by this snobbish remark?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> View attachment 38080
> 
> .......,,,,,..huh?
> ...................................


This was the image generated of what Jesus could have looked like, based on intense analysis of skulls and ethnic characteristics of middle eastern Jewish men of the time. Seems to have been a true mensch.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think there is a definite difference in the Classical aesthetic and the Romantic. The Romantics celebrated the common man, and the Classicists were writing for traditions such as church and royalty. The Romantics celebrated the individual (as 'poetic receptor'), while the Classicists, or Bach was expressing love of God, religious themes, etc.

In this sense, Romanticism is a much more democratic form of art, more anxious to communicate its message to individuals for their own edification, not as a vehicle to propogate Church doctrine or entertain royalty. Romanticism was concerned with everyday man's concerns.

I think the distinction gets blurred with music, because of its inherent power to evoke emotion. In paintings, the difference is obvious, with the crucifixion scenes being more obvious than Bach's music. BTW, the Church did not see Bach as much more than an employee; hundreds of his chorales are now lost, sold as scrap paper by the Church!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> This was the image generated of what Jesus could have looked like, based on intense analysis of skulls and ethnic characteristics of middle eastern Jewish men of the time. Seems to have been a true mensch.


Which was why, in response to a questionable 'what does this mean text' that was talking about religion, with that picture attached, I used the image and put 'Huh?' under it.

B..b...b...but, he was not a white-skinned fine-boned blue eyed Caucasion? Shocking. (The K.K.K. does not consider somebody "white" if they were born south of Milan, Italy. Must be difficult to be both Christian and a K.K.K. member, then


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Which was why, in response to a questionable 'what does this mean text' that was talking about religion, with that picture attached, I used the image and put 'Huh?' under it.
> 
> B..b...b...but, he was not a white-skinned fine-boned blue eyed Caucasion? Shocking. (The K.K.K. does not consider somebody "white" if they were born south of Milan, Italy. Must be difficult to be both Christian and a K.K.K. member, then


On all the images I've ever seen of him from the Catholic Church, he appears Irish with the lover-liest of blue eyes and the smallest of small noses. Folks worship who they want to worship.
Why should truth ever stand in the way?

Hope my comments aren't leaving anyone with the wrong impression.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Middle-eastern Jesus?? No way, dudes. I thought he was born in Texas.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Official Church doctrine says He got His blue eyes from His Dad. 

(I'm genuinely sorry for continuing this off-topic discussion, but I couldn't resist that one.)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Looks like straight out of Belfast.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Though it was allegedly just a bit over two thousand years ago, this guy is looking a bit more like those renderings of earlier (post second ice-age) neolithic cro-magnon types.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I didn't quite catch the halo in that rendering.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Did anyone see 'The Passion of the Christ'? The torture and Crucifixion scenes were the best parts of that ham fisted film. If anyone is interested in a good Biblical film look no further than Pier Paolo Pasolini's 'The Gospel According to St. Matthew' (Italian: Il Vangelo secondo Matteo).

FYI: Jesus doesn't look like a male supermodel in this film. Quite refreshing.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Maybe he was a handsome guy… maybe he wasn't. I think it's absolutely beside the point. Although I guess we're having a bit of fun here…. 

I doubt the rendition of Krishna or Buddha are correct either. Certain cultures really molested the Buddha's image by portraying a wealthy, obese lad to give them luck in their trade… when in actuality the Buddha would walk the streets begging for food.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> I'm having a hard time deciphering this riddle.


Religous music means something to those in religion you may not understand though.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

There is music ignorance of CLASSICAL MUSIC,undertstand that it is very complexed to most people out here.It will take much studying to understand it.I have a book on music here that is like 450 pages long.There is also a lack of appreciation for classical music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

mtmailey said:


> Religous music means something to those in religion you may not understand though.


Hasn't there been a TC discussion about this already?

Anyway, as an agnostic atheist myself, I think I can "feel" quite a bit of meaning in amazing pieces like the St. Mathew Passion or Faure's Requiem. Even if you didn't believe in the divine aspects of religion, there's always a human element to it too that one could find touching or profound in a way.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

violadude said:


> Hasn't there been a TC discussion about this already?
> 
> Anyway, as an agnostic atheist myself, I feel I can "feel" quite a bit of meaning in amazing pieces like the St. Mathew Passion or Faure's Requiem. Even if you didn't believe in the divine aspects of religion, there's always a human element to it to that one could find touching or profound in a way.


Exactly so. There's nothing more than a human element. Nonreligious people have exactly the same set of emotions that religious people have; we merely (usually) attach them to different things.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Did anyone see 'The Passion of the Christ'? The torture and Crucifixion scenes were the best parts of that ham fisted film. If anyone is interested in a good Biblical film look no further than Pier Paolo Pasolini's 'The Gospel According to St. Matthew' (Italian: Il Vangelo secondo Matteo).
> 
> FYI: Jesus doesn't look like a male supermodel in this film. Quite refreshing.


Mel Gibson is not noted for his subtlety and understatement as a director!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

violadude said:


> Hasn't there been a TC discussion about this already?
> 
> Anyway, as an agnostic atheist myself, I think I can "feel" quite a bit of meaning in amazing pieces like the St. Mathew Passion or Faure's Requiem. Even if you didn't believe in the divine aspects of religion, there's always a human element to it too that one could find touching or profound in a way.


An agnostic atheist? Bit of a contradiction there?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

science said:


> Exactly so. There's nothing more than a human element. Nonreligious people have exactly the same set of emotions that religious people have; we merely (usually) attach them to different things.


Always amazes me that guys who don't have religious experience always know about the emotions of people with religious experience and can write about it with such certainty!


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Maybe he was a handsome guy… maybe he wasn't. I think it's absolutely beside the point. Although I guess we're having a bit of fun here….
> 
> I doubt the rendition of Krishna or Buddha are correct either. Certain cultures really molested the Buddha's image by portraying a wealthy, obese lad to give them luck in their trade… when in actuality the Buddha would walk the streets begging for food.


Those are two different people actually. Thee fat one is a chinese monk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Always amazes me that guys who don't have religious experience always know about the emotions of people with religious experience and can write about it with such certainty!


I can turn your question around. How do you know so sure we do not feel the same thing?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DavidA said:


> An agnostic atheist? Bit of a contradiction there?


Not at all. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe there is a god but doesn't claim to know there isn't one.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Always amazes me that guys who don't have religious experience always know about the emotions of people with religious experience and can write about it with such certainty!


The emotions and hormones triggered by religious experiences can be triggered by secular things as well, like music


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2014)

At the risk of veering slightly off topic, it's precisely because the only person who knows how you feel is you that we must allow that whilst we may share some experiences and describe them similarly, they are not necessarily the same experience - whether the stimulus is religion, music, sex, cricket McDonalds...

I'm quite sure I had a transcendent experience listening on headphones to Nezet-Seguin/Rotterdam PO's Prokofiev's 5th Symphony this morning, but it would be difficult to claim that it bore a resemblance to what my son experienced when seeing England beat Sri Lanka, or Bernadette's experience at Lourdes.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Always amazes me that guys who don't have religious experience always know about the emotions of people with religious experience and can write about it with such certainty!


I used to be very religious. I was planning to be a priest - and I bet I know my way around the Bible and theology better than you do. (I don't need to know much about you to make that bet safely. I know my stuff.)

In fact, I think I'm still very religious emotionally, just not intellectually. Religious without a god, I guess.

There are a lot of us out there, too.


----------



## Rhythm (Nov 2, 2013)

science said:


> ... In fact, I think I'm still very religious emotionally, just not intellectually. Religious without a god, I guess.
> 
> There are a lot of us out there, too.


That's a good point, if I've understood you correctly. I think I'd say that there have been a lot of things about which I've been 'religious' peremptorily until I wasn't. To be 'religious' about practicing religion is not in the least imperative, personally speaking.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

violadude said:


> Not at all. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe there is a god but doesn't claim to know there isn't one.


The words are separate. An atheist does not believe in the existence of God. An agnostic is simply a skeptic who leaves the possibility open, however remote, but wants undeniable proof of God's existence. I put myself in the latter category.
I'm still waiting for the proof.

You are either an atheist or agnostic. You cannot be an agnostic atheist.

However, I love religiously inspired music, especially Bach.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

violadude said:


> Not at all. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe there is a god but doesn't claim to know there isn't one.


I like this, actually. There's a modesty in this that isn't found in most extreme atheist or theist.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> Those are two different people actually. Thee fat one is a chinese monk.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai


Well, I guess I'm gonna' have to give this another look. Thanks.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

hpowders said:


> The words are separate. An atheist does not believe in the existence of God. An agnostic is simply a skeptic who leaves the possibility open, however remote, but wants undeniable proof of God's existence. I put myself in the latter category.
> I'm still waiting for the proof.
> 
> You are either an atheist or agnostic. You cannot be an agnostic atheist.
> ...


"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims-are *unknown or unknowable*."

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of *belief* in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of *belief* that any deities exist."

According to these definitions, which albeit I took from Wikipedia, agnosticism answers whether or not you know something, atheism answers whether or not you believe something.

I'm using the broader definition of atheism.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

My father was an atheist. I am agnostic. So if I have a kid, he should be devoutly religious.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I don't know what the hell I am… nor do I feel the need to pin a label on myself and abide by those rules.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> I don't know what the hell I am… nor do I feel the need to pin a label on myself and abide by those rules.


Okay, you have achieved a self-identity that satisfies you.

That's not going to be the problem, though; it's how* WE *label you that matters. Even if we simply hear you speak, we will make numerous assumptions. Is a this male or female voice? Does it have an accent? What is its ethnicity?

It's a good thing you're on the internet, if you wish to have an anonymous identity with no labels or rules. But watch your syntax and grammar! We can derive a few assumptions from that, as well.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

violadude said:


> "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims-are *unknown or unknowable*."
> 
> "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of *belief* in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of *belief* that any deities exist."
> 
> ...


No, the two terms are separate. You just defined them. So really you are correct: atheism is a belief system, since it *denies *the existence of God.

Agnosticism really has no business being used as a counter to religion (or combined as a term with religious terms) based on belief. Even religions themselves admit that 'faith is the belief in things not seen.' So the two terms are irrelevant to each other's purposes.

However, your earlier statement appears as a contradiction, until scrutinized:


violadude said:


> Not at all. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe there is a god *but doesn't claim to know there isn't one*.


If an atheist denies the existence of God, then he is in effect claiming that there isn't one.

Still, I can see the contradiction inherent in atheism: he is denying the existence of God, because he doesn't believe, yet no one can prove that God exists or not, since the idea of God is based on belief. Yet, to say God is an idea is insulting to believers.

So, finally, you are correct; belief or non-belief (atheism) exists separately from knowing or not knowing. By combining the two terms, you are creating potential confusion, which requires much intellectual effort and logic to solve.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> I don't know what the hell I am… nor do I feel the need to pin a label on myself and abide by those rules.


In all probability you're essentially what we all are: selfish, delusional, cruel, and clueless as to the purpose of human existence.

Aren't people great?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hpowders said:


> My father was an atheist. I am agnostic. So if I have a kid, he should be devoutly religious.


That could be the result, but you will need to sire a child to know for sure. Ready for that? I have no idea how old you are.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> That could be the result, but you will need to sire a child to know for sure. Ready for that? I have no idea how old you are.


Sooner or later, it will be just me and the trees. Everyone else here will pass on due to acute atonalphile syndrome.
Haydn provides me with immunity.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> The emotions and hormones triggered by religious experiences can be triggered by secular things as well, like music


... or with or without music or religious beliefs, living solely off of coffee, cigarettes, and a few chocolate bars for about seven days, etc.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

PetrB said:


> ... or with or without music or religious beliefs, living solely off of coffee, cigarettes, and a few chocolate bars for about seven days, etc.


Or some shrooms or acid


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> Or some shrooms or acid


That "etc." made any further additions extraneous!

It might be time to get back to the subject of the OP, though I think it has been quite worn out now


----------



## Incitatus (Mar 27, 2014)

I think like any music there were composers who were trying to exploit a feeling from the audience, and those who were allowing the audience to feel what they would individually (and those who were a mixture). All this is speculative because there aren't any recordings of the actual composers directing the music.

I feel that Mozart for instance used a lot of his personal emotions to fuel his music, to fuel the audience with the whirlwind of emotions that were surrounding him. Beethoven I feel was trying to allow the audience to make what they will of his music at the same time as he was pouring emotion into his pieces. I Do not believe however, that any composer is capable of not feeling emotion as he writes the piece. We had a piece composed by a man in a baroque style and throughout certain parts he would explode with emotion and that would affect the piece. (I remember at one point, at a section marked _tenderly_ he stopped the band, threw his hands up and said "I know it says tenderly but it's bittersweet in my head!"

The way I see it is that if I get so much elation from playing the music than who's to say that the composer did not also feel this way? Maybe Bach's sympohnies can carry so much emotion because they evoke something in the players, conductors, and something in him when he sat down to pen it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> atheism is a belief system,


Surely a belief 'system' requires more than one belief? One PC doesn't make a network, one brick doesn't make a building, one neuron doesn't make a brain.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, you have achieved a self-identity that satisfies you.
> 
> That's not going to be the problem, though; it's how* WE *label you that matters. Even if we simply hear you speak, we will make numerous assumptions. Is a this male or female voice? Does it have an accent? What is its ethnicity?
> 
> It's a good thing you're on the internet, if you wish to have an anonymous identity with no labels or rules. But watch your syntax and grammar! We can derive a few assumptions from that, as well.


Well… this meat-suit is a white, 24 yr old, relatively intelligent, alright looking male living in Lousiana. I was talking more about identifying with a particular belief system, which I don't. I respect anyone's choice, but I don't find an affinity with any system in particular… or it's all the same games of imagination - just with a different name and form. The essence is the same, and I think that is the valuable thing… the waves are really unimportant.



Lope de Aguirre said:


> In all probability you're essentially what we all are: selfish, delusional, cruel, and clueless as to the purpose of human existence.
> 
> Aren't people great?


Heyyoo, haha.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> That could be the result, but you will need to sire a child to know for sure. Ready for that? I have no idea how old you are.


Around the hood we don't call it sire-ing. Anyhow, at this time, I'm specifically into self-pollination.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Again, today she once more told the class the emotion wasn't a factor in classical and baroque music, after the lesson, when I asked her if she had read the doctrine of affections, she said she had and said nothing more of it, she then asked me how baroque music could be expressive with such little use of dynamics? 

When I got home I emailed her with this quote from Brahms, which seems to support my argument

On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Burroughs said:


> Again, today she once more told the class the emotion wasn't a factor in classical and baroque music, when I asked her if she had read the doctrine of affections, she said she had and said nothing more of it, she then asked how could baroque music be expressive with such little use of dynamics?


Your teacher is imposing contemporary ideas of how to evoke emotion in music onto the music of an earlier age. She's wrong here.

It is perhaps correct to say that Classical and Baroque music don't attempt to express _personal_ emotions (or at least not the personal emotions of the composer) the way that Romantic music does, but emotion of an idealized type is the basis of early opera.


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford (Feb 8, 2014)

Burroughs said:


> It seems that especially with the classical and baroque eras that the general idea is that music written in these eras was "music for music's sake" and our music teacher at school is always saying emotion wasn't envolved with these eras. But I think this is wrong, listen to all sorts of classical music and you'll hear the ardent passion, Mozart's minor piano concertos, for example, or the great D minor requiem. Much Bach is also infused with great emotion it's all just expressed in different ways.
> 
> What do you think?


yes, I do think that all music probably has a least some emotional depth to it, some not as much as other, but the whole reason humans enjoy and treasure music, is because it ties in with our emotions, and, many times, our spirit.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Jonathan Wrachford said:


> yes, I do think that all music probably has a least some emotional depth to it, some not as much as other, but the whole reason humans enjoy and treasure music, is because it ties in with our emotions, and, many times, our spirit.


I'm not so sure about this. I know you're right about most Western music from the Renaissance up to contemporary pop music, but at least some music is purely intellectual, not intended to express or communicate or inspire any emotion; and a lot of music is virtuosic rather than romantic, designed exclusively to show off the technique of a performer. If emotional attachments occur to that music, they're extrinsic to the composer or performer's intentions.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> An aside... There are bad textbooks, bad or negligent teachers, and students who completely misunderstand good textbooks and good teachers as well.
> 
> I wonder why so often the reportage on 'the bad teacher' is instantly assumed to be about 'a bad teacher,' when so many times it is the post is a comment by a student who has misunderstood something, and is reporting 'what the student has misunderstood.'


I have not understood her, she is adiment that baroque and classical contained very little emotion.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Burroughs said:


> I have not understood her, she is adamant that baroque and classical contained very little emotion.


I think there is a way to understand her sympathetically (or perhaps "charitably" would be better).

Beethoven and later composers (especially in the German tradition) valued emotional intensity to a degree that Baroque and Classical composers generally didn't. Music became understood as something non-rational, a sort of spiritual experience, ideally channeled through some almost occult "genius." We on the other side of this legacy often read intentions like that back into Bach and Vivaldi and Monteverdi, but they actually had a different set of values. Granted, they weren't anti-emotional or non-emotional, but it was different in a way that could perhaps even be described as "less emotional."


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> I'm not so sure about this. I know you're right about most Western music from the Renaissance up to contemporary pop music, but at least some music is purely intellectual, not intended to express or communicate or inspire any emotion; and a lot of music is virtuosic rather than romantic, designed exclusively to show off the technique of a performer. If emotional attachments occur to that music, they're extrinsic to the composer or performer's intentions.


I think, though, that this creates too much of a dichotomy between intellect and emotion, or perhaps is too limiting on what those terms encompass. I'm not sure it's possible to engage the intellect without in any way engaging emotions (vice versa). If the listener is impressed by what they hear in a virtuosic performance, surely that's what the composer/performer intended, and doesn't this count as an emotion?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I think, though, that this creates too much of a dichotomy between intellect and emotion, or perhaps is too limiting on what those terms encompass. I'm not sure it's possible to engage the intellect without in any way engaging emotions (vice versa). If the listener is impressed by what they hear in a virtuosic performance, surely that's what the composer/performer intended, and doesn't this count as an emotion?


Well, the relationship between intellect and emotion is certainly complex: I doubt that our vocabulary can express our concepts very clearly, and even then I doubt that our concepts ordinarily correspond very closely to what actually goes on in our brains.

Perhaps if we are impressed by a virtuosic performance, while that "impression" is an emotion, it is a separate emotion from anything that might be conveyed by the music. For example, there could be a really impressive performance of "sad music" or a really impressive performance of "happy music" and - here's the point - a really impressive performance of music without any other intended emotional content.

Anyway, in my mind this kind of discussion starts to get into questions like, "What is mathematical beauty?" And, "Is logic a disciplined application of fundamentally emotional intuitions?" I personally need to sort out the former question and persuade you that the answer to the latter is "yes" before we can get very far understanding each other on this topic.

But maybe we can do this.... Imagine a person who has had a very specific stroke (or series of strokes), knocking out his brain's capacity to feel the most basic emotions: no sadness, no joy, no fear, no anger - but leaving him with a capacity to feel curiosity or interest. I think we can imagine such a person easily enough. Could such a person still be interested in music as a matter of patterns and relationships, similar to the way I am interested in things like go (baduk) and pure mathematics like number theory? I _think_ so. Of course this is an exploration of my own credulity rather than a genuinely insightful discovery, but for me at least it points to the possibility of an interest in musical patterns that is distinguishable from other emotional-musical experiences.

What do you think of that? Does it make any sense?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> Well, the relationship between intellect and emotion is certainly complex: I doubt that our vocabulary can express our concepts very clearly, and even then I doubt that our concepts ordinarily correspond very closely to what actually goes on in our brains.
> 
> Perhaps if we are impressed by a virtuosic performance, while that "impression" is an emotion, it is a separate emotion from anything that might be conveyed by the music. For example, there could be a really impressive performance of "sad music" or a really impressive performance of "happy music" and - here's the point - a really impressive performance of music without any other intended emotional content.
> 
> ...


I'm inclined to think that curiosity and interest have to be related to the "most basic" emotions; curiosity satisfied will produce a feeling of... well, satisfaction, which is not dissimilar to pleasure. Similarly, I'm not sure how you can be interested in number theory without deriving some sort of pleasure from the fruits of this interest.
But I think that's a minor disagreement between us. In terms of being interested in musical patterns as distinct from other emotional-musical experiences, sure, I have no problem with that. Two kinds of "meaning" in music: the music itself, the patterns in it, provides one; the other is an emergent meaning that can provide the emotional experience for the listener (and may or may not have been intended by the composer).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I'm inclined to think that curiosity and interest have to be related to the "most basic" emotions; curiosity satisfied will produce a feeling of... well, satisfaction, which is not dissimilar to pleasure. Similarly, I'm not sure how you can be interested in number theory without deriving some sort of pleasure from the fruits of this interest.
> But I think that's a minor disagreement between us. In terms of being interested in musical patterns as distinct from other emotional-musical experiences, sure, I have no problem with that. Two kinds of "meaning" in music: the music itself, the patterns in it, provides one; the other is an emergent meaning that can provide the emotional experience for the listener (and may or may not have been intended by the composer).


One of the things we might want to consider as well is how those visceral emotions - like excitement, sadness, joy, etc. - are in the music at all. Evidently that's a really complex issue.


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford (Feb 8, 2014)

science said:


> I'm not so sure about this. I know you're right about most Western music from the Renaissance up to contemporary pop music, but at least some music is purely intellectual, not intended to express or communicate or inspire any emotion; and a lot of music is virtuosic rather than romantic, designed exclusively to show off the technique of a performer. If emotional attachments occur to that music, they're extrinsic to the composer or performer's intentions.


yeah, I can kind of understand what you mean. but I do think even extremely virtuosic compositions have some emotional attachments to them. You see, when we here a wild piece of music, we may be drawn to feel excited, and excitement is an emotion. Some music, (which is not very good, by the way) may make someone feel angry, and anger is an emotion as well. But sometimes, depending on the performer, the music may have more emotional bearing on the audience than the performer himself, or vice versa.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> One of the things we might want to consider as well is how those visceral emotions - like excitement, sadness, joy, etc. - are in the music at all. Evidently that's a really complex issue.


I've wondered that, too. I think it's more of a stimulus based on the individual's social conditioning. I'm open to varying interpretations though.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Burroughs said:


> It seems that especially with the classical and baroque eras that the general idea is that music written in these eras was "music for music's sake" and our music teacher at school is always saying emotion wasn't envolved with these eras. But I think this is wrong, listen to all sorts of classical music and you'll hear the ardent passion, Mozart's minor piano concertos, for example, or the great D minor requiem. Much Bach is also infused with great emotion it's all just expressed in different ways.
> 
> What do you think?


Agree entirely. Don't be mistaken about the 17th century composers. Look at their visual arts, their architect, their formal dress - it all spectacular and extremely refined with senses that even today, folks recognise. I wish I could say the same for today.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Imagine what they could have done with smart phone designs, back in the day.


----------

