# Expressivity in Music



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

My question is whether or not music can express emotion. 

My opinion on this matter is that music doesn't express emotion and cannot ever express emotion. Music expresses one thing, this one thing is a symbol. This symbol in connotative, not denotative, and connotes something, whether it be an emotion or concept, to the listener. What the symbol connotes is relative as well as each culture's music has different connotations in each culture. Example: as an American western musician I am not able to listen to an Indian Raga and hear all of the intricate details contained within the many different scales. Where in Western music the minor scale tends to be associated with sadness or depth, the minor scale in other cultures can represent a certain time of day or a specific god. 

I think that it is very restrictive to say that music causes an emotion or concept and greatly limits the scope of feeling associated with a particular piece of music. This theory would account for the various reactions to something like 12 tone music. Many people listen to 12 tone music and find it absolutely lovely (as I do) while others just simply cannot derive pleasure from it. We also cannot know as the listener what the composer felt when they wrote the specific piece of music. I would like to strike down the Romantic notion that music expels emotion and that as a listener we can feel the pain that the composer was going through.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Music is supposed to express emotion. It's the job of the performer to imbue a work with life and feeling. But we live in an age of autism where playing the piano is judged by some the same as typing on a typewriter... Just hit the keys as fast as you can evenly with no errors. I think a lot of people are afraid to feel.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

Where does it say that music is supposed to express emotion? That is the problem I have. What does it mean to imbue a work with life and meaning?


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> Where does it say that music is supposed to express emotion? That is the problem I have. What does it mean to imbue a work with life and meaning?


Music isn't "supposed" to express emotion. But it often does. In Japan, 
Beethoven's ninth is almost a national fettish, and the last movement, though bearing nothing in common with traditional Japanese music, inspires in them pretty much the same sense of affirmation that it does in us.


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

GGluek said:


> In Japan, Beethoven's ninth is almost a national fettish, and the last movement, though bearing nothing in common with traditional Japanese music, inspires in them pretty much the same sense of affirmation that it does in us.


Out of curiosity what sense of affirmation are we all supposed to have hearing the last movement of Beethoven's 9th?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

pluhagr said:


> Where does it say that music is supposed to express emotion?


I'm curious to know what you look for when you listen to music.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

GGluek said:


> Music isn't "supposed" to express emotion. But it often does. In Japan,
> Beethoven's ninth is almost a national fettish, and the last movement, though bearing nothing in common with traditional Japanese music, inspires in them pretty much the same sense of affirmation that it does in us.


I think that this is an overgeneralization. Japanese music is much different than Beethoven. I believe they are accustomed to Western music. I guarantee that a person from a small African tribe in Ghana where they practice drumming would not "feel" something when listening to Beethoven's 9th. Heck I don't feel anything when listening to it.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I'm curious to know what you look for when you listen to music.


I listen for the melody if there is one, interesting harmony if it's tonal, but mostly for rhythm and intervals. I also pay close attention to the timbre of the instruments and also for gestures.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

I'm not saying I don't experience emotion while listening to music though. I mean that the emotion that I feel is not directly from the music. And that the emotion I feel is not necessarily the "point" of the music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

pluhagr said:


> I listen for the melody if there is one, interesting harmony if it's tonal, but mostly for rhythm and intervals. I also pay close attention to the timbre of the instruments and also for gestures.


ok, but why? I mean, I look for the same things, but because those are things that convey emotions (often very complex emotions, not just sadness or happiness). If not, it would be not only boring but totally pointless, something like watching a fridge for a long time.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

bigshot said:


> Music is supposed to express emotion. It's the job of the performer to imbue a work with life and feeling. But we live in an age of autism where playing the piano is judged by some the same as typing on a typewriter... Just hit the keys as fast as you can evenly with no errors. I think a lot of people are afraid to feel.


Yeh, it's turned from symbols on the page to sound waves by the performer and that gets turned by the brain into both an intellectual and emotional response.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

All emotion ascribed to music is necessarily extramusical, I think I posted this idea verbatim in another thread we had a while back on a similar topic. That is not to say the emotions someone feels when listening to Beethoven's 9th are not valid, just that they are not inherent in the music, the listener puts them there involuntarily. The 9th is of course aided by having a text in the final movement, but that text is also extramusical, only the notes that are sung are music and there is no inherent emotion in those notes.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

norman bates said:


> ok, but why? I mean, I look for the same things, but because those are things that convey emotions (often very complex emotions, not just sadness or happiness). If not, it would be not only boring but totally pointless, something like watching a fridge for a long time.


Yes these musical qualities that I have listed convey emotion to me. But they don't cause emotion. I also don't feel emotion during music as well. I can be happy just listening to the technical aspects.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Marisol said:


> Out of curiosity what sense of affirmation are we all supposed to have hearing the last movement of Beethoven's 9th?


It's not a question what we're "supposed" to feel. It's what many people "do" feel -- whether it's hard wired or learned or cultural. And yes, there are people who are unmoved. Some of that is wiring (like autism spectrum disorders). Some is alien cultural. Some just contrariness. But Beethoven expected people to feel joy (or at least feel uplifted) and most people do feel uplift -- even those who don't understand German. Why is a question for neurologists.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

pluhagr said:


> Yes these musical qualities that I have listed convey emotion to me. But they don't cause emotion. I also don't feel emotion during music as well. I can be happy just listening to the technical aspects.


I like complexity and originality if it serves to express something that it's not possible to express in simpler ways, in that case I recognize the genius of the musician. But I think it's sterile and even decadent to look complexity (or novelty) for the sake of complexity.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I like complexity and originality if it serves to express something that it's not possible to express in simpler ways, in that case I recognize the genius of the musician. But I think it's sterile and even decadent to look complexity (or novelty) for the sake of complexity.


I think it's silly and confining to only look for emotion in music. Emotion may happen when listening to music but only because of the form.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

GGluek said:


> It's not a question what we're "supposed" to feel. It's what many people "do" feel -- whether it's hard wired or learned or cultural. And yes, there are people who are unmoved. Some of that is wiring (like autism spectrum disorders). Some is alien cultural. Some just contrariness. But Beethoven expected people to feel joy (or at least feel uplifted) and most people do feel uplift -- even those who don't understand German. Why is a question for neurologists.


How do you know Beethoven wanted the audience to feel uplifted? Bach didn't write music to make people feel emotion, he wrote it because he had to get a certain amount of music written for the next week's church service.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> All emotion ascribed to music is necessarily extramusical, I think I posted this idea verbatim in another thread we had a while back on a similar topic. That is not to say the emotions someone feels when listening to Beethoven's 9th are not valid, just that they are not inherent in the music, the listener puts them there involuntarily. The 9th is of course aided by having a text in the final movement, but that text is also extramusical, only the notes that are sung are music and there is no inherent emotion in those notes.


This is correct. Indeed, emotions only exist in the human brain, we can't assert they have an independent metaphysical existence from us and, in that way, say that they are being "carried" by the music!.
The interesting question is: Do the same music produce the same emotions in different human beings?. Evidently, that's true. With the Rite of Spring, many people feel its "wildness". With Ligeti's Requiem, the fear of death, the metaphysical mystery of existence.
Other question would be: are those reactions because of social conditioning or there's really something objective in the music that triggers the adequate mechanisms in our brains?.
Personally, I don't care very much. I prefer to listen and to enjoy the wonderful emotions music provokes on me.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> All emotion ascribed to music is necessarily extramusical, I think I posted this idea verbatim in another thread we had a while back on a similar topic. That is not to say the emotions someone feels when listening to Beethoven's 9th are not valid, just that they are not inherent in the music, the listener puts them there involuntarily. [...]


Nah, Crudblud, don'tya know that a minor 6th = 'yearning', a major 3rd = 'colonial majesty', 
a major 4th = 'resolve' etc etc etc...
Of course, total *merde*, I know, but a lot of people believe this stuff. And that other thing about 
'minor = sad' and 'major = happy'.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

aleazk said:


> This is correct. Indeed, emotions only exist in the human brain, we can't assert they have an independent metaphysical existence from us and, in that way, say that they are being "carried" by the music!.
> The interesting question is: Do the same music produce the same emotions in different human beings?. Evidently, that's true. With the Rite of Spring, many people feel its "wildness". With Ligeti's Requiem, the fear of death, the metaphysical mystery of existence.
> Other question would be: are those reactions because of social conditioning or there's really something objective in the music that triggers the adequate mechanisms in our brains?.
> Personally, I don't care very much. I prefer to listen and to enjoy the wonderful emotions music provokes on me.


Both of you are so correct! You explain it quite well too. I think that we need an extra-musical story attached to the music. With The Rite of Spring, there is choreography which is representational and there is also a story. The music doesn't give the story to us. The Requiem is also very directive. The name alone points the human mind to thinking about death. So it is not the music which causes this idea. A drier title like Symphony is non-directive. You don't have a story attached to a title like that. Vaughan Williams' Symphony No. 9 has no program and is an example of pure music where there is no story to be told. It is just pure musical form.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> How do you know Beethoven wanted the audience to feel uplifted? Bach didn't write music to make people feel emotion, he wrote it because he had to get a certain amount of music written for the next week's church service.


A. Because Beethoven, whatever we may think of his taste, was inspired by Schiller's Ode and wanted to set it to music in a way that did it justice. B. We disagree about Bach. He may have been just doing a job, but that doesn't mean he didn't feel deeply the meaning of the words he was setting. Example: the Crucifixus and Resurrexit from the b-minor Mass. I'm not the least bit religious in any conventional way, but they move me almost to tears. Similarly Missa Solemnis and the Halleluia Chorus.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

GGluek said:


> A. Because Beethoven, whatever we may think of his taste, was inspired by Schiller's Ode and wanted to set it to music in a way that did it justice. B. We disagree about Bach. He may have been just doing a job, butnthat doesn't me4an he deidn't feel deeply the meaning of the words he was setting. Example: the Crucifixus and Resurrexit from the b-minor Mass. I'm not the least bit religious in any conventional way, but they move me almost to tears. Similarly Missa Solemnis and the Halleluia Chorus.


And so because Beethoven set the text in such a way which would create happiness we are bound to that one emotion?

Also, music in Bach's time was perceived very differently than it is now.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

TalkingHead said:


> Nah, Crudblud, don'tya know that a minor 6th = 'yearning', a major 3rd = 'colonial majesty',
> a major 4th = 'resolve' etc etc etc...
> Of course, total *merde*, I know, but a lot of people believe this stuff. And that other thing about
> 'minor = sad' and 'major = happy'.


lol, I can actually imagine a "talking head" saying all that. Pretty bizarre image!.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> Where does it say that music is supposed to express emotion? That is the problem I have. What does it mean to imbue a work with life and meaning?


All art is about expressing our humanity. Emotions are a big part of being a human. Our creations are not separate from us. They express what we express. They reflect us.

I think we live in an age devoid of feeling sometimes. That's a fairly recent phenomena.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

TalkingHead said:


> And that other thing about
> 'minor = sad' and 'major = happy'.


well, there are studies about that. Something like that we perceive the minor third sad because when we are sad while we're speaking we use intervals that are minor thirds.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/06/17/music-and-speech-share-a-code-for-c-2010-06-17/

This is not against the notion of emotion as something "not inherent in the music", but if anybody perceive the same interval the same way I don't see the big difference.
It must be said that the end of the article is this: 


> it's an open question whether it's a phenomenon that exists specifically in American English or across cultures," Curtis explained. "Who knows if they are using the same intervals in, say, Hindi?


I'd be certainly curious to know if an indian perceive the sadness or a minor third or not.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> And so because Beethoven set the text in such a way which would create happiness we are bound to that one emotion?
> 
> Also, music in Bach's time was perceived very differently than it is now.


We are not _bound _to anything, but that's different from Beethoven expecting that most listeners would feel something akin to what he intended when he wrote it. People are different. (My wife doesn't have a sense of humor, but I still love her. )


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> All emotion ascribed to music is necessarily extramusical, I think I posted this idea verbatim in another thread we had a while back on a similar topic. That is not to say the emotions someone feels when listening to Beethoven's 9th are not valid, just that they are not inherent in the music, the listener puts them there involuntarily. The 9th is of course aided by having a text in the final movement, but that text is also extramusical, only the notes that are sung are music and there is no inherent emotion in those notes.


But there is in the way the notes are played?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

pluhagr said:


> I think it's silly and confining to only look for emotion in music. Emotion may happen when listening to music but only because of the form.


I agree it would be silly and confining to _only_ look for emotion, just like it would be silly and confining _only_ to look at it like some intellectual scribbling.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think most people with no background in music theory respond to classical music pretty much based on the emotions and how it makes them feel. Understanding the intellectual structures underneath the notes can enhance the enjoyment of music, but it isn't a prerequisite to it.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

As I've said before here, music does not exist in a vacuum, and you cannot divorce it from the extra-musical .
What Stravinsky said about composers supposedly merely "combining notes" is nonsense .
Writers combine words, but that does not mean that fiction, non-fiction and poetry etc have no meaning and are just random combinations of words .
If you hear Debussy's "La Mer" without knowing anything about classical music , you would not guess that it is supposed to evoke the sea . But that does not mean that this is a purely abstract work .


----------



## BeatOven (May 23, 2012)

I think in the "social-conditioning" direction it is important to think of the hours we have likely all spent un-intentionally being conditioned through almost anything on television to pair certain musical patterns or "feels" with the emotional state of the visual action.


----------



## BeatOven (May 23, 2012)

And i absolutely agree that emotions derived from a listener is not the only thing important when appreciating a composition. I doubt few would argue with that.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> My question is whether or not music can express emotion.
> 
> My opinion on this matter is that music doesn't express emotion and cannot ever express emotion. Music expresses one thing, this one thing is a symbol. This symbol in connotative, not denotative, and connotes something, whether it be an emotion or concept, to the listener. What the symbol connotes is relative as well as each culture's music has different connotations in each culture. Example: as an American western musician I am not able to listen to an Indian Raga and hear all of the intricate details contained within the many different scales. Where in Western music the minor scale tends to be associated with sadness or depth, the minor scale in other cultures can represent a certain time of day or a specific god.
> 
> I think that it is very restrictive to say that music causes an emotion or concept and greatly limits the scope of feeling associated with a particular piece of music. This theory would account for the various reactions to something like 12 tone music. Many people listen to 12 tone music and find it absolutely lovely (as I do) while others just simply cannot derive pleasure from it. We also cannot know as the listener what the composer felt when they wrote the specific piece of music. I would like to strike down the Romantic notion that music expels emotion and that as a listener we can feel the pain that the composer was going through.


Music can, in itself, express a certain amount of emotion. It is, however, primarily up to the interpreter to determine what this emotion is and where in the score it is to be found and just how much to deliver of it.

"Emotion" in music is highly overrated. Anyone can make a piece their own and turn it into the most the dramatic and depressing thing one has ever experienced. At the same rate, a thoughtful interpreter can read the music for what it is and take into the world of the composer without the need for theatrics or this modernly accepted 'idea' of what emotion is.

Every interpreter has his or her idea about what emotion is and they are either right or wrong. My hope is that the new masses understand which is which and don't get sucked into the joke that is [dressing up, wearing excessive amount of perfume and knowing next to nothing about the actual piece being performed, let alone the composer] the norm of today.

Show up casual. Be there for the music and ONLY for the music. Enjoy yourself. Keep music alive.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> Where does it say that music is supposed to express emotion? That is the problem I have. What does it mean to imbue a work with life and meaning?


(It doesn't "say"it anywhere, you are supposed to take it from the music,if you can't I would normally say to such a person that maybe music is not for you.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> How do you know Beethoven wanted the audience to feel uplifted? Bach didn't write music to make people feel emotion, he wrote it because he had to get a certain amount of music written for the next week's church service.


There is a huge gulf between the music of Bach and that of Beethoven.
What on earth has understanding German got to with it?
Do you have to understand Polish to enjoy Chopin ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I think that all of this is completely unnecessary and is trying to deal with an abstract which is almost impossible.
When I first got hit between the eyes by music I was about ten years old,I'm pretty sure I didn't do much reasoning or seeking into my mind I just liked it period. Some music grabs you and some doesn't and nobody can give an answer as to why.
Look at the way members are fumbling to give answers to this question,I'll bet at the culmination of this thread we'll be no wiser.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

kv466 said:


> Music can, in itself, express a certain amount of emotion. It is, however, primarily up to the interpreter to determine what this emotion is and where in the score it is to be found and just how much to deliver of it.
> 
> "Emotion" in music is highly overrated. Anyone can make a piece their own and turn it into the most the dramatic and depressing thing one has ever experienced. At the same rate, a thoughtful interpreter can read the music for what it is and take into the world of the composer without the need for theatrics or this modernly accepted 'idea' of what emotion is.
> 
> ...


Well yeh I said performers convey the emotion.

The only ones who tend to go on endlessly about what particular kind of emotion is found in a particular piece tends to be complete novices to classical. For some reason the fashion for the young in popular music now is to define the popular music they listen to in a very limited emotional way as well, so they just do the same with classical when they start listening to that.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

moody said:


> I think that all of this is completely unnecessary and is trying to deal with an abstract which is almost impossible.
> When I first got hit between the eyes by music I was about ten years old,I'm pretty sure I didn't do much reasoning or seeking into my mind I just liked it period. Some music grabs you and some doesn't and nobody can give an answer as to why.
> Look at the way members are fumbling to give answers to this question,I'll bet at the culmination of this thread we'll be no wiser.


If you think it is pointless to discuss it, might I suggest you stop posting in this thread?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> If you think it is pointless to discuss it, might I suggest you stop posting in this thread?


You can suggest what you want of course but it all depends who you're posting to,in my case I don't except pointless suggestions.
I have been trying to find my statement that it was pointless.
But I did find yours and that wasn't particularly illuminating,rather proving my point that it's almost impossible.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

kv466 said:


> Music can, in itself, express a certain amount of emotion. It is, however, primarily up to the interpreter to determine what this emotion is and where in the score it is to be found and just how much to deliver of it.
> 
> "Emotion" in music is highly overrated. Anyone can make a piece their own and turn it into the most the dramatic and depressing thing one has ever experienced. At the same rate, a thoughtful interpreter can read the music for what it is and take into the world of the composer without the need for theatrics or this modernly accepted 'idea' of what emotion is.
> 
> ...


If you replace emotion with symbol of an emotion then I would agree with you.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

moody said:


> I think that all of this is completely unnecessary and is trying to deal with an abstract which is almost impossible.
> When I first got hit between the eyes by music I was about ten years old,I'm pretty sure I didn't do much reasoning or seeking into my mind I just liked it period. Some music grabs you and some doesn't and nobody can give an answer as to why.
> Look at the way members are fumbling to give answers to this question,I'll bet at the culmination of this thread we'll be no wiser.


I'm sorry that you think this is unnecessary. I find it of absolute necessity and so do many other music theorists, musicologists, and philosophers of music. I think you might want to go back and read my previous posts more thoroughly as you don't seem to understand what I am trying to say.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

moody said:


> You can suggest what you want of course but it all depends who you're posting to,in my case I don't except pointless suggestions.
> I have been trying to find my statement that it was pointless.
> But I did find yours and that wasn't particularly illuminating,rather proving my point that it's almost impossible.


"I think that all of this is completely unnecessary"

"I'll bet at the culmination of this thread we'll be no wiser."

The sum total of your activity in this thread has been to try to dissuade people from participating in it by saying that it isn't worthwhile to do so, you then say that that isn't what you said even though everyone can plainly see that it is. Finally, wishing to draw attention away from your obvious self-contradiction, you attempt to goad me into getting angry and losing focus by mocking my original response to this thread. I think, having weighed up the evidence from both this and prior encounters with you, that you have a serious attitude problem and that if anything is truly pointless here, it is attempting to have a discussion with you. I will refrain from responding to any more of your posts in this thread as long as they continue to be of so little value to it as those that you have made so far.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

starry said:


> But there is in the way the notes are played?


There is definitely emotional input in each performance but it is specific to the personal context of the performer, there is still no inherent emotion in the music.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> "I think that all of this is completely unnecessary"
> 
> "I'll bet at the culmination of this thread we'll be no wiser."
> 
> The sum total of your activity in this thread has been to try to dissuade people from participating in it by saying that it isn't worthwhile to do so, you then say that that isn't what you said even though everyone can plainly see that it is. Finally, wishing to draw attention away from your obvious self-contradiction, you attempt to goad me into getting angry and losing focus by mocking my original response to this thread. I think, having weighed up the evidence from both this and prior encounters with you, that you have a serious attitude problem and that if anything is truly pointless here, it is attempting to have a discussion with you. I will refrain from responding to any more of your posts in this thread as long as they continue to be of so little value to it as those that you have made so far.


I am sorry that you feel this way and surprised that my honest feelings about the difficulty of explaining this matter have apparently upset you. It was not my intention.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> I'm sorry that you think this is unnecessary. I find it of absolute necessity and so do many other music theorists, musicologists, and philosophers of music. I think you might want to go back and read my previous posts more thoroughly as you don't seem to understand what I am trying to say.


You asked whether or not music can express emotion.
I would have thought that your opening post answers the question completely. Some music causes emotions to be felt by some people and other music does not .You find pleasure in 12 tone music and others don't.
Incidentally,it is often possible to know how a composer felt when he wrote a particular piece of music and it can appear to reflect that...to some people !!
You asked where it says that that music is supposed to express emotions . I answered that it doesn't and that the response is what you get from that music.
I can't see where I've misunderstood your comments,but perhaps I'm just past redemption.
Lastly ,I doubt if an everyday listener reads up on musicologists and men of learning and their theories. I would think that a person who has experienced a wealth of music as a listener has discovered what does it for him/her.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> If you think it is pointless to discuss it, might I suggest you stop posting in this thread?


I will modify 'pointless' to 'useless', and defy you to find, say in a week from now, any significant conclusions drawn from the (I hope moribund) thread. The actual feeling of emotions is separate from language for a very good reason: emotion is inexpressible in language. The OP obviously doesn't understand this, and apparently you don't either, but that's the way it is, heading West.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I will modify 'pointless' to 'useless', and defy you to find, say in a week from now, any significant conclusions drawn from the (I hope moribund) thread. The actual feeling of emotions is separate from language for a very good reason: emotion is inexpressible in language. The OP obviously doesn't understand this, and apparently you don't either, but that's the way it is, heading West.


Art along with language cannot express emotion in the sense that it is passed through the language or art metaphysically. Music, art, and language can symbolize various emotions that humans feel and can lead to a person viewing the artwork or reading a book to experience a wide variety of emotions. 
It's nice of you to make the assumption that I think that emotion can be expressed in language. You are wrong there. I do not believe that emotion can be expressed in language or art. Language and art simply consists of symbols which bring about the conception of emotions.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

moody said:


> There is a huge gulf between the music of Bach and that of Beethoven.
> What on earth has understanding German got to with it?
> Do you have to understand Polish to enjoy Chopin ?


Where did you come up with this conclusion. This is an example of how you aren't understanding where I am going with my argument. I never mentioned the German language once... I do acknowledge that Bach and Beethoven are very different.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> Where did you come up with this conclusion. This is an example of how you aren't understanding where I am going with my argument. I never mentioned the German language once... I do acknowledge that Bach and Beethoven are very different.


You are right about the German it was GGlue and you are Pluhaga...easily confused of course but I'm sure that GGlue will have read it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

pluhagr said:


> Art along with language cannot express emotion in the sense that it is passed through the language or art metaphysically. Music, art, and language can symbolize various emotions that humans feel and can lead to a person viewing the artwork or reading a book to experience a wide variety of emotions.
> It's nice of you to make the assumption that I think that emotion can be expressed in language. You are wrong there. I do not believe that emotion can be expressed in language or art. Language and art simply consists of symbols which bring about the conception of emotions.




Ah, so. Apparently your thread-starting post is obfuscatory enough to have caused all of these multiple misunderstandings it has engendered. If that was your intent, congratulations. Using metaphysics as a tool is rather unsportsmanlike though, don't you think?


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

> I do not believe that emotion can be expressed in language or art. Language and art simply consists of symbols which bring about the conception of emotions.


Or you could say that language and art expresses emotion using symbols, if you define symbol to be any piece of comunication, like an interval. Of course, like all communication, each receiver might understand something different. You might want to look up the definition of "intersubjectivity".


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> I do not believe that emotion can be expressed in language or art. Language and art simply consists of symbols which bring about the conception of emotions.


Don't mistake your inability to perceive emotion for proof that it doesn't exist. Emotional content is subtle, and because of one's personality quirks or Autism, it may be difficult to perceive. But it is an important part of the arts and everyday life for normal people.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Emotion is part of communication so it must be expressed to a degree through language and arts as they are communication.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Don't mistake your inability to perceive emotion for proof that it doesn't exist. Emotional content is subtle, and because of one's personality quirks or Autism, it may be difficult to perceive. But it is an important part of the arts and everyday life for normal people.


If you read _pluhagr_'s thread-starter through (and do a little translating), it doesn't actually say that he can't perceive the emotion in music. It's just that he's a symbolist. Reality is represented by emoticon-like thingies. He threw a few breaking pitches at us, and we swung over them. The crude emoticon mlnn is just another symbol.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

kv466 said:


> Music can, in itself, express a certain amount of emotion. It is, however, primarily up to the interpreter to determine what this emotion is and where in the score it is to be found and just how much to deliver of it.
> 
> "Emotion" in music is highly overrated. Anyone can make a piece their own and turn it into the most the dramatic and depressing thing one has ever experienced.


this seems very reductive of what a musical emotion is.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> If you read _pluhagr_'s thread-starter through (and do a little translating), it doesn't actually say that he can't perceive the emotion in music. It's just that he's a symbolist. Reality is represented by emoticon-like thingies.


We don't actually see. There are just light and shadows on our cornea. We don't hear, it's just vibration on our eardrum. We don't feel. It's just nerve endings firing.

If you're a human, you feel emotions and can communicate them to other humans in a million different ways. The emotion that is conveyed is the important thing. Anyone who says music or words or facial expressions are just symbols and they can't express emotions are just playing with themselves intellectually. It is self evident that music conveys emotions. If you can't see that, it's probably because you are incapable of perceiving emotions for some reason.

The main purpose of being a creative artist is to express one's own humanity to others through emotions. The medium is not the message. When you reduce the arts to just notes on a page or globs of paint on a canvas, you are totally missing the point. The purpose of art is to communicate emotions and ideas eloquently.

We live in unelegant and inexpressive times. It's cultural autism like this that robs us of creativity and humanity. We might as well be animals just reacting by instinct.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

We are animals, and sometimes we react by instinct, but sometimes we can be considered in our response as well.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> I think that this is an overgeneralization. Japanese music is much different than Beethoven. I believe they are accustomed to Western music. I guarantee that a person from a small African tribe in Ghana where they practice drumming would not "feel" something when listening to Beethoven's 9th. Heck I don't feel anything when listening to it.


Well,that's incorrect because I remember some years back an interesting experiment.
A television crew took a portable gramophone to a tribe in the far reaches of an African country . The crew played them "serious " music and the natives absolutely loved it.
Also your last remark about Beethoven's 9th is unfortunate and must mean something to the learned musicologists-----this work has an impact on listeners always although you don't necessarily have to love it.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

i would say it is natural since rhythm and sound is so instinctive.

we can trace where we heard certain sounds but hearing it and thinking is basic instinct in most cases.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

The line between social and biological is difficult to draw, though I do find the question interesting.

The idea of music not expressing anything and being for itself was well-established in the heart of the "Romantic" 19th century, if not somewhat before.

We know that many composers did intend to convey emotion, and that music has at various times been understood almost solely as a means of communicating emotions. Certainly, the power of music to induce a reaction in its listeners is remarkable.

Certainly music does not hold emotion in a metaphysical way.

Regardless of all this the listener is certainly free to listen however they please.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Music cannot "express" anything, whether it is emotion, a literal meaning, etc.

It continues to fascinate and hold us rapt because people have very strong emotional _reactions_ to it, i.e. *music has tremendous powers to evoke an emotional response in the listeners.*

I am speaking only of absolute music, devoid of title which may color or influence listener's perceptions, music without any program as to a narrative or descriptive intent.

The moment those other elements enter the scene, melded with music, you can no longer reasonably discuss the 'emotion of the music,' because it is no longer just music, but music _and_....


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

Susanne Langer has a great quote about music and feeling. "Music sounds the way emotions feel." This creates the misconception that music is emotion. I am in no way against feeling emotion while listening during music. I have had the most intense emotional experiences while listening to music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

pluhagr said:


> Susanne Langer has a great quote about music and feeling. "Music sounds the way emotions feel." This creates the misconception that music is emotion. I am in no way against feeling emotion while listening during music. I have had the most intense emotional experiences while listening to music.


I catch the drift, but the phrasing sounds like new-age mushese to me.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

It's not new age at all. Pretty old philosophy coming from the 1940's. It's all modernist philosophy actually. The new age mushiness comes from the post-modernists. Ech...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

This is one of those non-musical, semantic discussions that never results in better understanding of music. It's like first year art students being asked by their professor to argue for an hour on "What is art?"... and then when everyone gets tired and frustrated, the professor says, "Well, now that we have that out of our system, let's abandon that discussion and learn to become artists instead."


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

bigshot said:


> This is one of those non-musical, semantic discussions that never results in better understanding of music. It's like first year art students being asked by their professor to argue for an hour on "What is art?"... and then when everyone gets tired and frustrated, the professor says, "Well, now that we have that out of our system, let's abandon that discussion and learn to become artists instead."


That might be your ambition but plenty of professors work on this very topic.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

If the lady in question has signed herself Suzanne K. Langer, she may be the author of an introductory book on symbolic logic. This could be a _clue_!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> If the lady in question has signed herself Suzanne K. Langer, she may be the author of an introductory book on symbolic logic. This could be a _clue_!


clew
Syllabification: (clew)
Pronunciation: /klo͞o/
Definition of clew
noun

1 Sailing the lower or after corner of a sail.

2 clew; ball of thread

[The usage with inferred reference to the thread supposedly used by Theseus to mark his way out of the Cretan labyrinth is the basis of our current meaning of "Clue" - a hint, a thing which helps us detect, find a way.]

3 archaic variant of clue.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

pluhagr said:


> It's not new age at all. Pretty old philosophy coming from the 1940's. It's all modernist philosophy actually. The new age mushiness comes from the post-modernists. Ech...


Yes, but Ms. Langer et alia are both seed and nurturing parents to the latter, I'm afraid.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

pluhagr said:


> That might be your ambition but plenty of professors work on this very topic.


Because that is either or both their wont and their lack...

I agree it is fun to discuss something to which there is no one answer, if any at all, but after a while, there ought to be a point. One can exercise the brain _while actually doing something as well_


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> If the lady in question has signed herself Suzanne K. Langer, she may be the author of an introductory book on symbolic logic. This could be a _clue_!


Her main works are "Philosophy in a New Key", "Feeling and Form", and "Mind: An Essay on Human Understanding". She is very interested in semantics as well.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

pluhagr said:


> Her main works are "Philosophy in a New Key", "Feeling and Form", and "Mind: An Essay on Human Understanding". She is very interested in semantics as well.


Semantics is fun, and about as gooey as it can get


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> That might be your ambition but plenty of professors work on this very topic.


And that is exactly what is wrong with academia. Teachers no longer teach. They just give exercises in mental "spanking the monkey".


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

bigshot said:


> And that is exactly what is wrong with academia. Teachers no longer teach. They just give exercises in mental "spanking the monkey".


It really depends on what you study. If you are training to be a performer this sort of research won't be all too handy. But if you are going into philosophy of music or musicology or even music theory one must engage in these types of discussions.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> And that is exactly what is wrong with academia. Teachers no longer teach. They just give exercises in mental "spanking the monkey".


Careful, with "spanking the monkey" you've just eloquently described the mental equivalent, and the entire discipline of Philosophy and every Philosophy department in every University, College in the world!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

pluhagr said:


> It really depends on what you study. If you are training to be a performer this sort of research won't be all too handy. But if you are going into philosophy of music or musicology or even music theory one must engage in these types of discussions.


Those who cannot do, teach.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Those who cannot do, teach.


Honestly, I work with young artists and I can't tell you how many students refuse to make the effort to learn to draw. They spend all their time collecting trivia without context and engaging in circular arguments in armchair theory mode. If you want to work in art, learn to draw. If you want to work in music, learn to play an instrument. It really isn't a difficult concept, but it's criminal that schools will take $100 grand in tuition and produce functionally useless graduates whose only hope is to be able to become a teacher teaching other people to become functionally useless.

Imagine how stupid it would be to go to a $16.95 all you can eat brunch and say to the waiter, "Oh... I'm not very hungry. I'll just have a piece of toast." The waiter will happily serve you your $17 slice of bread. Schools are like that with students who think they know what they *want* to learn. School is the one time in your life when you don't have to work and pay rent. You have the golden opportunity to focus on learning real skills. That's what you are paying your school for. Demand it. Don't be a sucker.

It may sound harsh, but it's the truth.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Honestly, I work with young artists and I can't tell you how many students refuse to make the effort to learn to draw. They spend all their time collecting trivia without context and engaging in circular arguments in armchair theory mode. If you want to work in art, learn to draw. If you want to work in music, learn to play an instrument. It really isn't a difficult concept, but it's criminal that schools will take $100 grand in tuition and produce functionally useless graduates whose only hope is to be able to become a teacher teaching other people to become functionally useless.
> 
> Imagine how stupid it would be to go to a $16.95 all you can eat brunch and say to the waiter, "Oh... I'm not very hungry. I'll just have a piece of toast." The waiter will happily serve you your $17 slice of bread. Schools are like that with students who think they know what they *want* to learn. School is the one time in your life when you don't have to work and pay rent. You have the golden opportunity to focus on learning real skills. That's what you are paying your school for. Demand it. Don't be a sucker.
> 
> It may sound harsh, but it's the truth.


There is a real value to the most supposedly useless of abstract thought re: arts, sciences, etc.

BUT, the big scam as far as colleges and universities go, is that abstract major which can usually only directly apply toward getting a higher diploma and then turning about and becoming a teacher. Basic math helps understand this. Uni graduates 98 music theory majors, they go to grad school, become academics, qualified to teach. Several years have passed since they finished undergrad. For each of those years past, 98 more music theory majors graduate and go on to grad school, to eventually get the higher diplomas and eventually -- teach.

Meanwhile, the post at the university(s) where they studied is still occupied by their teacher, on tenure until retirement or a better offer comes along, in which case a transferring already experienced Doctorate holder is the first in line.

It is called, elsewhere on the planet, a pyramid scheme


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

My brother was a high ranking exec in a major university. He once told me that there were two types of academics... ones who had made their mark in the outside world and were coming back to share their knowledge with the students, and those who never left academia... graduated and went straight into teaching. He said that the former were practical, hands on types who got the job done. The latter were kingdom builders who built defenses around themselves instead of building useful things for the university.

Too many students go from cap and gown to a starbucks apron. It's not all the teachers' fault though.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> My brother was a high ranking exec in a major university. He once told me that there were two types of academics... ones who had made their mark in the outside world and were coming back to share their knowledge with the students, and those who never left academia... graduated and went straight into teaching. He said that the former were practical, hands on types who got the job done. The latter were kingdom builders who built defenses around themselves instead of building useful things for the university.
> 
> Too many students go from cap and gown to a starbucks apron. It's not all the teachers' fault though.


Your brother is correct.

I had the great good fortune to have all practicing musicians who later taught in Uni as teachers.... They too, would take some time for the "how many Angels can dance on a pin" sorts of discussions, but they were brief.

This is where I would hear, from the comp teacher: "Don't use that mandolin for just a few bars, that is a union player on call, for full union pay.

Your work (comp again) is A+: your speed of production, however, gets you a B+ -- that was not a criterion in the syllabus


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Those who cannot do, teach.


From what I know of academics (which is admittedly limited in the arts), teaching is hardly the thing that motivates most of them into their job - usually more something to be endured once they're in it. Sure there are some who like it, or who "come back to share their knowledge", but research is the _real_ point of universities. Without it we would still be in the dark ages - in fact, even further back than that. Academics are not just, or even primarily, teachers.

Academics are among the cleverest people of their generation. They can "do" better than most people, and they could make a fortune doing so in jobs which pay much better. Instead they dedicate themselves to the furthering of their subject into the future.

As a quote I like from Terry Pratchett says (a discussion between academics):



> "Students?" barked the Archchancellor.
> 
> "Yes, Master. You know? They're the thinner ones with the pale faces? Because we're a university? They come with the whole thing, like rats..."


EDIT: Actually, I take further issue with this proverb anyway. Any teacher will tell you it is more difficult to teach something than to do it. You have to be able to do something well enough to be able to communicate it and deal with a student's problems, as well as have a knack for communication and inspiration.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

bigshot said:


> This is one of those non-musical, semantic discussions that never results in better understanding of music. It's like first year art students being asked by their professor to argue for an hour on "What is art?"... and then when everyone gets tired and frustrated, the professor says, "Well, now that we have that out of our system, let's abandon that discussion and learn to become artists instead."


My post last night stating this thread was worthless, semantic and trolling has disappeared. Would that be due to a glitch in the system?

I suspect foul play. If you removed it, please put it back, or let me know why it has gone.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Ramako said:


> The line between social and biological is difficult to draw, though I do find the question interesting.
> 
> The idea of music not expressing anything and being for itself was well-established in the heart of the "Romantic" 19th century, if not somewhat before.
> 
> ...


The idea of music's power in inducing an emotional response - whether to rouse or to assuage the listener's feelings - is age-old. In the Middle Ages, certain modes were associated with certain human feelings (will have to ask Taggart for examples) and in the pre-Romantic 'Augustan' age, the premier poets Dryden and Pope wrote of music's power.

Thus Dryden, in 'Alexander's Feast', describes how the warrior-king was manipulated into different moods by his lyrist:

With ravish'd ears
The monarch hears,
Assumes the god,
Affects to nod,
And seems to shake the spheres.

Pope, in 'Ode on St Cecilia's Day' believes that:

Music the fiercest grief can charm,
And fate's severest rage disarm:
Music can soften pain to ease,
And make despair and madness please:
Our joys below it can improve,
And antedate the bliss above.

But clearly, some listeners respond primarily or even solely with their intellects and think those 'mushy' who find emotions in music. That's human beings for you. Composers also being human beings, it follows that some are trying to make their listeners feel, and others to make them think or admire in an intellectual way.

It's an interesting point to discuss, but there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to listen to music. It's beyond debate that music moves people - hence the use of the bagpipes as an instrument of war! And even if some sophist argues that an emotional response is 'invalid', I shall think the case 'not proven' and go on enjoying music with feelings *and* intellect.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

hayd said:


> My post last night stating this thread was worthless, semantic and trolling has disappeared. Would that be due to a glitch in the system?
> 
> I suspect foul play. If you removed it, please put it back, or let me know why it has gone.


I can't believe it would be removed with no explanation--what sort of behaviour is that? There has been far worse recently including abuse hurled at me.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Well I guess it's not completely worthless unless those who wanted to contribute thoughts to this thread are considered completely worthless by you as well. You might not have thought there was much worth in the original post but that doesn't necessarily make a whole thread worthless.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> The idea of music's power in inducing an emotional response - whether to rouse or to assuage the listener's feelings - is age-old. In the Middle Ages, certain modes were associated with certain human feelings (will have to ask Taggart for examples) and in the pre-Romantic 'Augustan' age, the premier poets Dryden and Pope wrote of music's power.


The idea goes way back. Plato held that playing music in a particular harmonia would incline one towards specific behaviors associated with it, and suggested that soldiers should listen to music in Dorian or Phrygian harmoniai to help make them stronger, but avoid music in Lydian, Mixolydian or Ionian harmoniai, for fear of being softened.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

starry said:


> Well I guess it's not completely worthless unless those who wanted to contribute thoughts to this thread are considered completely worthless by you as well. You might not have thought there was much worth in the original post but that doesn't necessarily make a whole thread worthless.


Sigh.

What did I mean by the word 'worthless'?

What does the word mean in and of itself?

Can a thread be worthless if the OP is worthless?

Is worthlessness an intrinsic quality, or just something one perceives?

What do you think Starry?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Well yeh you can just think posts are worthless, which is your right to that point of view. Though having given that view it's up to others to just go on with their discussion I guess. I'm not saying your post should have been deleted, but to say it's trolling above probably implies something concerning the intent of posters which may not be accurate.


----------

