# The Purpose of Music



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

This is a question with many answers. It applies not only to music but to nearly all the arts. 
For what reason should a composer write music? How should the music be used in society? 

During the course of history, I feel that there are two fundamental strands of thinking which have alternated. 

The first is easily named: Romantic. It is based on the principle that music is something that comes deepmfrom within the creator's soul and represents their emotions and thoughts. Music is seen as an expression by the composer in which we can discover his true self. Music has become a deeply personal thing and composer's have a near total freedom in doing what they see as necessary in order to fulfill their needs

Otherwise, music is seen as something that should benefit an external thing, such as society or perhaps a deity. Often the composer must conform to certain guidelines and fulifll the needs. Compositions are often created for certain events such as a mass. Examples include the soviet union, perhaps renessaince church music. 

What should it be and why?


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2010)

I disagree with your strands. That there are only two and the content of the two you've identified.

And I think you've left off some important things, for instance, the difference between the composers' needs/wants and the audiences' needs/wants. Why a composer writes music is a different question from why a person listens to music.

While I'm not a big fan of predicting the future--the present suffices, I think--I think I can safely say that the idea of this thread is too broad and will generate more heat than light.

But hey, for the upcoming winter months, why not have a little heat, eh?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Some meandering thinking out loud about the topic:

Anthropologists believe the purpose of music was originally for parents to let their infants know they are present so they could have a hands free approach to hunting berries or whatever. In this way, a kind of music may have come before speech and is deeply rooted in our very genes and instincts. The jury is still out on that idea I believe, but it sounds gratifying to me.

Your two strands are not mutually exclusive (and you never exactly suggested they are). If music began as a form of communication and expression of emotions, but sometimes moves into more abstract realms of pure form, I would argue the emotion is still there underneath. Few forms are more abstract than a fugue, but can you listen to parts of _The Art of the Fugue_ without feeling a wistful goodbye to the high baroque counterpoint style, a wistfulness that emerges even through the math?

As to how music should be used in society -- well it can be powerful. I come from a generation (or just a bit later) who would like to think they stopped a war with music and flowers. The arts certainly can be a force for swaying public opinion, else why would so much of it be banned in some eras? I believe both the artist and the viewer / listener should be free to use the arts in whatever way they see fit, within reason. One can't expect to squirt a tube of cadmium yellow paint on a policeman's head and order him to stand still as a work of art, nor can one make a bomb threat as a form of poetry, but within these reasonable limits there should be no control of the arts other than those imposed by both the creators and consumers.

My most way out cosmic thinking on the purpose of music and the other arts is spiritual. Though I am not an overtly spiritual person and certainly don't embrace any organized religion, I believe that if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, creativity is the sincerest form of worship. I believe we were made to create, or at least to attempt it, and to experience and be vessels for others' creations.


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Music feeds many hungers and can serve many purposes ... but music in it's purest form is the most powerful. 

Anthropologically they say rhythm came to us first ... and naturally, then melody ... harmony however took several hundreds of years for our brains to conceive and develop ... reaching it's highest level with J.S. Bach ... music of the highest consciousness.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Why do you disagree with them? I welcome debate and have put these forward as a personal conclusion - perhaps open ended.

Thats an interesting hypothesis Weston, there must have been something evolutionarily advantegous in the kind of cranal developments necessary to produce music. The question is how direct is the correlation? Perhpas music itself wasnt an advantage but was a handy by-product of other necessary developments in the brain - or the other way around of course.

To simplify my strands:
The romantic idiom allows an artist to enjoy his art entirely by himself, an audience is irrelevant. 
The communal idiom provides that music must perform a function within society.

Obviously either could provide some interesting advantages to our evolution. Perhaps using music to vent emotions personally provides a certain effect on the brain increasing its function or reducing stress. Perhaps societal music allows the formation of stronger social bonds much as certain primates groom. Of course these are not mutually exclusive.

This is only a series of assumptions based on the science available to us. Weston mentions the possibility of Intelligent design instilling us with the need to create.

Weston, i think history has shown us that the controls imposed on arts by both consumer and composer are incompatible. I dont believe art can serve the artist completely if it must also serve the audience. How would Shostakovich have sounded if the Communist party nor the proletariat had enforced their limits on him? We can see glimpses of where he would have liked to go in works such as Lady Macbeth, but he was never allowed to continue these paths. An extreme example with a dictator i know, but still...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Purpose is idea because of which something was created. We know that purpose of spoon is to be used while eating and purpose of chair is LOOLLOLO HOW DO I SAYS THE GRAMATICALLY>??????????????????????????

Anyway, in this case we can't tell what was the original purpose of music (but my guess is that this half monkey that invented music 17473947431743 years B.C wanted to express human condition [Edward Elgar's favourite term] and to make other half monkeys wonder what is art and what does fall: apple on earth or earth on apple?).

Eventually we could redefine purpose and ask "what it's used for" instead "what was it made for", but then we would have many diffrent answers most of which would be so stupid that they would hurt us


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

emiellucifuge said:


> This is only a series of assumptions based on the science available to us. Weston mentions the possibility of Intelligent design instilling us with the need to create.



The science nut in me is having a knee jerk reaction to this idea, but I guess I did imply that.



emiellucifuge said:


> Weston, i think history has shown us that the controls imposed on arts by both consumer and composer are incompatible. I dont believe art can serve the artist completely if it must also serve the audience.


I wholeheartedly agree. I wasn't being very clear. The artist must be free to create as she sees fit. The consumer must be free to support it or not. I hope I won't have to buy any recordings of John Cage's 4' 33", for instance, even if I can't seem to get enough of that peace. 

Cool thread. Made me think. Thanks.



Aramis said:


> Anyway, in this case we can't tell what was the original purpose of music (but my guess is that this half monkey that invented music 17473947431743 years B.C wanted to express human condition . .


Dude, get your facts straight! I'm pretty sure it was 17473947431742 BC.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

"The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the _glory of God_ and the _refreshment of the soul_." - J.S. Bach

End of discussion


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

The purpose can be anything the composer wants. It can be something more formulaic that they know will please a particular audience. It can be a very personal expression in which the composer experiments with new ideas or works within his own rules of form, melody and harmony. It can be a mix of both.

Most of the time, music is made to express some particular emotion or range of emotions in order to elicit an emotional response from the listener. The emotions involved range from satisfaction to despair to wonder and excitement.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> "The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the _glory of God_ and the _refreshment of the soul_." - J.S. Bach
> 
> End of discussion


Well not really! Bachs statement is a combination of both music for some external force, and music for the soul. Though naturally many non-theists will disagree entirely.

Ravellian, i do tend to agree with you that music should be whatever the composer wants. But sometimes a society decides that some composer going on an experimental ego-trip is useless and that if they want to continue subsidising his art it should have some function within society. Who is to say which is right?

Now some term logic (ish):
Surely it is true that many people now believe modern music to be purely experimental with little value to them. It has become detached from society and is no longer accesible nor does it cater to any audience. If you do think this (i dont), then you may also wish for a return to the more accessible tonal language that has visible impacts on the human mind and soul. If this is your wish then you also wish to impose your view as a consumer onto the composer so that music can again perform a valued societal function.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

emiellucifuge said:


> Now some term logic (ish):
> Surely it is true that many people now believe modern music to be purely experimental with little value to them. It has become detached from society and is no longer accesible nor does it cater to any audience.


I think that a lot of that is more based on prejudice than fact. There's lots of modern music that's just as accessible as the music that was composed 100 years ago.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Yes it is Prejudice, but i have noticed many people complaining about modern music's worth. Of course this only applies to the more experimental stuff.
In any case i dont believe modern music is worth less as I believe composers should have the freedom, and i like modern music.

What im trying to say really is that there are people who think what i prejudged.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

The purpose of music is to entertain us.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Rasa said:


> The purpose of music is to entertain us.


Hmm, I'm not sure how Beethoven would feel if you referred to him as an entertainer... or many other composers for that matter.

I don't think any composer worth their salt is writing for the audience. They write to express themselves in ways that cannot be described with just words... and the listeners listen in hopes of connecting with the composer, empathizing, and hopefully make us feel less alone in our own thoughts and feelings.

I don't think there really isn't a purpose... it is what is and composers, players and listeners alike exploit it for their own uses (sanity, hope, comfort, money etc)


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> "The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the _glory of God_ and the _refreshment of the soul_." - J.S. Bach
> 
> End of discussion


"the aim and final reason, as of all music . . . should be none else but the Glory of God and the recreation of the mind."

And he was right of course, there is no higher aspiration whether you're a believer or not ... & he was pre-Ego & cheap & artificial musical onomatopoeia.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

JMJ said:


> And he was right of course, there is no higher aspiration whether you're a believer or not ... & he was pre-Ego & cheap & artificial musical onomatopoeia.


Sorry. I'm not quite following this. Are you referring to pop music?


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

I think music is something we just have to do. It defines us as a civilization, dare I say, species. The purpose of music is to demonstrate our knowledge and understanding of the properties of sound. I may have more to say on the subject, but I need more time to think about it!


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Oh dear... except for Aramis and emiellucifuge these responses are scaring me a little. I'm not sure if it's because I'm so sure in my response, or that I'm just taken aback that there are so many opinions. 
All I can say is that as a serious aspiring composer, I do not write to entertain, to praise god, refresh the soul, or to brag about my craft. 

Of course in my previous post I did say that that the what the listeners gains from music is entirely up to them... but still, as a composer it's a little shocking that the point of your work could be so far stretched.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

JMJ said:


> "the aim and final reason, as of all music . . . should be none else but the Glory of God and the recreation of the mind."


Huh! German translations to English always being different. :/

Still, my response to the comments, even if you aren't a Deist, Theist, etc. why not believe the part that music is also for the recreation of the mind? For me, it's both, but Bach's quote notes both purposes of music, "Sacred" and "Secular." He wrote both kinds of music (nominally). I like to imagine all music is Sacred though, directly or indirectly. Or really far indirectly, hah.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Nix said:


> All I can say is that as a serious aspiring composer, I do not write to entertain, to praise god, refresh the soul, or to brag about my craft.


But........?


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> But........?


To slightly rephrase my post... for me writing music is like keeping a diary, granted a much more abstract one. The music isn't necessarily programmatic, it's simply what comes into my head, and when it does I know that it's somehow relevant to what's going on in my life... so I write it down.

I don't know if this makes sense to non composers... I think the most difficult concept about this to grasp is that a good composer doesn't look at his music in a theoretical standpoint, that is, he doesn't say: I'm feeling sad so I'll use a minor chord, and then I'll add in this note, and that means I'm extra angry... Instead, music is always running through my head, and when I get tired of thinking about my problems and thoughts in words, it gets replaced with music. I write it entirely for myself, it's what keeps me sane. And I listen to music for the same reason I'd hope people would listen to myself: to make a connection with the composer. To know that someone else out there is having the same feelings that cannot be described in words... so often the phrase "music that speaks to us" gets thrown around... and thats exactly what it's doing.

Also, I wasn't too fond of your comment earlier that stated the music was only used as self expression in the romantic era and on. Machaut, Dufay, Monteverdi, Bach, Haydn, Mozart- all of them wouldn't have been able to write what they did if they didn't have the desire to express themselves. I should clarify that when music comes into my head it doesn't come as a whole piece- it comes in fragments, and I think this is similar for other composers. I feel pretty confident that Mozart would think up a little bit of music that was true to his thoughts and feelings, and it was what he did with the music that made him different from say a romantic composer. Instead of running wild with emotion, he took that small bit of music that rang true to him and applied it to a classical format, developing it in a manner both appropriate but also pleasing to him- which is why people often refer to Mozart's music as very passionate but 'behind a veil.' There's certainly a great deal of expression in his music, it's just hidden behind the structure and rules of his era.

And I maintain that there really is no purpose... these are just my thoughts about expression, and what music COULD do for someone.

Sorry for rambling so much.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> All I can say is that as a serious aspiring composer, I do not write to entertain, to praise god, refresh the soul, or to brag about my craft.





> But........?





> To slightly rephrase my post


Yes, that's great purpose for writing music.

"Music express what we can't express in our posts... it rephrases them..." - sounds like great golden thought for me.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well this is a vice versa situation. The Romantic era is known as romantic BECAUSE composers wrote with self-expression not the other way around. Creativity for the sake of self-fulfillment and Emotion is called Romanticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

To this end, my comments did not place creativity for this sake entirely within the 19th century, but instead I used the word Romantic in the kore general sense. Andnof course i agree with you about Mozart.

Regarding your thoughts on composition:
The following words are purely hypothetical and do not express my opinion. You write music for self-fulfillment, expression and for pleasure. Numerous times and places throughout history have denied composers this luxury. Surely it is selfish for society to sustain artists such as yourself (assuming the artist in question works on his art full-time) if they can expect no concrete returns. The art you create is intended only to help yourself and only you can properly understand it. The role of the artist in society should be a more social one. Just as a carpenter can be expected to cut and assemble wood exactly as the consumer requires in return for money, so too a composer should be expected to produce art for the good of all people if society is to continue their subsidy? Otherwise we pay through our taxes for something that is useless to us, incomprehendable and designed to be this way.

Just one way of looking at it. But why is this the wrong way? I look forward to a concrete logical 'refudiation'?


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Surely it is selfish for society to sustain artists such as yourself (assuming the artist in question works on his art full-time) if they can expect no concrete returns. The art you create is intended only to help yourself and only you can properly understand it... Otherwise we pay through our taxes for something that is useless to us, incomprehendable and designed to be this way.


Art is only as incomprehensible as the creator. Like I said, I get enjoyment in listening to music by connecting with the composer, which is what I think music is all about- making human connection. If people don't connect with my music, then I'll go unheard and unpaid. But I don't write music for the money, I'm not asking anyone to sustain or support me, and artists pay taxes too... so I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make there.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Yes, that's great purpose for writing music.
> 
> "Music express what we can't express in our posts... it rephrases them..." - sounds like great golden thought for me.


Thanks for that Aramis, though I meant my first post on the previous page.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Nix said:


> But I don't write music for the money, I'm not asking anyone to sustain or support me, and artists pay taxes too... so I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make there.


The majority of artists no longer make enough money from their craft to make a living. Here in Europe at least, the government subsidises the artist to ensure he can live well and still create his art. Thats what I meant!


----------



## Comus (Sep 20, 2010)

...is to please the ears.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

Music doesn't need a purpose.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> I think music is something we just have to do. It defines us as a civilization, dare I say, species. The purpose of music is to demonstrate our knowledge and understanding of the properties of sound. I may have more to say on the subject, but I need more time to think about it!


But do some other animals like birds or whales do a kind of music? Music derives from sound and therefore communication. It's a need for someone to express themselves.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

You raise a good point. 

However, what we perceive as the tuneful twitter of birds or the song of a humpback whale is akin to the purr of a cat in that it is only a means of communication and to express something. Then what distinguishes music from language?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*over time...*

"The purpose of music" is at the whim of its creator. I suspect that, back in the murky depths of prehistory, 'music' was employed by mothers to acquaint their children with the sounds made by predators and by prey. The concept has been somewhat adulterated since then.

:devil:


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> You raise a good point.
> 
> However, what we perceive as the tuneful twitter of birds or the song of a humpback whale is akin to the purr of a cat in that it is only a means of communication and to express something. Then what distinguishes music from language?


They can probably be a bit more complex and longer in some cases than the purr of a cat.

But the origin of music was probably to communicate, to tell a story. The same for language I suppose. I remember Neil Young saying once that melody was used long ago to help people remember the words to a song. Interesting if true.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starry said:


> They can probably be a bit more complex and longer in some cases than the purr of a cat.
> 
> But the origin of music was probably to communicate, to tell a story. The same for language I suppose. I remember Neil Young saying once that melody was used long ago to help people remember the words to a song. Interesting if true.


Mr. Young said that?, (melody does pretty much equal song y'know)

It was rhyme and rhythm that was employed to assist memory, when writing it down was not an option. Chant (not Gregorian) ain't much as music.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Rhyme and rhythm I suppose can be part of what creates a melody.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> This is a question with many answers. It applies not only to music but to nearly all the arts.
> For what reason should a composer write music? How should the music be used in society?
> 
> During the course of history, I feel that there are two fundamental strands of thinking which have alternated.
> ...


Here are some insights about Music based on some Jewish teachings

The Power of music

http://www.nigun.info/home.html#1

The Nigun's Influence on the Soul

http://www.nigun.info/kaballah.html#1

Nigun (music) above the Words

http://www.nigun.info/kaballah.html#7


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> "The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the _glory of God_ and the _refreshment of the soul_." - J.S. Bach
> 
> End of discussion


_No._ Seeing that religious music largely constitutes some of the most boring, uninspired tripe ever written, we know, and can be thankful knowing, that Bach was simply wrong.

Good music is art, and it doesn't have or need a purpose:

_We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless._ - Oscar Wilde


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Speaking strictly from a consumer’s point of view: the primary purpose of music is to affect the listener. As a listener I expect (a piece of) music to work (have an affect) on me and also to do so in some positive way. (If music affects me negatively I, given free will, will not be listening to it.) I know that music works on me when it engages me (has my attention). The level of such engagement should be sufficient enough to keep me at least barely interested. 

Having said that, I understand that creators of music can have an entirely different perspective(s) on the subject. However, this is something that I personally can only speculate on.

And, then again, they are the ones making a living out of music.


----------

