# Does Music Really "Exist" Objectively, Without Human Input?



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*P**eople's agendas *are what makes this forum exist at all! This thread here exists because somebody likes, or hates a piece, because it_ represents something to them, _as an ideology, or as an aesthetic approach to life.

Sure, we know that opinions do not exist "in" the music itself, and that opinions are separate, and have nothing to do with the 'music itself,' whatever that means; I suppose that's up to God and the music, or the music's "mother;" all mothers love their children.

But if a piece _represents_ some sort of ideology, or aesthetic, or lifestyle to a large group of people, then it might as well* be *what they think it is.

If you don't see it that way, that doesn't separate the association from the music:_ mass opinion has now become a part of the music's DNA, for all intents and purposes, because the music exists in a human context of opposing ideologies and opinions.

_The music now has a* "reputation," *like a person, and can no longer be defined just by "what it is" as music, but its effect on people. Its identity is now defined from without;_ the music is defined by its effect; it is now what we say it is, not what is 'was' or was 'intended' to be, or what it might be apart from us.
_
The music is now defined by its "actions" or its effect on people, not just by what it was before it entered the realm of human consumption. The music is responsible for this effect, is it not? After all, "no cause, no effect."

And if we all agree on something, that doesn't necessarily make it a "conspiracy." In fact, that makes it a "truth" which is inescapable.

*There are consequences for music's actions and effects on people.*

And the consequence of, say, modern music like Xenakis or Boulez is that it is an icon of modernist ideology. 
Many people do not like this music.

As a consequence, a very real consequence, all those who agree, if their number is greater, will win, and the "free association of endless possibilities" in music will be effectively, in a most pragmatic and practical sense, meaningless.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I like your threads and posts, million, they are thought provoking and has a nice philosophical feel to it to a simple reader like me.

This question I thought was a very simple one to me. A resounding "no". *Music is a two-way street. Human intervention is required from the artist and the listener.*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I like your threads and posts, million, they are thought provoking and has a nice philosophical feel to it to a simple reader like me.
> 
> This question I thought was a very simple one to me. A resounding "no". *Music is a two-way street. Human intervention is required from the artist and the listener.*


Okay, I basically agree, but if humans "intervene," then the situation is out of the artist's hands. The "end story" is that music is defined by what it does; "cause" is followed by "effect," and it is the effect which, in the end, defines what that music means.

Unfortunately, this is proving to be true, isn't it? The Lone Ranger, Where's the Beef, The Alfred Hitchcock Theme...it will now be a "war" in which competing ideologies vie for control over the cultural icons.

Whoever has the real power can now "assimilate" anything they wish to possess, and use it to serve their own agenda. This has nothing to do with "what the music really is" or was intended to be by its composer, and everything to do with real power, and money, and influence.

People themselves still have the power to like, or to destroy any kind of art they choose. An "anti-modernist" agenda is not simply an opinion; it becomes a real environment, with real consequences.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I see. It depends on what you mean by "intervention". I simply and maybe incorrectly took that as meaning "anything that involves the human mind and hand, including the creation of the art work and the enjoyment of it". So human intervention can be for example, a pro-modernist or anti-modernist pushing their agendas in order to promote or question the work. That was my perhaps incorrect view of your good question.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Music is actual, factual... the ideas attached are mental abstractions. Our most insightful artists have admitted that some of their greatest works arise quite spontaneously. Again, too much importance on ideas over the actual substance of things. 

It really doesn't matter how an artists thinks their music comes to fruition. It's similar to someone thinking how they beat their own heart. It happens. It's not spring doing it, and it's not some lovely lady you met at Starbucks. It's coming together just as the cells in your body regenerate without you knowing how to do it. Dig it. 

I'm sure everyone will agree.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Blake said:


> Music is actual, factual... the ideas attached are mental abstractions. Our most insightful artists have admitted that some of their greatest works arise quite spontaneously. Again, too much importance on ideas over the actual substance of things.
> 
> It really doesn't matter how an artists thinks their music comes to fruition. It's similar to someone thinking how they beat their own heart. It happens. It's not spring doing it, and it's not some lovely lady you met at Starbucks. It's coming together just as the cells in your body regenerate without you knowing how to do it. Dig it.
> 
> I'm sure everyone will agree.


Yes, just like babies are born. But after that, who knows? Is the art defined by its creator, or by its audience?


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

What about someone who hears a piece of music without being aware of any baggage it may carry?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Dr Johnson said:


> What about someone who hears a piece of music without being aware of any baggage it may carry?


Then they are unaware of the music's reputation. They should have done a background check. Yes, all men are equal in the eyes of God, but this is the real world, and we have business to attend to.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, just like babies are born. But after that, who knows? Is the art defined by its creator, or by its audience?


I would question if there really was a single creator of anything. So many variables outside of personal control must happen, but some want to dismiss this to keep their ego going. However, if really looked at, this separate, volitional identity is not a very reasonable concept.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

Concepts are concepts, and while they represent valid worldly phenomena, they aren’t necessarily ‘real’


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

cwarchc said:


> Concepts are concepts, and while they represent valid worldly phenomena, they aren't necessarily 'real'


Useful, sure. Fun, at times.

But something which exist solely on representing something else can't be seen as real in itself. A tree doesn't need the idea of a tree, but the idea of a tree needs a tree.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

If a symphony was playing on a stereo but there was no one to hear it, did it still exist?


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> *P**eople's agendas *are what makes this forum exist at all!


I can't agree with this. Music makes this forum exist. Without it, there'd be no agenda.
(...unless that's my agenda, of course.)


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The music is now defined by its "actions" or its effect on people, not just by what it was before it entered the realm of human consumption. The music is responsible for this effect, is it not? After all, "no cause, no effect."


Pavlov's dogs would be a reasonable counter-example. Ringing a bell apparently causes salivation. The real cause is the learned association of the bell with the presence of food.

When we look at the Silesian folk tune used for a Christmas carol, among other things, do we remember Christmas - an American response - or the traditional end of the UK Labour Party Conference where politicians try to remember the words to the Red Flag - a British response? How can the same music be responsible for different responses unless there is learned behaviour behind it.



millionrainbows said:


> Dr Johnson said:
> 
> 
> > What about someone who hears a piece of music without being aware of any baggage it may carry?
> ...


An interesting thought. See http://www.talkclassical.com/36972-young-composers-work-dropped.html for an example of quotation. If the composer had not been so committed to publicity as to name his sources would anybody have noticed?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

millions said: "The music is now defined by its "actions" or its effect on people, not just by what it was before it entered the realm of human consumption. The music is responsible for this effect, is it not? After all, "no cause, no effect."



Taggart said:


> Pavlov's dogs would be a reasonable counter-example. Ringing a bell apparently causes salivation. The real cause is the learned association of the bell with the presence of food.


Are you sure that works as a counter-example? In other words, the "music" (in this case a bell) is irrelevant. It has no real efficacy on its own. It is what we define it to be, in terms of our desires, wants, or agendas. The bell is a proxy; it represents food.

The same with music; it is a proxy, not necessarily reflecting what the composer wanted it to be. It is a proxy which represents to us, in some way, what WE need and want it to be.



Taggart said:


> When we look at the Silesian folk tune used for a Christmas carol, among other things, do we remember Christmas - an American response - or the traditional end of the UK Labour Party Conference where politicians try to remember the words to the Red Flag - a British response? How can the same music be responsible for different responses unless there is learned behaviour behind it.


Which once again proves that music is powerless, unless we define it as what we need it to be. The same piece of music means different things. Therefore, it does not really exist in a defined, objective form.

"What about someone who hears a piece of music without being aware of any baggage it may carry?"

millions said: "Then they are unaware of the music's reputation. They should have done a background check. Yes, all men are equal in the eyes of God, but this is the real world, and we have business to attend to."



Taggart said:


> An interesting thought. See http://www.talkclassical.com/36972-young-composers-work-dropped.html for an example of quotation. If the composer had not been so committed to publicity as to name his sources would anybody have noticed?


So, an example of music that has a past 'record' which follows it. Is this really due to the music itself? No, it is a past record of what the music once meant, and how it was used.

Thus, the taint of Wagner and Furtwangler, even Strauss; indeed, all German music, as it was once listened to and revered by Nazis.

Unless someone wants to step in and intercede, and "save" the music from its past actions, thus redefining it in a new context. But the past will always be there, and someone will always remember, and there will always be a taint.

So, the question now becomes: how "benevolent" do we want to be, if music has a tainted past? Is it possible to look past what meanings it once held, and what "actions" it performed as accompaniment to death, or as symbolic of evil grandeur and power?

Should we not instead use "tough love" and reject this music as being "sociopathic" in nature?


----------



## Baregrass (Feb 16, 2015)

Dr Johnson said:


> What about someone who hears a piece of music without being aware of any baggage it may carry?


That is a very good point.


----------



## Baregrass (Feb 16, 2015)

MarkW said:


> If a symphony was playing on a stereo but there was no one to hear it, did it still exist?


In terms of the movement of air caused by the speakers, the answer is yes.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Yes 

yes
yes
yes


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Thus, the taint of Wagner and Furtwangler, even Strauss; indeed, all German music, as it was once listened to and revered by Nazis.
> 
> Unless someone wants to step in and intercede, and "save" the music from its past actions, thus redefining it in a new context. But the past will always be there, and someone will always remember, and there will always be a taint.
> 
> ...


:lol: I do enjoy your sense of humor. That last question is a joke, isn't it?

Wagner, Strauss, Furtwangler and German music in general have always existed for me without the slightest "taint" of Nazism, Hitler, antisemitism, mass murder, or barrel-cured sauerkraut.

Individuals are not as trapped by the associations of their cultural heritage as you make out, and so music can be engaged much more on its own terms than you seem to think. I came to classical music at an early age and had very few associations to bring to it. Learning about cultural attitudes toward it through the ages has but little affected the way its intrinsic qualities affect my thoughts and feelings about it. For me, music defines history much more than history defines music.

"We" are quite a heterogeneous population. "You" should do with this music whatever you wish to do, and use tough love if you find that necessary. Meanwhile "I" will just go on using ordinary love.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I'm all for "ordinary love." I can appreciate classical music without the baggage with which it has been burdened.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> "You" should do with this music whatever you wish to do, and use tough love if you find that necessary. Meanwhile "I" will just go on using ordinary love.


(sarcastically) I'm so glad that humanity has voiced its desire to be forgiving, loving, and compassionate, and for giving classical music, with all is shortcomings, some slack.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> (sarcastically) I'm so glad that humanity has voiced its desire to be forgiving, loving, and compassionate, and for giving classical music, with all is shortcomings, some slack.


:lol: .................


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

> So, an example of music that has a past 'record' which follows it. Is this really due to the music itself? No, it is a past record of what the music once meant, and how it was used.
> 
> Thus, the taint of Wagner and Furtwangler, even Strauss; indeed, all German music, as it was once listened to and revered by Nazis.
> 
> ...


This reminds me of the fact that I'm an atheist, and yet I enjoy sacred music and masses quite a bit. These pieces have a great religious and spiritual meaning for some, and the music was composed with this end in mind. Still none of that matters to me, I just like the music. The intent of the composer really has nothing to do with my enjoyment of a piece. I would even go so far as to say that if a piece were explicitly praising the holocaust, but sounded good to me, I would just be surprised that such a terrible event inspired a composer to compose something I enjoy, but I can still enjoy it entirely guilt free.

Not to say something like Delius' requiem, an explicitly atheist piece with an excellent libretto written by Nietzsche doesn't have a bit of additional punch for me because I love the lyrics, agree with them, and identify with them in what I think is a bone chillingly blunt way of stating things.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> This reminds me of the fact that I'm an atheist, and yet I enjoy sacred music and masses quite a bit. These pieces have a great religious and spiritual meaning for some, and the music was composed with this end in mind. Still none of that matters to me, I just like the music. The intent of the composer really has nothing to do with my enjoyment of a piece. I would even go so far as to say that if a piece were explicitly praising the holocaust, but sounded good to me, I would just be surprised that such a terrible event inspired a composer to compose something I enjoy, but I can still enjoy it entirely guilt free.
> 
> Not to say something like Delius' requiem, an explicitly atheist piece with an excellent libretto written by Nietzsche doesn't have a bit of additional punch for me because I love the lyrics, agree with them, and identify with them in what I think is a bone chillingly blunt way of stating things.


Then you are advocating a view of the individual as "exempt" from definitions imposed from without. You will have to constantly fight against and deny the reality that you are listening to music of a religious nature.

Those who are 'believers' of the religion which the music represents will say that your enjoyment is "false" or is not as sincere or intense or as charged with meaning as theirs is.

In fact, since you profess to be an atheist, they may resent the fact that you talk about listening to it at all, and hurl insults and be in opposition to you. This might affect your career or family, or social standing, depending ion who these people are, and how much power they command. You may be shunned or ostracized. If they have law enforcement connections, they could make your life miserable.

Advice: I would not advise you to be a teacher in the public school system of your community. Just sayin'.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Then you are advocating a view of the individual as "exempt" from definitions imposed from without. You will have to constantly fight against and deny the reality that you are listening to music of a religious nature.
> 
> Those who are 'believers' of the religion which the music represents will say that your enjoyment is "false" or is not as sincere or intense or as charged with meaning as theirs is.
> 
> ...


If believers want to think my enjoyment of these pieces is false, let them. If they want to hurl insults because of my beliefs, they're just intolerant ******** as far as I'm concerned. I think anybody who discounts what another person feels in music is being condescending and presumptuous at best. They can't jump in my head and experience what I experience. Similarly, when people say they feel religiously inspired particularly from music that represents their beliefs, I take them at their word. It seems clear to me that humans of all religions or none are capable of having these experiences, and they are not unique to any single set of beliefs.

I don't have to fight against the idea that a piece of music is religious at all. When I see wonderful paintings of Jesus giving a sermon on the mount, or whatever other biblical scene, I know that it's religious, but I can still enjoy the painting. I can still go "Hm, this is a great work of art" despite the fact that it was inspired by things I don't believe literally happened.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

My own best example of the unimportance of cultural baggage is my early (and continuing) love of Wagner, the composer who may have the most baggage of any, some of it manufactured by himself and more of it imposed by history.

I made the acquaintance of Wagner's operas in my teens, when I knew very little about history or politics or philosophy. I gradually became aware of Wagner's antisemitism, and then of Nazism and Hitler's enthusiasm for his music and the way this association has tainted Wagner's reputation as a man and as an artist. I've realized in the years since that there is a virtual cottage industry devoted to making sure that that association remains indelibly in the minds of generation after generation of people whose only real interest in Wagner is in music or opera. It's as if the resolution to "never forget" the holocaust must extend to never forgetting that Hitler made the music of a man who had died half a century earlier the official soundtrack of the Third Reich. Which of course it was nowhere close to being - but that doesn't stop the Nazi-hunting, presumably because there's money and prestige in championing PC causes and perpetuating juicy historical scandals.

How does all this affect my perception of Wagner's work and my understanding of what it's about?
Not at all! - or, to be more accurate, inversely: it has sometimes actually spurred me to a greater understanding of what is actually in Wagner's work and what is not, has goaded me to look deeper into history and philosophy, and has made me better able, and more eager, to counter misconceptions when I encounter them.

What is certain is that I have always been able to hear Wagner's works for what their musical and dramatic contents say to me, and not for what they may evoke or symbolize to those with an agenda of keeping the cultural mythology surrounding their composer alive.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> My own best example of the unimportance of cultural baggage is my early (and continuing) love of Wagner, the composer who may have the most baggage of any, some of it manufactured by himself and more of it imposed by history.
> 
> I made the acquaintance of Wagner's operas in my teens, when I knew very little about history or politics or philosophy. I gradually became aware of Wagner's antisemitism, and then of Nazism and Hitler's enthusiasm for his music and the way this association has tainted Wagner's reputation as a man and as an artist. I've realized in the years since that there is a virtual cottage industry devoted to making sure that that association remains indelibly in the minds of generation after generation of people whose only real interest in Wagner is in music or opera. It's as if the resolution to "never forget" the holocaust must extend to never forgetting that Hitler made the music of a man who had died half a century earlier the official soundtrack of the Third Reich. Which of course it was nowhere close to being - but that doesn't stop the Nazi-hunting, presumably because there's money and prestige in championing PC causes and perpetuating juicy historical scandals.
> 
> ...


Okay, I have a challenge for you. I want you to get a t-shirt with Wagner's picture on it, with the words "Forget Hitler" beneath it, and go to Israel, wearing it, and report back to me.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> If believers want to think my enjoyment of these pieces is false, let them. If they want to hurl insults because of my beliefs, they're just intolerant ******** as far as I'm concerned. I think anybody who discounts what another person feels in music is being condescending and presumptuous at best. They can't jump in my head and experience what I experience. Similarly, when people say they feel religiously inspired particularly from music that represents their beliefs, I take them at their word. It seems clear to me that humans of all religions or none are capable of having these experiences, and they are not unique to any single set of beliefs.


Okay, but realize that your views are those of an 'outsider,' and always will be.



Dedalus said:


> I don't have to fight against the idea that a piece of music is religious at all.


No, you don't, because YOU are the outsider. The fight will be brought to you from without. You will be shunned. People will not return your calls. You will be treated coldly if you attend Mass to hear the music only.



Dedalus said:


> When I see wonderful paintings of Jesus giving a sermon on the mount, or whatever other biblical scene, I know that it's religious, but I can still enjoy the painting. I can still go "Hm, this is a great work of art" despite the fact that it was inspired by things I don't believe literally happened.


Just don't announce these feelings publicly. Also, a word to the wise: do NOT become a public school art teacher.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, but realize that your views are those of an 'outsider,' and always will be.
> 
> No, you don't, because YOU are the outsider. The fight will be brought to you from without. You will be shunned. People will not return your calls. You will be treated coldly if you attend Mass to hear the music only.
> 
> Just don't announce these feelings publicly. Also, a word to the wise: do NOT become a public school art teacher.


I take umbrage with the idea that I need to hide my beliefs for fear of shunning. In the US we have religious freedom, and if people want to use the fact that I believe differently as a wedgelike Us vs. Them type thing, that is on them. That seems to be what you think is inevitable, I'm an outsider, they are on the inside. We are different, we should hate each other. I really don't see it that way, and as I said, if they discount my feelings of a particular piece of music simply because I don't share their beliefs, they're just presuming much more than they could possibly know. They're allowed to just spout unsupported opinions, and I'm just as free to ignore them.

As the US becomes less religious and more secular (that is the trend) I would hope a teacher can freely express their belief or nonbelief in anything as long as they are an effective teacher of the material.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> My own best example of the unimportance of cultural baggage is my early (and continuing) love of Wagner, the composer who may have the most baggage of any, some of it manufactured by himself and more of it imposed by history.
> 
> I made the acquaintance of Wagner's operas in my teens, when I knew very little about history or politics or philosophy. I gradually became aware of Wagner's antisemitism, and then of Nazism and Hitler's enthusiasm for his music and the way this association has tainted Wagner's reputation as a man and as an artist. I've realized in the years since that there is a virtual cottage industry devoted to making sure that that association remains indelibly in the minds of generation after generation of people whose only real interest in Wagner is in music or opera. It's as if the resolution to "never forget" the holocaust must extend to never forgetting that Hitler made the music of a man who had died half a century earlier the official soundtrack of the Third Reich. Which of course it was nowhere close to being - but that doesn't stop the Nazi-hunting, presumably because there's money and prestige in championing PC causes and perpetuating juicy historical scandals.
> 
> ...


There are archetypes lurking in Wagner; not the music itself, but the staging and the plot-lines, which represent undercurrents of German nationalism which were coming to fruition during the WWII era, after Wagner had planted the seeds.

You are playing with 'black magic' if you listen to this music without being aware of its sinister power.

Music is something that originally was made to accompany drama and story; the Church used art to propagandize its agenda.

In the same way, by listening to Wagner, regardless of what you believe, you are implicitly in agreement with what this art stands for. Someday, there may be a reckoning. Just a friendly bit of advice.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, I have a challenge for you. I want you to get a t-shirt with Wagner's picture on it, with the words "Forget Hitler" beneath it, and go to Israel, wearing it, and report back to me.


That some people can´t appreciate European culture is their problem.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> I take umbrage with the idea that I need to hide my beliefs for fear of shunning. In the US we have religious freedom, and if people want to use the fact that I believe differently as a wedgelike Us vs. Them type thing, that is on them.


That's par for the course, Dedalus. Shunning happens all the time. Examples of groups who shun: Jehova's Witnesses, Catholics, Scientologists, Alcoholics Anonymous, Ba'Hai, Islamists, etc.

Almost any religion. Plus loads of other groups and social organizations: employers who do background checks and don't like what they see, and will not hire you; women, for whatever reasons, sports teams (look at Lance Armstrong), bias against convicts or felons, sexual orientation, and more.



Dedalus said:


> That seems to be what you think is inevitable, I'm an outsider, they are on the inside. We are different, we should hate each other. I really don't see it that way, and as I said, if they discount my feelings of a particular piece of music simply because I don't share their beliefs, they're just presuming much more than they could possibly know. They're allowed to just spout unsupported opinions, and I'm just as free to ignore them.


Not if you "want in" or want to "belong." Then, they will exclude you.

It's easy for you to talk like this right now, because you have nothing at stake, and nothing invested. Just wait until you really need something, then you will find out the true nature of ostracism.



Dedalus said:


> As the US becomes less religious and more secular (that is the trend) I would hope a teacher can freely express their belief or nonbelief in anything as long as they are an effective teacher of the material.


That depends on where you are, to some extent. Not in Texas, by God. Not in Texas.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> That's par for the course, Dedalus. Shunning happens all the time. Examples of groups who shun: Jehova's Witnesses, Catholics, Scientologists, Alcoholics Anonymous, Ba'Hai, Islamists, etc. Almost any religion. Plus loads of other groups and social organizations: employers who do background checks and don't like what they see, and will not hire you; women, for whatever reasons, sports teams (look at Lance Armstrong).


Yeah and the people who do that kind of thing are despicable. Are you defending them, or what? That is exactly how I think people should *not* be.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sloe said:


> That some people can´t appreciate European culture is their problem.


That depends on whose turf you are treading on. Wear the shirt, then try to get service at a restaurant.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> Yeah and the people who do that kind of thing are despicable. Are you defending them, or what? That is exactly how I think people should *not* be.


That's reality, bud. Are you just now waking up to this fact? What's wrong with ostracizing Lance Armstrong, or Bill Cosby? After all, they are criminals, aren't they? Forget the fact that they are human beings with feelings: there are consequences for your actions!

Yes ostracism is defined (see Wik) as a form of mental torture, pure and simple. What's wrong with torturing people? It happens all the time. Look at Guantanamo Bay. Obama went along; torture is the new norm.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> That's reality, bud. Are you just now waking up to this fact? What's wrong with ostracizing Lance Armstrong, or Bill Cosby? After all, they are criminals, aren't they? Forget the fact that they are human beings with feelings: there are consequences for your actions!
> 
> Yes ostracism is defined (see Wik) as a form of mental torture, pure and simple. What's wrong with torturing people? It happens all the time. Look at Guantanamo Bay. Obama went along; torture is the new norm.


Despicable people can be ostracized. Are you really putting being atheist in the same category as drugging and raping dozens of women? Of course everybody is going to have a different opinion about where the line is drawn as far as who we shun, but just because we can't tell an exact line doesn't mean we can't realize one thing is waaay over here on one side of it, and another thing is waayy over on the other side of it. Being atheist harms nobody, while drugging and raping women can cause irreparable damage to a person's psyche. I think the majority of people, even religious people, understand that these are two completely different categories.

Lance Armstrong's crimes weren't nearly so bad, and as well he is not nearly as shunned. The consequences are proportionate to the action, as it should be.

Seeing atheism as some kind of "wrong" I have perpetrated also makes no sense. First of all, one has no control of their beliefs. You cannot just will yourself into believing something, if you think you can, then just believe you can fly right now, and don't just jump off the floor, go to a high place, and really believe it. If you think it's possible to just convince yourself of something, I hope this example should suffice to disabuse you of that. Not only this, but take Christians for example, they are atheist with respect to every single other god other than their own, I just go one further. So how somebody can see being atheist as being worse than me being Hindu for example, just confuses the heck out of me. The christians think the Hindus are just as wrong as they think I am, yet somehow the word atheist seems to cause a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## Chipomarc (Jul 18, 2015)

Ostracized ? Nobody here getting ostracized !


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Chipomarc said:


> Ostracized ? Nobody here getting ostracized !


Osterized, maybe. Ostracized, never!


----------



## Chipomarc (Jul 18, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Osterized, maybe. Ostracized, never!


Blame those other guys who just posted before me, I just copied and pasted the word they were using.:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> There are *archetypes lurking* in Wagner; *not the music itself,* but the staging and the plot-lines, which represent *undercurrents* of German nationalism which were coming to fruition during the WWII era, after Wagner had planted the seeds.
> 
> *You are playing with 'black magic' *if you listen to this music without being aware of its sinister power.
> 
> ...


Well, at least you've retreated from the premise of your OP, have admitted that it's not the music that's problematic, and are now reduced to talking about spooky things like black magic, undercurrents, and lurking archetypes.

Aside from Hans Sachs's little exhortation about honoring the spirit of German art, references to German nationalism - or any nationalism, or Germany, or even the concept of a nation - in Wagner's operas are nonexistent. Once his wild oats were sewn, he came to detest politics, and the archetypes he deals with do not lurk. They're right out in the open with their messages - one of which is that power destroys those who seek it.

I think I can live with the consequences of knowing more about Wagner than Adolf Hitler or Robert Gutman. The Nazi-hunters, and those who believe their accounts of history and culture, don't have my address.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please try to keep the posts focused on music and not solely on politics.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> The same piece of music means different things. Therefore, it does not really exist in a defined, objective form.


To quote Spock, "Illogical, Capt."

Of course it exists. The fact that it means different things to different people is irrelevant. Or, more accurately, the fact that it attracts layers of extra-musical meanings that differ from one person to the next does not negate the existence of the music. Taggart's idea is a good one - learned responses, like the dog to the bell.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> Despicable people can be ostracized. Are you really putting being atheist in the same category as drugging and raping dozens of women? Of course everybody is going to have a different opinion about where the line is drawn as far as who we shun, but just because we can't tell an exact line doesn't mean we can't realize one thing is waaay over here on one side of it, and another thing is waayy over on the other side of it. Being atheist harms nobody, while drugging and raping women can cause irreparable damage to a person's psyche. I think the majority of people, even religious people, understand that these are two completely different categories.


I was waiting for you to justify ostracism. It's just a matter of degree, apparently. There's always a justification somewhere, a rationale for human aggression...



Dedalus said:


> Lance Armstrong's crimes weren't nearly so bad, and as well he is not nearly as shunned. The consequences are proportionate to the action, as it should be.


How is he not so shunned? He can't even ride in a children's event to raise money for charity anymore. He's banned from all bicycle-related events.



Dedalus said:


> Seeing atheism as some kind of "wrong" I have perpetrated also makes no sense. First of all, one has no control of their beliefs. You cannot just will yourself into believing something, if you think you can, then just believe you can fly right now, and don't just jump off the floor, go to a high place, and really believe it. If you think it's possible to just convince yourself of something, I hope this example should suffice to disabuse you of that. Not only this, but take Christians for example, they are atheist with respect to every single other god other than their own, I just go one further. So how somebody can see being atheist as being worse than me being Hindu for example, just confuses the heck out of me. The christians think the Hindus are just as wrong as they think I am, yet somehow the word atheist seems to cause a knee jerk reaction.


I wasn't trying to focus on your atheism; I mentioned religions as one of the main ways that social shunning and ostracism are practiced. I don't care if you are an atheist or not.

I also pointed out that religious people have a vested interest in religious music, because they are believers, and will tell you that your involvement in this music is of a lesser value than theirs. I mention this because this same thing was told to me in the religious music threads, and I am simply a "spiritual person," not even a professed atheist.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Chipomarc said:


> Ostracized ? Nobody here getting ostracized !
> 
> View attachment 73800


Well, it's about time somebody gave Lance Armstong a little slack! The European sport of cycling was corrupt to begin with.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Well, at least you've retreated from the premise of your OP, have admitted that it's not the music that's problematic, and are now reduced to talking about spooky things like black magic, undercurrents, and lurking archetypes.


Yes, that's all part of a little package we call "art," and if you want to talk about Wagner's operatic, mythologically charged, dramatic epics, you have to look at the complete package. I think that's a fair proposal.



Woodduck said:


> Aside from Hans Sachs's little exhortation about honoring the spirit of German art, references to German nationalism - or any nationalism, or Germany, or even the concept of a nation - in Wagner's operas are nonexistent.


Not according to this book.










A review from the Amazon page: 
_
Di Gaetani has finally followed up his famously well-loved 'Penetrating Wagner's Ring' with this charming book which delves EVEN DEEPER into the subject than before. While in 'Penetrating Wagner's Ring' we were led through the *dark passages *and mystical barriers to a glimpse of *what lay behind Wagner's Ring,* now we are brought 'inside' the work as it were, and shown some of *the ugliness *as well as the surprising beauty which lies scattered throughout the insides of* this work of intense psychological character.* It is a virtual endocsopy into the whole* reeking fabulousness *of it all. And yet there remains a mystery after it all - a sense of limitless possibilities and frightening beauty all combined together in a splendid glistening cavern of primordial ecstasy. _



Woodduck said:


> Once his wild oats were sewn, he came to detest politics, and the archetypes he deals with do not lurk. They're right out in the open with their messages - one of which is that power destroys those who seek it.
> 
> I think I can live with the consequences of knowing more about Wagner than Adolf Hitler or Robert Gutman. The Nazi-hunters, and those who believe their accounts of history and culture, don't have my address.


You're exaggerating my position. I'm just saying that Wagner, influenced by his milieu, was laying-down the archetypal groundwork for a new, emerging nationalism, which later emerged in grotesque form in WWII. No art is immune from its social environment.

On the other hand, these things can hit close to home. Just hope they don't move in next door to you. There is a case of a verbal altercation between next-door neighbors which went on for, literally, decades. You are not immune.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> To quote Spock, "Illogical, Capt."
> 
> Of course it exists.


Not unless someone experiences it. All art is a two-way communication. It requires a creator, and an audience. That's where it derives its meaning. Without that, Beethoven's Ninth *does exist *"objectively," but without meaning; only as a pile of paper with ink on it. Do you see my point? I hate to quibble on points like this.



MacLeod said:


> The fact that it means different things to different people is irrelevant. Or, more accurately, the fact that it attracts layers of extra-musical meanings that differ from one person to the next does not negate the existence of the music.


Extra-musical meanings are no different than "musical meanings" in the fact that both kinds of meaning require an audience to experience it. Let's talk about the human dimension of meaning when we talk about art. Otherwise, what is the meaning of a pile of paper and ink?



MacLeod said:


> Taggart's idea is a good one - learned responses, like the dog to the bell.


Taggart's idea is flawed, though; the bell (music) is irrelevant without the associated hunger response. That's the dog's 'meaning' when he hears the bell. The bell is meaningless, otherwise.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I was waiting for you to justify ostracism. It's just a matter of degree, apparently. There's always a justification somewhere, a rationale for human aggression...
> 
> How is he not so shunned? He can't even ride in a children's event to raise money for charity anymore. He's banned from all bicycle-related events.
> 
> ...


I don't know what else you suggest people at large do when Cosby-esque things come to light. Just let them be, because we don't want to commit the mental torture of shunning? :\ I don't know about that.

My main point is that, yes, I agree people will think I have a lesser meaning from religious music, and that may or may not in fact be true. I would say nobody knows or can know the answer to that. But if they think my experience of the music is lesser, that is their problem and not mine. I like the a piece of music exactly to the degree that I like it, and anybody elses experience of that piece has virtually nothing to do with my experience. Somebody with full German ancestry living in Germany could say that foreigners can't appreciate Beethoven or Wagner as fully as they can, because they're not German. A woman could say a man can't appreciate works composed by women as fully because they are not themselves a woman. All these hypothetical people could say these things, and it really doesn't matter one bit to my own listening experience. I just like what I like, and get what I get out of it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Dedalus said:


> I don't know what else you suggest people at large do when Cosby-esque things come to light. Just let them be, because we don't want to commit the mental torture of shunning? :\ I don't know about that.


I was just pointing out the fact that you are willing to justify ostracism, contingent on certain conditions. Your previous responses were not clear on this point, making it sound as if all ostracism was unjustified, which you have now pointed out is not true. You too are ready to ostracize, if you feel it is necessary.



Dedalus said:


> My main point is that, yes, I agree people will think I have a lesser meaning from religious music, and that may or may not in fact be true. I would say nobody knows or can know the answer to that. But if they think my experience of the music is lesser, that is their problem and not mine.


It may become a problem if you engage in dialog with them in a forum such as this. But this is due to the nature of religions and social groups, and power. This is what people do when they form into groups. YOU are the outsider, and that is the nature of the problem.



Dedalus said:


> I like the a piece of music exactly to the degree that I like it, and anybody elses experience of that piece has virtually nothing to do with my experience. Somebody with full German ancestry living in Germany could say that foreigners can't appreciate Beethoven or Wagner as fully as they can, because they're not German. A woman could say a man can't appreciate works composed by women as fully because they are not themselves a woman. All these hypothetical people could say these things, and it really doesn't matter one bit to my own listening experience. I just like what I like, and get what I get out of it.


Yes, but these people (women, Germans) have formed into groups because of certain shared characteristics, such as gender, race, culture, etc. This gives them more power than if they were isolated.

As an individual, you are free to listen to whatever you wish to, but if you interact with a person who is a believer in that religion which the music represents, you will be seen as a maverick outsider.

Right now, it may not be 'your problem,' but if you decide to share your enthusiasm, be sure it is with someone who is not invested in it as a believer, or as a matter of dogma or absolute truth.

Atheists, as Steve Martin joked, are by nature 'loners' and do not form into groups. like other religions.

Therefore, atheists would be characterized by society as "outsiders" or even "sociopaths." I'm not saying that; but this is the view of 'normal' people who belong to a religion.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Not unless someone experiences it. All art is a two-way communication. It requires a creator, and an audience. That's where it derives its meaning.


'Meaning' and 'existence' are not the same. You seem to suggest that without the one, the other must be denied. I disagree. Beethoven's 9th had existence and meaning for him, from first inspiration to the labour of creation. It also had existence for the publisher and, eventually, the performers and the audience. The meanings came after.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> 'Meaning' and 'existence' are not the same. You seem to suggest that without the one, the other must be denied. I disagree. Beethoven's 9th had existence and meaning for him, from first inspiration to the labour of creation. It also had existence for the publisher and, eventually, the performers and the audience. The meanings came after.


If Beethoven's Ninth exists to a publisher, it means what he wants it to mean. For him it was a printing job.

Yes, eventually the Ninth gained meaning, but only after it had entered the experience of the performers and audience, not until then. "Meaning" is an exclusively human term. "Meaning" cannot exist within an inanimate object.

I really don't want to debate you about this.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> 'Meaning' and 'existence' are not the same.


True. I agree. "Meaning" is an exclusively human term.



MacLeod said:


> You seem to suggest that without the one, the other must be denied.


No, that is not what I wish to convey.

A rock exists, but it has no meaning per se.

I'm talking about art as a social medium. In this sense, it is meaningless until it is conveyed into the experience of others.



MacLeod said:


> I disagree. Beethoven's 9th had existence and meaning for him, from first inspiration to the labour of creation. It also had existence for the publisher and, eventually, the performers and the audience. The meanings came after.


This is irrelevant. I do not wish to debate irrelevancies. If you want to discuss the social meaning of art, then do so.

Art and music exist meaningfully only when the ideas have been conveyed, so that people can give them meaning, through their experience. The "meaning" is in human experience, not "in" the art object. The art object is just a medium for conveying meaning. Otherwise, it is just a meaningless object.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, that's all part of a little package we call "art," and if you want to talk about Wagner's operatic, mythologically charged, dramatic epics, you have to look at the complete package. I think that's a fair proposal.
> 
> Woodduck: *"Aside from Hans Sachs's little exhortation about honoring the spirit of German art, references to German nationalism - or any nationalism, or Germany, or even the concept of a nation - in Wagner's operas are nonexistent."*
> 
> ...


Oh, come on, million!

Why should some book cover and some review by God-only-knows-who-with-what-credentials-and-what-cranial-capacity impress me more than my own long experience with Wagner's works? Why does it impress you? "There must be some truth here because 'they' (Amazon reviewers?!) say there is" doesn't demonstrate anything at all. The argument from authority only works with children. I'm an old geezer and hard to impress.

Your sentence, "Wagner, influenced by his milieu, was laying-down the archetypal groundwork for a new, emerging nationalism, which later emerged in grotesque form in WWII" really doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the art of Wagner, does it? Because some blond, blue-eyed Aryan youth saw himself as a hero of the Luftwaffe, should we all now, sitting at the opera, get the creeps and think of Treblinka when young Siegfried forges his sword and slays the dragon?

"No art is immune from its social environment" doesn't sound like a reason to swallow whatever definition of art society - or any self-styled authority - wants to shove down our throats.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Oh, come on, million!
> 
> Why should some book cover and some review (deleted-ed.) impress me more than my own long experience with Wagner's works?


If it does, you are ignoring the work's place in history, and its effect on people as art and archetype.



Woodduck said:


> Why does it impress you? "There must be some truth here because 'they' (Amazon reviewers?!) say there is" doesn't demonstrate anything at all. The argument from authority only works with children. I'm an old geezer and hard to impress.


That's because I am familiar with Jung's ideas about archetypes. See "The Seven Basic Plots."

~











Woodduck said:


> Your sentence, "Wagner, influenced by his milieu, was laying-down the archetypal groundwork for a new, emerging nationalism, which later emerged in grotesque form in WWII" really doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the art of Wagner, does it?


Yes, I think it does. "Art" is charged with poetic meanings which resonate.



Woodduck said:


> Because some blond, blue-eyed Aryan youth saw himself as a hero of the Luftwaffe, should we all now, sitting at the opera, get the creeps and think of Treblinka when young Siegfried forges his sword and slays the dragon?


Perhaps you are unaware of the full effect these archetypal images had on the German people, especially impressionable youths.



Woodduck said:


> "No art is immune from its social environment" doesn't sound like a reason to swallow whatever definition of art society - or any self-styled authority - wants to shove down our throats.


So we become sword-swallowers? Ha ha!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Trust me, I am well aware of the range of interpretations and influences which have attended the work of Wagner. They are interesting to me as a human being, but I'm competent to make up my own mind as to their importance and meaning - in his work itself and in its legacy - and particularly as to what they mean to me personally in my experience of his music. I can be familiar with history, society, culture, Jung, the sex life of tardigrades, or anything you want to name, draw my own conclusions about how they do or do not relate to works of art, and choose to experience art in terms of its intrinsic qualities and the effect those have on me. Apparently you can't do this, else you would not be insisting that others can't or shouldn't do it. Well, if you feel that your mind is enslaved by what your culture tells you about what "poetic meanings" art is "charged with," I must say I don't envy you.

I suspect, though, that your perception of music isn't as subservient to society's dominant ideologies as your OP makes you sound. You're really just having us on, aren't you?


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> If Beethoven's Ninth exists to a publisher, it means what he wants it to mean. For him it was a printing job.


But you just said it means what he wants it to mean. Perhaps it means more than a printing job. Check your facts about the publishers of Beethoven's works and I'm sure you'll discover they meant more than just printing jobs.



millionrainbows said:


> Yes, eventually the Ninth gained meaning, but only after it had entered the experience of the performers and audience, not until then. "Meaning" is an exclusively human term. "Meaning" cannot exist within an inanimate object.


You're still switching from 'meaning' to 'existence' and back again, careless of their separate meanings. I agree that until the work is performed, it has no 'musical' meaning, but it does have existence, which is what you were previously denying.



millionrainbows said:


> I really don't want to debate you about this.


I'm not surprised.



millionrainbows said:


> True. I agree. "Meaning" is an exclusively human term.


Aren't all words 'exclusively' human?



millionrainbows said:


> I'm talking about art as a social medium. In this sense, it is meaningless until it is conveyed into the experience of others.


Yes, I agree - but while talking about 'art as a social medium', you make pronouncements that have nothing to with your subject.



millionrainbows said:


> This is irrelevant. I do not wish to debate irrelevancies.


What you mean is that when you talk about 'meaning/existence' these words and their application can mean anything you want them to mean, but when I try to tie you down, anything I post is irrelevant.



millionrainbows said:


> Art and music *exist meaningfully* only when the ideas have been conveyed, so that people can give them meaning, through their experience.


 [my bold]

Yes. Exist _meaningfully_. That's fine. But please stop saying that it doesn't exist at all - that is all I'm objecting to.



millionrainbows said:


> The "meaning" is in human experience, not "in" the art object.


The meaning is in the human experience _of _the art object. You can't separate the two.



millionrainbows said:


> The art object is just a medium for conveying meaning. Otherwise, it is just a meaningless object.


No. The object carries the potential for meaning(s), thus making it meaningful. When I listen to Sibelius Symphony No 6, it "means" the death of my dog two months ago - to the extent that it is now difficult to listen to. Since that is clearly not the meaning that Sibelius intended, and he surely won't have intended no meaning whatsoever, he will have composed in the belief that he is investing his time and skill in a meaningful artefact. That artefact is intended to carry that meaning every time it is performed, whether that is the meaning received by the audience or not.

It is not just a meaningless object.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> If Beethoven's Ninth exists to a publisher, it means what he wants it to mean. For him it was a printing job.


Suggest you read the comments of the publisher Diabelli on his issuance of Beethoven's Diabelli Variations. They're in the Wiki article on the work. Obviously this wasn't just a "printing job" to Diabelli!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Trust me, I am well aware of the range of interpretations and influences which have attended the work of Wagner. They are interesting to me as a human being, but I'm competent to make up my own mind as to their importance and meaning - in his work itself and in its legacy - and particularly as to what they mean to me personally in my experience of his music.


Yes, just like a mother loves her darling son; he can do no wrong. You're using Wagner as an escape. I suggest getting rid of the operatic elements and listening to "Waqner without words." There are lots of choices available.



Woodduck said:


> I can be familiar with history, society, culture, Jung, the sex life of tardigrades, or anything you want to name, draw my own conclusions about how they do or do not relate to works of art, and choose to experience art in terms of its intrinsic qualities and the effect those have on me.


OK, but just like the atheist and religious music, you need to realize the context and social meaning of the music/art, to grasp its full meaning.



Woodduck said:


> Apparently you can't do this, else you would not be insisting that others can't or shouldn't do it. Well, if you feel that your mind is enslaved by what your culture tells you about what "poetic meanings" art is "charged with," I must say I don't envy you.


Nobody comes to any art fully informed. I'm just suggesting to people to learn all they can about history and what was going on, when the art was a living, vital force in the real world, rather than viewing them as curiosities in a museum.



Woodduck said:


> I suspect, though, that your perception of music isn't as subservient to society's dominant ideologies as your OP makes you sound. You're really just having us on, aren't you?


When I listen to Mozart and Haydn, I am well aware that this music was written for Kings, and revel in the fact that I now have access to it. This knowledge makes my pleasure even sweeter.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> But you just said it means what he wants it to mean. Perhaps it means more than a printing job. Check your facts about the publishers of Beethoven's works and I'm sure you'll discover they meant more than just printing jobs.


Perhaps; but meaning is meaning. I'm not getting your point, except that you seem to want to debate this point by point.



MacLeod said:


> You're still switching from 'meaning' to 'existence' and back again, careless of their separate meanings.


 No I'm not. Meaning is for humans. Existence is for everything, including rocks.



MacLeod said:


> I agree that until the work is performed, it has no 'musical' meaning, but it does have existence, which is what you were previously denying.


 No, that is not what I wish to convey.



MacLeod said:


> Yes, I agree - but while talking about 'art as a social medium', you make pronouncements that have nothing to with your subject.


 I do not know which pronouncements you are referring to; sorry.



MacLeod said:


> What you mean is that when you talk about 'meaning/existence' these words and their application can mean anything you want them to mean, but when I try to tie you down, anything I post is irrelevant.


 This is not about you personally; I'm saying that art has no meaning except socially.



MacLeod said:


> Yes. Exist _meaningfully_. That's fine. But please stop saying that it doesn't exist at all - that is all I'm objecting to.


 That's not what I said, or what I wish to convey. I think you misinterpreted what I said.



MacLeod said:


> The meaning is in the human experience _of _the art object. You can't separate the two.


 Yes; we agree on that.

("Art is a meaningless object until it gains meaning from being experienced.")



MacLeod said:


> No. The object carries the potential for meaning(s), thus making it meaningful.


Then it is potentially meaningful, but has not really entered into the realm of human discourse. Socially, it is unrealized.



MacLeod said:


> When I listen to Sibelius Symphony No 6, it "means" the death of my dog two months ago - to the extent that it is now difficult to listen to.


Then that is your own private meaning. In a larger context, it does not have the same meaning for society at large.



MacLeod said:


> Since that is clearly not the meaning that Sibelius intended, and he surely won't have intended no meaning whatsoever, he will have composed in the belief that he is investing his time and skill in a meaningful artefact. That artefact is intended to carry that meaning every time it is performed, whether that is the meaning received by the audience or not.


If he is a good artist, the meaning he wishes to convey will be received as the same by his audience.



MacLeod said:


> It is not just a meaningless object.


You seem to have a problem is seeing that 'meaning' can only exist in the experience of people. The 'meaning' is not in the object itself. The art is a medium which conveys meaning. If you have a problem with that, it is not on my account. I'm trying to talk about art as a social medium which conveys meaning.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Suggest you read the comments of the publisher Diabelli on his issuance of Beethoven's Diabelli Variations. They're in the Wiki article on the work. Obviously this wasn't just a "printing job" to Diabelli!


OK, but this was brought up by McLeod, not me. This is irrelevant to the point I was making, that art must exist socially, as a social medium. Some more-or-less obscure story about Beethoven's publisher, while I'm sure is entertaining, is not relevant to me in this context.

I'm sure you know much more about Beethoven's publisher than I ever will; and I sincerely apologize to both you and McLeod for my ignorance, and for even _hinting_ that Beethoven's music was "just a printing job" to his publisher.

The fact is, I am not interested in that particular aspect of meaning in art; I wish to cover more general ground.

Meanwhile, I will go to WIK and educate myself on this fascinating subject, immediately.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Yes, just like a mother loves her darling son; he can do no wrong.

Spurious analogy. People do right and wrong; art may be good art or bad art, but it just _is._ People do with it what they will.

You're using Wagner as an escape.

I use art for what art is used for. Art is no more an "escape" than food is an "escape" from hunger, love is an "escape" from loneliness, or health is an "escape" from disease.

Nobody comes to any art fully informed.

Nobody comes to _life_ fully informed. Should we put it off until we are? We inform ourselves as needed, and we - _we alone_ - decide whether the information is valuable. Much of it isn't.

I'm just suggesting to people to learn all they can about history and what was going on, when the art was a living, vital force in the real world.

If that's all you were suggesting, no one would be arguing with you. Your original suggestion is much more radical:_ "But if a piece represents some sort of ideology, or aesthetic, or lifestyle to a large group of people, then it might as well be what they think it is...mass opinion has now become a part of the music's DNA, for all intents and purposes, because the music exists in a human context of opposing ideologies and opinions...And the consequence of, say, modern music like Xenakis or Boulez is that it is an icon of modernist ideology...As a consequence, a very real consequence, all those who agree, if their number is greater, will win, and the "free association of endless possibilities" in music will be effectively, in a most pragmatic and practical sense, meaningless." _

I'm just suggesting to people to learn all they can about history and what was going on, when the art was a living, vital force in the real world, rather than viewing them as curiosities in a museum.

If those are your alternatives, no wonder you're looking to historical forces and cultural cliches to make music meaningful for you.

If music is good, it can remain a living, vital force for the only person who matters: the listener. History lessons are interesting but optional.

When I listen to Mozart and Haydn, I am well aware that this music was written for Kings, and revel in the fact that I now have access to it. This knowledge makes my pleasure even sweeter.

When _I_ listen to Mozart and Haydn, I'm too busy listening to what the music is doing and don't want to think about kings. I can think about them, if I wish, when my mind is freer. Besides, there is no such thing as "kings." There is only this king or that king - and they're all too dead for me to know them well. The music, on the other hand, is alive and present, and it is and always was beyond the power of any king - much less an abstraction called "kings" - to define for me.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Yes, just like a mother loves her darling son; he can do no wrong.
> 
> Spurious analogy. People do right and wrong; art may be good art or bad art, but it just _is._ People do with it what they will.


Just like a mother, though, you are "in denial" of the larger dimension of your precious baby Wagner.



Woodduck said:


> You're using Wagner as an escape.
> 
> I use art for what art is used for. Art is no more an "escape" than food is an "escape" from hunger, love is an "escape" from loneliness, or health is an "escape" from disease.


But if you are unaware of the social context of Wagner, you are using it like a drug, with no regard for its "other effects" which are recognized by others, and are well-documented. We all know this dimension of Wagner exists, especially through his infamous anti-Semitic essay. To be in "denial" about this is like a drug addict and his drug.



Woodduck said:


> Nobody comes to any art fully informed.
> 
> Nobody comes to _life_ fully informed. Should we put it off until we are? We inform ourselves as needed, and we - _we alone_ - decide whether the information is valuable. Much of it isn't.


I forgot what context I said this, in response to what. I'll go look it up and see. then edit later.



Woodduck said:


> I'm just suggesting to people to learn all they can about history and what was going on, when the art was a living, vital force in the real world.
> 
> If that's all you were suggesting, no one would be arguing with you. Your original suggestion is much more radical:_ "But if a piece represents some sort of ideology, or aesthetic, or lifestyle to a large group of people, then it might as well be what they think it is...mass opinion has now become a part of the music's DNA, for all intents and purposes, because the music exists in a human context of opposing ideologies and opinions...And the consequence of, say, modern music like Xenakis or Boulez is that it is an icon of modernist ideology...As a consequence, a very real consequence, all those who agree, if their number is greater, will win, and the "free association of endless possibilities" in music will be effectively, in a most pragmatic and practical sense, meaningless." _


I don't see any essential difference in what I said then, and now. I still stand behind all my previous statements and supporting examples, of which you have provided zilch.



Woodduck said:


> I'm just suggesting to people to learn all they can about history and what was going on, when the art was a living, vital force in the real world, rather than viewing them as curiosities in a museum.
> 
> If those are your alternatives, no wonder you're looking to historical forces and cultural cliches to make music meaningful for you.


Oh, you see yourself as so individual. The fact is, you are just like anyone else, subject to the same human foibles and fantasies. That book "The Seven Plots" proves this point in a very entertaining way. We all want heroes, we all want to win, etc. That's why Star Wars was so popular. You are no different with your Wagner; these are just archetypical power-fantasies, not essentially different than any other adolescent power-fantasy in a comic book. Wagner is just a big comic book, or graphic novel.



Woodduck said:


> If music is good, it can remain a living, vital force for the only person who matters; the listener. History lessons are interesting but optional.


Music can be appropriated for any use or any symbolic association that any power wants it to be. That's what the Nazis did with Wagner, that's what the Beef Council did with Aaron Copland. And if there are more of them than you, and they are more powerful, they win/you lose!



Woodduck said:


> When I listen to Mozart and Haydn, I am well aware that this music was written for Kings, and revel in the fact that I now have access to it. This knowledge makes my pleasure even sweeter.
> 
> When _I_ listen to Mozart and Haydn, I'm too busy listening to what the music is doing and don't want to think about kings. I can think about them, if I wish, when my mind is freer.


I'm a music theorist, so I listen to music as music, as well. I'm also an artist and thinker, so I consider other aspects as well. None of it detracts from my pleasure; it only adds greater depth and meaning.



Woodduck said:


> Besides, there is no such thing as "kings." There is only this king or that king - and they're all too dead for me to know them well. The music, on the other hand, is alive and present, and it is and always was beyond the power of any king - much less an abstraction called "kings" - to define for me.


Yeah, tell that to Shostakovich!

What is your point, other than to be disagreeable? We all know that classical music has always represented the aims and agendas of whatever power structure was extant: The Church or Royalty. Folk music did not; it was music of the masses. That's why classical music was written in score for large groups of forces to play, as a show of power. The Royal Fireworks music; opera was once only viewed by royals. We all know this.

Yes, you are lucky to live in a "democracy."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In fact, Shostakovich is another good example which demonstrates my point. He "fought" with Stalin because Stalin wanted music to mean what* Stalin *wanted it to mean: as a tool to promote the power of the State.

If poor little nerd Shostakovich had his way, his art would belong to himself as "his" as art; a noble sentiment, but as his 2nd and 3rd symphonies demonstrate, Stalin was more powerful and "persuasive."

Yes, be glad that you can listen to any music you want to! There are powers who want to battle with you over its meaning.

If they are more powerful, and more persuasive, and have more money, then Aaron Copland's "Hoedown" from the Rodeo Suite will have* their *meaning, not yours!


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I do not know which pronouncements you are referring to; sorry.


For example:



> *People's agendas are what makes this forum exist at all!*





> The music is now defined by its "actions" or its effect on people





> The same piece of music means different things. Therefore, it does not really exist in a defined, objective form.


Clearly, you have bee in your bonnet about something someone said to which you have taken exception - something to do with the way some music acquires a social 'reputation'. You start claiming that because it has different meanings to different people, it doesn't exist 'in a defined, objective form' (which I understand), but then extend this to a more general observation that music doesn't exist without meaning.

I think we're probably done here, unless you want to offer some specific examples of the social meaning of music that we can focus on.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> If poor little nerd Shostakovich had his way, his art would belong to himself as "his" as art; a noble sentiment...


Not noble at all, but selfish. Per Party doctrine, music's purpose was to serve the broad masses of the people, not to massage some big-city intellectual's ego. Comrade Zhdanov made that abundantly clear.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Clearly, you have bee in your bonnet about something someone said to which you have taken exception - something to do with the way some music acquires a social 'reputation'. You start claiming that because it has different meanings to different people, it doesn't exist 'in a defined, objective form' (which I understand)...


Yes, what I mean is that there is not "a meaning" which is not in some way formed by the experience of a social collection of listeners.

A common assumption is that the composer determines the meaning _exclusively,_ or that the meaning somehow exists "in" the work itself, which makes no real sense when you think about it.

In this sense, music is always defined "from without," unlike a human identity. This could be tricky, since music, as a language of communication and conveying meaning, is a 'mapping' of the artist's experience on to ours, and thus _seems_ to be in the realm of subjectivity, as a melding of experiences.

I think the real confusion arises because people get so involved in the experience of music that they mistake their own subjective experience for the 'music itself,' which is understandable, since the meaning they derive from it is largely subjective.

We must recognize, however, that there are meanings which accompany the work which lie outside of our own experience; and it is this aspect of 'objective meaning' which many people refuse to acknowledge.

Still, "objective meaning" in music exists only as an accumulated consensus, of a collective nature. It is this which individuals resist, because of its collective nature. They see it as being opposed to their own subjectivity, but the collective meaning is really a result of many subjective experiences which accumulate to the point that the music takes on a separate social existence, not unlike a corporation or 'brand.'



MacLeod said:


> ...but then extend this to a more general observation that music doesn't exist without meaning.


The music must exist as a social entity, as a 'brand,' if it is to have any relevancy. Otherwise, its meaning in the individual experience of one listener is essentially meaningless, in a social sense (not to that one person).



MacLeod said:


> I think we're probably done here, unless you want to offer some specific examples of the social meaning of music that we can focus on.


Examples abound. Music is used to reinforce and declare lifestyles, social status, worldview, culture, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Not noble at all, but selfish. Per Party doctrine, music's purpose was to serve the broad masses of the people, not to massage some big-city intellectual's ego. Comrade Zhdanov made that abundantly clear.


I made the mistake of qualifying Shostakovich's individual aims as an artist as "noble," when really, it's just two opposing tendencies.

This is the ongoing paradox of 'religion' (in this case State doctrine) and how it relates to the individual. Which is more noble, to serve one's own needs, and realize one's self, or to submit to the collective?

Isn't serving one's own interests, and "enlightening" oneself, ultimately the only power we have as individuals? And doesn't this ultimately contribute to the good of the collective?

If art's (or religion's) aims are made to serve a larger entity (like Church or State), it always seems that we eventually lose the good result we seek.

And as we saw, Stalin was ultimately not serving the State, but himself.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I made the mistake of qualifying Shostakovich's individual aims as an artist as "noble," when really, it's just two opposing tendencies.
> 
> This is the ongoing paradox of 'religion' (in this case State doctrine) and how it relates to the individual. Which is more noble, to serve one's own needs, and realize one's self, or to submit to the collective?
> 
> ...


But luckily, the State killed Stalin. The greater purpose usually wins. Here, the church's inspiration drew the best composers to write great music to draw in the church goers.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> But luckily, the State killed Stalin. The greater purpose usually wins. Here, the church's inspiration drew the best composers to write great music to draw in the church goers.


The intended purpose of the great music you speak of was to worship and glorify God. The body of Christ should act in accordance to what is pleasing to God, not men. Of course, the modern church is failing miserably and its interests have become selfish and short-sighted.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Does Music Really "Exist" Objectively, Without Human Input? *

Is this the same as asking: If one played John Cage's 4'33" in a forest where there was no one to hear it, would the music sound?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Morimur said:


> The intended purpose of the great music you speak of was to worship and glorify God. The body of Christ should act in accordance to what is pleasing to God, not men. Of course, the modern church is failing miserably and its interests have become selfish and short-sighted.


That's good, Morimur. You seem to be so "dark" that this sentiment surprises me. But I think it is in good hands.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SONNET CLV said:


> *Does Music Really "Exist" Objectively, Without Human Input? *
> 
> Is this the same as asking: If one played John Cage's 4'33" in a forest where there was no one to hear it, would the music sound?


Not really. I've been thinking of how to simplify this. Here it is: it is our individual experience vs. the "collective" experience. The same old dilemma of the individual vs. the larger collective mentality.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> But luckily, the State killed Stalin. The greater purpose usually wins. Here, the church's inspiration drew the best composers to write great music to draw in the church goers.


Did they kill him? I thought he just died.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Did they kill him? I thought he just died.


So did I, but Art might be aware of a conspiracy theory that contradicts the notion of death by natural causes.

Art, have anything to offer on this one?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I hope they killed him with a long-range radiation beam.


----------



## Baregrass (Feb 16, 2015)

SONNET CLV said:


> *Does Music Really "Exist" Objectively, Without Human Input? *
> 
> Is this the same as asking: If one played John Cage's 4'33" in a forest where there was no one to hear it, would the music sound?


Objectively any music would sound. Just because there is no sentient being's ears to hear it, the sound wave would still exist because that is all music or any sound is at the basic level. Just varying wave lengths of moving air. All worked out by Pythagoras around 2500 years ago.


----------

