Just To Share...

[Anoushik]

Anoushik, after some thinking, I think you are not ignorant

style_images/master/snapback.png

This is the funniest thing I have read for a very long time

[nairi]

I also think that this discussion has to do with two different definitions of the word abstract. I agree with Domino's definition of music being abstract in general because we can't taste it, see it, touch it, etc.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

What is etc.?

 

we just hear the music and try to make sense of it individually.

 

Then how do you explain that no one with normal hearing and brain will agree that Sabre Dance and Karapner are the same?

Edited February 3, 2005 by nairi

[Harut]

i agree with nairi in regards to music...

 

when i see mona lisa, i hear voices in my head telling me to bite her nose (a uniqe feeling, experience)... but that doesn't make mona lisa an abstract painting, does it?

[Anoushik]

What is etc.?

style_images/master/snapback.png

Smell?

Then how do you explain that no one with normal hearing and brain will agree that Sabre Dance and Karapner are the same?

I don't think that Domino meant music is abstract in a sense that it is difficult to understand. By abstract I understood that there is no specific instance in nature when we know that a certain pitch is "C" or a pitch could be the same "C" except a couple of octaves higher. "C" is in quotation because we have come up with a system to identify that pitch. And this is in the Western tradition of identifying pitches. For example, in Western Art Music if I play middle C on the piano and continue to go up the scale - D, E, F, G, A, B, - I come to C again, except it sounds an octave higher.

 

The distance between B and C is a half step, the shortest distance between the notes in Western Art Music. I keep stressing in Western Art Music because in the music of other cultures, Indian for example, there could exist other pitches in between B and C. I haven't studied ethnomusicology but from my music classes I've heard my professors say that other cultures have more notes (pitches) in their scale and yet others have fewer. I think the traditional Chinese folk songs are based on only five notes while traditional Indian songs have up to 12, 13 notes. An example of how this can happen. Let's take B and C flat*, enharmonic** pitches in the Western tradition (it sounds the same on the piano because that's how the piano is built and Western singers will sing the same pitch as on the piano) but in other cultures there is a slight difference between how B sounds and how C flat sounds.

 

I don't know if this makes sense but this is the reason I personally thought Domino made sense when he said music is abstract.

 

*flat - going down one half step

**enharmonic - same sounding pitch

[DominO123]

Feels good to know that there is one person that understand me. Thanks Anoushik.

[nairi]

there is no specific instance in nature when we know that a certain pitch is "C" or a pitch could be the same "C" except a couple of octaves higher.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

And yet, somehow we know, otherwise we would not be able to recognize it when we heard it again.

 

Edit: I mean we know the two distinct sounds that notationists call C an octave higher or lower. It doesn't matter what they're called or how they're calculated. The fact is we recognize them. We perceive them. It's part of reality.

 

You're on your way to convince me, but not there yet. Sorry

Edited February 4, 2005 by nairi

[DominO123]

And yet, somehow we know, otherwise we would not be able to recognize it when we heard it again.

 

You're on your way to convince me, but not there yet. Sorry

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Nairi, think of it, not only as C, D, but as well, as a group of notes following one after the other.

 

A melody has no representation in reality.

 

If I say: "I will give you flowers." It is a representation, you can represent the act of giving flowers, you can represent a flower, it has a representation in reality.

 

But if I make you hear the first movement of Beethovens Pathetic(sorry can't help, I have always to bring that pieces, it's my favoured ), what representations do the first few notes have? A flower has a representation in reality, but what about the first few notes?

[nairi]

How about patheticness?

 

The first few notes represent music. This is the representation that it gives. When we hear the first few notes, we think "music". Because music is part of our reality. We sense it with our ears.

[DominO123]

How about patheticness?

 

The first few notes represent music. This is the representation that it gives. When we hear the first few notes, we think "music". Because music is part of our reality. We sense it with our ears.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

True, but music is the medium, just like the paint is the medium of the painter. In a figurative painting, you can see objects that you will recognise, forms that you will recognise... and again, the example of the tree, you see the tree in a painting, and say, of yeh: That is a tree. If you here a melody, beside saying from whom it is and the title etc... what have you to say about that music that will have any figurative representation. Can you say that a music is cubic, and make the majority of people agree on that, because there is a reasonable explanation? Can you see a music is a tree?

[nairi]

Like I said, my definition of concrete encompasses hearing. I don't need to SEE a tree. A representation as such is only for the eyes. The ears function differently. They represent sound in a different way, but it doesn't mean that what we hear and what our ears/brains do with it is not concrete. Maybe we just haven't understood this yet.

[DominO123]

Like I said, my definition of concrete encompasses hearing. I don't need to SEE a tree. A representation as such is only for the eyes. The ears function differently. They represent sound in a different way, but it doesn't mean that what we hear and what our ears/brains do with it is not concrete. Maybe we just haven't understood this yet.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Nairi, who cares what the brain does with it, this is about being able to represent something in space or not... it doesn't change anything if the brain process an information in a way and not another. The word tree represent something tangible, a melody, not. This is all there is in this.

 

I really fail to see those not agreeing that music the most asbtract of all arts. Is there a "new blood" that hasn't posted in this thread that could come here and present a fresh perspectif about this, and give his opinion? Because I really tried understanding your point and those of others that doesn't find any difference in the "abstractioness" of music vs other form of arts, without success. Believe me, I did try understanding your point, but I really don't get it.

Edited February 4, 2005 by QueBeceR

[Anoushik]

You're on your way to convince me, but not there yet. Sorry

style_images/master/snapback.png

It's all right, Nairi, I'm not trying to convince you

 

I think Domino started an interesting debate. I started thinking about music in a new way. That's always a good thing.

[Anoushik]

A melody has no representation in reality.

 

If I say: "I will give you flowers."   It is a representation, you can represent the act of giving flowers, you can represent a flower, it has a representation in reality.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I like this description, Domino. The problem often is that one has limited ways of expressing oneself. Finding the right words are tough and words are not enough. I really like the melody-not-having-a-representation-in-reality-definition. It makes perfect sense to me

[nairi]

Nairi, who cares what the brain does with it, this is about being able to represent something in space or not...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

It matters a lot, because you are claiming that that which we hear cannot be represented in space. I'm arguing that it can. Just because you can't SEE it, doesn't mean it's not there. And just because it may or may not represent an OBJECT, doesn't mean it's not representing something we don't understand yet. In any case, we all agree that when we hear a few notes we immediately recognize it as being distinct from all other sounds around us. I think this is a big clue. But again, I might be wrong.

[DominO123]

It matters a lot, because you are claiming that that which we hear cannot be represented in space. I'm arguing that it can. Just because you can't SEE it, doesn't mean it's not there. And just because it may or may not represent an OBJECT, doesn't mean it's not representing something we don't understand yet. In any case, we all agree that when we hear a few notes we immediately recognize it as being distinct from all other sounds around us. I think this is a big clue. But again, I might be wrong.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Nairi, do you like music because you can see it, do you like it because of its representation in space?

 

You like a painting, because you see it, the colors of a tree are representations etc... the shapes, the forms... you see them, represent them, in that painting you know a tree is on the left side, a sea on the middle. It is this representation in space that makes you like the painting.

 

It is not the same with music, what makes you like a music is not its representation in space... who cares that music is the manifestation of waveform in the atmospher? Who cares, how your brain process the information, the only thing here that matter, is the music that you hear itself is not something figurative, there are no cubes, circles, colors for a given melody, that you can make the majority agree on... it is feeling.

 

And I think, this is why music is so profound, here some might disagree with me, but I as well find music to be the artistic medium invented by man that is the most "art."

 

Art is about the feeling of the moment, which is what "creat" creation. Music transpher this feeling better than anything else(some might say danse would as well, but its music dependent ). Because you don't need any representation, music is the purest feelings language.

 

A composer will be able to represent his/her feeling much more easily by his/her music than a painter. Because in the painting. there is a visual artifice(by forms, colors in space) in music there are none. When you hear a music, and like it very much, Beethovens 9nt symphony the first few minutes of the first movement entirly disconect me from reality. The moment you listen to your favoured music, you're in the Nirvana.

 

This is why I think that it is more difficult for a painter to paint a good abstract painting than a figurative one. Very realistic realistic model painting for me is not really art. It become art when the artist uses this reality manifestation and incorporate in it the impression of the moment, his/her feeling. And in the cases of abstract painting, the artist tries without any figurative artifice to represent the impression of the moment, and since it is harder in painting than music to do that, a visual abstract masterpieces for me is much much more difficult to achieve. But once this painting is achieved, it represent the impression of the moment, the artists being better than any other paintings. This is why I said to Armen, that as long as he doesn't try abstract painting, he won't understand it... as long as he doesn't try to represent by the painting what he feels when he is painting it, he won't see what there is about, those paintings.

[Armen]

This is why I said to Armen, that as long as he doesn't try abstract painting, he won't understand it... as long as he doesn't try to represent by the painting what he feels when he is painting it, he won't see what there is about, those paintings.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Why is it that humans want to "represent" their feelings thought music, sculpture, art, theatre and everything else?

 

But it is not every piece of art or music that is a "representation" of feelings. E.g. Beethoven is all feelings, however Bach is feelingless. Bach is like a manual of classical music. You don't feel anger or love or anything when you hear his music. It is just plain pure something. You can associate it with maths actually. His every piece is like a solved arythmetic formula that does not have an alternative. When you hear him, you often think "Yup, that's how it should develop and end". To the contrast both Mozart and Beethoven are all feelings.

 

I think Bach was not trying to represent anything in his music. He set the scheme, the "scheleton" of a melody that later was enriched with "flesh", "feelings" etc. by other composers.

[DominO123]

Why is it that humans want to "represent" their feelings thought music, sculpture, art, theatre and everything else?

 

But it is not every piece of art or music that is a "representation" of feelings. E.g. Beethoven is all feelings, however Bach is feelingless. Bach is like a manual of classical music. You don't feel anger or love or anything when you hear his music. It is just plain pure something. You can associate it with maths actually. His every piece is like a solved arythmetic formula that does not have an alternative. When you hear him, you often think "Yup, that's how it should develop and end". To the contrast both Mozart and Beethoven are all feelings.

 

I think Bach was not trying to represent anything in his music. He set the scheme, the "scheleton" of a melody that later was enriched with "flesh", "feelings" etc. by other composers.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Armen, sorry to tell you, but you are ignorant of art, I'll leave you "knowing" god, and call it knowledge. But with what you have written here, I am not surprised of your "feelingless" when watching abstract painting.

 

There is no one on Earth that will make me believe, and other melomanics that there are no feeling representation in Bachs musics, there are no one that will make me believe that Bachs BWV 1007 prelude is not one of the most profound, emotional, materpieces of all time. There are no one that will make me believe, neither any melomanics, or those that will take the time to listen and feels Bachs music your compleatly ignorant statment that its only mathematic.

 

You know many things, but sorry, art is not one of them.

Edited February 4, 2005 by QueBeceR

[Anonymouse]

As Jose Orteda put it:

 

"The question is not to paint something altogether different from a man, a house, a mountain, but to paint a man who resembles a man as little as possible; a house that preserves of a house exactly what is needed to reveal the metamorphosis; a cone miraculously emerging - as the snake from this slough - from what used to be a mountain. For the modern artist, aesthetic pleasure derives from such a triumph over human matter...For this road is called "will to style". But to stylize means to deform reality, to derealize; style involves dehumanization. And vice versa, there is no other means of stylizing except by dehumanizing."

[Armen]

Armen, sorry to tell you, but you are ignorant of art, I'll leave you "knowing" god, and call it knowledge. But with what you have written here, I am not surprised of your "feelingless" when watching abstract painting.

 

You know many things, but sorry, art is not one of them.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I am not going to shoot myself, Domino... I still feel happy and content. My appetite is there, the sun shines and women are beautiful.

[Armen]

As Jose Orteda put it:

 

"The question is not to paint something altogether different from a man, a house, a mountain, but to paint a man who resembles a man as little as possible; a house that preserves of a house exactly what is needed to reveal the metamorphosis; a cone miraculously emerging - as the snake from this slough - from what used to be a mountain. For the modern artist, aesthetic pleasure derives from such a triumph over human matter...For this road is called "will to style". But to stylize means to deform reality, to derealize; style involves dehumanization. And vice versa, there is no other means of stylizing except by dehumanizing."

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Isen't this a psychosis? Why on earth would you dehumanize a human being? What's is so aesthetic about it?

[Arvestaked]

I guess Orteda is an idiot.

[Anonymouse]

Isen't this a psychosis? Why on earth would you dehumanize a human being? What's is so aesthetic about it?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Because he can. Because to him it is aesthetic pleasure. Because it is the will of the artist. You do not have to like it.

[Anonymouse]

I guess Orteda is an idiot.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I disagree.

[nairi]

Nairi, do you like music because you can see it, do you like it because of its representation in space?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Domino, my view started with me saying that music is concrete (not abstract), because we can hear it. Anything we can hear, according to my view, cannot be abstract by definition.

 

I like music, because I can HEAR it. Why does some music strike me as more pleasant to listen to than others? Probably something to do with HEARING and how our brains capture SOUND.

 

Abstract is that which does not exist in reality, or that which is imagined or idealized. Live music cannot be abstract because it exists in reality (I'm repeating myself here).

 

Art, on the other hand, is something completely different. Art, even in its most realist form (i.e. like a painting that looks like a photograph, or music that sounds like you're taking a hike in the woods), is only an imitation of what is concrete. You might see what you think is a tree in a painting, but it's not a REAL tree. It never can be. The painting itself is concrete: you can see it and touch it. But what is depicted in it is abstract. From this perspective, yes, what is depicted with music is abstract too, but not the fact that we hear it.

 

So the question is not, is what music is trying to "say" abstract or not, but whether what we HEAR is abstract or not. You haven't really addressed this issue.

[DominO123]

Nairi, from your definition, nothing can be abstract art. In painting, abstract art is not a figurative art, and in music, you can not have a figurative music. You are using the medium to claim that music is not abstract. It is obvious that there has to be a material medium to share the "art," but what IS represented is all there is to be here.

 

Domino, my view started with me saying that music is concrete (not abstract), because we can hear it. Anything we can hear, according to my view, cannot be abstract by definition.

 

I like music, because I can HEAR it. Why does some music strike me as more pleasant to listen to than others? Probably something to do with HEARING and how our brains capture SOUND.

 

Abstract is that which does not exist in reality, or that which is imagined or idealized. Live music cannot be abstract because it exists in reality (I'm repeating myself here).

 

Art, on the other hand, is something completely different. Art, even in its most realist form (i.e. like a painting that looks like a photograph, or music that sounds like you're taking a hike in the woods), is only an imitation of what is concrete. You might see what you think is a tree in a painting, but it's not a REAL tree. It never can be. The painting itself is concrete: you can see it and touch it. But what is depicted in it is abstract. From this perspective, yes, what is depicted with music is abstract too, but not the fact that we hear it.

 

So the question is not, is what music is trying to "say" abstract or not, but whether what we HEAR is abstract or not. You haven't really addressed this issue.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Edited February 4, 2005 by QueBeceR