Theory of Music/Art

I finally read some of this thread, and John, the first message sounds familiar. :-) Sorry I haven't commented on your pieces yet, I put them on a disk which I have lost (dammit) but I'm trying to find it. I'm going to attempt to address the 'why do we enjoy music' question.

Here's some ideas I have on that: we find the rhythm easy to relate to as our bodies and actions are all rhythmic. Our heart beats, walking pace, etc. In fact often we adopt rhythm like, I was just standing around in a shop and it had music at walking speed in it and as I watched people walk in they adopted the timing of the rhythm of the piece of music as their walking speed (obviously this is dependent on the speed of the music anyway, so can only happen in when the speed of the music is at walking pace). Damn I have to go and have lunch. This is 2 b continued OK? there is more to come.

Maybe our ears find organised sound easier to listen to than non-organised sound (like speech).

I dunno. Music to me seems to be a different dimension to sound ... perhaps it is. I am quite convinced though that there is no right answer to this.

By the way John with the labelling of intervals thing - I'm doing music by correspondence this year and in one of the introductory tapes it went from the beginning of how to identify intervals and WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT it had all these labels for the different intervals! I can't remember exactly what they were but ACCORDING to the people, certain intervals sounded unfinished, HAPPY, SAD, and they had labels for rhythm groupings to like - dotted quaver followed by semiquaver sounds jerky but I don't think so, it was only because the person played it jerkily that it sounded jerky to me. So, in conclusion, after a lot of thought I agree with all that stuff about that you were saying before and the stereotype thing too, and I have to say that you are amazingly perceptive in looking outside of the square.

Also, going on with the easier accept relaxing stuff rather than tense, I agree with that of course. I think it is likely to be a failure in human nature that we are not always interested in listening to what is beyond our 'comfort zones' as experiencing what is not always comfortable is (in my opinion) all part of your spiritual (generally speaking) and musical (in relation to all that stuff) growth.

I think the happy/sad labelling goes way back to the church controlling days John. When certain intervals were considered to be evil and they never quite shook off the stereotypes of these during the stages of compositional development in the centuries (Baroque, Romantic etc.). Because when you think about it, everything we have now is a result of what we had before.

Again, I will make my plea: can't we find a happy medium between consonant and dissonant music? Why can't we just write "music"? I don't think that a composer should tie himself (or herself) to one of the two (what term am I looking for...I'll try) super-genres. Rather, wouldn't we, in theory, make "better" music if we used both at the same time? If we know the effect achieved by consonant music, and we know the effect of dissonant music, why don't we take this knowledge and use them like tools...think of tools in general. Dissonance could be like a blow torch (I know nothing about REAL tools, but bear with me). Consonance is like the basic screwdriver (regular or automatic, I really don't care...it's still the same essential tool). Those tools are pretty far off, but somehow, we can learn to use both. We have always have had fire, but a blow torch can concentrate it for different use. We will always have the basic screwdriver design, simply because it is a great design.

Good analogy. I quite agree, and for myself, I am trying to find a happy medium between dissonance, consonance, and what has been called minimalism.

It's good to have you back, Bouz.

Who was it mentioned the idea that atonal music was rebelling against God, or denying his existence? Impossible. I'm living proof.