The Final Question: What is music?

I came back to this question because throughout the whole class, this was the question we were trying to answer. Through our readings of 2 books and our class discussion, I think we are no closer to the answer than we were from the begging of the semester. Do not get me wrong, I learned some interesting things, and heard argument that put me on the fence about how I view music, and read some theories that I agreed with. I just think for questions like these, the answer is as many as there are people on the earth. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, music is whatever you deem it to be. If you think music is purely cognitive then let that be your answer to what is music, if you believe it is purely emotional, then let music play your emotions, if you think music is what it is, hey! no argument here. I think if a person has an answer to the question "what is music?" and is able to back it up with a logical explanation, then let them hold that truth.

To me music is something special. It is composed of many elements, and can be viewed as a work of art. I believe music does speak to the body, mind and soul and is a great way to express ourselves. Music lives through people and people live through music. Music is a memory trigger for events of the past and a social network medium that brings people together. I do believe, however, that music is losing its essence because people stop using music as a way to express themselves and only use it as a way to get rich and entertain. Music is dying as the business aspect of it is flourishing. The only way to get the true essence of music is to give it back its real purpose, to make it express who we are and where we've been. Music is a vital part of my life, and you don't have to agree with my definition of music, this is just music through my eyes. SO since the semester is over and we've discussed music so in depth...what is music to you?

Response to Blog: Band Sickness

Abby Lindamood asks if getting "sick of a band" alter our taste in music all together?

Honestly, I don't think it alters our taste in music all together. I don't think it alters our taste in the genre either. I think it is like what we talked about in class, having too much of one thing makes a person "sick" or annoyed after a while. It is like what we talked about with the bananas in class. Take a person stranded on an island. They have been stranded there for a few days without food and they stumble upon a banana tree. They eat banana after banana after banana. After eating so many bananas they feel sick and don't even want to hear the word banana let alone eat another one.

I know when I go to a buffet and I eat until I am ready to pop I don't want anyone to mention the word food around me, let alone put food in front of me, because at that moment I am sick of food. It doesn't mean my outlook on food has changed permanently, but just for that moment I am "sick" of food. The next day, believe me I will get hungry and will need food to eat. "too much of one thing is bad," is a saying that I believe. You just get saturated of that thing and annoyed and just don't want anything to do with it anymore. That is what happens with music.
I have had experiences with songs that I am "tired of hearing" because I hear it everywhere. I turn on the TV the music video is on, I watch my favorite show, it is playing in the background, I turn on the radio , the DJ just started playing the song, I walk on the street, and it is coming from someones bedroom. Ugh! When this happens I just want to scream, because I would start out liking a song and just because I hear it all the time I just get sick of the song, (or band) and I just grow to dislike the song; which makes me not so friendly with the person next to me humming the melody. However, after the hype over the song has died down and I don't hear it for a while, and I come across it I listen to it and I like it again. So to give a straightforward answer to the question, I think a person can "get sick of a band" , but only for a while. After a moment of not listening to them and not hearing anything about them for awhile, the first spark that you had when you first heard them returns and you fall in love all over again. The thing that we as a society need to learn is moderation. We either over do something, or under do something. We can never find the middle ground, people live in extremes and it effects our lives so much because (in terms of music) over listening to something cause people to get sick of a song for a while, then under listening causes them to miss the song which will once again lead to over listening (vicious cycle). So I guess my question is why do people live in extremes? Why can't they find the middle passage??

Evaluation absent of personal choice!

"...there is a connection between the enjoyment derived from listening to music and the standards by which music is evaluated,it is important for me to stress that the connection is impersonal rather than personal. No musical work is simply good because 'I like it', for any 'I'."

Since reading this, the question that filled my mind was, can someone really not be biased when listening to music?" I mean we are in a day and age in which even professionals have to know who did the work before they listen to it. I know Davies implies that a person can not like a piece of music but listen to it anyway to waste time, or a person can deem a piece of music as worthy, but not like it; but come on is this for real? I know when I listen to a song that doesn't interest me, I hear it but I don't listen to it. I am not able to sit and actually listen to what is playing and appreciate it, yet alone evaluate it. I just hear it as some sort of background noise; and when someone asks me what I thought about it I am put on the spot because I didn't listen.

So as far as evaluation goes can we trust these "professional evaluators" to say what is worth listening to and what isn't? I don't think music can be absent personal preference, even if one tries not to be biased. People like what they like, and I don't think evaluations of music should be trusted due to the fact that outside association with something personal, music is just there. Music is waiting to use people and be interpreted through and by people. People live and listen to music, hmm I guess I am answering my own question while I blog. Now that I think of what Davies is trying to get across in his chapter and what I learned from reading my book for the book review, I think I understand. If we look at music as one entity in itself, separate of genres and elements, separate of characteristics that makes each musical piece different from another, we are just left with art. I guess there are skilled evaluators who are able to appreciate and accept music outside of what makes it up and just takes music for what it is. Hmm... this is a lot to think about. So my question is..What do you think?

Response to Blog- Music and Perception.

This is a response to Abby Lindamood's question "How does music shape our perception of the world?

I have asked this question and pondered this question in a previous blog, and I must say that it stills interests me. The form of music I look at particularly is rap music. Though there are other genres, which I will discuss, I just think about the impact of rap music and I find it really interesting. In rap music, women are referred to as B****es and Whores and are disrespected. Not only does this happen in rap music but this is how some men view women, as objects. I remember doing a project in high school about music and how it influences people and there was this really disgusting song called "Tip Drill" by Nelly. In the song it implies that all women, even "ugly" ones, should be used for sex. It is disgusting because this shapes the mind of our youth and they grow thinking that what is said in the lyrics are correct. Young boys grow up thinking that it is good to treat women like sex objects and women think it is OK to be treated that way and all they have to offer is sex. Rap can also be linked to violence, lack of education (especially the use of slang) and other negative things. If you listen to some rap music it is about "busting a cap in a person" or not looking like a "punk" by using weapons and fighting. This, when seen, make people not understand that things don't work that way. They listen to the lyrics and get caught up in it and automatically want to live that life style. They have the mentality "I am poor and broke and live in the ghetto, so I have to live like what is portrayed in that new song by 50 cent." I don't get rap and don't think I ever will, but I do think it has a negative influence in the perception of people.

Not only rap, but other genres shape our perception on life. Many people think that instead of being a means of expression, music is a guide to live life by. Some artists sings about happy moments and prince charming coming to the rescue and then the perception that the music makes is a hopeful one. Music is strong, and I believe it is underestimated as to how strong it is. It can be used to manipulate, it can be used to enforce things, it does have a stronghold on people. Not only music, but all sorts of media can be looked at as a virus ready to infect the heads of youth, and it is up to an active parental relationship to make sure the child isn't taken over by the media. I have heard my mom say that the television "raised the child" implying that parents weren't there and the TV was the only thing the child had around. Children mimic what they hear and what they see and are quick at doing so.

SO the answer to the question, I think music shapes our perception of the world, by molding our outlook on it. Music indicates how situations should be handled and reflect personality traits that people adapt and start living through. Music is really powerful and can be used for good/ or for bad. My question is: How can we stop music from being a negative example for our children? How can we stop children from mimicking what they hear and see pertaining to music and music videos?

Truly Listening

As I continued to read the book I chose for my book review, the more insight I must say I gained on music and Life. I learned the capability of music and what music is individual of everything else. Music is art and vibrations. It isn't just heard, it is felt. I remember making these points in an earlier blog, but this book I read just reinforces those points.

In the book the two main characters go to a natural park to just sit and listen to the animals. One of the main characters makes the point that it is a shame that the animals who are in sync with each other and hear each other don't have ears and humans who do have ears only listen to what they want. They were listening to the crickets and frogs "talk" to each other through a synchronized language, and as the crickets chirped the frog was quiet and vice-versa. As humans, we don't truly listen. We think we master a subject, we think we know all about music and we use guides and teachers, and lessons to teach us about music, and we just stop listening to MUSIC. Music is alive and exists in everyone, but instead of listening we just try and "create" music and turn it into a profit. When the animals in the forest listen, they feel the vibrations, the music flows through them and I believe this is how humans should let music affect them. Let music or whatever your passionate about be apart of your body. Don't put any effort into trying to be perfect, just flow with the passion, experience your passion.
Feel and live the realness of music (or your other passion) and let it surround your body. When doing something, when living something it shouldn't be one-sided and viewed just how you want to view it. in the case of music, one should appreciate it and not let expressing music turn into a chore. Many artists had rough lives and in order to express themselves, they turned to music. They expressed themselves through music and did so because it made them feel better and they were able to live their life through music. Once becoming famous, they lose music because it becomes all about making money and keeping up with the new style, and how many gigs they could book in a month, and how many awards they are nominated for /win. They are no longer interested in music for music, music isn't what they live through. Music has become a daily chore, something to do just to be famous and get the newest Lexus. Think about it, how do you think this is affecting music? Is turning music from a means of expression and life into a business killing music? If music could talk, what would she say?

Response to Blog- Perfection

Let me start out by saying that I will try to make this as clear and relevant to the point as possible. In her blog, Amy asks is perfection possible. My answer is no. To now how many views of perfection there is, you would have to count how many people there are in the world. No one is perfect, we all have our flaws and quirks that make us imperfect; that make us human. There was a time when humans were perfect; but then the entrance of sin into the world just took perfection out and then entered in flaws. Afterwards, the only perfection that I can think about reaches into my Christian views with the example of Christ. But like I said I will keep it relevant to the class.
Amy basically said what I am going to say. Perfection to one person is not perfection to another. Each person has a certain standard that they try to reach and once (if) reached this is what they call perfection. Another persons standard may be lower than that of the first person, then deeming their work as perfection even though to the first person it isn't. Then if a third person came into the picture, and this person had the highest standard which surpassed the first person and the second person, their achievements would be perfection in their eyes. Though the third person has this thing that they deem as perfect, the first to people may not see it as so, stating that person three, over did it causing what had the potential to be perfect to become not perfect.
It is a confusing topic, but perfection is in the eye of the person who set the standards; and no two standards are the same. In the concept of music, this is why people don't like the same music; they have a standard as to what music is perfect to them and what music isn't. Some people may be satisfied with a song that has a certain amount of notes, or a song played by a certain band, or even a musician that uses a particular technique. A song having met a persons standard/ expectation may be deemed as perfect to THAT person. On the other hand, another person may like a particular tempo, combined in a particular key, with a bit of complexity. This can be deemed as perfection to another. This is why all artists have to do is do what feels right to them and not worry about the audience. They need to concentrate on what the music is telling them to do, and try and reach their own personal satisfaction. So the question is answered, there is no such thing as perfection in everyday life (not touching on religion). Perfection is an individual concept, and will remain so.

My question is: Can musicians get caught up in trying to learn techniques that they forget to actually pay attention and truly listen to the music they are playing?

Music in Movies and the Emotion they portray.

In the recently read Davies chapter, the topics of music expression and emotions are explored. Within the chapter, Davies makes many interesting points, and one point that sticks to me and that I agree with is the fact that music has no emotion. Music doesn't have the characteristic of sad, angry, happy, etc...it is what we associate music with that invoke these emotions.

Whenever I listen to my mp3 player and any song comes on, I associate it with an event (past or present even future) in my life. I pair it up with a memory, or I try to associate the song with the performer and what he/she must have been going through when they wrote it. Not only this, don't think of me as crazy, but I use music to live out my fantasies. For example, the songs by 98 degrees "I DO" and "God Must Have Spent A Little More Time On You" by N'Sync makes me imagine the night my boyfriend proposes to me, or the first dance I will have with him as his wife. It is through these associations that I can put an adjective to the music.

Talking about emotions and associations, I want to talk about the topic of movies. Notice that movies cannot give a full effect without music. I mean in the past they did, when there were silent films, but now that movies have become more advanced and more technologically based, music without movies is like a night sky without stars (there is only a limited effect). I have mentioned this example before, but I am going to go back to it. Think about the movie "Psycho." It is an intense movie with a famous and intense murder scene, the shower scene. We all know the famous shrieking of the violins as the woman gets stabbed in the shower, this adds to the gruesome scene by illuminating the killing. It was actually so gruesome that in order to show it in London, they had to get rid of the shrieking violins (even though they kept the shower scene) and then it was deemed appropriate.
I also like the fact that music in movies fit the situation and can be deemed with (associated with) a particular characteristic due to what is going on in the scene. For example, slow soft music is used for a romantic scene or a scene in which someone has had their heartbroken. Intense music is used in murder scenes or action scenes, and suspenseful deep toned music is used to build up suspense in a "Whats going to happen next- oh no the killer is behind you" scene. I cannot disagree that music is used to help invoke particular emotions and reactions to things, but it doesn't hold the emotion itself. I also cannot disagree either that without music in movies; the movie would be looked at as dry and we wouldn't have the same reaction to movies without the music in them. Music is important in association, but alone individual of a medium to be paired with, it is just stoic sound.

Question: If we connect our own experiences/ memories/ associations/ etc to music than does that mean music can portray different meaning/different responses to each individual person? Can any response to music be a right/wrong one?

Response to My questions

I know I am suppose to use this blog entry to respond to a blog, but I didn't found one that really tickled my brain. Not only that, but I also have so many thoughts on today's class, so forgive me Professor Johnson, but I shall take this blog to further expiate my curiosities.

Honorary persons is what Davies compare musical instruments to, but why? Like I pointed out in class, I don't think this phrase is suppose to be taken literally. This phrase of "honorary persons," is suppose to be an exaggeration of some kind, a metaphor. Think of the word honor. Honor means to respect; honor your mother and your father, we honor our bodies, when we honor, we show respect to; no wonder Davies talks about this pertaining to instruments. There are many people who honor and respect their instrument, especially when there is a story behind it. Musicians honor their songs, artists honor their work, and in the case of Christians, we honor God. However, things get a bit misleading when he pairs the word honorary with persons in describing an instrument. When taken literally, how can we explain this? How can an inanimate object, that doesn't breathe, contain cognitive function, or have a heart beat or organs be a person.

I am almost certain that Davies meant to use the word persons as to show how much we respect instruments or whatever we love. Whatever we have an interest in, we usually hold it dear to us and treat it like we would treat another human being, or even better. We treat our valuables how we would treat someone, a person, worthy of respect. We develop this connection for something and a deep protection of it, whether it be because of monetary value, or because memories or attached to it, or even because it is just something we can call ours. There should not be a literal translation to what Davies says, because the worth of something and value f something depends on the connection a person places on it and how deep that connection is, could come close to it being called an honorary connection. I feel that sometimes, and I feel like I have said this before, we take things too literal and make them more difficult than they really are. I guess for this blog entry, that can be my question: Why try and make everything literal, isn't philosophy difficult enough?