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?

Destroying Instruments and Destroying the Body.

In this chapter, Davies talk about instruments being honorary persons. He talks about how he feels when an instrument is destroyed and what may be the root cause of these feelings. As we got into a discussion about this topic on Monday an interesting statement was made. I don't remember the direct statement but it compared destroying instruments to destroying the body. Why is it that people can cringe at the sight of instrument abuse and have their favorite past time be wrestling, football, boxing etc. Or how could abusing instruments be looked at as absurd and people cut themselves and kill their lungs slowly with cigarettes and their liver with alcohol?

I think this all depends on what you are actually interested in and where your belief is. Let me break this down by looking at my interest. I like music and it interests me, but I do not cringe when an instrument is abused. I do wonder why the person is breaking a perfectly good instrument and wonder what real satisfaction they would get out of it, but it doesn't affect me to the point where I wince in pain. I ,however, have total and absolute respect for my body. My interest and belief is in my religion and a part of my religion is to respect the body because it is the temple of God. I don't put any strong drinks, or unclean products in my body, nor do I take interest in a person bashing the brains out of another. I believe the body should be respected and when I see it being harmed or disrespected I wince and cringe and even shake my head and turn away. The people who can watch wrestling and be glued to the TV may not have an interest in how holy the body is, the person who smokes the cigarettes doesn't care about what it is doing to their insides, just like the person who gets excited when a guitar is smashed and a piano is burned, they don't have that deep love or connection for instruments. I know it may not seem right that people care so much about an inanimate object like a flute or guitar, and can watch the most questionable things on TV and do the most immoral things to their body; however it is their preference, their interest. Why should someone question that? People who are able to treat their dog better than they treat another human being is another example. Their interest is just simply in canines and not people. It isn't out of the ordinary that we hold certain things higher than other things and therefore treat things better. To one person an instrument is an "honorary person" and they hold instruments above themselves and other bodies. What we believe and what we are interested in drives how we react to the misuse and and abuse of that thing whatever it may be.
My question is can playing a burning piano or even a submerged one be looked at as art/music? Do people destroy instruments because they want to be unique in their art making?

Response to Blog - Early Music/ Popular Music

This is a response to Sarah Dion's Question "Do you ever think we will incorporate early music (music of nature) with our newer "popular" music today?" I am happy to approach this question because it was something we were talking about in class yesterday. Yesterday we spoke of whether or not music constituted as music before the 1800's, which is what a philosopher in Davies book argued against.

To answer Sarah's question I must say that I draw a blank and say that it could go either way. On one hand, we are getting farther and farther away from nature with new discoveries and new technology everyday. There are ways to manipulate sound as to make it complex so it could be appealing and catch the attention of the audience as to make us say, "Woah, those are some wicked sounds, how did they do that?!" They are always trying to find instances to make "music of the future" in which case the latest soundtrack sounds like a robot or something from outer space. This in turn, as we use this technology, disconnects us and makes us unfamiliar with our environment and nature as a whole. I fear that eventually we will become so disconnected that when music finally stops (when we take a break), and we hear the song of a bird or the wind blowing through trees, or even the pitter-patter of rain we will wonder what these sounds are.

Another thing that can happen is that technology can fail us and we have no choice but to resort back to the sounds of nature and incorporate it into popular songs. We always find a way to get back to our roots and maybe eventually this whole complex music fad will get tired and worn out that nature will once again become a pure and familiar sound that we NEED to make popular music.

Talking about the philosopher in"Themes of Philosophy of Music," I think she is wrong to say that there was no music until the 1800's. In the bible, there are areas where it says that there were celebrations going on, and they did have instruments back then, as well as dancing. To these people this was music, but she doesn't believe so because the different elements of music wasn't being examined as the people played. Though this was the case, there were harp players and wind instruments that I am sure got the job done, and this was in the B.C. era. Then throughout the different centuries A.D. there was the Baroque period which was associated with art and of course music. I think the philosopher mentions this point because of the lack of official study and questions of music during times before the 1800's which I mark as absurd!

My question is: Can we truly listen to philosophical musical claims and believe them or are these claims like the theories made in science, which is always changing as more research is done?

Muzak!

I wanted to blog on this topic ever since it was brought up in class. The topic of Muszak. According to Davies, Muszak is when we decouple the work of an artist from the masterpiece (in this case when we decouple the composer from the musical piece. Davies says, "Music composed originally to be contemplated or to invigorate religious ritual is used now a days as ambient background for other activities or is appropriated for functions other than intended ones, as when it is used for TV commercials." I must say that I disagree with him. I think music is music not this muzak he talks about. So what if music is used as background noise to fill an awkward silence or used to make a commercial or movie more interesting. It still has the elements of music and it still fulfills the parameters of what we call organized sound.

Why differentiate and say just because we may not associate music with its composer it is not music at the moment to us. What if we like a song, but don't know who the composer is and therefore just like the song for its elements? Music is music and it helps fill in the blanks of life. I don't understand why Davies differentiates calling the coupling of a composer with its work music and the decoupling muszak. Imagine if there was no music on TV, because I doubt that with every commercial that one person is going to know each composer that goes with the song playing. I use music to kill time and exercise without really thinking about who the composer is and the purpose the song was made. Does this mean that when I am doing this it is muszak to me? I don't understand what Davies is trying to get at. I understand the point he is trying to make, but not by what grounds he could make this statement. My question is, Can a song be music to one person and "muszak" to another given one person has advanced musical expertise in coupling composers with songs and the other does not.

Response to Blog: Silence

This is a response to Amy Rosvally's question what is silence. In the dictionary the word silence is defined as the absence of sound/ speech. It is associated with the words muteness, speechlessness, and peace. Thinking about these word associations, I don't think there is such thing as pure utter silence (not considering the deaf). Ever seen a scene in a comedy show where some one is trying to concentrate on their homework or office work and the room appears to be silent. Suddenly the person starts to become distracted from the ticking of the clock, the dripping of water from the faucet, a soft breeze blowing a house plant and other things. This is when they usually start to go crazy and give up on the task in front of them. This illustrates that there is no such thing as silence. Though the environment seems to be at peace there are many things that could be heard like the hum of the fridge, or the trip of an elevator, even the sound of your own breath. Silence is a goal that is wanted to be achieved, but will never be unless the hairs in your ears are destroyed or death comes.
What I find is that, people think they achieve silence when obvious noises aren't happening, for example I can say that my room is so silent that I could hear a pin drop. It is quiet in here, I don't hear anyone talking outside my door, there is no music or TV and no loud traffic outside, in the world of a person who isn't a keen observer, this room could be deemed silent. We do forget to include other not so obvious environmental factors. To me my room is not silent. I hear the hum of the light, the hum of the fridge, and yes, my own breath. Many people have forgotten to include less obvious nosies into the category of sound and therefore deem an area as silent. What I feel is that no matter how many times the librarian may say "ssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" , she will never get the silence she is looking for. There are sounds everywhere and when we aren't listening to that annoying person tell us a not so funny joke, we are listening to our heart beating and the blood rushing through our veins.

My question: What ever happened to getting in touch with the enviroment and listening to the music of nature?

The Silence of Music?

After watching John Cages piece, 4'33'' , there was much conversation as to what his intention was with the piece and whether or not we can look at his piece and classify it as the art of music. Cage sits at the piano looks like he is about to play, however makes hand gestures for 4 mins. and 33 secs and then gets up and walks off stage. I do which there was a way to see the audiences' reaction, but there were sounds of feet shuffling indicating that maybe people were leaving.

Through this piece Cage wanted to portray that there is music in silence and the elements that make up the music we hear with instruments are the same that make up the "music of silence". After doing a bit of research and watching the video, I came to the conclusion that his composition can be counted as music. The piece that he performs contains music just like any other composition. There is tempo(how fast or slow he used his hands) rhythm, (the motion/ direction his hand goes in) and then the sound of the audience breathing, shuffling, walking out, the hum of the air conditioner can be included into the elements of this piece. In my research I found that a critic said, "Cage noticed that in this supposedly silent space he could still make out two faint, constant sounds. Afterwards, he was told that the higher pitched noise was his nervous system, the lower his blood pumping through his veins. From this, Cage concluded that we are all making music all the time - we just don't know it."

From this I can conclude that music is everywhere and in everything. It may not be a band or a particular instrument, but everything has it's own distinct sound and that sound can be taken as music. Right now I am sitting here and the hum of my fridge and the click-clack of the keys as I type can be considered sound that is translated into music. Ever see a recent Folgers or Tyson anytizers chicken commercial? The commercial makes a tune out of objects like the shake of a coffee can and the clink of a teaspoon and a mug as well as coffee being poured into a cup and being slammed on the table. Laying in bed at night I hear the pitter-patter of the rain and the howl of the wind mixed with the motion of the elevator. This musical "silence" is what I believe Cage wanted to get across in his piece. Music is everywhere all we have to do is just listen and the silence will guide us. Many believe that the art of music has to contain instruments, but it doesn't, just like paintings don't need color or a canvas; I mean can't we paint with all the colors of the wind? My question is, Cage was brave enough to attempt this, how would this piece be viewed if it wasn't performed by an expert? Could this piece be classified in any particular genre?

Critic: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/john-cage-uncaged-bbc-symphony-orchestra-radio-3-573488.html

Response to Blog - Abby Lindamoon 2/23/09

Listening to the clips they do have different delivery and as a result different moods they convey. We can agree that the timbre is different in which case Cyndi Lauper has a mixture of different instruments and her voice is uplifting and pushes forth excitement. In the second version, the piano is the only timbre we hear and Laswell's voice is opposite of Cyndi's in which it is slow and sad. Now after establishing this, lets answer the question posed: What element of music is essential to the meaning of the song?

I don't think we can break up the elements of music as to say which one is the most important and which one is the least important. They all go hand in hand. Trying to distinguish the least important element and the most important element is like trying to distinguish the most important color in a painting or sculpture. You cannot look at a painting and say, "hey this is a good painting but I think the most important color is the blue of the sky rather than the green of the grass" or "the colors are more important than the lines." In the two versions of "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" there isn't just difference in one element to say that changing one element was important in the drastic change of the songs. There was a difference in tempo, timbre, key, rhythm, etc. When you think of one element you may have to change others so it will sound consonant and not dissonant. I would guess that it is an all for one deal when thinking about elements in music.

After establishing this we see that music needs all its elements however thinking about movies and our favorite shows: Would we be able to enjoy a movie (or show) without there being any music to convey emotion?

Sexual Rage and Music

Today in class we talked about music being associated with sexual rage. It was said that we like music during a particular time in our life (teen years) because it may have been the cause of raging hormones and the means by which teens could expiate them. Looking back, as I mentioned in class, I look at the 1950's as a real milestone. It was a time of newly found independence for teens because they were no longer expected to stay home. They had money, they had cars, they had ROCK AND ROLL. Rock and Roll marked a huge issue between children and parents because parents found the lyrics and beats offencive and sexual. The only way to dance to this music was close to a partner at a fast pace with a lot of sexual like hip movements. When I confront my mom with questions about this period of time, although she was just born, she would say something like "Oh yea I remember those songs, those were fun times and for young people, I'm too old to move like that anymore." It is interesting how the music my mom had an interest in as a teen no longer appeals to her much (although she would occasionally sing a song from back in the day) as it did when she was younger.

Music is sexual just by the actions it makes us do and the thoughts it makes us have. Action wise, music makes people dance. Some music could just make people jump up and down, but then there is other music that causes people to replicate the actions of sex. Ever been to a West Indian party? If you have you would know that the type of music that is played there causes people to grind and whine on each other and just makes people look like they are having sex with clothes on. The guy is usually behind the girl, although he can be in front of her facing her, and the guy would be thrusting to the rhythm of the music as the girl places her backside on him and moves back as he moves back and moves forward as he moves forward. There are some crazy things that happens on the floor in the air, some really crazy dances as a result of the pace of the music. Looking at sexual thoughts, after dancing like this there is of course the topic of sex in the mind and even physical arousal.

Music has many sexual qualities and are associated with many cultures that have sexual purposes for it. Even the classics "Lets Get it on" and "When I get that feeling" are obviously sex related. Music has gotten more and more sexual as the generations passed. I don't mind the classics because there is a sort of subtlety to it. These days, however everything has a sexual meaning and action associated with it. So to tie into this topic my question is: Has music gotten too sexual? Can music get so sexual that it couldn't be considered music anymore?

Response to Blog - Likes and Dislikes

This is a response to Sarah Dion's question, Where do our likes and dislikes of music come from?

Ok, to tell the truth I don't whether I should answer this from a psychological point of view or a social one. I will say that I do know why I don't like or like certain kinds of music. For starters, it lays with the values and morals I have for myself and the respect I have for others. I know that I would definitely dislike music that have curses in it or strong sexual content because of my morals and values. I know that I can't listen to rap nor watch it because it is degrading to women and have strong sexual phrases as well as curses; This goes against what I believe in. I believe what you listen to is a kind of reflection of a person. It isn't something that SHOULD be used to judge someone, although it is, but it CAN be a factor as to how people view you, before truly knowing you.

Given the scenario of two people going out for an interview at a highly prestigious university. If the interviewer decided that the only way to judge whether the two prospective people are going to be good professors was to look through their mp3 player/ ipod (this is just an example), and see what music they listen to and base their credentials on that, who do you think would get the job if, one ipod was filled with rap and cursing and sexually explicit music and the other device had classical music such as Mozart and Beethoven? Wouldn't the interviewer think that the person with classical music had better standards or morals than the person with the rap?

Again, that was just a fake scenario I made up. However, I do believe that we like music that is close to our ideals, our beliefs and what we agree/ disagree with in life. I also think that there is a cultural aspect. If I wasn't raised in a west Indian environment I don't think I would like the genres of reggae and Soca as much as I do. There are cognitive reasons as to why we may dislike or like music, but I like the social reason better than thinking about neurons not firring the right way.

So my question that I am going to pose is : Is it right for people to assume that they know a person by the music they listen to?

Music and Moods

As I was reading chapter 6, I came across an interesting quote made by Levitin. On page 191, he says, "Music is clearly a means for improving people's mood. " He concluded that listening to music triggers the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine which is the brains pleasure and reward system.

When I look at this quote it makes me think about music and emotions and how it really does have a grand effect on peoples' mood. Remember when we were babies ,well of course we don't , but if you were ever in the room with a crying baby what did the mother do to the baby to sooth it? She sang to it! After a few minutes of a soothing melody, the baby stopped crying and drifted off to sleep.

I know many people that when they are angry, they listen to music to regain their composure. I know when I am angry or depressed I turn to music to soothe me. I never knew that music played such an important part of life, until I read this quote. Music guides how we feel, it calms us down, it helps us relax and it is a healthy "drug" that takes us away from the real world for a while and helps us go to our happy place. Music isn't just for mere entertainment, it holds something deeper and more significant. I do wonder though, can music initiate an emotion that does the opposite of helping us expiate what we are feeling. In simpler terms.....we established that music can be used to calm angry people down and help soothe people who are depressed, but can music make a depressed person sink deeper into despair? Can music make a happy period in life turn gloomy?

Response to Blog - Dots on a Page

This is a response to Emily Burke's blog. In her blog she talks about her experience in playing the flute and how her instructor told her class to stop playing the music as if it were dots on a page. The question she posed how is emotion translated into something audible and how can we tell the difference between some one playing "dots on a page" and them being emotionally involved in the music.

I love to listen to emotionally stimulating music, and I think there is a big difference between when a musician plays (or sings) just because it is their career and when they pour their heart and soul into the music. You can tell the difference jut by the way the music comes out. There is a certain force that comes with emotionally connected music a certain "umph." It something that can be labeled as indescribable. The easiest way to differentiate between the two, I believe, is easier when you are seeing the person performing. Their posture, the look on their face as they deliver it to the audience, and their body language can play a role in how we interpret the music. If we see a musician playing a violin and we see him swaying and closing his eyes and having an intimate moment with the violin we can see that he is emotionally attached to the instrument or the song he is playing at the moment. Seeing this attachment to the instrument, seeing this relationship, we receive the emotional vibes that are given off by our sensory outlets (eyes and ears).
Another thing that can influence emotionally stimulating music rather than "dots on a page" is the meaning behind the music. At one point or another every music artist or composer has written a song for a loved one or a special time in their life. This symbolic meaning behind the music causes the artist to poor out their heart and soul into the music because it is important to them. For example, when Luther Vandross sang the song, "Dance With My Father," he was reminiscing about his childhood and how much he missed his dad. You can tell that he was emotionally connected to this song because of the meaning behind it. His father died and he wrote a song in his memory.
It's not an easy thing to explain how to differentiate between the two. It is something you just know. You either feel the emotional vibes and feel connected to the music that is playing or you just don't feel anything, the music is "emotionally dead" so to speak. That is when artists are just playing the music because it provides income for them. We also have to remember music is something you do not just use your ears for. It is something that you use all your senses for, you use your whole body to sense it and just feel the all around greatness of it. However, when an artist plays just because that feeling of being connected is interrupted by this monotonous sound, this stoic pump in the music that causes us not to be emotionally connected. On the topic of emotions, my question is Can the way music make people feel be called universal? In other words does music cause everyone to feel a particular emotion?

View of the World and Music

OK so today's class brought me back to Nature of Human Nature when there were those days I couldn't verbally contribute to the conversation, but all I could do is jot down notes. Today we talked about Constructivism, reality, and the view of the world. There were many points made, some of which were hard to follow. I did however start to think about some aspects of the conversation in which I thought about many different things.

First thing that came to my mind, is that when we talk about the world around us, we should know that we all view the world differently. We may see the same things, physically for what they are ( a tree is a tree) but how we interpret it and how we feel when we see it isn't shared by anyone else (how do we feel about the tree as it is), the neurons in our brains fire different ways causing us to construct our own feelings, our own possibilities, our own "world" so to speak. In simpler terms, we all have our own idea of the world, what reality is to us is how we were taught to view reality and how those beliefs we hold influence the way we look at the world.

There is no one way to describe reality, count the amount of people there is in the world and that's how many different views on reality we have. However, what we hold as real is really an illusion. If we knew what reality is like, we all wouldn't have our different spin on it. We also wouldn't be trying to escape it all the time through different mechanisms. So if we construct how we view the world, one could say we construct the way we view music. When composers meet what we construct as "music to our ears" we like it. When they don't we hate it. That's what I think. When music enters our brain it is introduced into our reality, our world. It ties into our values and our views and help us get in touch with our reality, making us more ignorant , and more disconnected from the real reality than we already were.

This is a lot to take in, but if you skipped all of that, just answer this, Do you think music is used as a way to escape the world around us and give us a chance to think about how we would like the world (our lives) to turn out? In other words, does it help us to build a fantasy world in our head as a way to escape from the real world?

Blog Response: Parents Influence on Music

This is a response to Kyle's question, "Can one force themselves to enjoy music that they originally dislike?" To be honest, I don't think they can, however it does depend on certain situations. For example, I didn't really have a childhood environment around rap music, but some of my friends listened to it, I saw some music videos (which made me dislike it even more), and whenever the radio was on I would just grit my teeth and bear it (especially when listening for a chance to win a contest or something). To this day, I still have no fancy for rap music, and think it a pointless genre. I don't think I can bring myself to listen to rap and try to "force" myself to like it.

I guess it all depends , also, whether or not a person is open minded. I mean don't get me wrong I am open minded, and will listen to something to see if I would one day like it. Though this is the case, once my mind is made up and I know that I wouldn't like it, there is no ands, ifs, or buts about it. I think if a person is open minded enough to try to listen to something new, that is all that matters. I say this because, there are those who just here about a genre and automatically dismisses it. Also, A person makes generalizations (if we want to go into the topic of categories) and only listen to one song or one band and then make a conclusion that they don't like the genre or band as a whole just basing it off of one thing.

I can say that I don't like rap music, because I have heard many songs, many artists, year after year after year. Now that I think about it, I can say that the closest thing that I listen to that can be associated with rap is Christian "rap". So do I think one can force themselves to enjoy music that they originally disliked? I don't think so because if you didn't like it originally then what would make you like it now. However, things change, people change, situations change, so who knows? But I wouldn't use the word "force". I would think about the question can people bring themselves to appreciate music they never did before? The word force makes it sound like they are doing it against their will. However, if one day the radio is on and a song comes on that you never thought you would like, and you find yourself appreciating it I think that could happen. I guess it is all about being open minded and giving things a chance.

My question can be connected to this entry. One of the reasons I don't like rap is that I feel it has a negative influence on society and degrades women. So my question is do you think music affects how we act? Does it affect how we view the world and each other?

Music and Energy

OK, So there I was today at the gym, as usual, running at a moderate pace on the treadmill. I was listening to my music on my new mp3 player so I can have something to jam to so my time on the treadmill would go quickly. I love to run I usually run between 35-45 mins with a 5 min cool down period at the end and afterwards I feel great!! Today, however, was different. As I was running and got 10 mins in, I got really tired. I felt like my body was gonna shut down, maybe its because I haven't hit the gym since Friday and I went home over the weekend and ate more than I usually would, but all factors aside; after 10 mins I was really ready to call it quits.

Then, something weird happened, I switched the music on my mp3 player to a fast paced song, and lo and behold I had energy. I really don't know where it came from, all I know is that the tired heaviness that my body felt a few seconds before was gone with a press of a button. I don't know if it was the song that boosted me up or what. Maybe there is some psychological explanation to this. It could be that the song I was listening to made a patterns of neurons fire, triggering the release of some chemical, which in turn made me feel more energetic?

In Chapter 4 Levitin speaks about music and the emotions briefly. He talks about the chemicals that the brain releases such as dopamine (which is the brains pleasure and reward system) and serotonin which regulates mood and sleep. So is there a way for the music we listen to to aid in the release of an energy hormone? I mean when I listen to certain songs they do drain me of energy and put me to sleep. If some sounds/music can calm and sooth a person, I would think that there is music that can do the opposite and make people get pumped up. This topic never really registered to me until today. I guess that's why people listen to fast paced music when they work out and slow mellow music when they wanna calm down. But can that be a theory or maybe even an experiment? Now that I think about it I think an experiment on this can be done to see how fast paced music affects the brain and the chemicals released versus slow paced music. So, my question to you is , Can music cause a person to feel more energetic?

Response to Blog - Special Music

This is a response to Amy Rosvally's blog in which she asks what makes music special. Let me start out by saying I love music, and it is a big part of my life. I use it to praise God, to relax, to wake up when I am feeling sleepy, to exercise, to kill time, etc. Though music is a big part of my life, there are those songs that are really special to me, those songs that I have to listen to , no matter what mood I am in. To me music is special because it unlock memories, makes me think about my life (especially when I feel the song directly reflects my life) present and future (well, what I would want my future to be).

"Water Runs Dry," by Boys II Men, is one of my special songs. It is a slow, soothing song that reminds me of my childhood. It brings me back to the times when I would sit in my older sister's room and play the song over and over again to the point that I messed up the cassette. Another song that is special song to me is "God Must Have Spent A Little More Time on You," by 98 degrees (or N'sync), because it makes me think about my future with a guy who is in love with me. I think songs are special to people because it does trigger that part of the brain that unlocks a memory. Even when you haven't heard the song in a while and then you finally hear it, it brings you back to the place where you first heard it, and suddenly you are reminded of things that were locked away in the back of your mind.

Music can help you remember a special someone in your life. A special song that someone use to sing a lot or even play a lot , and it is special to you because it holds their memory. Ever heard a special song that you haven't heard in a while, and your heart just drops? It holds a memory that you forgot even happened and through this song you are like " I remember when I use to listen to this song I was a preteen in Jr High and me and my friends had a sleep over and we did this and that all night and etc ."

So this is why I think music is special. It doesn't deal with any complex elements like pitch, timbre and all of that. I think its that we hear it and it just sparks our memory. It's the key to the past. Before the music became special, those elements of music did play a part in us getting to know and grow with the song , (I mean we have to like the music initially so it can hold a deeper meaning for us later on), and then as time goes on we neglect the elements and its just our past and hope for the future that makes us keep music special. Music is a magical thing and it is also powerful because it manipulates emotions and help emotions get out. It is a complex thing, but really amazing. Since music is powerful, my question is can music be used to hurt or control people? Can it be used by others to get other people to do things they don't want to do?

The View of Music

I think sometimes we take music for granted. We don't see it for what it is; we don't see its beauty and cannot comprehend that it is an art form. Not only is it an art form, it is a learning mechanism. We use songs to help us remember elements on the periodic table, how many days a month has, even something as simple as a grocery list we didn't right down. Sit down. Think when was the last time you heard music. Not just as background noise in a cafe or a way to avoid an awkward situation in elevator; when was the last time you actually LISTENED to music. I mean sit down and felt it move you, feel it enter you and surge throughout your body.

I'm not talking about using music as a way to escape or expiate feelings, but I mean music that is felt from the soul, hanging on every note, listening to every word (if there are any) listening. Yea we go to parties and music is there and we dance to it, we blast music in our cars and we listen to the next "American Idol," belt out some lyrics, but I think that could still be passive listening. When listening to music I think out of respect for the art that it is, it needs our full attention, we need to use active listening.

Don't take music for granted, because we are fortunate to have such a remarkable artistic illusion in our world. Appreciate this artistic gift that we have , because without it how would our lives be? If there was a world without music, what would we have to fill its place?

Response to Blog - Emotions

This is a response to Sara Dion's blog. In her blog the question is what is music without emotion? Music without emotion is like a person without a dream. In my opinion, emotions are the driving force behind the music. Music is filled with emotion by the artist and consumed with emotion by the listener.

Let's look at the composer/ artist first. They had to have felt something in order to make the piece that they made. Music is suppose to represent something, and most of the time it is what the artist is feeling while creating their piece. The artists wants listeners to know that they hurt, to know that they feel happy, or annoyed or angry. The artists wants their fans to know, though talented and famous, they feel, and this feeling they have is the muse for their music. From my experience with music I see that artists always tell a story. They usually tell their story. For example, Miley Cyrus has a song in which she wrote for her grandfather who died. It is a sad slow song which she most likely wrote when she was feeling down. Other artists usually sing love songs with their significant other when they just got together and "I hate you" songs when the relationship goes sour. Many artists dedicate songs to mothers, fathers, and others close to them who are ill, dead, or just because they feel like it. If artists didn't use emotions in their songs, wouldn't the songs be terribly bland. It is the emotion and energy that they put into their songs that we feel when we listen to the end product.

As for listeners, the emotions that consume us when we hear songs, may be the emotion that the artist puts in or just our emotions manipulating the song to fit what we are going through. I remember a person in class saying that they listen to this one song in which they get a different message out of depending on how they are feeling. When they are sad it is a sad song that gives them the impulse to cry, when they are happy it's a profound song that makes them smile, when anger takes over the song then turns into a contemplative song in which they can identify with. Emotions are just as important in interpreting music as they are in creating music. Think of a stoic person creating/ listening to music. Wouldn't the end product be just a monotone "song" with no melody or basic musical components? Emotions play a large role in music because it plays a large role in everyday life (which always is associated with some kind of emotion). Music and emotion go hand in hand; they are like a lock and key, they need each other. Though this is my opinion I can't help but think that today's music is just getting angrier and angrier as well as degrading to women. So I have two questions;

Can we call degrading music "real music"? and Since anger is a popular emotion in today's music what does that say about today's society?

What we hear

Today's class consisted of many interesting points. While the discussions were going on I was thinking about what I hear when I listen to music. I have many thoughts as well as many questions in my mind on this topic.

Today I tried to think of when I listen to my favorite songs, one of which is "To Love You More" by Celine Dion, what do I hear? Do I hear the music as a whole or as small elements grouped together. That is, am I hearing just one body of "noise" or do I hear the violin section and the drum section and the voice of the singer coming together making one thing. Can we break apart music psychologically? If we can, can we do it for the duration of a whole song? Does our brain let us, or does it just puts everything into one uniform thing in which we cannot decipher the cymbals from the flute and the flute from a voice? I guess the real question is that when listening to music can we psychologically forget about timbre and just hear the music instead of the components of it? I do not know if what I am saying is clear, it is just a question that came to me. When I listen to songs, sometimes I hear the different components and sometimes I just hear the music for what it is, I hear it in its whole entity. Maybe, it depends on whether or not you are a skilled musician? To the untrained air music is music without any elements, its like a plant is a plant but to a botanist a plant is so much more than just a mere plant. It has features that distinguishes it from others.

Is this what philosophy of music is? Tearing apart music to see all the elements that makes it music? So in the end, though we may not be experts, we are able to stop looking at the big picture and look at the smaller components that make up the big picture?

Response to Blog- A world w/o music

This is in response to Kelsey McCullough's blog. The question posed was What would a world without music be like? In my opinion a world without music wouldn't be an entertaining one at all. Imagine this: you're at a wedding and it is dead silent as the bride walks in the only sound you hear is the shuffling of her dress and the soft whimpering of a few members. When she reaches her destination at the front of the church, everyone sits down and the preacher starts the ceremony. When the wedding is over the same is heard as she leaves the church. At the reception, the only thing that is heard is the clink-clank of forks on the plate and the soft conversations of people. OK come on, does what I describe sound entertaining? The major reason why people go to weddings and birthday parties and other celebrations is to have a good time, to be happy and to celebrate! If you take away music from the world life wouldn't be a celebration anymore.

Music is a way to also expiate emotions,so what would happen if people had no way of getting rid of dangerous emotions? If someone was angry and the only way to calm them down was to listen to that one song. Would people not know how to handle their emotions if music was taken away completely? The world needs music. Its a part of culture and life. We use music everyday, whether its just to fill the silence or to vent feelings or even to make a movie more interesting. Music is an important aspect of life and if taken away can turn life into something dreadful. We use music to do many different things; we sing babies to sleep, we praise God, we relax. To be honest music makes things less awkward. In the residence hall I live in, there is no music in the elevators and it can get pretty awkward when in there with a person. Music is a really important component in everyday life, but why is it that music so important emotionally? Why is music have a special role in helping people with their emotions?

The many smiles of music

Today's class was an interesting one and I enjoyed much of the conversation. The areas that were of particular interest to me was when we hit the points of music and emotion ,music and memories, and music and that "high feeling."

Music plays a big part in my life especially when I am anything but neutral. When I am sad I listen to slow songs that helps me cry out what I need to, when I am frustrated or feel down and sometimes when I am joyed I listen to Gospel music and then others in between. Why is music such an escape mechanism though? A majority of people I know rely on music to help them with their strong emotions. Is this done because music is an escape from reality? I must admit it is for me. For example, when I am exercising and I listen to music I am any and everywhere but the present. I forget I am at the gym and I make my own world in my head around the music I am listening to. It not only effects my thoughts , but my body my adrenaline starts going and I get stronger, I run faster, the intensity builds as the music increases, I get lost in the beats the instruments the words the vocals and then it STOPS! and I stop. Music is more than just rhythm and beats, its a world of its own and it controls its listeners.

So what is this hold that music has on people? Why does it create this alternate world for people?

Then the thing about music and memories...I hear a song from my childhood and I just smile or frown because of the memories I have. When I listen to music that reminds me of an event in my life, I can actually tell you a story, where I was the first time I head it, who I was with, and what happened that day. OK maybe my memory may not be that detailed, but it does refresh my mind of some really good/ bad childhood days. So one last question I pose.....Do we underestimate the power of music?

Response to Blog

I am responding to Amy Rosvally's blog. I must say that this isn't the first time I have pondered about the questions she asked. Growing up I did believe in prince charming and I believed that my life would someday follow the theme of a movie. I would be in trouble and then this wonderful handsome stranger would help me and we would fall in love and be together forever. I believed that all of this would happen to me if I lost a few pounds first, OK if I lost ALOT of pounds first. I was a chubby kid who like all girls wanted to have a normal childhood and be a princess. However, seeing in the movies how thin every princess was, it made me feel that love would never come to me and it made me hate myself.

As I grew up I kinda graduated from Disney movies (I will always love the lion king), and started watching music videos and movies for teens and the superficiality of the world was also depicted in that. I wished I could be one of those sports models ,I envied the girls in the music videos and thought of myself as disgusting to look at. I just want to say that Amy you are not exaggerating the truth. You are right, the label that being "beautiful and pretty" holds is so superficial it's disgusting. Where are all the curvy princesses? Why are the ethics of this world so shot? Is there a possibility for change? Can we make a change from superficiality to just taking everyone as beautiful? I commend you Amy, I really do.

Intro to Levitin

Let me start out by saying that I truly admire Levitin even though I only read the introduction. In his into he makes many points that I agree with. He says that scientists and artists follow the same procedure and have the same ends in mind. The are pursuing truth, and expressing their knowledge of a subject ans well as learning at the same time. When I look at it, everything does have music, your local diner, movies, special events, a party isn't a part without music..right?

Music is a powerful thing. It has the power to make you anxious, to make you cry and to make you just feel happy. It is an easy way to manipulate emotions. That is why music is constantly used in movies. Do you think the movie "Psycho" would have been as scary if we didn't hear those shrieking violins during the stabbing in the shower. I was actually taught that they wanted to show the movie in Europe, however officials thought it was too scary. The director did nothing but take out the music from the shower scene and showed it to the officials again and then they approved the movie to be shown in Europe. We listen to music to relax so it can be said that music controls the way the body reacts; It tones down stress.

It seemed interesting to me when he said that some cultures don't distinguish people by talent. Talent most likely isn't in the vocabulary of some cultures because they view everyone equally as singers as dances whether or not they can carry a tune. There are cultures that aren't caught up in the superficial division of talent. I don't think you will see an "American Idol" for the village people He was talking about. I agree with him in many aspects of his argument. Music has become reserved only for certain people. There is a dividing line between singers and those who "don't" or "cannot" sing. We are a hushed culture and we spend our hushed lives listening to the Beyonce's and J'Lo's.

This course is going to deal with the philosophy of music and how can we label what music is. My question is can it be said that any and everyone can make music?? Forget what influence American Idol, America's got talent and other talented based show out there. Can we forget the way society defines music and good singers and be like other cultures and view everyone as talented? Or is the dividing line already so thick that we will continue to have a hushed culture with the "lucky and talented" to perform for us? Can there be change?