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?
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)