Is 'motion' always represented by 'music' ?

[m1469]

Or, is that the idea anyway ?

I am just thinking.  I know that people have a *really* difficult time with the word "always" but that is actually what I am wondering in this case.   Given the idea that people see music as temporal, I think there is some kind of motion involved with that, but I am also thinking in terms of a performer interpreting the score (in terms of physical motions, too).

Somebody very wonderful  () once told me that the patterns on the score imply 'motion' and as I am preparing myself for practice, soon, I am pondering that a bit. 

(okay, it's a mixture of several ponderings : 

How can the music actually effect the audience ?  Perhaps it's the musical affect (which to me seems to imply 'motion') that effects the audience ?  Okay, music is less about notes, but about 'motion' and 'affects') 

And, so, those ponderings led me to my question.   Another way to ask would be this :  Is music ever meant to be stagnate ? 

I mean, even a single and sustained note is meant to represent some kind of motion (at least temporal), is it not ?

Okay.  I am off to practice 

[opus10no2]

I think of music as horizontal and vertical.

Vertical being pitch, or it's equivelant in life - space.

And horizontal being time, the same equivelant is in life also.

A single 'note' isn't music, but I suppose it's debatable whether a number of notes struck at the same time is music, because it qualifies as having the qualities of relation that we percieve and get musical enjoyment/cognition from.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but it's interesting to compare motion pictures and photographs(a moment in time captured).

The musical equivelant of a photograph could only be a single chord, but this can be nowhere near as appealing because of the simplistic restrictions imposed by the senses of sight compared with hearing.

I think in science(havent studied since I was 13 so forgive me for errors) the reason for this is that all senses are vibration based, and these 'waves' are slower and in a much narrower range for the sense of hearing, and in a much higher and wider range for sight.

True stagnative perception doesn't exist anyway, even as we look at a still photograph, our minds still race in a sequence.

[counterpoint]

I think, the feeling of motion in music comes from tempo changes. If the music gets faster, theres a feeling of forward going - if it's getting slower,  a feeling of holding back. If the tempo keeps the same all the time, music sounds static, whether it's fast or slow.

[ted]

In the strictly logical sense, music is always dynamic, as others have already pointed out. However, it is clearly possible, indeed frequent, for music to depict stasis. Part of why most of us enjoy music is precisely because the state of "timelessness", "suchness", "eternal present" or whatever you like to call it, can so easily be entered through music. The slow movement of the Hammerklavier, the arietta of Opus 111, much of minimalism, certain Chopin ( 25/1 comes to mind but there are others ), even some Jarrett style ostinatos, exude a serene stasis. 

Or might it just be that the choice between dynamic and static is just another option, like emotion, intellect and so on, in how we respond. Perhaps, rather than being a property of the object perceived,  it is all in the act of perception itself. In some ways I would not like this to be true but I rather think it is.

[cjp_piano]

I like watching the conductor at the symphony concerts.  (I thought everyone did until recently when one of my friends said the conductor was distracting!).  I like to watch as though the music is creating a response in the conductor.  I know that s/he is "leading" the music, giving cues for what is to come, but try it sometime, it allows you to be connected to the "motion" of the music. 

The conductor is always moving, even during a fermata.  It may be a very slow, gradual expansion of the hands or he may be shaking them, but it's rarely just completely static. 

I disagree with counterpoint.  I don't think music that stays the same tempo sounds static at all.  That's like saying an airplane flying at a constant speed of 500 mph isn't moving.  Think of most baroque music.  Not many ritardandos and accelerandos to be found, but it certainly sounds like it's moving, doesn't it?  

As ted said, it's true that some music depicts "stasis," but probably not complete motionlessness.   Sure, something might be "still" or "suspended" but there is still a sense of time.  Or even if there is no sense of time, there is still the sound that is vibrating and moving through space.  We can all feel the anticipation grow when a single note fermata is being played during the climax of a piece.  There's no stagnation in that.   

To me, it seems like music is always coming or going, expanding or contracting,  rising or falling . . .

[thalberg]

In music therapy there's a concept called "entrainment."

It's the idea that as the music moves, people's emotions move with it.  It's also the idea that babies' heartbeats match each other after a while if you place them next to each other. You can learn to match your heartbeat to the music you're listening to.  I think the best performers cast a rhythmic spell that pushes the audience to entrain with them.  Passionate, rhythmic playing gets the audience really involved.

Affects, you say......did you know that in Baroque music history there's an EXACT term--doctrine of the affections--that describes how musical figures affect the emotions.  That term was coined by Manfred Bukofzer in his 1947 book on Baroque music...check it out.

Some music is intended to be stagnant.  Steve Reich, Phillip Glass, all minimalists.  Repetition is the best way to produce stagnation in music.   The idea is to basically stop you thinking and numb your mind....it all goes back to Eastern style meditation--empty yourself, clear your mind. 

That being said, never actually empty yourself, m1469.  Never a good idea.  I'm serious.

[ted]

Yes, I think you are right about rhythm, Thalberg. Rhythm is very powerful and, dare I voice a personal opinon, way more significant than other musical elements, although the debate about that goes on. We can forgive practically any faults in music provided it has life, but it is very hard to breathe life into music without rhythm. Of the two words, I prefer stasis to stagnation to describe what we are talking about, although when I consult the dictionary, the definitions are practically identical. "Stagnation" seems to have a distinctly pejorative implication while "stasis" is simply objective. This might be my personal response through poetical association with stagnant ponds and so on; I have made a number of odd mistakes with words before now.

[counterpoint]

I disagree with counterpoint.  I don't think music that stays the same tempo sounds static at all.  That's like saying an airplane flying at a constant speed of 500 mph isn't moving.  Think of most baroque music.  Not many ritardandos and accelerandos to be found, but it certainly sounds like it's moving, doesn't it?  

Okay, the example with the airplane is a bit far from musical experience   
Let's take a train 
If the train starts (it gets faster and faster) you have the feeling of moving forward, if the tempo changes from fast to slow, you have the feeling of holding back (in reality, the train is moving forward perhaps quite fast anyway). But if the train drives at a constant tempo and you don't look out of the window (for example in the night) the feeling of motion will vaporise.

Now back to music. My statement of tempo changes is especially valid for baroque music. If baroque music is played mechanically, for example playing a score as midifile, you will not get the feeling of motion. The notes will drive by, yes, but because the tempo keeps exactly the same all the time, the music does not drive the listener.
I don't speak of big ritardandi and accelerandi, but of ones, that often are very small and on a very short distance. For example 3 or 4 sixteenth notes moving forwards (=mini-accelerando) then two 8th notes holding back (mini-ritardando). Many musicians are using these little tempo modifications - sometimes big tempo modifications as well - without even knowing that they do. So what I say is not in contradiction to how every good musician is playing, but it is in contradiction to how "even playing" is taught by many teachers. "Even playing" is not playing every note in the same tempo!

[cjp_piano]

Okay, the example with the airplane is a bit far from musical experience   
Let's take a train 

Right, because a train is much closer to a musical experience than an airplane!   

Now back to music.  The notes will drive by, yes, but because the tempo keeps exactly the same all the time, the music does not drive the listener.

Well, I certainly feel motion with music that does not speed up or slow down.  One of my students was playing Bach's Prelude in C minor (WTC I) the other day and he said it sounded like he was running through the woods being chased by goblins! 

Ever have a group of kids in a music class or group lesson?  Play a steady march and they'll instinctively start moving to the music.  Even my 2-year-old neice does this. 

I just think that a steady tempo also has movement, whether it's marching, gliding, tumbling, jumping, etc.  But these motions are probably more associated with the texture of the music, not tempo: fast sixteenth notes in a descending scalar pattern, slow chords expanding outward, single staccato notes that are far apart, etc.