What Music Is and Is not

[willcowskitz]

For those of you saying that music has ANY other value apart from entertainment.... please refer to my post in the anything but piano section: Does music make you a better person?

I checked your post as I think music only is entertainment if you purposively take it as such.

You asked: "Does music make you a better person?"
You answered: "No."

Now what?


STATE YOUR ARGUMENT.

Don't just smile and run.

[Spatula]

Anyways particular to your message post earlier of "Does believing in God help you play better?"

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=nopi;action=display;num=1085075374

I might have stated my point earlier regarding this that even though I do believe, in God, I don't feel any exact correlation or purpose in how much faith vs. how well you play.

I find first of all that not all pianist can achieve the same accomplishments of others because all pianists have a certain limit.  And perhaps due to this limit of their playing capability is their social environment and how long they've studied music for.  So first off for my arguement is that piano is more based on (as a matter of fact, almost every single activity..cooking, sewing, basketball etc) has a certain limit.  I can cook Kraft dinner and Instant Ramen, but even with 5 years of training to be a chef, there's no luck for italian (REAL italian food).  

Same with piano.  That's why I find that Evgeny Kissin plays much more different than say Horowitz or Argerich. Etc.  Now to get back to my point of God vs. ability to play.  Piano is what you yourself puts your efforts into, plus the effects of your environment and experience, not so much what religious testimonies might be.  Unless of course you have some sort of devine intervention that God says, "SPATULA, YOU ARE ON HOLY GROUND.  TAKE OFF YOUR SHOES AND LISTEN.  YOU WILL BE A CONCERT PIANIST.  THE POWER IS YOURS"

I really have no clue even if that would be a plan for ones life and the chances of that are a snowball in hell (but still saying that there is a posibility, just damn not likely)

Clear as mud?

[ahmedito]

Here is my argument.

Will music make you a better person?

NO!!!
_____

So, in that sense, why do we insist on giving it a bigger value than it really has? It does not give you food or shelter. I gives you pleasure. In that sense, its entertainment. The pleasure you derive from it may not be the same as looking at a pretty room, or eating a tasty donut, but basically (since I think that it has no moral, social or political value whatsoever) its just that, entertainment.

Beautiful, uplifting, inspiring entertainment?

YES...

But thats all it is.
Humanity needs entertainment too.

[JK]

I gives you pleasure. In that sense, its entertainment.

I would dispute that all music gives pleasure when listened to. For example how much pleasure do you get when you listen to a piece such as Tchaikovskys' 6th symphony? I certainly don't listen to this piece (there are others as well) in order to feal happy or pleasurable, in fact I can't really say exactly why I listen to it. The closest I can get to as a reason is that I find it moving and it seems to connect with me more if I'm feeling depressed, surely you can't say that this is simply entertainment?

As to whether music can make you a better person or not, I would say this is very difficult to answer. In some cases yes, I've known people who have been unruly teenagers only to have discovered an interest in music and as a result have sorted their lives out. Music in this way can have a very positive affect on someone, it gives them something to focus on and a way to deal with their emotions, it also may make them feel that they actually have more of a reason for being. On the other hand music can have the opposite effect, for example it, as already said, can make people competitive (something music has nothing to do with!) and arrogant.

 

[willcowskitz]

Here is my argument.

Will music make you a better person?

NO!!!
_____

So, in that sense, why do we insist on giving it a bigger value than it really has? It does not give you food or shelter. I gives you pleasure. In that sense, its entertainment. The pleasure you derive from it may not be the same as looking at a pretty room, or eating a tasty donut, but basically (since I think that it has no moral, social or political value whatsoever) its just that, entertainment.

Beautiful, uplifting, inspiring entertainment?

YES...

But thats all it is.
Humanity needs entertainment too.

I have already argued this, maybe you should read AND understand what is said about the subject before trying to "add" something to it. Also, the fact that music doesn't make you a better person (which was an absurd question in itself) has got nothing to do with whether music is entertainment or not. You didn't even define the "better", which made me have to divide it into "better in relation to former self" and "better in relation to surroundings". Maybe you should know what you're asking before making a thread out of it. As I said, but which you didn't probably read, music only is entertainment if you take it as such. Obviously, music must be entertainment to you, it is nothing but a pretty picture or a donut, right? Or are you just one of those people who think that flowers only exist to please human senses.

[alvaro_galvez]

Amen Willcowskitz.
I may be repeating but music is what you make of it. It can be a persons income, ocasional pleasure, expression of thought, etc.
So bottom line, YOU make what music is to you.

[ahmedito]

1. Alvaro Galvez, I agree with you and think that you have resumed the whole point of this thread in your post.

2. Willcovitz, I wrote what I did even though it was already posted before because I was asked to specifically write my opinion on the matter, so I did, concious of it having been written here before me. I started the "Does music make you a better person topic?" not because I have doubts on the issue, bt to expose my opinion, and have people debate it acording to their definition of better, worse, good or evil. AND the reason I started that thread is because Ive seen in countless posts people simply assuming that classical music makes you good, or better, or smarter, etc... so I decided to debate it. I wonder, why you have made such a big deal of debating that "better" is subjective, I understand, youre right.... so what?

3. JK, pleasure, despite the contradiction, is not always a pleasant pretty experience. And entertainment is not always pleasure. Why do people watch horror movies? Somtimes entertainment involves a surge of adrenaline under controlled conditions, or sensory stimulation that isnt necesarilly pleasant... its still entertainment.

[ahmedito]

I believe music is entertainment. And I think that you should remove the stigmatta atached to that word. I am inspired by music, and can relate to all the social, filosofical and ethical questions surrounding a specific piece of music. But in the end, objectively, it is basically a sensory stimulus that makes each person react diferently; believe me, in m case the reaction is usually of euforia and it makes me feel things that cant be described with words.... BUT, I generalize what I feel with music, hence Alvaro`s post is what I most agree with.


Lets talk about what music is and what its not.

IT IS: sound and silence through time (and it can be ANY sound) which provokes diferent psychological responses depending on the listener. So, I consider everything music, since music is totally subjective, arising from the need of the listener to entertain himself. In the right mood, a noisy street is music.

IT IS NOT: an ethical, filosofical, moral force. It does not have any effect on the physical constitution of a person or his physical well being (except perhaps for all that "Mozart effect stuff"). Any attempt to label it as anything other than entertainment is not objective. Even so, I agree that it has all sorts of different results apart from simple pleasure, but these vary so much from person to person, that you have to ask yourself: Does the music provoke it? or Does the listener? Take something like sex. Its very much the same. Objectively its procreation and entertainment. Subjectively its the physical manifestation of love between a man and a woman. I cant generalize and say that ALL sex is a physical manifestation of love, but I can generalize and say that all sex is a bodily function that is involved in procreation and a very very nice sensorial stimulus.

So....

I cant generalize and say that music is anything other than pure entertainment, like a donut or a pretty room. Even if in my personal case, I usually tend to find a much deeper meaning.

[willcowskitz]

I believe music is entertainment. And I think that you should remove the stigmatta atached to that word.

Music is not a taboo. Not even for me, or I would be protecting it from "evil" handling of experimenting artists.

I am inspired by music, and can relate to all the social, filosofical and ethical questions surrounding a specific piece of music. But in the end, objectively, it is basically a sensory stimulus that makes each person react diferently;

And that makes it entertainment? When you need to take a sh*t, are you entertaining yourself?

believe me, in m case the reaction is usually of euforia and it makes me feel things that cant be described with words.... BUT, I generalize what I feel with music, hence Alvaro`s post is what I most agree with.

Euforia? Ok, euforia ---[association]--> amusement. "If you read" my other post, you would be more familiar with the definition of entertainment, and reasons why I think music is not entertainment, so I will just try to be brief here.

Lets talk about what music is and what its not.

IT IS: sound and silence through time (and it can be ANY sound) which provokes diferent psychological responses depending on the listener. So, I consider everything music, since music is totally subjective, arising from the need of the listener to entertain himself. In the right mood, a noisy street is music.

Yes blah blah. I agree, to a degree.

IT IS NOT: an ethical, filosofical, moral force.

What exactly are you talking about, or are you just trying to sound like you were talking about something that you have a clear image of in your head? But honestly, make it clearer for others, too, if you wish to share your view or get support for it or just argue this for sake of getting closer to the truth, be it tied to your subjective perspective or not.

It does not have any effect on the physical constitution of a person or his physical well being (except perhaps for all that "Mozart effect stuff").

Humans are psycho-physical-social systems, did you ever hear of the mind-body connection? It is a fact that the mind affects the body and vice versa - I would even go as far as claiming this to be trivial when you know how much responsibility the brain has over the whole body, at same time knowing that its the centre of consciousness and thought.

Any attempt to label it as anything other than entertainment is not objective.

Claims, no arguments?

Even so, I agree that it has all sorts of different results apart from simple pleasure, but these vary so much from person to person, that you have to ask yourself: Does the music provoke it? or Does the listener? Take something like sex. Its very much the same. Objectively its procreation and entertainment.

Sex for amusement or pleasure. Makes sense. Music comparable to sex? Doesn't make sense. What is the world without the perceiver? Because I listen to music, I turn it into entertainment because it invokes certain stimulus in my brain and/or even makes me feel physical sensations on my skin? Amusement, could be. Pleasure, that's probable. Entertainment? Sure if you think that "flowers exist to please human senses",  as I said but which you probably didn't bother to study. Vibrations and forces existed in the universe from beginning til the end, and while man has been brought to existence, and will cease to exist, these vibrations were there to witness the birth and will be present to witness the death.

Subjectively it (sex) is the physical manifestation of love between a man and a woman. I cant generalize and say that ALL sex is a physical manifestation of love, but I can generalize and say that all sex is a bodily function that is involved in procreation and a very very nice sensorial stimulus.

So, was this your best argument?

So....

I cant generalize and say that music is anything other than pure entertainment, like a donut or a pretty room. Even if in my personal case, I usually tend to find a much deeper meaning.

The thing with you seems to be the very man-centric view. Everything is observed from where you stand, and your surroundings only exist to be your home. Earth, the centre of the solar system. Man, the centre of the creation. To bring in an alternative to the flower example, I'll make one out of music: Music, be it chirping of birds or Rachmaninoff's piano concerto, is vibrations of air molecules. Birds are communicating using their ability to make these molecules vibrate at will, same with us humans. Is this entertainment? Music is also vibrations of air molecules, and also a form of communication. Is this entertainment, or are you a prototype of the Ultimate Citizen Model that has already been hammered to believe that life's only true potential and value is purely entertainment. To divert is to see?

[StoreBrand]

Dancing is possible without music, and music doesn't require a 'dancable' structure.

I wouldn't be too sure of this, Will.  Dancing is not at all possible without music.  To make a long story short, music is composed of rhythm, melody, and harmony ...for the sake of this example, that is.  And neither melody nor harmony can exist alone without rhythm.  But rhythm is the only aspect of music that can exist on its own without melody or harmony and still turn out to be drop dead gorgeous music.

It is not possible to dance without rhythm and, therefore, not possible to dance without music.

As for the 'danceable' structure.  For the most part, all music can be danced to (because it has rhythm) but that is another topic.

Music for me allows me to map my feelings and relate them to my surroundings, ...

This is simply the power of entertainment.  What you are describing here is done every day in soap operas, movie theaters, performances, etc. etc. etc.  This is not something that is exclusive to music entertainment.  It's done in every form of entertainment.  In fact, one could argue that there are more personal emotions and feelings to be mapped in one single episode of Days of Our Lives than... well, you get the picture.  It's all entertainment.  Even something as essential to survival as food quickly crosses into the line of entertainment at a point (i.e. gourmet food being the extreme).  Humans have only five main conscious senses and each one of them are capable of being entertained. Music just so happens to be much more deeply ingrained in the human psyche (one of the reasons, which I believe, is to attract a mate).

Music is NOT entertainment

Music IS entertainment!  : )   You are purposely refusing to admit (or possibly accept) this.  What's wrong with living a life of entertainment?  The fact that music can be comforting, fun, relaxing, spiritual, grand, uplifting, social, emotional, pleasurable, inspirational, serious, expressive, etc. in content does not make it any less entertaining.

Nevertheless, the word 'entertainment' seems to bring a sour taste into your mouth and really I do not understand why.  It's amazing the effort people will go through to distance themselves from the mainstream simply for the sake of being distant.

Yes they're lacking something, but not necessarily musically (refer to my reply above).

It IS musically (without a doubt in my mind) and it is not just lacking.  Many of these people have treaded far past the point of no return into the territory of incompetence.  This is why some of the members on this forum can easily point out that certain so-called elite views here, no matter how you slice them, are flat out ridiculous.

Personally, I can not understand why a musician would even bother trying to define what good music is and is not when:

A) They can not dance or have little interest in it.
B) They can not sing.
C) They can not rap.
D) They have zero musical creativity and, therefore, ground zero understanding of the natural mental process of making music (hence the insults).
E) They only like one "genre" of music.
F) All of the above.

What's really funny is a so-called elitist that falls into the category of D or F (it is so funny that I genuinely laugh each time I read over this sentence).

"If you read" my other post, you would be more familiar with the definition of entertainment, and reasons why I think music is not entertainment, so I will just try to be brief here.

In all honesty Willcowskitz, I still have no idea how you are drawing the line that music is not entertainment--even after reading your posts.  But I have to give you the benefit of doubt.  Why is music not entertainment in your eyes?  And what is music to you?  Lastly, what do you have against entertainment?

[willcowskitz]

It is not possible to dance without rhythm and, therefore, not possible to dance without music.

If you can call the tapping of your feet against the ground music, then you can't "dance without music" cause you create music while dancing. But music is not a pre-requisite for dancing, since as I said, dancing is articulation of thoughts through expressive body movement, and this activity is possible without a steady beat or even better without melody or harmony.

As for the 'danceable' structure.  For the most part, all music can be danced to (because it has rhythm) but that is another topic.

You argued that classical misses "pieces from the jigsaw puzzle" because it is not very dancable, so are you arguing against your earlier argument that classical listeners miss certain aspects of music?

This is simply the power of entertainment.  What you are describing here is done every day in soap operas, movie theaters, performances, etc. etc. etc.

Either you have misunderstood the concept of "mapping one's feelings", or you have misunderstood the word entertainment.

This is not something that is exclusive to music entertainment.

I already said that music can be used for entertaining oneself. ANY music can be used for this, but man is foolish if he thinks that's all there is to music, to view everything from where the man stands and take himself as the centre of nature or physical reality for granted. This is refusal to see beyond what your ears hear and how it affects your conscious thoughts and emotions. As I said, but which nobody probably took to notion, music existed before man did, and music will exist when man has ceased to. The point of entertainment is to... Wait, I already have told that many times.

It's done in every form of entertainment.  In fact, one could argue that there are more personal emotions and feelings to be mapped in one single episode of Days of Our Lives than... well, you get the picture.  It's all entertainment.

Here is a great example of entertainment. Soap operas created for the sole purpose of having people glued to their TV transmitters, away from the worries or boredom of their own lives, to indirectly live through the more exciting, less pointless, happier and wealthier lives of the role characters on TV. This is divertion at it's best. Music has greater value than just divert and amuse, though it CAN BE used for those, music itself is not something we have got to known thoroughly, but rather explored. Soap operas have artificial personalities created purposively for the profilized target, TV watching masses. The wider the scale it sees and the more people it reaches, the better. You have just compared Britney Spears to music as an argument that music is only entertainment.

Even something as essential to survival as food quickly crosses into the line of entertainment at a point (i.e. gourmet food being the extreme).

Yet another example of how something can be used for and turned into entertainment though it exists not for this sole purpose. You seem to be laying out good evidence against your own statements.

Humans have only five main conscious senses and each one of them are capable of being entertained. Music just so happens to be much more deeply ingrained in the human psyche (one of the reasons, which I believe, is to attract a mate).

Again... again... Having the ability to make air molecules vibrate at will can be used for communication. A guy meets a girl in a bar and says "To your place or to mine?". This is communication used for purpose of "finding a mate", same goes for birds, certain mammals, and so forth. Attracting a mate used to be as obvious as detecting the "right one" by smell of their perspirate. Growling or chirping against music is like strength to intelligence; when the physical limitations of the world become evident, creation evolved intelligence to shape the world by going into the structure of it instead of trying to hammer it from the surface, this means mankind (and certain chimps) and it's tool making skills. By understanding the forces that "ruled" the universe we have developed means to get around those forces or use them for our own advantage, making physical strength almost obsolote. Same goes for the auditive(?) communication, there are other means for mating and finding/attracting a mate, more "sophisticated" or shall I say; civilized.

Music IS entertainment!  : )   You are purposely refusing to admit (or possibly accept) this.

Yes I can say the same about you, you're refusing to admit your understanding of the word "entertainment" was false. Etc.  But I'll keep it at the level of stating arguments and concluding from them, though I have noticed I have been forced to repeat myself which indicates that the communication is broken.

What's wrong with living a life of entertainment?

It is shallow. As I said and I said and I said, entertainment is and act of entertaining, which is to amuse a person, to divert him, or just please him. Life is greater than these alternative activities and other sickening postmodern mentality that tries to make man get certain minimal satisfaction out of their daily lives though he in fact deserves none, but since the modern society suppresses our natural behaviour and instincts to almost extinction, we create different alternative tasks for ourselves to be busy with and sense an illusion of having fulfilled the purpose of our lives. At worst, a person is made to believe that entertaining oneself is the best he can achieve and should drive for during his life.

The fact that music can be comforting, fun, relaxing, spiritual, grand, uplifting, social, emotional, pleasurable, inspirational, serious, expressive, etc. in content does not make it any less entertaining.

You are viewing it upside down. The fact that music is not entertainment, doesn't make it impossible to use it as such.

Nevertheless, the word 'entertainment' seems to bring a sour taste into your mouth and really I do not understand why.

I have TRIED TO explain this in so many ways, hope this post added something to it though I feel how I'm repeating myself again.

It's amazing the effort people will go through to distance themselves from the mainstream simply for the sake of being distant.

Its no wonder when you look or rather listen to what the mainstream talks about - I can almost see your point of communication being entertainment (?) when I recall the "mainstream" people from school that used to use communication as minimally as possible, only to maintain some form of a social web between them that would keep and hold the structure together, rather than getting to really know each other. However, "for the sake of being distant" would apply if I wished to forcefully rip myself apart from them, but again, it is upside down.

It IS musically (without a doubt in my mind) and it is not just lacking.

I already logically distinguished music and dancing from each other by separating them as forms of articulation and expression, independant on but if handled so, correlating with each other.

Many of these people have treaded far past the point of no return into the territory of incompetence.  This is why some of the members on this forum can easily point out that certain so-called elite views here, no matter how you slice them, are flat out ridiculous.

I fail to see who this is directed at or why.

Personally, I can not understand why a musician would even bother trying to define what good music is and is not when:

A) They can not dance or have little interest in it.
B) They can not sing.
C) They can not rap.
D) They have zero musical creativity and, therefore, ground zero understanding of the natural mental process of making music (hence the insults).
E) They only like one "genre" of music.
F) All of the above.

As for "A", I feel I'm not the only one repeating myself, though I would have to repeat myself again I will just refer you to what I wrote earlier.

As for "B", not everyone is good at singing, since singing also requires certain physics not just musical ear. If we take out the sound quality issue, I believe everyone can sing, more or less.

As for "C", LOL.

As for "D", I agree about this one. On the other hand, I doubt anyone has _zero_ musical creativity, but their creativity is more difficult to make flow - it might require certain amount of stimulation through certain senses, and so on.

As for "E", I agree.

What's really funny is a so-called elitist that falls into the category of D or F (it is so funny that I genuinely laugh each time I read over this sentence).

Though I didn't agree with you on every point: They're lacking something in area of musicality so they try to substitute it with something else. Feel sorry or laugh, don't hate.

In all honesty Willcowskitz, I still have no idea how you are drawing the line that music is not entertainment--even after reading your posts.

The possibility exists, that what I view as negative and shallow, you don't. In that case, we would just have to agree to disagree.

 But I have to give you the benefit of doubt.  Why is music not entertainment in your eyes?  And what is music to you?  Lastly, what do you have against entertainment?

I sincerely hope I made it even a little more clear.

And though we strongly disagree, I have to give you credit for trying to express your view.

[alvaro_galvez]

I dont understand why you want to make such a controversy over such a trivial and opinion based subject.

You know what StoreBrand, in my OPINION rap, techno and all sorts of music where the actual notes or beats being used are not being played but programmed are sh1t, and guess what, theres nothing you can say or make me say or argument that will change my OPINION.

The same applies to what music is to you. Ok, youre entitled to your OPINION, in your OPINION music is entertainment, very well, but in my OPINION music is much more than just entertainment (and I wont elaborate because Im done looking at this through so many angles) and I wont change my OPINION no matter how you try to make me see it.

So the final answer to your whole thread is (and Ive said it already) "You make what music is to you".

Period...

[StoreBrand]

If you can call the tapping of your feet against the ground music, then you can't "dance without music" cause you create music while dancing.

Yes, this is a part of my point.

But music is not a pre-requisite for dancing,

I do not understand how you are reaching this conclusion.  It is NOT at all possible to dance without music.  Using this logic, music is not a prerequisite for playing on the piano--a point that just doesn't make sense.

since as I said, dancing is articulation of thoughts through expressive body movement, and this activity is possible without a steady beat or even better without melody or harmony.

Yes, rhythm is possible without a steady beat, melody, or harmony--this was also a part of my point.

You argued that classical misses "pieces from the jigsaw puzzle" because it is not very dancable, so are you arguing against your earlier argument that classical listeners miss certain aspects of music?

I predicted that you would see this as a possible contradiction, Willcowskitz!  Actually, we're stumbling onto the 'missing elements' I was referring to.  All music is capable of being danced to (because it has rhythm).
 

I already said that music can be used for entertaining oneself. ANY music can be used for this...

Of course ANY music can be, because music IS entertainment!  Entertainment is what you make of it.

As I said, but which nobody probably took to notion, music existed before man did, and music will exist when man has ceased to.

I read the statement that you made.  I can sort of understand you saying it but there are a great many things that existed before man did.  But, not only is this way out there, it is an advanced scientific or more agnostic topic that is subject to debate.  Not to mention purely theoretical.

You are speaking of a time far away when you were not around and of a time far into the future when you will not be around.

Yet another example of how something can be used for and turned into entertainment though it exists not for this sole purpose. You seem to be laying out good evidence against your own statements.  

So I have laid out evidence against statements such as "all conscious human senses are capable of being entertained"--taste being the gourmet food example?
 

Again... again... Having the ability to make air molecules vibrate at will can be used for communication.

Vibrating air molecules are only one medium of music.  Air molecules are not needed for music to exist.

Yes I can say the same about you, you're refusing to admit your understanding of the word "entertainment" was false. Etc.

False and etc. aside, I really do not like the definition of entertainment that you have given.  Merriam-Webster's definition is a bit more accurate/better:

Entertainment:

1 : the act of entertaining
2 a archaic   : MAINTENANCE, PROVISION  b obsolete   : EMPLOYMENT
3 : something diverting or engaging: as  a : a public performance  b : a usually light comic or adventure novel

Entertain:

1 a archaic   : MAINTAIN  b obsolete   : RECEIVE
2 : to show hospitality to
3 a : to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind b : to receive and take into consideration
4 : to provide entertainment for
5 : to play against (an opposing team) on one's home field or court  intransitive senses: to provide entertainment especially for guests

Does this help?

Quote:What's wrong with living a life of entertainment?  

Answer: It is shallow.

Entertainment is what you make of it and it is far from shallow (music is entertainment).  I could give you 20,000 examples how entertainment is what you make of it but it is not necessary right now.  We have to make a crescendo slowly building up to that point.

But, in the meantime, I will accept into my schedule the role of being your psychologist on this issue, Willcowskitz!  Your distaste for the word 'entertainment' appears to stem from either your negative opinion, objective observations, or personal views of how other close people in your life (possibly family members whom you dearly care for) have made use of entertainment for their own purpose.  You strongly disagree and/or may have observed disaster in what they have done with entertainment and are comparing the results of what you have made of entertainment to them.  As a result, you have developed entertinphobia.  But it is also possible that your phobia of entertainment stems from another similar traumatic experience but I am not sure yet.  We will have to work on this.  Therapy will be $25 a session and will involve you 'acquiring' a newfound taste for the word entertainment.  I'm available for consultation on Wednesdays.  (I'm only joking, Will)

I already logically distinguished music and dancing from each other by separating them as forms of articulation and expression, independant on but if handled so, correlating with each other.

Dancing is not possible without music.  You're obviously a fairly logical creature but, unfortunately, there is no logical and certainly no artistic way around this!

Though I didn't agree with you on every point: They're lacking something in area of musicality so they try to substitute it with something else. Feel sorry or laugh, don't hate.  

It's hard for a person to substitute something lacking when they haven't the developed parts to even know what is missing.
 

I sincerely hope I made it even a little more clear.

You have made it very clear to me now, Will.  I understand....  We can begin therapy sessions on entertainment as early as next week (July 14th).  Please bring to the session material that is of entertainment value to you.  And also bring CDs of music that you do not like such as Britney Spears (they carry vomit-bags at most department stores or you can have a partner bring the CD so you don't have to touch it).

And though we strongly disagree, I have to give you credit for trying to express your view.

Thank You!  I really appreciate your kindness : )   You're very friendly.

On a more serious note, this volcanic eruption over entertainment is, for lack of a better word, interesting.  This is why many pianists suffer from pyschological issues (hence the therapy on Wednesday).  It's what happens when you treat music as something that it is not.

[willcowskitz]

I do not understand how you are reaching this conclusion.  It is NOT at all possible to dance without music.  Using this logic, music is not a prerequisite for playing on the piano--a point that just doesn't make sense.

Same could be said about music, in that case: "You can't play or make music without dancing, because you are using your body to create it.", which would mean that nobody is missing anything from music if they for example play it on piano - their hands are dancing. The problem here is that the movement of hands is as much of dancing as the tapping of feet against the ground is of music, there is a very superficial connection between the two without the consciously created flow that you activate when you dance to music.

Yes, rhythm is possible without a steady beat, melody, or harmony--this was also a part of my point.

I only said "steady" because to some degree rhythm must have predictability to it, or it is undancable.

I predicted that you would see this as a possible contradiction, Willcowskitz!  Actually, we're stumbling onto the 'missing elements' I was referring to.  All music is capable of being danced to (because it has rhythm).

So, what do the classical listeners lack if their music is possible to be danced? Music is music, dancing is dancing - I have already explained what dancing is, and when you realize what it is, the connection between dancing and music becomes unnecessary unless you claim that I'm comparable to piano virtuoso as I'm typing out this post. There is difference between rocks being clanked against each other and complex Dupré's fugues or emotionally charged Liszt's early music - the articulation has been taken to more sophisticated levels of detail.
 

Of course ANY music can be, because music IS entertainment!  Entertainment is what you make of it.

You are just stubborn. You keep repeating that but you haven't said anything that would prove music to be only entertainment. On the other hand, you say "Entertainment is what you make of it" - make of what? So there must exist some broader and more general idea of music, and in the same manner as I depress my thoughts into simplified shape by turning them into words, music gets depressed into entertainment in your head. Think about it, it supports and is supported by the idea that music is greater than anything that humans make of it, it is a pool that you sip from, and only what your palm can hold you will be able to drink. Understand this now.

I read the statement that you made.  I can sort of understand you saying it but there are a great many things that existed before man did.  But, not only is this way out there, it is an advanced scientific or more agnostic topic that is subject to debate.  Not to mention purely theoretical.

You can? Good, because,

It is as simple as this: The man(kind) is not the centre of nature, but a mere product of natural evolution just like any other life form. Even if music was entertainment to you or me or him or her, it wouldn't mean entertainment is all that music is about. Instead, it would be all that we're able to grasp from it, which would be a sad setting in my opinion.

You are speaking of a time far away when you were not around and of a time far into the future when you will not be around.

Time is an illusion.  
We can travel the chain of causalities endlessly to understand the past and predict the future. In more common terms its called history and historical(?)determinism. We know a lot of what the world was like before us, and unless we take the universe as product of our imagination, we know what it will be like after we're gone. It is still based on same fundamental laws of how particles act when they confront each other.

So I have laid out evidence against statements such as "all conscious human senses are capable of being entertained"--taste being the gourmet food example?

No, you made a perfect example of a concept that humans can turn into entertainment if they wish (and since here they're dependant on this particular activity, they will wish to do just that). Do you eat to entertain yourself? Or, are you conscious of that you will have to eat, and while you're at it you might as well make it entertaining for yourself since you have no choice.


 

Vibrating air molecules are only one medium of music.  Air molecules are not needed for music to exist.

This vibration is the actualization of the idea (when I say "idea" I'm referring to Platon's world of ideas) of music. It is currently the only way to transfer music since we don't have plugs in our heads. Music can exist in our heads, and then it is imitation and multiplying of the print that sound has left in our brains, based on memory.

False and etc. aside, I really do not like the definition of entertainment that you have given.  Merriam-Webster's definition is a bit more accurate/better:

Entertainment:

1 : the act of entertaining
2 a archaic   : MAINTENANCE, PROVISION  b obsolete   : EMPLOYMENT
3 : something diverting or engaging: as  a : a public performance  b : a usually light comic or adventure novel

Entertain:

1 a archaic   : MAINTAIN  b obsolete   : RECEIVE
2 : to show hospitality to
3 a : to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind b : to receive and take into consideration
4 : to provide entertainment for
5 : to play against (an opposing team) on one's home field or court  intransitive senses: to provide entertainment especially for guests

Merriam-Webster (Thesaurus) also says that entertainment is:

Text: something diverting, amusing, or entertaining <staged a floor show as entertainment for her guests>
Synonyms amusement, dissipation, distraction, diversion, divertissement, recreation
Related Word disport, play, sport; enjoyment, gaiety, pleasure; relaxation, relief


Divertion, amusement, pleasure, enjoyment, relaxation. Etc.  Does not fit the idea of music, but makes sense as to what music can be used for.

Entertainment is what you make of it and it is far from shallow (music is entertainment).

Entertainment diverts and distracts you from reality, what is not shallow in blindfolding ourselves from the worries or bothers of the everyday life? Isn't that the sterotypic American mentality in a nutshell. For me it is missing the point, it is about not facing what is real if it makes you feel any better. Like propagandha: It is not effective because it is so overwhelmingly convincing, but it primarily relies on how irresponsible people are - it is by far easier to believe in certain view than to think through it yourself. This is why I think entertainment is lying.

 I could give you 20,000 examples how entertainment is what you make of it but it is not necessary right now.

Did you make a conscious move of saying about entertainment what alvaro said about music:
"Music is what you make of it" - OK point, difficult to argue
"Entertainment is not music" - Doesn't fit your view
"Entertainment is what you make of it" - By redefining certain words we can push the "responsibility" onto the next word and turn the whole case around and go in circles. So if I am saying that music is not entertainment, you can say that it is because I take entertainment as something that music is not. If you say that music is entertainment, I can say that it is entertainment because you take it as such. Do you see the difference? In my representation of music, entertainment is a possible direction for it. In your representation of music, music is entertainment which for me is only a possibility. I see it from your perspective, but you don't see it from mine, thus why you lack the view to go beyond the entertainmental characteristic of music.

But, in the meantime, I will accept into my schedule the role of being your psychologist on this issue, Willcowskitz!  Your distaste for the word 'entertainment' appears to stem from either your negative opinion, objective observations, or personal views of how other close people in your life (possibly family members whom you dearly care for) have made use of entertainment for their own purpose.

Hahah.
Anyways: This isn't about me or you, this is about music. I am defending the true potential and value of music, not myself. Each of your assumptions are false, too. I have no problems with people entertaining themselves - After all, life is sometimes pretty unbearable without divertion and distraction from it by basically shutting your brain down and start absorbing entertainment that keeps your mind busy in lighter matters. I engage in entertainment every day, consciously, to divert myself. But again, this is not about me, nor is it about you. This is about what music is.

You strongly disagree and/or may have observed disaster in what they have done with entertainment and are comparing the results of what you have made of entertainment to them.  As a result, you have developed entertinphobia.  But it is also possible that your phobia of entertainment stems from another similar traumatic experience but I am not sure yet.  We will have to work on this.  Therapy will be $25 a session and will involve you 'acquiring' a newfound taste for the word entertainment.  I'm available for consultation on Wednesdays.  (I'm only joking, Will)

Hahahah, sorry I can't afford that.  

Dancing is not possible without music.  You're obviously a fairly logical creature but, unfortunately, there is no logical and certainly no artistic way around this!

Again: If dancing is impossible without music, everything you do with your body is. If music involves everything, then everything is entertainment. Would you agree?

It's hard for a person to substitute something lacking when they haven't the developed parts to even know what is missing.

Elitism is an imaginative contract signed by a group of people who want to view the rest of the people from above. There is always a reason for everything, and I doubt these people are as confident as they often want to express. Narcism derives from low self esteem and uncertainty of one's abilities in relation to other people (which is due to twisted images (or lack of reflection) of themselves that they find from others around them) and as nature has granted them the will to survive, they find a way around this low self esteem by artificially boosting it by self-deluding. Isn't this what elitists engage in?
 

You have made it very clear to me now, Will.  I understand....  We can begin therapy sessions on entertainment as early as next week (July 14th).  Please bring to the session material that is of entertainment value to you.  And also bring CDs of music that you do not like such as Britney Spears (they carry vomit-bags at most department stores or you can have a partner bring the CD so you don't have to touch it).

And do you think you can make me talk any more than my previous therapist?  

Thank You!  I really appreciate your kindness : )   You're very friendly.

This isn't about me or you, I have no reason to not bring the best out of you as a person.  

On a more serious note, this volcanic eruption over entertainment is, for lack of a better word, interesting.  This is why many pianists suffer from pyschological issues (hence the therapy on Wednesday).  It's what happens when you treat music as something that it is not.

You're welcome to my appointment on Tuesday evening at 19:00 and we'll be getting into the core of your obsession with entertainment that probably derives itself from sexual frustration and childhood incest.  



As a bottomline, I don't have much to add to this discussion at this point as it is not moving anywhere. In a nutshell, to me it seems you don't see the original idea of music that the entertaining part is extracted from by an individual, and you probably think that I only stubbornly refuse to admit that I only listen to music for pleasure?

[StoreBrand]

Music is music, dancing is dancing - I have already explained what dancing is, and when you realize what it is,

Will, you have not explained what dancing is.  The makeshift explanation that you gave does not hold up in my opinion.

it supports and is supported by the idea that music is greater than anything that humans make of it

This idea is completely incorrect and is just that -- an idea.

It is as simple as this: The man(kind) is not the centre of nature, but a mere product of natural evolution just like any other life form.

Man not being the centre of nature has absolutely nothing to do with music.  Not only is this separate topic your theory, it is subject to debate.

Time is an illusion.  
We can travel the chain of causalities endlessly to understand the past and predict the future. In more common terms its called history and historical(?)determinism. We know a lot of what the world was like before us, and unless we take the universe as product of our imagination, we know what it will be like after we're gone. It is still based on same fundamental laws of how particles act when they confront each other.

And you're going to explain what this has to do with music as well?  I don't see where you are making the connection.

Divertion, amusement, pleasure, enjoyment, relaxation. Etc.  Does not fit the idea of music

I have been trying to make sense of it but I can not understand how you are reaching these conclusions.

For me it is missing the point, it is about not facing what is real if it makes you feel any better. Like propagandha: It is not effective because it is so overwhelmingly convincing, but it primarily relies on how irresponsible people are - it is by far easier to believe in certain view than to think through it yourself.

Again, this doesn't have much to do with music.

Did you make a conscious move of saying about entertainment what alvaro said about music:  
"Music is what you make of it" - OK point, difficult to argue
"Entertainment is not music" - Doesn't fit your view
"Entertainment is what you make of it" - By redefining certain words we can push the "responsibility" onto the next word and turn the whole case around and go in circles.

Then we have this creative accusation of yours.  You don't seem to be aware that my statement was worded in direct response to what you have said and had nothing to do with alvaro (you said music is entertainment only if you make it).  But, in actuality, it's no secret that music is entertainment.  A child knows this.  The entertainment is what you make of it.

If you say that music is entertainment, I can say that it is entertainment because you take it as such. Do you see the difference? In my representation of music, entertainment is a possible direction for it. In your representation of music, music is entertainment which for me is only a possibility. I see it from your perspective, but you don't see it from mine, thus why you lack the view to go beyond the entertainmental characteristic of music.

You are trying way too hard to be logical with something that is not.  I hope this lone sentence can provide you with insight.

I am defending the true potential and value of music, not myself.

I would say that you are probably being honest with this statement but I feel that I am defending music from you and other people on this forum : (  

I engage in entertainment every day, consciously, to divert myself.

I guess you're also going to shun the definition again and say that whatever it is that you find engaging is entertainment only because you consciously made it?  You're even going so far as to suggest that you have conscious control over whether or not you find something entertaining.  It's comical.

If dancing is impossible without music, everything you do with your body is.

Now you seem to be finally coming around but please remove the 'If'!

If music involves everything, then everything is entertainment. Would you agree?

Yes, the musical aspect is entertainment.  Then, in general, entertainment itself (which could be music, a soap opera, videogame, Magic Flute opera, etc.) is whatever you make of it.  See you may not need therapy after all!  You're doing very good, Will.  

And do you think you can make me talk any more than my previous therapist?

Yes, my plan was to bring a heavy-weight jiu-jitsu friend to the session.  I was going to tie you to a chair then play Britney Spears music.  I'm sure you would have talked.

and you probably think that I only stubbornly refuse to admit that I only listen to music for pleasure?

This is not right.  I understand the power of music.  I'll see you for therapy next Wednesday.

As a bottomline, I don't have much to add to this discussion at this point as it is not moving anywhere.

I agree, these type of debates pointless!  Our views are shuffled around but probably similar (with a few exceptions).  However, your idea of entertainment should be destroyed.  It is terribly off the mark.

[willcowskitz]

You keep saying that I'm being illogical, although I see it as clearly in my head as possible and am representing it in descriptive use of words - you don't see the pattern but I can't help you with that (you didn't point out any flaws either).

This debate has become ultimately boring, communication no longer exists.

Let's have it our own way. (make it what you make it )

[StoreBrand]

You keep saying that I'm being illogical,

Even on closing what you have said appears to be incorrect, Willcowskitz.  You should have been able to see in my post that I have said just the opposite of this!  I guess you can say that I believe you are stuck using the wrong side of your brain to deal with this issue and, therefore, you are not making any sense to me.  In other words, you are being logical but with something that is not.

although I see it as clearly in my head as possible and am representing it in descriptive use of words - you don't see the pattern

You seem to believe that you have talked over my head.  I saw the pattern and I can also see what I perceive to be flaws or holes in your understanding of music (one example being your idea of what dancing is where it is dead obvious that you do not dance) and also your understanding of science.  Anyone could read your posts and see that you venture far into the unknown cosmos with your intergalactic arguments.  : )   Yet, with full confidence, you have presented these hypothetical views of yours into the thread as scientific fact.

If I were to ask you what a graviton is there is no point in folding up and saying that you can not put it on paper--you simply do not know. No one knows.  So you shouldn't be too quick to bring such cosmical studies into the world of music, in my opinion.  Bach probably thought that the world was flat and he likely (and rightfully) would have asked you "what on earth are you talking about?" if you spoke to him about your ideas of the universe and music.   You can't really believe that you can tell this to a composer or any jazz musician, etc. -- Where his music is coming from?  Or that the music forced itself into his or her brain from an odd spot somewhere in the universe?  This is going overboard.

Let's have it our own way. (make it what you make it )

It's always okay to make whatever you want of music!  This was never my concern.  Afterall, you're the one who erupted over the word entertainment which is a misunderstanding on your part.  All I ask is that you have a respect for any living creature (from a cute infant child to a pigeon to an old man lying on his deathbed) that takes the time to do something musical.  And to not let your psychological issues cloud your view of such a beautiful thing.

If you can make it even remotely close to that point, the foolish (and often jealous) insults on modern music will likely come to a stop.  But then in my opinion, many of the people in your school of thought are so idiotic (putting it nicely) that they insult, not just the musicians and their music, but even the people who enjoy the different genres.  If their views were not so insulting towards other people, I would actually feel sorry for these dull instrumental craftsmen.

[willcowskitz]

In other words, you are being logical but with something that is not.

It is irrational to claim that music is not logical, music is after all mathematics, and very directly tied to the World As It Is. The Universe ! (big, pompous, loud and low male maniac voice) has very definitive structure to it that can be examined as closely as we're able to, and this doesn't just apply to the "physical" world as some would say, but also to the "mental" (I feel like saying that they're the exact same thing but I don't want to defy anyone's fate in the 'higher realm', as I do not claim my theories to be facts as you implied) plane - everything is trivial, everything is logical; All we need is knowledge. My knowledge here can be summed up to be 1+1=2, that's everything I need in these abstract matters to derive the next result. That's my thinking process, it doesn't involve scientific in-detail knowledge as much as it does involve plain logics that is all based on the number one and it's multiples. When I say that music is not entertainment, I say it because that's where I ended up when I thought through what music is and what is it's relation to us people. Different sounds with different frequencies arranged to first align as symmetrically as possible (cavemen beating rocks together in rhythm), evolving into breaking more and more of it's limits into something that is anything but pleasant to ears due to it's dissonant melodies and lack of most obvious harmonic characteristics of more conservative music (I'm talking about postmodern "classical" such as Penderecki), like the classical period when symmetry was highly appreciated and driven for in everything - architecture, arts, music. This evolution of music (and arts in general - we do have the same postmodern pseudo-art in all areas)  is just another form of evolution; Life evolves, different species evolve, monkeys evolved into apes which evolved into humans, humans evolved from instinctively acting animals into (seemingly) complex social beings with their own prescriptions to what man can do and what he cannot, to form societies that would regulate these laws and keep larger packs of the same species together in order to survive. What about music then? Did people of the renaissance era all listen to music? I *assume* that music in the before-times was more like fine arts is nowadays; Not everyone was able to appreciate it. Not until rock music was invented (1956?) and music reached more people. Rock was pop for the younger generation, to be more precise: It was LIGHT music. Light music reaches everyone. Do you know one single person today who doesn't listen to music? Its pretty much a trend to state "Music is very important to me", it has become such a trivial part of everyone's lives because there exists easy music, something you can just catch a simple melody from and hum to it and memorize the repetitions after one listening. Some people (including me, you got that one right) neglect pop music because of it's light-headedness and shallowness. The music doesn't teach you or give you hints of God's presence. You see, the purpose of pop music is to entertain. Why? Because people want to be entertained (for reasons I have already discussed) and therefore entertainment is a gold mine for the capitalistic system. So, what is the difference between "light" and "heavy" (no not heavy metal)? It is the total opposite; It requires thought, attention, insight and the chess-like intelligence for the more complex music. You don't memorize it after the first listening, you don't understand it fully after the first listening, there is more content than surface (music over sound (complex or ingenious melodies and it's variations played on piano over simple melodies repeated over and over again from a synthetisizer)), you necessarily can't entertain yourself by dancing to it (har) and the music was burst to existence by the composers because they were unable to express the thoughts involved in any other way. Somebody wished that Beethoven's music could had been transformed into philosophical texts because it would had surpassed any current philosophers' writings in it's content. I know she's still a bad example, but how much philosophical thought do the Britney Spears' songs involve?

You seem to believe that you have talked over my head.  I saw the pattern and I can also see what I perceive to be flaws or holes in your understanding of music (one example being your idea of what dancing is where it is dead obvious that you do not dance) and also your understanding of science.

Bleh, I doubt I've talked over anyone's head. The thing is you wouldn't even want to understand what I say about Life, Universe and Music (tm). But, please discuss my flaws in detail, otherwise your paragraph serves no purpose other than to boost your confidence.

Anyone could read your posts and see that you venture far into the unknown cosmos with your intergalactic arguments.  : )

Or, maybe your real flaw is the inability or lack of will to see the relations between things that are seemingly far away from each other but are different manifestations of the same abstract rules when examined. You can't distinguish sciences from each other, there is no psychology without biology without chemistry without physics. All is one, or nothing would be logical. And all is logical.

  Yet, with full confidence, you have presented these hypothetical views of yours into the thread as scientific fact.

You are purposely misinterpreting me only to create contrast to my otherwise so pertinent statements of that music is mathematical descriptions of structure of the universe (there, I said it again, happy?), but which level of the structure that cannot be caged into just one definition or word, it is the mind over matter phenomenon; All understanding comes from within, not from outside. This said, music's scale is as wide as life itself, as life is the only measure for our minds to perceive because music is mental. This said, there exists as many levels of "science" that music describes as you can sip from the pool, and on the lowest level music is merely sounds, on the second it could be stimulation, and up you go the ladder until God glares you into your eyes. Music is this ladder, only climb as high as you can breathe. This is not science, this is metaphysics.

If I were to ask you what a graviton is there is no point in folding up and saying that you can not put it on paper--you simply do not know. No one knows.  So you shouldn't be too quick to bring such cosmical studies into the world of music, in my opinion.

What. Is. Your. Point?
I'll guess what a graviton is, theoretically (it's existance hasn't been proven, right?).  It is the (arguably) particle that transfers gravitational force between masses. Then there's another theory (or same? since light too has it's two characteristics) of gravity waves, which is purely hypothetical as well? So?
I am not bringing "cosmical studies" (that made me smile) into the discussion, I am only describing the world using metaphors and analogies to show that even though the tree has branches, the branches themselves can have their own branches. Do you understand? Good.

You can't really believe that you can tell this to a composer or any jazz musician, etc. -- Where his music is coming from?  Or that the music forced itself into his or her brain from an odd spot somewhere in the universe?  This is going overboard.

Its a free world (for now!)
I am not claiming myself the new sovereign ultimate source of confidential foolproof knowledge regarding the universe, but rather trying to explain what I have discovered just thinking. Also, don't say its going overboard, that is an insult to the metaphysical being of music.

It's always okay to make whatever you want of music!  This was never my concern.

Yes, it is. Even make it... entertainment, if you wish.

Afterall, you're the one who erupted over the word entertainment which is a misunderstanding on your part.

Bleh blah... If it only were that.

All I ask is that you have a respect for any living creature (from a cute infant child to a pigeon to an old man lying on his deathbed) that takes the time to do something musical.

Huh? Umm... I'm sorry for not respecting the poor infants!! Or are you just trying to make me the bad guy here?

And to not let your psychological issues cloud your view of such a beautiful thing.

I am so evil for disagreeing with you

If you can make it even remotely close to that point, the foolish (and often jealous) insults on modern music will likely come to a stop.

You're talking to me?
Please explain yourself:  Foolish, jealous insults on modern music? Oh you mean Britney Spears? Or modern music? - Well, I have nothing against modern music, wouldn't that be absurd? It would be same as saying "Music sucks!" when you've only heard Britney Spears (you know, I'm only still dragging her along to irritate you, sorry about that).

But then in my opinion, many of the people in your school of thought are so idiotic (putting it nicely) that they insult, not just the musicians and their music, but even the people who enjoy the different genres.

You're talking to me?
School of my thought?
Insult musicians and people who enjoy different genres?
Please study my previous posts, and explain yourself.

If their views were not so insulting towards other people, I would actually feel sorry for these dull instrumental craftsmen.

Pity is power to self, says Nietzsche.