"Music is the science of sounds; therefore sound is the principal subject of music." - from Rameau's Treatise on Harmony, Chapter One, first sentence.It is the opening premise on what this book is based on, and I instantly have a multitude (an unidentifiable, possibly infinite amount) of questions, objections, disagreements, agreements ... to the point where I can't think. How am I supposed to read the rest of this book, while I am stumped on the very first sentence and the premise which this book is based upon? This rattling around in my mind ... GRRRRRRRR
I don't doubt his contributions! And I believe I have a lot to gain from reading this book. But, I struggle (quite a bit) with non-holistic ideas, so much so that it's actually nearly impossible for me to gain anything from them if I cannot somehow bridge the information I am receiving into holistic concepts myself. It is very difficult for me to take in information, in a meaningful way, without considering almost everything else about existence and being (that I can) along with it. I am always aware that there is some kind of context from which the information I am being given is being presented, even if I don't know what that context actually is. I can't help but know that there were religious, philosophical, psychological, social, political, geographic, technological, educational (etc.) tendencies of the time, and that part of Rameau's own perspective was afloat amid a sea of what came before him regarding all of that, too, as well as whatever was occurring in his own lifetime. And then, I am a reader with my own set of influences. So, if I have "one" question, it's more like an infinite number of questions ... heaven forbid I have two questions! Because of all of this, it can take me a very long time (years) to fully digest information and turn out a pearl. I have very rarely been able to deal well with standard schooling because of this, and just having gained a post high school degree at all was an epic effort of keeping the blinders on and looking in a single direction. I'm guessing this is something that people who have always had access to correctly-fitted educational resources and support systems know pretty much nothing about
First, as a reader, your best approach might be just to try to absorb the book for what it is first and to wait until you've finished it (or read as much as you planned to read) before trying to assimilate it into a larger context and making a final evaluation of it.Perhaps what struck me the most in Rameau's writings was his theory of dissonance and his explanation of how it creates forward motion in music. I sometimes think of that when I hear that perpetual-motion, boundless energy effect in late Baroque music. In this Rameau, like other writers of his time, was probably influenced by the new Newtonian system and the associated idea that the universe itself is a kind of clockwork, constantly propelled forward by physical forces.It's not easy reading. My reading was in a graduate school course. I also used a few pages of it for an annotated translation (French to English) project.
Ok, I've started my peripheral journal, and here is the first (raw) entry on the tiniest tidbit of the first sentence:Rameau: Music is the science of sounds; (...therefore sound is the principal subject of music.)Me: "1. No. There exists music which is relative, and music which is absolute. Relative music, which is what we are referring to, is the organization of human observation of the world and humankind’s intention within context of it, represented in part through sound, all within the relative, human perception and belief of existence as occurring in time."This is going well ...
What the flying f*ck does your argument have to do with Rameau's proposition. What you're reading is about Rameau's treatise on harmony, so the relationship between sounds is basically what you'd expect from such a book. It's a book on musical phonology and syntax in which the hierarchy of tones and the composition of triads all originated from the overtone series and dominant, tonic relationships. What you're talking about, 'organization of human observation of the world and humankind’s intention within context of it', is completely irrelevant to the purely practical side of harmony. What you're referring to is more about musical semantics, i.e. the deeper meaning that arises from the composer's use of a specific sequence of chords, for the purpose of evoking an emotional or intellectual response within the listener.
Does not compute
What the flying f*ck does your argument have to do with Rameau's proposition. What you're reading is about Rameau's treatise on harmony, so the relationship between sounds is basically what you'd expect from such a book. It's a book on musical phonology and syntax in which the hierarchy of tones and the composition of triads all originated from the overtone series and dominant, tonic relationships. What you're talking about, 'organization of human observation of the world and humankind’s intention within context of it', is completely irrelevant to the purely practical side of harmony. What you're referring to is more about musical semantics, i.e. the deeper meaning that arises from the composer's use of a specific sequence of chords, for the purpose of evoking an emotional or intellectual response within the listener, which you could investigate further, perhaps by watching Leonard Bernstein's musicology lectures from Harvard.
... You seem incredibly ignorant. Have you watched Leonard Bernstein's lectures on phonology, syntax and semantics? perhaps that may open your eyes.
Do you think that, if formalized learning structures have no interest in helping somebody like me to learn, I ought to have interest in learning within formal learning structures?
Could you explain what you mean by 'absolute music' please?
I don't believe in emotions
No need to feel sorry for me, Alistair! I am not devoid of soul.
What are you talking about?
It is true though, it is not that I don't think there is an experience we have which we can lable emotion, it is that I believe the idea of human emotion is grander than it seems, and that, yes, the word emotion and its associated meaning is limiting.
I really am not trying to be rude, but I find that some of m1469's posts remind me of Alan Sokal's article in "Social Text". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
That was the reason, or 1 of them to leave this street. It is getting filled with junky talk by the minute.Join a forum on Lacan freaks. A master in inventing complicated things, and gets away with it.
I am struck to tears by the sincerity of this post. Seriously. I feel you probably swayed a bit when you typed it, and it really feels me with emoticons and now I simply must forsake all that is meaningful to me and to go about dumpeding my emoticons into some instrument. Any instrument. If only I could possibly know how to be a musical emoticon.
Finally, I got you feeling emotions, that's a fact, and facts can't speak, so you have no possibility to believe or disbelieve in them. A bit of logic, nice hé.So, yes, shed no tears. Take Lacan street to the right, at the end where the light shines, there it is where you must be.Sincerely...