music research paper

[koichi]

i'm currently going to do a mini music research paper, 1500 words. I need a good thesis, a good argument? Can anyone give me ideas on what topic i should work on?

This is one example : Should capital punishment be allowed? (something like that)

I need a topic that is not very wide, guess many of you know what i mean, not something like how does music affects us, as this is too wide a topic, i need ideas as fast as possible........thanks!

[goose]

Here's one, koichi:

"Why spend years learning how to play an instrument when the world is full of recorded music of every conceivable type?"

[bernhard]

Tip of the iceberg, but should get you started:

Is “good” music a completely subjective qualification (a piece is good if I lke it, a piece is amazingly good if everyone likes it), or are there objective criteria that tells us when a piece is good – even if we my not like it?

Is superior music always the result of “inspiration”, or is hard labour more important (or equally important?). Can superb piece of music be produced by purely hard labour – withi no inspiration at all? And what is inspiration anyway?

Can music elicit emotions in a direct way (maybe through its vibrations causing anyone to always respond in the same way), or is it simply a result of cultural conditioning (e.g. a minor chord is intrinsically sad, or is it perceived as sad simply because we are used – in our culture – to listen to music that is supposed to be sad always in minor keys)

Where does music exist? (Consider a CD: is the music in there? Or is it in the CD player? Or in both? Or think of an orchestra. Is the music in the score? On the instruments? On the players minds? Where does music go when it is not played?).

If all sentient beings are exterminated, but a CD player is left on, will music still exist even if there is no one to hear it?

What is the purpose of music?

Is music dead? Have we now did all possible permutations of pitches and rhythms, so that any “new music” is just a repeat of something someone did before, and the only reason we perceive it as new is because we co not remember (or do not know) all that has already been done?

Is classical music more or less popular now than in the past?

What are the differences between music played on CDs and live performances (from both the point of view of the public and the performer). Is public performance going to eventually disappear?

Does music really need to be performed for other people, or is it enough and perfectly satisfying to play just for oneself?

Should anyone be allowed to criticise music, or only people who can play the work should be allowed to criticise a performance of the same work.

Lang Lang or Yundi li?

What is the most difficult piano piece ever written, and what objective criterion should one use to decide this question?

Are you for or against capital punishment? And if you are against, does the existence of Maksim change your views? If so, why?

Now, start new threads with these questions and you might even get the forum members to write your essay for you (in fact there is already quite a bit of material on some of these questions)!

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[jas]

1500 words might not be enough, but what about something to do with the Mozart effect? There are all sorts of experiments you can refer to about that.
Or (one I'm interested in) the concepts of femininity and masculinity in music? Eg. Schubert as compared to Beethoven, Chopin as compared to Wagner, that sort of thing.

Jas

[pianowelsh]

Something like to pedal in Bach or not to pedal in Bach might be a good start. Keep it on one issue and break it into neat component parts and remeber to keep a consistent argument stating your own informed opinion. Keep referencing clear and tidy!

[pianonut]

i've found in writing that i'm best at personal stories.  if you pick a topic that you know about or have an incident that you can relate to your thesis/argument that proves or disproves what you are saying - you'll be able to write and write just off the top of your head.

otherwise - you'll need to go to the internet or library for research more.  (which is always helpful anyway).

how about something related to making decisions.  how you go about deciding something.  different ways people try this.  statistics, personal experience, reference from friends, reading magazines...what influences people the most in making (buying?) decisions?  go to the mall and document how many things you see in advertisement to get to to #1 go into the store  #2 figure how stores want you to buy as much as you can (ie sign up for credit card and you get 10 percent discount with this purchase)
#3 where the mall leads you as you walk around

i just went to the mall with my teenage son yesterday (so it's fresh on my mind).  i was immediately drawn to the massage chairs and got a good massage for one dollar.  considering the cost of many massages, i was tempted to buy the chair.  maybe pricing and what you get for the money.

then my son wanted to buy a watch (but even tho it looked cool) that he couldn't read the time on.  thankfully he didn't buy it just for the messages it had and extra features.

[pianonut]

since it has to be about music, how about selecting CD's.

ps there is a new machine (costs $15.) to create your own CD or DVD i think.  what would be the impact of this new copying feature?

[Brian Healey]

This is one example : Should capital punishment be allowed? (something like that)

What does that have to do with music?

For 1500 words, try a cursory overview about the differences between musical periods. Centuries of very different sounding music are often grouped into the vague genre of "classical" or "serious" music. Explain briefly about the baroque period vs. classical, classical vs. romantic, romantic vs. impressionist, impressionist vs. minimalist, etc. 1500 words isn't enough to go in depth obviously, but you could certainly make a point.

Or, maybe a short history of the sonata. Explain its form, and the various ways it has been used by different composers.


Heck yes,
Bri

[koichi]

thanks for all the topics.
i'm considering :Does music really need to be performed for other people, or is it enough and perfectly satisfying to play just for oneself?
But can anyone shorten this into a shorter topic? this seems rather long.

I have one in mind: Does music really have colours or they are simply sounds? (this one seems rather difficult to work on, need opinions on this)

[koichi]

Brian suggest about sonata, but i prefer to write about fugues, any topics about fugue? bach's fugue?

[pianonut]

how about how the form of the fugue has been adapted into/with other forms instead of always standing alone.  didn't chopin write one? i could imagine that his is not 'just' a fugue. i think i listened to it (partially) once, but have to hear it again.  you could look up some journal articles on various contemporary composers, too, and their view of the fugue (standing alone, using it, not using it)  schoenberg probably did some kind of 12 tone thing with it.

[dinosaurtales]

Tip of the iceberg, but should get you started:

Are you for or against capital punishment? And if you are against, does the existence of Maksim change your views? If so, why?

ROTFLMAO!  Thanks Bernhard!

[koichi]

will this be a good one?
steinway and sons: the perfect piano?

[bernhard]

how about how the form of the fugue has been adapted into/with other forms instead of always standing alone.  didn't chopin write one? i could imagine that his is not 'just' a fugue.

Actually , it is just a fugue, with subject, answer, countersubject andso on. Very much in Bach's style. It is quite a shock to hear it: if no one told you you would never guess it was by Chopin. 

[pianonut]

i'll have to go listen.  we just listened to some counterpoint in mozart's K467 concerto (1st mov't).  it's interesting that he used it in some of the transition to development.  an unusual place to start a fugal idea.  just wondering how some composers integrate forms together. (chopin's polonaise-fantasy, etc.)

[m19834]

Tip of the iceberg, but should get you started:

Is “good” music a completely subjective qualification (a piece is good if I lke it, a piece is amazingly good if everyone likes it), or are there objective criteria that tells us when a piece is good – even if we my not like it?

I think that like anything in life, "good" and "bad" are perceptions of a seemingly veiled reality.  Yes, there is a percievable distortion between reality and percieved reality, but as it turns out, the distortion itself is actually not what it seems and is actually itself also distorted (so perhaps there is no distortion afterall ). 

These words from Shakespeare come to mind :  "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

This is not to imply that I believe every human action has equal value, per se.  I do think though that what we perceive as our own perceptions, what human thought in essence seems to be, is seemingly distorted from what is actually right before us.  But, some people do not know there is a distortion, and then, some people do not know the distortion itself is distorted.

I think that music reflects human perception of what is right before us.  So, depending on the perception of both the listener, the composer, the performer ... there is some kind of subjectivity yes, but that is not all there is to music.  However, "good" or "bad" may indeed depend on one's grasp on their perceptions  . 

Is superior music always the result of “inspiration”, or is hard labour more important (or equally important?). Can superb piece of music be produced by purely hard labour – withi no inspiration at all? And what is inspiration anyway?

I think that both inspiration and hard labor are, in essence, perceptions of our human existence and purpose.  In short though, I think that every labor must have its proper inspiration, and every inspiration must have its rightful labor.  The results of those elements will be percieved in various ways, though the essence of the expression is imprinted within the eternal.  Ultimately, I think that "inspiration" is a perception of that which animates.  Similar to a sound wave passing through a medium being percieved as music.

Can music elicit emotions in a direct way (maybe through its vibrations causing anyone to always respond in the same way), or is it simply a result of cultural conditioning (e.g. a minor chord is intrinsically sad, or is it perceived as sad simply because we are used – in our culture – to listen to music that is supposed to be sad always in minor keys)

I think that our experience with music, what we percieve it as "eliciting" within us, is directly dependent on what our receptivity to the experience is.  We percieve the experience that we are ready to experience, and that may indeed depend on many factors of the human enigma.

Where does music exist? (Consider a CD: is the music in there? Or is it in the CD player? Or in both? Or think of an orchestra. Is the music in the score? On the instruments? On the players minds? Where does music go when it is not played?).

I don't know for sure, but so far I believe it to be an interaction of some sort, though the depth of that interaction seems infinite.  Music is, I think, an emmination from some source that is nearly indistinct to human perception.  Sound waves exude themselves in a spherical fashion from their source, inhabiting both time and space.  Whatever those pass through and interact with, sound or music can be percieved.  But, with a singer for example, or even just in speaking, where does that wave actually originate ?  It is, in essence, as though it already exists and passes through the body, projecting itself into the universe and then interacting with mediums as it pushes the air.  Perhaps music is in Soul ?  And, whatever expresses Soul, in essence expresses music.  In some sense, to me, music is everywhere and in everything.

If all sentient beings are exterminated, but a CD player is left on, will music still exist even if there is no one to hear it?

If Soul is present, there is music.

What is the purpose of music?

I think "purpose" in general is something that is percieved as subjective, no matter what we are talking about.  In some respects it is something like a river, perhaps, that can be used for various things.  But, what is the purpose of a river ?  You could say it is to carry water to the ocean (though human interaction with the river will mean there are different purposes), but is that really a "purpose" ?  It just seems like that is what it does.  I think music is similar.  It is just some kind of fact of existence and our perception of it will be that we can give it various purposes and uses.  Either way, I think we are only barely tapping into what is there.

Is music dead? Have we now did all possible permutations of pitches and rhythms, so that any “new music” is just a repeat of something someone did before, and the only reason we perceive it as new is because we co not remember (or do not know) all that has already been done?

No and perhaps yes, too .  Maybe in some form we are just repeating everything that has already been done, but I can't imagine we are percieving all there is to be perceived.  Even humanly speaking, we are only able to percieve so many frequencies (for example, we cannot hear a dog whislte, but a dog can).  So, what happens if we evolve to where we are percieving something that is currently seemingly-impercievable ?  Other than that, I believe Soul is infinite.

Is classical music more or less popular now than in the past?

I don't know, and in some respects don't care.

What are the differences between music played on CDs and live performances (from both the point of view of the public and the performer). Is public performance going to eventually disappear?

Well, my first reaction is that the main difference being that in live performance, the music is subject to the moment at hand.  CD's are something like preserving a moment in a bottle, however, the listener's experience is still somewhat subject to the moment at hand.  I think though, it very much all depends on the individuals in both cases of the performer as well as the audience.  Will public performance eventually disappear ?  No.  However, it will most likely change forms.

Does music really need to be performed for other people, or is it enough and perfectly satisfying to play just for oneself?

It depends entirely on the individual, I think.

Should anyone be allowed to criticise music, or only people who can play the work should be allowed to criticise a performance of the same work.

Well, whether anybody should or should not be "allowed" is perhaps one thing.  What matters more, I think, is how an individual responds to the criticism.

Lang Lang or Yundi li?

If I knew them, I could perhaps answer that.

What is the most difficult piano piece ever written, and what objective criterion should one use to decide this question?

I think that the only objective criterion there is to decide that is that it will be completely subjective.

Are you for or against capital punishment? And if you are against, does the existence of Maksim change your views? If so, why?

Intellectually, I don't know.  In my heart, I don't feel it really matters what I think yet.



Thanks for asking ,
Karli