Where does objectivity exist in music?

[Derek]

Do you believe that the 12 intervals all have the same character or sound to every individual? I.e. from individual to individual, a major third sounds the same? I think this is perhaps the only area where we can truly find objectivity in music. If you could get inside the head of any individual, a major third will sound the same to you. Your REACTION may be different,  though I am inclined to believe that even in reaction to music there is a certain universality. Very loosely defined, of course, but I don't think one could find an individual who listens to Schoenburg and becomes intensely happy and relaxed, and another individual who listens to Ave Maria and feels like killing.  (speaking of non serial killers here)

[musik_man]

I believe that music has an objective aspect to it.  How dissonant an interval has to do with the ratio of frequencies between the two notes that make it up.  A unison is a 1:1 ratio and is therefore the only perfectly consonant combination.  An octave is next with a ratio of 2:1.  A fifth is 3:2.  As the ratio between the two frequencies gets more complex, the interval sounds more unpleasant.  People may differ on how much dissonance they enjoy, but I think that everyone is capable of hearing dissonances in the same way.  I think this fact is why 12-tone music never became popular within the classical community.

[Siberian Husky]

Where does objectivity in  ANYTHING exist?..because it truly is?..or beacuse we say it is?..this conversation will only stand ground on the philosophical concept of dualism..or truly diescting "reality"..and from my understanding on the matter...the age old cliche stands firmy.."reality is what you make it"...we would be rediculous to discuss such topics of absolute objectivity among only personhood..and human beings..because as objective as we may be..we arent the only beings that interact with this world and its stimuli..thus we cannot stay fixated on the notion of only human perception..because we're going to run ourselves into yet another subjective wall....another question that wont be answered buddy...


Me and Bernhard are gangsters

[Daevren]

Music has a lot of objectivity for an artform. This is because music is based on the physics of sound.

But objectivity itself is rather tricky. Eveny human knows music should end with a I chord.

[pianonut]

i think objectivity exists on paper, but ceases to exist in the same way for everyone when it is interpreted.  i personally wouldn't like someone to tell me "that was an objective performance."  but, i do like to think that i think objectively about music.  perhaps that doesn't make sense.

prefer to be complimented on imagination.

[ted]

In the sense that a musical stimulus X can be found which will always produce response Y in any person wherever and whenever it occurs ? No, I do not think so. In the sense that, at a particular time and place in human history, for a large number of people, musical stimuli exist which will likely produce similar responses ? Obviously yes.

[asyncopated]

Last night, I was practising a Beethonvan sonata and am getting quite good at it.  I can now almost play up to speed fluently with good control in dynamics.  Going through the piece, I was completely engrossed in the music.  It sounded fantastic.  I was cresendo-ing into the climax...

and i heared, from two rooms away, my mum screaming, "STOP MAKING ALL THAT RACKET!"

Yes, there is objectivity in music.

al.

[ted]

asyncopated:

Delightful ! I know all about that. When I was in my teens I was playing the Rubinstein study in C. (The language might be censored but I'll post it anyway. ) My father suddenly appeared in the doorway and said, "sh*t, could you play any bloody louder ? Can't you play a bit of bloody ragtime for a change ?"

Yes, your anecdote certainly cuts through our pretension doesn't it !

[Bob]

I think you can argue about anything, so then nothing's objective.

For intervals, I think everything can "color" the sound -- the interval, its voicing, its position in a chord, the chord its in, the tonal center, the pitches themselves (the letter name, frequency I mean)...

And it depends on how a piece is performed.  If the perform plays one note a little louder of softer, that would affect the balance.

And then it depends on what the listener hears -- what they can hear depending on where they're seated...  then how they listen and what they focus on, how much energy they have, all that... 

... so if a performer came in and played very lyrically that would affect the way the listener hears it. 

Lots of stuff.... very complex  and simple at the same time.

Taste is always going to be subjective.  And whether something is "good" or "bad"... what someone likes or dislikes, what the community says about things, and what people take into account to determine those things.... all subjective and changing.

If you're talking about something specific, then it's possible to be more objective.  An interval on paper would have much less room for argument.  An interval in sound could be heard many ways. 

[Siberian Husky]

guys..what about John Cage?..the objectivity in intervals..and math through pitch frequencies and rythems dont apply...

coming from me: one's sense of objectivity is meerly a by product of a collection of subjectivities that are more universally embraced therefore more solid in structure..

to me..the only thing absolute in Music..is TIME...and frames of time..this is the only thing i comfortably feel safe stating is objective in music..in ANYTHING...philosophy makes me get to the nitty gritty...

[Daevren]

Just do a test. Following theory write two parts of music (and maybe a control group part).

The music only needs to be about 1 minute. The first ends in the most perfect way, V-I and then a confermation using dynamics. The second piece ends on a V chord and in a decresendo. Then have the test persons judge if the music has a proper ending or not.

If you know anything about music then you will intutively know that the result is predictable. The question is, does this come from the familarity the people alreadt have with music or is it already in the brain. I am sure research like this is done already.

guys..what about John Cage?..the objectivity in intervals..and math through pitch frequencies and rythems dont apply..

John Cage kind of proves that it is true. By breaking all the rules not much music is left. I am not sure which pieces of Cage you refer to, but some definetely aren't music.

[Derek]

I know most of you agree with me on this but:

John Cage is not a composer, he is a creative sound technician.

Words mean things. Music means: sound created by humans for humans for the purpose of entertainment, spiritual fulfillment etc. A composer is someone who devises ways to make this sound (usually through sheet music).

"sound effects" are words that already exist in language. Why call something that is clearly "sound effects" and not "music,"  "music?"  I don't see the point.

John Cage is a sound technician. He should be hired by B picture film companies as their sound engineer.