Was music an offshoot of language? Or language that of music? It's always been intriguing to me, how the two seem adjacent and attached to each other in some weird way. Would you be able to imagine your life without music? There are some places in the world that condemn music, but ordinary people still practice it. What are your thoughts, would we have gotten far with, or without it? A lot of older people tend too, of course, dislike musicians. Could you guys imagine yourself without music?
Music is a language. Learning to read music activates the same parts of your brain as learning a new language. I would consider it a language of music, using your words. I listen to music every day and probably would have went crazy without it. Music has the spiritual power to draw out your emotions, inspire creativity, hone your focus, unify you with others. There is something transcendental about it. Luv moosic.
>>12 How'd you start out with learning music? I wanted to try to read sheet music too, just never got around to it.
>>13 I learned in my highschool choir class, although I don't entirely remember nowadays. I'm sure there are tons of resources online, but I don't know of any off the top of my head to recommend you. You'll have to go search them out yourself.
I think music and language are completely different things. The purpose of a language is to transfer information, the purpose of music is to express your emotions. I don't completely disagree with what the other anon is saying, I just think he's talking about a specific subset of music, the one with rules, as defined by music theory. But I don't think music should have rules, art doesn't have rules. Music is just noise, you can do whatever you want. Here, have some noise
>>28 Has the golden ratio ever been applied to music?
>>28 Art doesn't have rules and because of this contemporary art has become worthless. The idea of art not having rules is romantic but in reality it should still have standards.
>>30 >worthless I disagree, they're great for money laundering mutual financial aid between my friends ! The black square is the most beautiful painting ever
>>30 What could you possibly achieve by making art have standards? That goes completely against what art is. Standards are for things that have to be reliable and understood internationally. Art doesn't need that, because people don't "need" art. It's the one fucking thing that's not controlled or limited and you want it to have rules. >art not having rules is romantic, but in reality Yes, exactly, it is romantic, and there is no "reality", it's fucking art, man.
>>28 You fail to recognize that music theory (and any scientific theory,) are not rules set in stone for others to follow. Rather, it is abstractions which develop from the practise of the subject. Expressing emotions is very much a way of conveying certain information, namely, one's feelings. >>43 Art is culturally important. It is also heavily censored and controlled world-wide, as it serves a great tool for propaganda and is tied to certain cultures.
>>43 >art doesn't need standards! >anywway, here's my magnum opus, "Brown Shit Streak on White Background", starting bid is 750,00$. >meaning? talent? what's that? it's art because.... it just is okay! so tiring
>>44 >Rather, it is abstractions which develop from the practice of the subject Yeah, that sounds a lot better than how I was describing it. Though I still view music theory as "do it like this if you want your music to be popular", which is useless in my eyes. >[art] is also heavily censored and controlled world-wide, as it serves a great tool for propaganda and is tied to certain cultures. Now we're getting political, and it's revolting. That's the consequence of music, not music in its essence. >>45 I hope you realize I never mentioned anything about money. That is tiring, yes.
>>47 >I hope you realize I never mentioned anything about money. That is tiring, yes. The point was less about money, and more about the fact that art has degraded to such a point where "fine art" is less about actually having skill and more about sniffing your own farts over the """deep""" meaning your """artwork""" has.
>>28 >The purpose of a language is to transfer information, the purpose of music is to express your emotions. One's emotions can be very important information, and languages provide various tools to communicate them (some more than others). No wonder why poetry and literature exist. Music has also been used for the purpose of sharing information effectively, through stuff like mnemonics, rhymes, jingles... Even the Illiad had a rhythm to it, so poets/singers/bards could have an easier time remembering the entirety of it, since it's so long. Having said that, both music and human languages can be used for both transferring information and expressing emotions. They are just different ways of doing the same thing. >Music is just noise Music is not just about the sound, but I'm sure you know that. It would be a pointless exercise to try and define what else it is about anyway. >>48 I think people are able to appreciate both Romantic (as in Romanticism) paintings and more abstract art that challenge what "art" means. Refining the existing wisdom, and challenging the existing wisdom are both equally important for said wisdom. And yes, unfortunately for you, art not having rules or standards also means that there will be art you don't like. Too bad, such is the consequence of freedom. >art has degraded to such a point where "fine art" is less about actually having skill and more about sniffing your own farts over the """deep""" meaning your """artwork""" has. Maybe, just maybe, artists are trying novel ways to express emotions they have always tried to express. Emotions that artists have been expressing since art has been conceived. Because mind you, art was never only about how it looks; The beautiful paintings from the 1800s and early 1900s (I'm assuming) you like so much have as much emotion put into them as the newer stuff you see nowadays, or have been seeing since the 40s, 50s and 60s. So-called "deep meaning" has always been a part of art, it's just that nowadays people have tried to bring that "deep meaning" forward more, without worrying so much about how it will look. Which is also art.
Name:
>>49 Forgot to answer the OP >>10 >Was music an offshoot of language? Or language that of music? I have read somewhere that, as far as human evolution goes, music came before language, so at the very least language was an offshoot of music. But I think it's also possible that language merely used certain aspects of music, but developed separately from it. Or maybe that's just what an offshoot is. idk >There are some places in the world that condemn music, but ordinary people still practice it. Anyone that is powerful and brazen enough will attempt to control and restrict communication. Music is a tool for communication, but not many people consider it one, so it's easier to restrict its use without people being bothered by it. Restricting language directly a la 1984 would be too obvious, and people would revolt too quickly. >Would you be able to imagine your life without music? Absolutely not lol
>>49 I can understand that not all art is to my taste. Notice I never glazed any specific period or style of art. I don't need to enjoy all art. But a prime example of my point is this: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) This is literally a toilet. A toilet, made in a factory. Not custom made or sculpted, a standard urnial for its time. Lauded as some grand piece of artwork because of the """""deep""""" meaning it has. You can justify ANYTHING as being art as long as you BS some kind of message about it. I could take a literal turd, smear it on the wall like a coked up chimpanzee, and as long as I make up some crap (get it) "meaning" about it, supposedly this puts it on the same level as the great artwork of the past. >Such is the consequence of freedom If my point above is the logical conclusion of your statement then art is better off with less freedom. I stand by that. Art is equal parts aesthetics and meaning, interwoven together into a transcendental form. Art without meaning is vapid (corporate art for example) but art without aesthetics is a disgrace.
>>51 >Lauded as some grand piece of artwork because of the """""deep""""" meaning it has. I think this quote here from the wikipedia page you linked is important: >Whether Mr Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object. That is, maybe the whole point of Fountain, whether you consider it art or not, is to start a conversation about what "art" is. Because no one knows exactly what it is. Or should I say, everyone knows, but each person defines it differently. So to start, can a standard, factory-made urinal be art? Maybe not, right? So what if I instead rotated it 90 degrees and gave it a new name, "Fountain", created "a new thought" for it, signed it under my name, and put it on a pedestal. Now what? Is it still a urinal, or has it become "Fountain"? Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't, but to answer that, first tell me what you're pissed about: The object itself, or the people who think it has indeed become "Fountain"? If you're pissed at the object itself, then unless you categorically hate urinals, even ones you haven't even used, this object has ceased being one, and became "Fountain", whatever that is. If you're pissed at people who consider it "Fountain", then I guess you just disagree with their interpretation of it. My interpretation is, whether this object became art or not after this transformation is irrelevant. What is relevant is what it isn't, which is a urinal. That's the so-called "deep meaning" behind it. It's a conversation about art, but also about language and definitions. Whether you find that kinda thing interesting or not is up to you >I could take a literal turd, smear it on the wall like a coked up chimpanzee, and as long as I make up some crap (get it) "meaning" about it, supposedly this puts it on the same level as the great artwork of the past. Cool, then do it! Let's see what kind of art you can create with a wall and your shit! >Art without meaning is vapid (corporate art for example) but art without aesthetics is a disgrace. You know what, I respect that fully. From Duchamp's wikipedia page: >By the time of World War I, he had rejected the work of many of his fellow artists (such as Henri Matisse) as "retinal," intended only to please the eye. Instead, he wanted to use art to serve the mind. So yeah, maybe Fountain is in fact a disgrace, because it wasn't made to please the eyes, ears, or any part of your body. It wasn't meant to please the audience, but to make the audience think, to start a conversation among the audience. Avant-garde stuff is weird like that. If that's not art by your definition, so be it. Like I said, whether Fountain became art or not is irrelevant. The point is that it is, at the very least, not a urinal.