What is the purpose of music (today)?

Viola wrote:

Music is not a pastime, an
estape. Music that "entertains" is bad music.

i wouldn't want to be sarcastic like micamahler, but perhaps it would be useful to better understand at least what is meant by boredom. Lucretius already spoke of it in De rerum natura (if you have a little time, it is always a good read anyway), many others have treated it since, not least a certain Heidegger. In short, boredom is a fundamental state of mind; it is not simply an emotion felt by a loafer.

If you think about it carefully, it is a (metaphysical) concept that finds its counterpart in the (physical) concept of the survival instinct.

Boredom is a driving force that pushes from the void toward action and creation.

To then say that something that "entertains" is bad... could be almost frightening

Viola wrote:

Music is not a pastime, an
escapism. Music that “diverts” is bad music.

Bianca wrote:

i wouldn't want to be sarcastic like micamahler, but perhaps it would be useful to better understand at least what is meant by boredom. Lucretius already spoke of it in De rerum natura (if you have a little time, it is always a good read anyway), many others have treated it since, not least a certain Heidegger. In short, boredom is a fundamental state of mind; it is not simply an emotion felt by a loafer.

If you think about it carefully, it is a (metaphysical) concept that finds its counterpart in the (physical) concept of the survival instinct.

Boredom is a driving force that pushes from emptiness toward action and creation.

To say then that something that “diverts” is bad... could be almost frightening

What is boredom?

What is fun?

What is good and bad music?

Dear friends, beyond the scientific and philosophical treatises that, without a shadow of a doubt, it would always be better not to forget, I think that everything is absolutely and above all very linked to what is individual - our own - subjectivity.

It follows that what is boredom for me, what is fun for me, what is good music for me, is absolutely not the same for my neighbor, whether more or less near or far.

Last night I was in Imola where I attended and listened to a concert by the Philharmonic orchestra of the Comune di Bologna with Giorgio Zagnoni on solo flute. The music was by Vivaldi and, I can say, that the atmosphere perceived, both among us in the audience and among the performers, was one of maximum enjoyment.

However, I am absolutely certain that that enjoyment was a prerogative of people who share that type of music and that type of environment.

In other words, it would not have been so - but would have been boredom or intolerance - for someone who finds enjoyment listening to a completely different kind of music. But the argument would be exactly the same in reverse.

Music is fun to the extent that it is everything we would want and desire to listen to in our personal subjectivity. The pleasure, the delight, the enjoyment that I feel listening to this type of music is equal - or at least similar - to the same that every other person feels listening to other music or other musical genres.

But even in the erroneous hypothesis - at least I consider it such - that one wanted to impose - any imposition is always wrong - a concept of supremacy in music, it is good to keep in mind that even among listeners - and also among the "insiders" themselves or those whom Adorno puts in his first category and about whom there would be much to discuss - regarding ancient-classical-contemporary art music, delight, preferences, pleasure, and enjoyment are far from being unanimous and equal toward genres, eras, and composers that - here too erroneously - one insists on trying to keep united under a single roof.

Viola wrote:

Music that "entertains" is bad music.

The most difficult thing is to give a "value" to music. Our friend Schumann leaves it up to taste

You must not spread bad compositions in any way,

in fact, you must contribute with all your strength to keep them

out of circulation.

You must not play bad compositions at all, and

nor listen to them, unless you are forced to do so.

But bad according to which parameters?

Can the adjective "bad" be assimilated to "ugly"? I don't know, ugly seems more like taste to me, bad more like an evaluation - hypothetically - objective. And the parameters?

The only thing that can be done is to evaluate the way a piece is written or constructed, the degree of refinement (in this case aware that the absence of refinement is not necessarily a flaw), the level of interest it can arouse, etc.

... and about "entertaining"? In short, many have written opera buffa. More or less well-constructed, more or less refined, etc. But these are works that have ridden through centuries.

Viola seemed more convincing to me when she said:

Viola wrote:

To create an indissoluble bond with another being.

It intrigued me a lot. Are the two beings the listener and the composer who come into contact through THAT piece of music, or two listeners who become indissolubly "linked" by listening to the SAME piece?

Ah, in this chain does the performer have a role? So it is almost always a three-way thing?

Bianca wrote:

Boredom is a propulsive force that pushes from the void toward
action and creation.

Dear Bianca, if well managed, no human force is more creative than anger. How can we channel it?

Boredom is, as with anger, the result of a certain condition. If these and other conditions do not occur, what is the engine?

Piccinesco wrote:

Requirement I find to be the most appropriate term for someone, but certainly not for everyone.

I won't argue about terminology, but man relates to others only out of need. Need has so many faces, nuances, and forms. A "noun" of need that I like is "requirement" ... the rest does not depend on me or you, but on human nature, which is made in a certain way.

fabio73 wrote:

Yesterday, 22:43

When I listened to the first musical pieces as a child, I was captivated by them and that music was somehow inside me. Growing up, I felt that this music, composed in who knows what time and by who knows what composer, knew me better than I knew myself while speaking of me at the same time. For me, playing is reclaiming an essence that is in what is heard. Playing that piece means, in some way, reclaiming something that has always been ours, finally communicating it with our own spirit.

Music says something and serves to express and declaim. It is an uninterrupted flow that communicates and moves, shakes and unsettles.

At the moment, music is still greater than me, and often overwhelmed by it, I cannot contain all this beauty.

Nothing to say except that music is also composed today, so apart from your direct experience, in some way the discussion should (in my opinion) also include this aspect. Especially since we are talking about 'today'; in a broad sense, but a thought for those poor souls who still decide to put 2 notes in a row on paper should be spent.

micamahler wrote:

In general, it seems to me that one is wandering elsewhere

I am not certain. Reading carefully between the lines: work, self-fulfillment, leisure, babysitting, sharing, etc.

fabio73 wrote:

Yesterday, 22:43

When I listened to the first musical pieces as a child, I was captivated by them, and that music was somehow inside me.

Growing up, I felt that this music, composed in who knows what time and by who knows what composer, knew me better than I knew myself, speaking of me at the same time. For me, playing is reclaiming an essence that is within what one listens to. Playing that piece means somehow reclaiming something that has always been ours, finally communicating it with our very own spirit.

Music says something and serves to express and declaim. It is an uninterrupted flow that communicates and moves, shakes and unsettles.

At the moment, music is still greater than me, and often overwhelmed by it, I cannot contain all this beauty.

This "confession" went straight to my heart.

"At the moment, music is still greater than me".

I share your feeling. Music is of an essence superior to life and, understandably, to death.

"and often overwhelmed by it, I cannot contain all this beauty"

Music as supreme beauty, infinite beauty.

The very essence of music is "the actual infinite, a nonsense for philosophy".

In my opinion, it is useless to resort to philosophy to describe Music. (Bianca)

To Daniele and Frank, whom I thank, I will respond at nightfall.

http://www.teche.rai.it/2015/07/luciano-berio-intervista-goffredo-petrassi/

Frank wrote:

Dear Bianca, if well governed, no human force is more creative than anger. How can we manage it?

Boredom is, as with anger, the fruit of a certain condition. If these and other conditions do not occur, what is the driving force?

Frank, what the aforementioned gentlemen mean is precisely that boredom is one of the "fundamental" conditions of existence. There are others, but anger is not among them. We may agree or disagree, and I personally only partially do. However, what they are explaining is not as banal as the meaning common sense gives to boredom, and in my opinion, it would be worth exploring further (perhaps not here, but each for themselves). Existential boredom is not a state one finds oneself in because one doesn't know what to do, but it is an original condition, just like anguish, which is the fear of something indeterminate.

I chose, among many, this response to the question "what is the use of music today" because it is one of the few grounded answers that can be given to such a general question. Any objections that may be made are based only on possible misunderstandings one might have regarding the philosophical concept of the term boredom.

Certainly, this does not mean that if you ask me: why did you write that particular music? I will answer: "dunno? I was bored, we didn't know what to do..."

Viola wrote:

In my opinion, it is useless to resort to philosophy to describe Music. (Bianca)

>If these and other conditions do not occur, what is the driving force?

but, to answer a question like this, what should you resort to, excuse me?

Anyway, for the sake of precision, no one here is trying to "describe" music, for which you would have to resort anyway to a metalanguage (relative to the music itself) or present the totality of possible music.

Bianca wrote:

but, to answer a question like this, what would you resort to, excuse me?

You are right Bianca. :-)

Frank wrote:

The hardest thing is to give a "value" to music. Our friend Schumann leaves it up to taste.

You must not spread bad compositions in any way;

in fact, you must contribute with all your strength to keep them

out of circulation.

You must not play bad compositions at all, and

nor listen to them, unless you are forced to do so.

But bad according to which parameters?

Can the adjective "bad" [cattiva] be assimilated to "ugly" [brutta]? I don't know; ugly seems more like taste to me, bad more like an evaluation—hypothetically—objective. And the parameters?

The only thing that can be done is to evaluate the way a piece is written or constructed, the degree of refinement (in this case, aware that the absence of refinement is not necessarily a flaw), the level of interest it can arouse, etc.

... and about "entertaining"? In short, many have written opera buffa. More or less well-constructed, more or less refined, etc. But these are works that have ridden through centuries.

I found the Viola more convincing, who said:

It has made me very curious. Are the two beings the listener and the composer who come into contact via THAT piece of music, or two listeners who become inseparably "linked" by listening to the SAME piece?

Ah, in this chain does the performer have a role? So it is almost always a three-way thing?

Between TWO listeners. The perfect number is two. :-)

---

---

"What is not heartbreaking is superfluous, at least in music."

(Emil Cioran)

---

Forgive the brevity of the answers.

The heat is dulling my mind.

Much like "bad" music. ;-)

Frank wrote:

1+1=2

But 1+1 doesn't always equal 2 ...

Open content (youtube)

RedScharlach wrote:

But 1+1 doesn't always equal 2 ...

"1 + 1 = 1"

immediately brought to mind a wonderful maxim by Meister Eckhart:

That one which I mean is ineffable. It unites one with one, shining pure in the pure.

(thank you)

Open content (youtube)

RedScharlach wrote:

But 1+1 doesn't always equal 2 ...

Ideas regarding the meaning of the title given by Billone?

Viola wrote:

"1 + 1 =1"

immediately brought to mind a wonderful maxim by Meister Eckhart:

That one which I intend is ineffable. It unites one with one, shining pure in the pure.

(thank you)

In fact Frank, in his response to Thallo wrote:

"everyone has the right to choose their own "2", the result of their reflections"

Infinity+Infinity=Infinity"}{

jack wrote:

In fact, Frank, in his response to Thallo wrote:

"everyone has the right to choose their "2", result of reflections"

Infinity+Infinity=Infinity

This thing is curious. And it's the second time that, in response to one of my posts, Mr. Thallo is brought into it. At this point, I cannot help but view the profile of His Eminence (on vacation in Sicily).

---

I would like to bring to your attention this passage taken from The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler (page 258):

"Every art is mortal - not only are individual works mortal, but the arts themselves are as well. One day Rembrandt's last painting and Mozart's last note will have ceased to exist even if, perhaps, a painted canvas and a musical score still exist: because the last eye and the last ear that could grasp the language of their forms will have disappeared. [...] Every thought is fleeting, every faith, every science is fleeting, when the minds in whose worlds their "eternal truths" had necessarily been heard as such are extinguished."

Viola wrote:

"Every art is mortal - not only are individual works mortal, but the arts themselves are as well. One day Rembrandt's last painting and Mozart's last note will have ceased to exist even if, perhaps, a painted canvas and a musical score still subsist: because the last eye and the last ear that could grasp the language of their forms will have disappeared. [...] Every thought is fleeting, every faith, every science is fleeting, when the minds in whose worlds their "eternal truths" had necessarily been heard as such are extinguished."

Obviously I cannot have the slightest idea of what a potential human from 3150 will think, say and, above all, in which faith they will believe or not believe, and, granted and not granted, that there will be a human from 3150.

I would say instead that I am certain that art, like science, will die only when the last human being disappears from the face of the earth.

Science and art are as necessary to man as air and water, and this has always been so since his dawn. That is, from the moment his mind matured thought. Art and thought are the result of a continuous evolution that accompanies human evolution in its entirety.

Perhaps the human of 3150 will no longer stop to admire the Sistine Chapel and listen to the notes of Bach/Beethoven and read Dante's "Divine Comedy." Certainly, the science of 3150 will have completely surpassed many of our current knowledge and convictions, but it is indubitable that the science and art of 3150, whatever they may be, will always sink their roots - as it was, is, and will be - in the dawn of humanity.

Frank wrote:

It has made me very curious. Are the two beings the listener and the composer who come into contact through THAT piece of music, or two listeners who become inseparably "linked" by listening to the SAME piece?

Ah, does the performer have a role in this chain? So it is almost always a three-way thing?

Of course Frank. Without a doubt, it is always a three-way thing.

Even when the performer is the composer (because one evening they perform it in one way, and the next evening in a slightly different way . . . )

[what is the use of music today?... Unfortunately I only see this topic ... today ]

Music - today as always - serves many purposes.

A list that anyone can extend:

Having fun listening, having fun dancing, putting children to sleep, putting oneself to sleep, exalting oneself, forgetting the daily gloom....

Creating the right "atmosphere" for: working, doing sports, flirting, praying, having sex, studying, concentrating.....

A musical work is like a defenseless person who lets anything be done to them by those who use it for their own purposes while listening to it.

Music that was composed to elevate the soul to prayer, one might take (for example) to better isolate oneself while studying (and there would be countless examples).

Seen from the composer's side instead, it seems one can respond - trivially - as with Literature.

What is the purpose of writing (today as always)?

Everything.

Someone writes comic things, someone writes to convey their own idea of the way and life... the same composer who today writes an opera thinking it might serve as dance music, tomorrow could very well write driven by other intentions.

Here: I - as a musician-listener - think a bit like this:

when I say that "I adore that composer," it is a bit like saying that I am in tune with their thoughts on life

(and that, naturally, it moves me to death)