David Looser wrote:

Psychoacoustics no more explains music than an
understanding of the visual cortex explains visual art.

Nor less. I don't think the psychology of vision can be
reduced to an understanding of the visual cortex, either,
so to me your comparison is invalid.

OK I'll try again. psychoacoustics is the science of the
way sound is perceived. It does not address the issue of
what makes any particular sequence of sounds "music", nor
why they should be enjoyable or important.

I'm uncomfortable with the word "purpose" in this
context. Try "function" instead.

I chose "purpose" on purpose. Your discomfort is an
unfortunate accident.

Well it's hardly an "accident"! As I've said in my other
reply to you "purpose" implies intent, thus requiring an
intelligence.

To make amends, in the hope of illiciting a more useful
response: what do you think the function of music is?

I don't think there is just one "function". Music affects
the emotions, depending on the hearer and the
circumstances that emotion can range from ecstasy to
annoyance. When it is deliberately sought out the emotion
will usually be a positive one. Extended rhythmical
drumming can produce a hypnotic trance-like state which
might be desired by some as an alternative "high" to
drug-taking or as a quasi-spiritual experience.


Not self-evident for those who only listen to pop,

Sorry, I fail to understand (or agree with) your point.
It's a study of human societies that will tell you that
music and music makers have a firm niche in just about
every social pattern, not what sort of music you do, or
don't, happen to listen to.

I'm unlikely, you might surmise, to follow your thinking
if it is premised on an avowed failure of understanding.

OK, what do you mean by "pop"?, and why does only
listening to that reduce one's ability to understand the
role of music in human societies?

I am questioning whether something can be "self evident"
if it seems so only to some people. That, of course, is
to doubt the whole notion of self-evidence.

It wasn't me who wrote "self-evident", I tend not to use
that phrase as what may be "self-evident" to one person
may well make no sense at all to someone else.


See above. Try to think for yourself a bit more.

It's the fact that I *am* thinking for myself that is the
reason you find things to argue against in my posts!

A recent visitor to my house seemed taken by the valve
amplifiers, so I asked if she was interested in music.
"I'm not obsessed" she replied. I guess she meant "no".

And the point of that anecdote is?

See below, where you suggest I am obsessed, merely for
thinking something is important.

I wasn't sure what the supposed connection was between
someone being "taken" by seeing valves and finding music
"important". Nor why you think that if someone says they
are not "obsessed" with music it necessarily means they
don't think it important.


Yes, and?

You snipped the and...

I did, because your argument didn't seem to be going
anywhere.

snip

...there. Someone said Islam is against music.

No, I said that there is an anti-music faction *within*
Islam. I also said that there were others within Islam who
disagreed. I have no way of knowing how large or
influential the anti-music faction is, but as Islamic
societies differ vastly from country to country I guess it
depends where you are. In Saudi-Arabia I understand that
faction wields considerable influence.

There are myriad factions everywhere. The structure of Islam
is a single pyramid in which every individual is connected
through a single unbroken line to the Prophet. Nearly every
time a non-Muslim politician talks about Islam, they make it
clear that they simply haven't bothered to find out this
crucial feature. I can go to any mosque in Bradford and hear
any number of teachers in each one, all free to make
presentations and gather followers.

I tried to illustrate that Christianity has also placed
constraints on music, and that only some parts of Islam
do so, to varying degrees. The point is to weaken the
mistaken contention that Islam can be legitimately
singled out in this respect.

Is that what you were trying to do? actually Arnie had
already made that point, and did so far more clearly and
succinctly. But there is a difference, the anti-music
faction within Islam forbids any music making at all, and
regards the playing of musical instruments as "sinful".
I'm not aware of any significant faction within
Christianity that takes such an extreme position. What you
seemed to be complaining about was that some Christian
churches restrict the "acceptable" music to a few rather
conservative styles.

Obsession? Are you asking why modernity is important? Do
you think it isn't?

Not in music. Why should modern music be any "better" than
older styles?

Also, you missed the hint of irony intended by "at
least".

I noticed it.


Transcendental, perhaps. Whereas English is the
language of individuals within a society, music is the
sound of society itself. Just as the cells in our
bodies can't understand English, we can't understand
music.

Again - Eh? what are you on about?

Give me a clue about what you don't understand, and ask
like you might be hoping for an answer, and I'll do my
best for you.

OK, what do you mean by "music is the sound of society
itself"? And what do you mean by "Just as the cells in our
bodies can't understand English, we can't understand
music"? What, in fact, do you understand by the phrase
"understand music"?

I hope I've done this elsewhere by now. Essentially, we are
made up of cells that don't know what we know. Could it be
that society is made of of humans who don't know what it
knows? Could there be a social intelligence that transcends,
in that sense, our own? It may be useful or illuminating to
consider music to be a language of the social intelligence,
in which we all take part, but which as individuals we can't
fully understand.

I wonder if I assume too much...do you see music as a motley
procession of unconnected events, or do you feel it
develops? Does music progress and, if so, how can the degree
of that progress be recognised from the sound?

It's just struck me what this could all be about...

If music is an essentially social endeavour, then I should
stop messing about with audio equipment, and go buy the most
popular kit. Get into the swim, feel the pulse, and quit the
self-defeating elitism of audiophilia. High fidelity is true
to purpose...and the purpose isn't mine to mess with.

It's the best you are going to get from a vague question.
Until you define precisely what you mean by "engineer" we
can't say what importance, if any, music might have to him
(or her).

There's something about "we" in this context that really
gets up my nose.

Anyway, part of what I wondered is what ppl might think an
engineer is. Also, I have a clear idea of what an engineer
is which, AFAIK, could be the same as everyone else's. As it
happens, you think "engineer" is not clear. I couldn't
predict that. Also, and most of all, I felt that anyone who
thought *any* engineer, *however* defined by whatever
stroppy pedants might demand its precise definition, should
know the purpose of music, they should be equally free to
say so.

Ian