Arny Krueger wrote:

Does music have a purpose?

Music seems to satisfy some very basic human needs.

The book "This is your Brain on Music" provides a ton of
well-documented supporting evidence for that idea.

Interesting. Looking at that and a brace of "you may also
like" suggestions from Amazon, it appears there is a body of
theory around what we might call "psychoacoustics"...the
psychology of sound and music. For me, it kind of misses the
crucial issue, or perhaps just loses it in a heap of detail.
I would expect anthropology and sociology to envisage a
bigger picture with a different sense of "purpose".

Is it important?

Yes, which seems self-evident. Music and music-makers
seem to have a firm niche in just about every human
social pattern.

Not self-evident for those who only listen to pop, or who
have only superficial knowledge of the world in general. 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".

Though interestingly some Muslims claim that music is
"forbidden" by God.

So do some Christian Denominations. The prohibition of
music by Christian denominations seems strange given the
Bible's treatment of music. The usual Christian canon of
holy writings includes the book of Psalms, which can be
translated "songs".

The link between music and religion is an interesting issue.
For some reason I never worked out I was sent to Catholic
schools, one a convent and the other a gothic pile with
Jesuits. God, for fear of terminal unpopularity, had
recently decided to relax the rules of language and music,
but my bunch of
fundamentalists, bent on self-anihilation, stuck to the old
ways. Latin plainsong covered the ground between dreary and
angelic, but couldn't do happy or sad. For christmas we were
allowed some jolly polyphony.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/plainson.htm

AFAIK, plainsong was used not just because it harked back to
the halcyon days of the Christian church, but because it
adhered to a set of rules that made it godly. No lewd
intervals, heathen rythms, or whimsical elaboration. Unlike
folk music, which was only banned in churches AFAIK, it
wasn't the kind of thing you could dance to.

Unlike, at a guess, your bunch, Arny, who praise the lord
more
joyously. Modern Christians reflect a more
sophisticated society, in which complex divisions of labour
achieve unity through the advanced management technology of
industrial organisation. I imagine four-part polyphonic
harmony with funky freeform soloists soaring over the top. I
guess the problem for Catholics is that this merging of folk
and religious music questions the distinction between heaven
and earth. Consequently, nothing is sacred.

Listening to the wailing from several local mosques, it
sounds like plainsong rules apply in the world of Islam, but
the fact that Bradford is otherwise a musical vacuum has
more to do with the particular demographic of its dominant
population than Islam itself. There used to be a Bradford
Festival, with music from all over the Islamic world.
Although Banghra seems to be frowned upon by the orthodox
older folk, it's popular with youth and tolerated by the
mullahs. Sufi music

http://folkpunjab.com/nusrat-fateh-a...khian-da-chaa/

OTOH, seems to be reviled by all orthodox muslims.
Naturally, where there's sufi there should be whirling
dervishes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJIofU-0jC0

....who's dance is explained, in an intriguing exposition of
the dielectical principle of the "interpenetration of
opposites", as a pursuit of not-moving:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jeca3...eature=related

The big thing with Islamic youth in Bradford now is gangster
hip-hop, but in towns where muslim youth is better educated,
I gather there is some progressive music going on. A
little further afield, France has plenty Arabs who do stuff
like

http://www.last.fm/music/IAM/_/La+Saga

which, for modernity at least, beats any Christian music
I've heard. At the Divine Mission of Christ the Saviour,
Bradford's last stand, they're into heavy metal.

Seems odd for something that seems to
be as essentially human as language is.

The banning of pop music would be part of a bid for total
control: a society in which everyone must consider
themselves in church wherever they are. An attempt to make
everything sacred, which to Christianity's traditional
dualism is a contradiction in terms. Not even the most
fundamental catholics, AFAIK, tried to make people speak
Latin, or constrain themselves to plainsong, at home or in
the street.

Not only that, but music is a kind of language, even just
instrumental music.

This is where the crux is, I imagine. But where's the
Music/English dictionary? Linguists have, sensibly IMO,
drawn a line. Are there several languages of music, I
wonder, or is it universal?

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.

Should an audio engineer know?

Depends what you mean by "audio engineer". If you mean a
recording engineer in the music recording business - yes,
otherwise not necessarily.

I haven't met an audio engineer who does not seem to think
that music has a purpose. Some of them can be quite
eloquent about it, even those who are far removed from
actual music production.

How does that sense of purpose manifest itself in the work
of the engineer? Does it guide him, or merely spur him on?

Ian

"Ian Iveson" wrote

Interesting. Looking at that and a brace of "you may also like"
suggestions from Amazon, it appears there is a body of theory around what
we might call "psychoacoustics"...the psychology of sound and music. For
me, it kind of misses the crucial issue, or perhaps just loses it in a
heap of detail.

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

I would expect anthropology and sociology to envisage a bigger picture
with a different sense of "purpose".

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

Yes, which seems self-evident. Music and music-makers
seem to have a firm niche in just about every human
social pattern.

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.

or who have only superficial knowledge of the world in general.

A truism if I every I saw one, why bother saying it?

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?

Though interestingly some Muslims claim that music is
"forbidden" by God.

So do some Christian Denominations. The prohibition of music by Christian
denominations seems strange given the Bible's treatment of music. The
usual Christian canon of holy writings includes the book of Psalms, which
can be translated "songs".

The link between music and religion is an interesting issue.
For some reason I never worked out I was sent to Catholic
schools, one a convent and the other a gothic pile with
Jesuits. God, for fear of terminal unpopularity, had
recently decided to relax the rules of language and music, but my bunch of
fundamentalists, bent on self-anihilation, stuck to the old
ways. Latin plainsong covered the ground between dreary and
angelic, but couldn't do happy or sad. For christmas we were
allowed some jolly polyphony.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/plainson.htm

Yes, and?


snip

.. A
little further afield, France has plenty Arabs who do stuff
like

http://www.last.fm/music/IAM/_/La+Saga

which, for modernity at least, beats any Christian music
I've heard. At the Divine Mission of Christ the Saviour, Bradford's last
stand, they're into heavy metal.

Why this obsession with "modernity"?

Seems odd for something that seems to
be as essentially human as language is.

The banning of pop music would be part of a bid for total control: a
society in which everyone must consider themselves in church wherever they
are. An attempt to make everything sacred, which to Christianity's
traditional dualism is a contradiction in terms. Not even the most
fundamental catholics, AFAIK, tried to make people speak Latin, or
constrain themselves to plainsong, at home or in the street.

Eh?

Not only that, but music is a kind of language, even just instrumental
music.

This is where the crux is, I imagine. But where's the Music/English
dictionary? Linguists have, sensibly IMO, drawn a line. Are there several
languages of music, I wonder, or is it universal?

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?

Should an audio engineer know?

Depends what you mean by "audio engineer". If you mean a
recording engineer in the music recording business - yes,
otherwise not necessarily.

I haven't met an audio engineer who does not seem to think that music has
a purpose. Some of them can be quite eloquent about it, even those who
are far removed from actual music production.

How does that sense of purpose manifest itself in the work of the
engineer? Does it guide him, or merely spur him on?


Depends of his job, obviously.

David.

"David Looser" wrote in
message ...
"Ian Iveson" wrote

Interesting. Looking at that and a brace of "you may also
like" suggestions from Amazon, it appears there is a body
of theory around what we might call
"psychoacoustics"...the psychology of sound and music.
For me, it kind of misses the crucial issue, or perhaps
just loses it in a heap of detail.

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.

I would expect anthropology and sociology to envisage a
bigger picture with a different sense of "purpose".

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

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

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

Yes, which seems self-evident. Music and music-makers
seem to have a firm niche in just about every human
social pattern.

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.

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.

or who have only superficial knowledge of the world in
general.

A truism if I every I saw one, why bother saying it?

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

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.

Though interestingly some Muslims claim that music is
"forbidden" by God.

So do some Christian Denominations. The prohibition of
music by Christian denominations seems strange given the
Bible's treatment of music. The usual Christian canon of
holy writings includes the book of Psalms, which can be
translated "songs".

The link between music and religion is an interesting
issue.
For some reason I never worked out I was sent to Catholic
schools, one a convent and the other a gothic pile with
Jesuits. God, for fear of terminal unpopularity, had
recently decided to relax the rules of language and
music, but my bunch of
fundamentalists, bent on self-anihilation, stuck to the
old
ways. Latin plainsong covered the ground between dreary
and
angelic, but couldn't do happy or sad. For christmas we
were
allowed some jolly polyphony.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/plainson.htm

Yes, and?

You snipped the and...


snip

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


. A
little further afield, France has plenty Arabs who do
stuff
like

http://www.last.fm/music/IAM/_/La+Saga

which, for modernity at least, beats any Christian music
I've heard. At the Divine Mission of Christ the Saviour,
Bradford's last stand, they're into heavy metal.

Why this obsession with "modernity"?

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

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

If music has a social purpose, or function if you prefer,
then that purpose or function must be current. Perhaps it
would help if you were to google "present tense". It seems
reasonable to me to expect modern music to be most closely
associated with a current social purpose. Or function.

Seems odd for something that seems to
be as essentially human as language is.

The banning of pop music would be part of a bid for total
control: a society in which everyone must consider
themselves in church wherever they are. An attempt to
make everything sacred, which to Christianity's
traditional dualism is a contradiction in terms. Not even
the most fundamental catholics, AFAIK, tried to make
people speak Latin, or constrain themselves to plainsong,
at home or in the street.

Eh?

Grunting won't help your understanding.

Not only that, but music is a kind of language, even
just instrumental music.

This is where the crux is, I imagine. But where's the
Music/English dictionary? Linguists have, sensibly IMO,
drawn a line. Are there several languages of music, I
wonder, or is it universal?

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.

Should an audio engineer know?

Depends what you mean by "audio engineer". If you mean
a
recording engineer in the music recording business -
yes,
otherwise not necessarily.

I haven't met an audio engineer who does not seem to
think that music has a purpose. Some of them can be
quite eloquent about it, even those who are far removed
from actual music production.

How does that sense of purpose manifest itself in the
work of the engineer? Does it guide him, or merely spur
him on?


Depends of his job, obviously.

Illuminating. Thanks.

Ian

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in

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.

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"?


Depends of his job, obviously.

Illuminating. Thanks.

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).

David.

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