"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