Tubular.net :: Mike Oldfield Forums Discussion, news, reviews, fan music, and more.
	Search :: Members :: Help :: Guidelines

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 > [ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 22 2005, 16:12 Many people find music the most accessible of all the arts - they may be moved to tears easily by a piece of music, but much less easily by a poem, or painting, say. (I'm not among them myself; but it's a distinct impression that I get.) I wanted to explore some possible reasons why this might be, and in doing so pick up a discussion that Inkanta and I were having a couple of weeks ago in the Johnny Owl thread (I hope this one will be less obscure and irritating though! ) The word, 'apperception' is used to describe the way we encounter the world through time. At any moment there are two basic components of our awareness: (1) our memory of the distant and recent past; and (2) the information that's coming into us here and now in this present. We move through time in a coherent (rather than a random) way, by taking in the present information, and welding it onto our memories of the past - grasping them all together to make a constantly changing whole. That process - that assimilation of the present into our consciousness of the past, is 'apperception'. Our experience of art corresponds in some degree to our experience of life. (Most people, for example, when really smitten by a painting, talk about how 'alive' it seems.) But paintings, or novels, or poems don't change in time. They stand still while we contemplate them. You can look at a picture from all angles, all day, but it's the same picture. You can't do that with 'Incantations'. You can never experience it as a whole, all at once. So the experience of listening to music is much closer to the way we experience 'life', as an ever changing stream of apperceptive moments, than looking at a painting. That's my first point. I think that might be part of the reason why music sometimes seems more accessible. My second point is this: a philosopher called Alfred North Whitehead put forward a remarkable concept of the whole universe as a continually creative advancing unity. He coined a word, 'prehension', to describe the way in which the universe appropriates into itself the present, creating an ever-changing whole. These successive acts of 'prehension' were, he suggested, the 'really real' things of which the universe was made up. What fascinates me is how similar Whitehead's 'prehensions' are (referring to the whole universe) to our 'apperceptions' (distinct and individual). And as I suggested above, listening to music is linked in a very special, symbolic way with that apperceptive process - which in turn is a micro-version of the behaviour of the whole universe (at least, according to Whitehead). So why am I saying all this? Because, when you next listen to Incantations, and feel that sense of one-ness with the universe that it can sometimes bring, you may be having an experience that's even more profound than you think. Back to top

stevenmd779 Group: Members Posts: 248 Joined: Aug. 2005 Posted: Nov. 22 2005, 16:19 I think it's cause music's better. -------------- "A people who would sacrifice liberty for security will lose both, and deserve neither." Ben Franklin Boogs is fo' da chode man. Back to top

Holger Group: Members Posts: 1506 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: Nov. 22 2005, 16:27 But you can't really look at a whole painting at once either - only at the point your eyes focus on at any given moment. The rest becomes a blur. You need to scan the whole picture with your eyes and then form a complete image of it in your head. I'm not sure about the significance of this, it's just what sprang to mind reading your post. Back to top

Piltdownboy on horseback 22 Group: Members Posts: 1548 Joined: Sep. 2005 Posted: Nov. 22 2005, 16:45 Maybe we like music more easily than paintings because sound may be more important than sight when it comes to experience a strong 'feeling'... but I could be wrong of course (btw: our Mr. Owl seems to have flown, hasn't he...) -------------- "And now we're going to play Platinum!" Back to top

stevenmd779 Group: Members Posts: 248 Joined: Aug. 2005 Posted: Nov. 22 2005, 17:07 You can't read a whole book at once either. Another idea is that you hear words everywhere and see things everywhere, but music is something different. Sure you hear sounds all the time, but most of those are just white noise. You don't just see white light. So maby if the only time you seen colors was in art then people would appreatiate paintings more. -------------- "A people who would sacrifice liberty for security will lose both, and deserve neither." Ben Franklin Boogs is fo' da chode man. Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 05:55 Quote (Holger @ Nov. 22 2005, 21:27) But you can't really look at a whole painting at once either - only at the point your eyes focus on at any given moment. The rest becomes a blur. You need to scan the whole picture with your eyes and then form a complete image of it in your head. Yes, you're right, but that's true of everything we do. Every moment of our lives is apperceptive - including looking at pictures. But my point is that the picture stays there while we explore it. It doesn't move on; doesn't change. Whereas music does move on - we catch it as it flies - that's the only way we can listen to it. With a picture you can explore it in any way you like; with a poem you can keep going back to reread lines to grasp them more firmly (this is part of my normal reading process in fact). An important part of the power of text is that it stays there and lets you do this. But music always moves on while you're listening, as if eluding your grasp. The music matches your own apperceptive process in a way that paintings or poems don't. Of course music isn't unique in this: listening to poems read aloud would have the same character; so does dance. Incidentally, I hope it's clear that I'm not putting this forward as some kind of 'theory'; it isn't a theory - it's not testable and it makes no predictions. No, it's just an idea that I find attractive - that listening to music, and the way we live our lives, and the way the universe progresses, may all be aspects of the same kind of universal process. Back to top

Holger Group: Members Posts: 1506 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 06:47 Now I see what you mean. Yes, the only way to grasp a piece of music you don't initially "get" is to listen to it one or several more times (unless you want to spoil the whole experience by rewinding). Still, after a while (a long while if it's a complex piece), you've got it in your head, and then you can (try to) look at it as a whole. Back to top

arron11196 Group: Members Posts: 826 Joined: April 2005 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 08:14 Indeed. As most of you know this happened to me with Ommadawn. -------------- Arron J Eagling Everyone's interpretation is different, and everyone has a right to that opinion. There is no "right" one, I am adding this post to communicate my thoughts to share them with like-minded souls who will be able to comment in good nature. (insert the last 5 mins of Crises here) Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 08:19 Quote (Holger @ Nov. 23 2005, 11:47) Still, after a while (a long while if it's a complex piece), you've got it in your head, and then you can (try to) look at it as a whole. Ah, but that's the memory of the music. It's true that you do get an overview of the structure eventually, but that isn't the same as the actual experience of listening to it, which is a sequence of apperceptions. Our awareness of the picture is essentially as an arrangement of forms in space. Our awareness of the music is essentially as an arrangement of sounds in time. Back to top

Holger Group: Members Posts: 1506 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 08:40 Quote (Alan D @ Nov. 23 2005, 14:19) It's true that you do get an overview of the structure eventually, but that isn't the same as the actual experience of listening to it, which is a sequence of apperceptions. I don't think I fully agree. When I listen to, say, Ommadawn (or any other piece I know by heart) in my head, it's very nearly the same experience as actually putting the album on. But I do get the feeling we're talking at cross purposes here. (: (BTW, I've always had my difficulties with the concept of time. I don't think it really exists, at least not in the linear fashion it's usually thought of.) Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 10:01 Quote (Holger @ Nov. 23 2005, 13:40) When I listen to, say, Ommadawn (or any other piece I know by heart) in my head, it's very nearly the same experience as actually putting the album on. But I do get the feeling we're talking at cross purposes here. (: I think we might be, yes. Even if you do experience that (but surely you lose all the direct sensual impact, so I don't see how it can be the same?), you're still remembering a sequence of perceptions in time, not in space. Quote (BTW, I've always had my difficulties with the concept of time. I don't think it really exists, at least not in the linear fashion it's usually thought of.) Well, that's another (and very big) can of worms - maybe needs a new thread! Back to top

Piltdownboy on horseback 22 Group: Members Posts: 1548 Joined: Sep. 2005 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 10:07 Holger, please explain!! Interesting subject -------------- "And now we're going to play Platinum!" Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 10:41 Quote Our awareness of the picture is essentially as an arrangement of forms in space. Our awareness of the music is essentially as an arrangement of sounds in time. That's a quite simple, direct difference that makes worlds of difference to many of people - to the point where people are unable to appreciate paintings and sculptures and such, and judge music as "better". But in essence, it's one simple difference. Music moves through time, and paintings don't. Music stretches through time; paintings stretches through two dimentions; sculptures often stretch through three. It's just that things happening, I guess, is what catches people. Most people prefer to watch movies over reading books, and I guess is that, in movies, things "happen". Things only "happen" in books when the imagination kicks in. Traditional music also "happens". I think that's the more striking difference. I don't think it's the factor of sound that does it. Like it's been said, we're all very used to our senses. Hearing is just another sense. I think music, though, is treated as a "special" kind of sound, because that's what people learn. Music is everywhere, and it serves a vast array of purposes. Children learn to assimilate music to everything, to the point where "music" and "sound" are two different things. With paintings, I don't think people are already taught to separate "paintings" from "visions", so paintings are just "things". I think it's a more cultural than philosophical question, but that's just me. Say, the vast majority of people feel extremely shocked or skeptical when someone shows the sounds of cars on the street and says "this is music". People will say it isn't, because there's a "definition" of music. But if someone takes a photograph of the street, sticks it on an exhibition and say "this is art", people will applaud. I, personally, say that the sound of cars in the street is music if I say so. Perhaps some bright (or pompous, ) people will "catch" the message of the composition and will be moved by it - but that's the intellectual factor kicking in. Most people will just snooze. So, does music "naturally" move people? Not more or less than paintings and poetry, I say. Take Brian Eno's Ambient magnum opus "Thursday Afternoon" and listen to it (or Jarre's "En Attendant Cousteau", or any lengthy ambient piece). Will you be moved differently if you think of it as "music" and if you think of it as a "sound painting", the way it was intended to be? I'm not trying to prove anything: it's an actual question. I want to hear. There you have music that, theorically, doesn't stretch in time. It's a snapshot of a frozen moment in time - much like a painting or photograph. -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 11:15 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Nov. 23 2005, 15:41) Music moves through time, and paintings don't. Yes, this is what I've been saying. My point is that this makes it more like life 'as we live it', than a painting is. 'Things happening', as you put it. But as I suggested, the same would apply to dance - or movies, now I come to think of it. Quote I don't think it's the factor of sound that does it. Yes, I'm sure that's right. It's the changing aspect that's important (at least, in this discussion, it is). Quote But if someone takes a photograph of the street, sticks it on an exhibition and say "this is art", people will applaud. I, personally, say that the sound of cars in the street is music if I say so. Perhaps some bright (or pompous) people will "catch" the message of the composition and will be moved by it - but that's the intellectual factor kicking in. I don't understand what you're getting at, here. Quote So, does music "naturally" move people? Not more or less than paintings and poetry, I say. Well, this is how I began, and so I question this. I spend a great deal of my time dealing with visual art (and indeed, people), and in my experience most people do seem to find it easier to respond to music than to the visual arts. A person who is quite happy to give full attention to something like Amarok for an hour will usually be unwilling to spend more than a minute with a painting of equivalent stature as a work of art. The general truth of that observation is one of the things that made me start this thread. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 12:04 Maybe my previous post was more obscure than I intended. My intention was to say that, just as there might be the philosophical factor, there may (or may not) be the cultural factor, which is what I meant. Let me put it bluntly: do people find it easy to respond to music, or to just a small fragment of the vast territory of music that people are taught to call "music"? Just like there is a difference of "difficulty" between people enjoying visual arts and music, there's a difference too between people enjoying "Amarok" and "Trout Mask Replica", for example. Is that because "Trout Mask Replica" defies the definitions of what people learned to classify as "music"? There must be definitely a difference between enjoying all kinds of arts out there, and that's what makes those different kinds of art exist, after all. But the question of what makes music "easier" to enjoy might be something else. I don't know exactly what we're trying to discuss. It's just when we're getting into the "enjoyability" of art, there's a world of things to consider. -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 12:18 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Nov. 23 2005, 17:04) I don't know exactly what we're trying to discuss. Ah, that's my fault for introducing too many related issues at the start. The idea that music seemed 'easier' was really just a way into my main topic, which was to point out the relationship between 1. Whitehead's concept of 'prehension', as a universal process; 2. Our individual 'apperceptions' as our individual processes as we live our lives; 3. The idea of music as an art form that directly invites and somehow mirrors our apperceptive process. I suppose I'm contemplating the possible mystical implications of the process of listening to music: that is, of seeing music as a symbol of the way we live, through apperception; and that, in turn, being a component, or small-scale symbol, of the whole universe's prehensive advance. Back to top

The Bell(end) Group: Members Posts: 1051 Joined: July 2005 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 12:41 Poems and music have the special intricacies which capture the admiration and imagination. Paintings often attract the different type of person/brain if you 'get' me. Music certainly has a more general fanbase, with mainstream and non-mainstream. This reflects the person, in my opinion, there are the sheep, that listen and buy whatever is in the spotlight, because their friends do the same. Then there are the more....underground.......rebellious types (in a way). These people broaden their tastes, sure, they have heard the mainstream offerings (they can't avoid them! but they are willing and able to listen to music that isn't 'cool'. So music has a broad scope, wheras poetry and paintings appeal to the select few, like the few that step away from the mainstream. This doesn't mean that lovers of art will not listen to mainstream music etc, there is a whole mix.   -------------- When the night's on fi-ya, do you need love's arms to hold yew? :D Back to top

Holger Group: Members Posts: 1506 Joined: Feb. 2003 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 13:23 Quote (Alan D @ Nov. 23 2005, 16:01) (but surely you lose all the direct sensual impact, so I don't see how it can be the same?) I remember that as well. Quote Holger, please explain!! Interesting subject I'll try to, but please allow me some time for it. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 13:33 So it is a philosophical topic. That makes it a bit more clear for me to contribute, now that I know the focus of the discussion. It's possible that different kinds of music can capture different kinds of listening - if music is supposed to move and grow, I can mention Thursday Afternoon again, which is an attempt to go against that and produce music as a painting, static and constant. But, of course, that's an attempt to purposefully go against the essence of music (Brian Eno is a freak, after all, ). The mention of Incantations captured me again, since it does move, and if it has an ability to mirror that philosophy, it's because it's vague. It suggests growth, evolution, change, but it never says what change it's talking about. So, the vagueness is actually a strength, since it can be so universal. It might be because of its wordlessness - and in this case, I can also think of Sigur Rós's recent ( ). The only difference is that there are words, but they mean nothing. Notice: it's different from "it doesn't mean anything". It purposefully means nothing. I think it's a wonderful example of music meaning nothing at all, and at the same time, everything. Incantations might fit, too (and why not Tubular Bells, Amarok, etc.?) Other styles of music may have limitations, maybe because of shorter length and/or scope, and because of wordiness. But if taken in general terms, music has that ability of existing in time, which gives it a certain edge over other forms of art. Of course, paintings, sculptures, poems, etc. have the extraordinary ability of freezing a moment in time for eternity. Imagine taking that über-special moment of Incantations and make it last forever... certainly gives you a different, special insight into that process of change. Of course you can't cause that effect solely with music... except if you're Brian Eno, of course. -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

The Big BellEnd Group: Members Posts: 971 Joined: Jan. 2004 Posted: Nov. 23 2005, 16:15 can we include art that is other than painting's. -------------- I, ON THE OTHER HAND. AM A VICTIM OF YOUR CARNIVOUROUS LUNAR ACTIVITY. Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ] Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >

Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net