The Blue Note: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » The Blue Note » The Blue Note

The Blue Note
What is it?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

The Blue Note

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1231

Posted 09/26/09 - 10:01 PM:	#31
I also recommend The Classical Style by Charles Rosen.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 09/26/09 - 10:03 PM:	#32
Well, the sound of the soundscape can certainly be writ out - most simply by recording it as an MP3. But this is not what we mean, is it?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

mookie blaylock
nice

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 54

Posted 09/26/09 - 10:21 PM:	#33
Thanks, easy Jackson. 180Proof wrote: It doesn't provide "knowledge" (i.e. know that) about the actual world but "knowledge" (i.e. know how) about "worldmaking" (ala Goodman), or conceiving possible worlds. I think this sums up 180proofs thrust nicely in his exchange with Dunamis. I like this take about the epistemic tools it provides. It makes sense to me. Although, I think my concern is not a structural world-making concern of knowing how music is created. This only seems, as far as I know, to tell us how music is made and how to make it. I suppose my concerns are more related to a translation of music into a visual form conveying how it affects us. For instance, the structure of a jazz tune is irrelevant and even distracting when listening to a tune. I think what is interesting about anything abstract is that its possible conceptual interpretations are limitless and unwarranted, even. Abstractions have the ability to evade subjective and objective concepts. The sound is not to be interpreted in any typical sense. I think it is interpreted in other, unintelligble ways, like dancing or painting. It is usually translated into another abstract form in culture (jazz, anyway). It is a bold expressive force that compells some to respond to it the only way they know how - to dance or paint or smile or sculpt. But conceptual interpretation seems to be absurd.
The Internet: The only place to be racist without pants. - Mookie Zoloft: Heaven is just a warm loaf of morning diarrhea away. - Mookie

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1231

Posted 09/26/09 - 10:58 PM:	#34
Perhaps the problem is that you don't have any formal music training. Do you really think that Jazz is completely random notes? That there is no theory behind it? I'm not really sure what you're trying to say or ask with this thread and I don't think you're clear on it either. There are the barest makings of an interesting thread here, but at this point you're all over the place. I suggest reading up on basic Jazz theory if you want this to go anywhere; or at the very least form a cogent argument or question and stick with it.

mookie blaylock
nice

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 54

Posted 09/26/09 - 11:23 PM:	#35
easyjackson wrote: Do you really think that Jazz is completely random notes? Where did I say that? I don't have any formal training, but I know a bit of jazz music theory and empoly it when I play piano. I don't see what knowing formal music theory has to do with where the thread is going though. I clearly stated, I'm not interested in the epistemological tools that music provides. I asked some specific questions and gave my thoughts on them. I really don't think a discussion about the mathematics of conflict and resolution in Jazz and how to outline a chord and harmonize a third with a particular way of inverting it is going to help us understand the form a musical response takes. Let me sum up for you what I'm talking about, so you can guide lil' ole' noob here along with your expertise on what's interesting to you. Propositions: - Music is abstract. It cannot be interpreted in any intelligible way because it's possible interpretations are limitless and thus render any interpretation incorrect. - If music cannot be interpreted in an intelligible way, barring the structure and theory behind the song, then it is expressed to the body. My proposition is that (jazz) music makes people respond in dance because it is unintelligible. It is an array of varying degrees and scales of conflict and resolution, tension and release, texture, shape, harmony and disharmony that is unintelligible. It is conducive to abstract interpretation because of this. Thanks for the confining, insulting post.
The Internet: The only place to be racist without pants. - Mookie Zoloft: Heaven is just a warm loaf of morning diarrhea away. - Mookie

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 09/26/09 - 11:29 PM:	#36
Ignore easyjackson. He just wishes he had come up with this topic. mookie blaylock wrote: - Music is abstract. It cannot be interpreted in any intelligible way because it's possible interpretations are limitless and thus render any interpretation incorrect. Why incorrect? Why can't all interpretations be correct?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

mookie blaylock
nice

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 54

Posted 09/26/09 - 11:38 PM:	#37
Banno wrote: Why incorrect? Why can't all interpretations be correct? The possibilities on interpretations "reach towards infinity" (to use a Sartre phrase), so if there are no limits - nothing confining the possibile interpretations, then there is no anchor for which to judge an interpretation correct or incorrect. Saying an intelligible interpretation (a concept) or an unintelligible interpretation (dancing) is correct or incorrect is absurd. The notion of correctness dissolves when there is no criteria (no anchor) to judge it by. I guess a way of putting it might be, all interpretations and no interpretations are correct.
The Internet: The only place to be racist without pants. - Mookie Zoloft: Heaven is just a warm loaf of morning diarrhea away. - Mookie

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 09/26/09 - 11:44 PM:	#38
In that case it is not that the interpretations are incorrect, but that the notion of correctness, of rectitude, does not apply here. With that I might agree.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

mookie blaylock
nice

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 54

Posted 09/26/09 - 11:48 PM:	#39
Case closed?
The Internet: The only place to be racist without pants. - Mookie Zoloft: Heaven is just a warm loaf of morning diarrhea away. - Mookie

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 09/27/09 - 12:12 AM:	#40
Never. What if I argue that the mooted blue note is nothing more than pretentious posturing. Is there a defence against such a claim?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.