Who is music for: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Who is music for » Who is music for

Who is music for

Who is music for

Kungfu Jesus
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2004
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 12/17/07 - 06:10 PM: Subject: Who is music for	#1
Who is music for? As a musician I make music, defined by my creative drives, influences and passions. I may write a song because I like a particular chord progression, I came up with a few cool notes that reminded me of a particular emotion, or because of a lyric that is particularly deep and moving to me. There are times where I may write a piece of music, with the intent of creating something that I find particularly satisfying, or meaningful. I can not say that I do not hope that others enjoy my music, and part of me wants to be able to write music that other people enjoy. I guess my question is this: Is the creative process of music, and possibly the ultimate goal of music, to create a piece of art that the artist finds value in, or is it to produce a product that the a listener can appreciate, grasp an understand?
_____________________ All who wonder, are not lost

Seneca
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 06, 2005
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 217

Posted 12/18/07 - 04:50 PM:	#2
Isn't it the same question as 'who is art for?'. The answer would be almost the same. If you can understand why ANY artist does what he does than you can understand. The crux here is that art needs an audience, even if it is the artist himself. Without an audience it would, in my opinion, mean nothing to anyone and so it would be pointless to make. The process itself, or the experience of making it, could be the artwork itself, I suppose. One could appreciate that. It is known that Kubrick never watched his films completely edited.

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 12/18/07 - 07:18 PM:	#3
It depends on the composer. No one ever descended from a mountain with stone tablets declaring the ultimate purpose and goal of music. Different people even have different definitions of art. Mine excludes pieces written to entertain others (sorry Haydn) and elevates those composers who have achieved the greatest heights of personal expression (like Mahler,Schoenberg, etc.). Others exclude things without certain elements of formal structure. Those guys really like Haydn and really don't like Schoenberg. "The closer you get to the mere expression of emotion, the further you get from art." I don't remember entirely where that's from (some guy named Surt or Sturt or something) but it's pretty much the antithesis of my views on art. Nevertheless, it's a view that's out there. It's one that I contest, but since there's no way to empirically prove anyone wrong about the definition of art, we have to live with endlessley arguing with each other.
_____________________ Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

chungle
one funky philosopher?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2008
Location: Northern BC
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 01/09/08 - 04:12 AM:	#4
Music is for everything; the stars, the grass, your fellow man, yourself, the bus ride to work in the morning. Vibration is existence and music is the celebration, the worship, and acceptance of the fact that we exist. Good, bad, soft, hard, however you like your eggs. It's for everything because it's a part of everything.

Donster
leet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 28, 2007
Location: on a chair... how lame
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 29

Posted 01/09/08 - 02:53 PM:	#5
Kungfu Jesus wrote: Who is music for? As a musician I make music, defined by my creative drives, influences and passions. I may write a song because I like a particular chord progression, I came up with a few cool notes that reminded me of a particular emotion, or because of a lyric that is particularly deep and moving to me. There are times where I may write a piece of music, with the intent of creating something that I find particularly satisfying, or meaningful. I can not say that I do not hope that others enjoy my music, and part of me wants to be able to write music that other people enjoy. I guess my question is this: Is the creative process of music, and possibly the ultimate goal of music, to create a piece of art that the artist finds value in, or is it to produce a product that the a listener can appreciate, grasp an understand? Welcome Jesus. Everyone is going to have their own ideas about this question, and no one is right! I think before you try to answer this question, you must define music. In my mind, music is a language. Where spoken word is a language of ideas, music is a language of feelings. When using any language, there are a couple of basics. Developing a vocabulary, developing a unique method of pacing(rhythm), and understanding accents and stresses. The point of music is the same thing that we are doing right now. This forum allows us to use language to help each other in mental development and to serve as something complex and meaningful. This philosophic mentality could certainly be applied to making music. In the most basic sense, music is made for the sake of that music. Anyone who wishes to take interest in it should be allowed to do so.
_____________________ I once was a little Irish man. Drinking from a little tin can. I chewed on a cat; patched up my hat. This is the way of the Holy man.

Inkstain
Another Pen

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2007
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 99

Posted 01/09/08 - 03:03 PM:	#6
Kungfu Jesus wrote: Who is music for? As a musician I make music, defined by my creative drives, influences and passions. I may write a song because I like a particular chord progression, I came up with a few cool notes that reminded me of a particular emotion, or because of a lyric that is particularly deep and moving to me. There are times where I may write a piece of music, with the intent of creating something that I find particularly satisfying, or meaningful. I can not say that I do not hope that others enjoy my music, and part of me wants to be able to write music that other people enjoy. I guess my question is this: Is the creative process of music, and possibly the ultimate goal of music, to create a piece of art that the artist finds value in, or is it to produce a product that the a listener can appreciate, grasp an understand? It really depends on who the artist is. You, like many others artists, are apparently able to write music that is meaningful to you. This is always good if you can make the music so that others will enjoy it, because it also provides a personal connection between you and the audience, making them enjoy it even more. I, however, have a different style. I am a lyricist and a poet, and I rarely write anything that actually has meaning directly too me. Sometimes I write about something that has never really happened to me, and sometimes I write things I don't quite understand. I write for the audience, in every aspect. I let them enjoy the rhythm and rhymes, and in many cases, I let them find the message. So it really depends on the style of the artist.
_____________________ When the clock strikes end, will anyone stop to look over their shoulder?

Aestheticist
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2006
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 121

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/26/08 - 11:32 PM:	#7
Kungfu Jesus wrote: Who is music for? As a musician I make music, defined by my creative drives, influences and passions. I may write a song because I like a particular chord progression, I came up with a few cool notes that reminded me of a particular emotion, or because of a lyric that is particularly deep and moving to me. There are times where I may write a piece of music, with the intent of creating something that I find particularly satisfying, or meaningful. I can not say that I do not hope that others enjoy my music, and part of me wants to be able to write music that other people enjoy. I guess my question is this: Is the creative process of music, and possibly the ultimate goal of music, to create a piece of art that the artist finds value in, or is it to produce a product that the a listener can appreciate, grasp an understand? What is most important is that whether you find value in it or not, if you don't, then it would be pointless making one. If music is to be art, one ought to make it for its own sake, but not for the audience. Since every work of art is the direct expression of the artist himself, if you produce something for the audience, you sway away from your true self (in the literal sense). What the audience perceives is generally quite different from yours, therefore, it is quite useless to write a piece of music that the listeners can appreciate. Write whatever seems valuable to you as long as the process of writing it gives you a sense of delight. That is what an artist should be. Of course, this is my non-expert opinion. And I am open to conviction if anyone more knowledgeable can override me.

oceanboy
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 01/27/08 - 04:25 AM:	#8
I think it really depends on the artist. You may do art for you, for others, or even both. I think you're the one who has to choose. If you're a great artist but need money you'll want to do it for others. Have you seen the film Ray Charles? It shows a little bit of that. See it, its worth it. Oh, but the film is for adults. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 01/27/08 - 06:41 PM. Reason: apostrophes, spelling, word choice.

jdurman
Melody Crusader

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 24, 2008
Location: Nailed to campus, Queensland, Austrlia
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 02/25/08 - 09:30 PM:	#9
Music is for everything; the stars, the grass, your fellow man, yourself, the bus ride to work in the morning. Vibration is existence and music is the celebration, the worship, and acceptance of the fact that we exist. Good, bad, soft, hard, however you like your eggs. It's for everything because it's a part of everything. Don't forget, it's also the sunshine on a rainy day. excellent reply. I think music is for everything aswell, it is there for everyone who wants to appreciate it or not.
_____________________ If I ruled the earth, I'd sails ships over seas until sun down. Then I'd return, to walk the streets alone.

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 02/26/08 - 04:56 AM:	#10
Well, music is not for the deaf. That should point you in the right direction. Find out who it's not for (the egoist, the warmonger etc.) and what's left will be a good approximation of the answer. FC
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 02/26/08 - 06:59 PM:	#11
"Well, music is not for the deaf." Unless you're Beethoven
_____________________ Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/27/08 - 03:21 AM:	#12
killerofgod wrote: "Well, music is not for the deaf." Unless you're Beethoven OK, you asked for this. B. was not born deaf he slowly lost his hearing after establishing himself as one of the most gifted composer/performers in Vienna at the time. his loss of hearing (starting around the sixth symphony) was a loathed curse for the composer and I think, if you could ask him, he would exchange his deafness for cutting off both his legs, at least. I still say music is not for the deaf. I am a professional musician and my lifes dread is going deaf. As it is, I'm going blind (despite being very interested in the philosophy of art) so I guess whichever universal power is in office chose the lesser of two evils. I wonder if I would say at some point in future that visual art is not for blind. I did go to a sculture exhibition once at the Royal Academy in London where the labels on the exhibits were also in Braile but when I reached out to touch the sculptures I was repremanded by a security guard. There then followed a heated discussion with his superior about who the Braile signs were for and why they were there if you couldn't touch the sculptures. Bottom line: Horses for courses; the right art for the right sense(or combination thereof). FC
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

killerofgod
Travelling Journeyman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 44

Posted 02/27/08 - 07:45 PM:	#13
I was kind of joking, but oh well. That is a pretty funny story though. The next time I'm at the Met I'll be sure to look for anything in Braille.
_____________________ Just my own meaningless thoughts and opinions.

vallia s
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 24, 2008
Location: Athens, Greece
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 02/28/08 - 09:46 PM:	#14
The question 'who is music for? the artist or the listeners' has always been generating a great deal of heated debate. It goes without saying that an artist does not create just for his own satisfaction. He/she feels the need to be accepted. However, it is difficult for someone to foresee how people will react to their art work. So why don't you take up Andri Gide's advice? According to him you should "be faithful to that which exists within yourself." Feel free to express what lies inside you! Once you have accomplished that, you will be amazed to find out how many people will appreciate the outcome! Edited by vallia s on 02/28/08 - 09:51 PM
_____________________ Carpe Diem

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/29/08 - 01:09 AM:	#15
vallia s wrote: The question 'who is music for? the artist or the listeners' has always been generating a great deal of heated debate. It goes without saying that an artist does not create just for his own satisfaction. He/she feels the need to be accepted. However, it is difficult for someone to foresee how people will react to their art work. So why don't you take up Andri Gide's advice? According to him you should "be faithful to that which exists within yourself." Feel free to express what lies inside you! Once you have accomplished that, you will be amazed to find out how many people will appreciate the outcome! Agree 100% It is always incredible how good old-fashioned self-honesty beams out in music. FC
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 161

Posted 03/27/08 - 06:10 AM:	#16
I think a lot of what has been brought up is about how to make good music. I am not technically a musician, but in my experience if you want to be good, or at least satisfied with your music you need to make it for yourself, you need to find the art which expresses yourself, or what you want to express in the way you want. You may be inspired by the world, but attempting to create what you think the crowd wants is not the best way. Saying that I could make a beat that means little to me but I KNOW will impress my little cousin. Which is what I think the parts of the music industry are doing at the moment, the younger generations are being exposed to what experienced listeners know to be simplistic, repetitious music, but the youth love it, and why not. Either is art is it not? It's just the quality that is in question. If I tap my feet to make a beat is it only art if it impresses someone, I would say no. I think music is communication through creative expression, in the same way as a written story. I can write a story and never show it to anyone, simply for my own entertainment, to manifest what I have within my mind. I would agree though with KillerofGod's quote "The closer you get to the mere expression of emotion, the further you get from art." In the sense that if I opened a horror novel and it just said... BOO!! I would not be all that impressed, well not if I paid for it I am interested in the idea that music is not for the deaf, though. This has just come to me, I don't know if I'm being a fool forgive me if I am, but... I have stood beside a speaker in a club and felt the music, through the changes in the vibration against my body, I remember being pleasantly surprised, except of course for my proximity to the sound. I am just thinking out loud, but could there not be some experimentation into creating a style of music that is vibration focused, to create a somewhat meaningful rhythm, I'm no expert but the vibrations can be quite layered. It�s still music is it not?
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 03/27/08 - 07:06 AM:	#17
I was being a bit general when I said music was not for the deaf. In fact certain frequencies are 'heard' better through the skin! Gary Carr reckons that about 15% of what we hear is through our skin. My point is that a composer does not sit down and write a piece for the deaf without taking into account a whole bunch of physiological and sociological factors first. He usually writes for the hearing. Did you read my post concerning art for the blind? Well, it's a bit like that. Sculptors tend not to create works exclusively for blind people but they could appreciate them to a certain extent anyway. More to the point are questions like - 'who is pop music for?' and 'who is classical music for?' If a deaf person writes music who is it for? Beethoven would be a bit miffed if he thought that his main audience would be as deaf as he was! FC
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 161

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:55 AM:	#18
Fergus Currie wrote: Did you read my post concerning art for the blind? Well, it's a bit like that. Sculptors tend not to create works exclusively for blind people but they could appreciate them to a certain extent anyway. Yes I did and would have loved to have been there, and wonder if anything has been changed because of it, either there or in the mind of any artist or curator, that may have witnessed it. Fergus Currie wrote: More to the point are questions like - 'who is pop music for?' and 'who is classical music for?' If a deaf person writes music who is it for? Beethoven would be a bit miffed if he thought that his main audience would be as deaf as he was! FC I would imagine it would be something like what chungle said. Unless comissioned it would be for the sake of the composer, to be enjoyed by all that were exposed to it. I don't think a composer of a classical piece could place a limtation on who could enjoy it. Although it may be made for a specific audience i.e not fans of strings, the composer made it so satify a desire to satisfy that audience. As to Beethhoven, very funny, I wonder what he sounds/feels like through amplified vibration alone? Not sure if classical music works well in that way though?
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.