Something I have noticed on these forums is the fact that posters often end their post with a poem or music. What is trying to be conveyed here when you end a post with a poem or piece of music? Is it a sign of sophistication or rather an attempt to appeal to emotions to "get the message across"? What is being conveyed to a poster when you end a post with a piece of music or poem?

I have never been musically talented or learned an instrument, although I would like to learn the piano. I'm also quite poor at picking up the deep nuances of poetic art. Am I missing out on something quite deep and profound?

Music is great! Imagine living without music... then think about participating in it, then think about creating it. Total human expression! It validates the Artists feelings and others relate.

I think if the poem/music relates to the topic, it emphasizes the feelings and creates imagery that words without cadence can't do, it strengthens an argument. Otherwise we can't base our thoughts on anything said before us.

You could say it appeals to emotions though... I used a quote just today to emphasis a point (could be appeal to quotation/authority)... I think if it misses the mark of relevance and just is emotion for emotion's sake yeah appeal to emotions for sure.

Wikipedia said manipulation, to me that would be Fear, obligation, and guilt. Blackmail aka threats. Wiki says even wishful thinking.

I've heard the Peking Opera doing traditional Chinese opera; I've also seen Japanese No plays, and must admit that neither of them meant anything to me. Zero. It was advertised as true to the form and first rate, but one has to have a set of knowledge and understanding to obtain meaning from music.

Were you to find a western audience of musically naive people (who had never heard music) and gave them a typical orchestral concert performance, opera, or rock song it is unlikely they would get much out of it. Music does communicate, but we have to learn its language.

The average 21st century peasant is far more musically sophisticated than the 18th century counterpart. With recorded sound, radio, television, and film (and live music, when available) even ordinary people have heard a vast amount of music. So, when people watch a movie, they respond appropriately to the music. They know the difference between romantic interlude music and approaching evil music, or victory, or defeat, or comedy, or excitement, etc.

So here is a piece of Balinese gamelan music; you or I may find it pleasant, interesting, repellent, or whatever -- I don't think we can find the meaning someone from Bali could without some preparation.

Music does communicate, but we have to learn its language. — Bitter Crank

How? If math is the language of the universe, then what's music the language of?

Wonderful piece of music by the way.

Can music be appreciated as a form of communication? — Wallows

Music has evolved so much. If I'm not mistaken, it began with songs sung by our ancestors. Then came along instruments. What followed was a combination of the two. Have I left anything out.

Regarding music and its relationship with us, I'd like to say it began as an expression of emotions.

According to logic, our expressions have emotive and cognitive content. Music, methinks, is about the former. At least it was when it began. This is just a guess I'm making. I'm no expert.

But then it evolved and a lot of songs these days have congitive content. Some songs are philosophical, others political, etc.

So, yes, music can be a form of communication. A very powerful one in fact because it is possible, at least in theory, to say sensible things in a beautiful way. Combing logic with good rhetoric is very hard to come by. Don't you think?

We learn how to identify a melody, and whether it is a happy or sad melody; we learn how to recognize a rhythm; we learn how to recognize harmony; we observe the tempo, the timbre of the instruments and voices, and so forth. We learn that certain melodies, rhythms, tempos, and instrumentations have certain uses.

An Irish jig or a polka wouldn't be appropriate at a funeral. A dirge wouldn't suit a wedding. A military march might not fly at a peace conference.

The meaning of music isn't natural; it's a human invention, pretty much, and it's a physical thing. The fact that we have two feet and not 5 makes marches and polkas what they are. We can only sing so high and so low, and one can hold a note only so long. If we didn't have fingers, the piano (harpsichord, guitar, flute, bassoon, etc.) would not exist. Our ears can only hear a range of sounds, and our bodies can produce movement (on a keyboard, for instance) only so fast.

The meaning-making of music is very old. The first flutes are... something like 40,000 years old, and were made out of bone and found in a German cave.



Music, body, emotion.

Here is a link to a page where you can hear a 9,000 year old flute being played. Why does it sound "normal"? Because it was designed for a human with 2 hands, 10 fingers, limited lung capacity, limited hearing, etc.

A military march might not fly at a peace conference. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps as a piece showing the powerful effect of music on humans. To engage and stir the relevant emotions - to effect or be affected by war and death.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_(music)

How about a military march (parade) being music-bombed by John Lennon.
The potent mix of music and philosophical lyrics of 'Imagine'.
Together with images displayed on a large popup screen...

Perhaps music is even more important than language in helping people from different cultures to connect with and understand one another. — Wallows

Yes. But together you can do magic, baby !

Music has evolved so much. If I'm not mistaken, it began with songs sung by our ancestors. Then came along instruments. What followed was a combination of the two. Have I left anything out. — TheMadFool

Yes, you have left out the harpsichord organ, and the piano!

Regarding music and its relationship with us, I'd like to say it began as an expression of emotions. — TheMadFool

Yes, indeed. We seem to have some sort of output in terms of the need to express emotions and feelings.

But then it evolved and a lot of songs these days have congitive content. Some songs are philosophical, others political, etc. — TheMadFool

But, for the sake of argumentation and simplicity, then we experience only melodies and instruments.

Combing logic with good rhetoric is very hard to come by. Don't you think? — TheMadFool

Yes, that is possible. :)

We learn how to identify a melody, and whether it is a happy or sad melody; we learn how to recognize a rhythm; we learn how to recognize harmony; we observe the tempo, the timbre of the instruments and voices, and so forth. We learn that certain melodies, rhythms, tempos, and instrumentations have certain uses. — Bitter Crank

Chicken or egg? It seems to me that we come to know "emotive content" before we come to learn it's an effect on other people and thus affect in ourselves, through learning. Something hardwired or baken in already from birth.

An Irish jig or a polka wouldn't be appropriate at a funeral. A dirge wouldn't suit a wedding. A military march might not fly at a peace conference. — Bitter Crank

Yes, it might not be "appropriate" in some socially derived sense; but, why that so seems to be the question.

The meaning of music isn't natural; it's a human invention, pretty much, and it's a physical thing. The fact that we have two feet and not 5 makes marches and polkas what they are. We can only sing so high and so low, and one can hold a note only so long. If we didn't have fingers, the piano (harpsichord, guitar, flute, bassoon, etc.) would not exist. Our ears can only hear a range of sounds, and our bodies can produce movement (on a keyboard, for instance) only so fast. — Bitter Crank

I disagree. I think it is something that is Platonic. Why do we still appreciate Mozart, Chopin, or Bach to this day? It evokes a sense of aesthetic appeal through emotion or nostalgia further through quite unknown means...

we come to know "emotive content" before we come to learn it's an effect on other people and thus affect in ourselves, through learning. — Wallows

Yes, I agree; human emotions may not be fully developed in infants and children, but they are there from the beginning. Over time both cognitive, motor, sensory, and emotional capacity and complexity develop (not all at the same rate).

Platonic. Why do we still appreciate Mozart, Chopin, or Bach to this day? It evokes a sense of aesthetic appeal through emotion or nostalgia further through quite unknown means... — Wallows

I don't believe in platonic forms.

There are plenty of people who, in fact, don't appreciate Mozart, Chopin, or Bach. These unlucky children grew up without hearing Mozart, Haydn, or Beethoven, or Gabrieli, John Dowland, or Michael Praetorius, or Hildegard of Bingen (d. 1179) or 500 other great composers, both living and dead. There is absolutely no reason why someone who has grown up hearing not a lot more than the lowest grade of mass market country western music or rap would be ready to enjoy opera by Mozart or John Adams (Dr. Atomic or Nixon in China).

All music has 'conventions' which one has to learn something about. Not being familiar with the conventions of a given genre can scare one off.

A private education isn't required. Ordinary people can prepare their children to enjoy serious music (Bach, Chopin, Mozart et al) by enjoying it themselves and exposing their children to it frequently, in various venues -- some churches, live concerts, and of course radio and recorded music. (It has to be treated as something more than wallpaper, however; the parents need to engage with the music and be seen engaging with it.)

Formal concert attendance tends to be a gray-haired phenomena--partly owing to the cost of tickets. The audience for classical music is shrinking--<3% of music sold is classical. In 1937, the average age of orchestra concerts in Los Angeles was 28. Not any more-- it's closer to the social security average. average. There are a lot fewer classical music stations than there used to be, even 15-20 years ago. In 1995 Minneapolis-St. Paul had 3, now it has 1. Of course, there is the internet now, which wasn't a factor in 1995.

Way back in the 1950s CBS AM radio was still broadcasting live classical music. Imagine that!

I think music can become communication. Sometimes I over hear people talking, and it seems that some of what people are talking about, or talking like, has its origins in the musical industry. The impact is one where communication is affected.

You might play a certain type of music, and than you feel like you have communicated something about yourself. I do this when playing music in the car, and I think most people who play music in their car, that other people can hear, are indeed communicating something about themselves.

Interesting.

A book encountered some years ago, author and title forgot, was an extended and comprehensive analysis of music along the lines of the the title of this tread, i.e., music as communication. An early point the author made was that since the early middle ages, western music has been primarily about feeling, about emotion. Some of it is imitative, as with the musical representation of animals. Some of it is intellectual, as with fugues. But mainly, emotion. Following this generalization was much analysis of chords and melodies and harmonies in the different keys and how it all works in different pieces of music, in support of the main thesis about the emotional content. Feeliing, intellection, imitation, in that order.

I wonder how much of music is derived from its social context. For example, everyone knows that Chopin is renowned for inducing a feeling of nostalgia or melancholia. But, is this something a child would apprehend had he or she heard Chopin for the first time? Would they say, "Oh wow, this song really makes me miss home!"

What do you or others think?

Clearly, music has some appeal to animals, specifically elephants. Perhaps, a radio might be playing some opera or the blues and the elephant overhears it. It responds in some way.

Just as an example:



Clearly, the elephant in this video is enjoying the music. Its ears are flapping, it moves its head to the melody, wants to actively participate in the generation of the music by banging the piano keys.

Just some more about a blind elephant enjoying a piece of Bach. Quite fascinating:

Music does communicate, but we have to learn its language.
— Bitter Crank

How? If math is the language of the universe, then what's music the language of? — Shawn

Music is the language of the soul. Words are vibrations in the air, sounds made to represent things which are not sounds. Music is also vibrations in the air, however, the meaning of music is not a reference to something else, but rather a reference to itself, in regards to tone, rhythm, frequency and the relationship of pitch. Music is “understood” by the feelings that it invokes in the listener and that is why everyone doesn’t like the same music!