Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

music is not beautiful

music is not beautiful
October 26, 2012, 07:13:40 PM
What it describes is beautiful. A sorely missed distinction leading to a common misconception. Maybe Gustav Holst was right after all?
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: music is not beautiful
October 27, 2012, 02:25:48 AM
Yes, this is true. And it could apply to many other facets of life.

I often wonder if people are naturally hardwired to miss the point.

What did Holst have to say about it btw?

Re: music is not beautiful
October 27, 2012, 03:18:59 AM
I'm not sure I follow. What is music describing? Something metaphysical, like Truth? Or perhaps an emotion? If a composition makes you feel beautiful feelings then why not call it beautiful? Why play with words like this?

Re: music is not beautiful
October 27, 2012, 11:01:33 AM
I don't understand why this is an important distinction either. It is beautiful by describing the beautiful surely.

Re: music is not beautiful
October 27, 2012, 12:43:12 PM
I think the message the OP was trying to convey is that composition is significantly more important than aesthetics. Perhaps some people are hard-wired to only look for aesthetics.

Re: music is not beautiful
October 27, 2012, 08:58:01 PM
Beauty is a decpetion of the mind. The only thing that matters is function.

Re: music is not beautiful
October 27, 2012, 10:39:00 PM
Beauty is a decpetion of the mind. The only thing that matters is function.

What if the function is beauty? What's the point of being functional if we cannot revere the ''beautiful''?
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” -Krishnamurti

''I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.''  -Hippolyte Taine

Re: music is not beautiful
October 28, 2012, 04:58:21 PM
Beauty is a decpetion of the mind. The only thing that matters is function.

What if the function is beauty? What's the point of being functional if we cannot revere the ''beautiful''?

Why revere it? Crush it with the might of functionality.

Re: music is not beautiful
October 28, 2012, 05:18:48 PM
Beauty is a decpetion of the mind. The only thing that matters is function.

What if the function is beauty? What's the point of being functional if we cannot revere the ''beautiful''?

Why revere it? Crush it with the might of functionality.
Functionality is beautiful!

Re: music is not beautiful
October 30, 2012, 09:18:29 AM
Today, we're lucky if people can get passed idolizing the composer, let alone distinguishing music from what it describes.

Re: music is not beautiful
October 30, 2012, 12:07:59 PM
The function of beauty is to feed the soul.  This is why ugly places produce ugly people - go to any council estate in London and try not to get stabbed.

Re: music is not beautiful
October 30, 2012, 02:26:56 PM
It is not the music itself, but what the music stirs in us. Like words. I suppose there are many directions to take this. I think that this distinction shows what is truly wrong with making music for music's sake; modern metal, jazz fusion etc.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: music is not beautiful
November 01, 2012, 10:46:59 PM
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, but the person that encounters beauty always brings something to the table.  When you read a great book or listen to great music you have to bring a little something yourself and meet the artist or the piece somewhere in the middle.  In fact it's not even a question of whether you should or you should not, it's just unavoidable.  I think this inevitability creates the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" effect.

I might posit a ratio of the artist's mastery to how much the audience must bring to the table.  If the artist is a master, the audience hardly has to bring anything of themselves or expend much effort and vice versa.  A good rule of thumb is:  are you aware that you're listening to music?  or did you completely "lose yourself?"

This leads me to refinement.  I believe that over-refinement is not beautiful.  Refinement might not be the perfect word, but what I'm saying is, a masterful artist doesn't say too little, but he also doesn't say too much.  You can imagine how stupid a book would be that describes every last detail to the nth degree.  I believe a masterful artist anticipates an audience and almost creates "voids" in the work, where the audience is able to fill in the blanks themselves.  Like when I compare the Sagas to The Lord of the Rings, the landscapes in the Sagas are described minimally, whereas the landscapes in LoTR, they are described in detail.  For my money, the Sagas creates an atmosphere where I can lose myself, whereas long descriptions sometimes has the odd effect of reminding me that I'm merely reading a book.  I hope this makes sense.

I think we should distinguish between art for art's sake, art for beauty's sake, and art for some ideology's sake.  I think maybe some conflate art for art's sake with art for beauty's sake, and thus, they are left with an "art for ideology's sake."  Art should be for beauty's sake and not for either art's sake or ideology's sake.

Back to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  The potential problem you run up against is that when you rightfully conclude that beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder, then you have a tendency to say that beauty is merely a collection of symmetries and ratios, essentially.  But the thing about that is, symmetries and ratios are not beauty either, they are simply another way to describe beauty.  As others have said, beauty is how all these ratios and symmetries relate to one another all at once and work in unison over time.  And, btw, what would the musical analogs be for symmetry or golden ratios?  Because music has the added dimension of time, so is there such a thing as temporal symmetry?
His Majesty at the Swamp / Black Arts Lead to Everlasting Sins / Diabolical Fullmoon Mysticism / Oath of Black Blood / Privilege of Evil / Dawn of Possession / In Battle There is No Law / Thousand Swords / To Mega Therion

Re: music is not beautiful
November 01, 2012, 11:31:21 PM
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, but the person that encounters beauty always brings something to the table.  When you read a great book or listen to great music you have to bring a little something yourself and meet the artist or the piece somewhere in the middle.  In fact it's not even a question of whether you should or you should not, it's just unavoidable.  I think this inevitability creates the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" effect.

I might posit a ratio of the artist's mastery to how much the audience must bring to the table.  If the artist is a master, the audience hardly has to bring anything of themselves or expend much effort and vice versa.  A good rule of thumb is:  are you aware that you're listening to music?  or did you completely "lose yourself?"

This leads me to refinement.  I believe that over-refinement is not beautiful.  Refinement might not be the perfect word, but what I'm saying is, a masterful artist doesn't say too little, but he also doesn't say too much.  You can imagine how stupid a book would be that describes every last detail to the nth degree.  I believe a masterful artist anticipates an audience and almost creates "voids" in the work, where the audience is able to fill in the blanks themselves.  Like when I compare the Sagas to The Lord of the Rings, the landscapes in the Sagas are described minimally, whereas the landscapes in LoTR, they are described in detail.  For my money, the Sagas creates an atmosphere where I can lose myself, whereas long descriptions sometimes has the odd effect of reminding me that I'm merely reading a book.  I hope this makes sense.

I think we should distinguish between art for art's sake, art for beauty's sake, and art for some ideology's sake.  I think maybe some conflate art for art's sake with art for beauty's sake, and thus, they are left with an "art for ideology's sake."  Art should be for beauty's sake and not for either art's sake or ideology's sake.

Back to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  The potential problem you run up against is that when you rightfully conclude that beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder, then you have a tendency to say that beauty is merely a collection of symmetries and ratios, essentially.  But the thing about that is, symmetries and ratios are not beauty either, they are simply another way to describe beauty.  As others have said, beauty is how all these ratios and symmetries relate to one another all at once and work in unison over time.  And, btw, what would the musical analogs be for symmetry or golden ratios?  Because music has the added dimension of time, so is there such a thing as temporal symmetry?

Indeed. Communication is a two way process, something is required out of the artist and the receiver.

I think art is best when it leaves much to the imagination, a la Beherit. Oppressively simple, leaving your mind to fill in the blanks.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: music is not beautiful
November 02, 2012, 12:01:14 AM
It is not the music itself, but what the music stirs in us. Like words.

Like any work.

  • Concept
  • Processing
  • Completion
  • Effects

People tend to see effect in completion or to pursue completion as a goal and then miss the mark so often. As desired results, the effects need to be the goal.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793