Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

So-called Positive and Negative Music

Re: So-called Positive and Negative Music
May 24, 2008, 02:19:34 PM
I prefer to listen to music in which one has to work towards its full comprehension. "Positive" music by the contemporary definition seems to be the stuff that folks bask in passively, whether it be the Beatles during a quiet, neighborhood barbeque, or whatever stuff my peers listen to during partys nowadays. The same principle applies: let it do its work in the background, like a conniving call girl on your boss's balls mid-afternoons every Thursday. (Yet you wonder why you didn't get that pay raise last quarter?)

Metal and classical music require quite a bit of engagement, and it doesn't afford the same carefree atmosphere that so-called "positive" music does. Because it demands our attention in a society that prides itself in freedom of choice--and most folks prefer not to be faced with more profound levels of reality during their experience--these two artforms are considered intrusive and offensive by many. Note also, that popular music functions equally, if not moreso, on radiating outwards and initiating social contact as it does on engaging dialogue with the listener.

However much jazz one must be engaged in, and some jazz is simply not suitable for passive listening. I think we need to create a more whole description in order for jazz to be excluded.

Re: So-called Positive and Negative Music
May 26, 2008, 05:21:04 PM
Ha, the site said that heavy music is disturbing to the nervous system.

By "disturbing", they probably mean that it actually causes thought? From my understanding, thought outside of the established norm can be disturbing.

It also mentions that it causes stress? And stress is a factor created by conflict. People need conflict. Constructive conflict. Why else do kids get caught up in little things, like when you accidentally scuff their new Reeboks or K-Swiss?