I'm wondering in what capacity my experience has been shaped by my particular history as a listener rather than a musician. I don't see music as meaningful. It doesn't refer to anything. The beauty is in the music in a very direct way. The musician herself is largely irrelevant to me. It's as if the music is its own world.
I've been meaning to reply to this thread for a while, but it seems like everytime I think about what makes music so awesome, I lack the ability to describe it. I guess I'll try anyway
Primarily, I think the effect music has on people depends on their own particular preferences (duh). But this is important, because it means that each person's preferences are unique in a way that we can't really describe.
If we can't describe these differences, than how do we explain the fact that some people "just prefer" certain music? We can't wrap our brain around it. I honestly cannot understand how other people could like something for a different reason than myself. I just know that they do.
For me, music's main force resides in its ability to evoke atypical emotional or mental states (often both). It accomplishes this by creating novel combinations and patterns of sound. But there are certain, mechanical and logistical requirements. It must be played precisely, with strict attention to time. Sloppiness is about the worst thing for me musically.
I think music is like a key that can unlock the synesthetic attributes of every human brain. Music will often make me think of landscapes or particular colors....or even certain kinds of weather. For example, the sound of leaves rustling in the wind is almost always a dark and ominous kind of experience for me, and it is directly linked to the sound of the leaves scratching together. Or think of how many songs include references to "rain" or "sunshine."
I also think music is bound up in a continuum of human brain evolution, and certain rhythms and melodies can appeal to certain "pathways" in the brain which have existed for thousands of years. Music is fundamentally traditional - it grows with a particular society and then members of that society evolve brains which are structured to be more and more similar to others who hear the same music.
Basically, music is a medium. Humans shape it to their own personal taste. And when you consider the fact that each individual's unique brain will have its own unique structure as determined by physiological evolution....you might ask, what are the chances that one musician's ideas will be pleasurable to someone who didn't create that music?
Well, humans do share a common ancestor, which means that every human is in some way analogous to every other human. Clearly, a musician is not fundamentally different than a non-musician. They are just a messenger for the musical ideas that are in fact pleasurable to a great many people.
As far as why I am partial to certain music...there is another dimension. Music seems to be particularly good when it contains multiple levels of meaning which are related.
For example, a song might be asthetically dark and depressing in terms of how it sounds (like leaves rustling in the wind). But it may contain a melody which means something different. Maybe the melody is actually "hopefull" or "uplifting," indicating a sort juxtaposition between meanings. I may interpret that to mean something like, "in the face of the despair, we can find some faint glimmer of light in the darkness that can only be discovered from that dark place." And then if their are lyrics, they might support that kind of interpretation. The music gets even better as you add additional layers of meaning that are analogous to the sub-structure of the music. In this example, maybe the lyrics are about someone who lost a lifelong partner only to rediscover himself in another pursuit.
My brain puts that all together, and I'm left with something that is undeniably forceful. I think that our brains are capable of far more experience than we typically encounter. I often find that certain songs can produce emotions that would never even exist outside of that particular experience. But luckily, my brain usually finds a way to interpret the emotion. If not, I'm still left with deciphering the intricacies of the music, which is itself a pleasurable thing. Music doesn't need to hold some important message that can be translated.
But I find that this is the sort of music that I like. Even trivial meaning is still significant. For example, I love to listen to well played latin music, with lots of timbale, conga, etc. The best part is when somebody takes a solo and I get to listen to a musician improvise. Many of my favorite musical passages are from guitar solos, where a certain passage delivers exactly the right impact at the right time. I've often toyed around with the idea that the soul of music lies in improvisation, because it opens up a direct line of communication between the musician and listener. The soloist is free to deliver musical ideas in a way that makes it quite obvious he knows he is being listened to. For example, a timbalero might be whacking away on the timbales, and then go into a really fast roll....only to slow it down at an unexpected moment and shift the interval of the roll towards an odd time multiple (in 3 instead of 4 maybe). What he is doing is momentarily catching your attention and then saying, "Hah, I tricked you. You thought I was going to do ABC but instead I did XYZ." There is no "meaning" per se contained in this sort of thing...because the significance stems from an intentional communication with the listener. You could argue that *all* music is "intentional communication" with the listener. Maybe that is true, but then how do you explain why improvisation is considered to be so important?
For that matter, why does music change when it is played in a group? For me, the reason can be found in what group dynamics mean for music. When three people (bass, drums, guitar) play a certain continuous groove, there is a stable foundation from which ideas can flow. The groove is maintained by adhering to accents, which are the anchor between the differing levels of abstraction. Imagine a 10hz wave passing in front of you. Then imagine a 3hz wave superimposed on it. Of course that will result in dissonance. But with the assistance of a human controller, that 3hz wave can be periodically "corrected" and lined up with the original wave. When a guitar player plays his part over the bass and drums, he may deviate from the groove slightly, but will always return to it eventually (usually quickly).
This is why in music theory, the word "tension" comes up. Tension can be thought of as an acknowledged, temporary deviation from a point of reference in music. Tension is "resolved" when continuity is restored. Since the human brain is accutely aware of these kinds of deviations, we sit up and pay attention when we hear such a movement. When order is restored, we are filled up with this overwhelming sense of accomplishment....a pride in our own ability to "notice." When these strategies are employed by the musician...two minds become one. This is a hallmark of any and all communication...but music arrives at this "oneness" through a particularly effective mix of meaning and aesthetic skill.
There are other things as well, like why lyrics are so important (on multiple levels and for both the musician and listener), and how music even got started in the first place. I'll save that for another post.
Remember that one, any old time Moody Blues fans?
