Quote:
|
Originally Posted by truncated
There is a multitude of points in the original post that could be debated, but most or all of them could be eliminated by the elemental question of the definition of "music," which is essentially highly subjective. Without being verbose or pedantic, over time humans have expanded/altered the traditional definition of "music" to include organizations of sounds and melodies that are, though heretofore discounted, considered dissonant or cacophonous, both meditated and 'spontaneously' occurring. Therefore, there is no concrete definition of music, rendering the original question somewhat obsolete.
I'm not sure if this is a consequence of the above rambling or a tangent, but SuchFriendsAreDangerous separates "music" and "language," and I'm not sure that's a correct presentation. In an oversimplified way of speaking (or typing), regardless of origin, complexity, or even vehicle, all music communicates something, therefore becoming a language in itself.
In an extremely rambling and simultaneously circuitous way of speaking, I suppose my point is that with the subjectivity of these terms, SuchFriendsAreDangerous's question is totally moot.
The End.
|
while that is a delightful and thought provoking response, it is rather circular wouldn't you agree? Of course music is subjective, that is the very question proposed. ALso, I did not in fact separate music and language, rather I am saying that music is a form of primal language, communicating messages which are at the same time too simple and too complex for the language of words. Words and language are the communication of thoughts, music is the communication of feelings.
and the real question if music is part of the evolutionary function of communication of feelings, what is the evolutionary function of these feelings in the first place?