What music grabs at/expresses your essential feel of reality

Post Reply New Topic

Every so often I hear a song on the radio that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

I think "Oh my god, that is FANTASTIC"

I won't tell you what songs turn me on. I have mine and you have yours.

I like Ravel's "Pavane for a Dead Princess" (I've heard Ravel hated it) and Prokofiev's "Romeo and Juliet Suite" and Debussy's mood music ( The Girl with the Flaxen Hair) and Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra and quite a few others. I don't see their relationship to reality. Also Songs of the Auverne ...many others. (and, oh yes! Bachianas Brasileiras by Villa Lobos) and Carmina Burana by Orff avd Stravinski's Rites of Spring and Appalachian Spring by Copeland.

You'd have less of it - more of it would be coming back up than making its way through.

The thing I notice about the extreme music theory nuts - they make crap for music. If you really 'feel' it you can do it right, if its all logic and numbers its going to be horridly lacking, it might be mathematically genius but the feel of it will turn most people off who aren't say progressive metal fans, where even there I'd think they're picky enough to know when its being leaned on too much.

Crap is subjective, only an artist who accomplishes his work via music, painting, writing etc. is the one experiencing its beauty. Not every work of music or art will ever satisfy a person's hunger for "perfection".

You could say Andy Warhol, Picasso or Salvadore Dali's works were crap or beauty. Therein lies the irony of creativity and the beauty in its beholders.

I think in essence I was backing up what you said about the celestial or divine aspects. If we were to look at those from an atheistic point of view they're still very real, just that what its tapping into is the leviathan nature of our subconscious - it seems like its 100 parts to one with our consciousness sometimes, perhaps more.

Those who can't feel the soul of music that way and would insist on pure numbers or means within the music are the types of people who will take that idea, try to make it as well as they can, they'll come back and play what they made, but if they're missing the soul/spirit/celestial understanding of the music it simply won't work.

The funny thing about music is that its a form of art where, lets say all hell broke loose - we ended up having the pandemic flu that wiped out our country, it became a Mad Max or Book of Eli kind of world, music would actually become far more powerful. A Hollywood example is Shawshank Redemption with the guy throwing on a record over the PA for the prisoners where, being its a hollywood prison, its filled with people who stop and take a moment for revere, it hit them as if it was the national anthem. To make the kind of music that can really inspire hope, stir people within, it takes an understanding of what that is, how it works, how it sounds - math may likely never be able to cover that as the nuance is almost neverending.

That said there are songs that are just kind of there which meant something to the artist and then there is music that inspires people to live another day, music that would warm the hearts and souls if it had been snuck in on a small phonograph at Auschwitz. I think that's where one can argue that for most intents and purposes there is a qualitative difference.


They had soul. I think most people take their art as far better and far more valuable than the painter who is technical perfection but paints the most drab, uninspiring landscapes or has no concept of 'soul' in artwork. In that sense nothing is communicated - it looks ok in a doctors office but it does little for anyone who isn't of their exact same ilk.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJTiXoMCppw&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpx_VXRG_qc[/youtube]

pandabear: i salute you. that's hilarious. i must check out liz phair.

cheers.

-luke

Do we?

Most solo songs by Sting, many Police songs, much of John Lennon's solo music, anything performed by Glenn Gould, and Steve Reich's "Music for 18 Musicians".

Now whether they "express a fundamental reality" or are just raw, visceral, preferences of mine have yet to be determined!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rk78eCIx4E[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1hVOz_NwXI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-KyL2gMxV8&feature=PlayList&p=6B66514017243F11&index=0&playnext=1[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU23LqQ6LY4[/youtube]

I don't.

I won't lie, some would perhaps get a D- or just about need the teacher to give some extra credit (only joking here - don't take this as my literal understanding of what it is; apparently a lot people here think I'm pretty dumb so the disclaimer is called for)

You can look at the Turing test from at least two points of view. If a machine can simulate a human well enough to fool most people does that indicate that a machine is equivalent to a human or does it indicate a human is so machine-like that something is missing in humanity? I imagine humans vary sufficiently to make that question a problem.

many of the ones you mentioned in the paragraph above, have been re-imagined by a japanese artist named isao tomita. give them a try, you will hear aspects of the music you have not heard before, a different view of the works, i guarantee it. this artist did several albums of works by ravel and debussy, pieces of which have been used in various tv programs and commercials the world over. he did an album featuring bachianas brasileiras [villa lobos] that is especially cosmic, it is on the album "canon of the 3 stars" [interesting story behind that one also].