Do you know music?

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I'll say I suspect an overly intellectual approach to music, or at least to an introduction to music is self-defeating. My own interest began when I was only a toddler singing along to the Everly Brothers' "Wake Up Little Susie" in the car on the way to nursery school. I believe it was William Blake who said something to the effect of, All art aspires to be music. While music harldy eludes intellectual scrutiny, at its heart it connects to a primitive human impulse. The same impulse that inspires people to tap feet, bob heads, dance on a whim.

I support your notion that all people ought to develop a hobby in which they can express themselves creatively. Is an "intellectual life" the way to go about this? I'm not sure. Art and intellect don't always depend on each other. Trugenev said something like, Love is the triumph of imagination over intellect. If we apply this to the definition of beauty (a popular one, though one to which you may not subscribe) as that which inspires love for the beautiful subject, then the appreciation of beautiful art would necessarily involve the triumph of imagination over intellect.

Let me say that I believe beauty is one of many meausures by which art ought to be judged. For example, some art may be meant to repulse.

0 Replies

Gargamel wrote:

I believe it was William Blake who said something to the effect of, All art aspires to be music.

I don't know if Blake said it, but Walter Pater is the one who made the line famous.

0 Replies

Shapeless wrote:

Gargamel wrote:
I believe it was William Blake who said something to the effect of, All art aspires to be music.

I don't know if Blake said it, but Walter Pater is the one who made the line famous.

Good to know. Thanks.

0 Replies

Gargamel wrote:

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I'll say I suspect an overly intellectual approach to music, or at least to an introduction to music is self-defeating. My own interest began when I was only a toddler singing along to the Everly Brothers' "Wake Up Little Susie" in the car on the way to nursery school. I believe it was William Blake who said something to the effect of, All art aspires to be music. While music harldy eludes intellectual scrutiny, at its heart it connects to a primitive human impulse. The same impulse that inspires people to tap feet, bob heads, dance on a whim.

I support your notion that all people ought to develop a hobby in which they can express themselves creatively. Is an "intellectual life" the way to go about this? I'm not sure. Art and intellect don't always depend on each other. Trugenev said something like, Love is the triumph of imagination over intellect. If we apply this to the definition of beauty (a popular one, though one to which you may not subscribe) as that which inspires love for the beautiful subject, then the appreciation of beautiful art would necessarily involve the triumph of imagination over intellect.

Let me say that I believe beauty is one of many meausures by which art ought to be judged. For example, some art may be meant to repulse.

I think that I understand what you mean. For you and for most everyone music is an emotional happening. But I am certain that there is much more to music than this emotional response and that is what I wanted to find.

I suspect that almost everyone can find pleasure in music. Likewise almost everyone can find pleasure in living but I seek something more. There is more than what is derived through osmosis; it is this something more that I think will greatly broaden our life should we try to find it.

I do not see how anyone can be too intellectual about anything. I think this attitude that denegrates intellectual activity does great harm to our society and to the individual. Anti-intellectualism is very strong in the United States. This bias against intellectual activity is perhaps displayed in the responses to my question. People can live and love music without ever going beyond the surface of music. Such is the case with most everything in our society.

0 Replies

I see no "anti-intellectualism" in the United States. No one is picketing philosophy buildings at state universities. I see lethargy, apathy. There's a difference. In what capacity and in which instances do people need to go beneath "the surface," and how ought intellect be applied to that end?

I believe whole-heartedly that one can be overly intellectual. The analytical faculties of the mind are just one of its operations. As I stated above, intellect can be at odds with the imagination in terms of art. And with instinct, in terms of survival. Instincts have as much to do with the preservation and perserverence of Homo sapien as the intellect does with our questionable future. So, where you say a lack of intellectual acuity does harm to our society, I find a contradiction.

Then again, this is just one side of a multi-faceted argument. Americans could certainly benefit from exercising critical thought while absorbing news. And studying music, literature, etc. is a peaceful endeavor. An aprpeciation for art requires a degree of empathy at odds with going out to a club and acting like a dickbrain. Or, say, invading a country for no reason.

I see what you're driving at, but I think the idea is far more complex than what we've yet discussed.

0 Replies

Quote:

I do not see how anyone can be too intellectual about anything.

funny how a philosophy buff like yourself isn't familiar with the idea of "too much of a good thing" or a lack of balance. i guess some people really feel that thinking is something you can do pretty much all the time, at no cost to the quality of your life. i would certainly agree that "an unexamined life is not worth living," but music would be worth listening to whether we thought about it or simply enjoyed it. in that, it's a great example.

at a time when we're trying to cope with global issues like world government, international unions, and terrorism, our best minds need to do what they do, i respect that. but every one of us needs to make sure that our ability to feel, make use of, and be very familiar with our emotions, or i think the cost will be too great for the next generation to bear.

i'm not anti-intellectual, but there are times i strongly suspect that intellectuals lean towards being anti-emotional. that kind of imbalance is philosophically bizarre, nearly arbitrary, and i certainly am against that imbalance-

again, appreciating music is a great example. but i think we can agree that if you learn more on an intellectual level, it can help you to notice things that can be enjoyed emotionally. but when it comes to how we experience the world, i think the single priority of rationalism is at least one priority too few.

0 Replies

Some good posts.

The unlived life is not worth examining.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Some good posts.

The unlived life is not worth examining.

Good point. Our schools and colleges have taught us that our brain is needed for learning things so we can get good jobs. Our education has not prepared us to live life to the fullest. To live life to the fullest means that we must learn to engage our intellect in our life for things other than our job. Our intellect is what gives us the means to make a life worth examining.

0 Replies

Yes, when asked why education is important, other than for gaining the skills for making a living, I always respond "In order to make life more interesting."
I detest the fact that whenever there is a politically-driven call for "improvements" in formal education, testing standards are raised and math and (superficial) science classes are added. Rarely is attention given to the need for art, music, philosophy, literature and the social science courses, the lessons that make us both more interested, interesting and independent. I do suspect that, while not always thinking it consciously, politicians and those who sponsor them prefer a society of engineers and salesmen to a society of artists, philosophers and poets. The latter are less controllable.

0 Replies

One should never stare
at people who ain't aware
that every morning they wake up
DEAD.

0 Replies

Heavy ****, Dys.

Can I add the notion that when we die we awaken, perhaps, to our true existence, that which we were all the eons before our (earthly) birth, before the development of our egoselves, the delusion that we are separate from that universe that has neither beginning nor end?

I know: Nah!

0 Replies

Quote:

The unlived life is not worth examining.

has this made it to "cool sig lines" yet? this is one of the best things that's ever been posted here.

Quote:

Can I add the notion that when we die we awaken, perhaps, to our true existence, that which we were all the eons before our (earthly) birth, before the development of our egoselves, the delusion that we are separate from that universe that has neither beginning nor end?

yeah, why not?

0 Replies

You beat me, I just saved it to my stickies for a potential sig line.

go for it...

(I've had JLN sig lines before, and no doubt will again...)

0 Replies

ah, the secret here is that i wouldn't likely talk about how it should be added and also add it myself.

i've added sig lines to that thread before, if you were going to, i suggest you go and do so Smile

i'll just watch for the next one.

0 Replies

Thanks, folks. I'm flattered.
But I think my best line so far has been "Heavy ****, Dys."

0 Replies

Yes, coberst. I know music. See if you can appreciate this. Turn on your speakers.

Schumann

0 Replies

Letty, I've always loved Traumerei, both solo on the piano and as a violin-piano duet. But THIS rendition, while cute as it was intended to be, was far from musical. I'm sure you agree.

0 Replies

Do you know music?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know