Response to Abby

Abby stated that she believes human life happened randomly by chance and we serve no purpose.  I'm not going to say that I believe God put us here for a purpose, but I don't believe our existence is an accident.  Abby says "genes happened to mutate in such a way that ultimately lead to the evolution of a human being".  Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you can't also believe in creationism.  I agree that we could have started out as simple one-celled organisms and evolved into the complex beings we are today.  But where did those one celled organisms come from?  Evolution is an amazing thing but it can't create something out of nothing.  Even the most basic elements of the world had to have come from somewhere.  We can only break things down to a certain point before you can't go any further.  This is why I don't think our existence is an accident.  In my mind, the world is too harmonic and balanced for it to be a mere coincidence.  Whether you believe in the traditional idea of "God" or just some higher form of power is irrelevant; but I find it hard to deny that there is something greater than us.  However, my knowledge about both science and religion is pretty limited, so if anyone has any insight on the subject, I would like to hear it.

The Temperaments of Instruments

This post was inspired by "The Musical Temperament" by Anthony E. Kemp, which is what I read for my book review.  Today in class I mentioned that people tend to judge musicians based on their instrument.  For example, string players were described by their fellow musicians as serious and introverted.  Woodwind players were described as introverted, radical and imaginative and brass players were describes as social but having low levels of intelligence and discipline.  When I first read this, I thought it was ridiculous; however, I must admit that I have, at times,  made similar judgements about musicians I know.  Why do we associate certain qualities with certain instruments?

For one thing, the actual sound of the instrument has it's own temperament.  Drums are loud and disruptive; flutes are soft and delicate.  These are just two examples of the many assumptions people make about musicians based on their instruments.  But the more interesting question here is, does the musician take on certain qualities because of their instrument?  Does a drummer start acting louder and more disruptive simply because of his or her instrument?  Perhaps we inherit the temperament of our instrument.  I feel that this could justify the use of music in psychological therapy.  If someone is trying to learn to be more assertive in social situations, then maybe they can learn to express their emotions in a dominating way through a more dominating instrument such as the drums, trumpet, or saxophone.  These three instruments are all assumed to be typically male instruments.  I believe that this also implies that an instrument belongs to a sepcific gender category.

It is clear that our society differentiates instruments by gender; males typically play the  drums, saxophone or trumpet and females typically play the flute, clarinet, or violin.  Firstly, the fact that something as trivial as instruments are placed in gender categories is absurd (not that I think instruments are trivial.  I clearly think they are very important, but in relation to gender they have no significant value).  Secondly, I find it interesting that all of the female instruments are, for the most part, softer and meeker, while the male instruments are louder and stronger.  This mirrors our society's views on gender.  The idea that females play certain instruments and males play others is not an innocent coincidence.  It is just another aspect of our world that reinforces the dominate patriarchal society.  

Instruments say more about their owner and their owner's place in society than we give them credit for.  They are not simply the objects musicians use to make music.  After reading The Musical Temperament, and drawing my own conclusions from it, I have to agree with Davies that an instrument is an extension of the person playing it.  Our society's views on individual instruments strengthens stereotypes and the categorization of certain people.

Question:  Can other inanimate objects have their own temperament?  If not, than why can instruments?

 

Response to Amy (Murder)

This is a response to Amy Rosvally's blog.  She asked, "If a government official were to kill someone during a torture session, would it be considered murder?".  My answer is yes.  I am disregarding what the law states in my answer because the law is not always right and I believe the law ought to be challenged at times.  

All intentional killing is immoral.  This includes killing during torture, war, the death penalty or abortion.  Our laws make exceptions for a handful of situations, which just makes the issue more unclear.  You can't individually judge specific situations when it comes to killing another person- you either allow it or you don't.  

I stated that all intentional killing is immoral, but how can we determine what is intentional and what is unintentional?  This also makes the issue very unclear when it should be black and white.  If a drunk driver kills someone in a car accident, they weren't intending to kill anyone, but many people treat this situation as if it were just as bad as intended murder, because the drunk driver was irresponsible.  So, our society demands that people take precaution against accidentally killing people.  

Our laws regarding murder are flawed because we allow too much leeway.  Plenty of people literally get away with murder due to supposed lack of intent, self defense, or insanity.  I'm not arguing that these are never legitimate justifications, but I feel that they are overused.  Also, our society doesn't view some intentional killing as murder, such as killing during war.  I think people need to start looking at these situations objectively to determine whether or not it is moral to kill innocent people simply because we are at war with their country.

Question:  Is killing an animal murder?

Response t o Sarah

Children can have a huge impact on their parents, which in turn, often impacts them.  It is called bidirectionally.  Child-parent relationships are actually a lot more complicated than they are commonly believed to be.  Many people think that the parent influences the development of the child and it is as simple as that.  However, the child, the way the child interacts with his or her siblings, and the way the child interacts with his or her parents affects the way the  parent raises the child.

For example, if a parent's child is difficult and hard to take care of, the parent may be worn down, but be able to endure more.  If the child is easy to take care of, than the parent may be easy going and happier, but unable to handle more difficult situations with the child because they are not used to it.  Also, if a parent's first born child was difficult to care for, than their attitudes towards their second or third born child will be affected by his or her relationship with his/her first child.  The parent may be more strict simply because he/she had to be with the first child.

Question:  Is it possible for a parent to remain unaffected by their children?  Is it possible for children to remain unaffected by their parents- or overcome the effect their parents have had on them?

Response to Betsy

I don't believe that it is ethical to seek to eliminate a species because they have the potential to harm us.  It's ethical to kill a mosquito that is biting you, because they are causing you harm.  It is a sort of self defense.  Eliminating a whole species is a bit drastic and harmful to the natural environment.  Our natural instinct when another living thing is harming us is to harm it back.  Animals do this to other animals, and we naturally do it as well.  But does the fact that something is natural justify it?  Or can it still be considered unethical?

It is natural to favor aesthetically pleasing animals over less attractive animals, but that doesn't mean it's ethical.  Perhaps it is a part of human nature to prefer "cute" things over "ugly" things.  Some people argue that babies make cute sounds so that they're parents will be more inclined to take care of them.  Does this suggest that we wouldn't want to take care of our own offspring if they weren't cute?  Is there possibly an evolutionary purpose for our preference to cute things?

(There are a few different questions in this post; you can just answer one if you'd like to)

Pleasure in Pain

In class, we talked about how people listen to sad music, not just because they "have to" in order to fully appreciate music, but because they want to.  People seek out sad songs.  People also love to watch "tearjerker" movies. Why is it that people want to be saddened by a song or other work of art, but not by real life experiences?  After all, we tend to avoid most negative situations.  Davies briefly mentioned the theory that people use negative art as a way to purge their own negative feelings.  I agree with this.  This reminds me of what Freud said about art.  He said that it's easier to view something painful or sad or disturbing in a work of art and appreciate it as something separate from yourself, than to admit that you have those negative feelings too.  Negative art allows people to feel pain without admitting their own pain.  It serves as a distraction from their own problems.

People voluntarily engage in all sorts of painful activities such as body piercing, tattoos, sadomasochism, or other forms of self harm.  One reason people may do this is simply for the thrill.  It could be exciting and adventurous to hurt yourself.  It could also be used as an escape from reality, the way people listen to sad music as an escape from reality.  

Music as Language (Response to Amy Rosvally)

I believe that music is capable of being used as a language.  If the definition of a language is the use of voice or symbols to intellectually and linguistically communicate, than why can't this include music?  Sound can be a symbol.  I agree with you that usually, music is only used to express general emotions, not specific messages.  But that doesn't mean it can't express specific emotions.  For example, the sound of a bell signals the end of a class period in high school.  A firm alarm signals danger.  The sound of crying represents sadness.  We have learned to associate certain sounds with specific meanings.  This is how language works too.  And, if we are defining music as organized sound, then music can be used to communicate specific messages.  

Question:  What if human beings were born with out the ability to speak verbally?  How would we communicate?

Another Response to Christina

  You're right; the threat of the mother's life is a circumstance.  I should have made my point a little clearer.  In the rare case of having to choose between the mother's life and the fetus's life, I believe that abortion is justified because, either way, someone has to die.  I don't think that any other conditions can justify abortion because they are merely inconveniences to the mother.  Basically, I oppose abortion because I think everyone has a right to life.  However, this means that the mother has a right to life and if her fetus is going to kill her than it should be terminated.  Any other circumstance, no matter how traumatic (rape, incest, etc), does no justify abortion.

Response to Christina Porter

Christina asked if abortion is okay circumstantially.  She lists a few hypothetical situations (rape, incest, etc) and wonders how someone could expect a woman to abort her fetus in these circumstances.  I think that if you are morally opposed to abortion, there should be no exceptions (unless the pregnancy is  threat to the mother's life).  So, abortion is morally wrong no matter what the circumstance is- unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother.  Like I have stated previously in my blog entries, I believe that a fetus is a person.  It is morally wrong to kill a person no matter how inconvenient they might be.  A pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest is a horrible situation, but the fetus is still a person with rights.  

Christina also asks if it is ethical to bring a baby into the world just so they can suffer the hardships of being an orphan.  Nobody can decide for somebody else what life is worth living and what life isn't.  I'm positive that there are many people who grew up without parents who are happy and grateful for their life.  No person should have that much power- that they can decide who lives and who doesn't based on how glamourous the life ahead of them is.  

For me personally, abortion is not an issue of circumstance.  You can't allow for some abortions but not others based on how bad you feel for the mother's situation.  That is subjective; you can't base a decision as serious as this on it.  If you consider a fetus a person, than abortion is always murder, and always morally wrong.  

Question:  If you think abortion is okay in cases of rape or incest, in what other circumstances would you allow abortion?  Where do you draw the line?

Response to Amy Rosvally

Amy asked if abortion can be considered murder if it is performed before the fetus has any brain activity.  If murder is defined as killing a person, then we are back to the question "How do we define a 'person'"?  I have already stated my views on personhood; I believe that all humans are persons, no matter what their mental capabilities are.  A fertilized egg may not yet have brain activity, but neither does a person (that is, if you still consider them a person) who has been declared brain dead.  I'm wondering why we determine personhood based on brain activity.  Does having higher levels of brain function make someone more of a person?  Does a mental handicap detract from someone's personhood?  Or is it more black and white: having any brain activity, no matter how limited, makes one a person?

I think it is important to regard a fetus as a person because although it doesn't have brain activity at first, it will.  It is a growing person.  Just because it is in a very early stage of development doesn't make it insignificant.  I'd also like to point out that brain activity begins very early in the fetus's development; abortions are performed on fetus's who have brains.   Someone used to term "potential person" in class today, which I like.  Even if you don't see a fetus as a person, it is undeniable that it is a potential person.  This is more significant than "honorary personhood" because, by terminating a fetus, you are ending the development of a human.  A honorary person, on the other hand, will never actually be a person.  

(My questions are at the end of the first paragraph.)

Ownership, Creation, and Personhood

When trying to determine the criteria for "personhood", people seem to place a lot of- and, in my opinion, too much- emphasis on the creator and/or owner of the person.  As Davies points out, we cringe at the sight of an instrument being destroyed, not solely because of the craftsmanship involved in making it or our respect for the owner, but because they have a certain status of importance which may or not be considered honorary personhood.  It's not about offending the person who created it or the person who paid good money for it and now owns it.  If an instrument is an honorary person, it is because it has value that is independent from it's relationship with a human.  Similarly, a person in a vegetative state has value regardless of whether or not he or she has any living relatives that care about him or her. 

Today in class I brought up the hypocritical stance many people take on the issue of abortion.  People think that a woman should be allowed to choose to terminate her fetus, but if someone murders her and her fetus, it is considered double homicide.  Our society and our laws place more emphasis on ownership of the fetus than the fetus' status as a person.  If a woman should have the right to abort her fetus simply because she created it, then shouldn't she also have the right to kill her newborn infant?  What about her teenage son or daughter?  She still created him or her.  Obviously, this emphasis on ownership and creation cannot be applied to all stages of human life.  To me, the abortion issue is about the value of life and the value of a person- not the right to choose, a woman's right to privacy, or women's ownership of their body.  Interestingly enough, I identify as a feminist and feel extremely passionate about women's rights.  I do not, however, feel that abortion is a women's rights issue.  To regard abortion as simply "a woman's choice" undermines and even insults the fetus' value and importance.  A woman and a man (men are so disregarded in the abortion debate and it really saddens me) create a child, and according to the law they do own it.  But that isn't what makes it valuable.  The fetus still has an identity separate from it's parents, whether or not it is aware of that.  

I agree with Davies that personhood is a degree of importance and value separate from human relationships and attachments.  Sure, a musician will feel upset when they see an instrument destroyed or abused- but not because it's a waste of money or because they are deeply concerned with respecting the person who made it.  If a musical instrument is an honorary person, then it has a special, independent significance.  Similarly, a human fetus has personhood regardless of it's creators'/owners' relationship to it.  The abortion debate has been turned into something it's not- an issue of choice and feminism.  To make it into a women's issue takes away from the real issue- the fetus and it's status as a person. 

Question:  Do non musicians tend to regard musical instruments in the same way musicians do?  If not, than are musical instruments only honorary persons to musicians?  Shouldn't an honorary person be universal and not specific to individuals?

Who-or what- is a person?

The term "person" is commonly used synonymously with the term "human", but should other forms of life be granted personhood?  My initial response was "no".  I believe that all forms of human life (ranging from fertilized eggs to people in a vegetative state) are all equally deserving of personhood.  But there are many legitimate arguments that say animals are also persons.  They have cognitive thought processes and some are aware of their own existence.  If we allow animals into personhood (not to say that we, as humans, can really determine who does and doesn't have personhood), then we must allow other forms of life into it as well, such as artificial life, artificial intelligence, aliens, and more.  What about a human who has an artificial limb?  What about multiple artificial parts?  At what point does a human being loose it's personhood?  

I believe that all human beings-no matter what stage of life or what physical, mental, or emotional deficiency they may have- retain personhood.  Although a zygote may not yet be considered a "person" by some people, it will be in time.  And although a person in a vegetative state may not be considered a "person" by some people, it once was a person.  Personhood is not something you gain and loose;  it is something constant throughout all stages of life.  A fertilized egg is no different (in regards to personhood) than a fully developed fetus, or a newborn, or a teenager, or an elderly person.  It's all about stages of life.  Partial birth abortion, a procedure that is actually supported by a lot of people- is actually more like infanticide than abortion.  It involves delivering the fetuses entire body except for the head, and vacuuming out it's brain, with the fetus' head still inside the woman.  It seems completely ridiculous to me that people would deny this living being the rights of personhood simply because it is not fully outside of the mother's body yet.  We must accept people all different phases of life as a legitimate person; it is too confusing and morally vague if you set specific conditions for "personhood" in human beings.

Animals, on the other hand, are a different story.  I was a vegetarian for four years, and a very strong supporter of animal rights.  I understand the point of view of animal activists who claim that animals deserve "personhood".  However, I personally view animals as inferior to human beings.  I know this is probably an extremely unpopular view, and I don't intend to offend anyone.  I am not in favor of the mistreatment or abuse of animals, but it is natural to consume them for food.  Animals consume other animals, too.  It's part of the circle of life.  I still oppose killing animals for unnecessary things such as clothing or, even worse, for sport, if it can be avoided.  But I don't think animal life should be valued on quite the same level human life is valued.  Animals deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and maybe they should be considered honorary persons.  But they are not equal to humans.  

Speaking of honorary persons, how can we establish who-or what- does or doesn't deserve honorary personhood?  Davies argues that musical instruments are, in some aspect, honorary persons, because we don't like to see them physically harmed.  Are books honorary persons as well?  I know that the burning of books would be hard to watch for many people.  It's not only the physical item that people are so concerned about, it's the idea of knowledge and the spreading of ideas that people value so much.  The same thing can be said for musical instruments.  Part of what makes them so special might be the things we associate with them.  In class, it was mentioned that a certain philosopher (whose name I forget) regards humans in vegetative states as honorary persons- not actual persons.  I have already stated why I don't agree with this.  It is a little disturbing to think that a person in a vegetative state would be considered on the same level of personhood as a musical instrument.  Maybe I'm just being to narrow-minded, but I really have a hard time accepting anything other than a human being into "personhood".  Things like animals and musical instruments should be handled with care and respect.  And maybe animals should even be given the same rights as human beings, but that doesn't mean they are persons.  It just means they have the same rights as persons.

It becomes very tricky when you start to accept other forms of life into "personhood".  Although all living beings should be treated with appreciation and dignity, it is actually unnatural to treat anything other than a human being as a person.  A human being, regardless of their physical condition, age, or mental state, should never be denied personhood.  Human life is valuable and important; it seems wrong to give it to other living things- or even objects- just because they are extremely special to us.  Even if you believe that all animals should be treated equally to human beings, that would not make us equal.  It would mean we have the same rights, but an animal is still not a person.  A musical instrument is also not a person, no matter how precious it is to it's owner.

Question:  If you think animals are "persons", do you also consider human fetuses "persons"?  What about animal eggs?  Where do you draw the line?

Response to Krystal Maynard

Question:  Is there any justification for a musician who destroys their own instrument?

Assuming that the destruction is intentional, I don't think there is any justification- although there may be a somewhat reasonable explanation for why a musician would destroy his/her own instrument.  I was always under the impression that when a band smashes their guitars at the end of a show, it was because they were so overwhelmed with the energy and emotion of the performance that it was a sort of expression of their feelings.  I guess I was naive to assume that, because Krystal mentioned that Nirvana would destroy their instruments to ensure they wouldn't have to play an encore.  This is incredibly selfish.  They obviously don't care much about their fans or their music if they would destroy an expensive instrument just to make sure they got off stage as quickly as possible.  Artists (and musicians) are often very eccentric, overly passionate, and compulsive people.  This might be why they would do something so drastic on stage.  Davies cites a few examples of instrument abuse, such as a score that calls for a person from the audience to throw darts at the back of the piano.  This just seems pointless to me.  I can't understand why a musician would include that in the piece (although, I couldn't understand why John Cage would sit on stage for 4 minutes and 33 seconds in silence and call it music until I read more about it, so maybe there is an artistic reason for doing something so bizarre, and I just don't understand it).  I think there are two kinds of instrument abuse: the kind that is done spontaneously, and it is separate from the actual music, and the kind that is supposed to be a part of the music.  I can understand the spontaneous instrument abuse better than the planned kind, although I am not a fan of either.

Question:  Has anyone ever destroyed an instrument?  For what purpose?

Music in Context

Some people argue that a song cannot be fully appreciated unless you know the historical and social context of it.  I've noticed that when I talk to people of different generations about music, they tend to assume that I wont understand the music they grew up with.  They assume that, since I didn't live through it, I can't fully appreciate it.   But I don't believe that I should have to research the historical context of the song, or read an autobiography of the musician to understand the song.  Call me lazy, but I don't think the audience should have to do homework just to be able to appreciate a song.  A great song is one that resonates to people of all generations.  One that addresses general themes of life that never become irrelevant.  In Clive Bell's essay, "Art", he says "The ideas of men go buzz and die like gnats; men change their institutions and their customs as they change theirs coats; the intellectual triumphs of one age are the follies of another; only great art remains stable and unobscure.  Great art remains stable and unobscure because the feelings that it awakens are independent of time and place, because its kingdom is not of this world."  This can be applied to music as well, especially if you consider music to be art.  It is something that transcends circumstance.  It shouldn't matter what the musician was going through in his or her life when he/she wrote the song.  It shouldn't matter what the political conditions of the world were.  It should only matter how the song moves people regardless of when they were born and how much they know.

Silence and the Expectation of Sound

John Cage's 4'33 is intended to point out all of the sounds in life that go unnoticed.  He believed that these random sounds are music.  When he sits there in front of his piano in silence for 4 minutes and thirty three seconds, the audience becomes more aware of other sounds in the room.  They are expecting to hear music, so when they don't, other sounds become more prevalent.  Silence feels different depending on it's context.  It can feel awkward if you are in a room full of people you don't know very well, or if someone tells an offensive joke.  But it can feel peaceful if you are with someone you feel comfortable with, or you are by yourself.  When you are expecting to hear something, it makes you more aware of other sounds going on around you.  That is why is is necessary for John Cage to be on stage at a piano when performing 4'33.  When I'm sitting in my room doing homework, I am not expecting to hear sound.  Not all silent moments are the same.  John Cage's 4'33 is effective because it gives people an expectation and then does something different.  At first, I felt that 4'33 was sort of gimmicky.  I found it silly that he had to sit up on stage at a piano just to show everyone that silence can be musical.  Why couldn't he just tape record "silence" and play it for someone?  Or put them alone in a room?  I now realize that he is setting up expectations. 

Question:  Are all types of silence musical, or is it only when you are expecting to hear something?

"My Favorite Things"

It is dissapointing to think that we have little control over our tastes in music. It is something people take so much pride in, yet it isn't something they have accomplished; it is something they were given- at least, partly. In class, it was stated that many people's tastes in music were a direct influence from someone they grew up with. This makes sense; being exposed to a certain type of music will make you feel more familiar with it, and therefore you are more likely to enjoy it. Growing up in a certain culture, you are likely to prefer your own culture's music instead of another's. However, sometimes people rebel from the musical tastes they were raised to like. I know many teens who purposefully listen to music that they know their parents wont like. At first, I was inclined to say that this is just a phase and it doesn't last, but we discussed in class today that the music you listen to as an adolecent ussually resonates with you throughout your life. So, if you spend your teenage years listening to heavy metal soley because your parents don't like it, then I guess you are altering your future tastes in music.
I was also dissapointed to read in Chapter 8 of Levitin that you stop developing your musical tastes around the age of 18. I'm 18, and I hope that I'm not done discovering music. I still feel like I have a lot more to explore in music, and I don't think you are ever too old to try new things. However, I know that there are biological factors that make Levitin's statement true. But, I think those factors can be overcome if you are still willing to explore different genres of music.
Question: Regardless off what you know to be true, do you feel like you chose your tastes, or were they chosen for you?

Music As Sexual Fitness

I was really interested in the arguement in TIYBOM that music plays a role in sexual fitness. Levitin argues that, at one point, if a person was a musician, it meant that they had enough food and shelter that they could focus on other things- things that aren't necessary to survival but are just done for fun, such as singing or dancing. While this was probably once true, it definitely isn't anymore. Many musicians are STRUGGLING musicians; only a select few actually get rich from making music. I find this interesting. At one point in human history, humans would only make music if they had stable living and food conditions. Now, people sacrifice their economic stability in order to make music. Music is such a huge passion for some people that they put it before other things that are actually necessary for survival. So, in contemporary society, a female might associate a musician with someone who is not financially stable- unless he is one of the few that made a decent living out of music-making. Maybe in fifty thousand years females will have adapted to this, and they will avoid having sex with musicians because a struggling musician wouldn't be able to support a child. Chapter 9 of Levitin shed a lot of light on things that had always confused me. I was never sure why so many women were attracted to men who played instruments, but I did have some theories. I think that women see musicians as people who are more in touch with their emotions. The sterotypical "rockstar" guy might be attractive to females because he is aggressive yet sensitive enough to write emotional songs. But what about musicians that aren't the stereotypical rockstar guy? Levitin points out that rockstars such as Mick Jagger and Robert Plant have slept with more women than the average man, but what about men who play the violin? Or the flute? Or sing in the church choir? Why aren't these men having sex with as many women as rockstars do? I don't think that women see music ability as sexual fitness. They may see it as a positve trait that they would like to be passed on to their offspring, but they aren't going to be attracted to any man that can make music. I think women are more attracted to a certain image that is associated with music ability.
Question: Do males see music ability as sexual fitness in females? Or is it just females that see this quality as sexual fitness in males?

Response to Amy (Categorizing)

In her blog, Amy asked if categorizing is important to society.  My first instinct was to say no, it is not.  In fact, it is extremely counterproductive and damaging to our society.  I believe that there are things in this world that can't be categorized.  But, as humans, we try to make sense of every little thing.  Everything has to have a category, a label.  This is our way of gaining control over the things that mystify us.  But things are not so black and white that they are always going to fit into these ridiculous categories we have constructed.  Why does it matter if the song I'm listening to is classified as country or rap?  These categorizations give people a reason to start generalizing and stereotyping.  It shouldn't matter how my music is categorized.  It should only matter that I like it.  

However, I guess categorizing is important to society.  It gives us a sense -although maybe false sense- of stability and understanding.  It makes us feel as if we have some sort of grasp on this confusing world.  While I oppose the categorization of music, art, people, and many other things, I will admit that it does serve a purpose.  Where would we be if we didn't categorize things?

Breaking the Rules

In chapter seven of Levitin, I found it interesting that he talks about expert musicians who never learned how to play music in the traditional way.  For example, Joni Mitchell never took guitar lessons, but she is considered an expert at what she does.  Not only that, but she has approached music making from a very unique perspective and has done innovative things with chords.  Her lack of training is what gave her such an unconventional way of playing.  If she had taken guitar lessons and learned all the rules, she would have never thought to break them.  But it's not as if she way trying to "break the rules" of music; she didn't know them to begin with.

It has been stated in class that you have to know the rules in order to break them.  You have to be an expert at what you're doing before you start experimenting.  I'm not sure if I agree with that.  Joni Mitchell was breaking the rules without even knowing what they were.  Having rules for music, or any other art form, limits people's creativity.  In a way, Joni Mitchell was lucky to have never been taught the rules.  It made it easier for her to do be innovative.  That being said, there are benefits to having rules in music.  It makes it easier to organize and teach others.  My question is  is it better to be taught how to play an instrument by an expert, or to learn on your own?

Dots on a Page?

I played the flute in my high school band, and I feel like I learned a lot about music from my band director.  One of the things he always used to say to us was "Stop playing the music as if it were just dots on a page".  He meant that we were playing all the right notes and rhythms, but that's all we were doing.  Even when you play a piece perfectly as far as mechanics go, there is still more that you need to add to it.  Hitting the correct notes, playing to appropriate tempo, and following the correct dynamics are all very important, but that is not all music is about.  I could probably sight read an easy song perfectly, but if I didn't really connect with the song or know what it was about, then it isn't quality music making.  When the performer is really feeling the music, and feeling the emotion behind the song, then it sounds better.  I know that at a concert, I would rather the musician be really into the song and make a few mistakes than play it perfectly but emotionlessly.  Even computers that can create "perfect" rhythms are manipulated to sound more human-like, as Levitin pointed out in chapter six.  Music is not about perfection-although that can help.  It is about human involvment.  Just playing "dots on a page" is not enough.  A performer has to truly understand and connect with the song he or she is playing.  So my question is, how can  we hear the difference between simply playing  "dots on a page" and something by a more emotionally connected performer?  We know it's there, but how does emotion translate into something audible?

Response to Abby

Abby asked," Is it is preferable to have music or no music during a crucial scene in a film?  Is it better for the music to be internal or external to the film?"  I personally feel that the music is the most interesting part of a film.  As Abby pointed out, the soundtrack of a movie can reinforce feelings of fear, love, sadness, etc.  It makes a scene more emotional or intense.  But why?  In real life, intense or emotional moments are not often accompanied by a mood appropriate song.  In fact, that would seem silly to us and probably ruin the mood.  So why do we accept this in movies?  Because movies are not often trying to portray real life.  Filmmaking is an art, not an imitation of life.  Filmmakers are trying to manipulate our senses to make us feel a certain emotion.  

Like Abby pointed out, the absence of music can be even more effective then a great soundtrack.  In a scary scene, music can help build suspense, but it can also remind you that this is a polished work of art, not real life.  If you watch the scene without music, it becomes more real.  Similarly, I think a really emotional scene can be even more emotional without music.  Music in film is sometimes used to distract the audience from bad acting.  If the acting is well done than music might just be getting in the way of the emotion in the scene.  I'm not saying that I don't think movies should have music in them.  Some of my favorite songs come from movie soundtracks/scores.  However, if the filmmaker is trying to achieve a realistic portrayal of life, than I think it can be very effective to not use music.

Abby also mentioned that sometimes, music unrelated to the scene can be used to enhance the emotion of the scene.  I love it when they do this in movies.  One of my favorite scenes from any movie is the library scene from the movie Se7en.  In this scene, a detective played by Morgan Freeman is researching the seven deadly sins and Brad Pitt's character (also a detective), is reviewing pictures and evidence of a gruesome murder scene.  The visuals in this scene are gory and disgusting, but the song "Air On the G String" by August WIllhelmj (it is an adaption of Johann Sebastian Bach's "Air") is playing.  It is such a beautiful, calm song; you wouldn't expect to find it in a scene like this.  However, I think it works so well.  We are visually seeing one emotion and hearing another.  The two opposite emotions compliment and reinforce each other.  You can watch the scene here if you're interested.  

So to answer Abby's question, whether the movie should have music depends on what the director is trying to achieve.  If you are trying to create a work of art that manipulates the viewer's emotions, then yes, music can enhance the film tremendously.  However, if you are going for realism, then sometimes leaving music out can also be beneficial.

Question:  Music is used to enhance the emotion of a scene in a movie, but do you think that music can enhance real life situations?  For example, does sad music at a funeral make you more sad, or is it just background noise?

Response to Krystal Maynard

Question - Is your favorite song lyrical or instrumental? If it is a lyrical song, would it mean the same to you if the lyrics did not exist? Why or why not?

I think that our society tends to focus more on the music than the lyrics in a song. Many people listen to songs without ever really hearing the lyrics; they don't even know what message the musician is trying to communicate. While I do value the lyrics in a song a lot, I have to admit that if the song doesn't sound good musically, I probably wont listen to it much. A combination of both well written lyrics and pleasing sounds make a song great. However, a catchy song with little meaning in the lyrics will probably be more commercially successful than a song with well written lyrics but musically boring or unpleasant. A lot of songs played on the radio or on TV have very little meaning as far as lyrics go.
A lot of times the may the music is composed compliments the lyrics. For example, by manipulating things such as timbre, tempo, loudness, etc, you can make a song sound happy sad, or any other emotion. This is usually used to match the lyrics. However, as we spoke about in class, sometimes the sound of the song creates a mood that contradicts the lyrics to be ironic. I like it a lot when artists do this because it is makes the lyrics really stand out.
Lyrics mean a lot to me, and I like a lot of my favorite songs because of the lyrics. However, the sound of the song means a lot too, and it can actually enhance the lyrics.
Question: Do you prefer certain moods in a song? (Example: do you prefer happy songs over sad songs?)

Response to Amy Rosvally

Amy asked the question "What makes a song special?"  Well, what's special to one person is not necessarily special to another.  In her entry, Amy suggests that songs that are innovative and revolutionary are special.  While I agree that this is true, I feel that it only matters if the song is new and different to the person listening to it.  For example, Amy mentioned in class and in her blog that she likes the song "Lemon Tree" because it uses a tuba for the bass line and it was the first song she heard that did this.  Hearing something different for the first time is special to us; it doesn't matter if it is actually something new or it is just new to you.  I still remember the first instrumental songs I ever liked, I remember the first country songs I ever liked, the first rap songs I ever liked.  These songs are all special to me because they mark a period of discovery.  I think most people start out with a very narrow, rigid taste in music, limited to one or two genres.  (I know I did, at least)  When you start to branch out and venture into new genres that you never thought you would like, it's exciting.  That is what makes a song special to me.  Then, of course, you have to take into consideration other things, like how the song makes you feel, or how well it is performed or written.  But I believe that most people don't care if a song is considered innovative for it's time; they care about how it seemed creative and new to them in the context of their own past experiences with music.  

Question:  If we value breaking the rules and being innovative in music, then how can we ever define what music is? 

Response to Kyle O'Leary

Kyle asked the question, "Does the viewing of a music video enhance or hinder a listener's experience?"  I would have to say it hinders the listener's experience.  Although the music video may portray the artist's interpretation of the song, it might be very different from the listener's interpretation.

Music videos are usually supposed to show the audience the meaning of the song.  The problem with this is, the song means something different to everyone.  I believe that the artist's interpretation of the song is no more valid than anyone else's.  It is better to let the audience decide for themselves what the song means to them.  On the other hand, a music video can simply show you a new way to interpret the song, which isn't always a bad thing. 

I believe that music video's often hinder the listener's experience, because it is forcing them to accept an interpretation that they might not agree with.  However, it can also open their eyes to something they had never noticed before.

Question:  Do you think the artist has more authority over the meaning of the song?

Response to Michelle Webb

In Michelle Webb's entry, she asked "Can we call degrading music 'real music'?  And since anger is a popular emotion in today's music, what does that say about today's society?"  Just because a song can be considered offensive does not make it any less of a song.  If you feel that musicians are driven by their emotions while creating music, then you have to accept all types of songs, including angry, mean, or degrading.  It isn't always fun to hear an offensive or angry song, but it is still a legitimate piece of music.  

While some people can't bear to listen to angry, screaming, offensive music, others wont listen to anything else.  Why is this?  It might simply boil down to how sensitive you are.  In our society, we are encouraged to express our emotions as long as they are positive emotions.  You should tell someone you're in love with them, you should hug your friends, you should smile and laugh a lot.  But we are actually discouraged to show negative emotions.  Starting fights, getting physically aggressive, and yelling at people are all seen as undesirable behaviors; things that we would be ashamed of and probably feel like we should apologize about afterwards.  The fact that we are forced to repress our aggressive feelings could be why there is a lot of angry music.  Music is one of the few outlets that will accept these negative feelings.  When we are constantly expected to maintain a happy attitude all the time, our negative feelings don't just go away.  They linger, and they nag at us until we release them.  Music is a great way to release these feelings.  If it seems like music today is more angry than it should be, maybe it's because our society won't allow these emotions to be expressed in any other form.  

Degrading music can be offensive, but it is still music nonetheless.  It is no less "real" than something by Mozart or Bach.  We can't let our personal preferences interfere with our ability to judge music.  A song can be offensive and still a really great song.  I know there are songs that I was personally offended by, but I could still acknowledge that they were good songs.  It all comes down to personal preference, and when you take that into consideration, you are no longer judging the music objectively.

It is true that there is a lot of angry music out there.  This may seem negative, but I believe it is actually positive.  Everyone feels angry sometimes, and unfortunately, our society doesn't allow us to express this.  Music is a way to release certain emotions that aren't socially acceptable otherwise.  

Question:  Why is it more acceptable to express anger through music than in real life situations?

Response to Michelle Webb

Michelle Webb asked "Why is it that music is so important emotionally?  Why is it that music has a special role in helping people with their emotions?"  Music certainly does help people cope with their emotions.  In fact, there is a whole industry based on this: Music therapy.  Music therapy is used to help alleviate the symptoms of mental, physical, or emotional problems.  It should be no surprise to learn that music is used to treat emotional problems.  After all, I think everyone can safely say that music has the potential to alter his or her emotions.

A particular song can make you feel sad, happy, angry, silly, etc.  The possibilities are endless.  A lot of people look to music for validation.  Music tells them that it's okay to feel what they're feeling and sometimes encourages certain emotions and behaviors.  So if it can be agreed upon that music can affect people's emotions, can't it also be said that music can alter people's behaviors?  After all, I'd say people's actions and behaviors are largely influenced by their emotions.  For example, I'm more likely to get in a fight if I'm in a bad mood.  But if music is what put me in a bad mood, can music be blamed for the fight?  I do believe in personal responsibility; however, I also think it can be said that music influences behavior.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not about to blame Marilyn Manson for the 1999 Columbine shootings.  But I do believe that violent music can make a person more inclined to commit violent acts.  Similarly, music with positive messages can influence people to have a more positive outlook.  

Listening to music can alter people's emotions; pretty much everybody can attest to this.  Lyrics obviously communicate a certain emotion, but so do other components of music such as tempo, key, pitch, rhythm, etc.  Music can also influence behavior.  My question is, can music be blamed for people's actions, or is it personal responsibility?  Or a combination of both?

Live Music

Last Monday, we discussed live music versus recorded music in class.  This is something that I feel strongly about, considering amount of time I spend on Youtube watching live versions of my favorite songs.  Obviously a recorded song sounds more polished and perfected, but there is something about a rough, imperfect version of a song that appeals to me.  The song sounds more meaningful and true to me when I know it hasn't been cleaned up in a studio.  I feel as if I am right there when the song is being played.  When I listen to a studio recording I feel like I could be a million miles away, or even in another universe.  

I don't even mind it when you can hear the crowd cheering or singing along.  To me, that just adds to the authenticity of the performance.  I am aware that some people don't like a noisy crowd when they go to a concert.  Their argument is, they paid to hear the band play, not the people around them.  They think that everyone should sit in silence and watch the band.  While I can understand the frustration of excess noise when you are trying to listen to a concert you paid a lot of money to see, I believe a live performance is an experience everyone should participate in, not just the performer.  If the audience is having a good time and they want to cheer or sing along, than that is their prerogative.  They also paid to be there; therefore, they should be allowed to make the most out of their experience.  This ties back into my previous entry, where I argued that music is about participation, not just listening politely and simply applauding once the song ends.  Any reasonable performer would want their audience to have a good time with them, and as long as it's not distracting, they should welcome audience participation.

Although live versions of songs often sound rougher than studio recordings, I believe that listening to the same studio recorded version of a song gets boring.  Listening to a live version has many advantages.  You can hear a more true version of a song that means a lot to you.  You can get closer the experience of a live performance without actually being there.  My question is, what is the difference between hearing a recorded live performance and actually being there to hear it?

Intro to This Is Your Brain On Music

Daniel Levitin's introduction to This Is Your Brain On Music raised a lot of interesting questions.  The question I was most interested in was about the distinction made between performers and listeners.  He points out that in other cultures, everybody sings and makes music, regardless of whether they are thought to be "good" at it or not.  I've noticed in my own experiences that people are very shy about singing in front of others unless they know they are good at it.  It seems that there is more emphasis on the audience's reception of music than on how the person feels when they sing or make music.

Everybody likes to sing, whether they will admit it or not.  Singing just feels good.  It's happy!  But then why do so few people sing openly, whenever they feel like it?  My own roommate, who has a great voice, wont sing when I'm in the room.  I wont play my keyboard if she's in the room.  I wont even sing in the shower, for fear of somebody overhearing me.  This is because we are all too preoccupied with how our audience is perceiving us.  Singing and playing an instrument has become something done to please other people.  If you can't do it well, then don't do it at all.  But music is such a fun thing to participate in that it's unfair to ban certain people from doing it just because they aren't "good" at it.  As much as I like to listen to music, I'd rather play my favorite song than simply hear it.  

Music is an experience; it is something that people want to be involved in, not just observe from the sidelines.  However, people's insecurities prevent them from singing or playing an instrument openly.  Our society seems to think that making music is all about pleasing the audience.  But I think it should be about the musician pleasing him or herself.  Music can make people happy and release tension.  It is even used as a form of therapy.  Nobody should be deprived of such a useful tool just because they may not be "good" at it.  People need to be a little more selfish and just make music for themselves, not for their audience.

Question:  Why does our society place more emphasis on the audience's reception of music, instead of the musician's satisfaction?

Response to Krystal Maynard

This post is a response to Krystal Maynard's response to Amy Rosvally's entry.  When Amy asked if our superficial society will ever change, Krystal pointed out that not only does our society's standard and emphasis on beauty need to change, but many other things as well, such as gender roles.  As a feminist, I have to agree with her.  Krystal concludes her post with the question, "Why in a world that is obviously far from ideal are we still holding on to these romanticized ideals?"  I believe that the answer to this question can be found in Amy Rosvally's post.  Amy points out that we are conditioned to buy into the "fairy tale" lifestyle starting at birth.  However politically correct and progressive our society may try to be, we are only slowing ourselves down until we get rid of sexist, counterproductive and corruptive media.  

When I tell people that I am a feminist, I am often met with the question, "Why?  Women already have equal rights; feminism is no longer necessary".  But just because women have gained the right to vote doesn't mean they are treated equally in society.  Despite the women's suffrage movement, anti discrimination laws, and sexual harassment laws, women and men are still stereotyped.  As Krystal pointed out, certain career fields almost seem designated for one sex or the other.  Women teach or care for children and men do math and science.  But if society has accepted men and women as equals, then why do we still segregate ourselves in almost every aspect of society?  Because people are still striving for that fairy tale life that they were influenced by when they were children.  What women never once dreamed of being swept off her feet by Prince Charming, getting married, and raising a family?  And what man never once felt it was his responsibility to support the women he loves, along with her children, simply because he is "the man"?  These ideas have been ingrained in us literally since birth.  Baby girls get a pink blanket, boys get a blue blanket.  Girls play with dolls; boys play with trucks.  These seemingly harmless traditions lay the foundation for a lifetime of gender conformity.  

 Krystal makes a great point when she says that a women venturing into a man's job is considered honorable, but a man taking on a women's job is embarrassing.  Our society seems to think it's okay for women to do masculine things, but they have a hard time with men doing feminine things.  This is because women are still looked down upon.  We tend to think that femininity is silly and stupid, and something to be ashamed of.  This is deeply disturbing to me, especially when people can claim that feminism is no longer necessary in our society.  

No matter how progressive our society gets, we still have very traditional ideas about gender roles.  This is because we live in a world that draws a very clear line between what is feminine and what is masculine.  Movies, TV shows, and books aimed at children teach them to adhere to specific gender roles if they want to live happily ever after.

Question:  Why are typically masculine jobs viewed as more valuable and honorable than typically feminine jobs?