frames of music

[Oopie]

I thought this topic would better fit in the off topic section since the discussion is about philosophy of music rather than music itself. This will be first out of two music philosophy topics by boobsy collins.

 

I see it as there would be 2 big frames around music (sound):

visual (the artwork etc.) and time (when was x released).

 

Now, people often take these factors into consideration when they give their opinions about music. I find this troublesome and think it's time to have a chat about these music frames.

 

here's some of my views on the subject...

 

How should one approach visual aspect of music??

 

To start with, I have to say it's more than important to understand the nature of vision:

It doesn't contain any absolute value. This means the value is abstract or non-existent if you want to put it that way. A visible object needs a reviewer before its characteristics can be valued (and even then the value is only reviewer's subjective opinion). The object never gets over non-value by itself. When giving a valuation, the reviewer is actually just reflecting his own persona thru his/her sense of vision (goes for other senses too). So when thinking about reviews you can come to a conclusion: you can never truly read about the object's characters as it has no value in itself! The reviewer is in fact talking about himself; what do I look for in music? what does it give me? what sort of memories does it bring to surface? etc.

 

So if you can't give absolute review about visual aspect of music (or actual music either, goes for both) should you give one at all?

For sure goa-head! Vision is a gift that I think should be enjoyed and used. If you get positive vibes why hide em? Is there really anything more amazing? An object which in itself would have no emotions, but the reviewer can use it to create them.

It's the opposite that's problematic: the negative/disliking attitude/reviewing. What I think one should learn is humbleness. Far too often I see people giving arrogant shouts as "gay eurotrance cover lol!" Person saying things like that lacks respect towards artist's work. That's sad and causes nothing but bad spirit and friction between people. The main point is, you can and SHOULD tolerate and respect artist's work even if you don't consider it valuable to yourself. Only exception I can think of is when the artwork (or music itself) is promoting something you find morally wrong: slavery, inequality, killing etc.

 

The worst part is when a person correlates the "quality" of artwork and music. These two aren't related! The other can be sensed by vision, the other by hearing. It's of course a pleasure if these two (sound, looks) match and complement each other. But you cannot know with certainty if the the music sounds good when the cover looks great (or vice versa). Assumptions are not necessary.

 

How should one approach time (when was x released) aspect of music??

 

How often do you have to read:

"Considering when it was released..." or "ahead of its time"??

Comments as these I find absolutely irrelevant. I strongly think time-factor shouldn't play a role when it comes to appreciating music. This is actually a bit more problematic musical frame than the first one as it rarely (what I've seen) comes out in a negative form (this music can't be good because it was released x). So if it's not a big negative factor what's the fuzz then??

 

Well think of those blissful occasions when you come across some really good music but can't recognize the artist (like in a party). Your whole attention is concentrated on the music (!) because you don't know the frames around the music. This is what music is at its best: just you and the sound. Only when you don't have expectations or prejudices can you have a full musical experience.

Of course one could give a release cultural value: how it was influential in building up the scene or making the genre progress forward. But cultural aspect of appreciation shouldn't lead to direct appreciation of music itself. Realize these are two different aspects. If you mix them up it only causes prejudices towards the music and restrains your ability to listen to the music without frames.

 

Only without frames you are free. :----)

 

These were my thoughts as of now. Feel free to comment and discuss.

[Charlie]

Interesting thoughts there, Oopie.

 

I agree entirely about the time frame, it matters not when a piece of music was released. As for the visionary side of things, again, you're right. Can't say I pay too much attention to artwork these days (not like in my youth) but, as you say, even if it doesn't connect in any way, it has no bearing on the actual music in any way so why moan. It's like walking into a restaurant and buying a meal, which you find delicious, but moaning because you didn't like the plate it was served on.

[Oopie]

I like the way you put it charlie.

 

it's easy to spot who's the witty englishman here and who's the barbarian caveman using 2nd grade engrish.

[fluffymushi]

Interesting thoughts there, Oopie.

 

I agree entirely about the time frame, it matters not when a piece of music was released. As for the visionary side of things, again, you're right. Can't say I pay too much attention to artwork these days (not like in my youth) but, as you say, even if it doesn't connect in any way, it has no bearing on the actual music in any way so why moan. It's like walking into a restaurant and buying a meal, which you find delicious, but moaning because you didn't like the plate it was served on.

delicious meals you can make yourself, fancy plates is exactly what restaurants are for.

[Charlie]

delicious meals you can make yourself, fancy plates is exactly what restaurants are for.

Potters might argue the opposite, depending on their culinary skills. But we're digressing, oh Oracle.

[qa2pir]

Well written and well contemplated thoughts, Oopie; I am proud of you.

[fluffymushi]

Potters might argue the opposite, depending on their culinary skills. But we're digressing, oh Oracle.

my apologies, oh Posfordian Apostle, for not thinking beyond my self there.

 

thank you.

[Oopie]

Well written and well contemplated thoughts, Oopie; I am proud of you.

thanks mom!

 

 

I'm quite sad to see my topic didn't spur discussion what so ever. I used quite much time on my thoughts and really would've liked some feedback.

 

then you get 2-3 pages on objectifying women. =(

[Shaft]

Best fit in General, I think.

[Charlie]

I thought this thread would have garnered greater interest and discussion too. Peculiar.

[Shaft]

The worst part is when a person correlates the "quality" of artwork and music. These two aren't related! The other can be sensed by vision, the other by hearing. It's of course a pleasure if these two (sound, looks) match and complement each other. But you cannot know with certainty if the the music sounds good when the cover looks great (or vice versa). Assumptions are not necessary.

Sending Orbs is a brilliant example of a label that produces quality music + quality artwork that 'fits' with the music. Secede's Tryshasla is contemplated beautifully with the CD artwork. But you're right, never judge a book by it's cover.