[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Ham Priday]

Steve --


[Ham, previously]:
> Are they looking at beat music as a way to identify with
> the rebellion of our age, or do you think there is genuine
> artistic merit in this new "art form"?

 [Steve]:
> Actually, both!  People look to music as something to
> identify with; that's why I see such a strong connection
> between "mood" and musical taste.  Because there are
> some basic human moods that everyone experiences,
> and because mood is often shaped by the social
> environment and events that surround us, some songs
> have a wide range of appeal.  And just because something
> is simple doesn't make it any less of an art form.  Just
> look at modern visual art: Warhol, Mondrian, Rothko
> especially.

I guess what I'm trying to fathom is how this "message with a beat" format
passes as music.  I can see where folk songs, country & western, the blues,
jazz improvisation, show music, love ballads, even rock 'n roll, are
evolutionary spin-offs of traditional musical form.  What we appreciated
about these genres was what they offered musically -- e.g., a singable
melody line (usually rendered with some feeling by a trained vocalist),
conventional harmony, rhythmic consistency, and a recognizable cadence.

What makes the top of the "hit parade" today is someone grunting out
profanities or "rapping" inarticulately about his drug habit or the more
sordid aspects of life, accompanied by heavy percussive thumps and
electronic sound effects that fade out to signify that the song is over.  No
doubt there is some form of "communication with the public" going on here,
but however you choose to categorize it as "entertainment", it has lost its
connection to musical form, in my opinion.  If "getting a message across" is
what this new art form is all about, then we shouldn't be calling it music.
How about "high jinks", "eurythmics", or "evocative dissonance" for
starters?

[Steve]:
> I like mostly playing in full orchestras.  Some pieces that come to mind
> (in no particular order):
> Tchaikovsky- Swan Lake (waltz especially)
> Copland- Appalachian Spring
> Copland- Outdoor Overture
> Shostakovich- 5th symphony
> Brahms- Variations on a Theme of Haydn
> Elgar- Nimrod from Enigma Variations
> Stravinsky- Berceuse and Finale from Firebird Suite
> Holst- Mars and Jupiter from the Planets

An excellent list.  I'll listen to anything from Swan Lake any time, or
Nutcracker --especially the Pas de Deux.  The Shostakovich 5th is
bombasticism at its best, one of the finest symphonies of the last century,
along with Prokofiev's, Rachmaninoff's and Samuel Barber's.  Not so
enthralled with Copland, though; Appalachian Spring is overplayed IMO.  I
prefer Roy Harris (3rd Symphony) who was Copland's protege.  Again, the
Brahm's Variations are overplayed.  I prefer his Alto Rhapsody, Academic
Festival Overture, and the Requiem (my wife and I once joined the chorus for
a local performance).  No doubt in my mind that Elgar was Britain's greatest
composer.  As for Stravinsky, the entire Firebird is a masterpiece, and I'm
pleased to see it replacing the Suite in concert schedules.  Ditto: Holst's
The Planets.

> As a soloist and chamber music player, I tend to appreciate
> a piece the most when I start it and when I perform it.
> (Thank you Mike!  You posted the words I was looking for.)
> Some of my favorites:
> Mozart- 5th Violin concerto
> Mozart- Eine Kleine nachtmusik
> Kreisler- Praeludium and Allegro

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not really a Mozart fan.  Too me the
composer stresses style over substance.  (As Emperor Joseph once remarked
about young Amadeus' music, "Too many notes.")   I like one or two of his
piano concertos but would probably not buy tickets for a "Mostly Mozart"
concert.  But I can  understand why a violinist would include Kreisler.  (I
like the more popular Lebesleid/Liebesfreud, Caprice Viennois, and Tambourin
Chinois.)

 [Ham, previously]:
> If you hadn't become acquainted with Pirsig,
> wouldn't you be persuaded, as I am, that the beauty
> (value) of music is in "the ear of the beholder"?

 [Steve]:
> Probably.  But what is all at work here?  Not just
> preferences in music, but also in visual arts, favorite
> colors, favorite cars, favorite toys for children, favorite
> sodas, favorite clothes...  where did all these systems
> of preference come from?  I still think that "mood" has
> a lot to do with it.  But all of the items I just mentioned
> are inorganic.  "Mood" doesn't seem to be inorganic at
> all.  Considering that there is medicine that affects
> "mood", it has some characteristics of the biological level.
> Considering that music and art are aspects of culture,
> "mood" has some characteristics of the social level.
> And considering that music and art evoke a lot of
> imagination and thought, "mood" can even be
> associated with the intellectual level!
>
> So what is "mood"  Biological?  Social?  Intellectual?
> Or is there something else in the MOQ that describes
> why such systems of preference exist?

Well, I would describe "mood" as one's emotional state at a given time.  Not
to disagree with Pirsig, but I also think mood suggests a relatively
"static" frame of mind (or behavior).   For example, we typically
characterize a person as having a cheerful or "moody" disposition.  That
mood doesn't usually change much over the course of time.

On the other hand, this "cutting edge of Quality" that you folks like to
call "dynamic" is a sudden psycho-somatic transition related to a specific
experience.  It induces a burst of adrenaline or epinephrine that can change
one's sense of being in the world.  I explain it as acquiring the value of
something "outside of us" for our selves.  While I agree with Pirsig that we
perceive this value before defining its object, I think the object is
"patterned" by the intellect.  Intellection (or what I call
"objectification") is the process of integrating perceived sensory values
into a tangible thing or event -- a particular form of "beingness" -- 
located in space/time.  This is primarily the work of the brain and nervous
system.  In other words, we make being-aware by appropriating its value;
being is a proprietary human construct, whereas value has no structure but
is sensed differentially, like everything else in experience.

I gather, from what what I'm told about Pirsig's epistemology, that the
individual has to pattern itself repeatedly with each successive experience.
I suppose this means that without experience, such as during sleep, there is
no individual.  It is patterned all over again when he awakens to the next
experience.  If I've got that wrong, please correct me; otherwise it just
doesn't seem plausible.

I suppose I've turned your "food for thought" into more "grist for the
mill".  But sharing our musical tastes has been fun, Steve.  I'd enjoy
hearing you perform in concert sometime.

Best regards,
Ham