Is the enjoyment of music sourced from the aural experiences of real life, which become associated with all kinds of emotional states? And music is a re-arrangement of different “conditioned sounds” gained from real life experience?
This would explain why some people cannot appreciate music (their minds have a poor memory of sound as it relates to experiences), why certain musical complexity is appreciated by older adults, why children have a primitive appreciation of music where they only like music that codes for basic happiness. And also why some people who have poor emotional intelligence appear to have a terrible taste in music (the other way is not necessarily the case).
Then I would also wonder:
is the music unsophistication of east asia the result of tonal language (where sound memory is encoded in logic rather than emotion), or the result of an actual mental de-prioritization of emotional states? For this last one, consider how European art and religion and poetry is so dramatic and sympathetic to strong emotional states of all sorts, and East Asian less so (emphasizing transience, stability, equanimity)
is sufficient music-listening necessary to fully appreciate complex music and why? Is there also an element of “learning the language of compositions”? This must be the case but how does it work?
what’s happening when we hear a song (for a lot of people: Satie’s gymnopedie) and it brings us a new emotional state?
is too much music bad because it desensitizes us to the significance of real life sound cues?
Is the enjoyment of music sourced from the aural experiences of real life
Probably not. E.g. what 'aural experiences' would to chords correspond to?
'some people can't appreciate music', 'adults like more complex music', and 'children like simpler music' are explained by most theories of music that attribute any complexity to it. 'poor emotional intelligence ~ bad taste in music' is also just explained by 'smart people like smart things'.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Is the enjoyment of music sourced from the aural experiences of real life, which become associated with all kinds of emotional states? And music is a re-arrangement of different “conditioned sounds” gained from real life experience?
This would explain why some people cannot appreciate music (their minds have a poor memory of sound as it relates to experiences), why certain musical complexity is appreciated by older adults, why children have a primitive appreciation of music where they only like music that codes for basic happiness. And also why some people who have poor emotional intelligence appear to have a terrible taste in music (the other way is not necessarily the case).
Then I would also wonder:
is the music unsophistication of east asia the result of tonal language (where sound memory is encoded in logic rather than emotion), or the result of an actual mental de-prioritization of emotional states? For this last one, consider how European art and religion and poetry is so dramatic and sympathetic to strong emotional states of all sorts, and East Asian less so (emphasizing transience, stability, equanimity)
is sufficient music-listening necessary to fully appreciate complex music and why? Is there also an element of “learning the language of compositions”? This must be the case but how does it work?
what’s happening when we hear a song (for a lot of people: Satie’s gymnopedie) and it brings us a new emotional state?
is too much music bad because it desensitizes us to the significance of real life sound cues?
Probably not. E.g. what 'aural experiences' would to chords correspond to?
'some people can't appreciate music', 'adults like more complex music', and 'children like simpler music' are explained by most theories of music that attribute any complexity to it. 'poor emotional intelligence ~ bad taste in music' is also just explained by 'smart people like smart things'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link