Why do we love music? Only because of the combination of sounds, that we can enjoy and because they are pleasantly recognizable by the brain? This is aesthetic, and okay for those who like it. But listening to music may be in a kind of sense not listening to notes, but music. Something that is in the field of epiphany .... Sorry for my english
@@SteveAstronaut that’s a very cold and cynical interpretation of this music. I mean, did you even watch this video that explained the meaning and creating tangible ideas with music? Or maybe you just refuse to let light like this into your life
sorry but i agree with the first guy that there is no meaning in music. If he had not told us to think of creation when he played we would have thought of many different things. For example if you think of the theme "Space" when he plays it constructs a whole new meaning. Music can only express emotion but nothing more. the meaning is what we all give it therefore it cannot have any true absolute meaning. This is not to say it doesn't have purpose, however, for the purpose of music is to express emotion. If you were to take away something as simple as the title of a piece of music and replace it you would have a new meaning in that song. Notes only carry meaning based on our own experience. We manipulate music based on many things. A composer can only put emotion into music but everyone will have there own meaning. If he had not told us "Arrow" or "Creation" or "common man" we wouldn't be able to get that information. He is the one who gave it meaning for us, but the music itself
A White Kid The title of the talk is "CREATING" meaning in music; Scott is not asserting that anything has inherent meaning, but is talking about how we imbue music with meaning, and how the act of using experience, observation, and repetition creates meaning. If you had thought of your "many different things" without being told what Scott used/thought about to create this music: you're still "creating" meaning for this music yourself, even if it's not the same as Scott's meaning; Scott just happens to be able to explain and repeat his meaning using a set of rules with which he is familiar. Spoken and written languages are the same way; if one is not familiar with the rules: it means nothing and makes no sense. It is because people agree on a common (though ultimately made-up) set of rules for language, that we communicate successfully.
shoutout my music teacher for making me watch this snooze fest while he doesn't update grades all semester
For 5 you could also use mixolodian mode.
Why do we love music? Only because of the combination of sounds, that we can enjoy and because they are pleasantly recognizable by the brain? This is aesthetic, and okay for those who like it. But listening to music may be in a kind of sense not listening to notes, but music. Something that is in the field of epiphany .... Sorry for my english
Is it just me or did his music sound uncannily similar to John Williams in Jurassic Park and I think I heard a little Star Wars in there too
It's the sound of money.
@@SteveAstronaut that’s a very cold and cynical interpretation of this music. I mean, did you even watch this video that explained the meaning and creating tangible ideas with music? Or maybe you just refuse to let light like this into your life
Very inspiring speech.
5, yo!
sorry but i agree with the first guy that there is no meaning in music. If he had not told us to think of creation when he played we would have thought of many different things. For example if you think of the theme "Space" when he plays it constructs a whole new meaning. Music can only express emotion but nothing more. the meaning is what we all give it therefore it cannot have any true absolute meaning. This is not to say it doesn't have purpose, however, for the purpose of music is to express emotion. If you were to take away something as simple as the title of a piece of music and replace it you would have a new meaning in that song. Notes only carry meaning based on our own experience. We manipulate music based on many things. A composer can only put emotion into music but everyone will have there own meaning. If he had not told us "Arrow" or "Creation" or "common man" we wouldn't be able to get that information. He is the one who gave it meaning for us, but the music itself
A White Kid
The title of the talk is "CREATING" meaning in music; Scott is not asserting that anything has inherent meaning, but is talking about how we imbue music with meaning, and how the act of using experience, observation, and repetition creates meaning. If you had thought of your "many different things" without being told what Scott used/thought about to create this music: you're still "creating" meaning for this music yourself, even if it's not the same as Scott's meaning; Scott just happens to be able to explain and repeat his meaning using a set of rules with which he is familiar. Spoken and written languages are the same way; if one is not familiar with the rules: it means nothing and makes no sense. It is because people agree on a common (though ultimately made-up) set of rules for language, that we communicate successfully.
The Timesmyth i agree with that!
no arron copland fan fare
Pretty Prog. haha
when you don't have it but you still have to compose ı guess...😒
Selmasongs overture