Davies identifies three problems of musical expressiveness: the expression of emotion in music, mirroring responses to music’s expressiveness, and negative responses. In section IV, Davies claims—only sentient creatures can express emotions. Musical works are not sentient; therefore emotions cannot be expressed in them. Yet, he mentions, many musical works do express emotions such as sadness and happiness, how, he asks.
I think that musicians use music as a bridge to their audience to pass on emotional expression. Yes the musical works are not sentient but the musician who plays the music, who makes the music happen through the instrument, is sentient. And that is where the emotions come from. Davies mentions an example of people’s tears. Someone might have a tear roll down their cheek for three reasons: sadness, extreme happiness, or their eye is dry and it’s merely a physical reaction. Whatever of the three, other people may perceive that a person whose eyes are tearing is sad when really the person is allergic to the current environment. So when a musician portrays his/her emotions through an instrument, the audience listening might take the portrayal differently than what was implied by the musician.
I also think that musical works are a consequent of the musician’s emotions, or result. So the musical works kind of inherit the emotions given by the musicians.
My Question: Has anyone listened to music within the genre of "noise?" A popular noise band is the Boredoms.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Response to Sarah's blog "animal language"
My italics are messed up-- I can't get them to turn off- please disregard the italics...
Humans have made it natural for domestic animals to easily learn tricks/specific responses to human demands through breeding over the many years. This is an acquired trait of the animal. The dictionary defines the word acquire as 'To gain through experience.' Dogs (oh yay, no more italics...), dogs gain obedience (dictionary defines obedience as 'the act or practice of obeying; dutiful or submissive compliance'), from experience, through time experience is gained and that's what breeders accomplish, which is why some breeds respond better/worse to certain things, they obey differently to different circumstance better or worse than other breeds. When a dog learns to fetch, he is acquiring the act of fetching., he is gaining through experience the act of fetching.
Not sure Sarah, what you mean by: "Something natural has to do with what comes easily or what can commonly happen amongst a thing. Whether it is learned out not I don't think has anything to do with if it was natural or not."
One can look at the word natural two different ways. Natural, including humans, and non-human natural (everything that would exist without humans --(this could become an extensive conversation, so the gist is trees are non-human natural, buildings are natural.)
Either way humans are a natural thing and what we create is natural. When we domesticate animals (breed them over a number of years, teaching them responses, and them evolving to how they have been bred... (pit bulls were bred to fight eachother- for violence, hence they are a violent breed, other breeds have been bred for hunting, hence they are better at hunting than other dogs, etc.) So I think it is technically natural for 'dogs to be able to respond to human language'-- specifically talking about commands, but of course any animal would respond to a sound within the range of sounds they can hear, and the human voice and languages are sounds, sound waves are produced, so it is natural for a dog or any animals to respond to the sound wave they hear.
As for the dog learning our language, I would have to disagree. To learn the language is to understand what each word means and how they are put together, their function, why, what they mean compared to other words, etc. I don't disagree the dog responds to things people around him/her do or say, but I don't think the dog has learned the english language, or whatever human language. I am sure the dog and your family, Sarah, communicate wonderfully, but I am not quick to say the dog understands our language the same way we all do to be able to communicate specifically (classification wise- remember our in-class convo "can't communicate through music- 'it is 3:15pm, time to leave class'").
My Question: Has anyone ever seen an animals take part in dancing? when music is being played...
Humans have made it natural for domestic animals to easily learn tricks/specific responses to human demands through breeding over the many years. This is an acquired trait of the animal. The dictionary defines the word acquire as 'To gain through experience.' Dogs (oh yay, no more italics...), dogs gain obedience (dictionary defines obedience as 'the act or practice of obeying; dutiful or submissive compliance'), from experience, through time experience is gained and that's what breeders accomplish, which is why some breeds respond better/worse to certain things, they obey differently to different circumstance better or worse than other breeds. When a dog learns to fetch, he is acquiring the act of fetching., he is gaining through experience the act of fetching.
Not sure Sarah, what you mean by: "Something natural has to do with what comes easily or what can commonly happen amongst a thing. Whether it is learned out not I don't think has anything to do with if it was natural or not."
One can look at the word natural two different ways. Natural, including humans, and non-human natural (everything that would exist without humans --(this could become an extensive conversation, so the gist is trees are non-human natural, buildings are natural.)
Either way humans are a natural thing and what we create is natural. When we domesticate animals (breed them over a number of years, teaching them responses, and them evolving to how they have been bred... (pit bulls were bred to fight eachother- for violence, hence they are a violent breed, other breeds have been bred for hunting, hence they are better at hunting than other dogs, etc.) So I think it is technically natural for 'dogs to be able to respond to human language'-- specifically talking about commands, but of course any animal would respond to a sound within the range of sounds they can hear, and the human voice and languages are sounds, sound waves are produced, so it is natural for a dog or any animals to respond to the sound wave they hear.
As for the dog learning our language, I would have to disagree. To learn the language is to understand what each word means and how they are put together, their function, why, what they mean compared to other words, etc. I don't disagree the dog responds to things people around him/her do or say, but I don't think the dog has learned the english language, or whatever human language. I am sure the dog and your family, Sarah, communicate wonderfully, but I am not quick to say the dog understands our language the same way we all do to be able to communicate specifically (classification wise- remember our in-class convo "can't communicate through music- 'it is 3:15pm, time to leave class'").
My Question: Has anyone ever seen an animals take part in dancing? when music is being played...
Cont. Cats Listening to Music?
Earlier I asked if cats (among whatever other animals) listen to music, I believe I worded it different, but to clarify, I meant to ask if cats listen to music or just hear it..
I have seen cats eyes on the television and I would almost swear they are watching the figures in the TV move about and associating the sound that comes from the TV with the objects moving. Obviously I do not know this for sure as it's something only the cat truly knows if she herself is watching the figures, no test has been created or discovered to truly know if the cat is watching the television, not to say the cat necessarily is following a story or understanding the human storyline presented on the television. So I think the cat is watching the television (in my personal experience I touched on above), and not just looking at the TV.
CHECK OUT THESE LINKS< EACH WORD IS DIFFERENT LINK (worth the watching)
Cats-- watching-- Tv--
So my question-- is the cat listening to the music, following the music (whether understood in the cats own way or not), just as the cat follows what's on the TV?
I agree that animals react to sounds, that is the function of the ear, to help instincts... It is in most if not all animals instincts to react to a sound in whatever way.
I also agree that the cat would sit when something is said, that has been previously said when a treat is presented and only given once the cat sits. I know this because I have done this with my cat-- I will pull a treat out while she is near me and put it to her nose... pull it back and say "sit....sit" and she will take a few seconds, back up a few kitty steps, and shuffle her butt to the ground with the tip of her tail pointing to the ceiling, finally sitting. Then she gets her treat.
MY Question is aimed toward Amy, to further understand what she means in the beginning of her first paragraph from "Animalistic listening." When people talk or make sounds I do agree the cat will/can respond, but what is the correlation between the cat watching TV and the cat responding to a demand of the one holding the treat, for the treat? (anyone is welcome to add thoughts to this, not just Amy)
I have seen cats eyes on the television and I would almost swear they are watching the figures in the TV move about and associating the sound that comes from the TV with the objects moving. Obviously I do not know this for sure as it's something only the cat truly knows if she herself is watching the figures, no test has been created or discovered to truly know if the cat is watching the television, not to say the cat necessarily is following a story or understanding the human storyline presented on the television. So I think the cat is watching the television (in my personal experience I touched on above), and not just looking at the TV.
CHECK OUT THESE LINKS< EACH WORD IS DIFFERENT LINK (worth the watching)
Cats-- watching-- Tv--
So my question-- is the cat listening to the music, following the music (whether understood in the cats own way or not), just as the cat follows what's on the TV?
I agree that animals react to sounds, that is the function of the ear, to help instincts... It is in most if not all animals instincts to react to a sound in whatever way.
I also agree that the cat would sit when something is said, that has been previously said when a treat is presented and only given once the cat sits. I know this because I have done this with my cat-- I will pull a treat out while she is near me and put it to her nose... pull it back and say "sit....sit" and she will take a few seconds, back up a few kitty steps, and shuffle her butt to the ground with the tip of her tail pointing to the ceiling, finally sitting. Then she gets her treat.
MY Question is aimed toward Amy, to further understand what she means in the beginning of her first paragraph from "Animalistic listening." When people talk or make sounds I do agree the cat will/can respond, but what is the correlation between the cat watching TV and the cat responding to a demand of the one holding the treat, for the treat? (anyone is welcome to add thoughts to this, not just Amy)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
