Music

If music is supposed to be »good« for anyone, we are in the presence of two variables (not counting, the relative idea of goodness: how good is good?); first there are so many kinds of music or, in other words, so many things can be said to be music, that »music« all by itself is almost meaningless. You or me, or anyone are even less meaningful than any definition of music, because of their linguistic status as »shifters«. Their meaning is reduced to their reference in a given instance. If someone said to me: »music is good for you«, I would wonder what he is getting at. Military music does not strike me as good either for me or for anyone. Trumpets used to be associated with kings; does it mean that listineng to a trumpet volontary is a royalist choice? Social and musical paradigms shift as much as pronoun reference, over time. Music is what you make of it.

For Mozart, composition was matter-of-fact. I have seen his original manuscript for the Symphony 36, 'The Linz.' It runs from first note to last note with barely an erasure or blot-out.

Not so, Beethoven, for whom composition was a herculean chore. In his original manuscript for his Symphony 3, 'Eroica,' there are holes in the paper from where he threw his pen in frustration, and great blocks of hastily crossed-out notes and edits.

Does this make one composer better than the other?

Not at all. Both Mozart and Beethoven are geniuses.

It's just that one had to work harder at it.

Music is the medicine of the mind.

(John Logan)

Is it possible to not like music at all?
What I mean is: You are sitting in your living room with a recent acquaintance, and you put on a CD...it could be any CD,...Bessie Smith...Soundgarden... Chopin...and he says, "Could you please turn that off? I don't like music.
Not just this music, but music in general. The concept of music. I don't like the beat, the rhythm, the harmony, the vocals, any of it. I don't listen to music in my home, in my car. I don't have any particular song running through my head at any time, and I like it that way."
Is that possible?

It's music, for I should know its voice among a thousand, and there are other voices in its roar.

Without music life would be a mistake.

(Friedrich Nietzsche)

The surest way to communicate with someone whose language you can't understand on a genuine wavelength.

Music is kinetic sculpture. Air set in motion over a period of time. If I could see the whole sculpture at once, would it still be music?

No matter what music the guy in the apartment next door was playing!

Basically, music is, as most dictionaries would say, a »pleasing or harmonious succession or combination of sounds«. Other features are »aesthetic arrangement« and »emotionally expressive combinations«. Music relies on various principles, such as rhythm, melody, harmony, tonality and dynamics. Or lack thereof, as the post-modern combinatorial view would have it. For the non-musician, rhythm and melody are the basic components of music, and the guiding principles of his tastes. Taste is of course constrained by culture, education, experience, knowledge and chance...

For Mozart, composition was matter-of-fact. I have seen his original manuscript for the Symphony 36, 'The Linz.' It runs from first note to last note with barely an erasure or blot-out.

Not so, Beethoven, for whom composition was a herculean chore. In his original manuscript for his Symphony 3, 'Eroica,' there are holes in the paper from where he threw his pen in frustration, and great blocks of hastily crossed-out notes and edits.

Does this make one composer better than the other?

Not at all. Both Mozart and Beethoven are geniuses.

It's just that one had to work harder at it.