Comments for Paul Carr Musings

Comment on Frank Zappa: December 21, 1940 – December 4, 1993 by The Sanity Inspector

The Sanity Inspector — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:45:39 +0000

He never meant anything to me, didn’t care for the perpetual sneer in his music. But I respect how important he was to others, and I think he would have really thrived in the internet age.

Comment on Musicology – Session 1 by Daniel Lewis

Daniel Lewis — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:47:05 +0000

Very late, but I’ve found answering these is productive towards my essay. After reading some of Hanslick’s points I can understand his issues surrounding the ‘beauty’ in some music (emotion vs written form). Songwriting for me can sometimes become a mechanical process. For instance often I am searching for interesting changes in chords which will satisfy certain musical rules (a cadence for example). Often however, my pursuit for the perfect musical form will impact on the emotional impact of a piece – Too much time can be spent analysing and satisfying written rules that are known to evoke certain emotions. Sometimes it is the delivery, more so than the content that impacts the listener.

Johnny Cash covered Nine Inch Nail’s ‘Hurt’ and many people who have listened to the piece prefer his version despite it being stripped down and played with simpler chords. Is the song beautiful on paper? Lyrically this could be argued, but a quick glance at the chord sheet on a tab site doesn’t really convey any ‘beauty’. It is the human fragility in his voice that will give it the emotional impact, and therefore the beauty people describe.

Comment on Truth and Method: How Can We Be More Objective When Analysing Music by carza

carza — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:56:50 +0000

I used this quote in my Zappa book – ‘writing about music is like dancing about architecture’ Elvis Costello.

Comment on Truth and Method: How Can We Be More Objective When Analysing Music by datisit

datisit — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:32:54 +0000

Dancing about architecture?

Comment on Truth and Method: How Can We Be More Objective When Analysing Music by Richard J. Parfitt

Richard J. Parfitt — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:58:04 +0000

I think music is a kind of audio-metaphor, in that words cannot express what music does, so we will constantly fail to agree on what it does express, because it expresses so many things. In other words, the semiology, or Marxist theories that you may try to project onto music to discover a truth, will never be enough, because we are dealing with the inadequate character of words that TS Eliot described in Burnt Norton: ‘Words strain, crack and sometimes break, under the burden’. I believe that metaphor should only be used when words cannot express or articulate properly. But most people use metaphor as an embellishment or rhetorical trick. Dylan uses surprisingly little metaphor in his song lyrics, even though he is though of as ‘poetic’. Tangled up in Blue is a master class in a lyric narrative of descriptive imagery that crystalizes in the hook line Tangled up in Blue at the end of each verse. The overuse of metaphor, or purple phrase (haze) reinforces peoples’ opinion that myth is a childish notion, something untrue.
And as such, most regard myth (and the correlating allegories that music suggests) as something that is false or disposable, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of metaphor/myth. Because in its purest form, myth is a fiction that tells a truth. In other words, a metaphor is used to express that what is believed but cannot be explained. Alan Watts uses the allegory of a scientist who takes a balloon covered in dots, then blows it up to illustrate the expanding universe. He is not saying the universe is a balloon, it’s just that words ‘strain crack and sometimes break’ and if he were to try and explain it any other way nobody would understand what he was saying because there are no words -
(Where do the meanings of music lie – and how do we overcome the prejudices of our ‘methods’ to produce truth?) So, just like in life, where we give the meaning to life, we give the meaning to music – the meaning is not inherent in either. Instead, it is projected from our own psyche and experienced back as a personal narrative that returns to us as individuals and in individual ways. I know a lot of people experience music simply as mathematical formula – and sometimes they’re right, it is just ear candy. But they are also sometimes wrong, because sometimes music can reach us in ways that words cannot. Music speaks to the heart and to the memory. This is the nature of metaphor and an illustration of the inadequacies of man –

Comment on Truth and Method: How Can We Be More Objective When Analysing Music by carza

carza — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:47:14 +0000

Really well said – i agree with all of that. Oddly enough I am writing a book chapter at the moment that discusses exactly what you are saying – how words can not express what music means – often constructing their own meanings.

Comment on Truth and Method: How Can We Be More Objective When Analysing Music by carza

carza — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:46:04 +0000

That’s the way I think – try and get as close as possible. Texts such as ‘Death of the Author’ (http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Gustafson/FILM%20162.W10/readings/barthes.death.pdf) are interesting reads regarding understanding the impact of author intention.

Comment on Truth and Method: How Can We Be More Objective When Analysing Music by datisit

datisit — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:41:24 +0000

Doesn’t the acknowledgment of there being an author’s intention, and personal interpretation prevent an objectivity? And if real objectivity doesn’t exist, can there be degrees of objectivity such that you could ‘get close to it’?

Comment on Truth and Method: How Can We Be More Objective When Analysing Music by Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:39:59 +0000

Hi Paul, just read your post, I think music is a kind of audio-metaphor, in that words cannot express what music does, so we will constantly fail to agree on what it does express, because it expresses many things. In other words, the the semiology, or Marxist theories that you might try to project onto them to discover a truth will never be enough because we are dealing with the inadequate character of words, as T S wrote in Burnt Norton: ‘Words strain, Crack and sometimes break, under the burden’. In my opinion, metaphor should only be used when words cannot articulate properly, (Dylan uses surprisingly few metaphors in his lyrics, in spite of people thinking he is ‘poetic’ the verses to Tangled up in Blue are all descriptive imagery, until it gets to the hook ‘Tangled in Blue’ where the song’s essence is defined allegorically. But most people use metaphor as an embellishment or rhetorical trick, an attempt to impress with a purple phrase (haze), this relates and contaminates the way people regard myth (and the allegories that music suggests) as something that is false, but this is a complete misunderstanding of the function of myth/metaphor – because in its purest form, myth is a fiction that tells a truth. In other words, a metaphor is used to express that what is believed, but cannot be explained or understood. Alan Watts describes is as a scientist who uses a balloon covered in dots, then blows it up to illustrate the expanding universe. In other words, he is not saying the universe is a balloon, it’s just that words ‘strain crack and sometimes break’ and if the scientist were to try and explain it any other way, nobody would understand what he was saying because there are no words to explain this extraordinary theory. (Where do the meanings of music lie – and how do we overcome the prejudices of our ‘methods’ to produce truth?) So, just like life (meaning is not inherent, we give meaning to it) We give the music meaning – because there is none without interpretation. The meaning is projected from our own psyche and experienced back as a narrative that returns to us as individuals, in individual ways. I know a lot of people experience music simply as mathematical formula – and sometimes they’re right, it is just ear candy. But sometimes music can reach us in ways that words cannot, can affect us and articulate a great meaning and enlightenment that lifts the spirit. This is the nature of metaphor and an illustration of the inadequacies of man – r

Comment on Truth and Method: How Can We Be More Objective When Analysing Music by carza

carza — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:06:58 +0000

Thanks for the comment. I am saying we should arguably get as close to objective as possible. However, it does depend on what ‘hat’ you have on. Sometimes it is interesting to discover what the authors’ intentions are – sometimes it good to focus on our personal interpretation – as long as we are aware which one we are working with.