[johnjen]

 
I imagine you're looking for more than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music , so care to elaborate what exactly is your question? the science behind sound? the taste for a given type of sound(dissonance, it has been found, can depend on cultural background), some kind of belief that music has a soul or more than what can be measured as often believed on headfi(and is false of course)? how many notes start forming a music(I guess asking the copyright laws would kind of work on that one ^_^)? it could go in any direction. 

I suppose the question is to simple, yet inclusive enough to encompass all of the questions you raise, and many more.
On purpose.
 
I suppose for me, I could sum it to, music is an experience, one that involves a complex interaction between a multitude of factors all of which culminate in the experience of what music can convey or deliver in terms of meaning and, that this experience has an impact upon our conscious awareness.
And so, where and how does this result in 'Music'?
 
But, you asked me "what exactly is your question?", where as, I was asking you, and any and all others, "where does the music reside?"
 
JJ

 

[GearMe]

"Music is the universal language of mankind"...Longfellow

 

[wink]

..... and most of mankind is illiterate and/or speaks a strange pidgin dialect........    

 

[GearMe]

Musically? Linguistically? Or both?

 

[noshortcuts]

Music resides as communication. If music plays in a forrest and nobody is there to hear it. ...

 

[artur9]

  But really, where does it reside?
 
JJ

I like Beethoven's answer, as depicted in the movie Immortal Beloved.  It resides in the ability of the composer to induce an emotional state in the listener.  The skill of the composer in using all the facilities at her/his disposal: notes, instruments, etc to achieve that.
 
Since seeing that I think of the music as being a quantum interaction between  the composer and the listener and everything in between being the transmission medium.  At that point, we can apply our engineering skills to improve the SNR of that transmission.
 
So, does that make me an objectivist or a subjectivist? ;->

 

[ThePianoMan]

From a talented young writer I know:

"Our city will also have music, because music remains a mystery to us."

I've studied way too much ethnomusicology and music theory to even comment on this topic. Sometimes the more you learn, the less you know : )

 

[johnjen]

  I like Beethoven's answer, as depicted in the movie Immortal Beloved.  It resides in the ability of the composer to induce an emotional state in the listener.  The skill of the composer in using all the facilities at her/his disposal: notes, instruments, etc to achieve that.
 
Since seeing that I think of the music as being a quantum interaction between  the composer and the listener and everything in between being the transmission medium.  At that point, we can apply our engineering skills to improve the SNR of that transmission.
 
So, does that make me an objectivist or a subjectivist? ;->

I like this answer…
Thanks for adding that into this mix of thoughts.
 
But it only becomes music when played, which prompts me to wonder if the composer never played the music except in his mind, is it still music if it is never rendered into acoustic power?
 
I bring this up because it seems to me that music MUST be experienced, using the senses and is not solely a matter of intent and content.
 
There seems to be an interaction between the musicians and the audience as well, that can in some cases render the music impotent, or in less sever situations, the 'outcome' of the music experience can be greatly changed.
Which implies that the creation of music is influenced by a great many aspects.
 
And yet all of this tends to diffuse and not tighten our understanding of where the music resides, as it seems to be 'formed' by more than one 'source'.
 
 
Hmmmmmmmm…
 
I like it, more food for thought. 

 
JJ

 

[johnjen]

From a talented young writer I know:

"Our city will also have music, because music remains a mystery to us."

I've studied way too much ethnomusicology and music theory to even comment on this topic. Sometimes the more you learn, the less you know : )

I know what you mean.
 
When we use the scalpel of analysis and categorization, it can tend to cut the life out of some experiences which surround any topic.
 
'Being in the biz' is often a sure sign of 'over saturation' in a commercial sense and this type of example applies to many other situations as well.
 
But more than that, it reminds me of the transition from self motivated interest to a deep study that usually is associated with professionalism of some sort.
And asking this here may be a means to avoid this dilemma.
 
Namely asking here in the middle of a 'hobby' where we can remain in that state of self motivated interest, and not have to jump over that line in the sand…
 
I like exploring familiar topics in unfamiliar ways. 

 
JJ

 

[ThePianoMan]

Something you might find interesting is conceptions of music in non-US/Western European cultures, or historical civilizations. For example there are many tribes in South America, Africa, and even Europe in the Middle Ages, where Music was/is inherently a religious practice. It's invested with spiritual power, and is totally alien (blasphemous to some) to think of listening to music for pleasure. Likewise music in the punk and early industrial scenes was an outlet or expression of rebellion against the system or "the man." Lots of Bruce Springsteen is protest music, like Born in the USA. It's a heartbreaking song about the horrors of PTSD and mistreated veterans. Yet we hear it in sports stadiums across the country. In the early renaissance a huge debate that raged in the Catholic Church was over how music had become too complex and different from gregoruan chant. That this more complex music was sinful and indulgent. O bet there are millions of very talented musicians who couldn't tell you the difference between it and early 900's mass ordinaries. And there's thousands of such traditions all around the world with long histories. In fact, we've forgotten more musical history of humanity than we currently know!
Kinda puts a lot of things in perspective : )

 

[rtaylor76]

Bach dealt with this quite a bit.

Great music is like a religious experience.

 

[johnjen]

Bach dealt with this quite a bit.

Great music is like a religious experience.

For me, I substitute the word religious for spiritual.
 
Music does move our inner selves (our souls if you will) which is more akin to our spiritual selves than our religious selves.
 
Just a thought in passing.
 
JJ

 

[jacal01]

  Ok so here is a serious question that as far as I can tell has no single answer, at least it seems like it has either, one really basic answer, or is so complex it has to have 'several'.
 
And I figure that there are at least a 'few' musicolologists all hooked into this thread, so here goes…
 
Question;
Where does the music reside?
 
And granted I don't ask this question very much, mostly because I doubt anyone other than true musicolologists would have ever even cogitated this in any way shape or form…
 
But really, where does it reside?
 
JJ

 
 
Pfft.  Easy.  In the soothed savage breast...
 
Seriously?  In the pulsing of the perceived universe and resonating expressions thereof.

 

[Wildcatsare1]

Pfft.  Easy.  In the soothed savage breast...

Seriously?  In the pulsing of the perceived universe and resonating expressions thereof.

?, when I first heard the Yggy it just left a warm, wet feeling in my pants, didn't think about the universal implecations at the moment ...

 

[Baldr]

  Question;
Where does the music reside?
 
JJ

 
A quote from the songwriter named in this thread title:
 
"Ripple in still water
When there is no pebble tossed
Nor wind to blow"