Re: Musilanguage hypothesis - Becky-Jo

I think the musilanguage hypothesis is valid, even if it is only treated as a theory. It would make sense that our predecessors, when attempting to develop a language, would want to communicate both the literal and the emotive. Why would they not? There's a definite connection to how the emotional content of a word and the emotional content of a musical phrase would have originated; as we said, there are no words for that which music describes to us (hence the point why music is communicative but not a language). I'd like to take the idea one step further and offer my thoughts on this, however, which is that singing words often strikes us so profoundly because it is the embodiment of both; it is the language music is lacking and the indescribable emotions that there are no words for melded together, each making up for the others shortcomings. Also, that we often create instruments with the intention of replicating the sound of the human voice, and that music does in fact seem to exist as an offshoot of language because of something language could not do.

Re: Vamps, Rhytmic Patterns and Musical Definitions - Pete Mitchell

In his post, Peter talked about how extreme rhythmic syncopation, while sometimes being near impossible to actively listen to, still contain rhythmic elements, albeit strange ones. I have to agree with him that it still fits our definition of music; even though those rhythms may be difficult to listen to, if they were written intentionally and performed in that manner they would still fit what it means to have a rhythmic pattern. I think that an objection to this case would be a piece that fails to ever establish any kind of grounded rhythm, that is, not to have extreme syncopation in the context of a broader, more stable piece, but to have a piece that is completely "Arhythmic". As Peter was getting at in his post, a piece such as this would be considered sound art, as completely lacking one of the necessary qualities of music, rhythm, excludes it from that category.

Aesthetic Association

The other day I had the thought that we sometimes associate a separate aesthetic memory with the current aesthetic experience. My instance was walking down the street, listening to music from one of my favorite video games (Persona3FES), by one of my favorite Japanese composers (Shoji Meguro). I realized that the specific tacks were primarily of genres I never listen to, genres that I usually dislike. However, listening to the music and remembering its context in the game makes it a very enjoyable aesthetic experience for me (for those particular pieces). Thus my conclusion that the aesthetic experience of the music is enhanced by the positive aesthetic experience of having played the game with that background music. I believe that if I had heard the same tracks out of context, and did not know who the composer was, I would not enjoy it as much (or at all).

Does aesthetic memory play a role in present aesthetic judgments?

Doctor Who Theme

I would make the argument that the theme from Doctor Who is music, and not sound art. I can understand how one might assume this, because the piece was not composed using orthodox instrumentation, and would therefore lead us to assume differently about it. I would say that, although it is an organization of sounds from a laboratory, all of the sounds used were chosen because they are tonal. There is distinguishable melodic, harmonic and rhythmic content, as well as form, which together set it apart from sound art as music. I would also argue that the ability to cover the song with melodic, harmonic and rhythmic instruments makes the argument that all three are present in the original production, as well as noting that the modern rendition of the theme does the same by containing all of the information found in the original score.

Original Theme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvKezE1hZeI

Modern Theme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co_AcU01X9w

All Themes to Date:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnKNupdSH8g

Cover Theme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvL9Qkgub9E

Does it follow from my argument that this is music, and not sound art?