As Beardsley has noted, denial of the expression theory of music does not necessarily result in formalism; an expressive theory of music is possible. The Expression Theory has called our attention to an important fact about music--namely, that it has human regional qualities. But in performing this service it has rendered itself obsolete. We have no further use for it. ... 'This music is joyous' is plain and can be defended.
The same can be said about dissonance. No one is perfect, so why should music be? Music should tell a story, and stories have moments of light and dark, high and slow, excitement and melancholy. No one wants to read a story where nothing happens, and no one wants to listen to music that has no life. That’s what makes a piece profound and rich.
But it is rarely the same music, however, that all peoples respond to. What is it that we are responding to when we listen to music? Strictly speaking, music is not a language, (1) because it has neither outside referents nor easily detectable meaning. Ludwig Wittgenstein explains that although we understand music in a similar way as we understand language, music is not a language because we still cannot communicate through music as we can through language. (2) More recently, Susanne Langer argues that although we understand music as symbol, because we are so caught up in seeing symbolic form function like language we tend to want to make music into a language.
Because expectation is largely a product or stylistic experience, music in a style with which we are totally unfamiliar is meaningless.” (35) Meaningless is too strong a word. Do we have to completely understand the relationships between each musical stimulus in order to obtain some kind of meaning from it?
Semantic sensation is never original. It must always be familiar. Language does excite original sensations, as in the sound of a speaker's voice, but the semantic experience itself is never sound or vision, or any other sense perception of the material universe. Original experience of semantics would be like immediately comprehending a language we never heard before. This kind of appreciation is possible with music.
Improving is about feeling the music and intuitively grasping where it is going. Music is not a science. A musician can play the notes and rhythms written on a page perfectly, but unless they throw themselves into the music and become a part of it, the music will be bland and emotionless. Music is never apathetic. Musicians only connect to their audience by entwining their fervor and passion into each strand of the music.
Have you ever experienced a loss-of-words but a song helped fill in the blanks? Moreover, are there instances when lyrics are more emotionally powerful than speech? Like language, human song can both express and induce emotions. As humans, we have the inherent ability to create music through song production; vocal music is a universal art form that does not require any specific skills or musical knowledge (Racette and Peretz 2007). It is through this unique form of communication, comprised of both language and music, that humans are one step closer to allow others to feel the way we feel.
Acousmatic music can be challenging to communicate its intention to the listener. Unlike traditional music their is 'no score, no system and no pre-segmented discrete units like notes' (Anderson, 2007; p. 2). Acousmatic music uses what is heard without seeing or knowing the physical origin of the sound as a compositional tool (Contré, WWW). 'It is a type of electroacoustic music, which exists in a recorded format, transmitted and perceived, during performances, via the loudspeaker' (Anderson, p. 2). Rather than understanding conventional musical forms acousmatic music may rely only on communication.
My third contention is that there is no moral responsibility of the commercial media to suppress certain speech because it violates some cultural sensitivity. My first contention is It is virtually impossible to avoid offending someone's culture in our multi-cultural society. As Edward J. Eberle states, "One man's vulgarity, is another man's lyric.". The concept of cultural sensitivity is too vague a concept to be enforced. One can intend no offense, and yet offense can be taken.
That is exactly where this argument counteracts itself, basically stating that it is an unmeasurable being and cannot force energy on a measureable object. The problem here is that the mind and the brain, according to dualism are not the same. One of the important and obvious factors to focus on is that one is an object and the other is an incomprehensible entity, therefore, by science they are not comparable and only work in relation to one another. The body is our gateway to substance and physicality while the mind is our place of contemplation and decision. Their work is intertwined but they are not bound to a physical bond, therefore not having a relevant similarity to be approved by the