Semiotics, if you're unfamiliar with it, is the study of meaning-making, how we add meaning to things (typically language, but other things too). One of the examples I was given when learning semiotics was this: there is nothing inherently dog-like about a dog. A dog is merely some kind of animal, but all of the adjectives we give to dogs are just that, given to those dogs. We as the English language have given that animal the identity of "dog" and all of the things that go along with it.
Also, it deals a lot with connotation and denotation, many academics of semiotics would say that there is no true denotation, that everything we say has some kind of meaning attached to it. We attach meaning and feelings to everything.
So my question is, how do we do this to music? We often tie emotion to music, in fact it can be an incredibly emotional experience, but what makes music, just a collection of organized sounds (that definition subject to opinion), mean something? What makes a "sad" song, or a "happy" song? An "angry" song? What makes you as a listener relate emotionally to a song? Like, for example, many people say "I Am A Bird Now" is incredibly sad because of his voice (among other reasons), but why is that sad? What makes that voice sad, what makes that music sad?
I'm not necessarily speaking about lyrics, though I realize those play a major part in emotional relation, as the answer seems too obvious. Someone singing about an emotional topic (e.g. death or loss) that you as a listener have experienced is emotional for you, I get that. But I'm more talking about the music itself, the notes, the composition.
I wrote a massive paragraph and just kept contradicting myself more and more so I deleted it, I think it's too hard to put into words (For me anyway), I think it's just something we subconsciously feel ourselves, whereby different people can get different meanings out of the same album. Something that is happy to one person may mean something tragic to another, I guess it really just depends on the person, who knows... _________________
One of the examples I was given when learning semiotics was this: there is nothing inherently dog-like about a dog. A dog is merely some kind of animal, but all of the adjectives we give to dogs are just that, given to those dogs. We as the English language have given that animal the identity of "dog" and all of the things that go along with it.
Unless you're talking about anthropomorphism, this doesn't make much sense to me. I mean I agree about everything being interpreted through a subjective filter, but most of the adjectives people generally give to dogs are descriptive rather than prescriptive. There are objective things about dogs that those descriptions signify.
For someone deaf all music sounds the same. _________________ "And can’t you see you’re in on it?
You were born though you need not
And is that not some cause
For worship, being born among these trees?"
What you have to do is find yourself in the music. If you write things it may be hard to see anything as you will see what isn't there. If you use words like "sad" or such it will become harder. Meaning will get in the way. It feels better to listen to music.
As outlaw pointed out at the end, it's really all over the place what seems to make people happy.
My guess is that the descriptive labels we give to music are mostly relational and only loosely based on its intrinsic properties. As we grow, we notice that when music plays slowly or in minor keys, the lyrics and tone are often sad, so we think of the music as sad. Similarly with melodic and upbeat music being happy.
That's not to say that our emotional response to music is entirely based on social conditioning, just that the labels we apply to it are. For example, few would argue that Pet Sounds is a happy album, at least from the thematic standpoint, but it still makes SuedeSwede happy. Similarly, The Soft Bulletin is an extremely depressing album that somehow brings me to ecstasy.
Why? If I knew, I probably wouldn't need to discuss music anymore.
Unless you're talking about anthropomorphism, this doesn't make much sense to me. I mean I agree about everything being interpreted through a subjective filter, but most of the adjectives people generally give to dogs are descriptive rather than prescriptive. There are objective things about dogs that those descriptions signify.
I didn't describe it well.
In essence, the exercise worked liked this: we were all asked to describe a dog, what a dog was. People said things like loyal or friendly or happy or a companion. These are all things that we, as people, assign to that dog. There is nothing inherently dog-like about that dog, outside of the fact that it is that particular animal. Does that make more sense?
As for the overall discussion, I think it's interesting, I'm just curious why people think things like minor keys and all sound sad, or why certain tones evoke certain emotions? Personally, I think dissonance has a lot to do with it. When we play a minor chord, taking that third down a half-step to the minor third makes it slightly more dissonant, which is something that, in western music, sounds "out of place". I'm not saying it's entirely dissonant, it's not a minor second or anything, but it's more dissonant than a major chord. Same thing with the tri-tone, the augmented 4th, diminished 5th. Why does it sound "evil", why did people think the devil lived in that note? Because it's dissonant, it's not major or minor, and it sounds "out of place". We want everything to fit in little spots, and when it doesn't, it causes anxious emotions in us because we've been conditioned that way.
All in all, I think it's a lot of social and cultural conditioning. _________________ Progressive Rock
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
