Michael Cooper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Stirling writes:
>
>>music cannot express emotions
>
>He also writes a great deal of other things, to such an extent as to make
>me less concerned about my own few posts needing trimming.  I am afraid I
>find Stirling a little too eager declare certain ideas as "false" when they
>are not demonstrably so, being subjective in nature.

It is difficult to reply to someone who has so thoroughly misunderstood
what I have written.  It is difficult to beleive, after a certain level
of contortion, that the individual in question even read in good faith.
Tempers fray when reading such words as Mr.  Cooper levels, especially
since it is very clear that he is so busy getting to his intended message,
that he tramples discussion on the way there.

 [Let's leave discussions of personalities and posting styles to private
 email and concentrate on the topic in the future.  -Dave]

Be that as it may.

My contention was that music and language work differently, but have
overlap in their functioning.  Hence we cannot derive conclusions about
music as if it were a subset of language, but nor will we see that it is a
method of cognition wholly apart from any other.  We should see analogies
to other modes of cognition, and we should also see times when other modes
of cognition are used in the aid of music, which will colour the results of
those musical activities.

I submit that these statements are not "subjective" - they are testable
assertions, and what is more, when subjected to test, have shown themselves
to be better explanations for what is observed than other statements.

As for what music can convey, this is a separate question.  Again -
whether music can convey emotions is not subjective - whether a particular
performer or particular piece of music conveys emotion is subjective, since
we observer that reasonable people disagree on this very question.

On Mr. Coopers poitn about sounds which call to mind real world objects,
Berlioz wrote an extensive essay on "Imitation in Music" and by imitation
he means mimeisis rather than contrapunctal imitation. The use of this has
only grown since then, we can add Wagner, Bartok and many others to his
list.

But what does such a reference mean? I can hear insects buzz in the middle
movement of the Bartok concerto - but what is he saying about them? Mr.
Cooper is going to have to be more specific in his formulations, or he will
find himself over a barrel.

As for the length of what I write, I will only observe that I have never
seen anyone complain about long posts they agree with.

Stirling