Edson Tadeu Ortolan wrote:

>People!!!  All this discussion would be available if the music was capable
>to represent or to imitate or to paint or to express the Nature, the
>Sensations, the Emotions, the Thoughts, and ALL EXTRA-MUSICAL THINGS!!!
>
>See the Hanslick, Stravinsky, and Boulez's texts about this matter.  We
>need to learn about Semiotic and Semiologic studies.

Is emotion really extra-musical? One has emotion when they speak
in English; it isn't "extra-English." If so, then why is emotion
extra-musical? Classical music may not be universal, but it is MOST
DEFINITELY a language.  Therefore, it can express anything.  The difference
between English and Music is that in English, certain sounds have a
definitive meaning whereas in music the meaning is more nebulous.  If
people wanted to, they could carry on conversations with other people in
Music IF they understood the meaning of what they were singing back and
forth to each other (i.e.  had a vocabulary of "words).  Thus, it is with
Music, and thus it is with English.

So, neither "Nature, the Sensations, the Emotions, the Thoughts, [etc]" Are
"EXTRA-MUSICAL THINGS." What makes music fun is that every composer says
the same idea a different way.  (Whereas in English, for one idea there is
one word.)

Do see Hanslick, Stravinsky, and Boulez's texts about this matter, but in
my opinion they were working WAY too hard.  Their heads were lodged in the
books and they couldn't see past them.  They allowed the theory to overtake
the music.  All languages have theory, or grammar; however, all languages,
including music, exsist in order to communicate ideas.  Is not emotion an
idea?

Joseph Sowa
[log in to unmask]