I must say I loved the performance last night. It was very relaxing and peaceful. The music really calmed me and allowed me to relate the sounds to my life. Personally, I took the performance as a religious meditation. I've been on several retreats where we listened to different collages of music--kind of how things were last night. So my natural reaction was to close my eyes and pray (especially since we were in the church). I was praying to God and it was like a flashback of images and memories came to mind as Falzone played different instruments in many different tones. The slower the performance, the more peaceful my thoughts and prayers. The more corrupt and loud performance, bad memories and times came to mind. I realize I'm probably the only person who did this, but coming from my religious background, it was the only way I found I was able to relate.
Relating to science, I think there is a good comparison. If you think about it, music is science and vice versa. We couldn’t have music without science. Falzone for one needed to figure out how to play the instruments. Now I'm not going to take credit for writing this (because I didn't and that's plagarism)--but I found this answer online that I really liked...because even though I knew there was a connection between science and music, I just couldn't form my thoughts or write it. so here is what I found.
"Music is like figuring out a formula or math problem. Music composition is basically a math problem. From the basic source of sounds, rhythms and tempos, an infinite variety of musical expressions and emotions can be produced. It is the interaction of sounds, tempo, and pitch that creates music, just as the interaction of known facts and knowledge coupled with imagination, conjecture and inspiration produces new scientific discoveries. Both Science and Music use “formulas” and “theories” to solve problems, and to explore the intangible mysteries of life. Both use mathematical principles and logic, blended with creative thinking and inspiration to arrive at conclusions that are both enlightening and inspirational" - Source: A very smart Yahoo User who's name is not appropriate to cite.
But I agree with what the person said. Music is just like science.
I agree with you that the session was all about meditation. Since I contrasted with you in the fact that I had a non-religious, but rather spiritual, meditation, I agree that you probably were the only person that experienced what you experienced. All of us had something different to get out of attending. Like I said, applied to your comments, what you saw was a beauty that no one else could see.
It is so neat interesting to see how one piece of music had such a dramatic experience for you, giving you the ability to meditate on your life and pray to God. Like Ran stated, one piece of music is able to create a different experience for each person in the audience. I find your quote to be very helpful, in which music is created through inspiration just as new scientific discoveries may stem from inspiration and creativity.
I wouldn't call the performance on Wednesday night a concert, but instead a meditation session induced by music. The supposed music—or collection of sounds—played from start to finish was a rather odd, but opening, experience for me. I spent the first few minutes of the performance trying to decide whether what was playing was actual music or not. Like Falzone stated, definitions of music vary via culture, custom, and especially person. Once I established my view that I couldn't really interpret or accept the sounds as music, I knew that I had to interpret the sounds another way. The sounds didn't really create a regular beat, rhythm, or lyric set (even with the book passages) due to its improv nature, but once I closed my eyes I realized that something else started to spark in my mind—visual images. Unlike Nicci, the peak of my experience was not prayer but getting in inner touch with my feelings.
For example, the instruments used helped set up the stage for action in my mind. I felt as if I was in a void, sounds making images appear and the absence of sound making images disappear. Like, the bells made me feel like I was in the middle of somewhere with heavy wind (with the bells emphasizing the strength of the wind). And, the flute and the other instruments signal to me to relax and not question what I see. When I am in inner touch with myself, what I see is what I see. There is a certain beauty that only you, and not other people can see.
His performance is a great example of how improv can really produce results in some people. Some people think that careful planning is the only way to produce good results, but that is not necessarily true. I trust that Falzone did not prepare beforehand before playing, and he produced good results in my meditation. I believe that if he carefully prepared instead, it would have also produced the same results. But, it is also possible that nothing significant could have resulted in me.
The same applies to science. Sometimes, scientists don't have well-prepared plans required to conduct an experiment but good results can still be produced (but not guaranteed).
This is a very interesting response to the performance. I like how you call it a meditation and how you describe the scenes in your mind as the collection of sounds were played. I had a similar experience at an earlier concert that was here at TMC. It was an improv music performance too. The best part for me was that in this type of performance it is like the artist has a conversation with themselves through sounds. It really shows you it is an experience and not just a performance. I responded in a similar way to this other performance as my mind reacted to the sounds rather than searching for music. I am glad that you posted this and let me know I wasn't the only one that had this experience.
I can say that I have never really experienced anything like the show last night. I have a huge respect for musicians and composers because it is truly difficult to just create a sound that fits together. The show though was unlike anything I have ever heard from a musical performance.
I related the performance things we have discussed in class by the way he said it was mostly improvisation. We discuss how scientists sometimes do not have a specific plan on how they are going to solve a problem, and even though it sounds like they are just guessing that have a way of going about it but it also isn't always the same. This is exactly what he did in the performance, he discussed how when people hear that it is improvisation they think there is know plan or rhythm and this was not the case at all.
The performance was very unique and really had me thinking about a lot of different things while listening/meditating.
Your relation from music to science is interesting. Just as this piece was improv, some science goes from premises to a conclusion using different approaches and experiments than first expected. The composer may have played music based on feelings he wasn't expecting, to come to a concluding piece.
Going off of that, I think a distinction between science and improvisational music can be made because James Falzone's work is unique. The work will never be repeated, which is a core tenet of science. The results of a scientific experiment must be able to be recreated by multiple members of the scientific community, which is just not the case with improvisational music.
The concert was unlike anything I've ever experienced. I'm not a musically talented person, in which I will never comprehend the amount of talent and passion the composer had. I have to admit that while sitting through the performance, there were only a few parts that actually resembled music for me. With it being improv, I found the sounds and rhythms to be unrelated and not always aesthetically pleasing. Although, the use of the different types of instruments kept the listeners intrigued, trying to find meaning in the "music".
After contemplating the concert's relation to scientific practices, I believe they are related. With this concert, the composer is using a variety of instruments that have been specifically designed by scientists, to compose different tones and sounds. With science and music, they each can be used to explore the natural universe and find meaning, either empirically or metaphorically.
I like how you stated that you tried to find the meaning in the music. I feel that is what I did myself, but I related in religiously, instead of just in general. I also like how you compared science and music. I think it is true that they both can be used to explore the natural universe and find meaning in things.
I did not particularly enjoy the concert, which could possibly be due to my lack of knowledge in music not allowing me to make any connections to this type of art. I therefore do not see a connection between science and music other then the fact that they both use instruments to reach their final product. Other then that I see music as something more psychological rather than tangible like science. I also did not think the music flowed well since he was trying to tell a story it seemed as if the tone was very up and down, making it unpleasing to hear.
While I'm not surprised you didn't enjoy the concert, I am shocked that you couldn't see a connection between the two. Could you not see the background behind both? How they both theories to solve questions? If you state that music is more psychological, is it fair to say that music has the ability to solve problems/questions...just like science does?
I don't know if I would say that music has the ability to solve problems… at least not the questions that science answers. Science brings us closer to an objective truth, while music is highly subjective in nature. Music may touch the soul in such a way that allows us to gain answers to personal problems, but this is different than unlocking the truth of the natural world. This isn't to say that the means for discovering scientific truths aren't somewhat subjective, but the truth that it leads to is objective. Music is not limited in the way science is. It is only constrained by an artist's imagination. That is what truly sets music (or art for that matter) and science apart.
A few more thoughts: -Our problems are individualized, while science is universal (or at least we think that it is). -It's kind of interesting to note the connection between string theory (and their vibrations) and sound, which are just vibrations in the air.
The art created by James Falzone in the chapel was different than what the general populace would (normally) consider music, yet it fits quite nicely into musical history as a whole. There was a twentieth century composer named John Cage who helped expand the public conception of music with his "prepared piano" pieces. This music often sounded unlike anything the public had heard before. For example, there was outrage when Cage first performed his composition 4'33", a piece that consisted of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Cage's music, however, was revolutionary and represented a paradigm shift from more traditional forms of music. His contribution to the historical narrative of music allowed for sounds to exist for their own sake and nothing else. This new form of music was without rules and free from a rigid structure.
A lot of what James Falzone did throughout the night was made possible through the efforts of John Cage. Like most other fields (including the hard sciences), Falzone was able to build upon a preexisting musical tradition, standing on the shoulders of giants while making something that was all his own. James Falzone used this to explore the overlap between the sacred and the secular to great effect. A future artist down the road might build off of this exploration and create new works of music. I'm just glad I could be around to experience history in the making.
I wasn't at the concert, however, I need more post. So, hopefully Dr. Cate doesn't read this post and just counts it for me. However, I heard the concert was very interesting to say the least. many people wouldn't classify that as music at all. They would just say it's just noise and it doesn't make sense. However, some people could listen to that and think it is the most beautiful sound they have ever heard. Neither person is wrong, they just have their own personal opinion. Honestly, that is what is great about science, we can have our own personal opinions, that can differ from person to person, and we can all be right. Now, this is just for small things, not for items such as evolution or physics biology or chemistry, basically the hard sciences because those are very very fact bases. However, the "soft sciences" everyone can be right. That is one of biggest things I am taking away from this class is that just because a person and i have opposing views doesn't make them automatically wrong just because we have opposing views
The performance by James Falzone was relaxing and very interesting to say the least. The thing that I liked the most about his performance was it was all improvisation. It was not practiced and rehearsed. All of the instruments that Falzone used to produce all kinds of different sounds was truly amazing. Throughout the performance, it sometimes sounded like Falzone was just playing these instruments without having any direction to it but to him there was a direction and as I listened closely I could tell that there was a strong message that he was trying to give. In my opinion, Falzone is a very talented musician and his pieces that he creates are an inspiration.
I believe that science is a hit and miss subject. Scientists make hypotheses knowing that they are not sure if it will be true or even if the experiment to try and prove it will be true. They go in blind and unknowing of what they will see happen. Maybe their experiment will show something else to be true or come about. Similarly, the musical encounter was very hit and miss as well. He would start and play something. He would tell a story and end it, not knowing if the audience enjoyed it but knowing that thats what he played. I play piano and when i make music, certain chords come about from just messing around. Improv is experimentation. If something doesnt work, some other sounds may arise. And i believe that all scientists and musicians base their studies on the premise of improvization because if we didnt try things, how would we know if things worked.
I must say I loved the performance last night. It was very relaxing and peaceful. The music really calmed me and allowed me to relate the sounds to my life. Personally, I took the performance as a religious meditation. I've been on several retreats where we listened to different collages of music--kind of how things were last night. So my natural reaction was to close my eyes and pray (especially since we were in the church). I was praying to God and it was like a flashback of images and memories came to mind as Falzone played different instruments in many different tones. The slower the performance, the more peaceful my thoughts and prayers. The more corrupt and loud performance, bad memories and times came to mind. I realize I'm probably the only person who did this, but coming from my religious background, it was the only way I found I was able to relate.
ReplyDeleteRelating to science, I think there is a good comparison. If you think about it, music is science and vice versa. We couldn’t have music without science. Falzone for one needed to figure out how to play the instruments. Now I'm not going to take credit for writing this (because I didn't and that's plagarism)--but I found this answer online that I really liked...because even though I knew there was a connection between science and music, I just couldn't form my thoughts or write it. so here is what I found.
"Music is like figuring out a formula or math problem. Music composition is basically a math problem. From the basic source of sounds, rhythms and tempos, an infinite variety of musical expressions and emotions can be produced. It is the interaction of sounds, tempo, and pitch that creates music, just as the interaction of known facts and knowledge coupled with imagination, conjecture and inspiration produces new scientific discoveries. Both Science and Music use “formulas” and “theories” to solve problems, and to explore the intangible mysteries of life. Both use mathematical principles and logic, blended with creative thinking and inspiration to arrive at conclusions that are both enlightening and inspirational" - Source: A very smart Yahoo User who's name is not appropriate to cite.
But I agree with what the person said. Music is just like science.
I agree with you that the session was all about meditation. Since I contrasted with you in the fact that I had a non-religious, but rather spiritual, meditation, I agree that you probably were the only person that experienced what you experienced. All of us had something different to get out of attending. Like I said, applied to your comments, what you saw was a beauty that no one else could see.
DeleteIt is so neat interesting to see how one piece of music had such a dramatic experience for you, giving you the ability to meditate on your life and pray to God. Like Ran stated, one piece of music is able to create a different experience for each person in the audience. I find your quote to be very helpful, in which music is created through inspiration just as new scientific discoveries may stem from inspiration and creativity.
DeleteI wouldn't call the performance on Wednesday night a concert, but instead a meditation session induced by music. The supposed music—or collection of sounds—played from start to finish was a rather odd, but opening, experience for me. I spent the first few minutes of the performance trying to decide whether what was playing was actual music or not. Like Falzone stated, definitions of music vary via culture, custom, and especially person. Once I established my view that I couldn't really interpret or accept the sounds as music, I knew that I had to interpret the sounds another way. The sounds didn't really create a regular beat, rhythm, or lyric set (even with the book passages) due to its improv nature, but once I closed my eyes I realized that something else started to spark in my mind—visual images. Unlike Nicci, the peak of my experience was not prayer but getting in inner touch with my feelings.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the instruments used helped set up the stage for action in my mind. I felt as if I was in a void, sounds making images appear and the absence of sound making images disappear. Like, the bells made me feel like I was in the middle of somewhere with heavy wind (with the bells emphasizing the strength of the wind). And, the flute and the other instruments signal to me to relax and not question what I see. When I am in inner touch with myself, what I see is what I see. There is a certain beauty that only you, and not other people can see.
His performance is a great example of how improv can really produce results in some people. Some people think that careful planning is the only way to produce good results, but that is not necessarily true. I trust that Falzone did not prepare beforehand before playing, and he produced good results in my meditation. I believe that if he carefully prepared instead, it would have also produced the same results. But, it is also possible that nothing significant could have resulted in me.
The same applies to science. Sometimes, scientists don't have well-prepared plans required to conduct an experiment but good results can still be produced (but not guaranteed).
This is a very interesting response to the performance. I like how you call it a meditation and how you describe the scenes in your mind as the collection of sounds were played. I had a similar experience at an earlier concert that was here at TMC. It was an improv music performance too. The best part for me was that in this type of performance it is like the artist has a conversation with themselves through sounds. It really shows you it is an experience and not just a performance. I responded in a similar way to this other performance as my mind reacted to the sounds rather than searching for music. I am glad that you posted this and let me know I wasn't the only one that had this experience.
DeleteI can say that I have never really experienced anything like the show last night. I have a huge respect for musicians and composers because it is truly difficult to just create a sound that fits together. The show though was unlike anything I have ever heard from a musical performance.
ReplyDeleteI related the performance things we have discussed in class by the way he said it was mostly improvisation. We discuss how scientists sometimes do not have a specific plan on how they are going to solve a problem, and even though it sounds like they are just guessing that have a way of going about it but it also isn't always the same. This is exactly what he did in the performance, he discussed how when people hear that it is improvisation they think there is know plan or rhythm and this was not the case at all.
The performance was very unique and really had me thinking about a lot of different things while listening/meditating.
Your relation from music to science is interesting. Just as this piece was improv, some science goes from premises to a conclusion using different approaches and experiments than first expected. The composer may have played music based on feelings he wasn't expecting, to come to a concluding piece.
DeleteGoing off of that, I think a distinction between science and improvisational music can be made because James Falzone's work is unique. The work will never be repeated, which is a core tenet of science. The results of a scientific experiment must be able to be recreated by multiple members of the scientific community, which is just not the case with improvisational music.
DeleteThe concert was unlike anything I've ever experienced. I'm not a musically talented person, in which I will never comprehend the amount of talent and passion the composer had. I have to admit that while sitting through the performance, there were only a few parts that actually resembled music for me. With it being improv, I found the sounds and rhythms to be unrelated and not always aesthetically pleasing. Although, the use of the different types of instruments kept the listeners intrigued, trying to find meaning in the "music".
ReplyDeleteAfter contemplating the concert's relation to scientific practices, I believe they are related. With this concert, the composer is using a variety of instruments that have been specifically designed by scientists, to compose different tones and sounds. With science and music, they each can be used to explore the natural universe and find meaning, either empirically or metaphorically.
I agree that most of the parts were unrelated in his work
DeleteI like how you stated that you tried to find the meaning in the music. I feel that is what I did myself, but I related in religiously, instead of just in general. I also like how you compared science and music. I think it is true that they both can be used to explore the natural universe and find meaning in things.
DeleteI did not particularly enjoy the concert, which could possibly be due to my lack of knowledge in music not allowing me to make any connections to this type of art. I therefore do not see a connection between science and music other then the fact that they both use instruments to reach their final product. Other then that I see music as something more psychological rather than tangible like science.
ReplyDeleteI also did not think the music flowed well since he was trying to tell a story it seemed as if the tone was very up and down, making it unpleasing to hear.
While I'm not surprised you didn't enjoy the concert, I am shocked that you couldn't see a connection between the two. Could you not see the background behind both? How they both theories to solve questions? If you state that music is more psychological, is it fair to say that music has the ability to solve problems/questions...just like science does?
DeleteI don't know if I would say that music has the ability to solve problems… at least not the questions that science answers. Science brings us closer to an objective truth, while music is highly subjective in nature. Music may touch the soul in such a way that allows us to gain answers to personal problems, but this is different than unlocking the truth of the natural world. This isn't to say that the means for discovering scientific truths aren't somewhat subjective, but the truth that it leads to is objective. Music is not limited in the way science is. It is only constrained by an artist's imagination. That is what truly sets music (or art for that matter) and science apart.
DeleteA few more thoughts:
-Our problems are individualized, while science is universal (or at least we think that it is).
-It's kind of interesting to note the connection between string theory (and their vibrations) and sound, which are just vibrations in the air.
The art created by James Falzone in the chapel was different than what the general populace would (normally) consider music, yet it fits quite nicely into musical history as a whole. There was a twentieth century composer named John Cage who helped expand the public conception of music with his "prepared piano" pieces. This music often sounded unlike anything the public had heard before. For example, there was outrage when Cage first performed his composition 4'33", a piece that consisted of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Cage's music, however, was revolutionary and represented a paradigm shift from more traditional forms of music. His contribution to the historical narrative of music allowed for sounds to exist for their own sake and nothing else. This new form of music was without rules and free from a rigid structure.
ReplyDeleteA lot of what James Falzone did throughout the night was made possible through the efforts of John Cage. Like most other fields (including the hard sciences), Falzone was able to build upon a preexisting musical tradition, standing on the shoulders of giants while making something that was all his own. James Falzone used this to explore the overlap between the sacred and the secular to great effect. A future artist down the road might build off of this exploration and create new works of music. I'm just glad I could be around to experience history in the making.
I wasn't at the concert, however, I need more post. So, hopefully Dr. Cate doesn't read this post and just counts it for me. However, I heard the concert was very interesting to say the least. many people wouldn't classify that as music at all. They would just say it's just noise and it doesn't make sense. However, some people could listen to that and think it is the most beautiful sound they have ever heard. Neither person is wrong, they just have their own personal opinion. Honestly, that is what is great about science, we can have our own personal opinions, that can differ from person to person, and we can all be right. Now, this is just for small things, not for items such as evolution or physics biology or chemistry, basically the hard sciences because those are very very fact bases. However, the "soft sciences" everyone can be right. That is one of biggest things I am taking away from this class is that just because a person and i have opposing views doesn't make them automatically wrong just because we have opposing views
ReplyDeleteThe performance by James Falzone was relaxing and very interesting to say the least. The thing that I liked the most about his performance was it was all improvisation. It was not practiced and rehearsed. All of the instruments that Falzone used to produce all kinds of different sounds was truly amazing. Throughout the performance, it sometimes sounded like Falzone was just playing these instruments without having any direction to it but to him there was a direction and as I listened closely I could tell that there was a strong message that he was trying to give. In my opinion, Falzone is a very talented musician and his pieces that he creates are an inspiration.
ReplyDeleteI believe that science is a hit and miss subject. Scientists make hypotheses knowing that they are not sure if it will be true or even if the experiment to try and prove it will be true. They go in blind and unknowing of what they will see happen. Maybe their experiment will show something else to be true or come about. Similarly, the musical encounter was very hit and miss as well. He would start and play something. He would tell a story and end it, not knowing if the audience enjoyed it but knowing that thats what he played. I play piano and when i make music, certain chords come about from just messing around. Improv is experimentation. If something doesnt work, some other sounds may arise. And i believe that all scientists and musicians base their studies on the premise of improvization because if we didnt try things, how would we know if things worked.
ReplyDelete