why does every book has to have a meaning? When listening to music do you search for a meaning, a message? then why can't you just read for the beauty of the words?
why does every book has to have a meaning? When listening to music do you search for a meaning, a message?
>When listening to music do you search for a meaning, a message?
Yes you moron.
pathetic
Cringe
What kind of music do you listen to?
>listens to shitty brainlet music
I'm not surprised
>he thinks Bach has some discursive "meaning"
>calls others brainlet
Who said anything about Bach you schizo?
LULZ expat here. I think your allegory is better suited for poetry. Poetry and music are very interwined, directly so in the Romantic era where the idea of "setting" poems and using poetic structural ideas becomes very prevalent.
Personally, I believe:
are completely wrong. Muisic can take multiple listens to settle in the same way you may need to reread a passage to truly understand it, not because of how it conveys meaning or because it is particuarly illegible (it can be, but not in conveying something). Music takes multiple listens because it's a structural and sonic art, and sometimes these properties take a while to fully settle in. This is why you may "like" something at first that you eventually come to "love". Of course, some pieces have very complicated programs, and others have lyrics.
Personally I like to assign my own very vague programs to some pieces. For example, a loud, boasting phrase can be interpreted as a statement being boasted out loud, and a following, quieter, countering phrase as a statement murmured in private. This is part of a conductor's job, interpreting the notes in an abstract but meaningful way.
Notes can't give meaning by themselves without some pre-defined context. Just like modern art, three colors on a canvas don't mean shit until you read the history behind that painting since the composition of colors, or the notes in the case of music, don't elude to much if anything meaningful.
>Notes can't give meaning by themselves without some pre-defined context
This is mostly true, which is why I mentioned:
>some pieces have very complicated programs
And of course some notes, when put together in a certain way, evoke certain things, and can reflect a certain tradition. If I played two pieces, one Baroque and one Impressionist, you could pretty likely guess which one is which even if you know very little about music and are just basing off the terms themselves. There are many creative ways to get unabstract meaning out of notes, even if it can only portray basic concepts, mostly imitating noises and quoting other works. And song, opera, popular music etc. all use music in combination with words for a meaning. And I don't believe we get any "meaning" of programless music from historical context, really we get just that, historical context. Does knowing Tchaikovsky died shortly after composing his Sixth Symphony give me a deeper understanding of it? Yes. Does it make me appreciate it more? Yes. But do I extract any significant more meaning from it that I couldn't have? No. If somebody tells me it was a "suicide note" then I would have some meaning in mind, but that circles it back to being a program, which is not what I am talking about.
To sum my thoughts up: you get to only EXTRACT meaning from a piece if you are extracting abstract, phrased meanings, which requires some thought, and emotional ones, which you'll get from instinct. Context is a whole different thing entirely. While context will enrich your knowledge and view of a piece, you won't get any more meaning out of it than you could've before. Instinctively you can also get what a piece is trying to evoke by the specific notes chosen, the scales, modes, etc. When a piece has some kind of real, clear meaning, it comes to you from a program, not from your mind, and that is a whole seperate thing entirely. Would I know that Vivaldi's Four Seasons concertos are meant to represent the four seasons were it not titled so? No.
Sounds gayer than two men kissing.
I don't know who this guy is but I've fucked several kids at least and it only adds to my problems
>When listening to music do you search for a meaning, a message?
yes, wtf?
There's meaning in everything. Cause and effect. That's what makes art interesting beyond the product alone.
Just because it can't be articulated in words doesn't mean it doesn't have q meaning anon.
a story needs to have a meaning otherwise its gibberish
why would anybody read a story where every character is acting without reason
Characters can act with reason, it's just that every action and event is self-contained within the book's framing. Sort of like a D&D game.
Atleast that's what I think OP means, which in that case, it just serves as meaningless fuel for your imagination. Maybe all you'll learn is how you can react to certain situations mimicking the characters.
I know but it still has whatever conventional idea of "meaning" that hes referring to
when you come up about the "books framing" the author needs to make judgements like "what is good and evil" "how do relationships form"etc which contribute to meaning even if it isn't intended or complex
Art should not be defined by beauty because standards of beauty are completely subjective and arbitrary
>standards of beauty are completely subjective and arbitrary
so?
>standards of beauty are completely subjective and arbitrary
False
he's right though, you can't prove him wrong
that's not how truth works
but you only know how being gay works, anon
Because written works are aesthetically enjoyable because of the meaning of their words. Nobody derives enjoyment from just staring at a page, but from understanding what's written there.
When people say the enjoy the beauty of the prose, what does that mean? Genuine question I can recognize that some writers have a more interesting style but ultimately I am interested in the thematic content and imagery of the story.
You're kind of asking why people like music or visual art. There isn't a sufficient answer to the question. The best one can do is to say "after a certain amount of exposure to different authors, active readers develop nitpicks around standard ways of phrasing, and the inventiveness of an author's language becomes a center of focus".
Beyond that, theme and imagery are very loose and interpretive. On the other hand, poetic qualities can be shared with others just by reading it aloud.
>When people say the enjoy the beauty of the prose, what does that mean?
It means the words they are reading flow nicely with the cognition of the reader's mind. In a sense, it is rhythmic, flows, and stimulates the mind in a consistent pattern that is not jarring or convoluted.
This is a really autistic thread
Bane: for you
>then why can't you just read for the beauty of the words?
Cause I can just go outside and touch grass to get the same experience but better
>nigga only reads books about touching grass after twenty years on tiktok
All music has meaning and beauty is meaning, whether it is articulated or not.
True. The purpose of the creation was in the creation itself, and the interpretation from others is what creates its meaning.
aesthetic pleasure demands meaning
>why does every book has to have a meaning?
Because it has a means to its end.
>When listening to music do you search for a meaning, a message?
No: it presents itself.
>then why can't you just read for the beauty of the words?
Beauty, and truth, are mutually complementary.
Being dumb/wilfully ignorant is not an excuse.
Overinterpretation is underthinking.
>Beauty, and truth, are mutually complementary.
No. They're identical.
Obviously, they are, not, since they are mutually distinct determinations, and, therefore, used to signify different things —exempli gratia: extrinsic beauty, and intrinsic beauty; perpetual truth, and constant truth —mediated by etymic truth.
Mutually, their affinity is realized in their actual complementation; their complementation is consummated in their perfect unity.
Not all truth is immediately beautiful as not all beauty is totally true.
>they are mutually distinct determinations
>and, therefore, used to signify different things
>etymic truth
A bunch of illusions--surface level difference--for wordcels to fall over. You really are the biggest pseud on this board.
>Not all truth is immediately beautiful as not all beauty is totally true.
Perhaps if you don't have the eyes to see. Which (you) don't.
If you have nothing pertinent to discourse in this expectedly shortlived chat, beside: "dey r 1", then cease defecating from your emouth, and abstain from posting.
You haven't made a point beyond "they're not because they're called different things," so there is nothing to refute. There is no hard division between extrinsic beauty and intrinsic beauty; it's merely a question of perspective as I said, you must have the eyes to see.
Improve your reading comprehension.
Children are pieces of shit. It's all peaches when they're infants too weak to lift themselves or grab stuff but the moment they start crawling they fill their hands with insects and excrement and you have to be constantly on guard they don't poison themselves. Then they discover walking and jumping and your house will never be clean again since they track mud everywhere. Try to stop them and they scream like ifrits. The moment they learn to form proper sentences they fill their vocabulary with the degenerate rhymes shown 24/7 on tv. And soon enough they learn to retort back at you if you tell them off. Not a moment's peace with those bastards, fuck em I say
>bad parents fails at raising a child
bukowski said there are 2 ways to live: either everything has meaning, or nothing does
>When listening to music do you search for a meaning, a message?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_music