Feelings of Music

Whats with the replies? Whyd everyone started competing in quality and quantity? Fermin, holy scrap, that was rebuttle againest phillip was so long i didnt even bother reading it, too nerve draining. Doesnt matter in the end, in all goes to the one, the one will always win in the end.... Im the one.

Hannah, we listen to music, and it expresses our feelings. For some songs, techno, etc we dont even need lyrics to feel hyped. It's probably because at the specific moment we are vibrating in the same wave lengths wih the song, same frequency. Yes, people in the Middle ages, would probably still understand the melody but not the language that is used to interpret the song. But if we start listening to rapadingdong from the Middle ages, we would probably thrust it away from our hearing. What if my frequency at that moment was responding to the rapading? Yet i still reject it as some noob music. That is my dependency on the environment taking over.

A lot of times we come across some new singers, and they have these cool cases, with 1337 looking song names. We listen to the song. Rapadingdong. I used to ask why the hell do they sing so noob? arent we all vacuuming essence from Supreme being? My current explanation is that they know that compared to others they dont sing good. Yet they do t, just to gain popularity and fame, and some cash. Think of this, Steven Yu and Josh face off in a KTV to show all the room full of hustlers/gamblers/gangsters what they got. Josh may not be an excellant sing, because he sometimes slides off key, and his vice might crack, but so what? He has feeling, hes got power, hes got confidence. He doesnt sing to show off, he sings to release. Steven is a great singer, but occasionally i get the feeling of eerieness, because hes not singing to his Inner, but to showoff, to prove to those ladies, who the man. That was just a contrast, its fiction, so steven yu, u aint that.

Bradley, I guess you are the one! That response was so simple yet so genius and so smart that your ideas started a very complex chain reaction in my mind! In response to your Josh-and-Steven example, so does that mean that when we are truly connecting with the music, both the lyrics and the melody-rhythm, then the emotions that spring up are the ones manifested by the Supreme Being? Yet, on the other hand, if we are just bobbing our heads to punk rock music, or getting all emotional and touchy over sad, breakup lyrics, the emotions then are the ones from the ego-mind because we have not truly been able to connect with the essence (or the WHOLE) of the music by only paying attention to one part of the music. Or should we not pay attention with our minds at all but rather use our being and try to feel the being of the music? Once again, I completely agree with your reply, Bradley. It was so obvious yet so insightful!

(By the way, you should read my supposed "nerve draining rebuddle". It's actually quite funny. )

...-mindexplodes-

so does that mean that when we are truly connecting with the music, both the lyrics and the melody-rhythm, then the emotions that spring up are the ones manifested by the Supreme Being? Yet, on the other hand, if we are just bobbing our heads to punk rock music, or getting all emotional and touchy over sad, breakup lyrics, the emotions then are the ones from the ego-mind because we have not truly been able to connect with the essence (or the WHOLE) of the music by only paying attention to one part of the music. Or should we not pay attention with our minds at all but rather use our being and try to feel the being of the music?

Hmm. So, what this means is, in order to connect with the whole of the Universal Being, we have to take into consideration all aspects of the music? Therefore if one does not understand the lyrics, one is missing out on a whole chunk of the emotions. Hmm. That's a pretty interesting concept [and kinda obvious in a way that makes it seem not obvious XD]. But is there a universal tune, then? One that we can all connect to, or is it just different genres of music acting upon different frequencies? [I have no idea if this question's been answered or not yet, or maybe I'm just restating it again. X.x]

Hannah wrote:so does that mean that when we are truly connecting with the music, both the lyrics and the melody-rhythm, then the emotions that spring up are the ones manifested by the Supreme Being? Yet, on the other hand, if we are just bobbing our heads to punk rock music, or getting all emotional and touchy over sad, breakup lyrics, the emotions then are the ones from the ego-mind because we have not truly been able to connect with the essence (or the WHOLE) of the music by only paying attention to one part of the music.

Only connecting to one aspect of the song does not mean not truly connecting to it. What you get as a result from considering all aspects of the song while listening to it is the message/emotion the artist intended to convey with that particular song. However, you're not supposed to be listening to songs for anyone but yourself, therefore there is no reason you have to interpret it the way the artist intends it to be. You can interpret the song anyway you like, there is no right or wrong. As long as you can connect to one aspect of the song, then you are connecting to the music, and more importantly, the music as it best relates to your being. The ego mind may be involved in the sense that you purposely block out whatever you don't like, but at this point, I think of it as actually one of the better functions of the ego mind.

Mothers, is it rebuddle or rebuttle?

BC wrote:Think of this, Steven Yu and Josh face off in a KTV to show all the room full of hustlers/gamblers/gangsters what they got. Josh may not be an excellant sing, because he sometimes slides off key, and his vice might crack, but so what? He has feeling, hes got power, hes got confidence. He doesnt sing to show off, he sings to release. Steven is a great singer, but occasionally i get the feeling of eerieness, because hes not singing to his Inner, but to showoff, to prove to those ladies, who the man. That was just a contrast, its fiction, so steven yu, u aint that.

Genius Bradley. But hustlers? haha
I think of that too. Don't we feel more connected to others when they are singing from their essence? We understand that they are singing that song because they are doing it for themselves, not for anyone else. I think even though this person may suck, but as long as the emotions that radiates from the voice isn't faked, then it has got to be better than someone singing just to impress others. You can't fake emotions and you can't fake your essences.

joannneee wrote:
I think depression is really queer (can the word be used here like this?) sometimes. When you listen to depressing music when you're depressed, you either feel better because someone knows your pain, or you get even more depressed and end up breaking something. It's the same with depressing music when you're sad - depressing music is most of the time very beautiful even when you're not depressed - does that mean that whether or not we like a piece is decided by our emotions? How would we define emotion anyway? Because right now it seems almost contradicting - if we didn't use emotion to listen to music, would the piece still be beautiful? Or would it lack meaning?

Depression is queer - we either get more depressed, or we feel relieved...
Well, I think when we don't listen with emotions, we can still sense that it is beautiful, but that feeling does not leave such an impression on you. Beautiful is a vague description. We can feel something as beautiful, yet it is not impressive. I think whether with or without emotion, we can all feel that it is beautiful or not, but the most important part is if you are in sync with it or not. When the piece is listened with emotion, and the song itself touches your essence, then you start to feel it not just as beautiful, but also meaningful. So I suppose a song can be beautiful, but meaningless, and the effect is it does not leaves an impression on you, while another song can be plain and ineloquent, but as long as it touches you, then it doesn't have to be beautiful to be meaningful.

hen wrote:

Hannah wrote:so does that mean that when we are truly connecting with the music, both the lyrics and the melody-rhythm, then the emotions that spring up are the ones manifested by the Supreme Being? Yet, on the other hand, if we are just bobbing our heads to punk rock music, or getting all emotional and touchy over sad, breakup lyrics, the emotions then are the ones from the ego-mind because we have not truly been able to connect with the essence (or the WHOLE) of the music by only paying attention to one part of the music.

Only connecting to one aspect of the song does not mean not truly connecting to it. What you get as a result from considering all aspects of the song while listening to it is the message/emotion the artist intended to convey with that particular song. However, you're not supposed to be listening to songs for anyone but yourself, therefore there is no reason you have to interpret it the way the artist intends it to be. You can interpret the song anyway you like, there is no right or wrong. As long as you can connect to one aspect of the song, then you are connecting to the music, and more importantly, the music as it best relates to your being. The ego mind may be involved in the sense that you purposely block out whatever you don't like, but at this point, I think of it as actually one of the better functions of the ego mind.

Wow, Henning, you just made one of the most genius points as of yet in this thread, I believe. o_o [excuse the facial expression. xD) It doesn't matter whether or not we interpret the poem as what the author intends us to, because the real beauty in art is in its flexibility. If we were all forced to see each piece in the way the author wants us to, it would lose the quality that we, our individual beings, put upon it. By this "quality" I mean the way our mind chooses to interpret the song or piece of art. For example, when you watch a movie, some people love it and some people hate it - it all depends on how our "minds" mold the movie into what we want it to be.

Music is great when it really connects - maybe it's because of the specific "wavelengths" that we emit as we live our lives - and even when we say that the being is one, and should thus accept everything, is that always true? If we love a certain piece and hate another, does that automatically mean that our ego-minds are at work? What if we didn't like the feeling the piece gave us? This is an "emotion"; it's like saying that we hate something just for the sake of argument, but is that really true?

So to what extent would Essence be involved in music? If essence applies to music that you just don't like, that you feel emotionally detached from, does that mean we're just not accepting the whole of music? Is it that important to accept the whole anyway? Someone reiterate this for me? @_@

It's rebuttal, by the way, Bradley.

@Ivy
Do you mean that with its touching to Essence, music gains meaning? It is not only surface beauty, but also it holds a deeper, more touching quality to its notes? I personally think that a meaningful song is, no matter how simple it is, beautiful to me. It's pretty hard to describe how it feels - like you're so happy that you feel like you're going to puke that your heart's going to burst. But it does kind of feel like the former, only in a good way.

If you guys get what I mean.

BC wrote:Mothers, is it rebuddle or rebuttle?

Neither. It's actually rebuttal.

@ shawanne

I don't think we necessarily miss out on a whole chunk of emotion. In the case of the "Spoils", the lyrics reflect a very different mood from the song itself, whereas with "Rise Above", the lyrics provide a context for the emotions. And even when we listen to songs where we can't understand the lyrics, the emotionals are still be able to be communicated via the music. I think I should make it clear that in music, though lyrics are important, should not dominate the music. The lyrics are delivered with the music, not the other way around.

@ Ivy

How can we perceive something as beautiful if we don't have emotions. The reason why the definition of beauty is ambiguous it would seem is because of it's emotional subjectivity. I don't believe the traits that qualify something as beautiful are that ambiguous, though that does not change the fact that to perceive beauty we require emotions. The word "beauty" itself is a very emotionally-charged word, as are many of the descriptors for beauty or beautiful things, so how can we see beauty without emotion? Makes no sense to me.

@ Joanne

I think we can determine our essence's involvement in music by determining how connected we feel to the song. And I doubt that when we feel unaffected by certain music we just can't accept it's whole essence. We just can't connect the parts of it that we perceive or can't understand it.

I don't think we necessarily miss out on a whole chunk of emotion. In the case of the "Spoils", the lyrics reflect a very different mood from the song itself, whereas with "Rise Above", the lyrics provide a context for the emotions. And even when we listen to songs where we can't understand the lyrics, the emotionals are still be able to be communicated via the music. I think I should make it clear that in music, though lyrics are important, should not dominate the music. The lyrics are delivered with the music, not the other way around.

I knew that was going to be a Diru song. XDD

Okay, so...it could be related to the 'read for the pie not the plum' theory in our packet for poetry? Hrmm. So the lyrics don't necessarily incorporate the 'whole' meaning of the song, just a part of it [literal meaning], and can be differentiated from the song itself; while the whole meaning of the song is based on both the literal meaning and the emotions it elicits in others, etc.? :O

shawanne wrote:Okay, so...it could be related to the 'read for the pie not the plum' theory in our packet for poetry? Hrmm. So the lyrics don't necessarily incorporate the 'whole' meaning of the song, just a part of it [literal meaning], and can be differentiated from the song itself; while the whole meaning of the song is based on both the literal meaning and the emotions it elicits in others, etc.? :O

"Plum not pie", yes that would be accurate, though not completely. The lyrics definitely don't represent the entire meaning of the song and just a part of it, though lyrics are usually never strictly literal. The connotations of the lyrics as well as the subject matter add another dimension to the emotions, which can be overlooked in most cases without changing our experience of the music too much.

@ Joanne
Exactly! We feel something deeper than just a comment of "Oh. This is nice." and then forget about it the next day. So I suppose a song that has "inner beauty" is one that we can perceive with our essence, not just our senses.

@Lee
Disclaimer: these names just pop out of my head, so bear with me, or just imagine them as someone who you think fits with the situation.
Here is a very realistic example, say you see Jennifer Aniston walking down the street, and you may think that she is beautiful, but she does not affect you in any sort of way. You don't connect with her; you only think of her as beautiful, but so what?
And then you see this other girl, Leighton Meester, and then you have a conversation, and you feel that your essences connect. Even though you might not think of her as the hottest girl on earth, but there is a certain connection and attraction between you two, thus she leaves more of an impression on you then Jennifer Aniston.
I suppose it is the same with music, so you can consider a piece of music as beautiful superficially, but it does not connect with you. However, there might be one simple song that just "gets" you, so its essence i screaming the same thing as your does.

Hannah Park wrote:Actually, Phil Wanda LIKES the sound of finger on chalkboards xD

Wanda just told us she hates it. haha

"Plum not pie", yes that would be accurate, though not completely. The lyrics definitely don't represent the entire meaning of the song and just a part of it, though lyrics are usually never strictly literal. The connotations of the lyrics as well as the subject matter add another dimension to the emotions, which can be overlooked in most cases without changing our experience of the music too much.

Ahh. Thanks for clearing that up XD~

@ Lee

"Plum not pie", yes that would be accurate, though not completely. The lyrics definitely don't represent the entire meaning of the song and just a part of it, though lyrics are usually never strictly literal. The connotations of the lyrics as well as the subject matter add another dimension to the emotions, which can be overlooked in most cases without changing our experience of the music too much.

So does that mean that when we're connecting to everything that the poet or songwriter put into the poem or song (the words, the emotions, the connotations, and ultimately, the experience) that we are connecting with essence? Whereas when we apply the experience to our own lives and add yourself into the song instead of just feeling the song without trying to make it more than what it is, then that is using the ego-mind and thus, the emotions are of the ego-mind? Because maybe if one is putting too much of oneself into the song then one may actually be blocking out the true experience of the songwriter? And as Henning wrote

hen wrote:

Hannah wrote:
so does that mean that when we are truly connecting with the music, both the lyrics and the melody-rhythm, then the emotions that spring up are the ones manifested by the Supreme Being? Yet, on the other hand, if we are just bobbing our heads to punk rock music, or getting all emotional and touchy over sad, breakup lyrics, the emotions then are the ones from the ego-mind because we have not truly been able to connect with the essence (or the WHOLE) of the music by only paying attention to one part of the music.

Only connecting to one aspect of the song does not mean not truly connecting to it. What you get as a result from considering all aspects of the song while listening to it is the message/emotion the artist intended to convey with that particular song. However, you're not supposed to be listening to songs for anyone but yourself, therefore there is no reason you have to interpret it the way the artist intends it to be. You can interpret the song anyway you like, there is no right or wrong. As long as you can connect to one aspect of the song, then you are connecting to the music, and more importantly, the music as it best relates to your being. The ego mind may be involved in the sense that you purposely block out whatever you don't like, but at this point, I think of it as actually one of the better functions of the ego mind.

Therefore, does it mean that if we are feeling the emotions of the songwriter or intended by the songwriter then we are connecting with essence? And if we are connecting with just one part of the song and relating very much to it (putting ourselves into the songwriter's experience), then those emotions are of the ego-mind?

@ Henning

I think what I just asked Lee is kind of supported by your reply, right? By the way, the post you quoted and replied to is actually mine, not Hannah's.

Fermin Liu wrote:@ Lee

"Plum not pie", yes that would be accurate, though not completely. The lyrics definitely don't represent the entire meaning of the song and just a part of it, though lyrics are usually never strictly literal. The connotations of the lyrics as well as the subject matter add another dimension to the emotions, which can be overlooked in most cases without changing our experience of the music too much.

So does that mean that when we're connecting to everything that the poet or songwriter put into the poem or song (the words, the emotions, the connotations, and ultimately, the experience) that we are connecting with essence? Whereas when we apply the experience to our own lives and add yourself into the song instead of just feeling the song without trying to make it more than what it is, then that is using the ego-mind and thus, the emotions are of the ego-mind? Because maybe if one is putting too much of oneself into the song then one may actually be blocking out the true experience of the songwriter? And as Henning wrote

hen wrote:

Hannah wrote:
so does that mean that when we are truly connecting with the music, both the lyrics and the melody-rhythm, then the emotions that spring up are the ones manifested by the Supreme Being? Yet, on the other hand, if we are just bobbing our heads to punk rock music, or getting all emotional and touchy over sad, breakup lyrics, the emotions then are the ones from the ego-mind because we have not truly been able to connect with the essence (or the WHOLE) of the music by only paying attention to one part of the music.

Only connecting to one aspect of the song does not mean not truly connecting to it. What you get as a result from considering all aspects of the song while listening to it is the message/emotion the artist intended to convey with that particular song. However, you're not supposed to be listening to songs for anyone but yourself, therefore there is no reason you have to interpret it the way the artist intends it to be. You can interpret the song anyway you like, there is no right or wrong. As long as you can connect to one aspect of the song, then you are connecting to the music, and more importantly, the music as it best relates to your being. The ego mind may be involved in the sense that you purposely block out whatever you don't like, but at this point, I think of it as actually one of the better functions of the ego mind.

Therefore, does it mean that if we are feeling the emotions of the songwriter or intended by the songwriter then we are connecting with essence? And if we are connecting with just one part of the song and relating very much to it (putting ourselves into the songwriter's experience), then those emotions are of the ego-mind?

@ Henning

I think what I just asked Lee is kind of supported by your reply, right? By the way, the post you quoted and replied to is actually mine, not Hannah's.

I think putting ourselves into a song is not exactly putting the ego-mind in charge. What we feel about something will never be the same as what another feels about the same exact something - it may be similar, but it will never be the same. It's the basis of who we are, and our difference make us "unique". If we put ourselves in the songwriter's place, we may experience the emotions that he or she had felt, but the texture would never be the same, as well as how we apply it to our own beings. It's kind of like writing - we can never be objective, as said in the packet. We will never be able to completely remove ourselves from our writing, so wouldn't it be the same if we could never remove ourselves completely to feel another person's music?

I wouldn't call that "using the ego-mind" or something - like in Proey's conv., it touches down upon the "filter" of our essences, I would think. Since the ego-mind functions technically the same way in everyone, so much that you can predict the reaction of another, then wouldn't music feel the same to everyone, if they used their ego-minds to judge?

Fermin Liu wrote:So does that mean that when we're connecting to everything that the poet or songwriter put into the poem or song (the words, the emotions, the connotations, and ultimately, the experience) that we are connecting with essence?

That is the gist of it yes.

Whereas when we apply the experience to our own lives and add yourself into the song instead of just feeling the song without trying to make it more than what it is, then that is using the ego-mind and thus, the emotions are of the ego-mind? Because maybe if one is putting too much of oneself into the song then one may actually be blocking out the true experience of the songwriter?

Now this is a bit trickier. The interpretation of the song comes from the egomind, but I think it would be inaccurate to say the emotions solely emerge from the egomind when we incorporate ourselves in. There will definitely be similar underlying emotional experiences, as I pointed out in my little essay, so the emotions aren't of the egomind, but are slightly changed by it.

Everyone should take note of the idea Henning brings up about there being no right or wrong interpretation of a song , because unlike poetry, music is very much supposed to have different meanings to different people. The egomind is less of an enemy here, as long as it doesn't make one completely reject the song's essence, as he has stated.

@ Ivy

I can see what you are trying to explain, but superficial beauty in people is different from superficial beauty in music. People have physical packages. Music doesn't. Oftentimes when we describe a piece of music as beautiful it indicates a certain level of emotional connection to it. You might have to specifiy the superficially beautiful qualities in the music here.

EDIT:

joanne wrote:I think putting ourselves into a song is not exactly putting the ego-mind in charge. What we feel about something will never be the same as what another feels about the same exact something - it may be similar, but it will never be the same. It's the basis of who we are, and our difference make us "unique". If we put ourselves in the songwriter's place, we may experience the emotions that he or she had felt, but the texture would never be the same, as well as how we apply it to our own beings. It's kind of like writing - we can never be objective, as said in the packet. We will never be able to completely remove ourselves from our writing, so wouldn't it be the same if we could never remove ourselves completely to feel another person's music?

That's pretty much it right there.

@Lee
What you mean is that our essence has to feel a basic connection to the music to feel that music is beautiful? Hmmm. Okay, I kind of agree with that, but i suppose you can still feel that the vocal is superficially beautiful, but not in the actual sense. As Bradley has said, if one is singing to show off, then no matter how good he/she is, then you still don't feel touched by the song, do you?

What you mean is that our essence has to feel a basic connection to the music to feel that music is beautiful? Hmmm. Okay, I kind of agree with that, but i suppose you can still feel that the vocal is superficially beautiful, but not in the actual sense. As Bradley has said, if one is singing to show off, then no matter how good he/she is, then you still don't feel touched by the song, do you?

I think so, Ivy. Because if the person is just singing to show off, then he won't really be putting any true feelings and emotions into his singing that would fit the lyrics, and thus, even if you like the lyrics, the voice that carries them simply does not convey the same emotions that would make you connect to the song. He may just be thinking about making himself look good, but without connecting to the essence of the song or even relating some part of your life or emotions with the song, then I think that it would be nearly impossible to move/touch somone with the song. You know how sometimes when we hear someone who puts a lot of themselves in the music sing, we can almost feel their experience and whatever they are feeling at the moment, that experience or emotional reaction that is stirred up inside of us is us connecting with essence. And so maybe hearing the orginal songwriter sing the song he/shej wrote one connects with the essence of that song and the essence of the songwriter, but when someone else sings it, it becomes their own interpretation in a way that we connect with the song's essence which actually becomes the new singer's essence. Thus, emotions that can touch us and make us feel that strange feeling of intuition and instinct (the gut feelign of "I like this song") are from the Supreme Being, and the rest are not? Hmmm.

ivy wrote:@Lee
What you mean is that our essence has to feel a basic connection to the music to feel that music is beautiful? Hmmm. Okay, I kind of agree with that, but i suppose you can still feel that the vocal is superficially beautiful, but not in the actual sense. As Bradley has said, if one is singing to show off, then no matter how good he/she is, then you still don't feel touched by the song, do you?

I kind of get what you mean - using Bradley's Steven sample (sorry Steven >.<), you may think someone has a good voice, but the passion underlying the voice will give it a tenor that it would never possess if one did not really feel for the song. Yes, we may appreciate beautiful music, as well as a beautiful voice, but passion gives it an energy you will not feel in someone dispassionate about music.

The best way I can describe this is when you know whether or not has really experienced something in their lives and tells another about it. No matter how great a story teller one may be, someone who has really went through a situation can tell another person things that come from experience; and that conveys essence, or is "what is being said". The "way of saying" can vary from person to person, but the message will always be clear.

Beauty IS subjective - it's based on whether or not we feel for something, and emotion is a necessary thing. How we define beauty is based on each of our own opinions. Beautiful can be described as something that strikes you to your core, or just something that's nice and lovely. So there might not be an answer to whether or not music can be "superficially beautiful", would there?

The best way I can describe this is when you know whether or not has really experienced something in their lives and tells another about it. No matter how great a story teller one may be, someone who has really went through a situation can tell another person things that come from experience; and that conveys essence, or is "what is being said". The "way of saying" can vary from person to person, but the message will always be clear.

Would that mean the music someone writes would be more powerful in its message/emotions it elicits when that someone has experienced whatever emotion/setting the music is written about? Or is this another variable?

@ Joanne

The best way I can describe this is when you know whether or not has really experienced something in their lives and tells another about it. No matter how great a story teller one may be, someone who has really went through a situation can tell another person things that come from experience; and that conveys essence, or is "what is being said". The "way of saying" can vary from person to person, but the message will always be clear.

Beauty IS subjective - it's based on whether or not we feel for something, and emotion is a necessary thing. How we define beauty is based on each of our own opinions. Beautiful can be described as something that strikes you to your core, or just something that's nice and lovely. So there might not be an answer to whether or not music can be "superficially beautiful", would there?

At first, when I looked and thought about Ivy's question, I came up with a similar reply to yours and posted it above your reply. But then thinking about Emily Dickinson and how she wrote about a wide range of things - some of which she did not experience physically- I think that whether or not one conveys the essence of the message efficiently or not does not really depend on experience. Like you said, beauty IS subjective, but isn't essence more than just beauty? Isn't beauty something perceived by the senses and thus something of the mind? The beauty that is subjective, I think, is the one that some people might agree is beautiful while others think it is completely horrendous. But since essence is the Universal Consciousness - the Supreme Being - isn't the essence that we feel ultimately the same and thus it is not subjective, just that the interpretation and expression of essence may vary from person to person. Dickinson really tapped into this common essence that so many geniuses befoere and after her have used - Einstein, Mozart, etc. - and with her insightful poems about life, individuality, and the interconnectivity of everything (the cycle of life), it really makes us wonder whether physical experience is needed in conveying essence.

@ Shawanne

Would that mean the music someone writes would be more powerful in its message/emotions it elicits when that someone has experienced whatever emotion/setting the music is written about? Or is this another variable?

I think that also answers your question, Shawanne. Most of the time it seems like the person that has experienced a certain thing can carry the experience and the emotions that go along with it better in his/her song than the songwriters who have not. But maybe this is simply because those people who have had the experience have actually connected with the essence of such an event, and in this epiphany of what the experience really is and how it fits into the greater picture of our lives, the musicians thus portray it more easily and clearly in their music because they know the experience's music. But in the case of Emily Dickinson and other songwriters who have not experienced death or had a really sad breakup, how is it that some of them can do just a good of a job or even better a job at eliciting a connection with essence in the audience? It is because they have actually pondered over the particular issue, and in their thoughts which can also be referred to as their own way of meditating, these artists have accessed the Universla Being of infinite potential and felt the essence of the experience on the nonlocal and quantum domain, and brought it out onto the local domain.

Fermin Liu wrote:But in the case of Emily Dickinson and other songwriters who have not experienced death or had a really sad breakup, how is it that some of them can do just a good of a job or even better a job at eliciting a connection with essence in the audience?It is because they have actually pondered over the particular issue, and in their thoughts which can also be referred to as their own way of meditating, these artists have accessed the Universla Being of infinite potential and felt the essence of the experience on the nonlocal and quantum domain, and brought it out onto the local domain.

Maybe this way an experience may be expressed in a way that can be felt by everyone at essence level, but won't it be very vague? Or is the point of being able to connect with such a broad audience to be generic, so one can see a part of oneself in that vagueness? Maybe it has to do with seeing what one wants to or expect to see... maybe the reason why a whole diverse group of people can relate to one song or poem is because even if they might not have had that same exact experience, they can perhaps see similarities in their own life that they can relate to, and they see those similarities because they are prompted to find one...because we're used to categorizing information. But beyond that, because that basic experience is there portrayed in a song or poem, people can relate to it. But then, can't everyone relate everything to oneself??? I'm kind of going in a circle, aren't I?

As for music might be "superficially beautiful", I once heard that people tend to be more attracted to people who have physical resemblence to each other. (emphasis on the tend) ... so maybe we tend to think music that most closely reflect us is more beautiful? (This sounds kind of obvious though...) But then because we of the whole interconnectivity thing, shouldn't all music sound beautiful no matter what our subjective mind tells us??? So there is so such thing as bad music, just a reluctance to accept the...unfamiliarity of the music?

Maybe this way an experience may be expressed in a way that can be felt by everyone at essence level, but won't it be very vague? Or is the point of being able to connect with such a broad audience to be generic, so one can see a part of oneself in that vagueness? Maybe it has to do with seeing what one wants to or expect to see... maybe the reason why a whole diverse group of people can relate to one song or poem is because even if they might not have had that same exact experience, they can perhaps see similarities in their own life that they can relate to, and they see those similarities because they are prompted to find one...because we're used to categorizing information. But beyond that, because that basic experience is there portrayed in a song or poem, people can relate to it. But then, can't everyone relate everything to oneself??? I'm kind of going in a circle, aren't I?

As for music might be "superficially beautiful", I once heard that people tend to be more attracted to people who have physical resemblence to each other. (emphasis on the tend) ... so maybe we tend to think music that most closely reflect us is more beautiful? (This sounds kind of obvious though...) But then because we of the whole interconnectivity thing, shouldn't all music sound beautiful no matter what our subjective mind tells us??? So there is so such thing as bad music, just a reluctance to accept the...unfamiliarity of the music?

I know exactly what you mean, Hannah. And I think in saying what you just did in your reply, you have pointed out to all of us the most important point of Transcendentalism: interconnectivity. Acknowledging interconnectivity allows one to be assured that the potential of others is also present in oneself. Acknowledging interconnectivity helps us accept the fact that everything in the world (even those that we see in nature) are part of us, and we a part of the, and thus, everything makes up a WHOLE. Therefore, people can relate to a song even if it is only a part of it no matter what. This is the part of it that they recognize to be related to what they are or have been going through. But what most people fail to recognize is that we can relate to every part of the song and everything else in this universe because of the interconnectivity factor. Thus, the experience felt on the essence level will not be vague if we realize that we are connected to everythign and vice versa. So, this is why people find some music bad or unrelatable - because they have been so focusing on themselves and how separate they are from everyone else that they have ignored the interconnectivity to everything and essence that can be proven and felt when we meditate or quiet the ego-mind. And this reluctance to accept the unfamiliar part of the music is just a result of the overly-processed thought of 'I am my own person and everyone else is a totally different person separate from me who has no connection or correlation whatsoever with me.'

Maybe this way an experience may be expressed in a way that can be felt by everyone at essence level, but won't it be very vague? Or is the point of being able to connect with such a broad audience to be generic, so one can see a part of oneself in that vagueness? Maybe it has to do with seeing what one wants to or expect to see... maybe the reason why a whole diverse group of people can relate to one song or poem is because even if they might not have had that same exact experience, they can perhaps see similarities in their own life that they can relate to, and they see those similarities because they are prompted to find one...because we're used to categorizing information. But beyond that, because that basic experience is there portrayed in a song or poem, people can relate to it. But then, can't everyone relate everything to oneself??? I'm kind of going in a circle, aren't I?

Hmm. So everyone can relate to one song because there are similarities in certain parts that appeal to each individual...hm. Is it certain, individual parts that lead people to have emotions about a song, or is it the whole song itself? [/is going in circles too o.o] Going back to what Fermin said, does it matter whether or not the listener has tapped into the nonlocal domain for him/her to be able to get what the music is about/feel the emotions? Or maybe it doesn't; whether or not the listener is in touch with the Universal Being or not, he/she is able to connect to the songs. Or...?

Edit:...You guys reply too fast :K/XD

Hmm. So everyone can relate to one song because there are similarities in certain parts that appeal to each individual...hm. Is it certain, individual parts that lead people to have emotions about a song, or is it the whole song itself? [/is going in circles too o.o] Going back to what Fermin said, does it matter whether or not the listener has tapped into the nonlocal domain for him/her to be able to get what the music is about/feel the emotions? Or maybe it doesn't; whether or not the listener is in touch with the Universal Being or not, he/she is able to connect to the songs. Or...?

I don't think I said that or maybe you just misunderstood me. I think that one can always feel emotions when listening to music whether or not he/she has tapped into the nonlocal domain. However, what I think requires the audience to tap into the essence level is feeling and connecting with the essence of the music (its WHOLE). So yeah, our essence and ego-mind can still connect emotionally and in other ways to parts of the song, but to truly connect and experience the song's WHOLE as intended by the songrwriter, we must ust our essence to appraoch the song's essence.

It was replying to Hannah's XD. But anyways--

I don't think I said that or maybe you just misunderstood me. Laughing I think that one can always feel emotions when listening to music whether or not he/she has tapped into the nonlocal domain. However, what I think requires the audience to tap into the essence level is feeling and connecting with the essence of the music (its WHOLE). So yeah, our essence and ego-mind can still connect emotionally and in other ways to parts of the song, but to truly connect and experience the song's WHOLE as intended by the songrwriter, we must ust our essence to appraoch the song's essence. Very Happy

Ohh. So we can still connect emotionally without having experienced the interconnectivity of us and the universal being, but the connections will be stronger if we tap into our essence to connect with the song/songwriter's essence? Is that what you mean?