[Vision2020] Musical and Body Intelligence
Tbertruss@aol.com
Tbertruss@aol.com
Fri, 21 May 2004 19:37:01 EDT
--part1_1d7.21cc0088.2ddfec9d_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bob, Tami:
Well, let's consider this carefully.
Bob, I expect you are a rather competent French Horn player, if that
reference to the French Horn referred to your chosen instrument. It does not matter,
as long as you play a musical instrument rather well. And does this not
involve sophisticated hand to eye coordination, if reading musical notes on a page,
along with superb fine motor control in your hands? And is not body posture
critical for nearly all musicians to achieve their best performance? I have
put in thousands of hours of musical instrument playing, and from my
experience, body posture, tension, relaxation and balance are critical to playing well.
So are we not back to a form of body intelligence essentially linked to
musical intelligence? We could assert, in a manner of speaking, that you dance
with your fingers coordinated with your breath and mouth on your instrument.
Very difficult!
A much better case can be made for musical intelligence detached from body
intelligence in the example of a composer with terrible penmanship who
nonetheless writes brilliant music. Maybe a Stephen Hawking of music, able only to
point to a note on a computer screen with their eye movements to select that
note! Here the composer is barely using their body to write music, music composed
in a perfect realm of ideas, someone might say. No body intelligence here.
However, it is not really "music" yet till someone plays it (unless we take a
Platonic view of what "music" is), and then the composer is borrowing someone
else's body intelligence to perform their music, to make it "real," although
now we can let computers perform music for us, so we could avoid the human
performer.
But this whole analysis dodges what I was trying to get at in my previous
response to Tami about what music means in its wholeness to human reality. Let
me explain a bit differently.
If music is critically linked to emotions, and these emotions are essentially
linked to responses that are felt and lived in the body as life experiences
that are essential to what comprises our lives, music is necessarily by
definition involved in the intelligence of the body. Music that makes us joyful or
sad, exhilarated or depressed, contemplative or agitated, is an art form that
is inducing experiences in the body linked to our lives as a whole. This is a
critical reason for people's love of music. Even if the composer is a
brilliant Stephen Hawking in a wheelchair, and the performer is a computer, the human
beings who listen to the music, who are an essential element in the lived
experience that is what a communal performance of a piece of music is, are
feeling responses in their bodies involved in body intelligence in a highly refined
manner.
The person sitting mostly still in the concert hall listening with every
fiber of their, yes, exactly, their being, their body, who responds to the ebb and
flow of notes, etc., is utilizing a highly sophisticated form of bodily
intelligence, involving their imagination and emotions from their life, linked to
the music as it interacts with their whole person, their body. If a tear
starts to form during a sad passage, if a smile erupts during an exuberant moment,
if passions stir during a sensual musical phrase, the more involved the
listener, the more these body responses will be accentuated. If a person has a very
low bodily intelligence, I suggest, their responses in their body to the
music will be less than refined and acute. They just won't get that much out of
the music, like a person who has never had a love affair reading about romance.
Of course it is possible to have forms of high bodily intelligence in a
person who does not have musical intelligence. A great tennis player may have no
interest in music at all. This does not contradict what I am saying.
But we don't listen to music as though we are computers! At least not most
of us. We listen with flesh and blood, tears of joy, shouts of rage, rushes of
lust and anger, or overpowering beauty or love. Dancing to music as a formal
art is just a refinement of an impulse most of us feel in our lives at one
time or another, some quite often, even if they are clumsy. An infinite variety
of emotional responses are possible. Including total boredom: shuffling of
feet, yawns, sighs of impatience.
We could postulate a very abstract form of music, a Conlon Nancarrow
composing to piano rolls to be played back on a piano player, in part because the
music he composed was impossible for a human being to play, using mathematical
rules seemingly detached from human emotion. Some of Nancarrow's pieces sound
like a math genius who ran amok on the piano using equations to create music
that I think most people would not find in their bodies the kind of familiar
emotional response that would allow them to call it "music."
This separation of musical intelligence from bodily intelligence that is
suggested comes in part I think from the philosophical tradition in the West to
separate mind and body. The mind/body dichotomy has been torn down rather
violently in modern thought by the realization, in part coming from science, how
linked our thoughts and emotions are to our bodies. There are still some good
arguments for separation of mind and body in some cases, but making this
separation with such an emotionally based art form like music is a questionable
approach.
Music which aims to express very abstract forms for the sake of the
intellectual apprehension of those forms in art might be the closest example of music
that does not involve bodily intelligence, though still many people would react
to this music with very intense responses in their body, like when
Stravinsky's the Rite of Spring was performed and the audience rioted!
But for the vast majority of people, considering the role music plays and has
played throughout human history in culture and the lived reality of peoples
lives, I think it fair to define music as an art form that in its very essence
involves both bodily and musical intelligence.
Ted Moffett
--part1_1d7.21cc0088.2ddfec9d_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=
=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR>
Bob, Tami:<BR>
<BR>
Well, let's consider this carefully.<BR>
<BR>
Bob, I expect you are a rather competent French Horn player, if that referen=
ce to the French Horn referred to your chosen instrument. It does not=20=
matter, as long as you play a musical instrument rather well. And does=
this not involve sophisticated hand to eye coordination, if reading musical=
notes on a page, along with superb fine motor control in your hands? =20=
And is not body posture critical for nearly all musicians to achieve their b=
est performance? I have put in thousands of hours of musical instrumen=
t playing, and from my experience, body posture, tension, relaxation and bal=
ance are critical to playing well. So are we not back to a form of bod=
y intelligence essentially linked to musical intelligence? We could as=
sert, in a manner of speaking, that you dance with your fingers coordinated=20=
with your breath and mouth on your instrument. Very difficult!<BR>
<BR>
A much better case can be made for musical intelligence detached from body i=
ntelligence in the example of a composer with terrible penmanship who noneth=
eless writes brilliant music. Maybe a Stephen Hawking of music, able o=
nly to point to a note on a computer screen with their eye movements to sele=
ct that note! Here the composer is barely using their body to write mu=
sic, music composed in a perfect realm of ideas, someone might say. No=
body intelligence here.<BR>
<BR>
However, it is not really "music" yet till someone plays it (unless we take=20=
a Platonic view of what "music" is), and then the composer is borrowing some=
one else's body intelligence to perform their music, to make it "real," alth=
ough now we can let computers perform music for us, so we could avoid the hu=
man performer.<BR>
<BR>
But this whole analysis dodges what I was trying to get at in my previous re=
sponse to Tami about what music means in its wholeness to human reality.&nbs=
p; Let me explain a bit differently. <BR>
<BR>
If music is critically linked to emotions, and these emotions are essentiall=
y linked to responses that are felt and lived in the body as life experience=
s that are essential to what comprises our lives, music is necessarily by de=
finition involved in the intelligence of the body. Music that makes us=
joyful or sad, exhilarated or depressed, contemplative or agitated, is an a=
rt form that is inducing experiences in the body linked to our lives as a wh=
ole. This is a critical reason for people's love of music. Even=20=
if the composer is a brilliant Stephen Hawking in a wheelchair, and the perf=
ormer is a computer, the human beings who listen to the music, who are an es=
sential element in the lived experience that is what a communal performance=20=
of a piece of music is, are feeling responses in their bodies involved in bo=
dy intelligence in a highly refined manner. <BR>
<BR>
The person sitting mostly still in the concert hall listening with every fib=
er of their, yes, exactly, their being, their body, who responds to the ebb=20=
and flow of notes, etc., is utilizing a highly sophisticated form of bodily=20=
intelligence, involving their imagination and emotions from their life, link=
ed to the music as it interacts with their whole person, their body. I=
f a tear starts to form during a sad passage, if a smile erupts during an ex=
uberant moment, if passions stir during a sensual musical phrase, the more i=
nvolved the listener, the more these body responses will be accentuated.&nbs=
p; If a person has a very low bodily intelligence, I suggest, their response=
s in their body to the music will be less than refined and acute. They=
just won't get that much out of the music, like a person who has never had=20=
a love affair reading about romance.<BR>
<BR>
Of course it is possible to have forms of high bodily intelligence in a pers=
on who does not have musical intelligence. A great tennis player may h=
ave no interest in music at all. This does not contradict what I am sa=
ying.<BR>
<BR>
But we don't listen to music as though we are computers! At least not=20=
most of us. We listen with flesh and blood, tears of joy, shouts of ra=
ge, rushes of lust and anger, or overpowering beauty or love. Dancing=20=
to music as a formal art is just a refinement of an impulse most of us feel=20=
in our lives at one time or another, some quite often, even if they are clum=
sy. An infinite variety of emotional responses are possible. Inc=
luding total boredom: shuffling of feet, yawns, sighs of impatience.<BR>
<BR>
We could postulate a very abstract form of music, a Conlon Nancarrow composi=
ng to piano rolls to be played back on a piano player, in part because the m=
usic he composed was impossible for a human being to play, using mathematica=
l rules seemingly detached from human emotion. Some of Nancarrow's pie=
ces sound like a math genius who ran amok on the piano using equations to cr=
eate music that I think most people would not find in their bodies the kind=20=
of familiar emotional response that would allow them to call it "music."&nbs=
p; <BR>
<BR>
This separation of musical intelligence from bodily intelligence that is sug=
gested comes in part I think from the philosophical tradition in the West to=
separate mind and body. The mind/body dichotomy has been torn down ra=
ther violently in modern thought by the realization, in part coming from sci=
ence, how linked our thoughts and emotions are to our bodies. There ar=
e still some good arguments for separation of mind and body in some cases, b=
ut making this separation with such an emotionally based art form like music=
is a questionable approach.<BR>
<BR>
Music which aims to express very abstract forms for the sake of the intellec=
tual apprehension of those forms in art might be the closest example of musi=
c that does not involve bodily intelligence, though still many people would=20=
react to this music with very intense responses in their body, like when Str=
avinsky's the Rite of Spring was performed and the audience rioted!<BR>
<BR>
But for the vast majority of people, considering the role music plays and ha=
s played throughout human history in culture and the lived reality of people=
s lives, I think it fair to define music as an art form that in its very ess=
ence involves both bodily and musical intelligence.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_1d7.21cc0088.2ddfec9d_boundary--