Listening Exercise

[monotonic]

Hello all.

I haven't been very active on this forum, but that is mostly because I have been reading material. I have read Political Ponerology and am working through SHOTW (about at the middle right now).

I was listening to music just a few minutes ago and had some interesting ideas. Usually our interpretation and listening experience with music is automatic. We assume the music is "speaking" to "me" because the sound is directed at us. We then identify with the themes of the music. If we fail to identify, it only sounds like a bunch of notes and doesn't give us experience we're looking for. This was my first experience while experimenting with orchestral and classical music.

This exercise intends to be more conscious of an manipulate one's interpretation of music.

Music seems to involve observers and actors in different ways depending on the form the music takes (for instance, one form of music is to give an impression of the ambiance whereas another form is to interact with the emotions of the listener). We usually assume "I" is the intended recipient of the impressions conveyed in the music. My first idea was to break down this assumption and manipulate this egocentric perception which precedes our interpretation. For example, change your point of view to that of being an "outside observer" watching the "musician" and "recipient". I find when I do this the interpretation changes dramatically. For example, in passages that are obviously directed to move the listener's intent (for example, rally to fight) the person being "spoken to" is not me, therefore my feeling is the opposite - I am annoyed by the emotional passage (it is perceived as noise since it doesn't directly involve me) and want to get away not unlike when you're in an elevator with two people making out.

In passages that convey ambiance, whether or not I identify with the ambiance depends on what my identification is with the "recipient". If I am attempting to empathize with this recipient, I will accept the ambiance but not identify with it, and instead try to see what is the message being conveyed to the recipient. If I don't intend to empathize, the reaction is not unlike the previous example (the ambiance is perceived as noise which threatens to interfere with the ambiance of my own physical environment).

This exposes one aspect of my personality; that I dislike to identify with emotional relationships that don't directly involve me. (the vomit type reaction to sappy situations could be seen as an inappropriate extension of this, possibly relating to trauma...? Which may also relate to societal hystericisation as described by Lobaczewsi?)

In terms of "thinking with a hammer", I think this exercise is useful for working against automatic identification, and also provides a door to researching one's own tendencies to identify and the mechanism of identification.

Thoughts? Experiences? The music I used is obscure and copyrighted so you wouldn't have it lying around but I found "My Will" from the CD below to provide me with many observations (orchestral, no lyrics).

http://www.amazon.com/Inuyasha-Koukyo-Renka-Wind-Japanimation/dp/B00009NK5Y

 

[Buddy]

Thoughts? Experiences?

Interesting, and I appreciate you sharing this. I have done some similar observations of the self-personality-music interrelationships with similar results that you describe. In fact, I have posts where I have insisted that I only listen to music without lyrics and especially enjoy classical. But I changed all that when I started paying more attention to this kind of stuff in a self-observation context.

Now, my favorite music is still classical, but also involves the kind of music that is unusual - that doesn't follow the old hypnotic repetition formats and that include multiple levels of rhythm and melody. I find that my brain really responds well to the stimulation of multiple-layer music and actually helps me stay focused, or at least calmer at times.

In terms of "thinking with a hammer", I think this exercise is useful for working against automatic identification, and also provides a door to researching one's own tendencies to identify and the mechanism of identification.

I agree. I think maybe it is so useful because it allows a bit more objectivity than what is common to self-observation while interacting with others.

Just my thoughts. :)

 

[monotonic]

One of the reasons I experimented with this is because I noticed that while listening to music normally, I would identify and while in some ways I was relaxed and able to think more clearly, subtle thought was impaired. Sometimes a day of listening like this would give me the "push" I needed to fall to a more confluent and undiscerning state for up to several days. I think that listening to music critically in the right way can block hypnotic effects, and maybe help train oneself to be vigilant (relaxed vigilance..!?). However when listening critically, it's harder to listen to the same piece twice because the details are clearer and less details are left to pick out the second time. One issue for me is that I don't know where to find music that doesn't bore me after a few plays.

There is a lot of classical I don't get into, so I tend to look for obscure music. The link below is a case in point. It's "open-source" music. You must download the program in the top left to play the albums that haven't already been converted to MP3 (this program will also let you edit and create music using instruments imported from .wav/.ogg files or from a synthesizer program included). I especially like "8-Bit Tsunami", "Planetarium Sky" and "Jendrassic Maneuver".

http://pistonsource.iiichan.net/releases/indexen.html

Can you recommend some music?

 

[Buddy]

Can you recommend some music?

No, I can't seem to locate my list from those previous exercises. All I've got handy are some bookmarks that I can share that you might consider totally irrelevant.

I can't do any kind of work on the computer requiring concentration while listening to songs, but I can with very stimulating music:

Jungles of Planet Earth (sometimes its hard to believe this is our planet):
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-_CWXGELYQ
Salamander - Tempest (Union Jack Remix):
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ4Un8-SAoQ
Hallucinogen:
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH_8e9JYtRs
Man With No Name:
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud_UhNSUnv0


I think maybe I figured out why I thought most songs were boring. It seems singers only really use one dimension of sound (frequency). Opera seems to go a little further (amplitude), but takes frequency to far, for too long for my tastes.

Then Ke$ha comes along, singing (frequency), rapping (extra rhythm layer), playing with dialect/accent, and more, all mixed together in one song. I don't know if she was the first, but she was the first one stimulating enough to make me notice:

Ke$ha - TiK ToK
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP6XpLQM2Cs
Ke$ha - Take It Off
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpFMuBHxGWs


I also like interesting concepts and dramatic tempo changes:
Katie Melua - The Flood
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E4-9yKTv_I

---------------------------------------------------
unrelated:

Ewwww. It's all been down hill since the 90s, I tell ya. I think Jimmy Gomez kept some of us hypnotized so we could make it through the decade:
SUNSCREEM - 'LOOKING AT YOU':
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWGxuuIHMfM

And finally, just because you didn't ask about when Robot Programmers get bored:
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yln_IGDuOCo

 

[monotonic]

The latest Cassiopaean session reminded me of this thread:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=38693

 

[HiThere]

Thank you for this thread, monotonic and Buddy; eloquent and insightful for me! :)

 

[monotonic]

I'm glad it's more than just me and Buddy here (though Buddy is mostly absent these days, and I wonder why).

I was looking through some old files and found what was probably the block of text that suggested for me to start this thread. I might have intended to post it but didn't think it was ready. I think it will provide some more food for thought and better convey what I started this thread about.

I've come to understand that there are multiple ways of hearing music. Part of it seems to depend on whether you "see" the performer or not.

For instance, while listening I can constantly remember that the music is being performed by someone and that it is their expression, arising out of their experiences. This creates a sort of visualization where I watch how the performer presents, trying to understand from the music what they are doing and how they are feeling. Instead of unconditionally accepting the feelings in the music into myself, I see them as having and expressing the feelings. Then I empathize with them - which completely changes how I experience the music.

For instance "they are very happy and satisfied" or "they are reluctant but do the right thing anyway", are narratives that I might feel I pick up on in the music. In this way I think the music becomes richer and gains a deeper, almost palpable emotional detail.

In much of music it seems the intent is to "forget the performer". I think this is a type of confluence/identification/dissociation. Because of this seeming societal bias in music, if I step back and constantly consider the performer, and understand them as another person performing the music with their own motives and way of feeling, then the music becomes less rich, becomes boring, and seems more mechanical. But I think there should exist somewhere music which a person cannot understand or enjoy unless they "see the performer" - and maybe society has a big blind spot in this regard, because it seems forgetting the performer is part of the intent of much of music.

I think many of us have heard a song that is very annoying because the gist of the performance is self-pitying. In this case, we are seeing both the performer and the performance. The inability of the performer to see past themselves results in a performance where the viewer cannot ignore the pathology of the performer.

But what if we extend this "sight" to music we enjoy - visualize the performer and their feelings, and empathise with them instead of robotically accepting the feelings as our own? We recognize that these feelings are the performer's, and at best we empathize - but still may not "get it", or it may be unclear. In passages where there is good rapport we may even see why the performer feels this way or why they do this, what is driving their decisions. We may even see more about the performer's personality than they do.

Maybe some people hear music this way all the time, and it strongly affects their taste in music.

 

[Nienna]

I'm glad it's more than just me and Buddy here (though Buddy is mostly absent these days, and I wonder why).

Buddy has answered this question already here.

 

[Buddy]

For instance, while listening I can constantly remember that the music is being performed by someone and that it is their expression, arising out of their experiences. This creates a sort of visualization where I watch how the performer presents, trying to understand from the music what they are doing and how they are feeling. Instead of unconditionally accepting the feelings in the music into myself, I see them as having and expressing the feelings. Then I empathize with them - which completely changes how I experience the music.

Music doesn't automatically absorb you. You have a level of control over that and can choose your level of rapport with the performer and the extent of your involvement with the music. Is that a decent paraphrase?

In much of music it seems the intent is to "forget the performer". I think this is a type of confluence/identification/dissociation.

As a 'bad' thing? Using that logic, wouldn't a parable that's explicitly designed to "hide the teacher" so that the student could absorb the lesson more fully, be a 'bad' thing as well? Or is the comparison too far off?

Because of this seeming societal bias in music, if I step back and constantly consider the performer, and understand them as another person performing the music with their own motives and way of feeling, then the music becomes less rich, becomes boring, and seems more mechanical.

Consequences of analysis? Maybe similar to Mark Twain's description of how the "beauty" of the mighty Mississippi river disappeared once he learned how to navigate it?

I think many of us have heard a song that is very annoying because the gist of the performance is self-pitying. In this case, we are seeing both the performer and the performance. The inability of the performer to see past themselves results in a performance where the viewer cannot ignore the pathology of the performer.

I've always felt that way about old country music.

But what if we extend this "sight" to music we enjoy - visualize the performer and their feelings, and empathise with them instead of robotically accepting the feelings as our own? We recognize that these feelings are the performer's, and at best we empathize - but still may not "get it", or it may be unclear. In passages where there is good rapport we may even see why the performer feels this way or why they do this, what is driving their decisions. We may even see more about the performer's personality than they do.

I'm familiar with both of those experiences. I think you may have found "rapport" (or not) and degree of same to be a key for you.

May I share something?

I seemed to have suppressed a bit of my 'wild' side in the last 8 months due to the conditions of those client/patients I've worked with and the seriousness of many of their issues with which I've been tasked to help. Resulting from that is a new meaning from your previous mention of the "vomit" reaction and to what it refers and this may be helpful.

I have worked closely with combat vets who are dealing with physical injuries and severe emotional wounds - to the point of psychosis. In my work context, no matter how annoyed or irritated you get, you must approach and talk with people while in a deliberately induced physically relaxed posture, using a neutral tone of voice, careful choices of words and be able to communicate what is wrong or what needs to be done, all while using every aspect of your presence to let them feel that they are in an emotionally safe environment and that they are respected.

After awhile, you build up trust. At times, someone may approach you. They just need to talk, so you let them know you have the time. You sit with them, let them open up. What they say seems so much less important than the process of connecting. You're in rapport. After awhile you begin to feel as if you are that wall of a dam holding back tons of water while a hole in that wall begins to leak and get a little bit larger moment by moment. You're empathizing. You know what's coming if this continues and you fear you won't be able to stop your collapse, but it doesn't really matter. The other person's need is very important. Somehow you get through it and the wall keeps standing for awhile longer.

You wind up hugging this wounded warrior and he eventually goes away - maybe a little bit stronger for the moment and a little bit less likely to grab for the drugs to ease the pain he's been holding in.

You get a little used to making these kinds of connections with people and you begin to compare the ordinary so-called social empathy and "niceness" to the sickly-sweet taste of a typical sugar concoction devoid of substance and it sometimes makes you want to puke. I'm reminded of Gurdjieff's hostility towards the concept of 'sympathy for the self' and his understanding of that kind of awkward pretentious social sympathy that many folks seemed to have normalized as "niceness".

Seems the experience of being "real" with people leaves you with sharper perceptual distinctions and you can more easily see when people are singing and making music for themselves, for a select group that might recognize and share those feelings, or for everyone in general. Maybe?

One of our local sayings: "it is what it is", and maybe all interpretations are valid.

 

[monotonic]

Nice to see the new and improved Buddy 2015. :)

Music doesn't automatically absorb you. You have a level of control over that and can choose your level of rapport with the performer and the extent of your involvement with the music. Is that a decent paraphrase?

Maybe that is too simplified. What about this: Do you want to hear the music only as the performer intended (which is usually the instinctual/automatic way to hear music), or do you want to hear the music as it is? It is automatic unless I have the idea of of doing it some other way - which is unlikely when the subconscious autopilot is already directing my attention, so the need for preparation and vigilance. Maybe it is not unlike a person who always tends to smile when everyone else is smiling, or laugh when someone else is laughing even when they didn't hear the joke. They are affected but only on a low level.

In much of music it seems the intent is to "forget the performer". I think this is a type of confluence/identification/dissociation.

As a 'bad' thing? Using that logic, wouldn't a parable that's explicitly designed to "hide the teacher" so that the student could absorb the lesson more fully, be a 'bad' thing as well? Or is the comparison too far off?

For one, you are assuming a very high level of music - that would be interesting to hear. For the vast majority of music, you would not want to treat it like you would treat a teacher of the Work. For typical music, I think it should be approached from the perspective of discerning influences. A sentimental performance might be only that, a sentimental performance. Just like any negative influence, one can learn by being an active audience and observing how you are affected, but that is not necessarily because the performance is spiritually inspired.

Because of this seeming societal bias in music, if I step back and constantly consider the performer, and understand them as another person performing the music with their own motives and way of feeling, then the music becomes less rich, becomes boring, and seems more mechanical.

Consequences of analysis? Maybe similar to Mark Twain's description of how the "beauty" of the mighty Mississippi river disappeared once he learned how to navigate it?

To say that this music was "beautiful" would be like saying that Coca Cola is beautiful. Pleasing at the surface, but the more you know about it the more ugly it becomes. Physical/instinctual pleasure from music might be described as beautiful by those who don't discern pleasure from beauty.

I think many of us have heard a song that is very annoying because the gist of the performance is self-pitying. In this case, we are seeing both the performer and the performance. The inability of the performer to see past themselves results in a performance where the viewer cannot ignore the pathology of the performer.

I've always felt that way about old country music.

Here's an example I was thinking of:

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/confluence.htm#tracks

May I share something?

Redundantly, yes?

When I was in school I met several people in a similar position to yours who tried to get me to "open up" by forcing that receptive personality. I learned through repeated disappointment that it all came around to one thing: coercion to do my schoolwork. It was all about them and they never had time unless they wanted something from me. A friend recently asked me if I ever knew anyone who made me feel I was important. All I could think of were a few people, from early in school, before I experienced the coercion. I think it altered my perception of those experiences from that point on, making it impossible to trust anyone.

Seems the experience of being "real" with people leaves you with sharper perceptual distinctions and you can more easily see when people are singing and making music for themselves, for a select group that might recognize and share those feelings, or for everyone in general. Maybe?

Another way is that I have been in similar positions to those performers at times and then realized that it was empty grandiosity or self-deception. Like a child that thinks he should always get candy and so writes speeches to garner support for his cause.

 

[Buddy]

Music doesn't automatically absorb you. You have a level of control over that and can choose your level of rapport with the performer and the extent of your involvement with the music. Is that a decent paraphrase?

Maybe that is too simplified. What about this: Do you want to hear the music only as the performer intended (which is usually the instinctual/automatic way to hear music), or do you want to hear the music as it is? It is automatic unless I have the idea of of doing it some other way - which is unlikely when the subconscious autopilot is already directing my attention, so the need for preparation and vigilance.

Got it, thanks for that. I confess to having done no more than attempt to disconnect from lyrics and just experience the personal effects from the ebb and flow of what I think of at that time as a well-crafted piece of music.

Maybe it is not unlike a person who always tends to smile when everyone else is smiling, or laugh when someone else is laughing even when they didn't hear the joke. They are affected but only on a low level.

Interesting view. I occasionally have problems deciding if that level is really a low one or, in some people, a superficial level sitting atop a denial-based disconnect from some general meaninglessness inherent in some mechanical social interactions. I appreciate the view from your standpoint.

In much of music it seems the intent is to "forget the performer". I think this is a type of confluence/identification/dissociation.

As a 'bad' thing? Using that logic, wouldn't a parable that's explicitly designed to "hide the teacher" so that the student could absorb the lesson more fully, be a 'bad' thing as well? Or is the comparison too far off?

For one, you are assuming a very high level of music - that would be interesting to hear. For the vast majority of music, you would not want to treat it like you would treat a teacher of the Work. For typical music, I think it should be approached from the perspective of discerning influences. A sentimental performance might be only that, a sentimental performance. Just like any negative influence, one can learn by being an active audience and observing how you are affected, but that is not necessarily because the performance is spiritually inspired.

Point taken.

Because of this seeming societal bias in music, if I step back and constantly consider the performer, and understand them as another person performing the music with their own motives and way of feeling, then the music becomes less rich, becomes boring, and seems more mechanical.

Consequences of analysis? Maybe similar to Mark Twain's description of how the "beauty" of the mighty Mississippi river disappeared once he learned how to navigate it?

To say that this music was "beautiful" would be like saying that Coca Cola is beautiful. Pleasing at the surface, but the more you know about it the more ugly it becomes. Physical/instinctual pleasure from music might be described as beautiful by those who don't discern pleasure from beauty.

Interesting idea, indeed. I would have thought that pleasure was more a human response to beauty and thus, inseperable, rather than a perceptual alternative. I shall have to mull that over.

I think many of us have heard a song that is very annoying because the gist of the performance is self-pitying. In this case, we are seeing both the performer and the performance. The inability of the performer to see past themselves results in a performance where the viewer cannot ignore the pathology of the performer.

I've always felt that way about old country music.

Here's an example I was thinking of:

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/confluence.htm#tracks

I think I understand perfectly, now. I had a very mixed reaction to samples of those.

Another way is that I have been in similar positions to those performers at times and then realized that it was empty grandiosity or self-deception. Like a child that thinks he should always get candy and so writes speeches to garner support for his cause.

As have I. Those wake-ups are awful. Thanks for the thoughtful and courteous responses. It seems your listening skills are sharper than mine right now.

The only loose end I seem to be left with relates to the idea of experiencing music "as it is" in the way that you described. Is that really possible with man-made music?

 

[monotonic]

The only loose end I seem to be left with relates to the idea of experiencing music "as it is" in the way that you described. Is that really possible with man-made music?

Active listening the way I described is not a denial of the subjective experience. It does not change the feeling of the music at a fundamental level. Like the difference between seeing a child crying, or seeing the child crying while knowing that they haven't eaten all day. Context will change how you feel ABOUT the child crying, but it won't change the immediate effect it has on you.