Response to Amy

This is in response to Amy’s question, “is it natural for animals to be able to respond to the human language?”

Animals responding to the human language, to me, seem to be very logical. I also believe that all types of animals, whether it is a feral or a domesticated creature, should and do respond to various noises, one of which being human voice.

When a wild animal, let’s say a rabbit, hears a human voice, it will undoubtedly become alert. This is the survival instinct that is kicking in for the animal. It hears something that is outside of the norm and it will respond, typically in a fight or flight manner. If you stumble upon a rabbit, it will instinctually run off in a flight manner, now if you were to encounter a mother bear with her cubs, the bear might react in a fight manner in response to your human voice. This is natural and it is how animals survive. They need to be able to adequately respond to things that have the potential to cause them harm.

As far as domesticated animals go, I think that they to respond to the human voice as a means of survival, however, I think that the fight or flight element that was present with the feral animal is absent in this aspect. Pets learn how to act in ways that will please the pet owner (this is if the owner knows how to properly train a pet however). The pet knows that if they act in a way that is appropriate, they will get rewarded in some way either by a treat or even just attention and praise. These animals also know that if they misbehave that they will receive a negative consequence.

It is my belief that animals, especially pets, learn to respond to human voices in ways that are similar to children. If you want to know if it is natural for an animal to respond to the human language then say something like want to go for a ride to a dog that loves going on them. I know my dog will hop up at the mention of a ride and get very excited, he has learned what that word means and wants in on the action. An animal, with enough training and exposure to the human language can learn to adequately respond to it in turn.

Question: Do you think that animals can only respond to simple human language or do you think that with enough time, practice, and exposure that they could learn more complex language?

Urinals and Broken Guitars

This is in response to Michelle’s question, “can playing a burning piano or even a submerged one be looked at as art/music? Do people destroy instruments because they want to be unique in their art making?”


The short answer to this question for me is yes. Things such as demolishing a piano or even smashing a guitar have been looked at as art as well as music. Art, just like music, is something that is very hard to define and it is even more difficult if not impossible to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be considered art or music. Though this might be a stumbling block, there have been cases when things mentioned in the above question were considered to be art or a musical piece.

It is difficult to define art, but it anyone was to go into an art museum, they would find much more than the Mona Lisa, or other paintings. Art can be made out of twisted metal, garbage, and almost anything you can think of under the sun. Since these objects are located in what we call an art museum, I am acquiescing to the art curator and trust their judgment that what is in the confines of the buildings is truly art. Though I have never seen an art exhibit that contained a demolished piano, I am sure that there is one out there somewhere. People make things like a submerged piano to be looked at as art, they are not merely trying to be destructive, but they are trying to convey something artistic, for lack of a better word.

As far as things such as destroying instruments being considered music, I think that if you find the right group of people then yes it can be considered music. There are many bands that would destroy their instruments at the end of a performance, and many people considered the sounds that emanated from the battered instruments as musical. Some bands have even gone as far to put sounds such as feedback, or at times play with a damaged instrument to create a newer and different sound that is typically associated with that instrument.

Since it is so hard to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for art or music it is hard to either include or exclude certain things as artistic or musical. So some people might take a urinal, put it on display and declare it art, just like some guitar players might throw their guitar in the air let it crash to the ground and then proceed to play an impromptu and unique version of the star spangled banner (Kurt Cobain, Reading Festival 1992). To some people, these things are art and music.

Question: Do you think some declaring something a work of art is enough to make the object a work of art?

The Enculturation of Music

This is in response to Christina’s question, Do you truly believe that music without words, without human voice, necessarily contains no drama or narration, and even so, do you truly believe purely instrumental music lacks expressiveness and therefore the audience feels no emotions from it?

After reading the chapter and reading the question that Christina posed I began to think about whether or not instrumental music can express emotion and I came up with a few different reasons why I think that it is the person, receiver, and not the music itself that is generating the emotions that people feel when they listen to a particular piece.

First off in order for a musical piece to truly emanate an emotion purely of its own making, then the music itself should express that specific emotion universally to all that hear it. In our culture we typically think of songs played in mostly minor keys as being sad or mournful and songs in major keys as being happier and more upbeat. As we learned in class this is not something that is universally experienced around the world then it stands to reason that it is something that has evolved in our culture that experiences these minor pieces as sad. Since there is no universally sad or universally happy song or composition then how can it be that the music is generating the emotions?

As a species we learn through example and imitation. Even children from an early age learn by imitating the adults in the world around them. Things like laughing and smiling are done because the infant receives a positive reaction from the adult. When the child coos the adult smiles and gives it attention, so the child then does the same action hoping for more attention. This is also how children learn to walk and talk and how to interact with people in the outside world. This is also how children (future adults) learn what to expect from music. When we are having birthday party we listen to happy music and we associate that particular type of music with the feeling that we experienced when we first heard it. If they happened to play something similar to a funeral dirge from the beginning in place of the so called happier music then that would become the norm for the population. We as a society play certain types of music to go along with certain types of events and that is how we form associations with the so called emotions that are coming from the song. We create these connections from birth.

The last thought that I had about the subject is the fact that sometimes people find what we typically consider sad music to bring forth emotions of happiness. Now I know this particular song is lyrically based, but when I first met my Fiancée we were listening to a song that many would consider as sad and depressing, but since I now think of him when I hear that song, it makes me happy. It is because I created a pleasing memory with that song and it is that memory that creates the emotions, not the song. However, I do think that music is a powerful tool, one that can stir up emotions deep within us, though I do not think that the song itself is creating the emotions.


Questions: Do you think that our experiences from birth determine what music we find to be happy or sad?

An Undefined Line

This is in response to Emily Burke’s response to my blog.
In my original blog entry I talked about the destruction of musical instruments at the end of a performance committed by bands such as Nirvana, who at time did it to ensure that their manager could not force them into encores. Emily responded to the question that I posted and in her response criticized the band for this behavior and referred to it as selfish. This got me thinking about how celebrity is dealt with in our society and some of the expectations that are forced upon those who reach a certain level of fame, like Nirvana.
We cannot deny that this society is addicted to entertainment and that we tend to follow the lives of celebrities to an unhealthy level. With things such as Entertainment weekly, or shows like entertainment tonight, or channels like E (entertainment) it is not hard to see how this cultural phenomenon has invaded our everyday lives. This fact has lead me to the conclusion that not only does entertainment take up way too much of our day to day lives, but it also makes us feel some sort of entitlement to things such as the time and life of these people that we idolize for one reason or another.
There is an entire occupation that is devoted to following celebrities around every day of their life. Paparazzi are notorious for going the extra mile to get a photo or sound bite from those who we deem as newsworthy. What many people fail to realize how intrusive this can be to someone. I know I get frustrated when I feel like people are getting to involved in my life and they have an entire country wanting to know every detail about them . I think that this can be very trying and test the patience of celebrities, and I also think that they deserve some privacy just as much as we do.
This brings me to my next point which is a concert. The main act of a show, the one that most people go to see, is usually on stage for an hour or more. Being on stage and singing (for those who don’t lip sync) and playing music for 90 minutes can be exhausting, and they do it almost every night. One has to ask themselves if it is right for a band to play their set, go off stage just to have a manager say you have to go back out because they are cheering loud enough. Are the bands and musicians really their merely to bend and twist to our every demand. The general population is not subject to those standards why should those who have a gift be held to a different standard? Is having a gift a life sentence into servitude to their fans?

Question: How much does musician owe their fans? At one point does it cross the line into absurdity?

Created in the Image of God

The discussion that we had in class on Monday about what constitutes a person got me thinking about both animal and human euthanasia. It was mentioned in class that persons include beings such as cats dogs, and other sentient beings and that the title is not merely designated for Homo sapiens. It was then discussed later that it is wrong to inflict harm or end the life of another person. I then brought the subject of euthanizing terminally ill pets in class and asked why it was ok to end their life but not the life of a terminally ill human. Since that class I have come up with some general ideas why.
One of the main reasons that I think there is a double standard between the two different types of person is the fact that human lives are valued more than the life of an animal. A majority of people seem to think a human life is worth more than an animal life, whether or not that is right or wrong is another question altogether. When a dog is diagnosed with cancer and is obvious pain and discomfort, many will choose to end their suffering, put them out of their misery, or some other cliché however, when a human is just as ill and is terminal as well the best we can do is to grant them a Do Not Resuscitate order (DNR). They will not put the person out of their misery or they would be subject to a murder investigation.
Another reason that I think that people are leery about ending the life of a terminally ill patient has to do with the fact that religion still has a strong presence in our everyday lives. We are, after all, created in the image of God, how can we put such a creation to death merely because they are suffering and going to die? The bible tells those who chose to read it that we are a divine creation, made by god in his likeness, it is not hard to see why people would think that this makes them special, that it puts them on a pedestal of other lesser persons such as animals. The idea of euthanizing people who are deemed too ill or frail to live also conjures up an image of Nazi Germany and the horrors that so called undesirable people suffered at the hands of Hitler and his regime.
The final reason that I have come up with is the population as a whole is afraid of where to draw the line and who should and should not be allowed to have a physician to end their life. Can only people with illness that will kill them within six months, a year, or just a few days be allowed to choose this option? What do we do with people who are unable to choose for themselves, do we allow family members to chose, what if there is a conflict within the family members over the proper course of action? Should the person be terminal and have chronic and debilitating pain or do they just have to be terminal, and that begs that question over whether or not people who have chronic pain and severe illnesses that are not terminal such as sickle cell anemia be allowed to end their life? Then we have to worry about who decides whose life is worth living, should people with severe mental retardation be euthanized? What about people who are suicidal? I think that a lot of people have these fears and questions about how far this could go if euthanasia was legalized, the whole process becomes a very slippery slope.

Question: Do you think that someone who is terminal ill and in constant pain be allowed to choose to have a doctor euthanize them? Should their family be allowed to choose for them?

A show Stopping Event

The discussion in class on Wednesday in which we mentioned artists destroying their instruments at the end of the performance got me thinking about my favorite band, Nirvana. For those who are unaware of the stage antics of this particular grunge band, they were well known for destroying their instruments at the end of their shows. The class as a whole felt that the destruction of the instruments was a distasteful and disrespectful to the instruments in a way. This, in turn, got me thinking about why musicians, who are supposed to love their craft, would do such a thing to begin with.
I do know of a few bands, Nirvana in particular, who would use the method of destroying their instruments as a way of insuring that they would not have to play an encore. For a band that was just playing for about an hour and a half, an encore can seem a daunting task, what better way to make sure that both the audience and your manager cannot expect anymore of you than to damage the instruments that you played with? To me this seems to be logical, if not practical. Of course there were other ways to get around it, destroying a set is a bit dramatic, but it is my belief that they wanted the drama to begin with. It definitely is a show stopping event.
I also feel that deep inside of everyone, there is that destructive urge bubbling beneath the surface. We all experience those moments of extreme anger and frustration in which we want to punch a wall or destroy something. Artists, especially those who experience great success, can become very anxious and at times angered by the forced change in their own lifestyle. I always thought that at the moment those artists destroyed their instruments it was a way of releasing their anger that was in some ways created by their talents with the instrument. This was true for people like Kurt Cobain who did not like the media craze that surrounded his stardom and musical career. So I am not surprised that he often destroyed instruments at the end of his set, however, the instruments were not unusable afterwards.
A little known fact about the Nirvana front man was that he was a skilled guitar technician I guess you would call it. Generally after a show in which they would destroy the set, Kurt would work on and fix the guitars himself. He even said that many guitars would survive a few destructions before he could no longer fix them. So while the idea of an artist destroying their instrument might be disrespectful to many, he would fix the damage that he had done.
To be honest, I have no definite idea as to why musicians sometimes destroy their instruments, and since that I am not a musician myself, I do not experience the same abhorrence that a musician might when they see others commit this act. I do, however, think that this is a very interesting social phenomenon that deserves more in-depth analysis and thought.

Question: Is there any justification for a musician who destroys their own instrument?

Natural Sounding Music

This is in response to Sarah’s question; do you ever think we will incorporate early music (music of nature) with our newer "popular" music today?
I believe that there are a few answers to this question. If you want to know if popular music will utilize technology and imitate the sounds of nature then I think that the answer is yes. If you are questioning whether or not some artist, band or composer, is going to go out into the woods and record and use what he finds there, maybe. Do I think that nature and its sounds are going to start dominating the music scene today, not so much.
Technology is making things a lot easier for the lives of recording artists. With computerized music one does not need to say go out and get a sample recording of rain if they want to incorporate it into their music. They can simply go into the studio and make it with their technological devices. One band that did do such a thing was Godsmack on their song On Rainy Day off their fourth studio album. Like the title says, there is rain in the audio of the piece. However Sully Erna or Shannon Larkin did not go out and record these themselves. They used a previously created sound bite that was probably in some catalogue. So is this incorporating nature into popular music, well Godsmack is a popular band, and the rain can be found in nature but is it really a natural sound when it was created by man in a sound booth?
This also brings me to my next point, which is whether or not musicians will take the time to go out and record the sounds themselves. This I do think is possible. Musicians are by nature a creative being so it does not seem to be out of the realm of possibility that someone will want to actually get a recording of living birds to put into their piece. In the 60s Pink Floyd brought a dog into the studio and allowed the dog to bark and incorporated it into their album Meddle, so it is not an unheard of occurrence.
Even though there are occurrences of technology masquerading as nature or even actual nature popping up in music, I do not think that it will dominate the popular music in our society. Our culture is becoming more and more obsessed with technological advances and what can we do next that I do not see an immediate or complete return to the sounds of nature in our music of popular choice.

Question: Do you think creating nature sounds in a studio is the same as recording it from nature? Why or why not.