So I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I want to know what others think about the issue. Many people hold that music represents emotions (essentially the emotions of the composer/creator). A song is happy or a song is sad. I question whether this is actually the case. I'm of the opinion that music doesn't "represent" anything. It is valuable in itself and needs no representational character to make it good. Any emotions derived from the experience of the music come solely from the person listening to it. They arise because the music is powerful and "moving," But where your actually moved to depends on you. I think a good example of this is this piano cover of a song...
and the original
These are both the same exact songs, but they have a different "feel" to them. A song can't change its meaning simply because of different instrument usage IMO. Five Finger Death Punch's Menace and its piano cover are also a great example (but I couldn't find a Menace video on Youtube :/)
On a side note, I think Eduard Hanslick laid out a very interesting argument in his "The Beautiful in Music." I'd recommend it for the more philosophically inclined. His conclusion is essentially that Music is Music AND NOTHING ELSE! lol.
What do you guys think?
and the original
These are both the same exact songs, but they have a different "feel" to them. A song can't change its meaning simply because of different instrument usage IMO. Five Finger Death Punch's Menace and its piano cover are also a great example (but I couldn't find a Menace video on Youtube :/)
On a side note, I think Eduard Hanslick laid out a very interesting argument in his "The Beautiful in Music." I'd recommend it for the more philosophically inclined. His conclusion is essentially that Music is Music AND NOTHING ELSE! lol.
What do you guys think?