Originally posted by epiphinehas
The music you are referring to here requiring a special realization to appreciate is nothing more than ambience. You might as well say that somebody needs a special enlightenment to appreciate the ambient sounds of sand and surf while lounging oceanside, which is patently absurd. It is what it is, nothing more. But at least the sand and the surf don't ...[text shortened]... tistic pretensions, which is probably why the "Relaxing Sounds of Nature" albums sell better.
You're doing a better job of expressing what I'm thinking than I am 😕
We talk of 'the music of the surf,' but when I say that, I mean it metaphorically. That doesn't
mean I don't find the sound of the sea beautiful -- I do, very much in fact, just as I find certain
landscapes are beautiful. But I wouldn't call real landscapes art, just as I wouldn't call noises
made by nature music (with, perhaps, the exception of whale songs, which I think are very likely
music, even though I cannot understand it).
Do the tracks that ThinkOfOne asked me to listen to create a certain ambiance? Of course they do.
I find that ambiance uninteresting and uncreative, just as I find a canvas covered in brown paint
uninteresting and uncreative.
The question is, why can I listen to the 'uncreative' and 'uninteresting' noises of the sea and find
beauty, but am unable to do the same with the uncreative and uninteresting noises of humans?
I think there are two elements to the answer: 1) One's pleasure with the sounds of the sea and
surf is directly connected to the paradisal experience one usually has with the beach, and I think
it's intellectually dishonest to try to divorce that aspect from the independent sensory aspects of
it; and 2) The sea's noises are 'uncreated' in the sense that no sentient being makes the waves
crash, the gulls chirp, the sound of the water receding from the sand (let's keep theology out of
this, for simplicity's sake). As Epiphineheas said, it is what it is. There is no 'creative' to be
considered. For humans, however, there is a creative process, and some processes are more
creative than others. So, when a composer writes something that can be easily replicated by
someone as untrained as I am (not to mention uninterested), then we have to question the merit
of the work.
Now, if one wants to posit that music need not be creative, then that would be something of a
new perspective for me.
Nemesio
P.S., I'm not saying that I think Epiphinehas agrees with me, just that his post helped to clarify
something in my own mind.