Curtis, Hopefully you're lurking.
There's a mystery about music that perhaps you've considered far more deeply than I have; it's that music is so unfailingly meaningful yet has such severe limitations on where its buzz-yer-brain qualities are useful for impacting reality. Play even one measure of ANY piece of music and have ANYONE listen to it, and that person will have a point of view about the music's meaning to him/her. The music will be easily characterized by any listener in a fashion that is consistent within for them -- but not necessarily mono-meaningfully consistent socially speaking. Even a young child can tell you if a few notes are "happy" or "sad," or whatever, and their inner musical-Rosetta-Stone will be remarkably consistent in labeling other musical passages. Whether it is merely the beat or the voices/instruments used or whatever, it seems that each piece of music is utterly unique and unwaveringly precise in its presentation of message to listeners, yet everyone "understands" any music the very first time it is played. Not that any two listeners will agree on what words best describe a piece of music, but that each person will have some sort of inner process that seems to be "rule driven and idiosyncratic." Given the "absolutism" of music on a personal level -- meaning: the same music will produce the same brain response for at least a few repetitions before "jaded" becomes an eroding dynamic -- I'm mystified that music has not been very potent as a psychologically therapeutic tool. It's the old "music soothes the savage breast" concept. Why can't music be used to impact psychology very strongly when it seems to have such power to symbolize -- nay, even embody and be -- emotions? Music is so emotional that I find it hard to believe that "emotions in general" are not perceived as musical. If I'm feeling an emotion, say, "love," it seems like music is playing in that my mind has a "soundtrack" that harmonizes with conceptual content (lyrics?) Yet, it is rare to have folks describe their feelings with musical terminology, e.g. "I'm feeling sotto voce stacatto love." It might be a cool thingie, eh? My main question is: we know that we can get a crowd all tapping their feet and seemingly having the same emotions when listening to a piece, but we also know that the priest along with the serial killer in the crowd -- though sharing a musically triggered mood -- do not come away from the listening experience with any measurable change in their personalities -- so, WHY NOT? How can music have such power to trigger one's inner state, but be so seemingly impotent when it comes to having a measurable impact. I don't see any school of psychology doing anything like, say, the torture technique in A Clockwork Orange by pouring music and imagery into a brain and having that impact personality. I see no evidence of music soothing any breasts at all except while the music is being actually played. To me it is astounding that someone can listen to a full orchestration of a symphony by Mozart and not be driven sane. Where's the beef, ya know? Why doesn't music "stick?" My working theory is that music, like ordinary life experiences, can have a power to gradually nudge a personality, but that it would take a hell of a lot to get measurable results. Maybe if a person tried to mindfully listen to Mozart in a nuanced fashion like initiators are trained to be mindfully listening to the puja as they sing it, then Mozart could be a "great healer." Don't know -- and so I ask your opinion. Edg in that music that they interpret as, say, happy, will be found
