How do you identify functions within music?

[Rubicon]

And they're like "Dang, she can play that thang!" That's the best.



Chopin you're my hero.

Darnit. All this competitive talk really makes me want to back to contest fiddling again.......

do you play at all anymore?
(stop teasing me with your fancy little emoticons )

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I can play the fool. Does this count?

[Rubicon]

I can play the fool. Does this count?

if you put all your heart into it - sure why not? It's all about the passion ...

[Rubicon]

I play a little sometimes for fun. I haven't practiced in ages though....hmm. I should make a fiddle video for you guys. That would be fun.

YES PLEASE !!

[Logos]

: I think this is mixed up with characteristics of the musician and not only the music, but maybe.

I'm not trying to say that Fe and Fi don't have as great a place in music, because I don't think that's the case, but I do have a harder time noticing those aspects than I do the others.

How can you have music without the musician?

[implied]

How can you have music without the musician?

we'll eventually find a way to take humans out of everything. <3

[Logos]

we'll eventually find a way to take humans out of everything. <3

I didn't say humans, I said musician.

"Ahh. You seek meaning. Then listen to the music, not the song."

[implied]

I didn't say humans, I said musician.

ah, i thought about that after i posted and those meowing christmas cats and such. i should have made an allowance for such!

[Creepy-Cyclops]

: I think this is mixed up with characteristics of the musician and not only the music, but maybe.

I'm not trying to say that Fe and Fi don't have as great a place in music, because I don't think that's the case, but I do have a harder time noticing those aspects than I do the others.

I don't think you understand what Fe and Fi is all about then. Music is externally and internally expressive. Fe and Fi is the easiest of things to spot, and probably the only really relevent ones.

[Logos]

I challenge you to get through a music degree on Fe and Fi alone, in that case.

This just sounds stupid in a juvenile way, just to let you know.

A lot of you seem to be thinking of music as art, and taking that for granted, but the concept of music as purely an art form, and of "art for art's sake", is a very new one, maybe only 2 centuries old. Music used to be grouped with mathematics and the sciences, it was still expressive but it was also much more than that. Did music not exist before 1810? I don't think so.

Yes, before that, it was art for God's sake with still plenty of Fe and Fi. You are still completely ignoring the presence of Fe and Fi in music apart from era. Sorry.

[tereg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dowland

[Jonathan]

After reading the wiki article at the beginning of this thread, I have to admit that I was misinterpreting your posts. I didn't really understand the difference btwn information aspects and information functions. I sort of see what you're getting at now.

Btw, aren't information aspects and elements one and the same? The article suggests they are.

I haven't had the time to follow this thread much, but actually, I think Chopin's comments earlier on in this thread are totally on the mark.

I understand what Salawa and others are trying to do. The idea is to get to a specific understanding of how the information aspects can be specifically spotted in music. But the problem I see with many of the posts here is that people are taking some specific aspect of music that reminds them of a particular information aspect, but that's only one example. That is, the intention is correct; the particulars fail because mathematical completeness is hardly achieved.

It might seem at any given moment that we could take the known elements of music....pitch, rhythm, melody, consonant sounds, reading music, or whatever, and just *map* them to specific information aspects. But that's way too simplistic, in my opinion. At best we can say that the way you're seeing these things is a *manifestation* of the information aspect, but you haven't captured ALL the ways in which that information aspect may be expressed in music.

And that's the key thing.

To really talk about information aspects in music, you really have to talk about them in phenomena as a whole.

I've done a lot of thinking about this...won't put much of it into this post...and clearly there's probably more than one systemmatic approach one could take here. To me, it helps to start with static vs. dynamic, and the fact that all phenomena can either be perceived in their unchanging state (i.e., the map) or their changing state (movement over time).

Then, add the distinction between specifics or actuality and ideas/possibilities/conceptions. Finally, the idea of utlitarian valuation (i.e., something is justified because it is designed to effectively accomplish something else) vs. a priori valuation (i.e., something is justified just because, because that's what was wanted, what was desired).

I see similarly that one can break music down into these key elements:
Ji: Inner/static form, that is, how the musical materials are organized OUTSIDE OF TIME.
Je: Outer/dynamic form, that is, how the materials are organized in time...or what we often think of as the form of something...The focus tends to be on the larger structures of the music (gesture, phrase, section), and how they all form a whole.
Pi: Inner/dynamic space, that is, the perception of the experience over time.
Pe: Outer/static space, that is, the perception of an environment within which experience moves.

For example, consider Ji...This can vary by degrees between Ti and Fi organization principles....but let's look at an example. In serial (12-tone) music, you have this principle that the pitches should be formed via transformations on a sequence of 12 different pitch classes. Now this, in my book, is a perfect example of Ti. It's all about logical consistency, and totally static (outside of time).

Note, though, that if one had decided that Ti was something else...the rules of resolution of dissonance to consonance for example, this would not include 12-tone. Well, of course, those rules of tonal music are also a great example of Ti. But it is not a one-to-one mapping. Indeed, there's a lot in music theory that is very Ti in nature but is not specifically about consonance and dissonance. There's really a wealth of stuff in music theory that is clearly static/Ti/consistency oriented and not specifically tied to time.

Within a given style or genre, you can probably generalize a bit more, of course. But if you're considering a breadth of styles and genres, the mappings must be exceedingly broad.

In my view, the best way to really do this is pick specific pieces and show how the information aspects are expressed in specific portions of them. There will probably be a great diversity in how they're expressed depending on style/genre. Also, music is complex, and depending on what aspects of the music one is focusing on, one may even be able to make cases for different quadras even with the same passage....But I do think many Socionically clear examples can be found.

I don't have time to put the rest of my theory into this post, but I'd be glad to discuss it with anyone who's really interested.

[Rubicon]

I haven't had the time to follow this thread much, but actually, I think Chopin's comments earlier on in this thread are totally on the mark.

I understand what Salawa and others are trying to do. The idea is to get to a specific understanding of how the information aspects can be specifically spotted in music. But the problem I see with many of the posts here is that people are taking some specific aspect of music that reminds them of a particular information aspect, but that's only one example. That is, the intention is correct; the particulars fail because mathematical completeness is hardly achieved.

It might seem at any given moment that we could take the known elements of music....pitch, rhythm, melody, consonant sounds, reading music, or whatever, and just *map* them to specific information aspects. But that's way too simplistic, in my opinion. At best we can say that the way you're seeing these things is a *manifestation* of the information aspect, but you haven't captured ALL the ways in which that information aspect may be expressed in music.

And that's the key thing.

To really talk about information aspects in music, you really have to talk about them in phenomena as a whole.

I agree entirely with this - esp. the manifestation thing. It would be interesting, like you said, to pick specific pieces and show how the information aspects are expressed. Have you analysed any pieces like this yourself?

[Rubicon]

I've done a lot of thinking about this...won't put much of it into this post...and clearly there's probably more than one systemmatic approach one could take here. To me, it helps to start with static vs. dynamic, and the fact that all phenomena can either be perceived in their unchanging state (i.e., the map) or their changing state (movement over time).

Then, add the distinction between specifics or actuality and ideas/possibilities/conceptions. Finally, the idea of utlitarian valuation (i.e., something is justified because it is designed to effectively accomplish something else) vs. a priori valuation (i.e., something is justified just because, because that's what was wanted, what was desired).

I see similarly that one can break music down into these key elements:
Ji: Inner/static form, that is, how the musical materials are organized OUTSIDE OF TIME.
Je: Outer/dynamic form, that is, how the materials are organized in time...or what we often think of as the form of something...The focus tends to be on the larger structures of the music (gesture, phrase, section), and how they all form a whole.
Pi: Inner/dynamic space, that is, the perception of the experience over time.
Pe: Outer/static space, that is, the perception of an environment within which experience moves.

For example, consider Ji...This can vary by degrees between Ti and Fi organization principles....but let's look at an example. In serial (12-tone) music, you have this principle that the pitches should be formed via transformations on a sequence of 12 different pitch classes. Now this, in my book, is a perfect example of Ti. It's all about logical consistency, and totally static (outside of time).

Note, though, that if one had decided that Ti was something else...the rules of resolution of dissonance to consonance for example, this would not include 12-tone. Well, of course, those rules of tonal music are also a great example of Ti. But it is not a one-to-one mapping. Indeed, there's a lot in music theory that is very Ti in nature but is not specifically about consonance and dissonance. There's really a wealth of stuff in music theory that is clearly static/Ti/consistency oriented and not specifically tied to time.

Within a given style or genre, you can probably generalize a bit more, of course. But if you're considering a breadth of styles and genres, the mappings must be exceedingly broad.

In my view, the best way to really do this is pick specific pieces and show how the information aspects are expressed in specific portions of them. There will probably be a great diversity in how they're expressed depending on style/genre. Also, music is complex, and depending on what aspects of the music one is focusing on, one may even be able to make cases for different quadras even with the same passage....But I do think many Socionically clear examples can be found.

I don't have time to put the rest of my theory into this post, but I'd be glad to discuss it with anyone who's really interested.

When you talk about Ji and Pi, are you talking about the Myers Briggs system? I like your idea of the 12-tone system being Ti - that makes a lot of sense. Thinking about it, I find it difficult to observe Fe/Fi in music in anything other than its dynamic state (I think this was what Salawa was getting at). What do you think about this?

[Jonathan]

I agree entirely with this - esp. the manifestation thing. It would be interesting, like you said, to pick specific pieces and show how the information aspects are expressed. Have you analysed any pieces like this yourself?

Yes, we'll I've started to. Haven't written much down about it...just notes jotted down in a file really. I plan to write something a bit more detailed about a few pieces.

[Jonathan]

When you talk about Ji and Pi, are you talking about the Myers Briggs system?

Not specifically; I'm not appealing to MBTI concepts as vs. Socionics. Rather, in my system, I find it easier to identify, say, music organized via inner/static organizational principles, or outer/dynamic organizational principles, and then to ask as the secondary question "is that organization more on the Fi or Ti side of the spectrum" (or Fe vs. Te respectively)? That is, I see super-ego-related functions as existing along a continuum.

Thinking about it, I find it difficult to observe Fe/Fi in music in anything other than its dynamic state (I think this was what Salawa was getting at). What do you think about this?

I'm not sure what he meant there. I agree that it's a challenge to pinpoint the right words to discuss either one structurally, because when analyzing something, the language automatically tends towards Ti/Te.

If I get a clear sense that the composer was thinking of the need to get to various key areas etc., and the music is kind of direct about that (e.g., say it takes the outlines of sonata form or some variant very seriously and sometimes seems abrupt about getting to where it wants to go), then I see that as an expression of Te. It seems to me that from a compositional point of view, Te is often involved in the decision to make cuts, to be more direct.

But if the form rather is more narrative, more based on subjective factors such as "that's just what it expresses" or finding just the right expression for the moment (i.e., a priori valuation plus dynamic), then I see more Fe. So, maybe some of the long, soaring Tchaikovsky themes might be Fe. Or in West Side story, where they belt out "somewhere, somehow"...that seems Fe to me.

But Fi would be more like some static quality, such as a piece over all expressing a certain seriousness (like maybe in Brahms, or possibly Barber's Adagio for Strings...I'm not sure) or maybe in a Mozart opera where you have a certain character's "character" expressed in an intentionally humorous way. The "mood" is more static, in the sense that it's more of a snapshot.

[Jonathan]

Actually, on the wiki, Rick's case that some Elgar pieces (e.g., Nimrod from the Enigma Variations, and I think maybe Pomp & Circumstance March #1 may have been discussed) were good examples of Fi was compelling.

You have a sort of undercurrent of emotion that seems unchanging in a certain sense....makes one think of all these graduates marching with the same feeling of purpose and determination.

Exactly what the music does to create this impression is harder to pinpoint, but I think that when the focus of the music is on static principles of organization (the material itself, what binds it together) rather than larger formal elements....and when those larger formal elements are more direct, more square (more Te in nature), then I think you get a sense of Fi.

[Rick]

My approach to this is to study the effect of the music on myself, then to isolate the elements that are producing the effect.

Recently I went to a classical concert. There was a Chopin piano concerto and a Dvorak symphony. I yawned through the entire Chopin piece; it didn't grab me at all. After a few minutes of Dvorak I was on my feet listening intently. Why? I don't have the complete answer, but I can see a few of the reasons.

Practically all melodic lines of all instruments in Chopin's music were what I would call "artificial," meaning coming from the mind or from the musical traditions of the time, as opposed to being, say, a portrayal of natural phenomena. Each leading melody was long, full of embellishments of notes which I found tiring and too tradition for my taste.

Next, it was clear from the music that he was conveying emotional feelings ("ethics"). For me there was too little variety of mood in the music, too much lighthearted positivity. I think some of this has to do with the frequency with which a composer makes use of the third note of the scale, which determines whether the music is major or minor. If the music is always emphasizing that note and if the chord structure is too traditional, I find it too emotionally UNambiguous for my taste. I personally like music that isn't powerfully major or powerfully minor, but is ambiguous much of the time.

A big part of it was Chopin's use of time. The music had a constant rhythm with little variation. All pauses were very brief, and the music started and stopped discretely.

If I had to summarize, I would say that the music did not reach the ancient, instinctive parts of my brain, but only affected the mental part, with lots of cheesy emotional embellishments.

Dvorak was a big contrast. Melodies lacked embellishments and fast notes and reflected the way sounds naturally occur in nature. Instruments very frequently played short sequences of notes, repeated many times -- again, similar to the way sounds occur in nature. There was none of this in Chopin's music, which was always built around a certain overt framework that had to be maintained.

Music frequently faded in and out, like the sound of waves on a beach. There were many pauses where you didn't know what would happen next. There was none of that in Chopin's music. Chord structure was more unexpected and kept unexpectedly flipping from major to minor to major with many variations. I liked the unexpected mood changes that fit my own state of mind better than Chopin's long-winded positiveness.

I found the first half of Dvorak's symphony gripping and emotionally moving, then he seemed to revert to more traditional forms, and the rest of the piece lacked some of the pensive feeling of much of the first half.

I felt that the symphony reached my brain on a deeper, more instinctive level. There were feelings of apprehension and expectation and innumerable assocations with natural themes. I wasn't constantly distracted by the fact that I could recognize traditional note combinations.

I'm not sure what to call that all, but I would guess that Chopin was a rational ethical type (probably Fi) and Dvorak was irrational and sensing. I would have to read about their lives and personalities.

[Jonathan]

I'm not sure what to call that all, but I would guess that Chopin was a rational ethical type (probably Fi) and Dvorak was irrational and sensing. I would have to read about their lives and personalities.

It's clear that you liked the Dvorak and not the Chopin.

But I'm not sure that a like/dislike approach tells us much about the information aspects except for giving clues about quadra compatibility with the listener.

If Chopin were expressing Fi, in which case I imagine EII would be more likely than ESI, then he'd be in your quadra....in which case one might expect a greater tendency to be on a similar wavelength, even if there were an irrat/rat difference.

Both Filatova and Dmitri have typed Chopin rather as IEI....expressing ethics from an introverted point of view, but as a creative rather than base function.

Independently, before I had heard about Socionics, I had typed Chopin as NiFe. So that's a convergence of three separate typings for Chopin.

As to the piece, which one was it? I'm guessing maybe it was that set of variations on a theme by Mozart (I forget the name)? If so, although that's not a bad piece, it's certainly not up to his later standards.

Personally, I like the nocturnes. Or, listen the Ballades....Particularly I and IV give a strong quality of Ni/dynamic, in my opinion.

[Rubicon]

My approach to this is to study the effect of the music on myself, then to isolate the elements that are producing the effect.

Recently I went to a classical concert. There was a Chopin piano concerto and a Dvorak symphony. I yawned through the entire Chopin piece; it didn't grab me at all. After a few minutes of Dvorak I was on my feet listening intently. Why? I don't have the complete answer, but I can see a few of the reasons.

Practically all melodic lines of all instruments in Chopin's music were what I would call "artificial," meaning coming from the mind or from the musical traditions of the time, as opposed to being, say, a portrayal of natural phenomena. Each leading melody was long, full of embellishments of notes which I found tiring and too tradition for my taste.

Next, it was clear from the music that he was conveying emotional feelings ("ethics"). For me there was too little variety of mood in the music, too much lighthearted positivity. I think some of this has to do with the frequency with which a composer makes use of the third note of the scale, which determines whether the music is major or minor. If the music is always emphasizing that note and if the chord structure is too traditional, I find it too emotionally UNambiguous for my taste. I personally like music that isn't powerfully major or powerfully minor, but is ambiguous much of the time.

A big part of it was Chopin's use of time. The music had a constant rhythm with little variation. All pauses were very brief, and the music started and stopped discretely.

If I had to summarize, I would say that the music did not reach the ancient, instinctive parts of my brain, but only affected the mental part, with lots of cheesy emotional embellishments.

Dvorak was a big contrast. Melodies lacked embellishments and fast notes and reflected the way sounds naturally occur in nature. Instruments very frequently played short sequences of notes, repeated many times -- again, similar to the way sounds occur in nature. There was none of this in Chopin's music, which was always built around a certain overt framework that had to be maintained.

Music frequently faded in and out, like the sound of waves on a beach. There were many pauses where you didn't know what would happen next. There was none of that in Chopin's music. Chord structure was more unexpected and kept unexpectedly flipping from major to minor to major with many variations. I liked the unexpected mood changes that fit my own state of mind better than Chopin's long-winded positiveness.

I found the first half of Dvorak's symphony gripping and emotionally moving, then he seemed to revert to more traditional forms, and the rest of the piece lacked some of the pensive feeling of much of the first half.

I felt that the symphony reached my brain on a deeper, more instinctive level. There were feelings of apprehension and expectation and innumerable assocations with natural themes. I wasn't constantly distracted by the fact that I could recognize traditional note combinations.

I'm not sure what to call that all, but I would guess that Chopin was a rational ethical type (probably Fi) and Dvorak was irrational and sensing. I would have to read about their lives and personalities.

Which chopin was it? The no. 2?

[Jonathan]

My approach to this is to study the effect of the music on myself, then to isolate the elements that are producing the effect.

This seems a good place to start, although personally I've found that depending on my mood, the performer, etc., I've had profoundly different type-related effects from listening to exactly the same piece. It can be very confusing. I've come to believe that a more analytic approach, looking at the sheet music itself and analyzing deeply, may be required to provide greater stability in the typing.

[Rubicon]

It's clear that you liked the Dvorak and not the Chopin.

But I'm not sure that a like/dislike approach tells us much about the information aspects except for giving clues about quadra compatibility with the listener.

If Chopin were expressing Fi, in which case I imagine EII would be more likely than ESI, then he'd be in your quadra....in which case one might expect a greater tendency to be on a similar wavelength, even if there were an irrat/rat difference.

Both Filatova and Dmitri have typed Chopin rather as IEI....expressing ethics from an introverted point of view, but as a creative rather than base function.

Independently, before I had heard about Socionics, I had typed Chopin as NiFe. So that's a convergence of three separate typings for Chopin.

As to the piece, which one was it? I'm guessing maybe it was that set of variations on a theme by Mozart (I forget the name)? If so, although that's not a bad piece, it's certainly not up to his later standards.

Personally, I like the nocturnes. Or, listen the Ballades....Particularly I and IV give a strong quality of Ni/dynamic, in my opinion.

The ballades are my favourite - and yeah - I and IV.

Personally, Chopin strikes me as SEI or ESI. I don't see much Ni/Ne in his music.

[Rubicon]

If I get a clear sense that the composer was thinking of the need to get to various key areas etc., and the music is kind of direct about that (e.g., say it takes the outlines of sonata form or some variant very seriously and sometimes seems abrupt about getting to where it wants to go), then I see that as an expression of Te. It seems to me that from a compositional point of view, Te is often involved in the decision to make cuts, to be more direct.

But if the form rather is more narrative, more based on subjective factors such as "that's just what it expresses" or finding just the right expression for the moment (i.e., a priori valuation plus dynamic), then I see more Fe. So, maybe some of the long, soaring Tchaikovsky themes might be Fe. Or in West Side story, where they belt out "somewhere, somehow"...that seems Fe to me.

But Fi would be more like some static quality, such as a piece over all expressing a certain seriousness (like maybe in Brahms, or possibly Barber's Adagio for Strings...I'm not sure) or maybe in a Mozart opera where you have a certain character's "character" expressed in an intentionally humorous way. The "mood" is more static, in the sense that it's more of a snapshot.

Thanks for writing this out. Your definitions make a lot of sense to me.

[Jonathan]

The ballades are my favourite - and yeah - I and IV.

Personally, Chopin strikes me as SEI or ESI. I don't see much Ni/Ne in his music.

Well, ESI is an interesting alternative hypothesis. But in my view, classical music tends to be highly "dualized" meaning that one would see Ni reflected in the music...so whether ESI or IEI, one would see Ni regardless. I do not get much of a "Te" response, though, which I would expect from ESI.

What I see as Ni is all the story-like imagination and playing with time and emphasis on sequence of events....For example, in the first Ballade, you have all this foreshadowing in the beginning. Then it moves on and gets more and more "heated" with that "foreshadowing" theme repeated at various places, until it gets to its tragic climax. The emphasis seems to be on ideas of what can happen sequentially over time (story-like imagination).

That seems Ni to me, although I can certainly see that something about how Chopin is usually played (and successfully so) suggests a certain layer of unusually extreme sensitivity to phyisical tone of the performance, which could be Si or Se I suppose.

What would you look for in determining Ni?

@Rick: As to the idea you seem to suggest that "flowing" music implies irrational and clear starts and stops imply rational....might not the creative rational function in Ip music also lead to a sense of clear starts and stops possibly? It seems that starts and stops would be more related to the dynamic, rather than static, aspect of the music. Therefore, clarity of starts and stops (which actually I see in both Chopin's and Dvorak's music) would tend to indicate more a dynamic rational function than a static one.

I understand that this parallels many of the continuous past discussions regardingly the various quasi-identity paradoxes in Socionics. But it seems to me that while Ip types would, in behavior, be quite go-with-the-flow, their output in a dynamic medium would still reflect their rational dyanamic creative function.

[Jonathan]

One other thing....Chopin's long romantic melodies seem to me to have the effective putting Te "in suspension" as he tends to take over the outer form through an ethical conception. Another reason to see his F as more Fe than Fi, in my system anyway. To me, his expression seems to be so outward, with its pleading quality, although that's just my own subjective reaction. His free, day-dreaming-like quality seems perfectly consistent with being irrat/Ip too.

For those who can accept it, his the possible ambiguity between Ni and Si in his music might be explained through the concept of a continuum of Pi, where one isn't always all the way on one side or the other.

[Rubicon]

What I see as Ni is all the story-like imagination and playing with time and emphasis on sequence of events....For example, in the first Ballade, you have all this foreshadowing in the beginning. Then it moves on and gets more and more "heated" with that "foreshadowing" theme repeated at various places, until it gets to its tragic climax. The emphasis seems to be on ideas of what can happen sequentially over time (story-like imagination).

That seems Ni to me, although I can certainly see that something about how Chopin is usually played (and successfully so) suggests a certain layer of unusually extreme sensitivity to phyisical tone of the performance, which could be Si or Se I suppose.

I don't know.... I see the first Ballade as inherently Fe. In fact the whole composition to me feels very much like unstable Fe in all its glory . For example the 'foreshadowing' you mention - despite its simplicity, to me this feels like a feeling of despair, so deep that it doesn't know how to give itself expression - and then it gradually gets more heated like you said until the passion can't be contained any longer. I think the playful section in the middle shows unstable Fe as well - as well as Se/Si? - to me this is like denial of the former passions expressed - trying to adopt a lighthearted feel to avoid the pain underneath - but it inevitably returns. The end, in my opinion, shows Se and Fe in battle with each other... or the Se helping to release the Fe.

... but maybe this is just my perception of the piece - you know - projecting my own Fe on to a work which may not have been intended to be played that way... I don't know.... what do you think?

[Rubicon]

One other thing....Chopin's long romantic melodies seem to me to have the effective putting Te "in suspension" as he tends to take over the outer form through an ethical conception. Another reason to see his F as more Fe than Fi, in my system anyway. To me, his expression seems to be so outward, with its pleading quality, although that's just my own subjective reaction. His free, day-dreaming-like quality seems perfectly consistent with being irrat/Ip too.

For those who can accept it, his the possible ambiguity between Ni and Si in his music might be explained through the concept of a continuum of Pi, where one isn't always all the way on one side or the other.

Absolutely!