In terms of lyrics I would confidently make the following matches... I find that the enneagram also shows quite easily in many bands' lyrics (there's patterns you notice when you've listened to all a band's songs over and over...)
INFp 4w5 sp ~ Bright Eyes
INFp 4w3 sx ~ Depeche Mode
INFp 4w3 sx ~ London After Midnight
INFp 4........ ~ New Order
INFp 4w3 sx ~ Placebo
INFp 4w5 sx ~ Razed In Black
INFj 4w5 sx ~ Garbage
INTp ~ The Unicorns
INFp-Ni
I still don't let people buy me anything.
Musicians who I once thought were Alpha, but are actually Gamma:
* Brian Wilson (ENTj)
* Paul McCartney (ESFp)
McCartney as SEE? His music seems very stereotypically Alpha; I'll admit I don't know much about the man himself, though.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Removed at User Request
*Bump*
This super thread deserves a second shot over 5 years later.
The Pixies
Frank Black - SEE
Joey Santiago - ILI
Kim Deal - IEE
David Lovering - SLI
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Anthony Keidis - SLE
Flea - ILE
Hillel Slovak - SEI
John Frusciante - IEI
Chad Smith- SLI
Guns N' Roses
Axl Rose- EIE
Slash - SLI
Izzy Stradlin - IEI
Duff McKagan- IEE
Steven Adler - SEE
Note: I've read the autobiographies of Slash and Anthony Keidis so these typings for those two bands are based on what I ascertained from those books.
Last edited by Raver; 09-08-2011 at 02:43 AM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Thin Lizzy;
Phil Lynnot - SEE
Slayer:
Dave Lombardo - LII
Kerry King - SLE
Jeff Hanneman - ILI
Tom Araya - EIE
Pantera:
Phil Anselmo - Se-SEE
Dimebag Darrel - Fi-SEE
Rex Brown - ILI>SLI
Fleet Foxes:
Robin Pecknold - IEI
Iron Maiden:
Bruce Dickinson - SLE
Slayer and Pantera typings pondered in conjunction w/ Ashton & woofwoofl.
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 09-08-2011 at 10:10 PM. Reason: link to Slayer typing thread added - ANGEL OF DEATH
what ????Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart INFp
WHAT ???? I dont have a type for him but what hes not is : ESTpMatt Bellamy ESTp
at least hes gamma or delta (look interview and his rapport to emotion, he is all but not Fi PoLR)
Interesting, im curious to see the rationals behinds this typing.Janis joplin : Ne ENTP
some of my guess + common typing
INTp : beethoven <- common typing I agree now
INFp : Gustav malher <- guess, but imo is an archetypal one
ENFj : ??? probably kurt cobain, and Freddie Mercury is a pure one
ESXp : wagner <- guess and 90% sure
ESFP, perhaps ESFP-Fi : Listz <-- guess and forced to enter into my brain after a discussion with a fanatic. Im now zombified, and ESFP-Fi == liszt is what I think all the day.
ENFp : Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart <-- this is actually a common typing for him
INFj : john williams ok, I guess Brahms too.
ISFp - Fe : Louis Armstrong (just trying ??? INFj as the previous list say is perhaps okay, but not really sure)
ESTj : david hasselof, archetypal
ISFp : Tchaikovsky (or IXFp)
"The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."
-- Maurice Chapelain
Karen Carpenter--ESI
Paul Simon--SLI
Art Garfunkel--SEI
Josh Groban--SEI
Barbra Streisand--ESE
Julie Andrews--IEE
pianosinger (haha)--IEE
Some other favorites, not typed yet:
Colm Wilkinson
Linda Eder
Leslie Bricusse (composer)
Frank Sinatra
Dislike:
John Rutter-- must be LSI
My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASEAnd thank you
Went thru small part, thought at least 50% wrong, stopped reading.Originally Posted by Ashton
Except for your small enclave, most of the people that I've dealt with have remarked to me how poor your typing are.
Given the volume of typing you have and the group-think nature of people that agree with you, it's pretty hard for me to give a lot of credence to your typings. Will it stand the test of time and scrutiny, I doubt it.
Oh, this isn't criticism, more a informative post for others to not waste their time. I'm not trying to debate or anything since that would actually be insanely delusional given the volume of typing you seem to produce.You sound awful delusional, bruh.
Perhaps you should try more constructive criticism.
Who's Effie, SL?, she sounds cute. The point is my opinion.Haha, you sound like Effie now. Cute.
Seriously dude, if you've a legit point to make, then actually submit a coherent objection—rather than wage a smear campaign pretending yourself some crusader of reason.
Not a crusader of reason or anything but there's plenty of folks who agree with me(even ppl who don't like me too much) and I was kinda of offended by so many poor typings. You offer very little in the way of evidence for your typings to criticize so you shouldn't expect anyone to offer any thing either.
His music is rich withbranching and extremely self-centered emotions that weren't constructed well for dynamic expression compared to
. For
that branches off into universal
Here are some telling images, if you're skilled at VI you should be able to pick them right up
Last edited by 717495; 09-09-2011 at 03:34 AM.
Oh Effie, he is pretty cute.
It's not consensus(who knows what constitutes that anyways), but I've been told plenty of times exactly what I'm saying by a myriad of people so it can't be imaginary. Unless there are like tons of imaginary forum members. Oh noes, now that I think about it... maybe it's all proxy accounts from some sinister force seeking to discredit you.
Haha, jk, they realsies.Pardon my skepticism, but it's very warranted.
The "Ashtonian" bogeyman rears its invisible head yet again
Gonna get a nice post up in here some time after a bathroom break, a shower, and closing at McDs...
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
It's pretty crazy how he discovered that McCarthy was Tricky Dick Nixon all along. ILIs are just fucking amazing.
Ashtons typings are accurate. I don't base that on what the public opinion of him is... I looked through them myself. If I based my beliefs on the public opinion of this forum I would probably be naked in the middle of the desert right now hunting vultures.
Only if you're in to something more objectively verifiable, unbiased, and that takes into consideration human norms. I personally know a few people who care about such things.
I can see INFj as a possibility for him. I always felt he was an Si/Ne rational type. The question is whether the expressive element is dynamic or not. To me, his soaring melodies have this ever-changing quality, and he seems to guide the emotional context of the musical narrative the way I picture an Fe type would. That's why I thought he's ESFj. However, I have to admit that an introverted type makes more sense in terms of his biography.
His music is rich with
In comparison, I've generally thought of Brahms as INFj, although I can hear him as ESFj possibly too. It's so easy to hear a piece in one's head and imagine it in the interpretation of one of the types, so it's not that reliable a test.
But overall, I think how we're perceiving Fe vs. Fi is flipped. That's not too uncommon. Many of Filatova's typings were quasi-identicals or extinguishment relations to Augusta's.
Well it is easy to say all music is dynamic and emotive, thus
I feel his typing stands up even greater if I speak non-musically, but music is something I like to think about. So a far as "sweeping and dynamically changing melody," mood-based leimotif regardless of individual tones, first of all, is a common static-field-based feature of
I don't consider myself an expert on musical socionics, but these are assets I have noticed shared by various composers of the same type.
Also as far as Brahms's temperament orientation, he VIs more extroverted imo. He seems very awake and attentive to his surroundings, and was known for his social tendencies like easily befriending people in the park. Tchaikovsky on the other hand I highly doubt is anything but IJ. He lacks the attitude and disposition of an irrational and is certainly no extrovert.
Last edited by 717495; 09-09-2011 at 06:46 AM.
Interesting. I'll have to think about that, when I'm more alert. I have my own system for musical type analysis, which I haven't discussed much, but it leads to slightly different results. Anyhow, thanks for trying to put all that into words.Well it is easy to say all music is dynamic and emotive, thus
Ive typed it ISFp (ESFj-Si is a possibility too) mainly cuz of the dynamic Si aspect on it. Comparing to Brahms for example, who display clearly Fi attachement on his music, emotionnal on Tchaikovsky are more dynamic too. Imo hes alpha>delta.His music is rich with branching and extremely self-centered emotions that weren't constructed well for dynamic expression compared to composers, nor constructed centrally via an esoteric and often velvety impressionism like . For / try someone like Debussy or Brahms. Tchaikovsky is rather more developed in melodic theme, representing repetitive static lyricism that branches off into universal paths and themes, esp. given the time composed, universal of course being a tautology to that manifests in an adeptness for a collected taste of practical/objective ideas, much more like how all types are. If you study any music theory and history in this time, then you may as well note how music is developed. His biography also represents someone of a passive, highly sensitive and critical nature, and going deeper into his represented cognition it is clearly a manifestation of Introverted Feeling and Se-PoLR, and he VIs just like all other INFjs.
Imo hes clearly dynamic, and an usefull contrast can be made with Brahms, Mozart or Debussy music wich appear more static (especially mozart - Te agenda reinforce this impression, while Si agenda for brahms make it less susceptible to have strong sudden Te variation/part on his music).
"The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."
-- Maurice Chapelain
Well it is easy to say all music is dynamic and emotive, thus . This isn't really a significant factor, yet if you compare composers to composers, you will hear a difference. "Expression" by itself has little to do with it, in my eyes, but rather how it is being expressed and if its pushing its emotional quality out there as if it wants to be interpreted and connected to common emotional qualities such as gesticulate enhancement tone or timbre, instead of a subjective thematic or playing around in it's own self-centered expression. You really have to listen closely to composer's pieces overall, the task is not easy to measure. And even Tchaikovsky made significant detachment from his music after the fact of publicity, where as Brahms did so before to indicate his perfectionism in making what he felt was a valid connection to his abstract "audience," or that there were standards of external conduct musically (and in its objectivity is similar to how works, but different in that it measures humanistic quality, I will have to explain more.) It matters not how 'emotive' something is perceived as being, as information elements are all based on the perception of the individual himself. It's a tricky subject for those who aren't on the same page as me with other typings, as it gets interpreted the wrong way, so one I didn't want to speak much of. Also I think a typing of ego would be a great analytical mistake musically, as I said, his music is so rich full of and is only a given.
I feel his typing stands up even greater if I speak non-musically, but music is something I like to think about. So a far as "sweeping and dynamically changing melody," mood-based leimotif regardless of individual tones, first of all, is a common static-field-based feature of composing (note I say leimotif for static thematic emotion of Fi, not just dynamic melody in of itself nor just thematic in of itself) and involves a strategy of not relying on timbre that is dynamic-object-based, and the musical dynamics I hear are nothing of socionics dynamics, in that they don't specify a continuous flux of mood. Rather they are practical 'connections' from harmonic point to the next that involve intuitively exploring the different possibilities (reference previous post) not in a rigidly dynamic sense whatsoever, but by making quick leaps it overgeneralizes its theme and by doing so creates its own subjective anchor or hole to the other ego function, static subjectivity, and this is just one manifestation of how I identify from before. composers tend to feature much more of an accent or intrinsic modulation to their language somewhat dependent on the composers humanistic style of musical empathy, where as with there are usually no signs of such external attachment with these dynamics, but a mood perceived within the enigmatic subjective feeling of . So overall, as dull as a musical piece might sound to the individual, this does not mean it is more static, just as an exciting piece of music does not mean it is dynamic.
I don't consider myself an expert on musical socionics, but these are assets I have noticed shared by various composers of the same type.
Also as far as Brahms's temperament orientation, he VIs more extroverted imo. He seems very awake and attentive to his surroundings, and was known for his social tendencies like easily befriending people in the park. Tchaikovsky on the other hand I highly doubt is anything but IJ. He lacks the attitude and disposition of an irrational and is certainly no extrovert.
Im fucked with your reasonnement, even if its interesting. Have you read a brahms bio ? Relationship with other ? He display all classic anal retentive immature self-righteousness of unhealty INFj, bouncing from one to another decisions, ect...
INFj-Ne is a possibility for Tchaikovsky, but imo there is too clear emphasis on dynamic element for being on hidden agenda or suggestive place. Look at Debussy, for ex, I think hes more INXj-Ne (or a form of INXj harmonizing) than Tchaikovsky.
edit : are u french ? it seems that there is a part of you resonnement being really interesting but Ive hard time to understand it
Last edited by noid; 09-09-2011 at 02:40 PM.
"The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."
-- Maurice Chapelain
It comes down to different definitions. To analyze music, language, or mathematical structures in terms of typology, one needs a great degree of precision. Thus, we have more specificity, but the question is always how much it correlates to actual psychological types as verified by social relations.
In my system, dynamic in music refers to the formal decision of what to do next. So Te would be an efficient, logical guiding of music from phrase to phrase, section to section. I think of Mendelssohn (my typing: LIE); he tends to think in blocks, and a lot of the enjoyment is in appreciating the clever decisions:
I tend to see Fe as the formal, or phrase/gesture aspect being guided by the changing story of emotions. In Mahler (my typing: IEI), one sees that what guides the musical phrases and sections from one moment to the next is more these associations of happy, sad, angry, which together form a coherent story:
In comparison, I tend to see Ji as related to the material, less the form...more the melody, the counterpoint, the internal technical details.
I think Faure might be a pretty clear-cut EII...
I picture Ti as a more logical-driven, chiseled out or thought-over approach to the melodic material that builds the music from inside out. I tend to think of Bach as LII (although I understand some socionists think LSI. I have trouble seeing the Se in Bach though):
To me, the building-out of music in this style makes it seem so "static" in a socionic sense (not static in the normal sense of the word, but in the sense that the attention isn't on the formal aspect, but it's on the material).
I realize some of these distinctions are related to period and style; the classical period brought more homophony and emphasis on form and sections; I see that period as having an emphasis on Te as a value, which gave in to Fe as a primary value of the Romantic period.
Anyhow, that's a tiny bit of how I look at things musically in terms of typology. It may not correlate though with actual personality types....I often think it may even be reversed. This is the most common reason for different typings...because one person's definition of something may be exactly flipped from another's. And because I'm always reevaluating, I'm very interested in understanding Poli's definitions and how that all works, as I feel he uses a completely different process. In any case, whether or not what I've shown here is socionically relevant, enjoy the nice music.
enlighting postthx
and totally agree with type (for once...)
"The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."
-- Maurice Chapelain
Thanksenlighting post
and totally agree with type (for once...)
Now here's an example of some music by Brahms. I find Brahms harder to pin down than most. His music seems strongly intellectual and has a focus on the intricacy of the material. Sometimes performances do have an ESj quality.
Unlike when typing people normally, I believe that for composers it's perfectly acceptable to accept a "strong super ID" hypothesis, because composers write not just to reflect their own personality, but also to reflect their ideal (what they'd like, which might be a reflection of their dual).
This complicates things somewhat; if one hears what sounds like Fe and Si, is this because those are the composer's strengths, or because the composer is an alpha NT who would like to hear some alpha SF sounding music and therefore writes it down?
My usual typing for Brahms is INFj because, at least in the symphonies, the seems to go well with a Te approach to how the form proceeds over time. However, I'm not super confident of that typing, as sometimes I think he was really a logical type reaching into the feeling realm, rather than the other way around...and maybe his melodies do suggest Fe possibly.
Here is one of my favorite movements of Brahms...very inwardly touching...not sure if it's Fi or Fe. A case could be made for Fi in that the material itself has this subjective, feeling quality, but what he does with it is more logic-oriented, possibly Te.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if he's really INTj. In that interpretation, he could easily come off as ESFj in that he would be projecting his dual onto his music.
Here's a piece of his that sounds as if it was written by an INT type. But it might also possibly be by an intellectualized INFj with strongly developed Te:
Brahms is a composer where you can really analyze what he's doing with the pitches, as he appears to be thinking analytically. I can't imagine an ESFj writing that. It seems to make reference to Fe and Si in the harmonies, especially in the development section. However, the detail, precision, and theoretical interest / curiosity, suggest more an IN type....at the moment, it does seem INTj to me.
Some people have also said Brahms VIs as INTp. I'm not a VI expert, so I wouldn't know about that.)
First off like I said times before, I don't type so shallowly and assumedly based on someone being an intellectual or what personality their music is, like active music being an indicator of the composer being a dynamic type. This is barely the case. Only I examine correlations and figure out what personality is interpreting behind the music. So considering psychological type aside from stereotype, it will help to understand Jung's extroverted feeling or ethics if you try to interpret it as exactly that: "extroverted ethics," and the same goes for Fi. From there I think you will understand all my typings a lot more as a clear and cohesive phenomena, including typings of Tchaikovsky and Brahms. Until then, we will have to disagree with one another.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Music
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._and_socionics
I agreed with a lot of the stuff on this wikisocion page. It doesn't cover everything, though, it just gives a general impression. It didn't describe everything that I myself feel or look for in music, not in detail anyway. But even so it is very useful. I didn't listen to the songs on the second page, I just skimmed over it.
It talks about which information elements might be associated with which styles of music.
I certainly wasn't implying that one can type simply on a person being an "intellectual" or that "active" music has anything to do with it being dynamic. Actually, the Bach example, if Ti-oriented as I posted, is still pretty "active" music.
As I explained above, I see the dynamic aspect of music as having to do with the progression of the music through time. I believe all music has that, as composers must master all dimensions. But Gamma/Delta music will have a more matter-of-fact/efficient quality to the form, in my opinion; and static music usually tends to have more emphasis on the surface material rather than the narrative formal progression, although there can be exceptions.
I pointed out that Brahms is an intellectual composer, but I wouldn't make a typing decision based on that alone. Again, for me, it has more to do with looking at whether the internal and external structures appear to be F or T.
I'm familiar with Jung's initial definitions and how they differ from Augusta's. However, the issue here is how one applies these to something like music.
Jung's examples have to do with specific decision-making; he saw Fe types as making decisions based on some sort of socially accepted framework of values. The problem is, one can hear music that makes one think of that idea...It may be Fe, but maybe not. If we could come up with some sort of more precise language or details on how the music relates to that definition, it might help.
(PS...wasn't your signature EII before? Or was it always IEI? Just wondering.)
FWIW, here are a few quotes about Brahms's actual personality. Some of this sounds ILI-like to me, although the music does seem rational Ne/Si axis. In any case, his life doesn't seem like that of an ESE, even an intellectual one. So if his music really represents ESE, then LII would be more likely for Brahms himself. On the other hand, if he was ILI, he still could have written EII music in the sense of a benefactor relationship instead of full-axial.
Here's what I've posted in the past about Jung's description of these. Jung differs from Augusta, whose writings you have mentioned in the past are stereotyped. But I'm fine with discussing Jung's view.
As to Fe...Here are the first two paragraphs of Jung's description:
Jung's descriptions are remarkably rich. At first glance, this sounds as if it could be talking of a INFp type, and such a reading is probably one reason why MBTI makes sense to a lot of people. However, reading more closely, I see that many of the statements could also apply to Socionics base-Fi types as well.
What I get from Jung's description, translated into simplified form, is that base-Fi types are guided by some sort of ethical/feeling/personal criterion which is kept private and only comes out indirectly. In my experience, that aspect of the description is true of ESI and EII types.
What's less clear is how it "feels" to be a base-Fi type...That is, if one is actually ESI or EII, do these internal subjective criteria feel like feelings? It's hard to answer unless one is that type. It would be very informative to hear from people of these types how they experience it internally.
In contrast to Jung, I think August tried to craft her descriptions as if each of the IM elements was some sort of special ability (writing from an NT perspective), and generally her wording for any non-Alpha elements sounds confusing and even misleading. But her description of Fi is probably a legitimate view on how these types might appear to other people.
Of course, knowing what Jung said is the easy part. Understanding how you apply it to musical structures (or how your application differs from what I've spelled out previously) is a bit more difficult...I think "taking on the emotions of a climate" is also a bit of a distortion; it sounds awfully passive for a leading function. It is interesting, though, that Jung's description was somewhat close but interpreted differently; he apparently saw extraverted feeling as guiding decisions so as to be harmonious with generally accepted values...
As such, he seems to paint extraverted feeling types as the ultimate conformists. There is some observational validity to that in regard to ESFj types which often seem "All-American," ultra-normal, etc.
The appeal to the introverted thinking type isn't in absorbing "feelings" but in having a harmonious environment and anchor allowing the thinking type to pursue his endeavors in a relatively undisturbed environment.
In my own view, the definition of extraverted feeling may be expanded to include a way of ascertaining and judging (I strive to avoid saying "understanding" here) the harmoniousness or lack of harmoniousness of a certain situation. As a creative function, both extremes and everything in between may be used, say by an IEI writer, musician, or artist.
This perception of whether the overall is "good," "bad" or some other gradation would complement introverted thinking which has an understanding of static reality but doesn't always perceive its emotional or human impact.
It's not really a matter of disagreeing. I'm genuinely interested in your opinion. I have my system for analysis; I'm interested in various systems. There isn't necessarily a conflict just because different people have different systems. But until I know what your system is, there isn't much I can do except mention my own opinions and pieces of data that may challenge specific conclusions.
Right. I didn't mean disagree in general, anyway, as I think you have some interesting points, and obviously Socionics descriptions differ from Jungian ones so it's good to get caught up with ideas from both. I might have to do more thinking on former. I know Filatova has a series of composer typings that I'm interested in understanding more. I think the descriptions of the individual types and their musicality/why they compose can link up somehow. ie. Mahler's span just by standard might be a good representative of IEI, vs. just a composer who has been capable of penetrating this zone rather tastefully, like Rachmaninov, but doesn't do it in such a hex to the lifestyle (which makes me wonder about him.) I tend to get a similar feeling and interpretation from composers of different sociotypes (am especially fond of more late-romantic and contemporary music, by which the Beta typings of Chopin and Bach don't phase me as much. Though I remember being a solid fan of Chopin and his pleasantries.) Because music is so various, the meaning depends a lot on the listener and what they personally want out of it, ie. where two people appreciate the same composer for different pieces, and might not even have the same taste.
Yeah, these are good points...and the performer also affects how the music is heard. To some extent, I tend to see the functions as sort of like screens in the mind upon which you can project something. So if we have some sort of music and we want to consider if it's X type, we play it in our mind, and it's like running the projector on X screen, and we say "yep, it's fits"...until we find we can also run it Y screen and it sounds good there too...because it's well-formed music in the first place, so it sounds fine a number of different ways. It's like if two actor of different personalities say the same great line, it could be nice both ways. Nevertheless, it's nice to be able to understand the structure of where the line came from originally.
(Sorry if this too long a post...just a bunch of things came to mind...
Perhaps what we've discussed regarding Brahms vs. Tchaikovsky really comes down to whether emotional "universals" or "autobigraphical" emotions. relate to Fe vs. Fi, or Fi vs. Fe. I started a thread about the potential underpinnings...e.g., whether the correct dichotomy to focus in is dynamic vs. static, or field vs. object. I think I do know where you're coming from regarding these two composers. Tchaikovsky, like Rachmaninoff and Chopin, seemed to compose almost "autobiographically" in terms of emotions. Brahms, like perhaps Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, tends to convey emotions in a more "universal" way, as if he's discussing the concept of the emotions. [Not that all of those composers of similar type-wise; more may be at work here besides type...this is really a fundamental difference in aesthetic approach.]
So whereas the more emotionally autobigraphical composer might give the impression of "here is the serenity that I felt when I was at the park with my girlfriend, before she broke up with me," the more universalist composer gives the impression of "this is the concept of serenity. What does it signify for humanity?"
It's interesting to look at the music to see what causes this. In Brahms's 2nd piano concerto, the 1st bar and a half seems to create a sense of calmness, a feeling of serenity. Surely Grieg or Tchaikovsky could have taken the same theme, and they might have continued it with a flowing melody. But Brahms has the piano repeat the end of that motif, and follows this with a pause, as if reflecting on it further and saying "what does this mean?" He then proceeds with the next phrase in the same way: It has this nice serenity, but there is again the echo and pause. Then he continues the melody in a very natural way, but only for a few bars; right away, he gets developmental, with various unstable harmonies. Shortly, we see where this is going: He's building up to having the full orchestra state the theme. This is a very common technique, but when the theme comes, within 4 bars, it gets developmental again. The violins chop it up and repeat different pieces of it, leading into a transition.
Brahms's style has been called "continuous variation" or "continuous development." It's like referring to some sort of mood or emotional state, and then right away intellectualizing upon it, as if he were in discussing the meaning of these various states and emotions in the context of a logical debate.
Tchaikovsky did not appreciate Brahms. He wrote "He is forever building pedestal upon pedestal, but the statue is never forthcoming." While their music is sometimes superficially similar, their compositional technique was quite opposite. Tchaikovsky tried to avoid the "scaffolding" and preferred to present simple melodies in all their beauty. In other words, he didn't want to the architectural elements to show; he would have hated the Pompidou Centre. Rather than a sort of continuous dialectic, the form of Tchaikovsky gets its coherence by its resemblence to the emotional patterns of real life: high hopes are followed by tragedy; tragedy is followed by depression; foreboding of something terrible is followed by a pleasant surprise.
Yet Tchaikovsky was not entirely a non-intellectual composer; he was a master of chromatic harmony, always inventing new techniques; his voiceleading and counterpoint were solid; he taught music theory; he was well-educated musically, and he often fell back on his prodigious technique; his music was far more "polished" then that of his compatriots in Russia.
The way I tend to look at this is that what changes over time in a Tchaikovsky piece are the emotional states, so F must be dynamic, whereas the logical aspect is a sort of technical issue, built on an understanding of theory...static, inner. But with Brahms, there are these snippets of emotion/mood, and then what changes over time is some sort of logical discourse, as if he's debating in the context of his music. Hence F is static, and T is dynamic.
However, I can see how one could easily reverse these and say that everything I just identified as Ti is Te and that Fi and Fe are flipped. It's possible that what I regard as "dynamic" really "field," and what I regard as "static" is really "object." Some people on the forum associate dialectical logic as Ti because, they say, it's "making a connection between things," and they say see Te as related to static, unrelated facts. This is just another example of the many models that are out there, where people use the same terminology and yet mean something quite opposite.
Last edited by Jonathan; 09-12-2011 at 06:51 PM.
This is a very interesting point that you raised. Are you saying that you get an IEI vibe from Rachmaninoff's music, but feel that he may still personally be LII as Augusta and company type him?
That's an interesting concept that I've had for a long time. I call it "sub-axial" composing. The idea is this: A composer, or any artist (writer, painter, etc.), is out to produce something that he/she would like...would enjoy as an audience.
Therefore, it may be wrong to assume that the artist will merely reflect his/her ego block, as if just taking a snapshot of ordinarily life. Instead, the artist will seek some sort of inspiration of the "unconscious" mind that appeals to him/her.
Naturally, we tend to think that this would be from the super id block. That's what I call "full axial." However, in real life, people aren't attracted only to their duals; rather, it's very common for people to find some sort of fascination with all kinds of types, and beneficiary pairings (in both directions) are quite common.
Furthermore, it would be easier for the artist to have an "alter ego" that's beneficiary related, rather than "full axial." For example, if a person is LII and is trying to judge his art from a different perspective, it will be easier to get into an IEI or ILI (quasi-identity) state...something nearby....rather than get into an ESE state, which requires getting both extraverted and sensing.
In particular, I can imagine the 2nd movement of Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto as being sort of like a courtship between LII and IEI.
Similarly, whereas Brahms's biographies do make him seem ILI-like, the continuous variation technique and focus on rich, sonorous chords makes his music seem Ne/Si. This could be a sub-axis of ILI-EII, which would also enable him to axis LSE from EII; depending on how one hears the F, then it may also seem ESE.
This is perhaps similar to Tcaud's dual type idea...except that I never understood what Tcaud is saying. The idea of various alter egos that one activates as a sort of "mental relationship" makes more sense to me....
...it may also explain the kind of "aura" people get through their relationships with other people. When you have a deep relationship with someone, not only is there the relationship between the two people, but also there is a part of one's mind that is activated which gives you an internal sense of what the other person is "like." That is, the other person stimulates some centers in your own mind. If that's so, then your mind is actually playing the role of the other type to some extent.
I agree.His music is rich with
Here are some telling images, if you're skilled at VI you should be able to pick them right up
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Ozzy Osborne -SEI
Wife -LSI
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Reply With Quote
