I guess this is as good a way as any to re-inaugurate the "music" category... since I've found a (perhaps very short) context to express some ideas on the subject. Somewhere else, I said:
The tonic is the most prominent pitch in a scale. Playing the tonic gives a sense of resolution and subjectively is the best note for the end of a song/rift.
You can go deeper with your definition: the tonic/root is first and foremost a musical frame of reference, the other notes in the scale proceeding from it and being centered around it. The "sense of resolution" is indeed an interesting (and scarcely understood) psychological aspect, and the whole Western musical algebra was conceived to capture (among others) this figment of reality.
So what am I saying there?
I'm saying that the notion of music being rooted in the physical phenomena from which it emerges (how else?), it follows that musical notes -- and in particular, "root notes" as particulars within a given pattern, or structure -- represent, first and foremost, frames of reference. Think about it, you don't say "I walked three miles", period; you say, "I walked three miles from A to B", where A and B are decodable pieces of information, e.g. physical locations. This is why particular As and Bs are powerful, and this is why the tonic is essential to the "musical algebra" that is the Western musical system.
So the tonic is a frame of reference within a particular set of pitches from which elements occur in a time series; and the elements are powerful, because they map to "musical" sound1, this so-called "musical" denoting that intrinsic way in which music moves humans, e.g. the "sense of resolution" in Will's article.
But you see, we can look deeper into this musical sound and find other frames of reference. The texture/timbre, for example, is one, as it operates within some conrete confines, such as the shape of the sound wave, the physical properties of the instruments, or the manner in which instruments blend into a symphony. The rhythm: the time signature, the cadence, the strength, the tempo, all these are or contain frames of reference. And all of them together not only make music representable, but somehow, naturally, they make music exist as a phenomenon.
This is, for example, what musical stories are born from. Or anything, really, from rock operas to that shitty rap from da ghetto. Well, supposedly shitty... I've shed this view regarding music a while ago. Since it exists and it's being heard somewhere, some particular music is relevant to some people in some space at some given time. Sure, maybe the people in question aren't relevant, but then at least "tell it like it is", vorba poietului. That aside, yes, I was born in Rahova and I sometimes listen to manele. Broblem?
#hashtagifuckinlovemusic, yay!
-
Here is where social sciences fail, as they can't represent that mapping meaningfully. For example, I haven't heard anything from Tord Gustavsen on the matter, although I know he was pursuing the field a while back. ↩
I am glad that you will write about Music itself, rather than mere music as found, and lost, by humans, though'll refrain from excessive comment on such sparse a category until I have a tangible disagreement.
The decision wasn't deliberate, so who knows, perhaps you'll see a lot of "mere" music discussed. I don't have any specific plans for this particular category.
There is a plan to integrate all the music/movies/books categories into one, since some of the music I listen to blends well with text, some with visuals, or with great storytelling... enfin. The structure of the blog will undergo some formal changes, but the content will stay the same.
[...] http://thetarpit.org/2020/on-musical-frames-of-reference << The Tar Pit -- On musical frames of reference [...]
[...] on the old blog; and a huge portion is completely absent from the public sphere, a fact which I've slowly started to overcome. And on this [...]