My question requires somewhat of an open mind.  The question is this:
Is sound the only element of music?

I'm looking for research that's already been done on this topic -
really just a place to start.

Points that I'm trying to answer are as follows:
1. Proving the existing of a higher source of music - ie a "medium" of
music that we cannot detect quantitively, but we know when we sense
it.
2. Why does certain sounds make people "feel" a certain way.  Just the
theory of the whole thing.  If there was a higher order to music, like
mentioned above, that was closely interlaced with the human process of
feeling, then that would explain why we feel music instead of just
hearing it.
3. Explaining why we anticipate music.  Like rests and silence in
music.  Another question is "does music occur before it is ever
played?"
4. Explaining why people who "feel" music are more convincing that
those who just play it with no feeling.  Ie.  Is it because there is
more to music, if so more is it?

I hope these suggestions explain where I'm trying to go.  I'm not
asking for all the answers to the questions, but rather I'm just
looking for some good leads that maybe I can follow up and try to find
the answers.  Thanks, Carl

---

Request for Question Clarification by sublime1-ga on 11 Apr 2006 23:42 PDT

cutler2...

I read an unforgettable book at one point, written by a clairvoyant
who spent at least a chapter talking about how music appears to her
as an aura of rainbow colored light which shifts and changes. She
made a point of how often the displays of light produced imagery
which matched the theme of the music, and how she was certain that
people were responding to this aura, even if it was imperceptible
to them. She even included artistic renderings of some of the 
auras which corresponded to some of her favorite pieces.

She noted that, of course, there was no comparison between the
display produced by a live orchestra and a recording of the same
music. The orchestral displays extended out into the audience
and moved through its members.

Auras, as you may know, represent subtler levels of physical 
reality. The auras seen in conjunction with the human body
have been scientifically studied in the former USSR for some
time, and one fact which became apparent to the scientists as
well as the clairvoyants was that changes which would later
manifest in the body would show up first in the aura. The 
Russians refined it into a superior diagnostic tool due to 
this fact, and, of course, clairvoyants have long made use 
of this to forewarn people of potential health issues.

Since a musical aura likely has similar qualities, it makes
sense to me that the aura of the music would show changes
prior to its physical (sonic) manifestation, providing the
sense of anticipation you describe.

Sadly, I don't remember the name of the clairvoyant or the
title of her book.

A well-known clairvoyant is Barbara Brennan, and her book
'Hands of Light' has a section on healing with light and
sound. You could explore such authors and books to learn 
more, but I never saw another book that described the aura
of live musical compositions like the one I spoke about.

Let me know if this provides a suitably open-minded pointer
of the type you're seeking...

sublime1-ga

---

Request for Question Clarification by sublime1-ga on 12 Apr 2006 00:26 PDT

Oh! Here's a book which fills the bill:

Music Forms : Superphysical Effects of Music Clairvoyantly Observed.
by Geoffrey Hodson
https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no40519.htm

And here's a website devoted to the author:
http://www.geoffreyhodson.iinet.net.au/

---

Clarification of Question by cutler2-ga on 12 Apr 2006 21:56 PDT

Yes actually these are some good ideas here.  I vaguely remember the
idea of light being interconnected with perception of music with the
rainbow effects talked about.  clairvoyant certainly would explain
many of the ideas I brought up in my question.  But I'm still trying
to find other hypotheses too, and the more scientific the better I
feel.  I would like to see more experiments about multiple people
experiencing the same effect rather than one enlightened individual. 
Thanks for the input/suggestions sublime1 !

I feel it is important to try and define what "music" actually is in
this context before we address your questions.
My definition would be something akin to - "Rhythmic patterns and
harmonic interference and reinforcement", but others may use simpler
definitions such as "organized sound", or "any agreeable (pleasing and
harmonious) sounds".
So already part of the problem is what are we discussing? What is your
definition of music?

Anyway, on to your questions:

1. Proving the existing of a higher source of music - ie a "medium" of
music that we cannot detect quantitively, but we know when we sense
it.

There is no known method for quantitative analysis of sound to
determine if it is music.  Mostly this is a consequence of the
subjectivity of music (see some of the definitions).  However I don't
feel I have addressed your actual issue here as I don't feel I am
understanding what you mean by a "medium".
I would note that there is no presumption of consciousness in the
perception of "music" - the sea does not need to be conscious for
another entity to perceive the sound of the waves as "musically
pleasant".

2. Why does certain sounds make people "feel" a certain way.  Just the
theory of the whole thing.  If there was a higher order to music, like
mentioned above, that was closely interlaced with the human process of
feeling, then that would explain why we feel music instead of just
hearing it.

I feel there are at least two major efects that produce this perception.
a) The brain is also a rhythmically and harmonically driven entity
that works in wavelengths not dissimilar to much of our musical taste,
there is some evidence to suggest that aural perception can (like
epileptics and pulsing lights) affect the brains own rhythms.
b) The brain is extremely adept at drawing associations between
concepts, so if a strong emotion is initially imprinted with a certain
aural "fingerprint" (which may be extremely subtle, not necessarily
overtly linked to a particular song or phrase) it can be possible to
induce the emotion through repetition of the aural fingerprint.

3. Explaining why we anticipate music.  Like rests and silence in
music.  Another question is "does music occur before it is ever
played?"

Why do you anticipate a rhythm? Because it is rhythmic.... ie. (quasi)
predictable repetitions.
And, yes. It's just a long pause before and after each "piece".  

4. Explaining why people who "feel" music are more convincing that
those who just play it with no feeling.  Ie.  Is it because there is
more to music, if so more is it?

The people who "feel" music are in essence I believe the core of your
previous question.  If you are able to syncronise your own internal
rhythms (both physical and mental) you are more accurately able to
deliver the appropriate sung/played rhythm.  However that is only half
of the equation, the other half is knowing WHERE to play what notes.
Someone who has only a metronomic understanding of a piece will play
in a rigid structured manner akin to a MIDI rendering of a song. 
Someone with a good ear will instead be able to add nuances and
subtleties to the performance - technically these are slight
delays/preempts, subtle note bending, etc.
The real key here, and indeed the whole foundation of your questions
is that is not the performer (inanimate or not) that makes "music" and
it is not the listener either.  Music seems to be the interaction
between the performer and the listener - that is where the magic
happens.

I know I was no where near "new-agey" enough for you, but there you go.

Q.