the phenomeon of music

[Creative Fossil]

This may answer your question........as quoted from Thomas Becker
link below

http://www.tbecker.net/main/philosophy-english.htm

"SOME BYTES OF MY PHILOSOPHY, ABOUT MUSIC
Short text in philosophy of music, by Thomas Becker
Updated/modified on 15 June 2005

IN SHORT
What we define as music is a mental content generated by the ears and the brain, responding to external vibrational stimuli. This stimuli cause the musical perception, but are substantially different from it. Being each individual unique, cerebrally and psychologically, each one has its own particular way to respond to the external stimuli, having thus a more or less different experience from the listening of a same music piece. It's not possible to express objective and absolute judgements about a tune, not existing a reference version of it; in a certain sense there are as many versions as there are listeners.

PART 1
I think that what we call music, and its beauty (or ugliness), exist only in the subjectivity (this means in the minds) of the listeners.
In my opinion, the "sonic" vibrations external to us (e.g. those caused by an orchestra), being only air (or other material) in movement, don't have anything in common essentially with the sounds we hear in our subjectivity, which we define as "music". Music is in my opinion generated by the brain from external stimuli, and since aesthetic sensations are in my opinion based on our mental musical content (so not on the external stimuli which cause it), I think that also beauty (or ugliness) is into us and not outside.

The fact that when listening to music one has the impression that the sounds are outside of us (except when using headphones), is in my opinion a kind of mental illusion.
I make a parallelism to try to clarify my idea: let's think about a cinema screen; it's a plane surface, but when watching a film projection one has an impression of depth (tridimensionality), as if there would be something beyond (behind) the screen. But we see only the screen. In a similar way I think we see images (and hear sounds), perceiving them as if we would see (and hear) them directly outside of us (in a tridimensional space), while in reality we are observing (and listening) only contents of our mind (the screen). And in my opinion this contents don't reflect exactly what is outside (as in the case of the sounds which we hear internally, which are stimulated externally by simple air in vibration).
This kind of illusion cannot in my opinion be avoided, because it depends on the profound functioning of our brain, but one can be aware of it.

I think furthermore that each "music piece" (in reality, as I said, simple air in vibration, if the term refers to what is outside of us, and which musically stimulates our minds) gives rise to different sensations in each listener, and in each listener at different listens, and thus that each individual has his particular (and changing) aesthetic sense.
With "aesthetic sense" I mean the way to perceive something as "nice" or "ugly", in varying degrees. To make a parallelism, I intend it a bit like the sense of taste, which can give perception of something as "good" or "bad", also here in varying degrees.
To be different I think is not only the aesthetic sense, but also the various impressions that one has of the various elements of a tune, impressions which I don't consider to be necessarily bound to a nice-ugly binomial.

Why do I believe this? My ideas were perhaps born empirically (i.e. through experience):
I hear expressing, from different persons, comments (on aesthetics and on own listening impressions) about a single tune which can be very different. I have moreover experimented on myself (getting later response also from other persons), that the way of perceiving a single tune, by a single person, varies over time.
If the aesthetic sensations (as explained above) and the impressions (for the same reason) don't refer to something external to the listener (air in vibration, etc.), but refer directly to his mental content, this indicates to me that the way of perceiving a tune (or better the external vibrations) depends on the biological structures (and if you want also the psychological and spiritual structures) of the listener (ears, brain, etc.), which create that mental content (responding to external vibrational stimuli, which as I said I wouldn't define as "music", but rather as that which causes it).
I think, I believe you'll agree from your experience, that sometimes also the environment (at a visual level, temperature level, social level, etc.) in which the listening takes place, has a certain influence on the listening. But also here I think that the biological and psychological structure of the listener enters into play, which creates the mental representations of the environment (and the sensations bound to it), responding to the external stimuli (visual, social, etc.), influencing in turn also the musical perception.
Excluding chance, which in addition to not knowing if it exists, I believe would make the listening chaotic, something which seems not to happen to me, I think that the human biological and psychological structure, and the listening environment, are the determining factors in musical perception (if you know others, please let me know).
My idea that each individual has its particular way of perceiving music, I demonstrate it to myself like this: being several persons in the same time and place listening to music, it can happen that some of them have very different listening experiences (judging from their comments and reactions). Being their objective listening environment very similar, this can't in my opinion justify this discrepancies. I explain this difference determined for the major part by a diversity of biological and psychological structure (the only factor remaining), which determines their aesthetic sense and the impressions which they have of a tune, making different for this listeners the way to perceive music (and the environment).
Thus, generalizing, it is in my opinion very improbable that two or more persons can have identical listening experiences of a tune, being very improbable the existence of two identical human beings (even only in the structures interested by the musical listening), even in different moments (I exclude also the twins, which can be very similar in appearance, but which are in my opinion however cerebrally and psychologically different, having lived different experiences).
I think that also for a single individual it is very improbable to have identical listening experiences -- in different moments -- of a single tune, being he subject (I think you'll agree) to continuous changes, and he is never the same as he has been in the past (and I think that also the most "little" experiences can modify something, maybe often of little importance, but however in my opinion enough to make my reasoning valid).

Thus, when two persons discuss about the value of a tune, I think they're in reality speaking of two different tunes, as each of them has perceived them. I think that after having written a piece, if it gets listened by 50 persons, in a certain sense I have caused the generation of 50 different tunes.
So I usually take into consideration in the same way the point of view of each one, because I don't believe that there's the one who is able to listen better; I believe that each one listens to what his (unique and particular) brain proposes, and there is no objective beauty or ugliness, that could be picked, out of the minds.

I specify that with objective I mean "related to the object, intrinsic and concrete characteristic of it". While with subjective I mean "related to the conscious mind, present inside the mind and not outside" (this are my definitions).
I personally consider to be objective also that which is subjective perception, so namely content of our mind. That because our sensations, emotions, etc., are in my opinion concretely present in our mind, and we make direct experience of them. I'll make an example to clarify (this apparently strange idea): the sensation of warmness is present only mentally, thus it is subjective, but it is an intrinsic and concrete characteristic of that mental content, of which we have direct experience, thus it is objective at the same time.

It's also true though, I believe it based on my experience (of listening and confrontation with other persons), that between different listeners there could be some similarities in their aesthetic sense and listening impressions, thus one tune could touch them similarly in some aspects. So I, when I compose, compose according to my taste, but have the hope to find people who are near me musically.

I personally think that when the major part of the people, or even all of them, judge something (e.g. from an aesthetic point of view) in the same way, it is not suitable to use the term "objective". I rather prefer to use the term "shared". For example, if a tune is liked by everybody (or better said, everyone gets pleasure from the musical perception caused by certain groups of external vibrational stimuli), I wouldn't say that it is objectively nice, for the reasons which I have exposed in this present text, but would rather say that all the listeners share a same positive sensation/impression of it (or better said, they all share a positive response to those vibrational stimuli).

I add some curiosities regarding aesthetic sense, which I discovered and which other persons have confirmed, and which you perhaps didn't notice (like me before): often, when listening to a tune for the first times, it doesn't tell me much; let's say it can seem "flat" and little interesting to me. At subsequent listens I begin to like it, and I can even like it a lot. Sometimes it happens that I like a tune, and then discover that I had already listened to it, a fact that I didn't notice during that last listen (perhaps I had listened to it long time before, but this happened also in a matter of a few days). It seems to me thus that repeated listens of a tune can make us like it, maybe mostly melodically.
I'm not saying this is an absolute rule, but this happens to me (at least currently) very often. Then, maybe, judging from the vague remembrances of listening experiences which I have from my own infancy (but I'm far from certain), this could be different for a child; it could be that a child, listening to an unknown tune, could find it nice and stirring already from the first listen, if this contains some musical elements which are a novelty for him, and thus impress him particularly.

PART 2
I add something regarding the issue of quality.
I often hear people replying to my ideas exposed here above, that if the beauty of a tune is subjective, there's still its quality to take in consideration, which should be something objective, intrinsic of a given music (if my interpretation of this idea is correct).
With "quality" -- seems to me -- are usually intended such things as (remaining in the music field) a good touch, a good expressivity, a good sound, a good technique, complexity, and more.
I think, first of all, that the discourse from before is valid here, too, namely that air in vibration (or more upstream a string or a percussion, vibrating) are essentially different from what we perceive and call music, and consequentially from its quality (good or bad), as this last one refers to the mental musical content (and not, I repeat, to air in vibration, etc.). A question to pose to oneself could further clarify the concept: where is it situated, the quality which I perceive? (Think about it!)

In my opinion, quality is not only confined in the minds, but it is neither a real perception. In my opinion, it is nothing more than an abstract concept to define the presence of certain aesthetic sensations (at least in the case of music). I think in fact, that something which gets judged as being of "good quality", is judged this way because it is liked under certain aspects. To indicate touch, expressivity, sound, technique (etc.) as being of "good quality", means in my opinion that there's something about this categories, or to their effects, which is liked (it is nice, at least for who affirms it), or vice versa. For example, I think that saying that a guitarist has a good touch, doesn't mean that his touch has such a thing as "good quality" in itself (after all his fingers are just pieces of matter in motion, I believe), or in the perception which I have of it, but rather that I like the sound which is caused by his touch. If we wouldn't like the sound, we wouldn't say that he has a good touch, I think. It seems to me, thus, that the concept of quality (at least in music) is to lead back to aesthetic sensations (and consequently to the first part of my discourse).

Some words in particular for the concept of "complexity", with another question to pose to oneself: when does complexity begin, and when does simplicity? My answer is that, missing an objective border, both categories come to fall (though they can still be useful to communicate in the everyday life).
Furthermore, and I think that this counts also for other concepts (e.g. for those of originality and traditionality), I believe that it is no absolute rule that complexity (as subjective concept) is better than simplicity (still as subjective concept). In my opinion it is a matter of culture and personal preferences.

All this discourse about quality -- in this second part -- doesn't mean, in my opinion, that for a musician it is needless to be concerned with this musical aesthetic categories (touch, expressivity, sound, etc.); I'm of the idea, as explained before, that the aesthetic sense of a musician can be shared (partly) by his listeners, and I think that if he likes something, there's more probability that this will be liked by someone else, as opposed to something which he first already doesn't like.
















--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are on http://www.tbecker.net / The web owner, designer and master, is Thomas Becker / All rights reserved.

[MKFaizi]

As I wrote before, I do not care whether this thread is moved or not. I do not personally care whether or not it has to do with Genius. I wondered about the need to separate the forums but, when I hone it down, maybe, it is a good idea -- even when some threads seem to belong more on one forum than the other.

I do rather personally resent the valuing of one over the other when there is little difference in quality. That is what causes me to wonder if one united forum might make as much sense or a division without one division considered better than the other.

There is a big difference in one side being characterized as Genius and one side being characterized as a place of ill repute and iniquity, no matter the quality of thought and writing.

The only reason I can see for the division is that the lesser side might reduce pressure on the writer to produce something utterly significant.

Could be value in that -- some degree of freedom. That is why I say that the division might be a good thing, afterall.

But would it not be a good thing if all thought could be presented without prohibition?

Obviously, I have contradictory thoughts on this. I can see it both ways. Maybe, for more seasoned posters, two forums have value. I woud never post a thread about music on Genius. I know the difference between music and philosophy. I know the difference between politics and philosophy.

Many do not.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

For the most part, I have also learned that calling another poster a moron or other derogatory thing either on the Brothel or Genius does nothing. Takes one to know one, I have learned.

"Calling someone out" is better done in private.

That said, I realize people will continue to do this. Growing pains, I reckon. It is far easier to call someone a moron rather than to present ideas.

Been there, done that -- and I was an artist at it.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Ever listen to Hayseed Dixie?

Kind of interesting concept -- taking rock songs or raps and melting them down to hillbilly.

"Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" works great as bluegrass. So does Snoop Dog.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Well, I know nobody 'round these parts likes country music but, boy howdy, sometimes just got to get it while it's hot.

Rock is pretty dead. Rap has gone to fiddy cents. Eimenem is melted.

Know who's hot? Hank Williams III. I'm right impressed with him. Reminds me of a young white hillbilly Tupac Shakur. Don't take kindly to censorship or Walmart. Looks and sounds right much like his granddaddy. Kind of like his grandpa might have sounded if he had been able to fully cut loose; ever take LSD.

New CD is called "Straight To Hell."

Worth a listen.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Put the dick back in dixie and the cunt back in country.

Ghetto hillbilly.

Faizi

[Jamesh]

Too Southern US for an ozzie like me who was raised in Tamworth, the country music capital of the Southern Hemisphere and thus can no longer stand american country music...spew, spew spew.

Reckon my brother would like it though, if the lyrics are harsh enough, but I doubt they are -far too hicksville. A pretender seeking out a market by the looks of it. Requires more rock, less country.

[MKFaizi]

Reckon my brother would like it though, if the lyrics are harsh enough, but I doubt they are -far too hicksville. A pretender seeking out a market by the looks of it. Requires more rock, less country.

Have you listened to any of it? Kind of hard to believe that you have and can say what you say above.

The lyrics are extremely harsh and especially punishing of country pop.

May be hicksville but hicksville is the new ghetto. Tupac from the inside.

Hank III is a lot of rock. Punk Country Rap fusion. He is the grandson of Hank Williams. If he was pretending, I mean -- he could pretend. He could just do the country thing and go along. The usual asshole crap. He could write a song about patriotism or love or something.

You must have him mixed up with someone else -- Kid Rock or Hank Jr. Hank Jr. has a good voice but pretty innocuous.

Third is more like his grandpa -- in looks and voice but far less strapped down. Extremely harsh.

Are you thinking of "Your Cheatin' Heart?"

I mean, damn.

Faizi

[DHodges]

Hey Marsha, have you heard Pimpadelic?

Some of their songs are country, but more of the songs are on the rap-rock side, hard rock guitar with some turntable scratchin'. Lead singer Easy Jesus is the nephew of David Allen Coe. They are out of Fort Worth, TX.

[MKFaizi]

Sure. I like them.

Hank III did some punk stuff in the past but his newer songs are a lot smoother. I like Country Heroes and Not Everybody Likes Us and Straight To Hell.

Not likely to hear these on the local pure-ass country radio station.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

My favorite David Allen Coe song is "Cheap Thrills."

I had trouble listening to Coe at first because of his racist songs. I am pretty open minded, I reckon, but damn. That X rated stuff was pretty ugly.

Yet, I don't think he is a racist.

Just a redneck. Same as a nigger.

Faizi

[SBN Charles]

Is some music conductive to pointing the mind towards enlightenment.

Highly unlikely seeing as a perfect intellectual understanding of the teachings to become enlightened is required in order to become enlightened, i dont think you will find a song that will help you become enlightened, if there was it would barely point you anywhere at all

Is music ultimately useless?

What do you mean by ultimately?

[DHodges]

My latest musical adventure has been teaching myself to play the sitar.

There are two aspects to that: first, physically dealing with the instrument, getting all those strings in tune at the same time, learning how to hold it, and so on; and secondly, learning about Indian music.

Indian music has a different kind of mentality than Western music. It's not so much oriented to songs. Instead, it is more oriented to ragas, which are, roughly, an ascending series of notes, a descending series of notes, and a rythmic pattern. You improvise within that structure. A raga is suggestive to a certain mood, or appropriate for a certain time of day. (I'm just learning about this stuff, so my understanding is pretty shallow.)

As to whether music has some end or purpose, I think it is an end in itself. At least for me, it is. Playing is enough. It is a means of expression.

It becomes a whole other thing when you play for other people. Then you get involved in all sorts of other issues - what does the listener want from the music? Is it just some sonic wallpaper, something to fill the silence? Who is your audience, and what do they like? All sorts of ego issues come up - will they like what I am doing? What will they think of me? People being what they are, these kind of issues tend to interfere with the music itself.

Since I have been playing the sitar for just a few months, I think I can honestly, without false modesty, say that I suck at playing the sitar. I'm a beginner, I'm just messing around, I don't know what I am doing. But I kind of like it that way. It's very exploratory. I don't have much in my head as to the way it is supposed to sound, which leaves me free to explore without being too self-critical. For now, I can have "beginner's mind" pretty easily with it - which can be hard to recapture later on.

[MKFaizi]

I love Indo-Pak music. My favorite artist is Nusrat Ali Khan. He did not play sitar. He was a qwali singer. He is accompanied by a sitar player and tabla dude and the other thing.

Ever listen to him? Extraordinary voice. You can listen to him here:

http://nusrat.com/

Better is here:

http://www.pakistanimusic.com/artistes/nfak.html

Select the second choice for Allah Hoo. Live performance. This is the first song my daughter learned to sing -- when she was nearly two years old.

Nusrat used to perform at her grandfather's home in Faisalabad. No dervishes allowed. All whirlers were kicked out.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

I cannot imagine attempting the sitar. Then, I cannot imagine attempting the guitar. My son wants to learn to play other stringed instruments -- like the banjo and mandolin and sitar.

You are speaking of the more classical sitar. It is also used in pop music or Indian rock. Though I am sure that it is difficult to play, I don't think you need to have more reverence for it than the guitar. I do not believe that it is that mysterious -- ragas and whatnot. Forget about it. Use the instrument for your purposes.

I am going to see David Allen Coe in concert -- or something -- in May.

If you listen to Nusrat, you can tell also that use of voice is somewhat different from western use. It's the sound, stupid.

Qwalis are very emotional. Sufi emotional. It's the rather pure emotion between God and man.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Music is stimulating -- like mathematics. Good mental exercise, at best. Otherwise, pure emotion.

Faizi

[DHodges]

I love Indo-Pak music. My favorite artist is Nusrat Ali Khan. He did not play sitar. He was a qwali singer. He is accompanied by a sitar player and tabla dude and the other thing.

In Indian music, the other thing would probably be the tanpura, although there are of course a wide variety of instruments.

Ever listen to him? Extraordinary voice. You can listen to him here:
http://nusrat.com/

Yes, that is quite a voice.

Nusrat used to perform at her grandfather's home in Faisalabad. No dervishes allowed. All whirlers were kicked out.

Is that like the Pakistani mosh pit?

You are speaking of the more classical sitar. It is also used in pop music or Indian rock. Though I am sure that it is difficult to play, I don't think you need to have more reverence for it than the guitar. I do not believe that it is that mysterious -- ragas and whatnot. Forget about it. Use the instrument for your purposes.

I will, eventually, but for now, learning the instrument, I'm content to see how it is conventionally used. Also, I've never really explored that style of music, so it's interesting that way. The sitar has its idiom of sounds that it is good at making - just like the guitar has things that are naturally guitaristic moves.

If you listen to Nusrat, you can tell also that use of voice is somewhat different from western use.

Yes, it takes some getting used to. It does seem much more focused on the voice as an instrument, rather than just for saying the lyrics - but that could be because I don't understand what they are saying. (Sometimes it's better that way - in terms of appreciating the voice as an instrument. Lyrics can be distracting.)

Music is stimulating -- like mathematics. Good mental exercise, at best. Otherwise, pure emotion.

I agree - doing math, or playing music, is good mental exercise. Passively listening to music is just entertainment. It's the same as the difference between playing a sport, and watching it on TV.

I cannot imagine attempting the sitar. Then, I cannot imagine attempting the guitar.

It's like anything else - mostly, it takes the determination to stay with it, and the patience not get too frustrated. So far, the most difficult thing with the sitar has been tuning it. That's an exercise in patience in itself.

[MKFaizi]

In Indian music, the other thing would probably be the tanpura, although there are of course a wide variety of instruments.

Yes, that is it -- though I always said tambura -- same thing -- the droning
instrument. They also use an accordian or harmonicum or something.

Yes, that is quite a voice.

Incredible voice. I do not think that I am the only one on the forum with an appreciation of that voice. Very big man, very big voice. He died in 1997. When he became very popular outside Pakistan and India, he did some things with Peter Gabriel and his music is featured in "Natural Born Killers." I kind of liked him best when he was pure qwalli. Sunni Muslim derivative but more Sufi in spirit.

My dead husband and his brother were also decent qwalli singers. I like the male voice in qwalli.

Is that like the Pakistani mosh pit?

Yes, kind of like that. The people become quite passionate listening to qwallis and go into a swoon. They start dancing and weeping and slobbering. My father in law considered this swoon to be hypocrisy and he despised it. He kicked all whirling dervishes out of his home. He had no tolerance for out of control assholes.

Passion is one thing. Idiocy is another. Kind of like someone who cannot handle LSD.

I will, eventually, but for now, learning the instrument, I'm content to see how it is conventionally used. Also, I've never really explored that style of music, so it's interesting that way. The sitar has its idiom of sounds that it is good at making - just like the guitar has things that are naturally guitaristic moves.

Well, I know nothing of playing any musical instrument so I was speaking out of turn.

I do greatly like eastern music and much of its culture. Have you ever watched any Indian movies? They are mostly stupid but they do give you an introduction into the values of the culture -- even if you cannot understand Hindi. The music and dancing and make-up tell the tale -- especially the music. Tons of veiled sex. Illicit affairs.

The usual. Sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll.

The sitar is featured. Just like the guitar is featured.

I appreciate Ravi Shankar as a classicist. But the instrument is not relegated to the classical realm more than the guitar or the piano or the organ.

When you learned to play guitar, did you learn classical guitar first?

Yes, it takes some getting used to. It does seem much more focused on the voice as an instrument, rather than just for saying the lyrics - but that could be because I don't understand what they are saying. (Sometimes it's better that way - in terms of appreciating the voice as an instrument. Lyrics can be distracting.)

It is not because you do not know the language. In "Allah Hoo," much of the singing is pure sound -- no language. The background singers are chanting something but Nusrat and a couple of the other singers are not using lyrics. The lyrics are Islamic. The passion is Sufi. The voice is passion.

doing math, or playing music, is good mental exercise. Passively listening to music is just entertainment. It's the same as the difference between playing a sport, and watching it on TV.

God, I hate math. I can like it and do it for about one half second. That's how long it takes me to forget formulae. I do have some technical appreciation of playing an instrument from watching my son. He does well with algebra. Probably explains why I never learned to play anything. Too technical.

It's like anything else - mostly, it takes the determination to stay with it, and the patience not get too frustrated. So far, the most difficult thing with the sitar has been tuning it. That's an exercise in patience in itself

I reckon. It's a lot to tune.

Is playing a musical instrument superior to writing? Not a rhetorical or loaded question. Merely curious. Is learning to play the sitar more difficult than writing something very serious? Is it like learning to speak another language so that, because you cannot speak it well, prevents you from writing something profoundly serious?

If so, then, why spend time learning another language when you cannot use it to express your thoughts well?

Faizi

http://www.nusratfateh.com/

[DHodges]

Yes, that is it -- though I always said tambura -- same thing -- the droning instrument.

It has probably eight or ten alternate spellings. They seem very lax about spelling in India (probably because there are so many languages).

Passion is one thing. Idiocy is another. Kind of like someone who cannot handle LSD.

I'm sure we could go off on a whole other thread there!

Have you ever watched any Indian movies?

Only for five or ten minutes. All I remember is some extremely stylized flirting, set to music.

I appreciate Ravi Shankar as a classicist.

I've been listening to Shankar, just because it was a name I had heard of. Also, he has a CD where he explains exactly what he is doing, which is very helpful.
As I listen to more Indian music, I find that it is the tabla playing I really like, more than the sitar - although they do work well together.

When you learned to play guitar, did you learn classical guitar first?

No, but I didn't think of the guitar as a classical instrument. I thought of it as a folk or rock instrument. I was very ignorant of classical music when I started playing guitar.

God, I hate math. I can like it and do it for about one half second.

A lot of people feel that way about math. I think this is actually a big reason it pays well to do mathematically oriented work. Most people don't like it.

Probably explains why I never learned to play anything. Too technical.

Some people learn to play in a technical way, some people learn in a more intuitive way, never learning to read music - especially in very feel-based music, such as the blues. Some very good blues players learned to play by feel.
I think what puts off people from playing guitar when they start is that it hurts your fingers, and of course you don't sound like Jimi Hendrix the first time you pick one up. It takes some work to get to a point where is sounds good, and feels natural.

Is playing a musical instrument superior to writing? Not a rhetorical or loaded question. Merely curious.

I really don't know how to approach that question. Superior in what way?

Is learning to play the sitar more difficult than writing something very serious? Is it like learning to speak another language so that, because you cannot speak it well, prevents you from writing something profoundly serious?

Music can be serious, or it can just be farting around, like you might right something serious, or you might draw a comic strip. At the stage I am at with sitar, I am not even trying to express anything, just doing exercises. Like, when you start learning a language, you might sit around conjugating verbs, or learning vocabulary. You would need to have a good deal of that stuff under your belt before you would have a real conversation.

If so, then, why spend time learning another language when you cannot use it to express your thoughts well?

Certainly you won't be able to express yourself well at first - which is why it can be frustrating. But with time and practice, you improve.
Why learn Spanish? Well, it might have a use for it. I wouldn't learn it just because I like the way it sounds. But if you are travelling to Mexico (or some places in the US), it's good to be able to ask where the bathroom is, and so on. George Bush has certainly got a lot of mileage out of his Spanish.

Some people say that some languages are better for expressing certain types of thoughts better than others - there seems to be philosophic works in German and Greek that are hard to translate into English.

There are moods or feelings that express themselves readily on one instrument or style of playing, and not in another.

[MKFaizi]

I am writing this in order to get out of the long scroll. If I do not write tonight, I will write tomorrow.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Out yet?

[MKFaizi]

Well, I reckon I may start another thread.

Faizi