The difference of the N and the S mind in Art and Music

[wildcat]

S is all about manner.
N is all about matter

If I should know of those great piano artists in the vogue today, I'd say: Tell me your favourite piano player, and I tell you who you are.

Once I lived in the town. I used to go to listen to those great piano performers, the divas and the divos, when they came to give their concerts. Then I would discuss the performer with my father over a glass of wine.

There are two kinds of piano performers.
Two kinds of interpretors.
What is the fundamental difference between them?

Take any sonata of Beethoven.
With every piano player, it is all about interpretation, eh?
What is the deal? What is the big indifference?

To find or to express eh?
The gifted S artist excels in the performance, in the expression of the sonata.

There exist two diverse ways of approach in tuning in. They never match.

Say there is a piano competition. After the performance there follows the inevitable argument about who is the winner, every time.
The never ending quibble.
The judges are much divided. Why?

To some of them the expression means but little. It is all about finding Beethoven or whoever, about finding the message in the music. The message of the composer.
The N artist wants to find the message in the piece of music.
And should she be ambitious, ultimately the mind behind the message.
To tune in with the composer.



Who breaks the rules? What rules? The rules for the S judges and the N judges are never the same. Hence the inevitable heated and long winded argument every time after the performance about who is the winner..

I do not know any situation -where you perceive the fundamental distinction between the S and the N mind drawn in sharper lines- than in the expression of classical music.

In sculpting and painting and architecture the difference is there, too. It is only a way more difficult to define.
To see what is below the table.

With the N artist it is about what. With the S artist it is about how.
There are those critics who see the what in the painting. There are those critics who see how it is done.

The S artist pleases the S critic. The critic is interested in how the artist has done the piece. Another kind of critic is interested in what she has done it for.

There can be no agreement about art or music.

I never cared much for Picasso. It was all about how. I never saw much of what.

[Xander]

That makes sense of why I never really got the point in cubism or stuff like that. I thought "fascinating, you've found a way of painting that obscures what your painting... that makes sense...not".

I'm thinking that with artistry it's all about proving to yourself that you can accomplish the difficult tasks (from a certain perspective). If so would it not be that the N artist is trying to do what the S normally does and vice versa? Hence the N is all about matter and the S about manner where as normally the roles are reversed..oh no hang on that's F and T.

You sure this is S&N and not F&T?

Manner being the F and matter being the T.

[wildcat]

Originally Posted by Xander

That makes sense of why I never really got the point in cubism or stuff like that. I thought "fascinating, you've found a way of painting that obscures what your painting... that makes sense...not".

I'm thinking that with artistry it's all about proving to yourself that you can accomplish the difficult tasks (from a certain perspective). If so would it not be that the N artist is trying to do what the S normally does and vice versa? Hence the N is all about matter and the S about manner where as normally the roles are reversed..oh no hang on that's F and T.

You sure this is S&N and not F&T?

Manner being the F and matter being the T.

Yes, Xander.
The traditional artists do the reverse thing and and they do go overboard with it. A good observation.
And yes, the anomality between the F and the T surely is close to the overall picture.
And so is the one between the J and the P.

Originally I thought to have all of the data intertwined.

Eventually everything connects together.

There is a semantic error that concerns the word analysis. Analysis is not about separation. The idea of separation is in the expression of an analysis.

This we dicussed before.

The spatial idea behind the linear expression.

[Xander]

Originally Posted by wildcat

Yes, Xander.
The traditional artists do the reverse thing and and they do go overboard with it. A good observation.
And yes, the anomality between the F and the T surely is close to the overall picture.
And so is the one between the J and the P.

Originally I thought to have all of the data intertwined.

Eventually everything connects together.

There is a semantic error that concerns the word analysis. Analysis is not about separation. The idea of separation is in the expression of an analysis.

This we dicussed before.

The spatial idea behind the linear expression.

Whoa there Cat!


Before you go getting all complex on me, I was specifically saying that I think the two distinct styles you mentioned are more relate to the F/T preference than N/S.

If you start including more preferences then you'll get more than two styles..you'll end up with 16 and then more.

Don't get me wrong, the concepts involved are fascinating, I've often wondered at INTP artists... wonder what an ENTJ artist would be like? (confused probably )

[wildcat]

Originally Posted by Xander

Whoa there Cat!


Before you go getting all complex on me, I was specifically saying that I think the two distinct styles you mentioned are more relate to the F/T preference than N/S.

If you start including more preferences then you'll get more than two styles..you'll end up with 16 and then more.

Don't get me wrong, the concepts involved are fascinating, I've often wondered at INTP artists... wonder what an ENTJ artist would be like? (confused probably )

I do not think we survive long without the numbers.
Do you want to do the axioms or the numbers?

[Uberfuhrer]

When I listen to classical music, its beauty is in its ability to paint pictures (meaning) in my mind.

Even when I listen to a rock song, I'm not really in tune with what the lyrics are saying as I am in it's abstract meaning that comes from the song's melody.

I am actually quite dreadful at memorizing lyrics in a song as most people (probably Sensors) seem to be. I'd rather listen to a song for purposes to indulge in fantasy. Instrumental music, especially, helps make the images in my mind more coherent.

When I listen to music, my objective isn't to appreciate the details of the song's beauty, but to interpret what it means to me, how it affects my mind, and what certain rhythms in a musical piece represent.

My mind kinda works like a movie, and I'll usually listen to classical music to play out in my mind how a certain sequence in my "mind movie" is going to play out. And it often becomes very vivid.

[wildcat]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

When I listen to classical music, its beauty is in its ability to paint pictures (meaning) in my mind.

Even when I listen to a rock song, I'm not really in tune with what the lyrics are saying as I am in it's abstract meaning that comes from the song's melody.

I am actually quite dreadful at memorizing lyrics in a song as most people (probably Sensors) seem to be. I'd rather listen to a song for purposes to indulge in fantasy. Instrumental music, especially, helps make the images in my mind more coherent.

When I listen to music, my objective isn't to appreciate the details of the song's beauty, but to interpret what it means to me, how it affects my mind, and what certain rhythms in a musical piece represent.

My mind kinda works like a movie, and I'll usually listen to classical music to play out in my mind how a certain sequence in my "mind movie" is going to play out. And it often becomes very vivid.

I see you visualize music. I cannot spell.
Is to visualize to see the spatial? To see behind the form?
You say your objective is not to appreciate the beauty but to interpret the meaning.
Are you sure you can separate between the two?

You are the only one who has said not to be able to simultaneously listen to or tune into the lyrics and the melody.

I never could before the time of the trubadours in the 80s.
Then I somehow changed. The trubadours carry the lyrics on their shoulders.
It is different.

In any other music the trick does not work for me. I understand Italian but I do not listen to the words in Opera. I can try to listen to them but I cannot.
When I listen to the music I do not hear the words. That is the autist thing of course.

What kind of classical or rock music you like to listen?

[Uberfuhrer]

Originally Posted by wildcat

I see you visualize music. I cannot spell.
Is to visualize to see the spatial? To see behind the form?
You say your objective is not to appreciate the beauty but to interpret the meaning.
Are you sure you can separate between the two?

You are the only one who has said not to be able to simultaneously listen to or tune into the lyrics and the melody.

I never could before the time of the trubadours in the 80s.
Then I somehow changed. The trubadours carry the lyrics on their shoulders.
It is different.

In any other music the trick does not work for me. I understand Italian but I do not listen to the words in Opera. I can try to listen to them but I cannot.
When I listen to the music I do not hear the words. That is the autist thing of course.

What kind of classical or rock music you like to listen?

It's not really to visualize any sort of spatial in the real world, but it helps the internal workings of my imagination to become more coherent. If a piece sounds energetic, it means action, thereby enabling me to imagine all sorts of action sequences in my mind.

In my mind, I also hear musical melodies of my own in my head, but unlike listening to music in the outer world, my auditory imagination does not produce the same coherent visual imagination in my mind as listening to someone else's musical piece. Although maybe it might if I was able to write, play, and organize a symphony of my internal melodies in the real world. But sadly, I haven't the skills needed to do such a thing.

As for lyrics, I will sometimes memorize the chorus, but I mostly remember the form and tone of the lyrics as if they were part of the instrumental portion.

As for classical music, I like Ludwig van, Mozart, Strauss, Rossini, Verdi, Bach, and so forth, along with movie composers like Danny Elfman, Jerry Goldsmith, Bernard Herrmann, John Williams, Alan Silvestri, and Vangelis.

And rock, I love Rammstein, Nine Inch Nails, and other mainstream bands. But to enhance internal imagery, I tend to listen to Cradle of Filth (particularly the song "Nymphetamine"), and various black metal bands, which often have folk or epic classical overtones. I also enjoy trance music.

Ironically, however, I find it is easy to memorize lyrics of songs that are not in English. I memorize the lyrics fully of Rammstein's "Spiel Mit Mir" and, of course, "Du Hast." But the way the lyrics are presented in those songs often feels to be part of the instruments. Rammstein does have many moments where their music is more "attention-demanding" than "sing-along."

I also memorize the "Ode to Joy" in Ludwig van's 9th Symphony.

[wildcat]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

It's not really to visualize any sort of spatial in the real world, but it helps the internal workings of my imagination to become more coherent. If a piece sounds energetic, it means action, thereby enabling me to imagine all sorts of action sequences in my mind.

In my mind, I also hear musical melodies of my own in my head, but unlike listening to music in the outer world, my auditory imagination does not produce the same coherent visual imagination in my mind as listening to someone else's musical piece. Although maybe it might if I was able to write, play, and organize a symphony of my internal melodies in the real world. But sadly, I haven't the skills needed to do such a thing.

As for lyrics, I will sometimes memorize the chorus, but I mostly remember the form and tone of the lyrics as if they were part of the instrumental portion.

As for classical music, I like Ludwig van, Mozart, Strauss, Rossini, Verdi, Bach, and so forth, along with movie composers like Danny Elfman, Jerry Goldsmith, Bernard Herrmann, John Williams, Alan Silvestri, and Vangelis.

And rock, I love Rammstein, Nine Inch Nails, and other mainstream bands. But to enhance internal imagery, I tend to listen to Cradle of Filth (particularly the song "Nymphetamine"), and various black metal bands, which often have folk or epic classical overtones. I also enjoy trance music.

Ironically, however, I find it is easy to memorize lyrics of songs that are not in English. I memorize the lyrics fully of Rammstein's "Spiel Mit Mir" and, of course, "Du Hast." But the way the lyrics are presented in those songs often feels to be part of the instruments. Rammstein does have many moments where their music is more "attention-demanding" than "sing-along."

I also memorize the "Ode to Joy" in Ludwig van's 9th Symphony.

You have a rare talent. You should develop it. You may not have the skill now but you might work on it. Can you write notes? Is there a teach-yourself book about how to learn to write notes in the market? Then you have to learn to orchestrate. That is a tricky thing. It may take years. Sibelius did not learn it properly until he was middle aged and bald.

I also like Louis and the opera and Bach. As for the others you mentioned I have not heard of them. I used to adore Berlioz' Harold in Italy when I was young and the 8th and 6th of Louis and the piano concertos of Brahms and Sibelius.
I also memorize things of the 9th. It is such a piece- it tends to take over. But the Ode- I cannot tune to it now.