Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Emotional Manipulation in Music
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedEmotional Manipulation in Music
 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Emotional Manipulation in Music
    Posted: December 18 2012 at 15:36
Right now, I'm researching worship music in the Christian church.  I am focusing on the idea of emotional manipulation in worship music: whether or not worship music (especially contemporary praise music) is emotionally manipulative.  As I'm researching this, the distinctions people draw regarding emotional manipulation are bewildering and seem arbitrary.  Some people seem to think that popular music is inherently emotionally manipulative while traditional music is not!  So my question is: does "emotional manipulation" in music exist?  Could all music be emotionally manipulative?  Can certain performance techniques be emotionally manipulative?  Have at it.
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
HolyMoly View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2012 at 15:49
It's often been said that minor modes are "sad" and major modes are "happy" and Eastern modes are "mystical/pensive", so I guess at that very basic level, there is a certain emotional response associated with certain quantifiable musical devices.  The tempo of a song also seems to have some effect too.  Fast songs are "upbeat" = "excited", and slow songs are "placid" = "relaxed".   There's a similar effect with quiet/loud. 

Of course, I'm simplifying things here, but I think people write music using these devices with a conscious intention to produce these emotional responses in the listener.   Not ALL THE TIME, mind you, but I believe it does happen.


Edited by HolyMoly - December 18 2012 at 15:49
My other avatar is a Porsche

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.

-Kehlog Albran
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2012 at 15:50
All arts are "emotionally manipulative". If a work doesn't produce any sort of emotion on a person, it is dead art. Of corse some do it most obviously.
Back to Top
The Truth View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 19 2009
Location: Kansas
Status: Offline
Points: 21795 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2012 at 15:50
Well I think the answer is simple, music draws forth emotion and really humans define what exactly those emotions are. Oftentimes, they are all the same emotion that deep sense of being at one with the world and every religion and philosophy can claim music's effects to be their own.

If that makes any sense, I may have oversimplified.
Back to Top
HolyMoly View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26138 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2012 at 15:52
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what Jacob is driving at is "manipulation" as an intentional act on the part of the creator of the music.  Music most certainly is emotional, but to what extent is the emotional response "designed" by the composer?

Edited by HolyMoly - December 18 2012 at 15:53
My other avatar is a Porsche

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.

-Kehlog Albran
Back to Top
Alitare View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2012 at 15:54
Well, what is the purpose of a song?

Is it to make money? Is it to acquire fame? Is it to impress friends? Is it to inspire emotion/entertain?
All of these things and more.

I suppose all music manipulates emotion in some form (either from positive or negative spheres). Violent cacophonous dissonance with inspire SOME emotion in you. What do you mean by 'emotion'? Is it any feeling at all? If so, all music of any kind will inspire some emotional reaction and therefore be manipulative.

But do you mean is music purposefully manipulative from an ulterior motive (i.e. enticing someone to believe or think in a way they're unaccustomed - such as prayer music)? Well, what a song makes us feel and what it was originally intended to make us feel are two wildly different things at times. From what I've researched most folk/traditional music came from a desire to either bear pain and hardship or affirm belief or both. Now this doesn't take music as far back as, say, 1,000 years, but speaking of the past few hundred (where most notable gospel songs were formed and composed) that's what I see. 

Are certain performance techniques manipulative in a certain way, err, consistently do you mean? Sure. Certain chord progressions are practically beaten into us to impact us in a specific manner. I wouldn't be able to speak eloquently on the subject because of a lack of information.

Interesting post - made me think a bit.
Back to Top
Polymorphia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 8856 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2012 at 17:44
I think what AH is referring to here, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the idea that contemporary worship music induces in some people a "false religious experience." I would attribute it to a certain philosophy or attitude of the hearer towards the music. Worship music to some is an experience not a collective act. Some worship artists who entertain this philosophy (and even some who don't) create music to create an experience, not to prompt a collective act of worship. This is not the philosophy of all contemporary worship artists, and it certainly is not the philosophy of all Christians; however, this tendency is what I interpreted as "emotional manipulation."

On the topic of contemporary vs. traditional, I do believe there is some contemporary worship music that does not fall into this tendency, but the general role of composers in the Christian church has changed some. The ideal role of a musician in the Church, I believe, is one who humbles themselves and creates something consistent and fitting to the collective theological confession, namely, the gospel. Don't get me wrong, worship music should be aesthetically pleasing and, thus, with some emotion, but it is not something to be aesthetically contemplated in disinterest, but sung as a community of believers. Its aesthetic is only perceived because it is heard.
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2012 at 21:49
{QUOTE=HolyMoly]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what Jacob is driving at is "manipulation" as an intentional act on the part of the creator of the music.  Music most certainly is emotional, but to what extent is the emotional response "designed" by the composer?
[/QUOTE]

Well, that's part of it.  I'm interested in both intentions and results.  One of the things I'd like to know is if the composer's intent really makes any difference.  If a composer doesn't intend to evoke a certain emotion but does anyway, is that any less manipulative than a composer who intends to evoke the emotion, assuming the evocation of emotion is manipulative at all?

Sorry, my OP was very vague; I'm still very much trying to work this stuff out in my mind, and it's also difficult to explain the musical situation in the Christian church in a few sentences.


Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

I think what AH is referring to here, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the idea that contemporary worship music induces in some people a "false religious experience." I would attribute it to a certain philosophy or attitude of the hearer towards the music. Worship music to some is an experience not a collective act. Some worship artists who entertain this philosophy (and even some who don't) create music to create an experience, not to prompt a collective act of worship. This is not the philosophy of all contemporary worship artists, and it certainly is not the philosophy of all Christians; however, this tendency is what I interpreted as "emotional manipulation."

On the topic of contemporary vs. traditional, I do believe there is some contemporary worship music that does not fall into this tendency, but the general role of composers in the Christian church has changed some. The ideal role of a musician in the Church, I believe, is one who humbles themselves and creates something consistent and fitting to the collective theological confession, namely, the gospel. Don't get me wrong, worship music should be aesthetically pleasing and, thus, with some emotion, but it is not something to be aesthetically contemplated in disinterest, but sung as a community of believers. Its aesthetic is only perceived because it is heard.


You're onto something, and I think it's important to distinguish between legitimate and false worship.  You can see the music as provoking a fake emotional response in place of true worship, or you can see it as facilitating a proper emotional response to worship.


Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - December 18 2012 at 21:49
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 19 2012 at 05:42
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Right now, I'm researching worship music in the Christian church.  I am focusing on the idea of emotional manipulation in worship music: whether or not worship music (especially contemporary praise music) is emotionally manipulative.  As I'm researching this, the distinctions people draw regarding emotional manipulation are bewildering and seem arbitrary.  Some people seem to think that popular music is inherently emotionally manipulative while traditional music is not!  So my question is: does "emotional manipulation" in music exist?  Could all music be emotionally manipulative?  Can certain performance techniques be emotionally manipulative?  Have at it.

I think someone who claims a style of music they don't like is emotionally manipulative and the style they like isn't is being emotionally manipulative....
My 2012 List
Back to Top
Polymorphia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 8856 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 19 2012 at 15:12
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

{QUOTE=HolyMoly]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what Jacob is driving at is "manipulation" as an intentional act on the part of the creator of the music.  Music most certainly is emotional, but to what extent is the emotional response "designed" by the composer?


Well, that's part of it.  I'm interested in both intentions and results.  One of the things I'd like to know is if the composer's intent really makes any difference.  If a composer doesn't intend to evoke a certain emotion but does anyway, is that any less manipulative than a composer who intends to evoke the emotion, assuming the evocation of emotion is manipulative at all?

Sorry, my OP was very vague; I'm still very much trying to work this stuff out in my mind, and it's also difficult to explain the musical situation in the Christian church in a few sentences.


Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

I think what AH is referring to here, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the idea that contemporary worship music induces in some people a "false religious experience." I would attribute it to a certain philosophy or attitude of the hearer towards the music. Worship music to some is an experience not a collective act. Some worship artists who entertain this philosophy (and even some who don't) create music to create an experience, not to prompt a collective act of worship. This is not the philosophy of all contemporary worship artists, and it certainly is not the philosophy of all Christians; however, this tendency is what I interpreted as "emotional manipulation."

On the topic of contemporary vs. traditional, I do believe there is some contemporary worship music that does not fall into this tendency, but the general role of composers in the Christian church has changed some. The ideal role of a musician in the Church, I believe, is one who humbles themselves and creates something consistent and fitting to the collective theological confession, namely, the gospel. Don't get me wrong, worship music should be aesthetically pleasing and, thus, with some emotion, but it is not something to be aesthetically contemplated in disinterest, but sung as a community of believers. Its aesthetic is only perceived because it is heard.


You're onto something, and I think it's important to distinguish between legitimate and false worship.  You can see the music as provoking a fake emotional response in place of true worship, or you can see it as facilitating a proper emotional response to worship.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps of interest to you would be the book "Art in Action" by Christian philosopher/theologian Nicholas Wolterstorff. Some very thorough art philosophy and theology. And if you're interested, his "Worlds and Work of Art" is even more thorough (3 volumes kind of thorough).
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13227 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 20 2012 at 14:02
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

All arts are "emotionally manipulative". If a work doesn't produce any sort of emotion on a person, it is dead art. Of corse some do it most obviously.


I agree. Works of art in any medium are meant to engender a response, whether violence, melancholy or joyfulness.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 20 2012 at 14:24
Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:


Perhaps of interest to you would be the book "Art in Action" by Christian philosopher/theologian Nicholas Wolterstorff. Some very thorough art philosophy and theology. And if you're interested, his "Worlds and Work of Art" is even more thorough (3 volumes kind of thorough).


Is it about "art" in the broad sense, or just about visual art?  Sounds interesting either way.
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
Moogtron III View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 26 2005
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 10616 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 20 2012 at 14:48
Music is only manipulation when  the message is mainly directed to your subconsciousness instead of your consciousness. 

One song that I think is a good example of manipulation is "My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison. George had a refrain in that song with Hallelujah, where lots of church people would sing along, and very smoothly he changed it to Krishna Krishna and Hare Hare, so that people would sing a mantra without knowing it. 

Lots of worship music sounds to me like it wants to lead you somewhere, but for me that isn't manipulation in itself. Although I do understand that it often feels like that. I can get irritated by too smooth, too syrupy, too cliched music. Now I'm a progger so that should be my attitude.

I'm a pastor in a small church myself and often I play the keys myself, alone or with a band. I must say it's often very tempting to get people to some state of mind with my music, but I never want to manipulate people. You want to help people come in a state of mind where they can worship, but I'm always aware that it may never be deceptive. It may never be that afterwards they get a feeling: was this for real or was it just the great music that played tricks on me. It's a thin line, I have to admit. 


Edited by Moogtron III - December 20 2012 at 14:48
Back to Top
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23104 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 20 2012 at 15:15
I thought of Ennio Morricone when I first read the thread title. Film scores and soundtrack music seeks to enhance the effect of the streaming images, yet it's when the subtlety of the pieces juxtapose themselves to the movie that I personally find most pleasing and stirring. Morricone was able to do that.
Similarly, when one hears noise and chit chat from a children's playground during a black metal album, it's far more frightening and manipulative of your senses than hearing screaming or doomey organ chords imo.

Yet as a common rule of thumb, I think it's all down to the actual arrangement.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams
Back to Top
Polymorphia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 8856 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 20 2012 at 18:09
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:


Perhaps of interest to you would be the book "Art in Action" by Christian philosopher/theologian Nicholas Wolterstorff. Some very thorough art philosophy and theology. And if you're interested, his "Worlds and Work of Art" is even more thorough (3 volumes kind of thorough).


Is it about "art" in the broad sense, or just about visual art?  Sounds interesting either way.


"Art" in general. A portion of it is devoted to music. Of course, most of what he's talking about is "high art" and "high art" institutions, but much of it is applicable to any art form created for disinterested contemplation, which would include jazz and much prog rock.
Back to Top
nt-rajib View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie

Vital Spam from Bangladesh

Joined: December 21 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 1 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 21 2012 at 22:58
I think I love for the all emotional song. Thanks for the share.
new spam from Bangladesh (Edited by DX)


Edited by DamoXt7942 - December 21 2012 at 23:47
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 21 2012 at 23:05
Emotional manipulation in spam? Shocked
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.418 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.