There are so many different ideas about the philosophy of music, and what it is, and how it appears, and how it fits in the world. Is there anything new to say? Is there any way to make one person agree with another's truth? Is there a universal truth of it? If I think there is, there is someone to disagree with me. What I love about philosophy is the argument, making your case, and proving something to be so. But don't we get lost in the words, and lose sight of the real truth, which may just be what we do NOT know, and cannot prove? In trying to find the absolute truth of it, and define it, we end up defining it away, until the thing we're defining is unrecognizable. And in so doing, we are missing all of it, all the beauty of it.
Whatever music is, however it appears, and however it fits, we all know what it does, and how we feel about it. It does connect, and disconnect people; it does reflect society, and fight against society; it transforms us, and gives us so much, whether making music or listening, or being a part of it all. Sharing music gives us joy and excitement, and we would all be the lesser without it. Music is a beautiful, beautiful thing, and we just know that. Are we stripping away its magic when we should be rejoicing in it? The gloriousness of music is how it affects us as it does, and how powerful it can be in bringing us together. Are we losing that by listening so hard for a truth that perhaps eludes us all?
My daughter tries hard to learn the words of every song she hears, so she can sing them again and again, and ends every line on a high note. My son likes to listen, but prefers to make up his own songs, and he has perfect pitch. What are they getting from music, and why are they so drawn to it? What is it in music that is so universal that connects us all in our desire for it, and each of us in our own way? It is an irresistible beauty and a thing-you-can't-put-a-finger-on, to put it technically, and does that gall us? Is that why we continue searching and explaining?
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
value of emotion
Zangwill stated that music does not possess emotion; that we are not hearing emotion when we listen to music, but that it is we alone who are bringing the emotion. I get what he's saying, that music cannot be emotional in and of itself, I guess I just don't think it's that simple. Music is created by human beings, and as much as it makes us feel something when we hear it (whether real emotion or not,) it makes us feel something when we create it, as well. What the composer is feeling when he is composing music is relevant, and intertwined in that music in some way. Furthermore, if we feel sad listening to something, it is very likely that our feeling that way is exactly what the composer intended, and the same for any other feeling we get from any music. The composer arranged the music the way he did to convey emotion.
Certainly, we can feel a way not intended by the composer when listening to something, too. And certainly, we can feel nothing but pleasure at beautiful music, and the composer could have intended us to feel nothing but that. But I don't think that distracts from the fact that many times music is created in such a way as to incite emotion in listeners, and that feeling is felt when creating music, and so I don't think it's so easy to simply say that music is not emotion; in many instances, I think it is intended to be, and is written as such.
I think the emotional intention, and feeling present, when creating the music has a bigger role to play in the value of emotion in music.
Does written music need to be played or sung to be music?
Certainly, we can feel a way not intended by the composer when listening to something, too. And certainly, we can feel nothing but pleasure at beautiful music, and the composer could have intended us to feel nothing but that. But I don't think that distracts from the fact that many times music is created in such a way as to incite emotion in listeners, and that feeling is felt when creating music, and so I don't think it's so easy to simply say that music is not emotion; in many instances, I think it is intended to be, and is written as such.
I think the emotional intention, and feeling present, when creating the music has a bigger role to play in the value of emotion in music.
Does written music need to be played or sung to be music?
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Q and A, 3
In Nick Zangwill's essay, "Music, Metaphor, and Emotion," he claims that music is not inherently emotional. He claims that the emotion terms we use to describe music are merely metaphors for aesthetic points in the music, and not real emotions found in music. He outlines this aesthetic metaphor thesis to explain away others' points of view as erroneous.
In Zangwill's statement Dr. Johnson quoted, "The nature and value of music will elude us so long as we are mired in emotion," Zangwill explains that, although we relate to music in emotion terms, and may be delighted and pleasured greatly by music, music itself does not possess these emotions. As he says, music can no more be proud or angry, than a rock is proud, or a cloud angry. These emotion terms are reflections, and our way of explaining, the aesthetic properties in the music, according to Zangwill, but not inherent in the music.
Music indeed has rules and guidelines of what makes it sound "good," and we are, indeed, responding to those various musical rules when we find beauty in a piece of music, just as the composer strove to find the beauty in those guidelines while creating the music. But does that mean that all we are hearing, as listeners, are those aesthetic qualities? Do we not hear the composer's emotional feeling that he may be trying to convey? Do we not feel real emotion when we listen?
In Zangwill's statement Dr. Johnson quoted, "The nature and value of music will elude us so long as we are mired in emotion," Zangwill explains that, although we relate to music in emotion terms, and may be delighted and pleasured greatly by music, music itself does not possess these emotions. As he says, music can no more be proud or angry, than a rock is proud, or a cloud angry. These emotion terms are reflections, and our way of explaining, the aesthetic properties in the music, according to Zangwill, but not inherent in the music.
Music indeed has rules and guidelines of what makes it sound "good," and we are, indeed, responding to those various musical rules when we find beauty in a piece of music, just as the composer strove to find the beauty in those guidelines while creating the music. But does that mean that all we are hearing, as listeners, are those aesthetic qualities? Do we not hear the composer's emotional feeling that he may be trying to convey? Do we not feel real emotion when we listen?
Monday, September 26, 2011
re: ...What does poetry lack, that makes it unqualified to be considered music?
The answer to Becky-Jo's question might be as simple as saying that poetry, with all of its beautiful rhythms and melodies, remains written word, or spoken word, as opposed to written words with musical notes ascribed to them, or sung words. Just as a letter to someone, or a novel, can appear poetic, yet is not truly poetry, so can poetry appear musical, and yet not be music.
Why is singing a series of notes different from playing that same series of notes on another instrument, and not singing?
Why is singing a series of notes different from playing that same series of notes on another instrument, and not singing?
Q and A, 2
The problem with defining music as merely organized sound, is that it is too broad a definition, just as "The Philosophy of Music" article states. That definition encompasses sounds that are not musical, like poetry, speech, sound art, and machine and animal sounds. I think my definition is a working start, to find a way to simply define music, but as I am not a professional philosopher, I am sure it is lacking in some way: notes intentionally joined together in an organized and meaningful way. Is it enough to say notes instead of sound? I am not sure. I think Becky-Jo's idea of a musical toolkit is interesting, in that perhaps we need to be explicit in the parameters we set to define what makes sounds musical. Perhaps the definition cannot be as simple as we want it to be.
Some of the philosophers outlined in the article suggest that what makes sounds music is that its intention is to create an experience through engaging with the sounds, or to suggest that only pure music can be music. I find these suggestions problematic, since I don't think either of these things need be true for something to be musical. A song is surely music, and certainly something can be music without there being an audience to hear it. As well, it cannot be sound that is merely expressive, as there are other expressive sounds that are not musical.
The only prospect I find in defining music as simply organized sound, is that this definition ensures that no music will be left out, such as song, or pot-banging, or as the article mentions, untuned symphonic percussion.
Is it really this complicated, to define music, or are we just getting lost in the words and the thinking?
Do we intrinsically know music, and how to create it?
Some of the philosophers outlined in the article suggest that what makes sounds music is that its intention is to create an experience through engaging with the sounds, or to suggest that only pure music can be music. I find these suggestions problematic, since I don't think either of these things need be true for something to be musical. A song is surely music, and certainly something can be music without there being an audience to hear it. As well, it cannot be sound that is merely expressive, as there are other expressive sounds that are not musical.
The only prospect I find in defining music as simply organized sound, is that this definition ensures that no music will be left out, such as song, or pot-banging, or as the article mentions, untuned symphonic percussion.
Is it really this complicated, to define music, or are we just getting lost in the words and the thinking?
Do we intrinsically know music, and how to create it?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
music in real time.
I've been thinking more about what music I am surrounded by, and how it's changed what music is for me these days. It used to be very cathartic, music: heavy emotion, high ups and downs, joyful, sad, transforming, inspiring, etc... Now, it's cartoon jingles, goodnight songs, nursery rhymes, and made-up tunes to sing to my children. Simplified and positive; while not wholly fulfilling, I enjoy it all. I do manage to squeeze in some grown-up good stuff now and then, and even got my son hooked on some of it, but all that amazing music out there that I was once surrounded by, is no longer the soundtrack of my life. And it seems that when I have a chance to be alone, I embrace the quiet.
I have found, when I do see a show, a concert, or listen to music at home, that I enjoy it fully. It's pleasurable, and positive. I can still be transported by an amazing piece of music, or awed by something new, or entranced in a song, but it is not all-consuming. There is comfort, too, in that the music hasn't changed; I have. Music is amazing in how it affects us, how our memories impact how we hear something, or perform something. When I sing "Rock-a-bye Baby," I am affected only by the joy it gives my daughter; when I sing her something from my past, or my childhood, it is emotional and moving for me, but then the song is over, and I'm right back to nursery rhyme mood. It's nice. There is a lot to be said for being completely immersed in a thing, and the benefit of that can be great and amazing, but a little perspective and a "Rock-a-bye Baby" can go a long way.
A piece of music is always open for interpretation in many different ways; is it possible to get away from our perceptions and simply hear or play the music, or are we constantly interpreting it?
I have found, when I do see a show, a concert, or listen to music at home, that I enjoy it fully. It's pleasurable, and positive. I can still be transported by an amazing piece of music, or awed by something new, or entranced in a song, but it is not all-consuming. There is comfort, too, in that the music hasn't changed; I have. Music is amazing in how it affects us, how our memories impact how we hear something, or perform something. When I sing "Rock-a-bye Baby," I am affected only by the joy it gives my daughter; when I sing her something from my past, or my childhood, it is emotional and moving for me, but then the song is over, and I'm right back to nursery rhyme mood. It's nice. There is a lot to be said for being completely immersed in a thing, and the benefit of that can be great and amazing, but a little perspective and a "Rock-a-bye Baby" can go a long way.
A piece of music is always open for interpretation in many different ways; is it possible to get away from our perceptions and simply hear or play the music, or are we constantly interpreting it?
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
re: Does the definition of nature limit music to a product of humans?
I think this answer to Becky-Jo's question depends on our definition of music, too. I always feel arrogant supposing that humans are the only beings that can do something, even if it's true, because I feel like I'm being elitist, or excluding other valuable beings. But, truthfully, actions and sounds made by beings and things in nature (excluding humans) are dictated by instinct and survival alone; they are not creative expressions of purposefully organized sound.
Perhaps we do need to eliminate human action from our definition of nature, as Becky-Jo found, for this purpose. We make sounds and actions instinctively, too, but not in music. We may sing or hum reflexively, but we've learned to do that in certain instances, and I think that is very different from the purpose and instinct of a birdsong. We may use music as a way to communicate something, but it is not the same instinctive reflex as say, yelling if you are afraid, or in pain, is a way to communicate.
For these reasons, I think music (by our working definition) is indeed a product of humans alone, and as all art, not made by beings and things in nature.
Is singing, humming, playing an instrument (even an invented one,) in any small way, natural? How do we make the distinction between what is music and what is instinctive amongst humans? If we speculate that music is a human activity, is it even important for us to make this distinction?
Perhaps we do need to eliminate human action from our definition of nature, as Becky-Jo found, for this purpose. We make sounds and actions instinctively, too, but not in music. We may sing or hum reflexively, but we've learned to do that in certain instances, and I think that is very different from the purpose and instinct of a birdsong. We may use music as a way to communicate something, but it is not the same instinctive reflex as say, yelling if you are afraid, or in pain, is a way to communicate.
For these reasons, I think music (by our working definition) is indeed a product of humans alone, and as all art, not made by beings and things in nature.
Is singing, humming, playing an instrument (even an invented one,) in any small way, natural? How do we make the distinction between what is music and what is instinctive amongst humans? If we speculate that music is a human activity, is it even important for us to make this distinction?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)