re: Does music need to communicate something to be considered intelligent?

     Becky-Jo recently asked a question of intelligence in music, whether music needs to communicate something to be considered intelligent.  I do not think it does.  I think that music most likely always communicates something to each individual listener, but it may be something different than the composer intended to communicate, which may have been nothing.  Yet even if nothing extraneous is communicated, the music remains.  I believe the music, if music, can stand on its own and retain its intelligence without needing to communicate something. 

re: If one's philosophy is both debunked and aided by a single topic, does that increase or decrease the credibility of said philosophy?

     Peter's question brings the answer that perhaps the philosophy in question needs elaboration.  Any philosophy that can both prove itself, and contradict itself, is fascinating, but needs more attention.  Something like that that will receive such attention, and conflicting ideas surrounding it, perhaps can go either way.  Such a situation puts the philosophy's credibility into question, but does not discredit it entirely until further thought can be given.  The evolution of the idea may not have ended, and there may be new circumstances available to shed light on the particular philosophy.





How do we resolve the irony that music exists and is clearly recognizable, yet we find it difficult to define?

re: Do you think computers can create music?

     Sean's question asks if computers can create music, and I think that's complicated because, like he said, computers only put out the programs that humans have entered.  The physical computer, that box sitting on the floor, obviously can't create anything but a surface for a modem and dust, but if you think of a computer as a human composer's tool and instrument, then maybe.  How is programming the computer to make sounds any fundamentally different than plucking out those sounds on a keyboard?  Obviously, the sound quality, and aesthetic quality will be different, but is that enough to discount the computer's sounds as music? 
     If the person programs the computer to make music, it's making music, as an instrument, but not as a creative being unto itself.  But as an object, a computer cannot create music, any more than a rock can.

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?

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?

re: Can an artwork really be considered art if it does not [meet our aesthetic expectations]?

     To answer Sean's question, I would say, first, that what is aesthetically pleasing to one, is not to another, and vice versa.  Aesthetics, while a philosophical discipline and field of study, is an emotional response, making it very subjective.
     Art is a creative expression, whatever form that may take, and all such expressions may not meet our aesthetic expectations.  However, because they are creatively expressed, I do not think they can be discounted, and therefore should be considered art.




With all the subjectivity and emotion of art, can there be a real objective truth in aesthetics, or a true beauty, or are the subjective truths all true?