Life, The Universe, and Everything: Music and Philosophy

12.14.11: http://jakewesley.blogspot.com/2011/12/music-philosophy-question-and-answers.html

12.16.11I just found this and it is really cool. Check it out:
http://woxo.blogspot.com/2011/12/zombies-mean-end-to-music.html

12.19.11: http://jakewesley.blogspot.com/2011/12/music-and-philosophy-final-musings-of.html

MP Blog 1:

So I've been behind on this which is a shame beacuse I've had so many ideas that i wish I wrote down. I'm not good with remembering to do assingments that are online but here I am and i do remember one of my ideas and maybe I will remember more. I did mention this briefly in class today. I was going to wait untill I had a blog but it was really relevant to what we were talking about. The subject is flim scores. I thought of this back when we were talking about emotions, emotional states, and feelings. Some movies have wonderfully composed scores that can lift you up and inspire you or really make you feel human, some can terrify, some can make you burst into tears and I would not considered those overreactions or accidents as we said. the only way they would be as such is if the next day you were still petrified that the zombies were coming to eat you or the killer was around the corner. You would actually be depressed and really feel bad for the person whose parents died and then their spouse killed his/herself. but in the moment. i beleive that music can be in cases so profound that if done right with the help of visual aids such as in films, one may actually be put in a particular emotional state and not just feel something---that one feels something more than a mere feeling but something profound and truly human which as I have said countless times is one of if not the main purpose of all art forms. A few good examples of powerful scores at least in my opinion are the scores for movies like Pleasantville, Lady in the Water, Neverwas, etc.
Pleasantville: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXinfJK4jHA
Lady in the Water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6QTvgMzE4o&feature=BFa&list=PL0310DB5DAD2E7207&lf=results_main
Neverwas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36YAKngtMzg
for neverwas this is the best video i could find. listen to the background music. it stirs something in me but i can't quite place the specific emotion.

also when i was a kid, before i had seen the movie, I had heard the score to nightmare before christmas and i remember it made me think of falling leaving, cold winds, dark skies, pumpkins, and cider. now all these things are related to autumn and it is funny that without the lyrics the sounds still brought images that were depicted in the film along with the music,

this ties in to what we were talking about today about whether music can be a language. i like what Jacob said about how it is at the very least a form of communication and that there is a difference between communication and language. just as what it means to be social and socializing is very different from simple communication or language. which is why Emil Durkheim would be rolling in his grave if he heard people calling facebook a "social network". Sorry for that digression. anyway. my point is that music certainly can convey more than just certain feelings. it can also convey images for one reason or another. like a xylophone being used to symbolize bones in certain old halloween compositions, for example. as an actual languge it would be quite complex and complicated but would eventually get all of one's points across. it makes me think of that scene in lord of the rings the two towers with the ents (anthro trees) who are talking and say that when they talk they only say important things and therefore take a long time to say them. so music would never be an efficent language but it could substitiute in a bind.

QA's

M+P: Q&A 2

Question: What are some of the problems and prospects of defining music simply as "organized sound"?
There are several real problems with defining music simply as organized sound. The main problem being that the floodgates would open and people could call and classify any organized sound as music. This could include conversation/dialogue, possibly traffic as Cage might argue assuming one could prove traffic is organized, however I see it as random. A great example of calling any organized sounds as music is in the British sitcom Spaced. One of the characters is a raver and as soon as the phone starts to ring, he finds the beat. The he looks at all the other random sounds in the room as part of the music; i.e., the dog chewing on a bone, the coffee pot going off, etc. now in this example it is more like music than simple organized sound in a subjective kind of way. Tires (the raver), finds a beat, rhythm, and harmony in the potpourri of random sounds in the flat. It may not be talented or intentionally created artistic music but it is still music in this context.
Q1: Problems with silence and silence as sound?
One could easily write pages on this topic but I will be brief. By the true original definition of silence, it is the complete absence of all sounds, ambient and background alike. Personally, I do not believe anyone has really heard the sound of silence. Another problem is the limitations of our language: as I just described silence as a thing to be heard, obviously I mean this artistically. To get back on track, the only way one may be aware of what true silence is, one may perhaps use a sensory deprivation tank. However, one still may hear any number of things, at the very least one will hear the blood rushing in one’s ears and if I want to get very existential, one would also still be able to ‘hear’ one’s own thoughts. For people like Cage, when he refers to silence I feel he means the absence of focused sound. For example, turning off the TV, the computer, the phone, etc and just sitting somewhere. One would find there is always some sound to be heard or as Kevin Costner put it in the movie Waterworld, he wanted people to be quiet so one could “listen to the sound of the world”. I accept ‘silence’ as a ‘sound’ if one uses this artistic definition rather than silence as defined as the absence of all sound.

Q2: What about silence in music?
If silence is used in music, does it then become a sound? Surely, it is part of the song or composition unless it is several minutes to hours of silence before or after the music in question. This silence can be part of the piece in an artistic way but it is not sound or music in itself. However, if the silence is used during the music then it is part of the overall music but is still not music or sound in itself. Of course, this brings more questions such as ‘how long can the silence in the music be before it is considered too long and ruins the aesthetic purpose of the music as well as the emotions it is meant to invoke. I would hate to set a general standard on the length of accepted silence or pauses in music however; I am not against using one’s own subjective judgment and consider the ridiculous. For example, a two-week long pause in music would be too long across the board because no one would want to sit thru that and wait for the song to finish. However, seven minutes, although may seem a tad long, may not be inappropriate in certain music.

Q+A 3

Despite widespread inclinations to describe music in terms of (the arousal, expression, or representation of) emotion, the penultimate sentence of Zangwill's essay reads as follows: "The nature and value of music will elude us so long as we are mired in emotion." How does he defend this claim?
            He defends this claim simply by making a precise distinction between emotion and feeling. The main difference being that an emotional state requires an actual object/event to be focused on as if ones dog being hit by a car makes one sad. You FEEL a feeling but you have an emotion. In addition, an emotion is rational while a feeling does not need to be rational. By these definitions, his theory of music and emotion/feeling does indeed make sense. Music can make us feel sad, empowered, or nervous but it does not actually bring us into those emotional states. One the piece is over we are back to our normal selves relatively soon rather than with the dog example, depressed and lamenting for probably several days to several weeks if not longer.

Q1: Are all physical responses to a feeling, emotional accidents and not part of the feelings related to the piece?
            No. for example crying during a touching and sad movie is not an accident. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the write/director/producer intended me to cry during the movie. The same goes for a portrait or a song. For example, the first time I heard Coldplay’s Fix You, I literally bawled my eyes out because I felt something deep, meaningful, and true.

Q2: Feeling via the arts as humanly fundamental?
            I went over this in class but I think it is an important point and it ties into my last question. We go to horror movies, listen to sorrowful music, watch action packed shows like Burn Notice, and read inspiring novels. We do these things not for any specific feeling per se. of course at times we are searching to feel something specific like fear or excitement. However, at the end of the day, the particular feeling is arbitrary. We seek out the arts in their various forms and their various feelings the artists intended for us to feel (Tolstoy) not simply to feel a feeling, but to connect back to something truly fundamentally human. Especially in the modern world of hustle and bustle and the monotonous and the consistent daily routines (Emerson warns us about this), we do not always feel sorrow, true love, etc. Therefore, we go out in search of these feelings to remind us what it is to be human—to relate to other humans and to experience something outside of ourselves. This entire theory is very Aristotelian: to learn about life via external experiences, to lead a life of contemplation to be happy, and staring deeply at a Van Gogh, listening intently to Mozart, or watching a Romero, or reading a Douglas Adams can lead to much contemplating.

Q&A 4

How does Adorno maintain both that music can reflect important social truths and remain autonomous from society?
            This one is slightly more difficult to understand. My interpretation of the readings is that Adorno believes that artists and their art are separated from their personal biases about life. As a true news reporter is meant to simply report what he/she sees without giving personal interpretation, so too does the artist paint, compose, etc, what they see in the world but keep it separate from their own opinions. For example, painting a portrait of a horrific battle scene that perhaps an artist was privy to during a war. This portrait will still be emotionally moving and controversial and it will spark debate, conversation, and contemplation. This also applies to music. The music can report on the emotional turmoil’s of the time but still be separated from the actual feelings, events, and the artist’s opinions. This ties into our discussion the other week on emotion vs. feeling. The conclusion we came to after the readings and discussions was that one may feel something because of an art but it is not a real emotional state. It comes, goes, and is not meant to affect a person on such a level. True it intends to make you think about life and the world and cause you to feel sorrow, rage, or fear but only in the short term. You know that when you leave the theatre, turn off the radio, or move on to the next portrait, those feelings will not be continuing to deeply affect you as if your dog really had died, someone had really insulted you, or that you were in true danger. There is a separation and that is why art is effective. It brings us in and makes us think and feel at the same time giving us the knowledge that we are indeed safe and will not be too affected to function. For example, a depressing movie will not leave one in a depressed state with all the signs and symptoms of depression and if one does end up this way then it is either an accident or the person is already emotionally unstable.
            Can music (and art in general) truly be autonomous from the socio-political significance it can have?
            I see where Adorno is coming from and understand his argument. However, I disagree. As an artist myself (writing), and being one who enjoys art in all its forms (dance, music, film, poetry, novels, painting, sculptures, etc) I feel that an artist cannot truly separate him/herself from the art and from the message the artist intends the art to have. Bringing back the example of the good reporter, these days it is hard to find truly unbiased news. Even liberals who tell it like it is spin it to their advantage. It’s just part of the human condition: wanting to be right and recognized as such and using all anecdotal evidence possible to prove ones point even if that means giving an account in a blinded sort of way. We all use emotive language when we argue and there is rarely a true logical argument to be had these days’ especially in politics and society at large. The same goes for art. I know I cannot separate myself from my writing. This is way I am terrible at research papers involving one to not get personal. I find this makes the writing bland, boring and gives it a monotone when read. I want my words to be full of life. I want the reader to keep reading, to be pulled in by my words and to feel something—anything. I do not care if my paper infuriates them or inspires them, either way I will be getting them to think about things and put things into perspective; just like Socrates on the streets causing trouble. I believe the same can be said of most artists and composures/musicians. They intend to make you feel a certain way or think a certain thing and their art are chosen carefully. The only people who paint war scenes are people who want the public to see what war is really like and maybe feel what the artist feels.
            So can music ever be autonomous?
No. Music, like all other art forms, is entwined with people and the human condition. Music is part of us, who we are, and always will be; there would be no music without people. Music is part of our history, I do agree with Adorno on that. Music is also part of our various cultures and societies and reflects the human race as whole in every facet of life.

MP QA 5

What is the significance of Hamilton's desire to articulate and defend throughout this book "an aesthetic conception of music"?
            Hamilton wants to articulate and defend “an aesthetic conception of music” because he wants to make it clear that music is an art/art form or as he puts it on page 10, “at at least with a small a”’, which his base definition is that it requires skill and aesthetic intention. He argues that the primary purpose of the arts is an aesthetic one. He does not deny that there are other purposes and intentions such as invoking feeling and thought processes but merely wants to define the arts in his book as mainly having an aesthetic component.

Is art’s main purpose an aesthetic one?
            I can agree with Hamilton on this for the most part. Although I believe that invoking emotions and inspiring thought and contemplation are equally fundamental to what art is at the very least alongside aesthetic intention. However, I do understand what Hamilton is getting at. He believes that there is no ugly art and I agree. What I mean by ugly is not that the nature of what the art describes or depicts is ugly but that the actual use of colors or sounds are ugly in that it sounds or looks unpleasing to the common eye. A work of art can be controversial and depict horrific scenes of violence but still be aesthetically pleasing. Just because the content is “ugly” does not mean the way the art was created itself cannot be aesthetically pleasing and possibly beautiful.

Art as a language?
            We talked about this in class the other day and it is a fascinating concept and debate. The answer to this question depends on one’s definition of language. As Jacob said in class, language is different from communication, and like I said in my blog, language and communication are both different from the act of socializing and I gave the example of facebook. As we determined in class, ascribing a letter per tone or a word for every sound would make music as a language very complicated and long winded. However, if we as a species had never began to use words as a language and instead used music we would have had a system that was simple and understood by us. We may not have had a combination of sounds that specifically meant tree but ideas of what was meant and felt would get across to each other just the same and in that respect, music could have been a language but since we chose a different route, we will never see music this way. Also, looking at the quote from the book that started this conversation, it really is a great idea: musicians/composers think in music and in sounds the way writers think in words. This can apply to every field: artists think in colors, chefs/cooks/bakers think in flavors, sculptors think in shapes, etc. Every person has a slightly different way of thinking form every other person and as such, certain creative people think quite different than other people. This explains why we have so many saying on how one is born with talent or without, that certain arts is “gifts”. Artists think in different processes form the general public. In Mozart and the Whale, an autistic girl who paints and composes wants her boyfriend to really understand her art and she wants him to see her music and hear her paintings. That doesn’t make sense to most people; how can one “hear a painting” ?. The point is that creative people think and function differently in the world. This can clearly be seen in the impressionists and abstract artists various works. Hamilton is not saying that artists are superior to the general population because of this. He is simply stating that they see the world in a different light.

QA MP 6

How does Hamilton describe music as simultaneously a. acousmatic, b. acoustic, and c. aesthetic?

Last week, we already discussed how Hamilton maintains music as being aesthetic and this chapter does not contradict that idea in the previous one. However, what may be seen as contradictory is Hamilton describing music as both acoustic and acousmatic. The problem being that acoustic music is “natural” non-electronic/non-synthesized music while acousmatic music is exactly the opposite. However, I don’t think there is a contradiction here and I can see where Hamilton is coming from. Music is multilayered and not easily defined (obviously since we have this class). Music certainly is complicated and I feel it can be both acoustic and acousmatic. If we look at these terms in a more artistic and metaphorical way, it is easy to agree with Hamilton: In a sense, almost all music is “unnatural” if you think about instruments. Instruments are human constructed devices that create aesthetically pleasing sounds when put together thus making music. However, music is acoustic as it is a natural instinct and talent in some that all people crave to at least some degree. Just like we crave, need, and want art (as in paintings, sculptures, etc), so too do we desire music. At least that’s my interpretation on it.

Q1: Muzak as evil?
Hamilton goes as far as to say that all forms of muzak are evil. This is a bit extreme. I get his point but he is still a bit passionate about this. Now muzak may be seen as the down fall of real music but when rockabilly first emerged people said that about it as well (of course rockabilly could still have socio-political redeeming value as well as taking talent with people who write their music, play an instrument and can actually sing but I digress.) Then when heavy metal came along people said that about metal music also. Finally when rap (not old school hip-hop, I’m referring to since year 2000-present rap), many people, including myself, see it as bad music, fake music, or an insult to music. However, muzak is truly a horse of a different color. Now I wouldn’t call it evil as it is a non entity and therefore cannot be evil in itself. However, th people that create it on the other hand could be evil but even that is extreme. At the very least they are misguided individuals who want to make a profit, after all “the business of business is business”. Muzaks purpose is to make you not really pay attention to the music or notice that it is even there. It’s just meant to be background and is designed with you in mind. But not in a good way. It is designed as a feature of a warped capitalistic society used as yet another tool in the arsenal of the conglomerates and corporations to get you to buy more stuff you don’t need. Now I know I seem as passionate about this as Hamilton and I very well might be. However, I wouldn’t call Muzak evil. The concept behind it is evil, but I believe that to be evil is to require intention (there is that word again) and true, muzak defeats the purpose of true music, insults the genre of art in general and so on (and I could go on) but as I said, in itself it is not evil as a thing. No more evil than Facebook is in itself or Ford Pintos. Muzak should never be confused with real music. Even 16-bit sounds from video games is real music when compared to muzak. Video game music is still music at the end of the day while muzak is not and should never be in the same category.
On the subject of intention, talent, and “real music” (all terms used in my last answer), What of the pop of today? What of video game music?
I honesty could go off on this and write a three page paper but I will try to be precise. I was thinking about this the other day while thinking about a clip from the NPR show “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me!” Every week on the show, they feature someone famous for a segment and many times it has been a famous musician. A few years ago Blues legend Lil’ Ed Williams was on. (I’ll post the clip on this week’s blog). To sum up: Peter (the show’s host), asks Ed about the Blues and what makes him sad and it turns out Ed is pretty happy and you don’t need to be sad to play Blues. So Peter asks him if the fact that most of the music most young people today listen to involves people who can’t sing and don’t play an instrument (as well as not writing their own material) and Ed confesses this does make him sad when he thinks about it. So is it still music? Should we call it music? At the very least is it “bad” music? Fake music? On this subject I have a bumper sticker on my car that says “Once there were songs” The company that makes it makes a series of them and is run by an organization whose goal it is to put music back into music and I will post a link to their site in this week’s blog once I check my sticker for the name. Now on this note, is video game music real music? Me and my roommate (Raanan) got into a discussion about this the other morning and I would day there is more talent and intent in some of that than the music Peter Segal was referring to but at times it can be the same if not worse. However, some people do very creative things with only 8-bit sounds and it has a place in the world of art because in my opinion creativity is paramount.

MP QA 7

What is Hamilton's position on "formalism"?
Hamilton discusses formalism throughout the chapter mostly referring to Kant and Hanslick. Kant’s main belief towards music involves “purposeness without a purpose” which we briefly disused in class. It is hard to figure out exactly what Kant meant. In my opinion, this meaning doing something for the sake of doing it. There is only purpose of the thing in it of itself. For example we make music to make music, we make art to make are. There is intention but not meaning in the action. Hamilton, using Kant’s philosophy, makes formalism sound very much like the definition of absolute music. Formalism, being that form rather than anything else is the main way to appreciate the aesthetics of music. From what I can gather and from what I have read so far, I don’t think Hamilton entirely agrees with formalism, it appears he neither fully rejects or accepts it as an approach to music.

Is the “Absolute Value” of music really the absolute value of music?
I fully disagree with the definition we gave fro absolute music. In the book and in class, we defined absolute, in regards to music, as being without distractions. This means, to truly appreciate and understand music, its intent, function, and aesthetics, one must ignore all lyrics and their meanings, block out all images the music brings to mind, and disassociate oneself form the feelings the music causes in a person. In my opinion that is as far away as one to get from the point of music. If one does this to music, one is only left with tones and notes to individually dissect as if to apply a mathematical formula to the composition itself. This misses the point entirely. Music is meant to be felt and bring images and ideas, just as art does. If you took this definition of absolute aesthetic value to portraits, one would be left with only patches of colors, shapes, and lines. Although sometimes, painting only have this in seemingly random order there is usually and underlying message, and if there is no message than the artists intent was to have no meaning and that is meaning in itself (purposeness without purpose). Few people would argue this is absolute art: distraction free. Why then, do we argue it for music? I do agree that to an extent, the reasoning behind using certain tones in unexpected ways and the interesting way a composer may add in an otherwise odd note, that really has little to do with why the music exists, why we need it and crave it and why it is aesthetically pleasing. The song Just What You Are by Aimee Mann, has a beautiful tune—very aesthetically pleasing. However, the tune is simple and repeats continually throughout the song. However, with the very meaningful lyrics, it paints a series picture in one’s head, gives one deep feelings, and has a great message. The song without the lyrics has little purpose. These music artists of course have purpose and intent about why they used the tones and notes that they did, but it has nothing to do with why they made it sound that way. What I am getting at is the real meanings in a song are found in the so-called distractions.

How to define music, simply at this point?
Music does have form and aesthetics, and aesthetics are important. As long as someone somewhere finds it pleasing is could be considered music. To close the floodgates a bit, music also requires form to an extent. One day some creative young person may push the boundaries of what is needed to consider, a piece as music because it follows the form of music (other than silence) and it may still be music. I propose that form is more of a guideline than an absolute rule. Music can be made for music’s sake; this is true, look at the pop industry. However, if the music is in no way creative, is easily generated with machines/electronics involving little or no skill, have no real redeeming meaning and do not give one some feeling that is fundamentally human, I would be hard pressed to consider this music. However, it is music to someone, so I could class this as bad music that more closely resembles Muzak in its level to talent and creativity and in its purpose than typical music.

MP QA 8

What is the significance of the claim that music is "abstract in form, but humane in utterance"?
Music is entwined with being a human. The aesthetics aspect is clearly an abstract one, especially since we are to this day and in this class, trying to define music. Music has always had this mystical view to it that it is something separate and transient from us as people. However, we have also always expressed that music is part of being alive, human, and thinking, especially the empiricists (which this chapter talks a lot about). Music is an essential experience to being human and no human can escape music. Even at the bottom of a dark hole, locked away forever, one can make music in one’s head for entertainment and one will most likely do so. We are all exposed to music practically every day. Hamilton states that “music is "abstract in form, but humane in utterance"” in the introduction to the book but this theme is present throughout the chapters and is one of Hamilton’s underlying themes. To make music is human, to need it is human, but there is something abstract about the music itself. There are even hundreds of songs, ironically, about music. Even music talks about music. This can mostly be seen in songs from musicals the best example of which would be “Music Man”. But even Madonna has a song about music. “Music makes the people come together, Music mix the bourgeoisie and the rebel”

Is music an experience?
This is an easy question to answer: yes. I will most certainly be blogging about this during the week and end up repeating myself quite a bit, however since the other students don’t read my Q/A’s that’s perfectly fine. I am pretty much an Empiricist. Don’t get me wrong, I think reason is essential to contemplation and life as well, I just feel experiences are paramount. I’m an Aristotelian at heart. Music is meant to be experienced. I agree with Hamilton completely on this. Music is meant to be heard primarily, but also can be felt (physically and emotionally), and can bring one profound meanings and images, some people may even argue they can see music, as I have mentioned in an earlier Q/A as well as in my blog. Even “bad” music should be experienced. I am also a proponent of Yin-Yang theory: without ugliness, one cannot know and therefore appreciate beauty. Sam goes for music, with one music one finds unpleaseant, one will have nothing to compare to the music that one does like. One should listen to all forms, styles, and genres of music to truly appreciate good music. Also, one might discover that the music one previously believed to be bad is in fact good with redeeming qualities. I know personally I’m not a big fan of rap and pop but I have heard a few examples of rap that actually are quite decent and for example, Lady Gaga actually has a few really good, emotionally stirring pieces. Now I’m not saying they are on the same level as Schopenhauer, I am simply stating, give things a chance, try new things, live in this world and take it all in.

Is Music Concrete, music?
From what I found online and read of in the book I can form a good interpretation of Music Concrete. (edited after today’s class). I do like it regardless of it being confusing and at first seemingly pure noise, giving it some time and repetition, one can find good in it, as Socrates would say, examine and question everything. I wouldn’t say that in today’s world it is music but it is certainly sound art and it pioneered the field of new genres of music and in that respect, it deserves a place in the art world and in the history of music.

QA MP 9

Hamilton writes: "Music and life are interfused." (p. 145). What does he mean by this claim?
Hamilton, means, simply put, that life is musical, and biology is musical, not music but musical. For example rhythm. Rhythm is inherently biological. Heart beats and breathes takes. We think in rhythmic patterns, and most of our music has rhythm that is very similar to the average human heartbeat. I can think of hundreds of examples off the top of my head—the main score by Goblin in Dawn of the Dead 1978. I agree with Hamilton on this. Rhythm does seem to be linked with every activity of life and that human beings require music, patterns, rhythms, and soothing sounds. Accent puts emphasis on the notes as part of the rhythm making them sound biological. We also do this in speech. Language is all about emphasis, especially the act of socializing. That is why things like Facebook are not social networks. With Facebook, there are no tones, accents, or pitch of voices so it is harder to determine if someone is sarcastic, angry, depressed, etc. unless they actually say, “I’m being sarcastic”. Meter being part of timing in music specifically involving the space between the notes of rhythm that are being accentuated. In life, time and timing is very important. All we are is a segment of time in life really, but I think I am getting too deep for this Q/A.

Can rhythm be separate from life?
I really do not think so. I have been trying to think of examples for a while and have come up with none. Everything really does have rhythm in it—I know this is a generalized statement and that it is best to avoid such things but if one really contemplates on the subject, one will see it is very difficult to separate life from music. The two are so entwined in history, religion, politics, and everything else that people feel are important in their lives.

Music as more than just biologic?
I have been thinking about this for most of the semester and I am still thinking on it slightly. We as humans tend to ascribe a great deal of philosophic, mystical, spiritual, and metaphysical (not the branch of philosophy) to music. We have so many clichés about how music is part of us not just in our DNA but also in our very souls. We believe music can do anything—I mentioned this in my blog in music soothing the savage beast—end a war, start a revolution, keep the peace, lift us up when we are depressed, humble us when we are acting pompous, fix our broken hearts, and countless other things. We sometimes will say that a certain mixture of sounds seem surreal and other worldly. I am not sure if music is mystical but it can certainly be mysterious. We want it, need it, and crave it. Some of us cannot go a day without listening to it; we talk about it, argue about it, and create it on massive scales. It is part of life biologically, but could there be something more to it? This topic deserves a bit more contemplation.

MP QA 10

Explain Adorno's dialectical conception of music.

I still do not have my keyboard in working order so this week’s QA will be a bit shorter than usual. I found this concept of Adorno’s to be a bit more challenging. Essentially, what I gathered is that art in all its forms should be judged only for art’s sake without using any philosophic categories. The main premise of his argument is that “opposites remain unreconciled” despite negating each other and that, this truth will always be regardless of anything else that comes along.

Music as traditional or music as Modern
I just found out my question mark is not working either. Now I am an Existentialist and I do not care much for Realism, however I am not entirely a Modernist either. I feel that music can be valid in its traditional and modern forms. The classics will always have a place in my heart but I am not against trying to push boundaries or being creative. Sure, I dislike most of the contemporary styles of music such as most pop and most rap (which I should point out that most rap is pop and vice versa these days) however that does not mean I am against change or moving forward or anything like that. Music is music—it may not be good music, enlightening music, meaningful music, but is should not be called fake music not real music, at the very least it can be bad music subjectively speaking. That is also what most people mean when they call music fake or not real; they are using the terms artistically to get their opinions across that to them, the music sucks—I am also guilty of doing this in the past. I am in no way a realist but I still enjoy the classics.
Is music ‘social’ fact
Now I was not entirely sure of what he meant by this at first, but this is my interpretation of it. Music is part of our daily lives and is something we always talk about, listen to, and feel is important. What people consider music is typically music. Therefore, even though I do not think that a song where the person does not sing, play an instrument, write the lyrics, or compose the tune is not music, many people do. In addition, music, as I have stated before, is an integral part of life, therefore will always be part of humanity, and thus is a fact of our being.

MP QA 11

What do you think the relations are between imagination, creativity, improvisation, and music composition?
I could literally write a paper on this—several papers in fact, but I will try to sum up. All these concepts are certainly related to each other and they all overlap each other’s meanings. With regards to the first three terms, to illustrate, it is not exactly a spectrum, more like a step ladder. In order to be able to easily improvise on the spot one needs to be creative, and in order to be creative, one must be imaginative or have an imagination. All three things will lead to easier and higher quality music composition than if one were without these abilities, in my opinion. I am not saying that one could not create something aesthetically pleasing using only logic and formula, following the standards of the medium of the art you are creating, but I feel it would not be as good. I am sure that those that study music theory and the math and science inherent who also do not possess imagination, creativity, or the ability to improvise, (I am not saying all in this field lack this things, I am specifically referring to those that don’t) can and do make some fascinating sound art or music. That is not what I am arguing. I am arguing for the artist. If one ever spends a great deal of time in the company of various types of artist, one knows how they talk about their art and their process—it all usually sounds very Platonic. They say things like the ideas come to them when they simply walk down the street, look at the same tree they pass by every day but this day they look at it and there is something different and they are immediately inspired. They talk about the creative flow and their minds eye, etc. The way they talk sounds very lyrical and poetic at times and that in itself seems artistic. The imagination is very important to them for visualizing new ways to do things, which in turn enables their creativity, which then allows for easier flow of different concepts they would not have thought up before. This also allows them to push pass their own limitations, boundaries and rules to let the creative “juices” take over.

Do logic, restraint, and form (as in the typical way in which a certain thing is done) have their place then in artists mind?
Yes. I think reason does have its place when being creative. There are times when one needs restraint or else the message of your piece (in the case that the piece has a message) may get lost on ones audience. Think of a conversation at a table—there are bound to be tangents. Now tangents do help the flow of conversation move on and get to more topics worth discussing. However, it is possible to get so far off course with tangent after tangent that no one remembers what the original conversation was about and the importance of it can get lost. I myself love tangents but they can still eventually stray too far off course. Yes, creativity is paramount; however, the other half of one’s brain is also useful in achieving ones artistic goal.

Is improvisation always a good thing?
I would say more often than not it is but, no, not always. With all the QA’s and blogging, by now I am sure you know I am not really a fan of rap, esp. pop rap. However, Jay Z does a great improvisation of Hard Knock Life from Annie. It maintains the original message and turns it around to express the troubles and turmoil’s of growing up where he did. Last weekend there was even an NPR show featuring him and this song. However, there are times when sampling like this ruins the original song. I do not mean that the original song cannot be listened to or enjoyed; I mean that the remake, cover, or sampling in question takes away so much from the original. I understand the importance and function of improvisation and that it can recreate meaning of the song. That is not my primary problem, though sometimes the songs original meaning and intent is more important and beautiful than the remake gives credit. The other problem is one of aesthetics—most times the improvisations does sound create and is very creative using a piece in a new way but there are times where one does feel that a classic is ruined such as Akons Mr. Lonely.

MP QA 12

Woods writes (the final sentence): "Music is its own revelation and its own (un)truth." Explain what he means by this claim. Make reference to his critiques of Cooke and Langer.

What I got out of Woods theory is, to put it simply, music for music’s sake or music in it of itself. Cooke and Langer (as well as several others we read throughout the semester) have stipulated that music has some purposefulness and\or meaning beyond that of simply existing for art’s sake and brings ultimately nothing to the table other than possible aesthetic appreciation. Wood maintains, of course, that it is true, that we as human beings search for meaning where there is none, and will invent meaning and symbolism where the artist never intended any such meaning. If we go back to Tolstoy, then this artist would seem to be a failure. However, since Woods is stipulating that art (specifically music) can have simple meaning in itself rather than imposed meaning that we apply to it, and, as previously stated, we look for deeper, emotional meaning where there is none to find, anything we come up with is wrong and therefore the fault lies with us and not with the artist. What Wood is trying to say is deeper meaning and purpose is not required as a necessary condition of art.

Can there be art for art’s sake
I do not see anything wrong with this idea. In fact, I fully agree. However, I think that it is more the exception than the rule and that often times it is done t prove that it can be done as with the several examples given in class and in the readings. I also prefer art to have deeper meaning than meaning in itself but that does not prevent me from recognizing and appreciating the aesthetically pleasing art that has no deeper meaning. For example, film. I used to only like films that had some message—something philosophical about them and\or socio-political and that most films that didn’t, were simply trash not worth making that gave good cinema a bad name. However, I have since changed this position and though I still prefer those films with deeper, and higher meaning, I can accept the others for what they are. I think the question I posed should have a rather obvious answer: of course, there can be. Anyone can do anything at any time, it is just a matter of execution and on that note, I move to my next question.

Can an artist separate him\herself from their emotions in order to do art which does not speak to said emotions
We went over this in class and I was defending the artist for their ability to do exactly this. True, they can call on any emotion at any time to create something artistic with said emotion in mind; however, therefore they should also have the capacity to draw upon no emotions to create something for purely aesthetic purposes. Yes, we all feel something at any given time, however, I feel that the artist belongs in the same category as philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and even—they all involve analyzing the actions, events, thoughts, and behaviors of people. When I used the term artist, just now I am talking about the umbrella term, which includes actors, writer’s composers, and all other sorts of artists. They all have this in common with the professions I listed; they all have a greater understanding and passion for people and their various aspects. They all look at various people(s) and person(s) and draw on their own experiences to work out why things are the way they are. So they have it in them to suspend their\personal feelings about something that may be strange to them, they can access any given emotion, and they can utilize none if they choose so.

Music

Defining music is as difficult as defining art. Last semester I defined art in five pages. Terms like these are always tricky because people put their taste into their definitions so they do not have to think of the things they hate or do not take seriously as part of that group. Terms like art, music, justice, beauty, truth, freedom, all the terms on the second row down in Plato’s world of being, are very difficult to objectively define. That being said this is precisely what I am about to do. Since I am an Empiricist, I will be using mainly my own observations and understandings of the art world to try to focus in on what music really is.

Like art, intent is a key component. This is easier for music than art in general if we think of the example of tribal masks. Tribal masks can be seen as beautiful works of art; however, those that made them may not have had artistic intent. Music however, is music and tribal music with all its singing and dancing, even if the main purpose is not musical, music is what it is. Therefore, birdsongs may not be music, they can certainly be musical, but may not be music. I say may not, for I cannot know the minds of birds and therefore cannot know their intent. For all I know Disney was right and birds do make music for music’s sake.

I agree the music does have harmony, rhythm, melody, tones and the like, however, if harmony is absent, for example, the piece can still be musical. At its most basic music is organized sound, not every organized sound of course. Since music is at the very least organized sound with artistic intent, then all music falls under the umbrella term of sound art. Although all sound art is not music.

Music should, and typically does invoke various emotional responses and feelings with the potential to bring up memories relevant to the musical pieces content or that took place while the piece was playing in the background. However, music does not require this to be music, as has been proved repeatedly by various famous composers. Yet, even when no intentional emotional purpose is added to the piece of music, people will still tend to feel certain emotions listening to these pieces and therefore intentional or not, emotion is a typical and sufficient cause of music.

On this note, I move towards meaning. This more applies to lyrical pieces of music such as songs but can still apply to none lyrical pieces as well. Again, music can be created with no meaning other than in it of its self. However, even so, again, people tend to give meaning where there is none, so at the very least the majority looks for and\or finds meaning in most music but music can be created with no meaning, people will just give it meaning anyway. This would also be a sufficient cause.

Silence is not music, I can safely say that for music to be present, so to, must sound be present—this is fundamental.

Aesthetics are also important. Music even devoid of meaning and emotion therefore must at least have some aesthetic value. This is simple, for a piece of music, need only be thought of as aesthetically pleasing by someone somewhere. This condition is the necessary one. Meaning and emotion are slightly more ambiguous but aesthetics as defined as pleasing to someone somewhere is a necessary condition, in my opinion emotion and meaning primarily enhance the overall quality of a piece. Therefore a piece that has this ‘trifecta’ would be fantastic assuming that each of these three conditions are done well—for example, a musical piece that on sound alone could make one cry, that is about hate crimes and all the fear, sorrow, and rage that are involved. Also on the subject of aesthetics, this is quite easy to find with music because the only way music utterly fails is if it causes physical discomfort such as seizures or bleeding from the ears.

In short, concepts like music are hard to define. One is wary of opening the floodgates so that the traffic outside my window is music (it may be musical but that is separate from music) but at the same time one does not wish to limit music so much that any new ideas will never be considered as much. Like art, music should follow the principle of the horizon: criteria to determine what should and should not be music, but that does not eliminate possible future innovations.

Search This Blog

Music and Philosophy