Music and Aesthetics

[Musaeus]

To all who think that music is the art of arts.......

I have read a certain amount about music and enjoyed some of Roger Scruton's writing, but am not entirely satisfied by what I have read. I would like to find a way of responding to great music which is not in the form of criticism or just appreciation.

To begin with, can it be shown that music is a finer art than the other arts?

Secondly, how can we adequately describe or express the greatness of music?

[Fivedoughnut]

To begin with, can it be shown that music is a finer art than the other arts?

Difficult question, as everyone possesses unique subjectivity/perspectives with regards to "aesthetically pleasing" - can't help you with that poser, sorry.

Secondly, how can we adequately describe or express the greatness of music?

For me, music is the closest thing to empathic/telepathic-esque communication ever to have evolved in that interim period before we could actually handle language - 'Re-feeling' the emotions of others must make it rank #1 in my personal list of most excellent things!

Here's a few examples:

Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbZYzoidkYU Love

Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XlmJtnzwkY&feature=related Love/Desire

Exhibit C: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THYgeETrkPs Pride

Exhibit D: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjoA5x1eb8Q&feature=related Rebellious Release/Romantic Sensitivity

Exhibit E: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWkITJ0hdWo Exuberance.

:)

[Marcome]

For me, music is the closest thing to empathic/telepathic-esque communication ever to have evolved in that interim period before we could actually handle language

For me an art form gains its purpose in its ability to express and impress unpon the individual a concept or an emotion. Therefore depending on your own personal preference for audio, visual, tactile etc. you can figure out which art form works best for you.

[CanadysPeak]

To all who think that music is the art of arts.......

I have read a certain amount about music and enjoyed some of Roger Scruton's writing, but am not entirely satisfied by what I have read. I would like to find a way of responding to great music which is not in the form of criticism or just appreciation.

To begin with, can it be shown that music is a finer art than the other arts?

Secondly, how can we adequately describe or express the greatness of music?

Listen to it. Play it or sing it. Like sex, music doesn't exist other than in the here and now.

[violet]

Ermm. Nothing exists other than in the here and now.

[Fivedoughnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPOb9NxoYbA&NR=1 .... anyone else feel the same? :)

[0101]

The greatness of music, like writing, is determined by how well it communicates experiences, ideas, or feelings that we cannot communicate, or cannot communicate very well.

Great music reflects the self back at itself, and engenders feelings of being understood, included, and not alone in one's experiences, thoughts, and feelings. This definition of great music relates to Fivedoughnut's "empathic/telepathic-esque communication".

That's the general, universal or objective criterion.

The relative or subjective criterion varies from individual to individual because individuals vary in their experiences, ideas, and feelings.

However, two or more individuals can share, as we know, experiences, ideas, or feelings, and because this is possible it is possible for two or more individuals to share a "taste" in music, or even like the same song (barring, of course, those individuals who share similar tastes in music due to conformity pressures or to be liked).

[Zin5ki]

The relative or subjective criterion varies from individual to individual because individuals vary in their experiences, ideas, and feelings.

To this I have one comment to make. It is not necessarily the case that the subjective criterion of aesthetic merit will itself vary from one individual to another, i.e. be identified as a different criterion in the case of each listener passing a judgement, for it may instead only be true that the matter of whether this criterion is met is subject-dependent.

Consider this simple criterion, itself somewhat emblematic of a subjectivist's claims: Whether a piece of music is great or not is constituted by the listener's approval or disapproval. A subjectivist could suggest that this criterion is a condition to be met by every listener's ascriptions of greatness, but then add that the validity of any such ascription will necessarily depend upon the subject in question.

(Although himself an antirealist interpreted by some as a non-cognitivist, Scruton and his contemporaries would lend no credence to this.)

[0101]

The relative or subjective criterion varies from individual to individual because individuals vary in their experiences, ideas, and feelings.

To this I have one comment to make. It is not necessarily the case that the subjective criterion of aesthetic merit will itself vary from one individual to another, i.e. be identified as a different criterion in the case of each listener passing a judgement, for it may instead only be true that the matter of whether this criterion is met is subject-dependent.

Consider this simple criterion, itself somewhat emblematic of a subjectivist's claims: Whether a piece of music is great or not is constituted by the listener's approval or disapproval. A subjectivist could suggest that this criterion is a condition to be met by every listener's ascriptions of greatness, but then add that the validity of any such ascription will necessarily depend upon the subject in question.

(Although himself an antirealist interpreted by some as a non-cognitivist, Scruton and his contemporaries would lend no credence to this.)

When I said "subjective criterion", I meant it in the very literal sense - a personal criterion for what constitutes great music. Used in a sentence: "My (subjective) criterion for what constitute great music is...(this is where I would insert what I, personally, look for when evaluting a peice for its greatness)."

I know what you're saying, but what you've actually done in reworking my idea of a subjective criterion is turned it into a general criterion. Admittedly, proposing the existence of two criterion on my part for greatness is redundant, but my purpose in doing it was to draw attention to the fact that although what each individual specifically looks for when evaluating the greatness of a piece varies (Is it fast? Does it have a good beat? Is it sober? - the answers to all these questions vary from individual to individual and thus are subjective criterion in themselves), the subjective criterion (or criteria) itself is derived from the more general criterion that great music is that which communicates experiences, ideas, or feelings that we cannot communicate, or cannot communicate very well.

[Lomax]

I guess you could argue that cinema is finer than music, on the grounds that it usually incorporates music. So it's utilizing the powers of music but in conjunction with other things. I wouldn't necessarily take that view but it seems like something persuasive could be made of it.

It is basically impossible to provide a testable proof for an aesthetic preference though (which I think serves as an argument for non-cognitivism, rather than the other way around).

[Zin5ki]

Provided you use the terms 'subjective' and 'personal' in such a way as to assume of them a relation of synonymity, I can grant you your claim, 0101.

You mention that a) the non-aesthetic (or at least disputably aesthetic) properties of a musical arrangement to which a subject may attend in order to evaluate it will vary from one subject to the next. This is quite true, and itself a phenomenon through which we can meter such things as preferences.

As you will most probably agree however, this phenomenon must be distinguished from b) the subjective theory that the aesthetic properties of music depend upon a subject's responses or attitudes towards it, and obviously from c) an objectivist view that postulates aesthetic properties existing independently of the listener's selective preferences or responses.

What you call the "general criterion" is perhaps an example of c), albeit one which cites certain general facts about humans, whereas the sort of subjectivity I initially had in mind was that of b) and not a), i.e., a subjectivity of judgement, as distinct from the separate subjectivity of selective attentiveness when approaching a judgement through listening.

[0oqpo0]

To all who think that music is the art of arts.......

To begin with, can it be shown that music is a finer art than the other arts?

I get a bit sceptical when people declare music as the finest artform, simply because there are people who have been deaf their whole lives. How can someone say that a tactile artist or an olifactory artist is less than a musical artist? For some people, this is all they have, and it might be wonderful for them to have these experiences. Like all artforms, the use of it in a traumatic event can cause the event to be relived, and can make the most decidedly beautiful art very ugly. Having a pleasing event during a collectively decidedly unpleasant experience of art can cause the person to appreciate it. Art is weird that way, and we're weird that way.

[MrMikeludo]

Yes, science now confirms the fact that music is finer than all the other arts. The reason is because of biochemicals, and the intrinsic dynamics of music, or the various articulated cadences. Scientific studies have proven that when a person engages in slow continious repetitive movement, they can experience a serotonin biochemical induction. If they engage in quick continious repetitive movement, they can experience an endorphin biochemical induction. Music, and only music, can replicate these affects. A largo tempoed movement, such as the opening stanza of Beethoven's 9th, when cognized, can then induce a serotonin biochemical induction - replicating reality, which affects a: low - dark - heavy - melancholy, emotion, because of the serotonin. A presto tempoed movement, such as the climax of Beethoven's 9th, when cognized, can induce an endorphin biochemical induction - replicating reality, which affects a: high - light (color) - light (mass) - euphoric, emotion, because of the endorphins. Only music can do this, and except for an actual visual musical equivalent, of which there is only one, which was produced by Leonardo da Vinci, entitled: The Annunciation, but which is the equivalent to actual visual musical notation: a mathematical language, which can only be experienced by someone who has also learned the language. The confusion arises, because there is another biochemical, called: dopamine, and which is, almost, everything else, including abstracted musical sounds themeselves, but which requires no cognitive capability to experience.

[emilybaker]

Hey!

I watched an interesting video recently about the specific aesthetic of beat loops and sample.
http://iai.tv/video/beats-loops-and-samples

I think taking the reflection on this new way of doing music might enrich the debate! Sampling can become very complex and there are different readings of this form of music. It's also interesting you think how it relates to changes of paradigm in the arts in general - think of whthe way the principle of the collage has developed as a postmodern form of creativity etc. What do you guys think|?

Hope you enjoy the talk!

Emily.