GoodOrigamiMan

I am not saying it is the specifics of the words being uttered that creating the music. But the vocal melody is built with specific words. The music is the melody, the melody contains auditory symbols, therefore the music is related to what those symbols represent. The connection between the auditory symbols and their meaning has nothing to do with what makes the music - music, although it is related to the music. An animal having stripes has nothing to do with what makes an animal an animal, but an animal with stripes is now subsumed under your past definition (because you are now aware that some animals have stripes). What is new is the level of you conceptual understanding of animal. So you think I don't agree with you because I don't understand the basics of music? Well that is a little bit conceited. What then is wrong with my basics? This argument is about whether the concept music subsumes lyrics. It is possible to classify lyrics either way; the point is that one way is better than the other (although it is might depend on context). I don't think our disagreement has anything to do with our basics of music, maybe our basics of concepts.

Lyrics are not intrinsic in a human voice, so not really. This is very technical and maybe wasn't made clear enough. Music with lyrics implies the lyrics as a part of the music. As oppossed to saying Music and lyrics which would imply the separation of the two. Some people in this thread would say lyrics affect the 'experience' but not the 'music' itself. So having lyrics or not having lyrics or even changing the lyrics does not make a difference in the context of the 'music' and thus there is no difference between lyrical music and lyric-less music because lyrics have nothing to do with the ‘music’ in the first place.

This is a very bad definition and I'm surprised I have to say why. It says that a song has music and words. I doubt that Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is saying that the sound of the words is the music part and the concepts related to the words are the word part. Its not that deep, you are just manipulating the poor definition that it is to your own ends. If you are singing a song with no other instruments your words are the music. So the definition is: a short musical composition of music and music? The only thing we have learned from this definition is that a song is short. There is music without lyrics, music with lyrics, and music that consists solely of lyrics. [A = music, A + B = music, B = music] I am not saying that there aren’t other components of music; I am singling out the lyrical component of music, which immediately puts this argument in the context of music that has that component. Since you don’t think that lyrics are part of music you cannot even put yourself in this context. Until you recognize that lyrics are a sub-classification of music you can’t tell the difference between music with lyrics and music without. It’s absurd!

To defend what I said here... I was not trying to imply intrinsic meaning to auditory symbols, rather I was trying to reinforce that a symbol is what it is and refers to what it symbolizes. Personal I think there is something wrong with trying to separate symbols from meaning, it defeats the entire purpose of having the symbols in the first place.

I never said that it word is what it symbolizes. But words have to symbolize something. A word is not a word until we say it is, it does not have a conceptual meaning untill we give it one. "A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept." The usage of the symbol is important though, if it doesn't represent a concept the visual-auditory symbol is not a word. All words therefore have a sound AND a meaning, a symbol and a concept. Not any concept, A concept. The nature of a visual-auditory symbol is very different from the nature of a concept. They are separate at first; the point is that we bring them together. A word is the result of a union of a symbol and a concept; one without the other is not a word. You can separate the symbols and concepts of words, but what is the point? Try doing it consistently . Maybe instead of saying 'cannot' I should have said 'should not if you want to able to read, write, speak or listen.' I take it that if you attach a concept to a symbol they are not related intrinsically, but not 'totally separate'? Am I mistaken? You don't need a wedding ring to be in love. The conceptual understanding of a wedding ring is not intrinsic in the ring itself but is given to 'wedding rings' for the purpose of conveying that concept of marriage. You don’t need a symbol to have a concept. But what if some artist put a wedding ring in a sculpture, the question we are having here is whether the concepts we relate to the symbols the artist is using should be interpreted as part of his art. When music artist use auditory symbols should the concepts they symbolize be interpreted as part of their music? I say yes because auditory symbols are bound to what they symbolize and using words in music only adds another dimension to the art (which remains fundamentally music), others seem inclined to disagree.

I think the story should have ended with the executive re-registering as a democrat so he could vote someone into office who would make it illegal to pass children on the street

Recognizing lyrics as a sub-classification of music does not change the nature of her definition of music, it changes the level of understanding of the concept music. If you have the concept Animal, when you realize that Man is an Animal you have not changed your definition but you have increased your knowledge of the concept. Likewise when you realize that words can be musical you have not changed you definition of music. However man has something that no other Animals have (reason) and words have something no other sounds have (conceptual meaning). (this example is coved more thoroughly in ITOE but doesn't mention music obviously) I am not 'smuggling' conceptual meaning into music, that's what words do. Words that are musical still have conceptual meaning, they are only music because of how they are presented. Words are defined specifically as the sound AND the meaning. You cannot take the sound then say the meaning is something totally separate. I think you are saying the meaning of a word has nothing to do with the sound of word, which is why you can say there is a difference between the music and lyrics. I however do not think it's ok to separate the sound of a word from it's conceptual meaning, if you do you have only succeeded in un-defining the word as such.

Yes a concept subsumes all of the characteristics of it's referents. And a more conprehensive category of music (music with lyrics) has the characteristic of conceptual meaning. If you sing a song, the words trigger a direct emotional response (this is why it's music). The words also have a conceptual meaning. THEY ARE THE SAME WORDS that are creating the direct emotional response. Just becuase they are doing two things at once doesn't change that they are music. By definition a song is music, it's that simple. Primary conceptual understanding is a property of music provided that the music has elements with conceptual meaning.

I don't think the definition of 'song' really covers all the music containing lyrics. Furthermore I'd say the definition defiantly doesn't say that a song is a combination of music and poetry, rather it implies a song can be either music or poetry. What I see your strategy as is taking an entity (a sung word) and claiming that it is in necessary to look at it in terms of two generalizations. I don't disagree that some lyrics can be classified as poetry but I do not think this is appropriate for most if not all lyrics. Primary conceptual understanding is a property of poetry and a property of some sub-concepts in music. Isn't it detrimental though to the understanding a song if you take the lyrics out of context (out of their element) and interpret them totally poetically? If you classify lyrics as a musical property you retain all the other properties of music and can form an integrated judgment with all the facts before you. I could agree with you if poetry was sub-classification of music but it’s not because it not all poetry has the common denominator of music. While some cross classification is possible I think that if the purpose of classifying music is to reach an understanding, it is more rational to create sub-classifications of music rather than jump ship to and swim to Generalization Island.

First... I made a mistake when I said Ayn Rand’s definition of music was incomplete. Her definition is general; it does not include primary conceptual understanding because not all music has it. But that does not contradict that some music does, and for such music primary conceptual understanding becomes a measurable quality. Music can have a primary conceptual understanding, just like an animal can have stripes; however it would be misleading to say that music has primary conceptual understanding or animals have stripes (because this implies that primary conceptual understanding and stripes are characteristics of the concept music and animal respectively/ they are really qualities of sub concepts of music and animal). Second... The complete quote from the Romantic Manifesto is: Maybe the second half will help. Third... Are you saying that in a man you see some rationality and some animal? I think music is the most general classification we are working with here. Lyrics are a quality of some music. Lyrics have primary conceptual understanding. Therefore some music has primary conceptual understanding. As for your sandwich I'd say that music is the sandwich not the peanut butter. You can sing one word. It is music because it evoked a direct emotional response. However you also had a primary conceptual understanding of the word. This doesn't change that it is music though; it just calls for a sub-classification of music into music with such understanding and music without. This understanding is a dependant of the word chosen. If the word was spoken and not sung it would be poetry. But as long as it falls under the general classification of evoking an emotional response with sound it is music. Primary conceptual understanding is a property of a sub-classification of music; therefore it is very appropriate if not necessary to judge music that has lyrics with their conceptual understandings.

my aim is GoodOrigamiMan i think i'll need a new one though considering how many rational egoists we have here before I started studying objectivism it was EvilOrigamiMan (no joke) hehe, ttfn

That goes without saying because if you didn't understand them you would have no conceptual understanding of them and only a direct emotional response would be possible. But if you agree that lyrics are part of the music, and the lyrics are in a language you understand, then there is a conceptual understanding that takes place and an additional emotional response. The reason why I think lyrics are concerning is because of the horrible philosophy in the conceptual understanding of them. Not many music artists get away with banging on keys of a piano and calling it music, but most of them get away with immense irrationality with their lyrics. What would their philosophy sound like if it was played for what it is? Discord, confused, contradictory?

I agree. How could lyrics not be considered part of the music? It's interesting becuase it means that Rand's definition of the nature of music was incomplete (and false to the extend that it was presented as fundamentaly complete). In music with lyrics, emotions are reached directly from perception and indirectly from perception to conceptual understanding. In terms of judging music, what do you do if you really like a song for the direct emotional response it gives - but your conceptual understanding of the lyrics goes . In this context I wouldn't want to get caught by anyone sanctioning such lyrics by trying to enjoy the song and ignoring them. If a rap song says it's ok to kill cops and you think that's immoral then don't listen to the music for the back beat; wouldn't it be a sacrifice of your values to do so?

Thanks Stephen, you were right. I was curious what an Avatar was. So next question, I was able to reference your quote to clicking reply on your post then editing what I wanted in the quote, I assume this is the best way? Tks Again!

I can't see my personal photo. Why?

Tks Andrew! Sorry about my poor grammer in my introduction. It hurt to re-read it. Anyways, the purpose of this post is to test new picture and signature. If you don't like them now is the chance to mention it before they start poping up in forums! hehe, tty guys l8r! btw how do you put headers on quotes?

It's possible that some confusion is being created by the interpretation of hedonism. The philosophical definition of hedonism is: The first problem is that nothing is intrinsically good. But if we ignore that we can ask: Is there any value to things that are pleasant or have pleasant consequences? Yes, providing that your emotions are rational or in other words providing that your emotions correlate with your mind. If you like music then it is good music (for you). If you're not sure why you like certain music you can backtrack and find out. You could probably learn a little about yourself by using this process. One problem I'm having though is as follows: I like the presentation of a lot of music just not the content, or I like the sound just not what is being said. In such cases I am experiencing emotions from both psycho-epistemological processes at once and there are times when my emotions towards a song are at odds with each other. My problem though is this creates some sort of paradox. Anyways, I always have will always have Classical Music and Japanese Pop to listen to (I don't understand Japanese well enough disagree with what they say !).

Hey everyone. My name is Alex, i'm currently a sophmore at Drexel University and a student of objectivsm. Currently I'm working in Pasadena CA and spending my free time studying philosophy. TTYL!

Before I got into objectivism I was fascinated by Valentine Michael Smith's (a human raised by Martians in Robert Heinlein's novel Stranger in a Strange Land) realization on humor: "I've found out why people laugh. They laugh because it hurts so much… because it's the only thing that'll make it stop hurting." I think most of the things we laugh at are some sorts of injustice. I think laughing agree with Rand that laughing can be moral cowardess. It's been awhile since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but to understand Rand's point of view better it would be good to see what John Galt laughed at. I also agree that laughter has a lot to do with psychology, if I had to guess at it's purpose I'd say laughter fights pain. Empathy should have something to do with it, empathy makes us sensitive to the pain of other people but it would be impractical to have to deal with all of that yourself, laughing could be a way to deal with pain originating from empathy.