Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is unthinkingly enjoying music hedonistic?

Rate this topic


Jerry Story

Recommended Posts

Do you think Dvorak’s ninth symphony is music to a baby that doesn’t have any concepts?

Perhaps you should elaborate on the assumption behind this question. For, it seems to me that you have some kind of subjective view of reality, where the subject determines whether something is music or not.

Basically, I don't have a clue what you are asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You are blatantly ignoring the context of my argument…  You speaking does not evoke sense of life emotions and whether or not you have an accompaniment does not change that.

Ah, well, do you understand that evoking sense-of-life emotions is not a requirement for something to be music? And that not everything that evokes our sense-of-life emotions is music?

Ayn Rand included that point not as an essential part of the definition of music, but as an indication of the effect that music has on humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conceptual content of lyrics is related thru definitions to the auditory symbols that are uttered in musical tones with inflections and modulations.  A word that is sung is both musical and literary but it remains a single entity, so this is merely a cross-classification.  If a cross-classification of an entity is possible it means, in context, that the concepts classifying the entity are compatible.  Consequently it is ok to let music have a sub-classification for literature or to let literature have a sub-classification for music; literary music vs. musical literature.  This understanding does not change the definitions of music or literature; it is only recognition that singing provides a context in which music and literature can cross-classify an entity and serves the purpose of specifying the nature of said entity.

I know you probably didn’t get past the second sentence without disagreeing, but I tried.  The key to my way is treating the meaning and sound of a word as an entity; I think this is correct because although their relationship is not intrinsic its function is the keystone to conceptual knowledge.

I have no idea at all what you are trying to say. It reads like rationalist rambling, I keep expecting you to start talking about the monads any moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading this thread, I don’t feel like breaking down everything that everyone has said and responding to each thing individually. Instead I will just present my understanding and people can tell me if they think I am mistaken somewhere.

The broadest concept in this context is sound, the physical sensation produced by the interaction of compression waves with our auditory organs.

I then zoom in a little further and distinguish between sounds with pattern, and sound without.

Sound with a pattern:

1) Music (melody, rhythm, beat, etc.)

2) Auditory symbols(as long as there is a conceptual being that knows them)

Sound without a pattern:

3) Noise (the grab-bag category for anything non-musical and non-symbolic, i.e. non-patterned)

(NOTE: I’m not sure if the pattern/non-pattern distinction is valid. If not the broadest concept of sound can still be broken down into music, auditory symbols, and noise)

We can ignore category of noise, since this discussion has focused primarily on the crossover between music and auditory symbols.

Music is sound combined in a specific type of way, enabling it to trigger man’s emotions directly, without the need of any consciously directed thought at the time. (The ‘how’ is a scientific question. That it does is directly observable).

An auditory symbol is sound combined in a specific type of way, enabling it to trigger man’s emotions indirectly, only after the symbol(s) triggers a concept or group of concepts that are understood then evaluated.

In order for emotions to be triggered from them, auditory symbols require conceptual understanding first, whereas music does not.

All music has to be produced by some sound-making device (instrument), one of which is man’s vocal chords. However all auditory symbols are produced by man’s vocal chords as well, and this enables instances where the sound being produced takes the form of music AND auditory symbols at the same time.

When the situation involves a combination of this sort, the sound can be experienced on two different levels. The first is when emotions are triggered directly by the musical component (which are caused by the vocal and non-vocal instruments that produce this music). The second is when emotions are triggered indirectly by the auditory symbolic component (which are caused by the vocal chords and then processed and evaluated by the listener). The auditory symbol is achieving two different things at the same time. It is a sound functioning as music, and it is a sound functioning as a symbol.

While the totality may be more than the sum of its parts (which is debatable), those parts remain clearly distinguishable as well as what each contributes to the experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should elaborate on the assumption behind this question. For, it seems to me that you have some kind of subjective view of reality, where the subject determines whether something is music or not.

Basically, I don't have a clue what you are asking.

That was a bad example (the one you were referring to) but this brings up something important that hasn’t been clarified yet: An objective definition of music.

So far we have all been refereeing to: “Music employs sounds produced by periodic vibrations of a sonorous body, and evokes man’s sense-of-life emotions.” You have said “non-melodic sounds and noise” are not music and whether something is music isn’t defined by whether it “evokes sense of life emotions” (because that would be relativism). Maybe a more proper definition of music would be:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dicti...ionary&va=music] “vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony”
A while back you advised:
...it would help enormously if you simply acquired a basic knowledge of instruments, scales, chords, melodies, etc. In order to judge music objectively you need to know something about it.

Now I see where you were coming from.

Here is what Ayn Rand said about judging music objectively:

  The formulation of a common vocabulary of music… would require: a translation of the musical experience, the inner experience, into conceptual terms; an explanation of why certain sounds strike us a certain way; a definition of the axioms of musical perception, from which the appropriate esthetic principles could be derived, which would serve as a base for the objective validation of esthetic judgments…

Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music…

No one, therefore, can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others.  Where no objective proof is available, it’s every man for himself – and only for himself.

The nature of musical perception has not been discovered because the key to the secret of music is physiological - it lies in the nature of the process by which man perceives sounds-and the answer would require the joint effort of a physiologist, a psychologist and a philosopher (an esthetician).

The start of a scientific approach to this problem and the lead to an answer were provided by Helmholtz, the great physiologist of the nineteenth century.

So at least this answers the question of “where is a good objective definition of music?” – the answer is there isn’t one.

An auditory symbol can be music. You choose to, “distinguish between the singing and the meaning of lyrics.” My point is the music and the literature present in lyrics are conveyed thru the same sounds and therefore the music and the literature are related (thru the choice to define auditory symbols). A sound can therefore be classified as musical and literary without any problems. Music says the sound, for lack of an objective definition, evokes man’s sense of life emotions. Literature says the sound is a symbol and has a definition. Literary music is specifying musical sounds that include symbols with definitions; literary does not say anything about the physical nature of the sounds (as I think music will one day be able to) only that we consciously use them as symbols. Musical literature says that sounds we use as symbols are musical because they, for lack of an objective definition, evoke sense of life emotions.

To say goodnight here is one more quote on music from AR…

  Music is the only phenomenon that permits an adult to experience the process of dealing with pure sense data.  Single musical tones are not percepts, but pure sensations; they become percepts only when integrated.  Sensations are man’s first contact with reality; when integrated into percepts, they are the given, the self-evident, the not-to-be-doubted.  Music offers man the singular opportunity to reenact, on the adult level, the primary process of his method of cognition: the automatic integration of sense data into an intelligible, meaningful entity.  To a conceptual consciousness, it is a unique form of rest and reward.

I can’t wait to get back to music being a “form of rest and reward.” ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, music can be about death without having lyrics. In classical music, this would be called a "requiem". Music can also evoke images of violence and destruction without lyrics. As far as the difference between music and lyrics, I agree completely with Mr. Speicher's insights.

Those who are still confused might benefit from listening to Dr. Leonard Peikoff's prelimenary lectures on his new DIM hypothesis. Some people seem to be disintegrating the difference between music and lyrics because the two are interrelated. But concepts can be interrelated and still maintain autonomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the original subject....

(Ayn Rand @ Ibid., 55)

  The formulation of a common vocabulary of music… would require: a translation of the musical experience, the inner experience, into conceptual terms; an explanation of why certain sounds strike us a certain way; a definition of the axioms of musical perception, from which the appropriate esthetic principles could be derived, which would serve as a base for the objective validation of esthetic judgments…

  Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music…

  No one, therefore, can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others.  Where no objective proof is available, it’s every man for himself – and only for himself.

Ayn Rand says there is no way to judge music objectively. So for me, music is good or bad according to whether I like it or dislike it. Hedonism is valid for music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand:

Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music…

  No one, therefore, can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others.  Where no objective proof is available, it’s every man for himself – and only for himself.

Alex:

So at least this answers the question of “where is a good objective definition of music?” – the answer is there isn’t one.

I think you missed the meaning of Rand’s statement. In our current state of conceptual vocabulary, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible for music. She is not saying that we can’t form an objective definition of WHAT it is. She is simply saying that we don’t yet have the knowledge to pin down exactly HOW the process operates and therefore WHAT would constitute GOOD music.

Thus a definition of music is very possible; in fact you provided a completely valid one in your post:

Genus: “vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds” …

Differentia: “having rhythm, melody, or harmony”

It is a sound of a specific type of pattern. This says WHAT IT IS, but it doesn’t state WHICH PATTERN IS GOOD, which is all Ayn Rand was trying to communicate.

As I said before, auditory symbols are sounds also (obviously), but the pattern that makes them what they are is different from what makes music what it is. For auidtory symbols, the sound is in a pattern that man has learned to associate with concepts.

It is possible that sound can have both patterns of sound transmitted in the same interval of time. This is called singing, and the phenomenon is called a song (assuming that the vocal element is not gibberish).

‘Lyrics’ refers to the words in a song; it refers to the symbolic element of the song that stands for concepts. The ‘tune’ is the music of the song; it refers to the “vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony”. As long as one recognizes that the entire song may be vocal in nature, then I see no problem here.

PS: I think your use of the term 'literary' is confusing. For me at least, that word implies the presence characters, plot, conflict, resolution, etc. I would be better able to understand your posts if you used a term such as symbolic instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the original subject....

Ayn Rand says there is no way to judge music objectively.  So for me, music is good or bad according to whether I like it or dislike it.  Hedonism is valid for music.

Ha, I completely forgot about the original topic.

Hedonism is emotialism. In practice it means following whatever your emotions tell you to do or to like.

But emotions are the result of past value jugements that you have made, the result of thinking or the lackthereof that you have excercised in the past. If you want to maintain a healthy psychology, It is not wise take your emotions as unanalyzed primaries.

If the value judgements you have made in the past were misguided, then indulging in them by listening to whatever music causes you do respond to them will reinforce errors. Ultimately you are forcing your own psychology out of whack.

For this reason it is important to establish an objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment for music. Given its importance, you should try to approximate one in its absence. There are certain things that can be said, even if they aren't complete. For instance, you can tell yourself that you like a certain piece of music because it is complex, intricate, yet ordered. That it has a good beat. That the vocalist isn't tone deaf.

It is not as though we have NOTHING to go on. Use what you have and don't take the absence of a complete criterion as an excuss to abstain from thought on this issue all together. That I think would be a big mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, music can be about death without having lyrics.  In classical music, this would be called a "requiem".  Music can also evoke images of violence and destruction without lyrics.

Music cannot tell a story, it cannot deal with concretes, it cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon, such as a peaceful country-side or a stormy sea.  The theme of a composition entitled “Spring Song” is not spring, but the emotions which spring evoked in the composer.  Even concepts which intellectually, belong to a complex level of abstraction, such as “peace,” “revolution,” religion,” are too specific, too concrete to be expressed in music.  All that music can do with such themes is convey the emotions of serenity, or defiance, or exaltation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have said “non-melodic sounds and noise” are not music and whether something is music isn’t defined by whether it “evokes sense of life emotions” (because that would be relativism).

Actually, I believe I wrote about "non-melodic speech." Not non-melodic sounds. There is a difference.

Anyway, I'm going to give up on this thread, as I think I've said all I can say on the topic--for right now. And now I find that I am merely correcting other people's misunderstandings of what I wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I believe I wrote about "non-melodic speech." Not non-melodic sounds. There is a difference.

Anyway, I'm going to give up on this thread, as I think I've said all I can say on the topic--for right now. And now I find that I am merely correcting other people's misunderstandings of what I wrote.

I’m sorry for miss-quoting you. We have said a lot of this topic and I agree that there have been a lot of misunderstandings on what has been written. This thread has helped me a lot to develop what I’m trying to say and has shown that I don’t know enough yet prove my point. Because I have learned a lot I am not interested in defending what I said earlier as opposed to figuring out exactly what I’m talking about now. With that, I will leave the direction I’m taking and start a new thread on it soon, since it doesn’t have much to do with hedonism.

So in valediction…

Our differences stem from the point at which a word is sung and whether or not the musical (auditory symbol) component ties the literary (conceptual meaning) component to the classification ‘music’ (or now even visa vera).

I did say this, I was wrong and I stand corrected.

But I’m going to try and re-phrase what I was trying to say.

I think there is a connection between ‘auditory symbols’ and ‘music,’ that is the bottom line of my hypothesis. There is a relationship between language, physiology and music. What is music and how does it relate to how we choose and use auditory symbols in language? I am not trying to classify the “meaning” of lyrics as part of the music itself which is by nature sound, however I do consider using auditory symbols in music a definable characteristic of the music itself (in reference to the actual auditory symbols) and not something totally separate. An analogy I’ve been playing with is: music is to concepts as auditory symbols are to proper nouns (I have not determined how strong this analogy actually is). There is a strong argument that literary is an inappropriate term (for my purposes) but that was never really my point, I used literary because I didn’t see a problem with taking it for what it was worth in context (aka since music refers only to sound the use of literary in the context of music could only refer to the auditory symbols (sounds) used to convey literature (not the literature itself)); I saw this as self-evident while I wrote the contrary, so most of the frustration is probably my fault. Anyways, I don’t know a lot about how physiology relates to music and language, but I believe that is where I will find the answers that I’m looking for. I’ll post a link to a new thread (on music, language, and physiology) once I can think of a good introduction just in case anyone else is interested.

As far as hedonism is concerned I agree with Andrew’s points and don’t think that what Rand said is an argument for music is hedonism. Where we all hedonists before we studied objectivism? Lacking an common objective system of judgment is a little different from what hedonism implies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus a definition of music is very possible; in fact you provided a completely valid one in your post:

Genus: “vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds” …

Differentia: “having rhythm, melody, or harmony”

It is a sound of a specific type of pattern.  This says WHAT IT IS, but it doesn’t state WHICH PATTERN IS GOOD, which is all Ayn Rand was trying to communicate.

For the record Andrew I'm not so sure I provided a "completely valid" definition of music. While the definitions rhythm and harmony do refer to the physical properties of sounds themselves (as well as changes measured over time) they have not been judged in their significance towards music. I don't know if every sound with rhythm or harmony triggers an emotional response (they very well might) so this is exactly why a study involving a physiologist is needed. I think a true definition of music involving what we know to be the conceptual common denominator of music has not been provided. As far as I am aware Ayn Rand never used a definition of music other than 'sounds evoking man's sense of life emotions'. She knew what music did but not why, and I'm pretty sure she had words like 'rhythm' and 'harmony' at her disposal that she could have used to define music objectively if she thought she could provide good objective definition.

*The reason I don’t mention melody is because melody is not defined objectively (aka is defined thru emotional response).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, if music could not be judged objectively, then there would be no actual difference between Richard Halley's Concertos and a modern piece of punk music.

But it can be. It's just that Ayn Rand hadn't discovered the neccesary standards to judge it properly. That is why Ayn Rand said this, which Alex originally quoted:

"The nature of musical perception has not been discovered because the key to the secret of music is physiological - it lies in the nature of the process by which man perceives sounds-and the answer would require the joint effort of a physiologist, a psychologist and a philosopher (an esthetician)."
Ill repeat. Its not that no standard is possible, its that we don't YET have a one. But despite this, there is still SOMETHING to go on, which is why I mentioned this:

... Given its importance, you should try to approximate one in its absence. There are certain things that can be said, even if they aren't complete. For instance, you can tell yourself that you like a certain piece of music because it is complex, intricate, yet ordered. That it has a good beat. That the vocalist isn't tone deaf.

It is not as though we have NOTHING to go on. Use what you have and don't take the absence of a complete criterion as an excuss to abstain from thought on this issue all together. That I think would be a big mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm...there is no link.

Anyway, if music could not be judged objectively, then there would be no actual difference between Richard Halley's Concertos and a modern piece of punk music.

Ummm... there is a link.. it’s the little snap back icon (just like the ones in quotes but it's outside). It is there and it works. Next time I'll make it more visible.

If you read her quote you'll understand how it was taken out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...