… …, my example would … …
Do post it. I found an example of the Bach piece mentioned above, and listened to a few minutes. Sounded cheery, but a bit confused… somehow, I associate with speeded up Chaplin movie. I’m similarly curious about your example.
That experiment can’t disprove my claim that music is intelligible.
The onus isn’t on anyone to disprove any of your claims. That’s not how it works.
J
If you’re looking for intrinsic meaning, you’re not gonna find it. Anywhere. Not in language, not in paintings, not in anything. It’s all “extrinsic associations”. That’s the whole point of Rand’s idea of art: if a painting doesn’t reference external reality, it’s meaningless. (she takes it further and says that if a painting/decoration references something vague and as simple as pretty vs. blech, i.e. “oh, that looks nice”, that’s not good enough)
Same with language: it is a system of references to reality. It associates sounds with extrinsic existents/ categories of existents. It has no intrinsic meaning.
I never suggested that music has intrinsic meaning. There is no such thing as intrinsic meaning. Music, like everything else that associates things with meaning, is a means of communicating references (which are to things external to the sound itself). Music does it more directly than other forms of communication, because you don’t have to decipher the association, it reaches you on a perceptual level, and the references are more epistemological (it references thought processes and emotions) than references to objects, like painting. But it still is, obviously, association, not intrinsic meaning. Nostalgic/sad/angry/uplifting/convoluted/free-flowing etc. music isn’t nostalgic because God intended, it’s nostalgic because of some kind of indirect association. We don’t happen to understand how it works (because it’s not a straight up associations like language), we just realize that it does.
I like Rand’s hypothesis that it’s a physiological association, and the result of the species’ evolution, not just a cultural phenomenon. Though, of course, it made no difference if it was predominantly cultural. After all, language seems entirely cultural (though, even there, Noam Chomsky theorizes that it’s not), and we seem to be conveying meaning using it just fine.
Nicky, by “extrinsic associations or hints,” strictlylogical simply meant what Rand meant when talking about not relying on “outside considerations” when attempting to identify meaning in works of art. He and Rand mean that a work of art itself must provide the meaning, and that one’s ability to identify its meaning must not depend on information that is not contained in the work, i.e., information that is outside, external, extrinsic, extraneous, independent, peripheral, alien, separate, etc. Understand? His use of the word extrinsic wasn’t an act of advocating intrinsicism.
J
To get the most out of Bach, you need to invest some time in understanding the era in which he worked. A greatly simplified example of Bach can be seen in the song “Row, Row Row Your Boat…”
Bach takes a basic motif such as Row, Row, Your Boat. and will begin in the Soprano voice. After one complete statement by the Soprano, the Tenor may join in - but at a slightly delayed start point. After the Tenor, the Alto and Bass may follow. In it’s most simple form, this is known as a cannon. There are other such basic forms from the period such as Preludes, Fugues, etc. - each with their own unique forms and rules.
The magic of Bach, and what separate him from other composers of his time and other composers throughout history, was his ability to take fairly basic musical themes (often times not even his own) and to transform them into utterly complex compositions with multiple lines or voices (SATB) all working together in complete (vertical) harmony. What makes listening to Bach so exciting is that it is YOUR ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT in tracing these various forms and lines through their development. Bach’s much truly never grows old and holds up to repeated listening - in part because you never hear the same piece in exactly the same way twice.
This is the nature of Bach’s music (and music of the Baroque era in general). It did not evoke images of real world objects or scenes from every day life. It was in fact, Beethoven’s 6th that was the first to do this type of direct representation.
If anyone is interested, I would suggest buying a copy of Bach’s Partita No. 2 for solo violin (Lara St. John did a wonderful recording of it). It’s first four movements Allemanda, Corrente, Sarabanda & Giga (all unique, musical forms) are brought together in an orgasmic conclusion - the Ciaccona. But you will need to listen to it repeatedly to understand it and get the most out of it. But it’s truly worth the effort.
“What is true of literature and drama’s clear intelligibility and communicative nature has never been true of any of the other art forms.”
The reason I think it’s not true is because abstract thought in general that isn’t linguistic is often, from my experience, is often explained in metaphorical terms. Now, I’d take your point as right in the sense music and abstract art *cannot* be put into the same terms as literature. Similarly, principles of mathematics are a lot more sensible without using any linguistic type of semantics! So, as long as the discussion is in terms of how you react, music is all subjective. If music makes you think of happy memories, that’s really irrelevant, and if that’s the only meaning music has, well, it’s subjective and against what Rand argued for regarding literature. My point is that a case for music as objective and art as communicating can be made, provided that it goes along with principles much like math. Just because people talk about music in especially subjective *terms* doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t objectivity people just don’t know how to describe. That’s the best I can say now given my limited music theory knowledge.
Those quotes are interesting - I’m going to guess the first two are Rand, the last three are someone evaluating abstract art? You didn’t say they all were quotes by one person. I rather like the next to last one, I evaluated a piece of artwork in a similar way for a college assignment several years ago. It was for a Japanese woodblock print, so it wasn’t even abstract, but it could have been. In general I don’t agree entirely with Rand on art. I think she was onto something though, so to speak. As I said before, concretization of abstraction is a fundamental point of art, and I’m not aware of anyone besides Rand who made that point.
Here’s a lecture series that has a lot of thought provoking material on the subject of this thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3HLqCHO08s
I’m sure I’ve posted this before but don’t recall it prompting any improvement in the discourse. I believe the whole thing is on YouTube (I have the DVD’s myself).
In looking for it again I found this, which was pretty famous in its day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o8ilUevygXA
Do post it. I found an example of the Bach piece mentioned above, and listened to a few minutes. Sounded cheery, but a bit confused… somehow, I associate with speeded up Chaplin movie. I’m similarly curious about your example.
I don’t have a specific example in mind. I’d have to look for one, once StrictlyLogical agrees to a definition of what would constitute proof of meaning. Until then, I can’t know for sure if an example will work or not.
But, in the meantime, I can post this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiNIQZN3II
, as an example of a piece of music which, for a REASON, is in perfect harmony with the movements of the person in the video (the movements of the person, I can’t imagine anyone would disagree, fit Rand’s definition of art).
Wouldn’t it be a strange coincidence that something that has no meaning has such a perfect correlation with something that is art?
The onus isn’t on anyone to disprove any of your claims. That’s not how it works.
That’s not how what works?
Nicky, by “extrinsic associations or hints,” strictlylogical simply meant what Rand meant when talking about not relying on “outside considerations” when attempting to identify meaning in works of art. He and Rand mean that a work of art itself must provide the meaning, and that one’s ability to identify its meaning must not depend on information that is not contained in the work, i.e., information that is outside, external, extrinsic, extraneous, independent, peripheral, alien, separate, etc. Understand? His use of the word extrinsic wasn’t an act of advocating intrinsicism.
No, I don’t understand. I doubt you do either. Your post just seems like words put together without any kind of consideration of what they mean.
That’s not how what works?
It’s not how proof works. See, the idea isn’t to assert something without proof and then claim that the assertion is true unless others disprove it. If that were how proof worked, you could assert that invisible magic fairies exist, and everyone would have to accept the statement as representing reality and being true until the time that someone could disprove the existence of invisible magic fairies.
The onus – the burden of proof – is on the person asserting a claim. “Music is an art form according to Objectivism because it complies with the Objectivist criteria of presenting intelligible subjects and communicating its creators’ meanings,” is such an assertion. It is not true by default. It is not true in the absence of proof. It is not true simply because it is asserted to be true.
J
I don’t have a specific example in mind. I’d have to look for one, once StrictlyLogical agrees to a definition of what would constitute proof of meaning. Until then, I can’t know for sure if an example will work or not.
But, in the meantime, I can post this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiNIQZN3II
, as an example of a piece of music which, for a REASON, is in perfect harmony with the movements of the person in the video (the movements of the person, I can’t imagine anyone would disagree, fit Rand’s definition of art).
Wouldn’t it be a strange coincidence that something that has no meaning has such a perfect correlation with something that is art?
As is true with music, you haven’t shown that dance or figure skating qualify as art according to Objectivism’s requirements. You have not shown that subjects and “artists’ meanings” can be identified in the movements of the person in the video.
Also, architecture has not been proven to be an art form by Objectivist criteria. Not only have Objectivists not succeeded in reality in attempting to identify subjects and artists’s meaning it architecture while not having access to outside considerations, but there’s also the additional problem that Rand stated that architecture “does not re-create reality,” and it therefore does not meet her definition of art, which is a “re-creation of reality.”
Additionally, the challenge contained in this post and the failed responses demonstrate that realist still life paintings don’t qualify as art, since Objectivists were unable to identify subjects and meanings in them.
It turns out that very little qualifies as art according to Objectivism’s criteria when they are tested in reality
J
I have reacquainted myself with the chapter in OPAR on Aesthetics. I assume almost everyone here has read it.
I will not walk anyone through the many numerous GENERAL statements about what anything must have, convey, mean, etc. in order to amount to Art according to Objectivism. Although I will not walk anyone through it I encourage everyone interested to refresh your memories of GENERALLY applicable principles and ESSENTIAL FUNDAMENTALS these various statements point to as being the CONCEPT of art according to Objectivism.
My opinion has been strengthened by this material rather than weakened by it.
To get the most out of Bach, you need to invest some time in understanding the era in which he worked. A greatly simplified example of Bach can be seen in the song “Row, Row Row Your Boat…”
Bach takes a basic motif such as Row, Row, Your Boat. and will begin in the Soprano voice. After one complete statement by the Soprano, the Tenor may join in - but at a slightly delayed start point. After the Tenor, the Alto and Bass may follow. In it’s most simple form, this is known as a cannon. There are other such basic forms from the period such as Preludes, Fugues, etc. - each with their own unique forms and rules.
The magic of Bach, and what separate him from other composers of his time and other composers throughout history, was his ability to take fairly basic musical themes (often times not even his own) and to transform them into utterly complex compositions with multiple lines or voices (SATB) all working together in complete (vertical) harmony. What makes listening to Bach so exciting is that it is YOUR ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT in tracing these various forms and lines through their development. Bach’s much truly never grows old and holds up to repeated listening - in part because you never hear the same piece in exactly the same way twice.
This is the nature of Bach’s music (and music of the Baroque era in general). It did not evoke images of real world objects or scenes from every day life. It was in fact, Beethoven’s 6th that was the first to do this type of direct representation.
If anyone is interested, I would suggest buying a copy of Bach’s Partita No. 2 for solo violin (Lara St. John did a wonderful recording of it). It’s first four movements Allemanda, Corrente, Sarabanda & Giga (all unique, musical forms) are brought together in an orgasmic conclusion - the Ciaccona. But you will need to listen to it repeatedly to understand it and get the most out of it. But it’s truly worth the effort.
New Buddha you clearly seem to understand pure Music AS SUCH. If you are familiar also with the Objectivist treatment of Aesthetics, what is your opinion regarding whether or not Music per se, falls within the general/universal concept of Art According to Objectivism?
I don’t have a specific example in mind. I’d have to look for one, once StrictlyLogical agrees to a definition of what would constitute proof of meaning. Until then, I can’t know for sure if an example will work or not.
But, in the meantime, I can post this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiNIQZN3II
, as an example of a piece of music which, for a REASON, is in perfect harmony with the movements of the person in the video (the movements of the person, I can’t imagine anyone would disagree, fit Rand’s definition of art).Wouldn’t it be a strange coincidence that something that has no meaning has such a perfect correlation with something that is art?
That’s not how what works?
No, I don’t understand. I doubt you do either. Your post just seems like words put together without any kind of consideration of what they mean.
Nicky,
Re. the Video
1. Showing a video of a figure skater, dancer, mime or actor, or text, or thematic images or movie, as being compatible with music in a COMPOSITE FORM which due to the combination may meet the requirements of Art according to Objectivism says NOTHING about whether or not INDIVIDUALLY or indeed in any sub-collection, the subcomponents of the composite form qualify as ART independent of the others. Individual words are not art, certain kinds of textual passages and works ARE, individual bits of color or forms are not art, some paintings ARE. There is no necessary logical implication flowing from the status of a whole composite work to its separated components evaluated independently.
2. Making a conclusion based on correlation alone (between something and its separate presentation or combination) and saying it is due to some REASON, as , is no more persuasive than saying the stars mean something AFTER SOMEONE purposefully correlated them with a pattern, i.e. the constellations, or a potato chip being indicative of a God, AFTER SOMEONE purposefully identified one (out of random thousands) as looking like the virgin Mary. Here a choreographer (and possibly the skater) PURPOSEFULLY created a set of movements to coincide with identifiable patterns of music and possible emotions the music could evoke, CREATING the meaning of the combined form.
There certainly IS a reason why the end work has particular non-ambiguous objective meanings presented and recognizable, it was INTRODUCED by PURPOSEFUL presentation of the Choreographer and IS IN the figure skating alone or the combination of skating and music.
THIS does NOT mean or imply that these things are in the content of the music alone.
In any case, at most, the video shows that music has pattern, identifiable structure, and some music evokes general impressions of emotion (sadness, relaxation, excitement, aggression).
No one here has ever denied this.
“What is true of literature and drama’s clear intelligibility and communicative nature has never been true of any of the other art forms.”
The reason I think it’s not true is because abstract thought in general that isn’t linguistic is often, from my experience, is often explained in metaphorical terms. Now, I’d take your point as right in the sense music and abstract art *cannot* be put into the same terms as literature. Similarly, principles of mathematics are a lot more sensible without using any linguistic type of semantics! So, as long as the discussion is in terms of how you react, music is all subjective. If music makes you think of happy memories, that’s really irrelevant, and if that’s the only meaning music has, well, it’s subjective and against what Rand argued for regarding literature. My point is that a case for music as objective and art as communicating can be made, provided that it goes along with principles much like math. Just because people talk about music in especially subjective *terms* doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t objectivity people just don’t know how to describe. That’s the best I can say now given my limited music theory knowledge.
The problem is that metaphorical content is open to different interpretations. “Angela was fire; she was flame,” could be taken to have any number of meanings, good and/or bad.
Those quotes are interesting - I’m going to guess the first two are Rand, the last three are someone evaluating abstract art?
The first of the five was me quoting myself describing the effects and meanings of two abstract paintings. The second and third quotes are Rand’s descriptions, from The Fountainhead, of specific works of Roark’s architecture. Certain people have expressed incredulity and ridicule at my identifying human traits in abstract forms, yet they seem to believe that Rand’s doing exactly the same thing is perfectly reasonable, natural, and not deserving of incredulity or ridicule.
You didn’t say they all were quotes by one person. I rather like the next to last one, I evaluated a piece of artwork in a similar way for a college assignment several years ago. It was for a Japanese woodblock print, so it wasn’t even abstract, but it could have been.
That quote that you like is from Kandinsky (I like it too, and think that it’s very objective in its approach). The Objectivish artist Michael Newberry made some of the same observations (without knowing that Kandinsky had made them previously) in an essay on spatial depth, and Newberry even took the idea a little further in recognizing the importance that context plays in the approach and retreat of colors (that blue, for example, only recedes against the normal natural environment of a blue sky, but not against a different colored background).
In general I don’t agree entirely with Rand on art. I think she was onto something though, so to speak. As I said before, concretization of abstraction is a fundamental point of art, and I’m not aware of anyone besides Rand who made that point.
Kant made the same point.
From Guyer’s Kant:
Quote
…Kant now emphasizes that we are sensuous as well as rational creatures, and therefore need sensuous as well as rational presentation and confirmation of the conditions of the possibility of morality. He explicitly acknowledges this three years after the Critique of the Power of Judgment, when in Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason he asserts “the natural need of all human beings to demand for even the highest concepts and grounds of reason something that the senses can hold on to , some confirmation from experience or the like” (RBMR, 6:109). In Kant’s mind, the deepest connection between aesthetic and teleological experience and judgment is that both give us sensuous images of morality and a feeling of its achievability that can supplement and strengthen our purely — but also merely — rational insight into its demands and the possibility of our fulfilling them.
…Kant’s interest in aesthetic phenomena is precisely his view that the freedom of the imagination that we experience in our encounter with beautiful objects can give us a feeling of the reality of the freedom of the will that we can only postulate within purely moral reasoning, and the natural existence of beauty can give us a feeling that nature is hospitable to the achievement of our moral goals as well, again something we can only postulate in the moral theory of the highest good — aesthetic feelings with an emotional impact that can support the effect of pure reason upon our sensible side.
J
If you’re looking for intrinsic meaning, you’re not gonna find it. Anywhere. Not in language, not in paintings, not in anything. It’s all “extrinsic associations”. That’s the whole point of Rand’s idea of art: if a painting doesn’t reference external reality, it’s meaningless. (she takes it further and says that if a painting/decoration references something vague and as simple as pretty vs. blech, i.e. “oh, that looks nice”, that’s not good enough)
The crux of the misunderstanding here is due to the fact that I am stating: music has NO external conceptual referent, while at the same time ASKING you about the meaning of music… the implication I am making is that either Music has intrinsic meaning (which it can’t) or it is meaningless, which is in fact my allegation.
Such a question “If Music has no conceptual referent(s) at all what can it possibly mean?” is thus somewhat unfair.
Clearly your position is that music can and does (if proper music) have conceptual referents.
Neither of us is an intrinsicist.
I never suggested that music has intrinsic meaning. There is no such thing as intrinsic meaning. Music, like everything else that associates things with meaning, is a means of communicating references (which are to things external to the sound itself). Music does it more directly than other forms of communication, because you don’t have to decipher the association, it reaches you on a perceptual level, and the references are more epistemological (it references thought processes and emotions) than references to objects, like painting. But it still is, obviously, association, not intrinsic meaning. Nostalgic/sad/angry/uplifting/convoluted/free-flowing etc. music isn’t nostalgic because God intended, it’s nostalgic because of some kind of indirect association. We don’t happen to understand how it works (because it’s not a straight up associations like language), we just realize that it does.
You state that music’s referents are more “epistemological” (thought and emotion) than painting’s referents (and I lump drama, literature, dance, mime, music with lyrics, movies as well) which are objects and I will paraphrase, or external concrete’s. You then mention “indirect association” and a list of possible effects “Nostalgic/sad/angry/uplifting/convoluted/free-flowing”.
Here Music achieves X (Nostalgic/sad/angry/uplifting/convoluted/free-flowing) through the auditory system and makes no use of or requires no reference to objects and concrete existents.
Can you reconcile this with the USE of different perceptual/sensory systems to achieve the same effect? This would need to be “indirect” because these other systems are not the same as the music pathway. So for example, if a writer, puts words together NOT to convey concrete ideas, or concepts, or events or anything in particular (in fact using NO SENTENCES) but to evoke (possibly via the subconscious… via “associations”) a sense of sadness? It may take the form of a rambling poem, with words repeated, stuck in at awkward times, reminding one of pain, and loss, and disorientation. Such a things does ALL that music does (general association with thought or emotion) through a different pathway. I submit that Music and this string of words meant to cause a subconscious association and a feeling, with no real concrete existents or conceptual meaning (no sentences whatever), must be treated equally in view of the definition of Art according to Objectivism.
If these are not to be treated equally on what “principle” or “reason” do we distinguish them? What distinguishing attributes or qualities in the works or the effects caused by the works are we to treat as fundamental essentials which makes the difference?
The crux of the misunderstanding here is due to the fact that I am stating: music has NO external conceptual referent, while at the same time ASKING you about the meaning of music… the implication I am making is that either Music has intrinsic meaning (which it can’t) or it is meaningless, which is in fact my allegation.
Such a question “If Music has no conceptual referent(s) at all what can it possibly mean?” is thus somewhat unfair.
Clearly your position is that music can and does (if proper music) have conceptual referents.
I think that’s a correct statement of Nicky’s position. He seems to believe that any emotion that he experiences while listening to music is the referent, even if no one else experiences the same emotion.
I would suspect that Nicky would also take the standard student-of-Objectivism position that the emotions evoked in him while listening to a piece of music are the correct ones, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong, including the composer. If the composer claims to have intended to express something other than what Nicky experienced, then the composer must necessarily be either a bad composer, delusional, unaware of his true sense of life and unintentionally revealing it through Nicky’s interpretations, or evil. Or some combination of all of the above.
If these are not to be treated equally on what “principle” or “reason” do we distinguish them?
The operating “principal” and “reason” at work here appears to be that certain people do not experience a “general association with thought or emotion” in certain works of art, or in certain entire categories of art, and they arbitrarily declare that, therefore, no one else can either, or that anyone who claims to be making such associations is psychological deficient and/or evil.
What distinguishing attributes or qualities in the works or the effects caused by the works are we to treat as fundamental essentials which makes the difference?
The distinguishing attribute and fundamental essential appears to be that certain people cannot believe, and will not believe, that others can have knowledge and aesthetic sensitivities/experiences that they lack. They refuse to believe that others can experience certain abstract art forms as being as meaningful and emotionally fulfilling as Rand believed the abstract art forms of music, architecture and dance to be.
J
It’s not how proof works. See, the idea isn’t to assert something without proof and then claim that the assertion is true unless others disprove it.
Read the thread again.
Strictly Logical and Jonathan, sorry, but your latest posts just contain way too many straw men for me to bother continuing with this. Perhaps in the future, you should stop rephrasing everything someone says before responding to it. Or find someone patient enough to not be annoyed by the tactic. I’m out.
New Buddha you clearly seem to understand pure Music AS SUCH. If you are familiar also with the Objectivist treatment of Aesthetics, what is your opinion regarding whether or not Music per se, falls within the general/universal concept of Art According to Objectivism?
I disagree with many of the positions that Objectivism holds regarding aesthetics. But I also realize that the format of this forum makes it almost impossible to have in-depth discussions regarding those disagreements.
But I also realize that the format of this forum makes it almost impossible to have in-depth discussions regarding those disagreements.
Depends in what sense you mean that. It’s not a philosophy free for all, but it is fair and relevant to discuss your thoughts regarding aesthetics. Although, it is a thin line and other places online are more catered to philosophy in general. Similarly, many philosophers, like Aristotle, can be talked about without being dismissive while applying your thoughts to that philosophizing in terms of existing problems and unique insights.
Strictly Logical and Jonathan, sorry, but your latest posts just contain way too many straw men for me to bother continuing with this. Perhaps in the future, you should stop rephrasing everything someone says before responding to it. Or find someone patient enough to not be annoyed by the tactic. I’m out.
I am disappointed you would simply lump me in with any other forum member. I am not a member of any clique, subgroup, commune, or gang. I addressed you individually as an individual.
Secondly, I am disappointed you would accuse me of adopting a “tactic” as though my statements were disingenuous or intended to deceive.
I find that insulting and disrespectful and in fact not consonant with reality: I was respectfully engaging in an exchange of ideas.
This is below the threshold of normal forum etiquette, and certainly below what I would expect from an Objectivist.
UPDATE: Everyone, I have received no PMs regarding EITHER the example piece of music I suggested, or the video posted/linked to by Nicky.
If I get 4 or more responses in re. either of them I will let everyone know the results.
Do post it. I found an example of the Bach piece mentioned above, and listened to a few minutes. Sounded cheery, but a bit confused… somehow, I associate with speeded up Chaplin movie. I’m similarly curious about your example.
A speeded up Chaplin movie?.. Yikes. I am glad Bach does NOT do for me what it does for you!
Okay, but you still need to explain “meaningless” better. You already said a Mandelbrodt set reminds you of Bach’s work. Doesn’t that imply that there is meaning exactly to the degree a pattern is being concretized? That is an argument *for* music as meaningful. Paintings are like “nothing else”, not any more than a guitar sounds like a person crying. Meaning and intelligibility aren’t purely about specifically what you experience daily. There is even re-creation of reality in the sense reality is *re*presented. So if you want to say Objectivism implicitly denies music as art, get more specific about “meaningless”. That somewhat goes to you too, Jonathan. Why doesn’t music present intelligible subjects? That is, why is it that you think music has no intelligible subject?
By “meaningless” I mean in a general sense, bear with my expressions/words which may not serve adequately to describe it:
Not representing or referring to anything external to itself. By this I mean the music CAN refer to itself in a sense with recursion, repetition, fugue like alteration etc. but CANNOT refer to any external existent.
Words have referents, in fact words are useless in absence of referents, it is their sole purpose. A “word” without a definition/meaning is just set of letters. The sounds and letter sequences of words in another language or prior to anyone’s learning of the word mean and DO NOTHING to a perceiver of it. ONLY once the perceiver/audience of the word is given a definition. TOLD what to associate with the word is there any meaning or referent attached to the word. Now when the word is perceived the perceiver/audience UNDERSTANDS the meaning and moreover can react from that understanding to have emotion, ideas, thoughts etc. The word VIA its definition can convey meaning to a perceiver.
Music on the other hand “directly” causes sensations, emotions. There is no need for a perceiver/audience to be TOLD how to interpret music (in fact this would likely undermine/taint pure music’s effect as music) in order to enjoy or experience the sensations and emotions caused by it. There are no hard and fast objective standard/translator for music, i.e. no dictionary or TOME which would dictate “a rising progression of tones having interval X MEANS ascension in spiritual purity”, or “a repeated rising progression of tones having interval Y and falling back once every 4 tones MEANS diligently overcoming an obstacle toward achievement”. There simply is no dictated norm, or accepted set of rules for what music means because MUSIC IS NOT MEANT to convey meaning. Since music is not already in the form of how we perceive reality, as an audio recording of a busy street or as a painting of a landscape do, IF Music was MEANT to convey meaning, being a creation of man, someone would have to supply the definitions, i.e. there would be some accepted guide for “communicating” meaning, conveying specific referents, with use of specific musical formalisms/patterns. No such thing exists. ALL we are left with is the direct effect Music has on the psyche. At most general feelings or mental moods are directly created and thus the author is limited (in intent) as to what can be invoked in the audience. Please note, when I say music conveys emotion or mental states, I do not mean it is “referring” to mental states or emotions, i.e the music is NOT “saying” happiness or sadness, it is directly CAUSING happiness or sadness.
This direct causation is not “meaning” in the sense that a symbol, word, picture, sentence etc. can mean something by referring to that something.
As for anyone claiming that Music CAN convey specific meaning like “a delicious slice of beef” all I can say is that I am aware of no science and personally have no experience to verify this statement, which falls within what I must identify as the “Arbitrary”.