Music as an art, Music as a science: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Music as an art, Music as a science » Music as an art, Music as a science

Music as an art, Music as a science

Page: 1 2

Music as an art, Music as a science

JChen
sexy time explosion

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 23, 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 180

Posted 12/05/05 - 02:40 AM: Subject: Music as an art, Music as a science	#1
This is actually very similar to the original topic of "When isn't music music," but that thread took a different tangent I didn't want to go down. Anywho, As I listened to Madonna - Hung Up, I really felt aware of the fact that I didn't necessarily want to appreciate the song, but it FORCED me to love it. That got me thinking. What do these producers and songwriters do when they sit down and compose a song? They're clearly not just looking at the music theory of the song. Modern pop is based more around loops than flowing melodies. Instead I think that they are trying to figure out how to psychologically target the mass market. They know how we're going to instinctively react to each sound from the clock ticking to the bass to the synths. They've quantitatively mapped out the optimal rhythm for every song, the optimal harmonics, optimal everything. We can't help it. Human instinct deems that the song must be catchy. So I ask, sort of like that other thread: when does music become a science, instead of an art? Should music ever be a science? Also, if anybody knows of any studies or experiments involving subconscious and /or bodily responses to sound, could you please direct me to them? Thanks.

asadmalik
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 23, 2005
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 12/23/05 - 06:44 AM:	#2
We could try to answer this without getting into the debate of what is art and what is science. An elementary question we should ask ourselves is what makes any auditory tone sound pleasing; it would be better if we try to do so without considering the aesthetic value of harmony. Some tones sound nice, and some don't - and I'm not ready to agree that it has all to do with pitch. There is something about the texture of the visual image a tone produces that makes it sound pleasing. Perhaps you could help me expand on this a bit more and we might be able to find a more scientific way of appreciating art. Cheers, Asad

Ron Harvey
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 22, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 272

Posted 02/05/07 - 04:24 AM:	#3
JChen wrote: What do these producers and songwriters do when they sit down and compose a song? The essence of the skill of an effective performer is to eliminate the ego, to hear and see objectively, as an audience would.

Thoughtless
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 635

Posted 02/22/07 - 11:21 PM:	#4
Eh? The quote you were replying to was about producers and songwriters, not performers.
You down with OPP(Original Poster's Prerogative)?

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 02/23/07 - 04:41 AM:	#5
It should be clear to everyone that pop music is first and foremost, a business. One needs to get the customer addicted to the substance and then withhold it until he is willing to pay big bucks. Notice the similarity to the Starbucks business model?
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Henrik
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Sweden
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 28

Posted 03/03/07 - 04:15 PM:	#6
1)Listen to number one hits for five weeks. And take notes. You have to make a simple structure for the hit, refrain and not much more. Just find something old you like and copy it. Make some changes in the lyric and music. 2)Find a hook, something that breaks the pattern and forces people to listen. 3)Become a millioner. Rules taken from an interview with Bill Drummond the auther of "the Manual" that talks about "How To Have A Number One The Easy Way". Bill Drummond played in the british band KLF and is known for burning up a million pounds (literally) If the rules above is the science of music or proof that modern hit music is tragical? Don't ask me.

Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29

Posted 03/04/07 - 02:28 AM:	#7
I've got a few things to say on this subject, which I'll try and keep a brief as possible. First of all, there seems to be an assumption common to all the above posts that 'commercial' music is somehow void of artistic merit - the high profit margins, the overbearing marketing campaigns, the ubiquity (Bars, shops, lifts etc) all tend to lead people to the conclusion that 'pop' music's commercial edge somehow undermines any claims to artistic merit. I generally consider this to be fallacious. I'm not necessarily saying that pop music is commensurable with your Beethovens (etc), but that it is incredibly difficult to write a successful pop tune. I use 'commensurable' here to illustrate that appreciating one form of music requires different qualia, different modes of appreciation - personally, the enjoyment I get out of Girls Aloud or Madonna or Abba (etc) is not the same as the enjoyment I get out of, say, Japanese noise or Congolese Soukous or European Romantic music (etc etc). The appreciation of pop is not a bad thing - I find it interesting that JChen says s/he was 'forced' to enjoy a song. Now, assuming you're of average intelligence and moderate aesthetic awareness, how can you possibly be 'forced' into anything? You have control over your own mind, you have control over your own appreciation, no-one is making you enjoy the song, it is you who appreciates the song. If the song doesn't fit into what you think you understand by your aesthetic appreciation, then it is a call for you to alter what you think about your own aesthetics. I understand that, as with any vulgar capitalism (McDonalds, Starbuck etc) the omnipresence of anything can leave a somewhat sour taste, but 'pop music' is not some homogeneous mass foisted upon the market - it is a series of differentiated pieces, personalities, multi-media aesthetic experiences (the song is often tied to a video, website, tour etc) and the point is not to discriminate against all pop music for being the result of vulgar capitalism but to personally decide which aspects of it you appreciate. I'm not ashamed to admit that I adore commercial pop music, just as I drink mass-produced wines and beers and I smoke mass-produced cigarettes and I buy mass-produced bread etc. The sticking point for many people is often that music is an art-form, and should therefore be exempt from commercial concerns - my personal take is that art is art wherever it is. I remember reading an interview with Iggy Pop where he said something to the effect of, "You can stick a diamond anywhere, you can stick it up your ass, but it'll still be a diamond" and I think that's pretty true. [Pop was referring to his music being used in adverts] My second point is that I disagree with the assumption that commercial pop music is 'simple' and the general sense that 'anyone could make it'. First of all, especially in the Madonna brand's case, the production is often superlative. The musical content is, admittedly, not the most complicated, but one has to understand that in the era of recording being the prime means of producing music, the emphasis on timbre, note production, levels, vocal production (etc etc) over-rides the previous notions of 'musical content' in the sense of counterpoint etc. That isn't to say the latter is absent or unimportant - I refer to my previous point about appreciating different things in different ways. Within the context of pop music, the production is generally of greater importance than the musical content - I would argue that, as criteria of aesthetic 'worth', pop music's emphasis on production forces us to diversify anything which might eventually be called a general aesthetic theory of music. The (tacit) diversity and complexity of pop music lies entirely sublimated. It is, of course, perfect capitalism, but artistically/ aesthetically there is a great deal more complexity to 'pop' music than is often assumed. I can't claim to be an expert on production - while I am a musician, I've thus far managed to avoid getting involved in anything other than 'live documents' - but what little I do know, and have been told by friends on the production side of the music industry, points me to the conclusion that production is a great, great deal more complicated than merely pressing record and sitting back and raking in the rewards. There is a good reason why the likes of Teo Macero, Holgar Czukay, Timbaland, Dr Dre, Quincy Jones, Steve Albini (etc etc) can (or could in times gone by) command high prices for their production duties, and that is not because they are capitalist workhorses who cynically produce hits, but because they are artists who are outstanding within their fields. From a more 'serious music' point of view, I think one of the more important figures of the 20th century was Glenn Gould, who within the apparently resistant world of 'classical music' [nb - I dislike using that incredibly broad term] showed that studio recording is in many ways preferable to 'live' production, this intimating the importance, aesthetically, of production. I've got more to say, but I'd be interested to see what people here make of my thoughts up until this point.

no_more_tomorrow
<2> liv/U must die//

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 30, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 13

Posted 04/02/07 - 08:41 PM:	#8
Well… Did you know that there was a recent study showing that there are many senses in our bodies that actually correlate with each other? I’m sure you are aware of how our sense of smell helps us with tasting foods, but there are other examples. Like, if we were to get a violin, and we played a very high note, then there is a big chance that the hairs in our backs and necks would stand up. But why? Hearing doesn’t have to do with our sense of touch, does it? The answer is actually yes. Composers such as Beethoven would use certain notes and such, so the music they created would have a tingly feeling on our spines. In a way, writing music IS science, because we must experiment with different things to discover what sounds suit certain emotions more. A songwriter probably tries to come up with the purpose of the song, and he/she will try to create music that will blend perfectly with the artist's purpose. Modern music is a little different. Many music listeners actually concentrate a lot in the lyrics. That’s one advantage present day musicians have on the audience. They can give the exact message they want to give to the audience. Back during the Baroque or Romantic Period, the audience would have to interpret the music a lot. You are correct. Psychologically targeting the mass market is pretty much what many musicians are trying to do, but I am not sure if they will admit that so bluntly. Music was always a science. Science means to experiment with different things. Scarlatti experimented with different Harpsichord techniques, and so did many other composers. Composers experiment with what types of music is considered “romantic” or “dance”. Did you know that every Waltz music has the notes divided in threes? Music has a lot to do with numbers too. Music can also be experimented by how it appeals to the audience. I guess you can say many songwriters have experimented quite a bit to figure out which songs appeal to the audience like they do presently.
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.~ Eleanor Roosevelt >> Rarely do great beauty and great virtue dwell together.~Petrarch >> He who does not know how to be silent will not know how to speak.~Ausonius

aegger
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 132

Posted 04/03/07 - 02:03 AM:	#9
I see it as a defined structure (by the musician). Granted, certain songs aim at playing purely harmonic notes with a standard 4/4 time sig., because that's what's easy to "bounce to". We can have 10/4 or 11/8 or whatever we want as a time sig. and this is a definitive mold for the creation (making it somewhat scientific). We know how harmonics work and that can be proved through science. These things change quite a bit about creating a song/piece. Of course, music appreciation is really up to the listener. Personally, I look for creativity with ability and feeling. I like people who mix things up with their music, are capable musicians, and can help you feel what they're expressing through their music. The only way I see pop music as most likely failing is in the category of creativity or originality. Also, it's important that whoever is performing (contemporary music) is also involved in writing or adding ideas to the songs they play (this goes back to feeling, it's hard to feel what you play if no emotion was involved in creating the music). This opinion is biased since I tend to like Classical (this is a case that differs as far as hearing a musician play, since it's many musicians), jazz, jam. In general, I will appreciate many songs by all sorts of people (including pop-writers), but they usually fit the things I tend to look for. Also, I look for these things because I've realized these things give me the greatest amount of joy in appreciating a piece of music. Edited by aegger on 04/03/07 - 02:10 AM

Megalopsuchos
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2007
Location: Portland
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 122

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/09/07 - 07:15 PM:	#10
I think the question is another type/token one. Jerrold Levinson give different answers to this question. What I would like to examine is whether or not music is an already existing sound structure, in some sort of logical space. And if it is not, what is it? I find modal logic and possible worlds to be one of the best ways of thinking about this. Well, here, let me explain Levinson's view breifly: Levinson is concerned with musical works of art. He agrees with Wollheim, that it is best to think of art in terms of tokens and types. He says that a token of a musical work is an individual performance. What, then, is a type of a musical work of art? One answer is that a type of a musical work of art is a mere sound structure. That is, a musical work is nothing above and beyond an arrangement of sounds. Levinson wants to debunk this. While the sound structure may be a type, it paints an incomplete picture. He suggests three putative criteria to paint a more complete picture. The first criterion Levinson suggests is that a work of art must be creative. If the type of a musical work is a sound structure, then the composer is not really creating the work. The reason is that sound structures may exist somewhere in ontological space. In other words, all sound structures may have always existed ontologically. If this is true, no composition can be creative. For example, Beethoven’s Opus 16 could have been created anytime. Yet, we value Opus 16 precisely because Beethoven composed it. If Opus 16 were composed accidentally, perhaps by a monkey on a piano, then it would not be as valuable. Therefore, creativity is a putative requirement of a musical work of art. The second criterion Levinson suggests is fine individuation. Under the sound structure thesis, if two composers created the exact same sound structure, it would be the same musical work of art. Levinson refutes this. There is a putative fine individuation requirement, that the musical work must include musico-historical contexts. The musico-historical contexts are the cultural, political, musical factors, and so on, that influence the creation of the work. This means that the two composers who compose the exact same sound structure are actually composing different works, because the works are in different musico-historical contexts. Therefore, fine individuation is a putative requirement of a musical work of art. The third criterion Levinson suggests is the inclusion of performance. The sound structure thesis does not suggest any means of performance. When composers compose a musical work, they are already thinking about the kind of instrumentation that will perform it. Specifying means of performance is integral. Therefore, the inclusion of performance is a putative requirement of a musical work of art. Levinson puts these pieces together to paint a picture of a musical work of art. He compares each putative requirement to the sound structure thesis, to show that the sound structure thesis is counterintuitive. While he acknowledges that sound structure is part of a musical work, he thinks that the picture is incomplete. So, he adds his three putative criteria. His picture looks like this: “S/PM structure-as-indicated-by-X-at-t” (175). In this picture, “S” is the sound structure, “PM” is the performing means, “X” is the composer, and “t” is the time. There are performances of the sound structure. Indicating the composer and the time involves the fine individuation and performance inclusion requirements. So, what is a type of a musical work of art? Again, a token of a musical work is an individual performance. There are two different ways of classifying the type. First, there is an implicit type, which is the sound structure. Second, there is an indicated type, which involves the fine individuation and performance inclusion requirements. This type is “X-at-t”, which indicates the token individual performance. I find that Levinson’s strategy is problematic, appealing to our intuitions with his putative criteria. For example, in quantum physics, there is the two-slit experiment, which suggests that electrons are capable of being in two places at the same time. Yet, it is counterintuitive to think that the same thing can be in two places at the same time. Does this intuition mean that electrons do not exist? Levinson argues that we need three criteria, creativity, fine individuation, and performance inclusion, because it is counterintuitive to think that a musical work without them. He is not addressing musical works qua musical works, but musical works qua our intuitions about musical works. As our intuitions do not say anything substantive about nature of electrons, our intuitions might not say substantive about musical works. Therefore, there is a prima facie doubt whether intuitions can say anything substantive about a work of art. If we push Levinson’s dependence on intuitions, the results are also problematic. Take the example of the fine individuation requirement. This criterion says that two composers can never create the same musical work, even if they create the same sound structures, because their musico-historical contexts would be different. Imagine two worlds with two identical sets of musico-historical contexts. In this case, two composers could create the same sound structures in the same musico-historical contexts. Levinson does not consider this possibility. Alternatively, imagine that the two possible worlds have nearly identical sets of musico-historical contexts. Perhaps in one world a relevant historical event occurs one fraction of a second earlier. Is it intuitive to think that such an infinitesimal difference in two sets of musico-historical contexts entails two difference musical works? By virtue of the fine individuation requirement, Levinson would be committed to saying that there are two different musical works. Yet, at this point it is not clearly intuitive that an infinitesimal difference entails a different musical work.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.