Philosophy of Music

[Meridian]

Hello,

I wonder if anyone have anything interesting to say about music. To kick it off I have some questions:

1. What do you think our appreciation of music comes from? Why do many people enjoy listening to music?

2. Music (as far as I know) started with the invention of "drums", drumming. Rhythm is a fundamental part of what we classify as music. Do you have any thoughts on what it is we like (if anything) about rhythm, we we use it, what it is? By "we" here I mean people who listen to or make music.

3. Our tonal system (the relation of one tone to other tones) is based on mathematical properties, on ratios. What sounds like according tones are found to be those that fit to a certain mathematical relation. Naturally, rhythm is determined in similar ways; you have ratios of 4/4, 6/8, etc., constituting time signatures. Would you say that music is an application of mathematics? What is the relationship between music and mathematics?

4. What makes most of us, at least in the west (admittedly an assumption), associate usage of the minor scale indicating some form of sadness in a song? I think this is a common description of music. Of course, the opposite reaction is often evoked by songs where a major scale is used.

5. Why do you think it is that some of us recognize one piece of music (song) as good, while others do not? Why do different people have different tastes in music?

Personally, I have some thoughts that are similar to Wittgenstein's notion of language games, only applied to music. Different genres can be seen as different "language" games, within the larger context of a language game of music. To speak the language of music is similar to play a game with certain rules. These rules are, of course, only implied and evolve constantly with every artist's release. That is illustrative of the splitting of music into different genres; different evolutions of rules.

Now, what the above analogy fails to illustrate is the relationship between music and mathematics.

If you have any thoughts whatsoever on the philosophy of music, or any recommendations, feel free to respond. :)

[Belisarius]

i myself don't know much about the philosophy of music, but famous authors on the subject are Pythagoras, Schopenhauer, Adorno and Ingarden.

[which doctor]

Obligatory reading on this subject is Adorno's essay On the Fetish Character of Music and the Regression of Listening, which unfortunately, I cannot find for you online, though it's contained in the Routledge collection of his essays called The Culture Industry. Of particular note is the dialectic between music as art and music as entertainment, and the ways which capitalism manipulates these characteristics to its own means. Additionally, there's the ahistorical way of looking at music which sees music as nothing other than music, which is an approach neuroscientists have taken in the last 10 years or so. Though, I don't think that really gets you anywhere. A marxist perspective on music needs to be grounded on historical principles if it wants to find any emancipatory potential with it.

[Meridian]

i myself don't know much about the philosophy of music, but famous authors on the subject are Pythagoras,
As far as I know, little amounts of Pythagoras' work is actually archived. What little we know of Pythagoreanism stems from his pupils, or those who attended his "academy".

No doubt Pythagoreanist thought is interesting in relation to music, though. As far as I know, Pythagoreanists thought music in a sense was mathematics. I suppose you could say it is so, but no more than in a representational sense. Anyway, they thought the cosmos corresponded to a certain range of tones, rendering it also mathematical in nature.

This is off-topic, but:
Pythagoras' ideas had a large influence on Plato, and subsequently the entirety of traditional philosophy. I would sooner say Pythagoras is the "founder" of western traditional philosophy than Plato -- though the latter is more accessible today... With Pythagoras lies also a clearer tie between traditional philosophy and the reverence of geometry and abstract forms, which mystics follow to this day. The relation between this and the ruling class' agenda is obvious, perhaps most apparent in Plato's Republic.

This is part of the reason why I am inquiring about the relationship between music and mathematics.


A marxist perspective on music needs to be grounded on historical principles if it wants to find any emancipatory potential with it.
I agree with that.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Music is the devil.

[Steve_j]

On the topic of Pythagoras, acousmatic music gets its name from a teaching technique he used in which he tutored his students from behind a screen (ie they couldnt see only hear him) however the form of music doesnt necessarily revolve around tonal increments tempo or rythm.

Whitch doctor, thanks i am reading the culture industry at the moment, havent got to On the Fetish Character of Music and the Regression of Listening but from what you just said could be of some use for my dissertation. Will check it out.

[blake 3:17]

In the West, music has been pretty resistant to philosophizing. Given the reproducible nature of literature and visual art, their philosophies are much more developed. That may change given the greater and greater accessibility of music via the Internet.

A book, I liked, but found flawed is Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia. Sacks is famous for treating and writing on neurological problems and what they mean more broadly. His book on music has all sorts of interesting bits in it. My problem with it was it pretty much all on classical and jazz, the music he is immersed in, and pays little attention to pop, rock, funk, hiphop and their cousins.

The Left is pretty poor on cultural issues broadly and music especially.

Danny Goldberg, a leftish liberal music exec, has a pretty good book called Dispatches from the Cultural Wars: how the left lost teen spirit. He was involved in putting on some of the big anti-nuclear fundraisers in the early 80s, very resistant to the Tipper Gore music censorship BS, and has a lot of good calls on issues that are way better than what a lot of folks further to the left of him have to say. Here's a salon thingy with him: http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2003/06/17/goldberg/index.html

[¿Que?]

I'm really not up on all the philosophical subjects discussed in this thread. But I will try my best to make an intelligent sounding answer.

Questions 1 & 2 I really can't answer without speculating.

On question three, however, I would point out that the Western tonal system is a lot different than the East. Indian scales have more than seven notes for example. But in a sense you still have a mathematical relation. The point is that between any particular note and its octave, you can divide it up an infinite number of times.

The same applies to rhythm. You have a beat. And between each beat, a whole range of intervening sub beats can be played. And each sub beat can have a sub beat and so on and so on. Then you have a measure, which is basically grouping a certain number of beats together. With that it is possible to construct a time signature.

[Hit The North]

The Left is pretty poor on cultural issues broadly and music especially.


You mean apart from the fact that the Left has dominated cultural studies since the 1970s?

[Meridian]

I'm really not up on all the philosophical subjects discussed in this thread. But I will try my best to make an intelligent sounding answer.

Questions 1 & 2 I really can't answer without speculating.

On question three, however, I would point out that the Western tonal system is a lot different than the East. Indian scales have more than seven notes for example. But in a sense you still have a mathematical relation. The point is that between any particular note and its octave, you can divide it up an infinite number of times.

The same applies to rhythm. You have a beat. And between each beat, a whole range of intervening sub beats can be played. And each sub beat can have a sub beat and so on and so on. Then you have a measure, which is basically grouping a certain number of beats together. With that it is possible to construct a time signature.
Indeed, that is important to note. I may have given a euro-centric presentation of tones/rhythm in my first post here.

I wonder if a scale could be created that's completely disregarding mathematics, in fact, intentionally so. So that you would have a completely random range of frequencies. Wonder if, after a while, it would sound good and "normal" to people?

To me it is very interesting that rhyhtm and tones share this mathematical quality. Rhythms seem to be frequencies as well (this is in the very word "frequencies"), just at a much slower pace than tones, of course.

[Belisarius]

I wonder if a scale could be created that's completely disregarding mathematics, in fact, intentionally so.
if you intentionally disregard mathematics, you are determined by it, since you first see how the mathematical formula works and then disobey it.

[Meridian]

if you intentionally disregard mathematics, you are determined by it, since you first see how the mathematical formula works and then disobey it.
That is true. My point was whether or not our tonal appreciation, and our appreciation of scales, is intrinsically connected to the "golden mathematical ratios" that those tones share between each other (making up the traditional scales). Or, if we could just create random intervals of tones, and stick with em for a while, and people would begin to consider those the "normal" scale?

[Morgenstern]

Our brains are basically very advanced computers. Our reactions can be calculated (sane people anyway), we are quite mechanical. Music is like a piece of hardware that stimulates us. It can stimulate us to feel emotions or to relate. Music, as seen in national anthems, can even shift some people's opinions, if only for a moment. My take on the subject is very mechanical.


1. What do you think our appreciation of music comes from? Why do many people enjoy listening to music?

Music is simply a 'compatible program' for us. If our computer had emotions like we do it would love to run a beautiful, working program. We enjoy it because the sound can stimulate us. Love is the release of chemicals based off of certain stimulation; music follows the same principle. I've cried to a song because the music stimulated those chemicals to react.


2. Music (as far as I know) started with the invention of "drums", drumming. Rhythm is a fundamental part of what we classify as music. Do you have any thoughts on what it is we like (if anything) about rhythm, we we use it, what it is? By "we" here I mean people who listen to or make music.

Simply because a regular rhythm makes sense to us. If we first said 2+2=4 then change it to 2+2=5 then quickly change it again to 2+2=6 that would make no sense to a machine. Because normally once you set that 2+2=4 it will be strange to a machine's programming if you say 2+2=5.


3. Our tonal system (the relation of one tone to other tones) is based on mathematical properties, on ratios. What sounds like according tones are found to be those that fit to a certain mathematical relation. Naturally, rhythm is determined in similar ways; you have ratios of 4/4, 6/8, etc., constituting time signatures. Would you say that music is an application of mathematics? What is the relationship between music and mathematics?

Nearly everything can be calculated. I remember I had this one teacher, my classmates were often afraid to talk to her or approach her because she would snap at them for the littlest provocation. But I can't remember her ever snapping at me because I was able to 'calculate' the correct responses, the correct way to approach, etc.



4. What makes most of us, at least in the west (admittedly an assumption), associate usage of the minor scale indicating some form of sadness in a song? I think this is a common description of music. Of course, the opposite reaction is often evoked by songs where a major scale is used.

Simply because that is how it 'calculates' in our heads. That sound stimulates sadness based off our programming. From an evolutionary/historical stand point I'd assume that the minor scale could be seen as the cry of a lone wolf. But a major, booming scale would be the sound of animals trampling or cavemen stumbling around in a fight. This cry of the lone wolf makes us remember our own loneliness or our own sadness. Likewise, the booming sound makes us inspired just as a prehistoric person would have to be roused to act before a stampede destroys him.



5. Why do you think it is that some of us recognize one piece of music (song) as good, while others do not? Why do different people have different tastes in music?

Humans are programmed differently based off of each person. We both have some unifying factors but the nitty gritty is different. Take for example any two related but clearly different programming languages. While the basic concept (mathematics) is the same, what makes the creation 'tick' differs.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

There isn't sufficient evidence to claim all musical appreciate and love both reduce to mathematics. I'm sympathetic to the idea that mathematics might be a way to express that relation. However, that's largely ignoring biological and psychological influences.

Furthermore, I have a strong suspicion culture is a major factor in determining musical preference. It's pretty evident something is going on there. Even political differences seem to exist in certain genres on occasion, though that may be a coincidence.

I wouldn't rule out that there is an objective "best" music. People seem to all disagree. However, modern society is so prone to relativism that I want to shake it. The fact that people disagree says nothing about whether or not something is relative. It just says people are having a hard time agreeing. There could be something wrong with me that contributes to me liking some "bad" music.

I'm inclined to think Beethoven is objectively better than Lady Gaga. However, I also judge "good" based on utilities so it makes things a lot easier.

[¿Que?]

There isn't sufficient evidence to claim all musical appreciate and love both reduce to mathematics. I'm sympathetic to the idea that mathematics might be a way to express that relation. However, that's largely ignoring biological and psychological influences.

Furthermore, I have a strong suspicion culture is a major factor in determining musical preference. It's pretty evident something is going on there. Even political differences seem to exist in certain genres on occasion, though that may be a coincidence.

I wouldn't rule out that there is an objective "best" music. People seem to all disagree. However, modern society is so prone to relativism that I want to shake it. The fact that people disagree says nothing about whether or not something is relative. It just says people are having a hard time agreeing. There could be something wrong with me that contributes to me liking some "bad" music.

I'm inclined to think Beethoven is objectively better than Lady Gaga. However, I also judge "good" based on utilities so it makes things a lot easier.
On the whole issue of "objectively" better music, I tend to lean towards the relativism side. On the other hand, highly repetitive music with no key changes certainly could be considered "simpler". However, one should not conflate "simpler" music with "less authentic" which I think is a concept that surrounds a lot of the debate about what good music is.

[punisa]

Hello,

I wonder if anyone have anything interesting to say about music. To kick it off I have some questions:

1. What do you think our appreciation of music comes from? Why do many people enjoy listening to music?

According to several fidnings, music has been with us since the very beginings.
I believe even first prehistoric "musicians" had some sort of feel for the rythem, tempo etc.

Music seems to be one of our essential feelings from the start.

Music activates the same parts of the brain and causes the same neurochemical cocktail (Serotonin and dopamine) as a lot of other pleasurable activities like orgasms or eating chocolate -- or if you're a gambler winning a bet or using drugs if you're a drug user. Parts of the brain are also activated by the novelty of rhythm. This has to do with the way language has evolved in the brain. Music follow similar patterns to language, so our like for music may be a byproduct of our brains developing the patterns of language.

some interesting info:
http://whatismusic.info/



2. Music (as far as I know) started with the invention of "drums", drumming. Rhythm is a fundamental part of what we classify as music. Do you have any thoughts on what it is we like (if anything) about rhythm, we we use it, what it is? By "we" here I mean people who listen to or make music.


I believe voice was the first instrument, but surely the drums came rather soon.
It's a wild guess, but I'd say we are rythmic creatures.
Take our heart for example, it has a pretty solid "rythem" - otherwise we die.
We walk rythmically, we breathe somewhat rythmically.





3. Our tonal system (the relation of one tone to other tones) is based on mathematical properties, on ratios. What sounds like according tones are found to be those that fit to a certain mathematical relation. Naturally, rhythm is determined in similar ways; you have ratios of 4/4, 6/8, etc., constituting time signatures. Would you say that music is an application of mathematics? What is the relationship between music and mathematics?


I might be trying to push anatomy to far, but I guess it again comes down to the way we are made. Two legs, two arms, two eyes - very symethric actually.
Music also has to be symethric to be enjoyed (by most people)



4. What makes most of us, at least in the west (admittedly an assumption), associate usage of the minor scale indicating some form of sadness in a song? I think this is a common description of music. Of course, the opposite reaction is often evoked by songs where a major scale is used.


This is very interesting. And I haven't got a clue.
But I'm almost 100% sure that no culture can combine pure E minor, A minor and D minor and create a joyful tune.

Hmm... ok, let's see. Minors and Majors are essentially same chords with only one tone moved.
Maybe, just maybe... Majors are more symethric and "complete", hence resemble our bodies (if we agree that my theory from previous question doesn't suck ass), and when we strike a Minor we create some sort of sound deviation from the original.



5. Why do you think it is that some of us recognize one piece of music (song) as good, while others do not? Why do different people have different tastes in music?


Probabbly a million reasons, from the way they were brough up all the way to some individual traits.
There has been a large study which explores one's IQ related to what type of music one listenes too, but I doubt its very scientific.

[Belisarius]

about that last thing: i heard about a study that related music taste to personality traits. it shouwed that people who tend to be narcissistic statistically listen more to electronic music, while metalheads and people who listen to classical music tended to be more friendly and introvert.

[Meridian]

about that last thing: i heard about a study that related music taste to personality traits. it shouwed that people who tend to be narcissistic statistically listen more to electronic music, while metalheads and people who listen to classical music tended to be more friendly and introvert.
I am a little skeptical towards how they frame these sorts of research "findings". How do they know that people who generally listen to electronic music aren't often in occupations that make them more narcissistic, for example? How do they know that the cause is what type of music they listen to, and that it is not just a correlation?

In any case, it is an interesting correlation.

[ZeroNowhere]

about that last thing: i heard about a study that related music taste to personality traits. it shouwed that people who tend to be narcissistic statistically listen more to electronic music, while metalheads and people who listen to classical music tended to be more friendly and introvert.
I have yet to see one of these studies where the examples they give of bands listened to by their supposed 'metalheads' are actually metal bands.

[which doctor]

about that last thing: i heard about a study that related music taste to personality traits. it shouwed that people who tend to be narcissistic statistically listen more to electronic music, while metalheads and people who listen to classical music tended to be more friendly and introvert.
But what's neglected in this 'finding' is the historical formations that are 'electronic music' or 'classical music.' These are not genres in and of themselves, but are rather specific historical developments. The difference between, classical and metal for instance, is not merely a matter of different notes in different rhythms played on different instruments.