To get a little closer to the music itself, it would be appropriate to shift the attention from the listener to the author(s).
Although the concept of music is used day by day in different situations to characterize different phenomena, we often do not delve into what this music itself is. There is discussion about what this term might mean in different contexts (for example, when talking about musical design or music), but music itself, that is, what is indicated by this term, is often forgotten.
To paraphrase philosopher Alan F. Chalmers, who asks, “What is this thing called science?” in a book that discusses the nature, status, and scientific method of science, one might ask: What is this thing called music? However, I want to remove the question mark on this occasion, because otherwise I would have to give the answer at the end of the discussion. After all, we know the answer anyway, because to tell the truth the beauty is that everyone seems to know – or at least they think they know – what music is. Since the answer can be based, for example, on intuition, education or habit, the question is above all whether these individual and therefore subjective opinions agree.
To get closer to clarifying the non-question in question we could start with Socrates, who discovered that instead of arguing about words and names, we can look at the things themselves, that is, what we call one way or another. Consequently, you might guess what we are talking about when we talk about music. At this point I deliberately say “discussed” to exclude writing from the beginning, since writing about music is as stupid as dancing about architecture – and this of course also leads the discussion to failure here at the beginning.
Another reason that leads us to leave writing aside is the fact that when we talk about music, we cannot always talk about music recorded in writing. Although I will leave out here when and why music began to be notated, it is not superfluous to point out that first and foremost and in most cases, musical notation was not (is not always now) what defines what music is, because the importance musical notation only came to the fore with the birth of classical music and even today there are many genres that no longer need it in this form (or don’t need it at all).
In the case of music, it is also notable and curious that, unlike, for example, painting, the original object of music cannot be identified in the strict sense, because it is not even known what defines music as such: it is a performance, a notation, recording, or something else. If, for example, the existence of a painting is determined by this physical object, music may appear through the mentioned forms of manifestation, but still exists independently of them. At the same time, access to music – just like other arts – is extremely subjective and when we talk about music, we still talk with our toes, thus creating an absolutely objective point of view out of nothing*.
Music is therefore for everyone and for no one, because from the point of view of the idea almost everyone can experience it (subjectively), but no one can define it (objectively). Therefore, it is impossible to immediately agree with those who consider one music more music than the other: for example, one can take the contrast between classical and electronic music. In the absence of an objective definition, we must look at the phenomenon itself and not argue whether Beethoven’s Fifth or Reket’s “Second” fit better under the warm blanket of the concept of music.
To get a little closer to the music itself, it would be a good idea to shift your attention from the listener to the creator(s). Although no one has so far proposed a universal and universally accepted definition of music, a (relatively elementary) criterion still emerges in the various attempts. It is the request or intention of the creator or author of the music, on the basis of which it can be said that all kinds of manifestations (including silence) created deliberately and consciously under the label of music can be considered music. Although this definition is abstract and sprawling, it leaves the door open to even the most grotesque phenomena that are commonly called music. In other words, this means that the fundamental criterion that constitutes music is the request of its creator, which can therefore be understood as a kind of naming act. Such an approach also allows silence à la John Cage’s work “4’33” to be grouped under the concept of music, or sounds that are at first sight non-musical, which have been intentionally arranged and therefore set to music. It is also important here that one of the simplest definitions of music is ordered sound and that (musical) sound is created as a result of (regular) oscillation of the body.
At the same time, of course, the creator’s intentional creative act is also subjective, in the sense that he has the authority to call everything he makes music. However, with good will and by delimiting the discussion to only some musical genres, it is possible to identify more specific criteria, for example rhythm, melody, harmony, (closed) form, etc., on the basis of which to evaluate the qualification of various phenomena as music , it should be remembered that not all phenomena considered music do not respond all at once. In any case, it is important that, although music has many forms of expression, ranging from free improvisation to popular and sacred music, music as such tends to be understood and conceptualized primarily from the perspective of art and/or of pop music, because for various reasons these are the ones we encounter most often today. At the same time, we should not forget that such understanding is only a construction formed over time, the scaffolding of which can be influenced by past discoveries as well as new music, yet to be created.
In summary, it is important that the tale we tell about music and its history often overlooks what it is, what is called music, and how this term has come to mean very different things over time. Moving on to the issue itself, that is, talking about music itself, we come to the conclusion that, despite its extreme subjectivity, it is still something that we dare to call music for various reasons. In doing this, however, it is essential to be aware of your own subjectivity and not underestimate that of others based on your own understanding. So instead of arguing about words and names, we might look at the thing itself to understand if and why our understandings differ.
* On the possibility of objectivity see Thomas Nagel, View from Nowhere. Estonian Language Foundation 2015, 360 pages.
Views: 358
If you liked this post, share it with your friends
[LoginRadius_Share]
2024-01-05 07:52:30
what-is-this-thing-called-music-sickle