RoR: Forum

Pete [no last name] wrote: "I agree with Mr. Creswell's syllogism that if music is a selective recreation of emotion, and emotions are part of reality, then music fits Rand's definition of art."

Fred Seddon commented: "I disagree with your syllogism. It [commits] the fallacy of composition. Consider this from Kelley's Logic text. If my car gets 25 miles to the gallon and my radio is part of my car, then my car gets 25 miles to the gallon."

Fred, there are two problems with your example. First of all, based on Kelley's example, it should read, "If my car gets 25 miles to the gallon and my radio is part of my car, then my radio gets 25 miles to the gallon." Secondly, that is not the fallacy of composition but the fallacy of division. So let's set that aside and try to untangle Peter Cresswell's (PC's) syllogism a little more carefully.

PC is saying that music re-creates emotion, emotion is part of reality, so music re-creates reality. Now, according to Kelley's example of the fallacy of composition, it would be a mistake to infer that my entire car was made by Motorola just because the radio was made by Motorola. Similarly for PC's fallacious syllogism: it would be a mistake to infer that reality as a whole is re-created by music just because one part of reality (emotion) is re-created by music.

I think this is what you were trying to say, and of course, this is true. However, even though the inference is not valid, that does not mean the conclusion (reality as a whole is re-created by music) is not correct because of some other line of reasoning. I have tried to present that line of reasoning in other posts, and you are welcome to comment on it, which you have not done so far.

What I argue is that, while various things from reality are re-created in art, the primary or fundamental re-creation in art is not of things from reality but of reality itself. In other words, in re-creating reality, the artist is creating another, imaginary world, what Peikoff and I and others call a "microcosm." If there is no microcosm, no imaginary world to view, then there is no artwork, in the sense Rand uses the term.

There are two misconceptions to avoid here:

(1) A re-creation of reality does not have to present an entire world, but it has to in some way mark itself off from this world, so that one experiences one's viewing of it as being not of this world, but of another, imaginary world. So, looking into a picture frame and viewing a still life of fruit definitely counts as viewing an imaginary world, even though one is only seeing fruit and its immediate surroundings. A helpful analogy: when you look through a porthole on a ship, you are seeing the world beyond the ship, even if all you directly observe is a seagull or a cloud.

(2) A re-creation of reality does not have to contain images of concrete objects or people in order to be representational, but it does have to present an imaginary world that contains something, some intelligible content that, in some way, seems to be and act like concrete objects or people. For instance, the 1940s experimental cartoon of the dots that adults, children, and toddlers all interpreted as being characters engaging in goal-seeking and interactive behavior was very abstract, yet it was also very clearly representational. This is how "absolute" music appears to listeners, too. The melodic themes seem to be and act like concrete objects or people, even though there is no specific persons or objects in (aural) view, other than the melodic themes themselves.

I grant that millions of people including Fred, Kivy, and other "sophisticated" thinkers do not have images of specific people and actions as part of their experience of music. I don't either! (Unless prompted to by a set of program notes, etc.) But I think that too many people allow themselves to be talked out of having had a representational experience of music, because they cannot point to Hercules or Salome or the Civil War or a passionate love scene in the music, in way that is not contradicted by someone else's set of specific images. Set the specific images aside and realize that the melodic ideas are the characters in music, and what they do and what happens to them is the plot of music. Yes, this is abstract, but it is also representational!

So, you see, there is a false alternative between the colloquial experience of "absolute" music as being about some specific person (whose image is evoked by the music) and the "sophisticated" experience of such music as not having any referential or representational content at all. I think the "sophisticated" theorists are giving way too concrete-bound a spin to the concept of representational content. (This is in partial answer to Fred's most recent post about the Three Stooges story.)

Finally, how does emotion fit into this framework? Music is no more "the language of the emotions" than is literary drama. Emotion piggybacks on the dramatic or musical entities that one views in a story or piece of music. It is only because a fictional person is presented by a dramatic character that emotions are also presented by a dramatic work of art. And it is only because an abstract, virtual person (no one in particular) is metaphorically presented by a melody that an emotion is also presented by a piece of music.

There are no emotions floating free of some kind of person who has them, neither in reality (a real person) nor in drama (a fictional person) nor in music (a virtual person). Once you understand this, you can jettison Rand's unwieldy, unnecessary, psycho-epistemological hypothesis about music and start viewing music as functioning in essentially the same way as the other dynamic, temporal art: literature.

Rand has been accused of over-generalizing about art from her theory of literature. I think that this is probably about as far from the truth as one can get. In particular, I think that her view of music suffers because she did not sufficiently recognize the essential similarities between music and literature. (I write about this at more length in my JARS essay. Again, I encourage folks to read it. Please support your friendly editor, Chris Sciabarra, and put in an order today for volume 5, number 2 of JARS. :-)

Best 2 all,
Roger Bissell

Post 41

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 9:28pm

I previously wrote: "I could simply say that this is a subjectivist fallacy appealing to majority or mass opinion. If music is mimetic, then Curly who doesn't experience it that way is a stooge; but Curly is not a stooge, because millions of others enjoy it in the same way; thus Curly is not a stooge. Sort of a "50 million stooges can't be wrong" argument, right?"

Fred Sedden commented: "Wrong. Before one can have a fallacy, one has to have an argument since a fallacy is an argument so weak that the premises provide no support for the conclusion. What I told was a story that was designed to catch one unawares and make one reexamine one's own beliefs about, in this case, the nature of music."

Well, Fred, that's not all you did! Right after saying, "Millions of listeners enjoy music just like Curly...I know many people like Curly. Peter Kivy and I for two. Kivy even claims that many sophisticated conductors, performers and theorists listen to music just like Curly."

Now, Fred, this sure looks like an argument: If A (music is mimetic), then B (it is odd to not experience mimesis in music), but not-B (it is not odd to not experience mimesis in music), therefore not-A (music is not mimetic). Now, the fallacy is not in this argument, but in the little-noticed supporting argument for one of your premises, namely, not-B. You are subtly arguing that it is not odd to not experience mimesis in music, because lots of people (including you and Kivy and "many sophisticated" others and "millions of listeners") do not experience it. That is the appeal to mass opinion I was referring to. Do you deny that you were relying on that kind of supporting argument in order to buttress your not-B assumption?

You then said, "But if music were mimetic then Curly would be a real stooge. But he is not. From this a rash person, like Kivy or me, might conclude that music is not a selective recreation of reality."

I have already responded to this in my previous post. But yes, it would indeed be rash to conclude that music does not re-create reality just because it does not re-create specific individuals or scenes. There is abstract (or metaphorical)representation, after all. Melodies seem like and act like people, and one does not have to conjure up the image of a specific person or event in order to experience music in this way.

And yes, I do think that this is the way that the vast majority of people experience music -- unless they have been talked out of acknowledging it by "sophisticated" theorists who perpetrate the false alternative of concrete representation vs. non-representation in music. Just as very few people are tone deaf, very few people are not able to detect "virtual" persons and goal-directedness in music (as in the 1940s experiment with the moving dots I referred to in a previous post).

Best to all,
Roger Bissell

Post 42

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 10:17pm

Thus far, this has been a very thought-provoking and constructive thread for me. Having studied music formally, I have a decent knowledge base on the subject. Oddly enough, though, I have not seriously pondered the nature of music in this manner, and this thread represents the first such attempt to so so. This has been an enjoyable experience trying to hone my views, which I still consider open at this point.

Here are a few of my current thoughts on the matter:

- There is no question that people have emotional responses to music, and it is for this reason that I was eager to accept the idea that music is a selective recreation of emotion. After thinking further, I am now not so sure about this. Having done some composing myself, and having interacted with others who do so professionally, I can tell you that much of the composition process is really just an exercise in experimentation and problem solving. I don't think many composers say, "I think I'm going to recreate a feeling of exuberant joy," and then sit down and write a piece of music.  Rather, a musical idea might begin by a composer hearing a certain melodic fragment in their head, and if the idea interests them enough, they will then sit down (typically at a piano) and explore the idea through a variety of manifestations. The game then becomes how to integrate this idea into a coherent and meaningful whole. This challenge creates a series of problems for the composer: "what sort of chord progressions should underlie this?" "what sort of instrumentation would best capture this?" "do I need contrasting sections or themes?" and so on. Furthermore, I don't know of any composers think of their melodies as characters in a novel or play.

- We hear a lot of talk on this thread about melody, but nothing about harmony and rhythm. I earlier defined music as the concious manipulation of melody, harmony and rhythm into an integrated whole.  Do you believe harmony and rhythm are not capable of abstract representation? For example, is a solo piece for snare drum capable of re-creating reality? If not, is it even art then? Please elaborate.

- Additionally, I think the theory of melodies functioning like characters in a play is easy to understand when you refer to music that has very clearly stated and distinct melodic themes that occur in succession. What is to be said of a fugue, then, where you have two or more separate parts working independent of one another, but neither really has a distinct character or motif unique to it?

Post 43

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:49pm

Good questions, Pete! You wrote:

"There is no question that people have emotional responses to music, and it is for this reason that I was eager to accept the idea that music is a selective recreation of emotion. After thinking further, I am now not so sure about this. Having done some composing myself, and having interacted with others who do so professionally, I can tell you that much of the composition process is really just an exercise in experimentation and problem solving. I don't think many composers say, "I think I'm going to recreate a feeling of exuberant joy," and then sit down and write a piece of music."

I agree, based on my reading and my own experience as a composer and song-writer. Even when (about 20 years ago) I wrote my most emotionally intense songs, I did not start out with the intent to re-create a specific emotion. Instead, I just felt like noodling around on the piano (or trombone) and found some intriguing or satisfying musical fragment to play with, to explore and expand upon. At some point during this "brainstorming" process, the material "took over," so to speak -- i.e., my subconscious began building bigger units and looking for "where to go" with the material. After some amount of trial and error and lots of elbow grease, I would usually end up with a song I was pleased with, lyrics and all. (Occasionally, I have written tunes that seem to defy my best attempts to apply lyrics to them.) But the emotions conveyed by the songs were embodied in the melodic contours and the harmonic and rhythmic patterns in which the melody was developed.

Deryck Cooke has a lot of valuable things to say about this in The Language of Music, so I won't belabor this point here, but I incorporated some of his ideas into a presentation on American popular songs to Jeanie Kennedy's discussion group in San Francisco this past March. Suffice it to say that what the melody does is key to how we respond to it, to the emotions we attribute to the song. As Rand says, it's not as simple an issue as the difference between major and minor (though that does play a role). There is also upward vs. downward melodic motion, rhythmic patterns (end or front-accented and duple vs. triple), and tempo, to name but three important factors. But analyzing which of these factors are strongly operative in a given piece is one thing, and actually using them in the compositional process is another. I tend not to be very explicitly focused on them when I compose. (If, on the other hand, I were to try to compose a "Concerto of Deliverance" or some such piece, I would think a lot more about such things -- and probably be too inhibited to write the first note!)

Pete again: "Rather, a musical idea might begin by a composer hearing a certain melodic fragment in their head, and if the idea interests them enough, they will then sit down (typically at a piano) and explore the idea through a variety of manifestations. The game then becomes how to integrate this idea into a coherent and meaningful whole. This challenge creates a series of problems for the composer: "what sort of chord progressions should underlie this?" "what sort of instrumentation would best capture this?" "do I need contrasting sections or themes?" and so on. Furthermore, I don't know of any composers think of their melodies as characters in a novel or play."

Oh, I completely agree. Composers do not, as a general rule, regard their melodies in this way, any more than authors think of their characters as if they were melodic themes. It is the theorists and critics who see these commonalities or analogies between the two art forms and point them out to the rest of us. Rand was trying to explain how music functions, and I am doing the same; neither of us was speaking as a composer.

What I have argued is not that music is an abstract form of literature, any more than literature is some sort of verbalized music. What the both are, are dynamic, temporal arts that are capable of presenting things that seem to be engaged in goal-directed activity. It just so happens that literary theory got its hands on the concepts of characterization and plot before music did, and that music theorists point out how music does things that are like (in a general sort of way) what literature does. (Also, it goes without saying, I hope that some music is not characterized by goal-directed progressions of events -- but then some literature is not either. For the sake of discussion and clarifying the similarity in the ways that literature and music function, I am deliberately focusing in on dramatic, goal-directed literature and music. Some music is, instead, more like poetry, while yet other music is more like a descriptive, non-narrative passage in a story. Such music is enjoyable, too, as are the corresponding literary forms.)

As a personal note: when I write musical arrangements or compositions, I do it very much in the spirit of Rand's comment, "In a book of fiction the purpose is to create, for myself, the kind of world I want and to live in it while I am creating it." (Journals of Ayn Rand, p. 479) That's also how I perform music. I'm always very conscious of the issue: what kind of (tonal) world am I creating, and do I want to be there? My own personal style/soul thus becomes woven into the pieces I create (or re-create). I have put my own individual stamp on them (for better or worse).

Pete again: "We hear a lot of talk on this thread about melody, but nothing about harmony and rhythm. I earlier defined music as the concious manipulation of melody, harmony and rhythm into an integrated whole.  Do you believe harmony and rhythm are not capable of abstract representation? For example, is a solo piece for snare drum capable of re-creating reality? If not, is it even art then? Please elaborate."

I agree with the idea that music is the integration of melody, harmony, and rhythm. It is lacking something if one or more of these elements are missing. Musical characters (melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic themes), including the sense of melodic motion; musical plot, including the sense of melodic-harmonic-rhythmic goal-directedness—these and other factors work together to create the sense of a musical world.

I don't know about snare drum solos. Generally, I find them boring, but some jazz drum soloists have a true gift for constructing a well-structured, integrated solo, using just the timbres of the various drums, cymbals, etc. and the various possible combinations of rhythmic pattern, volume, tempo, etc. However, such solos are most meaningful (perhaps only meaningful) in the context of a jazz piece within which they are situated as a non-melodic/harmonic interlude. In other words, only in relation to a wider melodic-harmonic context. By itself, without accompanying or surrounding tonal music, a solo drum piece could still be a re-creation of reality, in the sense of an imaginary world. There is a coherent body of patterned sound created by a drummer, and we focus upon it as though we were looking into another world. What we see in this imaginary world, however, is relatively impoverished, compared to the world we see in a piano sonata, a symphony, a song, or a jazz piece with built-in drum solo. A truly genius drummer (or composer of solo drum pieces) could probably transcend what seem like natural limitations to me. I'm open to the possibilities, but skeptical based on experience and (finite) imagination. :-)

Pete again: "Additionally, I think the theory of melodies functioning like characters in a play is easy to understand when you refer to music that has very clearly stated and distinct melodic themes that occur in succession. What is to be said of a fugue, then, where you have two or more separate parts working independent of one another, but neither really has a distinct character or motif unique to it?"

Another very good question! I will refer you to Anthony Storr's Music and the Mind. He says some very clarifying and helpful things in his chapter "Songs without Words." In particular he talks about music that is interesting not due to its being story-like and developmental, i.e., modifying or combining themes to resolve their conflicts or progressing to some expected or unexpected goal, but because of the varied repetition that provides a framework and rhythmic pulse that provides impetus for the musical events to move forward, as in poetry. In a fugue, the separate parts are braided together, rather than stacked up vertically; and when later, more developmentally oriented composers used counter-melodies and/or supporting melodies along with their principal themes, they were adapting techniques invented by the non-(or less-)developmental composers.

I think the important thing to realize is that not all music is like a story, but then neither is all literature. Some literature is non-story poetry, and much music is more like that than like a story. And some literature employs non-story, non-poetic, descriptive writing, and much music is more like that than like a story or a poem. (So-called "tone poems" are actually more similar to landscape paintings or descriptive prose than they are to poems.) I do into this in more detail in my essay in JARS 5/2. (Get it! Read it!)

Best to all,
Roger Bissell

Post 44

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 12:18pm

Roger, I been rather busy lately; hence my non-response. I'm drafting a new story (which you will no doubt misconstrue as an argument) called "Bud and Lou; Art and Sue." So until then let me make some short comments.

"Melodies seem like and act like people, and one does not have to conjure up the image of a specific person or event in order to experience music in this way."

Maybe we're just inside different paradigms. I say that because the above not only seems false, but absurd. That is sometimes the mark of a paradigm difference.
In an earlier post you liken melodies to characters in a novel. First, if Rand is right, people and characters act and say what they act and say because of their premises and moral values. Melodies have neither and it seems silly to me to say that they do.

As far being like characters in a novel; let's see. In most symphonies, the first theme of the first movement only occurs there; not in the second, third of fourth etc. movements. Imagine Howard Roark appearing only in the first part (or movement) of the Fountainhead. What a novel??!! And this says nothing about the insuperable problem of representing "conscious intention." Roark has them, but melodies??!!

As for the supposed argument to majority. Remember, "odd" sometimes means that which differs markedly from what is usual. Moe and Larry are odd in that sense. In order to show that Curly is not odd in that sense I had to point to the millions of people who hear music just like he does. That is how one would prove he is not "odd."

"And yes, I do think that this is the way that the vast majority of people experience music -- unless they have been talked out of acknowledging it by "sophisticated" theorists..."

Another story. This time about my unsophisticated twin granddaughters. When they were five, they would come into my art gallery and I would ask them what one of my paintings was about (they liked the word "about" at that time) and they would tell me with no hesitation. One day I asked them what a piece of absolute music that happened to be playing on my stereo was about and they looked at me like I was an idiot. "Music isn't about anything, Pappap," they said. Some time later we were at the museum and Emma was standing in front of a Mondrian like painting and she volunteered the following comment, "This isn't about anything."
I read all of this as follows. Absolute music and abstract painting aren't about anything. Representational painting is about something.
Strange to say, I agree with my granddaughters and disagree, but with much love, with my favorite trombonist.
Since they, like me, put absolute music and abstract painting together, I sometimes think that if you are right the same could be said about abstract painting that you say about music. Its about something. Pollock's world is Pollock's world as sure as Beethoven's world is Beethoven's world. Would you like this implication of your theory??

Now my position about music may have something to do with my crow. I have a little crow and can't keep many items in focus at one time. When I'm listening to, say, the second movement of Beethoven's 7th, a work that still can reduce me to tears after all these years, it is all I can do to focus on the music. I love and therefore want to fully focus on all three themes in the movement. Theme one is easy since he introduces by itself has it run until measure 27. Then the second theme comes in, (its deceptive and I sometime realize its started only after a half measure goes by). NOw I'm trying to juggle two balls (so to speak). Then in measure 51 he introduces the third theme and its takes all my concentration to keep them in the forefront of my consciousness. I don't have time for heroes and shipwrecks or whatever else people have fantasized is in the music. Isn't the music enough?? Notice I would never ask that about a novel. Novels have a semantic level that music, which is a quasi-syntactical structure, just doesn't have.

Maybe I'm stuck with this. If you are right that would certainly seem to be the case . But music is my favorite art for and it has made my life worth living since I discovered it in the fifties. I can surely imagine worse fates. Amor fati

Anyway, I'll have more to say in my article.

Fred

Post 45

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:44am

Hi Fred,

I latched onto your comment here: "I read all of this as follows. Absolute music and abstract painting aren't about anything. Representational painting is about something.
Strange to say, I agree with my granddaughters and disagree, but with much love, with my favorite trombonist.
Since they, like me, put absolute music and abstract painting together..."

I would be interested in how you could "put absolute music and abstract painting together".
This waves a flag for me. Do you know what would be some of the essential differences between abstract painting and representational painting? I am thinking in terms of content, method, integration, form, and significance of light and color. And how would these aspects relate to absolute music? Do you know John Gage's music? Do you hear significant differences between his music or concepts about music and Beethoven's?

Essentially, I am asking you what are your reasons for , not limited to your 5-year old grandaughters, coming to such a profound asethetic judgement?

Michael

Post 46

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 5:19pm

As a music composition student, I must thank everyone here for this valuable discussion. I would like to give replies on many levels, but I have so much to say that I'm going to do a little digging and possibly flesh out enough material for a full blown thesis on this subject that touches on the nature of art, the elements of music and their integration, how we perceive musical elements, and what can be communicated in terms of those elements. Much food for thought. Keep going.

Adam

Post 47

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 1:11pm

Hi Michael,

I would be interested in how you could "put absolute music and abstract painting together".

On the basis that neither are about anything, i.e., have no semantics. (Although I might be broadening the notion of "semantics" to apply it to painting.

"Do you know what would be some of the essential differences between abstract painting and representational painting?"

The first is not about anything while the second is about something. I looked up the word in the OED and it said, " A material image or figure; a reproduction in some material or tangible form; in later use esp. a drawing or painting (of a person or thing)." I guess I'm not too far from that definition. NB. the allusion to "painting and drawing." I would have been "shocked, shocked" to have the OED example music.

"Do you know John Gage's music? Do you hear significant differences between his music or concepts about music and Beethoven's?"

Do I know Gage (sic)? I'll assume you meant Cage. And I do know him. In fact, his famous (or infamous) 4'33" is the only musical composition that I play as well as Horowitz. Tee hee. Yes, I hear mucho significant differences between him and Beethoven, but I could also say that of Rachmanioff, Gershwin or Zappa. Who do I prefer? No question. My son isn't named Beethoven for nothing.

"Essentially, I am asking you what are your reasons for , not limited to your 5-year old grandaughters, coming to such a profound asethetic (sic) judgement?"

Well, I can't answer this because I disagree with you assessment that it is a profound aesthetic judgement. In fact, it seems so, so obvious, that only someone who was defending a theory would question it. I have more to say about this in the upcoming "Bud and Lou; Art and Sue" coming, maybe in October, to these pages.

Until then,

Fred

Post 48

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 1:19pm

Roger,

I've got to tell you something about the fallacies of composition and division. I seem incapable of telling them apart. Now one might think this causes problems since I teach both of them in Logic, and from Kelley's book. It's so bad that when I was writing my Northrop book back in the early 90s when I was writing about division (or was it composition) I had to keep David's book on my desk in order to avoid confusion.
In class, I lump them together in one fallacy which I call C/D. On the test I also only use C/D. And thus, I avoid problems. Tee hee.

Fred

Post 49

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 1:54pm

Hi Fred,

I did not understand your post. And had trouble with your flippant style...but I am beginning to wonder what you stand for...

I know we are not coming from a similar place.

Michael

Post 50

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 6:03pm

Michael,

"I did not understand your post."

Could you be more specific. Most of it was on the level of plain common sense. Please elaborate.

"And had trouble with your flippant style"

This is a KASS site.

"I know we are not coming from a similar place."

But at least we're both Objectivists.

Fred

Post 51

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 6:44pm

Hi Fred,

In my last message I mentioned that we are not coming from the same place...and I think that is significantly true.

I am reading The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World, in the article Classical Greek Philosophy by Julia Annas she comments about Plato as follows: "He never commits himself in propria persona to any of the doctrines commonly thought of as Platonic; still less does he tell us which of the ideas he discusses are most basic for him and what their relationships are."

In one of your lectures I recall you making a similar comment about Plato.

Communicating with you gives me the feeling of talking to a Socratic dialog...in many ways it is no fun.

For myself knowledge about aesthetics and art, knowledge about the outer visual world, psychological introspection, experience in other people's body language and finding out if there body language reflects what they themselves feel, all play an important part of my work. It is a process of making millions of value-judgments. And they are really not arbitrary, at least with me, I always like to have my eye on reality--really looking at form and light in real life, and I like my work to convey the energy and vibrations I see...I laugh, but I also, in my major works I please all of the voices in my head--there are hundreds of comments and criticisms going on about a work, and it is double checking against the theory, the theme, reality, the internal logic of the piece, my emotions, yada yada...and when they all say: "YES" I am done.

When you say things like: "On the basis that neither [abstract painting and pure music] are about anything, i.e., have no semantics." That contradicts everything I know about creativity and art. Musical language and visual language...perhaps English does not have a proper word of the concept of semantics of visual language, but I am certain it exists--I have worked with it everyday for 35 years. Abstract painting also has its language, and conceptual limitations, it is indeed a perfect example of floating abstractions.

Growing up as an artist I have always thought about and discussed what I and others were making, i.e. putting it into words. The main purpose of which is to put that knowledge into practice exploiting the most of what I have to offer art. Complimenting that was the reverse, reading about aesthetic ideas and putting them into practice, and either rejecting them or adding them to a constructive body of knowledge.

You don't give much but you have indicated by Platonic method, which of course means that you cannot be held accountable for the implications, blau, blau, blau, that you have a preference for a child-like innocence aesthetic of art. The mention of your granddaughters’ aesthetic insights was significant for you. Paul Klee and Chagall would be good examples.

But I am frustrated with you because you don't seem to grasp the meaning of aesthetic concepts, you negate very thoughtful presentations by experts in their fields of art and who have objectified their aesthetics in their art. Perhaps that comes from the Socratic device of rejecting "scientific and sociological enquirers...until we have the self-knowledge to understand the proper use to make of the results." In a way you are coming across to me as a kind of nihilist--Gorgias of Leontini hasn't influenced you too much has he?

Michael

Post 52

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 7:44am

Hi Michael,

Everytime I see your picture besides your post I think warmly of our lunch in Vancouver. Ah, Memories. And you speaking so gently about Pollock and other postmodern artists.

"Julia Annas she comments about Plato as follows: "He never commits himself in propria persona to any of the doctrines commonly thought of as Platonic; still less does he tell us which of the ideas he discusses are most basic for him and what their relationships are.""

I agree with Annas. I believe the best source for what Plato the man thought is his greatest pupil, Aristotle.

"Communicating with you gives me the feeling of talking to a Socratic dialog...in many ways it is no fun."

This reminds me of a student I have for ancient metaphysics. He once said, "When are we going to be finished by Plato and get to Aristotle where we will get answers. Plato makes me think too much. And of course, thanks for the comparison. Socrates is one of my main guys.

"you have indicated by Platonic method, which of course means that you cannot be held accountable for the implications, blau, blau, blau, that you have a preference for a child-like innocence aesthetic of art. The mention of your granddaughters’ aesthetic insights was significant for you."

Let me recall the context of that remark. Roger was saying something about young children hear music representationally until that is drilled out of them by "sophisticated" theorists. I merely was saying that in the case of my granddaughters that was not the case. Kind of a "counterexample." Personally I love to read sophisticated aesthetic theories.

" In a way you are coming across to me as a kind of nihilist"

Then the fault lies in you, not me. Or maybe it does lie in me for not making myself clearer. But you might read my preface to my Rand book. There I state that I am in complete agreement with Rand on what she says about the four fundamental branches of philosophy. If that is nihilism, make the most of it. (That's a paraphrase, of course.)

Post 53

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 1:15pm

Fred wrote: “Everytime I see your picture besides your post I think warmly of our lunch in Vancouver. Ah, Memories. And you speaking so gently about Pollock and other postmodern artists.”

And I. I enjoy your knowledge of philosophers. Don’t let the “gentleness” fool you. Understanding Pollock and other postmodern artists and even appreciating their integrity in pursuing their destiny, aims, or hunches only means I appreciate them in a very select context. But when I look at them from the broader context of art, as an integrated form, they, or Pollock specifically, appears very compartmentalized limiting himself only to a few aspects of art’s possibilities. Little like a philosophy teacher limiting themselves to stream of consciousness theories without integrating that to broader fields of epistemology, metaphysics, or ethics.

I wrote: "Communicating with you gives me the feeling of talking to a Socratic dialog...in many ways it is no fun."

Fred wrote: “ This reminds me of a student I have for ancient metaphysics. He once said, "When are we going to be finished by Plato and get to Aristotle where we will get answers. Plato makes me think too much. And of course, thanks for the comparison. Socrates is one of my main guys.”

New: Yes I can see how you would think that but it sounds, oh so slight, pedantic. Especial when I love the process as well as the ends so much.

Fred wrote: “Let me recall the context of that remark. Roger was saying something about young children hear music representationally until that is drilled out of them by "sophisticated" theorists. I merely was saying that in the case of my granddaughters that was not the case."

New: That is interesting, but you did say that your granddaughters thought about it (the abstract painting/music) the same as you, or you thought the same as them…you know what I mean. And indeed I enjoyed that you brought them up as references to the real world—real life example of what 5-year old’s perceive. Related on this topic was equating Pollock to Beethoven, and I don’t know how to say this quickly without being didactic: abstract expressionism is about giving free range to your sub-conscious without any interference of thought, themes, ends. As the abstract expressionist if you think about it you have already fucked up—its about energy, movement, no careful or thoughtful editing,action for its own sake without any ties to form or structure. If I am right the absence of form is about as far away as you can get from Beethoven. Though, movement would be a connection; but I see a Pollock as movement for its own sake…like Garf, (the movie with Tom Hanks) and the idiot is running just to run.

Fred wrote: “Or maybe it does lie in me for not making myself clearer.”

Perhaps it’s the Socratic method misapplied to people who want to reach motivating conclusions, or points of knowledge that they can add to their base and move forward. What did Rand say about fighting bad ideas the answer was to offer “better ones”?

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 9/21, 1:33pm)

Post 54

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 4:07pm

Michael,

Nice post. I think yours should be the last word.

Fred

Post 55

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 7:50pm

Fred, in post 52, in response to Michael ("you have indicated by Platonic method, which of course means that you cannot be held accountable for the implications, blau, blau, blau, that you have a preference for a child-like innocence aesthetic of art. The mention of your granddaughters’ aesthetic insights was significant for you."), you wrote:

> Let me recall the context of that remark. Roger was saying something
> about young children hear music representationally until that is drilled out
> of them by "sophisticated" theorists. I merely was saying that in the case
> of my granddaughters that was not the case. Kind of a "counterexample."
> Personally I love to read sophisticated aesthetic theories.

Hmmm. Do you mean to say that if your granddaughters were
treated to a playing of "The William Tell Overture," they would
~not~ start bouncing up and down as if they were riding on
horses? In my experience, this is nearly a universal response
of children to this music. (My universe of experience includes
about 500,000 children of widely varying ethnicities.:-)

And that having reacted to this music in this way, they would
~not~, if asked why, tell you that the music sounds like
horses galloping?

Now, ~that~ is the kind of experience of music -- in a very
simplistic, child-oriented example, of course -- that I was
referring to as being "drilled out of us" by the "sophisticated."
Translate: by those who tell us to sit still and be "good
listeners," enjoying the music for "what it is," rather than
for what it ~sounds like~ to us.

More on this in my reply to your earlier post (#44).

Also, Fred, in post 54, you wrote, in reply to Michael:

> Nice post. I think yours should be the last word.

Hang on, pal. I've got more to say, particularly in response to your post 44. Perhaps you just meant that you were done interchanging with Michael. Anyway, like you, I've been really busy, but I do intend to say more about the whole notion of differing paradigms, and why some experience music in a way that others do not.

Best regards to all,
Roger Bissell

Post 56

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 9:23pm

Fred, in post #44, you wrote: "Roger, I been rather busy lately; hence my non-response. I'm drafting a new story (which you will no doubt misconstrue as an argument) called "Bud and Lou; Art and Sue." So until then let me make some short comments."

If you don't mind, why not share your story ~and~ an argument deriving from that story? Then I won't have to "misconstrue as an argument" your literary offerings. :-)

I previously wrote: "Melodies seem like and act like people, and one does not have to conjure up the image of a specific person or event in order to experience music in this way." And Fred responded: "Maybe we're just inside different paradigms. I say that because the above not only seems false, but absurd. That is sometimes the mark of a paradigm difference. In an earlier post you liken melodies to characters in a novel. First, if Rand is right, people and characters act and say what they act and say because of their premises and moral values. Melodies have neither and it seems silly to me to say that they do."

Fred, analogies are not meant to be one-to-one, identity statements! Analogies are always limited to ~certain~ salient attributes, not ~all~ attributes. Otherwise, ~any~ comparison of one thing to another could be labeled absurd. All metaphors would be consigned to the dustbin -- and there goes most of the world's great literature. You would not be able to compare music and architecture in terms of their having hierarchical structure, because music's structure unfolds in time, while architecture is static -- not to mention the fact that music is composed of sound, while architecture is composed of brick, concrete, etc. You would not be able to compare music and poetry in terms of their having repetition and meter, because in music these things are expressed in non-verbal sound, while in poetry they are expressed in verbal language. Etc.

Now, melodies are like literary characters or persons, ~not~ in ~all~ aspects, but in ~certain specific~ aspects. I'll just name three that I think are most significant for our purposes. First, and foremost, a melody has recurrences in a piece, and a character has recurrences in a story. Secondly, a melody undergoes changes during the piece, and a character undergoes changes during the story. Thirdly, a melody recurs and changes in the context of a coherent progression of harmonic-rhythmic events, and a character recurs and changes in the context of a coherent progression of psychological-existential events. This, in my opinion, is a more than sufficient set of similarities to allow the attentive listener to experience an unfolding melody as being like a person or character. By the way, it is also the basis on which composers of ~non~ absolute music (e.g., Wagner's leitmotifs in his operas) use melodies or melodic fragments to "stand for" people in their compositions.

Fred again: "As far being like characters in a novel; let's see. In most symphonies, the first theme of the first movement only occurs there; not in the second, third of fourth etc. movements. Imagine Howard Roark appearing only in the first part (or movement) of the Fountainhead. What a novel??!!"

??!! indeed. :-) The symphony and sonata ~evolved~ a great deal during the 19th century. Closer to 1800, these genres were more like suites of several pieces, while closer to 1900, they were truly ~one~ piece with several movements. The typical form for the first movement of symphonies and sonatas was called "sonata allegro" or "sonata movement" form, and in the early 1800s the kind of melodic development and rhythmic-harmonic progression that paralleled literary character development and plot progression typically happened in the first movement (and sometimes the final movement). My favorite example, though not an obvious one to the new listener, is in the section of Beethoven's Egmont Overture somewhat misleadingly entitled the "Victory Symphony." There is a theme that is played rather somberly in the low register that eventually "breaks free" as a light-hearted inversion of the theme in the piccolo. But any symphony or sonata of this period (Beethoven's, Schubert's, Mozart's, Haydn's, etc.) employs recurrent, developmental use of melody. I just happen to think that Beethoven was the first great master of this technique.

There was typically ~not~ a carry-over of melodic material ~between~ movements until the late 1800s and early 1900s. I'll give you several examples: Dvorak's "New World" Symphony is a wonderful (and popular) example of melodic themes recurring and developing from one movement to another. Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto is another. Shostakovich's 5th Symphony is yet another (very, very intense) example. Probably my favorite example is Rachmaninoff's Variations on a Theme of Paganini. The 18th variation is (like the piccolo inverted statement in the Beethoven overture) the melody turned upside down and totally, lusciously romanticized. (It's so romantic, it was even used in the 60s -- or 70s? -- as the tune for a coffee commercial! :-)

Fred again: "And this says nothing about the insuperable problem of representing "conscious intention." Roark has them, but melodies??!!"

Fred, using a melody to represent a conscious intention is no more "insuperable [a] problem" than using a bunch of animated dots in a cartoon to represent a conscious intention. You either see and hear them -- or you don't. I've already gone on (perhaps ad nauseam) about the 1940s experiment with the dots, to which adults and young children alike attributed "conscious intention." I don't think the experimenters were "cherry picking" people who agreed with or supported their theory. I think they just stumbled onto a very widespread (if not universal) phenomenon -- and I think it's clear that this same ("same" = "parallel") phenomenon operates in dramatic music. It may be "unreasonable" for people (including kids) to attribute "conscious intention" to moving dots, but then they don't do it by a process of reason! They do it by a process of perception and empathic identification -- which, of course, is also how we attribute conscious intention to real live people, as well as actors on the stage and characters in a novel. It's more of a "stretch" -- i.e., fewer dimensions of information on which our empathic identification operates -- but it's a natural and apparently inescapable process (unless you have given in to the brainwashing of the so-called "sophisticates" :-)

As for why young children might not hear a symphony melodic theme as being like a person, it's just not age-appropriate. I mean, it's fine for them to listen to it, but if they're not capable of following the themes, their recurrences and development -- which is an intellectual accomplishment -- then it's unreasonable to claim that their not hearing something like a musical character and plot supports your claim that those things aren't there in the music.

Fred again: "I sometimes think that if you are right the same could be said about abstract painting that you say about music. Its about something. Pollock's world is Pollock's world as sure as Beethoven's world is Beethoven's world. Would you like this implication of your theory??"

I wouldn't compare abstract painting and music. Abstract painting is a static art, while music is a dynamic art. The more appropriate comparison is the dynamic art of abstract cartoons (as in the 1940s experiment) and the dynamic art of music. Both of them, despite their having abstracted away many aspects of living human beings, nonetheless ~retain~ a very important commonality to human beings: a dynamic temporal process with attributes that normal perceptive people respond to with empathetic identification. Abstract painting has ~far less~ in common with living human beings than do either abstract cartoons or music.

Fred again: "Now my position about music may have something to do with my crow. I have a little crow and can't keep many items in focus at one time. When I'm listening to, say, the second movement of Beethoven's 7th, a work that still can reduce me to tears after all these years, it is all I can do to focus on the music. I love and therefore want to fully focus on all three themes in the movement. Theme one is easy since he introduces by itself has it run until measure 27. Then the second theme comes in, (its deceptive and I sometime realize its started only after a half measure goes by). Now I'm trying to juggle two balls (so to speak). Then in measure 51 he introduces the third theme and its takes all my concentration to keep them in the forefront of my consciousness. I don't have time for heroes and shipwrecks or whatever else people have fantasized is in the music. Isn't the music enough?? Notice I would never ask that about a novel. Novels have a semantic level that music, which is a quasi-syntactical structure, just doesn't have."

Hey, don't look at me! I'm not the one who wants to insert heroes and shipwrecks into (absolute) music. I'm just saying that much music presents an auditory analogy to goal-directedness as embodied in melodic motion and development. If you hear three themes interacting in Beethoven's 7th and enjoy the effort and experience of keeping them all in your conscious awareness, good for you! But how is this ~fundamentally~ different from being actively and deliciously aware of how three main characters are interacting in a dramatic scene -- e.g., Hank Rearden, Lillian Rearden, and Dagny Taggart in the infamous Rearden Metal bracelet scene? Sure, novels have an additional, semantic level -- but that is because they include specific concrete references and descriptions, in addition to the logical progression of events in which the characters act and interact. But all that means, to me, is that music presents a more abstract(ed) version of human action, more schematized, in musical tone rather than in words.

Fred finally: "Maybe I'm stuck with this. If you are right that would certainly seem to be the case. But music is my favorite art form and it has made my life worth living since I discovered it in the fifties. I can surely imagine worse fates. Amor fati"

Perhaps we ~are~ stuck. I'd simply ask that you keep in mind the distinctions I have made, so that I'm not being saddled with a position that my view does not imply. I'm glad you love music and that it has enriched these, your waning years. :-) BTW, I'm not ready to hang up my trombone yet -- even with all these philosophical distractions -- so you may some day soon be able to hear more of my ballad and jazz offerings oozing from your headphones. <g>

Best regards,
Roger Bissell

P.S. -- In case anyone wonders what the heck I am talking about, I did a duo CD with a piano player a few years back and just finished producing and releasing it last December. It is mostly standards and is an assortment of ballads and swing, with a good amount of listener-friendly jazz. If you're interesting in hearing some audio clips and/or getting order information, go to this website: www.gemtone.com

Post 57

Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 7:56am

Roger,

"(My universe of experience includes
about 500,000 children of widely varying ethnicities.:-)
And that having reacted to this music in this way, they would
~not~, if asked why, tell you that the music sounds like
horses galloping?"

Whoa. Your kids are confusing the Long Ranger with an opera--which by the way is NOT absolute music--we have a text, and as far as I know, its not about horsies. Looks like 500,000 rug rats can be wrong. (Surely this is not an argument to majority. Tee hee.)

"Perhaps you just meant that you were done interchanging with Michael."

Yes, this is what I meant. And I will share the Bud & Lou etc. piece as soon as I can get it written.

Fred

Post 58

Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 9:07pm

Writing about the William Tell Overture (a portion of which was used as the theme for The Lone Ranger tv program), I said: "(My universe of experience includes
about 500,000 children of widely varying ethnicities.:-) And that having reacted to this music in this way, they would ~not~, if asked why, tell you that the music sounds like horses galloping?"

Fred Seddon responded: "Whoa! Your kids are confusing the Long Ranger with an opera--which by the way is NOT absolute music--we have a text, and as far as I know, its not about horsies. Looks like 500,000 rug rats can be wrong. (Surely this is not an argument to majority. Tee hee.)"

Forget the fact that the piece the kids heard is extracted from an opera. They don't know that. All they know is that they're hearing a piece called the William Tell Overture. So, to them, it's a piece of absolute music, not an opera with text. And when they listen to the music, they hear an anapest rhythm (unaccent-unaccent-accent) over and over, da-da-DA, da-da-DA, da-da-DA. And this ~sounds~ like horses galloping. Not in the concrete detail of having exactly the same timbre of horses' hooves, but in having the same ~rhythm~.

So, the 500,000 kids are ~not~ wrong. It doesn't matter that the music isn't "about" horses galloping in its ~opera~ setting. What matters is that, as absolute music, it has the same rhythm as horses galloping. That is what it ~sounds~ like to the children. And that's what it sounds like to me, too. It's one of those things that, either you hear it, or you don't.

Best regards,
Roger Bissell

Post 59

Friday, September 24, 2004 - 6:26am