[net.music.classical] More on Cage, Music, Philosophy, etc.

twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (05/30/84)

>>>Cage's work belongs in the realm of philosophy, not music. I love music.
>>>Philosophy generally bores me stiff.
>>>
>>>						Jeff Winslow
>>
>>Wait a minute!  Are you saying that philosophy amd music are entirely
>>seperate entities?  ALL music belongs in the realm of philosophy, because
>>it is impossible to listen to music without some theory of appreciating
>>it.
>>						Tom Twiss
>
>Huh?  Where are you coming from?  It is quite possible to listen to music
>without any theory of anything.  And if there is a theory of music
>appreciation, it has much more to do with psychoacoustics than with
>philosophy (at least for the music I like).
>
>David Anderson (uwvax!anderson)

Sorry about the overabundance of quotes.

My statement here was a bit ambiguous, but I'll try and explain briefly.
First of all, when we talk of music, we are speaking of a much larger
field known as aesthetics (of course everyone knows that).  Aesthetics
can and does take on an unbelievably varied number of roles in society
and it is not only the aestheticians responsibility, but the average
person's as well to decide what that role should or can be.  For some
(Wagner, Shopenhauer, etc.) aesthetics transcend the physical realm.
For others (Plato) art is mere memesis (strict imitation).  For others
(our grandmothers) art=KZEZ radio station and has no function other than
non-active enjoyment.

The point is, that no matter what you think music (or any art) to be,
you are making a cognitive decision about its function and what it means
to you.  If you say "I just like to dance to music" then that is your
"philosophy" (if you'll pardon the colloquialism).  If you take a more
in depth approach (such as Schopenhauer for e.g.) then music (or any
art) does far more than just soothe or entertain.  It is impossible to
listen to music without some sort of theory or "philosophy" if you will
about what it is doing for you.

	Once you make a decision about what art is to you, there is an
implicit value judgement placed on all aesthetics and what role they
play in our society and culture (or what role the should play).  This is
why I say that all art is by nature within the realm of philosophy.

		Flames cheerfully returned COD,
		Discussion welcomed at,
			Tom Twiss
		...{decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!twiss

gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (05/30/84)

Three stars and a Cassirer cluster to Monsieur Twiss!

Now, if we can just start to talk a little about why
we have this tendency to believe that "we're only
listening" instead of following up on our aesthetic
judgements, this could get really interesting.

Next week: Kierkegaard and the notion of "aesthetic
damnation"...coming soon to s symphony hall or
hardcore club near *you*........