The Philosophy of Music: A Topic Fraught With....

[(poco) Sforzando]

That's absolutely true, but my reply was in the context of hearing a performance, as that was discussed above my post. Likewise, one can be a great architect even if none of one's plans is ever executed.

And many great architects never do see their plans executed. While I'm pleased you agree with me, everything in your post depended on that opening premise, which gave rise to my reservation.

[ibanezmonster]

And it is explained by what you have mentioned: there is something of value - survival value even, for the evolutionary biologists - in Music, something intrinsically important for the entire human being, who needs more than food for the stomach to survive.

Music is pleasurable and of course, people are going to seek out pleasure because pleasure in general makes people psychologically healthy.

Music exists because it is (some of it is) pleasurable to humans, so the real question (more specific question) is why music is pleasurable... though this was probably addressed already (didn't really read through the thread yet).

[Karl Henning]

Music is pleasurable and of course, people are going to seek out pleasure because pleasure in general makes people psychologically healthy.

Music exists because it is (some of it is) pleasurable to humans, so the real question (more specific question) is why music is pleasurable...

All right, just so long as you don't expect a simple, tidy answer.

[(poco) Sforzando]

The more interesting question to me, and one that classical music forums don't seem to address, is how to bridge the gap between the small minority of music lovers devoted to classical and the overwhelming majority that loves its own music (rock, pop, hip-hop, R+B, country, salsa, boy bands, what have you), while often looking at classical music as something to be despised and feared. Classical boards like this one generally fight internecine wars about tonal vs. atonal, HIP vs. non-HIP, sung vs. unsung, this recording/composer or that, but the underlying premise for most of us I think is that we feel blessed to have found classical music while the majority around us couldn't care less. Given too that classical audiences tend to be older, how is this music to survive for the indifferent younger generations who mostly think of us as snobs and of our music as dusty elitist museum pieces by dead white European males?

[amw]

Perhaps it's simply that classical music isn't the universal language after all. It's just "our" music and we are a particular social and economic group like every other music clique. And there is no particular reason classical music should be promoted over any other kind of music except for the fact that until recently "our" group was the one in charge.

The younger generation(s) may have little to no interest in classical music at the age of twenty. However I do not believe twenty-year-olds have been a major component of the classical music audience for over a century, if ever.  The core "market" is middle-aged people and seniors. Given the ageing populations of most Western states, those are things we are unlikely to run out of in the foreseeable future.

If your question is instead how to make classical music "cool" and attract young and hip audiences, you will need to clarify on whether you believe the classical music tradition ought to be changed to fit society or the other way 'round. I refer you also to Pliable.

No time or energy to contribute to this topic in detail, sorry

[Karl Henning]

The more interesting question to me, and one that classical music forums don't seem to address, is how to bridge the gap between the small minority of music lovers devoted to classical and the overwhelming majority that loves its own music (rock, pop, hip-hop, R+B, country, salsa, boy bands, what have you), while often looking at classical music as something to be despised and feared. Classical boards like this one generally fight internecine wars about tonal vs. atonal, HIP vs. non-HIP, sung vs. unsung, this recording/composer or that, but the underlying premise for most of us I think is that we feel blessed to have found classical music while the majority around us couldn't care less. Given too that classical audiences tend to be older, how is this music to survive for the indifferent younger generations who mostly think of us as snobs and of our music as dusty elitist museum pieces by dead white European males?

Not a complete answer, but a recent blog post which touches on this issue:  While classical music debates nothing changes

The commercial-intermediary complex is an interlinked hornet's nest of management agents, publishers, media companies, concert promoters, and PR and marketing consultancies. Their business model is the re-purposing of mass marketing techniques (PR spin, chart radio, TV talent shows, payola etc) for use with classical music. This despite there being very little tangible evidence that such re-purposing works, in fact there is more evidence suggesting it doesn't.

The short answer I wanted to offer, Larry, is that experience of performance of the music is the maker of friends for the music.

Hence the aptness of this blog post's cry of Down with the middle-men!

[Brahmsian]

The more interesting question to me, and one that classical music forums don't seem to address, is how to bridge the gap between the small minority of music lovers devoted to classical and the overwhelming majority that loves its own music (rock, pop, hip-hop, R+B, country, salsa, boy bands, what have you), while often looking at classical music as something to be despised and feared. Classical boards like this one generally fight internecine wars about tonal vs. atonal, HIP vs. non-HIP, sung vs. unsung, this recording/composer or that, but the underlying premise for most of us I think is that we feel blessed to have found classical music while the majority around us couldn't care less. Given too that classical audiences tend to be older, how is this music to survive for the indifferent younger generations who mostly think of us as snobs and of our music as dusty elitist museum pieces by dead white European males?

Well, I was one of the former (into rock, pop, heavy metal), and because of ignorance, thought classical to be for "old people", and for rich snobs, etc.

I became a convert to classical music by chance and exploration, with no coercion from anyone.

I'll be turning 40 this year, and it was just around the age of 30 (shortly after) that I "discovered" classical music.

Honestly, I was surprised by how many younger people actually are into classical music now.

I don't ever see classical music dying away.

[mn dave]

I've always listened to it. I've always listened to everything.

[Cato]

Perhaps it's simply that classical music isn't the universal language after all. It's just "our" music and we are a particular social and economic group like every other music clique.

If your question is instead how to make classical music "cool" and attract young and hip audiences, you will need to clarify on whether you believe the classical music tradition ought to be changed to fit society or the other way 'round....

No time or energy to contribute to this topic in detail, sorry

One would want a philosophy of classical music to be open to anyone with ears, but...is it realistic, given the facts of what people listen to.

Art music in one sense should be "accessible" to anyone who can hear.

In another sense, those ears will usually need to be attached to a certain attention span, a certain ability to follow patterns, a certain amount of aural memory, etc.

I have wrestled with this issue for 5 decades: my own background from a lower-middle-class family and neighborhood might seem to have prevented me from having any connection to classical music.  My parents were about as unmusical as you could get!  And yet that attention span, that aural memory, an innate musicality (I suppose), and access to the Dayton Public Library combined to develop my talent...despite my parents' general anti-intellectualism and their tepid bank account.

Ultimately, one could say the amount of intellectual effort (in general) needed for classical music is greater than that needed for guys grunt-chanting obscenities while two morons bang trash cans with rocks in the background, or for 3-screams-and-a-chord pop ditties.

So, one could say that, as a result classical music is at a disadvantage in connecting with some (many?) people who are looking for only the following on a simple level:

Music is pleasurable and of course, people are going to seek out pleasure because pleasure in general makes people psychologically healthy.

Music exists because it is (some of it is) pleasurable to humans, so the real question (more specific question) is why music is pleasurable... though this was probably addressed already (didn't really read through the thread yet).

So can one say that those who sense pleasure from classical music are willing and capable to make the effort to derive it? 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Perhaps it's simply that classical music isn't the universal language after all. It's just "our" music and we are a particular social and economic group like every other music clique. And there is no particular reason classical music should be promoted over any other kind of music except for the fact that until recently "our" group was the one in charge.

I'll study your link and Karl's when I get the chance. But I can't think of another type of music where its adherents are more likely to believe in their own music's inherent superiority over other types. I don't deny I share this belief myself.

[amw]

And yet that attention span, that aural memory, an innate musicality (I suppose), and access to the Dayton Public Library combined to develop my talent...despite my parents' general anti-intellectualism

[...]

Ultimately, one could say the amount of intellectual effort (in general) needed for classical music is greater than that needed for guys grunt-chanting obscenities while two morons bang trash cans with rocks in the background, or for 3-screams-and-a-chord pop ditties.

Truly, we classical musicians are blessed to have you as our advocate.

I'll study your link and Karl's when I get the chance.

We've actually linked to the same thing—although not the same post (I didn't pick a single post because there are many that ask these questions, as one browses—they do however start to repeat themselves after a while).

[drogulus]

     Why music? I consider "why" questions to be "how" questions only more fierce! with more moving parts, often parts treated as agents. People are fond of regresses that pseudo-solve (or solve pseudo...), so people are greedy because they have an acquisitive bump, love music because a soul module does the loving for them that they can't quite manage.

     I don't need no love of music, I got something that takes care of that, have your girl call my girl etc.

     Our brains do feature lots of calling back and forth giving us the sensation of an internal multitude calling the shots. Rather than see this as a resource to help me love music and do other tricks I'm inclined to go whole hog and just accept that the committee of the whole is me, or (to put it more fiercely) me is such a thing as only a committee of this kind could assemble. That's whow it's done.

[Cato]

Truly, we classical musicians are blessed to have you as our advocate.

Thank you!   

... I can't think of another type of music where its adherents are more likely to believe in their own music's inherent superiority over other types. I don't deny I share this belief myself.

There are "musical-warfare" types in the pop world: I still recall reading an interview (in the 1970's or 1980's ?) with "eternal teenager" and rock 'n' roll midwife Dick Clark, where he said that he absolutely hated classical music.  (Yes, he said "hate.")  He hated it because it "didn't mean anything" to most people, and it meant absolutely meant nothing to him.  Rock 'n' roll was therefore the better, higher music because it "speaks to everyone."

I once knew a young school administrator who also used the word "hate" when it came to classical music: whenever he heard me playing it in my German classes, he would comment about the suffering or even torture my students were enduring.  To him classical music was the evilest of inventions, which not only made people suffer but then made them feel inferior for disliking it.

[Szykneij]

Honestly, I was surprised by how many younger people actually are into classical music now.

I don't ever see classical music dying away.

  I absolutely agree. I would even suggest that the percentage of young people who enjoy classical music today is equal to or greater than that of older generations. Classical will never be (and never has been) the popular form of music for the masses, but when I go to festival auditions and see hundreds of teenagers not only playing classical music, but performing at a competition level, I'm convinced that the classical tradition is in good shape.
  As someone who works with young people every day, I'm impressed with the variety of music kids are into today and their openess to new musical experiences. So much more music is now available to them than in the past. At one time, it wasn't cool to walk to school with your violin. Now, kids enjoy Lindsey Stirling and the Piano Guys on YouTube and easily gravitate to more traditional classical performers. Film scores are very big with kids these days, and frequently serve as a stepping stone into classical.
  This article from a local paper helps support my optimism:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/medford/topstories/x825441301/NOTE-WORTHY-STUDENT-Iverson-Eliopoulos-at-forefront-of-Medford-music-scene

[jochanaan]

The last few posts remind me of the song "I Hate Music" by Leonard Bernstein:

I hate music but I like to sing
La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la
But that's not music
Not what I call music, no sir

Music is a lot of men and a lot of tails
Making lots of noise like a lot of females
Music is a lot of folks in a big dark hall
Where they really don't want to be at all
With a lot of chairs and a lot of heirs
And a lot of furs and diamonds

Music is silly
I hate music but I like to sing
La, la, la, la, la

(I couldn't find the copyright information right away, but I think this post counts as "fair use.")

[mn dave]

The last few posts remind me of the song "I Hate Music" by Leonard Bernstein:(I couldn't find the copyright information right away, but I think this post counts as "fair use.")

And your post in turn reminds me of the Replacements song "I Hate Music".

"I hate music
Sometimes I don't
I hate music
It's got too many notes"

[Cato]

Somehow this thread, whose title does not segregate classical music from all other kinds, took a detour into the well trod path of "the future of classical music".  Do we really have to indulge in that hackneyed discussion?

I liked the post quoting the song by Leonard Bernstein.

My answer to the question posed by the OP, is that Music exists in order to express what man needs to express but cannot accomplish using anything other than music.  However, what it is exactly that music expresses is hard to pin down, and that is another discussion I have no interest in  opening.

I also have zero interest in "classical" music, "pop" music, music called "jazz", or "rock" or any other label applied to Music.  Part of the problem, for me is the attempt to compartmentalize music into tiny boxes by academics, critics, fans, and even practitioners.

I love music - in any form it is found simply because whatever it expresses speaks to me at a very deep level.

I believe Duke Ellington divided music into two kinds: good and bad.   0:)

And we can agree that - within limits - even "bad music" (Now there is a debate!) will have its fans.

You have a most excellent encapsulation there: the deeper question remains of why an impulse exists which insists that Music must express...our inner something.  From the viewpoint of socio-biology it could be that our happiness through music makes for better humans.

[marvinbrown]

  Cato asks: why does music exist?

  marvin answers: because apparently silence and speech are not enough.

 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Somehow this thread, whose title does not segregate classical music from all other kinds, took a detour into the well trod path of "the future of classical music".  Do we really have to indulge in that hackneyed discussion?

We can indulge in whatever discussion people on the board wish to indulge in. And if this board were to avoid all well-trod paths, there would likely be no activity on it again.

[Cato]

To return...

I came across a quotation from scientist Steven Pinker: "Music is cheesecake for the mind."   

i.e. Music is not an essential part of our humanity or development, but something that is simply nice to have now and then.

This reminded me of the old saying that music begins where words end.  However, I have often wondered if just the opposite is true, i.e. whether music predates the development of language, or at least is ancillary to its development.  Archeologists have found the now famous Neanderthal (or in some opinions Cro-Magnon) flute and dated it from 43,000-83,000 years of age.  Assorted theories place language development in early Homo Sapiens from 200,000 to "only" 50,000 years ago.

If the "bone flute" actually was a flute, it would seem that Pinker is wrong: possibly music was invented by some early Mozart or (more likely, given the hazardous nature of life in the caves or plains) Gesualdo as an ancillary way not only to communicate (how many words did Grog the Caveman have back in 50,000 B.C.?) for survival, but also functioned precisely the way it does for our purposes: the elucidation of mute, inchoate feelings.