Was Freud Right About Music ?

[Operahaven]

"Who ever learned anything from music except the emotional power of music ?... It's a thin rather than an intellectually thick art form... Music is simply a cultural narcotic, but without the long-range costs that other drugs exact"

--Sigmund Freud

****************


To what extent was he right about this ? Or was he completely wrong ?

The older I get the more true it seems.

[karlhenning]

Completely wrong.

In the first place, I learn things from music all the time beyond its "emotional power."

In the second, trying to reduce music to a "cultural narcotic" is one the least imaginative remarks I have read in a long time.

[kristopaivinen]

"Who ever learned anything from music except the emotional power of music ?

Obviously many people have, but not so much Freud. He speaks of music as if it had no laws and structure, and I would say this is just one example among many of Freud's megalomaniac tendency to make discoveries of his own mental processes and conclude that they apply to all humans. Another example is the Oedipus complex, which he claimed to exist in every human being - so that if you haven't found it in yourself, you must look harder.

[bhodges]

Or was he completely wrong ?

Completely, totally and utterly wrong.

--Bruce

[Operahaven]

Completely, totally and utterly wrong.

--Bruce

Why so categorical, Bruce ?

Would you at least agree that the "ideas" in music don't mean anything and have no purpose in and of themselves ?  Our ability to sense that music is meaningful is not the same as an ability to sense its meaning. 

[bhodges]

Why so categorical, Bruce ?

Would you at least agree that the "ideas" in music don't mean anything and have no purpose in and of themselves ?  Our ability to sense that music is meaningful is not the same as an ability to sense its meaning. 

Because Freud's opinion is just that: his opinion.  And I don't agree with the sentences above at all, either.

--Bruce

[Operahaven]

And I don't agree with the sentences above at all, either.

Then why is it that child prodigies, with the skill of adults and the experience of children, appear in music but never in literature or philosophy ?

[knight66]

Are any of these child prodigies intellectually lacking?

Mike

[ezodisy]

"Who ever learned anything from music except the emotional power of music ?... It's a thin rather than an intellectually thick art form... Music is simply a cultural narcotic, but without the long-range costs that other drugs exact"

--Sigmund Freud

****************

sounds about right to me

[Wendell_E]

Then why is it that child prodigies, with the skill of adults and the experience of children, appear in music but never in literature or philosophy ?

Never?  Wikipedia (I know, I know, but still) has a whole list of child prodigies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies), including some in literature and "Law/philosophy".  Of course, music prodigies have a whole page of their own.  

[jochanaan]

...Would you at least agree that the "ideas" in music don't mean anything and have no purpose in and of themselves ?

What meaning would you assign to them?  What purpose would you have them serve?

(Edit: I asked that badly.  I should ask, "What meaning and purpose would you assign to them if you could?")

Our ability to sense that music is meaningful is not the same as an ability to sense its meaning.

I would say rather that the ability to divine meaning is not at all the same as the ability to reduce it to words.  Some meanings are too large and definite to be reduced to words.

And yes, Freud was wrong.  Music is much more than a narcotic or hallucinogen, cultural or otherwise.  If it were merely cultural, why do some of us embrace musics that are so totally rejected by the culture we find ourselves in?

[btpaul674]

Speculation today suggests that music is more than just a 'cultural narcotic' or as Pinker calls it, "auditory cheesecake." However music is not a biological imperative.

I draw attention to this lecture I will be attending.

Aniruddh D. Patel

"Music is quintessentially human but not innate"
 
Music is neither a biological adaptation nor a hedonic diversion that simply piggybacks on preexisting cognitive systems.  Instead, it is a transformational cognitive technology which builds on preexisting brain systems and which transforms our experience of the world.  I will illustrate this point by discussing empirical research on the biological basis of (1) musical syntactic processing, (2) musical tone deafness, and (3) synchronized movement to a musical beat.

[Brian]

One empirical point disproving Freud is the well-known correlation between musicality and math skills in children. If - if - music is helping kids become better at math, surely that helps chip away at Freud's view, which (as always with Freud!) is wrong-headed.

I also recommend seeking out the Oliver Sacks stories about patients learning to talk or even walk again with the help of music. "Who ever learned anything from music except the emotional power of music?" I think learning to walk counts.

[david johnson]

freud mastered an instrument?  his evaluation is based upon years of practice and experience? 
i wonder what his musical background was...lacking something i suppose.

[Operahaven]

What meaning would you assign to them?  What purpose would you have them serve?

None, because it's impossible... No matter how serious and elaborate, a piece of music cannot create its own metaphysical frame entirely from within the music. Even those of us who who appreciate music in all its forms must recognize that music is not a rational art and cannot express an actual idea.

[Operahaven]

"Music is quintessentially human but not innate.... Music is neither a biological adaptation nor a hedonic diversion that simply piggybacks on preexisting cognitive systems.  Instead, it is a transformational cognitive technology which builds on preexisting brain systems and which transforms our experience of the world.

Very interesting Paul.... Thanks.

[scarpia]

None, because it's impossible... No matter how serious and elaborate, a piece of music cannot create its own metaphysical frame entirely from within the music. Even those of us who who appreciate music in all its forms must recognize that music is not a rational art and cannot express an actual idea.

It's difficult to make a specific objection to a statement because it is so hard find any definite meaning in it.  Why does music have to create "its own metaphysical frame" to mean something?  What is a "metaphysical frame?"

Music is a series of sounds that gives pleasure.  Some of us enjoy experiencing an emotional responses that the music causes (through biological means or cultural association).  Some like the intellectual satisfaction of recognizing simple or complex patterns in the music.  (Many of us like both)  Sometimes the music means something specific (when the bugle sounds "retreat" that means run like hell, when you hear the plagal cadence, that means the mass is over and you can finally go home) usually it doesn't.   All of this philosophical gibberish neither adds nor subtracts anything.

[karlhenning]

Why does music have to create "its own metaphysical frame" to mean something?  What is a "metaphysical frame?"

Maybe that's where the "vibrational fields" cavort and gambol . . . ?

[karlhenning]

freud mastered an instrument?  his evaluation is based upon years of practice and experience? 
i wonder what his musical background was...lacking something i suppose.

Ah-ha! Suggesting that Freud was perhaps musically impotent? . . . !

[Josquin des Prez]

To what extent was he right about this ? Or was he completely wrong ?

He was. Freud lived in an age where the idea of genius (and the corresponding experience of transcendence and spiritual development) was being demolished left and right, and music, like all arts, or religion for that matter, served no practical purpose for the scientifically minded. Our present age is the result.

However music is not a biological imperative.

Genius, however, is. Music is merely a vessel among many.