Was Freud Right About Music ?

[Operahaven]

Let me ask you a question in return: Do you believe that humans have souls, or spirits? 

Jochanaan,

Well, I believe in the existence of supernatural beings but disbelieve that we were endowed with immortality beyond this temporal life..

[Operahaven]

Probably not.

Then how do you explain Edward's father ?

[mn dave]

C'mon. Everyone knows a happy someone who doesn't particularly care for music. Or doesn't find it that important.

[btpaul674]

In order to reply to a slurry of posts with people talking about biological adaptations and biological imperatives, perhaps a bit of reading might help clear up what is exactly meant under these terms.

Here is a good article on the subject from 1999. Mind you this research is now 9 years outdated, which is considerable. But it poses some of the same questions we are answering today.

http://www.musiccog.ohio-state.edu/Music220/Bloch.lectures/2.Origins.html

Please read Huron's book,

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10903

And Ani Patel's new book, which is a bit more relevant to our topic here.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Medicine/Neuroscience/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTEyMzc1Mw==

This bad boy is one of the most recent footholds in music cognition literature.



There is also the distinction between people who live without music and people who can't hear sounds. This distinction doesn't seem to be made here. Some people, such as Dr. Temple Grandin, suffer from Asperger's type of autism. She thinks music is 'pretty' but doesn't understand why people love it so much. Sacks has a good section of his book about her, as well as numerous other people. It's a famous case.

There are plenty of studies of deaf people who enjoy music. Most of the case studies reveal individuals who 'feel' the music rather than hear.

M, as far as the intellectual 'screen' we are discussing here, my goal is to parse this information as much as possible, not to confound it with 'intellectual' banter.
I quote Patel directly because I want to put it in his words. If you want me to parse his statement, here is what his lecture is about: Music isn't biologically necessary for survival (implies it is not genetically encoded; also in support of an evolutionary standpoint) nor is music just a casual diversion. (Has more meaning than say, dropping acid or for mere pleasure.) Patel says it is a 'technology' created by humans that builds off of existing cognitive systems (language, creation, memory, thought processing) which enhances our world (alters perspective, helps with memory, creates prejudices/breaks prejudices, used as a tool/used as entertainment etc etc [any applicable possible human act]) 

This is Patel's current conclusion from his evidence.

[karlhenning]

There is also the distinction between people who live without music and people who can't hear sounds.

Although, of course, Beethoven, Smetana & Evelyn Glennie are famous examples of people who people who can't hear sounds and yet do not live without music.

[karlhenning]

C'mon. Everyone knows a happy someone who doesn't particularly care for music.

The simple fact; thank you, Dave!

Is it possible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without sculpture?

[karlhenning]

Eric thinks that Freud was right in setting music down as a "cultural narcotic";  additionally, he apparently thinks it impossible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without music.

So what Eric seem to be implying is, all the world needs narcotics.

Not sure just what Eric's been smoking . . . .

[bwv 1080]

Eric thinks that Freud was right in setting music down as a "cultural narcotic";  additionally he apparently thinks it impossible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without music.

But is it possible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life while listening to Freud?

Or does anyone who attempts this end up like a character in a Woody Allen movie?

[mn dave]

But is it possible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life while listening to Freud?

Or does anyone who attempts this end up like a character in a Woody Allen movie?

[Operahaven]

Music isn't biologically necessary for survival (implies it is not genetically encoded; also in support of an evolutionary standpoint)

That is very true.

Patel says it is a 'technology' created by humans that builds off of existing cognitive systems (language, creation, memory, thought processing) which enhances our world (alters perspective, helps with memory, creates prejudices/breaks prejudices, used as a tool/used as entertainment etc etc [any applicable possible human act]) 

This is Patel's current conclusion from his evidence.

That really makes a lot of sense also.

But why is it so difficult for M to understand and accept this ?

[greg]

Ask someone who's been deaf since birth? (My father is literally tone-deaf--ie: he can't hear pitches--and he seems to have had a pretty rich and fulfilling life without music.)

ahhhhhhhhh ok, gotcha. Didn't consider the deaf.

[PSmith08]

Eric thinks that Freud was right in setting music down as a "cultural narcotic";  additionally, he apparently thinks it impossible for a human being to live a rich and fulfilling life without music.

So what Eric seem to be implying is, all the world needs narcotics.

Not sure just what Eric's been smoking . . . .

Whatever it is, his dealer fleeced him.

[jochanaan]

C'mon. Everyone knows a happy someone who doesn't particularly care for music. Or doesn't find it that important.

Actually, I don't.  When you start probing, you find that, with the probably exception of those deaf from birth (as the estimable Ms. Glennie is not, I should point out), just about everyone has some kind of music they care for.  Many don't care for OUR music, yet like some kind of music from somewhere.  My stepfather is a good example.  A rancher from a Western state, classical music means nothing to him--but he dearly loves old Gospel hymns and Lawrence Welk-style swing, the sort of music that was popular in his early years.

Leonard Bernstein stated it well in a song: "I Hate Music--but I love to sing."

[mn dave]

Actually, I don't.  When you start probing, you find that, with the probably exception of those deaf from birth (as the estimable Ms. Glennie is not, I should point out), just about everyone has some kind of music they care for.  Many don't care for OUR music, yet like some kind of music from somewhere.  My stepfather is a good example.  A rancher from a Western state, classical music means nothing to him--but he dearly loves old Gospel hymns and Lawrence Welk-style swing, the sort of music that was popular in his early years.

Leonard Bernstein stated it well in a song: "I Hate Music--but I love to sing."

Sure, if you probe. But does he listen to it now? He puts it on once a month--maybe? But is that someone who can't live without music?

If so, I'm sure there's someone else you can think of.

[jochanaan]

Sure, if you probe. But does he listen to it now? He puts it on once a month--maybe?

He listens to Lawrence Welk whenever it's on TV if he can.  Perhaps he can "get along" without it, but I suspect his life would be much poorer and less joyful.

[(poco) Sforzando]

That is very true.

That really makes a lot of sense also.

But why is it so difficult for M to understand and accept this ?

I can't speak to M, or even M, but the fact that a small minority of people don't respond to music doesn't much disturb me. The majority of people do, and the majority of cultures have developed some kinds of art forms like music, dance, art, and poetry. Whether this is a biological imperative or not I'm not qualified to say, but it certainly seems to have been a common cultural phenomenon in many diverse and independent societies.

I looked at the passage from Patel quoted by Operahaven, who says it makes a lot of sense, but to me it sounds like a lot of sociological jargon and it appears most crucially not to consider music as an art. And to think of it as an art is the best response I can give to Freud's theory that music is a narcotic.

Freud's objection to music seems to be that it lacks ideas in the intellectual sense, unlike perhaps King Lear where we learn to be kind to our old parents and Hamlet where we learn to be true to ourselves. But music is not the only art form that does not necessarily present intellectual ideas; could not the same be said of painting, sculpture, and ballet? In fact the Victorian aesthetician Walter Pater developed a theory that music is the ideal art precisely because it has no intellectual ideas, and thus there is no distinction between content in music and form:

All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music. For while in all other kinds of art it is possible to distinguish the matter from the form, and the understanding can always make this distinction, yet it is the constant effort of art to obliterate it. That the mere matter of a poem, for instance, its subject, namely, its given incidents or situation — that the mere matter of a picture, the actual circumstances of an event, the actual topography of a landscape — should be nothing without the form, the spirit, of the handling, that this form, this mode of handling, should become an end in itself, should penetrate every part of the matter: this is what all art constantly strives after, and achieves in different degrees.

Or rather, one might say that with music, the content is the materials and language of the musical discussion. Last weekend I spent time with Beethoven's A major sonata, op. 101, and I was struck in the first movement by the fact that in this almost four-minute piece, one does not hear a tonic chord in root position until the movement is ¾ over. I'm sure there will be a lot of eye-rolling in some quarters over this statement. Technical mumbo-jumbo, nothing to do with emotions, and all the rest. But any "technical" device a composer uses has an aesthetic or emotional result, and this first movement of the op. 101 has been greatly loved for its unusually lyric quality (it was a favorite of Glenn Gould, who had serious reservations about a lot of the most popular Beethoven). In this movement, instead of firmly establishing the tonic key at the outset with root position triads, Beethoven starts on the dominant, but is able to imply A major with sufficient stability that he can write a nearly seamless exposition that modulates to the dominant key without having ever explicitly stated the tonic. That, along with other aspects of the piece, such as its gently rocking 6/8 rhythm frequently characterized by ties over the bar (which thus diffuses our sense of strong downbeats), contributes to the feeling many listeners get that this is a particularly treasurable lyric poem in music.

Now I strongly doubt that Beethoven said to himself, "Ach! today I will write a piece where I withhold the tonic chord in root position for 50 measures!" But being a composer thoroughly immersed in the implications of the tonal language he used, Beethoven's musical intelligence recognized on some level that this would be a very productive means of realizing the emotional state he intended his listeners to experience. By withholding the tonic in root position for so long, Beethoven eliminates any kind of heavy-handedness in his handling of the tonal language. And just like the painter's tools of his art – his ideas - are things like color, perspective, design, etc., the composer's tools are things like melody, harmony, rhythm, and tonality. The composer's intelligence shapes these into a work of art, creating sculptures or paintings in tones. This calls for a high degree of awareness and intellect, and thus is the opposite of anything that could be called a narcotic.

Not on the composer's part, that is. But what about the listener's? Does the listener need to know terms and concepts like tonic chords and 6/8 rhythm? Perhaps not, and I would never suggest that a technical education is necessary to enjoy music; but I think even a non-technical listener who is made aware of Beethoven's use of musical language is likely to have a deeper regard for what goes into shaping a work of art. That withholding of the tonic chord in op. 101 is hardly arbitrary. It is instead a perfect example of Beethoven's musical intellect working on its highest level.

[op.110]

I believe Freud also called religion the opiate for the masses; I'm sure many would argue.

Freud was always skilled at making poignant remarks without further explanation.

With regard to his comment on music, he can shove it.

[M forever]

But why is it so difficult for M to understand and accept this ?

I don't know if I accept this or not. I never said I do or don't. You don't know that either. You don't know much about anything, it seems. You certainly know shit about music. You probably can't even play 3 coherent notes on an instrument. But you think you can completely understand the subject and make dramatic statements about it. Apparently, you are suffering from some deep trauma which gives you that need to pretend to be very intellectual about things you don't understand. I thought we had already been over that and you had realized that there is no need for you to get on other people's nerves in this way. But you persistently do, even after people have given you the priviledge of their attention and patentiently explained to you all that stuff.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

[btpaul674]

I can't speak to M, or even M, but the fact that a small minority of people don't respond to music doesn't much disturb me. The majority of people do, and the majority of cultures have developed some kinds of art forms like music, dance, art, and poetry. Whether this is a biological imperative or not I'm not qualified to say, but it certainly seems to have been a common cultural phenomenon in many diverse and independent societies.

ALL known cultures have developed music.

I looked at the passage from Patel quoted by Operahaven, who says it makes a lot of sense, but to me it sounds like a lot of sociological jargon and it appears most crucially not to consider music as an art. And to think of it as an art is the best response I can give to Freud's theory that music is a narcotic.

Saying music is an art doesn't answer any questions we have about why it exists or how we use and listen to it. And from Patel's standpoint, if it was a form of 'jargon' as you say, it would be 'cognitive' or 'psychological' jargon, not 'sociological' jargon. Moreover, Patel does address music as an art. Art is a human technology. And I reiterate, Art does not explain music.

Freud also isn't aware of advances in cognitive science. I see little relevance in most of his works, though I acknowledge their importance.



Sforzando, I think I get what you are saying in the rest of your post. Now I am a little toasted right now,  If I may summarize, you are saying

"The knowledge of technical nomenclature of musical events is not necessary for the enjoyment of music, but it is necessary to help make deeper assessments and create higher-level abstractions of the operating aesthetics"

Then I agree. After I learned terms like 'cadential 6/4' 'retrograde inversion' 'transpositional operation (in tonal music)' and 'deceptive cadence' and to hear them my listening experience was enhanced 1000 fold. Hell, every time a cadential 6/4 with scale degree 5 jumping down an octave then up a 4th I want to scream (in a good way) . Every time I hear a picardy third I want to smash nearby objects (in a bad way).

[M forever]

In other words, you can't play music either. But you think you know what it is because you read some very intellectual quotes.