Music and Philosophy (Introduction) - Wayne Bowman

7/28/2019 Music and Philosophy (Introduction) - Wayne Bowman

1/10

Music and Philosophy

Aims and Assumptions

Musicians interested in becoming acquainted with philosophical reflectionson their field encounter a vast, complex, and contradictory body of liter

ature whose language is challenging, frequently arcane, and sometimes seem

ingly impenetrable. To the practice-oriented musician in particular, the issuesmusic philosophers choose to explore can often seem remote and abstract, oflittle immediate relevance or consequence. Add to this the fact that philoso

phers' claims on music's behalf can seem bewildering and bizarre, and it is notentirely surprising that to many musicians philosophical inquiry remains a re

mote and mysterious undertaking. But that is quite unfortunate. For as mysterious as philosophy may be to the musician, so has music long been to the

philosopher. We stand to learn a lot from each other. For thousands of yearsphilosophers have puzzled over this uniquely human preoccupation called mu

sic, and what they have had to say is in many ways crucial to an informed appreciation of music's significance and value. Philosophy's importance to the mu

sician is not limited, however, to abstract, theoretical issues: indeed, as we shall

see, the practical implications of what may at first seem largely theoretical can

be surprisingly direct and far-reaching.

This book offers to help demystify this puzzling world of music philosophy,to provide the serious student of music a basic understanding of what the fuss

is about, where the important issues lie, and where, to employ a very strainedmetaphor, some of the mines are buried. It seeks to provide an orientation to

the field, a fuller understanding of its scope and potential relevance to the concerns of contemporary musicians. The basic strategy is a simple one. We will

explore from a number of different perspectives two fundamental, yet remarkably challenging, questions about music -- questions that have fascinated and

perplexed philosophers since earliest recorded history.

Just what is music?

And what is its significance or importance?

Or more concisely yet,

What is the nature and value of music?

These seemingly simple questions have generated, and indeed continue to generate, an astonishing array of responses. But amidst the striking diversity there

do exist discernible patterns, convergences of perspective, recurrent disputes and

problems. Exploring some of these in detail will help us develop the kind of familiarity with landmarks necessary for further navigation of the field, an incli

nation to which it is hoped this book may also contribute.

The book is written for the musician or the curious nonmusician withoutan extensive background in philosophy or musical aesthetics. It endeavors to ex

amine a broad range of music philosophical terrain, showing the philosopher'sreasons for holding beliefs that can strike nonphilosophers as little short of pre

posterous. As we begin to understand the bases for these seemingly strange ideas,the reader would do well to anticipate some conceptual discomfort, as com

forting commonsense truths are subjected to scrutiny and stress they seldom encounter in casual conversation. Philosophy has a way of undermining the obvi

ous, defamiliarizing the familiar, complicating the apparently simple.

Likewise, the reader is forewarned that the study we are about to undertakewill not culminate in definitive answers or neatly resolve all the issues it raises.

It is my belief that questions like the ones explored here have no single, definitive answer. Yet it is my further firm conviction that this by no means renders

pointless the philosophical quest for answers. While none of the perspectives we


2/10

will explore here -- none of these attempts to describe music's nature and worth --

is wholly adequate, neither is any of them devoid of insight. There are, in otherwords, a number of ways music may reasonably be construed to be, each with

its valuable insights and its inevitable biases or blind spots. There is not one 'essential' way all music 'is' or may be found to be. On this more will be said

shortly.

This book seeks to situate itself between brief and accessible introductionsto music philosophy and erudite scholarly monographs written by and for pro

fessional philosophers. Useful though the former are, their brevity and accessibility inevitably deprive them of the richness and flavor that makes philosophy

compelling. And crucial though the latter are, the newcomer to music philosophy often finds them abstruse, obscure, and pedantic. Students of philosophy

and aesthetic theory are well served by detailed, rigorous resources and by curricula designed to pursue primary resources in detail; but the substantial ma

jority of North American music students engage in predominantly 'practical'pursuits, in curricula which offer little if any opportunity for reflection upon

what they do, why they do it, or what its broader significance may be. I believe

we are professionally the worse for that. 1 Music philosophy is not the study of

dead voices from the past, but rather of intriguing ideas and issues with continuing relevance and practical significance for musicians. As we explore various

and divergent views of what counts as music, how it works, and what its value(s)

may be, we will attempt to get sufficiently 'inside' those views to enable an appreciation of their persuasiveness and, in a surprising number of instances, their

enduring influence.

Among the many preliminary points to be made here, one is absolutely crucial: this book is conceived as an introduction to, not a substitute for, the pri

mary sources from which it is drawn. When finished with it (or better still, alongside it) I earnestly hope readers will use my analyses, comments, and references

to orient firsthand examination of at least some of the original texts upon which

I have drawn here. I urge readers not just to "take my word for it" but to examine the original texts and reach their own conclusions. Those who do so willbe rewarded richly with depth of detail and delightful quirkiness of style at which

my accounts can only hint. It has been necessary here to gloss over and sometimes omit important points. Ideas have been filtered through my own inter

pretive frameworks, and rearticulated in words I hope readers may more readily

grasp. The dangers of oversimplifying and distorting rich, complex ideas in aproject like this are ones to which I am quite sensitive. I am also acutely aware

that I have not been entirely able to avoid those dangers. Yet I have persisted,

believing that the potential for distortion is outweighed by an even more undesirable alternative: the continued neglect of music philosophy within postsec

ondary music study, a failure to capitalize on an extraordinarily valuable intellectual resource.

Where I have fallen short of my goal of making complex ideas accessible,

it is not for lack of effort. Philosophy often yields to paraphrase as gracefully aspoetry -- which is to say, of course, that it does not-and quite often, complex

ideas simply cannot be coaxed or coerced into simpler language. Philosophersoften choose their words with the utmost precision, and tinkering with carefully

chosen words always alters meanings. Where my words mislead, or where theygloss over important issues, I trust my colleagues to clarify, elaborate, supple

ment, or challenge them. The benefits to be accrued from this endeavor hardlyrequire that we be in full accord on all issues.

This is not a book about aesthetic theory or philosophy of art, but specifi

cally and explicitly philosophy of music. That is, it seeks to bring together inone place a wide range of ideas that shed light on the nature and value of mu

sic in particular. There is no shortage of books that undertake consideration of


3/10

music as one among 'the arts', emphasizing the continuities and similarities that

have preoccupied 'aesthetic' inquiry since its inception in the eighteenth century. But attention to supposed commonality exacts an unacceptable cost to con

sideration of what is unique and distinctive about music and musical experience, conveying the assumption, however implicitly, that the distinctively

musical is only incidental -- of less importance than what music shares with pu

tatively related endeavors. I believe that appreciation of the uniquely and distinctly musical is of crucial significance to music students, and that addressingsuch concerns is among music philosophy's most fundamental obligations.

Even so delimited, though, music philosophy remains a vast terrain that can

be charted many ways. The way I have chosen is in certain respects arbitrary. Ihave deliberately excluded the ideas of philosophers, composers, and musicians

some will regard as essential to an introduction to the field. But this is not an

exhaustive survey, it is an introduction intended to give students a sufficientlydetailed acquaintance with the great and lasting issues in music philosophy that

they may begin to see its relevance to their own musical beliefs, values, and un

dertakings. Cogency has thus been a higher priority than comprehensiveness;

and where my omissions are deemed unacceptable, I am fully confident thatcolleagues will see to their rectification. 2

Readers who look to this book for conclusive answers will probably experi

ence frustration at my disinclination to provide them. But my determination toproceed as I have is deliberate and strategic: for while philosophy is rightly con

ceived as a quest for truth, its very nature is such that no one achieves it completely. Many people get a piece of it; nobody has it all. And that, as it turns

out, is at least partly because musical practices are not the kind of affairs forwhich there is an 'all'. The whole of music is as ephemeral an idea as is the

whole of truth, and we must learn to be content with insights that are provisional and temporary instead of absolute and timeless. Though partial and con

tingent, such insights are of inestimable help in providing direction along the

path of continuing inquiry. Put differently, none of the thinkers whose ideas wewill examine here gets things wholly right; but that is an unrealistic expectationof philosophy. More important is a willingness to entertain the possibility that

none gets things wholly wrong. It is my hope, then, that as readers explore eachof the perspectives examined here they may find themselves sympathetically in

clined toward certain features at the same time they are skeptical of others. In

my view, that attitude is more characteristic of the spirit of philosophical inquirythan identifying winners and losers.

Given musicians' notorious penchant for the 'practical', I anticipate thatmany readers will wish I had devoted more time to exploration of the many con

crete, practical issues of relevance to music's various professional disciplines.Since philosophical inquiry's pragmatic utility is indeed among the most im

portant reasons for engaging in it, such concerns are entirely valid. One's philosophical convictions can manifest startling 'practical' implications, and it would

be gratifying to explore all these at length. But the cost of fuller attention to practical and professional issues would be a drastic reduction in the range and depth

of philosophical coverage. And since in all likelihood different musicians willfind the issues explored here significant in different ways, I have resisted the

temptation to direct the book to the specific concerns of any single musical discipline. I must therefore ask my readers and their teachers to keep foremost in

their minds these critically important pragmatic questions:

If this idea, this claim, this way of looking at music were valid, what might itimply for the kind of music-related practices in which I engage? What differ

ence might it make for me, for how I conceive of and execute my various musical undertakings?


4/10

Although the matters they encompass are far too diverse to be adequately ad

dressed here, answers to questions like these represent the single most important outcome of this project.

Further, an appeal to patience. Since philosophical ideas sometimes reveal

their sense slowly and in response to considerable effort, it will be prudent in

the pages ahead to attempt to suspend the impatience toward abstraction forwhich musicians are often notorious. Instant gratification and quick fixes are notconspicuous characteristics of philosophy. But without the kind of theoretical

deliberation and heightened awareness philosophy seeks to engender, practicecan be aimless and blind. And unless we become more fully informed and ar

ticulate, decisions affecting music will be made by the less informed, guidedmore by economic and political agendas than by musical and rational ones.

Characteristic Concerns of Philosophical Discourse

Although most of us have a general notion of what philosophy is about, such

notions often diverge significantly from what those seriously engaged in philos

ophy understand it to be: a situation known all too well by musicians in relation to their own field. Among these mistaken assumptions, perhaps the most

pervasive is the idea that philosophy amounts to the expression of arbitrarily heldopinion, personal views rooted in nothing more substantial than sentiment. On

this view, philosophy reduces to rhetoric, a practice devoted to argumentationand persuasion. The stereotype of philosophy as personal opinion buttressed by

rhetorical skills may contain a grain of truth, but little more. For as a practice --as opposed to a body of doctrine or ideology -- philosophy is more properly re

garded as the systematic and critical examination of the grounds for belief. Itcharacteristically aspires to something quite a bit more ambitious than the rhetor

ical and political, and presumes to be based on something considerably moresubstantial than mere assertion. 3 Derived from the Greek philosophia, or 'love

of wisdom', philosophical inquiry is driven by a passion for things like insight,

understanding, and truth.

Philosophy is thus founded in the human need to make sense of the world

and our place in it. What distinguishes it from mere personal opinion andcredulity is its rejection of passionate convictions as sufficient grounds for belief

and action, and its commitment to careful analysis and systematic reasoning. In

the words of H. B. Redfern, philosophy involves a "passion for clarity" and a disdain for "devices which blur and confuse and seek to influence without invit

ing critical reflection." 4 As I have written elsewhere, "Philosophy works to ren

der the implicit explicit, with the ultimate intent of enriching bothunderstanding and perception. Among its greatest allies is a persistent curiosity.

Its enemies are the habitual, the stereotypical, the unexamined, the acritical,the 'common sense' assumption or assertion. The philosophical mind critically

challenges and explores received doctrine, renounces the security and comfortof dogma, exposes inconsistencies, weighs and evaluates alternatives. It explores,

probes, and questions, taking very little for granted." 5 Although just how muchphilosophy takes for granted is a contentious issue in some quarters, 6 these ideals

and attitudes are certainly descriptive of the philosophical disposition as it hasbeen conventionally understood. At the same time they help explain why, to the

exasperation of those new to philosophy, it never quite succeeds in finding the

ultimate, irrefutable, universally acknowledged truths traditionally presumed tobe the measure of its worth. Simply put, subscription to a common set of doc

trines ranks relatively low among the priorities of those engaged in philosophical inquiry. Rather than a uniform body of doctrine, philosophy manifests itself

in an ongoing process of critically examining and refining the grounds for ourbeliefs and actions, the ideas we recognize as true, as deserving our loyalty and

commitment. As well, the philosophical attitude is marked by a determination


5/10

to stand out from what Northrop Frye once called "the uniform bleating of the

herd." 7 Such independence of mind seldom manifests itself in uncontestedagreement.

To those unaccustomed to thinking this way, philosophy can sometimes

seem a nuisance. Philosophers are inveterate askers of questions, people who

find intractable problems and issues in what to others seems obvious and utterlyuncontroversial. It is not for no reason that the philosopher has been considered(to put it politely) a gadfly. So to approach the study of music philosophy with

the expectation of finding a coolly dispassionate endeavor governed by strict lawsof logic and marked by widespread agreement on fundamental issues is to seri

ously misunderstand its nature and underestimate its difficulty. Philosophy is nomere marshaling of views, no purveyor of irrefutable, absolute truths. It is, rather,

a messy and disquieting process in which cherished beliefs and comfortable assumptions are subjected to critical scrutiny.

Although music philosophy is sometimes equated with musical aesthetics,

the two are not the same: philosophy of music is broader than musical aesthet

ics, and subsumes it. The study of musical aesthetics takes its lead from general

aesthetic theory, the field of discourse that arose in the eighteenth century inan effort to describe presumed commonalties among the arts and, more broadly,

instances of beauty. Accordingly, while musical aesthetics is sometimes regardedas the effort to describe what is distinctive about music and musical experience,

it has frequently based its claims on a rather restricted range of evidence -- thosemusical practices recently regarded in the Western world as 'art'. Unfortunately,

situating music within a class of endeavors called 'the arts' begs the questions ofwhat music is, what purposes it serves, and what its values are: for to call it an

'art' almost invariably removes from consideration an extensive range of musical practices not regarded as 'artistic' -- practices and pieces that do not evince

'aesthetic value' in high degree. That is to say, musical aesthetics often tends toconfer global validity upon characteristics that are in fact local, specific to a rel

atively narrow range of musics. As Francis Sparshott puts it, aesthetic accounts

of music attribute universality to what is in fact a normative theory of taste, onewhich emphasizes orderliness and trained perception over other modes of musical engagement. They assume that music's inherent value lies in its capacity

to sustain appreciative, contemplative experience in "a privileged group of consumers, not themselves musicians . . ." 8 Moreover, the evolution of musical aes

thetics has been intimately entangled with the idea of musical value's intrinsi

cality', a concept that erects rather rigid and impermeable boundaries betweenthe range of the properly musical and an (often vast) 'extramusical' residue. Each

of these tendencies restricts the range of musical experiences and practices

deemed relevant to questions of music's nature and value -- with results that se

riously compromise our understanding of the phenomena at hand.

As I see it, then, music philosophy addresses considerably broader ranges ofconcern, and philosophical contexts considerably more inclusive, than those his

torically envisioned by musical aesthetics. Since aesthetic orientations, like themusics that arose and evolved in tandem with them, are historically factual, mu

sic philosophy is obliged to recognize them. It need not, however, accept theirclaims to ultimacy, or their assumptions of music's 'autonomy' and 'intrinsical

ity', or of listening's status as the quintessentially musical mode of engagement.Indeed, it often does not. Music philosophy explores areas musical aesthetics of

ten regards as musically incidental: matters epistemological, ethical, social, cultural, and political.

Music philosophy should not be regarded as a hermetic discipline, restricted

in its rightful purview to theoretical exploration of abstract propositions about'music proper'. Its interests overlap with and extend deeply into quite a number

of related intellectual disciplines. The most immediately apparent of these is


6/10

music criticism. The relationship between music philosophy and music criti

cism is sometimes described as one between theory and practice, philosophy addressing music more comprehensively and abstractly while criticism concerns

itself with the merits of specific musical works and endeavors. Criticism, in thisview, is a kind of applied philosophy -- general beliefs brought to bear on par

ticular and concrete musical undertakings. While the distinction between phi

losophy and criticism is helpful, it is not a good idea to draw too sharp a distinction between the two: for they work dialectically with each other, they informone another in important ways, and their basic orientations are in many respects

quite similar. As I have suggested elsewhere, "philosophy is to belief as criticismis to music." 9 Both seek to explore beliefs, undo habitual stereotypes and prej

udices, enhance imagination, and reveal previously hidden aspects of the given.The good critic, wrote T. S. Eliot, is one "who can make me look at something

I have never looked at before, or looked at only with eyes clouded with prejudice." 10 The same is true of philosophers, although their focus is more often

conceptual than perceptual. Both philosophy and criticism seek to educate sensibilities and enhance critical awareness, endeavors that, it should be noted, ul

timately reduce esteem for the pedestrian and the commonplace.

Criticism usually draws liberally on philosophical convictions, while philosophy can and frequently does seek to examine specific musical practices. For

those to whom 'philosophy' connotes unbridled abstraction and speculation, the'groundedness' of criticism in perception is understandably attractive. Yet it is

hardly possible to engage in criticism without employing, at least implicitly, beliefs as to what constitutes good or proper musical practice: beliefs whose for

mulation and examination are explicitly philosophical undertakings. Althoughthe scope of music criticism is generally more concretely and specifically mu

sical than philosophy, it is not invariably so, and never purely so. Nor -- and hereI admittedly part company with many -- need philosophy operate necessarily and

invariably on the level of generalities. The relation between philosophy and criticism is not one of diametrical opposition, nor is there a fixed, stable boundary

between the two. In fact, where the idea of a mutually exclusive relationship between music 'itself' and its sociocultural 'context' is denied, the differences between criticism and philosophy become rather ephemeral.

It may be well to acknowledge a few other disciplinary convergences and

affinities in passing. Music psychology, for instance, departs rather decisively

from music philosophy in its markedly empirical proclivities, and is thus typically preoccupied with the mechanisms behind musical perception, preference,

response, and the like. Yet it shares philosophy's keen interest in judgments of

musical value, the distinctively affective character of musical experience, andthe like. Thus, psychology's investigations often build implicitly or explicitly on

ideas rightly regarded as philosophical. Social psychology casts its net morewidely, seeking to examine how social influences shape musical judgments,

meanings, and responses. Again, music philosophy shares those concerns. Theconvergence between psychological interests and philosophy will be most evi

dent here in phenomenology's exploration of music's lived, experiential basis,and in Meyer's and Langer's struggles to illuminate the relation of feeling to

musical experience.

Music philosophy also has significant affinities with sociology and socialtheory, as will become apparent in the later chapters of this book. Music's in

extricable cultural situatedness, its deep involvement in shaping and maintaining human social orders, and the profound extent to which its meanings are so

cially mediated and constructed are each pivotal concerns for contemporarymusic philosophers, many of whom increasingly regard the distinction between

the musical and the social as a serious mistake.

Still other disciplines -- music theory and the nascent field of music cogni


7/10

tion for instance -- have roots that extend deeply into the realm of music phi

losophy, even if those roots are not always explicitly acknowledged or fully appreciated. And others still -- music education, for instance -- are profoundly

reliant upon music philosophy for fundamental direction: without an adequateprior grasp of music philosophy, the fabrication of an applied professional phi

losophy is bound to be a highly precarious undertaking.

The point is not that all these various disciplines are merely derivative, orthat their distinctive character is illusory; far from it. The broader point is sim

ply that music philosophy must not be regarded as an insular, esoteric realmwhose interests and endeavors have little significance or relevance beyond the

confines of philosophy in and of itself. As an endeavor which commits itself touncovering and scrutinizing beliefs about music's nature and value, its poten

tial sphere of influence and relevance extends wherever human beliefs manifestthemselves in musical practices. It offers to help us reexamine, clarify, and re

construct musical beliefs, and in turn the many practices with which they areintimately entwined. As such, it is a grievous mistake to conceive of it as an ob

scurely marginal practice, with little immediate importance for the making, ex

perience, or teaching of music.

This points to another important reason for music philosophy's divergence

and diversity: since its roots interlace so extensively with those of other domains,it is hardly surprising that the ways of conducting philosophical inquiry and the

kind of 'products' they generate vary considerably. Both the way questions are

posed and the kind of answers deemed relevant often differ substantially. Andyet, at least on a general level, the questions that concern music philosophy tend

to align themselves in relatively clear patterns and configurations. Just what sortof thing is music? What purpose(s) does music serve? How may judgments of

musical worth be grounded or substantiated? How is it that such a universal anddistinctive presence in human culture and experience seems so resistant to ex

planation, so perpetually in need of justification? How does music relate to and

differ from things like noise, speech, language -- that is, nonmusical sonorousexperience? How do musical experiences differ from merely sensuous experience? What human needs and interests can music be shown to serve? How do

musical practices relate to and differ from other areas of human endeavor, including those characteristic of the other 'arts' and nonmusical experiences? In

what senses can music be said to 'mean' something? In what sense might mu

sic be considered a kind of knowing, a manifestation of human intelligence?What has music to do with feeling or emotion? Does music have the power to

shape people's character, to make them better or worse? Or is it, rather, a mere

amusement, a diversion?

These are but a few of the many provocative and daunting questions towhich music philosophy directs our attention. Yet, among them are two that

subsume most of the others and that will serve to orient us in the explorationsundertaken in the ensuing chapters of this book. They are of course the ques

tions introduced above: What is music? What is its value?

The Value of Music Philosophy to the MusicianTo repeat, comforting though it would be if music philosophy were able to pro

vide us with ultimate answers to questions like these, that is an unrealistic expectation. Music assumes too many forms, serves too many diverse functions,

and is too deeply embedded in the dynamic flux and mutation of socioculturallife to be exhaustively explained by theoretical undertakings that are not simi

larly dynamic, diverse, and fluid. Simply and directly put, philosophy is simplynot that kind of creature. 11 But that hardly means music philosophy is wholly

useless; fortunately, its value to the musician does not rest on its capacity to arm


8/10

us with the kind of definitive answers that obtain for all musics, everywhere, for

all time.

It is sometimes claimed that among philosophy's benefits is its capacity toinspire, to instill in people a sense of purpose and direction. People who have

a clear understanding of what they do and its value, it is maintained, function

more effectively; and people whose understanding of music is based on systematic exploration and analysis -- as opposed to platitudes, aphorisms, and slogans,for instance -- are better equipped to demonstrate and explain the true signifi

cance of their undertakings to others. These are not insignificant considerationsin a time when music seems so widely regarded as an insubstantial indulgence,

an entertaining diversion. Yet, while music philosophy is indeed capable of shaping, expanding, and strengthening minds, it can "blow" them as well. 12 It may

indeed affirm and inspire, but its capacity to reveal the inadequacy of reassur

ing convictions and beliefs can also confuse and disturb. There are those, infact, who would maintain that philosophical inquiry which fails to disturb and

disrupt has not truly done its job. In other words, it probably misrepresents philo

sophical inquiry to suggest that its primary value lies in some unconditional ca

pacity to strengthen and inspire. For among the things it reveals are sometimesmatters we might prefer not to have confronted.

If music philosophy does not deliver final answers, if it does not automatically

and invariably deliver inspiration, if it can bolster confidence and security but undermine them as well, then what good is it? That ultimate, inspiring truths are

not what music philosophy is about, that it is as interested in questions as it is inanswers, that it is more characterized by persistent curiosity than by once-and-for

all explanations: all these mean that philosophy's value to the musician must beconceived more broadly. Its practical value lies not in its revelation of the hidden

truth about music's innermost essence but rather in its power to expose unexamined assumptions, to enrich one's understanding of music's many roles in human

experience, thereby making one's various musical doings better informed and more

fully subject to conscious direction. Subjecting habits and assumptions to critical,systematic examination leads to practice that is better 'theorized', more fully guidedby explicit consideration of beliefs about what music is and what it should be. The

decisions and actions that shape musical practices often are undertaken withoutsuch scrutiny. But such practices are likely to be haphazard and considerably less

effective than we might hope. Even more to the point, they may inadvertently

serve ends quite different from those we envisage. One's choice, in other words,is not so much between doing and reflecting as it is between practice that un

thinkingly replicates an unexamined status quo and practice guided by critical

awareness of carefully considered ends. The choice, to put it another way, is between skillful technical execution and wholly mindful agency.

Whether one is more immediately concerned with the making and doing

of music, with the study of its inner workings, with teaching others about it, orwith helping people develop the requisite skills for particular musical practices,

music philosophy seeks to refine critically the system of beliefs and values thatguide professional choices and decisions. To invent a philosophy 'from scratch'

or build it piecemeal without the benefit of previous inquiry into foundationalquestions about music's nature and value would be inefficient and irresponsi

ble. In the first place, familiarity with a range of philosophical or theoreticalalternatives -- their strengths and shortcomings, and the ways they may have in

fluenced current beliefs and practices -- is a crucial part of the distinction between being educated and merely being trained. And in the second place, a

shared understanding of foundational beliefs and values is vital to any claim totruly professional status. To neglect music philosophy -- to leave philosophical

dispositions and understandings to unguided, casual development -- is a mistakewith implications that are far-reaching and serious.


9/10

It might seem that this need for philosophical grounding could be ade

quately met by simply subscribing to an explanation crafted for us by authorities in the field, without going through the messy business of exploring and

weighing alternatives ourselves. Unfortunately, such shortcuts short-circuit the

philosophical process and fail to nurture the habits of mind that are among philo

sophical inquiry's greatest potential benefits. And the idea of building a professional philosophy on a single point of view without critically examining otheralternatives imputes both to music and to philosophy a static, unchanging char

acter quite at odds with the character of either. Worse yet, it risks replacing philosophy with ideology and dogma: a significant concern, one would think, in a

field where the dominant mode of training is imitative apprenticeship.

In short, basic acquaintance with the ways music shapes and is shaped byculture -- what it is, and what its values may be -- is fundamentally important to

becoming musically educated. Extensive training in specialized skills is necessary, but not sufficient: to be educated is to be more broadly prepared. Music

philosophy's role in that preparation lies in its assurance that we do what we do

in light of foreseen consequences, in light of ends we envision as fully and ac

curately as possible.

Yet, as my disinclination to equate philosophy with advocacy and inspiration, or true education with training, may suggest, even this claim sounds more

clear-cut than it probably is. For the nature of philosophical inquiry is such thatwe can never know precisely where it may lead: it is that kind of creature. Per

haps another analogy will help clarify the point: advocacy is to philosophy astraining is to education. Advocacy and inspiration, like training, assume clearly

defined ends, ends by which the adequacy of the means can be clearly gauged.On the other hand, where endeavors like philosophy and education will lead

can never be fully determinate. One commits to a process in which one hasfaith. Beyond that one takes one's chances.

Music from Divergent Perspectives

One of the perennial dangers in exploring ideas is their tendency to harden intodogma, a tendency which converts intriguing possibilities into seemingly defin

itive absolutes. In this process, dynamic conceptual confluences and divergences

somehow ossify into bewildering arrays of mutually exclusive 'isms' that seem tovie with one another for people's total allegiance. As suggested earlier, though,

philosophers -- despite undeniable affinities -- are usually resolute individualists.

Grouping their ideas into philosophical 'schools' of thought, while a useful orienting strategy, often distorts as much as it illuminates. Stressing differences and

contrasts can lead to the neglect of subtle but important connections and relations; stressing similarities can obscure the uniqueness and particularity of in

dividual voices. Since divergent perspectives serve as an organizational strategyin the pages ahead, it is important we candidly acknowledge and recognize the

distortive potential of that strategy. The perspectives explored here are heuristicdevices, idealizations. Few of those whose ideas we will explore are perfect

matches to the perspectives with which I associate them, and some might becharacterized quite differently simply by stressing other affinities and tenden

cies. Still, identifiable landmarks are essential when finding one's way in newterritory, and highlighting certain patterns and trends is a useful organizational

modus operandi so long as we remember why we are doing it and resist taking

them too literally. Despite the profound differences that exist among philosophies of music, remarkable strains of continuity also exist. It is fascinating, in

fact, to see how many of the roots of contemporary ideas extend back hundreds --sometimes thousands -- of years. Indeed, ancient Greek writings on music raised

in their basic form many of the issues that have occupied music philosophy ever


10/10

since. Music's capacity to influence character, its special relation to human feel

ing, the nature of its contribution to human knowledge, the philosophical problems posed by its peculiar transience, its seemingly unique situation between

the physical and spiritual worlds: these are but a few of the issues with whichcontemporary philosophy continues to wrestle that can be traced back to the

time of Plato, and even earlier.

Another cluster of recurrent themes in music philosophy concerns music'sdistinctive abstractness (especially that of instrumental music), a quality that has

led many philosophers to characterize it as insubstantial and illusory. Others,however, find in that same quality a unique capacity to reveal reality's inner

most secrets, especially because of its special relationship with the realms of feeling or spirituality. Then, against the excesses of these expressivist theories, there

arise equally ardent formalist theories, determined to link music's significancestrictly to its sonorous patterns, patterns whose perception has by some been at

tributed to a wholly unique musical faculty of mind. Against the insularity offormalism's emphasis upon music's autonomy, still other philosophers -- partic

ularly in the twentieth century -- mount cogent, sophisticated accounts of mu

sic as a potent social, psychological, and political force.

Changing fashions in music philosophy do not mean it is aimless, point

less, or outdated, however. In fact, given the radical changes in musical practices over thousands of years, it is remarkable philosophy has remained as stable

and consistent as it has. It would also be quite misguided to assume that musicphilosophy is narrowly concerned with musical endeavor, for debates over mu

sic's meaning and value implicate many of philosophy's most durable, intractableproblems: mind and body, reason and sensation, unity and plurality, uniformity

and diversity, form and feeling, subjectivity and objectivity, freedom and constraint, tradition and innovation, and truth and illusion, to mention but a few.

In short, the existence of philosophical differences hardly means music philosophy is arbitrary or irrelevant. To be sure, it is not a linear, progressive process,

inexorably advancing toward some ultimate, irrefutable truth. The temptation

to dismiss past philosophy as outdated is one that should be strenuously resisted:indeed, as will become apparent in the pages ahead, what past philosophers havehad to say about music can often be remarkably cogent and illuminating. Per

haps the best way to make sense of all this is simply to acknowledge that however much things like music and philosophy change, they remain human en

deavors. And since on some level, human needs, interests, and tendencies remain

relatively constant even across the millennia, to dismiss categorically the relevance of the musical or philosophical past would be quite precipitous.

The second chapter of this book introduces the music philosophies of Platoand Aristotle, tracing their influence with sufficient detail to establish that their

Music and Philosophy (Introduction) - Wayne Bowman

Documents

Transcript of Music and Philosophy (Introduction) - Wayne Bowman