I find it to be waste of time when people put conscious efforts to listen to more classical music and to educate themselves about it.
Music is usually considered to be an intellectual endeavor like art and science. But there is a crucial difference for music. Science and art (at least the best of it) give us new insights to the world we live in: ideally we understand things and people more as a result.
But the ultimate purpose of music is a physiological/emotional response, something utterly subjective and that does not enrich our objective understanding of the world. In this sense, music should be considered to be an indulgence like drugs, sex or delicatessen food, in all but the delivering mechanism. Not that there is something wrong with them, but these are pleasures, not a meaningful activity.
Thus the whole notion of the special kind of music that bears higher value is of no more sense to me than, say, meth of higher culture.
Life is too short for it. For me if you can avoid listening to something, do it.
If the days of our lives are too short to spend on moving subjective experiences (and I'd put music on the same level as visual art and drama), what should we be reserving those days for? I am not a brain in a jar, though I have long neglected the needs of the animal which is carrying me around on his neck. I've come to think that's a recipe for depression, which sooner or later will interfere with whatever it is you're trying to accomplish.
That is what I wanted to emphasize. There is a difference between drama and music. Drama or movies have a plot and a story. The author passes to us the thoughts and experiences that she has in her head, that is what makes it an intellectual endeavour.
Affecting mechanism for music is different. In this case, composer is like a cook: she prepares the music by the emperically established rules (certain frequency fractions, tempo to match the heart pace for a specific mood).
"But the ultimate purpose of music is a physiological/emotional response, something utterly subjective and that does not enrich our objective understanding of the world."
You can read about our planet, and see pictures of it, and everyone can agree on the objective understanding of it (even a computer can "understand" it objectively).
But what really enriches our (personal !) understanding of the world is not the objective understanding, but our subjective understanding, and music can enrich this understanding ...
The sun will rise again tomorrow, and it will be a new day, and we all know it....but listen to 'morning mood' in this video, look at the pictures, think, feel, and tell me that this doesn't make you appreciate the wonderful world we live in even more...
I find it disappointing that your clearly written argument was met with downvotes and ad hominem attacks. I expected more of HN.
I listen to music a lot. I might even be described as an audiophile. But I recognize music for what it is: a source of pleasure, relaxation and comfort, and a social glue. I don't feel the need to make pretentious claims -- that by listening to music, I'm learning about the history of humanity, human nature, mathematics, etc. Someone on a carousel might as well claim to be studying physics.
I would never in a million years claim that music is as valuable as philosophy or science. Music simply conveys no truths, except the most trivial truths: about itself, the composer, or (in a limited way) the times he lived in. Whatever Einstein might have said, Mozart is not his equal.
It's all good and well if you use music as a tool for achieving certain beneficial mental states, akin to wine or physical exercise. But spending a large chunk of your time studying classical works, composers, etc. is a horrendous waste of time, unless you are a composer yourself. It's like studying 17-century Russian iconography or the cuisine of medieval France. Pure intellectual masturbation. There are so many unsolved problems in this world that spending your mental energy on things with no practical significance is a criminal waste of intellectual resources.
tszyn, you have a LONG way to go before your claim that philosophy or science is "more valuable" than music to our culture. How would you go about proving that, anyway, given that nearly every colossus in 19th and 20th century science, mathematics, and business was/is an avid consumer or enthusiast of good music? Would you be willing to impart an experimental design, for example, in which you surveyed the careers of the top achievers and found a negative correlation between scientific or philosophical achievement and musical devotion? And with respect to Einstein, I'm not sure on what grounds you could gainsay Einstein's own assertion that Mozart's music informed his mental heuristics for describing the cosmos. And I would challenge you to make a well reasoned separation of Wittgenstein (the most important figure in 20th century philosophy) from his music. Music informed Wittgenstein's highly influential philosophy of language: "Understanding a sentence is more akin to understanding a theme in music than one may think. What I mean is that understanding a sentence lies nearer that one thinks to what is ordinarily called understanding a musical theme" (Philosophical Investigations remark 527). Again, on what grounds can you gainsay Wittgenstein? It's a matter of FACT (we like facts here on HN, don't we?) that music, by the mouths of these geniuses and creators played a critical role in the formation of these thinkers' aesthetic values and motivations.
"Einstein's own assertion that Mozart's music informed his mental heuristics for describing the cosmos"
Sounds like Star Wars :)
Could you please refer me to the origin of this citation? Google gave no immediate results. I am asking not for the sake of the argument, I am genuinely interested.
Here's an article imparting Einstein's obsession with Mozart, along with the similarities between what Einstein said about Mozart's music and his own idea of the cosmos.
More can be found in the Issacson biography of Einstein, which I don't presently have on hand. Mozart's music seems to have convinced Einstein that whatever theory ultimately successfully described the cosmos would have to have a grace, succinctness, and beauty that corresponded to the grace, succinctness, and beauty of Mozart. In the case of Einstein, as I am sure you are aware, this worked to his advantage and against it; for it when he discarded superfluous ad hoc physical constructions such as the luminiferous ether in favor of c's constancy, and of course against it when he constructed the cosmological constant to satisfy his intuition that the universe was eternally static. You can say that his interpretation of Mozart's music as perfect, succinct, and eternal could have simply been a matter of his subjective feelings on the matter, and of course I would agree with you. However, I'm not sure that music's subjective nature necessarily negates its usefulness as a model for mathematical aesthetics. If Beethoven pleases me, I'll look for solutions that satisfy me in a similar fashion. If those solutions work, they work, and nobody has grounds to gainsay my assertion that musical aesthetics informed my judgment.
It's too bad you feel this way, because whether you like it or not, most (if not all) of the great intellectuals of the 19th and 20th centuries--Einstein, Wittgenstein, Planck, and (why not?) Jobs--saw a critical role in music as providing some kind of aesthetic guidelines for their work. Bach's music, for example, is contrapuntally rigorous to the extent that fairly complex matrix mathematics are required to explain his patters in crafting The Art of Fugue. Mozart's music Einstein described as "perfect," as if "plucked from nowhere," containing a grace that he was convinced existed in the mathematical formulations describing the cosmos. Believe it or not our logical convictions and "faith" in science do have deep-seeded atoms of intuition that nearly identically match the visceral responses we have to music.
That's not to mention the fact that music ostensibly IS intertwined with our language and culture, so it would be almost impossible to relate to other people (or understand them, communicate with them, as is the project of numerous scientific fields) if we didn't share their practices. You'd be left in a very strange position of describing an "objective" reality devoid of the emotions that make humanness--and by extension, the world--what it is.
I recommend you engage in a deeper reading of science and objectivity, because nary will you find a thinker or scientist whose findings, motivations, or thought processes are completely uniformed by a particular set of aesthetic considerations. Theories are beautiful. Designs speak to us. Mathematical formulations must be true. These convictions are developed from the same stuff as that of our musical convictions. They are one and the same.
I must say your argument resembles arguments in favor of the divine design. Specifically, I mean appealing to outstanding people as an argument. It is safe to state that effectively every outstanding creator before ~1870 had a deep faith in God and of course it affected her personality deeply. However I don't expect you to decide for yourself if God exists relying on this impressive statistics.
As for the link with mathematics, it is relevant to our discussion to mention here that I work in mathematical physics. To put it shortly, my work experience is that music has no special role in the research and definitely not in the understanding of it on the contrary to what you say. I can elaborate more if there were readers.
Let me repeat myself, I don't deny that music improves the quality of our life and can serve as an inspiration and improve the productivity as I experience it every day just like most of us. My point is different.
"But the ultimate purpose of music is a physiological/emotional response, something utterly subjective and that does not enrich our objective understanding of the world. In this sense, music should be considered to be an indulgence like drugs, sex or delicatessen food, in all but the delivering mechanism. Not that there is something wrong with them, but these are pleasures, not a meaningful activity."
I believe you made two strong claims in your original post, the first being that music's "purpose" is to illicit some kind of psychological effect, perhaps in the fashion of a neurostimulant, and the second was that consuming music is not a "meaningful" activity. Your conclusion is that you find it a "waste of time" to "put conscious efforts to listen to more classical music and to educate themselves about it."
Would you mind elucidating a few things for me? What is your conception of purpose? Do you mean utility, use? Like a hammer or mathematical model? If so is not deriving relaxing states from music a use or utility? Does your conception of purpose carry ethical baggage? Does that explain why you chose the contentious extremes of drugs and sex to equate with music? If so, on what grounds should others adopt your conception of purpose and meaningfulness? Are those grounds objective?
Yes, mine are empirical, and to an extent subjective. What of it?
I agree that I used only my specific definition of meaningfulness and it is a subjective one. Fair point.
I assumed that making something of value for other people is what makes life meaningful. Making and shipping a product, supporting a family, writing poetry and producing music, doing research and participating in constructive discussions is meaningful for me. I assumed that some readers here share these values to some extent.
I didn't tell people what to do. I shared my view and am genuinely interested in your view on the subject. I tend to think that is why we are all here.
I completely agree with your conception of meaningfulness. I too value spending time with family, making and shipping products, writing poetry and producing music. For me, listening to music is a meaningful experience as well, because unlike drugs and sex, the creation--and consumption--of music is an intellectual endeavor. If you've ever studied music theory, music has structure and logic, just like poetry, and just like architecture. It needs to balance. It needs to make sense not only melodically, but also harmonically. Composers suffer, innovate, and triumph as much as artists in any other profession, and it's inspirational to listen to their products when you know, say, that Beethoven wrote a particular piece while grappling with the anguish of going deaf. That's beautiful. It's inspiring. It's an example that someone can overcome a disability to create some of the most meaningful and inspirational art ever conceived.
The way I see it is that we appreciate order, structure, logic, symmetry, yes? This is true for painting, drama, computing, nearly all art. I don't see why you make an exception for music. Maybe it's because it doesn't contain spoken language, or because it is abstract. I submit that any beauty you can derive from architecture, sculpture or industrial design, you can derive from music as well, for all of the reasons relating to the qualities I've outlined. The only difference, as you aptly put in your comparison to drugs and sex, is the "delivery mechanism" of the artistic content. Thus, I cannot see a reason to discriminate and single out listening to music as a waste of time.
I think that if more people appreciated the complexity and richness of classical music, chances are they would forgo other what I call cheap products in our world: bubblegum pop music, underdeveloped political arguments, and terribly unusable technology. Good music is on your side of intellectual achievement. Listening to and understanding good music is the mark of high artistic and intellectual standards, a good, positive willingness to explore and expand one's aesthetic horizons. I think the PRODUCT of this attitude, is far from, as you say, some kind of negative counterproductiveness, where time spent listening to music is time not spent doing science. The product of this kind of attitude is a high standard of achievement that is completely compatible with doing great science with passion and dedication. At least that's my view.
In my opinion, excellence in the arts* is among the highest goals toward which humanity can strive. In music, a composer (and performer) can deliver to the listener great beauty and wonder. Through music, a window into the very fabric of the universe can be opened. Music is one of those things that makes us distinct from animals; to encounter, to appreciate and to experience music is to more intimately apprehend what it means to be human.
* By "the arts", I mean to include: acting/drama, poetry, music, visual arts, literary arts, dance, and so on.
"In my opinion, excellence in the peacock's tail dance is among the highest goals toward which we peacocks can strive. In feather dancing, a male (performer) can deliver to the observer (fertile female) great beauty and wonder. Through the right dance pattern, a window into the very fabric of the universe can be opened. Proper feather color is one of those things that makes us distinct from other animals and humans; to encounter, to appreciate and to experience peacock's tails is to more intimately apprehend what it means to be a peacock."
It's about expression and communication. Improving your vocabulary doesn't give you insight into the physical world, but it does improve your ability to communicate your experience to others. Music is useful for communicating emotions and stories.
Haha, I guess if you want to take it that way, people are just as passionate about beer and wine as about music and science. I think your critique applies equally.
Where I think you err is in stating that music doesn't give us "new insights into the world we live in". It is precisely because music is emotion/physiological/psychological that it gives us a great deal of insights into not only individual human beings, but the movements and ideas of entire societies.
Stravinsky, who's "Poetics of Music"[1] is one of the more brilliant treatises on the importance of "high" music, once famously stated the "music doesn't have the power to express anything at all"-- his entire belief is that music is a reflection of the people and societies in which it develops. He above all placed music in a higher realm because of what it uniquely taught about people
The belief that there is an objectivity to judging music isn't a popular one, but it is one that I believe to be rather self-evident. Certainly the depth of emotional response to the opening of Beethoven's 9th Symphony[2] should be dramatically different from the response to the latest Britney Spears single. Certainly Bob Dylan's music teaches us something far more complex and valuable about the culture in which it arose than does a jingle from a car commercial.
Indeed, looking through the major musical time periods, it is clear that the representative "geniuses" of each are are elevated as such precisely because their music teaches us something about that time period. Bach's music is unerringly rational, but always highly ornamented. His greatest works are often religious, and reflect the emerging force of Protestantism. Mozart's contrast greatly, with emphasis on balance and elegance, and are often more "absolute" (and thus "secular", although this distinction is somewhat artificial). Etc. Etc.
Simply contrast two symphonies: Beethoven 3[3] with Copland 3[4]. I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the argument that the boisterous triumphalism of the former doesn't crystalize the specific emotions, cultural trends, and overall ideas of the Napoleonic era, or that the latter could have emerged from any culture other than that of individualist America.
And this is just scratching the surface. I haven't even mentioned the dedecophonic serialism of Schoenberg and its clear roots in the modernist era, and I skipped completely the Romantic era from which Chopin, the original topic of discussion, sprung.
All of which to say, is: I think you are short-changing one of the single most powerful elements of human culture, and in doing so, genuinely short-changing yourself out of both greater pleasure and understanding.
Don't make the mistake of engagement. At some point at every company I've worked for, we got lazy during the "cultural fit" part of the interviews and at least one of these guys slipped through and got hired. We usually eventually let them do something like maintain the build server or ticket tracker. That usually kept them from doing harmful stuff like alphabetizing the method names in classes or reformatting all the source code for "proper indentation". The key though, is to never engage them in a conversation. Let them go home to their silent, empty apartment and pull wings off of beetles, or whatever their true dark passion is. But don't engage. You're just better off not knowing how far certain peculiarities go...
Thank you for your interesting comment and the links.
I still wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more. It seems to me that we speak about different things.
I am glad you brought up the Bob Dylan's music as an example. I agree that for him the music was an effective tool to pass his emotions and experiences to a listener. However his main tool is his lyrics and we cannot separate it from his music.
A good argument for that is that Bob Dylan isn't popular or well-known in the non-english speaking countries. I would say it is because his music isn't expressive without the lyrics. He wasn't a musician in the sense Beethoven was, he was rather a modernized poet.
This is the difference between Bob Dylan and "classical music" we discuss in this thread. My point is about where we need to place Beethoven music as an intellectual activity. I say it is different from written art, science or discussion. These are methods for creative people to transfer their experience and understanding to other people.
Music (pure music) doesn't involve it literary, only indirectly. It involves finding sound patterns that are known to bring pleasure to a listener. Nobel but different.
There is no question that music brings pleasure to people's and specifically yours and mine life and it is an important part of the culture and I am certainly not arguing that people should stop listening to music.
Music definitely tells us a lot about the cultural evolution with time just as you argue. But cuisine and drugs consumption habits of the epoch (alcohol, cigarrette, opium) tells us a lot too.
I say classical music has more to do with wines culture than with, say, literature. It's chemistry in one case and the humans sharing ideas in the other.
Wines are fine but I think conscious decision to spend time to learn the good wines and then spend time indulging elaborately fine tastes is a little bit twisted one. Maybe just a personal attitude.
Music is usually considered to be an intellectual endeavor like art and science. But there is a crucial difference for music. Science and art (at least the best of it) give us new insights to the world we live in: ideally we understand things and people more as a result.
But the ultimate purpose of music is a physiological/emotional response, something utterly subjective and that does not enrich our objective understanding of the world. In this sense, music should be considered to be an indulgence like drugs, sex or delicatessen food, in all but the delivering mechanism. Not that there is something wrong with them, but these are pleasures, not a meaningful activity.
Thus the whole notion of the special kind of music that bears higher value is of no more sense to me than, say, meth of higher culture.
Life is too short for it. For me if you can avoid listening to something, do it.