A Blog

Paul Henry Smith's comment

Paul Henry Smith, who can be contacted at his site here, raises several of the most important issues of philosophy in his post on Shostakovich, Pletnev and Bernstein. As these affect music, art, and many other questions, and are fundamental to issues dealt with in this blog, the following post deals with some of them. Paul Henry Smith is clearly able explain his own views so this 'comment on his comment' is only mine.
The first issue involved is what is in technical philosophical terminology 'ontological monism' - put non- technically it means that there is only one realm of reality and not more than one. To understand the  implications of this consider some non-monist philosophies.
A classic example is Descartes - who held there were two different realities, 'mind and matter' or 'spirit and matter'. This is a dualist philosophy - i.e. one with two fundamental realities.
To take another example, Kant distinguished between 'phenomena', the world as it is perceived, and 'noumena', the world as it actually is (the 'thing in itself).
Non-monist philosophies lead to well known and impossible philosophical contradictions.
Descartes and his followers, for example, could not answer the question of how these two realms were supposed to interact, or the causal relation between them - arriving at the bizarre conclusion this interaction between matter and spirit took place through the pineal gland! Kant claimed that there could be no knowledge of 'the thing in itself' but simultaneously contradicted himself by claiming to have a crucial piece of knowledge about it - namely that it existed!
Monist philosophies were put forward by the ancient Greeks and in Asian philosophies. However in post-renaissance Europe Spinoza was the philosopher who first decisively put forward a monist conception of the world.
Naturally most people do not study, adhere to or even know about philosophical systems. But nevertheless philosophical viewpoints are built into parts of language or particular views put forward.
One concept, which both the original post on Shostakovich and Paul Henry Smith refer to, is that  there is some 'spirit' of a work separate from what actually exists in the score, or in the play, or the painting. Another example is the frequent suggestion by Frederic Jameson, for example, that what has to be looked for is the 'essence' of a work of art - which is apparently separate from what actually exists in sight, or in sound etc. A further typical example may be found in a book such as Surface and Depth by Richard Shusterman. These frequently implicitly conceive that there is some 'spirit', or 'essence' or 'depth' which is separate from what actually exists.
Such a view is wrong. There is no such separate realm separate from what actually exists - whether as sound or visually or any other form. This does not mean that terms such as 'essence' cannot be used but they do not refer to anything which has a real existence separate from the actually existing.
Any philosophy course immediately makes the point that (pace Plato) there is no 'essence of whale' or 'concept of whale' existing separately from actual whales. There is equally no 'spirit' of Beethoven's Eroica symphony.
A second issue Paul Henry Smith deals with is that the observer, or in this case the listener, of course imposes their own order on that reality. He deals with the example of how we hear the interval of 'a fifth' in music. But we could equally take many other examples - that is there is no 'naive' perception of reality. An order is always imposed on reality by the observer/listener.
These issues have many implications a number of which are considered in this blog.

Paul Henry Smith - on 'Shostakovich, Pletnev, Bernstein - a comment'

The following comment has been received from Paul Henry Smith - whose site is Paul Henry Smith. It was sent as a comment to the post 'Shostakovich, Pletnev, Bernstein - a comment'.  However because of its interest it is also posted here separately.

Paul Henry Smith wrote:

"there exists nothing over and above what is composed and performed."

To elaborate ...

All music exists in the mind of the listener. There is no other "actually" existing reality. (One could even claim this about sound, but that's not important for this discussion.)

This is not the same as the old saw about the tree falling in the forest with no one to see it. Music is different.

Consider this ...

Think about an ascending melodic fifth (or any interval). After the first sound is played, it's gone. Right? It "actually" doesn't exist any more.

The second sound comes along in all its "actual" existence (for that moment) yet somehow we hear a fifth. If the first note no longer exists, where, then, does the fifth come from? How could something, the fifth, exist when half of it doesn't exist (in this strict "actual" sense you allude to)?

The fifth is in the mind of the listener.

All musical structure exists in this same way. A line, a harmony, a motif. Without a listening mind to perceive and organize sensory data, the only things that can be said to exist are air pressure waves. And we know that those are not sufficient to "be" music.

So, you are right that there is no already-existing Shostakovich symphony (in any ideal or actual sense). It must be produced in sound to exist. However, you are also right that the composer has given us some instructions (has told us what he wanted, as you put it). Those instructions actually exist, too. That's what the score is, nothing more, nothing less.

We assume the composer's vision of what's possible by putting these sounds together in the way he indicated is worth trying to produce. If we go through the steps and follow directions, we MIGHT get to have the kind of experience Shostakovich imagined or had.

Thus the only reasons ever to make changes to the instructions are:

1. The performer doesn't understand the score and can't make it work as written. Maybe we'll slow down the ending, then.

2. The performer understands better than the composer what's needed to make the experience coalesce as music.

3. The instructions themselves are incomplete insofar as they do not specify every aspect of musical utterance for every element indicated in the score. That is, for example, every note has its pitch and rhythm indicated, but not every element has its own dynamic marking. This incompleteness is a failing of musical notation, perhaps.

4. The performer is not engaged in the activity of trying to get to the composer's vision. He's instead trying to showcase period instruments or some new way of playing, fit the music to a film, impress the audience with the power and stamina of the brass section, and so on, ad infinitum.

5. Like no. 2, there is some that doesn't quite work and the performer decides to change it. Using horns in the recap of the Beethoven's Fifth instead of bassoons, for example. Beethoven didn't write that, but the logic of the music almost demands it. (However, I think that, of course, bassoons would also work ... would lead to what Beethoven envisioned). Some music is more malleable in this way. Instrumentation can be changed, and the possibility of getting to the composer's vision is not destroyed. Think of Bach's art of the fugue. No instruments are indicated in the score at all. A saxophone quartet or an organ can play that piece and remain true to the composer's intentions.

The point is simple. Music exists in the mind of the listener. Sounds put together in a way that follows the instructions of a composer (perhaps a genius) can lead to music that might be a great experience.

The idea of an "actually existing" piece of music outside of this doesn't make sense and can't really be defended or even explained.

If you want to go further down this philosophical road, you would do well to read what Roman Ingarden had to say about the subject.

"Utwór muzyczny i sprawa jego tożsamości" (The Work of Music and the Problem of Its Identity), Wydawnictwo, Warszawa, 1966.

Or, in translation:

"The Work of Music and the Problem of Its Identity", transl. Adam Czerniawski; Jean Harrell ed., Berkeley: University of Califomia Press; and London: Macmillan, 1986.

"L’opera musicale e il problema della sua identità", Flaccovio, Palermo 1989.

"Qu’est – ce qu’ne oeuvre musicale?", transl. D. Smoje, Paris: C. Bourgois 1989.

Or more generally ...

"The Ontology of the Work of Art: The Musical Work, the Picture, the Architectural Work, the Film", transl. R. Meyer and J.T. Goldthwait, Athens: Ohio UP 1989.

Content, art, music

Music is very frequently categorised by style (rock, classical, blues ) or genre (opera, symphony, instrumental) and people are asked whether they like a particular style (e.g. rock or classical) or genre (opera, ballet).This is superficial and not the most important point.

It was Hegel in his Aesthetics who made the relevant distinction – between what may be termed entertainment and art. Science and technology can also be used to produce the trivial, harmless toys, or the extremely important. In the same way art can be used to provide pure entertainment or profound insight: 'it may appear as if fine art were unworthy of scientific consideration; because it is alleged, it is at best a pleasing amusement... it is no doubt that art can be employed as a fleeting pastime, to serve the ends of pleasure and entertainment, to decorate our surroundings, to impart pleasantness to the external conditions of our life, and to emphasise other objects by means of ornament... That art is in the abstract capable of serving other aims, of being a mere pastime, is moreover a relation which it shares with thought... art... only achieves its highest task when it has taken its place in the same sphere with religion and philosophy, and become simply a mode of revealing to consciousness and bringing to utterance... the deepest interests of humanity, and the most comprehensive truths of the mind.'Hegel argues, for example 'It is in works of art that nations have deposited the profoundest intuitions and ideas of their hearts; and fine art is frequently the key... to the understanding of their wisdom and of their religion.'

The 'classical' music which is still performed, and it is only a tiny fraction of that which was written, is so not because it is performed on violin or piano but because it expresses something important. But it is very far from encompassing all the profoundly important experiences of humanity. Beethoven or Bach had no experience, for example, of the life of black people under slavery and its aftermath in the US. Therefore blues, which resulted from this, is both profoundly important and has a content which was not expressed in classical music.Much music is, at best, only entertainment not because it is played on particular instruments or with a particular style, but because it expresses nothing important. Beethoven is important because he expresses something and so does Howling Wolf. It is essentially irrelevant that they have totally different styles – although the content does, of course, determine the style, but that is a different issue.