# Where the hell is the music?



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

*Is a musical piece to be identified with the score? Or does it exist only as a performance?* If the latter is true, is there then no such (one) thing as 'Beethoven's 5th' or 'Bach's Goldbergs', but rather simply many different 5ths and Goldbergs. If _this_ is, in turn, true, then can we even say 'this 5th was better than that 5th' - in terms of being a better realisation of some (one) thing, as opposed to simply being a better (different) piece, in the sense someone might like Right of Spring better than The Lark Ascending?

I don't see a credible third option existing: that a musical piece is not the score nor a particular performance, but rather some ideal 'thing'. This would be nonsense. Where would this thing be, and how could we be able to say that performance X was a better 'realisation' of it than performance Y?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Too much thinking surely occupies our mind and doesn't always provide answers. Just put on some good music and enjoy. It's much more edifying.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

*Where the hell are the irrational numbers?*

*Is the number Pi just a symbol? Or does it only exist as approximate rationals in the real world?* If the latter is true, there is then no such thing as Pi, but rather simply many different finite approximations of Pi. If this is true, then can one even say "3.1415926" is better than "3.14" in terms of being a better realization of Pi (as opposed to simply being a better irrational, in the sense someone might like "e" better than Pi)?

I don't see a credible third option existing: that an irrational number is not a symbol or a particular finite approximation, but rather some ideal thing call Pi. This would be nonsense.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

If you've ever lost a tooth, and held it in your hand, it appears smaller and individual, like a differing thing than before. In fact our perception makes it seem different, but it's always the same. The real tooth doesn't appear to be anywhere but than in our mind how it we assume it is, similar to a pattern not existing until it's recognized as a pattern. Thus the individual pieces we hear or see are just the commentary on the actual thing; the language of communicating it. That is what music is, sounds and notations. What lies at the initial source of music is still up for debate.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

While we're on the subject...

Where's the beef?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Does Hamlet exist in the script or the performance?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

RogerWaters said:


> *I don't see a credible third option existing: that a musical piece is not the score nor a particular performance, but rather some ideal 'thing'. This would be nonsense. Where would this thing be, and how could we be able to say that performance X was a better 'realisation' of it than performance Y?*


*

I find the statement that "ideal things" are "nonsense" to be questionable. Ideal things exist in billions of places. Beethoven's tenth or Mozart's completed Requiem probably existed in the heads of their creators, at least in embryonic form, at the times of their deaths. They were real, composed of chemicals housed within the cerebral cortexes of their creators. Ideal things like these are (hopefully) transcribed, amended, and worked through by the owners of said brains onto paper (or a digital medium these days). How closely does the transcription cohere with the ideal thing? Depends on the composer and his or her circumstances and work habits, I imagine.

As far as what that means for appreciating a particular rendition, we typically don't have privileged access to the thoughts of the person most familiar with the ideal thing. Occasionally we have quotes from composers as to which interpretations they liked best. That might give us an insight as to which performances most closely cohere with the "ideal things" that the compositions are transcriptions of. But we certainly have privileged access to the "ideal things" stirred within us by listening to them.*


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

RogerWaters said:


> *Is a musical piece to be identified with the score? Or does it exist only as a performance?* If the latter is true, is there then no such (one) thing as 'Beethoven's 5th' or 'Bach's Goldbergs', but rather simply many different 5ths and Goldbergs. If _this_ is, in turn, true, then can we even say 'this 5th was better than that 5th' - in terms of being a better realisation of some (one) thing, as opposed to simply being a better (different) piece, in the sense someone might like Right of Spring better than The Lark Ascending?
> 
> I don't see a credible third option existing: that a musical piece is not the score nor a particular performance, but rather some ideal 'thing'. This would be nonsense. Where would this thing be, and how could we be able to say that performance X was a better 'realisation' of it than performance Y?


An intriguing topic, to be sure.
In another post on this Forum I wrote about how a musical score is somewhat like a building blueprint. The building somehow exists within the blueprint, but in a different fashion than in the embodiment of the structure itself. So does the musical work exist in both the blueprint (score) and in the actual performance of the music.
Interestingly enough, one can study the building or the musical work through either reading the blueprint/score or experiencing the finished performance/structure.
Too, a piano reduction of a full orchestra symphony still renders the musical work (though differently in substance) just as a paper, wood, and clay rendition of the building will render the structure (though differently in substance).

Much here to ponder and discuss. An intriguing topic, to be sure. But who needs another headache?



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> *Where the hell are the irrational numbers?*
> 
> *Is the number Pi just a symbol? Or does it only exist as approximate rationals in the real world?* If the latter is true, there is then no such thing as Pi, but rather simply many different finite approximations of Pi. If this is true, then can one even say "3.1415926" is better than "3.14" in terms of being a better realization of Pi (as opposed to simply being a better irrational, in the sense someone might like "e" better than Pi)?
> 
> I don't see a credible third option existing: that an irrational number is not a symbol or a particular finite approximation, but rather some ideal thing call Pi. This would be nonsense.


At least a musical work comes to a definite end at some point or other. So it remains outside discussions of infinite structures, in that sense. (Though I believe that someone -- John Cage or maybe Morton Feldman -- has written something without an end. But that's a headache for another day.)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> At least a musical work comes to a definite end at some point or other. So it remains outside discussions of infinite structures, in that sense. (Though I believe that someone -- John Cage or maybe Morton Feldman -- has written something without an end. But that's a headache for another day.)


The idea is that an "ideal" can certainly exists as a concept, not "nonsense". In many cases, such as "real numbers", it is essential to have an "ideal" even if there is no "real world counterpart".


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> *Where the hell are the irrational numbers?*
> 
> *Is the number Pi just a symbol? Or does it only exist as approximate rationals in the real world?* If the latter is true, there is then no such thing as Pi, but rather simply many different finite approximations of Pi. If this is true, then can one even say "3.1415926" is better than "3.14" in terms of being a better realization of Pi (as opposed to simply being a better irrational, in the sense someone might like "e" better than Pi)?
> 
> I don't see a credible third option existing: that an irrational number is not a symbol or a particular finite approximation, but rather some ideal thing call Pi. This would be nonsense.


This would have come across as more clever if people other than mathematicians or those versed in mathematics could understand it. Most people (including me) don't really know what an irrational number is nor any of the issues surrounding finite approximations of Pi!

Edit: OK so irrational numbers go on forever and so you need a finite approximation of pi because all our representations will necessary be finite. I guess the problem you are thinking of is that if we can never represent pi properly, it must exist as an 'ideal'. But I think there are significant epistemological differences between mathematics and music. When it comes to pie, we know when we're closer in our individual representatiosn ('performances') to the Truth. There is intersubjective agreement. With music, we don't, reflected by ever-present and considerable intersubjective disagreement.

Are you thinking the ideal 5th exists in the mind of the original Beethoven, and that if we could but simply ask him we _would_ have agreement? That would be preferectly reasonable. If that's what we would mean by The ('ideal') 5th, that's not nonsense. But that's not really what I was thinking of when I said 'ideal' in my OP.

I guess there are now four options:

1. 'The' piece is the score
2. 'The' piece is a particular performance
3. 'The' piece is what Beethoven intended ('ideal' light)
4. 'The' piece exists in some ideal sense ('ideal' proper)


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> This would have come across as more clever if people other than mathematicians or those versed in mathematics could understand it.


You could as easily ask where is a circle or square - no example of either shape exists in the real world, only approximations


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> This would have come across as more clever if people other than mathematicians or those versed in mathematics could understand it. Most people (including me) don't really know what an irrational number is nor any of the issues surrounding finite approximations of Pi!


Being clever was not my intention, I was just trying to provide more intuition for a fellow rationalist. It must have a long time since you last see these things in high school. Let me explain:

You see, the number Pi is not just an irrational number, but a transcendental number (yes it's very mysterious), it definitely exists in mathematics, I can assure you, and the modern civilization depends on it. But the problem is you cannot write it down or find such numbers in the physical world, you can only write down numbers that are close to it or write it as a symbol.

The point is: the third option can exist, there is no problem with that, it's not nonsense, it might take you a while to internalize that, but it's worth it.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Being clever was not my intention, I was just trying to provide more intuition for a fellow rationalist. It must have a long time since you last see these things in high school. Let me explain:
> 
> You see, the number Pi is not just an irrational number, but a transcendental number (yes it's very mysterious), it definitely exists in mathematics, I can assure you, and the modern civilization depends on it. But the problem is you cannot write it down or find such numbers in the physical world, you can only write down numbers that are close to it or write it as a symbol.
> 
> The point is: the third option can exist, there is no problem with that, it's not nonsense, it might take you a while to internalize that, but it's worth it.


I looked up irrational numbers and edited my post as you posted this


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> Where would this thing be, and how could we be able to say that performance X was a better 'realisation' of it than performance Y?


In my mind, I can't help but think of certain non-HIP practices as "inauthentic", "not genuine", "fake". 













*[ 2:33 ]*


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Maybe real music doesn't exist, because the only true version of any piece of music can only exist in the composers head.

DUH DUH DUUUUUUHHHHH


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> Are you thinking the ideal 5th exists in the mind of the original Beethoven, and that if we could but simply ask him we _would_ have agreement? That would be preferectly reasonable. If that's what we would mean by The ('ideal') 5th, that's not nonsense. But that's not really what I was thinking of when I said 'ideal' in my OP.


The question you are poking is again, a philosophical one. You seem to have a natural disposition for the deep philosophical questions. I admire that. But you have to recognize that these questions are difficult and have no simple, definite answers, which seems to be the thing you are looking for. Let me try with the following version:

An ideal 5th can exists in anybody's mind, if one knows the score well. It does not have to be fixed, it can be fuzzy, it can change all the time while maintaining some general features. You do have a sense of whether a "real performance" is close to such "ideal" or not.

Similarly, an ideal woman can exists in anybody's mind, if one knows women well. She does not have to be fixed, she can be a blonde today, and a ginger tomorrow. You do have a sense of whether a "real woman" is close to such "ideal" or not. (assuming that you are a heterosexual male or a lesbian female, of course)


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

RogerWaters said:


> Are you thinking the ideal 5th exists in the mind of the original Beethoven, and that if we could but simply ask him we _would_ have agreement? That would be preferectly reasonable. If that's what we would mean by The ('ideal') 5th, that's not nonsense. But that's not really what I was thinking of when I said 'ideal' in my OP.
> 
> I guess there are now four options:
> 
> ...


There is also a 5th available option Roger....

5. 'The' piece is recorded by the composer and signed off by him/her as definitive. At the very least, composer recordings are always considered authoritative. Messiaen has signed at least one release of the Turangalila on the issues cover. Your OP must apply to the last 150 odd years too, right?

I will add though that not seeing the wood for the trees is sometimes an occupational hazard for a composer.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2020)

It just goes to show that arithmetic doesn't solve anything (and certainly not the OP's conundrum). If the circumference divided by the diameter of a circle is a constant, that seems to me to be sufficiently definitive. We don't need to do the arithmetic.

Back to the OP. Obviously, the score is not the music.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Time does not actually exist. It is human invented.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> If the circumference divided by the diameter of a circle is a constant, that seems to me to be sufficiently definitive.


That if part requires the constant to exist in the first place. We don't know if circumference divided by the diameter of a circle is a constant that exists, unless you have constructed such number in the first place.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That if part requires the constant to exist in the first place. We don't know if circumference divided by the diameter of a circle is a constant that exists, unless you have constructed such number in the first place.


[edit - let's skip this, it's a red herring]


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

There is plenty of music that does not have a score, so while there are many works that can be heard in the mind (if you are trained to hear the music by reading the score) that is still only one kind of music. Most my most favorite music is from jazz, blues, old time mountain music, i.e. vernacular music.

So, for me, and even though I have been trained and can "hear" a written score - music does not exist without a performance.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> *Where the hell are the irrational numbers?*
> 
> *Is the number Pi just a symbol? Or does it only exist as approximate rationals in the real world?* If the latter is true, there is then no such thing as Pi, but rather simply many different finite approximations of Pi. If this is true, then can one even say "3.1415926" is better than "3.14" in terms of being a better realization of Pi (as opposed to simply being a better irrational, in the sense someone might like "e" better than Pi)?
> 
> I don't see a credible third option existing: that an irrational number is not a symbol or a particular finite approximation, but rather some ideal thing call Pi. This would be nonsense.


I understand Pi is 10 in base Pi.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> *Is a musical piece to be identified with the score? Or does it exist only as a performance?* If the latter is true, is there then no such (one) thing as 'Beethoven's 5th' or 'Bach's Goldbergs', but rather simply many different 5ths and Goldbergs. If _this_ is, in turn, true, then can we even say 'this 5th was better than that 5th' - in terms of being a better realisation of some (one) thing, as opposed to simply being a better (different) piece, in the sense someone might like Right of Spring better than The Lark Ascending?
> 
> I don't see a credible third option existing: that a musical piece is not the score nor a particular performance, but rather some ideal 'thing'. This would be nonsense. Where would this thing be, and how could we be able to say that performance X was a better 'realisation' of it than performance Y?


This issue is comprehensively dealt with by Lydia Goehr* in her book _The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works_. Here is a link to a preview: 
*https://books.google.fr/books/about...p_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
*

*Daughter of composer Alexander Goehr


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

TalkingHead said:


> This issue is comprehensively dealth with by Lydia Goehr* in her book _The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works_. Here is a link to a preview:
> *https://books.google.fr/books/about...p_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
> *
> 
> *Daughter of composer Alexander Goehr


I have this TH but not got around to it yet. Goehr's daughter, like her father, is very smart so I anticipate a good tough read.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

SONNET CLV said:


> At least a musical work comes to a definite end at some point or other. So it remains outside discussions of infinite structures, in that sense. (Though I believe that someone -- John Cage or maybe Morton Feldman -- has written something without an end. But that's a headache for another day.)


Wait, pi is outside the discussion of infinite structures. It is a finite number. You can approximate pi to any accuracy using a finite decimal representation and rigorously define it using a finite number of sentences. It is possible to represent pi using an infinite number of digits, but it is possible to represent 2 using an infinite number of digits and nobody argues 2 is an infinite structure.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

BachIsBest said:


> Wait, pi is outside the discussion of infinite structures. It is a finite number. You can approximate pi to any accuracy using a finite decimal representation and rigorously define it using a finite number of sentences. It is possible to represent pi using an infinite number of digits, but it is possible to represent 2 using an infinite number of digits and nobody argues 2 is an infinite structure.


You do need the idea of limit to show that Pi exists. The idea of limit is a way to deal with infinity.

But an "ideal" is some way a limit, because the our cognitive understanding of the real-world objects are "discrete", and an "ideal" can only coincide with an real-world object with probability 0 (we can never reach absolution perfect ideal due to measurement error). This means that an ideal can only be thought of as the limit of real-world objects that approximate it (otherwise for topological reasons, we can't tell whether something is closer to the ideal or not), ad infinitum, in the same way Pi is the whatever the Euler's approximating sequence converges to.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> *Is a musical piece to be identified with the score? Or does it exist only as a performance?*


I wrote earlier that for me a performance is where the work occurs, a score is the work in potential. This has been debated _ad nauseam_ for centuries.



> If the latter is true, is there then no such (one) thing as 'Beethoven's 5th' or 'Bach's Goldbergs', but rather simply many different 5ths and Goldbergs.


Performances are as unique as each performer, but this does not create unique "works," merely unique iterations of the work.



> If _this_ is, in turn, true, then can we even say 'this 5th was better than that 5th' - in terms of being a better realisation of some (one) thing, as opposed to simply being a better (different) piece, in the sense someone might like Right of Spring better than The Lark Ascending?


I do not recognize any objective standard for judging music, or any work of art. IMO, these judgements are all subjective.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

BachIsBest said:


> Wait, pi is outside the discussion of infinite structures. It is a finite number. You can approximate pi to any accuracy using a finite decimal representation and rigorously define it using a finite number of sentences. It is possible to represent pi using an infinite number of digits, but it is possible to represent 2 using an infinite number of digits and nobody argues 2 is an infinite structure.


But 2 with 3^^^3 zeros after the decimal = 2.0, Pi to 9 digits <> Pi to 10 digits, but effectively pi= the largest number of digits practically needed, 3.141592653589793 in the case of NASA's navigational requirements.

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288420 would suffice to calculate the circumference of the known universe to the width of a hydrogen atom


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You do need the idea of limit to show that Pi exists. The idea of limit is a way to deal with infinity.
> 
> But an "ideal" is some way a limit, because the our cognitive understanding of the real-world objects are "discrete", and an "ideal" can only coincide with an real-world object with probability 0 (we can never reach absolution perfect ideal due to measurement error). This means that an ideal can only be thought of as the limit of real-world objects that approximate it (otherwise for topological reasons, we can't tell whether something is closer to the ideal or not), ad infinitum, in the same way Pi is the whatever the Euler's approximating sequence converges to.


Whether or not you need a limit to show whether pi exists or not depends entirely on how one defines pi. The elementary definition is to either define pi as the ratio of circumference to diameter or as the area of a unit circle. The second is probably more theoretically advantageous as it is obvious this is a constant. You are simply denoting the are of a unit circle by pi, no limits involved. If you want to 'do things' with pi you probably need limits, but this is beside the point of the argument.

Regardless, limits do not necessarily involve infinity, and such things can easily be dealt with even in classical finitism.

In the end, this is getting dangerously off-topic. If you aren't satisfied with my answer you could PM me.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

Music is an ideal—it is transcendent. It's more like a Platonic form than an object. This is why I hate HIP... music is not a museum piece from the past, but something that must always be strived towards. Great performances are closer to the music than bad performances, and the score is very far away (ever heard a MIDI recording of Chopin's Préludes??)... We can only attempt to bring the dream of the music into fruition. In another universe, we could simply transmit music through our minds, but instead we must rely on air vibrations.

Also, I seriously mean this. We use ideals all the time. What is 6??? There are examples of 6, but we can never locate 6 itself in physical reality. What is love?? There are examples of love, but love itself exists beyond its physical appearances.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I don't know where his falls on the spectrum of Platonic ideal to score vs. performance, but even in ninth grade, I was able to listen to my high school orchestra's woefully out of tune performance of the overture to "Iphegenia in Aulis" and hear past all the errors and assemble in my mind what the piece _should_ sound like and appreciate it for what it is (whatever _that_ is). Always have. What is it I am appreciating?


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

OP asks



> *Is a musical piece to be identified with the score? Or does it exist only as a performance?*





SanAntone said:


> I wrote earlier that for me a performance is where the work occurs, a score is the work in potential. This has been debated _ad nauseam_ for centuries.





TalkingHead said:


> This issue is comprehensively dealt with by Lydia Goehr* in her book _The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works_. Here is a link to a preview:
> *https://books.google.fr/books/about...p_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false*


These two answers seem to me appropriately brisk and straightforward. I just dipped into the Goehr, but as usual, there's hardly time to read a book now while this ephemeral discussion is underway here.

Frankly, I don't get the _reason _for the debate. I'm very happy to debate ambiguity where it exists - I like ambiguity. But I don't see any here except in philosophers' minds.


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

post #16


> Similarly, an ideal woman can exists in anybody's mind, if one knows women well. She does not have to be fixed, she can be a blonde today, and a ginger tomorrow. You do have a sense of whether a "real woman" is close to such "ideal" or not. (assuming that you are a heterosexual male or a lesbian female, of course)


I think this comes rather close to understanding music(and many other things in our existence). It is in your head - a perception - and is influenced by many other things and is in state of change. Every performance is unique and even every time you listen to the same performance it may be unique or different. Music does not exist before you read or hear it(or compose it). 
Some things can be understood only if looked from a distance and a bit blurred. So all options are equally valid being a part of the whole. To start comparing details is nonsense.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

BachIsBest said:


> Whether or not you need a limit to show whether pi exists or not depends entirely on how one defines pi. The elementary definition is to either define pi as the ratio of circumference to diameter or as the area of a unit circle. The second is probably more theoretically advantageous as it is obvious this is a constant. You are simply denoting the are of a unit circle by pi, no limits involved. If you want to 'do things' with pi you probably need limits, but this is beside the point of the argument.
> 
> Regardless, limits do not necessarily involve infinity, and such things can easily be dealt with even in classical finitism.
> 
> In the end, this is getting dangerously off-topic. If you aren't satisfied with my answer you could PM me.


Yes, not a rabbit hole to go down too far. The thing which struck me as odd earlier was the willingness to claim that three existed, but pi didn't. If you are going to say that three exists then that seems to mean that you are attaching "existence" to a mathematical concept. Pi is just another mathematical concept (which tends to take a bit more complicated machinery to develop and manage) but I can't see why it is any less worthy of "existence". My feeling is that the problem in a lot of these discussions (including the notorious threads on Furtwangler and Toscanini) is the dangerous word "existence". The OP question of where the music "is", represents that sort of existence issue.

With music we have (if we exclude fully improvised music) a documented recipe of some sort, some method of realising that in performance, an actual performance, a listener or listeners - all that sort of stuff.

Music is in the whole thing. It's a word we use, as humans communicating with each other, to refer to all this sort of stuff: the marks on a page are music (- here's a clue: music is what is found in a music book!); the imagined performance in your head is music; the sound waves and vibrations which a performance generates are music; the way you perceive those sounds is music.

I don't really like the absolutism in trying to say the music is precisely one thing or another among the sorts of thing I describe above. Music emerges from putting these things together in a way which we recognise as music, given our upbringing. It doesn't "exist" in any of them in isolation.

That's probably why I dislike the idea of "musical truth": the world is messier than that, and all the better for it.

In particular the idea that idealised musical truth is sitting out there in some sort of Platonic realm which we cannot access seems to me to miss the whole point. It's bad enough with maths, where we think about stuff for a while, come up with (say) a circle as a well-defined mathematical object (say a closed plane curve where all points are equidistant from a single point) and then we say to ourselves, all smug: "That's clever, and it would be even more splendid if we said that it exists, so lets pretend it does. Then we'll feel even more smug." At least with the maths you can have a go at creating as sound a foundation as you can manage for the conceptual reasoning, so you can attempt some sort of agreement on the properties of these circle things. Applying the same sort of approach to music just leads to gobbledegook.

So, in answer to the question "where the hell is the music": it's amorphously present bubbling around the whole process of coming up with the stuff, performing it and listening to it. It doesn't have any other existence.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Of course music exists in the score and in the performance / interpretation. We might say the score is the bare bones which needs to be fleshed out by the interpretation


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

..according to Elgar, music is in the air and all around us.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> ..according to Elgar, music is in the air and all around us.


That's certainly a more meaningful place for it to be than an idealised world of forms.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> ..according to Elgar, music is in the air and all around us.





Eclectic Al said:


> That's certainly a more meaningful place for it to be than an idealised world of forms.


Yes, to the extent that music couldn't be heard without the air through which vibrations are pushed to our ears.

For some reason, some folks find the audible more elusive to grasp than the tangible. The fact that you can't hold 'music' in your hands (unless you're referring to a score or a device holding a recording) doesn't mean it doesn't exist physically.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Eclectic Al said:


> That's certainly a more meaningful place for it to be than an idealised world of forms.


Elgar's poetic allusion does have a nice tie in with a lesser used definition of inspiration - breathing in. Unless of course someone was playing Wagner on their boombox at the time....


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

As I have answered the last several times this issue was raised: Music is a performing art. Like other performing arts, the aesthetic object is the performance. (Duh, that's why it's called a performing art.) The score is a script for creating a performance, just like the script of a play contains everything necessary to create a dramatic performance. Scores and scripts don't (can't and shouldn't) indicate all parameters of a performance, which is why musicians and actors train for years to realize satisfying performances from scores and scripts.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Are we making things too complicated, I wonder. Music in the public domain belongs to us and so exists in us. A score is a blueprint; a performance is a unique realisation of that blueprint. But the music lives in us. Even for those of us who have never heard it or read it, it is there if they ever want it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> Are we making things too complicated, I wonder. Music in the public domain belongs to us and so exists in us. A score is a blueprint; a performance is a unique realisation of that blueprint. But the music lives in us. Even for those of us who have never heard it or read it, it is there if they ever want it.


I think this discussion is focusing too much on "the score." I don't have any data but would guess that most of the music from across the globe has no score and has never been written down in any manner. From Indian Classical Music to Delta Blues, the music is transferred via an oral tradition, an apprentice learns the music from a master. In that way all of the nuances are absorbed real-time at the feet of the master.

It seems to me primarily in the Western Classical tradition do scores loom so large. Obviously music exists outside of any consideration of a score.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> I think this discussion is focusing too much on "the score."


Perhaps that's because the OP asked two questions, one of which asked us to focus on the score.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps that's because the OP asked two questions, one of which asked us to focus on the score.


While that is true, much of the discussion has been about the larger question, which is the thread title, of "where does the music exist," and the philosophical question about the nature of music. Spending a lot of time focusing on a score seems to me to ignore traditions and cultures which make complex music yet do not have a written tradition.

That would indicate that the nature of music has nothing to do with the existence of a score.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

A score is a tool used by a composer to present the music in order to transmit it to a performer. This is in lieu of teaching a composition to a performer one-on-one, which is how it is done in many non-Western cultures. Only in a western environment is it possible to confuse the "music" with the score. A score is not necessary for music to exist, it is just the tool or method that Western composers have used to describe and transmit their music.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Two models I can think of to describe the situation:

1) A piece of music only exists while it's being performed. Otherwise there are instructions for how to perform it (the score), or someone's memory of how to perform it.

2) The piece always exists as information, either in someone's memory or written down.

I'm not sure whether one of these models is more correct or whether the distinction is just semantic. I would note that it applies equally to common practice classical music, where the score is very detailed, and to other musical traditions where the parameters that define a particular piece might be a short tune, series of chord changes, etc. That's a difference of degree only.

It also applies to poems and recipes, for what it's worth.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

RogerWaters said:


> Is a musical piece to be identified with the score?


In part.



> Or does it exist only as a performance?


Not only.



> is there then no such (one) thing as 'Beethoven's 5th' or 'Bach's Goldbergs', but rather simply many different 5ths and Goldbergs.


There is such a thing as Beethoven's 5th _and_ many different 5ths.



> can we even say 'this 5th was better than that 5th' - in terms of being a better realisation of some (one) thing, as opposed to simply being a better (different) piece, in the sense someone might like Right of Spring better than The Lark Ascending?


We can.



> I don't see a credible third option existing: that a musical piece is not the score nor a particular performance, but rather some ideal 'thing'. This would be nonsense. Where would this thing be, and how could we be able to say that performance X was a better 'realisation' of it than performance Y?


There is no ultimate ideal, but there are plenty of possible travesties.

In the performing arts, a work is a collaboration between the primary creator and its interpreters. This raises difficulties in practice, but the only philosophical problem is whether performers are ethically obligated to try to divine and realize the intentions of the author.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

isorhythm said:


> Two models I can think of to describe the situation:
> 
> 1) A piece of music only exists while it's being performed. Otherwise there are instructions for how to perform it (the score), or someone's memory of how to perform it.
> 
> ...


I think we agree that the music (in potential) exists first in the mind of the composer, and then is either transmitted orally to a performer or written down as a method of transmission to a performer.

But I am convinced that music is sound and must be realized by a performance. Existence in the mind of the composer is the information of the music but not the music itself.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

I would like to draw a parallel with portraiture.
That is a perfectly respectable noun which describes an artistic pursuit. There is a painter, a sitter, ideas in the mind of the painter about what they want to produce, some sketches (perhaps) and the final work, with an audience too (if they're lucky).

No one seems perplexed and asks: "well where is the portraiture then?". As Woodduck notes, it is the whole collaborative endeavour. Comparing with music:
- the painter is the composer
- the sitter is some form of physical inspiration
- the sketches are rehearsals
- the brushes and paints are the instruments
- the finished piece is the performance (a frozen one rather than an evanescent one as in music)
- the audience is the audience.

There's also a whole tradition of portraiture so that certain approaches will convey something to experienced audience members, and which can guide the painter into an approach.

There is no more to it than that.

It's seems to me that music is very, very similar. There is a perfectly respectable noun describing a collaborative process people engage in, and that's surely enough. Why is music seen as so mystical? Myself, I don't understand the puzzlement.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> I think this discussion is focusing too much on "the score." I don't have any data but would guess that most of the music from across the globe has no score and has never been written down in any manner. From Indian Classical Music to Delta Blues, the music is transferred via an oral tradition, an apprentice learns the music from a master. In that way all of the nuances are absorbed real-time at the feet of the master.
> 
> It seems to me primarily in the Western Classical tradition do scores loom so large. Obviously music exists outside of any consideration of a score.


That's why I wrote



> Even for those of us who have never *heard it *or read it, it is there if they ever want it.


My point was that music is neither the score or the performance, that it lives within us and belongs to us.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> My point was that music is neither the score or the performance, that it lives within us and belongs to us.


But music _is _the performance (as in, the music of 'Beethoven's 5th' is a performance of it.) It isn't the score. The musical score is the musical score. Music is sound, isn't it?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I luv this Beethoven 5th


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> But music _is _the performance (as in, the music of 'Beethoven's 5th' is a performance of it.) It isn't the score. The musical score is the musical score. Music is sound, isn't it?


I think it's important that we determine whether we are talking about a piece of music or music itself. Music itself of course constitutes of sounds and I can produce music without writing it down. When we talk about a musical piece then, while it technically could exist without ever being written down, it usually is for the sake of wholeness and "timeless" quality. We wouldn't have Beethoven's 9th without the score. To evaluate or even just comprehend Beethoven's 9th as music, actual playing is required (although maybe a very sensitive perfect pitch would work as well). The full result is a combination of the work of the composer and the realisation of his intentions and the full potential of the score by the performers.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> There is no ultimate ideal, but there are plenty of possible travesties.


This is not a fact, but a philosophical view.

What's the difference between an "ultimate ideal" and an "ideal"? Isn't "ultimate" redundant?

How are travesties possible without "ideal"? Travesty of what?



Woodduck said:


> In the performing arts, a work is a collaboration between the primary creator and its interpreters. This raises difficulties in practice, but the only philosophical problem is whether performers are ethically obligated to try to divine and realize the intentions of the author.


What do you mean by "the only philosophical problem"? Are you saying that there is only a single philosophical problem about performing art? What's the basis for stating "there is only one philosophical problem"? Professional practices?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> But music _is _the performance (as in, the music of 'Beethoven's 5th' is a performance of it.) It isn't the score. The musical score is the musical score. Music is sound, isn't it?


If you can tolerate "ideal", then the score and the stream of sound as a realization of the score are two different representations of music.



> My point was that music is neither the score or the performance, that it lives within us and belongs to us.


The potential stream of sound in our minds can also be viewed as a representation of music.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

annaw said:


> I think it's important that we determine whether we are talking about a piece of music or music itself. Music itself of course constitutes of sounds and I can produce music without writing it down. When we talk about a musical piece then, while it technically could exist without ever being written down, it usually is for the sake of wholeness and "timeless" quality. We wouldn't have Beethoven's 9th without the score. To evaluate or even just comprehend Beethoven's 9th as music, actual playing is required (although maybe a very sensitive perfect pitch would work as well). The full result is a combination of the work of the composer and the realisation of his intentions and the full potential of the score by the performers.


You're right. I hope I was careful to be referring to "the music" (as in, a particular composition) and not "music" (mass noun, as the Oxford Dictionary would say). I took the OP to be asking not about "music", but about "the music" as defined by a score.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> If you can tolerate "ideal", then the score and the stream of sound as a realization of the score are two different representations of music.


Yes, but see my reply to annaw and her distinctions.


----------



## HolstThePhone (Oct 11, 2015)

How many angelic orchestras can play Beethoven's 5th on the head of a pin?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> Yes, but see my reply to annaw and her distinctions.


There are many valid ways and perspectives for defining "what is music". OP is asking a philosophical question, which goes beyond a dictionary definition. He was asking "what is the right concept for music" in order to solve his conundrum without resorting to "ideal".

Annaw has defined "music itself" as the stream of sounds, which is fine, but it does not solve OP's problem, because that was OP's problem, Beethoven's 5th can't just be the stream of sounds.

Annaw's idea that 


> The full result is a combination of the work of the composer and the realisation of his intentions and the full potential of the score by the performers.


is her way to say there is an ideal 5th, which in her words is "Beethoven's intentions and full potentials of the score". This is abstract and does not exist in the physical world.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There are many valid ways and perspectives for defining "what is music". OP is asking a philosophical question, which goes beyond a dictionary definition. He was asking "what is the right concept for music" in order to solve his conundrum without resorting to "ideal".
> 
> Annaw has defined "music itself" as the stream of sounds, which is fine, but it does not solve OP's problem, because that was OP's problem, Beethoven's 5th can't just be the stream of sounds.
> 
> ...


Let's not dwell too deeply on _how_ things are conveyed and put into words. I have not stated nor intended to say that an ideal performance really exists - I use words like "full", "absolute" etc. to strengthen the main message I am communicating, mere rhetorics. Lots of things can be inferred from the score itself, from the harmonies, melodies etc. Good interpretations can differ immensely - one is joyous, other is tragic. They both use the potentials of the score. That's what I meant and pardon, if the word "full" was confusing there.

Had I wanted to convey some Platonic theory of forms, I would have stated that quite literally in simple words. In addition, as Woodduck pointed out, it's a whole different question whether the composer's intentions really should be realised or not and thus my last statement communicates my own opinion. They should be followed, though not even the composers themselves always fully understood their own compositions and all the smaller aspects of them.

I don't necessarily think this discussion has to be taken to some higher philosophical level though .


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Thanks for clarifying, I understand what you are trying to say.



annaw said:


> I don't necessarily think this discussion has to be taken into some higher philosophical level though .


I agree, let's leave it at that.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There are many valid ways and perspectives for defining "what is music". OP is asking a philosophical question, which goes beyond a dictionary definition. He was asking "what is the right concept for music" in order to solve his conundrum without resorting to "ideal".
> 
> Annaw has defined "music itself" as the stream of sounds, which is fine, but it does not solve OP's problem, because that was OP's problem, Beethoven's 5th can't just be the stream of sounds.
> 
> ...


Beethoven's intentions do not exist in the physical world, now, but they used to. They were a particular mental state, functionally defined, and realised by patterns of neuronal firings in his brain. So if Beethoven's 5th is best identified with Beethoven's original intentions, that's not 'abstract' as far as I can see?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

RogerWaters said:


> Beethoven's intentions do not exist in the physical world, now, but they used to. They were a particular mental state, functionally defined, and realised by patterns of neuronal firings in his brain. So if Beethoven's 5th is best identified with Beethoven's original intentions, that's not 'abstract' is it?


Even when the composers themselves conduct their own pieces, the performances are sometimes significantly different in their length and interpretation. I don't think the composers have in mind one ideal rendition of their composition, at least not all of them.

I still think we should come down from those philosophical realms. As the "Fascinations" threads proved, it's difficult to have such discussions through a forum like TC because it takes so much effort to explain philosophical theories and ideas without others being able to correct or ask for a clarification immediately.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> Beethoven's intentions do not exist in the physical world, now, but they used to. They were a particular mental state, functionally defined, and realised by patterns of neuronal firings in his brain. So if Beethoven's 5th is best identified with Beethoven's original intentions, that's not 'abstract' as far as I can see?


That's good. I agree if you make a hardcore reductionist argument like that. I like to interpret it that way too. (but not always, it depends on the question)

"Abstract concepts" can be an emergent phenomenon (a scientific term) from lower-level physical interactions. But at the same time, if you are a hardcore reductionist, then all subjectivities also vanish, there is "objective truth" that governs and explains every subjective preferences and tastes and value that can be phrased in terms of laws of physics.

That "mental state" is no longer observable, but it can still be learned/inferred in a probabilistic sense, just like everything learned in statistics have a confidence interval. You can definitely approach the problem this way. The problem of a faithful performance could be interpreted as

"Given all the evidence (historical context about Beethoven) and all the human experience I have gathered and all the music theory that I have learned, what is the most likely interpretation of 5th that would satisfy Beethoven".

This is a well-defined question. It is fair to say, the more you know about Beethoven, the more music theory that you understand, the more likely your interpretation will be close to "Beethoven"'s mental state. But there could be a hard limit, you might be able to get 80% close but anything further is not possible without a time machine.

This explains why everyone knows that a monkey's interpretation conducting the 5th could not have been Beethoven's original intention (with extremely low probability of being true).


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That "mental state" is no longer observable, but it can still be learned/inferred in a probabilistic sense, just like everything learned in statistics have a confidence interval. You can definitely approach the problem this way. The problem of a faithful performance could be interpreted as
> 
> "Given all the evidence (historical context about Beethoven) and all the human experience I have gathered and all the music theory that I have learned, what is the most likely interpretation of 5th that would satisfy Beethoven".
> 
> ...


I agree.

And i presume this would rule OUT Furtwangler (for instance) as being closest to _the_ 'ideal' interpretation of Beethoven's 5th, considering how many liberties F took with the score, and assuming Beethoven would have _written in_ all that rubato etc if he wanted it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> I agree.
> 
> And i presume this would rule OUT Furtwangler (for instance) as being closest to _the_ 'ideal' interpretation of Beethoven's 5th, considering how many liberties F took with the score, and assuming Beethoven would have _written in_ all that rubato etc if he wanted it.


Of course. But there are many ways "ideal" can be formulated. It could be a style of performance Beethoven preferred within a certain band. It would be what Beethoven didn't had in mind but still would be satisfied. There could be a class of possible performances that would be approved by Beethoven that is considered as an "ideal class". (I am just brainstorming there) There are many angles to interpret this problem.

By historical accounts, Beethoven liked to play in a wild, sometimes reckless, improvisational style. So at least F is similar in this way (he still had too much control compared to Beethoven). Whether that's "true to the ideal" or not is just a matter of interpretation, of how far you want to take the view, and of how strongly you want to express it. These problems are perhaps closed-ended for professionals (as rejecting "ideal"), but philosophically they are open-ended.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Being clever was not my intention, I was just trying to provide more intuition for a fellow rationalist. It must have a long time since you last see these things in high school. Let me explain:
> 
> You see, the number Pi is not just an irrational number, but a transcendental number (yes it's very mysterious), it definitely exists in mathematics, I can assure you, and the modern civilization depends on it. But the problem is you cannot write it down or find such numbers in the physical world, you can only write down numbers that are close to it or write it as a symbol.
> 
> The point is: the third option can exist, there is no problem with that, it's not nonsense, it might take you a while to internalize that, but it's worth it.


I memorized Pi to 314 places so that I could make money on bets in bars. It never failed me. I gave good odds.
I had retained 100 places in memory until a few years ago, but now I'm down to 50 places. Good for the mind, and good for winning money mostly from the inebriated.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> I memorized Pi to 314 places so that I could make money on bets in bars. It never failed me. I gave good odds.
> I had retained 100 places in memory until a few years ago, but now I'm down to 50 places. Good for the mind, and good for winning money mostly from the inebriated.


That's an extraordinary feat to pull off under the influence, certainly harder than memorizing a Beethoven sonata, despite the fact that a Beethoven sonata contains far more information than 314 digits of Pi, which says a lot about music.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> I agree.
> 
> And i presume this would rule OUT Furtwangler (for instance) as being closest to _the_ 'ideal' interpretation of Beethoven's 5th, considering how many liberties F took with the score, and assuming Beethoven would have _written in_ all that rubato etc if he wanted it.


A simple question, why are we concerned about what LvB or any composer wanted? Is it just a knee-jerk response coming from respect and admiration? Maybe I just don't get it, because musicians often talk about what they 'wanted' (as if anyone could know).
The scores are available for self-expression. That's what I believe they were composed for. Not for collecting or for ascertaining something personal about the composer.

Collecting is a separate activity and a separate interest.

And I don't think we can tell much that's personal from scores. Leave that up to whatever reliable evidence there is from letters and reliable accounts.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That's an extraordinary feat to pull off under the influence, certainly harder than memorizing a Beethoven sonata, despite the fact that a Beethoven sonata contains far more information than 314 digits of Pi, which says a lot about music.


That's right. In a sonata there's well-known chord progressions and repeated patterns everywhere which cuts down on the amount you need to learn unique to that piece. Sight-reading is made easier because we always see the same chords and inversions and transitions/returns (often 2 5 1 or a few others). A Dm chord in Bach looks the same in Brahms.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That's an extraordinary feat to pull off under the influence, certainly harder than memorizing a Beethoven sonata, despite the fact that a Beethoven sonata contains far more information than 314 digits of Pi, which says a lot about music.


If you play an instrument (ex. piano), you'll realize a huge part of memorizing a piece is "getting familiar with the muscle movements involved in the piece". If you practice a piece many times enough, at some point your fingers will just move "subconciously", without you realizing it, or having to picture the sheet music in your mind. It just flows out from your "subconcious mind". (I don't know how to put it exactly). This is why always using the same fingering in a given piece is important (to me, at least).


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There are many valid ways and perspectives for defining "what is music". OP is asking a philosophical question, which goes beyond a dictionary definition. He was asking "what is the right concept for music" in order to solve his conundrum without resorting to "ideal".
> 
> Annaw has defined "music itself" as the stream of sounds, which is fine, but it does not solve OP's problem, because that was OP's problem, Beethoven's 5th can't just be the stream of sounds.
> 
> ...


OP was asking a question which is open to philosophical consideration, but Roger seems less interested in taking it into that territory.

As for music, why can't Beethoven's 5th just be 'the stream of sounds'? That would seem to me to be exactly what it is. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by 'stream'?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> If you play an instrument (ex. piano), you'll realize a huge part of memorizing a piece is "getting familiar with the muscle movements involved in the piece". If you practice a piece many times enough, at some point your fingers will just move "subconciously", without you realizing it, or having to picture the sheet music in your mind. It just flows out from your "subconcious mind". (I don't know how to put it exactly). This is why always using the same fingering in a given piece is important (to me, at least).


I do have that experience myself. There are pieces that I "forgot" completely but I still be able to play it after few years because of the "muscle" memory (still in the brain). But there are reasons to internalize the piece logically, i.e., being able to play the WTC or Chopin Etude transposed at different keys. Sadly I am an amateur with an ordinary talent and there is no way I will be able to do that soon.

Video is hilarious, that's how I felt when I play the first movement.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> OP was asking a question which is open to philosophical consideration, but Roger seems less interested in taking it into that territory.
> 
> As for music, why can't Beethoven's 5th just be 'the stream of sounds'? That would seem to me to be exactly what it is. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by 'stream'?


I would say that Roger was asking for a deep philosophical answer and I hope he got one.

Beethoven's 5th could be just a 'stream of sounds', but then you couldn't explain why other different performances, other different 'stream of sounds' are also Beethoven's 5th.

Imagine that you change this 'stream of sounds' bit by bit, altering pitch, note value, etc. If you keep doing this, the 'stream of sounds' will eventually becomes something entirely different, but not immediately. So you couldn't explain until which point, the 'stream of sounds' cease to be Beethoven's 5th. It has to be something that's not a specific "stream of sounds".


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I would say that Roger was asking for a deep philosophical answer and I hope he got one.
> 
> Beethoven's 5th could be just a 'stream of sounds', but then you couldn't explain why other different performances, other different 'stream of sounds' are also Beethoven's 5th.
> 
> Imagine that you change this 'stream of sounds' bit by bit, altering pitch, note value, etc. If you keep doing this, the 'stream of sounds' will eventually becomes something entirely different, but not immediately. So you couldn't explain until which point, the 'stream of sounds' cease to be Beethoven's 5th. It has to be something that's not a specific "stream of sounds".


I don't follow that at all. Beethoven's score for the 5th is instructions to play "these sounds, in this order" - (this specified stream of sounds). Bruckner's score for his 5th is the same instruction in principle - just a different set of sounds. How is this problematic for deciding "where the hell the music is"?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> But music _is _the performance (as in, the music of 'Beethoven's 5th' is a performance of it.) It isn't the score. The musical score is the musical score. Music is sound, isn't it?


If you had read the post that prompted the post I was replying to you would see that in my view the music is what we hear (and what we hear has been through a lot of mental processing to arrive at a whole experience). We all hear different things.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

A piece like Beethoven's 5th cannot exist as an abstract, idealized "Platonic" idea, because it has certain built-in limits. Violins, violas, and cellos have certain ranges of pitch, dynamics, and expression, which are in the score. Therefore, a work will stay within these parameters.

I think people tend to confuse the "gestalt effect" of hearing the music with some sort of Platonic ideal.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> If you had read *the post that prompted the post *I was replying to you would see that in my view the music is what we hear (and what we hear has been through a lot of mental processing to arrive at a whole experience). We all hear different things.


Sorry, not sure I follow. Which post? I read back through the exchange at the time, so not sure which bit you think I've not read (or read properly).


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I would say that Roger was asking for a deep philosophical answer and I hope he got one.
> 
> Beethoven's 5th could be just a 'stream of sounds', but then you couldn't explain why other different performances, other different 'stream of sounds' are also Beethoven's 5th.
> 
> Imagine that you change this 'stream of sounds' bit by bit, altering pitch, note value, etc. If you keep doing this, the 'stream of sounds' will eventually becomes something entirely different, but not immediately. So you couldn't explain until which point, the 'stream of sounds' cease to be Beethoven's 5th. It has to be something that's not a specific "stream of sounds".


For me, this is what's interesting about music theory (one of the things). You know exactly what notes and no others are 'correct' WITHOUT hearing them first.

You can add a fifth and most people wouldn't hear an effect. You might add a sixth, but it does change the emotional effect.

If you add a 7th or a major 7th then there's a big change, and so on up through the more dissonant intervals.

There are fascinating reasons from physics for all of this.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> A piece like Beethoven's 5th cannot exist as an abstract, idealized "Platonic" idea, because it has certain built-in limits. Violins, violas, and cellos have certain ranges of pitch, dynamics, and expression, which are in the score. Therefore, a work will stay within these parameters.
> 
> I think people tend to confuse the "gestalt effect" of hearing the music with some sort of Platonic ideal.


"I think people tend to confuse the "gestalt effect" of hearing the music with some sort of Platonic ideal."

Yes, as with other subjects, if we don't know enough we tend to imagine and expand upon what little we think we know and we get totally confused. Why? because some of our initial assumptions are wrong to begin with. 
You see this with people learning computers. They don't know how simple it is (push this button and don't do all that, etc.) and so they expect that it's very very complicated. Some people never get past that feeling..


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> As I have answered the last several times this issue was raised: Music is a performing art. Like other performing arts, the aesthetic object is the performance. (Duh, that's why it's called a performing art.) The score is a script for creating a performance, just like the script of a play contains everything necessary to create a dramatic performance. Scores and scripts don't (can't and shouldn't) indicate all parameters of a performance, which is why musicians and actors train for years to realize satisfying performances from scores and scripts.


That's all true, but it still doesn't answer the question explicitly enough: "Where is the music?" or in other words, "Where are the musical ideas?" 
The score contains musical ideas in large part, arguably in their entirety. The performance merely translates those written ideas into sound, which also conveys musical ideas. 
The ideas are basically the same.

But to make the transition from "musical idea" to "music," the written ideas must be expressed as sound.


----------

