Philosophy And Composition

How are the two related? Does one's personal philosophy affect one's composing? Does it affect the content and the form of the music one composes? How?

In more general terms, what is the relationship of music and philosophy? Is the philosophy of the time reflected in the music of a particular epoch? And does the music of a particular time in history affect the philosophical trends of that period? How?

Any thoughts and/or examples?

Your questions are (somewhat) tentative. My guess is you have an opinion on this subject. I suggest you start giving yours to start the topic.

Your questions are (somewhat) tentative. My guess is you have an opinion on this subject. I suggest you start giving yours to start the topic.

Well, I like to give my opinion at the end of the discussion - in order to both encourage free opinions (and not direct the discussion or colour it with my own ideas) and so that I give myself time to better develop my ideas on the subject. Otherwise what would be the use of putting a question up for discussion if I have all the answers myself, and from the beginning.

But since you asked, yes I think that there is a relationship between one's personal philosophy and the music one composes. And one's personal philosophy would affect the form as well as content of the music. As to how, I am not sure. Perhaps it has to do with one's aesthetic values, aesthetics being a branch of philosophy.

Regarding the general philosophy of an era and the music composed, I again think that there is a relationship. But as to in which direction the influence is I am not sure. But since I believe that philosophy is born of experience rather than the other way round, and since music is a more direct conveyer/generator of experience than philosophy, I would think that the direction of influence would be from music to philosophy. Those more knowledgeable in the history of music and of philosophy can perhaps enlighten us regarding the philosophy of the various periods of music such as Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Post-Romantic, etc.

And what are your thoughts?

You are not using the word "philosophy" consistently. Sometimes you seem to be talking about philosophy as in true philosophy, sometimes as zeitgeist, and sometimes as a colloquial trivialization of the term. I'm afraid debate is pointless unless we know exactly what we are debating about. Your question is messy and badly formulated, sorry.

You are not using the word "philosophy" consistently. Sometimes you seem to be talking about philosophy as in true philosophy, sometimes as zeitgeist, and sometimes as a colloquial trivialization of the term. I'm afraid debate is pointless unless we know exactly what we are debating about. Your question is messy and badly formulated, sorry.

Why not choose one of the different meanings of philosophy I have touched upon and answer the question with that meaning in mind (or answer separately for all three meanings)?

Ok, then:

http://books.google.es/books/about/A_History_of_Western_Musical_Aesthetics.html?id=SqdTxG3jUNMC&redir_esc=y

In a word, no. But, if you have a particular philosophy of your own that you believe in, please describe it and then maybe people can compare it to their own working methods.

In a word, no. But, if you have a particular philosophy of your own that you believe in, please describe it and then maybe people can compare it to their own working methods.

More than insisting on a particular philosophy of my own, I just want to hear other people's opinions too. I just believe that the two (one's philosophy and composition) are related. One way to see the relationship of philosophy and composition (and sorry for naming specific members in my example) is to compare the pieces of composers like Austenite (in its great romantic language) and Tuohey (whose language is decidedly modern and contemporary - at least as far as can be discerned from his recently posted piano trio). I think such differences have their origin in how a composer sees music, how they look upon it, and what their aesthetic ideals of music are, where they locate musical beauty (in what type of compositions), and even more (to speak about the act of composition in particular) in their experience, their philosophy as applied in their lives and as practiced in the act of composition, in the act of creating art (in this case compositions). The two languages differ a lot. And I don't think the composer of the former can write in the language of the composer of the latter (or vice versa). At least, it would not feel natural to them. Austenite's and Tuohey's insights would be appreciated here (and I invite them to contribute with their comments).

Insofar as composition - the process of the creation of one's musical art - is an unconscious act (as I believe it essentially is - insofar as inspiration is not something consciously willed) one's philosophical outlook would be influencing it only unconsciously. And one cannot change one's philosophical values insofar as they have become part of one's unconscious. And therefore one cannot change one's compositions insofar as they are dictated (i.e. inspired) by one's unconscious philosophical (aesthetic) values and beliefs. One question would be: Are they? I think they are insofar as one composes purely out of inspiration. They aren't (or they may not be) if one composes merely as a technical exercise, leaving little role for inspiration. And it is here that each composer's ideas are valuable, since there would - I am positive - be a wide range of individual differences as far as regards composers' compositional process and their insight into it.

As Sarastro has already pointed out, you don't seem to have a clear understanding of the term "philosophy", und that makes your statements somewhat messy. "Philosophy" is not - as you seem to imply in your last post - a bundle of unconscious aesthetic or ethic values, but a process of consciously checking the validity and cogency of arguments and theories. Philosophers have thought a lot about music, what you can see if you read Plato (Republic), or Kierkegaard (Either-Or), or Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Representation) and Nietzsche (The Birth of the Tragedy) and various writings of Adorno. On the other hand, some composers have also been influenced by the philosophers of their time to a certain degree (but perhaps not as strongly as the other way around, and it would be difficult to locate these influences in their music). This would indeed be an interesting topic, but probably too extensive to be discussed here.

And now it comes to my mind that there are even some men who were both philosophers and composers: Rousseau, Nietzsche, and Adorno.

If you really want to learn more about the contemporary philosophy of music, I recommend to start by reading the following article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is really up-to-date:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/music/

Ok then. Music doesn't have anything to do with philosophy. Nor does plumbing or basket weaving. Composing music is one of the most conscious acts I can think of. It takes a great deal of ego and will power to compose music. Anyone can have an idea pop into their mind from the subconscious. But if you don't have the sheer will and basic technique, ain't nothin gonna happen.

Philosophy is a way of viewing the world and men and women's actions in it. Sort of like economics. Music is a language unto itself, with its own laws, problems and solutions. I wouldn't sit to write a piece of music and have my mind grappling with issues of selfishness vs. generosity, for example. And likewise I wouldn't write a book on the violent nature of men, while pondering the best way to modulate from the key of C to Bb minor.

I think it is more likely that similarities between philosophical thought and musical thought at a specific point in time are a result of a common zeitgeist rather than them having an influence on each other. I don't think it is a coincidence that romantic music and especially program music really took off at the same time as there was a renewed interest in metaphysics amongst philosophers. I put this down to the zeitgeist of the early 19th century that there was something beyond the physical to be discovered, felt or expressed.

While I don't think that Philosophy has had an effect on compositional thought or practices, it has certainly inspired certain isolated works of music, an example being the tone poem, Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Richard Strauss which was obviously inspired by Nietzsche's text of the same name. Another example would be early 17th century Italian opera and its predecessors in the 16th century such as the intermezzi which coincided with the humanist movement and a rebirth of Plato. A lot of these works include references to the theory of forms and the cave allegory as well as focusing on the stories from Homer's epics which are also scattered throughout Plato's writings. Also, it has been suggested that the actual idea of opera and singing the text of a drama comes from interpretations of Aristotle's accounts of classical Greek drama.

Another aspect that you have touched on is aesthetics which has perhaps influenced the way we listen to music and how we derive meaning from a piece of music. There are basically two schools of thought here. The first is the formalist position which asserts that music can hold no objective meaning beyond itself. This position was first applied to music by Eduard Hanslick in his book, On the Musically Beautiful but the idea can be traced back to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Judgement which is itself only developing ideas that Aristotle had a couple of thousand years ago. The other position is the hermeneutic position that the meaning of a piece of music is to be found within the work's social, cultural and historical context. While there may be a shred of merit to this view, it has unfortunately been abused by people such as Susan Mcclary who has used the position to argue in favour of her ridiculous feminist agenda, making outrageous claims like Beethoven's 9th symphony depicts a rapist's sexual frustration. I personally believe in something that is between the two but it would take thousands of words for me to accurately explain it so I will spare you for now.

That is about all I can offer on the subject. You may want to come up with a narrower thread topic next time. People have written whole books just on aspects of some of the things you want to discuss so you're never going to get a good discussion about it on an internet forum unless there is less to deal with.

philosophy is a waste of time, music isn't. i guess there's that.

philosophy is a waste of time, music isn't. i guess there's that.

Let's not forget Pythagoras... We should be grateful he wasted his time ;-)

philosophy is a waste of time, music isn't. i guess there's that.

I disagree: music is absolutely a waste of time.

I notice an inverse relation. I wrote in a obvious Romantic idiom when I had a very stringent deterministic world-view. Now the latter is replaced by a more dynamic one, but I tend to pay more attention to a more stringent way of organizing my music.

I can imagine that people are so consequentialist that their musical aesthetic is directly related to their philosophical ideas. But in this day and age of eclecticism, a relation will often just not exist. And frankly, I think, to say there is such a thing (or even, to say there should be one) is rather old fashioned.

I notice an inverse relation. I wrote in a obvious Romantic idiom when I had a very stringent deterministic world-view. Now the latter is replaced by a more dynamic one, but I tend to pay more attention to a more stringent way of organizing my music.

I can imagine that people are so consequentialist that their musical aesthetic is directly related to their philosophical ideas. But in this day and age of eclecticism, a relation will often just not exist. And frankly, I think, to say there is such a thing (or even, to say there should be one) is rather old fashioned.

I agree with that last part but when I was comparing romanticism to metaphysics, I didn't mean the romantic aesthetic per se. What I meant was more to do with the shift from music playing a supporting role as a functional part of art to seeing music as an autonomous art form that could stand alone and express something beyond itself that coincided with romanticism, especially program music. You can't really draw from your own experience for a fair comparison because you're not of the time and therefore outside of the zeitgeist. A completely different set of factors will have influenced your compositional decisions.

philosophy is a waste of time, music isn't. i guess there's that.

While I don't study Philosophy, I do feel that a personal philosophy is a big part of one's musical identity. Hardly a waste of time to have a good philosophical foundation to help define yourself and your music.

No?

You see the equivocation happening here? At one moment philosophy means Nietzsche and Kierkegaard and at another it is some trivial concept about personal beliefs. They're totally different things bro.

You see the equivocation happening here? At one moment philosophy means Nietzsche and Kierkegaard and at another it is some trivial concept about personal beliefs. They're totally different things bro.

According to the "World English Dictionary" from Collins (the second set of dictionary definitions for the word "philosophy" offered in dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy?s=t ) there are seven meanings for the word philosophy. The 2nd of the meanings offered ("the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes"), and the 5th and the 6th meanings ("any system of belief, values, or tenets" and "a personal outlook or viewpoint") are fully consistent with the use of the term philosophy to mean a "personal philosophy" and personal values and beliefs. So there is no equivocation happening here. They might be two different things, but they are still referred to by the same word!

It's a capital-P "Philosophy" vs. "philosophy" issue...

;)

According to the "World English Dictionary" from Collins (the second set of dictionary definitions for the word "philosophy" offered in dictionary.com: http://dictionary.re.../philosophy?s=t ) there are seven meanings for the word philosophy. The 2nd of the meanings offered ("the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes"), and the 5th and the 6th meanings ("any system of belief, values, or tenets" and "a personal outlook or viewpoint") are fully consistent with the use of the term philosophy to mean a "personal philosophy" and personal values and beliefs. So there is no equivocation happening here. They might be two different things, but they are still referred to by the same word!

Well why don't you specify which of these seven meanings you are referring to. Otherwise, this is equivocation because we can't be sure that we're all talking about the same thing.

According to the "World English Dictionary" from Collins (the second set of dictionary definitions for the word "philosophy" offered in dictionary.com: http://dictionary.re.../philosophy?s=t ) there are seven meanings for the word philosophy. The 2nd of the meanings offered ("the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes"), and the 5th and the 6th meanings ("any system of belief, values, or tenets" and "a personal outlook or viewpoint") are fully consistent with the use of the term philosophy to mean a "personal philosophy" and personal values and beliefs. So there is no equivocation happening here. They might be two different things, but they are still referred to by the same word!

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

However, that does not preclude using the same word with its different meanings at different times, or even at the same time. And I think in my original post, I did just that. How can you determine if I had the intention to "gloss over which meaning is intended at a particular time"?

Even though, I'll be more careful next time knowing that I am being judged at the level of my words rather than at the level of my sentences or overall meaning and intentions!

But judging from the replies to this topic, it seems that some of you are mistaking a "post aiming to generate discussion" for "a question submitted for review" just as compositions are submitted for review in the music section. Thus, you are treating this section as a place for "Question-/Topic- Compositions" to be submitted and critiqued! (But even if that were the case, let me remind you that in the case of music compositions submitted, there is positive feedback as well as negative feedback.)

And by the way, please let no one treat even this post of mine as a "post-composition" submitted for critique! Replying to it would be OK, but critiquing it and attacking its content at the level of words and concepts wouldn't!

Regardless of your choice of definition for philosophy, the answer is entirely subjective.  It seems people here occupy both sides of the fence, as have composers throughout the history of western music.  Despite anyone's personal positions or objections, they are related.  How about early church music or an overwhelmingly prevailing theme of nationalism in romantic music?  How about the effect of Taoist philosophy on John Cage's composition?  You can't say that didn't have any affect on his content or form.  Schoenberg was very much a philosopher.

The second part of your question is a bit broad, that's more of a field of study than a topic.  Social change tends to coincide with major movements in classical music, but that doesn't necessarily suggest causation.  During the Renaissance, a rapidly expanding middle class creates a market for music and thus the Baroque movement is allowed to flourish.  The rise of nationalism throughout Europe certainly influenced the Romantic movement, as half it's works wouldn't have existed had they not been a labor of love for or commissioned by their respective states.  Some have even made analogies between serialism and polytonality as being the battle of west v. east, the socialist, fascist, and capitalist v. the communist idealogy.  Time and place certainly affect composition, if for no other reason, because a composer is affected by every piece of music they have heard prior.  We operate on that foundation, consciously or otherwise.  Even a cold, calculating, serialist is affected, he just chooses to disregard his affection in favor of affecting someone else in a slightly different way.

I do believe there is a sort of "philosophy" behind any artistic creativity.