There are so many mini takes which are interesting on their own . I recommend you to cut these short takes on for RUclips shorts and connect them to this long video. You made great work, there are no other good info on RUclips on this topic. Thank you
I really appreciate your personal insights such as the commentary at 14:35 about attitudes towards music today vs. in the past. I'd love to hear more of your personal opinions on music where, if you don't want to, you are not obligated to be didactic and are free to just speak your mind based on your academic and musical work.
Thank you for watching, and for your kind words. I am glad you pointed out that specific moment; sharing those thoughts are some of my own favorite moments, too, from the work with the manuscript. Perhaps I will share more personal opinions in the future.
I enjoyed this, it was generally comprehensive, and I haven't found much information on the topic of music. However, while I pleasantly found this video, I was more specifically interested in the idea of sound from a non-auditorial and non-verbal phenomenological point of view. As a question rather than as a statement, is there a cognitive construct that we (could) identify as sound beyond normal sensory perception? It is too much to unpack here, but an example may be the sounds one still hears in a sensory deprivation tank even when the mind has been quietened. Haven't found anything remotely to do with the 'essence' of sound in Western philosophy.
Thank you for your kind comment and interesting question. I am trying to think... maybe there is some literature to be found in the direction of electroacoustic music, even though it probably doesn't completely match with your description. One book that I have myself is "The Language of Electroacoustic Music", with several authors, edited by Simon Emmerson. But I have not read the whole book myself. I will come back to this thread and let you know if I come across other relevant sources in the future!
I love this, your presentation style is unique and challenging - the sheer number of books is quite an overwhelming physical message. I have one challenge to all your books - my physical experience of music. At 1:13 you list 4 ontological models for music - can I add one - A phenomenological model - music is physical language - music is universal because it is of the body. Music gives me feelings, those feelings are physical sensations. I have too many words :) Thank you
Thank you for watching the video! And for your kind words. I do agree that the general "ontological discussion" of music is rather poor. It does not include much from phenomenology, hermeneutics, nor the aspect of experience. It might be because phenomenology as a tradition has come to exist as a reaction to some of the ontological disucssion, a type of anti-ontology, so it is not in line with the attempts to find ontological definitions of muisc. (I made a separate chapter about phenomenology.) Thanks again for watching! 😊
Very interesting introductory video, in many respects. It will take a while to take this more seriously and justify a comment or question. But it is a very good presentation of a very good direction of thought. Thanks for the effort and comprehensive content, I hope that you can find “drill down” topics to produce many, perhaps focused subtopic, lectures. Perhaps even some shorter ones! As a taught class, a MOOC series seems very reasonable. I hope you find interest. But I have a particular question/ comment that seems hard for me to organize at this moment, sorry: when going through the systemization of music, notation, focusing on certain features as analytically central and others a “interpretive” or semantic or something, we wind up with the technical and mathematical machinery of the composer. One advantage, as you mention, is that it frees the creator of music from the instrumental craft to create music. Apparently it can be played as a performance of the idea, later. It is thus “recorded”, provides a path for reproducibility, etc. In any case notation apparently tries to capture the musical dea, to be later realized. Very Cartesian. In the current age, just as in early times and in “folk” traditions in music and literature, many musicians do not read music, at least not conventionally so, and rely on recording technology and edit mixing to capture the music as an embodied, storable and performable, idea very differently than ways the music theory and composition classes teach. These current times musical people, when you talk to them, speak an entirely different musical “theoretical” language. Yet recognizable forms, styles, etc., emerge. So it is not totally alien, as music. But this is not the same mental or intellectual form somehow. In conventional musical notation, it’s not clear how to even write much of certain central aspects of it down. Anyway, instead of the music of g*d or the music of the cosmos or something, the music of the spheres-of-our-times is largely singing of and to the invisible hand of the marketplace. So.. philosophically speaking, there is a motivation for music, there is an impulse to create it and to listen to it. Is that is roughly unchanged, a nativist impulse, or is this not the same at all? What do we see in this era of computational and technological transcription and transmission of musical ideas in particular? It Is there anything fundamental found in looking at it? Is it different fundamentally from, say, funny cat videos? I can’t be sure either way. Here is an example, well, maybe. I frame it as a question. Notice that nowadays when somebody studies and plays another person’s music it is said that they are “covering” it. As if that is sort of inferior, suspect and the main issue is not that you honor their artistic influence, but that you owe them a royalty payment for almost stealing this tonal notion that they can prove in court that they own. I don’t hear about “covering” Bach, or Ravel, or such. I hear of “performing” such music. I hear of “variations on a theme by XXX”. Not an IP infringement. Is it the way of recording the ideas and reproduction of that music that creates this situation or the other way around? This seems to be related to the philosophy of knowledge and other things. The new recording form, skills of craft, tools of musical abstraction, and the associated forms in the acts of creation, which is largely without traditional detailed symbolization other than lyrics, seems to also reset the moral philosophy of music to literally be, at its inception, market rule-defined or something. With respect to each other, these two general forms of musical creation are illiterate. Anyway, does this sort of thing reset the basic ideas of music in society from a philosophical point of view? Sorry for such a ridiculously long question. As is said, I didn’t have time to make it shorter.
Thank you for your kind words, and for watching the video! And yes, I will consider making future videos that are focussed on specific topics, and possibly an online course. I find your reflection interesting and relevant. A lot of the traditional jargon of philosophy of music is out of date, considering the diversity of ways music is produced today, and the new questions that rise from our times. Much of the philosophy of music is based on a view about “a musical work” that derives from an 18th and 19th century understanding of music, and this view is on many occasion taken as a fact or paradigm. This video was meant to be partly a catalogue of these thoughts, but also showing many of the problems. The questions that you mention about recording and reproduction are also relevant to my current research, and I do hope to make videos about those topics in the future! 😊
Hey that's mine object relation inversion theory I studied husserl. I don't think they really care about analytic music, rather heideggers hard-core deconstruction of systematic ontology inversions and the history of metaphysical ontology.
This is how you should make fun of people- through this medium. Missing scales missing notes, hidden frequencies. It emerges through the nexus points. While the something others a priori something goes something other. Same thing as a synthesize of trancdental ego.
Yes, the history of the philosophy of music and how it is mediated is unfortunately very Eurocentric. And not only the history of it. Some of these problems I discuss under the chapter “Critical perspectives”, but the topic would probably deserve an own chapter or video.
@@Dr_Sofia-di6mg Yes, I think you were clear on the epistemology here. I highly appreciate this thorough overview, and really hope that you can share more on general philosophy. Critical thinking is sorely needed, these days… 😊👍
I admire your knowledge, sense of humor, depth, presentation and appreciate the time you put into making this invaluable educational work.
Thank you so much for your kind words. I am really glad the video resonated with you. 😊
There are so many mini takes which are interesting on their own .
I recommend you to cut these short takes on for RUclips shorts and connect them to this long video.
You made great work, there are no other good info on RUclips on this topic. Thank you
Thank you for your kind words and recommendation! It is a very good idea.
Thank you for sharing this informative video. It is the catalyst of my music philosophy area curiosity. Greetings from Turkey.👏👏
Thank you for watching the video! I am so glad you found it informative. :) Hope you are havin a nice August in Turkey.
I really appreciate your personal insights such as the commentary at 14:35 about attitudes towards music today vs. in the past. I'd love to hear more of your personal opinions on music where, if you don't want to, you are not obligated to be didactic and are free to just speak your mind based on your academic and musical work.
Thank you for watching, and for your kind words. I am glad you pointed out that specific moment; sharing those thoughts are some of my own favorite moments, too, from the work with the manuscript. Perhaps I will share more personal opinions in the future.
Thank you very much.
You are very welcome!
I enjoyed this, it was generally comprehensive, and I haven't found much information on the topic of music. However, while I pleasantly found this video, I was more specifically interested in the idea of sound from a non-auditorial and non-verbal phenomenological point of view. As a question rather than as a statement, is there a cognitive construct that we (could) identify as sound beyond normal sensory perception? It is too much to unpack here, but an example may be the sounds one still hears in a sensory deprivation tank even when the mind has been quietened. Haven't found anything remotely to do with the 'essence' of sound in Western philosophy.
Thank you for your kind comment and interesting question. I am trying to think... maybe there is some literature to be found in the direction of electroacoustic music, even though it probably doesn't completely match with your description. One book that I have myself is "The Language of Electroacoustic Music", with several authors, edited by Simon Emmerson. But I have not read the whole book myself. I will come back to this thread and let you know if I come across other relevant sources in the future!
I love this, your presentation style is unique and challenging - the sheer number of books is quite an overwhelming physical message. I have one challenge to all your books - my physical experience of music. At 1:13 you list 4 ontological models for music - can I add one - A phenomenological model - music is physical language - music is universal because it is of the body. Music gives me feelings, those feelings are physical sensations. I have too many words :) Thank you
Thank you for watching the video! And for your kind words. I do agree that the general "ontological discussion" of music is rather poor. It does not include much from phenomenology, hermeneutics, nor the aspect of experience. It might be because phenomenology as a tradition has come to exist as a reaction to some of the ontological disucssion, a type of anti-ontology, so it is not in line with the attempts to find ontological definitions of muisc. (I made a separate chapter about phenomenology.)
Thanks again for watching! 😊
Very helpful :)
I am so glad it was helpful. ☺
Very interesting introductory video, in many respects. It will take a while to take this more seriously and justify a comment or question. But it is a very good presentation of a very good direction of thought. Thanks for the effort and comprehensive content, I hope that you can find “drill down” topics to produce many, perhaps focused subtopic, lectures. Perhaps even some shorter ones! As a taught class, a MOOC series seems very reasonable. I hope you find interest. But I have a particular question/ comment that seems hard for me to organize at this moment, sorry: when going through the systemization of music, notation, focusing on certain features as analytically central and others a “interpretive” or semantic or something, we wind up with the technical and mathematical machinery of the composer. One advantage, as you mention, is that it frees the creator of music from the instrumental craft to create music. Apparently it can be played as a performance of the idea, later. It is thus “recorded”, provides a path for reproducibility, etc. In any case notation apparently tries to capture the musical dea, to be later realized. Very Cartesian. In the current age, just as in early times and in “folk” traditions in music and literature, many musicians do not read music, at least not conventionally so, and rely on recording technology and edit mixing to capture the music as an embodied, storable and performable, idea very differently than ways the music theory and composition classes teach. These current times musical people, when you talk to them, speak an entirely different musical “theoretical” language. Yet recognizable forms, styles, etc., emerge. So it is not totally alien, as music. But this is not the same mental or intellectual form somehow. In conventional musical notation, it’s not clear how to even write much of certain central aspects of it down. Anyway, instead of the music of g*d or the music of the cosmos or something, the music of the spheres-of-our-times is largely singing of and to the invisible hand of the marketplace. So.. philosophically speaking, there is a motivation for music, there is an impulse to create it and to listen to it. Is that is roughly unchanged, a nativist impulse, or is this not the same at all? What do we see in this era of computational and technological transcription and transmission of musical ideas in particular? It Is there anything fundamental found in looking at it? Is it different fundamentally from, say, funny cat videos? I can’t be sure either way. Here is an example, well, maybe. I frame it as a question. Notice that nowadays when somebody studies and plays another person’s music it is said that they are “covering” it. As if that is sort of inferior, suspect and the main issue is not that you honor their artistic influence, but that you owe them a royalty payment for almost stealing this tonal notion that they can prove in court that they own. I don’t hear about “covering” Bach, or Ravel, or such. I hear of “performing” such music. I hear of “variations on a theme by XXX”. Not an IP infringement. Is it the way of recording the ideas and reproduction of that music that creates this situation or the other way around? This seems to be related to the philosophy of knowledge and other things. The new recording form, skills of craft, tools of musical abstraction, and the associated forms in the acts of creation, which is largely without traditional detailed symbolization other than lyrics, seems to also reset the moral philosophy of music to literally be, at its inception, market rule-defined or something. With respect to each other, these two general forms of musical creation are illiterate. Anyway, does this sort of thing reset the basic ideas of music in society from a philosophical point of view? Sorry for such a ridiculously long question. As is said, I didn’t have time to make it shorter.
I was going to read this comment but decided not to when I pressed on the 'show more' tab 😁
Thank you for your kind words, and for watching the video! And yes, I will consider making future videos that are focussed on specific topics, and possibly an online course.
I find your reflection interesting and relevant. A lot of the traditional jargon of philosophy of music is out of date, considering the diversity of ways music is produced today, and the new questions that rise from our times. Much of the philosophy of music is based on a view about “a musical work” that derives from an 18th and 19th century understanding of music, and this view is on many occasion taken as a fact or paradigm. This video was meant to be partly a catalogue of these thoughts, but also showing many of the problems.
The questions that you mention about recording and reproduction are also relevant to my current research, and I do hope to make videos about those topics in the future! 😊
Hey that's mine object relation inversion theory I studied husserl. I don't think they really care about analytic music, rather heideggers hard-core deconstruction of systematic ontology inversions and the history of metaphysical ontology.
So.. whats your LastFM, Sofia? :)
This is how you should make fun of people- through this medium. Missing scales missing notes, hidden frequencies. It emerges through the nexus points. While the something others a priori something goes something other. Same thing as a synthesize of trancdental ego.
Wow, the history of the philosophy of music happened only in Europe. It's as if the rest of the world had no ideas at all.
Yes, the history of the philosophy of music and how it is mediated is unfortunately very Eurocentric. And not only the history of it. Some of these problems I discuss under the chapter “Critical perspectives”, but the topic would probably deserve an own chapter or video.
@@Dr_Sofia-di6mg Yes, I think you were clear on the epistemology here. I highly appreciate this thorough overview, and really hope that you can share more on general philosophy. Critical thinking is sorely needed, these days… 😊👍