None of what you say affects the simple clarity and truth of my comment that subject is to be distinguished from content. In fact, what you say is not at all clear. You state: ..."content seems to imply something added to, probably not essential to music". So, then, do you say music (subject) is different from what's added to it (content)? Then you say, "Surely music too is a content...it can have profundity itself without having to rely on other than itself". OK, there are two kinds of content, you say. But what is content (to call it profundity is merely passing the problem to another word)? What is the essential difference between the two kinds of content? One might conclude that you mean there is a subjective content (in the reception of music) and an objective content (in the music itself). This returns us to the perennial problem: Is aesthetic quality in the subject or in its reception?
I have argued consistently (with a tiny admission of skepticism) that aesthetic quality must be in the subjective personal and cultural perception -- the reception -- of the subject, in this case, sound, whereas the sound itself, has only sound, unqualified by perception. I do allow that the human brain, (and some other animal brains), does have cellular structures that respond in ways that are taken as pleasing or unpleasing and help to construct cognitive patterns, release "pleasure" chemicals, and so on, and that these products of the perception of sound may lead us to assign aesthetic quality to it. But even in that case, the attributes of quality are in the brain and not in the sound itself. The musician manipulates sounds to produce the "pleasing" sensation in the brain (a electro-chemical situation) and the brain advises the hearer to pretend that the pleasure is not only coming from the sound but in fact is intrinsic to it. It's a form of make-believe that we all do in every conscious moment. We attribute our sensations to something external even though we actually project them to something external. Some external things, subjects, will cause us to respond in more or less predictable and measurable ways (making content). That does not mean the objects contain the content any more than the falling rock contains the sound of its thud upon the ground. This is the same as seeing. In seeing, our visual cortex responds to stimulus and produces patterns which we then project as templates to the objects we see. In this way we continually construct our seeing, affected by visual data that is stimulating our visual cortex (and involving other brain areas as well). This is not my solipsistic invention. It is my admittedly clumsy synopsis of science. Look it up yourself. Start with your London colleague, Semir Zeki. If aesthetic quality, content, is hard to encircle, the even more vague, organic, leaky and oozing word, profundity, is impossible to measure. It is one of those words for which any definition will do. Start anywhere. With aesthetic quality, we at least have the engagement of our brain and its chemicals and synapses and "pleasure" originating in the impulse for survival and reproduction. Profundity? It is more likely to be a matter of socialization, a class-associative notion, a self-fulfilling prophecy to enhance self-esteem, and a roundabout way to induce pleasure. How profound! Say it, without irony, and then ask yourself how the word affects your self-regard. My so-called breezy distinction between subject and content is not my own solipsistic "profundity" but a concise restatement of what many others have noted for centuries. As in Shakespeare: "words (subjects) fly up, thoughts (content) remain below; words without thoughts never to heaven go." WC ----- Original Message ---- From: Allan Sutherland <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:27:22 AM Subject: Re: Reading Kivy: Chaper 6 - The Quest for Musical Profundity On 22/10/2009 23:25, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: > Subject matter is neither profound nor banal. It just is. Content is a > different matter. > wc I have been following this reading on the sidelines, and now take up something of the challenge. Chris Millar has taken the time to present, summarise key ideas within Kivy's book, and I appreciate that. But the responses have been much like the above, or as breezily stated it: > IT'S in the eye,ear,nose of individual and like minded ones. > Not new, but so true. So relax and enjoy. I recall taking issue with this level of aesthetic before, and still do. Chris has attempted to give some reason, substance to these sorts of responses to music, in terms of profundity and attempted to distinguish the adverb from the adjective to align profundity with content. If this is way off mark, surely there must be some reason other than solipsistic attacks for concluding that; a multitude of individuals do not provide a multitude of reasonings, even solipsism is a shared philosophy and assessment of what is, and what is worthy or not. An individual can enjoy or dislike or think something is profound or not, but reasons for such responses being communicated are perhaps more worthy in being communicated as is the music that elicits them. I will take another approach now, and say that content seems to imply something added to, probably that is not essential, music. Perhaps this comes too when the idea of words are added. Surely music itself is a content? That can have profundity in itself without having to rely on other than itself. Music, sound, the sound world is part and parcel of our human existence and experience; as we profoundly explore other realms of our mental and physical being so we do the world of sound and what it informs us of the world, and how it impact upon us as sensual, physical beings. Sound, music can have significant impact on our thoughts and emotions; surely we should be interested in why, how, and whatever of some music affecting us more profoundly and more stirringly than others? I think so, and saying simply sit back and enjoy stops the conversation there as we all sit back to enjoy. But we joined this list to discuss, not to sit back in the wafts of our own smoke. I am not sure what I have written engages with Chris's comments as I hope it would, but I also say thank you for your efforts Chris. Toodle-pip, Allan.
