Question:

Discuss why music evokes emotion in people.

This should be according to the writer based on different ideas and insights of philosophers. In addition to being a research paper, it is also a philosophical discussion on what makes music sound appealing to people, and why that appeal attracts/exists.

Answer:

Philosophy of music aesthetics

Introduction

For a long time, philosophers have attempted to analyze meaning of musical appeal. In these efforts, the objective has been to highlight the reasons why music is considered emotionally appealing. One of the arguments made in this debate is that the significance of music emanates from the way it imitates nature. However, no efforts have been made to define the meaning of imitation. Like in other areas of philosophical thinking, disagreements have emerged among philosophers regarding the meaning of aesthetics and the emotional importance of music. In this area, disagreements arise mainly because of the vague nature of the concepts used.

PLACE ORDER NOW

On one side of the dispute, some philosophers argue that music always has a deeper meaning that stretches beyond the surface meaning that everyone associates it with. On the other side, other philosophers deny this assertion. In both sides, however, vague terms such as ‘representation’ and ‘imitation’ continue to be used. Unfortunately, not much emphasis has been put on what should be considered the most relevant issue in aesthetics; namely, the meaning of sound and the perceptions to which it is routinely subjected by human beings. Concepts such as sound, rhythm, and tone are basic to our understanding of the meaning of music. They have a central role in determining how music is perceived.

The thesis of this paper is that aspects of sound, tone, melody and rhythm are critical in our understanding of the philosophy of music. They hold the key to our philosophical understanding of the reasons why music sounds appealing to people and why this appeal exists. The aim of this paper is to expound on this thesis through a critical analysis of ideas and insights of different philosophers.

Importance of concepts of sound, tone, and rhythm

In philosophy, efforts have been made to describe music using different concepts, many of which associate it with emotions. Music is also understood to comprise of forms that move through sounds. In other instances, music is viewed as a medium through which people express their feelings at any given time. In this expressive role, the objective is to portray the inner life of the human being. Moreover, music is often described in terms of its influence on movement. In many cases, the musical experience is described in terms of movement. Different sounds are conventionally assumed to influence people’s movement in different ways. However, opponents of this approach argue that a theory that focuses on the impact of music on movement is not philosophically acceptable. This is because it is viewed as an obstacle in efforts to explain the meaning of music using aspects such as sound, tone, and rhythm.

The idea of musical emotion has also taken center stage in this philosophical discourse. Music is assumed to imitate the movements that human beings make while they are engulfed in different emotional states. From this perspective, the aesthetic value of music is defined by the extent to which it imitates specific emotional states. At the heart of this debate is the role of the sound as one of the building blocks of music. To transform sound into music, a certain level of artistic flair and creativity is required. Moreover, it is worthwhile to note that music is just one of the many products of sound manipulation. Another well-known form of sound is poetry. This distinction is important because it informs our understanding of music as a unique manifestation of aesthetics. In poetry, sounds have to be organized in a certain way to achieve the intended aesthetic value. Moreover, physical context and choreography always emerge as critical considerations in poetry. Understanding this dichotomy is important in efforts to appreciate the value of music as an aesthetic form.

Music differs from poetry in that it tends not to rely on finesse in terms of word choice or physical positioning of the performance. Rather, it relies on the way sounds are organized. The way sounds are organized greatly determines perceptions as far as quality of music is concerned. The sound can stand on itself as a representation of music of high aesthetic value without any consideration to linguistic conventions and contextual factors. To this extent, one may argue that it is not possible for a philosopher to talk about the aesthetics of music without appreciating the role of the sound as the most crucial element in the process of perception-formation.

The meaning of sound is important in any philosophical discussion on the aesthetic value of music. One of the most unique attributes of sounds used in music is that they are in many ways ‘pure’ (Scherer, 2004). This purity arises from the fact that they can be identified without any reference to any objects that act as components in their existence. This means that they can be detached from the context in which they were composed. Therefore, it is possible for a person to focus precisely on sounds and their aesthetic value. The resulting musical line creates an interesting experience that human beings can perceive to be of either high quality or low quality.

Different people perceive musical sounds differently. For some people, music is meaningless. For others, it is an integral component of day-to-day life. In many cultures, children are exposed to music at an early age. This has led many philosophers to perceive musical sound as a human universal. This raises the question of the importance of music in the life of a human being. The conventional view among philosophers is that work always needs done to oversee the transition from quantity to quality. In this transition, a large quantity of sounds has to be reconstituted to create high-quality music. Sequential sounds must always be organized to create music.

In arguments about the organization of strings of sounds into music, most philosophers argue that it is important to draw distinctions between the formation of music and the formation of language. In music, sounds may be adapted gradually to form the desired musical pieces. On the contrary, language is rule-based. A specific semantic order must be adhered for a language to exist. This argument reinforces the idea that music differs from language in that the former is usually appraised in terms of aesthetic value while the latter is evaluated in terms of adherence to linguistic rules. From this perspective, music becomes appealing to people simply because its inherent nature compels people to evaluate it primarily from an aesthetic perspective. This is in sharp contrast to language, which is usually appraised primarily on the basis of its effectiveness as a tool of communication.

The type of experience that music invokes is different from the one that is invoked by other forms of sounds such as language (Robinson, 1997). According to Robinson (1997), rational beings have the power and ability to perceive the life that music resides in. Using this rational ability, human beings are able to hear sounds as tones. By introducing the notion of movement to music, the perceptions are reinforced. This movement increases music significance in real-life situations.

Unfortunately, not all philosophers agree with this conception of music. For example, Andy Hamilton points out that it is not possible for aspects of physical context and real-life experience to be reconciled whenever sounds are identified and perceived as music (Robinson, 1997). According to Hamilton, it is not possible for one to reconcile the physical actions of performers and the musical tune they are playing to (Robinson, 1997). Using this argument, critics conclude that it is impossible for specific sounds to be positioned in given location to ascertain their musical value (Robinson, 1997).

Hire This Writer

In this criticism, one of the most crucial points to note is that human action is always at the heart of the process through which sounds sequences are transformed into musical tones. The human mind has the ability to perceive specific sounds in terms of acoustic properties. It is important for an individual to understand the sound that he hears in order to provide a critical assessment of a musical tune. As it is to be expected, different people pay attention to different aspects of the sound. This leads to variations in perceptions regarding quality of music. These variations are exacerbated by social, cultural, and class considerations. Through an interaction of these factors, an individual may succeed in appraising the music while at the same time perceiving it from a figurative perspective.

To understand music, focus should be on two core components. One of them is causality. Causality encompasses the various acoustic aspects of sounds. Some of these aspects include loudness, pitch, timbre, position, and its causes. The other component is the musical line. In the musical line, one simply hears the music and appreciates it in its entirety. A person who focuses on just causality may not get the opportunity to appraise the quality of the entire musical piece. In contrast, people who are only interested in hearing the musical line in its entirety may miss the opportunity to understand how various sounds were composed to create the final product.

According to Davies (2011), it is possible for observers to recognize objects even in times of changes in orientations. Davies gives the example of aging, whereby an individual is recognized as the same despite undergoing the numerous appearance-related changes that come with age. This same argument is used in the analysis of the way melodies are perceived. In music, it is possible for different musical statements to be identified as components of a one theme even after being subjected to changes such as inversion.

Changes in perception of music

In the realm of perception, one of the areas of focus for philosophers of music aesthetics is the way items are recognized despite changes in orientations. Music is identified as temporal art, whereby both the progression rate and the manner in which events are ordered are clearly outlined. This makes music different from paintings and written forms of art. To understand why melodies are sometimes perceived to be appealing to people’s emotions, one of the tests made involves playing music backwards. This test is normally carried out against the backdrop of numerous examples in which artistic scenes continue to be thematically meaningful even when presented in backward fashion. For example, a video of sprinter may be played backwards yet the audience easily recognizes the event. It does not matter that the sprinters seem to be making backward strides towards the starting point. In contrast, music brings about alien outcomes when played backwards. However, this has not prevented musical experts from using inversion as a way of engaging their audiences both aesthetically and intellectually.

One of the factors influencing the way music is perceived in its different representations is culture. The cultural context in which a melody is presented greatly influences individuals’ perceptions of aspects such as sound, tone, rhythm, and melody. For example, in Europe, the practice of organized listening through concerts forms a core component of local cultural traditions. According to Scruton (2009), a time came when the European culture influenced audiences to simply “fall silent”. The audiences are said to have fallen silent at the time in history when the culture of organized listening became an integral element of the mainstream European culture.

In the era of concerts and other forms of organized listening, music used to play a background role. This is the reason why audiences were said to have “fallen silent”. However, with time, music started being transformed into the central point of attention. People would dance to the music and shift their attention to goings-on during performances especially the role of the performer. This was followed by yet another transformation in which attention shifted to the role of the composer. In the era of organized listening and organized performance, performers and organizers were free to improvise music and dancing styles. However, when the attention shifted to the composed, a culture of fixed performances and musical works emerged.

In many cultures, music is conventionally viewed as a type of performance whose main identifying attributes include the recurrence of material and improvisation. Music provides composers with a unique opportunity to communicate with their audiences. This view of music has led to the emergence of a school of thought that opposes the idea of musical works. One of the reasons for opposing musical works is that they prevent people from seeing attributes that are shared in all musical traditions. Another reason for opposing it is that the music of those composers who refuse to tow a certain line set up by established musical works ends up being regarded as marginal (Davies, 2003).

It is unfair for musical aesthetics to be dismissed merely on the basis of standards set within a certain cultural setting. It is only fair that all efforts to appreciate music are first and foremost divorced from the cultural contexts in which they are being undertaken. In recent times, commentators and analysts have been defending popular music by contrasting it with classical music. In their defense, focus has been on promoting the contemporary culture of “mechanical production”. This culture has variously been contrasted with traditional practices that emphasize on performances.

Wittgenstein’s views on aesthetics of music

One of the philosophers who have contributed immensely to the discourse on the aesthetics of music is Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein’s contributions relate in a big way to aspects of sound,  tone, melody, and rhythm and their impact on musical appeal. According to Wittgenstein, musical meaning is always clothed in “fine shades” in terms of usage and impact on emotional behavior (Bar-Elli, 2006).  He also views the concept of feeling to be closely related to the meaning of music. In other words, it is impossible to succeed in understanding the meaning of musical works without investigating their influence on the feelings of the audience. At the most basic level, music is interpreted in terms of sound patterns before deeper meanings relating to tone, rhythm, and melody can be derived.

In Wittgenstein’s view, words tend to have a certain “feel” that is objective in terms of their usage and the meanings they represent. This notion is philosophically significant because it contributes to our understanding of aspect-perception. Wittgenstein argues that words find their meanings in the way they are used (Scruton, 2004). In his view, words should not be viewed as “dead signs”. On the contrary, there is a semantic rule that correlates to every meaning attached to a word. Wittgenstein uses the same argument in his analysis of the extent to which music evokes emotions in human beings. He does this by using musical examples as a basis for his explanations.

In musical works, meaning is deeply intertwined with musical behaviors such as performances. Meaning is to be found in the way different participants including dancers, musicians, and performers assess various variables for consideration as the basis of musical analysis, review, and conceptualization. Wittgenstein also uses analogies from linguistics to create a better understanding of musical themes. For example, the possibility of replacing one sentence with another one is compared to the possibility of replacing a musical theme with another one.  From one perspective, the thought expressed in a sentence may be said to be related to the thoughts expressed in other related sentences. From another perspective, the thought may be said to be unique in such a way that it has never been expressed in exactly the same way in other sentences. The same thing may be said with regard to musical themes. The only difference arises from the terms used. In the case of sentences, terms such as phonemes, phrases, words, and clauses are used. In the case of musical themes, some of the terms used include sound, rhythm, tone, melody, pitch, and timbre.

To explain meaning, Wittgenstein frequently uses musical allusions. In this way, he seems to take advantage of the emotional appeal of music to describe various concepts with near-absolute clarity. To this extent, reference to musical themes may be said to be figurative. Nevertheless, the use of music to define various emotional states is one of the issues that philosophers continue to debate. In this debate, a lot of focus is on the need for all human beings to appreciate the aesthetic value of music and its role in recreation, entertainment, and human communication. In this debate, one of the questions that linger in the minds of philosophers such as Wittgenstein is on whether music can be regarded as a form of language.

Wittgenstein’s philosophy is relevant to our contemporary understanding of the aesthetics of music. The analogies that he uses are a source of crucial information on the ability by music to influence emotions and invoke certain perceptions. This approach also represents an attempt to address the problem semantic analysis of music. This issue remains problematic because music tends to appear meaningful when analyzed from the point of view of intuition. In some cases, this meaning seems to “illuminate” issues that would other be difficult to understand in day-to-day interactions. In such cases, critics of musical theory argue that music does not “illuminate” meaning; rather it triggers emotions that reinforce the need for meaning-related discourse.

For Wittgenstein, efforts to understand the meaning of music should comprise an ongoing endeavor. Numerous philosophical problems need to be addressed. Some of the aspects that Wittgenstein discusses include musicality, performance, and the role of facial expressions in discussions on the relationship between music and emotions. However, themes relating to intricate aspects of music such as sound, tone, pitch, and rhythm are conspicuously missing from Wittgenstein’s themes. Instead, the philosopher focuses on the differences between first-person and third-person approaches in appreciating the meaning of music. In many ways, his views lean towards language. Not much focus has been directed on an analysis of the influence of music on emotions. It is therefore not surprising that some of Wittgenstein’s critics have accused him analyzing music in a figurative way in his analysis of linguistic concepts (Higgins, 1991). The concern among these critics is that any attempt to discuss the meaning of music should focus primarily on the concepts that are universally accepted in this discipline.

An assessment of the nature of the emotions that music induces: A philosophical debate

Philosophers of aesthetics have made numerous efforts to set up a clear direction in discourse on the nature of emotions that music induces. One of the challenges encountered in this quest is the lack of clear research paradigms. It becomes difficult for the process through which emotions are produced by music to be analyzed from a theoretical perspective. The existing methods of assessing processes through which emotions are induced have proven to be inappropriate in the philosophy of aesthetics (Scherer, 2004). These methods primarily focus on analysis of emotions, arousal, and emotion inventories.

When basic emotions are used as the basis of analysis, the risk of downplaying the role of underlying emotional processes is always present. For example, this approach leaves no room for an in-depth analysis of the affective states that music produces. When focus is on arousal, it becomes difficult for differences to be made in terms of quality of music. This is simply because any musical piece can trigger emotional arousal. The arousal may be characterized by either positive or negative perceptions by the audience. The nature of these perceptions also needs to be captured in any philosophical analysis of the aesthetics of music. Similarly, the simple act of listing emotions is not acceptable in philosophical discussions. Any researcher may come up with a new list that suits his or her research interests. Such a trend makes it difficult for different research studies to be compared.

To assess the nature of emotions that music produces, efforts must be made to clearly differentiate the notion of “emotions” from that of “feelings”. According to Scherer (2004), feelings constitute a sub-set of emotion. The feelings that individuals experience while listening to music are essentially components of the deeper, more holistic essence of emotional response. Scherer suggests that a radical paradigm shift should be introduced to eliminate common misconceptions relating to the philosophical discourse on the impact of music on human emotions.  In this paradigm shift, music is assumed to produce affective elements. In this approach, feelings play the role of integrating different affective elements through changes in human cognition and physiology Scherer, 2004). To account for these changes, philosophers assess various changes in the rules used to produce music. In this way, it may be possible for researchers to establish a clear research direction relating to the impact of music on emotional states.

According to Scruton (1987), the analytical method has been widely applied in other branches of philosophy but not in musical aesthetics. For instance, in the philosophy of language, philosophers have made tremendous progress in explaining the notion of “meaning” from an analytical perspective. They have done this through focus on grammar, choice of word, phonology, semantics, prosody, and sentence structure. In this discourse, the analytical approach has demystified linguistic meaning. However, similar milestones have not been achieved in the use of the analytical approach in demystifying musical meaning. If an analytical perspective was to be adopted, focus would be on aspects such as tone, rhythm, and sound. Philosophers would be more committed to the goal of analyzing musical meaning by assessing the impact of these aspects on emotions.

Meanwhile, there is consensus among philosophers that musical meaning should be treated in a manner that is different from that of linguistic meaning. When people listen to music, the primary point of attraction is the emotional appeal. Musical works needs not be of “communicative value” in the conventional sense for it to be considered to be of high quality. The audience appreciates the fact that life would be incomplete without awareness and appreciation of the emotional effects created by music. Yet philosophers find it difficult to measure or quantify these effects. This is largely because of their abstract nature musical meanings.

Apart from the abstract nature of musical meaning, another obstacle may be the complex nature of music as a discipline. According to Scruton (1997), the best philosopher of music may essentially double as a music scholar. This is because for one to analyze the musical significance of sounds as the building blocks of music, an in-depth knowledge of the music discipline is necessary. By doubling as a music scholar, the philosopher of music would be in a better to establish a framework for determining how audiences are responded emotionally to different kinds of music.

Conclusion

This paper has provided a candid discussion on the philosophy of music, particularly the role of music in inducing emotions. Philosophers have pondered over the notion of musical meaning for a long time. For instance, Wittgenstein uses figurative examples from the world of music to analyze the meaning of language. The thesis of this paper was that aspects of sound, tone, melody and rhythm are critical in our understanding of the philosophy of music especially by providing reasons for the tendency by people to respond emotionally to musical works. This paper has confirmed that these aspects are critical in the philosophy of music aesthetics.

Unfortunately, philosophers have approached this theme with too much caution. They have been reluctant to adopt an analytical approach in measuring musical meaning. This is in sharp contrast to the realm of the philosophy of language where numerous linguistic concepts have been subjected to rigorous philosophical analysis. This is perhaps because of the abstract nature of the notion of musical meaning. Further research needs to be undertaken by philosophers of music in efforts to create a paradigm shift in the way the effects of music on emotions are analyzed.

 

References

Bar-Elli, G. (2006). Wittgenstein on the Experience of Meaning and the Meaning of Music. Philosophical Investigations, 29(3), 217–249.

Davies, S (2011). Musical understandings: and other essays on the philosophy of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davies, S. (2003). Themes in philosophy of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Higgins, K. (1991). The music of our lives. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Robinson, J. (1997). Music and meaning. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.

Scherer, K. (2004). Which Emotions Can be Induced by Music? What Are the Underlying Mechanisms? And How Can We Measure Them? Journal of New Music Research, 33(3), 239-251.

Scruton, R. (1987). Analytical Philosophy and the Meaning of Music. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,46(7), 169-176.

Scruton, R. (1997). The aesthetics of music. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Scruton, R. (2004). Wittgenstein and the Understanding of Music. British Journal of Aesthetics 44(1), 1-9.

Scruton, R. (2009). Understanding music: Philosophy and interpretation. New York, NY: Continuum Books.