Here I have a topic similar to "The Goal". In music, which is better?
Following the rules? or fulfilling the goal that was intended for the
piece of music? There are several rules currently being discussed,
and every one of them has a valid point. But what if someone was
composing a piece for a specific purpose? For example, what if
someone was composing a film score, and there is a very disturbing
scene which he must write music for? Obviously, the technique he
will probably use is general dissonance, which is generally against
every rule I've heard of. And what if this film is a film that intends to
give glory to God by spreading one of His messages? Would it be
better for that composer to follow the rules instead of fulfilling the
purpose? Do the ends justify the means?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Good job on making all the text lines neat.
I think that in this discussion it is necessary to remember that the rules apply to what is called absolute music: music composed for the sake of making good music. Jaques Maritain calls this the supreme purpose of all art. When music is composed for another purpose (anything from film music to social criticism), the composer has deliberately chosen another purpose over the supreme one. As these rules are not moral rules, the giving of a different purpose would give a new set of rules because the intended result is not good music but rather a good union (a union of music and film, music and listener and society, etc.). In other words, the film composer is not concerned with music as music and is not bound in any way to fulfill the essence of what he is not concerned with.
This being said, the supreme purpose of the film-scorer's art is the same as that of the absolute composer: to make a good creation. The difference is the medium: cinema rather than music. Ideally, of course, he ought to behave as if he were an absolute composer as well so that if his music is ever heard out of context, it is still good. But he need not be scrupulous or put-down if this is impossible.
The issue which I really think is unresolved is the debate between the composer who composes to arouse emotions and the one who composes absolutely. Both can be said to go after the Maritrainan purpose: one to make good music and one to make good emotions. But which is better, music or emotions? (It is unquestionable that cinema is a better art form than music because music is a part of cinema. But emotions are not a part of music, merely an effect.) As for self-expression, I think that one who cannot find adequate self-expression within the confines of the ideals of the absolute art needs to change their self before it is more worth expressing than the essence of music.
I don't know why composing music for its own sake (e.g. aesthetic beauty, melody, etc...) is the supreme purpose or absolute purpose of music.
Afterall, what is music but the sound(s) that accompany all of lifes other activities. I know the score (soundtrack) or a film, or a jingle for a commercial aren't always nobel purposes, but without some purpose aside from aesthetic beauty music becomes nothing more than a skill or trade.
If beauty/melody could be quantified music could be measured objectively for quality, but in my opinion this would be to miss the point. Music is only as good as people judge it to be. If they want to listen to good/beautiful music for its own sake, fine, but if they want to have some emotion invoked in them at the end of a film, beauty is not necessarily the ideal standard.
Art is not art if there are absolutes. Art is called art because it is not perfect and can never be perfected. Art depends on a listener, reader, watcher, etc... So, "beauty" as a non-dependent characteristic doesn't make any sense, at least in art, if not in science as well.
Thanks for posting. I had a lot of fun (as you should expect by now :) giving lenghtly answers to your questions. My artistic views are VERY different from what most people have, so expect a lot of cognitive dissonance. Feel free to browse through the blog...I think you'll find some examples of what I say and some more cogent statements of the what and why of my views.
"I don't know why composing music for its own sake (e.g. aesthetic beauty, melody, etc...) is the supreme purpose or absolute purpose of music."
If one really wants good art (we will use music as an example), they will compose/listen to music without regard to its purpose (we will use the purpose of film as an example). Here's why:
The best music is good music. The best soundtrack is not necessarily good music (although it of course could be), but good emotion-making.
There is no question that any form or art can have good things it can be used for beyond itself. Any art treated as a means (which is what you seem to advocate) implies that the thing sought is in itself desirable as an end, or as a means to an end. This end must be considered a good thing. One who makes art for the sake of making good art treats the art itself as this good end.
If your statement "I don't know why composing music for its own sake (e.g. aesthetic beauty, melody, etc...) is the supreme purpose or absolute purpose of music," implies that you think I am wrong (which seems to be your intention based on what comes after), then you make the assumption that the extra-musical purpose is always superior to the musical purpose. There are, of course, times when this is true, but they themselves are extra-artistic elements. If one is trying to make a philosophical and systematic rule-system of art criticim, it seems to me that they would start with the art itself. If they don't understand the rules of the art, how can they ever hope to incorporate things such as social criticism (which music is actually very bad at) or emotive power (which is highly overrated as a desirable end, except in religious art) in the best possible way.
And actually, if your purpose is edification, the art-human combination works both ways. One can make edifying art without reference to its intrinsic goodness. One can also make good art without reference to its edificative power as an encouragement to others for them to free themselves from the limitations that psychology, society, etc. place on them. People who seek after this sort of art appreciate things for the sake of the goodness of the things, not for the sake of lesser (though still real) pleasures.
In at least the world of music today, the intrinsic goodness of an art is never even considered. I can think of few purposes for my own compositions better than bringing this back into view.
"Without some purpose aside from aesthetic beauty music becomes nothing more than a skill or trade."
Forgive me for asking, but what is your definition of skill or trade? The situation seems to be pretty much the opposite of what you said (to me). I would define "trade" (noun) as "the making of something for the purposes of livelihood."
"Music is only as good as people judge it to be."
When a person judges a work of art, they must keep in mind the purposes of the art. Deciding which purpose(s) one uses for the judgment is, in my mind, the most subjective element in the criticism. Some purposes necessarily imply more subjectivity, insofar as they incorporate the listener in the work of art. Insofar as the listener is not incoroporated into the work, however, their opinion does not necessarily have any correlation to the art's actual goodness.
I would never assign a number to the quality of a work (except to say, perhaps, that this one gets first place, etc.), nor would I say that there are not elements of the goodness (even intrinstic goodness) of a work of art about which I do not know. After all, the totality of an essence is unknowable. I do believe, however, that we can usually tell where a work is intrinsically deficient, and that we can often tell where it excels. After all, elements of an essence certainly are knowable.
"Art is called art because it is not perfect and can never be perfected."
First, remember that there are at least two kinds of perfection. The first is that kind that consists in having no error (as in a perfect circle). I think that it is possible to get very close to artistic perfection in this sense. All that is necessary (though I would not commend an artist for this because of the second type of perfection) is to pluck two strings that have a ratio of 2/3 simultaneously.
The second type is the perfection of being as good as something can be. This perfection is quite unattainable (Not even the Virgin Mary posessed it), but (unless you are a moral/artistic relativist) you can tell whether you are getting closer or farther. And all elements of beauty, be they emotive, social, intrinstic, or yet to be discovered, play a part in this sort of perfection. I am most concerned with intrinstic goodness, for if it exists, it is the most basic of all these forms.
I believe that a big factor in
music is the effect it has on
the listener. But obviously, this
cannot be the sole factor, since
it varies from person to person.
However, a general category can
have general effects, like rock
music for example, which promotes
disorder (generally speaking. Some
light rock seems to be more
orderly than contemporary classical
[neo-classical and such]. I am
reffering to rock music that has
the accent on the second and fourth
beats in 4/4 time).
But, Mr. Greek Philosopher, suppose an alien whose heart beats syncopatedly came along? Not that this is probable.
The effect is important, of course. It's just not the only thing to consider.
And actually, in your original post, you asked "Do the ends justify the means" (in an artistic, not a moral, sense). The evil or good effects of rhythms are ends, not means, so to discuss them you would use the Principle of Double Effect (or its artistic equivalent), not the question you used.
As you said, it is HIGHLY
improbable if not IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
Post a Comment