Introduction
Music refers to organized sound, but this definition is general because a number of other prearranged noises exist, but they might necessarily be categorized as music. Human speech, animal noise, and machine echoes are some of the sounds that are not music. Based on this, several scholars of philosophy have attempted to define what exactly constitutes music and they have come up with a number of features that distinguish musical noise from other forms of sounds.
One of the major features is the tonality, which include pitch and rhythm while an additional feature is an appeal to aesthetic qualities or experience. Kivy is one of the scholars have conducted extensive research on what constitutes music. In his book titled introduction to a philosophy of music, he summed up the concept in thirteen chapters, with the first chapter dealing with philosophical issues surrounding the definition of music.
In his view, a reader might not be aware of the definition of philosophy, yet he she or might be in need of the book talking about a philosophy of music. This means that definition of the fundamental terms is critical when the writer wants the reader to understand what he or she is trying to pass across in society.
By trying to define the basic terms, including philosophy and music, he was simply going round with an intention of facilitating understanding. In this case, giving clear definitions and examples would be telling the reader about what philosophy of music is all about as well as showing him or her the way in which the subject should be studied.
This paper aims at analyzing the ideas of Kivy systematically in order to gain insight into his works since it is believed that music is yet to be explored fully in the field of philosophy. In the process of analyzing his major concepts and principles as far as music is concerned, the paper will employ a comparative study whereby his views would be compared with those of other philosophers and major existing theories.
Studies show that several scholars have published literal works on the philosophy of music and taking a comparative approach would be the most viable way in understanding the views of Kivy. Additionally, the paper will assess Kivy’s works to establish whether they are consistent with the postulations of the known philosophers meaning that a critique of the book would be conducted before arriving at a conclusion on whether his views are accurate.
As per the views of Kivy, philosophy is used in special cases to refer to the major principles, postulations, the subject matter, theories, and the assumptions of a particular field. For any subject to qualify as science, it has to develop its own theories, the subject matter, and the methods that would be utilized in the understanding of the cause and effect hence his ideas on the application of philosophy are valid.
Review of Kivy’s Ideas
In the first chapter, he observes that various fields of study have established philosophies because scholars interested in the subjects ensure that they formulate adequate theories and principles. He asks the question about the philosophy of music, which has attracted little attention. He notes that music has an established practice, which means it entails a discipline that calls for a philosophical study.
However, many scholars of philosophy are reluctant to appreciate the fact that music is an established field of study with sufficient principles that attract the attention of philosophers. To some scholars, music does not form the bedrock of their lives in the same way as science and morality, something that makes them consider it a secondary subject in their academic discourses. It is not surprising to see music being categorized under the fines arts, together with other subjects such as painting, dance, and literature.
Unfortunately, Plato was of a different view because he suggested that music is not similar to other fine arts because he perceived it as a craft while he termed drama as an inspirational practice. From the reasoning of Plato, Music should be studied under the philosophy of craft.
In the Greek society, music played an important role in the lives of the majority and it was given a special attention in the education system. Even though music was still considered an important aspect in human life, its significance had fallen, which consequently affected its study in the middle ages.
In the second chapter, Kivy gives a brief history of the philosophy of music whereby he appreciates the special relationship that music shares with emotions1. Many scholars observe that music has a special place in the lives of many, but the form of music played at the ancient times cannot be tested in the modern society because the sound of the music cannot be traced. In this case, no one can identify the type of music that Plato talked about, which was very popular in the ancient Greek society.
It is suspected that the nature and the type of music played during the time of Plato and Aristotle was simply vocal melody with some words and could be accompanied by a stringed instrument, including lyre. However, it is not known whether the music was polyphonic or was simply made up of notes.
In his works on Republics, Plato suggested that music has a way of getting into people’s emotions or the character state of the individual. It is true that some melodies could instill courage and warlike emotions in the male members of society and it would be prudent to sing them before engaging the enemy. This means that music arouses emotions in listeners by replicating the way people express accents, tones, and shouts in speeches and exclamations.
Just as Plato, Aristotle supported the idea that music has a close relationship with feelings. In Book VIII of politics, Aristotle made a sensational claim that music does not simply represent the physical expression of emotions, but instead it represents the real human emotions and the human soul tends to move according to these emotions. Unfortunately, Aristotle failed to offer an explanation on how musical sound can perhaps replicate or represent emotions.
The third chapter is the most important in the reasoning of Kivy on the philosophy of music because it explains all the issues surrounding the relationship between emotions and music. In his view, music has to be explained in expressive terms in the sense that it might be sorrowful, joyful, and hopeful.
However, the description of music, such as fearful and sorrowful, does not aim at arousing emotions, but instead promoting an emotion in the same way as property. In the third chapter, he went on to narrate the history of the philosophy of music by underscoring the fact that music means singing to many people in the world, which is not actually true.
He noted that this came because of the renaissance that happened in the middle ages, as well as the seventieth century where people were concerned with composition of music, particularly for the church and senior people in government. In the fifth chapter, Kivy writes extensively on formalism, which he terms as an ill word for the issues he talks about in the chapter. He posits that music is absolute because it has special aspects that are only unique to its form.
Kant was of the similar view, as he supported the view that music is absolute in the sense that it has the capacity to enhance human life. The sixth chapter is closely related to the fourth because it talks about enhanced formalism, which disputes the claim that music can never be viewed in terms of emotions. In this case, there is a way music can embody the garden-variety emotions.
From an idealist perspective, music entails a mental entity implying that they are simply imaginary objects and human experiences. Kivy opposed this view because it fails to make works of art inter-subjectively available because these works are mainly imaginative. Additionally, the idealist perspective renders music irrelevant. For some scholars, musical works are simply actions that are composed by singers.
Based on this, music is simply one type of an action, but not a specific action, as some would perceive. From this perspective, the philosophy of music could be understood through the action theory, even though identifying musical ontology is problematic. Kivy opposes the views of anti-realists who believe that the works of art, including music, do not exist and the study of the philosophy of music is always in vain because it would not lead to the major postulations and development of theory as any scholar would wish.
Music, as well as its performances are perceived to be either happy or sad because they raise an expressive philosophical question owing to the fact that the paradigm of those of who express emotions are simply psychological agents full of emotions. Kivy observes that music, as well as its performances, can never be psychological agents implying that expression of emotions is different from acting out behavior in the public.
From his works, it is true that a big difference between expression and expressivity exists. While expression is something that is personal meaning that they are things that an individual do in his or her private life, expressivity is something related to artworks, including other things that are general in nature. Based on this, expression is outward manifestations of the emotional state. Even though the two could be merged, an attempt to do so would be a daunting one meaning that it would not be easy.
However, Kivy failed to distinguish between expressivity and representation because he simply claimed that music entails expression of emotions and failed to identify that it represents emotions as well. For instance, if paint shows that an individual is crying, yet in the real sense, the aim was to express sadness, the message would not have been passed. In the same way, emotions in the piece of music are closely related to expressions rather than depicting it as an emotional state.
Linking expressivity with expression suggests that music or its performances are just presentation of emotions, but not practices of emotions. Through this, he seemed to support an expressive theory, but the theory is associated with two major issues, one of them being the intentions of the composer or the performer because what he or she plays out does not express his or her views. Additionally, the composer or the performer could come out to sing, but the message does not represent the experiences of the author.
In each case, any piece of work should abide by the principles of the theory for it to be considered an expression of music. If a composer fails to attract his or her audience or does not express his or her emotions, then the model cannot be replicated.
Furthermore, if a composer wishes to express his or her sadness, then he is expected to compose a right piece of work. Based on this, it can be observed the novelist does not need to state his or her feelings in the text. Unfortunately, this might result to the compilation of a dramatically free song, which does not share anything with his or her sentiments and experiences.
Studies show that linking the expressiveness of music with real emotion is through the audience. In this regard, the arousal theory is best placed to explain this form of expressiveness. The expressiveness of the passage results to its possibility to stimulate an emotion in a highly understanding listener, which could perhaps help in overcoming simple problems. Some forms of emotions, including fear demand certain types of intentional object, even though such an object might non-existent whenever a fearful music is played.
The idea that a persona inhabits music is inaccurate according to Kivy because it gives rise to literal expression of emotional experiences, which paves way for the understanding of listener’s conflicts with imaginative activity. A theory suggesting that music is all about expressivity is inaccurate because music cannot be explained purely in emotional terms.
The depiction of music in terms of emotions is insufficient because this would not explain sonic features, the dynamism of music, the major musical features, and the aesthetic properties. Such reasoning raises a number of questions, one being commitment to some form of scheme with an aim of reducing expressive predicates, including sonic or musical forms. In fact, such schemes are extremely difficult to image. The passage might fail to capture what could be of interest and value because it omits expressive predicates.
Kivy talked too much about formalism, yet melodious way of life could perhaps fall into the grasp of anti-expressivity, which brings about many questions related relativism. As per the writings of many scholars, many people perceive music in terms of emotional expressiveness, which raises the question of high-level contextual expression as well as cultural relativity.
As far as listening is concerned, Kivy observed that two major questions have to be answered in order to understand emotional responses to pure music. The first question pertains to paradox of fiction, which is analogous to expressiveness of music, yet it is never clear why individuals would respond emotionally to expressive music when in the real sense emotional expressions are not understood. Another question relates to the paradox of tragedy, which is a variant of emotional expressiveness.
In fact, if music arouses negative emotional responses, including sadness, why then would an individual want to listen to such music? Addressing this question is not easy, but an individual would deny the fact that he or she responds to music emotionally. Recent scholars suggest that emotional response to music in human beings constitutes a smaller component as much philosophical literature would suggest.
Kivy went a notch higher to claim that reporting emotional reactions could perhaps confuse the pleasure they take in musical aesthetics in expressive individuality. However, many scholars reject his reasoning through assessment of empirical data, but they underscore the fact that something motivates an individual to engage in music, including the nature if music itself, which influences the emotional state.
Almost all scholars believe that feelings are psychological in nature since they take on deliberate objects and they are related to other things, even though the nature of any expressive object is often inhibited.
For an individual to feel fear, he or she has to believe that something might go wrong any time, which explains the intentional object that threatens the internal state. Similarly, an individual might not feel sad by simply listening to a sad song, something that raises the question of whether a sorrowful music might arouse a sad experience.
Kivy tried to answer this question by observing that not all emotional responses are broadly constructed and neither are all of them cognitive in nature. For instance, an individual would react non-cognitively to fundamental musical rudiments, including tension, leading to the release of just stress. This explains why a fortissimo blow as opposed to responding to a thunderclap might startle an individual. In the seventh chapter, he talked about high-order emotional responses whereby he gave at least two potential justifications.
In the first scenario, he noted that an individual is likely to appeal to the phenomenon of emotional contagion, which is also referred to as mirroring responses whereby an individual acts based on his or her emotional status. If mops surround an individual, chances are high that sadness and grief would be inevitable, but the sadness mood would not be related to intentional object, as he or she would not be sad for the mop, but instead he or she would be concerned about the status.
In the same way, if music surrounds an individual, there is a high likelihood that it would present the state of sadness, even though the sadness might not be directed towards the music, but instead the person will be concerned with the state of affairs. This means that the presence of music only reminds the person of the sorrowful events and occasions, but it does not contribute in any way in making a listener sad.
Kivy aimed at construing why people listen to music that is likely to stimulate unenthusiastic feelings, such as misery and grief. He suggested that pessimistic expressive reactions are just the costs that people pay in order to gain from engaging in music. This means that no person is always willing to listen to the musical piece that arouses negative emotions, but they find themselves engaging in such musical instruments with the aim of gaining positively.
However, other scholars are against this view because not all negative responses have the potential of benefiting the individual in the future. Even though his ideas on the relationship between negative responses and payback are highly contested, it is agreed that a relationship between the two exists.
For instance, it would be impossible to understand the musical work that an individual engages in without proper understanding of expressivity, which is directly related to negative response. The benefits of expressive work differ in a number of ways with the expressive emotion espoused by listener. According to Aristotle’s works on catharsis, interaction between negative emotional responses and negative expressive art amounts to positive emotional purgation of the negative emotions.
In this regard, emotions do not have life implications because people are never sad about anything meaning that emotional responses can be explored to benefit the individual in several ways.
If this is to be understood, an individual has to ask him or herself two major questions, one being establishing the reasons why an individual seeks out music that elicits negative emotional experience and the other entails the understanding the enjoyment that is derived from the negative responses. However, individuals are not interested in pursuing musical instruments with the aim of gaining any gain.
To some philosophers, negative responses, such as sadness, which are evoked through expressive music, might not be negative. As per the reasoning of Hume, concerning adversity, the cheerfulness that people take in the form of presentation of the content of any works of art does not just counteract the pessimistic feeling induced, but instead engenders and alters it into an enjoyable feeling. Recent scholars noted that sadness could not be termed as a negative emotion.
Any family member would wish that all members live to maturity, but if death occurs, sorrow would be welcomed implying that songs are used to pass the messages of condolences. In the same way, an individual does not have any power over the musical work, especially when it comes to listening to any piece of work. In this regard, sorrowful response is welcome based on the existing state of affairs. Scholars find it hard to rebuff the classification of negative sadness.
Apart from talking extensively about emotions, Kivy explained his understanding of music whereby he underscored the fact that even animals have the capacity to hear music. For instance, a loud noise that radio emits might scare a dog. However, he advised that music should not be heard in this manner implying that its understanding is the most important. The question that comes in the fore is what constitutes the experience of music as far as its understanding is concerned.
For instance, a simple piece of music could be represented by a sonogram, but its experience would be understood through marked-up score. Individual notes might generate distinct pieces of music, harmonies, tempo, and sections.
The understanding of any piece of music differs from one person to the other implying that music is something personal that each person should be allowed to assign meaning. Hearing alone does not allow an individual to understand the piece of music because one individual might hear much of the music, but his or her interpretation might end up being inaccurate. The case is complex if an individual only understands one type of music.
If an individual intends to understand the real meaning of music, he or she would need different abilities because some sorts of music lack harmony while others do not have any melody to talk about in emotional expression. Similarly, understanding the emotions expressed in any piece of work is problematic because of the multifaceted musical features.
Musical experience presents several challenges and issues to an individual, one of them being issues related to tones, which are different from pitched sounds. In this case, a tone is likely to be heard in terms of musical space meaning that it bears a relationship with other higher or lower tones.
The second challenge is concerned with the experience of movement because a melody could be heard as being far afield, but it rests in the place in which it started. Research reveals that these occurrences are irreducibly metaphorical because they involve the exploitation of spatial ideas. Kivy observed correctly that the meaning of metaphorical experience is unclear implying that meaning assigned to any metaphor would simply represent its interpretation2.
Even though other scholars are of the view that this aspect is absent in any piece of music, Kivy observed that it exists. However, it is suggested that a metaphor is reducible meaning that it is eliminable as well, but in musical terms only. Kivy expressed a divergent view because he suggested that any spatial vocabulary could be eliminated, even though he was supportive of the claim supporting the centrality of the metaphor. The application of spatial and motion terms in explaining music is secondary, even though it is literal as well.
In the last chapters of the book, Kivy evaluated the importance of complex works of instrumental music with an aim of facilitating an understanding of the musical aspects. He argued the case against the popular view of paradigmatic conception as far as the understanding of music is concerned.
He replaced this view with a different reasoning, which he termed as concatenation view. Based on the new perspective, he suggested that understanding of music entails analyzing emotional qualities of passages. Kivy treasured the analysis of Levinson who observed that grasping the major form of most pieces of western traditional melody is vital in the appreciation of music. He supports the claim that listening to music intellectual, but is not a quasi-hearing.
He opposed the idea that listening to music is non-perceptual. The understanding of music is sophisticated and it calls for the evaluation of all abilities. Without perceptions, it would be difficult to understand any piece of music hence the ideas of Levinson that music is non-perceptual is uncalled for and do not stand the taste of time.
The role of music in society and its value is an additional theme that Kivy talked about in his analysis in his book. He notes that there is a disagreement over the nature of artistic and imaginative worth, which comprises the question of whether the two are discrete ideas.
However, he avoided getting into the debate and instead emphasized on the two major central points. Many scholars construe that artwork is intrinsic because meaning are assigned to them differently. This implies that music is never understood in similar terms because listening alone does not guarantee understanding.
The value of any music generates a different experience from one person to the other hence assigning it meaning. The second issue that arises from this depiction is pleasure, which cannot be neglected and many scholars underscore this fact meaning that they are always in consensus over the issue. Music is supposed to be an abstract art, but Kivy opposed this view because human beings cannot do without it in the sense that it is valued in each society3.
In conclusion, it is noted that Kivy explains the fundamental issues surrounding the philosophy of music. The understanding of song is directly related to the theoretical suppositions of metaphysics and artist. He moves on to offer a definition of music whereby he suggests some of the needed conditions that play an important role in classifying music. Additionally, he talks extensively about the relations hip of music with emotional states.
Again, he suggests that music is directly related to human mind and it would be difficult to separate the two. Even though he defines music as organized sound, he quickly advises that offering clear definition of music is not easy because it goes beyond tones and stretches to include melodies, harmony, tempo, and reverberation. Since the beginning of an academic discourse on music, scholars have differed over the forms of music, with some claiming that it is absolute while suggested that music is all about a program.
Unfortunately, Kivy is accepted to be dragged into the debate arguing that music is absolute because it has an overriding influence on people’s emotions. The works of Kivy present some of the fundamental challenges that philosophers go through as they attempt to define music. The book suggests that music has an important role to play in the society hence it has to be studied separately instead of grouping it under the fine arts.
Bibliography
Kivy, Peter. Introduction to a Philosophy of Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.
Footnotes
1Peter Kivy, Introduction to a Philosophy of Music (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), p. 112.
2Peter Kivy, Introduction to a Philosophy of Music (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), p. 76.
3Peter Kivy, Introduction to a Philosophy of Music (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), p. 34.