Elucidations: Prev Next

  • Is hearing emotion in music a purely cultural convention?
    • Distinguish two questions
      1. Whether culture has impact on the perceptual states from hearing pieces of music
      2. Whether on a particular occasion of hearing music, the perception depends on cultural factors.
    • The perception being dependent on cultural factors doesn’t mean it can’t be considered perceptual
      • E.g. language (clearly culture-dependent) where the words perceived have meanings
        • E.g. you hear/perceive “snow” as meaning snow (the explanation why that in particular is the case involves culture) but the perception itself is not cultural.
        • With music, it’s not interesting to trace the causal origins of the perceptual state but the nature of the perceptual state itself / what it is for it to have emotional content.
  • Three fundamental different experiences
    • See something a certain way (see an apple as an apple)
    • See something as a representation of something else (picture of an apple)
    • “Metaphorical seen-as”
      • “Juliet is the sun” - linguistic metaphors are just a specific instance of a general mental state of metaphorical thinking.
        • Others attempts to reduce this type of thinking to other kinds of mental states unsatisfactory.
      • Music Examples:
        • Des Prex, Ave Maria: lyrics involve “universe filling up gladness”, and you hear the music as filling up space.
        • Debussy,L’Voiles or Le catedrale engloutie: can perceive the fluttering sails and sinking cathedral.
      • Distinction between imagining X as Y and phenomonologically perceiving X as Y (example of Still life with pots (Zurbarán) that you really directly see as people, vs forcing yourself to imagine four things on the table as people).
      • Phenomologically distinct from actually thinking the pots are people or even depictions of people.
    • Explanation of this
      • “isomorphism”
      • Basically an analogy.
        • Changes in pitch and speed map onto changes in speed of the wind.
      • There are tons of these that are possible, but not all are “psychologically real”
        • Minor chord has negative affect due to its relation to major chord.
        • Why is it this emotion rather than some other is an empirical question
        • Mozart B minor adagio extremely moving … why? that’s an empirical question (great composers have a good intuition for this).
        • Great music critics are able to pick out and articulate these - after hearing this it changes how you perceive the music.
          • Example: end of Schubert piece “you can hear the body slipping into the water”
    • How is this related to hearing a piece of music as a certain genre?
      • “Romantic music is very expressive”
        • Problems
          • Other music just ‘describes’ emotions rather than expresses them
          • Yet much medieval music also is clearly expressive.
      • Positive account of how to characterize romantic music
        • There are expressive actions
          • Not described in the thought/belief model where we do actions towards some end / for some benefit. E.g. jump for joy.
        • There are actions we perceive as expressive.
        • Romantic music is perceived as expressive, and breaking classical conventions in order to express this emotion.
          • Allows one to not purely be defined as breaking conventions (otherwise you’d include impressionism, etc.)
          • Impressionist music is not perceived as expressive action.