Systematic Musicology - Science topic

Moreover the question of "what is music," asks for both an answer from scientism (that only science has answers to questions of knowledge and even meaning about, in our case, the true, the good, and the beautiful); and an appeal to essentialism that takes for granted that there is an "essential" irrevocable and core--insuperable--meaning to the word "music.".  These and important and related questions are best not discussed on this site.  Write an article or an email to discussants, because the question of "what is music" is philosophically problematic and takes a lot of words--actually endlessly so--to discuss..(tom regelski@ helsinki.fi)  but as a starter, this.

Music is not like an apple that. agreed upon what it "is" can be investigated (as opposed to oranges).  And apples can be studied from many points of view: as a biological organism  (plant) , as a food, as a social entity (what apples mean,  how used), as any number of 'things'.  And so, too, with music.  To ask what music is, to investigate it  scientifically, is similarly to ask what an apple is, as regards its role in life, nutrition,  recreation (apple bobbing contests), a cooking delicacy (pie), and intoxicant (alcoholic  cider), an industry, even a symbol (e.g., states that identify with their apple industry) , and .romance ( "you're the apple of my eye") etc. (was it ever true that students brought apples to their teachers?)) 

Asking what music is, as a scientific, ontological problematic is as misguided as asking what love is,  As suggested in entries above,  the question to be answered is not what people call "music" is but what it is that is called "music" does for those whose "appreciation" is best seen in how they  use  in fulfilling a rich live..

Too much "study" of music is lite a an autopsy, no longer of a living praxis, but as a  remnant  of something previously alive.  (If you're a musician, consider the often deadheading effects of your music theory and history classes),  Paradoxically, such is anesthetic., as result of its  "scientific" study in orthodox musicology and music theory, Strangely, this or that "work" as identified in advance by aesthetic theory as "good music" (as a great work worthy of analysis) is subject to positivist criteria as though a cadaver. Nothing is more deadening of musical values  than musicology and theory conducted on such premises..  And as concerns social aspects of music, at the same time that "absolute music" in the 19th century and since is sacralized--i.e., asart religion--, religious music is  heard in the concert hall as "art music " and secularized.  

So the question of what music IS  as a focus of scientific study  is not well considered.  As I offered several entries ago, the important question to be researched is what music DOES, why,  and how,! The answer must be that music is a social praxis, and like language, makes its contributions to life according to what it is "good for."  A pragmatic criterion.  And it is good for so many socially important things--so don't agree so easily about the difference  between  "highbrow" art music and :'lowbrow" musics .  I'd argue that both are important in the fabric of society and that . therefore,, both are needed and important to the meanings of life occasioned by music, in its situatedness--where it serves the needs well that bring a music into being to begin with.  (That is no doubt how music arose in the first place). That is "good music," for just listening, dancing, singing, celebrating, mourning, and all forms of praxis.

Praxis, for Aristotle is "virtuous doing" on behalf of others, guided by an ethic of accountability.  Techne, instead, is "excellent making" that attests to the need for craftsmanship and even artistry.  But, for praxis, artistry (virtuosity in any realm of life) is calculated by the needs  in question.  The praxis of students as amateurs can be guided by the poiesis (excellent making) of professionals,' but amateurs (amat=love) have different ''goods" in mind as fulfilling. 

The the question raised is ill-considered.  To study music is to study what people call music, and what role it contributes to their lives and how and why,: viz,what difference, in a pragmatic sense it contributes to the life worth living.  Don't try to "define" an apple  'look to its role in humans being human  Eat it (as John Cage's Zen wold recommend)., then you'll belong. as a starting point, at least.

I use the following example in my teaching (mainly to demonstrate how awesome human hearing is): when you walk down a street and you hear the sound of (for example) an acoustic guitar being played (not too badly) you are generally able to hear whether someone is playing an actual guitar or playing back a recording of a guitar for the very reason Dr. Mannis suggests. Our psychoacoustic systems pick up so many precise directional cues that we can easily identify the predictable response of a loudspeaker in a certain acoustic condition (a park, a room with an open window etc). I imagine we might even be able to make out the difference between an electric guitar amplifier and a recording, taking the specific sound of such speakers in consideration.

Technically I assume you could analyse an experimental recording with a microphone array and look at the distribution of direction/frequency; if it's complex it's an instrument or a human or an animal (or a tree falling in a forrest) if it's relatively simply (i.e. all higher frequency in the same direction) it would likely be coming from a loudspeaker.

Would make a fun research project :-)

Hi Philip,

you can find them and download them on my page ResearchGATE (Contributions, articles).

Saludos desde México,

Fabrizio

Most useful; can to same conclusions mysefl thinking hard and logically....many, many thanks...I went to Vienna and found amazing things....

Yes, of course I can help you. Doctoral dissertation:

- Naomi Joy Barker, "Analytical Issues in the Toccatas of Girolamo Frescobaldi", Ph.D. in Musicology, Royal Holloway College, University of London, 1995;

- Elena Burundukovskaya, "Organno-klavirnye sotchineniya Jirolamo Frescobaldi i voprosy ich ispolneniya na organe" [Girolamo Frescobaldi's Keyboard Works and the Questions of Their Performance on the Organ], Ph.D. in Music, Moscow Academy of Music, 1993;

- Étienne Darbellay, "Primo et secondo libro di toccate de Girolamo Frescobaldi, édition critique. En marge des deux livres de toccate de Girolamo Frescobaldi, étude de style", Ph.D. in Musicology, Fribourg, 1971;

- Michael J. Eisenberg, "Keyboard Secunda Pratica in Transmission: The Copper-Engraved Toccata Publications of Girolamo Frescobaldi", Ph.D. in Musicology, City University of New York, in progress.

I am sorry,but I can not help you.

Hello Jenn - You can search for keywords like "entrainment" or "groove".

You will find references to a large body of research in the following (very recent: November 2014) paper:

Burger, B., Thompson, M. R., Luck, G., Saarikallio, S. H., & Toiviainen, P. (2014). Hunting for the beat in the body: on period and phase locking in music-induced movement. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00903

It is downloadable here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4224089/

Best, Olivier

Please check out ARSC--the Association for Recorded Sound Collections.