The Mystery of Music

Sunday, March 24, 2019
First Aired:
Sunday, July 24, 2016

What Is It

Most of us listen to music on a regular basis, but we don't think much about how we listen. Moreover, when we disagree about music, we're usually happy to agree that we just have different personal tastes. But maybe some of us just don't know how to listen to music properly. Are there certain objectively correct ways to listen to music, or is it up to the individual how to listen? Are we worse off if we don't listen to music in certain ways? How might we become better listeners? What insights have philosophers had on these questions? John and Ken drop the needle with Stanford musicologist Adrian Daub, co-author ofThe James Bond Songs: Pop Anthems of Late Capitalism.

This program was record live at Stage Werx Theatre in San Francisco.

Transcript

Comments(2)


Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Thursday, March 14, 2019 -- 12:43 PM

See my comments on the matter

请看我对味道问题的评论。它们是针对我自己的音乐品味在过去几十年里是如何变化的,所以在这里参观可能会更好……事情与他人的联系真有趣。生活和哲学就像这样:归纳通信;演绎证明。

Newstetter's picture

Newstetter

Sunday, March 24, 2019 -- 8:40 PM

Have to say that I was a bit

不得不说我对这次讨论有点失望。首先,这位嘉宾真的不是音乐专家,而是写了一本关于詹姆斯·邦德主题曲的书的历史学家。根据Adrian Daub的自传,他是“斯坦福大学比较文学德国研究教授”……我看不出他有什么音乐专长。(http://stanford.academia.edu/AdrianDaub/CurriculumVitae)

Also, there was no mention of the actual physical nature of music. Music isn't just an idea, it's a physical phenomenon resulting from organized vibrations ... organized tonally and rhythmically. These vibrations follow a pattern which is not at all arbitrary, but which follow harmonic patterns which come directly from nature. We, as living organisms resonate with the harmonic structures of music throughout our bodies, not just in our ears or our imaginations. How can you have a real conversation about our understanding of music or the "meaning" of music if you don't include the physics of music and the physical connection we have to it ... even on a fundamental level ... Yes, you did have a bit about Stravinsky's Rite of Spring as an example of "dissonance" which confounds our expectations, but this is a hackneyed example which does not hold up under scrutiny, nor does the bit about predictability being satisfying. None of these segments of the show really touched on the nature of music on a basic level ... just one mention of the harmonic series and how all musical forms across the world and throughout time are based on this naturally occurring tonal phenomenon would have been better than all the befuddled discussion of which songs your panelists listen to at breakfast.

对于一个基于"哲学"的程序,我想你们至少应该提到毕达哥拉斯在定义我们所熟悉的大多数音乐中所使用的音程时所起的作用。取而代之的是,谈话集中在几首流行歌曲,以及对每个小组成员的感觉好坏的模糊评论,或者主持人将音乐与啤酒进行比较的毫无学术意义的喃喃自语上。

There's only so much you can cover in an hour, but at least you could start with some rudimentary understanding of what music is in the first place on a primal level. Humans have been making music since pre-history. the hosts of the show seemed almost proud of their ignorance of the subject.

I'd say this topic should be revisited, this time with a guest who actually has a real music background who can address the essential nature of music beyond pop culture references.