In my last two blog posts on music, I demonstrated that music, like all aesthetics, has an objective meaning. Why then do different people sometimes react to the same piece of music differently? Essentially because our interpretation of music's objective meaning can be subjectively changed. Sort of like the way cataracts affect our eyesight. The world itself does not change color but the way our eyes see it does.
There are two main ways our perception of music is altered from its "objective" meaning. The first is through experiences that become associated with a particular piece or style of music. As an extreme example, check out the following two videos.
The first video is "Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken", a song rejoicing in God's goodness to the people He redeems from the curse of sin.
This one? Well, you're in for a surprise!
Yes, that's right! The same tune put to two very different purposes. This tune has been used as the German anthem both before and after Hitler, so it is not an exclusively Nazi song. However, my point is that if you were to play the Christian hymn "Glorious Things" to this tune in some regions of the world even today, it would conjure up memories of Nazi occupation. For example, I wouldn't suggest using this hymn in Israel!
So, the subjective meaning of the music can be different to different people. To me, the tune turns my mind to worship of God. But to others, the tune might awaken terror or anger or nationalistic pride.
But that doesn't mean that there is no objective meaning to this tune. Musical meaning is not simply the combination of our individual experiences. There is always an objective meaning as well, a starting point from which our subjective experiences shape our own perception of it. The very fact that this tune was picked both by the Germans to carry their anthem and by Christians to carry their worship hints at its objective meaning.
This tune unquestionably conveys majesty and glory. It is a good tune to use for worshiping. The only question is who or what is the object of the worship.
But does experience alone account for the differences in musical taste that exist among us? I think not. There is another more fundamental reason, and that is what I will discuss in my next post about music.
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel --- You are getting closer -- at least now you recognize subjectivity is a result of the listener's background, culture and experience. That music is objective as you demonstrated in your previous post is not necessarily true. I think what you are demonstrating is that music can have different targets or objects of adoration in this case. And this you have done a couple of times. But again in this post, we could not tell the difference of that target or object without the words. Words add meaning and without them these two would be the same. Additionally, in both these examples the VIDEO [images] provides a strong statement for what is being SAID in the MUSIC. (Mix of three distinct forms!)
ReplyDeleteI think we need a definition of "objective." From MW - online (edited):
1 a : ... having reality independent of the mind d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena 3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
When we apply the word objective to music within the context of this definition we see that music exists as an external reality, derived from our senses and without the association of our interpretations. So what we really get to is this question "Can anything have meaning without the imposition of our own understanding and bias?"
Aside from being a musician, I've also worked for many years as an Information System Analyst. As such we dealt with huge amounts of data. My area was in process data at a refinery. The data itself (objective data) was meaningless without the understanding imparted by a trained person. Depending on the data that understanding could and sometimes did, lead different individuals to come to opposing conclusions. This is subjective analysis. In the same way music (not lyrics [words] and pictures) exists in an objective realm. What we do with it when we encounter it is based on our understanding. That is the subjective part through which the reality of music passes. Music in its purist form is simply a collection of sounds. Most are organized, some are not. How we react to those sounds is independent of its existance. It simply does not have objective meaning if you will, until it passes through our personal filters.
Let's take part of your post:
"But that doesn't mean that there is no objective meaning to this tune."
- Then what is that Objective Meaning? How can you state it without introducing personal interpretation?
"Musical meaning is not simply the combination of our individual experiences. There is always an objective meaning as well, a starting point from which our subjective experiences shape our own perception of it."
- There is also a collective set of experiences. These too are involved in our reaction to music. Much of it is culturally driven. If there is a objective meaning, independent of personal experience, then so state it within the context of the definition.
"The very fact that this tune was picked both by the Germans to carry their anthem and by Christians to carry their worship hints at its objective meaning."
- No! It strongly supports its subjective meaning. In both cases the tune carries unique meaning only within the context of the culture in which it exists.
"This tune unquestionably conveys majesty and glory."
- This is a subjective statement. That it conveys "majesty and glory" can only be understood by what we have learned to apply to combinations of sounds similar to this.
"It is a good tune to use for worshiping. The only question is who or what is the object of the worship."
- Agreed! But why is it good for worship and of different objects with different meanings? Answer: Subjective understanding.
I look forward to your next post. Enjoying this very much.
Hi Jack,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to write again, it's great to hear from you!
One thing that wasn't very clear (to me anyways) in your comments was whether you believe that anything can be known objectively? Are you saying that all reality is "warped" as it passes through our senses and is thus it is impossible for us to know absolute truth? I am pretty sure I am misunderstanding you on this, so your clarification would be very welcome!
Daniel
Again, BJ, nice. Daniel, your question to BJ crossed my mind too, but the difference is that God's Word IS THE absolute truth. When we use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, we can, by God's grace, arrive at what God means from His Word (at least, the major doctrines of Scripture). But when someone says they know the 'objective meaning' in music, it can come across as...well...arrogant.
ReplyDeleteMusic is not Scripture.
jim m.