Notes and thoughts about Cavell’s “Music Discomposed” and Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations II”

Notes and thoughts about Cavell’s “Music Discomposed” and Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations II”

Music doesn’t have the same critical feed back

The main criticism of music is with its newness. If newness is the measure of quality then has anyone created a definition of what makes something new?

Cavell States about the history of music, that it contains no criticism of music but instead it only makes notes on the details of notations, instruments, and processes.

Formulas for successful or even unsuccessful music are immeasurable. If that is the case then is criticism even possible. The thing that makes a song “bad” is the same thing that makes another song “good”.

He speaks of fraudulence within music as a disease. But my generation is a generation of appropriation. Everything is a remix.
I feel that when Cavell wrote this article that the notion of the remix (for many critics of music) would be considered fraudulent. He states that in art, fraudulence is not as easy to detect as forgery or counterfeiting. He states that there is no one feature, or definite set of features that can be describe.

Now musical taste within popular music seems to change so much faster than in previous years. Things that we where listening to two years ago seems old and outdated.

The trends of today’s artists are to make music that crosses genre. (Snoop Dogg records a country album or Little Wayne records a rock album). If the genres of music are mixing more frequently as more music is being produced then what is the bases of criticisms.



I like Orson’s example of classical music for a couple of reasons.

The first being that it makes me think of Mozart. Mozart’s music was considered edgy and sometime offensive in his time. Time has proven him a genius. Will time do the same thing for current popular music.

The other reason I like Orson’s example of classical music is the word “classical” itself. Where as it used to be considered “popular music” at some point it was named “classical”. This relates back to the Wittgenstein article and the idea of Ordinary Language.
Why is it classical? When did it become classical? So instead of classical should it mean European Art Music from 1730 A.D. to 1830 A.D.

(SIDE BAR BEGIN)

So I of coarse went to Wikipedia for answers.

The term 'classical music' did not appear until the early 19th century, in an attempt to 'canonize' the period from Johann Sebastian Bach to Beethoven as a golden age.[8] The earliest reference to "classical music" recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary is from about 1836.

(SIDE BAR END)

The idea is of ordinary language really is really messing with me. As I begin to better understand its meaning. I can’t help to think that I am not being clear in what I am saying and writing. Even looking back at what I have written in this blog I question the amount of metaphors used and wonder if I am using them because I am having difficulty finding the words to explain my thoughts.

My wife has been very helpful in process of understanding this term. She says that we argue about Ordinary Language all the time. That she will ask me a question and I will give her a short answer thinking that it should explain everything. But she places just as much value on the words that aren’t said and my body language as she does on my verbal response.

My understanding is that people tend to create layers in what we say by using metaphors and examples which are suppose to explain things indirectly. The problem with this is that many times speaking and writing in this more complex way can leave openings for different interpretations of what is being communicated.

My wife and I spoke about the bible as an example of a text that is filled with metaphors and hypothetical situations that are meant to invoke and teach religious lessons, but sometimes is received as literal example of an occurrence. Their have been many divisions of religious sects and wars based on the interpretations of holy scriptures.

My thoughts may be completely wrong or backwards. I am open to any suggestions that are contrary.