Where does music exist?

[m1469]

Okay, I am biting the bait.  I have been thinking quite seriously for awhile now, consciously for several years, about where exactly music exists.  Here in this thread Bernhard has surfaced some thought-provoking questions, and of course, I am provoked.

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=fef84000edc1a720332065c5e37ddab5&topic=7524.msg75109#msg75109

I am very interested in what others think on this subject and will share my thoughts for the sake of starting this thread.

I cannot say that I have found a proper word for where music exists.  But, over the years I have likened it to the principles of mathematics.  I assume it to be most agreeable that mathematics and its subsequent principles do indeed exist, and what's more, it exists regardless of the human condition.  Simply taking a small component of it all, a single number like "9" for example, does not only exist within the human consciousness.  We could draw it on paper, we could draw lots and lots of 9's, but that is not it's very existence, as we could then burn the paper and the number would still exist.  We could shout out the word "9" (or the corresponding words in other languages) yet, this again is not its very existence.   We could think about 9, and then if we forget, it would still exist within the principles of mathematics. 

The concept of 9 within the principles of mathematics exists first, and the rest follows (and 9 would not exist without it's other number-friends' existence).  The principles exist ... ? (not only in our consciousness but quite beyond, we only awake to them).  All the possible number combinations and equations involved with mathematics already exist within the principles (as do their solutions), similarly to the law of gravity existing long before anyone "discovered" it consciously.

I cannot see any way around this being the case with music and it's principles as well.  The specific point that I grapple with is the state of thinking that the existence of music is dependent on the human consciousness to bring it about, and that music is somehow dependent on human consciousness for it's very existence.  To this I would heartely disagree and make the clarification that I think for us to "know" the existence of music consciously, we have to be conscious of it, but it's very existence is by no means dependent on the human consciousness.  No more than the existence of mathematics or the law of gravity is dependent on the human consciousness of them.

I would even go so far as to say that when we are realizing music, whether it be "ours" or that of "somebody else's", we are only awaking to and becoming conscious of something that already existed within the principles.  All of the possible combinations involved in music already exist within the principles, we just awake to them when we are "ready" and perhaps use them as tools to become more aware of ourselves (which I believe begins to break into interpretation, expression, etc.).

Any thoughts ?

m1469

[jas]

Hmmm. That's a mind-bender!
I can see what you're saying about 9, that's pretty much undeniable, I think. Consciousness of a thing, be it a tangible thing or not, doesn't affect its existence.
Music, though ... I suppose it depends on how you define "music."

"Music" can encompass everything from the "music of the spheres" to birdsong to tuneless humming to Bach's Magnificat. But under your theory they'd all work differently. For example, the birdsong has to be made by a bird. Seems obvious, I know but the sound only exists while it is being sounded. Beyond that, it's just a memory or an idea of a sound. Same with the humming.

Bach's Magnificat, though, is more interesting. The birdsong is a sound in its own right, it's not a complex combination of them. Well, I suppose it is, but not in the same way... Anyway, what you're saying is (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm very tired and might have totally missed the point) that the combined sounds that make the work were already in existence, it just took Bach to find them, or hear them, or whatever, and write them down in the only way we know how (ie. notation) to awake the rest of us to them? The fact that it came to be written down on paper didn't affect the pre-existence of the piece, because it was already out there and really, a piece of paper "creates" nothing. It just acknowledges it.
And the reason the work already existed is because the principles exist, and therefore exist in infinite numbers of combinations which presumably include one which makes up the Magnificat, is that what you mean?

Gah. Frazzled brain ... I had something to say about the music of the spheres but it's gone. That's a shame. I bet it was earth-shattering!

I'll leave you to tell me if I've understood you properly and I'll have a think before I post again. It's a really interesting question, but it'll take a bit of thinking about to straighten it out in my own head!

Jas

[m1469]

Bach's Magnificat, though, is more interesting. The birdsong is a sound in its own right, it's not a complex combination of them. Well, I suppose it is, but not in the same way... Anyway, what you're saying is (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm very tired and might have totally missed the point) that the combined sounds that make the work were already in existence, it just took Bach to find them, or hear them, or whatever, and write them down in the only way we know how (ie. notation) to awake the rest of us to them? The fact that it came to be written down on paper didn't affect the pre-existence of the piece, because it was already out there and really, a piece of paper "creates" nothing. It just acknowledges it.
And the reason the work already existed is because the principles exist, and therefore exist in infinite numbers of combinations which presumably include one which makes up the Magnificat, is that what you mean?

Yes, this is precisely what I mean.  Although I will qualify it by saying that I think this is either just at the surface of it all, or that it is simply one dimension to it all.

I am talking about something universal also, so in the case of the birdsong, on a universal scale, that possiblity would already exist within the realm of music.  It is already part of the whole it seems to me.

But, I am anxious and tired out, so maybe I am talking crap.

Here is something that I have been thinking about since reading your response.  The problem with what I stated above is that it assumes two things that I suspect are very wrong (probably more)

1.   Consciousness/subconsciousness is limited by boundaries of some sort
2.   There are mulitple sources of consciousness


And isn't sound really only a perception of something beyond what we can fully understand at this point ?  Hearing sounds and producing sounds seem to be simply expressions/manifestations of something taking place on a deeper/different level.  We are only computing information and then "understanding" it in a way that makes sense to us.  So what I don't really know is if the thought/memory of a sound and the "actual production" of a sound are all that different one from another.  Plus, because the nature of sound as we know it takes time to travel, after the bird sings it, it is really little more than some kind of memory by the time it reaches us anyway.

Well, I am bordering on obsession now.  Thank you very much for your willingness to reply.

m1469

[earthward]

No more than the existence of mathematics or the law of gravity is dependent on the human consciousness of them.

Well....  I disagree: what are mathematics and laws if not part of human consciousness? Nietzsche would say that these are human constructs, ways of understanding existence that we've invented.  Humans have an inherent need of ordering things so we come up with systems like mathematics.  But those systems are a product of our consciousness.   So I would disagree with you that music exists independently of our consciousness.  Only sound waves exist in a material sense but what we call music is the result of our brain interpreting them a certain way.

[m1469]

Well....  :- I disagree: what are mathematics and laws if not part of human consciousness? Nietzsche would say that these are human constructs, ways of understanding existence that we've invented.  Humans have an inherent need of ordering things so we come up with systems like mathematics.  But those systems are a product of our consciousness.   So I would disagree with you that music exists independently of our consciousness.  Only sound waves exist in a material sense but what we call music is the result of our brain interpreting them a certain way.

Well that is fine, but these things are still then only representational of something that exists beyond what we know how to understand better.  Whether mathematics are human constructs that we have invented simply as a way to understand existence or not, it does not explain the initiation of that which does indeed exist beyond what we know how to currently explain.  It does not explain the principles that mathematics have sprung from which would cause our human consciousness to try to explain it.  There is something deeper that exists regardless of what a person conceives of it, and personally I believe there is a very similar quality with whatever that thing is, and music.

Besides, my point is more along the lines of, for example, being presented with a certain mathematical problem that the world has not yet solved.  If there is indeed an answer, but it has not been found yet, where does it exist besides within the principles themselves?  And if we do not know the solution, how could we be said to have created the principles in the first place? 

Obviously the solution is already possible if it will ever be realized within our consciousness.  But, if we are not already conscious of it, how can we take the credit for creating it?

m1469

[Muzakian]

Well....  I disagree: what are mathematics and laws if not part of human consciousness? Nietzsche would say that these are human constructs, ways of understanding existence that we've invented.  Humans have an inherent need of ordering things so we come up with systems like mathematics.  But those systems are a product of our consciousness.   So I would disagree with you that music exists independently of our consciousness.  Only sound waves exist in a material sense but what we call music is the result of our brain interpreting them a certain way.

I agree with this with regard to music. Without humans, music ceases to be music but just sound; whilst the relationships of frequencies that invoked our sense of "order" and "meaning" still exist, it no longer has the human factor to convert the sound into music.

I think it is very feasible however that what causes our sense of order and meaning in music are the mathematical relationships between the frequencies. May I also point out though, that we humans are NOT very good at perceiving mathematical relationships in the world - we tend to approximate, and think in heuristics. I think our planet looks spherical in photographs, however I've learnt that it is in fact irregularly shaped. There is no way I will ever be able to perceive this when I look at it though. Similarly, if Bach's music SOUNDS mathematically precise, then we will perceive it as being so, even if a scientist is able to prove that the relationships between the tones aren't mathematically perfect (not sure how you would test that, but you get the idea).