Assuming that we do not analyze the boundaries of music, I cannot determine, among others: what a piece of music is. And this is just an atom, an entity of music
- Assuming that a piece of music is an ordered set of sounds, can notes represent a piece of music if they are an abstraction, devoid of the subtleties of sound and arrangement?
- Assuming that we have a precisely defined piece (notes + sounds + intonations + others) – when does the interpretation of the piece end and when do variations on the theme of a given piece begin?
- Sound is said to be changes in air pressure, but what if the sounds “sit in the head” of the ex-listener, where there is no air naturally?
- If we find that a musical piece is defined by momentary samples (digital recording), what if the spectrum distribution changes subtly (for example, the listener’s hearing defects or the player’s imperfection)? Isn’t this lofi version of the song the same song?
- Something less precise, but requiring greater contemplation: in what cases will a given recording of sounds never be considered music by any human being?
These reflections are my internal reaction to the technical and scientific education I had. A reaction to positivist education which very often promotes empiricism, technocracy and the absolutism of science, and which, unfortunately, I sometimes succumbed to in my youth. In my quasi-philosophy that I shaped while writing this blog – music is something I don’t understand, but it is intertwined with the soul in a way that is beyond understanding. The most important thing in all this is the fact that you don’t have to understand music to enjoy it.
P.S. I remembered something that results indirectly from the text – in the dispute about universals, I tend to side with realism versus nominalism.