OMS Tackles the "Great Questions" In Music

The following mini-essays are intended to shed light on some fundamental issues; and also to demonstrate the effectiveness of OMS for analyzing difficult issues.

Although the discussions are abbreviated, it will often be clear to the reader how they could be expanded and integrated into existing discourse on the various fundamental issues.

[1] What is music?
[2] Does music convey meaning?
[3] Does music express or induce emotion?
[4] Is music a language?
[5] What constitutes excellence in a musical composition?
[6] What constitutes excellence in a musical performance?
[7] Is (great) music culture-independent?
[8] Why is music deeply significant to human beings?

[1] What is music?

A fairly good definition: "Music is organized multi-stimulation of musical receptors/agents. Some principal musical receptors are listed in the standard OMS model".  (For a more detailed analysis, click here .)

[2] Does music convey meaning?

No (subject to a few qualifications - see below).

Under the OMS model, music is essentially a set of stimuli. A stimulus, taken by itself, does not convey meaning. (Analogy: A good dinner might be thought of as a fairly well-organized set of stimuli. However, a good dinner in and of itself does not convey meaning.)

Of course, a piece of music could be used to convey a signal or a message ("If you hear me whistle "Begin the Beguine", this means that someone is home") - but this is something different than the music itself conveying meaning.

If music contains lyrics, its OMS profile would typically indicate that the lyrics are only a small part of the total stimulation provided by the music. Also, according to OMS, it would not be critical that the lyrics be asserted (i.e. claimed as true) in order to provided stimulation ("And my number is BEechwood 4-5789, You can call me up and have a date any old time. ")

Of course, a piece of music may be deeply meaningful to the listener (but so can a tree, a good dinner, …)

It is possible for music to stimulate meaningful thought - which can then result in the development of information. ("Having listened to some music of Messiaen, I can now recognize some fractal patterns in birdsong.")

[3] Does music express or induce emotion?

[a] There clearly are a few "common emotions" that can be fully induced by listening to music: E.g. bliss, elation, irritation.

There also seem to be a few more common emotions that can be induced to a mild degree by listening to music: E.g. anxiety, relief, surprise.

David Huron has written of "micro-emotions". (See http://www.music-cog.ohio-state.edu/Music829D/Notes/Huron.html ) Examples of micro-emotions in everyday life might include "small pleasures" such as: The smell of flowers; new laundry; closing your eyes when tired. It seems to me that micro-emotions are experienced in music.

There are also the countless "feelings" that one experiences when listening to many common kinds of music. This kind of experience for me is rich and even overwhelming when listening to works such as Chopin Berceuse, Chopin Barcarolle, Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2. I call such feelings "mu-motions" rather than "e-motions" because they seem to lack some of the paradigmatic characteristics of common emotions. E.g., a common emotion such as "fear" has the following characteristics:

    [i]  Back-linkage: E.g. if I reflect on a recent experience of fear, it will typically associate back to earlier intense experiences of fear.

    [ii] Persistence: A current experience of fear, will affect future experience; and even if it is "forgotten",  it is capable of being recalled.

Mu-motions do not seem to have these characteristics. I.e., the wonderful feelings that I have during the Chopin Berceuse seem to dissipate and are largely lost permanently after the piece is over.

This is not at all to deny the human significance of mu-motions or to claim that they have no relationship to common emotions. It is rather to point out that they seem to belong in a separate category from common emotions.

[b] Can music "express" emotions? Yes, in many of the ways that other kinds of  intentional stimulation can express emotion. (Think of the ways the emotion can be expresssed by a kiss; by the serving of a good meal; by a scream; by a thoughtfully planned party for someone you care about. These indicate some of the ways that music can "express" emotions.)

[c] Taking a step back, a very important question is: "Why do we consider the issue of music and emotions to be an important issue?" I think part of the answer is as follows:

[i] Music stimulates human beings deeply and extensively (OMS strongly supports this view). The total stimulation provided by music is one of the most substantial (deep, extensive, effective) experiences that happen to human beings

[ii] Musical stimulation is mysterious. ("When I experience the Chopin Berceuse, what in the world is going on?!?")

          [iii] There is a sense at times that music serves a purpose or function, although it is not clear what the purpose or function is.

However [i], [ii], [iii] are largely separate matters from issues about music and emotion.

[4] Is music a language?

Definitely not. There are aspects of music which are linguistic or language-like. But OMS makes it clear that this is a fairly small part of the phenomenon of music.

[5] What constitutes excellence in a musical composition?

It seems to me that excellence must be correlated with the OMS Profile for the work. I.e., excellence is correlated with the kinds of stimulation that can be produced, and the quality/degree of the various kinds of stimulation that are possible. (NB: OMS is concerned primarily with musical performance rather than musical composition. One musical composition can map into a wide range of musical performances. Subject to this qualification, it is okay to speak informally of the OMS Profile for a musical composition itself, as long as this is done with care.)

It follows from this that there are various kinds of excellence in musical composition. Beethoven Op. 110 would be a paradigm of one kind of excellence (OMS profile [for a good performance] would have lots of 4s, 3s, and 2s; work is highly architected and structured; work is deeply integrated into well-developed compositional procedures). Gregorian Chant would be a different paradigm of excellence (A sparse OMS profile; work serves a narrow set of objectives). Music by the Bee Gees would be another kind of excellence. And so on.

[6] What constitutes excellence in a musical performance?

Excellence in performance is based on two factors:

        [a] Excellence of the music as performed at that moment (e.g. [5] above applied to a specific performance).

        [b] "Conformity" of the performance to the composition (if any) that it is based on.

There is extensive debate on what counts as conformity to a composition. There are issues about composer's intentions, historical authenticity, artistic license and responsibility, …

A key observation that comes from OMS relating to this is that: There is no obvious way that a composer can come even close to specifying definitive performance instructions in the sense of OMS. (In conventional western music) a composer can specify notes, dynamics, etc. - but these specifications do not directly address most of the categories of stimulation in an OMS Profile.

So it seems to me that what we have is a mysterious relationship between performance and composition. The performer typically must work from a composition which is sparse in its relationship to the result that the performer will produce. This is (definitely) not to say that a performer has virtually unlimited latitude in performance; but it is to raise deep and perhaps disturbing questions about what there is to guide/influence/limit a performer.

[7] Is (great) music culture-independent?

This much is clear: An OMS Profile includes many categories of stimulation that are culture dependent.

A re-formulated question: What OMS categories are highly cultural-independent; and are there enough categories like this to allow certain kinds of music that are largely culture-independent?

[8] Why is music deeply significant to human beings?

This question probably requires an open-ended multi-part answer. What follows are 3 major considerations:

[a] Music is a (primitive) form of love. It is love that is transmitted via the recipient’s ears. (We call this "Ear-Love".)

Ear-Love is not the most “mature” form of human love. For instance, music is mainly one-direction (from the composer/performer to the listener, very little from the listener back to the composer/performer); more mature forms of love are typically bi-directional (e.g. love between mother and child).

But music does have many characteristics which are associated with love: It is mainly pleasurable; it provides a variety of stimulation; it is organized for the benefit of the listener (it is “listener-centric”); it is unconditional (possibly a payment to initiate the music, but after that, no conditions); it is intimate; it is deeply satisfying. There are probably additional characteristics - still under research.

[b]  Music is a highly intimate experience - in terms of the receptors that are accessed, the ways in which they are stimulated, the phenomenal private subjective experiences that are possible. 

[c] Notwithstanding [b], we would speculate that (ala OMS) the listener has a subtle awareness that if a piece of music stimulates certain of his/her receptors, it also stimulates the same receptors in other people (perhaps in different ways, etc.). In this sense, music communicates a deep fellowship among human beings.