Home

Thinking About Music

[1] Thinking-about-music seems to be a natural part of experiencing music

[a] Music stimulates thought

According to the OMS Model, music literally  stimulates thinking of various kinds, e.g.: Philosophical thoughts; mathematical thoughts; aesthetic thoughts; reflective thinking; and more. Much of this thinking is stimulated at a primitive level, but higher-level thinking can also occur, depending on the individual. For more detail on the kinds of thoughts that are stimulated, look through  Remarks on All of the Principal OMS Music Receptors .(not all of the receptors involve thinking, but many of them do.)

[b] Every musical experience is a kind of mini philosophical drama

It seems to me that every musical experience involves "wonder": Wonder that music is so pleasurable, rich, and highly-organized; wonder that there is such a thing as music. As per Aristotle, "wonder" naturally leads to philosophical thinking. Every musical experience invites philosophical thought. 

[c] "Thinking is not required"

The above is not to say that every musical experience does or must involve extensive thinking; but we do believe that thinking is a natural part of the experience of music.

In a similar sense, we believe that talking about music, writing about music are natural aspects of the experience of music. Music analysis, music criticism, this website, ... are natural aspects of the experience of music.

[2] The Great Questions of Music seem to be a central part of the general experience of music

The "Great Questions of Music" - questions about meaning, emotion, greatness, authenticity, and so on  -  occur so often in discussions about music (either in the foreground of the discussion, or hovering in the background), that they must be a central part of the general experience of music in some way.

The "Great Questions" are not identical with  the "foundational questions" of music such as might be posed by an analytical philosopher. By the "Great Questions" I mean (roughly) certain big questions that seem to be of some interest to most listeners of music, and which seem to come up frequently in ordinary music experience. Examples of  "foundational questions" which is not part of the Great Questions:

What kind of entity is a "musical work"? Is it a physical score, a set of performances, or some other kind of entity?

Is there a single formal definition of "music" which accurately distinguishes between  music and non-music?

What kinds of models of music are possible?

[3] To think about music in a systematic way, a model seems necessary

A lesson that we have learned while developing OMS: The subject of music is very very complex. Because of this, it does not seem possible to think about music in a systematic way without a model to organize one's thinking. We do not claim that OMS is the only model for music (another good model is the Note-centric model of music ). As per Marvin Minsky, it can be desirable to think about music using more than one model.

[4] Many people like to think about music; but few people like to think about thinking-about-music

Examples of topics that fall under the heading of "thinking about thinking-about-music":

- What is the scope and what are the limitations of the Note-centric model of music?

- What is the scope and what are the limitations of the OMS model of music?

- How can music be described while respecting the subjectivity of individual experiences of music?

- Are reasonable rating systems possible for music? (If rating systems are possible for wine, why not for music?)

These are very interesting topics. But in researching and developing OMS, we have learned that few people are actively interested in topics like this. These seem to be topics for "specialists" such as myself.