Is music amoral?

[hannahjoy]

What do you think? Please back up your claims.

For the purpose of this thread, here's the definition of amoral:

Neither moral nor immoral; specif: outside the sphere to which moral judgements apply.
(Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary)

Hannah Joy

(I'm not sure if this belongs under Philosophy or Right and Wrong. Since I'm asking not "Is it right or wrong?" but "Can it be right or wrong?", I've put it under Philosophy.)

[Spongemom]

I listen to music for the enjoyment of the rhythms, and when I'm alone, for singing at the top of my lungs whether I sound like a frog or not. I don't take any message or anything away from it, except for a few select songs. I might sing along with a song that talks about so-called "sins", like sex or something, but I don't go out and do everything I hear in a song. So I don't consider music immoral or moral, personally. So I think I voted wrong. Yes, music is amoral to me. I was thinking amoral=anti-morals, but I guess it's not. I didn't read the definition until after I voted. Oh, nevermind, ignore this. I need more sleep.

[hannahjoy]

I might sing along with a song that talks about so-called "sins", like sex or something, but I don't go out and do everything I hear in a song.

Just to clarify, I'm really talking about the music itself, not the words. I guess most popular music does have words, but when you put it to music you add another element to be considered. You can also have music without words. My question is whether the organization of sounds that we call "music" is inherently amoral or not.
If it is, it could be either moral or immoral.

[mrmufin]

Just to clarify, I'm really talking about the music itself, not the words. I guess most popular music does have words, but when you put it to music you add another element to be considered. You can also have music without words.

With that clarification stated, then yes, music is outside the sphere to which moral judgements apply. Listening to Stravinsky's "L'Oiseau de feu", Zappa's "Peaches en Regalia", Waits' "In Shades", or any other instrumental work, I fail to see any morality (or lack thereof) in a series of notes, rhythms, timbres, and harmonies. While some may protest the pesky atonality or antimelodic structures in 12-tone compositions or be confounded by the long-winded improvisations of the Grateful Dead, I'll submit that the yield is, ultimately, amoral. For those who may disagree with me, please offer up some practical guidelines, using specific compositional terminologies, so that any future works that I may author won't be classified as immoral.

Regards,
mrmufin

[hannahjoy]

I'll vote "Yes" to cancel out Spongemom's mistake, but my real answer is "No".

I fail to see any morality (or lack thereof) in a series of notes, rhythms, timbres, and harmonies.

No more morality than a series of squiggles on a piece of paper (or computer screen), or a series of sounds issuing from your vocal tract. But when those squiggles or sounds are combined to produce words and sentences, and those sentences are read or heard and understood by a person, then morality comes into the picture.
You may be such an avid admirer of math or science that you actually enjoy music purely because of its mathematic/scientific properties, just as you might enjoy a complex equation, but if so you are an exception. Most people enjoy music because of its emotional, physical, or spiritual effects, whether they understand the science behind it or not.

Here's my proposition:
1) Music has a direct effect on our actions. I'm including speaking, thinking, and feeling as actions.

2) Our actions have moral value - they may be neutral, but they are not amoral.

3) Therefore, music is not amoral. We can and should evaluate it in terms of its effects on us.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

I'm not saying that a piece of sheet music or a recording has any moral value by itself, but that when it is heard by a person, it enters the "sphere to which moral judgements apply," because the person is in that sphere.

For those who may disagree with me, please offer up some practical guidelines, using specific compositional terminologies, so that any future works that I may author won't be classified as immoral.

That's just what I'm determined not to do.
As I said:

I'm asking not "Is it right or wrong?" but "Can it be right or wrong?"

It could have the potential to cause every kind of evil, and never realize that potential.
As for why I'm not addressing that (I like neat, numbered lists);
1) I can't tell you how music affects you. You know that better than I do.
2) Even if we could agree that a particular compositional device universally produces a particular effect, we probably wouldn't agree on whether that effect is moral or immoral. I've seen enough of your posts to know that we hold very different views on morality.

My contention is, if morality and immorality exist, and if music can cause either, in thought, speech, or action, then music is not amoral.

You both seem to be assuming that I'm claiming that music is not amoral as a foundation for claiming that a certain type of music is immoral. If so, you are mistaken. If music is not amoral, it could just as easily be moral, that is, a positive, as immoral.

Hannah Joy

[mrmufin]

You may be such an avid admirer of math or science that you actually enjoy music purely because of its mathematic/scientific properties, just as you might enjoy a complex equation, but if so you are an exception.

I assure you, my interests in math and science followed my interests in music by at least fifteen years. I could play a variety of musical instruments long before I could solve a quadratic equation or understand the impact of a loose laminate stack on induced voltages.

Most people enjoy music because of its emotional, physical, or spiritual effects, whether they understand the science behind it or not.

That those effects tend to vary quite a bit from person to person suggests that the responses to music are beyond the control of the composers, performers, producers, etc.

1) Music has a direct effect on our actions. I'm including speaking, thinking, and feeling as actions.

Maybe, maybe not. That the effect is largely unpredictable needs to be considered.

2) Our actions have moral value - they may be neutral, but they are not amoral.

Then how do we distinguish between amoral actions and morally neutral actions? Are the actions of dogs, for example, moral, immoral, amoral, morally neutral, or what?

3) Therefore, music is not amoral. We can and should evaluate it in terms of its effects on us.

But the effects are not always consistent. For example, my father and I could both listen to a piece of music (let's take Frank Zappa's "Heavy Duty Judy") and be effected in vastly different ways. (In fact, this experiment has been conducted. ) I submit that how either one of us responds to the piece is beyond the capacity of the composer. As well, any particular piece of music may trigger an inconsistent response within a single individual. Depending on my mood, the first movement of Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" may result in a peaceful, relaxed state or depression. Without any consistency of effect, all moral assessments are off.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

All of 'em.

I'm not saying that a piece of sheet music or a recording has any moral value by itself, but that when it is heard by a person, it enters the "sphere to which moral judgements apply," because the person is in that sphere.

In which case you're not questioning the morality (or lack thereof) of music, but of listening and interpretation. Thus, I'm even more inclined toward the amorality of music for the simple reason that music exists which has never been heard (in the form of compositional algorithms and variations of a particular theme).

I'm asking not "Is it right or wrong?" but "Can it be right or wrong?"

Per your above comments, the it in your question refers to listening and responding to music, not the music itself.

It could have the potential to cause every kind of evil, and never realize that potential.

And I respectfully disagree that the music itself causes any kind of good or evil.

Even if we could agree that a particular compositional device universally produces a particular effect, we probably wouldn't agree on whether that effect is moral or immoral.

Which makes a pretty strong case for the amorality of music. This is exactly why I answered 'Yes' in the poll.

My contention is, if morality and immorality exist, and if music can cause either, in thought, speech, or action, then music is not amoral.

Then you're confusing responses to music with the music itself...

Regards,
mrmufin

[ST88]

This question reminds me of a scene in the movie Carnival of Souls, a cheesy little 50s horror flick. A woman who has just taken a job as a church organist suddenly stops playing the pleasant church music she was hired for and starts playing dissonant gothic music as if she were possessed by something. The minister fires her on the spot, claiming she was playing "the Devil's music." More than anything else it makes the minister looks a little silly.

Personally, I feel different things listening to different pieces of (non-lyrical) music. Most of this, I think, has to do with my own subjective interpretations of what types of music may mean. I think most of us can recognize piano music designed for a bordello because of the movies, for example. "The Ride of the Valkyries" sounds remarkably like giant winged creatures. Rachmaninov's "Vespers" sounds like angels. Holst's "Mars" sounds like a battle with machine guns. I think music can convey emotion and set situational tones based on the common experience of what the music is supposed to evoke. Think of the electronica pop fluff of something like "Popcorn," or "Penguins," or even "Baby Elephant Walk."

But I don't think I can go as far to say that where there is emotion there is morality or immorality. Mahler, for example, has often been described as producing some of the most depressing, disturbing classical music ever made. But this doesn't equate to a system of morals without first equating the music to something. The association I've often heard is that Mahler often makes people feel distraught if only because the music does not follow a path of tonal reconciliation.

I think the most extreme examples of music as referent are from A Clockwork Orange, in which "Singin' in the Rain" and Beethoven's ninth symphony become an icons of evil; and the Manson murders, for which "Helter Skelter" became an anthem of violence (despite the fact that it's a love song).

In this sense, strictly deciding whether or not music can be placed on scale of morality and judged by it, music is amoral. Its ability to evoke makes it a conduit for expression, many times expressing the same things in different people. But even though many African and Brazilian beats encourage the body to move in suggestive ways -- as another example -- it is the act of a person that should be judged as moral or immoral (if such terms apply to you), not the art that suggests the feeling that might cause the moral or immoral behavior.

[hannahjoy]

mrmufin wrote:
I assure you, my interests in math and science followed my interests in music by at least fifteen years. I could play a variety of musical instruments long before I could solve a quadratic equation or understand the impact of a loose laminate stack on induced voltages.

The term "quadratic equation" sounds vaguely familiar, but I certainly don't "understand the impact of a loose laminate stack on induced voltages!" At least I know what a German augmented sixth chord is!

hannahjoy wrote:

Most people enjoy music because of its emotional, physical, or spiritual effects, whether they understand the science behind it or not.

mrmufin wrote:
That those effects tend to vary quite a bit from person to person suggests that the responses to music are beyond the control of the composers, performers, producers, etc.

hannahjoy wrote:3) Therefore, music is not amoral. We can and should evaluate it in terms of its effects on us.

mrmufin wrote:
But the effects are not always consistent. For example, my father and I could both listen to a piece of music (let's take Frank Zappa's "Heavy Duty Judy") and be effected in vastly different ways. (In fact, this experiment has been conducted. ) I submit that how either one of us responds to the piece is beyond the capacity of the composer. As well, any particular piece of music may trigger an inconsistent response within a single individual. Depending on my mood, the first movement of Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" may result in a peaceful, relaxed state or depression. Without any consistency of effect, all moral assessments are off.
hannahjoy wrote:

1) Music has a direct effect on our actions. I'm including speaking, thinking, and feeling as actions.

mrmufin wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. That the effect is largely unpredictable needs to be considered.

I agree, the effects vary, but that doesn't mean they are completely unpredictable. I don't think you would listen to the "Moonlight Sonata" for excitement, and I don't believe for an instant that when you write or choose to listen to a piece of music that you have no idea how it will affect you.

ST88 wrote:
This question reminds me of a scene in the movie Carnival of Souls, a cheesy little 50s horror flick. A woman who has just taken a job as a church organist suddenly stops playing the pleasant church music she was hired for and starts playing dissonant gothic music as if she were possessed by something. The minister fires her on the spot, claiming she was playing "the Devil's music." More than anything else it makes the minister looks a little silly.

Yes, Hollywood does tend to enjoy making ministers look silly.
I'm not calling any kind of music "the Devil's music" - that's beyond the scope of this debate - but seriously, if the Devil is really working to destroy souls, why would he overlook such a powerful tool?

hannahjoy wrote:

Our actions have moral value - they may be neutral, but they are not amoral.
mrmufin wrote:

Then how do we distinguish between amoral actions and morally neutral actions? Are the actions of dogs, for example, moral, immoral, amoral, morally neutral, or what?

I'm not talking about dogs, I'm talking about you and me and other human beings. As far as I know, dogs neither write music nor choose what to listen to. Our actions, because they have the potential to be moral or immoral, cannot be amoral - that is, "outside the sphere to which moral judgements apply." We can apply moral judgements to them, even if we conclude that a particular action is morally neutral.

hannahjoy wrote:

Even if we could agree that a particular compositional device universally produces a particular effect, we probably wouldn't agree on whether that effect is moral or immoral.

mrmufin wrote:
Which makes a pretty strong case for the amorality of music. This is exactly why I answered 'Yes' in the poll.

Relative morality is not the same thing as amorality.
Even if morality is totally relative, and even if the effects of music are totally relative, that doesn't make music amoral. As long as actions can be right or wrong by any standard, and as long as music can influence any person's actions in any way, music can be evaluated in light of those actions and that standard.
My reasons for not getting into details is just practical. I can't persuade you that a certain type of music influences you a certain way if you are determined to deny it, and I can't persuade you that certain actions are moral or immoral if you are determined to deny it. By your own admission, some actions are moral or immoral, and music does affect you. That's enough for this discussion.

ST88 wrote:In this sense, strictly deciding whether or not music can be placed on scale of morality and judged by it, music is amoral. Its ability to evoke makes it a conduit for expression, many times expressing the same things in different people. But even though many African and Brazilian beats encourage the body to move in suggestive ways -- as another example -- it is the act of a person that should be judged as moral or immoral (if such terms apply to you), not the art that suggests the feeling that might cause the moral or immoral behavior.

mrmufin wrote:In which case you're not questioning the morality (or lack thereof) of music, but of listening and interpretation. Thus, I'm even more inclined toward the amorality of music for the simple reason that music exists which has never been heard (in the form of compositional algorithms and variations of a particular theme).
Per your above comments, the it in your question refers to listening and responding to music, not the music itself.
Then you're confusing responses to music with the music itself...

Music is meant to be heard, just as food is meant to be eaten, even if it isn't in fact heard/eaten. Again, I can't speak for you, but for myself and the vast majority of musicians and listeners, music exists to be heard, and by its very nature evokes responses. Those responses, as actions, can be judged by a standard of morality, and because it causes those responses, music can also be judged by that standard.

Hannah Joy

[mrmufin]

I assure you, my interests in math and science followed my interests in music by at least fifteen years. I could play a variety of musical instruments long before I could solve a quadratic equation or understand the impact of a loose laminate stack on induced voltages.

The term "quadratic equation" sounds vaguely familiar

<algebra sidebar>
A quadratic equation is a polynomial expression in the form ax^2 + bx + c = 0. Solving them can (sometimes) be done via prime factorization. Another method of solving for x includes completing the square. From there, the all-purpose quadratic formula can be derived: -b +,- sqroot(b^2 - 4ac) / 2a. When graphed on the Cartesian plane, a quadratic function will appear as a parabola. When the coefficient a > 0, the parabola opens upward; when a < 0, the parabola opens downward. The quadratic formula is the climax of many high school treatments of algebra.
</algebra sidebar>

but I certainly don't "understand the impact of a loose laminate stack on induced voltages!"

<electromagnetics sidebar>
Electromagnetism is one of the four *) fundamental forces in physics. One popular application of this harnessed force (and one of the lower rungs on the high tech ladder) is the manufacture of inductors and transformers. In high power, low frequency (say, less than 1kHz) electrical applications, the core used to induce voltage may be manufactured using oiled steel laminates. When these laminates are not sufficiently tight, the ability of the stack to induce voltage is severely diminished and the core becomes "lossy"; it's efficiency is severely diminshed and energy is lost in the form of heat (aka entropy in broader physical terms).

*) Some not-so-ancient work in physics has revealed that electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force are two aspects of the same principle. So don't be alarmed if you hear someone refer to the three fundamental forces of physics and speak of the electroweak force.
</electromagnetics sidebar>

At least I know what a German augmented sixth chord is!

Which, if I recall correctly, is a snazzy way of inverting a dominant seventh with the leading phrygian tone in the bass clef... Just outta curiousity... are you also familiar with the Pythagorean comma?

I agree, the effects vary, but that doesn't mean they are completely unpredictable. I don't think you would listen to the "Moonlight Sonata" for excitement, and I don't believe for an instant that when you write or choose to listen to a piece of music that you have no idea how it will affect you.

I agree that harmonic structures, timbre, instrumentation, dynamics, etc. do have recognizable "aural aromas" and that those aural components are important tools for a composer toward evoking response. However, I make a distinction between the intent of the composer and the response of the listener. I make this distinction for a variety of reasons.

First, there's an inconsistency of responses among listeners, which I've already described. That different listeners can and do respond to a single piece of music in a variety of ways suggests that the responses are probabilistic rather than deterministic.

Second, ascribing morality to the music, rather than to its response, may put a burden of responsibility (however explicit or implicit) on composers and performers which I think is unwarranted. No matter what emotional buttons on the listener a composer is trying to push, the listener is the ultimate arbiter of response. Granted, we may have a certain inability to contain an emotional response to a piece of music, however, we also bear the responsibility for our outward actions. Tersely expressed, "the music made me do it" is a piss-poor defense by my measure.

Third, I know from extensive personal experience (as well as discussions with others who've had similar experiences) that the emotional response to some pieces of music can be entirely tangential. For example, my responses to some songs are entirely unrelated to the song itself, but instead to situations and/or circumstanes which accompanied hearing the song. Five or six years back, the very lovely msmufin and I spent a lot of weekends at the beach, always listening to the radio--on the way to the beach, while we were there, heading back home. Whatever the emotional intentions the authors of those songs we were listening to may have been striving for is entirely irrelevant to me. When I hear certain songs from that summer, my response is triggered by tangential, environmental components rather than the song itself. In short, a piece of music can simply serve as a placeholder or trigger for an unrelated emotional reaction.

Even if morality is totally relative, and even if the effects of music are totally relative, that doesn't make music amoral. As long as actions can be right or wrong by any standard, and as long as music can influence any person's actions in any way, music can be evaluated in light of those actions and that standard.

Because some actions can be right or wrong by some standard doesn't mean that all actions are right or wrong. As I write this response, I'm wearing a green t-shirt with a C.F. Martin guitar logo. I submit that the t-shirt, as well as my decision to wear it this evening, are both amoral. If there's a system of moral axioms which dictates the rightness, wrongness, or neutrality of casual t-shirt attire on the homefront, I'd be sincerely curious to learn more about that morality.

My reasons for not getting into details is just practical. I can't persuade you that a certain type of music influences you a certain way if you are determined to deny it, and I can't persuade you that certain actions are moral or immoral if you are determined to deny it.

I'm not denying anything. I'm disagreeing with you, and doing my best to present the reasoning behind my disagreement.

By your own admission, some actions are moral or immoral, and music does affect you. That's enough for this discussion.

Also by my own admission, not all actions have moral weight; some are outside the sphere of moral judgement. QED.

Regards,
mrmufin

[hannahjoy]

hannahjoy wrote:

My reasons for not getting into details is just practical. I can't persuade you that a certain type of music influences you a certain way if you are determined to deny it, and I can't persuade you that certain actions are moral or immoral if you are determined to deny it.

I'm not denying anything. I'm disagreeing with you, and doing my best to present the reasoning behind my disagreement.

You missed the "if" in my statement.
I've been trying to explain to you why I'm not getting into specifics, but you don't seem to be following me. I'll try one more time:
1) We would have to debate whether _____ type of music universally affects people in _____ way. I don't think there's enough objective evidence - it would come down to me saying "It does affect me this way," and you saying "It doesn't affect me that way." Therefore, I'm not even going there.
2) We would have to debate whether _____ action is right or wrong. That would get too long and involved for this thread. Therefore, I'm not even going there.

Second, ascribing morality to the music, rather than to its response, may put a burden of responsibility (however explicit or implicit) on composers and performers which I think is unwarranted. No matter what emotional buttons on the listener a composer is trying to push, the listener is the ultimate arbiter of response.

I'm trying to put the "burden of responsibility" primarily on the listener - most of the people on this forum are listeners rather than composers.
However, I do think that we as composers can at least consider:
1) What effect does this music that I'm writing have on me?
2) Is that effect good or bad?
3) Is that effect intrinsic to the music, or is it only the result of a subjective association?
We may not be able to answer those questions, but we should at least consider them.

Granted, we may have a certain inability to contain an emotional response to a piece of music, however, we also bear the responsibility for our outward actions. Tersely expressed, "the music made me do it" is a poor defense by my measure.

I agree. What that really means is "the music made me feel like doing it, and I gave in to my feelings." Of course he's responsible for his actions. So the proper question would be "Then why were you listening to that music?" His answer - "Because I liked the way it made me feel."
He's responsible for choosing to listen to that music as well.

Third, I know from extensive personal experience (as well as discussions with others who've had similar experiences) that the emotional response to some pieces of music can be entirely tangential. For example, my responses to some songs are entirely unrelated to the song itself, but instead to situations and/or circumstanes which accompanied hearing the song. Five or six years back, the very lovely msmufin and I spent a lot of weekends at the beach, always listening to the radio--on the way to the beach, while we were there, heading back home. Whatever the emotional intentions the authors of those songs we were listening to may have been striving for is entirely irrelevant to me. When I hear certain songs from that summer, my response is triggered by tangential, environmental components rather than the song itself. In short, a piece of music can simply serve as a placeholder or trigger for an unrelated emotional reaction.

Again, I agree. Again, this is where the responsibility lies with the listener.
Suppose you got sick at the same time you were listening to a certain piece of music. After that, just hearing that piece made you feel sick again. Wouldn't you avoid that music? If you told me you were feeling sick, and when I asked why, you said you had listened to that music knowing it had made you feel sick in the past, I wouldn't feel too much sympathy .

Because some actions can be right or wrong by some standard doesn't mean that all actions are right or wrong. As I write this response, I'm wearing a green t-shirt with a C.F. Martin guitar logo. I submit that the t-shirt, as well as my decision to wear it this evening, are both amoral. If there's a system of moral axioms which dictates the rightness, wrongness, or neutrality of casual t-shirt attire on the homefront, I'd be sincerely curious to learn more about that morality.

I think our disagreement is over the meaning of amoral. You're using it to mean anything not clearly moral (right) or immoral (wrong). I'm using more narrowly to mean only things that can never have any connection with morality or immorality. For things that could be right or wrong (like actions) but aren't (like the specific action of your wearing a certain shirt), I'm using another term, neutral.
To use an simile, morality (in it's broad meaning) is like a line divided into three parts, moral (narrow meaning - right), neutral, and immoral. Anything off that line is amoral. Our actions may be anywhere on that line, but not off it. Music is on that line by virtue of its influence on our actions.

Until we can agree on what amoral means, this debate's going nowhere.
To use an example, suppose we were debating whether a wolf is a dog or not. But you used "dog" to mean all canines, and I used it more narrowly to mean "domestic" dogs. You could say "A wolf is a dog," and I could say "A wolf is not a dog," and we would both be right, using our respective meanings - but our debate would get nowhere until we agreed on a single meaning.

Can we do that?

Hannah Joy