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.)

[ENIGMA]

Hannahjoy,

Could you perhaps give an example of something that, under your definition, is amoral? That would perhaps help to clarify the discussion.

[hannahjoy]

Maybe . . .
a block of wood.
It could be used to hit someone, start a fire, prop up a crooked table, etc., but it doesn't affect our actions by its very nature, as music does.

[mrmufin]

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.

Just outta curiousity... are you familiar with Keith Jarrett? More specifically his concerts at, say, Köln, Bregenz, La Scala?

I think our disagreement is over the meaning of amoral.

Music is on that line by virtue of its influence on our actions.

Actually, I think our disagreement has more to do with your tendency to confuse music (in all of its nounly forms) with the acts of listening, responding, composing, etc. For example:

Could you perhaps give an example of something that, under your definition, is amoral?

Maybe . . .
a block of wood.
It could be used to hit someone, start a fire, prop up a crooked table, etc., but it doesn't affect our actions by its very nature, as music does.

(Emphasis added) And whether we hit with, prop up, listen to, or compose, our actions are the subject of moral evaluation, not the block of wood or the song. QED.

Regards,
mrmufin

[MikeH]

While certain patterns and styles of music can most definitely trigger specific emotions, they cannot be judged as good or evil. How you react to it says something about yourself, not about the music. That's part of the magic that music holds. It has a psychiatric quality to it. I'm actually surprised that so many people voted the other way.

[k-nug]

Assuming we are talking about the instrumental part of music, without lyrics, I'd have to say definitely not. Like others have said, whether the music inspires a moral action or thought is irrelevant, but music is subjective. You may interpret me playing a dissonant chord as being 'dark' or 'evil', while I interpret it as 'expanse' or 'infinity'.

I've played guitar/bass for about 16 years now, and most of my music resides in the 'progressive' category, although I enjoy playing acoustic, and wish I could play jazz. A lot of my compositions include chromatics, dissonant chords, odd time signatures and unusual improvisations that some people may interpret as depressing or somehow inherently evil. In reality I am a very relaxed laid back person, who happens to like to experiment with music, and I'm not always satisfied with diatonic music, even when most of my music ends up that way. I have also written lullaby's for my niece, a dirge for my brother and everything in between. I listen to everything from Dave Brubeck to Jim Croce to Opeth to Killswitch Engage.

Music with lyrics is not amoral although again the perceived morality is subjective. I can listen to christian metal and not be affected to go out and convert, as well as music that deals with the occult and not feel the need to draw a pentagram on my wall, and yet listen to songs about alien abductions and not succumb to a belief in redneck alien abductions.