Comments on: Learning to hear http://blog.voyou.org/2010/03/28/learning-to-hear/ Lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:24:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: George http://blog.voyou.org/2010/03/28/learning-to-hear/comment-page-1/#comment-50377 George Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:26 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/?p=994#comment-50377 “...there’s something unilluminating and tautological about (Scruton’s) response.” Tautology permeates much – if not all – of Scruton’s “thought”. I once tried to read his “Aesthetics of Music” where he starts by asking what IS music, then goes on to tell us it obviously sound but not just any sound. It is made up of special sounds called tones. But what is a tone? It isn’t just pitched sound because a machine could generate pitched sound. And music isn’t just defined by intentionality since that would take us into John Cage territory i.e. the composer or listener decides what is music. So what IS tone? After much rumination, Scruton decides that tone is …. wait for it …..MUSICAL sound!!!! It takes him 200 or so pages to tell us this. i.e. 200 pages to say that music is, well, music. The best essay I’ve read about Scruton’s approach to music is by Ben Watson and you can find it here: http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/default.asp?channel_id=2187&editorial_id=10087 “…there’s something unilluminating and tautological about (Scruton’s) response.”

Tautology permeates much – if not all – of Scruton’s “thought”. I once tried to read his “Aesthetics of Music” where he starts by asking what IS music, then goes on to tell us it obviously sound but not just any sound. It is made up of special sounds called tones. But what is a tone? It isn’t just pitched sound because a machine could generate pitched sound. And music isn’t just defined by intentionality since that would take us into John Cage territory i.e. the composer or listener decides what is music. So what IS tone? After much rumination, Scruton decides that tone is …. wait for it …..MUSICAL sound!!!!

It takes him 200 or so pages to tell us this. i.e. 200 pages to say that music is, well, music.

The best essay I’ve read about Scruton’s approach to music is by Ben Watson and you can find it here:

http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/default.asp?channel_id=2187&editorial_id=10087

]]> By: voyou http://blog.voyou.org/2010/03/28/learning-to-hear/comment-page-1/#comment-40686 voyou Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:28:44 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/?p=994#comment-40686 "Right-wing death beasts" is probably too self-aware to be the name of an NSBM band, regrettably. “Right-wing death beasts” is probably too self-aware to be the name of an NSBM band, regrettably.

]]> By: John http://blog.voyou.org/2010/03/28/learning-to-hear/comment-page-1/#comment-40683 John Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:31:49 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/?p=994#comment-40683 Scrutons reactionary politics ARE his message to the world altogether. Look at the dreadful dark company that he keeps, and writes for. He is a "scholar" at the AEI, and the Opus Dei Institute of Psychological Sciences. His essays appear in magazines published by right-wing outfits that are loud champions of the military-industrial-"entertainment" complex. The right-wing death beasts. Scrutons reactionary politics ARE his message to the world altogether.

Look at the dreadful dark company that he keeps, and writes for.

He is a “scholar” at the AEI, and the Opus Dei Institute of Psychological Sciences.

His essays appear in magazines published by right-wing outfits that are loud champions of the military-industrial-”entertainment” complex.

The right-wing death beasts.

]]> By: voyou http://blog.voyou.org/2010/03/28/learning-to-hear/comment-page-1/#comment-40471 voyou Mon, 05 Apr 2010 06:44:18 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/?p=994#comment-40471 I think where I might disagree a bit is that I think "visceral reactions" are cognitive reactions, they just depend on cognitions we're not currently aware of. This might explain Scruton's double-bind: because he's not willing to really question his reaction to Crystal Castles, he just repeats explicitly the implicit judgements that led him to respond the way he did, so there's something unilluminating and tautological about his response. I think where I might disagree a bit is that I think “visceral reactions” are cognitive reactions, they just depend on cognitions we’re not currently aware of. This might explain Scruton’s double-bind: because he’s not willing to really question his reaction to Crystal Castles, he just repeats explicitly the implicit judgements that led him to respond the way he did, so there’s something unilluminating and tautological about his response.

]]> By: Ian Mathers http://blog.voyou.org/2010/03/28/learning-to-hear/comment-page-1/#comment-40394 Ian Mathers Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:18:37 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/?p=994#comment-40394 "we might think that aesthetic responses are due simply to unmediated sensory impressions, but what Scruton illustrates is that, in the absence of an ability to cognize the input of our senses, we have no aesthetic response to them" Interesting... this brings to mind Nietzsche's point about the metaphorical quality of language, for some reason. If I'm reading you right, you're not saying that 'unmediated sensory impressions' don't exist in some odd way, but that if we lack that ability to cognize them - the ability to in some way abstract away from those sensory impressions - they might as well not exist. I mean, Scruton (or whoever) clearly has SOME sort of visceral response to Crytal Castles et al, but he's got no language for it, and he resorts to politics instead. I'd say all good music (or art in general) writing is the process of responding to your own visceral reaction, and so part of my problem with Scruton - especially his "tickling" comment - is that I don't think he's really being honest. Not that he or anyone else is required to like Crystal Castles (I'm not much of a fan myself) but Scruton's in a weird double bind - he comes across both like he dislikes the music for pre-existing ideological reasons, and also that he viscerally dislikes the music so he's come up with ideology to support why no-one should like it. Both sides feel a bit insincere. “we might think that aesthetic responses are due simply to unmediated sensory impressions, but what Scruton illustrates is that, in the absence of an ability to cognize the input of our senses, we have no aesthetic response to them”

Interesting… this brings to mind Nietzsche’s point about the metaphorical quality of language, for some reason. If I’m reading you right, you’re not saying that ‘unmediated sensory impressions’ don’t exist in some odd way, but that if we lack that ability to cognize them – the ability to in some way abstract away from those sensory impressions – they might as well not exist. I mean, Scruton (or whoever) clearly has SOME sort of visceral response to Crytal Castles et al, but he’s got no language for it, and he resorts to politics instead.

I’d say all good music (or art in general) writing is the process of responding to your own visceral reaction, and so part of my problem with Scruton – especially his “tickling” comment – is that I don’t think he’s really being honest. Not that he or anyone else is required to like Crystal Castles (I’m not much of a fan myself) but Scruton’s in a weird double bind – he comes across both like he dislikes the music for pre-existing ideological reasons, and also that he viscerally dislikes the music so he’s come up with ideology to support why no-one should like it. Both sides feel a bit insincere.

]]>