Convention and Representation in Music

Philosophers' Imprint (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In philosophy of music, formalists argue that pure instrumental music is unable to represent any content without the help of lyrics, titles, or dramatic context. In particular, they deny that music’s use of convention counts as a genuine case of representation because only intrinsic means of representing counts and conventions are extrinsic to the sound structures making up music. In this paper, I argue that convention should count as a way for music to genuinely represent content for two reasons. First, the view that only intrinsic ways of representing count is too stringent. If use can ground meaning in language, then use might also ground meaning (and representation) in music, too. Second, even if we were to insist on intrinsic features, convention should count as a way for music to genuinely represent because convention is an intrinsic feature of music. Without knowledge of musical systems and encultured listening, music wouldn’t even be recognized as music, let alone be seen as possessing the kinds of structural qualities that formalists care about. Convention is already baked into our listening practices.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
KIMCAR-2
Upload history
Archival date: 2022-08-05
View other versions
Added to PP index
2022-08-05

Total views
76 ( #57,752 of 71,407 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
76 ( #9,806 of 71,407 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.