What is the purpose of music (today)?

25 people (musicians) who have no opinion on the matter. Oh, really.

It happens that the absence of answers is in itself an answer.

I have only just read this (but only if you consider me a musician, an adjective that I feel only partially applies to me).

A consideration immediately came to mind that I was able to hear while watching a lecture on philosophy, a lecture in which a thought of Aristotle was used as an example, in which he said: "Philosophy is of no use, you will say; but know that precisely because it is devoid of the bond of servitude, it is the noblest form of knowledge."

I think that such a statement is perfect for defining (albeit without being able to do so exhaustively and definitively) music.

Fundamental distinctions: making music and listening to music.

1) Making music is different from yesterday. It is difficult to address the issue on an international scale, although it is useful to maintain a perspective beyond our borders to understand the limits of our usual complaints... Making music is, today more than ever, a job. It is used to make a living. And I say this with sadness, because it means that true amateurs are increasingly disappearing—those who once played for fun, for personal growth, because they considered knowing how to play part of their indispensable humanistic education. In the ugly and sometimes complaining battle of professional musicians, many spaces of non-professional music have been lost. Opera circles, musical bands, amateur choirs (parochial, military, operatic, etc.),

All of humanity has felt since its dawn the need to manipulate sounds and to give them emotional content and, for this reason, I believe, music was born, which has served and will serve as long as humans inhabit the Earth.

For the vast majority, music is first and foremost a search for entertainment, relaxation, lightheartedness, and enjoyment. For a much smaller minority, music is all of that but it is also - and above all - a search for understanding and meaning.

The two things - pleasure and understanding - are not at all opposed as some believe or would like, but complementary; in fact, from my point of view, understanding has the primary goal of increasing the pleasure of making, performing, and listening to music.

As soon as I read the question, I thought a complete and readable answer in just a few lines would be impossible... and I congratulate those who have already expressed their ideas because true and very interesting aspects can be seen in all of them.

It is, however, a question that I also constantly ask myself.... the role of music in society especially, and the expectations that musicians have!

in this historical moment there is such a variety of musical expressions with objectives ranging from the purely commercial and social recognition to the more artistic and philosophical. Marketing and art.... image and communication..... it is a phenomenon too vast and varied to be able to give it a precise form and answer the question so simply.

n.b. how did you count the 25 musicians?

Thanks to those who have already intervened, a preliminary response to Nancy and Piccinesco. 25 were the views at the moment I made my second intervention, which is why I mentioned this number. It seemed strange to me that in a forum frequented by people who surely have an interest in music (musicians, enthusiasts, listeners, etc.) no one has given any "answer" to this question. @Piccinesco, I used the word musician in a broad sense; surely out of 25 visits some musician (in the strict sense) might have passed by, but I believe that this is a place for musicians—yes, perhaps of different levels, but still musicians. I know well that there are those who are still studying, those who never stop studying, those who have already arrived, etc. ... besides, I feel like a musician on par with Pärt, Gubajdulina, Penderecki, etc. Of course, certainly with a different sensitivity and most likely a different awareness, but still a musician. Therefore, the question is by no means selective... it was just a figure of speech

Piccinesco wrote:

Aristotle in which he said "Philosophy is of no use, you will say; but know that precisely because it is devoid of the bond of servitude, it is the noblest knowledge".

Wise words, but they do not seem to me to address the matter in question, though I could be wrong.

Regarding the other topics that emerged, I would like to sleep on it, but I will not fail to do so.

danielescarpetti wrote:

For the vast, vast majority, music is first and foremost a search for enjoyment, relaxation, lightheartedness, and pleasure. For a much smaller minority, music is all of that, but it is also—and above all—a search for understanding and meaning.

The two things—pleasure and understanding—are not at all opposed as some believe or would like them to be, but are complementary; in fact, from my point of view, understanding has the primary goal of increasing the pleasure of making, performing, and listening to music.

In a certain sense, I share your point of view, considering that I too love to comprehend, understand or, at least, strive to do so. But I think the pleasurable and playful value of music must always be emphasized. I often repeat it: the philosophical illusion of music—the idea, that is, that beautiful music must have a strong epistemological, almost mystical and sapiential value—has condemned entire repertoires to oblivion: dance music, profane vocal music, and so much baroque and classical music considered non-innovative. Music can assume many meanings, but even music without particular meanings has musical value. And, conversely, even the deepest musical works have tons of notes that mean nothing.

Interesting speech

Piccinesco wrote:

"Philosophy is of no use, you will say; but know that precisely because it is devoid of the bond of servitude, it is the noblest knowledge".

In antiquity even catharsis, now ephemeral art.

thallo wrote:

music serves, tautologically, to appease the desire for music

You know that a composer can revel in this statement precisely to justify the fruits of their own ego? I agree, but it is the reason why today one sees (yes, one sees) so much useless music... mark my words, Aristotle was right, but I find nothing noble in one's own ego.

What do you think?

thallo wrote:

In a certain sense, I share your point of view, considering that I too love to comprehend, understand or, at least, strive to do so. But I think the pleasant and playful value of music must always be emphasized. I often repeat it: the philosophical illusion of music—the idea, that is, that beautiful music must have a strong epistemological, almost mystical and sapiential value—has condemned entire repertoires to oblivion: dance music, profane vocal music, and so much baroque and classical music considered non-innovative. Music can assume many meanings, but even music without particular meanings has musical value. And, conversely, even the deepest musical works have tons of notes that mean nothing.

Yes, yes Claudio!

In reality, I completely agree with you.

In fact, more precisely, I think that all music has a meaning.

Indeed, in my discourse, I did not want to make distinctions between the music we usually call "art music" and the music we consider pure fun and entertainment and, — always because I want to be absolutely clear in my thinking — I also did not want to make distinctions between Western music and that coming from other cultures or ethnicities.

I think — and I wonder: when did I actually start thinking this way? — that all music must be understood: and by that understanding, I mean it in the most total sense of the term. In other words, I think that all music is linked to culture, to civilization, to the history of peoples, and that listening to it and engaging with it is always interesting—not forgetting that and... therefore deepening it.

danielescarpetti wrote:

In other words, I think that all music is linked to culture, to civilization, to the history of peoples

In "very" words, linked to man

danielescarpetti wrote:

pleasure and understanding - they are not opposed at all

Surely understanding can give pleasure, but I am not sure it is the same pleasure that can be obtained from mere "disinterested" listening. In my opinion, artistic perfection is born when there is a right balance between what needs to be understood and the pleasure of listening. The rest are extremes which, although they describe other functions of music (research or business), I cannot contemplate within the sphere of personal pleasure.

Yes, but the question was what music is for... Among the thousand things that come to mind, I'll mention one that is trivial but real: it serves a parent to spend a little more time with their children (perhaps by learning music themselves too)

Frank: yes, I understood what you meant, but I just threw it out there ironically.

As for the Aristotle quote (I don't like making quotes, but in this case this thought immediately came to mind and, even if music is not being discussed, the fact that music itself is a slave to no one but, on the contrary, everyone is, for various reasons, in a certain sense, a slave to it, led me to bring up this "example").

I particularly liked the last part of Thallo's first intervention, where they say that "music serves tautologically to appease the craving for music".

I (banally) immediately thought of "drugs".

I also agree with what Daniele says and with Zazza's second intervention: within one's own ego, one might think there is very little that is noble (if one goes to dissect the less clear and declared intentions, provided there are any), this is more than shareable, but reversing this thought (or hypothesis), how could we ever know for certain if (for example) in Bach there prevailed a personal need to perfect himself to reach the level that almost everyone knows today (even just from having listened to one of his most significant works), or if he truly felt that he had to do everything that he then did (but could not continue) for reasons that go beyond one's own "sublimation"?

We will never know exactly what he felt.

One can compose, write, sculpt, draw, dialogue, hypothesize, remain in silence, etc.. even out of a profound dedication and "faith" in something or in some "entity", I do not doubt it, just as it is indubitable that from one's own ego works can arise that, in appearance, may suggest a "higher" point of inspiration.

If the composer does not specify it, one can hypothesize; if they do specify it, one must believe them (with the benefit of the doubt).

micamahler wrote:

it serves a parent to spend a little
more time with their children

Or conversely, to get rid of them and have the teacher act as a babysitter... who, whether they want to or not, must follow the child for a while.

I have had a couple of glaring cases, very frustrating.

Putting all the reflections in a certain order, the scenario could appear unsettling

I think that music serves every person in a different way... as far as I am concerned, Music serves first and foremost to travel through different eras, like a sort of time and space machine, alienating us from reality, as an escape route.

Mientras generically I would say from the point of view of the "user" that it helps to "unlearn" negativity, entertains, develops thought .. From a much more petty point of view, however, it serves (especially pop music) to manipulate the masses, especially teenagers, instilling trashy ideals...