In the first chapter, two questions are considered: is listening to music necessary for apprehended musical aesthetic qualities? and is listening to music sufficient for apprehending musical aesthetic qualities? I conclude that the answer to the first question is yes by arguing that musical aesthetic qualities are necessarily at least in part perceptual properties. And my answer to the second question is no, since not all of the features of musical aesthetic qualities are perceivable. ;The ontological status of musical works (...) is the topic of the second chapter. My argument is that scored musical works cannot be entities which completely exist independently of being performed, since many of a musical work's essential properties are at least partially determined by the character of its performance. These essential properties include both sonic properties and aesthetic qualities--both expressive and representational ones. Therefore, I conclude that musical works are collaborative entities, where both the composer and the performer are responsible for the existence of scored musical works. ;The final chapter explains what musical expressiveness and representation actually involve. I argue that we are culturally trained to hear music as expressive of emotions and thus trained to imagine certain configurations of sonic properties in music have emotional features. In this way, the physical properties of performed musical works do not determine its expressiveness; rather, the convention in which one has been trained how to make sense of music determines the aesthetic qualities of a performance. (shrink)

INTUITIVELY, WE RECOGNIZE at least two broad ways in which we talk about musical performances. On the one hand, we talk about them as lasting twenty minutes, having a tempo of 120 quarter notes per minute, being a string quartet, loud or soft, sounding like a trumpet rather than a cornet, and out of tune. These descriptions refer to the nonaesthetic properties of musical performances. On the other hand, we talk about musical performances as being expressive of sorrow, sounding thematically (...) unified, having a swinging rhythm, portraying the harshness of living under economic distress, representing the howling of a wolf, and placid. These descriptions refer to the aesthetic qualities of musical performances. (shrink)

In her book, Goehr defends two claims which surely generate controversy. She argues that for several reasons, no analytic method for defining musical works is viable, and no musical works existed before circa 1800. For Goehr, analysis fails in the attempt to capture the pure ontological character of musical works, to account for their mode of existence in terms of abstracta or relata, or to discover their alleged ahistorical identity conditions. The main reason most analyses fail, according to Goehr, is (...) because the development of a coherent ontological theory is accomplished at the expense of accommodating our precritical intuitions. She argues that neither Nelson Goodman's extentionalist [[sic]] account nor Jerrold Levinson's intentionalist [[sic]] account successfully establish an equilibrium between theory and practice--between what can be logically and clearly stated about musical works and what is actually thought about them. The failure to establish such an equilibrium derives from the impossibility of analytic philosophers to offer clear grounds for resolving whether any given purported condition for the identity of a musical work marks something essential to the musical work's existence. For example, Levinson's desideratum that aesthetic qualities are essential properties of musical works is countered by Goodman's claim that aesthetic qualities merely refer to the evaluative qualities of musical works and not to the identity of musical works. Such a dispute, Goehr argues, is irresolvable. (shrink)