The Persistent "Dreariness of Music Aesthetics"

A few years ago I attempted to argue with The Ohio State University philosopher and jazz guitarist  Robert Kraut about jazz and its relationship to the philosophy of art, specifically the aesthetics of music. Our 'discussion' could never get underway. Professor Kraut accused me of employing as data music criticism - the likes of Charles Rosen, Andre Hodier, Gunther Schuller, Amiri Baraka (hereinafter "the usual suspects"). My reply would have been, "So What?". Kraut's data resides in the musings of philosophers of art, with a taste of Carnap and Hempel tossed in for academic street-credibility. See his essay "Why Does Jazz Matter to Aesthetic Theory?" that appears in his volume Artworld Metaphysics, Oxford University Press. My reply to Kraut was "Show me an aesthetic theory (any aesthetic theory), then we can access it and argue about jazz's importance with respect to a particular theory.

Rereading "Why does Jazz Matter to Aesthetic Theory?" and other writings of philosophers on the aesthetics of music, I've returned to a notion I had started with: the persistence of a "Dreariness of the Aesthetics of Music" is based in a professed ignorance, in fact joyful ignorance, of the writings of the usual suspects and the satisfaction in relying on the writings of other philosophers.

To turn Kraut's 'argument' back on itself let's consider the following: the scientism of Kraut's article, its posturing in terms of 'theory construction' and 'theory-data', of which jazz performances are 'data' for some 'theory' to be articulated some day; let's be charitable, some possible theory. "Play the drums and stop tip toeing around the tune (theory)." No one wants to play the drums. Everyone wants to tip toe.

If our philosophers of art (of music aesthetics) would only start "playing the drums", they would deal straight-up with the data provided by the usual suspects - writers who know what they are talking about, musicians who write about what they know.

Philosophers of mathematics and philosophers of science may be ignorant of many aspects of their subjects, but they would not be so quick to discount the writings of Cantor, Frege, and Gödel or of Einstein, Newton, and Heisenberg; as Professor Kraut is to dismiss Andre Hodier's (and other's) writings. When I read philosophers writings on music, their meta-theoretical musings; I can't wait to get back to the usual suspects who know what they're talking about.