MEMT 815: Musical Values & Aesthetics Wednesday evening, 6 – 8:50 PM

Spring Semester 2015 PROFESSOR: James F. Daugherty (email: jdaugher@ku.edu) Office: 448 Murphy Hall Office Hrs: Mon 12:00 -1:00 p.m., Thurs 1:00-2:00 p.m., or by appointment GRADUATE ASSISTANT: Amelia Rollings (email: arollings@ku.edu) COURSE WEBSITE: http://people.ku.edu/~jdaugher Go to Current Courses then navigate to MEMT 815. PURPOSE: This course raises questions and examines foundational ideas relative to musical values and aesthetics, both historically and in the context of contemporary philosophies of music. Through readings, discussions, and critical analyses, students work toward (1) defining and refining the beliefs and values that inform their choices and decisions as professional musicians, as well as (2) enriching their understanding of music's varied roles in human experience, and (3) honing their skills in critical thinking, to the end that (4) their musicking is better informed and more fully subject to conscious direction. The course is designed as a graduate level reading/survey course in the philosophy of music for music performers, educators, theorists, musicologists, and therapists. REQUIRED TEXTS: Battin, Margaret P., John Fisher, Ronald Moore, and Anita Silvers. Puzzles About Art: An

Aesthetics Casebook. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989. ISBN-13: 978-0312003074 Dewey, John. Art as Experience. NY: G.P. Putnam's, 1934. ISBN-13: 978-0399531972 Goehr, Lydia. The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the��� Philosophy of Music.

Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.��� ISBN-13: 978-0195324785 Hanslick, Eduard. On the musically beautiful: A contribution towards the revision

of the aesthetics of music. Trans. G. Payzant. Hackett Publishing Co, 1891/1986. ISBN- 13: 978-0872200142

Hegel, George, W.F.(1896/1993). Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics. Trans. B. Bosanquet with introduction and commentary by M.Inwood. London, UK: Penguin Classics. ISBN-13: 978-0140433357 (available also as a Google ebook for free, under the title The Introduction to Hegel's Philosophy of Fine Art. Trans. B. Bosanquet. Unless one is comfortable with e-book scrolling, probably more convenient for underlining and note- taking, etc. to purchase in hard copy). Kahn, Hazrat Inayat. The Mysticism of Sound and Music. Rev. ed. Berkeley, CA: Shambhala

Publications, 1996. ISBN-13: 978-0140433357

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of judgment. Intro by M. Walker. Oxford World Classics, 1790/2009. ISBN-13: 978-0140433357 Kivy, Peter. Introduction to a Philosophy of Music. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002. ISBN-13: 978-0198250487 Ridley, A. The Philosophy of Music: Theme and Variations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press. 2004. ISBN-13: 978-0748609024

Small, Christopher. Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1998. ISBN-13: 978-0819522573

Warren, Jeff. Music and Ethical Responsibility. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. ISBN-13: 978-1107043947

RECOMMENDED TEXTS: Baggini, Julian and Peter S. Fosl. The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods. 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 978-1-4051- 9018-3 Bowman, Wayne. Philosophical Perspectives on Music. New York: Oxford University Press,

1998. NOTE The Academic Achievement and Access Center (AAAC) coordinates academic accommodations and services for all eligible KU students with disabilities. If you have a disability for which you wish to request accommodations and have not contacted the AAAC, please do so as soon as possible. They are located in 22 Strong Hall and can be reached at 785-864-4064 (V/TTY). Information about their services can be found at http://www.disability.ku.edu. Please contact Dr. Daugherty privately in regard to your needs in this course. COURSE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Evidence of critical reading of each assigned book in its entirety, as determined by the instructor, written responses to questions posed at the beginning of each class session, written questions you turn in, colleagues in the class 2. Thoughtful contributions to class discussions, as indicated by quality (not necessarily quantity) of contributions, assistance in keeping the discussion focused, respecting the contributions of others even when you disagree 3. On-time submission of 5 written critical analyses (see requirements & guidelines attached

to this syllabus), demonstrating over the course of the semester progress in (a) ability to read a philosophy book with understanding and discernment;

(b) honing abilities to identify & analyze arguments; (c) distinguishing sound

arguments from valid arguments, opinions, simple belief, points of view, rhetoric, simple advocacy, etc.; (d) using writing skills appropriate for philosophical inquiry; and, by semester’s end demonstration of basic competency in each of the above, as well as in (e) advancing your own sound arguments. Beginning of course (Kivy analysis) and end of course (chosen book analysis) critical analyses will be done by everyone. You may choose when and for which books you do your other three analyses (first come, first served).

On-time = Send your analysis as a .doc email attachment to the scheduled discussion leader no later than noon the day before the class meeting. Submit your final version to Dr. Daugherty for grading no later than noon on the day the class meets. N.B. The baseline analysis in conjunction with the Kivy book is an exception: Here everyone brings Xeroxed copies of their analyses to the class meeting.

4. Serve effectively as the discussion leader for two class sessions. Some indicators of

effectiveness as a discussion leader: (a) well-prepared and knowledgeable about the material; (b) has defined strategies for encouraging discussion and for keeping it focused; (c) shows respect to all participants; (d) assures that the discussion is not monopolized by one individual (including the leader); (f) is not hesitant to challenge respectfully unsupported assertions; and (e) participants indicate, through brief, evaluations at the end of the class session, that the discussion has contributed to their understanding/thinking.

5. In-class Presentation (Book of your choice from the suggested list, including a handout and a

critical analysis (your final one) distributed to the class. N.B. If you wish to use a book not on the suggested list, such may be negotiated with the instructor. First come, first served. You may make your choice as soon as feasible, but no later than the class meeting prior to spring break.

6. Miss no more than one class meeting There will be no final examination or term paper for this course. FINAL COURSE GRADE: Reading/Discussion 50 points

Written Analyses (N =5) 30 points Discussion Leadership 10 points Class Presentation 10 points A= 93-100points; B=85-92 points; C=77-84 points; D=70-77 points; F=69 or less points. Plus or minus grades may be given at the instructor's discretion. No grade of Incomplete will be given in this course.

N=5 SHORT CRITICAL ANALYSIS PAPERS The purpose of this series of two-page papers is to focus on an argument or proposition therein from one of the books we read each week, in order to either refute or strengthen that particular argument or proposition. These papers afford you an opportunity to increase your skill in logical reasoning and analysis, i.e., to “think about the thinking” of the philosophers we read. I. While you are reading As you read, keep these three overarching questions in mind, and endeavor to answer them: (a) Who is this person and why is s/he saying these things? (b) What are the central arguments made or attempted? (c) So what? Who is this person, & Why is s/he saying these things? Basic biographical / professional data: dust jacket of book Google search author’s personal or professional web page

library or online search (e.g., other books/articles by same author, interviews with the author, etc.)

Affinities with any “-ism’s?” Bowman book Philosophy dictionary or encyclopedia Author self-acknowledgment. Do not neglect the preface, index, and acknowledgments (if any) as clues. Where does this author stand with respect to the three ideational "gene pools," i.e., symbolism, ethos, music as a fine art? Context: What is the “problem/issue” addressed? (ideas, practices, events, etc.) Why is it a “problem/issue”? Is it still a “problem/issue”? Is it a legitimate “problem/issue”? A problem/issue for whom? Why is s/he interested in the “problem/issue”?

Whom/what does this thinker oppose, or wish to “set straight”/amend?

Locate critical book reviews or analyses by others (optional):

Consulting evaluations (e.g., book reviews, articles, encyclopedia entries) others have written, either about a particular book or the overall perspective of a particular thinker, can be informativel/interesting at times, prompting you perhaps to consider some matters that had not yet occurred to you. However, keep in mind that the primary purpose of writing a two-page critical analysis in MEMT 815 is to exercise and hone your own thinking skills. Obviously, you may not plagiarize. But even more importantly you

should avoid the trap of presuming that a published review, simply by virtue of its publication, is any “better “ or more valuable than your own dialogue with a particular book.

What are the central arguments?

Philosophers concern themselves primarily with arguments (propositions that serve as premises or conclusions), evaluating whether or not those arguments are sound arguments, and assessing the potential meanings/values of such arguments both in their present contexts and as they might be projected onto other contexts. For purposes of doing philosophy, then, “What is said?” per se, while often interesting, is not nearly as important as “What arguments are made?”

As you read, separate wheat from chaff, sheep from goats.

Bracket what is merely rhetoric, anecdote, filler, opinion, simple belief, ideology, etc., i.e., what is not used as part of a valid argument, either as a proposition or as evidence for the truth of a proposition.

Identify what portions constitute valid arguments, i.e., satisfy the

requirements for being an actual argument.

Find your preferred means of identifying propositions, arguments, “interesting stuff” as you read:

Write in the book (if you own it). Underline. Circle. Margin notes. Diagram Bullets Flow chart List Paraphrase fairly etc.

Find a means to identify/remember particular sentences, passages, quotes that you suspect may be important or telling. Can save lots of time later on.

For the author’s arguments:

Follow principle of “charity,” i.e., assume at first that the author does

indeed offer arguments, is trying to do what s/he says /she will do, etc. “Innocent until proven guilty.”

Identify propositions. Which serve as premises and which are

conclusions? (sometimes it’s easier to identify conclusions first and work backward to premises….if you’re fortunate, the author provides some prompts, e.g., “therefore,” “thus,” “then,” “so,” etc….if author is not reader-friendly, you will have to put on your “Miss Marple” hat and play detective.

Is the argument deductive? inductive? dialectic? Is the argument sound, i.e. true conclusion(s) following from true premises? Or, does it commit some logical fallacy? During this process, begin to entertain a manageable argument, or even a single proposition, that you wish to address in your written paper. Could it become a sound argument if certain assumed premises were added? Could it become a sound argument by amending or dropping one or more premises? by re-formulating conclusions? Conclusions of one argument typically become the premises of a succeeding argument in book length writings. Follow similar procedures for the “overall,” “major,” or “central” argument of the book. Identify it, determine if it is sound, etc. Is it really the sort of argument the author said s/he would make? Or is it of another sort?

For the author’s treatment of opposing arguments (real or projected): Does s/he phrase, re-state, paraphrase, allude to opposing arguments

fairly? in their strongest form? Does anything strike you as important by virtue of its omission? In other words, what was not said/argued. Why? So What? Why do/should these arguments matter? for the author? for me? for others? for the profession? for real life? Ideas/conceptions have consequences…what are the consequences of

the ideas advanced here? II. Writing your paper Here are some guidelines and requirements for writing your papers: Guidelines for Critical Reflection/Analysis Paper 1. Your paper must be typed/word-processed.

2. Your paper may not exceed two pages. Whether you double-space or single-space, and where you set margins, are entirely up to you. If you single-space, please skip a line between paragraphs. 3. Use a 12-point font size. 4. Follow this format: Write your name in the upper right hand corner. Skip two lines. Write (left justified or centered) a citation of the primary passage or passages on which you are focusing. For example: Goehr, pp 73-74. Skip two lines, then begin the body of your paper. For purposes of this paper, acknowledge any quotations from the readings simply by using quotation marks followed by the page or section number in parentheses. Ordinarily, you will not quote secondary sources, as the purpose of this paper is to present your own thinking. However, should the need arise, use Turabian style in referencing other works. 5. Use “lean and mean” writing. Revise, revise, revise. Resist the temptation to turn in your first draft. Do not take up space telling us about the author, that thoughtful human beings have wrestled with this idea for centuries, that you had chili peppers for lunch, etc. Assume we have read the material well, and are familiar with the task of these analyses. Get right to the point. Write simply and directly. Avoid word splurge. My grandmother should be able to understand you. On the other hand, do not insult grandmother’s intelligence. No misspellings, grammatical errors, punctuation errors. We are in graduate school. Proof read what you write. If feasible, also allow someone else to read your paper before submitting it. Some common errors to avoid: Incomplete sentences. Verb/subject disagreements. Demonstratives standing alone (can lead to ambiguity in philosophical writing). Use of contractions. One- sentence paragraphs (a paragraph must contain at least two complete sentences). Over-use of passive voice. Use of exclusive language when referring in some sense to “all people” (We are in the 21st century; all major style books have ruled on this issue; in this class we will abide by those rulings). Remember also: Dr. Daugherty finds particularly annoying incorrect uses of “that” and “which,” and the use of demonstrative pronouns standing alone<G>. 6. Ordinarily, you will use no more than one succinct paragraph to grab the reader’s attention and to present/recap the particular argument or set of arguments you are addressing. Be sure you restate/introduce this material fairly and accurately. No straw men. No logical sleights of hand. No paraphrasing that amounts to re-phrasing, i.e., subtly changing the terms of the author's argument. (For example, Smith wrote: "Some people are stupid." You write, "I will refute Smith's contention that people are stupid." Here, in bypassing the qualifier "some" in Smith's proposition, you have, whether intentionally or not, set up a straw man, and you have not been

fair to Smith, who wrote "some people." For this reason, it is better when possible to provide a short, direct quotation of the author's proposition or argument than to paraphrase it. 7. Then write an unambiguous thesis or purpose statement, or perhaps a short paragraph, which states what you intend to demonstrate or do in your paper. "The purpose of this paper is....." You have two choices, and only two choices, in this respect: You may (a) refute/defeat the stated argument or a single proposition therein, or (b) logically strengthen the stated argument or a proposition therein. N.B. this second choice can be the more difficult of the two (see description below). Primary ways to refute a presented argument: 1. Demonstrate/prove that no argument has been made, i.e., that what the author wrote constitutes an explanation, point of view, opinion, simple belief, preference, etc. In other words, what the author presents does not meet the basic criterion of an argument: at least one premise leading to at least one conclusion in a valid (not necessarily sound) fashion. 2. Take issue with the conclusion by demonstrating that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise(s), and/or it is not the only logical conclusion that could be drawn from the stated premise(s). 3. Demonstrate/prove that at least one of the propositions that serve as a premise is false. In this respect, do not overlook what may be assumed, that is, not explicitly stated but nonetheless operative, premises. Primary ways to strengthen a presented argument: 1. First, demonstrate that a proposition in the argument (either premise or conclusion) requires strengthening. The easiest way to do so is to provide a counter-argument or counter-example, which demonstrates that, although the basic argument is valid, when applied to this particular case, context, or instance it could be refuted unless there is some modification to the argument/proposition as presently stated. 2. Second, proceed to strengthen a proposition or the argument as a whole by such steps as (a) modifying existing language, (b) adding additional language (e.g., modifiers, phrase, etc.), (c) making explicit an implicit assumption, etc. 3. Note that to strengthen a proposition or argument one must first demonstrate conclusively that it contains a logical weakness. Thus, do not assume that strengthening a proposition or argument is easier than refuting a proposition or argument; many times, it is the more difficult of the two possible routes permissible for these critical analysis papers. You do not, for purposes of these analyses, have the choices of (a) simply elaborating on or explaining the author’s argument without either refuting or strengthening it, (b) writing the paper as a “book review” that simply shares in a non-argumentative way what you liked or did not like about it, (c) sharing simple opinions, preferences, beliefs, or gripes. Although such writing has its place, an MEMT 815 critical analysis paper is not that place. Once you have made the decision about what to refute or strengthen, extend the purpose statement: “The purpose of this analysis is to…… by (or because)…..” Some examples (made up) of the format (not necessarily the content of) purpose statements:

The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate that Daugherty's argument is unsound, because another logical conclusion could follow his stated premises. OR I will demonstrate that Daugherty's argument is unsound by offering another conclusion that could logically follow from his stated premises. I will argue that Rollings’ second premise, as presently stated, is untrue, but could be true if she explicitly added what is at present an unvoiced assumption, namely that….

Rollings' argument here could be strengthened considerably by adding the word “inherent” to his second premise. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate why such is the case 8. Thereafter, you will concentrate on your critical analyses of the chosen argument or proposition, i.e., making your case/your own argument. Some food for thought in this respect: Choose a “manageable” argument or proposition from the readings to address. Arguments and propositions come in all sizes and on all levels. There is, for example, the overall, grand argument of the book as a whole, the overall argument presented by each chapter, the overall argument presented by each section of a chapter, the argument potentially presented in one paragraph of a chapter, the argument potentially presented in one sentence, as well as any one proposition offered at any of these levels. Choose an argument or proposition from the assigned reading that you can zero in on and handle in the two pages allotted. Remember, (a) the smallest unit of argument is one premise and one conclusion (should you decide to tackle an argument), and (b) you have the choice of addressing only one proposition (either a premise or a conclusion) for your critical analysis. Refer to the information in #7 above on primary ways to refute or strengthen arguments or propositions therein. For an inductive argument, the same concerns apply, but are couched in terms of the “inductive force” or probability of the argument, rather than its soundness per se. You may also address the (sometimes implicit) epistemology (the “theory of knowledge”) of the author or his/her argument: How does the author know what s/he knows, or thinks s/he knows? In this respect, you may also wish to consider the author's stance with respect to the three ideational "gene pools" of symbolism, ethos, music as fine art. Traditional epistemology (ways of knowing) holds that knowledge = belief that is both (a) true and (b) justified. In other words, beliefs that are “accidentally” true do not constitute knowledge. To count as knowledge, beliefs must be arrived at in some reasoned manner that considers and tests the evidence. (N.B. There are various schools of thought on how precisely “truth” and “justification” relate, and some philosophers, e.g., Gettier, have taken issue with the whole traditional formulation. For our purposes now, however, such matters need not unduly concern us.) 9. Supply the best counter-argument possible to the argument you have made in the paper. For

example, if you took issue with a Small argument or proposition therein (a premise, the conclusion), how might Small best respond to your argument? Supply the best counter- argument possible and then succinctly address it/respond to it. Do not omit this step. It may be helpful to think of your paper as a court case. In preparing a case for trial, any attorney worth his or her salt will anticipate the strongest possible arguments of opposing counsel and seek to defeat/refute those opposing arguments. You do the same. Also, remember that the judge can rule on what constitutes admissible evidence, and will not allow simple hearsay, opinion, or rhetoric. Hint: Strongly conceived critical analysis papers often proceed thusly in the outlining/conception stage: (a) articulation of a purpose statement, (b) multiple revisions/refinements of that purpose statement, (c) consideration of the strongest possible counter-argument, and (d) revising the purpose statement as needed to take that counter-argument into account and refute it. Next, address succinctly the “So what?” question. Why does/should this particular argument matter? For the author. Or for you. Or for others. Or for real life music making, education, and/or therapy?. Ideas/concepts have consequences. What are the consequences of the particular propositions advanced in your paper? 10. Include an interesting conclusion (sentence or short paragraph) that summarizes what you have done and why it correlates to what you said you would do. Paper Outline Here is one possible outline you might follow (N.B. This outline is not the only one possible): Paragraph 1: Short, introductory sentence that grabs the reader’s attention, followed by a succinct, fair, accurate summary or a direct quotation of the argument or proposition therein you will be addressing. Paragraph 2. Begin with a thesis/purpose statement (you are either going to refute or strengthen the argument or proposition stated in the first paragraph), followed by a sentence or two that states or previews the argument you will present, i.e., precisely how you will go about your purpose. Succeeding Paragraphs. Depending on your purpose, supply in some logical order, each of the premises and the conclusion of your argument, supporting each with appropriate evidence and/or logic. Counter-Argument. In a paragraph or two, supply the best possible counter-argument to the argument you have just presented, and address the objections raised by that counter-argument, i.e. refute the counter-argument. N.B. Do not omit this step. So what? In a brief paragraph, address the “So what?” Question. Conclusion. In a well-constructed sentence or brief paragraph, summarize for the reader how you have done what you said you would do. Depending on your purpose and preferences, you may wish to make the “So what?” question a part of your conclusion, rather than addressing it

just prior to your conclusion. You get to decide. You may well want to diagram your proposed argument, either prior to writing your paper or following your first draft. You do not need to submit your diagram. Your analysis must be turned in/circulated on time. Email your analysis to the scheduled discussion leader no later than noon the day before the class meeting. Submit your final version as a .doc email attachment (not .docx) to Dr. Daugherty for grading no later than noon on the day the class meets. N.B. Exceptions: For the baseline analysis in conjunction with the Kivy book everyone brings xeroxed copies of their analyses to the class meeting. For the final critical analysis on a book of your choice, submit to Dr. Daugherty by email attachment by noon on the day the class meets. Then xerox sufficient copies of your final critical analysis for each member of the class, and bring to class to distribute. For MEMT 815, your first critical analysis paper (Kivy book) serves as an individual baseline. Everyone writes a critical analysis paper for this book. Your subsequent papers will be assessed against that baseline. In other words, your progress in critical analysis is measured by how much you improve from paper to paper, not according to how you compare with the achievement of the class as a whole. Grading: Critical analysis papers will be graded either EC (Expected Competency) or NY (Not Yet expected competency). If you earn a grade of EC on a paper, you have earned the maximum points possible for that paper (i.e., an A). The yardstick for earning an EC becomes more exacting with each succeeding paper. If you earn a grade of NY, you will have one opportunity to re-do and re-submit that particular paper, without penalty, to receive a grade of EC. In this competency-based schema, you basically have the choice of earning an A or earning an F on each paper. Because the first paper (Kivy book) serves as a baseline, just about the only way to earn an NY on that particular paper is not to write it according to the guidelines above; for example, you offer an opinion or point of view rather than an argument, or you choose to pursue a purpose that does not entail either refuting or strengthening an argument or proposition. These Kivy analyses will serve individually as a base line by which to measure future improvement, and collectively as a means for discussing what a critical analysis should look like. Everyone who completes this initial analysis per the directions given will be awarded the full point value for this particular analysis. Note the article in Kivy’s title, Introduction to a Philosophy of Music. Keep in mind that Kivy’s book simultaneously serves two purposes: (a) an introduction to doing philosophy of music generally, and (b) a statement of the particular philosophy Kivy articulates. Your written analysis should concentrate more on the latter.

IN CLASS BOOK PRESENTATION

Choose a book from the suggested bibliography. Or, consult with the instructor about another book pertaining to the philosophy of music or aesthetics that you would like to read. Prepare: 15- 20 minute oral presentation. May include powerpoint, show and tell,

whatever you wish to do. The purpose is to tease class interest in the book. You cannot cover everything in the short amount of time you have.

A handout for each member of the class and the instructor. Include on the

handout: your name, bibliographic citation of the book. Listing or synopsis of the major contents. Any background information on the author you wish to share. Whatever else you want to include, perhaps some things you were not able to discuss in the oral presentation. Give the reader some indication of what to find/expect in the book.

Your final two-page critical analysis (on this book). Bring enough copies to give to each member of the class. While the oral presentation may be general in

nature, this, your final critical analysis, should demonstrate your sharpest thinking and logical analysis skills.

COMPLETION OF READINGS This class runs smoothly when everyone has read and reflected upon the week's assigned book(s). The instructor reserves the right to give pop quizzes on a particular book if at any time it may seem that folks have not completed the reading assignments. DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP Your leadership of assigned class discussions will be evaluated according to the principles of effective teaching and learning in any context. Be prepared. Make sure everyone participates in the discussion. Pace and sequence well. If the group appears to go off on a tangent, make sure it gets back on task. Resist the temptation merely to lecture. Pose thought-provoking questions. Engage the class when appropriate in activities pertinent to the reading/ideas.

A BASIC BIBLIOGRAPHY: PHILOSOPHY OF MUSIC & MUSIC AESTHETICS

Adorno, Theodor. (1984). Aesthetic theory. Trans. C. Lenhardt. London: Routledge. ___________. (1973). Philosophy of modern music. Trans. A.G. Mitchell and W.V. Blomster. NY: Seabury Press. ___________. (1999). Sound figures. Trans. R. Livingstone. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Allan, Tuzyline Jita. (1995). Womanist and feminist aesthetics: A comparative review. Ohio Univ. Press. Alperson, Philip A., Ed. (1987). What is music? An introduction to the philosophy of music. NY: Haven Publications. Attali, Jacques. (1985). Noise: The political economy of music. Trans. B. Massumi. Minneapolis,: University of Minnesota Press. Augustine. On music. Trans. R. Taliaferro. In Writings of St. Augustine, ed. L. Schopp. NY: CIMA Publishing, 1947. Aristotle. On poetics. ________. Politics. Battersby, Christine. (1989). Gender and genius. Towards a feminist aesthetics. London: The Women's Press. Battin, M. P., Fisher, J., Moore, R., Silvers, A. (1989). Puzzles about art: An aesthetics casebook. NY: St Martin’s Press. Baumgarten, Alexander. (1735/1954). Reflections on poetry [Meditationes Philosophicae de Nonnullis ad Poema Pertinentibus]. K. Aschenburner and W.B. Hoelther, trans. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Beardsley, Monroe. (1966). Aesthetics from classical Greece to the present: A short history. Tusculoosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Bell, Clive. (1981). Art. NY: Chatto & Windus. Blacking, John. (1973). How musical is man? Seattle: University of Washington Press. Berleant, Arnold. (1991). Art and engagement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Berlin, Isaiah. (1965/2001). The roots of romanticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bicknell, Jeanette. (2010). Why music moves us. New York: Palgrave, McMillan. Bowman, Wayne. (1998). Philosophical perspectives on music. New York: Oxford University Press. Boethius. Fundamentals of music. (1989). Trans. C.M. Bower, Ed. C.V. Palisca. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Brand, Peg and Carolyn Korsmeyer, eds. (1995). Feminism and tradition in aesthetics. State College, PA: Pennsylvania University Press.

Brett, Philip, Elizabeth Wood, and Gary C. Thomas, eds. (2006). Queering the pitch: The new gay and lesbian musicology. Second edition. London: Routledge. Budd, Malcolm. (1985). Music and the emotions. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Burrows, David L. (1990). Sound, speech, and music. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Cage, John. (1961). Silence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carroll, Noel. (2001). Beyond aesthetics: Philosophical essays. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chua, D. K. (1999). Absolute music and the construction of meaning. NY: Cambridge University Press. Citron, Marcia J. (1993). Gender and the musical canon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Clayton, Martin, Trevor Herbert, and Richard Middleton, eds. (2003). The cultural study of music: A critical introduction. London: Routledge. Clifton, Thomas. (1983). Music as heard: A study in applied phenomenology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cook, Nicholas. (1998). Music: A very short introduction. London: Oxford University Press. ___________. (1990). Music, imagination, and culture. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Cook, Nicholas and Everest, Mark (eds).(1999). Rethinking music. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cook, Susan C. and Tsou , Judy S. (1994). Ceclia reclaimed: Feminist perspectives on gender and music. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Cooke, Deryck. (1959). The language of music. London: Oxford University Press. Coken, Wilson. (1972). Music and meaning: A theoretical introduction to musical aesthetics. NY: Free Press. Collingwood, R.G. (1938). The principles of art. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Cumming, Naomi. (2000). The sonic self: Musical subjectivity and signification. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Dahlhaus, Karl. (1982). Esthetics of music. Trans W. W. Austin. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

____________.(1991). The idea of absolute music. Trans. R. Lustig. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Damasio, Antonio. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Books. Danto, Arthur C. (2003). The abuse of beauty: Aesthetics and the concept of art. Chicago: Open Court. _____________.(1986). The philosophical disenfranchisement of art. New York: Columbia University Press. _____________. (1981). The transfiguration of the commonplace: A philosophy of art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Davies, Stephen (2005). Themes in the philosophy of music. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Davies, Stephen. (1994). Musical meaning and expression. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Dewey, John. (1934). Art as experience. NY: G.P. Putnam. Dickie, George. (1974). Art and the aesthetic: An institutional analysis. Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press. Dufrenne, Mikel. (1973). The phenomenology of aesthetic experience. Trans. Edward Casey, et al. Evantson, IL: Northwestern University Press. Eagleton, Terry. (1990). The ideology of the aesthetic. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Elliott, David. (1995). Music matters. New York: Oxford University Press. Epperson, Gordon. (1967). The musical symbol: A study of the philosophic theory of music. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Feagin, Susan and Patrick Maynard, Eds. (1997). Aesthetics. New York: Oxford University Press. Ferrara, Lawrence. (1991). Philosophy and the analysis of music: Bridges to musical sound, form, and reference. New York: Greenwood Press. Fiske, Harold E. (1990). Music and mind: Philosophical essays on the cognition and meaning of music. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Press. _____________. (1993). Music cognition and aesthetic attitudes. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Press. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1986). The relevance of the beautiful and other essays. Ed. Robert Bernasconi. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Godlovitch, Stan. (1998). Musical performance: A philosophical study. London: Routledge. Godwin, Jocelyn. (1987). Harmonies of heaven and earth: The spiritual dimensions of music. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International. Goehr, Lydia. (2007). The imaginary museum of musical works: An essay in the��� philosophy of music. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press.��� Goodman, Nelson.. (1976). Languages of art: An approach to the theory of symbols. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing. Green, Lucy. (1988). Music on deaf ears: Musical meaning, ideology, education. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. ___________. (1997). Music, gender, education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Greene, Maxine. (2001). Variations on a blue guitar: The Lincoln Center Institute lectures on aesthetic education. NY: Teacher's College Press. Gurney, Edmund. (1966). The power of sound. New York: Basic Books. Hamilton, Andy. (2007). Aesthetics and music. London: Continuum International

Publishing Group. Hammermeister, Kai. (2002). The German aesthetic tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hanslick, Eduard (1986). On the musically beautiful: A contribution towards the revision of the aesthetics of music. Trans. and ed. G. Payzant. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing. ______________. (1957). The beautiful in music. Trans. G. Cohen. Ed. M. Weitz. NY: Liberal Arts Press. Hastings, Thomas. (1822/1974). Dissertation on musical taste. New York: Da Capo. Hegel, George W. F. (1820-26/1886). The Introduction to Hegel¹s Philosophy of Fine Art.��� T rans. B. Bosanquet. London, UK: Tregan Paul, Trench, Trueber and Company.��� Hegel, George W.F. (1835/1975). Aesthetics. Lectures on Fine Art, trans. T.M. Knox, 2 vols. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Herwitz, Daniel. (2008). Aesthetics: Key concepts in philosophy. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Hess, Jonathan. (1999). Reconstituting the body politic: Enlightenment, public culture and the invention of aesthetic autonomy. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Higgins, Kathleen. (1991). The music of our lives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Higgins, Kathleen M. (2012). The music between us: Is music a universal language? Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hume, David. (1742/2008). Selected essays. Stephen Copley and Andrew Edgar, eds. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. ___________. (1739/2002). A treatise of human nature. David and Mary Norton, eds. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hutcheson, Francis. (1725/1973). Inquiry concerning beauty, order, harmony, design . Ed. Peter Kivy. The Hague: Martinua Nijhoff. Ihde. don. (1976). Listening and voice: A phenomenology of sound. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Ingarden, Roman. (1986). The work of music and the problem of its identity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jackson, Philip W. (1998). John Dewey and the lessons of art. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. James, Jamie. (1993). The music of the spheres: Music, science, and the natural order. New York: Springer-Verlag. Johnson, Julian. (2002). Who needs classical music? Cultural choice and musical values. New York: Oxford University Press. Jorgensen, Estelle R. (1997). In search of music education. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Jourdain, Robert. (1997). Music, the brain, and ecstasy: How music captures our imagination. New York: William Morrow. Kahn, Hazrat Inayat. (1996). The mysticism of sound and music. Rev. ed. Berkeley, CA: Shambhala Publications. Kant, Immanuel. (1952). The critique of judgment. Trans. J. C. Meredith. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. _____________. Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and sublime. Trans. J.T. Goldthwait. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1960. Kelly, Michael (2003). Iconoclasm in aesthetics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kerman, Joseph. (1985). Contemplating music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kivy, Peter. Introduction to a Philosophy of Music. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002.

_________.(1980). The corded shell: Reflections on musical expression. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. _________. (1984). Sound and semblance: Reflections on musical representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. _________. (1990). Music alone: reflections on the purely musical experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kramer, Lawrence. (1990). Music as cultural practice, 1800-1900. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kramer, Lawrence. (2010). Interpreting music. University of California Press. Krims, A. Ed. (1998). Music/ideology: Resisting the aesthetic. Amsterdam: Overseas Publishers Association. Langer, Susanne. (1942). Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. _____________. (1953). Feeling and form. _____________. (1957). Problems of art. Leppert, R. and McClary, Susan. (1987) Music and society: The politics of composition, performance, and reception. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Jerrold. (1990). Music, art, and metaphysics: Essays in philosophical aesthetics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Levinson, Jerrold. Ed. (1998). Aesthetics and ethics: Essays at the intersection. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Levitin, Daniel. J. (2008). The world in six songs: How the musical brain created��� human nature. NY: Dutton. Levitin, Daniel. J. (2006). This is your brain on music. NY: Dutton, 2006. Lippman, Edward. (1999). The philosophy and aesthetics of music. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. ______________. (1992). A history of western musical aesthetics. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. _______________. (1964). Musical thought in ancient Greece. NY: Columbia University Press. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. (2001). Soundproof room: Malraux's anti-aesthetics.

McClary, Susan. (1991). Feminine endings: Music, gender, and sexuality. Minneapolis,: University of Minnesota Press. McClary, Susan. (2000). Conventional wisdom: The content of musical form. Berkely, CA: University of California Press. Maconie, Robin. (1990). The concept of music. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Marcus, Gary. (2012). Guitar zero! The science of becoming musical at any age. New York: Penguin Books Martin, Peter J. (1999). Sounds and society: Themes in the sociology of music. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. (1964). The primacy of perception and other essays on phenomenological psychology, the Philosophy of Art, History, and Politics. Ed. J.M. Edie. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Meyer, Leonard B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. _______________. (1973). Explaining music: Essays and explorations. berkeley, CA; University of California Press. ______________. (1989). Style and music: Theory, history, and ideology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mithen, Steven. (2007). The singing Neanderthals: The origins of music, language, mind, and body. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Murdoch Iris. (1977). The fire and the sun: Why Plato banished the artists. Oxford, UK; Oxford University Press. Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. (1990). Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Nussbaum, Martha C. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. NY: Cambridge University Press. Phelan, Peggy. (1993). Unmarked: The politics of performance. London: Routledge. Plato. The Republic. Laws. Protagoras. Pinker, Steven. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking Press. Portnoy, Julius (1980). The philosopher and music. NY: Da Capo Press. Raffman, Diana. (1993). Language, music, and mind. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.

Reimer, Bennett (2003). Advancing the vision: A philosophy of music education. Third edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Reimer, Bennett and Jeffrey E. Wright, eds. (1992). On the nature of musical experience. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. Ridley, Aaron. (2004). The philosophy of music: Theme and variations. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. ___________. (1995). Music, value, and the passions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univeristy Press. Robinson, Jenefer, ed. (1997). Music and meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sacks, Oliver. (2008). Musicophilia: Tales of music and the brain. NY: Vintage Books. Savile, Anthony. (1985). The test of time: An essay in philosophical aesthetics. Oxford, UK” Oxford University Press. Schafer, R. Murray. (1977). The tuning of the world. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Schiller, Friedrich. On the aesthetic education of man. Ed. and Trans. E. M. Wilkinson and L.A. Willoughby. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Schopenhauer, Arthur. The world as will and representation. Trans. E.F.J. Payne. 2 vols. Indian Hills, CO, 1958. Scruton, Roger. (1999). The aesthetics of music. New York: Oxford University Press. Serafine, Mary L. (1988). Music as cognition: The development of thought in sound. NY: Columbia University Press. Shepherd, John. (1991). Music as social text. Cambridge: Polity Press. Small, Christopher. (1999). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. ____________. (1977). Music-education-society. NY: Schirmer. Sparshott, Francis E. (1982). The theory of the arts. Princeton, MJ: Princeton University Press. Townsend, Dabney. (1997). An introduction to aesthetics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Van den Toorn, Peter. (1995). Music, politics, and the academy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Wallin, Nils L., Bjorn Merker, and Steven Brown, eds. (2001). The orgins of music. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

Walton, Kendall. (2004). Mimesis and make believe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warren, Jeff. (2014). Music and ethical responsibility. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Weber, Max. The rational and social foundations of music. Trans. D. Martindale, et al. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press 1956. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. (1980). Works and worlds of art. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. ___________________. (1980). Art in action: Toward a Christian Aesthetic. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Other Recommended Books

Introduction to Philosophy in general (accessible/substantive): Popkin, Richard H., and Stroll, Avrum. (1993). Philosophy made simple. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Doubleday. Blackburn, Simon. (1999). Think: A compelling introduction to philosophy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Less substantive, but very enjoyable/accessible introductions to doing philosophy: Cathcart, Thomas and Daniel Klein. (2007). Plato and a platypus walk into a bar: Understanding philosophy through jokes. New York: Abrams. Cathcart, Thomas and Daniel Klein. (2008). Aristotle and an aardvark go to Washington: Understanding political doublespeak through philosophy and jokes. New York: Abrams. Critical Thinking/Informal Logic: Bowell, Tracy, and Kemp, Gary. (2002). Critical thinking: A concise guide. London: Routledge. Baggini, Julian and Fosl, Peter. (2010). The philosopher’s toolkit: A compendium of philosophical concepts and methods. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Shand, John. (2000). Arguing well. London: Routledge. Engel, S. Morris. (1986). With good reason: An introduction to informal fallacies. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

MEMT 815: TENTATIVE COURSE CALENDAR Spring 2015

JANUARY 21 Orientation Introduction to Doing Philosophy & Major Frameworks Introduction to Informal Logic Introduction to Formulating and Writing Critical Analyses Playing Detective Budgeting Your Time Selection of dates for serving as discussion leader/critical analysis repondent(s). 28 Kivy: Introduction to a Philosophy of Music

Everyone writes a 2 page critical analysis (baseline) and brings it to class this week. See guidelines. Xerox sufficient copies for everyone in the class.

Discussion leader: JD

____________________________________________________________________ FEBRUARY 4 Battin, et. al.: Puzzles About Art: An Aesthetics Casebook Everyone brings to class two questions (written) for each chapter in the book.

Xerox sufficient copies for everyone in the class.

Discussion leader: __________ 11 Kahn: Music and mysticism /distribute Kant handout

Discussion leader: _____________

*Written critical analysis: _________, ____________ 18 Kant: Critique of Judgment

Everyone brings to class a list of his/her “Top Ten Questions” (written) about the book. Include specific section/page numbers or brief quotations to indicate particular part(s) of the book that give rise to a particular question. Questions should be distributed to afford indication that you have read/engaged with the entire book. Xerox sufficient copies for everyone in the class.

Discussion leader: JD

25 Hegel: Philosophy of Fine Art

Everyone brings to class a list of his/her “Top Ten Questions” (written) about the book. Include specific section/page numbers or brief quotations to indicate particular part(s) of the book that give rise to a particular question. Questions should be distributed to afford indication that you have read/engaged with the entire book. Xerox sufficient copies for everyone in the class.

Discussion leader: ____________

____________________________________________________________________ MARCH 4 Hanslick: On the Musically Beautiful

Discussion leader: ___________ *Written critical analysis: _______, _________

11 NO CLASS. READING WEEK 18 NO CLASS. SPRING BREAK 25 Goehr: Imaginary Museum of Musical Works

Discussion leader: ___________ *Written critical analysis: _______, _________

____________________________________________________________________

APRIL 1 Dewey: Art as Experience

Discussion leader: ____________ *Written critical analysis:_________. ___________ Due: Selection of book for final class presentation. 8 Ridley: The Philosophy of Music

Discussion leader: ______________ *Written critical analysis: ________. __________

15 Small: Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening

Discussion leader: _____________ *Written critical analysis:_________, __________

22 Warren: Music and Ethical Responsibility

Discussion leader: ___________ *Written critical analysis:________, ___________ 29: In Class Presentation and Final Critical Analysis of your chosen book Due Presenting: __________, ____________ __________________________________________________________________ MAY 6 In Class Presentation and Final Critical Analysis of your chosen book Due

Presenting: _________, ________.

Wrap-Up. Course Evaluations. We’re done!

8 Stop Day. *When you are scheduled as a respondent, i.e., to write a two-page critical analysis, email your paper as a .doc attachment to the discussion leader no later than noon on

the day before the scheduled discussion. You may add whatever revisions, editorial changes, etc. to your paper before turning it in to the instructor by noon on the day of the class meeting. Email submission does not apply to the initial Kivy (baseline) analysis.