What is meant exactly by the description 'more musical'?

+1 @mapman

I have resisted the term, because whatever someone prefers in the character of their system is going to be the one which draws them into the music, no?

If that’s true -- and I cannot see how that can be disputed -- then every system which someone likes is "musical."

What if someone’s ear does not care about the kind of distortion @atmasphere identifies with musicality? Would we say their use of the term "musical" is incorrect? This would be tantamount to saying that "good food is spicy food" and then for anyone who demurs, they like "not-good" food. Would we say that some people like "not-musical" amplifiers?

That said, I do see that some here are trying to help associate the word "musical" with its most frequently used associations -- lexicography, if you will. It's "rhythm and pace" or "2nd and 3rd order harmonics," etc. Maybe that's useful. I'd still expect a lot of people to just use the word to mean other things, and not really be incorrect in their usage. This makes the word of suspect usefulness.

@atmasphere

No, what I described is based on rules of human perception, which encompasses all people....What you are describing is ’taste’.

I thought when people used the term "musical" it was to make a value judgment about the sound being produced by the amplifier (and speakers), not state a fact which would apply to all perception.

Here’s how I see it.

Some people eat hot peppers and call them spicy. Others say they’re mild. Does chemistry tell us who’s right? Hardly.

Peppers do have a chemical component, Capsicum, that causes them to interact with taste buds and then the brain.

But what can one claim as "objectively true" about this sequence? Some people need only a small amount of capiscum to cause them to call the food "spicy." Others need a lot. Who is right here? The chemical explanation cannot sort it out, because perception always comes to us as interpreted, never raw.

The same situation exists, pari passu, to "musicality." Some people’s taste will hear certain harmonics as pleasing; some not. It depends on taste, preference, circumstance, habituation. No way to disentangle it.

Clearly, you and others have discovered there is a widespread predilection for 2nd and 3rd order harmonics, and there is a predilection for sugar, fat, and salt, too. But all of those preferences could be changed by changes in taste -- and the underlying physics would have no impact at all.

@atmasphere

First, I’d like to say that it’s a privilege to exchange ideas with you. I admire your work, your intellect, and your ability to express ideas clearly.

We are at an impasse which is well known in philosophy -- it is a 2000 year impasse, at least.

Perception is both a process of registration by the brain and interpretation by the mind. Kant argued that nothing is perceived "as it is in reality" because in order to make sense of reality, it must first be taken in and conditioned by our understanding. Even the measurements you’re speaking about are done with human instruments, using human metrics, with patterns which humans notice. Everything measured is also an interpretation. Even what seems solid -- invariant readings, for example -- are only invariant due to human interpretation. Change the scale of the reading, and it becomes invariant, again.

So, it’s all interpretation -- whether one talks in terms of numbers and machine readings, or in terms of more literary sounding descriptions (i.e., "taste").

What engineers and scientists object to about the more "subjective" instances of taste -- which you single out as my "false conclusion" -- is how wildly variable taste is compared to measurements in a lab (whether that’s a neuroscientist’s lab or an audio engineer’s lab). I think that’s a fair judgment, but not for the deep metaphysical reason you’re claiming (namely, one between the "reality" of measurement and the "subjectivity" of taste).

I would agree with you (and science) on this, only: that "taste" outside of the lab is often too wild, too unregulated in procedure, too unstable in judgment to be reliable. That’s fair. Where I disagree is that the scientist/engineer somehow can "anchor" laws of perception in reality in a way that is capable of correcting interpretative judgment. If someone hears a 2nd order harmonic as unpleasant, would they be wrong? No, what we’d say is that some people are not "wired" to enjoy the 2nd harmonic -- just as some people are "wired" to dislike even mildly spicy food.

But I put the word "wired" in quotes because it’s really a misleading (because physicalist) word. It’s not really wiring at all. Rather, there is a complete system of human physiology, habituated expectation, and linguistic training at work, here. These include what seems to be only the "last" node, the listener (or eater). What some scientists get wrong is that the listener doesn’t just receive a stimulus (a 2nd order harmonic) and then have a response (pleasure); rather, every listener approaches a stimulus with previous experiences that condition how the stimulus is received. There is a circuit at work which includes the context, past and present, of the listener. That includes their wants, needs, desires, expectations at the level of meaning and interpretation.

Is there a correlation between 2nd harmonics and the way we measure the brain? Sure. Just as there is between the chemical composition of sugar and the taste buds -- and the sections of the brain which register "sweetness." But preference for sweetness also requires habituation in conduct; one can habituate to dislike sweetness and other "natural" preferences. Often, how one is raised plays a role, here. (Cf. Bordieu on habitus.) The brain is a plastic instrument.

I don’t expect we can settle this on a forum. Libraries are required to address these kinds of debates. Just engaging with you about it -- even though we differ -- is enormously pleasurable to me. But that’s because I’m habituated this way. ;-)

Cheers and thanks for the conversation.

@brianlucey  is right to say,

"Musical is a qualitative term not a quantitative measure."

This is right. I'd only add that the presence of quality in our experience can be causally linked to our environment. In this respect, the quantitative measurements of science can help predict when we will experience a quality. (See the example about a 'red' stoplight, below.) But they fall short of fully explaining why we arrive at our qualitative judgments because those involve our qualitative preferences and goals. 

@atmasphere

Thank you for your reply. It’s excellent pushback on what I wrote. You have made me more uncertain about my position and I need to think about it a bit more. Thank you for taking the time to unsettle me.

I’ve become uncertain about what question is at stake, now. Your last post said, "Taste is entirely different. No accounting for it."

I thought that’s what we were debating -- whether the word "musical" (a "taste"" word) is one which scientific measurements can determine.

Let me recap where I think we’ve wound up.

• The question, I thought was, "What makes a piece of audio equipment sound ’musical’"?
• I thought your answer was something like, "We know what does this. It’s XYZ physical laws plus ABC physiological facts."
• I replied that scientific answers can only partially explain what "musical" means other factors can enter into what "musical" means.
• These would include cultural factors -- personal taste, previous experience, and social context -- to name just a few.
• [N.B. I didn’t say science couldn’t help. Nor did I say that everything was interpretation, or "whim" (your word). Some things are settled by scientific conclusions, but not enough to establish what "musical" means.]

So far so good?

You are now replying that if I lose my keys in my house, my perception won’t change that fact. Or that I must stop when the traffic light is "red."

Such examples betray a tactic. They would substitute simple and obvious cases for complex and fuzzy ones. "Where are my keys?" is a categorically different problem than "What makes an audio component(s) ’musical’?" Why? because the keys question is straightforward -- because it has well-understood parameters. The nature of the question and answer are bounded by well-established conventions, past practices, and simple goals. There is not a wide range of meanings for what it means to "find keys." What it means to "find love" is much more in doubt; what it means for a system to be musical is also fuzzier. Those examples are not straightforward; their conventions, past practices, and goals are not settled. Nor can science settle them.

So, your keys example works for your argument by implying that that fuzzy cases -- like what "musical" means -- is the same as easy cases. Not really a fair example. You might as well say that the rules of soccer are as simple and clear as the rules of chess. The rules of chess are stipulated and determinative in a way that the rules of soccer cannot be. The word "musical" is more fuzzy, by nature; more like a "game". Not all words are bounded by rules, though. In some cases the meaning of a term is only partially captured by scientific language -- then it must open out to the various forms of life in which it becomes meaningful.

My previous reply tried to offer some common ground to your position. You did not give me credit for it. I said,

I would agree with you (and science) on this, only: that "taste" outside of the lab is often too wild, too unregulated in procedure, too unstable in judgment to be reliable. That’s fair. Where I disagree is that the scientist/engineer somehow can "anchor" laws of perception in reality in a way that is capable of correcting interpretative judgment. If someone hears a 2nd order harmonic as unpleasant, would they be wrong? No, what we’d say is that some people are not "wired" to enjoy the 2nd harmonic -- just as some people are "wired" to dislike even mildly spicy food.

But I put the word "wired" in quotes because it’s really a misleading (because physicalist) word. It’s not really wiring at all. Rather, there is a complete system of human physiology, habituated expectation, and linguistic training at work, here. These include what seems to be only the "last" node, the listener (or eater). What some scientists get wrong is that the listener doesn’t just receive a stimulus (a 2nd order harmonic) and then have a response (pleasure); rather, every listener approaches a stimulus with previous experiences that condition how the stimulus is received. There is a circuit at work which includes the context, past and present, of the listener. That includes their wants, needs, desires, expectations at the level of meaning and interpretation.

Is there a correlation between 2nd harmonics and the way we measure the brain? Sure. Just as there is between the chemical composition of sugar and the taste buds -- and the sections of the brain which register "sweetness." But preference for sweetness also requires habituation in conduct; one can habituate to dislike sweetness and other "natural" preferences. Often, how one is raised plays a role, here. (Cf. Bourdieu on habitus.) The brain is a plastic instrument.

To repeat what I said at the top, here -- we may be missing each other because we are not really clear about the issue we’re debating. I may be the one who has blurred things. If so, I apologize.

@atmasphere 

 "as long as tonality is not induced by distortion, in particular the higher frequencies, then the amp or whatever will be deemed musical."

That helps. Thank you for trying again to help get your point across. 

Let me schematize it.

You are saying:

(a) physical qualities --causes--> (b) physiological responses --influences--> amplifier design --causes the reaction--> deemed "musical"

The outcome -- what is deemed "musical" -- is influenced in part by distortion, and that human reactions (to distortion) follow universal laws of human perception.

That's why an amp maker who pays attention to these laws (physical and perceptual) is guided in making an amp that sounds pleasing. Or, more cautiously, knows what to avoid in their design which would make the amp sound not-pleasing.

(All this sounds simple yet we have many amplifier makers. I suppose most have gotten the "bad" distortion out of their designs, though.)

I hope I have understood you correctly.

Wittgenstein is well know for his "duck-rabbit" example. (It's meant to point out that objects do not simply appear to our senses, but are "seen as" something. All seeing is seeing-as.)
In this example, the laws of physics and perception (by sight) are well known.
And yet some people see the figure below as a duck and others as a rabbit.
There is no physical or psychological law which can determine the outcome, because the outcome emerges at a stage of experience where causes (physical, physiological) become reasons (logical, semantic). That is where the "spade turns" and one can dig no further.

If I understood how "deemed musical" in your explanation differed from "deemed rabbit (or duck)" I would be more comfortable seeing the philosophical problem go away. At the moment, I see a correlation between distortion and musicality but I don't see that it is necessitated. All manufacturers really need to do is some people some of the time, so they don't need more than a correlation to design amps and make a good living.

I appreciate your reply, though I believe we are going in circles. However, I'll think about your answer some more. Thank you.

I am with @decooney 

"musical" for me is when a system or live performance is engaging, non-fatiguing, and very pleasant to listen to.  You'll know when it draws you in for more. 

For me, the key to his definition is the inclusion of "non-fatiguing, " which is conjoined, necessarily, with the other qualities on his list.