The Contour Theory as expressed by Kivy is extremely reasonable. From my perspective, it is very sensible and his comparisons which back up the validity of his theory are strong enough to be easily construed to an individual having little prior knowledge to the topic. Kivy argues that a musical piece possess and portrays specific emotions by means of being comparable to the observable characteristics of individuals who are in the state of the specific emotion. For example, Kivy compares the qualities of a sad piece of music to an individual who self-reports him/her self as being sad. The sad musical piece has a slow dragging tempo, while a sad person may walk or speak slowly. Sad music is usually quiet, while individuals who are sad tend to speak quietly. On the contrary, cheery music tends to be fast and loud just as cheery individuals tend to be fast, active, and loud. While the theory is not flawless as Kivy himself chooses to indulge in, his criticisms are subjective and could easily be argued as unimportant to the overall theory. His notion of there being “no better explanation” is not a solid argument as to why skeptics should put faith into his theory, but rather the many examples of when his theory does hold true give the theory a grounded basis for arguments from both those who support and those who criticize his theory. How would Kivy justify music’s ability to possess more complex emotions which are not always clearly observable, or at least vary in their overt characteristics (i.e. jealousy)?
No comments:
Post a Comment