I think Grosz’s main problem in this chapter is that she is trying to usethe single, generic term “music” to refer to performance (courtship),composition (birdsong, whalesong), and the act of listening (physicalresponse to frequencies & patterns.) And by classifying these all as “music”she seems to treat them all much too similarly. There’s never anydistinction/comparison made between the visceral or emotional responses ofthe performer vs. the audience – it all feels very generic. And I think whenyou’re exploring performative acts, this must be taken into consideration (Ifeel that most of her ideas do eventually land back on musical performanceas opposed to composition.)
So, if she’s really talking about performance, then why did she choosemusic? What about dance? Or theater? If we liken music back to courtship,how can we neglect the choreographed dances that certain species of birdsalso do? Or the theatricality of certain plumages (probably not as strong.)Is it because we physically respond to patterns of sound waves and certainfrequencies, but do not physically respond to patterns and frequencies oflight? I think Op Art and other phenomena show that we do physically respondto visual inputs, but I’m not sure how frequently they occur in “nature” orhow readily apparent they are. (Also, from personal experience, most“visceral” responses from visual stimuli are negative rather than euphoric.)
Still, I think the important fact is that this point should not have beenleft unexplored. Especially when making a link back to courtship,sensuality, and sex – how can you leave out dance? To me, the lack ofself-analysis of the following sentence captures the essence of the manyproblematic holes in the text: “Of all of the arts, music is the mostimmediately moving, the most visceral and contagious in its effects, theform that requires the least formal or musical education or backgroundknowledge for appreciation.” (Grosz, 29)
This reading is very frustrating. Maybe I’m missing something by not painingmyself to read far enough between the lines, I can’t find any “substance”here. I see a “big picture” idea when taking all of the readings together,but I feel like they haven’t presented anything of particular significance;nothing has influenced my way of thinking or seeing. It’s like I’m stuck ata formal cocktail party in an uncomfortable suit and tie listening to mygirlfriend have an in-depth conversation about a topic which I totallyrespect her for being passionate about, but which can’t hold my interest formore than a minute.