Musical Works’ Repeatability, Audibility and Variability: A Dispositional Account

  • Nemesio García-Carril Puy Filolab – Department of Philosophy I, University of Granada
Keywords: ontology of music, musical works, musical performances, repeatability, audibility, variability, dispositions, musical medium, common ground, contextualism


This paper is devoted to face recent views in the ontology of music that reject that musical works are repeatable in musical performances. It will be observed that musical works’ repeatability implies that they are audible and variable in their performances. To this extent, the aim here is to show that repeatability, audibility and variability are ontologically substantive features of musical works’ nature. The thesis that will be defended is that repeatability, audibility and variability are dispositional non-aesthetic properties of musical works. The plausibility of the dispositional account of musical works’ repeatability, audibility and variability will lead us to the conclusion that they are ontologically substantive features of musical works’ nature, and consequently, any suitable explanation of the ontology of musical works must not ignore them.


Armstrong, David M. (2010), Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics, New York: Oxford University Press.
–. (1997), A World of States of Affairs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bartel, Christopher (2017), “The Ontology of Musical Works and the Role of Intuitions: An Experimental Study”, European Journal of Philosophy 21: 348–367.
Bertinetto, Alessandro (2016), Eseguire l’inatteso: Ontologia della musica e improvvisazione, Roma: Il Glifo.
Budd, Malcolm (2007), “The Intersubjective Validity of Aesthetic Judgments”, British Journal of Aesthetics 47: 333–371.
Choi, Sungho and Michael Fara (2016), “Dispositions”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), (internet) avalible at: .
Cohen, Jonathan (2002), “On an Alleged Non-Equivalence between Dispositions and Disjunctive Properties”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53: 77–81.
Davies, David (2013), “Categories of Art”, in Berys Gaut and Dominic Lopes (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, New York: Routledge, pp. 224–234.
–. (2012), “Enigmatic Variations”, The Monist 95: 644–663.
–. (2011), “Medium”, in Theodor Gracyk and Andrew Kania (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Music, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 48–58.
–. (2009), “Works and Performances in the Performing Arts”, Philosophy Compass 4: 744–755.
Davies, Stephen (2003), Themes in the Philosophy of Music, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–. (2001), Works and Performances: A Philosophical Exploration, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dodd, Julian (2007), Works of Music: An Essay in Ontology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goehr, Lydia (2007), The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodman, Nelson (1968), Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, Indianapolis: The Hobbs-Merrill Company.
Hazlett, Allan (2012), “Againts Repatable Artworks”, in Christy Mag Uidhir (ed.), Art and Abstract Object, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 161–178.
Howell, Robert (2002), “Types, Indicated and Initiated”, British Journal of Aesthetics 42: 105–127.
Hume, David (1748), Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, London: A. Millar.
Kivy, Peter (1983/1993), “Platonism: A Kind of Defense”, in Peter Kivy (ed.), The Fine Art of Repetition: Essays in the Philosophy of Music, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–58
Levinson, Jerrold (2011), Music, Art and Metaphysics: Essays in philosophical Aesthetics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–. (1980), “What a Musical Work Is”, Journal of Philosophy, 77: 5–28.
Matravers, Derek (1996), “Aesthetic Concepts and Aesthetic Experiences”, British Journal of Aesthetics 36: 265–277.
Mellor, Hugh (2012), Mind, Meaning and Reality. Essays in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–. (1974), “In Defense of Dispositions”, Philosophical Review 83: 157–181.
Molnar, George (2003), Powers: A Study in Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mumford, Stephen (2009), “Laws and Dispositions”, in Robin Le Poidevin et al. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 417–479
Rohrbaugh, Guy (2003), “Artworks as historical individuals”, European Journal of Philosophy 11: 177–205.
Sibley, Frank (1965), “Aesthetic and Nonaesthetic”, The Philosophical Review 68: 421–450.
–. (1959), “Aesthetics Concepts”. The Philosophical Review 74: 135–159.
Sibley, Frank (1965), “Aesthetic and Nonaesthetic”, The Philosophical Review 68: 421–450.
Stalnaker, Robert (2014), Context, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wollheim, Richard (1980), Art and Its Objects, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas (1980), Works and Worlds of Art, Oxford: Oxford University Press.