The reason why the debate on the auto-discipline and heterodiscipline of music has not yet achieved a unanimous consensus is that each school simplifies the complex and diverse issues and engages in binary opposition. Various theoretical faction systems more or less only hold some reasonable components, but lack a grasp of the whole. The phenomenon of music is a complex thing that blends subject and object, is multi-layered and multi-faceted. Of course, the blind man’s demonstration method cannot achieve ultimate understanding. For example, our understanding of the essence of things is limited, and we believe that there can only be one essence of things.

In fact, the essence can also be subject-objective (either subjective or objective), multi-level, and multi-faceted. It is not necessarily the only one. It all depends on how you look at the problem. position, focus, direction and angle. As far as music is concerned, it has at least two essences: material essence and spiritual essence.

For these reasons, often debates about the nature of music are actually meaningless. Another example is the issue of musical autonomy and heteronomy, which should also be looked at at different levels. Some scholars say that music contains social attributes, that is, it is the aesthetic object of the aesthetic subject and is imprinted with people. It is humanized and socialized, so of course such music is heteronomous or heteronomous.

Furthermore, from the perspective of the universal connection of things, everything in the world, without exception, has factors or aspects that are similar to other things. Therefore, in this regard, music is of course heteronomous. sexual. What other people call music is music with only natural attributes that excludes its social attributes. They are talking about objectively existing sound entities and things in the purely material category. Such music is of course autonomous. , that is, it has only form but no content.