Abstract

Recently, musical ontologists cared about what types of objects are artworks in a specific music form. Andrew Kania believed that those work type debates initiated a sort of Copernican revolution in his experience of music, but Lee B. Brown and James O. Young both claimed that Kania was wrong: those are useless for our appreciative practice, and at best are useful just for philosophy itself. In this article, I respond to their criticism and defend the practical value of the debates. I argue that the debates may have us shift our attention between different types of art objects, and result in an entirely different experience of appreciation.