Initially, when we look at music and all the debate that is created around it, we can see the ambiguity of the signs and meanings assumed and considered by different people who set out to build a critique of music. Talking about music and its qualities and ambiguities is like advocating a victimless crime case. Different outcomes, conclusions and theses are possible depending on each person's personal opinion. However, this is what it appears to be on the surface.

The debate about music must go far beyond a discussion about a quality that apparently "hangs over society". There is no way to reach a conclusion that doesn't make the mistake of "eternalising what has a beginning, middle and end". Observing music with assumptions that mystify the historical character of music reduces the debate to its aesthetic surface. Different melodies, performances, techniques, etc. lose their historical character and are transmuted into eternal things, as if they were an intrinsic part of an immutable human nature.

What history shows us is that music is, because it is a social category par excellence, a historical category whose form is always developing as the production chains and organisational form of human society develop. History shows us that art - especially music - has undergone transmutations from the passage from the ape to primitive man right up to the present day. And even within contemporary society, art and music continue to undergo transmutations as society itself develops. The various industrial revolutions during society's capitalist period exemplify how the development of production chains directly and indirectly interferes with the way we produce art. Whether it's through the development of our ideologies that change the way we organise ourselves around work and life, or the synthesis of new technologies that allow for the creation of new tools that encompass new creative possibilities. In any case, art never remains stagnant.

This perspective that "eternalises" the social category of art consequently reduces it to an object of conformation. It turns the dialectic that art represents as an object for resolving real contradictions into an empty form that only mimics what it is concerned with. This type of "eternalised" art becomes an "anti-art", an "anti-being", and the remnant of "life" that remains in its carcass is aesthetics - the affirmative character of art has become omnipresent and the playful form of a piece of the human spirit that once represented it has been reduced to a provocative and ironic grimace. What once rejoiced in modifying existing consciousness seems to exist only to reiterate it. No art form escapes this reduction, even if these different art forms go through different production processes. In the end, this "mystification" of art reduces the provocative tone of art into an encouragement of the status quo - even if the work and its author have critical intentions, this mystification betrays the content, leaving only the necessary poetic subjectivity that satisfies the individual will.

We shouldn't mystify art.