How Music Works

Is the essence of Music Sound and Motiuon - Hanslick?

The way in which music affects the human organism is complex. Attempts to explain the relationship between the organized sound which we call music and our responses to it fall into two broad classes, heteronomist theories and autonomist theories, although the boundaries between the two may be by no means watertight. That music causes a response in humans is undeniable, but does it do so by some form of direct appeal to our inner selves, our emotional sides, as the proponents of heteronomist theories argue, or, does it do so, as the autonomist argues, by virtue of some intrinsic property that it has within itself that is peculiar to music? Music cannot convey meaning or express emotion in the way that language conveys meaning or expresses emotion.

Language employs signs which, to use Saussure's terms, are arbitrary and differential, but signs which nevertheless enable us to identify their referent. Music, like language, consists of organized sounds, but unlike language, those sounds have no referent. Eduard Hanslick wrote The Beautiful in Music in 1854 and any explanation and evaluation of his claim that 'the essence of music is sound and motion' must have regard to historical context in determining the author's meaning. For Hanslick 'music' meant principally the instrumental and orchestral works of the 18th Century and first half of the 19th Century, the period we might loosely call 'classical'- music whose 'primordial element' was 'euphony' (The beautiful in music, TAB, p.421). Hanslick's views cannot easily be extrapolated to the late 2Oth Century where even a period of silence (4'33" by John Cage) can claim to be 'music'1, a 'composition' which underlined, albeit provocatively, that silence, as well as sound, and the performer as well as the composer, have significant roles in music.

Hanslick began his analysis by observing that 'a philosophical disquisition into an art demands a clear definition of its subject matter' (The beautiful in music CH II, TAB, p.419), but there can be dangers in too simplistic a

definition, simplicity is not necessarily revelatory or informative. Just as there is silence as well as sound in

music, the word 'essence' implies more than just ingredients, it implies that quality or those qualities which are

particularly distinctive of something. It will be questioned whether music can, satisfactorily, be reduced to just two properties of sound and 'motion', which latter term will be considered in due course.

Hanslick divides his 'disquisition' into negative and positive theses. Negatively, though he does not wish to

exclude the idea of expression, he absolutely denies the possibility of representing the emotions by musical means

He is explicit in his denial: 'definite feelings and emotions are unsusceptible of being embodied in music.' He argues that emotions have 'no isolated existence in the mind' for example 'sadness involves the notion of a past state of happiness' because a 'determinate feeling (a passion, an emotion) as such never exists without a definable meaning...which can only be communicated through the medium of definite ideas. Positively he seeks to assert that the aesthetic value of music ('the beautiful') resides in 'the ingenious co-ordination of intrinsically pleasing sounds, their consonance and contrast, their flight and reproach, their increasing and diminishing strength... .' (TAB, p.427). That is an autonomous approach, one that insists that 'the beautiful' in music is created only by variations in the sounds at the composer's command and not linked in some way to emotionally

derivative or emotionally expressive phenomena. He does not however wish to exclude the possibility that music may seek to communicate musical ideas, but those ideas must be 'consistent () with the organ to which they appeal, [ideas] associated with audible changes of strength motion and ratio: the ideas of intensity waxing and diminishing; of motion hastening and lingering... . The term 'motion' here implies no alteration in spatial

relationships, but rather variations in tempo, rhythm, volume - properties that are intrinsic to music - properties that have to be appreciated by the ear and thus by the mind.

Hanslick's approach is one which seeks to intellectualise music: 'in music there is both language and logical sequence, but in a musical sense; it is language we speak and understand, but which we are unable to translate.

The idea of a language which is understood, spoken, but which can never be translated is problematic. Language

exists for the purpose of communication, that is conveying ideas from one person to another. Any translation from one language to another is always problematic, even speakers of the same language have no guarantee that their mental images or concepts coincide, but if a language is wholly untranslatable, if there is no possibility of even attempting to give it meaning in words of another language, it must be doubted whether it can properly be described as language.

Consider for example Tchaikovsky's 'Fantasy Overture' Romeo and Juliet composed fifteen years after The beautiful in music was written in which 'the conflict between the Montagues and the Capulets is contrasted with the more lyrical themes representing the fated lovers'. Here a composer has tried quite specifically to

'represent' not only the ideas of love and conflict but the love between two identified individuals and the conflict

between their families. For Hanslick such an attempt would be bound to fail; he says of Wagner: 'the life of the music is destroyed, the innate beauty of form annihilated in pursuit of the phantom of "meaning".' In the overture Tchaikovsky adhered to the structure of sonata form but gave a title to the work which is quite specific. Is the 'life' of Tchaikovsky's music destroyed in this attempt to convey meaning, or does 'classical' form preserve it from the 'irrelevance' of language? Hanslick concluded his essay by asserting that whenever 'the question is a specifically musical one, all parallelisms with language are wholly irrelevant. As Robert Wilkinson observes: 'If

we accept the central premise in this argument - that the analysis of definite emotions and moods must involve

propositional contents - it follows that music cannot imitate any definite emotion or mood.' Given the

title of the overture it is easy enough to read into the work the suggested meanings and to identify the love theme and war theme. On the other hand, if we were to hear the piece and know nothing of its supposed predicate then, whilst we might follow the developments and recapitulations of sonata form, nothing in the music can tell us of the composer's ideas concerning Shakespeare's play 'because a non-conceptual medium cannot closely resemble a state the analysis of which includes a propositional content.

Hanslick is right to insist that music, of itself, cannot convey precise meaning. The dominant impression of music, as Hanslick's definition makes clear, is that of sound. However, just as there is no absolute certainty of meaning in language, there is no absolute certainty of a specific response to particular sounds in music. Hanslick denies that precise combinations of notes produce definable effects upon us - every triad a satisfaction and every diminished seventh a feeling of despair.

Proponents of heteronomist views disagree. Deryck Cooke for example described the major third as 'nature's own basic harmony' and 'by using it we feel ourselves to be at one with nature' (The language of music, but for Hanslick 'such primordially distinctive traits are non-existent...beyond the analogy of motion, and the symbolism of sounds music possesses no means for fulfilling its alleged mission.' Space does not

permit a discussion of symbolism and metaphor in music, but here Hanslick's views have some coincidence with those of Susan Langer (who is generally regarded a heteronomist proponent) as Langer observes: 'to tie any tonal structure to a specific and speakable meaning would limit musical imagination, and probably substitute a preoccupation with feelings for a whole hearted attention to music. The boundaries between the competing theories are not watertight.

Hanslick looked back from the mid 19th Century to the age of Mozart and Haydn and sought to elevate the

intellectual achievements of structured composition. He looked about him and decried the 'emotional' outpourings of Wagner and sought to distance the music he valued from the compositions of at least some of his contemporaries. That is a not unfamiliar position for a critic, and whilst it is not to deny the acuity of his observations or his insights, there are always dangers in constructing theories with the intention of proving propositions rather than explaining facts. Perhaps in seeking simplicity of definition Hanslick over distilled the essence of music. The essence of a fine wine is more than just the ingredients of alcohol and grape juice and its mysteries are not revealed by distillation. The essence of music, certainly of great music, is more than

its ingredients, it requires the passion of the soul and the logic of the intellect - a combination of nature's gifts and skilled human endeavour, an endeavour both of composer and of performer.

******************

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Footnotes and other reference material

1. John Cage 4' 33'' (Probably his most provocative piece is

4' 33'' in which the performer, seated in front of the piano,

plays nothing for 4 minutes and 33 seconds) Groliers.

2. Tess Knighton, Decca Notes 1989 to Ashkenazy & Royal

Philharmonic Orchestra.

The Oxford Companion to the Mind. OUP 1987.

The Oxford Companion to music OUP 1980 reprint.

Groliers Academic American Encyclopedia.

Blackwell Companion to the Enlightenment. Yolton, Blackwell

1991.

_