The Theory of Music Universality - Essay Example

Music is a language in and of itself. As the letters of German, or Russian, or Arabic are not the language, so the s that appear on the staves are not the language. They are the letters of music and, like the letters of all other languages, they came into existence long after the language was spoken, shouted, moaned, whispered, sobbed, and sung. Something like a universal literature in the verbal languages is a relatively recent development in the occidental world.( Ostransky, 1963) This universality of music as a medium of communication is a relatively modern concept. Through the ages of human history, music has had varied levels of importance in people's lives, and its value has differed in the eyes of thinkers and wise men. Its ability to communicate has been as revered as it has been suspect, and its rich social and ritualistic associations have added layers of meanings that can only be expressed in musical terms, and not in terms of words or images. Aaron Copland in his "How We Listen" says that music can be listened to and enjoyed in three different planes: the sensual, the expressive and the solely musical. The listening experience for a particular piece of music is evaluated on all these planes simultaneously, but to understand the effects of music it is necessary that we at least outline these levels separately. The sensual plane is the absorption of the sheer pleasure that music affords, the elevated mood it evokes, and the escape from the mundanities of life it makes possible. The expressive plane, on the other hand, talks to the listener, but does not have a concrete message to convey, it conveys broad senses of emotion: "..... serenity or exuberance, regret or triumph, fury or delight. It expresses each of these moods, and many others, in a numberless variety of subtle shadings and differences. It may even express a state of meaning for which there exists no adequate word in any language".The third plane is where the listener is aware of the musical form,where the harmony, the melody, the rhythm and the tonal colour are consciously appreciated: the listener knows about the notes and the structure of the written music, the composer's style and thought process and can evaluate the rendition of all this by the performers. All theories of music through time have talked about the sensual, expressive or the solely musical planes in one way or the other. To understand how the perceptions on music have changed down the years, we need to examine the various thought processes of philosophers, and the conclusions they arrived at, tracing a historical outline from the Greek times, to the Baroque era and down to the present. Not much factual evidence of Greek music has survived, but an understanding of the ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and his student Aristotle, Pythagoras and Plotinus goes a long way in answering a lot of queries on the views held about music in those times. Of note is the fact that music then was more of a part of people's lives than it is today, and hence the comments made by the thinkers of those times have to be understood in the appropriate context. For all our musical and philosophical sophistication, it seems that the Greeks 'lived' their musics far more deeply than we do ours. Difficult though it may be for us to think of music as the kind of thing capable of revealing important fundamental truths about the world, for the ancient Greeks there seems to have been little doubt. And for good reason: their world was, after all, a fundamentally musical one. (Bowman, 1998) For the Greeks, music was divine in origin, it had curative powers and it could mould character and intellect, and was important for the development of a well-rounded citizen. Music, its nature and importance was therefore under much discussion, and it was a mandatory part of education in the times of Plato and Aristotle. Singing and dancing were taught together as part of music, and music was considered to be appropriate only when arising out of the harmony of human voice, lyrics and musical instruments. It was never seen in isolation, and was part and parcel of Greek life, from the common man to the people of nobility. Both Plato and Aristotle recommended music as a beneficial exercise of the mind, similar to gymnastics for the body, they were impressed by its expressive and solely musical qualities, but disapproving of its sensual attributes. To a large extent Plato was also influenced by the earlier doctrines of Pythagoras, who had discovered the mathematical relationship between pitch and the length of vibrating bodies and also held that all stars and planets emit different pitches as well, which forms unheard cosmic music. Thus music had a scientific importance, and was related to numbers, which elevated its status amongst the branches of learning. But this elite status was plagued by a dichotomy: to a large extent Plato held that absorbed only on a sensual plane, the "seductive" effects of music can also be harmful, and may lead to negative practices. Being of a generation that witnessed a musical renaissance of sorts in the upcoming music, he was suspicious of all musical experimentation , and wanted to retain a certain purity. Music was supposed to be combined with rhetoric, and he despised any attempts at making music a popular pastime, or a skill to be exercised on its own. In his mind, it was rather a discipline. Aristotle was more tolerant than his predecessor Plato, but definitely held certain types of music which inspired thought as superior than those that evoked pleasure. ..... Aristotle is more trusting of music's seductiveness and sensuality: not only is musical pleasure relatively 'safe', under some circumstances -- toward certain ends -- it may even be beneficial....Indeed, Aristotle does allow that the arousal of feelings by music leads to emotional release that is both pleasant and valuable..... As a result he is able to find value in a dramatically broader range of musical experience than Plato, .... Still, there remains for him a definite hierarchy of musical values.... Tolerant though he is of music that actively engages feelings, such music remains inferior to musics that engage and sustain contemplation. (Bowman, 1998) The Greeks therefore clearly preferred to engage in the expressive and sheerly musical, even mathematical aspects of music, in order to harness its educational benefits. The sensual element held but little or no importance in their view, musical meaning was all about structural qualities and expression and not about beauty. More importantly, music was considered a craft, not art. "Music has not always been considered an art, nor have Western thinkers shown any tendency to agree on standard groupings of the arts until fairly recently. The Greek word for art was techne, and its meaning was closer to 'craft, skill, technique' ".(Rowell, 1984) A study of musical meaning is incomplete without talking about one of the most remarkable periods of music in occidental history, the Baroque era. Though the ornate lavishness of music in the Baroque period contradicts the emphasis on stark simplicity and severely educational image of music held by the Greeks, it is similar in one aspect: feelings and emotions are strictly objective in Baroque music, so much so, that its beauty has often been found cold. Much of the Baroque music has come down to us today, significantly in the works of Handel, Vivaldi and Bach. Musical theory and canon grew in this period, in tandem with the phenomenal growth in knowledge, both science and arts. The significant context of music in this era was that most of it was created under the patronage of the nobility, royalty, or the church, and as such the composers were bound by their profession to please their sponsors. Their job was to be part of lavish musical and theatrical spectacles put up for the benefit of the nobility. The opera and the orchestra both originated in this period, somewhat in the Greek choral and theatrical tradition. Just like the Greeks, music for the Baroque era was a craft. Much of what the composers came up with was done specifically with a particular occasion in mind, with little regard for posterity. They inherited the Renaissance thinking that held that music was an element of rhetoric, but to this they added a rational belief in the scientifically definable aspect of emotions. The emotions were objectively described in works like "Les passions de l'me" (The Passions of the Soul) by Rene Descartes(1649), and the composers of this era used such rational description of feelings as units for making up their music. They described through their music not how they personally felt, but portrayed a particular definable emotion, when viewed in objective terms. They practiced an emotional detachment, engaging in a language that was supposed to objectively notify certain emotions. According to Lewis Rowell in "Thinking about Music: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Music", the doctrine followed was that of the "affections" or Affektenlehre, which proposed that different musical figures can convey emotions to those who have learnt them: they can act as signs of specific emotions, passions, and affections. Subjective involvement was not desirable, however, for any of the participators: the composers, performers or listeners. The importance of music was only as a language, which means that the Baroque music lay an emphasis on the solely musical level of music, and not the sensual and the expressive. At its worst the Affektenlehre took the form of a mechanistic classification of the passions, the musical figures representing them, and a highly stylized and artificial approach to the composition of music; an incompetent or unimaginative composer could approach his task as if he were translating with the aid of a dictionary....At best, a real message could be conveyed from the composer to the competent listener; music could thus convey a blend of intrinsic musical logic and extrinsic meaning.(Rowell,1984) The Baroque period was thus an age of music that was technically brilliant, grandiose, richly textured, with more emphasis on the language of music, and the objectivity of emotions conveyed. The gentleman of these times understood the structure of music, he was as used to it as he was used to riding, and was able to appreciate the somewhat deliberately complex facets of the music of his time. His pleasure lay not in being transported by the music into a world of imagination, he listened and understood the principles of musical form and could grasp the arpeggios and staccatos, giving him a technical appreciation of music. Coming down to the twentieth century, music has been a topic of debate, and the approach has been phenomenological: "The philosophical method known as phenomenology is among the twentieth century's more distinctive philosophical orientations, and one with considerable appeal for music philosophers".(Bowman, ) According to this approach, what matters is not the symbolism, grand historical narratives, and differences in objective truth and subjective perception. As a philosophical approach to music, the phenomenological method typically resists efforts to explain what music is 'about', resembles, symbolizes, or is useful for, preferring instead to describe as richly as possible what music itself says, how music is experienced. Instead of explaining, it describes. Meaningful claims about music's nature or value can follow only from close attention to the way it is actually heard, experienced, lived through. Thus, phenomenological musical inquiry promises a 'return to beginnings'.(Bowman, 1998) Here we see an emphasis on the sensory aspect of music, on how it is actually experienced by the listener, and the effect it has on him. Those like Thomas Clifton, Eleanor Stubley, and Mark Johnson are some of the the thinkers of the twentieth century who support the descriptive and sensory aspect of music. But in a sharp departure from the work of those following phenomenological approach in the last century are those like Theodor Adorno who based music firmly in a social context, and held that music has a set of strict hierarchical values according to which it "interacts with and shapes social consciousness, and not casually or optionally. Truly great music has a fundamental social obligation to advance human consciousness and thereby social progress".(Bowman, 1998) . Those who espouse the social view of music maintain that music is always and fundamentally a mode of human activity, something people do with or for each other. As such, its true nature cannot be adequately grasped by looking inward, as phenomenology and psychology often seem inclined to do, or 'outward', as formalists sometimes seem to do. Music is socially constructed, socially embedded, and its nature and value are inherently social. Musical practices are not the kind of things that have a fixed, durable, objective 'essence' or inner core; they are constituted by collective human actions. (Bowman,1998 ) Here, the expressive aspect of music is upheld, because if a piece of music is to be seen essentially in its social context, it is evident that its significance is imbued by the cultural expression of the society it belongs to. Thus a relativism is in action here, the value of a particular piece of music and its embedded meaning lies in the social background from which it emerged, and this value can only be seen in its unique cultural relevance. This has begun, near the end of the twentieth century, to compete with the traditional concept of a good and unitary philosophy of music, which poses to determine the intrinsic, underlying value of all music, irrespective of its place and society of origin. The trend of relativism has begun to question authority in the field of music, and the methods and criteria used to separate good music from bad. It has heightened sensitivity in the thinkers of the late twentieth century towards the multiplicity and diversity of music, and of the possibility that there may not be a single set of criteria to judge all music from different parts of the globe. Moreover, feminists like Susan McClary have placed music squarely in the realm of gender, of sensual and bodily dimensions, and criticised the meanings seen in music historically as patriarchal and gender-biased in nature. Also important is the feminist view that all the universal truths supposed to be part of the musical lexicon are male in nature, and the female qualities like civility, politeness etc. that are said to arise from music have only a cosmetic value in the view of patriarchal thinkers down the ages. The meaning of music as seen down the ages have thus been challenged by feminist thinkers. These differences in viewpoints through the twentieth century has given rise to heated debates on the meaning of music in our present times: The problem of meaning stands at the forefront of recent thinking about music. Whether music has meaning, what kinds of meaning it may have, and for whom; the relationship of musical meaning to individual subjectivity, social life, and cultural context-these questions have inspired strong feelings and sharp debate.(Kramer,2002) In our present democratic and culturally diverse times, where globalisation is shrinking the world further and further , it is important to consider the meaning music has for listeners, performers, and composers alike. Music today has come away from ritualistic and social occasions, to be enjoyed for its own sake, and as a mode of entertainment. The value judgments on music, its quality and meanings have thus to be balanced in a world where globalisation has brought together a volume of music from different cultures, our democratic societies allow the propagation of music for its entertainment value alone, and subjective interpretations of music are almost as much, if not more, valid than social and authoritative opinions. The renewed sensitivity towards the meaning of music variously from men as well as from women, from the Orient, the Occident and other parts of the world has opened new avenues for thoughts on music on the sensory, expressive and solely musical planes. There is an attempt to appreciate cultural diversity, and listen to music in its context. In our present times as contrasted with earlier eras, music is optional as a part of education and only those that are musically inclined need go in for an education in music. But science has proved that music has a positive effect on children in the mother's womb, on plants, even on adult patients. The exact measure of this effect is yet to be determined, and a use for music devised for the good of mankind. The negative effects of only seeing music as a mode of mass entertainment may lie in the dumbing down of music, a general lowering of standards. Music has always been about a combination of new experimentation, contextual relations and old absolute standards, and today with easy access for music through the mass media and reproductions in cassettes and CDs, the need for this combination of the old and the new is evident. ...... the character of modern Western music regularly turns on the question of whether the music takes on context-related meaning in particular cases. In other words, the question of whether music has meaning becomes, precisely, the meaning of music..... music has generally operated on the basis of a series of contradictory tendencies: on the one hand toward the projection of autonomy, universality, self-presence, and the sublime transcendence of specific meaning, and on the other hand toward intimations of contingency, historical concreteness, constructed and divided selfhood, and the intelligible production of specific meanings. ( Kramer, 2002) In today's world music is mostly experienced on the sensual plane, moving on at times to the expressive plane. But there is a need to match this with experiences on the solely musical planes, where more and more listeners understand music on a structural level as well. Music and its meanings have been a topic of debate from the Greek times to the present, and though the perceptions of its effects are changed, there is still no underlying agreement on the levels at which it is to be understood. At best attempts can be continued to derive the best from a natural expression of the human soul which has found recognition as an art only in the last two centuries. Ostransky L. 1963. Perspectives on Music. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 22. Bowman. W.D. 1998.Philosophical Perspectives on Music. Oxford University Press. New York. 19, 51, 255, 304, 305. Copland, A.1939. How we Listen. L. Ostransky Reprint 1963. Perspectives on Music. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 2. Rowell L. 1984. Thinking about Music: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Music. University of Massachusetts Press. Amherst, MA. 20, 112. Kramer, L. 2002. Musical Meaning: Toward a Critical History. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 1, 2. Read More