what music can express

[philolog]

I'm not sure where to post this topic, but this is a quote I've given a lot of thought to over the years and I wonder how others view it.

“For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc…If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention---in short, an aspect unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being.”

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Well, I guess that is true. 

For example, we associate major with happy stuff and minor with bad stuff.

I bet that if you go to some remote area where people don't listen to music, they'll have different associations.  It would be kinda cool to see someone associate minor with good things and major with bad things. 

[ajspiano]

That is true in the same way that if I say "I feel happy" - i'm not really so much expressing happiness as attributing that meaning to the sound of the words.

And - no doubt is a statement from either a non-musician, or at least a non composer/improvisor. Music that is done well is all about expressing a feeling. It is inescapable.

...if someone were to associate minor with happy and major with sad, that would not be a reflection on whether or not music expresses anything (and is rather an illusion attributed by the human mind), so much as that individuals express feelings in different ways, be it through music or through spoken language.

Everything is only what you perceive it to be. Why target music?

[j_menz]

“For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc…If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention---in short, an aspect unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being.”

I couldn't disagree more. Music is an essential part of our humanness. In all cultures, we cry, wail, laugh, sing, chirtle, clap hands, hiss, scrream. In all languages, there is a musical quality, which is integral to its usage. Making and ordering sound is inseperable from who we are and to how we express ourselves, and music is an integral part of that.

[m1469]

I would of course be interested to know who that quote is from!  But, in terms of what I think, I'm not sure.  Sometimes a piece expresses for me something that I have a longing to express but somehow can't quite until I hear it, and then hearing it is like that feeling/those feelings being expressed.  Some pieces are composed specifically to express certain emotions, some are composed for other purposes.  I often feel, too, that a piece is dictating to me what it means to express.  I feel that way especially more lately.  There is a Mozart sonata that I started recently that seems like it nearly saved my life with its inherent meaning.  Bach's Chaconne in d minor for violin was apparently written in response to Bach finding that his wife had died while he was gone ... but an Impressionistic work of a landscape might be less dictating of emotion and more up to the listener to respond to the depiction in sound.  So, I think it really depends.

[ajspiano]

I would add to this thread, and without meaning to suggest that anyone who doesnt do this proficiently is unable to express anything through music..

...That the ability to confidently express something in music, requires you to at least sometimes attempt to express something through free improvisation and or composition, not based in theory but based in simply listening, imagining a sound and attempting to play it.

Or, if you're not going to compose, the same principal applied when using other composers works as a guide, but its harder to get the idea across of what actually has to happen inside your head if you do it that way i think. Our own thoughts, or the process of thinking music ideally must be first understood before you start trying to make sense of someone else's more complicated musical thoughts.

....

Failing to do so is akin to never constructing a spoken sentence of your own, or having a conversation, - rather only ever reading individual words and reciting them mindlessly without reference to any other word - and expecting to be able to express thought through speech without ever thinking in the first place.

....

Lots of music students get this part wrong for any number of reasons...   which will just lead me onto a rant about teaching methodology..  so I'll stop now.

[j_menz]

[T]he ability to confidently express something in music, requires you to at least sometimes attempt to express something through free improvisation and or composition, not based in theory but based in simply listening, imagining a sound and attempting to play it.

Or, if you're not going to compose, the same principal applied when using other composers works as a guide, but its harder to get the idea across of what actually has to happen inside your head if you do it that way i think. Our own thoughts, or the process of thinking music ideally must be first understood before you start trying to make sense of someone else's more complicated musical thoughts.

Anyone following from earlier threads would be aware that ajspiano an I come from different backgrounds, experiences and perspectives on this one. Not exectly a disagreement, I think, but a difference in approach or conception.

I'm certainly not wishing to dissuade anyone from exploring improvisation or composition, or suggesting that these are not useful and worthwhile activities either in their own right or in pursuit of a better musical understanding.

Having reflected a bit on this, I believe that what I do differently from aj is that I limit my "improvising" to the bounds of the score and probably within tighter bounds generally as regards tempo, rhythm etc. I do not know if those limits are good or bad for others - feel free to try that one out for yourselves, it certainly cannot hurt - but they are, I think, sufficient for me.

I would agree completely, though, that whatever the bounds of your "playing around" with a piece, it is absolutely essential to the development of musical understanding and expression that you do in fact do that playing around.

[ajspiano]

Not exectly a disagreement, I think, but a difference in approach or conception.

My "Or, if you're not going to compose" paragraph was intended to reflect you're approach as a valid one..   the critical element is making a conscious choice to express a sound, conceiving it in your mind and attempting to play it at the same time.

I think that its better developed early on through improvisation/composition/playing by ear..  but its not impossible to learn while only playing from a score.. obviously, since you exist.

I don't think your not improvising reflects an inability to do so - I suspect you have the skill and don't frequently use it. Different to someone who doesnt concieve sound like that and just locks up, unable to express either through a composers work or their own.

...

But then again, I do use both approaches to teach it..  hmm..

[j_menz]

My "Or, if you're not going to compose" paragraph was intended to reflect you're approach as a valid one..   the critical element is making a conscious choice to express a sound, conceiving it in your mind and attempting to play it at the same time.

I think that its better developed early on through improvisation/composition/playing by ear..  but its not impossible to learn while only playing from a score.. obviously, since you exist.

I don't think your not improvising reflects an inability to do so - I suspect you have the skill and don't frequently use it. Different to someone who doesnt concieve sound like that and just locks up, unable to express either through a composers work or their own.

...

But then again, I do use both approaches to teach it..  hmm..

In my younger days (an expression to make anyone cringe), I was certainly a lot more freewheeling than I am now, so there may be more truth in your approach than I have allowed. Not, I hope, that age has mellowed me, but rather that I now no longer need the more outlandish versions of a piece to narrow in on it. Still, sometimes, just for fun.....

[ahinton]

Stravinsky (in?)famously observed that music is incapable of expressing anything beyond itself. I've always found that an intriguing but ultimately unsatisfying observation, since it seems deliberately to try to conceal rather than impart whatever meaning it may contain; what is this "itself" and how does any music express that?

Perhaps mindful of Richard Strauss's (surely not entirely serious?!) claim that he could represent anything in music, someone (I cannot now remember who) came up with what strikes me as a far more pertinent and meaningful alternative to Stravinsky's not-quite-so-bon mot on this by suggesting that music is capable of expressing everything but naming nothing.

J-menz makes a lot of sense here. m1469 does, too, except that I take issue, on two counts, with her comment that
some pieces are composed specifically to express certain emotions, some are composed for other purposes.
Firstly, I don't think that composers specifically set out to express particular emotions; their musical trains of thought determine what emotions are expressed within their music and how, at any given time, but there is an inherent danger in assuming that such emotions are amenable to easy categorisation, definition or labelling. Secondly, I don't believe that it is possible to identify any such "other purposes"; I know that it's a well-worn cliché that "music begins where words leave off", but it is nevertheless not without truth and it is therefore neither possible nor necessary to separate - or to try to separate - the emotional aspect and content of any music from any of its other characteristics.

I can certainly confirm from my own personal experience that, whenever I write music, I do not start by thinking to myself "I'm going to express" this or that, so I think that one should be wary of assuming that any composer sets out specifically to do such a thing; whatever is expressed in that music is an inherent part of it, inseparable from any other of is aspects and, as it's not possible with any certainty to be able to account for it emotionally in words, it's wiser not to pretend to try to do so.

It might therefore be said to follow from this that music is capable of giving expression to a far greater gamut of emotions than any other medium, since by definition and nature it is not confined by what can be accounted for by means of verbal description. I don't think, for that matter, that proper understanding and appreciation of this fact have been helped in any way by certain of the composers of yesteryear (and even some of today) who avail themselves of every opportunity to tell people "what I set out to do is (this piece) was..."; almost a century ago.

The composer Delius, who set down his thoughts about this almost a century ago with considerable prescience, wrote
Music that needs "explanation", that requires bolstering up with propaganda, always arounses the suspicion that(,) if left to stand on his own merits, it would very quickly collapse and be heard no more of.

In the same article, Delius (who, incidentally, loathed the kind of thing that Stravinsky was doing at the time that he wrote it), states his belief that
Music is a cry of the soul. It is a thing to be reverenced. Performances of a great musical work are for us what the rites and festivals of religion were to the ancients - an initiation into the mysteries of the human soul.
It is interesting that, in the second of those sentences, he seems to be echoing the thoughts of Busoni; it is also interesting to note that his reference to "the rites and festivals of religion" was from a devout born-again atheist...

He expands on his thoughts on the subject by way of what seems to originate from a wish to imply a challenge to Richard Strauss's claim, as follows:
Music does not exist for the purpose of emphasising or exaggerating something which happens outside its own sphere. Musical expression only begins to be significant where words and actions reach their uttermost limit of expression. Music should be concerned with the emotions, not with external events. To make music imitate some other thing is as futile as to try and make it say "good morning" or "it's a fine day". It is only what cannot be expressed otherwise that is worth expressing in music.
In the light of this, it strikes me as a pity that Delius so rarely gave expression to his thoughts in words, for I think that he had some palpably interesting and valuable insights into his own art. Note also his comment that music should be "concerned with" the emotions, which is not the same as saying that composers set out specifically to express particular identifiable emotions when they write music.

Best,

Alistair

[philolog]

Alistair hit the nail on the head, even if he only sensed the similarity to a remembered quote without naming the author directly: Yes, it was Igor himself. Thanks to everyone who responded and for your interesting opinions and unexpected associations. Also, Alistair, thank you for adding the Delius, Richard Strauss, and Busoni bonbons.

[emrysmerlin]

anything without words...

[m1469]

What matters most is that music is alive within you, from the furthest possible inside that doesn't even have a name, to the outside - when you play it, when you listen to it, and that it's alive in the world.