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
Topic: what music can express