|
OUTLINE/STUDY GUIDE
HANSLICK: On the Musically Beautiful
G. Payzant translation
(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1986)
As much as possible, the outline uses the vocabulary of
the Payzant translation.
Square brackets [like this] offer my own interpretive comments.
This outline was written by Theodore Gracyk.
(Copyright Theodore Gracyk 2002)
It may be freely reproduced, so long as this complete citation is included with
any such reproductions.
CHAPTER I: The Aesthetics of Feeling
p. 1) Hanslick’s goal is to discover what is "enduring and
objective" in one "particular art," namely music, grounding an
aesthetics of music on an objective basis for the practice of criticism. He
seems to think that the pursuit of objective criticism is already underway with
literature and the visual arts.
p. 2) The critical analysis of works in a particular art cannot be
generated from a unifying "supreme" principle.
[Beginning in the middle of the eighteenth century, this principle was
generally regarded as a principle about the role of beauty in art. But the
Romanticism of the nineteenth century looked instead to human expression of
emotion. In this respect, Hanslick's essay is reactionary, an attempt to turn
combat the tide of Romanticism, at least with respect to the art of music. In
Hanslick's day, the two schools of thought were primarily represented by the
music of Brahms and the music of Wagner. Many important composers found
themselves dragged into this debate.]
p. 3) The main goal of the essay is to find the basis of "critical judgment"
about music. Does it have anything to do with feeling [emotion]?
Prevailing views of music assign two distinct roles to feeling in relation to
music.
- The defining purpose of music is assigned to its capacity to arouse
feeling.
- Feeling is the content of music, that which musical art presents in its
works.
"The two are similar in that both are false."
Beauty has no purpose. [Therefore, we will NOT ground critical judgments about
music in any alleged purpose. Hanslick's position looks back to the aesthetic
theory of Immanuel Kant's Critique
of Judgment of 1790, which famously argued that the experience of beauty
is a recognition of purposiveness without purpose.]
pp. 3-4) Feeling [emotion] distinguished from sensation
[perception of sensory qualities]
Sensation is the basis of feeling.
p. 4) However, feeling is not itself the basis of becoming aware
of [objective] beauty.
[Hanslick seems to use 'beauty' in an extremely broad sense, almost as a
synonym for 'aesthetic value.']
Beauty is discovered by contemplation in imagination, shaped by "active
understanding, i.e., conceiving and judging."
Musical works as imaginary objects: "Out of the imagination of the
composer, the piece of music arises for the imagination of the listener."
[The sensations that we experience when musicians perform are the means of transporting the piece from
composer to listener. The point is to make a distinction between the physical
thing we hear, the series of sounds, and the music. Since we allow that we hear
the same music on different occasions when there is a different physical
object, we do not want to equate the musical with any physical object. There are
several theories about the best way to make the distinction between physical
object and music Today we are more likely to say that the musical
work is an intentional object.]
p. 7) Feeling cannot be music's purpose because
- Feeling is not necessary to critical judgment (p. 5: feeling is a
secondary effect of listening)
- Feeling is not exclusive to music (p. 5: it is equally at work in the
visual arts and in "every genuine artwork")
- Feeling is not constant (p. 6: it is altered by texts and titles and it is
perceived differently "according to our changing musical
experiences" [that is, according to what other styles of music we know
and the "circumstances" in which we hear it]
[These are all weak arguments. (1) only succeeds if we agree that there can
only be one purpose for music. The objection fails if we think that
music has multiple purposes, the way the food has both a nutritional and an
aesthetic purpose. (2) assumes that there is a principle of musical
beauty that is unique to music. But two arts might differ in the
medium employed while having a common principle of beauty and a common
purpose. Watercolors and oil paintings differ with respect to media but it
doesn't follow that they cannot share a common purpose. (3) is not a problem
if we grant that some people are better qualified than others to appreciate
certain pieces of music. There is no constancy about the idea that we live on
a planet that orbits the sun; I certainly experience the earth as
stationary and flat, which just goes to show that appearances can be
deceiving. If beauty is an objective property of music, then the fact that not
everyone experiences it doesn't matter.]
The topic of feeling is taken up in greater detail in chapters
IV and V.
Chapter II – Feeling is not the
content
p. 9) ANALYSIS OF FEELING (cognitive theory of emotion)
Specificity of emotion requires judgment and
dynamic. What music w/out text can’t do, music can’t do. (p.15)
Music w/out text can’t communicate concepts. Music alone can’t communicate
specific emotions. (Music’s ability to arouse emotions is treated in
later chapters)
p.14) Emotion not necessary for beauty [value]:
absolute music (e.g., Bach's instrumental works) is often of great value and
there is no agreement ("constancy") about emotions in it.
pp. 16-17) COMBINING TEXT WITH MUSIC:
Music adds dynamics/motion to text, but same
music takes on different emotions when text changes (e.g., Handel, p. 19)
[different emotion because different concepts joined with dynamic]
p. 16) Good music through its dynamics, can ‘transform"
weak texts into "a fervent manifestation of feeling".
But if the same
music can combine with different texts to convey distinct emotions, then the
music does not by itself convey a specific emotion.
p. 21) NEW PROPOSAL CONSIDERED:
Consider this
version of the traditional assumption: communication of emotion is an ideal that’s
seldom realized.
Reduction strategy: suppose that’s true;
"to be consistent we would have to say that the most nearly perfect
compositions were those which {convey emotion} most specifically". In
other words, an ideal implies that there are degrees of success and failure,
and if communicating emotion is the ideal for music, the best emotional
communication must coincide with the best music.
What music conveys (in combination with text)
greatest specificity?
Recitative and other "dramatic"
text which is normally combined with the weakest music.
Success in combining words and music
involves "constant tension" (p. 23) and "generally
succeeds in inverse proportion to the autonomous beauty [value] of the
music". (p. 22)
Since musical success does not coincide with
success in communicating specific emotions, communication of emotion cannot be
a goal of music.
CHAPTER III: The Musically Beautiful
p. 29) Content of music is "tonally moving forms" with melody
a "basic" form, combined with harmony, rhythm, timbre.
p.30) Sequence of tones combines in "auditory imagination" according to
its own "sense and logic" [syntax] The result can be described
technically or poetically.
p.31) The "cultivated ear" makes patterns of groups,
giving coherence.
p. 64) Main satisfaction is from "following and anticipating the composer’s
designs".
p. 33) Artwork as objective mediation between artist and audience:
- p. 35) If emotion was the content, our criterion for evaluating music
would be degree of emotion and we would not care about their handling of
melody, harmony, etc.
- p. 36) Music can sound dated (beauty "wears out"); emotion does
not, so this is due to convention [syntax] governing its composing.
- p. 37) Invention is valued over intention (artist’s intent does not
interest us if invention is lacking).
CONCLUSIONS:
p. 38) Beauty not limited to any specific style (each style has its own).
p. 39) Composer’s biography irrelevant to music except for musical [sylistic]
influences (e.g. Beethoven’s politics vs. influences on his musical style).
CHAPTER IV: Analysis of the Subjective Impression of Music
-
The Composer
pp. 45-46) Questionable to think that composer's emotions directly
inspire the music
Composing is a deliberate, complex process that is not
possible when there is too much passion.
p. 47) Composition is guided by "inner singing, not a mere inner
feeling."
Music’s dynamic is created by objective features, not artistic
intent.
p. 48) For example, style is a limit on "potential emotional
state" [by limiting dynamics].
Each musical event involves composition plus reproduction [performance]
and the latter is the vehicle for personal expression.
p. 49) So free improvisation (fusing the two) is highest degree of it.
II. The Listener
This section of the chapter is dominated by a discussion of music therapy
and the common but mistaken assumption that sound acts directly on the
listener without intervention of the imagination.
p. 53) Arousal theory requires either psychological or physiological
basis. Both are doubtful (composers are unable to produce specific emotions
"on demand").
p. 57) Physical responses are not aesthetical (not the goal of art).
CHAPTER V: Musical Perception:
Aesthetic versus Pathological
Thesis: concentration on emotion leads to sacrifice of musical
content.
(Emotional state could better be produced with drugs)
| Contrast: |
Aesthetic
[active]
Vs |
Pathological [passive] |
| pp. 58-59) |
Attention to individuality
of the piece
|
Response to its general character
|
| p. 60) |
Listening
|
Hearing/"feeling"
|
| pp. 63-64) |
Enjoying
|
Undergoing
|
| p. 66) |
Hear the music for its
own sake
|
Sensuous effect of its physical materials
|
|
Trained ear
|
Appreciative" lay audience
|
|
Enjoyment of anticipation
of musical design |
Attends only to the upper
melody |
|
|
|
p. 65) Active listening decreases emotive content
Implication of Chapter V [argument not in text]: the more
"active" the listening, the less "emotional" specificity
Catharsis requires recognition of emotion. Active listening not
compatible with catharsis.
Objection raised: first hearing should be most cathartic, but many pieces
become more cathartic upon repeated listening.
[Isn't there a hidden assumption here,
that active listening is always better? And so if the best mode of listening
decreases emotive content, such content is superfluous. But what if some
music is better appreciated in terms of its general character and not the
details of its design?]
CHAPTER VI: The Relation of Music to Nature
p. 68) Nature provides initial raw materials:
sounds.
p. 69) And rhythm – but rhythm alone isn’t music.
Music requires melody/harmony – tones, not just sounds.
p. 71) "Tone" = (df) sound of determinate, measurable pitch
(tone on an instrument gives timbre)
p. 72) To measure a tone, we need a "tonal system" – scales.
So "there is no such thing as the [musically] beautiful in nature.
So, "the folk song … [is] the first grade of genuine art" (p.
70: it requires "centuries of germination").
[Aaron Copland: "naiveté doesn’t work in
music."]
p. 74) Represented content/subject matter is "extramusical".
CHAPTER VII: Content and Form in Music
p. 29) "The content of music is tonally moving forms."
p. 78) Music is made of tones – tones are its content, not to be
confused with "subject matter" inspiring it.
To have subject matter as content, the extramusical element must be
definite and could be stated in words. We have no agreement on the
"definite" description to give it.
So, it can only have an "indefinite" content – but that is
not really a content "in the present sense."
p. 80) The "form" of music is not taken from nature [from
chapter VI]. So, its content is not any "definite concept". So,
its content is its own melodic themes.
p. 81) In the music’s themes, "form and content [cannot] be
separated."
RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
|
