Music Can't Reproduce (unless it echoes)

Matthew Head's Essay on the use of gender in musical discourse struck me as much more poignant concerning the discovery of gender in the history of music rather than the discovery of music within the context of changing perceptions of gender. However, it cannot be denied that the two are inextricably linked in several ways. As the perceptions of beauty and sublimity gradually changed during the second half of the 18th century, the definitions of masculinity and effeminacy transformed as well. Masculinity and effeminacy, rather than being directly linked to male and female, became labels which spoke judgment upon the innate nature of a given object, practice or fashion.

So how were these judgments applied to music? 18th Century theorists believed that music had "character" of its own (152). Koch described this character as "those features and individual characteristics through which [a work] can be distinguished from another: meter, tempo, rhythm, and the type and use of melodic figures, the form, the accompaniment, the modulation, the style, the underlying feelings, the particular way in which they are expressed - all these contribute, now more, now less, to the particular character of a composition" (152). As Matthew Head suggests, the "underlying feelings" of a piece has especial significance in Koch's estimation. The various words and emotions used to describe such feelings often had masculine or effeminate implications. By cumulative effect, certain styles of music came to be viewed as either masculine (the march, symphony, concerto) or effeminate (minuet and rondo).

Let us remember that to say something is masculine or effeminate is not to say it is male or female. The former are merely descriptions of character traits which, in a given time period, are believed to be evident in one gender more than another. Thus to use masculinity and effeminacy to describe music does not ascribe gender to it, but rather uses commonly understood terminology in order to ease the comprehension of subtle nuance. However, the culture in which a given discourse takes place does influence the perception of one quality as superior to another (the masculine often taking that role). But this appears to me to be more of a discussion on the perception of gender rather than the comprehension of music.

Take the terminology away from the "gender debate" for a moment and it is not unlike the analogy of music to conversation (as discussed in LeGuin's essay). Music is neither a conversation nor is it gendered in any conceivably tangible way. C.P.E Bach's "manly" minuet in his Concerto in c, H. 474 is an example of the blurring of the lines in gender. As for conversation, harmony in music requires multiple voices to speak at once, which we know if reflected in spoken discourse would only lead to confusion, musically represented by harmony's opposite: dissonance. But although both analogies fall short at some point, their usefulness in musical discourse is not sacrificed in turn. We can debate about the misogynistic qualities of gendered musical conversation, but political correctness aside, the use of gendered terms is helpful (like conversational qualities) in discussing and understanding the "underlying feelings" of a given piece of music.

We all attribute qualities to the masculine and feminine (or effeminate?). The significance of the 18th century use of such terminology is indicative of the contemporary views of gender, but more significantly for our class, it reinforces the fact that music of the time was considered to have innate qualities of character.

1. The use of gender in musical discussion is something that I think is both dangerous to accept without question and thoughtless to discard without consideration. In what ways are the uses of gendered language accurate in their depiction of music? In what ways are they faulty?
2. Slightly off-topic: We have seen different philosophers compare music to both conversation and gender in an attempt to express its meaning and subtle qualities. This raised an interesting question for me: Is it possible to describe music accurately? Or are our analogies and terminology insufficient to capture its meaning, an over-intellectualization of beauty?