As its title suggests, Bonds' article concerns the differentiation (or tension, perhaps) between rhetoric and truth as they pertain to music. Haydn, he argues, has been perceived as a master orator, a clever (or sly) composer who made his compositions accessible and understandable, creating music characterized by what Triest called "popular artfulness". Where Haydn's music was and is primarily understood in light of the rhetorical analogy, that of Beethoven was heard by his contemporaries and in the modern era as a more abstract expression of deeply profound truths.
The differences in the mentalities approaching Haydn and Beethoven's music led to varying requirements of interpretation. As Bonds writes, "The second premise of listening within a rhetorical framework is that the burden of intelligibility lies with the composer" (111). Thus, with Haydn's rhetorical nature, he took responsibility for making his music intelligible to his listeners. That "burden of intelligibility" shifted with Beethoven to require much more of the audience, transforming music into a philosophical pursuit of truth rather than merely a "medium of entertainment" (127).
As Bonds suggests, "We tend to be somehow suspicious when, in the confines of the concert hall, a new work seems too easy to grasp" (128). As music has come to represent truth more than rhetoric, we treasure the process of absorbing and filtering the meanings expressed. We no longer expect the composer to make his "message" succinct and to the point, understandable at every angle. In the light of a philosophical perspective, such simplicity seems to cheapen the art almost to the degree of triteness.
1. In the interpretation and appreciation of music, is rhetoric or truth (as Bond calls them) more important? Are they hierarchical in significance, or are they merely different?
2. How would modern music measure up if judged by the rhetorical framework of perception?
3. Bonds mentions various perspectives on music as language (including similar views as those expressed in LeGuin's article). Carrying on a tangent of our conversation from last week, is that which is communicated in music completely subjective in interpretation, or do we believe there are innate and universal expressions that form an objective or "absolute truth" for all societies and cultures?
4. On an even more philosophical note, can music be said to be truth, or is it more rightly an expression of truth? In either case, could we term music as a "relative" kind of truth (since it can be interpreted meaningfully by individuals in very different ways), or does it hold a semblance of absolutism (this is connected with the end of question 3)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good job at analyzing & synthesizing. Your opening statement is clear, and made it easier for me to understand. And I love your questions!
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on your questions:
1. I say rhetoric is more important. I think music is a way of communication and expression. And, I will be less interested in listening if music tells only truth, because I cannot argue against truth. Listeners can agree or disagree with composers’ rhetoric and thus there will be more focus on subjective listening of audience.
2. The category “modern music” is too broad… but 20th century post-tonal/atonal music is rhetoric but the composers are not good orators. Schoenberg limit himself with a lot of grammar and rhetorical rules, but his word choice is not a lot of public’s favorite, and his phrasing is too difficult to understand for non-musically-educated people. Charles Ives uses more easier words, but his opinion/speech is incoherent and all the ideas are disjointed.
3. I think there should be something objective or absolute truth, but I cannot think of any examples. Today in this world, most people have westernized ears and music education, so the expressions are more universal. But back in the days, each society had their distinctive culture. If I was a Japanese traditional musician of 18c (Japan ended seclusion in the middle of 19c), I would have had totally different perception of so-called “universal expression.”
4. This is a hard question, but I think it’s more likely to be an expression of truth. As you said, it can be interpreted in various ways. John Cage wrote the music tells the story of the dangers of erotic life and the misery of people separating, but some critics said that the music sounded like woodpeckers laughing and running around… well, so, it is extremely hard to make a music which tells the truth and is interpreted in the same way from everyone.
With great power comes great responsibility. When the burden of communication is placed on Haydn, perhaps the temptation is much stronger to "manipulate" the audience, whereas Beethoven, has no such burden, and thus no such power. In both conversation and music, it is possible to express ideas with minimal rhetoric, giving the audience as distilled a version of the composer's thought-process as possible. But by applying rhetoric, the composer can influence how his music is received. Who are we to say that this is wrong, or deceptive? Rhetoric can be used for good, to make a strange, alien idea sound acceptable, or it can be used for ill, to make a boring, derivative idea seem inspired.
ReplyDelete