It has been well established, both in this course, and throughout the history of Western practice, that music can serve as a vehicle for conveying ideas and expressing emotion. It was understood during Haydn’s era that music was synonymous with rhetoric, that a masterfully composed piece was one of great oration, and that vocal music, being more expressive, was superior to instrumental music (the connection to Le Guin’s article on music as conversation should go without saying).
Something happened, though. Something changed. The philosophies of several enlightenment thinkers spurred by the philosophers of antiquity justified a new meaning of music—one that was characterized not by the ability of the composer to reach down and speak to the audience, but for the ability of the composer to enlighten the audience. Beethoven championed this ideology as he “opens up to us” a world of divine indulgence, and shifts the responsibility of what is heard from the composer to the listener (Bonds 122).
Does instrumental music champion vocal music, or is it the other way around? What inherent qualities of the champion defend its superiority? Is it possible to “perceive infinity in a dim sort of way”? Can we “truly comprehend it”, if only to “stand in awe of…the ‘mathematical sublime;” (Bond 121)?
In the modern day, it seems like we have developed a 21st century ear—unique in taste and perception. An ear both refined to the aesthetic beauty and native qualities of a piece of music, as well as being critical towards the intellectual beauty. What precipitated this change in behavior? Was it at all influenced by Enlightenment thinking?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like your second question about how our ears have changed since the time of Haydn and Beethoven. It is hard to really pinpoint the changes that have been made which precipitated the exact change, but I think we have to look at a few factors to best understand it.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it is important to consider the roles the composers have taken on since the time of Haydn. It was interesting to see how Bonds separated the 3 composers. In some ways, I really agree with his classifications of orators and philosopher. I had not thought about it before, but there really is a difference in the role of a listener when considering music of Haydn and Mozart, then considering Beethoven. Where I disagree with Bonds is when considering whether or not Haydn is truly just an orator. I think of "The Joke" quartet we listened to in class and while the language being used within that work is very accessible, there are many intellectual aspects to the work would could not be understood though simple rhetoric. Only with contemplation of the work will the listener truly understand the goals of the composer.
The other aspect I want to consider when considering the change in the listeners ear concerns the natural progression of music since the time of Beethoven and later. Not only have our ears been challenged with works from composers such as Beethoven, Brahms, and Stravinsky, but music has raised so many other issues besides that of harmony and melody. Much larger questions such as, "what is music?" have been raised and attempted to answer since this time. I guess this would make me argue that music holistically has became much more of an intellectual endeavor since the early 19th century. These are the composers listeners of the 21st century now contemplate, and because this music is arguably more philosophical, so are our listening habits. I don’t think we can attribute this change only to thinking of the 18th century, but the ideas encapsulated within enlightenment thinking were the foundations for these changes.