By James Chater
 |
| Stravinsky suggests music is not a language |
“Music is powerless to express anything at all. Do we not, in
truth, ask the impossible of music when we expect it to express feelings, to
translate dramatic situations?”
This rather disconcerting comment gives Stravinsky’s opinion on a
question that has been the subject of debate throughout the history of music;
is music a language? Whilst a rather poetic little statement, is it actually
true? Opposing Stravinsky is Deryck Cooke, a British musicologist, who argues,
“Music is a strictly codified language…each scale degree signifies a certain
emotion and permits only a single specific reading.” This is an ambiguous
argument, and difficult to agree with completely.
One thing advocates of both parties are able to agree on is music’s ability to express emotion. Yet even
this unearths a plethora of contradictions. What emotion is it? Is that emotion
universal? If the emotion we feel is then described using language, does that
not simultaneously dispel the idea that music is an independent, “universal”
language? To avoid a slightly circular argument, I propose we take things back
to basics.
In language, in its most basic form, words are used to correspond
to a single object or idea. Grammar (words positioned in a particular order, subject
to rules) can generate additional meaning. Does music have the power to perform
any of these functions? The essential “building blocks” of music are notes,
perhaps the equivalent of words (or maybe letters; the convolution sets in);
can we say a simple middle C has a meaning that can be interpreted in the same
way a word can? No. It soon becomes clear that attempting to put music in terms
of language is a fairly futile exercise.
If there were an example that came close to putting music in terms
of a language perhaps Wagner’s leitmotif would be it. A leitmotif is an ordered
section of notes and/or harmony, a musical motif, which corresponds to a single
object or abstract idea. Of course, this was Wagner’s wish, unifying his
libretti and music, and shows his brilliance as a composer of drama. However, once again, the argument that
this shows music as being a universal
language is flawed. If a language at all, this is only Wagner’s musical
language, and given the complexity of Wagner, probably just one composer’s language for one opera. Despite Wagner’s genius, I
daresay music would become rather boring if, any time a composer wished to
express love, they were required to use the love motif from Wagner’s Die Walkure; just so the audience
understood what emotion the composer was trying to convey.
And yet, surely, that is one of the greatest things about music; that
we do not always fully understand the effect it has, and why it happens. To
assign music objective meaning, as a language attempts to do (and arguably
fails to do, but that subject is for another day), is to wholly detract from
the purpose of music itself. Or as Charles Dobrian said, “if all meanings could
be adequately described using words, then the arts of painting and music
wouldn’t exist.”
Personally, whether you believe music is a language or not depends
on what you want to gain from music, and so a degree of self-questioning is
required if you are to reach your own conclusion. If you feel searching for an
objective meaning in music, an idea which you can parallel directly with
everyday life, is your sole purpose, then this is surely restricting music’s
ability to transcend habitual emotion, to stretch your intellectual capacity.
Conversely, to say that music occupies an exclusively transcendental part of
human experience is to ignore music’s inherent connection with life. For me, a balance
of the two maximizes music’s potential to affect me. Perhaps Aaron Copland sums
up this opinion more eloquently: “The whole problem can be stated quite simply
by asking, “Is there a meaning to music?” My answer to that would be, “Yes”.
And, “Can you state in so many words what that meaning might be?” To which my
answer would be, “No.” Therein lies the difficulty.”
A thought provoking read especially for someone like myself, who, by choice, includes little music in their everyday life. Music is an alternative way of communicating but unlike spoken language, it's message changes depending upon the recipient and so maybe meaning lies with the composer. Not my field at all and so forgive the simplicity of the response but well done on writing something that has stretched my brain in a different direction.
ReplyDelete