Music expresses nothing?

[Alain Mayrand]

“Music expresses my soul in a way that words never could.”

I’ve heard that before, but it is not true. I guess it is human nature to look for greater purpose and meaning into what we do, but it makes no sense when it comes to music. (Not lyrics, I am talking about music here.)

It makes even less sense when we are talking about a performer doing another composer’s works.

Add to that the whole veneer of stage persona, and there is no possible expression of soul there.

There have been university studies and books written about this very subject. I took a class in university about it. And the conclusion in all cases was always the same:

Music expresses nothing.

To express, music would need some form of language, grammar that people can understand, and there is nothing like that in music. No set of notes that can express thoughts and meaning.

But why do we associate stories, picture, moods and thoughts to music?

The answer lies in physiognomic perception: the human tendency to apply human-like characteristics to what we experience.

For example, a weeping-willow is not truly weeping. It appears so to us because it shares physical attributes that we associate with weeping.

Music is the same and finding examples of this are easy. High notes = fairies. Low notes= elephants. Fast notes=wind or running water. You get the idea.

Physiognomic perception is not the same as meaning.

So then, what is the purpose of music? Why is it so important to so many people, including myself?

The answer is simple…

Music is Beauty. (Beautiful is not the same as “pretty”…)

The quest to seek out and surround ourselves with beauty is a basic human desire. And in all of the manifestations of beauty, music is unique.

Music is intangible, ethereal, without the extraneous burden of “meaning” or “expression”, and thus, it is pure beauty.

Few things are more important than that.

Alain
(From my blog: www.alainmayrand.com/words)

[Alain Mayrand]

Ray! Very well put!

Music is hard to understand, an almost magical creation for most people. As you say, defying definition. You are so very right.

My original post came about from a pet-peeve of mine: hearing people say that music expresses their soul, or their feelings in a way that words never could.

From my end, as a listener, I don't perceive it that way. I can't listen to Beethoven's 5 Symphony and know anything about that man's soul. Or listen to The Rite of Spring or Le Bolero or any film score by John Williams and understand their feelings that couldn't express.

And yet, I am moved by it. And to me, that is what it's about.

Thanks Ray!

Alain

[Ray Kemp]

Music isn't always performed beautifully. For that you need the the performer/s to play expressively.
The misconception you refer, is not for you or I to understand or debate because we like most members in a composers' forum, know too much about the process involved in creating the noise we call music.
On the other hand, the vast majority of the world's music loving population know nothing of said process but you try telling them they don't appreciate the expressiveness in a performance live or recorded being a big factor in their consumption of "beauty".
Probably we will go 'round in circles discussing this because the very term "music" defies definition to most people, especially musicians who often wrongly dismiss genres they dislike.
I prefer a less polorized view but it is difficult to get a real heated debate without the presence of opposites.

Ray

[Alain Mayrand]

Hello Katherine,

what you are talking about here is a common misconception; confusing "expression" with "expressive", confusing meaning with physiognomic perception.

I am open to your interpretation for sure, you say that music is a "true lingual expression." Can you explain that? I would be very interested in your explanation.

Thanks Katherine!

Alain

[Katherine Lynne]

Alain, thank you for your insight and university study results, but I truly must disagree.

I think that some (not all) originally composed music does have a "language" all its own. Many expressions, emotions, and intentions of the human heart and soul simply cannot be expressed in mere words - at least many of mine cannot....

When I sit down to compose a piano piece, I will never come to instrument without a reason. There is a fire burning in me somewhere for some reason - a passion to express.

Of course I practice for hours technique, etc. without this passion, simply so that when the stirring arrives, I am ready to go....the song comes from within me, many times on one or two takes with little editing, because I have done the initial "homework".

The result for me is a true lingual expression and expressions, in notes - a song.

[Alain Mayrand]

Sorry for the late reply, guys! Blame it on my birthday, which was the 17th! :)

Frederick: glad to see you agree. I find composers who have thought about this (and perhaps read the same books and papers I have) come to the same conclusion: music doesn't express stories, thoughts and your inner most feelings. And that doesn't make it any less valuable or worthwhile.

EA: I would say that music is "understood" by all because it doesn't convey a meaning, and thus there is nothing to understand! :) A sonata does have two themes that start apart, fight it out and come together in the end, but nobody could ever answer: "what was the story of this sonatina?"

Now, keep in mind, that my original post above only considered one aspect of this discussion. But music, through physiognomic perception, can be associated to text and actions very well (such as film, opera).

Even pure music, music that has no programme, will bring to mind various for various people. It is inevitable and it is part of human nature. To fight this would be pointless! To use it to our advantage is a greta tool for composer, such as Liszt realized in his great tone poems.

This association also is why people love film music!

But back to the subject at hand, I think the main confusion comes from the word "expression." There is a difference between expressing yourself and expression, or being expressive.

The problem I have is that most people say that "music expresses their thoughts and feelings", when it clearly can't do that.

Expression is a form of communication. Communication requires an agree upon and mutually understood set of symbols, written or spoken or otherwise, and music is simply not built to do that.

Visual arts can express thoughts and concepts, so can poetry and dramatic arts. Music is truly abstract and visual art tried to reach that degree of abstraction.

I would consider architecture an art, as I am sure you would, but what does it express of the architect's inner soul? Can it actually express something? Music has often been compared to architecture.

Music is expressive, yes, but in a similar way that one ca speak expressively through intonation, move their hands expressively or use facial expressions in a way to denotes emotion without being specific about it. Only words or visual symbols can do that.

Alright back to work, I just got a new MIDI keyboard controller (M-Audio Keystation pro 88) and I am fooling around learning how it works when I should be composing some music! I'm not complaining, though... new toys are fun...

[Kristofer Emerig]

I think the meaning to be sought in music, as alluded to by Fredrick, concerns relationships rather than content. The confusion over this issue is analogous to a common perception that mathematics is all about quantities. It is not, but rather relationships. f(x)= x² + y alone says nothing quantitatively about the values f(x), x, or y, but rather delineates the interrelationship between those variables. This equation is Mr. Zinos' box, you bring the quantities and plug them in. Bach's music is not extraordinary for the the subjects and motifs he employs (on the contrary, most of them are rather elemental and astonishingly simple), but rather in how he weaves them into a fabric of the mathematically sublime.

Similar thoughts can be applied to certain other artists in other fields. MC Escher comes to mind. One might view Circle Limit and declare that it is "about" angels and demons, because they are its "content". I would counter that it is "about" dividing plane space compactly and contiguously, and that the specific content (the forms of angels and devils that is) are relevant only in the sense that their specific form dictates how that division will be achieved, much like the subject will unfold and engender form, give shape to a fugue by virtue of its specific shape and properties.

[Fredrick zinos]

it may be the universal language but there are no precise meanings to any of the symbols as there are in other forms of communication. If I say the word "chair" you picture something. I don't know what kind of chair you pictured but the word "chair" has a pretty well defined meaning and while we may not think of the same kind of chair without other descriptors, we are both in the same general realm.

If I paint a long dark blue downward sloping line on a canvas, many people will say it evokes sadness, or melancholy and indeed it may depending on what else is on the canvas.

Now suppose, instead of saying "chair" or panting a blue line, I play a Bb major chord. What does that mean? We will never agree on a meaning not even if we play the next chord, Eb major.

We can understand the relationships between the chords but we can't assign them a specific meaning, not even of there are dozens of chords preceding and following.

There is an example of this, I think, in an overview of musical literature. Music that has less specificity has generally speaking, broader appeal. The music of Bach, with its relatively abstract ideas (Fugues, for example do not have themes or melodies, they have aptly named "subjects") seems to hold up much better than the music of Rachmaninoff, or Wagner or Tchiak with their very explicit musical ideas.

Music expresses nothing per se, but maybe it helps us come to grips with our on particular view of the world.

No matter if the music is abstract or laden with melodies the thing that both sorts of music have in common, for them to have any hope of survival, is they must be well made. Why a 75 year old Duke Ellington piece still captivates is for the same reason a 200 year old work by Beethoven captivates. Its not the melody or the harmony or the rhythm, its the structure. In fact if you want a real shock, compare the structure of "Take the A train" to the first movement of Mozart symphony #39.

Back to the original hypothesis. Music itself expresses nothing, it is a box into which we project our experiences, musical or otherwise. The piece survives or perishes based on how well it is made, not what it contains.

[Anne Goodwin]

Music IS Beauty. Absolutely. But isn't music the ultimate language? It has been called the 'universal language' and for the most part, I think it is. Notes on paper are like letters of the alphabet; chords are like words; phrases are like sentences; sonatinas are like letters or short stories; sonatas are like long letters or novels and symphonies are epic stories . . . and so on. Perhaps it's a question of what comes first . . . the sounds the notes symbolize or the meaning that is brought to us by them. Why would we listen if there was no meaning?