“Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and that which cannot remain silent.”
― Victor Hugo
“After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
― Aldous Huxley
“Where words leave off, music begins.”
– Heinrich Heine
“Where words fail, music speaks.”
― Hans Christian Andersen (the actual quote is: “Where words fail, sounds can often speak”)
These quotes are poetic, which makes sense since the writers all wrote poetry, but are they valid?
The question of whether music expresses emotions or triggers them has been debated for centuries. Similarly, many have explored the effect music has on us. How do we react to music, and why do we react in the way we do? Plato wrote, “more than anything else, rhythm and harmony find their way into the inmost soul and take strongest hold upon it” (Republic, III, 40Id-e).
Indeed!
On the one hand, there seems little doubt that many people respond emotionally to music. I sometimes find myself moved either to tears when listening to music, not because the music is "sad," but because it is beautiful. Music can trigger in me a myriad of other emotions as well, such as joy, a sense of calm, a sense of excitement that can lead to a desire to move, or even dance (don't worry; I do not do this in public), feelings of wonder, curiosity, religiosity, etc.
I have never really understood why I react in these ways, but I can say with certainty that I often feel profoundly moved by music; this was probably the main motivator that led me to become a composer./musician
On the other hand, some people argue that while music can trigger emotional responses, it doesn't actually communicate anything.
One such person was Igor Stravinsky, who, in An Autobiography (1935), wrote:
“For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention – in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being.”I took an aesthetics course during my undergraduate studies (which were not in music; I began studying music after I had finished my first degree), and I remember learning about the nineteenth century music critic Eduard Hanslick, who argued that musical beauty “is self-contained and in no need of content from outside itself.” It “consists simply and solely of tones and their artistic combination” (Hanslick, On the Musically Beautiful, (8th ed., 1891)).
In How Music Grabs the Emotions (2014 article by Dr. Jenefer Robinson, Department of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati), the author writes:
“Hanslick was very concerned to establish that music has no “extra-musical” content, and that, in particular, it does not express or represent emotions. One of Hanslick’s contemporary devotees goes so far as to say that “it is not essential to music to possess emotion, arouse emotion, express emotion, or represent emotion. Music, in itself, has nothing to do with emotion” (Zangwill 2004: 29). In other words, music in itself is nothing but complex structures of tones, a bit like the moves in a game of chess.”But despair not, those of you who may be wondering what childhood traumas motivated Hanslick, Stravinsky, and others, to churlishly suggest that music is incapable of expressing emotions! There are many scholarly articles in support of the opposite point of view as well, including Robinson (quoted above), PN Juslin, and Malcolm Budd (1989).
Zangwill's notion that music “has nothing to do with emotion” seems absurd to me. I don't know that I would go as far as suggesting that music has everything to do with emotion – music exists on multiple plains, one of which is intellectual (wherein we analyze music, and marvel at clever and often unexpected things that great music-makers do/did), but for me at least, the main reason I want to explore the intellectual aspects of music is because it moves me, and I'd love to learn learn why and how this happens.
Do you have any thoughts on the question of whether music actually communicates emotion, or does it trigger emotion? Or do you agree with Zangwill that music has nothing to do with emotion?
I lean slightly more to the idea that music triggers emotions, rather than communicates them, but my view on this could change next week. Perhaps it can both trigger emotions and communicate them?
On a related point, we sometimes hear people proclaim that music is a universal language, but I disagree.
Language can be defined as "a form of communication," so, if music is a language, it is extraordinarily imprecise. Even if it does communicate emotions, which is debatable, it does so in an extremely nebulous way, and it is useless at communicating the multitude of specific things we expect language to do.
The "universal" part is also problematic, because we have moved to a point in history in which we acknowledge and embrace the validity and variety of all musical cultures in the world, with none having any superiority to any of the others. Only a cultural imperialist would suggest that the music of any single culture will "speak" to or be understood by all other cultures.
–––––––
Nick Zangwill, “Against Emotion: Hanslick was Right about Music” British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (2004). 29-43.
Posts
23 comments:
I really like the point about how music "triggers" emotion in comparison to "communicating" it and I totally agree. I believe this more so has to do with how a person is brought up, the culture that surrounded them their whole life; and in turn the sounds that came along with their upbringing. For example something I learned in my first year of my music undergrad was the types of scales used in other cultures across the world and all the so called dissonances I have grown to absolutely despise (due to my western culture background, of course) became present in a beautiful manner. More so, something else I learned that year was how in Europe they play classical music in the tunnels underground to deter delinquents from skulking around down there and getting up to no good. This is another example of how music can "trigger" emotion. The kids do not like that music since that would be the type of stuff their parents listen to so they do not want to hang around those parts. Music and emotion is very interesting stuff!
I am really glad you made the universal language point. Any linguist wold tell you that the concept in and of itself is malarky; language is a living thing that grows and changes generation to generation, culture to culture. If I were to try to communicate with some one from a long time ago or very far away even if we both spoke english we would have trouble understanding each other. See: every grade 10 english class studying Shakespeare. This also seems to be a property of music. Our musical conventions change across cultures and times. Maybe, in the wake of the two world wars, it was hard to feel like anything had any inherent meaning. And composers like Stravinsky found solace in something that simply is what is it is. Trying to extract the essence of something without context (historical, cultural etc.), in my view, will never get at the whole picture. Music is the same it, like language, is always changing its meanings and connotations in the context it resides within.
But what does that mean for us COMPOSERS? I personally like that music will never have one meaning. It is exciting to create something that will mean something different to every single person who encounters it.
For me, I don't think that its a matter of does music trigger or communicate emotion. Speaking a sentence to someone is just a series of words intended to make someone think of those things that together make a thought like saying "my cat is sick" is intended for you to think of me than me with a cat and then that cat being unhealthy. A series of words triggering thought, leading to an idea being communicated. I think the same can be thought of with music just more in an abstract way than language. Each chord or note triggers you to feel a particular way then, another triggers you to feel another way and then the connection between them communicates an idea of one feeling moving to another and recontextualizing each other. So for me it is that I think music both triggers and communicates emotion just on the small vs large scale. I always liked the idea of thinking of music as a language for this reason, just not a universal one. Because yes not everyone hears music the same like how the quarter-tone in North America is viewed as an extremely uncommon very dissonant sound but in India, for example, its a fairly common note that is just a part of their scales. It is like how language differs per culture same as how English or Indian doesn't make any sense to someone who doesn't know it and therefore cannot communicate much the same goes for music. It all just depends on what you have learned and grown up with.
I agree with Plato’s quote here more than I agreed with the previous quotes. I do think that music can catch hold to us strongly because it’s a way of representing our deepest emotions. I do think that the emotions can be perceived differently by different people, though. I think Stravinsky’s quote speaks on what I was discussing in my comment on the Beyond Words 1 post - music can trigger emotions but can’t be used as a language on its own.
I think music is a deeply personal thing. Everyone gets different levels of emotion out of different music. For anyone to say music has nothing to do with emotion is a bit dramatic to me, and I think if they feel that way, it’s their own problem and shouldn’t speak for everyone.
I would also say that I lean more on the side of music triggering emotion within people as opposed to communicating it. Mainly due to the fact that, if it were to be communicative, it would only make sense for every person who listened to a piece of music to experience it the same way. This however, is not the case. Music is an incredibly personal and subjective art-form, and the relationship that a person has with it is influenced by that person's perceptions and life experiences. While I can see where people like Stravinsky are coming from in their quotes regarding the matter, I don't it's possible to definitely argue such a subjective subject, since what may be the truth for one person, may not be for others.
One could argue that the individual, personal nature of music is what makes it an ever-present, integral component of cultures from all around the world. While music may not be communicative per se, it plays an important role as an emotional catalyst.
I think that many musicians use their compositions as a way of expressing their emotions, and that often this triggers similar emotions in the listener. So in a way, maybe it would be correct to say that if a musician communicates an emotion in their music effectively, then it triggers that emotional response in the listener. So, my response to your question of if music triggers emotion or communicates it is that it can do both, neither, or one or the other depending on the type of music, the composer, and the person who is listening to it! Some of my favorite songs are ones where I can listen to them and immediately relate to what the person is trying to communicate. For example, when I listen to Jack Johnson’s album “In Between Dreams” it never fails to make me feel this overwhelming sense of peacefulness. If I’m ever frustrated or stressed, that album rarely fails to calm me down. I am certain that this sense of tranquility is exactly what Jack Johnson was trying to communicate with this music. The music is so simple and easy to listen to, and his voice is so calming, and this really establishes that emotional response. However, I’m sure there are people who would listen to his music and feel other emotions, depending on who they are and what they've experienced. Perhaps someone out there has a very bad experience with the Curious George movie (which Jack Johnson wrote the music for) and his music brings back horrifying memories for them as a result. However, I think that his music would trigger this sense of calmness for most people because of how effectively he communicates that emotion through the music.
I think that I am of the opinion that music is able to both trigger emotion and communicate emotion at times. Music is a subjective art form and people are going to have different interpretations of a piece or different responses to the music. Music can intend to communicate one emotion, while actually triggering a contrasting emotion in a listener. Sometimes I find that I am able to understand the emotion that the composer is intending to communicate, even though I won’t personally feel that emotion while listening. People may also prescribe their own meaning to a piece, which may change what emotions are triggered for them when listening. It’s definitely not a universal language because music isn’t always going to communicate the same message or emotion to everyone, especially across different musical cultures.
Music can trigger emotions, there are pieces that aren’t intended to communicate anything, yet they trigger emotional responses from listeners. However, I think music can also express emotions, but it all depends on the composer, their intentions, and the piece itself. If a composer is happy and writes a piece as a way to express it and does so in an effective way, it may trigger a positive emotional response from the listener who would then be able to empathize with the composer, meaning that the composer’s feelings have been successfully communicated.
It really is such a challenging, subjective idea - there are different genres associated with different social structures (e.g., certain music is acknowledged to be specific for dancing, while others could be meant for storytelling in oral traditions) and musical motifs can change symbolically across cultures (like in Western music, maybe something sounding major is associated to sound "happy" while in other cultures the tones might not be seen that way). An individual's life experiences and associations to music could also influence interpretation. Whatever the case may be, it does feel like unless a piece is given an explicit context, the idea of "communication" is very subtle - since we have these cultural and physical associations with music that influence certain emotions, it creates a kind of relationship with the intention and expression of the creator and their context (cultural/social/historical/etc). This relationship blends this concept, I find.
This is definitely a tricky subject to narrow down into objective terms as we all experience music through our own subjective lenses. In my own experience I have found music to trigger emotions that are already there, waiting for the music to awaken them. No song means the same for everybody. My Nsync christmas album triggers joyful emotions for me with amazing memories. For someone else that music might remind them of something traumatic or they just don't like it. All are valid and they would all have different emotional responses based on their own lives. Which ever school of thought we like to entertain we can all agree that music is an integral part of our lives and no two people feel it the exact same way.
Before this year, I had believed the classic cliche "music is a universal language." However, when I took a course with Dr. Kati Szego- Music of Africa and the Americas, a became aware that the type of music I know so well, isn't the only type of music in the world. When we began listening to examples from countries in sub-Saharan Africa, some of the melodies seemed horribly out of tune. However, I learned that there are different tuning systems used. Different types of notation. Different scales. Different everything! And this was so shocking to me. I felt like someone should have told me sooner. Music isn't western music. Western music is music. I seriously felt like I had been pranked my whole life. This course really changed my prospective and now I even make sure to throw a world music lesson in there with my young students I teach.
In terms of the question does music communicate emotion or not? I have also always thought yes. But never considered the option that perhaps music simply triggers emotion. I do a lot of work with senior citizens and music and I have seen first hand how a certain song or style of music can completely change a listener's emotion. Sometimes, it's being reminded of another time they heard this song, sometimes it's hearing an up beat song on a lonely day. I think that music effects each person differently. The same piece might evoke different emotions in different people and for this reason, I believe that music doesn't communicate emotion but rather triggers emotion.
I would argue that music can both trigger and communicate emotion, but which is accomplishes would depend on the composer. I think perhaps German lieder about the beauty of the world around us would trigger emotion and bring forward memories about nature, whereas a Mozart opera would communicate the emotions felt by the characters in the opera. I also think that there’s room for both in any piece of music and that it also depends on the listener. There are pieces that I’ve heard that are about nothing I’ve ever experienced and yet, I feel so deeply immersed in the piece and the text that I feel as if those things have happened to me. On the other hand, if someone had experienced whatever being sung about, this could be considered triggering emotion as it would bring back memories of their own experience. I think trying to define such subjective things can be really limiting so for that and the reasons above, I think it’s both!
This is such an interesting article. I love and am intrigued by the phrase "Music is a universal language". Music is known for making people feel things, but I also appreciate Caleb's point that words strung together in a sentence also makes people feel unique emotions. However, sentences can be much more personal than music, specifically, the emotion of which the sentence is said with. If someone said with a bland voice, "I'm angry with you", then it would make me feel so different than if someone yelled "I AM SO F---ING ANGRY WITH YOU". Then, in that case, I would run for my life. For legal reasons, this is a joke. I am reminded of the music of artists from Spanish, French, and Italian cultures, singing lyrics that I don't necessarily mean. In that case, I just vibe along with the instrumental which could contribute a lot to the vibes of a particular song. I think that it is so incredible how music can move us so much emotionally.
Miraculous blog post! I think that I would agree with your parting thoughts, but to different extents. That music tends to TRIGGER rather than COMMUNICATE emotion seems rather logical, as at the end of the day music is (technically speaking) a combination of tones and timbres interacting with each other as sound waves. Personally, I would venture so far as to say that the ratio of triggering:communicative properties any given piece holds likely stems from the composer and not the fact that it is music. As an example, I believe that Bach’s collection of preludes and fugues are far more likely to trigger an emotional response than communicate any particular emotion. However, I have recently been studying Tchaikovsky’s character and he absolutely attempts to communicate specific feelings with his music. His 4th Symphony was written when he was in a rather depressive episode and in a letter sent to his longtime patron he describes with great detail how the first movement is meant to make the audience feel. I have certainly written music where I was attempting to communicate a particular feeling, and though I used practical aspects of music to make that happen it was first and foremost an exercise in emotional communication.
On the other point raised right at the end of this post, music is absolutely NOT universal. Not only is any one style of music potentially utterly foreign to an enormous number of potential listeners, thereby degrading its validity as a universal language for them, but some people might not even recognize that as music. Not to cherry-pick a horrible example, but conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro once said that rap was not music, because (according to him) it did not contain two of the three elements necessary to be considered music. Last year I listened to a fair amount of piphat ensembles for a musicology assignment and, while I definitely understood it as music, I did not feel anything beyond slight wonder at the performers’ ability to stay in time with each other.
I think that music can both trigger and communicate emotions, depending on the person and their reaction to the music. For example, if you listen to a sad song, it might not necessarily trigger you to feel sad, but you would still acknowledge the sad nature of the music even though it doesn't cause you to feel that way. I 100% agree with Michael's comment, that music can awaken emotions that are already present. If you're already feeling some type of way, whether it's happy or sad, etc., and you listen to a song that also communicates that mood, then you will likely have a stronger emotional reaction to the music that aligns with how the music is meant to be felt. Thus, my personal opinion is that music always communicates an emotion, but may not always trigger an emotion.
I think music can both communicate and trigger emotions. I say it can communicate emotions because it can be a way for the composer to express their own emotions (assuming the composition is a personal endeavour). On the other hand, music can also trigger emotions in the listener. For example: You could listen to a song from your childhood and feel nostalgic, even if the song itself has nothing to do with nostalgia. Sometimes composers intend to trigger emotions, but other times the emotions trigger themselves. Thus, I like to think music is able to both communicate and trigger emotions. The composer communicates the emotion, and that emotion and others are often triggered in the listener.
I think I tend to lean more to music triggering emotion over inherently communicating it. Music is in a way abstract, aside from explicit lyrics, music doesn't in a concrete way express or communicate an extra-musical thing. Even if a composer is intending to imbody a secondary concept through music, its interpretation is still always subjective. As I understand it, the meaning and feelings we derive from music is largely based on our previous experiences, and connections we have already made to musical ideas. A basic example of this is associating western major sounds with happiness or positivity, and minor sounds with sadness and negativity. This is not an inherently human reaction, as some cultures associate major sounds with negativity as music with this tonality has become connected funerals and end off life traditions. In the case of most western individuals, we have been experiencing major sounds with positive images and experiences likely our entire lives. Thus, music has the unique ability to create extra-musical associations within an individual based on their experiences and only their experiences, because of his music has tremendous value, even though it not a language or means of conveying concrete meaning as discussed.
Music, in my opinion, can both communicate and trigger emotions, though emotion is easier communicated to me when there are lyrics attached to a piece since lyrics often provide context to the meaning of said piece. With that said a song in a minor key can trigger sad emotions, just as a song in a major key can trigger happy emotions. Purley instrumental pieces can communicate emotions as well, but the emotions will be more general in nature unless the context is provided in a program note or something similar.
With respect to whether or not music is a universal language, I do agree that if music is a language, it is very imprecise, as individual pieces can take on different meanings depending on the listener. I also agree that we're at a point in time where we acknowledge that different types of music speak to different cultures, and thus, we cannot expect one form to speak to every culture.
Prior to my undergrad studies in music, I would've described music as a "universal language". However, after coming across this idea in numerous courses, I now understand how problematic this idea is. The problem arising in that different cultures have different musical conventions and understandings of music, and thus music cannot be universal. This illustrates how the interpretation of music is subjective. Since how one interacts with music is so heavily dependent on their subjective experience, I would argue that music triggers emotion rather than music conveying emotion.
On separate note, I think that the featured Stravinsky quote is highly interesting. Why would a composer say that music is powerless in expressing anything at all? Perhaps he is acknowledging that music is subject to a variety of interpretations. Alternatively, could this have been a PR stunt?
I don't know whether I agree or disagree with Stravinsky's quote. All I can say for sure is that it is fascinating that the composer of the "Firebird Suite" claims music is powerless in expressing anything at all.
I would consider triggering emotion to be a very valid way to approach its relationship to music, since how we emotionally comprehend music is aways influenced by the culture that we’re a part of and our previous exposures to that type of music. Despite my disagreement I can see someone saying that music does not inherently express anything, however I’m genuinely confused by the Hanslick quote that music is self-contained. This seems almost absurd to me, as the addition of lyrics, dance, or any other extraneous purpose proves that music is anything but self-contained and is consistently being mixed with different mediums to communicate something effectively.
Additionally, I would argue that even just triggering an emotion is equivalent to communicating in some way shape or form. Sure, it may trigger a different emotion for different people, and may deviate from the original intent of the composer, but even a misunderstanding requires some sort of communication to take place. Therefore, while I think that trigger might be the most accurate descriptor, I also don’t think that the trigger and the communication can truly be separated from each other.
Music can definitely be considered as a form of language. it can display and trigger emotions with the use of chords, melodies, harmonies, and other musical ideas. sometimes, the music can tell a story for each different person, potentially a different story that the artist intended. For example, I went to Norway last June to visit some friends, and I listened to "Good Kid MAAD City" by Kendrick Lamer during the plane ride. Now, whenever I listen to the album, it brings me back to Norway, and all the fun memories I had during my stay. Of course, when someone else is going to listen to that album, they're not gonna feel the same way about the songs as I do, and vice versa.I feel that music can be a sort of Time Machine in that sense, listening to music that can trigger memories and nostalgia. Triggering memories much like words can. There have been so many times in my life where I listen to a song that I haven't listened to in forever, and the nostalgia hits me like bricks. Its like the music communicates with me what life was like. Interesting post!
Very interesting as always. I am in the bout of thinking that music can definitely communicate things, but in order for this this to happen there has to be a series of conditions that need to be met by the environment and the individual who is listening to the music. A good example of this is when Alzheimer's patients listen to music they loved in the past and their brain reacts to the music in a way that is normally out of their ordinary behavior if they are in the later stages of the disease. In a way, is like they can remember again thanks to the music, and I think it is fair to say that in that scenario music can go beyond words for them.
Having said that, as we all have probably already said in every response in this blog, I think music is impossible to be categorized as a "Universal Language" even after the fact that every culture listens and uses music to some extent or another. Music lacks the power to clearly communicate ideas in a literal way most of the time, and because of this and many other reasons I think music is not a universal language but it can definitely have the biggest impact in any individual!
These statements are valid because they reflect the relationship between writers and music. Granted, that relationship may have been very surface level, as in the writers may have enjoyed music but have no formal education on it or have ever experimented with creating new music.
I am curious as to what led Stravinsky to become a musician/composer if he did not feel that music and emotions were connected, similar to Hanslick (even though I think a mentality like that is slightly more suited to a critic than a composer). I will also agree with you, that Zangwill’s statement is ridiculous and that music triggers more than communicates emotions. Similar to what I said in an earlier post, what is expressed through music by the person creating the sound is completely subjective, I might write a piece of music aiming to convey a certain emotion, however, it may bring up a completely different emotion within my listeners and continuously approaching our own music as if we were on the receiving end as if we were not the one making it is something all musicians, composers and performers alike should bear in mind.
Post a Comment