What period is your least favorite

[Opus106]

How do we know that what we hear is what they heard back then?

We don't. We probably won't.

[karlhenning]

It must all be guesswork.

[Gurn Blanston]

Bruno,
Here is an introductory piece that discusses the relationship of rhetoric to music. There are some social aspects to keep in mind when you consider this. For one, the intended audience of Haydn's music (in particular, although not exclusively) was the educated elite of his time. They studied rhetoric in school from earliest age through university. You can't discount that aspect because everything turns on the fact that there was a common language between composer and audience, and that language was rhetorical. Beghin parses out different works (although his specialty is keyboard, not symphonies) and shows how phrases of the music are exactly analogous to a rhetorical argument, to a degree that is far beyond what coincidence would allow.


Chapter 30:  Aural Media:  Music and Rhetoric

We hear music as we hear the voice:  it is the very soul of another, a 'coming forth' of the hidden individual.  These descriptions may be metaphors but they seem to be forced upon us, and invite us to treat the relation between music and language as something more than a passing accident.
Roger Scruton,  The Aesthetics of Music


The next type of aural media I want to look into as a form of persuasive communication is music.  You may doubt my sanity.  You are probably thinking, "Oh, boy, this is a stretch."  After all, when was the last time any of us heard a "persuasive" piece of music?  Nevertheless, I ask you to bear with me and hear me out.  First of all, I will make it clear that rhetoric and music are separate disciplines.  There are, however, striking similarities between rhetoric and music; in fact, music is a form of communication, as we will see.  In effect, rhetoric and music shed light on each other.  As I show some of the ways in which they do this, I hope you will come to agree with me that music does communicate, and in a sense we might even say persuasively.

First of all, music and rhetoric share a basic situation; there is always a maker of music, a hearer of music, and the music—much like the speaker, the audience, and the speech. Music is sometimes called the "international language."   A language without words, it communicates regardless of language barriers.  This seems to be a strong indication that music is, in fact, communicative.  But what does music communicate?  Many theories have been postulated, such as the theory that music is an expression of the composer's inner self, or the idea that music really has no meaning at all.  Most feasible to me is the theory that music is like gestures or facial expressions.  In other words, listening to music is like watching someone speak a foreign language.  I may not understand the meaning of the words he uses, but insofar as human nature expresses itself similarly in all cultures, I can see by a smile that the man is expressing happiness or has found something funny, or by a grimace that he is expressing displeasure at something.  I may even go further and tell by the tone of the speaker's voice that his scowl expresses anger, or sadness, or injury.  On a happier note, I might be able to tell from tone of voice and facial expression whether he is smiling at something humorous, or at something sublime.  This example illustrates the fact that the specific meaning of music is not usually clear, but we can tell in general what it is gesturing or what attitude it expresses.  I may not know the object of a piece of music's expressed agitation, but I can at least tell that it is communicating agitation.  Music can be seen as comparable to the gestures and range of expression that come through in the spoken word apart from explicit meaning.  As I mentioned in the last chapter, the comparison goes the other way as well.   Spoken words communicate both by means of the literal meaning of the words and by the inflected emphasis and tone of voice.  Music, then, is of great interest to the serious rhetorician.

There is also a connection or similarity between music and rhetoric in the sense that they both require expressive Delivery.  When studying the theory of Delivery for the first time, I was struck by the similarities between the advice from my violin instructor on creating dynamics when playing a piece of music and the theory of Delivery that I was learning in my rhetoric class.  The similarities are real, and I recommend that you look into music lessons as a way to improve your oral Delivery.  You will also learn an incredible amount about how sound gestures.  Both music and rhetorical Delivery use rhythm, volume, and quality of tone to communicate.  Finally, along with all the other points of similarity, both musical and oratorical performances provide opportunities for overcoming nervousness.  This enemy of smooth Delivery in both arts is formidable and can really only be conquered finally in battle, no matter what other techniques can be used to reduce its strength.  So take up an instrument; let your public speaking benefit from your recitals, and your recitals from your public speaking.

Third, and finally, music and rhetoric are both oriented toward the audience, with a strong emphasis on the aesthetic sense.  That is to say, they both appeal to the human sense of beauty. Rhetoric can help us evaluate music.  Today, almost every form of music is tacitly given the same status as being "beautiful" because it is beautiful in the eye of some beholder.  But does every piece of music really have the same potential for aesthetic value?  Many people actually think that the beauty of a piece of music is determined by each individual isolated from every other individual.  While this may be part of the truth (in the sense that every person's experience of music is unique), the fact still stands that people—collectively—know there is a difference between beauty and ugliness.  The Theory involved in persuasion lends an interesting perspective to musical evaluation.  The rhetorician is in the business of knowing what will be beautiful, in shape, balance, and texture.  Even his voice is an instrument he uses much like the musician uses his horn or violin.  He evaluates both his message and his situation based on certain principles.  These principles of aesthetics and composition give at least a handhold on some standards in aesthetics.  For example, the theory of rhetoric discusses the natural arrangement of beginning fact, middle action, and final conclusion that can shed light on the structure of a musical piece, which will either follow the pattern (beginning theme, middle tension, final resolution) or disrupt it.  This of course doesn't immediately answer the question whether a work of art is "good" or "bad," but it gives the person interested in analyzing and evaluating music some tools for the task.  It would take far too long for me to fully develop this kind of evaluation here.  I have tried to begin laying the groundwork in this chapter.  If music does communicate something, and if we can tell with at least some consistency what it is communicating and how well it does what it sets out to do, then we have a starting place from which to judge it.

How is music "persuasive"?  This question still remains, and it is not an easy one.  In order to formulate a basic answer to it, let me make a comparison.  Consider the fact that music is like the gesture, tone, and tempo of spoken words without the specific meaning of the words.  Can I take the comparison a step further?  Can music be compared to connotations or aura in other media?  For example, stories and poetry (whether considered textually or aurally) have flavors and tones.  There are gestures in the sounds and shapes of the words chosen and in the organization of the writing.  Sometimes the names of the characters even set a tone for the piece (as in Wodehouse and J.R.R. Tolkien).  The comparison seems to work.  So then, music tells the kind of story or involves the kind of tonal significance of a poem.  In both the poem and the story these are persuasive factors, not so explicitly, but rather as a way to convince the reader or hearer that the secondary world of the author is interesting and enjoyable.  The purpose (implicit or explicit) of the author can vary widely, sometimes conveying beauty and meaning and sometimes merely making the audience laugh.  In any case, when you enjoy art, you are in this sense persuaded.  In this way I claim that there is a kind of rhetorical or persuasive element to music.

Unfortunately, I only have the space to introduce you to the idea that music means.  I mention this to show the similarities of rhetoric and music, and so that you will begin to reject aesthetic relativism.  Music does mean, and we know its beauty, both by experience and by the testimony of Scripture, which encourages us to "make a joyful sound" and to "worship the Lord in the beauty of Holiness."  I want you to be able to firmly proclaim that there are standards for beauty and art, and yet to acknowledge that aesthetic standards are at times subtle.  Beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder, yet none of us knows beauty apart from being a beholder.  Remember that the Lord beholds all and that His "opinion" is our standard, and then seek to know His standard and how He communicates it to us.

Summary:  This chapter is about the similarities between rhetoric and music and ways in which we can learn about each from the other.  I outline three main areas of similarity: (1) the basic communication situation, (2) the importance of Delivery, and (3) the aesthetic emphasis of each.  The persuasive element of music is like the persuasion of stories or poetry.

[karlhenning]

Richly interesting, Gurn.

[Florestan]

Thanks for sharing, Gurn.

[Lethevich]

Ok, but has that ancient notation been decyphered? Are we able to reconstruct the music based on it? How do we know that what we hear is what they heard back then?

People can't even agree how Beethoven's music sounded in performance

[Florestan]

People can't even agree how Beethoven's music sounded in performance

I can hardly wait for a HIP performance of the Eleusinian mysteries... 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Gurn,
Thanks, I will look into this in more detail later...what I don't see (at first glance) is an exposition of what makes Classical-era rhetoric different from rhetoric of other periods (and what I might be missing), which is what I'm really interested in. But I will go back and read the whole thing carefully.

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn,
Thanks, I will look into this in more detail later...what I don't see (at first glance) is an exposition of what makes Classical-era rhetoric different from rhetoric of other periods (and what I might be missing), which is what I'm really interested in. But I will go back and read the whole thing carefully.

Well, as an historical tidbit, I will tell you this; rhetoric as a discipline virtually disappeared at the end of the 18th century. By the early 19th it was no more important than it is today. Without going into a lot of historic detail, I can say unequivocally that this is the reason that the vast majority of 19th century critics and commentators were unable to appreciate 18th century music on its own terms and thus shoved it rudely aside. Nearly all of Haydn and a surprising amount of Mozart got this treatment (although his modified, codified life story made him a Romantic by proxy). Today, 'rhetoric' is considered negatively when in fact throughout history from the Ancient Greeks who systematized it through the 18th century Classicists, rhetoric was a discipline to be admired, and its able practitioners were indeed lionized.

Different value system.  "Romantic" music was not composed in that manner, so thus it cannot have an analogue...

[Florestan]

what I don't see (at first glance) is an exposition of what makes Classical-era rhetoric different from rhetoric of other periods (and what I might be missing), which is what I'm really interested in.

I'm sure Gurn will detail it, but here are my two cents.

The main difference between the Classical era and what came after is that the Classical-era listener was supposed to be knowledgeable about music and rhetoric and their interconnectedness (is this a word?); he was supposed to be able to recognize the statement, the argument and the concluding remarks that this or that composer presented in their works, and appreciate them as convincing or not.

Secondly, the Classical-era musician was less (if at all) prone to openly project his inner world or musical dexterity in his music, for the twofold reason that (a) it would have gone against the prevalent aesthetic of balance and restraint and (b) there was literally (almost) nobody in the audience that would have been impressed by that: all those aristocrats and churchmen couldn't care less about what impression Mr. Haydn's sister's death left on him or whether Mr. Tommasini could played one double-stop after another on a single string.

A far cry from the Romantic era, which turned the whole thing upside down and promoted first and foremost exactly the kind of personal statements that the previous era rejected, while downplaying the knowledgeability and personal involvement of the audience.

Personally, I enjoy both Haydn and Schumann (taken not only as individual composers but also as typical representatives of a general mentality).

[DavidW]

Actually, I'm curious: what European ancient music (prior to the advent of musical notation) has anyone ever heard?

Well for me, I listened to a little bit in my music appreciation class in college.  I remember being bored on everything up until Byrd (so I was bored on everything pre-Renaissance), which I really liked.

It's been along time... perhaps I should explore that old music.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Some interesting responses. This statement:

A far cry from the Romantic era, which turned the whole thing upside down and promoted first and foremost exactly the kind of personal statements that the previous era rejected, while downplaying the knowledgeability and personal involvement of the audience.

intrigues me because it suggests that Romantic audiences were dumber (or less skilled, subtle, knowledgeable) than their Classical predecessors. I'm agnostic on that topic, but it would be interesting to consider in more detail.

So Gurn & Co.: is the reason we don't appreciate Great Masters like Vanhal, Dittersdorf, and the various Bach-oviches due to the fact that we're too ignorant to appreciate them? And if so, why do we still appreciate Papa Joe, Wolfy and Ludwig Van?

[karlhenning]

Well, Gurn will be the first to admit that Vanhal ain't no Mozart or Haydn. And Hummel no Beethoven.

[Florestan]

Some interesting responses. This statement:

intrigues me because it suggests that Romantic audiences were dumber (or less skilled, subtle, knowledgeable) than their Classical predecessors.

Not dumber, of course, but less knowledgeable certainly (statistically speaking).

So Gurn & Co.: is the reason we don't appreciate Great Masters like Vanhal, Dittersdorf, and the various Bach-oviches due to the fact that we're too ignorant to appreciate them?

In terms of the rhetoric of their music, we're certainly too ignorant.    

And if so, why do we still appreciate Papa Joe, Wolfy [...]?

I sometimes suspect that we do it for other reasons than those they were appreciated for during their own times. 

I remember reading an article making the case for the repressed homosexuality of Mozart's 20th PC.   

[Gurn Blanston]

Some interesting responses. This statement:

intrigues me because it suggests that Romantic audiences were dumber (or less skilled, subtle, knowledgeable) than their Classical predecessors. I'm agnostic on that topic, but it would be interesting to consider in more detail.

So Gurn & Co.: is the reason we don't appreciate Great Masters like Vanhal, Dittersdorf, and the various Bach-oviches due to the fact that we're too ignorant to appreciate them? And if so, why do we still appreciate Papa Joe, Wolfy and Ludwig Van?

"Ignorant" is a word that is loaded with baggage. One extracts from the context of your statement that you are using it in a sense of 'stupid', and while from a dictionary standpoint we know that isn't true, still, people do. If you are using it in its actual sense, then I would say yes, we are ignorant of how people in that era listened to music, and we cannot appreciate the same qualities in the music that they did. This is why HIP is doomed to failure. It is also why I don't use the acronym HIP any longer, and simply use PI (period instrument) because that's what I am capable of appreciating.

You can still like the hell out of something (Haydn's entire oeuvre for me) and yet be forced to admit that you like it for reasons that are totally not the same as the reasons that the original listeners had. We do it all the time.

Well, Gurn will be the first to admit that Vanhal ain't no Mozart or Haydn. And Hummel no Beethoven.

No, they are each individuals that one must appreciate totally in his own. As you know, I am no ranker (although I have been called a wanker. I was so proud!), and the fact that there was only one Beethoven doesn't bother me in the least. Elsewise, how would we appreciate him? 

[Gurn Blanston]

Not dumber, of course, but less knowledgeable certainly (statistically speaking).

In terms of the rhetoric of their music, we're certainly too ignorant.    

I sometimes suspect that we do it for other reasons than those they were appreciated for during their own times. 

I remember reading an article making the case for the repressed homosexuality of Mozart's 20th PC.   

Interesting cross-post. Virtually the same rhetoric that I used...

[Florestan]

Interesting cross-post. Virtually the same rhetoric that I used...

Great minds etc... 

[(poco) Sforzando]

People can't even agree how Beethoven's music sounded in performance

I imagine Beethoven himself would not have known.

[Florestan]

I imagine Beethoven himself would not have known.

Sforz, you're hilarious! 

[Gurn Blanston]

I imagine Beethoven himself would not have known.

I will totally discount any testimony that he might offer then, shall I?