Common Errors Concerning Musical Meaning

Classical Error: Denying Objectivity of Content

In classical music it is rarely written about how audience actually experience it – it is usually written about form. There was little authentic writing true to how we experience the music; approximations through words of actual ideas conveyed in music. Maybe because you need some true insight, inspiration and writing skills, some personality and vision, to speak about that convincingly? Whatever the reason, it’s such a shame that this age-old trend deprived us of true, authentic writing about many musical masterpieces, articles that are actually true to how we experience these pieces; approximations through words of actual ideas conveyed in music. And the truth is that the structure and motivation of many a great piece came from atmospheric reasons. We are not conscious enough of the true meaning of the greatest works in music simply because classical critics rarely write about this. Such talk would greatly help understanding of ambitious pieces by people who maybe are not so comfortable with music.

Sometimes it is explained that “meaning” is too subjective to be authoritatively written about. But this is like saying that there is no real, fixed meaning at all. People from classical music often think that non-formal music must be named if we are to know what is it about. But the most brilliant example that this is not so is Jean Michel Jarre. His pieces never have a name but are numerated; even when they try to convey something, they don’t say what they are about. But I always unmistakably understood what they are. For example, Equinoxe 1 is a sunrise; Equinoxe 2 is a dream; Equinoxe 4 is a cyborg; Equinoxe 5 is rain and sun; close to the end of Equinoxe, immediately after the funny part with organs playing a simple tune, you hear a sound that is a sun coming through clouds; the very end is sun and the rainbow. It is that and noting else, and I was sure that this is what JM Jarre wanted to describe with his music. And so on: Magnetic Fields 2 is a train, Magnetic Fields 1 is speed with changing direction, Zoolook is a silly orchestra, Zoolookologie a jolly machine working. You need no name to know what composer is telling you. Every good composer has an intention when he writes a piece, and if a piece is good a keen listener will understand it along those lines. Of course, from certain point we can feel pieces differently; but the basic meaning is not relative.

Classical Error: Not Caring for Meaning and Enjoyability

Previous fault is naturally connected with another: considering top music as non-entertaining.Among XX century music professionals, it was almost common to assume serious music is not beautiful, does not give pleasure when listened to. So a term for this was introduced - “enjoyability”. But listener in reality has only this sole criteria when judging a piece, so from this perspective this term is surplus. Indeed, nothing is more difficult to achieve than deeply moving a listener, and no accomplishment more worthy than the one that does this. You need no other criteria to know that a piece is good than this divine good feeling; while any other negative feelings that makes us go gloom, feel anxious, is a sure sign that something is wrong with the piece.

Modern Error: Mixing High Sublimity for “Background” Character

Although it hit it’s peak during XIX century, romanticism remained benchmark of sublimity in classical music to nowadays. Circles of classical musicians even today rarely speak of sublimity that goes above it. Romanticism is often full of pathos, and not alien to outbursts of raw, basic temper. Romanticism is the highlight of sensibility based on pathos, and on “longing for longing” feel. In the first half of XIX century, audience would gather of Schubert's concert when they want “to have a good cry”.

Listening to Erkolnig his contemporaries could feel itches. When on the end the words came: - “From his hands the death grabbed his son – camera singer Fogl didn’t not sing, but with faint voice only whimpered …

I will never understand how so much deep feelings gathered in that fellow”, Fogl was saying. From “Der Himmel Voller Geigen” by Rudolf Thiel

But on the beginning of XX century people started to be unsatisfied with this. Pop culture went for wild screaming, having no better idea. Academics also had their’s own noise.

But in the same time, some musicians sensed a more powerful, more pleasing sort of sensibility. But surprisingly, many people – especially as it seems in our times – tend to view music that lacks pathetic string and nervous temper as bland. They equal pathos with depth, and wild outbursts of temperament with engaging. Therefore, they equate high sublimity with blandness and background character; music that overwhelms with structure, atmosphere and meaning, for structureless and meaningless music.

That was certainly one important reason for decades-long obscurity and lack of writing about “ambient” music - since there is no pathos nor temperamental outbursts coming from it, many musical journalist feel there is nothing to write about, since it is just pleasant background music to relax to. They are not receptive on aural qualities, unable to differ between low-key background music and genial pieces.

Eyes and ears are bad witnesses if the spirit is uneducated. Hort Heraclitus

Despite the fact that classical music itself is so much about moods and atmosphere, and despite most classical musicians would agree on “music is atmosphere”, in our times there are scornful terms of “mood song” or “pure moods”, that refer to music that concentrates on atmosphere.