Michael Daniel

Core C - Romantic Journal

2/13/2006

Romantic music is programmatic, while absolute music is purely musical.

Programmatic means that the composer writes a story to go along with the music. The

absolute composer writes music without a story and therefore allows the audience to

create their own meanings for the work. There is debate between programmatic and

absolute aficionados as to what style of music is better. Absolutists reject programmatic

music because they feel that the use of a program is an attempt to control their thinking.

Those on the programmatic side of the debate claim that the absolutists are limiting

themselves because they will never know in any definite way exactly what it was that

inspired the music. The central conflict in the debate is the question of how important the

inspiration for a piece is. Absolutists say that it is not important to understand the

specific inspiration. Programmatics say that the composer’s inspiration is of paramount

importance.

Liszt wrote in defense of programmatic music. He said that, “It is childishly

pointless and usually impossible to draft programs after the fact in an attempt to clarify

the emotional content of an instrumental poem.” First of all, Liszt used an ad hominem

attack by using the word, “Childish.” Secondly, John Williams would disagree with that

statement. John Williams did the music for many films, including Star Wars. In the book

that comes with the Star Wars soundtrack boxed set he says that one of the curious

qualities of programmatic music is that when one listens to music the entire world seems

to go along with the music. This is seen in political spoofs on the internet and the Daily

Show. Putting “Yakkity Sax” (the Benny Hill Show theme) to almost any video footage
will elicit a smile, if not laughter. Putting the rap song “Damn it Feels Good to be a

Gangsta” to video of President Bush walking will cause humorous juxtaposition, which is

why The Daily Show did it. If you show the same video of President Bush and play

“Hail to the Chief,” people will feel more patriotic, which is why the presidential song is

“Hail to the Chief,” rather than “Yakkity Sax.” In this way, a song can be given meaning

after it has already been composed.

Hanslick wrote in defense of absolute music. He wrote that, “… music is

nevertheless in fact an image.” This is false. By definition an image must be visual.

Music is auditory, not visual. We can create images from music by feeding the music

through machines which will display a graphical representation of it on a screen. We can

create sheet music that will show what notes were played. These things can be created

after the fact. Music is only tangible through auditory senses and touch (as Beethoven

did when he put his head on the piano).

Hanslick also wrote that we cannot understand music through words. He also

wrote that “music is a language that we speak and understand yet are incapable of

translating.” Barzun, however, said that, “… music can be talked about like any other

art.” When given the choice between these two statements, I say that Hanslick’s

statement is inconsistent and Barzun is correct. Hanslick made his statement in order to

describe music, but if his statement is correct then music can not be described through

words. If it is impossible to describe music with words then we should disregard

anything that anybody ever writes or says about music, including Hanslick’s writing.

Barzun said that, “… no music denotes or gives out information.” As evidence he

describes the many interpretations of a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. This is non
sequitor. Hamlet is a play, or a poem, but it is not a piece of music. We could interpret

this writing in such a way that we assume that Hanslick is equivocating music with

theater, but that would make the statement inconsistent. In one breath Hanslick denies

that music (theater) can contain no information and in the next he numerates all of the

different kinds of information that a particular work can have.

As I have shown, none of the readings stand up to the kind of analysis we learned

in ARQ. This should not be a surprise, yet if nothing stands up to analysis then who

should I believe? If these experts are all wrong on some level then should I dismiss their

ideas in favor of my own ideas? Should we allow Hanslick to not write critically simply

because he has the excuse that he lived over 100 years before ARQ was published? I

should not trust the conclusions of a scientist who does not know the scientific method,

so by the same logic should I not trust the conclusions of an academic who does not

know ARQ?

In this case, I don’t think that ARQ is a useful tool. I understand that I am

expected to ARQ my readings in order to learn critical thinking concepts and to gain

points so that I can get a good grade. I endeavor to create the product that my professors

ask for, so I will continue my use of ARQ until told otherwise. My issue is that ARQ

analysis is meaningless when used on subjective propositions. My statement that, “Erin

is pretty,” has no argumentative value. You can disagree with me but you can’t tell me

that I’m objectively wrong in any meaningful way. For example, you could tell me that

pretty is an aesthetic value that consists of certain elements and Erin doesn’t fit any of

those elements. That will not change the fact that I find Erin to be pretty. ARQing my

idea of pretty is a waste of time because it does not result in any change of attitudes.