Hanslick seems to imply, though, that there is something in music that we simply cannot put into words. What do you think this might be? Do you think he's right, that there is something mysterious and inaccessible to us in music? Does Kivy's proposal of emotional content hold against Hanslick's thesis?
So many people believe that music has some inaccessible quality which cannot be explained in words and this quality can be explained only by physics and the wavelengths of music which cause happy, sad, dark, or light sounds. It is almost objective that what we find pleasant or upsetting in music and no subjective as some people think. Hearing a dissonant chord, we will acknowledge that that sounds ugly, even if one is an extreme aficionado of metal or rock music, one can still distinguish an "ugly-sounding" chord.
However, many people would disagree with the idea that music can only be described in physical terms. Music does produce, for some people, emotional responses that can be traced to chord progressions but are not "inaccessible." Chord progressions work with specific chords that make specific noises for us to feel certain ways and I think that those emotions are set in that way.
Moreover, there is no way to prove emotional content in music other than a subjective view.
T
No comments:
Post a Comment