THE "FEELING VS INTELLIGENCE" QUARREL
( in parallel to the wysiwyg vs wyhiwyg issue )

 

"What's the primary goal of a piece of music ?"
"Does it have to make people feel something, or does it have to exhibit a fine architecture ?"

 

 

TWO USUAL ANSWERS



A "normal" person from a "broad" audience will naturally answer that the only important thing consists in what they feel when they listen to music.
In other words, music speaks to the heart, not the mind.
( the extreme point of view being given here by the "popular moralist")

A composer from the academic avant garde (especially the european one) will answer that only craftmanship and architecture is important. A piece of music has primarily to be well done.
In other words, music speaks to the mind, not to the heart.
( the extreme point of view being given here by the "classical moralist" )

Let's try to find more interesting point of views.

 

FIRST ASPECT : SCIENCE OR ART ?

 

In ancient Greece as well as in the Middle Ages, it is of interest to know that music was considered by many people, especially the philosophers, not as an art, but as a science.
Basically, the science of sound, an aspect of acoustics.

It could mean that our romantic tradition is either a mistake, or a real novelty.
The romantics have, in a way, "converted" a science to an art.

But the question remains valid when we deal with romantic music : is romantic music only a matter of feelings ? what is the respective importance of feelings ? of architecture ?

 

SECOND ASPECT : I DON'T UNDERSTAND, THUS I'M SCARED

 

Another thought from the Middle Ages.

Middle Ages : beauty is devilish, has to be avoided... significance is more important
( the landmarks being found in the Gregorian style : rising pitch = ascencion to heaven etc. )

So that leads us to the following comparison.
Middle ages : cult of God <-> beauty must be avoided, better promote significance
XXth century : cult of Science & Rationalism <-> beauty must be avoided, better promote complexity

One can see here the same syndrom : what is not understood and not mastered (beauty, feelings...) must be avoided.
This is a natural tendancy.

This answer would lead to the following conclusion : if we want to be bold, we have to feel only, even if we fear it.

 

THIRD ASPECT : ABSTRACTION BRINGS UNDERSTANDING

 

It's not a question of being bold - it's just that we can't communicate using feelings only.

Feelings are defined inside a cultural context - see western music. But architecture, proportions, this is universal - for instance the golden ratio is universal.

A very naive example : Saudade is a typically Portuguese feeling - it is a sadness related to the impossibility of being where you are not.
Is a US mid westerner liable to understand Saudade, since he is perfectly happy to be where he is ?
So he won't be able to appreciate in anyway a music based only on the feeling called Saudade.

But if the piece of music is also well done, with a balanced structure, rich arrangements, the mid western guy, with a bit of effort, can appreciate this piece, though he doesn't give a damn about Saudade.

So, it might be said that it is wise to introduce complexity and craftmanship in music : thus, it will be more universally understood.

 

 

FOURTH ASPECT : THE MESSAGE IS ONE THING, MUSIC IS ANOTHER

Music (art more generally) is complexity and architecture.

If I want to strictly remain at "feelings" level, I can say : "I'm sad" or "I'm glad", and that will be it !
( especially if we suppose that sadness or happiness are universal feelings, so that everyone will understand those words )

The conclusion would be that music and feelings are two different things. The feelings that people experience when listening to music are the result of the complexity, the elegance, the craftmanship contained in the music.

 

 

FIFTH ASPECT : MUSIC AS MAGIC - BOTH REQUIRE TRICKS


Architecture and craftmanship are a very safe method to get interesting results.
( "interesting" here means that music can convey an emotional message, whatever the way people receive this message - that's the fourth answer )

The problem here is that whatever your goal when making music, it has to be well done so your goal can be reached.
If you want to make music which make people dance, you have to develop skills so your music can really make people dance.
If you want to make music which make people cry, you have to develop skills so your music can really make people cry
If you want to make music which is deep, which can be listened to several times, like a rich, complex book, you have to develop skills so your music is really rich, complex, balanced etc.
( but unlike what moralists say, this last kind of music is not the only valid one ! )

Then you're like a magician : your tricks must not be seen, otherwise you miss the point.
Whatever you want to do, you need a reasonable amount of style, which often implies elegance, or complexity, or originality, or precision...

The problem when making music, any kind of music, is then the transition between the composer's will and the result. It's the ability to properly "speak" music, to translate an intellectual or emotional idea into sound.
We'll call that the translation issue.

 

Back to main index