in Chapter 4 he states that music has no emotion. I know Robert and disagree. He says that (paraphrasing) “emotion is not in music. Emotion can be in a person hearing or playing music, but the music itself does not contain emotion.” I think he is misguided. Emotion, as defined by the dictionary is disturbance. Music is the disturbance of sound and space- therefore- can we conclude that music IS emotion- in it’s pure form? I say yes. as a musician, this is an important topic to me…
Thoughts anyone?
btw… I think that this also translates to other visual arts as being disturbances of perception…
Here, I think you are mistaken. If you say that any disturbance is emotion, than there is emotion in heat, and an emotion in light, and emotion in the mechanical hum of a computer.
Robert’s stance is the logical one. What you’re saying is equivalent to saying that meaning is in language. Meaning can be shared through language, just as emotion can be shared through music, if one knows how to interpret the language or music. Music is simply a physical process: sound waves hitting our eardrums in patterns that evoke memories, thoughts or emotions within us.
The affective aspect of conciousness: feeling (b) a state of feeling (c) physchic and physical reaction
maybe this needs some redefining then?
or maybe not…
I consider heat to be a natural state. Though, the obvious response is to consider a Bunsen burner, injecting heat into something. Here it would definitely be more difficult to explain as emotion. However, heat can be calming, painful, tiring, etc…
Light- consider visual artwork (paintings, photographs, sculptures etc…)? These are light manipulations, and I consider visual arts to be emotion.
Is the hum of a computer considered a disturbance or excitement? It seems that, at least in intent- it would not qualify either. you could also claim that the hum (or other random ambient noises) are indeed emotion- like the sound of a waterfall- basically just noise, but calming (or alarming depending on the noise). John Cage would probably agree…
I am not familiar with that book or the author, but from that quote, maybe he means that the emotion within the musician is kind of a filter through which the music passes before it becomes external. Once the music is external, the emotion, or filter, is no longer there but it may be evident to the listener in terms of the structure, tempo, melody, etc. According to Kraut emotion is not in music–maybe the overall tone or mood of the piece is the closest possible thing to the original emotion?
Emotions are something felt, a response, not something imposed. Pachelbel’s canon can be relaxing, inspiring, melancholy… compare the emotions felt by somebody who associates it with the death of a parent to someone who associates with their wedding night.
Of course, above personal affect there are shared cultural references that help you to communicate - however, your reaction to music from a culture with which you are utterly unfamiliar may be “inappropriate” given the context in which it is made. Is it party music or a call to war? I have no idea how (say) Mongolian music differs between a love song and a revenge epic. There is no inherent content to music.
