Thinking About Music

            Rowell begins his book by proposing “to avoid for now the dangerous task of defining music.” (p. 1)  Yet, it seems throughout the rest of the book that he attempts to offer various definitions of music.  It is true that he claims to be defining the study of music and the aesthetics of music, but he somehow seems to be encouraging the reader toward a personal definition.  I believe the truth of his statement comes from the fact that he does not offer one ultimate definition.  Rather, he proposes a number of approaches to the study of music, and thereby giving the reader the tools necessary to make his or her own somewhat educated definition.

            As he writes he explains how to look at music.  How to look at time and music for instance.  He gives the reader questions to ask about music.  And, as he delves into the history of music he provides the reader with consistent and comfortable tools to use to better understand music.  Therefore, it would not be at all surprising if most readers of this book came up with very similar definitions of music.

            Rowell does not wish to teach us music, but rather offer ways for us to better appreciate and experience music.  It is his belief that one does not need to have a technical understanding of music to define it, yet he does concede that one should have some idea of their particular society’s concept of music.  Even so, it is his belief that music should be allowed to define itself in accordance with the experience of the individual.  This is important because, although this is a book on the philosophy of music, Rowell is careful and continuously reminds the reader that there is not one definitive answer to fully describe music.

            Wishing to allow the individual to define music may seem wise at first.  After all, there is no arguing that we each experience music in different ways.  Rowell, however, does not fall into that trap.  He seems to realize almost immediately that the definition must follow some standards if music is to be open for study and objectivity.  He states this from the beginning, but expresses himself most precisely much later in his book.  In referring to the often used phrase, “Matters of taste are not to be disputed,” Rowell replies, “But if we fall back upon this maxim and deny the existence of any standards, any legitimate grounds for preferences and statements of value, we abandon objective judgement.” (p. 150)  Something cannot be studied and adequately discussed with any accuracy and meaning if it does not have some kind of common essence that must be included in any definition.  So, although he begins by broadly defining the arts in general, Rowell does offer some guidelines he feels are necessary when seeking a definition.

            These guidelines he calls propositions, and to his credit they adhere to his belief that technical knowledge is not a prerequisite to studying or defining music.  “Musical values are not absolutes.  They are the products of culture and enjoy authority only within a given culture.” (p. 7)  This statement alone tells the reader that Rowell believes that ones personal concept of music is an acceptable beginning toward creating his or her personal definition of music. 

If musical values differ across cultures then they surely must differ with each individual.  For the most part the individual only experiences that part of his or her culture that is immediate to his or her environment.  It is true that the world is getting smaller, especially with the phenomenal use of the World Wide Web, but this does not mean every individual experiences things in the same way.  This is true for music as well, thus the possibility that each person can define music in his or her own way.

When Rowell asks the questions about music in chapter two, and defines the categories of music in chapter three, he leaves room for each individual’s opinion, while at the same time offering guidelines that serve to keep the philosophy of music within a consistent scope of inquiry.  Thus, questions on the music itself, which can be construed as a matter of taste, is guided by the classifications of chapter three.  So, although he allows us to give our own definition to music, he does not allow us to go beyond commonly understood characteristics of music.  At least, by his own admission, those characteristics as given by the culture of the Western World.  The questions he wishes the reader to ask, as put forth in chapter two, allows one with little musical knowledge the ability to learn how to appreciate the thing [music] itself.

It is by comparing music to the other arts that he comes closest to giving an all encompassing definition of  music.  One way music relates to the other arts is in the fact that it must have a medium.  This is a perfect example of how Rowell both allows the individual to give a personal definition to music, and at the same time requires that the definition fall within certain guidelines. 

Music can simply be a tune that rings in our head all day long.  As such one might argue there is no medium involved.  But there is – in the tones.  The tones come from some remembrance we have, either from an instrument being played or a song being sung.  We cannot call silence music.  At least not in and of itself.  What makes silence music is when it rests between the tones produced by instrument or voice.  We can, in other words, define music in a personal way, but it is not music just because we say it is.  It must, among other requirements,  have a medium.

When Rowell uses such descriptive features of the arts, such as tonality, tendency and pattern I feel he is continuing to state that technical knowledge is not necessary in order to appreciate and experience music.  Tonality, for example, may seem to be a technical musical term, but Rowell describes it as “the ability to create focus.” (p. 25)  This is a term the non-musician can comprehend.  We can see or feel what is being done with the music, when it begins to cause us to focus.

It is important to point out, however, that when an apparent technical term is needed to further his discussion, Rowell will use that language.  Still, he takes the time to explain the term in non-technical rhetoric.  “Tone [for example] is the form and frequency of vibration, regular vibration as opposed to the nonperiodic vibration that we call noise….” (p. 31)  Tone is a word necessary for a meaningful discussion of music.  Rowell takes the time to inform the non-musically minded person just what he means by the word tone.

Beginning with chapter four, Rowell gives a history of music, and its perceived affect on any given society or culture.  This, too, is necessary in order to gain a greater overall understanding of music.  I am certainly not a musician, but the chapter titled Dionysus and Apollo (Chapter Four) went a long way toward giving me greater insight into the of the affect of music on a culture, and the dynamics of music in general.  Through this chapter, I believe, we begin to see that music is not just tones given at different intervals and rhythms.  Rather, as the Greeks first outlined, music is a force that affects how we view life itself.  “Music was both valued and distrusted—valued for its ability to arouse, to please, to regulate the soul, and to produce good qualities in its hearers; but, at the same time, it was distrusted for its ability to overstimulate, to drug, to distract, and to lead to excessive behavior.” (p. 38)

Chapter Four also seems to underscore Rowell’s belief that the definition of music is ultimately an individual accomplishment.  The different theories of Plato and Aristotle on what is considered beautiful gives the reader the courage to believe that he or she can come up with a definition that is not entirely in agreement with someone else.  Beauty to me may be in the way I feel the music; while beauty to someone else may be in the way the music adheres to technical guidelines.  Neither person is wrong; they simply have different ways of perceiving beauty.

Rowell goes on to explore the ideas about music that has come to us “embedded in myth.” (p. 57)  Previously he has confessed to a bias in that he approaches music from the Western Cultural point of view.  He now goes on to set up “a frame of reference for the deep stratum of musical ideas in Western cultural consciousness.” (p. 57)  This discussion, coupled with the discussion on the Greek culture, explains in part why we sometimes see music as either a passive or active influence on our lives.  This discussion is consistent with Rowell’s belief that music is experienced and defined by the individual.  Each life, within each culture, is somehow effected by the experiences one has, which in turn has an effect on the way one interprets and defines music.

As a listener to music who relates his moods to the music, it was somewhat disconcerting to learn that for centuries music, for the most part, was considered beautiful only when it adhered to preconceived technical qualities.  It was therefore reassuring to find what Rowell calls a “cultural synthesis” take place in music as the Romantic composers began to make their style known.  It was as though he was saying that now the music lover, who nonetheless has little technical knowledge, can relate even more to a personal definition of music.  The Romantic writes music with the same intensity that I listen to music.  It is based on feeling.  Technical perfection may be present, but it is not lauded as the essence of the composition.

As Rowell explains the values of the Romantic style, listeners like myself realize that we have a greater understanding of music.  Greater than maybe we initially thought possible.  Rowell shows us that we can use our own natural feelings about music to help us create a viable definition.  It is his explanation of the synthesis of Romanticism that helps the reader to understand how accepted values evolve in a particular society. “At no previous time in he history of music had there been such a massive shift in musical values.” (p. 120)  The rejection of the rational by the Romantic composers made it easier for me to accept the fact that perceptions vary.  It also showed that varying perceptions is not necessarily a bad thing.

Again, Rowell is careful to point out that valid perceptions must be aided by knowledge; yet not all of it needs to be technical.  Standards must be kept, but there is more knowledge needed in order to fashion a definition that is suitable for a worthwhile discussion of music.  Rowell points out that we must know the composer, as well as the age in which he created the music.  We also should look at other composers living during that same period.  In other words, a definition of music comes not merely from a technical understanding, it comes mostly from your perceptions.  But to be valid those perceptions should be based on knowledge of things other than music.  Things such as culture, history, and biography.

The opening paragraph of Chapter Ten reveals both the built in bias of Rowell, and his contention that this bias is natural .  His belief “…that musical values are products of culture, not universal absolutes,” gives credence to his belief that music is defined by the individual.