(or: what's the difference?)
so in Horace seminar our professor was talking about the theory that art should be ranked accordingly to how morally instructive it is. He said he used to strongly disagree with that theory but now he kinda agrees with it. I, ever the musician, naturally brought up the example of music - it's abstract, you can't derive morals from it. And he said that well, it is, it makes you feel more moral or something - well, I forget exactly what he said.
Anyway, let's elaborate. There's instrumental music and songs. Can songs be morally instructive? They have text, the text can be printed. Can music be morally instructive without text? It's certainly art. Better question: what do I mean by morally instructive, anyway? Or, what are morals?
Now ok I'm not a person who's terribly interested in philosophy and I'm sure there's a lot of work much of it in foreign languages trying to answer that question. Let me be clear: screw that work, I'm going to Wikipedia. I'm always reminded of a couple of scenes in the movie Election, where Matthew Broderick asks his class what's the difference between morals and ethics. He asks a fellow teacher, too, who replies with what's the difference? Moral: Election is a good movie.
Heh, I just used that word, moral. I was joking, but a moral is a lesson to be derived, at least in that usage. Let's go to Wikipedia, for its first definition of morality: In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.
OK, how can I relate that to a Beethoven sonata? What code of conduct does it have? Well, the movements of a sonata have their various forms. The forms are not authoritative, Beethoven deviates from them often - which is why his music is so good. Beethoven's 5th and 9th symphonies might be more fruitful examples: they begin in minor keys and they end in the parallel major keys. They begin stormily and stressfully and end in glory and you clap and feel good after hearing them, because they're like a musical representation of good defeating evil. But a symphony, or whatever, doesn't need to end in the major key. There's Mahler's 6th symphony, "Tragic", which is mostly in A minor. The first movement ends affirmatively in A major, but the last movement ends with a terrifying A minor chord. The incessant motto of the symphony is a major chord followed by a minor chord. And it's a great symphony!
Wait, who says it's a great symphony? Me, Alban Berg, any critic of Mahler. It's a very dark symphony though. Morally instructive? I guess sometimes it says evil triumphs after all. But I'm pulling that out of my ass. Mahler's such an intensely personal composer - you can make sense of his music in any way you see fit. Your interpretation may not be mine, or Mahler's, but he's dead and I won't judge. I guess if Mahler's symphonies have taught me anything besides how to use an orchestra, they've taught me that music endures. Also some other stuff that I don't know how to put into words.
Wikipedia again: In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. In this "prescriptive" sense of morality as opposed to the above described "descriptive" sort of sense, moral value judgments such as "murder is immoral" are made. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism, in which the existence of objective moral "truths" is rejected.
Ideal: that's an interesting word. Is there any ideal in music? Well, like Beethoven sonatas: yes, there is a sonata form. But Beethoven at his best subverts the sonata form - he inserts fugues, or adds really long codas, or something. Music that follows sonata form to the letter tends to be simpler music. There's nothing wrong with that! I just want more. The phrase moral value judgments: also interesting. Judging music: I'm with Duke Ellington, If it sounds good, it IS good. Can it (a given piece of music) be improved? Maybe! But if it sounds good, it's probably fine already, even if it doesn't follow arbitrary rules.
Hell, even Ellington's dictum - accurate as it is - isn't quite comprehensive enough. There's the Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima, the most painful composition I've ever heard. It's all wailing violent strings, nothing at all resembling harmony, just clusters of notes and sound effects. It's horrific. Is it a good piece of music? Hell yes, because it's ACCURATE. It lives up to the title, and it makes you think about nuclear war (maybe). So is it morally instructive? Actually, the answer here is a clearcut yes (in my opinion) - one of the few pieces of music that I can say that about.
In math a good technique in proofs is to consider the opposite of what you are proving. Can a piece of music be morally destructive? I'm not thinking of rap here - that's a lyrics issue, and I'm talking about sound. Perhaps the best example I can think of is parallel fifths: those are frowned upon when writing music that consists of independent lines. Of course, one way out is to not have the lines be independent at all, but I was playing this Grieg piece (sounds good, therefore is good) and it's in 4 part harmony (mostly) and it has some obvious parallel fifths sometimes. They sound good, but are they morally destructive? The answer's no - who cares, parallel fifths don't incite murder or theft or whatever. I don't really think music (independent of lyrics) can. But who knows.
I've gone on too long, and this entry is too incoherent for my tastes. But here's the upshot: I'm still not convinced that a Beethoven sonata (or whatever) is morally instructive. I am convinced that they sound good, therefore they are good. I don't think that music can be morally destructive, but I could be wrong. I don't think I am. Anyway time to do something besides blogging. Maybe go play Beethoven's sonata no. 28, opus 101.
