On the Musically Beautiful: a Contribution Towards the Revision of the Aesthetics of Music

by Eduard Hanslick, Geoffrey Payzant (Translator)

"Like Hanslick, Professor Payzant is both musician and philosopher; and he has brought the knowledge and insights of both disciplines to this large undertaking." --Gordon Epperson, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

Genres: Music, Philosophy, Art, Nonfiction, History

Paperback

First published January 1, 1854

About the author

Bohemian-Austrian music critic

Reviews

[Owlseyes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can you tell (guess at) the feelings the Amazonian Indian is going through, while listening to Mozart’s?... what about the goings-on of his imagination? ...pleasurable? or...

This book is about the experience of beauty while listening to music; certainly, classical music, because it was written by 19th century Czech author/reviewer E. Hanslick. To me, it is a kind of a good seminal work, of which theme today's Psychology of Music and Music Therapy can address a lot better.





(Eduard Hanslick adulating the statue
of Saint Johannes Brahms)

By that time, Hanslick was pondering on the aesthetical experience of music, so sui generis an experience (music the most ethereal of the arts!... if you compare it to other arts: sculpture, painting, poetry…).

Hanslick was contending against a current of his time: “music as a main arouser of sensations,… or feelings”. Take a look at this elucidating quote:

"THE CONNECTION BETWEEN A PIECE OF MUSIC AND OUR CHANGES OF FEELING IS NOT AT ALL ONE OF STRICT CAUSATION;...

Evidence for this is the extraordinary difference between the reactions of Mozart's, Beethoven's, and Weber's contemporaries to their compositions and our own reaction today. How many works by Mozart were declared in his time to be the most passionate, ardent, and audacious within the reach of musical mood-painting. At that time people contrasted the tranquility and wholesomeness of Haydin's symphonies with the outbursts of vehement passion, bitter struggle, and piercing agony of Mozart's. Twenty or thirty years later, they made exactely the same comparison between Mozart and Beethoven. Mozart's position as representative of violent, inspired passion was taken over by Beethoven, and Mozart was promoted to Haydn's Olympian classicism....THUS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSICAL WORKS AND SPECIFIC FEELINGS DOES NOT APLLY ALWAYS, IN EVERY CASE AND NECESSARILY, AS AN ABSOLUTE IMPERATIVE".

To him music was directly linked to the arousal of “states of mind”, being “imagination” (the organ of pure contemplation) the function at stake.

It sounds a bit of “internal viewing” and there are those who defend that through music you can have access to colors and landscapes: sinesthesy.

Anyway, Hanslick didn’t deny the role of emotions: you can derive knowledge from them; feelings, in their turn, may give rise to images in the mind.

One the friends of Hanslick was, for some time, Wagner; but Hanslick revealed to be a conservative. Wagner was innovative: maybe advanced for his time. His music classified as “music of the future”. Later on, they got apart, in different positions…but maybe due to the Jewishness of Hanslick: who thought Wagner’s view becoming increasingly “obscure”.




(The critic Eduard Hanslick and Richard Wagner
Silhouette)


The purpose of the book was to clarify the “nexus” that unites musical works and “states of mind”. It reads like a philosophical approach.

I see the experience of beauty in music as a rather idiosyncratic, individual issue. My view.

[Nathan "N.R." Gaddis]

There has been precious little done regarding of the question of the aesthetics of music. This situation should surprise just about everyone. The only recent book-length study I am familiar with is Roger Scruton's The Aesthetics of Music which is an indispensable volume for anyone interested in philosophy and music. Scruton spends about a dozen pages engaged with Hanslick's view of music as "tönend-bewegte Formen."

Two other recent volumes, both single-author collections of essays ;; Peter Kivy's The Fine Art of Repetition: Essays in the Philosophy of Music which contains the essays, "Something I've always wanted to know about Hanslick" and "What was Hanslick denying?" ;; and ;; Jerrold Levinson's Music, Art, And Metaphysics: Essays In Philosophical Aesthetics which also contains a response to Hanslick.

It's been a number of years since I've read the above volumes ; but a fascinating short study it was and still remains.

[Asclepiade · Rating 4 out of 5]

Allorché Eduard Hanslick (1825-1904) redigeva questo succinto ma celebre saggio, le sue teorie sul bello musicale lo mettevano, volente o nolente, nello schieramento degli antiwagneriani e degli antilisztiani; nella musica, dice in sostanza l’autore, contenuto e forma coincidono: la forma, data dall’insieme di melodia, ritmo e armonia, non rappresenta infatti che sé stessa, e quantunque sia possibile che suggerisca idee di gioia, tristezza, pace o impeto, al contrario delle arti figurative o del linguaggio verbale non può, di per sé, descrivere una scena o un personaggio, né tantomeno raffigurare una vicenda. Senza tirar in ballo le speculazioni di Wagner sul Gesamtkunstwerk, si vede subito quanto simili affermazioni venissero a cozzare anche con la pratica lisztiana: da San Francesco di Paola che cammina sulle acque ai Jeux d’eau à la Villa d’Este (quella di Tivoli, non quella di Cernobbio), il compositore ungherese non ci fa mancare nulla quanto a giuochi evocativi; all’ascoltatore odierno, re melius perpensa, tocca però dare ragione all’implacabile Hanslick, ammettendo che, senza i titoli apposti da Liszt ai suoi pezzi, al mero ascolto non riusciremmo assolutamente a scorgervi il miracolo del santo calabrese, e nemmeno, con ogni probabilità, gli zampilli delle fontane. Persino quando il musicista intende rievocare davvero con mezzo sonori un’esperienza o una scena, senza i suoi sottotitoli siamo in grado, tutt’al più, d’indovinare qualche raro effetto di genere onomatopeico: per citare casi che Hanslick con ogni probabilità nemmeno conosceva, chi sente il pezzo musicale “alla cieca” può ancora capire che si tratta d’imitare gli uccelli nel cucù di Pasquini, di Dacquin o di Kerll, nel cardellino vivaldiano, nei virtuosismi del Capriccio stravagante di Carlo Farina, che richiamano sulle corde del violino la gallina o il gallo, (ma anche la tromba, il gatto e il cane); tuttavia già nella Ritirata notturna di Madrid di Boccherini siamo capaci di capire che viene imitata la recita serale del rosario all’aperto solo perché ce lo dice Boccherini stesso (e perfino la “ritirata” che dà nome al Quintetto all’orecchio d’un pubblico moderno risulta un energico ritmo di marcia idoneo a fungere altrettanto bene come accompagnamento per una sfilata di giannizzeri o di legionarî romani); quanto poi, a proposito di Rosario, a vederne raffigurati i misteri nelle quindici relative sonate di Biber, il massimo che vi si potrebbe avvertire, se non fossimo informati del programma musicale divisato dal compositore o, conoscendolo, non avessimo idea di che cosa sono i misteri del Rosario, sarebbe, di volta in volta, la gioia o la mestizia. Hanslick ne deduce pertanto, in modo affatto consequenziale, che la valutazione estetica della musica, lungi dal doversi riferire a presunte fedeltà verso un contenuto poetico, figurale o narrativo, o alla capacità di rappresentare sentimenti, sarà da basare interamente sul rispetto e il buon uso delle norme interne alla musica stessa, e richiederà dunque conoscenza della tecnica e della teoria musicale: curioso che lo studioso lo dovesse rammentare in un tempo e in un contesto culturale in cui, nonostante la moda della “musica a programma”, l’educazione alle note risultava molto più comune che nell’Italia odierna, ove la critica musicale si risolve sovente nello spacciare pettegolezzi o nell’impressionismo spicciolo e sentimentale; ma in fondo tale esigenza di natura formalistica non dovrebbe arrecare sorpresa, proprio come non ne deve arrecare l’elementare pretesa che chiunque si occupi di poesia italiana abbia presente la struttura della canzone, del sonetto e della ballata. Tuttavia in questa posizione teoretica è insito un doppio pericolo. Anzitutto, si privilegerà senza dubbio la musica strumentale, quella cioè ove risalta meglio il valore delle pure forme distinte da ogni sostrato extramusicale quale può essere la parola cantata; e dall’altro sarà giocoforza che si assegni la preminenza, sia pur in modo involontario e inconscio, alle musiche strutturalmente più complesse a scapito di quelle più facili e orecchiabili o ritenute tali: e difatti, benché a varie riprese Hanslick rammenti l’artisticità di molti canti popolari, emerge con chiarezza la sua sostanziale disistima per la musica italiana, perlomeno quella del suo tempo, che è l’unica da lui ben conosciuta, per cui stanno sullo stesso piano Verdi, Donizetti, Rossini e le canzoni napoletane. Chissà che cos’avrebbe pensato il cigno di Busseto, il quale rimproverava Claudio Monteverdi perché “non sapeva disporre le parti”, a veder mettere tanto in basso la sua perizia tecnica; poco gli avrebbe valso il vedersi biasimato a fianco del suo rivale Wagner: ma intanto l’odierno lettore ricava un doppio, incredulo divertimento nel guardare un contemporaneo di Verdi che di Verdi, a conti fatti, non capiva una mazza, e Verdi che di Monteverdi capiva meno ancora, visto che resuscitava contro di lui le vetuste censure del canonico Artusi contro la seconda prattica. Esiste insomma il rischio che la necessità di adesione a un formalismo linguistico conduca verso una critica intellettualistica che in maniera sistematica svaluti ogni aspetto emotivo dell’esperienza musicale: di ciò invero non si dovrebbe fare soverchio carico al Nostro, che si trovava a combattere contro il sentimentalismo eretto a canone esegetico; ma è cosa utile ricordarsene oggi che i bersagli polemici di Hanslick non li abbiamo più di fronte. D’altro canto, al pari di ciascuno di noi anche Hanslick era figlio del suo tempo, e molto in queste pagine, soprattutto negli ultimi capitoli del saggio, appare davvero datato e superato. A parte il nazionalismo musicale (non universale, va detto, nemmeno allora), basta guardare al modo in cui egli liquida la musica dei “selvaggi”: se non altro, quanto ad essa godeva dell’attenuante di saperne quel poco che gliene potevano riferire missionarî, etnografi ed esploratori, con tutti i loro limiti culturali e l’impossibilità di fornirne riproduzioni meccaniche; alla medesima stregua tuttavia egli svaluta e smitizza la musica antica, greca e romana: e qui si notano naturalmente gli echi delle polemiche anticlassicistiche del romanticismo. Anche sui possibili effetti della musica sull’ascoltatore il Nostro si mostra molto scettico: la medicina attuale, che sta rivalutando le capacità terapeutiche dei suoni, inviterebbe ad essere molto più cauti, ma d’altra parte Hanslick si trovava a dover ancora lottare con una concezione magica della musica, che certi medici avventurosi del suo tempo ritenevano ancora capace di guarire persino le malattie infettive. Indubbiamente quindi le teorie difese in questo saggio sono accettabili solo in parte, e con le doverose sfumature; il rischio d’un eccessivo intellettualismo nell’esegesi musicale riesce ovvio laddove si consideri che a servirsene come d’unico faro, se si evitano i gorghi e gli scogli della faciloneria sentimentale, si finisce tuttavia nelle secche della schifiltosità incontentabile à la Adorno, che definiva il suono dell’orchestra barocca “un acciottolio di stoviglie” perché non era quello di Beethoven o di Schönberg. Nonostante ciò, e nonostante qualsiasi limite che si voglia attribuire a queste pagine, resta intatto il valore delle loro parti migliori e meno caduche, capaci tuttora di apportare i necessarî correttivi a un’interpretazione del linguaggio musicale fondata su percezioni sentimentali, totalmente soggettive e avulse dall’analisi dei caratteri formali del brano che si ascolta. E ciò benché di fatto anche il cuore e il sentimento nell’apprezzare la musica spesso abbiano la loro parte: letta la partitura, sceverata la tecnica compositiva, sentita l’esecuzione, valutato il rapporto reciproco degli elementi, rimane pur sempre quello che nel secolo dei Lumi si sarebbe definito je ne sais quoi; per le ragioni più svariate, talvolta irrazionali e del tutto imprevedibili e imponderabili, anche il pezzo più perfetto dal punto di vista artistico può lasciar freddi: e magari ci fanno fischiettare o commuovere il minuetto galante più frivolo e perfino la canzonetta di Sanremo.

[Gastjäle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Apart from the fact that Hanslick's definition of beauty is baffling and his grasp on the other fine arts seems to be slightly on the weaker side, what is presented here is rather stimulating and elucidating. Hanslick is a strict anticognitivist, who loathes the idea that, when dealing with the art of music, aesthetics should concentrate on superfluous aspects such as feelings or simply mystical things such as moral issues (in a musical context). Rather, music should be about its own content and form first and foremost - that is, tones and motion. After those, we get structural elements. He does urge aestheticians to collaborate with neuroscience in conjunction with the issue of feelings so as for them to gain some actual evidence in favour of their theory (and hence he doesn't gainsay the idea completely), yet for the most part he's a strict formalist in that music should be treated as music - no fluff!

I think Hanslick's main argument was indeed from the perspective of aesthetics, not listening to music on the whole. Yet it wouldn't hurt for anyone to approach at least classical music from his point of view every now and then: instrumental music can only truly impart its immediate aural qualities, and anything that one may find in there or anything one might experience is of course legitimate, but only from a purely subjective point of view - hence one shouldn't get too carried away by simply listening to instrumental music for the kicks, but one could also pay attention to the aforementioned tones and motion of the pieces. That way, a whole new vista is given to music lovers.

Hanslick's arguments for the autonomy of music over the lyrics were also rather interesting, though misplaced (for he thinks that music cannot represent things properly for the lack of commonalities with the objects of representation, yet he thinks that poetry can do this effortlessly - being nothing but language!). One shouldn't try to figure out how the composer has tried to reflect the music in the text or vice versa, since it is more or less impossible to know, and they can never really portray each other properly. But unlike Hanslick's rather snobby assertion that music subjected to the lyrics is unequivocally bad, a more open-minded person should instead try to pay attention to their interrelations. In my opinion, perhaps ideally, both should strive for autonomy as much as possible while still keeping their contact, if their union is indeed necessary. There are exceptions to this dogma of mine, but as a rule boring accompanying power chords or bass tonics over florid poetry or incredibly intricate music over spartan chants can be a dull combination, aspersing the necessity for such an artistic convergence in the first place. Yet when this union is done well, like in the music of Jethro Tull and Frank Zappa, boy do the elements complement each other well!

Though when it comes to composing itself, Hanslick made a fairly good point about the apparent futility of attempting to translate music into verbal language: such an attempt could only end up in needless confusion. In such cases, it would perhaps be better to stick to the language of music and its capabilities for expression - though I'd be averse to set any barriers for any self-expressing artist. But it would be slightly silly...

But back to the aesthetical side of things. Though one might look askance at my application of Hanslick's ideas, in the foregoing purview they do make sense. Hanslick wanted to expel vague poetry from the realm of something that should be a credible branch of investigation. He wanted to bring some realism into the idealistic circles of dilettantes by pointing out with wonderful pithiness that "In music, no amount of 'intention' can replace invention" - underscoring the fact that there are many things between the composer and the listener, so many in fact that inspirational conjecture is all but mysticism. I mean, music does have its own objective language, yet the feelings of the composer are purely subjective and ultimately invisible. Then there's the fact that the work has to be performed, and in the case of classical music, rarely by the composer himself. Then there might be lyrics involved, which complicate matters even more, not to mention the rich emotional life of the final recipient.

Hanslick doesn't always hit the nail on the head, though. First of all, he posits that unlike other fine arts, music has never had its origin in the external reality - an element which he considered essential to the other arts. Since I think my guess is as good as Hanslick's when it comes to pure historical speculation, I could see it easily a possibility that when music first emerged, it received its inspiration from the way natural sounds reacted with each other - obviously there are no symphonies out there, yet likewise the worlds of Monet remain a fantasy, not to mention the symbolical paintings of the Middle Ages. After the initial inspiration, music continued to draw from its musical predecessors - just like in other forms of art.

Secondly, at intervals Hanslick would succumb to unfortunate blathering about musical superiority and about refinement and cultivation. Given that his whole idea of the musically beautiful is simply his own fabrication, something that is beautiful regardless on whether it gives someone pleasurable feelings, it seems a bit weird how he would periodically retreat behind the veil of refined supremacy, taking for granted that certain elements in music are unqualifiedly better than others without actually explaining how this is so. He did criticise many an essayist for the exact same reason, after all! I, for one, would've been most glad in hearing him flesh these opinions out a bit more.

Thirdly, for all his good points, I don't know whether feelings should be eradicated from aesthetics altogether. True, one shouldn't base one's arguments wholly on them, but they can be used to illustrate points - and sometimes the emotional quality of the piece could be so obvious (as in, here's a very scary part) that it could be described as such without fear of contradiction - just like we don't know for sure what certain words in a novel are supposed to convey, yet we can have plenty of educated guesses about it. Ultimately, one shouldn't forget that art is about interpretation.

On the Musically Beautiful might be a bit flawed, but it's also beautifully argued and even more beautifully written (or rather, translated). It's a joy to read in itself, even if the arguments would be wholly indigestible to the reader. For me, however, they rang true half of the time, and hence I'm willing to award Hanslick with my precious four stars!

[Antti Sorri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eduard Haslickin (1825 -1904) musiikin estetiikan klassikosta (1854) alkoi myrsky, jonka laineet ovat yltäneet aina omaan aikaamme saakka.

Musiikille ominaisesta kauneudesta jakaantuu seitsemään osaan. Liikkeelle lähdetään tunne-teorioiden käsittelystä ja niiden suhteesta musiikkiin (tunteiden esittäminen ei ole Hanslickin mukaan musiikin sisältö!). Sen jälkeen on vuorossa musiikin kokemuksellisuuteen liittyviä pohdiskeluja. Viidennessä ja kuudennessa luvussa Hanslick pohtii musiikin kauneusnäkemyksiä, sen patologisia ja luontoon liittyviä suhteita, päättäen esityksensä sisällön ja muodon käsitteisiin musiikissa.

Missä aiemmin, aina antiikin ajoista lähtien, oli painotettu musiikin ja dialogin välistä yhteyttä, kuvailevuutta, Hanslickin esityksessä painotettiin musiikin formalisimin takana vaikuttavia, näistä erillään olevia määrittelemättömiä ja intuitiivisia puolia. Radikaali johtopäätös oli, ettei musiikki kuvaa yhtään mitään. Musiikki on musiikkia. Se on koettava ensisijaisesti musiikkina!

Aikalaiset jakautuivat kahtia. Lisztin ja Wagnerin kaltaiset suuret säveltäjät raivosivat, jälkimmäinen jopa kiistakirjoituksia ja juutalais-solvauksia myöten. Hanslickin esittämä tulkinta on kuitenkin pitänyt ansiokkaasti pintansa.

Teos on pakkoluettavaa jokaiselle musiikin tosissaan ottavalle alan harrastajalle. Musiikinteorian emritus Ilkka Oramon käännös on erinomainen ja hyvillä sitaateilla varustettu.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a hoot! Eduard Hanslick was a late nineteenth-century Viennese music critic famous for his championing of Brahms, disparaging of Wagner, and authorship of this little book–which went through ten editions in his lifetime. Hanslick attacks the “feeling theorists” of music and argues that the content of music–far from being “happiness” or “melancholy”–consists of “tonally moving forms.” Like a true public intellectual, he is unafraid of smart-alecky comments, cheap shots, and the occasional airing of silly biases (namely against women and Italians). But he argues sharply, stays focused, anticipates objections well, and altogether turns in a terrific performance. Bravo!

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, besides getting over the part where he says that women are incapable of logical thought and thus not composers, he has some solid ideas. I tend to agree with most of what he asserts. My training is in music and his writings--representing the more "absolute" side of the "war of the Romantics," makes more sense to me than Wagner, representing the other side.

[Jack Grips · Rating 4 out of 5]

The logic of this book makes sense, it’s very interesting and I really appreciate it. Judging an art based off what’s exclusive to the art, is beautiful is beautiful bc of its simplicity yet how easy it is to overlook. That being said Hanslick is a critic and not a philosopher and I simply think that the boundaries of music have been pushed too far since Hanslick’s time for most of his thoughts to still be a applicable. If anything it can serve as a guide or a nudge when analyzing art with other methods (though I suppose that may go for all theories.)

[Simone · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well probably just my woman brain and its limited mental achievement stopped me from liking this. No but actually, I can get into some repetitive art philo, but this shit was so mid wow. We get it, music ain’t abt feelings. And some lazy reflexive statements and whatnot. Super bleh

[Tomas Serrien · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is still a very important work. But you have to understand his formalistic approach in a right, more phenomenological way.

[Carol · Rating 3 out of 5]

This treatise on musical aesthetics was first published in 1854, and it is important to keep that context in mind while reading. Hanslick's thesis is that music does not intrinsically represent anything and that its real subject is itself. He refutes the idea (apparently popular at the time he was writing) that the actual substance or content of music is "feelings" (i.e., that music is a language that can truly and absolutely represent anger, grief, love, etc.). Hanslick instead contends that the emotional effect of music is entirely subjective and in fact often a product of cultural and societal conventions and associations built up over time. Thus, musical aesthetics should be concerned with the actual musical materials themselves and not with their emotional effects on the listener. However, while reading the book, I often got the impression that he is not quite as much of a hardliner about his thesis as he wants to appear. Especially in the opening chapters, he makes more than a few comments that allow far more acknowledgment of extra-musical content in music than his passionately argued thesis has room for.
Fundamentally, though, I agree with Hanslick. The minor key is not sad or foreboding because of its inherent properties, but because of a couple of centuries of conventions and associations. Oddly enough, I think a lot of trends in contemporary music (meaning post-19th century) give a plenty of support to Hanslick's ideas. Certainly the ideas he is refuting seem incredibly quaint and old-fashioned to me.

[Grant Huling · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Though ostensibly speaking of music, she always talks about the mysterious influence on her mind, and she willfully incapacitates herself for a dispassionate investigation by luxuriating in the dream of a lively imagination."

**** Musically objectivist Brahms booster's psychologically, and, more importantly, architecturally true rendition of how beauty sounds. We're all drunken post-Wagnerians now... if you seek another way, here's a start.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

It may be a little extreme - it's been a while since I read it - but it's useful. Goes well with parts of The Power of Sound by his contemporary Edmund Gurney, and some of Stravinsky's comments, and the comments on Stravinsky's comments in Elisabeth-Paule Labat's The Song That I Am. Looking forward to reading Peter Kivy as a counter at some point.

[Lud Oliveira · Rating 3 out of 5]

O autor tem umas ideias bastantes polêmicas em relação à música, algumas até bem questionáveis; mas o livro propôe uma boa reflexão a respeito da música. Para músicos e pessoas interessadas em pensar o fazer musical, o livro é altamente recomendado.

[Shannon McCue · Rating 3 out of 5]

he says some pretty crazy things, and i don't agree with all of them. but you have to think every now and then

[David Withun · Rating 3 out of 5]

-