The Bull of Phalaris, or the Ambiguity of Musical Violence

A fascinating read on the relationship between violence, music, and the aesthetic “problem” of emotional evokation.  I have just been discussing Modernist aesthtics in one of my literature courses and the Modernist tendency to suggest that emotional objectivity (or Eliot’s famous “objective correlative” to emotion) is critical to good art.  I sent this along as a counterpoint to our discussion.  Very helpful and interesting stuff.

I wonder if you have applied any of this thought to dance?  In particular, the violence inherent in Moshing and Krump (the film Rize makes some interesting connections betwen violence and its expression through dance) seem to me to be an interesting and fertile ground for an extension of this discussion.  Of course, I realize that your interest is in the production of music itself rather than the reactive qualities that, perhaps, dance suggests (though, it may also still have a productive expression embeddded within it as well, perhaps, related to something like lyrics--a means of attempting to organize or formalize meaning within what otherwise might be the pure sound of music).

Kudos again on the essay, though.  Provocative stuff.

Comment by G. Christopher Williams from Stevens Point, WI — October 12, 2007 @ 3:16 am

This is an excellent article indeed.

Comment by Matthew Spencer from Portland, OR — October 16, 2007 @ 1:08 pm

Thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, I didn’t see them until today—so here is a belated response.

Regarding the issue of dance, I absolutely agree that this would be fertile ground for discussion. Keep in mind, of course, that dance in Ancient Greece was generally connected to the Dionysian in music—that is, as in all things Dionysian, this kind of music had a corporeal aspect that was more than simply something superadded to the music; it was a part of the music, part of what the music does and thus part of what it means. Therefore, not only do I agree that it is worthy of exploration but also, and more importantly, that it is intrinsically part of the story.

The whole idea of the Dionysian is to lose critical distance, to lose the sense of self and become immersed in the crowd. Moshing seems to me closely parallel. I remember the only times I seemed to get hurt (back when I was young enough to brave the Mosh pit) were when I refused “to let myself go”—that is, when I tried too hard to observe and thereby maintain some kind of critical distance. When I just moved with the music, when I allowed it some control (however attenuated we might believe that to be) over my body, I prevented injury and became part of the undulating mass of bodies—true cohesion (if only for a time), a group instead of an assembly of individuals.

This corporeal aspect of music was specifically recognized as having a violent effect on the soul/mind throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance (this is why there is so much emphasis during those periods on the science of music—in part, to divest music of its troubling ties to our bodies). This notion does not become dismissed in the Enlightenment so much as it comes under a different form of regulative control (by tying music ever more closely to text).

Even in the Romantic era, when absolute (instrumental) music becomes the most prized form, this connection to the body remains cause for concern. For ETA Hoffmann, music provides “intimations of the infinite”—a notion typical of the 19th century and yet geneologically linked to the Middle Ages (a period greatly admired by the Romantics, of course). For Hanslick and other critics, (instrumental) music becomes pure structure and thus holds the possibility of revealing pure spirit. The body and its links to music (the fact that music is produced and received by bodies) remains a source of concern.

Anyway, this is probably more of a response than was wanted and some of it I might develop in later installments of the column. If you would care to continue this conversation further, let me know and we can communicate via email.

Thanks again for the comments and kind words.

Comment by Chadwick Jenkins from New York — October 17, 2007 @ 1:44 pm