Expression and Meaning in Music Author(s): Ivo Supičić Source: International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music

, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Dec., 1971), pp. 193-212 Published by: Croatian Musicological Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/836835 Accessed: 13/08/2009 11:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=croat. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Croatian Musicological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music.

http://www.jstor.org

EXPRESSION AND MEANING IN MUSIC
Ivo
SUPI1Id
Institute of Musicology, Zagreb

the musical work, that is, the piece of music in question, since just as there is no expression without something being expressed. Only a work of music can serve as a vehicle of expression and meaning. Thus, in spite of the undeniable subjective aspect of the problem, there is also its equally undeniable objective aspect. A second objection, which stems logically from the first, is that the problem of expression in music is not a scientific, musicological question. This view is an expression of a positivistic mentality. But the claim itself is questionable. It, too, like the first objection, contains only part of the truth. But, on the whole, it is the product of an insufficient and superficial understanding of music or of aprioristic attitudes to music that often find their roots in one's musical education and in the prevailing aesthetic conceptions of a given period. The view on which this objection rests also represents a reaction against the widespread but exaggerated romantic and pseudoromantic conviction that the highest and in fact only purpose of music as an art is the expression of emotions and sentiments. Obviously, this simplified and often dilettante sentimental view of music is completely devoid of any scientific significance. On the other hand, the problem of meaning and expression in music is not, indeed,

The problem of expression and meaning in music, though an old one, often treated and somewhat worn out (because of a one-sided approach and inadequate solutions rather than because of the frequency of attempts at its resolution),has never ceased to be posed in modern musical aesthetics - even though objections have been raised to it on the grounds that it concerns only the listener's subjective appreciation,which cannot be justified by any objective criteria. Some musicians refused to allow the listeners' feelings, assessment or judgment to be taken seriously into account in the study of music. It is often forgotten, however, that the problem of expression and meaning in music appears also as a problem of musical creation, and that this is the principal way in which it can have any significance. At the same time, it also appears as a problemof

W.1 the institutional importance of these attributes of music prevented the possibility of their being put in doubt. 252. And its solution will never be reached through simplicistic or superficial approaches. could be completely and absolutely non-expressive. W. aesthetic concepts. and in musical aesthetics and psychology in particular. New York 1943. Robert FRANCES. Vrin.as it appears to be . attitudes of numerous composers. Multidimensionality of treatment and refined analysis have. 2 Cf. La perception de la musique. then it becomes obvious that this problem will also be among the most difficult and complex ever posed. However. or about its relation to the dynamics of human feelings (Hanslick). however. are eventually forced to recognize.194 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF THE AESTHETICS AND SOCIOLOGY OF MUSIC a purely positive scientific problem. . not been characteristic features of traditional aesthetic constructs designed to deal with meaning and expression in music. p. Anyway. emotions and thoughts. the problem calls for a complex and multidimensional treatment. in one way or another. too. It contains certain almost enigmatic aspects which escape all attempts at a scientific analysis. p. as can be seen in many works of music. meaning has always been a more or less important element. noumenal. This refutes any view of art as a product of the human mind which does not express its creator and carry meaning. even the most extreme formalists. people who strenuously deny the ability of music to express human sentiments. However. 110 ff. the problem of meaning and expression in music occupies its rightful place in musicology generally. Curt SACHS. and of course in the way that many people experience music. that he discloses himself and even betrays himself in what he does. Finally. Paris 1958. But this is not to say that this problem is wholly like this: some of its aspects are amenable to positive scientific treatment. subconscious aspects of music. they do this by transferring this expressive ability to other levels and talking about the metaphysical (Schopenhauer). a number of theories appeared which stressed the 1 Cf. because it is incapable of being exhaustively explored in an empirical and rational fashion. Norton. and more specifically in the twentieth century. then. beginning in the nineteenth century. or evaluated outside the framework of the accepted philosophical systems of which they formed a part. or when in some other civilizations musical elements were being related to cosmic phenomena and seasons of the year (as in China) or to parts of the day and periods in man's life (as in Java).2 In European music. that music does indeed possess some extramusical meaning or ability to signify. Psychological research shows clearly that man expresses himself in his activity. a third objection comes from the adherents of so-called formalistic theories. At the time when ethos ruled the expressive significance of the Greek modes. On the contrary. If. The Rise of Music in the Ancient World. and if it is . it would be absurd to believe that any work of man.one of the oldest and deepest questions that can be asked about music. and especially an art. transcendental.

however.as noted by Jacques Chailley . and is not just a sign of the existence of different possible viewpoints concerning the expressive potential of music. p. but also a pointer to the serious difficulties that one encounters in trying to defend strict formalism. particularly when the defence requires a limitation of music in the name of artistic >purity< and its deprivation from all. regarding this as an element which is external to the musical activity itself and to aesthetic criteria. Psychological Monographs. in music.5This was the view taken by Stravinsky. while formalism may be defined as a view which denies any possibility of expressing extramusicalcontent in music. 3 Cf. did not prevent him . they do not deny the possibility of the expression. natural phenomena) and who believed that it was wrong to give an audience authority to judge the value of a given piece of music. 27. Thus. Bach. Max SCHOEN. of course. supposedly extraneous. 6 Quoted in Antoine GOLEA. Boris De Schloezer takes the view that the aesthetic attitude consists in attention devoted exclusively to form. Boris DE SCHLOEZER. >The Aesthetic Attitude in Music?. who saw music as fundamentally incapable of expressing anything (feelings. . that this last piece was intended to >>express sublime growth of reviving nature and the indistinct and deep quiver of universal ripening. This. p. 39. psychological states. that is. According to such authors. 259. most authors who take the strictly formalist view and deny the expressive character of music fail to consider the listener and the experience of listening to music. Introduction d J. Presses Universitaires de France. S. attitudes. p. 4 Cf.. In fact. Esthetique de la musique contemporaine. for instance. 5 Cf. it is important to note that even when they justly give prominence to musical elements in the scientific study of musical works.6This vacillation in views can be noticed in other authorstoo.EXPRESSION AND MEANINGIN MUSIC 195 secondary importance of extramusical content in the study and evaluation of musical works. 252. a sacral fear of the midday sun<.from composing The Fire Bird. No.3 According to Max Schoen. which gives birth to ?pure forms< and demands to be freed from the myth of expressivity and expression. Petrouchka. Robert FRANCES. Paul Dukas. p. 169. and some even attempt to synthesize them. and Le sacre du printemps and from explaining.4Regardlessof the slight differences between views such as these. There are also authors who not only recognize the expressive potential of music but even give it greater prominence. different authors formulate the two views in different ways. in his the younger days in 1913. of a certain extramusical content (which would. the only thing that matters is the artist's freedom. only those factors of aesthetic experience which belong primarily to form correspond to what is essential in the nature of art. and expressionismas a view which claims that music is capable of expressing some extramusical content. Gallimard. cit. 1928. be unjustified). to the aesthetically formulated musical element of the composition. admixtures. Paris 1954. On the other hand. op. Paris 1947.

p. according to this author. their claim is not that they are unable to discover such a connection.9 lacroix claimed that form in music always symbolized feelings and that non-expressive music could not even exist. L'art et le geste. 9 Cf.The Priority of Expression<. Vol. Ecrits sur la musique. p. No. S.7 Jean d'Udine believed that a fugue by Bach or a sonata by Mozart. pp. Vernon LEE. p. La Palatine. just as much as a page from the works of Berlioz or Wagner. Paris 1948. An Empirical Study of Emotion and Imaginative Responses to Music. expression is not an admixture that is added to a primary perceptive datum but is rather a direct product of the global effect of a given piece of music. Paris-Geneve 1952. E. In most cases. F.13 who refuse to believe that there is a connection between music and extramusical content regularly base their claim on certain general aesthetic principles concerning the nature of music. or on a theory of the self-sufficiency and specific characterof form. G. Paris 1910.10For R. R. 106-109. It has been quite some time now since Vernon Lee conducteda survey among musicians in England. VIII. p. 303. La perception de la musique. and frequently they even establish it in practice despite their theoretical positions. p.8Max d'Ollone also while Henri Debelieved that expression in music was unquestionable. Henri DELACROIX. Robert FRANCES. 2. Max D'OLLONE. Germany and France and found that about one half of those interviewed held the view that music was ?only music<.though a component part of the motive of expression.196 OF AND SOCIOLOGY MUSIC REVIEWOF THE AESTHETICS INTERNATIONAL saw expression as the vital element of music. Psychologie de l'art. that individual opinions regarding the expressive potential of music are greatly influenced by prevailing aesthetic views and by one's educational background. 195. 12 Cf. which presupposesthem are secondary. Le langage musical.11 These mainly speculative attempts at the solution of this problemhave been supplementedby the first empirical investigations. London 1932. 8 Cf. 254. To take the view that these composerswere interested solely in combinations of sounds would mean. Vol.. 1946. were ?transpositions<of extramusical content or experience. . or a dilettante offense against music. Meyer. Allen & Unwin. 10 Cf. as noted by Frances. It is clear from this. while the details of texture and different formal elements . 13 Cf. ARNHEIM. They merely consider it aesthetically unjustified and meaningless. Jean D'UDINE. 11 Cf. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. an impoverishmentof their works and a deprivationof that part of their personalitieswhich has made them immortal. I. Paul DUKAS. I. . 38. Arnheim.A special aspect of the problem has been explored by Leonard B. who notes that music assumes an expressive and signifying function only in conditions determined by certain historical and 7 Cf.while the other half believed that it also carried an extramusical message. Paris 1927.12More interesting than these findings are the results of psychological experiments Most music lovers and musicians conductedrecently by RobertFrances. Music and its Lovers. 28 ff.

2nd ed.certain weaknessesthat could not be reconciled with the new. Still. In these cultures. formal aspects of music were given priority and several formalist theories were advanced. The spread of formalism was also felt in the approach to music of 14 Cf. This view was quite clearly formulated in periodicals of that period. in this particular frame of mind. composedmusic lost much of its earlier functional significance during that century and became an increasingly autonomousactivity.This increased independence of music at a social level was matched by corresponding theories at the aesthetic level. it is possible to trace certain typical lines of approachto music and to the understanding of musical works in terms of meaning and expression.of music against Hegel's view (sharedby almost all Romantics)of the unity of all the arts. 16 Cf. individualism began to gain ground. for instance. MICHAELIS. Chicago 1957.Certain texts produced by these cultures specify very clearly not only what one should listen for and find in music but also how one should approach a given piece or kind of music. Later. these claimed full autonomy for music not only from the extramusical content that it was supposed to ?transpose<into its own language.16 taking a formalist view. so that even music from earlier periods was then >hearde in this way. and even complete separateness. Eduard HANSLICK. Java and Greece. . the habits and mentality of a given period. at least until the time when. Emotion and Meaning in Music. positivist spirit. The approach to composed music in the Europeancivilization was not much different.people started to listen to Haydn and Mozart. MEYER. Fr. partly because the Romantic view of musical expression had shown . in ancient China.EXPRESSION AND MEANING IN MUSIC 197 cultural factors. and the approachto music. aesthetic contemplation was almost normative in character. not necessarilyconnectedwith any external circumstances or extramusicalpurposes. Eduard Hanslick. in different periods of European musical culture. ein Beitrag zur Revision der Asthetik der Tonkunst. texts in Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung published from 1799 onwards by Kant's pupil Chr. 15 See. At the time when the Romantic conception of music began to develop in Germany according to which music is not just a system of tones but rather a language of a higher order.apart from its quite acceptable aspects . Leonard B. The manner of listening. The University of Chicago Press. by the social function and purpose of music in a given community. were determinedby the entire philosophical and religious context. Vom Musikalisch-Schonen.14There is no doubt that awareness of this function is dependent on wider social considerations. its expression and symbolism. but also from other arts.performedmainly in concertform. was adamant in defending the principle of the autonomy. Vienna 1854. leading to the discovery of deep and secret aspects of man and the world . Besides. in the nineteenth century.15It was then that the expressionisticconceptionof music began to spread. and even to Bach. We have already referred to the clearly defined ways in which listeners approached music. after the Renaissance.

excluding any visual or other extramusical element.The use of the human voice in the Ninth Symphony. p. later developed by Sch6nberg. Vom Wesen der Musik. emphasis is often laid on formal elements (in the same way in which it was laid on expressive elements during the Romantic period). At that time. for instance. 1951.idiom<<. harmonic relations and constructive or structuralschemes. extreme formalism did not have many adherents. Even in the scientific explication of musical works from earlier periods. 206. which presents music in its >>pure< form. >. who was. Winterthur-Zurich 1946.as a purely musical phenomenon and not as a vehicle of an extramusical message or content. the manner of composition. according to Scherchen. No. to put forward one principle and aspect and 17 Cf. . But in the nineteenth century the problems of meaning and expression in music were not new: they were only posed in a new social. many musicians adopt the formalist view. 1-2. or even elements of dodecaphony or quartal harmony. represents only the use of a sound different from the sound of the orchestra.17 The difference between Mozart and Beethoven.unjustly regarded as its originator. Journal de Psychologie. which go beyond the elements listed here.wever. according to this view.Chabanonwas its first proponentin eighteenth century musical aesthetics. Mondial Verlag. the beginnings of polytonality are emphasized. The scientific flaw of all formalist and expressionist concepts lies in their readinessto generalize. for that matter).the technique in or the personal style . >Sur le langage musicalb. they should be examined in their own right and their differences should be objectively assessed. without any expressive intention. 250 ff. Although the expressionist and formalist views are hard to defend in their extreme. ho. and although each includes or recognizes certain assumptions contained in the other.18 actual fact. these two composers In differ in many other more important ways. however. would lie only in musical ?. p. In the case of Beethoven.198 REVIEWOF THE AESTHETICS INTERNATIONAL AND SOCIOLOGY MUSIC OF audiences following the decline of Romanticism: the emancipation of music in terms of social consumptionand manner of performanceresulted in a new manner of listening to music . 18 Cf. This process continued and intensified in the twentieth century with the advent of radio. intellectual and emotive climate. and he actually precededHanslick. These differences are partly due to misunderstandings and confusions whose origin can be traced to polemic debates in Hanslick's time. In our own time. Boris DE SCHLOEZER.classical<formulations (dating from the periods of Romanticism and Positivism in the nineteenth century). and the claim made here concerning the two composers is the product of a narrow formalist view and of the retrospective application of a criterion which is scientifically unacceptablein the analysis of music of past periods (and of any music. different from that characteristic of the period of the Enlightenment.and >personalstyle< means here the frequencyof certain melodic and rhythmicformulae. Hermann SCHERCHEN.

evolution will be caused by the need to express musical content. XXIII. menuet. Jean G. rondo. in terms of meaning and aesthetic orientation. Hanslick. While form. in no matter what sense. while the Romantic period laid heavy emphasis on expression. harmonic form. Also. 20 Cf. and . forms. should not be confused with those trends in twentieth century music which have been labelled ?Expressionist<<. never quite explained in what sense he was using the term >>form<<. 1970. It is important to note also that the term ?form< has nothing to do. But terminological clarity and precision are still lacking in the treatment of problems in musical expression. . or at least to play down the value of other principles and aspects. Modern musical aesthetics generally employs the term >form< to signify an aesthetically formed musical element in a composition. In some cases. 1964. 21 Cf. Paris 1949. I. form and expression in music. P. Ivo SUPICIC. 2. Vol. as some people do. used in musical aesthetics as to designate the aesthetic view which recognizes the ability of music to express some extramusical content. 2.EXPRESSION AND MEANING IN MUSIC 199 exclude all others. etc.. pp. That is also why the term >>expressionism<<. that all innovations in musical language and style are dictated by the needs of expression. 197-206. HARRELL. for instance. Gis6le BRELET. No. like matter and form. No. scherzo. U. pp. We thus speak of melodic form. we should be careful not to confuse both of these uses of the term with expression as such (the fact or act of expressing).some kind of extramusical content. for example. 19 Cf. g. the terms >form< and >>expression<< often remain unclarified.Equally. sonata. is a simple aesthetic fact. that the classical period of European music focused its attention mainly on form. in others to express . The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Le temps musical. 149-158.9 Actually. historical periods or styles.simply .20 are only two aspects of one and the same artistic reality and should therefore be viewed in their mutual dependence. 2 vols.form or musical form. so that they can be given the place that they deserve in certain works of music. temporal and rhythmic form. It is sometimes said. which refers to the structure of a given piece of music (e. with the term >formalism<. Vol. But this is not to say that all classical music was non-expressive. or with expressive music. or that Romantic composers paid no attention to form (if this term is meant to signify what is academically known as ?musical form<<). >Issues of Music Aesthetics?. or suite. it is equally wrong to think that evolution in music is limited to innovations in the techniques. F. >Matter and Form in Music?. formalism is an aesthetic attitude and concept. The International Review of Music Aesthetics and Sociology. which appeared in the history of music much before the so-called Expressionist current at the beginning of this century.).through it . and other structural elements of music.If it is wrong to assume. symphony. It is an elementary fact that composers do not always introduce technical innovations solely for their own sake. rhythms.21 The meaning of this term should therefore be distinguished from the meaning of the term >musical form<<mentioned earlier.

an . The consequences are quite far-reaching: first. oratorio) music is regarded as expressive par excellence. ontologically). too. the adjective >absolutec< the adjective >. (Instrumentalmusic is *pure< in the sense that it is not connected with any extramusicalmeans of expression . it is expressive in relation to its source or its creator (i. Equally indefensible is the confrontation of *pure? and oprogrammatic? music.) Instrumental music is >purec only by the nature of its source of sound. even when no such confrontation is justified.third. because it uses words. This presupposes. on the other hand. and what they stand for. which appears in vocal and vocal-instrumental music. deep and existential relationship with the composer's personality. e.reflection<< its own time and place.as far as I know . cerebral. understandable) aspect. which is a subtype of expressive music. is also always an expression (in a more narrow sense of the word): it is an expressionof the composer'screative personality even though it does not express. Taking. one can distinguish two basic types of music: expressive music (which expresses a certain extramusical content in an understandable way) and pure music (which expressesonly musical content). because it commits violence in confronting the two >kinds<of music.pureo to refer to instrumental music is also unjustified.200 REVIEWOF THE AESTHETICS INTERNATIONAL AND SOCIOLOGY MUSIC OF Another important distinction which ought to be made concerns pure and expressive music. What we need is a more refined distinction than is usually made between ?absolute<and >programmatic? music. . When this ontologico-psychological aspect is enlarged by a phenomenologico-psychological (that is. The term >absolute music< is awkward in itself.despite all technical and rational elaboration .in a of peculiar way . Besides. Although pure music is not expressive in an understandableway and in relation to the listener (i. one can distinguish vocal. that pure music is not a purely artificial. The use of the term . and particularly >dramatic?(opera. directly and specifically.expression?(or . instrumental. And yet all three of these contentions are demonstrablyfalse. it is .relative< its opposite. but . pure music. phenomenologically). which is not only imprecise but also too schematic (though very widespread). since no music and no musical work can in has any sense be regarded as absolute. his extramusicalworld of experience. pure music ceases to be pure and becomes expressive. however.no one as has ever discussed >relative music<.in a spontaneous way. any piece with a descriptive title is regarded as programmatic. it is an expression of itself. Taking the expressive value or quality of music as a criterion.and vocal-instrumental music. the nature of the source of sound as a distinctive criterion. any music of expressive characteris then labelled programmatic. but this by no means implies that it cannot also be expressive. Expressive music is often hastily confused with programmaticand ?dramatic<music. from which it springs . e. First of all.second.not even the word.technical or academic construct but that it rather stands in a very close. all vocal or vocal-instrumental.

thus enabling the listener 22 Cf. But he was right in claiming that the expression of feeling could not represent the main objective of music and that ?beauty< in music was a specific quality that could not be reduced to psychological qualities. There is. De la musique consideree en elle-meme et dans ses rapports avec la parole.if for no other reason. it is impossible to listen to music without thinking of something. 168-182. while remaining aware that it is basically and generally unacceptable. on the other hand. and emotions and feelings in particular.2 who had not only taken the formalist standpoint but had also elaborated it in considerable detail and formulated argumentsagainst phenomenologicalexpression (of extramusical content by music) which are rather similar to the arguments advanced by Gilson23in our own time. Hanslick was undoubtedly wrong in denying the expressive potential of music. and the whole personality of the composer.wrongly and inadmissibly. and even active. more than one (i. There are several expressionist viewpoints. Hanslick's fame has until very recently dimmed the reputation of his forerunner. In the heat of polemic. and because music promptsus to certain thoughts. the work of music. On the contrary. they can. Enough time has passed now to enable us to view Hanslick's aesthetics in historical perspective. Paris 1785. it shows how one falls into the psychological trap of transpositionwhen one ascribesthe extramusicalcontent experienced during listening to music itself. et le theatre. Michel-Paul-Guy de CHABANON. Paris 1964. Such >sentimentalist<views had earlier been advocated by the Romantics and even before them by the who failed to see that the exproponents of the >affective theory?<. e. could not possibly be the sole objective of every piece of music . pression of extramusicalcontent generally. in the process of listening.from its result. and to appreciate its positive contribution. Hanslick himself fell victim to the Romantic exaggeration he was trying to combat. Chabanon. la poesie. this seemingly foolproof argument starts from a completely false premise: it separates the act of creation . The problem of meaning and expression in music has too long been posed within an excessively narrow and exclusive framework. particularly when the composer so wishes. Gilson's arguments could be summarized as follows: since mind and imagination are never absent. cannot be excluded in the creative process of compositon. leave their expressive imprint on the piece of music. distinctions are also needed among different expressionist and formalist aesthetic concepts. this argumentforgets that intellect and imagination. while in fact music is nothing more than >harmoniously composed notes<. However. pp. not all of which belong to the Romantic period. Hanslick's) formalism. but recognizing that intellect and imagination are necessarily present. Pissot.AND MEANINGIN MUSIC EXPRESSION 201 In addition to these distinctions involving music itself. les langues. Vrin. we are preparedto believe that it actually contains these thoughts. . 23 Cf. to evaluate it in a sober and objective mood. then because of the existence of pure music. Matieres et formes. Etienne GILSON.

3. that all of Bach's instrumental pieces are expressive. Summarizing such different views of Bach. Bach.-S. Susanne K. Bach's expressive-technical procedures cannot be adopted as laws of musical expression generally.24We have already mentioned that the Spitta and his followers. Andre Pirro and Albert Schweitzer regarded Bach as a poet-musician. naturally. 8. No. 26 Cf. (This is not to claim.28which ought to be self-evident. p. Bach.because of his detailed and minute expressive. 28 Cf. but that it is different in quality. Paris 1905. 1950.)26Forkel spoke of Bach as a personification of the Germanic genius. L. The Musical Quarterly.25 For . L'esthetique de Jean-Sebastien Bach. 25 Cf. pp. >Bach in the Romantic Era<. Paris 1905. his notion of the relation between tones and words was generally valid for own. 69. deeply concerned in his music with the expression and meaning of the text. ?O smislu u muzici<< (On Sense in Music). Kassel 1947. Friedrich BLUME. it cannot be fully divorced from the human element without unacceptabledeformation.27 Although. Chailley wanted to demonstrate the continuity of Bach' expressive conception through an analysis of his Passions. Although the work of music undoubtedly preserves its autonomy. 27 Cf. 157-164. 1966. LANGER. Albert SCHWEITZER.But already. S. Les Passions de J. and Andre PIRRO. Bach's running musical >commentary< on the text is the product of such rich musical invention that its purely musical qualities are sufficient to justify the existence of a given piece of music as a logical and coherent work of art. pp. No. descriptive and symbolic treatment of the text as a figurative artist and even a miniaturist in music. S. 290-306. Vol. le musicien-poete. expression and description in Bach is not less frequent than in his contemporaries. without appealing to any 24 Cf. of course. J. 1964. both vocal and instrumental. at the turn of the century. Jacques CHAILLEY. Chailley adds his own and compares Bach with Michelangelo in the sphere of fine arts.to the textual meaning. La revue internationale de musique. regardinghim . pp. While Pirro and Schweitzertried to prove this with their analyses of Bach's cantatas and chorales. Jacques HANDSCHIN. and J. Bach im Wandel der Geschichte. 476. Jacques Handschin has shown that the nineteenth century regarded Bach mainly as a representative of the old world of outmoded polyphony. 4-5. does not include concepts and conceptual precision) to experience it in a powerful and unmistakableway. Bach et XIX siecle?. Paris 1963. Zvuk. Bach was in the first place an uncompromising musician who cared nothing about the expression of feeling or about musical description. submitting his own musical treatment. while Norbert Dufourcq depicts him as an authentic follower of Latin traditions. No. >J. Bach's music probably provides one of the most revealing examples of a music that has been submitted to divergent interpretations of its expression and meaning.202 REVIEWOF THE AESTHETICS AND SOCIOLOGY MUSIC INTERNATIONAL OF . as Susanne Langer notes.-S.within the limits of the expressive potential of the language of music (which. Presses Universitaires de France. pointing to the fact that symbolism. period of Romanticism experienced Bach in a >romantic< way.

Above all. But modern aesthetics ought to develop a conceptual framework that will enable it to discuss expression in music differently from the way in which it was discussed during the Romantic period. and humanist. of allowing his feelings. Amsterdam 1953. In short. symbolism and descriptionhas never been due to the fact that individual composershave tried to depict. it is important that extramusical content should not be ascribed to compositions which do not possess it. Pour une philologie du langage musical.. some authors are prepared to quote the example of Bach as the clinching argument . in music. but rather to the fact that this was done in an aesthetically unacceptable. The implication is that >>impurity< music is the in result of the composer's expressing himself. However aesthetic impurity may only appear in a vulgar. . non-artistic treatment of expression and description. in IMS. considerable extramusical expressive intention. Notions which fail to consider the specificity of musical expression and the autonomous and peculiar nature of musical art should be revised. description and symbolismin the majority of Bach'svocal-instrumentalcompositions. but certainly not in these processes themselves when they are applied as an artistic principle. These otherwise untenable formalist views deserve to be given credit for the way in which they have stressed the priority of the aesthetic sense and of the values which can only stem from music itself and should not be sought elsewhere. This however. 100-106. failure has occurred always when the expressive sense of a given piece of music has been placed above its aesthetic sense and value. and that it should not be denied in compositions in which it exists. view of music. The simplistic solutions of both expressionismand formalism should be abandoned. The term ?language of music< had already been introduced in the nineteenth century. On the other hand. thoughts and ideas to be felt in his work. G. The history of European music shows quite clearly that aesthetic failure in the sphere of expression. while the term >>musical has philology<< been coined in this century to denote that particularbranch of musical science 29 Cf. Alsbach & Co. Utrecht-1952. pp.But since many of Bach's other works are non-expressive and represent examples of pure music (or were even written in the first place to demonstrate the composer'stechnical skill).without any justification . it can mean something and express something to only when it uses a certain ?language<< signify and express what it has to say. Jacques CHAILLEY. trite and unartistic way. the basically acceptable expressionist views deserve credit for having preserved the human. stressing the unavoidable presence of man in works of music and the value that this presence represents. Report of the Fifth Congress. As for the latter group.EXPRESSION AND MEANINGIN MUSIC 203 which takes that language as an object of study. is not to say that the presence of logical musical content rules out expression.in their defence of formalism and >absolute<music in its superior ?purity<. certain extramusicalexperiences and elements.29 However.

Thus. that it is capable of expressing an extramusical content. Mendelssohn claimed that the language of music is not only definite but that it is actually superior to the spoken language. curiously enough. within its own expressive framework and its own ?terminology<. they are easily misunderstood. today it is still held by Deryck Cooke). according to Einstein. the second claim is that music is not. However. and is today adopted by Enrico Fubini). and cannot be. but this feeling can never be expressed in the same words. Mendelssohn's viewpoint was the finest statement ever made in justification of >pure? or ?absolute.204 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF THE AESTHETICS AND SOCIOLOGY OF MUSIC disagreement still exists over whether music is a language or not. He expressed the opinion that many people complain of the lack of expressive clarity in music as against words. tonic and major second are emotionally neutral. Cf. music is a language of emotions and feelings. und die Worte verstande doch ein jener<. Cooke notes that this view can only be upheld if it is found that music has its own vocabulary and that it is a true language. and more recently by Susanne K.. such as Mendelssohn. non-conceptual kind of language (this was the view held by Jules Combarieu. music. Paris 1959. exactly the opposite is true . But. es sei so zweifelhaft. their meaning is imprecise. Adopting the view that music is expressive.not only as regards speech but also as regards individual words: they are ambiguous. that is. die Musik sei so vieldeutig. p. Although numerous views have been expressed about this matter. La musique romantique. . In his well-known letter sent from Berlin on 15 October 1842 to Marc-Andre Souchay. However. major third expresses joy. Mendelssohn gave a very clear formulation of his notion of musical language. direct and definite. 4th ed. and added: >Mir geht es aber gerade umgekehrt<?. Only music can mean the same thing. whose meaning is clear to everybody. in Cooke's interpretation. inspire the same feeling in one person and in another. These basic expressions of unambiguous meaning used in the language of music include. in which he discussed the meaning of his Lieder ohne Worte.when it modulates to30 Among other things Mendelssohn wrote: *Die Leute beklagen sich gew6hnlich. unlike music which >fills the soul with a thousand things much better than words can doz. intervals and harmonic relations. Thoughts expressed in music are not too indefinite to be expressed in words.30 In other words. was sie sich dabei zu denken hitten. music has at its disposal expression which carry a definite meaning and which thus make up its language. Identical words never mean identical things for different people. they can all be reduced to three main claims: the first is that music is a kind of language (this view was held by the Romantics. according to him. Gallimard. the third claim is that music is a special. augmented fourth . a language (this view was held by Hanslick. music can designate precisely even the slightest nuance in human feelings because it is a language of feelings. often differing in details. for him. on the contrary. According to him. and as such it is unambiguous. Alfred EINSTEIN. they are too definite. Langer and Etienne Gilson). because it can speak only their language since it operates with tones rather than concepts. 13.

sound is important in itself. and in this way he denies the universal significance of the language of music. Hanslick believed that music differed radically from the spoken language in that the latter was a means of expressionand that it possessed instrumentalvalue: in the spoken language. an a-semantic art and is untranslatable into the spoken language. 73-74. seems to have been reduced. s3 Etienne GILSON. on the other is hand. The a-semanticism of music is also advocated by authors of such disparate philosophical orientation as Gilson and Susanne Langer. notes Hanslick.31Besides. 32 Enrico FUBINI.EXPRESSION AND MEANING IN MUSIC 205 wards the tonality of the dominant . to a comfortable scheme. dating from the early fifteenth centuryto atonal music in the twentieth century. Thus. Zvuk. harmonic or any other elements. But Cooke's attempt seems to suffer from an important drawback: the >musical terms<< which he ascribesunambiguousmeanings do not always posses to such meanings even within the period to which they belong. Matieres et formes. Bach. without first isolating individual melodic. in perfect harmonic constructs with their unlimited possibilities.32 The other group of views includes those that claim that music is not. There is no >musical language< in the true sense 31 Cf. The Language of Music. p. But acceptingthis view would mean a recognition of the specific natureof the language of music (and this Cooke does not do to a sufficient extent) and the abandonment of the attempt to discover and fix its vocabulary by analogy with the vocabulary of the spoken language (which Cooke has tried to do).expresses active aspiration. . 170. These and other claims are illustrated by Cooke with numerous examples of European music. Gilson notes that every part of speech in the normal language >performsa well-defined function which contributes to the definition of the meaning of words and sentences of which the language is composed<. which has been able to express a wide range of feelings in artistic form. With these examples. in Cooke's vocabulary. >the complex and rich world of music from the Renaissanceuntil the present day. impoverished precisely in those potentials in which the author professes his confidencee.33 nothing But similar exists in music. Music is Therefore. no analogy between music and language is possible. p. London 1959. Beethoven. or Stravinsky. Cooke seems to have lost sight of the fact that meaning and expression in music can only be reasonably discussed within the specific and full context of a given piece of music. as noted correctly by Enrico Fubini in his analysis of Cooke's views. No. etc. Oxford University Press. a language. in music. and cannot possibly be. Cooke implies that his scheme is valid only for European tonal music. >Jezik i semanticnost muzike< (The Language and Semanticity of Music). sound is only a sign for the expressionof something >completely extraneous to that sign<. Wagner. 3. The musical significance and emotional effect of one and the same interval or harmonic relation is not the same in the works of Palestrina. or rather >>it an end in itself<?. Deryck COOKE.

even if a sound dictionary of this kind or existed. pp. but it does not offer any security in expressing ideas and depicting objects. or longing .34 However.but meaning is preserved. 36 36 Cf. Sonate que me veux-tu?.continuesGilson . sad. is sufficient for a complete understanding of the music. on the other hand. or of the extramusicalcontent that it purportsto express or designate. whose opinion Gilson quotes and accepts. word-order can be changed and even words themselves can be replaced by others. for example. he does not want to convey it to us but rather to create in us the affective state that he would like us to experience.it is often claimed to be a language of feelings. 170.206 AND SOCIOLOGY MUSIC OF REVIEWOF THE AESTHETICS INTERNATIONAL of the word. Ibid. What is particularly importantis that one cannot change the order of notes in a musical motive without turning it into a new motive.. an expressed thought. p. No matter what the composer'saffective state at the moment of writing. sombre. the mutual relations between signs in music would be so different from those in the spoken language that it would be easy to see that notes have no signifying function.in short.35 Although some of Gilson's views are correct. Lausanne 1957. Each time when music addresses itself primarily to affectivity. provoke certain 34 Ibid. Briefly. >mother?< ?filial love<. there is no system of notes whose function is to signify certain concepts and feelings. it is an illusion to believe that the knowledge of the title of a piece of music. It is quite clear that music does not use concepts and ideas and that tones do not and can not express any extramusical content which would be conceptually definite and fully determined in the same way in which different thoughts can be conceptually determined and expressed in the spoken language. Besides. In the spoken language. says Gilson. inspiring. it is quite certain that the composercan >construct?his music without the intention of expressing anything and that this music will. they are on the whole unsatisfactory. pp. since music can be gay. But we are here faced. its contribution consists not in signification but in its effect on the listener and his feelings. . joyful. is different in the spoken language from in music. Some theorists note that music is capable of expressing innumerable nuances of feeling which the spoken language with its words cannot express. To some people this seems obvious. First of all. the musical motive depends on its form. the language of music is perfectly clear in itself. not with the expressionbut rather with the stimulation and provoking of feelings.. 173-174. nevertheless.A change in the order of notes or the choice of other notes in a fugue theme. Mermod. The notion of the sentence. ROLAND-MANUEL. capable of ?expressing< different affective states. will result in a new theme and eventually a new fugue. As noted by Roland-Manuel. In music one cannot say >>father<.36On the other hand. in particular. 92-93. and the form consistsof a given sequence and of the relations of notes that compose it. since music is not the language of ideas .

178-179. according to her. . that it has its own justification and value. that is. 69. a definite meaning. theand matic development >syntax<< a useless parallel. Gilson is aware of the fact that there is not just one kind of music.37This illustrates what we have said earlier. according to her. her aesthetic concept is basically a repetition of formalist claims. within a given context. e. first. emotions and even thoughts which the composer may not have had when writing. and certainly not a rule. designate persons. Gilson actually contradicts himself when he says that Hanslick. but more. To call the tones of a scale >words<. second. pp. 37 Ibid. with special emphasis on irrational solutions characteristic of the Romanticists. be translated or defined by means of other symbols or expressions. though correct in his view of pure music. Cf.. objects. which are autonomousand supplied with a certain constant and definite meaning and relationship. that even convinced formalists can hardly defend their views consistently and fully. Music. build a musical >vocabulary<in which certain musical motives will. namely. is not a language because it has no vocabulary. Langer. A set of terms or expressions combined according to the rules of grammarand syntax forms a linguistic system which is translatable into another linguistic system or language. LANGER.namely. was wrong in pretending that musicians never wrote any other kind of music. syntax. Music has no vocabulary. definite meanings in the way in which words of the spoken language possess them. like linguistic symbols. and it is an expression of feeling only in a symbolic way. 474.38A musical symbol. is a language only in a metaphorical sense. These are. 38 >O smislu u muzici? (On Sense in Music). that is. may in a certain way make language out of music. situations. p. or even abstract ideas and concepts.EXPRESSION AND MEANING IN MUSIC 207 feelings. Susanne K. all of which makes it possible to construct a dictionary. 1966. The characteristicfeature of every language is that it has its grammar. Susanne K.such as for instance the leading motives. that it is not a direct expression of feeling. without the use of the spoken language. English into French and the other way round. harmony >grammar<<. for Susanne K. In the last analysis. He even adds that different procedures. g. In her >philosophy in a new key?. so that musical symbols cannot. No. Tones have no meaning outside their context. is an >unconsumed symbol<. Zvuk. and vocabulary. that music is not language. the characteristicsof a discursivelinguistic symbolism which are not present in the artistic symbolism. and. while spoken language symbols fully exhaust themselves by their transcendencewith regard to what they symbolize. briefly. But this is just one of the possibilities. since tones lack the is fundamental element that makes words what they are . It has no terms that would possess constant. Langer tries to prove. Music. and that each has a right to exist. Language is made up of expressionswhich can be isolated.

. p. However. 74. And yet. 55. the internal and general dynamism.who belongs to the third group of theorists about the language of music. which consists of very clear terms.?43 This philosophy brings Combarieu close not only to Hanslick but also to people like Stravinskyand H. VII. it can reach the aspects of reality which are inaccessible to rational thought. They tend to assume that semanticity exists only in the spoken language. Paris 1907. Hence the advantage of its language. Rivista di estetica. the only difference being that Hanslick emphasized the interplay of sound forms in movement.208 REVIEWOF THE AESTHETICS INTERNATIONAL AND SOCIOLOGY MUSIC OF It is interesting to note that some of the views held by formalists and expressionistscoalesce.42 this question in the following formula: ?Music is a special act of the mind which intervenes in the chaos of affective life to introduce order and beauty into it. H. As Fubini notes correctly. . structural and syntactic aspect of music. Enrico FUBINI. It thus deforms everything that it touches. 8.. including the language of music. ses lois. La musique. and with this presupposition they deny the existence of any other kind or type of language. as in the work of Jules Combarieu. Flammarion. of psychoCombarieusummarizeshis outlook on logical life. 39 Jules COMBARIEU. in a more authentic and even direct way. cit. Combarieu advocates a-semanticity while actually transferring musical meaning to another level. But music expresses neither ideas nor feelings. Vol. capable of reaching deeper. 43 Ibid.. into reality. A similarity with Hanslick's views is quite obvious here. Music is thinking sui generis. 44 Eduard HANSLICK. music is the art of thinking in (or with) tones. in all its gradations. son evolution.45 Like most other formalists. but that priority should be given to the musical idea. This makes it a very realistic art. p. p.II linguaggio musicale nel pensicro di Jules Combarieus. p. ?the spoken language. p.. Music transmits the intensity. 429. )t6nend bewegte FormenK. .44 while Combarieuemphasizes the linguistic. According to Combarieu.<40 the other On hand. 333.. 46 Cf. Stuckenschmidt who came after him and stressed that the primary task of music was to establish a kind of >order between man and time<. p.39Music is ocapable of going beyond the external appearance of human beings and reaching more or less into their intimate spheres. although some authors advocate a-semanticity. No. 46. In music we think without concepts. Combarieuthinks that feeling is necessary in music and that it must be present there. there remains at the back of their minds a certain misunderstandingof semanticity itself.?41 Music is a peculiar kind of experience. p. But this language cannot express a definite feeling. 40 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 1962. 333. through its form. which takes over from feeling only its quantitative variations and dynamism. 41 Ibid. uses only definitions. op. 3. >not in order to get rid of the objects that concepts stand for but rather to penetrate into them more deeply<.

47 Furthermore. Elementi di semiologia. Bompiani.be comparedwith the semanticity of the spoken language. however. different kinds or types of semanticity. 5.each with its own specific features. 4. Fubini. which enables us to compare it with other systems of signs outside the typical meanings and specific materializations of signs of the language under study. 5. 58. Quoted in E...more than offset by the wealth and effectiveness of musical expression.46As Roman Vlad notes. 43. while lacking conceptual determination. p. The expressive meaning of the language of music thus rests upon its aesthetic meaning and stems from it. p. 36. 47 Roman VLAD. As Roland Barthes says. 91. Torino 1955. Milano 1966 (translated from the French). musical semanticity does not rest. is so deep and powerful that its indeterminacy and multiplicity of meaning is but a small >defect<. nor does it unmistakably lead the person to whom it is addressed to a conceptually precise understanding of what has been expressed.49 ?A tone or a group of tones in the language of music has nothing that would correspond to it in any other language. that is. II crudo e il cotto. Music possesses a special kind of contextual and conceptuallyundeterminedsemanticity. in this respect. Roland BARTHES.whether they are conscious of it or not. and especially not in the spoken language.EXPRESSION AND MEANING IN MUSIC 209 the absence of a vocabulary does not mean the absence of language.This semanticitycannot. >Strukturai vremenitost muzike?. p. not every type of expression depends on concepts and words. with many other people. Presses Universitaires de France. Thus. Einaudi. p. ibid.it springs. that music has no vocabulary. Modernitd e tradizione nella musica contemporanea. An isolated sound does not possess the same expressive value as an isolated word or letter. La musique expressive. . or is not built. Zvuk.as well as from this organization . 50 Cf. Enrico Fubini notes that ?many of those who deny music its semantic potential actually take the spokenlanguage as a model . the conceptually undetermined semanticity of music >cannot be equated with lack of meaning but rather with multiple meanings<.<48 ness of Music). Quoted in E. ?Strukturai vremenitost muzike<.a characteristicfeature of this semanticity is the fact that it presupposesas its basis a formal aesthetic organization of musical matter from which . no system of signs. Claude LEVI-STRAUSS. the characteristic of tones: it is between them and it There are.. 178. p.. can be properly studied except within the framework of a ?metalanguage<. p. Another characteristicfeature of musical semanticity consists in the fact that musical language. among all languages. 48 Enrico FUBINI. Einaudi.. upon expressions and terms characterizedby unambiguousor universally accepted meanings. Torino 1966. 46 Cf. 1969.50 Meaning is therefore not . p. Susanne Langer is right in But claiming. language. music is the only one that unites the contradictory qualities of being at the same time understandable and untranslatable. Levi-Strauss is right in claiming that. though every expression is necessarily related to cognition in some way. Paris 1957. Ivo SUPICIC. No. (The Structure and Temporal- 49 Cf. Fubini.

in the whole that they form in a work of music.which structureand organizationmay be more or less elaborate. When trying to understand a work of art. expression would be a rough datum characteristic of the structure.210 REVIEWOF THE AESTHETICS INTERNATIONAL AND SOCIOLOGY MUSIC OF comes out always from the context of certain relationships. the listener will turn his conscious attention to the aesthetic or formal structure. p. Most frequently. FUBINI. or rather tones become signifying thanks to the entire complex of differential relatiohs in which they are included. while the elements of expression and extramusical meaning will remain in the background. Significant relationships exist between tones.despite their marginal or accidental nature and secondary position . but even in this case they will have an effect on the listener . It is also important at this point to take note of the distinction which is sometimes made between expression and meaning in order to highlight the differences in the psychological level: meaning would be epicritical and expression protopathic. ibid. particularly when he takes no clear semantic attitude.<<51 Thus. quite understandably. the component elements of which the language of music is composed acquire meaning only in mutual co-presence. nor must its existence be denied because it is incompatible with discursive expression and different from it. reflections and reverberations.. and intuitive understanding.consistentand complexwith respectto expression and meaning. Robert Frances recalls. Experiencing such assumed extramusical content in a piece of music means >>recognizing<< content through the aesthetic structure this and organizationof musical matter. depends on the individual and historical characteristicswhich determine it. which accompanies the former but is not equivalent to it in conceptual precision and clarity.or to music as such.rather than with clearly grasped ideas of definite and unmistakable meaning in a rational sense. Noting this possible distinction. causal relationships and finality of formal facts or elements of the particular work of art. however. Their meaning. designate and express. the whole question of the language of music must not be reduced to the question of a definite and precise conceptual apprehensionof what this language purports to convey. The organizationmay range in its intended effect from the creation of a certain atmosphereto the rather definite depicting of certain sequences of extramusical contents (as in programmatic music). it is important to make a clear distinction between rational understanding.or will be only felt and not consciously grasped. This latter understandinghas to do with the meaning and expression of extramusical content. particularly music. This means that the language of music is not universal in terms of its meaning and expression. . The language of music must not be reduced to the language of discourse. involving the nature.while meaning would represent a rationalizing and explicative elaboration of this datum. 5. equally.that will fill his mind with feelings and harmonies. that expression and meaning are insepa51 E.

medutim. koja su u glazbi vidjela umjetnost Zija bi vrijednost i cilj stajali iskljucivo u izrazavanju emocija i osjecaja. of course. na neki drugi plan: metafizicki. while listening to music. Uostalom. 272. samo pod djelovanjem odredenih uvjeta te vrste glazba poprima stanovita znacenja i izrazajnu funkciju.equating the functions and potentials of music and philosophy. Ako se ekspresionizammoze definirati kao koncepcija koja drzi muziku sposobnom da izrazava neke izvanmuzicke sadrzaje. prebacujuci ih. valja istaci da se ovaj posljednji znatnije razvio i kao reakcija na romanticka i pseudoromantickapretjerivanja. not rationally apprehended. podsvjesni itd. a formalizam kao koncepcija koja to osporava.p. La musique expressive. RobertFRANCES. ne samo s obzirom na druge umjetnosti nego i na izvanglazbene sadrzaje koje bi glazba imala ?transponirati?u svoj vlastiti jezik. koja su nosioci izrazaja i znae&enja. Meaning and expression in music exist so that extramusical content can be experienced. musique. p. 54 Cf. S druge strane. 52 . nego takoder glazbenog stvaralastva i samih glazbenih djela. Sam Hanslick. No od XIX st. La de la p.which. i sami zastupnici formalizma najcesce priznaju glazbi stanovito izvanglazbeno znacenje ill sposobnost izrazavanja. U stvari.53 Not even the most authentic expressive music will take one further in cognition than it does in experience. Ivo SUPICIC. do danas nije unesena potpuna jasnoca ni u terminoloske probleme tog znaEenja i izrazaja. Medutim.EXPRESSION AND MEANINGIN MUSIC 211 rably fused. transcendentalni. is a separate problem.52 This fact does not exclude the possibility of music's signifying a certain extramusical content. Stoga je i jedna od slabosti dosadasnjih formalistickih i ekspresionistickihkoncepcija stajala u generaliziranju negacije ili afirmacije znacenja i izrazaja u muzici. Sazetak IZRAZAJ I ZNACENJE U GLAZBI Problem izrazaja u glazbi ne prestaje zaokupljati suvremenu glazbenu estetiku. Le musical.54 We should particularly avoid despite certain points which they have in common . kojeg se krivo smatra prvim Cf. ozbiljne muzike na drustvenom planu pridonijela je i razvitku njezine autonomnosti na estetskom planu. 117 ff.nja i izrazaja u glazbi. Ali na shvacanj-a o znacenju i izrazaju u glazbi utjecu npr. Defunkcionalizacija tzv. premda ga neki smatraju vige pitanjem subjektivnog dozivljavanja glazbe nego pitanjem koje bi se moglo rijesiti po objektivnim prosudbama znanosti. 53GiseleBRELET. But the >weakness and greatness of expressive music lies in the fact that there is no predetermined harmony between expression and form<(. i povijesno-kulturni cinioci. tempsperception470. even without the composer's wish to express this content. naovamo opcenito se sve vise istice sporedna vaznost problem-aznace. taj se problem ne tice samo slusaoca. because there are analogies between musical form and extramusical events . numenalni.

usprkos nekim njihovim dodimnim to'ckama. jer se. pojam jezika uzimaju m~nogo gire. oni su medusobno nerazdvojno povezani. ritmi6ku. Premda se zn-aucenj'u glazbi katkada pripisuje epikriti& ki. ona je kontekstualna:sastavni elementi jezika glazbe dobivaju zna'cenje jedino u medusobnoj nazocnosti. smatraju gl1azbu sp-ecifi6nim nepojmovnim jezikom (E. a razlikuje se od Eiste muzike u tome 'to izrahva neke izvanglazbene sadrfaje na relativno spoznatljiv jna4in. a u uzem smislu ozna'uje samo strukturu muzi'kog djela u cjelini. Prilivatljivija od koncepcija koje glazbu smatraju jezikom koji je obdaren vlastitim rje'cnikom (D. najprije. glazbena semantic'nost ne po'6iva na izrazima univerzalno prilivatljivog znacenja. Gilson). Pojmovna neodredenost glazbene semanfiZnosti nije isto 'Sto i nezna'cenje.212 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF THE AESTHETICS AND SOCIOLOGY OF MUSIC istaknutim predstavnikom formalizma. Fubini). formalizam je estetska zamisao. Potrebno je napustiti simplicisti6ka rjegenja ekspresionizma i formalizma. toliko obiluje na bogatstvu. Cooke). gto ne uklju'cuje to da ne mo*zebiti eks-presivna. na melodijsku. dok je C'istamuzika nosilac isklju6civo glazbenih sadr'aja. a ovise. Langer. U tim razlikov'anjima kriterij ekspresivnosti i kriterij zvu6nog izvora ne smiju se poistovje6'ivati. . kao i to zn-aucenje. Do'zivljaj izvanglazbenih sadrhija njihovo je ?>prepoznavanje?< kroz estetsku organizaciju muzi&ke materije koja moz'e biti vi'se ili manje zamau'na. de Chabanon. dubini i snazi. nije na primjer nikada potpuno razjasnio svoje poimanje *forme*c. Isto tako treba razlikovati estetski i ekspresivni smisao i vrij'ednost glazbenog djela. ZEksipresionizamou glazbi XX stolje6a nije pak isto 'to i ekspresionizam kao estetsko shva6anje glazbenog zna'enja i izra'aja. harmonijsku iii vremensku organizaciju glazbene materije.cki zna'caj. u tom okviru. Koliko jezik glazbc oskudijeva na pojmovnoj odredenosti. provedena. jer je programn-a muzika samo podvrstat ekspresivne muzike. nego je vi:Seznac'na (R. a zatim.njavaju ui muzic&om djelu. Osim toga. E.o individualnim i povijesnim momentima koji ih odreduju. koja je u stvari >Eista samo s obzirom na njezin zvucni izvor i nepovezivanje s izvanglazbenim izrahjnim sredstvima. Vlad). negoli u doz'ivljaju. ne smiju se poistovje6i vati funkcije i mogtucnosti glazbe i filozofij'e. medutim. Neopravdano je i suprotstavi Ijanje ?6ciste?< programne muzike. u cjelini koju sa'i. jesu shvac'anja koja. Uostalom. a izraz'avanju protopati. Taj pojam je. P. Medutim. te prema tome i6'i od stvar-anja nekog op6eg ugodaja (u evokativnoj muzici) do preciznijeg ocrt-ava. odnosi npr. vi'ezna'an. jer je to bio prije njega M. ili drz'e da muzika nije i ne moz'e biti jezik (S.nja izvanglazbenih sadrz'aja (u u programnoj muzici). Razlikovanje izmedu >. dotjerana i stilizirana s obzirom na samo zna&enje i izraiaj. Uz to se tor pojmu suprotstavlja pojam relativnog. a termin ?relativna muzika< ne upotrebljava se u znanstvenoj terminologiji. Dok je forma estetska 'injenica. Izr"az?apsolutna muzika? zato je i nepogodan 'to se nijednu glazbu ni u kojere smislu ne moze smatrati ne'cim apsolutnim. Jezik se glazbe ne mol'e svesti na diskurzivni jezik. jer ni najaiutentic'nija ekspresivna muzika ne vodi dalje u spoznaji.apsolutne" i >programneo muzike je pak samo nezgrapna shematizacija. Ali sadrz'aji zna&'nja i izraz'aja u glazbi mogru se autenti'cno doz'ivjeti a da ih se racionalno ne spozna. Osim toga. Takoder je neosnovana upotreba termina ?Eista muzika-( za obilje'avanje instrumenttalne glazbe. G. u 'irem smislu. ekspresivna se muzika pojavila u povijesti davno pri'je spomenutog ?ekspresionizma?.