# Aesthetically autonomous, pure music



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

When is music aesthetically autonomous and pure?

Is pure music limited to being abstract aural shapes and forms with a severed relationship to the surrounding life and universe?

If a piece of music is expressing, for example emotions or a state of mind, will it immediately become narrative or programmatic music?


----------



## Gold Member (Aug 23, 2021)

I mostly think of sheet music not intended for any specific instrument. Then often, no real dynamical markings, performance up to interpretation. It is essentially focused on the fundamental notation system alone. Plain notes, and that's about it.

For the symphonic composition, ie. your last subject, this might entail instrumentation generally uncolorful or traditional, string-ensemble-like, and a musical focus that is not focused on dynamics, color or expression. About just the _plain notes _and their interrelated structure.

It can be argued that structure is found everywhere in music even in emotional cues and dynamical/instrumental timing, and that is too true. In fact, when someone argues a piece is less useful because it's focused too much on expression or orchestration, they usually don't know what they're talking about. But these are not the structures I think about when someone mentions _pure music_. I think about just notes and the notation system alone. Intervals, rules of counterpoint, and timing.

Bach will mimic dynamics by either playing one extra note or a rest, so the harmony goes louder or softer, and that ties into _pure music_ strategy, without getting into extra markings. Ideally however, one would play each beat the same volume, so that one note is the same volume as one triad, but it's a bit hard to get that _pure_.

Nevertheless, Bach formed a rhythmic identity in his placement of notes that would sound louder or softer just based on where they were.



Waehnen said:


> If a piece of music is expressing, for example emotions or a state of mind, will it immediately become narrative or programmatic music?


Generally no. There's a difference for me between a neat structure that is also emotionally expressive, like a Brahms movement, and a programmatic piece that is much less emotionally expressive but evokes many intended scenes or musical characters in small previews and stages, where those characters need not be instrumental or expressive, but notational: themes, keys, motifs, and dividing tempo/lengths. Here are distinct smaller segments of different "characters" of a story, like Bach's mass.

A non-programmatic piece or movement like Brahms, is more akin to climbing a mountain rather than a staircase, ie. the structure flows smoothly and logically with no new scenes or real division between characters, compared to the drastically evolving and changing _program_. Its story-telling is holistic rather than linear, except when the movement ends and a new one begins. In fact to me it's at least apparent that many symphonies could've had movements from a different symphony and we would never notice.

I consider *Bach's mass* and *cantatas *much closer to seeking both a programmatic nature, and a pure one, but not quite being either, either. That is, I can imagine something more programmatic and scenic without losing any of the purity implied by a sole notational focus. The question is essentially, how eclectic can a composer get without changing the tone of their notes in any way? Try using one of those old Casios that have no key-push dynamics.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Waehnen said:


> When is music aesthetically autonomous and pure? Is pure music limited to being abstract aural shapes and forms with a severed relationship to the surrounding life and universe?


Music based on scales and chords brings into play instruments and voices producing tones through proportional vibrations involving the harmonic series. The media of air and solid material, and the biological agents (human) capable of producing and perceiving music, are part of, not severed from, "the surrounding life and universe." What you describe as "pure music" has been dreamt of by composers but I don't see how it is possible. Even electronic music engages with human beings and our world. Perhaps "direct-to-brain" production and transmission would approach this ideal of pure music.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Waehnen said:


> When is music aesthetically autonomous and pure? ...


Music is essentially as old as olive oil, and similar formulas determine their "purities".

Here are the guidelines for determining virgin from extra-virgin olive oil: After the oil is extracted, it is graded. If the olive oil is found to be fruity, has no defects and has a free acidity that is less than or equal to 0.8, it is graded as extra-virgin. If the olive oil has minimal defects and is found to have a free acidy between 0.8 and 2.0, it is graded as virgin. 

Plug in the term "music" for "oil" and you'll have your answer. 

It may not be surprising to find out that J.S. Bach's music is almost always of the "extra virgin" purity. The notion that he had 22 children shouldn't complicate the matter.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Traditionally, pure, aesthetically autonomous music means music without explicit extramusical subjects or referents. Even the most ardent proponents of pure music have generally not denied music's expressive qualities or ruled out other connections to human life. For example, Eduard Hanslick, who wrote the most historically important manifesto of pure music (_On the Musically Beautiful_) didn't deny music's expressive capacity, he merely claimed that emotions are not its subjects.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I think music making often is balancing between the two: expressing something extramusical (intentionally or unintentionally) and then letting the aesthetically autonomous elements of the music itself dictate their way and shape the forms. Then the music at the same time both expresses something and works as an aesthetically autonomous entity.

Composers and compositions place on differents spots on the dichotomy line but I would say every composition has their spot somewhere on the line. Bach is aesthetically more autonomous than Wagner but they are not as far apart as one might at first think.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Waehnen said:


> When is music aesthetically autonomous and pure?
> 
> Is pure music limited to being abstract aural shapes and forms with a severed relationship to the surrounding life and universe?
> 
> If a piece of music is expressing, for example emotions or a state of mind, will it immediately become narrative or programmatic music?


I'd not heard of this expression, so looked it up and found this:

Bloomsbury Collections - Aesthetic and Artistic Autonomy 

It's only a preview of the 1st chapter, but it gives some useful pointers - not least that this is not a settled debate. From my (very brief) reading, the answer to your last question is, "No", but such a piece could not be described as aesthetically autonomous. "Programme" music would require a deliberate creation on the part of the artist whereas,



> the nature of the artwork is determined by the socio-historical context in which the artist’s activity is taking place. As such, the artist is incapable of acting autonomously – his artistic decisions, and the horizon of the possible decisions which he can entertain, are preformed due to the influence of external processes.


_"(the Abbildungstheorie employed by some Marxist aestheticians (most notably in the work of Louis Althusser or Georg Lukács)"._


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> I think music making often is balancing between the two: expressing something extramusical (intentionally or unintentionally) and then letting the aesthetically autonomous elements of the music itself dictate their way and shape the forms. Then the music at the same time both expresses something and works as an aesthetically autonomous entity.
> 
> Composers and compositions place on differents spots on the dichotomy line but I would say every composition has their spot somewhere on the line. *Bach is aesthetically more autonomous than Wagner but they are not as far apart as one might at first think.*


No, Bach and Wagner are about as far apart on this as it is possible for two common practice composers to be. Lest we forget, the Wagner/Liszt camp versus the Hanslick/Brahms contingent on the issue of absolute versus porgram music (or, more broadly, absolute vs. music with extramusical functions and content like Wagner's music dramas) was the most public and one of the most consequential aesthetic controversies of the 19thc and one whose ramifications are still being debated. Bach's instrumental works are considered prime examples of absolute (aesthetically autonomous) music by all sides in the debate and he would be a perfect stand in for Brahms in the Hanslick/Wagner controversy. (Absolute is synonymous with aesthetically autonomous and it's the term with more historical precedence.)



Forster said:


> I'd not heard of this expression, so looked it up and found this:
> 
> Bloomsbury Collections - Aesthetic and Artistic Autonomy
> 
> It's only a preview of the 1st chapter, but it gives some useful pointers - not least that this is not a settled debate. From my (very brief) reading, the answer to your last question ["If a piece of music is expressing, for example emotions or a state of mind, will it immediately become narrative or programmatic music?"] is, "No", but *such a piece [could not be described as aesthetically autonomous*. "Programme" music would require a deliberate creation on the part of the artist …


This view is not commonly accepted. Expressing emotions or a state of mind is not disqualifying for inclusion in the category absolute music, although attempts to verbally specify specific emotions or states are usually considered dubious and/or problematic.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Is there a bit of irony that Bach's most highly regarded works these days are liturgical works with texts?


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> No, Bach and Wagner are about as far apart on this as it is possible for two common practice composers to be. Lest we forget, the Wagner/Liszt camp versus the Hanslick/Brahms contingent on the issue of absolute versus porgram music (or, more broadly, absolute vs. music with extramusical functions and content like Wagner's music dramas) was the most public and one of the most consequential aesthetic controversies of the 19thc and one whose ramifications are still being debated. Bach's instrumental works are considered prime examples of absolute (aesthetically autonomous) music by all sides in the debate and he would be a perfect stand in for Brahms in the Hanslick/Wagner controversy. (Absolute is synonymous with aesthetically autonomous and it's the term with more historical precedence.)


I purposefully chose Bach and Wagner mainly for the aforementioned reason. The point was though, that neither one of them created music that was severed from humanity and the universe. Think of the Matthäus-Passion or Der Ritt Der Valküren as an independent orchestral piece; the first one can well be considered programmatic and the latter more or less absolute music.

It must be recognized that there is music that is more absolute and music that is more programmatic, but the idea of pure, absolute music operating on a realm of it´s own can be rather naive. Just as absurd is the idea that programmatic music would somehow not be constructed of the same aural forms and shapes (explained by music theory) as absolute music.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> When is music aesthetically autonomous and pure?


Never.

You should contact some expert on communication theory for details. In order to communicate, there is the need of something in common between sender and recipient.

So a piece of music written by some composer, read by some performer and listened by some audience already has two communication processes unless composer and performer are not identical.

And this "in common" contains aesthetic values.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> I purposefully chose Bach and Wagner mainly for the aforementioned reason. The point was though, that neither one of them created music that was severed from humanity and the universe. *Think of the Matthäus-Passion or Der Ritt Der Valküren as an independent orchestral piece; the first one can well be considered programmatic and the latter more or less absolute music.*
> 
> It must be recognized that there is music that is more absolute and music that is more programmatic, but the idea of pure, absolute music operating on a realm of it´s own can be rather naive. Just as absurd is the idea that programmatic music would somehow not be constructed of the same aural forms and shapes (explained by music theory) as absolute music.


The _St. Matthew Passion_ isn't programmatic, it's vocal music with text, which puts it out of the programmatic-absolute debate. And performed on its own, _The Ride_ is still representative music on a programmatic subject, which would be obvious for listeners with any comprehension of 19thc music. The example is nonsense.

Your second paragraph is a mess: bringing up irrelevancies and things no one has been arguing. For example, no one argued that absolute music operates "on a realm of it's own," whatever that's supposed to mean. Absolute music simply lacks extramusical content or referrents (with the commonly accepted understanding that expressive qualities are not inherently extramusical.)


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> The _St. Matthew Passion_ isn't programmatic, it's vocal music with text, which puts it out of the programmatic-absolute debate. And performed on its own, _The Ride_ is still representative music on a programmatic subject, which would be obvious for listeners with any comprehension of 19thc music. The example is nonsense.
> 
> Your second paragraph is a mess: bringing up irrelevancies and things no one has been arguing. For example, no one argued that absolute music operates "on a realm of it's own," whatever that's supposed to mean. Absolute music simply lacks extramusical content or referrents (with the commonly accepted understanding that expressive qualities are not inherently extramusical.)


Quite the contrary, my examples are excellent and there is nothing messy or nonsense in my writing. I am sure even you get what I am saying.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Bach and Webern are the ones who come to mind.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> No, Bach and Wagner are about as far apart on this as it is possible for two common practice composers to be. Lest we forget, the Wagner/Liszt camp versus the Hanslick/Brahms contingent on the issue of absolute versus porgram music (or, more broadly, absolute vs. music with extramusical functions and content like Wagner's music dramas) was the most public and one of the most consequential aesthetic controversies of the 19thc and one whose ramifications are still being debated. Bach's instrumental works are considered prime examples of absolute (aesthetically autonomous) music by all sides in the debate and he would be a perfect stand in for Brahms in the Hanslick/Wagner controversy. (Absolute is synonymous with aesthetically autonomous and it's the term with more historical precedence.)
> 
> 
> 
> This view is not commonly accepted. Expressing emotions or a state of mind is not disqualifying for inclusion in the category absolute music, although attempts to verbally specify specific emotions or states are usually considered dubious and/or problematic.


Well of course. Not many will line up to share the same view as the communists, which is why I specified which opinion I was citing. And I clearly indicated I was skimming.

I nevertheless thought the source might be helpful to the OP.


----------



## Gold Member (Aug 23, 2021)

In holding to my definition, I don't consider whether or not music is associated to a non-musical work. Musical albums are for listening alone, not eating or playing frisbee with, so I tend to lose the aesthetically autonomous part of my definition, and focus on whether a piece is associated to a mode of expression, timbre, or instrument, or whether its more detached from these concretes, and tied to traditional theory. If the purpose of these note structures are less defined by expressions and timbres and can stand on their own, then it is purer music. But whether or not it evokes some extra-musical abstractions, like the pattern of a bird, or of Napoleon groaning in the midst of the night from waking up from that bird, has no bearing on its purity of musical structure; then we'd have to argue a major and minor harmony always indicates something extra-musical as well, but in no sense at all. The term "programmatic" detached from any motion of what people may use the music for, is merely a form that some music takes. Something like the Bach Mass takes on this form of distinct and detached scene progression, "separate characters" building a narrative, so it sounds programmatic. A Brahms work with its holistic and fully interconnected narrative, doesn't sound programmatic, because it doesn't invoke that form. The Bach however sounds purer because its execution is less complicated. Brahms is much more demanding in the concrete methods of executing his works.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Gold Member said:


> In holding to my definition, I don't consider whether or not music is associated to a non-musical work. Musical albums are for listening alone, not eating or playing frisbee with, so I tend to lose the aesthetically autonomous part of my definition, and focus on whether a piece is associated to a mode of expression, timbre, or instrument, or whether its more detached from these concretes, and tied to traditional theory. If the purpose of these note structures are less defined by expressions and timbres and can stand on their own, then it is purer music. But whether or not it evokes some extra-musical abstractions, like the pattern of a bird, or of Napoleon groaning in the midst of the night from waking up from that bird, has no bearing on its purity of musical structure; then we'd have to argue a major and minor harmony always indicates something extra-musical as well, but in no sense at all. The term "programmatic" detached from any motion of what people may use the music for, is merely a form that some music takes. Something like the Bach Mass takes on this form of distinct and detached scene progression, "separate characters" building a narrative, so it sounds programmatic. A Brahms work with its holistic and fully interconnected narrative, doesn't sound programmatic, because it doesn't invoke that form. The Bach however sounds purer because its execution is less complicated. Brahms is much more demanding in the concrete methods of executing his works.


Aesthetically autonomous music and absolute music are terms with a long history in musical aesthetics. Some who responded to this thread understand this context. Others not so much …


----------



## Gold Member (Aug 23, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> Aesthetically autonomous music and absolute music are terms with a long history in musical aesthetics. Some who responded to this thread understand this context. Others not so much …


Now suddenly someone besides me is talking about musical _aesthetics_. Good to know. We'll have to agree to disagree about your claim of who doesn't understand history.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I am aware of the ways many terms have been used in musicology. However, on a forum like this, there really is no need to limit oneself.

The basis of Bach’s instrumental works is in the expressive melodies, harmonies and rhythms (musical language) which were born mostly out of singing and dancing. As is with most other classical music. Expression and hence "the programme of expressing humanity" is deeply rooted in the language of classical music.

The 6th Symphony by Tchaikovsky is enormously expressive but it does not have a programme. It follows a kind of sonata form. Would you still call it absolute and aesthetically autonomous music? I would not because it is so closely linked to expressing human emotions. We all KNOW it is most expressive music although the aural shapes and forms are neutral and put together in traditional symphonic manner and skill.

Of course some of us interpret that there is no emotion behind E minor prelude from Das Wohltemperierte Klavier. I for sure KNOW there is a lot of emotion behind it. I see a lot in common with The Pathétique and the E Minor Prelude.

Someone wrote a long time ago that the programme of Beethoven´s symphonies is Beethoven himself and that allowed the music to still stay absolute and aesthetically autonomous. But if the programme happens to be something else than the composer, then all of a sudden the music becomes non-absolute and programmatic? Does the "Fate Symphony" stay absolute because the struggle with fate happens inside Beethovens mind? And should there be any reference to struggles with faith that took place outside Beethoven´s mind, then all of a sudden the music becomes programmatic, something like Wagner? I think not.

The old dichotomy does injustice to much music. I refuse to see this thing as a simple matter because it is not. And seeing it as simple black and white matter ”already settled in the canons right after WW2” offers this world NOT MUCH. It would do justice to music to let the music itself speak and not the ”all settled contexts brought to you by the kind permission of musicology”.

Should someone be interested I could try to write a simple ”form” in order to achieve some better analysis on this matter.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

@Waehnen, absolute ("pure") music does not imply expressionless content or in your terms, a lack of humanity, I just don't see there being any dichotomy over this. Music written without extraneous input will always have the capacity to move a listener _and_ composer for that matter.
To take this a little further, a composer can and perhaps even should, write highly charged and expressive moments whilst in a kind of aesthetically autonomous and calculating state of mind anyway, in order to retain control and to ironically, make the best aesthetic decisions they can. Music written continuosly without such control and in a permanent heightened emotional state that dictates flow, is in danger of becoming uncohesive, missing opportunities, losing a sense of inevitability and even perhaps attenuating in some way any intended emotional impact.
In other words, no hand on forehead looking up to Heaven, no scented rooms and definitely no silk dressing gowns whilst composing......work for the inspiration.

Deferring to Copland is always a good thing to do with music matters such as this...

_'The whole problem can be stated quite simply by asking, "Is there a meaning to music?" My answer to that would be, "Yes".
And, "Can you state in so many words what that meaning is?" My answer to that would be, "No"._

I am curious as to what you mean by writing a "simple form" though. Do you mean to write a piece of music that may or may not express something according to your ears?


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> @Waehnen, absolute ("pure") music does not imply expressionless content or in your terms, a lack of humanity, I just don't see there being any dichotomy over this. Music written without extraneous input will always have the capacity to move a listener _and_ composer for that matter.
> To take this a little further, a composer can and perhaps even should, write highly charged and expressive moments whilst in a kind of aesthetically autonomous and calculating state of mind anyway, in order to retain control and to ironically, make the best aesthetic decisions they can. Music written continuosly without such control and in a permanent heightened emotional state that dictates flow, is in danger of becoming uncohesive, missing opportunities, losing a sense of inevitability and even perhaps attenuating in some way any intended emotional impact.
> In other words, no hand on forehead looking up to Heaven, no scented rooms and definitely no silk dressing rooms whilst composing......work for the inspiration.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you write. But one question: do you see Bach and Wagner as fundamentally different when it comes to the autonomous aesthetics of music? I do not.

Form was a wrong word to use. I thought of creating a map of a sort with which you could analyze the level of aesthetic autonomy (in it’s many forms) in relation to other elements as truthfully and usefully as possible.

Regarding my own symphony, I do have a programme on the level of ”This is what this music is about, this is what I want to express here, this is where I draw inspiration from here”. But at the same time the music has to work as an autonomous aesthetic entity. The music has to work on it’s own without anyone knowing anything about my (hidden?) programme.

The level of balancing between the autonomous elements and expressing what I want to express is unique to this piece of music. I am interested in how that position could be expressed through analysis.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> No, Bach and Wagner are about as far apart on this as it is possible for two common practice composers to be. ...


I don't think the distinction is that simple and clear-cut. The name "Bach" includes a vast corpus of vocal music, and in that music the music is in the service of the text as much as it is in Wagner. Bach continually employs tone-painting. The difference is that Wagner was an opera composer and didn't produce something like the Art of Fugue.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I think a clarification of my position is needed.

Because no music can be detached from humanity, I do not believe in the existence of utterly absolute, aesthetically autonomous music.

Also, no music can be free of the parameters upon which and with which the music is built. So there is always a "system" of some kind -- and a system is always autonomous to an extent, otherwise it would not be a system.

So every composition is aesthetically autonomous to an extent and possesses a ”programme of humanity” to an extent.

So, fundamentally Bach and Wagner are on the same league here.

The interesting and important question would be not to ask who is aesthetically autonomous and who is not (or who has a programme of humanity and who has not), but to which extent certain pieces of music are aesthetically autonomous and at the same time to which extent programmatic in humanity.

Those who believe Bach is fundamentally absolute and Wagner is in some totally different realm have a lot to prove.

Recognicing and acknowledging the historic battle between rivals Wagner and Brahms and their aesthetic systems is another story.


----------



## Gold Member (Aug 23, 2021)

Piano transcriptions of Wagner scenes or others' symphonies extract the purity of the music, because it is the notes themselves that are most essential and complex. This doesn't entail they're better than the original, but rather makes the structure easier to analyze as a step _closer_ to envisioning the score into orchestration and composition possibilities. This is where all the varied emphases and impacts stem from the purity and fundamental beauty of the idea.


----------

