Hanslick

[chopithoven]

Anyone knows something about Eduard Hanslick? Do you agree with this ideas about programmatical music and the expression of feelings in music?

[Rod]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
Anyone knows something about Eduard Hanslick? Do you agree with this ideas about programmatical music and the expression of feelings in music?

Looks like nobody's heard of him. Your going to have to tell us his ideas before we can tell you if we agree with them!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Looks like nobody's heard of him. Your going to have to tell us his ideas before we can tell you if we agree with them!

I've heard of him! He was one of the foremost critics of the 19th century and a champion of Brahms in the debate on the 'new music' as represented by Wagner, Liszt and Bruckner whom he loathed! During the 1860's there were heated arguments between what was perceived as the two distinct camps in music, the Wagnerians and the Brahmsians (Brahms actually wanted nothing to do with the whole thing). Hanslick regarded Brahms the true heir of the Beethoven tradition - I think it was he who referred to the three B's , Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 05-05-2002).]

[Chris]

Was that who referred to the 3 B's? Interesting. In a college music appreciation course I had once, the professor mentioned that quite frequently. To me it seemed a bit of a stretch to include Brahms in the company of Bach and Beethoven, although he was a fine composer and I like his music a great deal more than Wagner's.

[chopithoven]

As you look interested, I researched some things about Eduard Hanslick.

Some of the main ideas of Hanslick's book "On the musically beautiful":

Chapter 1: Aesthetics as Founded on Feelings
Hanslick opens his book as follows:

"The course hitherto pursued in musical aesthetics has nearly always been hampered by the false assumption that the object was not so much to inquire into what is beautiful in music as to describe the feelings which music awakens." (p.7)

Some further quotations from Chapter 1:

"Such systems of aesthetics are not only unphilosophical, but they assume an almost sentimental character when applied to the most ethereal of all arts; and though no doubt pleasing to a certain class of enthusiasts, they afford but little enlightenment to a thoughtful student who, in order to learn something about the real nature of music, will, above all, remain deaf to the fitful promptings of passion and not, as most manuals on music direct, turn to the emotions as a source of knowledge." (p.7)

"On the one hand it is said that the aim and object of music is to excite emotions, i.e., pleasurable emotions; on the other hand, the emotions are said to be the subject matter which musical works are intended to illustrate. Both propositions are alike in this, that one is as false as the other." (p.9)

"If the contemplation of something beautiful arouses pleasurable feelings, this effect is distinct from the beautiful as such. I may, indeed, place a beautiful object before an observer with the avowed purpose of giving him pleasure, but this purpose in no way affects the beauty of the object. The beautiful is and remains beautiful though it arouse no emotion whatever, and though there be no one to look at it. In other words, although the beautiful exists for the gratification of an observer, it is independent of him." (pp.9-10)

"An art aims, above all, at producing something beautiful which affects not our feelings but the organ of pure contemplation, our imagination." (p.11)

"Grant that the true organ with which the beautiful is apprehended is the imagination, and it follows that all arts are likely to affect the feelings indirectly." (p.12)

"So long as we refuse to include lottery tickets among the symphonies, or medical bulletins among the overtures, we must refrain from treating the emotions as an aesthetic monopoly of music in general or a certain piece of music in particular." (p.15)

Some notes on Hanslick:
Hanslick is commonly regarded as advocating an intellectualized form of aesthetic pleasure. Hanslick does not deny that listeners may be emotionally moved by listening to music, but he regards such feelings as a by-product of the music's beauty. Good music is beautiful, and in apprehending this beauty the listener may well be deeply moved.

Hanslick regards the purpose of aesthetic beauty to to be the gratification of the listener. ("the beautiful exists for the gratification of an observer") Yet Hanslick argues that beauty is independent of human emotion. ("The beautiful is and remains beautiful though it arouse no emotion whatever".) Moreover, beauty is not just independent of an observer's emotional state, beauty is altogether independent of the observer.

This view contrasts notably with the views of sages throughout the eons who have argued that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." This viewpoint is best illustrated, not by considering differences of opinion among people, but by contrasting the views of humans with other animals. Does a robin not take delight in eating a raw worm? Does the heart of a panda not jump for joy when spying a bamboo forest? Does a fly not regard dung with relish? Most writers have argued that each animal has its own criteria for what constitutes "beauty".

In what sense can we imagine a musical work being "beautiful" without understanding that it is a human notion of "beauty" that grounds this characterization? Hanslick would answer this question by saying that it is not human emotions which tell us what is beautiful, but human imagination -- "the organ of pure contemplation". Indeed, since Hanslick regards beauty as independent of humans, it follows that Hanslick's notion of the imagination is transcendental, and does not rely on the existence of human beings per se.

It is tempting to view Hanslick as an early cognitivist:

perception ---> appraisal of beauty ---> emotional response

However, it is important to understand that the "appraisal" component is an imaginative and transcendental phenomenon that occurs independent of the corporeal existence of human bodies or brains.

Neverthless, Hanslick's views have been highly influential in the area of musical aesthetics, and, in particular, among cognitivists like Peter Kivy.

[Peter]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
As you look interested, I researched some things about Eduard Hanslick.

Some of the main ideas of Hanslick's book "On the musically beautiful":

Brahms wrote to Clara Schumann that he was going to read Hanslick's book, 'the Beautiful in music' "but at a glance found so much stupidity in it that I left it alone".



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Brahms wrote to Clara Schumann that he was going to read Hanslick's book, 'the Beautiful in music' "but at a glance found so much stupidity in it that I left it alone".

I see, I am aware of the two 'sides' at that time. However much I would tend to agree with the anti-Wagnerian school this is tainted by the fact that neither side proved capable of producing any good music! Certainly not in Beethoven's league. So I would say the the argument is rather academic!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chris:
Was that who referred to the 3 B's? Interesting.

Having checked my Brahms biography, it was actually Hans Von Bulow who proclaimed the three B's after a performance of the first Symphony, which he also coined as 'the 10th' in reference to Beethoven.

I too share your preference for the music of Brahms over Wagner. The strange thing about the Romantics as opposed to the classics is that they all seemed to hate one another's music!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Joy]

Originally posted by Chris:
Was that who referred to the 3 B's? Interesting. In a college music appreciation course I had once, the professor mentioned that quite frequently. To me it seemed a bit of a stretch to include Brahms in the company of Bach and Beethoven, although he was a fine composer and I like his music a great deal more than Wagner's.

I often thought that including Brahms in that trio was a bit of a stretch too. Maybe they couldn't come up with another 'B' name!

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Joy:
I often thought that including Brahms in that trio was a bit of a stretch too. Maybe they couldn't come up with another 'B' name!

I always say Buxtehude as the third 'B'.

Seriously, as I recall, Wagner named the character Hans Sachs of Die Meistersinger after Hanslick and made fun of him in the opera.

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Peter:
Brahms wrote to Clara Schumann that he was going to read Hanslick's book, 'the Beautiful in music' "but at a glance found so much stupidity in it that I left it alone".

This is unfounded. Hanslick is absolutely right in his theories.

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
I always say Buxtehude as the third 'B'.

Seriously, as I recall, Wagner named the character Hans Sachs of Die Meistersinger after Hanslick and made fun of him in the opera.

The third B should not be a B, but an M for Mozart.

[Peter]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
This is unfounded. Hanslick is absolutely right in his theories.

Some of what Hanslick says is similar to our earlier debate on great music - i.e Beethoven's 9th is a great piece of music, regardless of what x or y may think of it. Some people can recognise this greatness and respond to it, others cannot. I agree with this. I disagree with his assertion that great music is necessarily beautiful - there is nothing beautiful about the recapitulation of the main theme in the 1st mov of the 9th, or the coda to that mighty piece - the emotion aroused is terror. A great piece can contain many different emotions - there are moments of great beauty in the 9th, but it is not a word I'd use to describe the whole work.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Peter]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
The third B should not be a B, but an M for Mozart.

How right you are! Perhaps we should have 3 M's - Monteverdi, Mozart and Monet! (cheating I know!)

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Chris]

Originally posted by Peter:
Having checked my Brahms biography, it was actually Hans Von Bulow who proclaimed the three B's...

I see. Man, that guy seems to turn up all over the place. If I remember correctly, he also wound up getting Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 dedicated to him.