Kierkegaard’s reflections on Don Giovanni (found in his book “Either/Or”) must concern us musicians: They identify music as the art of the “immediately, sensuously-erotic” and suggest that music is authentically devoid of reflective attributes. Transient temporality is affirmed as a fundamental determination of music. The pursuit of sensuality, an incessant desire for conquest and change and an absence of reflection and conscience all characterise Don Giovanni. This makes Don Giovanni for Kierkegaard essentially musical.
When confronted with this phenomenon an ordinary, bourgeois consciousness naturally thinks of moral disapproval. However, a moral judgment is strictly speaking not applicable here. Don Giovanni simply fulfills the conditions of an existence that is absolutely committed to continuous transience. The absence of a temporal consciousness excludes the moral perspective. An ethical state of existence only emerges where we find endurance and a conscious conception of presence, a temporal horizon. Only a consciousness of endurance and presence confronts us with responsibility. Don Giovanni’s transient being, his restless immersion in becoming, dissolves such a context and accordingly severs his attachment to responsibility. He remains unaccountable since he lives absolutely in the here-and-now.
An absolute commitment to transience and intoxication excludes Don Giovanni also from any form of communal justice. To be sure, a metaphysical form of justice catches up with Don Giovanni in the end. But this amounts to an affirmation of being versus becoming: The cold stone statue of the Commendatore becomes the hero’s undoing. Don Giovanni is presented with the consequence of his incessant becoming, with his own nemesis. But Don Giovanni is never brought to worldly justice or to moral account. He simply comes undone as his existence leads to an inevitable conclusion inherent in the original denial of being. The absolute affirmation of becoming (with its implicit denial of being) collides with a transcendent truth of being. The point is that an hermetic, absolute isolation of the aesthetic perspective cannot be maintained. It will meet – and fail in the challenge of enduring being.
For us musicians this seems to contain an important message: If Kierkegaard is right in identifying the aesthetic state of being as essentially musical, an absolute affirmation of music as a mode of aesthetic existence, of a relentless becoming, of incessant change and turbulent chaos, will loose its bearings. Musicians who deny being and relentlessly affirm becoming come undone. This occurs notwithstanding the fact that the essential nature of music is becoming and change or – in Nietzsche’s characterisation – the “Dionysian”. However, is music absolutely “aesthetic” or (with Kierkegaard) an expression of the immediately, sensuously-erotic? It does not seem so since music is also and perhaps foremost a spiritual art. A conception of music as a spiritual art commits us to conscious listening. Conscious listening is always reflective, however. It creates, discovers and commits to meaning within a flow of otherwise ever-changing impressions. In fact, the very possibility of musical perception requires the presence of consciousness. Reflection and consciousness enable the listener to recognise the signal as a musical symbol, to distinguish noise from music. At this point of recognition, however, the aesthetic perspective is transcended and forms of presence, of permanence and of endurance are introduced. Identities are established and with them the requirements of responsibility. It seems that this is the point of Don Giovanni as an opera. It is not the point of Don Giovanni as the character, though, who is a nihilistic phenomenon: a denier of the truth of being.
Musicians must take care not to confuse character and play: While grounded in becoming and in the sensuously-erotic, music is also sustained by being and mediated, reflective consciousness. In fact music forms a bridge between the aesthetic and the ethical state of being. This makes it highly significant. It makes it also subject to the tensions emanating powerfully from both force-fields at all times.
Author: Goetz Richter
Goetz Richter AM is Associate Professor for violin performance at the Sydney
Conservatorium of Music. His performance career includes positions as Associate Concertmaster with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, Associate Principal Violin with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra and leader of the Queensland Theatre Orchestra, performances as a violin soloist, recitalist and chamber musician in Australia, Asia and Europe and leader and guest leader of a number of Australian Orchestras. He has also collaborated with leading Australian and international artists, has appeared for Musica Viva and recorded for the ABC.
He is currently artistic director of the Kendall National Violin Competition and presents masterclasses and lectures on musical performance and instrumental teaching, most recently in Sydney, Melbourne, throughout New Zealand, Singapore, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Fuzhou and Wuhan where he is appointed visiting professor at the Conservatorium of Music.
Born in Hamburg Goetz Richter studied violin performance in Hamburg, Munich (with Gerhart Hetzel) and Berne (with Max Rostal) before settling in Australia in 1985. He studied philosophy and psychology at the University of Sydney completing a PhD in philosophy and the philosophy of music in 2007.
Richter has published in philosophy and the philosophy of music, musical performance, music education and violin pedagogy. He teaches performance, chamber music, orchestra studies, pedagogy and courses in the Philosophy of Music and convenes a philosophy of music study group at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music.
Music, civilisation, myth and conflict
An uncivilised power asserts itself in music and resonates through our musical culture. This chaotic, abysmal will-to-power at the source of musical creativity challenges culture and civilisation. This is not to be lamented as it is in fact possibly authentic to the phenomenon of music itself.
Denials of civilisation in music emerge already in classical antiquity. According to mythology, aesthetic or ethical differences in music escalated into often violent conflicts. Among the many examples of violence and brutality, Apollo challenged the satyr Marsyas to a musical contest in which the God played the lyre and Marsyas the Aulos – a reed instrument renowned for its sensuous qualities. The muses, who judged the contest, are reputed to have declared Apollo the winner. Apollo in response flayed the luckless Marsyas- a brutal punishment for musical differences and failings.
Apollo’s punishment affirms the rule of the stringed instruments, which were understood to support clarity and reason. They are placed in direct conflict with the “polyharmonic” instruments which were understood to have had imitative and intoxicating qualities. Plato uses this difference to condemn the imitative attributes of music altogether and to famously insist on codifying civilised forms of music and musical practice. Legislating music is an attempt to secure civilisation in a promotion of rational understanding and good governance. According to Greek thinking, stringed instruments, such as lyre and khitara, supposedly support the clear elocution of speech. Their presence in music is conducive to an articulation of truth in speech. Greek mythology informs us that the goddess Athena rejected wind instruments when she discovered that their playing distorted facial features and the speech organs. This is a symbolic cue for Greek thinking: the sound of wind instruments supposedly imitates an unrestrained sensuality and expresses a reckless imagination. Civilisation, however, demands sobriety- sophrosyne– and the unrestrained sensual powers of music present a challenge to this.
The sensuous and instinctive dimension of music remains troubling for the classical consciousness. Orpheus, the son of the muse Kalliope, was renowned for music making of such beauty that his playing supposedly moved plants, animals and even stones. However, his pragmatic achievements appear less compelling. After gaining access to the underworld Orpheus fails to retrieve his wife Eurydice from the realm of the shadows for lack of agreement to conditions- he turned around to look at her against the explicit prohibition to do so. Orpheus looses his wife forever and subsequently becomes a victim of hatred and rage: The God Dionysos, the God of intoxication and rapture (musical qualities in themselves) perceived a betrayal in Orpheus’ admiration for Apollo and is reputed to have stirred the maenads against him. These raving, female followers of Dionysos, intoxicated and orgiastically transported, dismembered Orpheus’ body. According to mythology Orpheus’ head, still singing, floated to the island of Lesbos.
Punishments for transgressing aesthetic boundaries, ethical responsibilities or the mysterious boundaries of music are consistently severe: The singer Linos, a son of Apollo and Urania, and reputedly the first to have received the gift of singing, met a violent end through Heracles, his pupil whom he dared criticise during a music lesson. Thamyris, the son of the nymph Agriope, reputedly sang- and played the lyre so beautifully that he claimed to have surpassed even the muses themselves. These, however, did not appreciate the competition, but exterminated his possibility of artistic realisation: they blinded him and took from him the gift of singing and playing.
The uncivilised conflicts surrounding music are an outcome of a struggle for the truth of- and in music. Music is an art of semblance, of conviction and persuasion. It emerges from the intuition and instinct of the human psyche. It is shaped by the powers of human imagination and intelligence. Its emergence and its formation are naturally in tension. Nature aims for utterance. Civilisation makes the demand that such utterance is formed and constitutes meaning. One may take issue with this, as Nietzsche does, and point to the fact that in music formation inevitably leads towards a destruction of essence. The essence of music, the Dionysian element of intoxication, is also the instinctive elimination of individuality. Form, however, affirms an Apollonian definition of individuation. Form introduces clarity, identity, recognition, reflection, objectivity and endurance into music. The characteristics of form contradict the primordial power of music which is essentially transitory, communal and sublating of identity, intuitive and ephemeral. The attributes of form also characterise civilisation. Their denial puts civilisation on notice.
While we may affirm the Dionysian essence of music, we also know that without form, music cannot exist. To be sure, amorphous sound may be a varying stimulant. It does have an effect on our experience and it can function as a pacifier, as a tranquilizer or as an ecstatic drug, However, music ultimately challenges our listening consciousness and directs it towards a search for meaning. This search identifies it as a phenomenon of civilisation. Listening searches for structural and formal attributes in music. Accordingly, listening to music has a reflective dimension- we may not choose to engage with this dimension, but it is nevertheless present and – despite Kierkegaard- an authentic aspect of music itself. Listening is not merely what we hear in the here-and-now. It includes a horizon of what we have heard- it includes our history of attention. And it includes expectations, projections and anticipations. In fact, music – and the artistic engagement with music in particular- rely on a horizon of recollections and expectations to engage the listeners’ imagination.
Without the appeal to a reflective, conscious perception, music as we know it would not have endured. The very existence of music as music implies the possibility of reflection. Because music is formed, it can endure as a realm of conscious experiences. Form is thus an essential aspect of music. Form makes music potentially significant. Formation is an achievement of civilisation and civilisation in turn is charged with the nuture of form. While the instinctive power of music challenges civilisation at its foundations, it is clear that without form and without civilisation music cannot last. It becomes ephemeral – a babbling noise.
Music, spirit and silence
Using a blog for a serious topic raises a question: Will web-readers who are known to skim their texts fleetingly and read carelessly, endure sustained reflection? The answer could present us with a problem but also with an opportunity. Perhaps the challenge is to invent a new, double-headed style? In thinking aloud we may need to proceed aphoristically- igniting the imagination and reflection in quick sparks – staccatissimo. At the same time, we may need to try to sustain long phrases.
According to anecdote, after starting to use his typewriter, Friedrich Nietzsche’s style changed to become more punctuated – more on the interesting topic of how technology modifies thinking can be found in this thought provoking article http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google by the way.
Music is not really a topic about which one can think quickly. In this regard it is like time: St. Augustine famously found that we all seem to know what it is but when we contemplate it, it disappears and we become confused. Much philosophy is like this. We must be able to endure perplexity. Perplexity is a most important state of mind for a thinker. Without it we are likely to remain captive to the ignorance that hides within convictions.
On this site I hope to share some ideas on music. While these ideas are articulated within a historical philosophical framework, I hope to relate any historical discussion to the here-and-now. In fact, the here-and-now has motivated this blog in the first instance. Music making, listening and learning are central activities of the human spirit. I regard them as fundamental to human essence and as fundamental to a flourishing society. In that respect, music is more than an aesthetic phenomenon and more than an instrument of pleasure. It is an “Existenzial” – it articulates the ontological condition of human existence. We are human because we make and participate in music. When Heidegger states that “language is the house of being” we should add that music is the ground on which such a house can stand. Relentless noise – the denial of music- is akin to nonsense and babble: it destroys our spiritual being and well-being.
One of the essential determinations of music is silence. Our capacity to endure silence has audibly declined. What is there to endure? What do we fear? In silence we are confronted with the limitations of our existence. The silence of reflection connects us at the same time with the infinite ground of such an existence. In silence we think, we imagine and we listen. Without silence we cannot conceive matters clearly. Silence is fundamental to the authentic experience and conception of music. We listen to music when- and because we ourselves are silent. Without silence, music turns into noise. Silence connects us with the truth of music. If we wish to master music, become musicians and make music well we need to master silence.
Our circumstances here-and-now may be remembered for their noise, for their non-sense and for the restless activity that flees from silence. This time may be remembered as a time with little music notwithstanding the overwhelming availability of music and notwithstanding the noisy propaganda that accompanies music and public musical productions.
I invite all to browse the various entries to which I hope to add regularly. Most importantly, I welcome critical comments.