|
or try some definitions. |
I welcome
feedback about this webpage:
 |
1 : Theory or System of Presentation?
Someone who teaches musical composition is called a theory teacher; but if he has written a book on harmony, he is called a theorist. Yet a carpenter will never think of setting himself up as a theory teacher, although of course he, too, has to teach his apprentices the handicraft. He may very well be called a master carpenter, but this is more a designation of his proficiency than a title. Under no circumstances does he consider himself anything like a scholar, although he, too, undoubtedly understands his craft. If there is a distinction, it can only be that the technique of musical composition is "more theoretical" than that of carpentry. This distinction is not easy to grasp. For if the carpenter knows how to join pieces of wood securely, this knowledge is based no less on fruitful observation and experience than is the knowledge of the music theorist who understands how to join chords effectively. And if the carpenter he is thus taking natural relationships and materials into account, just as does the music theorist when, appraising the possibilities of themes, he recognizes how long a piece may be. On the other hand, whenever the carpenter introduces flutings to enliven a smooth surface, he exhibits even so his imagination and taste equal that of all music theorists. If, therefore, the carpenter’s teaching, just like that of the theory teacher, rests on is there then really any essential distinction? Why then do we not also call a master carpenter a theorist, or a music theorist a master musician? Because there is a small distinction: understand his craft in a merely theoretical way, whereas he is no master. And still another distinction: the true music theorist is embarrassed by the handicraft because it is not his, but that of others. Merely to hide his embarrassment without making a virtue of it does not satisfy him. The title, master, is beneath him. He could be taken for something else, and here we have a third distinction: the nobler profession must be designated by a correspondingly nobler title. For this reason, although even today the great artist is still addressed as "master", music does not simply have instruction in its craft, its techniques - as does painting; music has, rather, Instruction in Theory. And the result: the evolution of no other art is so greatly encumbered by its teachers as is that of music. For no one guards his property more jealously than the one who knows that, strictly speaking, it does not belong to him. The harder it is to prove ownership, the greater the effort to do so. And the theorist, who is takes pains to fortify his unnatural position. He knows that the pupil learns most of all through the example shown him by the masters in their masterworks. And in the same way that one can watch painting, it would be clear He replacing the living example with I do not wish to quarrel with honest efforts to discover tentative laws of art. These efforts are necessary. They are necessary, above all, for the aspiring human mind. Our noblest impulse, the impulse to know and understand, makes it our duty to search. And even a false theory, if only it was found through genuine searching, is for that reason superior to the complacent certainty of those who reject it because they presume to know - to know, although they themselves have not searched! It is indeed our duty to reflect over and over again upon the mysterious origins of the powers of art. And again and again to Regarding nothing as given but the phenomena. These we may more rightly regard as eternal than the laws we believe we have found. Since we do definitely know the phenomena we might be more justified in giving the name, "science", to our knowledge of the phenomena, rather than to those conjectures that are intended to explain them. Yet these conjectures, too, have their justification: as If art theory could be content with then one could not object to it. But it is more ambitious. It is not content to be merely the attempt to find laws; it professes to have found the eternal laws. It That is of course correct procedure, because unfortunately there is hardly any other way. But now begins the error. For it is falsely concluded that these laws, since apparently correct with regard to the phenomena previously observed, must then surely hold for all future phenomena as well. And, what is most disastrous of all, it is then the belief that a yardstick has been found by which to measure artistic worth, even that of future works. As often as the theorists have been disavowed by reality, whenever they declared something to be inartistic "which did not with their rules agree", they still "cannot forsake their madness". For what would they be if they did not at least have a lease on Beauty, since art itself does not belong to them? What would they be if it were to become clear to everyone, for all time, what is being shown here once again? What would they be, since, in reality, art propagates itself through works of art and not through aesthetic laws? Would there really be any distinction left, in their favor, between themselves and a master carpenter? Someone could declare that aesthetics Quite correct: almost everybody does know that nowadays. Yet hardly anyone takes it into consideration. And that is just the point. Let me illustrate. In this book I believe I have succeeded in refuting some old prejudices of musical aesthetics. That these prejudices have remained with us right up to the present would in itself be proof enough of my contention. But when I say what it is that I do not consider a necessity of art; when I say: tonality is no natural law of music, eternally valid - then it is plain for everyone to see how the theorists Who today would want to admit that even if I proved it still more incisively than I shall do here? The power that the theorist has to have to fortify an untenable position comes from his alliance with aesthetics. Now aesthetics deals only with the eternal things, thus always comes too late in life. People call that "conservative". But this is just as absurd as a conservative express train. The advantages that aesthetics assures the theorist are too great, however, for him to worry about this absurdity. There is so little grandeur in the sound of it, if the teacher tells the pupil: One of the most gratifying means for producing musical form is tonality. What a different impression it makes, though, if he speaks of the principle of tonality, as of a law - "Thou shalt..." - adherence to which shall be indispensable to all musical form. This word "indispensable" - one can detect a whiff of eternity! Dare to feel otherwise, young artist, and you have them all against you, those who claim that I am merely saying what everybody knows. And they will call you "meddlesome upstart" and "charlatan" and will slander you: "You fake! You thought you could put something over on us!". And when they have finished smearing you with their vulgarity, they will pose as those courageous men who would have thought it cowardly not to risk something And in the end you are the clod! To hell with all these theories, if helping those who will compose badly anyway to learn it quickly. What one could reasonably expect of them, they do not fulfill. The form in which they practice aesthetics is indeed extremely primitive. It does not amount to much more than some pretty talk; yet the main thing the theorists have borrowed from aesthetics is the method of apodictic assertions and judgments. [Carter, p 10:] It is asserted, for example: "That sounds good or bad" (beautiful or not beautiful would be more correct and forthright). That assertion is first of all If it is put forward unsupported, why then should we believe it? Should we trust in the authority of the theorist? Why then? If he offers no support for what he says, it is then either Yet, beauty is Above all, however, if that sort of judgment could be accepted without further justification, then the justification would have to follow so necessarily from the system itself that to mention it would be superfluous. And here we have hit the theorists’ most vulnerable spot: Their theories are intended to in such a way that it will produce, for example, harmonic progressions whose effect can be regarded as beautiful; they are intended to that are esteemed not beautiful. But these theories are not so constructed that the aesthetic judgment follows as a consequence On the contrary, there is no coherence, absolutely no coherence. These judgments, "beautiful" or "not beautiful", Parallel fifths sound bad (why?). This passing note sounds harsh (why?). There are no such things as ninth chords, or they sound harsh (why?). Where in the system can we find logical, mutually consistent answers to these three "why’s"? In the sense of beauty? What is that? How is the sense of beauty otherwise related to this system? To this system - if you please!! These systems! Elsewhere I will show how they have really never been just what they still could be: namely, systems of presentation. Methods I will show with a second system (which is still no system), in order even halfway to accommodate the most familiar facts. It should be quite different! A real system should have, above all, principles that embrace all the facts. Ideally, just as many facts as there actually are, no more, no less. Such principles are natural laws. And only such principles, which are not qualified by exceptions, would have the right to be regarded as generally valid. Such principles would share with natural laws this characteristic of unconditional validity. The laws of art, however, consist mainly of exceptions! Nor have I been able to discover such principles, either; and I believe they will not e discovered very soon. Attempts to explain artistic matters exclusively on natural grounds will continue to founder for a long time to come. [Carter, p 11:] Efforts to discover laws of art can then, at best, that is, they can orients itself to the attributes of the object observed. In making a comparison thereby enlarging details, and thereby gaining perspective. No greater worth than something of this sort can, at present, be ascribed to laws of art. Yet that is already quite a lot. The attempt to construct laws of art from common attributes should no sooner be omitted from a textbook of art than should the technique of comparison. But no one should claim that such wretched results are to be regarded For, once again, What we do achieve can be enough, if it is given as a towards the goals of instruction; a system I have aspired to develop such a system here, nothing more; I do not know whether I have succeeded or not. But it seems to me as if I have at least managed to escape those straits where one has to concede exceptions. The principles of this system yield possibilities in excess of those that have actually been realized. Those systems that do not account for all the facts also have this shortcoming. Thus, I have to make exclusions, just as they do. However, they do it through aesthetic judgments: something sounds They do not take the much more modest and truthful way: to affirm that the exclusions simply have to do with what is not common usage. What is really not beautiful could hardly be made to sound beautiful, certainly not in the sense these aestheticians intend. But what has merely not been common usage And, with this, the teaching of composition is to help the pupil attain such skills as will enable him to produce something of established effectiveness. It does not have to guarantee that what he produces will be It can give assurance, however, that through attention to its directions the pupil can produce something which in its materials and techniques resembles older compositions - that is, up to the point where, even in the technical, mechanical aspects, the creative mind forsakes every control. However much I may theorize in this book - for the most part, in order to refute false theories, I am compelled to expand narrow and confining conceptions to include the facts - however much I may theorize, I do so with constant and full awareness that I am only presenting by showing him the wealth of ways in which all facts relate to an idea. [Carter, p 12:] But not to set up new eternal laws. If I should succeed in teaching the pupil the handicraft of our art as completely as a carpenter can teach his, then I shall be satisfied. And I would be proud if, to adapt a familiar saying, I could say: "I have taken from composition pupils a bad aesthetics and have given them in return a good course in handicraft".
introduction by Monzo, next chapter
|
or try some definitions. |
I welcome
feedback about this webpage:
|