Unlike Kant, Hanslick wants to approach aesthetics as a “condition of a science [in that] it should aim to give us objective laws” (Page 51). This means that the interpretation of music will have a true definition to all listeners (objectivism). He also says on page 51 that “structure is the basis even of the “feeling” content that we demand from music”.
“No more than every bit of red in an historical painting means joy or every bit of white means innocence will every bit of A-flat major in a symphony arouse an ecstatic mood or every bit of B minor a misanthropic one or every triad satisfaction or every seventh despair” (Page 51). Hanslick is essentially stating that though music can have expression, it is from within ourselves that the emotion manifests; music is simply a conduit for the listener.
Though he tries to separate aesthetics as a whole from subjectivism, what Higgins is pointing out is that Hanslick has essentially made them inseparable. I agree with Higgins because as a music listener myself, I can think of many progressions of music that are designed to spark happiness, that only draw melancholy out of me personally. (i.e. “Doo Wah Diddy” (G major) by Manfred Mann, “I Walk the Line” (E major) by Johnny Cash, “Two Princes” (D major) by Spin Doctors, “You Get What You Give” (A major) by the New Radicals, etc.)
I like what you brought up in your last paragraph. I believe that music can have different effects on different people, depending on who they are and what they've experienced. I don't know if that's what you were saying, but that's what I got from it.
ReplyDelete