Radiohead and Philosophy - Brandon W. Forbes [27]
Another way of looking at how emotion factors into our experience of music is to claim that the structure of music—the combination of its rhythms, harmonies, melodies, and the rest—somehow brings about emotions in us. That is to say, we respond emotionally to the form of music. This view, that music is really all about the structure of its musical elements (tones, pitch, rhythm, and so on) is called formalism. As noted earlier, what sets Radiohead apart from other contemporary bands, and most past bands, is the way that they put together the elements of traditional rock music, along with other musical elements from outside rock music, to achieve truly unique results. Often, the emotions that people detect or feel in a Radiohead song will vary from person to person, but the structure of the music remains the same of course: people simply react to that structure, or form, differently. Therefore, a theory of music must base the definition of music on its formal structure to some degree. Just as painting is the structural arrangement of colors and shapes on a flat surface, and sculpture is the structural arrangement of shapes and figure in three dimensions, music is the structural arrangement of the elements of sound.
Formalism in music is clearly a powerful and intuitive theory, but we’ve already seen one of its problems: a lawnmower presents an arrangement of structured elements of sound, if somewhat simplistic and monotonous, as does the car horn of the road-raged driver, so the sound of a lawnmower and car horn are music according to formalism. However, if we return to the issues of audience and intention, then the formalist theory of music seems to fair better than the emotion theory. The main intention of both a lawnmower and a car horn is not merely the presentation of a structured sound but to, respectively, cut the lawn and alert other drivers or pedestrians. The intention of music, on the other hand, is the presentation of structured sounds for its own sake, and not for any other purpose. But what about birdsongs? Many people may enjoy the distinctive sound that a bird makes for its own sake, but the bird didn’t create those sounds to be enjoyed for its own sake—it serves as the bird’s method of communicating with other birds. Therefore, birdsongs are not music according to the formalist theory that we’re considering. This outcome may strike people as somewhat too limiting, needless to say, because many people do experience the sounds of birds, or even car horns, aesthetically in the same way that they enjoy human songs: so why can’t birdsongs be art, too? (In response, can it be claimed that they’re art but not music?)
A more obvious problem concerns music with lyrics. Most Radiohead songs have a written text, which presents a complication for the formalist theory since lyrics are not merely structured sounds: they also communicate a non-musical message. The formalist theory thus seems to work best for music that has no written or non-musical text, such as symphonies and other classical pieces for instruments alone. Some Radiohead’s song are also wordless, like “Treefingers” and “Hunting Bears,” as was mentioned earlier, but most are not. Therefore, the formalist definition of music is too narrow in that it leaves out many things that are music, like the lyrical component of songs (and maybe birdsongs, too).
Are Musical Experiences Universal?
Many philosophers have hoped that investigations into the psychological or social experience of music might find that human beings tend to react to music in the same way, probably at a deep unconscious level, such that the same types of musical structures are associated with