Obviously, when talking about such metaphysical questions, it is very difficult and risky to give absolute statements: this contribution wishes to be essentially a sketch and a starting point for discussion that possibly will not be uninteresting for musicians.
Since very ancient times, Music was felt and conceived as deeply connected to mankind�s superior activities; even before the concept of Art was defined, Music was deeply felt as a communication medium between men, between mankind and itself, between man and God. To put Music close to Religion belongs to very ancient times: we know about Egyptian and Mesopothamic rituals accompanied by liturgical music. It is also quite easy to understand why they are so bounded. Music exalted and expressed the people�s mystical feelings, and allowed the body, through singing and dancing, to take part to prayer and to demonstrate the public and social aspect of liturgy. We can find a similar situation in Hebraic music, that was very close to prayer, especially with Psalms, to singing and to dance.
The great development Philosophy had in Greece caused also the first research on the signification of music. Greeks attributed her a cathartic function, and codified a classification of the modes composing their music. This classification was set on the better or worse influx they had on the behaviour of the audience. For their extra-refined sensitivity, some modes were useful to stimulate heroism and noble heart, while other ones should have induced laziness or indolence. Unfortunately our ears have become almost totally insensible to the difference through the several Greek modes, so it is impossible for us to grasp these nuances. But it appears quite clearly that modes themselves were not responsible of their presumed influence; it was the mental shape they produced into hearers.
In this question we think we can find the fulcrum of the whole problem. Our musical sensitivity is composed by a double aspect: on a side there is the innate sensitivity, common, in our idea, to every man in each time and each culture; on the other, and with a great prominence, the cultural tradition, that is instead very different from a place to an another and from a time to another. In our culture there is a great collective and individual imaginary that associates some sounds (like organ�s), some rhythms (like tango�s), some scales (like pentatonic or minor) to well-defined places, atmospheres, feelings. In this way music gains a �plus-value�, that is independent from itself but inseparable from it. And this plus-value is nevertheless subjective and very different from a person to the other and from an era to the other.
It is possible to give many examples for this theory: e.g., Bach�s contemporaries were scandalized by the wonderful Matth�us-Passion because they felt it very similar to a� comic opera, while for us it is the most perfect representation of human grief in music history. Benedetto Marcello could not tolerate when pieces similar to sarabandes or other dances were played in churches, while at our ears baroque music has become the stereotype of religious music, even when we hear gigues.
When music is too strictly associated to human feelings or facts, it demonstrates its total ambivalence, or simply its polyvalence. We can think about the use made of classical music in sound tracks. A very interesting example is the association made between the so pure and angelic Air of the Goldberg-Variations by Bach and one of the most bloody scenes in The silence of the lambs; and the best example of this ambivalence is to be found in Charlie Chaplin�s Great Dictator. In that genial film, Wagner�s Lohengrin Prelude is used to accompany two totally opposed moments: Hynkel�s (Hitler�s) omnipotence delirium, when he plays with earth globe, and the final speech by the Jew barber, that�s to say Chaplin�s own artistic and human creed.
Debussy said that it is not music itself that could be scandalous, but what we hearers mentally associate to it. There should be then no sensual music, but a music evocating atmospheres we associate to sensuality.
So it is very difficult to state if human categories of Good and Evil could exist in music. It seems more probable for Good: many people in music history, and not only in it, acknowledged to music the power of elevating men, to made them better. Dosto�evskij said, in a very famous statement, that �Beauty will save the world�: it seems impossible not to admit that music, especially in some masterworks, has the good purpose of unite and elevate mankind, and to put men closer to Absolute. When a music touches us, it puts us closer to the essence of ourselves and of the whole mankind; for those that believe, it puts also and above all closer to God. In each case, it seems universally acceptable that a Brahms� Symphony, a Mozart�s Air, a Bach�s Choir or a Schubert�s Lied are �good� music, bettering those that hear it and that helped mankind.
Many past and living composers spoke about �divinity�, that�s to say �super-humanity� of music. Ferruccio Busoni defined it �a Divine child whose feet don�t touch earth�; the Rig Veda says: �When Time began, there was only the Silence. But God existed from ever: He was a melody. And melody was God�. Cassiodorus said: �Would we commit injustice, God would let us without music�. Lenin acknowledged to it a good power, admitted with this very funny phrase: �I should not hear music too often. It brings me to say kind things, silly ones, and to caress people on their heads�.
Approaching the comparison between Music and Evil seems to be very different. It seems possible to say that Evil doesn�t exist in Music. Surely there were many pieces in musical history in which wickedness was very deeply depicted, as Iago�s Credo in Verdi�s Othello, and many others; there are pieces that could be defined obscene, pieces representing execrable ideologies, etc. But in all these cases music is not �bad� for itself; perhaps words put into it could be bad. Who could be spurred onto evil by hearing Iago�s Credo without knowing the words?
Surely violence exist in music; but even this violence seems to be very different from real life�s one. While this last is always �bad�, violence in music can easily and immediately become the prototype of heroism and of the struggle between positive and negative. The Scherzo in Bruckner�s Ninth Symphony can be similar to an infernal dance, but also to a struggle for Goodness - as you can see, two totally different things.
Surely in music there is also grief, but this seems very far to evil. Finally, also in real life, suffering is almost opposed to badness; it could be its consequence, but cannot be put close to it.
We think then we can say that music cannot lead to Evil, nor can cause badness or cruelty in those that hear it; we think also we can state that it can cause gentleness, noble heart, spiritual freedom, simply goodness. That�s also the reason why music fascinated and continues fascinating so many people, that find in it their own better part; and it is also why the musician�s work can be so beautiful.
what do you
think of this!
