Home > Positioning > Subjects > Music and meaning

Music and meaning

Music is the hardest case any theory of meaning faces. It moves listeners as deeply as anything in art, seems unmistakably to mean something — and yet, instrumental music especially, refers to nothing, makes no statement, depicts no object. The question of what music means, and how, has run for two centuries without settling. This page is that argument: not music theory or history, but the long dispute over musical meaning.

Formalism: music alone

The formalist answer is that music means nothing beyond itself, and need not. Eduard Hanslick gave it its founding statement in On the Musically Beautiful (1854): the content of music is tönend bewegte Formen — tonally moving forms — and its beauty is specifically musical, residing in the play of melody, harmony, and rhythm, not in any feeling it might depict or arouse. A century later the philosopher Peter Kivy renewed formalism in the analytic key: music can be heard as expressive of emotion — sad music resembles the bearing and gait of a sad person, a heard contour — without representing or arousing it. The emotion is a property the music is heard to have, not a message it sends; what is attended to and valued is the structure itself.

Expression, emotion, and symbol

Against formalism stands the older and more intuitive conviction that music is, somehow, the language of the feelings. In its strong form this became a referential theory: Deryck Cooke’s The Language of Music (1959) argued that particular melodic and harmonic figures carry particular emotional meanings across the Western tradition, a vocabulary composers draw on — an ambitious claim widely judged to overreach. More durable was Leonard B. Meyer’s Emotion and Meaning in Music (1956), which located meaning not in reference but in expectation: a style sets up implications, and feeling arises as they are delayed, deflected, or fulfilled — meaning generated from within the music’s own syntax. Jerrold Levinson has argued that music’s expressiveness is heard as the utterance of an imagined persona whose emotion the listener takes up, and that understanding music is largely a matter of following it moment to moment. Susanne Langer gave the non-formalist case its most philosophical form: music is a presentational symbol, “the tonal analogue of emotive life,” presenting the forms of feeling directly in a shape that cannot be paraphrased — an unconsummated symbol with no fixed dictionary.

The metaphysics of music

A third tradition makes music not the lowest of the meaning problems but the highest of the arts. Arthur Schopenhauer held that where the other arts copy the Ideas, music is a direct copy of the Will itself — the inner nature of the world sounded without the mediation of concepts, which is why it moves us more profoundly than it can explain. The claim ran on through the century: Friedrich Nietzsche, in The Birth of Tragedy (1872), made music the Dionysian art, the voice of the formless ground beneath the Apollonian image. On this view music means more than language, not less — it reaches what words cannot.

Absolute versus programme music

The argument was not only philosophical; it was fought out among composers as the War of the Romantics. On one side, absolute music — autonomous, instrumental, answerable to nothing outside its own form — with Hanslick as critic and Brahms as exemplar. On the other, programme music and the music-drama: Liszt, Berlioz, and above all Wagner, who held that music reaches a limit and must hand over to the word — binding music to narrative, image, and text. The musicologist Carl Dahlhaus, in The Idea of Absolute Music, traced how “absolute music” rose from a polemical term to the tacit ideal of the whole concert tradition.

Where the argument stands

No side has won. The divide between formalism and expressivism remains the field’s organising fault line, and the contemporary analytic debate — Kivy against Levinson, and others around them — restates in sharper terms the question Hanslick framed in 1854. The argument persists because of the phenomenon itself: music is at once the most abstract of the arts, pure pattern referring to nothing, and the most immediately moving, and no account has fully reconciled the two. Music is where the theory of meaning meets its limiting case.

Persons

Hanslick · Schopenhauer · Langer · Nietzsche