Copland, Pluralism, and Musical Meaning: Implications for Christian Aesthetics

Aaron Copland was a composer, not an aesthetician or theologian. But as the honorary “Dean of American Composers,” he was often called upon to discuss musical meaning, and his thoughts on the matter were well-informed, both by his study and experience. In the view of this writer (also an American composer, but of a much smaller order!), Copland’s ideas have great value for Christians who make aesthetic judgments in accordance with Scriptural revelation. In a 1951 speech at Harvard, Copland said,

I am warily approaching one of the thorniest problems in aesthetics, namely the meaning of music. The semanticist who investigates the meaning of words, or even the meaning of meaning, has an easy time of it by comparison with the hardy soul who ventures forth in quest of music’s meaning.

Certainly this is a frank assessment of the difficulty faced by any aesthetician, Christian or not! He continues,

I have seldom read a statement about the meaning of music, if seriously expressed, that did not seem to me to have some basis in truth. From this I conclude that music is many-sided and can be approached from many different angles… . [Later, discussing absolutist vs. referentialist viewpoints of musical meaning:] The precise meaning of music is a question that should never have been asked, and in any event will never elicit a precise answer. It is a literary mind that is disturbed by this imprecision. No true music-lover is troubled by the symbolic character of musical speech; on the contrary, it is this very imprecision that intrigues and activates the imagination.

Christians should realize that it is not only the Biblical aspect of music philosophy that is difficult to formulate, but also the musicological/aesthetic one. When we combine the difficulties and varying viewpoints on both musical and spiritual aspects, we doubly realize that, while music philosophy may be important, it is not easy. But Copland proposes that we not despise this “imprecision” but rather espouse it and rejoice in it. Might this have some value for us as Christians?

The idea that virtually all statements about musical meaning “have some basis in truth” resonates strongly with me. In the realm of Christian blogger-philosophers, I find myself agreeing with Scott Aniol on many points. I also find myself agreeing with Tom Pryde on many points. Jon Gleason’s recent SI article was very insightful. The same could be said of the insights of Brian McCrorie, Tim Fisher, Mike Harding, and most everyone else in our “camp,” even when they seem to disagree or generate fierce cyber-debate. Why? I believe that each perspective reveals truth about one of the many facets of this incredibly complex musical and Biblical issue. Seemingly contradictory statements may, in fact, simply reflect two divergent but complementary facets of a unified but complex truth.

I once heard Dr. Guenter Salter make this point at a conference on aesthetics, culture, and postmodernism. The conference emphasized absolute truth and objective beauty, but in the closing forum session, someone submitted a thorny question. It paired statements from various speakers throughout the conference against each other, listing several examples of seeming contradictions, and then inquired how we could possibly believe in unified aesthetic truth when such pluralism existed even among the highly esteemed speakers. I remember the collective breath-holding that took place in the audience as the question was read. Some of the panelists glanced nervously at each other, but Dr. Salter grabbed the microphone and (as he was wont to do!) fearlessly plunged in. His answer was brilliant: he proposed that these varying statements were the result of different foci and not of “conflicting truths”; taken together, he said, they presented various facets of a complicated issue that helped us understand it more fully. That statement stuck with me more than any other from the conference, and it has influenced how I have thought about many issues since, including music.

My own pluralism (if I may call it that) is admittedly and of necessity limited to a set of people, such as those listed above, who are still loyal to a certain core set of beliefs; but within those parameters, I am comfortable with the considerable disagreement that exists. As Bob Bixby recently observed, it may well be that God’s complexity is much more vast than our feeble attempts to nail down the exact stylistic nature of “Christ-honoring music” (a term which makes me uncomfortable). I have to make reasoned, discerning choices for myself as best I can. When others (who prove by their words and deeds that they love God and desire to glorify Him) make different choices, I will not be quick to judge. Rather, I will remind myself that “What was your music style?” will not be the first question asked of us at the Judgment Seat. “Did you glorify Me?” might be.

So, to the musico-aesthetic bloggers of Fundamentalism, I say, “Argue away, boys!” Even when you passionately deconstruct each others’ statements for shades of meaning with which you can disagree, I am happily reading and learning from all of you. And to sincere SI readers who may feel confused about which blogger’s “camp” to follow, I propose a “more excellent way”: appreciate all of their viewpoints as representing different facets of truth.

Having proposed a pluralistic peace, though, I would like to offer another facet of the issue from Copland’s Harvard speech on musical communication:

What happens is that a masterwork awakens in us reactions of a spiritual order that are already in us, only waiting to be aroused. When Beethoven’s music exhorts us to “be noble,” “be compassionate,” “be strong,” he awakens moral ideas that are already within us. His music cannot persuade; [rather,] it makes evident. It does not shape conduct: it is itself the exemplification of a particular way of looking at life. A concert is not a sermon. It is a performance—a reincarnation of a series of ideas implicit in the work of art.

At first reading, saying that music does not “shape conduct” or preach may sound like ammunition for the “music is amoral” camp! But read again. Copland takes for granted that Beethoven’s music (not the lyrics to his few art songs or his one opera) exhorts us to be certain things, and the examples he chose all have to do with moral character. No, music may not preach those things implicitly, but according to the Dean of American Music, they “awaken moral ideas already within us.” Is this not consistent with what we already know from Scripture about man? Evil is not “from without,” but “from within.” Righteousness and moral character are not imposed by external forces in our environment or tacked on by mere self-effort, but rather “worked out” as a result of God “working in.” Even the moral values of which an unbeliever is aware are present within him through common grace. If, then, as Copland says, music awakens these moral ideas in us, could it not awaken either positive or negative moral ideas? Could not the “series of ideas implicit in [a] work of art,” be moral or immoral? Could the “particular way of looking at life” exemplified in the music be Biblical or un-biblical, especially in what it implies about God?

Perhaps an honest evaluation of music should admit, in the sense that Copland meant it, that music in itself does not preach, does not “persuade,” and does not explicitly “shape conduct,” contrary to ancient Greek thought. Many well-intentioned people have labored to prove that music does these things, thinking that the entire case for music standards rested on that point. Many others have then argued strongly against these ideas, and some mistakenly believe that their entire counter-argument is proved rock-solid by their ability to knock down these overstated ideas.

I much prefer to agree with Copland’s proposal that music “implicitly expresses a series of ideas, and thereby awakens moral ideas already within us” (emphasis added), whether for better or worse. Again, this matches my own experiences, both in my teenage days of listening to rock and CCM and in my more recent years as a composer of “art music.” As a composer, I make my living by trying to successfully communicate a set of ideas (yes, even moral ones!) through my music, not just the text. Regardless of how that set of ideas is implicit in a piece of music (O magnum mysterium!), it seems clear that those ideas are implicit. Further, those ideas, communicated musically, can exhort me to be something that has moral value, whether good or bad, as music exemplifies a “particular way of looking at life.” So says one of the greatest of all American composers.

Can I offer an analytical system or stylistic check sheet for which styles or songs awaken moral or immoral ideas? No. Should I be quick to make these kinds of judgments for others outside of my domain? No. Do I expect others to agree with my perspective in every jot and tittle, even in this essay? No. But can I, yea, rather, must I, (with that piercing Judgment Seat question, “Did you glorify Me?” in mind) make discerning judgments within the spheres of influence the Lord has given me? Yes. And so must Scott in his domain, Tom in his domain, McCrorie and Janz in their domains, and you, dear reader, in your domain. To the extent that these fine men offer differing opinions, I will maintain that I am viewing different facets of that many-sided jewel called music; the more facets they cut, the better it sparkles in my eyes!

As a composer, I really prefer to stay out of these public arguments; I much prefer to embody my musical, aesthetic, and spiritual values in my music rather than in rhetoric or debate. Once again, Copland said it well: “A composer might easily sidestep the issue [of musical meaning]; aesthetics is not his province. His gift is one of expression, not of theoretic speculation.” To which I say, “D’accord!” and happily return to the relative comfort of my music-writing desk.

Interestingly, because I write music instead of philosophizing about it, both Scott Aniol and Tom Pryde (among others) provide links to my website on their blogs. That is a pluralism that gives me great joy.


^{Dan Forrest is a faculty member in the Division of Music at Bob Jones University, teaching music theory and composition. He is currently on leave of absence, finishing his dissertation for the Doctor of Musical Arts degree from the University of Kansas. Dan and his wife, Addy, have been blessed with two children, Leah (3) and Daniel (1). More information about Dan’s work as a composer can be found at http://www.danforrest.com.}