Davies Rock v Classical

7/31/2019 Davies Rock v Classical

1/13

Rock versus Classical Music

Author(s): Stephen DaviesSource: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 57, No. 2, Aesthetics and PopularCulture (Spring, 1999), pp. 193-204Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The American Society for AestheticsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/432312

Accessed: 21/09/2009 10:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The American Society for Aesthetics andBlackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/432312?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/432312?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/13


3/13

The Journalof Aestheticsand Art Criticismmusic. Classical music often is expressive ofemotion. Sheerbeautyof tone is importantandloudness sometimes is of expressive signifi-cance. Moreover, classical music also affectsthe listener'sbody, eliciting foot-tapping,head-nodding,air-conducting, nd(inprivate, f not inthe concert chamber)dancing. While classicalperformersusuallyfollow a score, considerablefreedom n the score'sinterpretations tolerated;also, some classical works,such as those with afiguredbass,require heperformero improvise.Because classical performerscan adopta moreearthy,primitive echniquewhenthemusic callsfor it, Young decides that classical music en-compasses all the featurespresentedby Baughas distinctiveof rock,andmore besides.He con-cludes:Eachof thestandardsfexcellencenrockmusicper-formancewhichBaugh dentifies ppliesas well toperformancesof classical music.... This is not to saythatno difference xistsbetween ockandclassicalmusic. Forbetteror worse, however,rock music hasto be udgedby thestandardshichhavealways eenused to judge music.4

In his reply to Young'scriticisms,Baugh ar-gues thatthetechniquesof performanceorrockare not merely primitive versions of those usedin classicalmusic.5A differentkind of virtuosityis required,which is why good classical musi-cians cannot usually transfertheir skills to thesuccessful performanceof rock music. More-over, the rock player'stechniquesareuntrainedand natural, rather than mechanical and pol-ished. He suggests, in addition, that classicalmusic long has lost its connectionwith the lis-tener's emotional or bodily response:A traditions an ongoing,developinghing,andtheclassical traditionhas ... become more formalist n itsstandardsf compositionndperformancendmoreintellectualistnitsapproacho listening.... f feelingand formalismonce vied with each other .., the battleis longsinceover,and heformalists on.6

As to Young'sconclusion,Baughapproachesit in a fashion that is perhaps surprising.Hemighthave insistedthat his goal was to identifyfeaturesthatare distinctive of, if not always ex-clusive to, rock music. Instead, and somewhatdisingenuously,he writes:"the mainaim of my

essay was to establishthelimits of formalistcrit-icism when it comes to music."7 He closes byturningYoung'sconclusionon its head.PerhapsYoungis rightthat what is trulyvaluable inclassical performances is also a matter of feelingrather han form. But in thatcase, in classical music,as in rock,formalcomplexitycan never makeup foran absence of expressivequalities,and for betterorforworse, classical music would have to bejudged bythe same performance-based tandardsused to judgerock music.8Whereas Young intimates that rock will farebadlyin thecomparisonwith classical music ac-cordingto the criteriaof evaluation hatapplytoallmusic,Baugh mpliesthe reverse. f itsperfor-mance s overly ntellectual, ndrulegoverned,asBaugh often intimates,classical music will berevealed as sterile and unappealingwhen non-formal criteriaof evaluationcome intoplay.Some good points are made on both sides ofthis exchange. Young does well to emphasizehow limited is Baugh's view of the role of theperformerand of the place of expressiveness inclassical music. Baugh is correctto insist thatrockplayersharnessdistinctive skills in the pur-suit of goals differentfrom those that concernthe classical performer.Nevertheless, my over-all impressionis that the argumentsmiss eachother. This occurs despite the fact that Youngseems to accept the parameters et up by Baugh.Theirdifferencesmight have been more clearlyarticulated adthose parameters eenexamined.Baugh's argument elieson questionabledistinc-tionsbetweenmusic's formal and nonformalel-ements and between the kinds of musicianshipinvolved in performing he two kinds of music.II. FORMALISM AND EXPRESSIVENESSBaugh believes that the interest in classicalmusic is exclusively formal,and he cites Kant,Hanslick, and Adorno in supportof the claim."Classical aesthetics of music explicitly ex-cludes questionsconcerninghow music feels orsounds,and the emotionalreactions music pro-vokes, fromconsideration f musicalbeauty" p.24). Formalist ssues continueto predominatenmusic criticism in general, fromjournalismtoacademia (p. 24). Against all this, Young ob-serves that composers and musicians have al-

194


4/13

Davies Rockversus Classical Musicways regardedclassical music as includingtheexpressionandarousal of emotions.9(He couldhaveadded,of course,thatmany philosophersofmusic in this centuryhave takenthe analysisofmusic'sexpressivepowersas theirprime topic.)He arguesthat nonformalpropertiesareoften ofmore interestthan formal elements in classicalmusic.For my part,I am more inclined to questionthe viability of the distinction on which Baughfoundshis argument. cannotimaginehow onecouldlisten to music withoutconcerningoneselfwith form,with the structuring f sound. Musicis patterned ound,and one canhearthe musicinthe noise it makesonlyby detecting tspattern.'10At the micro-level,much music is organized nterms of tonalities ormodalities,harmoniccom-binations, meter, and so on. At the mid-level,there are units such as melodies. At the macro-level, there arechunks,some of which repeatorvary previouslyintroducedmaterial.Unless onecan heara tune-hear when it begins and ends,when it is repeated-one cannot locate themusic that is there. This way of listening is notany more "intellectual" han is hearing a sen-tence in one's mother tongue with understand-ing. In both cases, a great deal of enculturationlies behind the process, but thatprocess is "nat-ural" o the extent that it is our effortless way ofhearing music and language as such. The per-ceptual experience that would require thoughtandspecial effort is that of hearing one's nativemusic or languagemerely as stringsof unrelatedsounds.As music, rock is no less formal than anyotherkind.Typically, t is tonal (though he thirdand seventh degrees of the scale can be inflected,as in the scale used in blues). It employs themeter of common time and a persistent back-beat. It uses familiarharmonicpatterns.It con-tains melodies. It is sectioned according tostrophicor otherrepetitive structures.Baugh al-lows as much, but he suggests that art rock wasa disaster when it attempted o make its formsthe focus of interest(p. 25)." When rock suc-ceeds, it does so not in virtue of its formal nter-est but, rather, by using the "materiality"ofsound to generate nonformal properties. Withclassical music, by contrast, he listener's atten-tion should be directedto the form, and nonfor-malpropertiesareof secondary mportance nly."Inclassical aesthetics of music,matter s at the

service of form,and is always judgedin relationto form"(p. 25).Itmightbe said thatform is one thingand ex-pressivenessquiteanother.The two aredistinct,certainly,butthey operate n such intimateprox-imity that a rigiddistinctionbetweenthe formaland nonformalpropertiesof music is easily un-dermined. The expressive characterof musicoften dependson its structure, ndwe mightun-derstanda piece's form as much in termsof itsexpressive progressas in termsof textbookmod-els. Micro, medium,and macropatternsof orga-nization affect the piece's expressive character.Imaginetwo musical sections: a slow, draggingpart(X) and an upbeat,lively one (Y). The ex-pressivemood of thepiece obviously is affectedin partby how these are ordered-for example,as XY, YX, XYX, YXY, and so on.'2 Take thetwelve-barpatternof blues as an example.Themicro-formusually is of an XXY type. In thefinal four measures, he pace of harmonic hangeis doubled.When this is coupled withan appro-priate melodic andrhythmic ntensification, heresulting impressionis one of compression, ofcentripetalcollapse, which lends a special inex-orabilityandpowerin the drive to the tonic thatresolves the tension and closes the section. It isthese "formal" lements, as much as any others,that create the expressive effect of the singer'sbeing over-burdened nd crushedby sadness.In addition, it is not possible to distinguishthe formal from the nonformal by arguing thatperceptionof the former is intellectual wherethat of the latter is not. Emotions have a largecognitive component. And one needs to per-ceive andunderstandots of things about musicin order to be able to recognize expressivenessin it (and to respondto what one hears with ap-propriateemotions). So practical is the knowl-edge involved that its role is not always appar-ent to the absorbed istener. But as soon as sheis presented with music ordered according toconventions very different from those withwhich she is at home, its expressive character srenderedopaque. I suspect that most Westernlisteners can make little of the "nonformal"propertiesof Japanesegagaku or Chinese operawhen they encounter such music for the firsttime.Baugh implies that those who listen to classi-cal music attend in an intellectual way to itsform,whereas rock music engages the listener's

195


5/13

The Journalof Aesthetics andArtCriticismfeelings and thereby engendersa noncognitiveresponse.I believe that he mischaracterizes hepersonwho listens to classical music. While thatperson's experience must be informed by aknowledge of the relevant conventions, prac-tices, and idioms, it need not be intellectualinthe sense of requiringan internalcommentarythat refers to technical notions.13And whilesome pieces, such as Bach'sfugues,do invite at-tentionspecifically to the details of their struc-ture,many others are to be understoodand ap-preciated n termsof theirexpressive or lyricalcharacter.In general, I doubt that a distinction can bedrawnbetween formal and nonformalpropertiesthat will be suchas to show that a person mightlisten in terms of the one without an awarenessof the other. And I doubt that there is any basisfor distinguishing hepersonwho listens to rockmusic from the one who listens to classicalmusic on the groundsthat the former'sinterestis in nonformalpropertiesthat are appreciatednoncognitively,whereas the latter'sconcern fo-cuses on forms that are recognized in a self-consciously intellectualfashion. If the discus-sion is about a personwho listens to the musicshe appreciates,Baugh'scontrast between rockandclassical music is unconvincing.One way of breathing ife back into the dis-tinction between formal andnonformalmusicalproperties s by arguingthatthe personwho ap-preciatesrock does not listen to it, thoughshe isaffected, nonetheless, by what she hears.In ef-fect, this is how Baugh develops his argument.While he sometimes writesas if what is impor-tantto rock music is its engagementwith the au-dience's emotions, more often he characterizesthe crucialresponse as yet moreprimitivethanthis. He insists that rock affects the body andthat the reaction thatit provokesis somatic,vis-ceral, in the gut.The three featureshe mentionsas constituting"rock'sessence"(p. 28) are suchbecause of their capacity to provoke this re-sponse.Themateriality f tone,ormoreaccurately, f theper-formanceof tones, is only one importantmaterial le-ment of rock music. Two others are loudness andrhythm.Both of these are also more properlyfelt bythe body thanjudged by the mind ... and the properuse of both is crucial to the success of a rock musicperformance,a success which is judged by the feel-

ings the music produces in the listener's body....These materialor "visceral"propertiesof rock areregistered n thebodycore, in thegut,and in themus-cles and sinews of the arms and legs, rather haninany intellectual acultyof judgment.(pp.23-24)Obviously, very loud music has an effect on thebody,and notjust on theears;you canfeel it vibrate n yourchestcavity.(p. 28)As he describesit, the rock audience'sresponseis not based on their listening to the music assuch,but is a physiologicalreaction o the noiseit makes.

Baughis inclinedto take theargumenturtherby suggestingthat,because of theway it affectsthebody,rock musicfalls in a tradition n whichmusic is for dancing, not listening, to. "A badrocksong is one that tries and fails to inspirethebody to dance"(p. 26). He allows thatthere s asignificant body of rock music that one is notmeant to dance to. Nevertheless,he maintainsthat rock remains in touch with its historicalroots in dance music, as classical music doesnot. The dancetypesfrom whichclassical musicarosewereappreciatedor their ormalqualities,"notfor their somaticor visceralaspects.On thecontrary, n courtly dance, matterand the bodyare subjectto form and the intellect. This wasnevermoretruethan n Romanticballet" p. 26).Inresponseto Young'sobjectionthatthose whodancedto the music of MozartandHaydnwerenot in the least concerned with the music'sform,'4 Baugh replies:Thefact thatat one timethemusicwasplayedand is-tened to with dance in minddoes not meanthatit isstill playedandlistenedto thatway. ... In the secondplace, even in the eighteenth century,dance was ahighly formal affair: minuets and waltzes observestrict formalpatterns. .. Rock dancingcan includealot of fancy footwork and intricatemovements, butnot often accordingto a set pattern,and sometimesthere is no formalpatternatall.15

I am unconvinced by the claim that rockmusic is always more intimatelyconnected todance than is classical music. Is it the case thatbaroquedance suites or contemporaryminimal-istworks-not to mentionBartok'smusicfortheballet TheMiraculousMandarinorStravinsky'sfor TheRite of Spring-are less kineticallyim-

196


6/13

Davies Rock versus Classical Musicpellingthanrock ballads suchas "TheRose,"or"Yesterday"?s "ADay in the Life" more "intouch"with the dance tradition o which it is heirthan s Beethoven's SeventhSymphony? doubtthat most people feel irresistibly impelled todance to rock music heard on the radio. Rockmusic,like otherkinds, s very frequentlyusedasa background ccompanimento otheractivities.Anyway,doesno one ever danceto Mozart ntheprivacyof her home? Of course,rock music thatis written o be dancedto is dancedto when it isplayedat dances,but this is how people respondto dancemusic at dances,and it is how they al-wayshave done. It is worthrecalling hatdancingis a socially sophisticated,self-conscious, anddeliberate reaction to music. Low-level motorand physiological responses triggeredby musicmight mpelthe listener odance,but this is bynomeans nevitable.Whether heprimitive esponsefinds expressionin this way dependson the so-cial context and personalinclination of the lis-tener.Baugh's more interestingand basic point, Ithink, s theone about heway that music affectsthebody.Particular imbresordiscords can turnthe listener'sblood cold and make his skin-hairsstandon end. Certain ones, intervals,cadences,or sudden changes in dynamics, tempo, orrhythmcan cause the listener to catch breath,orto exhale. Sometimes it is only when he does sothathe realizeshow responsiveto the musichispatternof breathinghas become. And above all,music's regularities and its cross-patterns areechoed kinesthetically by both the performerand the listener,who twitch, tap, contract, lex,twist, jerk, tense, sway,andstretchas theyreactbodily to themusic. Musicmoves us, quiteliter-ally,and often we are unawareof the smallmo-tions we make in responseto it.

It seems to me that, when Baugh writes of asomatic, visceral, body-core reaction to rockmusic, it is the response just described abovethathe is referring o. His main claims are these:Rock music engages the listener's body by pro-voking such a response. It does so mainly interms of timbralquality, loudness, and rhythm.This reaction s unthinkingand noncognitive; tdoes not require listening as such. Classicalmusic does not have as its main aim the stimula-tion of anequivalentresponse.I wouldreplywithtwo points.All music, clas-sical as much as otherkinds, producesa visceral

response n those who arefamiliarwith,andwhoenjoy, its style andidiom.This reactionusuallyis unselfconscious but it is not therebynoncog-nitive. Because the response is to the multi-strandedpatternof tensionsand relaxations hatpropelthe music forwardandbringit to a close,thelistenermust have internalizedaspectsof thestyle's "grammar,"o thatshe has expectationsthat can be confirmed,delayed, or defeatedbythe music's course. (Music that is entirelyunfa-miliar andunpredictablemakesone feel consis-tentlyuncomfortableor indifferent,whereastheresponseI have been describingreflectsthe ar-ticulation of the music.)Accordingly,while thelistener need not attend to the music to the ex-clusion of all otheractions andthoughts,at leastshe must registerits features and hear them assuch if it is to affect her body.Despite Baugh'semphasison the nonintellectualcharacterof therock audience'sresponse,there is no reason todoubt that the followers of rock attainan appro-priateawarenessof the music presented o them.The rock listener might not be aware of herawareness of relevant features, but the samegoes equallyforthe person who listens to classi-cal music. The second point is this:While tim-bral quality, rhythm,and loudness all can con-tribute o evoking a visceral reaction,so too canmany other musical elements. These other ele-ments are significant n rock music, as much asclassical. Baugh underestimatesthe extent towhich the visceral response he describes de-pends not only on the musical featureshe high-lights, but also on a song's melodic and har-monic shape, its words, its overall structure, ndso on.Baugh may be correct in thinking that somerock music takesas its prime goal the arousalofa physiological response. I suspect, however,thatthis truthcannoteasily be generalized ntoone about the fundamentaldifference betweenrock and classicalmusic. As I have already ndi-cated,therearemany classical works that are noless directin theirappeal to the listener's body.In the past, innovations in all kinds of musichave been consistentlycondemnedas lasciviousand morally corruptingfor this very reason.Meanwhile, many types of rock music invite at-tentionmoreto their yrics, their melodies, theirexpressiveness,or their self-conscious playingwith the conventions of the genre than to the"materiality"f their sounds.

197


7/13

The Journalof Aesthetics and Art CriticismIII. WORKS, PERFORMANCES, AND NOTATIONS

Baugh maintainsthat, for classical music, theobjectof attention s the work,whereas for rockmusic it is the performance.In rock, it is thesinger(orthe electricguitar),not thesong,that simportant p. 23). This difference s "a matterofdegree," he allows (p. 27), as he surely must.Few peoplethinkall rocksongsareequally goodand it is similarly plain in the case of classicalmusic that certain singers and performersarelauded,whereas no one would turnout to hearme sing opera.'6Baugh often makes his point by suggestingthat musical notations are not adequateto cap-ture the nuances of rock performance,whereasperformances f classical musicaregovernedbyfaithfulness to the composer'sscore. He writes:"nostandard corecaptures he subtletiesortim-ing and rhythmthata good rock musician canfeel" (p. 26). Inrockmusic,questionsof "faithfulness" o the music rarely arise.The only questionis whetherthe performance/inter-pretations convincing,not whether t is "faithful"osome (usually non-existent) score. No one got tooupsetwhen Joe Cockerperformed he Beatles'"Witha LittleHelp frommy Friends" n a way that was notin the least suggested by the original recording....Whatthe body recognizes maynot lenditself to nota-tion or formalization,and t is unlikelythata moread-equate form of notationcould capturethese "mater-ial" qualities.(p. 27)And again: "Classicalmusic and techniquedolend themselves to formalization,and to a cer-tain extent a classical musician'sperformance,however bravuraor subtle or nuanced, is stillgoing to be judgedby the score."'7

Baugh takeshis positionfurtherwiththe sug-gestionthatplayingthe rightnotesis far less im-portant n rock than n classical music.NeitherClaptonnor Hendrix,nor any good rock in-strumentalist, akes an intellectualizedapproachtomusic. Both play with an intensitythat still connectsdirectlywith the body, and ... both are often not thatgood technically;they take chances and they makemistakes. Which is why they are unpredictableandexciting in a way that flawless musicians are not.Even when they hit the wrong notes, they do so in in-terestingand even exciting ways, creatinga tension

that can addto musicalexpression.Whentheyhit theright notes, it is not because the notes are right thatmakes them great guitarists,but the way the notessound,and the "timing"of the notes. (p. 28)By contrastwith those who listen to classicalmusic,rock listenersarewilling to concede a fair numberofwrong and roughly renderednotes, as long as thetones areplayedin a way thatengagesthe ear andthebody.Rock listeners alsoprefera performancewherethe beat is staggered o one whereit is even, playingaroundthe beat to playing on the beat, and playingthat is emotionallyengagingto the sort of technicallyaccomplished and polished performancesat whichsome classical (androck)musiciansexcel.18

Implicit in these remarks s a view aboutthekinds of musicianship equiredby rock and clas-sical music. I will return o thattopic presently,but here wish to takeup the claims about nota-tion. I regard heir ntroduction s a redherring.The absence of a notation s no barrier o thepreservationof a performanceor interpretationin all its subtle detail. Some rock groupscandu-plicate theirrecordings n live performance.Forthat matter,other groups sometimes can sound,down to the smallest detail, uncannilylike theoriginalrecordingsmadeby others.(Youngrockplayers often learn their trade by trying as hardas they can to sound just like those they emu-late.) Also, the absence of a notational systemneed not be a barrier o the faithfulpreservationover decades or longer of complex, extendedworks. This is apparent n the gamelan music ofCentral Java and the early church traditionsofGregorianandAmbrosianchant,for instance.Insum, there is no direct connection between theabsenceof notationandthe performer'sreedomin rendering he given music.On the otherhand,no notationspecifieseveryaspect of performance.As instructions ssued toperformers, cores underdeterminemany of theconcrete details of an accurate performance.19Interpretive iceties always remainthe preroga-tive of the performerwho worksfrom a notation.The differencebetweenan adequateand a greatclassicalperformance ften depends on fine dis-tinctionsin shades of timbre, attackand decay,phrasingandrhythmicarticulation,balancebe-tween parts,pitch wobbles. These are not no-

198


8/13

Davies Rock versus Classical Musictated;neither could they be achieved by a for-mulaicapproach o the score's rendition.Also, it shouldbe recalled that notationsmustbe interpreted n conjunctionwith the perfor-mance practices they assume. Baugh writes ofrock music: "Goodrhythmcannot be achievedthrough simple formulas.... It is a less a matterof tempothan of timing,of knowingwhethertoplayon thebeat,or slightly aheadof it orbehindit.... It cannot be captured or explained by anystateable principle" (p. 26). Though he takeshimself to be characterizing distinctive featureof rock performance,it seems to me that hemightas well be talkinghere of theperformanceof classical music.20 For instance, in the Vien-nese waltz the second beat of the measureshouldbe "early."This is not apparentn the notation fit is readliterallyandnaively,but of course thenotationshouldnot be read hisway and s notsointerpretedby a musician at home with the ap-propriate performancetradition. Notations ofrockmusic,when readby those who knowwhatto do with them,are no less adequate o the sub-tleties of the performance practice than is anequivalentnotationof a classicalpiece.I hazardthatBaughshouldbe discussingon-tology rather hannotation.Thoughhe does notmention the natureof musical works, what heseems to have in mind is that the rock musicianhas more freedom thanher classical counterpartbecauseof differences n thetypesof workstheyplay.Some musical pieces are thick with constitu-tive properties,while others arethinner.Any at-temptto instancethe piece should aim to repro-duce its constitutive properties.If the work isthick, much of the performanceis specified,though countless other details remain to beadded by the performer n realizing the work.Accurateinterpretationswill differ in many re-spects, but also will possess much that is com-mon. If the piece is thin, more of the perfor-mance's details are interpretiveand fewer arework-constitutive.Inevitably,where pieces arevery thin, performersare valued above com-posersand the focus of attention s more on theperformance hanthe work.21Jazz standards reexamples of thin works. For these, the piecemightconsist only of a melody and basic chordsequence. Many,but not all, classical works arethick. Forthem,theworkis likely to be as inter-esting as its performance.

If a piece is specifiedby a notation, t is oftenapparentwhetherit is thick or thin. For thickworks, lots of details are indicated andthe per-formancepracticetreatsthese as work-determi-native.22For thinpieces, manyof the details ofperformanceare not specifiedand theremay beinstructions ndicatingthat the performer s toimprovise within given parametersor stylisticconstraints. f a piece is communicated,nstead,via a model instance,as is the case in oral tradi-tions, that instancewill be thickwith properties.Which of these belong to the work and whichto the particular nterpretations evident onlyagainstthebackgroundpractice n the treatmentof relevantpieces. The piece might be thick orthin. Which it is, is governed by standardsac-ceptedwithin theappropriate erformanceradi-tion as determiningwhat counts for accuracy nperformances.As asong,the Beatles'"With LittleHelpfrommy Friends" s rather hin in work-constitutiveproperties.Joe Cocker'srecordedversions are na differentstyle and featurean introductionandcoda, along with a greatdeal of elaboration, hatare not present n the Beatles' recording,but, inthe mainsection,the words,themelody,andthebasic harmonic structurepreservewhat is con-stitutive of this song. It is appropriatehat "noone got too upset"by Cocker'sversion, since, inmy view, it instanced hesonghe purportedo beperforming.This does not show thatquestionsof"faithfulness" o the music never arise in casesof this kind. It reveals, instead,thatrock songsareontologicallyof the thinvariety.23In light of the above, I find it difficult to fol-low Baugh'sclaimthatwrongnotes do notmat-ter in rockmusic, as they do in classical music.If he means thatwe are not concernedthat Hen-drix departs from Dylan's recording of "AllAlong theWatchtower" ecause we are morein-terested n what Hendrixdoes with the songthanwith his mimickingthe original recording, henof course he is correct.But thatdoes not showthatwhat we value are"wrong"notes,becauseitdoes not show thatthe notes arewrong.Alterna-tively, if he thinksthat,withinpassages impro-vised as partof the song's rendition,notes thatare stylistically inappropriateare welcomed, Iamskeptical.Whentheguitarist'shandslips, theresult might sometimes be interesting,but thishappy accident surely is the exception ratherthanthe rule. Bum notes arejust that,and rock

199


9/13

The Journalof Aesthetics and Art Criticismmusicians try as hard as any others to avoidthose notes or chords that are deemedclangerswithin the style they adopt.24Finally, Baugh'spoint could be that rock audiences toleratewrong notes because they recognize the pres-sures of live performance.They sometimes es-teem a performanceor its enterpriseandverve,despite its containing wrong notes. This lastclaimappliesas readilyto performances f clas-sical as to those of rock music, however.Schn-abel's recorded performancesof Beethoven'spiano sonatas containmany wrongnotes, whilebeing respectedas greatinterpretations.So far I have criticizedBaughfor the way inwhich he sets up the point he intends to make.He presentswhat should be a claim aboutonto-logical types-namely, thatrocksongs are onto-logically thinnerthan most classical works-asone about the role of notations and about thekind of musicianship hat is involved in execut-ing them. But even if he makes his point poorly,is he not correct, after all, to insist that rockmusic differs from classical in allowing morefreedom to the performer,and that,as a result,performancesrather hansongs are properlyofmoreinterestto the rock aficionado?Thoughheunduly denigrates the creative contributionmadeby the performerof classicalmusic, alongwith the audience's nterest n this,is he notfun-damentallycorrectin his insistence that the ap-preciationof rock music is more performance-based than s so for classical music?What one makes of this questionwill dependon whatone takes theprimary ext of rock to be.If it is thesong, Baugh maybe rightafterall. Butare songs the only musical works on view inrock music?There s reason to think not.TheodoreA. Gracykhas argued hat what dis-tinguishes rock, construed as a broad musicaltype, is thatthe primarywork is therecording.25One could say thatthere are two workshere,thesong and the recording. Or, alternatively,onemight maintainthat one work, the recording,manifests(without thereby instancing) another,thesong. But,however one countsthe numberofworks that are on display, Gracyk is insistentthat, n rockmusic, thepiece on which the focusfalls is therecording.His arguments plausible,thoughI cannot review its details here.Supposethathe is correct n his analysis.What are its im-plicationsfor Baugh's position?If the primaryworks in rock are recordings,

then these works are very thick with properties.Every aspectof the soundcaptured y the record-ingtechnology s constitutive f the work.Apieceof this kind is not for performing, t is for play-back,thoughperformingmightbe involved in itsinitialcreation.26On this account,rock will bequitedistinct romclassicalmusic,whichremainsmainly for performance, hough performancescanbe transmitted y recordings.While the clas-sical tradition cceptselectronicworks within tspurview,these form a minority,rather hanthemainstream.The primaryworks in rock musicwill be ontologically very different from mostclassical works, then, and this will be becauserockpieces depend essentiallyon the electronicmediumfor their creationanddissemination.Baugh argues that, in rock as distinct fromclassicalmusic,performances ather hanworksare the focus of aesthetic attention.He writes ofrock as if it always involves live performance.Topick just one instance,he says:"Theeffect ofthemusicon thebodyis of prime mportance orrock music and its antecedents blues, jazz), sothat the music is regulatedby thedancers:musi-cians will vary beat, rhythmand tempo until itfeels good to danceto"(p. 26). He does not ac-knowledgethe fact thatrock is much more oftenpresented as, and transmittedvia, recordings,and that its effects on the body, when heardthroughspeakersor headphones, s very differ-ent fromthose when it is heard ive. If Gracyk scorrectaboutthe natureof rock, Baughmust beimportantlymistaken. It could still be true thatrockemphasizesthe"material spectsof sound"morethan classical music does, but it could notbe that this is a function of the mannerof liveperformance,which is aclaimthatBaughmakescentral o his argument.Moreover,our nterest nrock would primarilybe an interest in works(that s, recordings),not in performances.IV. MUSICIANSHIP

Earlier I observed that Baugh regards classicaland rock musicianshipas differing.He arguesthatthese types of music requiredifferenttech-niquesof performance, o that t is inappropriateto view rock as employing a crude version ofclassical technique.I believe thathe is rightinthis observation.Manyof theclaims he makes narguing or it strikeme as dubious,however. Inparticular,he is wrongto equateclassical tech-

200


10/13

Davies Rock versus ClassicalMusicniquewith mechanical,heartlessefficiency,andaso mistakenin characterizingmusicianship nrock music as "natural" and "innate."I have already quoted passages in whichBaugh impliesthattechnique n classicalperfor-mance is mainly a matterof following a scorewith automatic, literal-mindedprecision andwith only a cursorynod towardexpressivenessand the like. That attitudeis present when hewrites:"Theperformance tandardsor rock vo-calists have little to do with thevirtuosityof anopera singeror with anabilityto hit the note in-dicated n thecompositionatthe timeindicated"(p. 27). Thoughhe describesgreatrock singers(p. 27) andguitarists(p. 28) as lackingin tech-nique, obviously he means that they lack thekindof technique hat s appropriateorclassicalmusic, and thatthfeirmusic is the moreexcitingand powerfulfor this. Rock music has its own,differentstandardsof virtuosity-"a virtuosity... that connects directlywith the body, provok-ing a visceralresponse" p. 27). He developshispositionthisway:The standards f rock music are not formalizable ntoa science but area knack or an art thatis learnedbypractice. ... The techniques necessaryfor good rockmusic can sometimes be masteredthrougha simplecombinationof exposureto the idiomandraw, nborntalent....The acquisitionof "proper"echniqueservesonly to obscure anddistort a techniquethat has beenacquired "naturally,"which is to say, by a combina-tion of innategifts andlucky circumstances. .. Theyare often not the sortsof techniques hatcould be for-malizedin such a way as to be taught.... The differ-ence between formalizable and non-formalizabletechniquecomes from the different raditionsbehindrock and classical music.27

As regardswhatpassesforvirtuosityand mu-sicianship in classical music, I think Baugh issimply uninformed.He implies that the idealclassical performancewould be one thatmightbe generatedon a synthesizer,andnothingcouldbe further rom the truth;nothingis denigratedmorein classical music thana performance atis judgedto be mechanicaland "unmusical."AsI have already indicated, classical music de-pends for its successful performanceon inflec-tions andarticulationshatare controlledby theperformer, ven if she is following the score asshe plays.Raw musicaltalentmightbe a matter

of "natural"r "innate" otentialand theremightbe aspectsof musicianshiphatcannotbe taught,except perhaps by example. But if this is true,this truthappliesas muchto classical as to rockperformers. n eithercase, the realizationof in-nate potentialis likely to depend on hours ofpractice.I suspect that there are as many rockmusicianswho are nseparableromtheirguitarsand who practiceconstantlyas thfierere violin-ists who are similar.28 t is not so thattheperfor-mance techniquesare moreformalizable n theone kindof music than the other.In both,manybasicaspectsof playingcan be taught,whileoth-ers, ones that distinguishgifted masters fromthose who are merely competent,cannoteasilybe acquired olely by trainingandpractice.

There is a furtherrespect in which the tech-niquesof rockmusic mightbe regardedas "nat-ural"by contrast with those of classical music;namely, n the sense of "natural"hat s opposedto "artificial"or "contrived." Baugh does notmake the claim explicitly,but it is heard oftenenough.) It might be thought that, unlike rockmusicians, classical musicians need years oftraining,since they must master soundproduc-tion of a kind thatis inherentlyunnatural.My interestin and exposure to non-Westernmusics makesme very skepticalof claims of thissort.Thesingingin classicalopera s highly styl-ized, I accept, but the same is true in Chinesefolk music orAustralianaboriginal ong-cycles.Whatsoundsnaturaldependsonthe conventionsof performancepractice hathavebeenabsorbedby the listener. For instance, in the recentAfrican-American popular repertoire (and inmuchwhiterockbesides),the tessitura or malesingers is consistently and spectacularlyhigh.Baritones and basses are as common amongmales in this groupas they are in others, I as-sume, but one wouldgainno inklingof thisfromlistening to most popularmale vocalists. Also,when rock appeared n Britain, singers adoptedanAmericanaccent. Later, hefirst use of a Liv-erpuddliannflectionwasregardedas gimmicky,but soon was accepted (and copied). If rocksingerssoundnatural, heydo so only in relationto themutablenormsestablished orsuchmusic.Further, ockmusichas its standard iffs andex-pressive protocols, as it must, given that it dis-plays a recognizablestyle.Themusicianshipof rockperformerss not tobe distinguished romother kindsin termsof its

201


11/13

The Journalof AestheticsandArt Criticismnaturalness.The difference is better describedwith referenceto the sonic ideals to which theperformersaspire; hat s, it is a matterof differ-ences in musicalstylesand idioms.Generalizingwildly, rock prefers"dirty" imbres and "bent"pitches more often than classical music does.Also, therearetechniquesthat are distinctivetothe instrumentsassociatedwith rock music, forinstance,that of creating special timbralquali-ties on the electric guitar throughthe exploita-tion of volume and feedback. I take it thattheseare the kindsof things Baughhas in mindwhenhe claimsthatrockconcerns tself with the"ma-teriality"of sound,thoughI do not find his ter-minology especially appealing because I seethese as arbitraryaspects of style that are notmore musicallyelementalor engaging thanthemanyalternativespromoted n othermusicalid-iolects. I agree, though,thatachievingthe sonicideals of rock in a convincing fashion requiresvirtuosity,becauseI think hatalmostall musicalstyles makedemandson theperformer.There s a hint in Baugh's paper hathe wouldtake the argumenta step further.He mentionsthatEric ClaptonandJimi Hendrix "havebeenguiltyof virtuosity or its own sake on manyoc-casions"(p. 27). It may be that he thinksclassi-cal music values virtuosityfor its own sake in afashionthatrock does (or should) not.29Inrockmusic, virtuosityshould be the means to otherends, suchas expressiveness.But again, this in-dicateshow limitedis Baugh's view of the clas-sical tradition.Sometypes of classicalmusic-inparticular,he concerto-feature the instrumen-talist's masteryof her medium,but even in thismusic "mere" virtuosity is condemned. Mostkindsof classicalmusiccall for virtuositynot inorderto highlightit but to achieve othereffects,such as expressiveones, that depend uponit.

So far I have been agreeing with Baugh thatrock music involves a kind of virtuosity, thestandards f whichdiffer fromthose of classicalmusic, though I have suggested that this is afunction both of the particularsonic goals atwhich the performersaim and of the differentkinds of instruments hey play. I conclude thispartof thediscussionby registeringa caveatthatdraws attention,as I did before, to the crucialrole of recording echnologyin the productionofrockmusic.Increasingly,rock musicians make extensiveuse of samplingandof synthesizers,not only in

theirrecordingsbutin live performance.This in-evitablyraises doubts about theirmusicianship.Evenif theplayersthemselveslay down the ma-terialthat ater s sampled,we all know thattheirefforts can be modified andreconstructed n theediting process, so that what one hears is by nomeanstransparento what was done. Studioma-nipulation,rather than musicianship, might bewhat is on display,even in the case of "live"per-formance.It could be suggestedthat the move to knobs-on, rather hanhands-on,soundgenerationeadsto a new kind of musicianshipandvirtuosity.30Many rock musicianstake an active role in thestudio methodsthat ead to theirrecordingsortothe electronic materialthat is incorporatedntotheirperformances.Even if this idea is accepted,it offers little supportfor Baugh's approach othe distinctionbetween rock andclassicalmusic,withits emphasison the idea that rock is perfor-mance based in a fashionthat allows for a mu-tual interactionbetween the performerand theaudience.V. IS THERE A DISTINCTIVE AESTHETICS OFROCK MUSIC?

Does rock music require a differentaestheticsfrom that appropriate o classical music? Whatyou answer might depend on the level at whichyou takethe questionto be pitched. If you takeitas low level, as asking if we attendto differentfeatures n appreciating nd evaluatingrockandclassical music, the answer might be "yes."Ifyou take it as high level, as askingif the princi-ples of evaluationand appreciation reradicallydifferent for these two kinds of music, the an-swer might be "no."Consideredat the low level, our aestheticin-tereststend to be specific to genres, periods,andstyles. In considering a particularwork, we at-tend to subtle differences n relevantproperties.In works of anothergenre, period,or style, thosepropertiesmight notbe aestheticallyappropriateor important,and it is others that are relevant.(Compare listening to baroque pedagogicalfugues and romanticopera, or Schubert'ssongsand Bruckner'ssymphonies.) The aestheticsofdifferentgenres, periods,and styles vary to theextent thattheproperties elevant o anaestheticinterest in, and evaluation of, their memberworks differ.

202


12/13

Davies Rockversus Classical MusicConsideredat a higherlevel, an aesthetic in-terest does not varyfrom genre to genre. Manyaesthetically mportantproperties-such as nar-rational,representational,and expressive ones,

or others such as unity in diversity-are com-mon to many genres, periods,or styles (thoughtheymight dependon low-level features hatdif-fer according to the particularwork's type).Moreover,in all genres, periods, or styles, ourconcern is with whatKendallWaltonhas called"variable"properties.31That is, we focus on asubset of the work's properties(those that aremost likely to be varied) and consider what isdone with these in the given work. Viewed at anabstractevel, we concentrateon the samething,on the set of variable properties,even if themembers of this set vary between genres, peri-ods, or styles.Baughaims his questionatthe low level, pre-sumably, for it is here that it most obviouslymakes sense to maintain hat rock and classicalmusic require different aesthetics. But at thatlevel, the relevantdistinctionsarethose of genre,period, and style, which is a much more fine-grainedlevel of categorizationthan the one heconsiders. Rock, as a broad classification, en-compasses many genres and styles-pop, art,progressive, alternative, and experimental;blues, metal, punk, techno, ballads, rock androll, rhythm and blues, industrial, reggae,grunge, hip-hop,and so on. It seems to me thattheappreciation f bluesrequiresa differentaes-thetics fromhip-hop,forinstance.And while ex-pressive tone, loudness, and rhythm might becrucial for heavy metal, it is far from obviousthattheyaresimilarly mportantn songssuch as"She'sLeavingHome" and"Strawberry ields,"which are among the examples of rock offeredby Baugh. Similarly, classical music coversmany kinds-sonata, concerto, quartet, sym-phony, madrigal,Lieder, mass, overture,ballet,opera.It also has distinctivestyles or periods-late-nineteenth-centuryomantic ymphoniesarequitedistinct fromlate-eighteenth-centurylas-sical symphonies, and seria, buffa, Singspiel,grand,and verismo are very differentkinds ofoperas.At the low level, each of these requiresits own aesthetics.Inthisconnection, t is striking o note that hefeatures listed by Baugh as distinguishingrockfrom classicalmusic have,in the past, been iden-tified explicitly as markingcrucial differences

between certain types of classical music. Inabout1600, its concentration n new,roughtim-bres, rhythmic vitality, and loudness wasthoughtto separate he newly emergingoperaticstyle from othermusic of theday.Earlythis cen-tury, Stravinsky's ballets were distinguishedfromtheirpredecessors n virtue of the central-ity they accordedto these samefeatures.I think thatpropertiesas specific as the onesBaugh points to fail to capturea difference be-tween rock and classical music construed asbroadkinds, for they apply only to much morefine-grained types. And if there are differencesbetween the broadcategories,I suspectthey arerather rivial.At therelevant evel of generality,I doubt that one will find contrastsdeep or dis-tinctive enoughto providethe basis for an aes-thetics.32STEPHEN DAVIESDepartmentof PhilosophyUniversityof AucklandPrivateBag 92019, AucklandNew ZealandINTERNET: SJ.DAVIES @AUCKLAND.AC.NZ

1. BruceBaugh, "ProlegomenaoAnyAesthetics of RockMusic," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51(1993): 23-29. In subsequentreferences, page numbersaregiven in parentheses.2. See RichardMeltzer, The Aesthetics of Rock Music(New York:Something Else Press, 1970); Susan McClaryand RobertWalser,"StartMakingSense! MusicologyWres-tles with Rock,"in On Record:Rock, Pop, and the WrittenWord,eds. Simon Frith et al. (London: Routledge, 1990);Robert Palmer, Rock and Roll: An Unruly History (NewYork:HarmonyBooks, 1995);and Allan Bloom, The Clos-ing of the AmericanMind (New York:Simon andSchuster,1987).3. James 0. Young, "Between Rock and a Harp Place,"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 53 (1995):78-81.4. Ibid., p. 81.5. Bruce Baugh, "Music for the Young at Heart,"TheJournalofAesthetics and Art Criticism53 (1995): 81-83.6. Ibid., p. 82.7. Ibid., p. 81. Baugh goes on to interpretYoung'sconclu-sion to the effect thatrock mustbeevaluatedbythe standardsthatapplyto all music as suggestingthatrock "canappropri-ately be assessed by formalist criteria" p. 81). PresumablyBaugh takes Youngto be saying that all music must be as-sessed in both formalistandnonformalist erms,whereas amorecharitable eadingwould haveYoungclaimingthat theevaluation of music is sometimes one, sometimes the other,and,whereappropriate, oth.8. Ibid., p. 83.

203


13/13

The Journalof Aesthetics andArtCriticism9. Young, pp. 78-79.10. Some music might not be patterned-for instance,JohnCage's 4'33", or works all aspectsof which aregener-ated by chance procedures.But, though these pose a chal-lenge forwhatI say,that canprovideno comfortforBaugh'sposition.11. Baugh seems to think that form in rock is so highlystandardizedhat t is not a worthwhileobjectof aestheticat-tention.Ted Gracykhas suggested to me that Baugh's dis-missal of artrock ignores the fact that, in this genre, basicforms sometimes are treatedas jumping off points for ex-tended improvisationsby groups such as Pink Floyd andKing Crimson.That is, Baugh does not appreciate hat thelackof formalrestraint n this music providesfor a differentlistening experiencefromthat affordedby most rockmusic.12.Moreover, n somecases, it can be theexpressivechar-acter of the material hatprovidesthekey to anappreciationof details of its formal structure,or so Gregory Karl andJenefer Robinson have argued in "Shostakovitch'sTenth

Symphonyandthe MusicalExpressionof CognitivelyCom-plex Emotions,"The Journal of AestheticandArt Criticism53 (1995):401415.13.See chapter6, "UnderstandingMusic," n my MusicalMeaningand Expression CornellUniversityPress, 1994).14. Young,p. 80.15. Baugh,"Music for the Youngat Heart,"p. 82.16. One could arguethat rock performanceusually is atheatrical ventin which thepersonalities,dress,actions,andmake-upof the performers recrucial elements,whereas, ntheperformance f instrumental lassical music, such cross-mediadisplaysare suppressed.Whateverwe should makeofthis idea, it is not one to which Baugh appealsand neitherwill it separaterock from classical operaandballet.17. Baugh, "Music for the Youngat Heart,"p. 82. Thereare"notationists"n fields such as rock,jazz, and flamenco,though. FrankZappascored "TheGrandWazoo"of 1972and from the early 1980s most of his pieces were notated.Some others who do not use notationsrequirethe bandtomemorizetheirpartsand do not allow deviationsfromtheirinstructions.One such was CaptainBeefheart.18. Baugh,"Music for theYoung at Heart,"p. 82.19. For furtherdiscussion, see my "Authenticityn Musi-cal Performance,"The British Journal of Aesthetics 27(1987): 39-50.20. An anonymous referee makes these claims: Rockmusic is much more locked-in rhythmicallythan classicalmusic. Orchestrasand chamber groupsarenotoriously m-precise and take great liberties with the pulse. The impor-tance of thedrumset and theongoing, alwayspresentrhyth-mic templatebeneath all of rock music is its signatureandmost definingfeature.21. See my "Authenticity n Musical Performance"andalso "TheOntology of Musical Worksand the Authenticityof theirPerformances,"Nous 25 (1991):2141.22. Scores can contain notationalelements that serve asinterpretationalecommendationswithoutbeingwork-deter-minative. I take this to be the case in eighteenth-century

scores that markdynamics, phrasings,and fingerings, andthatwriteout cadenzasand decorations.Unless properly n-terpreted, uch notationscould give the impression hat theworkis thicker han n fact it is.23. Alternatively,we could regardCocker's version as atranscription f the Beatles' song. In thatcase, it is pertinentto observe, as Youngdoes (p. 80), thatclassical composersoften have producedvariationson others'themes andtran-scriptionsof others'pieces, manyof whichdepartradicallyfrom theoriginal.So there would be nothingheredistinctiveto rockmusic.24. Allan Beever tells me Eric Claptonsaid thatplayingwrongnotes ruinedconcertsfor him.25. TheodoreGracyk,Rhythm nd Noise:An AestheticsofRockMusic(DukeUniversityPress, 1996).I should addthatGracykdoes not completely neglect the role of live perfor-mancein rock.26. An illustrative analogy can be drawn here withmovies. A movie is not for acting,butfor screening,thoughactingmight go into its creationas a work.27. Baugh,"Musicfor the Youngat Heart,"p. 82.28. In Runningwith theDevil: Power,Gender; nd Mad-ness in Heavy Metal Music (Wesleyan University Press,1993), Robert Walserdevotes a chapterto the connectionsbetweenclassical music andheavy metal. He recordsclassi-cal influenceson theguitar echniquesused by performers fheavy metal (pp. 63-75) and notes thatbothkindsof musicesteem similar kinds of virtuosity (pp. 76-102). He quotesvocalistRobertHalfordas saying: "I don'tthinkthatplayingheavy metalis thatfar removedfromclassical music. To doeither, you have to spendmanyyearsdeveloping yourstyleand your art. ... It's very much a matterof dedication" p.106).

29. I thinkthat therearerespects in which rockvirtuosityis not very differentfrom the classical variety.Some rockmusicians-Zappa, Clapton, and Van Halen-make mani-festly difficult-to-playmusic sound fluent andthey are re-spected and admiredfor doing so, as well as for whateverelse they achieve. Baugh, as quoted previously,holds thatClapton and Hendrix are poor in techniquesand, anyway,that virtuosity is never admired for its own sake in rockmusic. I believe he is wrong on both counts.30. TheodoreA. Gracykmakesthe point in "Listening oMusic: PerformancesandRecordings,"TheJournalof Aes-thetics and Art Criticism55 (1997): 139-150. As he recog-nizes, it applies also, though in a slightly different way, torecordingsof classicalmusic. Classicalmusiciansexploittheadvantagesof recording echnology,but theyare expectedtobe able to play live the worksthey record.31. Kendall Walton, "Categoriesof Art,"PhilosophicalReview 79 (1970): 334-367.32. I have benefitedconsiderably rom discussingthe is-sues raised here with my students.For their helpful com-ments on drafts of this essay, I thankAllan Beever, StanGodlovitch,andTedGracyk.Also, two anonymousrefereesfor thisjournalprovidedmanyuseful suggestions.

204

Davies Rock v Classical

Documents