Copland’s Stance on How to Properly Listen to Music
Aaron Copland, born on November 14, 1900, was a well renowned American composer in the 20th century. His credibility as a composer, critic, and educator was well supported by his works, where he was given the nickname “Dean of American Composers.” Aaron Copland had strong views regarding the art of music that was well documented in many of the books he wrote. One of his famous books, “What to listen for in Music” appeared in 1939, which is where the essay “How we Listen to Music” is excerpted. In the essay, Copland addresses to his audience who are general music listeners, that there are three states of how people listen to music. Copland compares the three states of listening to music to the analogy of three distinct planes, where he highlights each plane and its own issues that can limit people’s experience when listening to music.
The first plane that is mentioned in the essay is the sensuous plane. The experience of listening to music for simple pleasure. Listeners who are categorized in the sensuous plane listen to music passively. Copland states, “One turns on the radio while doing something else and absent-mindedly bathes in the sound. A kind of brainless but attractive state of mind is engendered by the mere sound and appeal of the music” (1). Copland believes that people who listen to music in the sensuous plane, listen with an empty mind that are only thinking about the sound of the music for simple enjoyment. Copland’s words “absent-mindedly bathes in the sound” (Page 1), is a good use of imagery to help the audience visualize the ideal sensuous plane listener. Saying that their minds choose not even to think about the qualities that make the music what it is and simply “bathes” their consciousness with only the sounds they are hearing. Copland then targets the sensuous plane listeners saying how “many people who consider themselves qualified music lovers abuse that plane in listening…They enter an ideal world where one doesn’t have to think of the realities of everyday life. Of course, they aren’t thinking about the music either” (Page 2). Copland’s use of language holds more of an accusatory tone towards sensuous listeners as if he is critiquing them harshly on the spot, emphasizing that they aren’t qualified music lovers as they say they are.
Copland then reveals the issue when abusing the sensuous plane of listening. The American composer states “The sensuous plane is an important one in music, a very important one, but it does not constitute the whole story” (Copland, 2). This shows the issue regarding people who abuse this state of listening, since they are not entirely getting the bigger picture of the piece of music they are listening to. They are stuck on the sensuous plane that makes the music, but not on the other two planes that play a big role in the piece. The musical critic mentions that “Don’t get the idea that the value of music is commensurate with its sensuous appeal… If that were so, Ravel would be a greater creator than Beethoven” (Copland, 2). Beethoven, being one of the most well-known classical composers in the world, helps support Copland’s claim. If music is judged based on the sole purpose of the sensuous plane, there would be other composers that would be better than Beethoven. For instance, when one piece of music sounds prettier than the other, when it doesn’t constitute the entire picture. Therefore, people shouldn’t listen to music based on the sensuous appeal or because it sounds good, it would limit their understanding of music.
The second distinct plane mentioned in the essay is the expressive plane and is about the interpreted meaning behind a song. Copland states “My own belief is that all music has an expressive power… but that all music has a certain meaning behind the notes and that the meaning behind the notes constitutes, after all, what the piece is saying” (3). Copland speaks in a way as if his opinion is something that is important, which is shown in the beginning of his statement by starting off with “My own belief” highlighting that his view is something that should be considered, due to his credibility as a music composer. “‘Is there a meaning to music?’ My answer to that would be ‘yes’ and ‘Can you state in so many words what the meaning is?’ My answer to that would be, ‘No.’ Therein lies the difficulty” (Copland, 3). This highlights Copland’s credibility since the use of words sounds as if someone is interviewing him, when he is the one asking these questions to himself. This example of a soliloquy shows how he believes that his claims are something that should be considered, something that holds value to where one might want to interview or ask him questions, knowing already his history as a music composer.
Aaron Copland then dives into how this distinct plane has its issues. He believes that people who seek a definite meaning behind a song, to which if they can’t, they choose not to like the music is wrong. “Simple minded souls will never be satisfied…They always want music to have a meaning, and the more concrete it is the better they like it” (Copland, 3). Copland’s accusatory tone reveals itself again. He claimed that people who enjoy music only if it has a definite meaning are “simple minded souls”, in other words calling them basic and not so special since they are attracted to music that has a concrete meaning.
“In the first place, it is easier to pin a meaning-word on a Tschaikovsky piece than on a Beethoven one. Much easier. Moreover, with the Russian composer, every time you come back to a piece of his it almost always says the same thing to you, whereas with Beethoven it is often quite difficult to put your finger right on what he is saying. And any musician will tell you that that is why Beethoven is the greater composer. Because music which always says the same thing to you will necessarily soon become dull music, but music whose meaning is slightly different with each hearing has a greater chance of remaining alive” (Copland, 3 and 4).
The comparison between Beethoven and Tchaikovsky helps support his claim because as a classical composer, Copland uses his credible judgment to explain why Beethoven would be the greater composer since his music is hard for people to pinpoint a definite meaning within his pieces which is what makes him special. He then mentions how music with a definite meaning will soon become boring but music where the meaning can be different has a chance of “remaining alive” which deepens his point on the issue of music being judged within the expressive plane.
The last plane that Copland mentions is the sheerly musical plane where its focus is on the notes, melodies, harmonies, and all musical components that make the song what it is as Copland explains it as “music does exist in terms of the notes themselves and their manipulation” (5). When talking about the sheerly musical plane, the American composer has more of a lighthearted take compared to the other two planes which could possibly hint at some sort of favoritism of this distinct plane from Copland’s side as a musician. He does briefly talk about the issues of the musical plane saying “Professional musicians, on the other hand…fall into the error of becoming so engrossed with their arpeggios and staccatos that they forget the deeper aspects of music they are performing”(Copland, 5), which briefly highlights the issues regarding the sheerly musical plane that it lead to neglection of all the other traits that make the music what it is other than its musical components. Copland also introduces the issue from the perspective of a musician, possibly hinting that only musicians are capable of fully experiencing this issue which could highlight possible bias coming from someone who’s also a musician. He then adds that people in general should invest time in understanding the musical plane when listening to music. “It is very important for all of us to become more alive to music on its sheerly musical plane…The intelligent listener must be prepared to increase his awareness of the musical material” (Copland, 5). Based on his choice of words, we can see his stance is more neutral regarding the musical plane to which he encourages people investigate a little deeper to fully understand the music they’re listening to.
Aaron Copland’s vision of listening to music revolves around these three distinct planes. Where he reveals the issues regarding each plane and is essentially his entire point within the essay. Some more and some less, as we can see he held more of an aggressive and accusatory tone when talking about people within the sensuous and expressive planes, compared to his judgment regarding the sheer musical plane since he is a musician himself.
Work Cited Copland, Aaron. “How We Listen to Music.” McGraw – Hill, 1988, pp. 1-5.
