Should Music Be Exempt from Censorship?

Beatrice Hanna  a1685287

‘Music expresses what is has to say in its own terms, and you cannot translate these into language’ (Sir Jack Westrup) Does Westrup’s view provide a sufficient basis for supporting absolute free expression in the case of non-verbal music?

Jack Westrup’s view provides a more than sufficient basis for supporting absolute free expression in the case of non-verbal music. He states that “Music expresses what it has to say in its own terms, and you cannot translate these into language.” Music is an abstract art and interpretation of it is almost totally subjective. Music expressing emotion, meaning, or any kind of message is really at the discretion of each individual member of the audience of listeners. Indeed, there may be as many interpretations of the musical meaning as there are listeners of the music. Therefore it is fair to say that meaning in music is only finalised when heard and interpreted. If we take music out of this pure form and start adding non-musical associations such as composer identity, politics, world events etc., music can and has been known to take on symbolic and sometimes quite concrete meaning. In these circumstances, there is some doubt cast as to whether music should have absolute free expression once it has become entangled with such definitive meanings. While these imposed meanings can taint the music for some listeners, it is important to keep in mind that the music itself does not hold, nor have the ability to hold, these meanings. Pure, abstract and non-verbal music is simply a personal experience.

While exploring this topic deeper, the first question we must answer (or at least attempt to answer) is: What is music? The Wordpower Dictionary defines music as “noun – 1. the art of combining vocal or instrumental sounds in a pleasing way. 2. the sound so produced. 3. the written or printed signs representing such sound.” (Reader's Digest, 2001). So according to the dictionary, music is essentially something that is written down, played or created, and listened to (often, but not always, in that order). Note that the definition of music does not include anything about what music ‘expresses’ and if such an expression can be ‘translated’ or put into words at all. This is because what music expresses is entirely subjective and therefore it cannot be translated into language. With this broad definition of ‘what music is,’ we can now turn to ‘how music is perceived’ and received by the audience or listener, and in particular how it sometimes is received badly.

        In any era, there will be a definition, like the one above, of what music is, and, perhaps more importantly, what music should be. Littered throughout history are examples where music has been rejected and misunderstood by its audience for pushing these boundaries, but is later accepted and appreciated (sometimes) as a pioneering artistic achievement. This plethora of examples gives reason that there should be absolute free expression in non-verbal music. It is unfair to put language-based restrictions on music because it cannot be translated into language. We can see an example of music pushing boundaries in Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring premiere, where there were riots in response to how radical the performance was. (Chua, 2007) (Ford, 2011) (Slonimsky, 1969) (Wyse, 2003).  At the time of its premiere, many people would have been in favour of restricting free expression in music so as to exclude monstrosities such as the Rite of Spring. However, less than 20 years later, the tables had turned and the piece was not merely accepted, but “hailed by the New York Times as the twentieth century equivalent of Beethoven’s Ninth,” (Wyse, 2003). How lucky it is, then, that this shining example of musical brilliance was not censored or supressed in any way. To sum up this idea on resisting new pieces of music, these are a few excerpts from damning reviews of now widely accepted and highly regarded music (taken from The Lexicon of Musical Invective by Nicholas Slonimsky):