Heaven's Metal Sympathy Interview

Daniel: In his first work, Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche juxtaposes Apollos and Dionysus as the two forms of artistic output. Apollos, of course, being the god of the ordered dance and Dionysus as the god of the orgy. Do you find this to be a valid distinction, and if so, which do you side with? The distinction made in art is usually low versus high, creating hierarchy, but this distinction seems to keep hierarchy at bay, and allow high\low art to exist in both forms (Structure and Chaos). Or do you think that this distinction is false, and that structure and chaos can exist together? (Granted, Dionysus has structure, ie the dancers are in the same place, part of a community (albeit temporary), and usually to the same music)

Derek:
Nietzsche’s distinction is very interesting and useful. Personally, I like this distinction. I am not very familiar with Nietzsche’s rendering of this juxtaposition or the role it plays in his arguments, but I do appreciate how the ancient Greek playwrights placed Apollo– intellect and sobriety– in opposition to Dionysus– passions and revelry. It does seem to capture something essential to a musical experience: the passions are aroused by the music, which then leads to an intellectual appreciation of that music.

Another interesting distinction was made by Aristotle. He distinguished between “craft” and “art”. Art describes an artifact intended by the artist to be merely a thing of beauty. Art serves absolutely no utilitarian function. In fact, any “art” that serves any purpose other than to be a thing of beauty ceases to be “true art,” and becomes a skillfully made piece of craftsmanship. Craft describes all other artifacts which have been made to accomplish some utilitarian goal. These artifacts may in fact be beautiful, but they are merely pieces of craftsmanship that happen to be admired for their beautiful qualities.

I think that creating or composing art is largely an Apollonian process: artists take skills that they have acquired by constant practice and apply those skills to a specific goal. Many of the greatest composers through history had obviously Apollonian composition styles. Beethoven struggled and wrestled with his compositions until he was satisfied. Mozart was continually revising and rewriting his work: composing was extremely difficult for him. And even the famously Dionysian Schubert spent hours pouring over his work, altering and improving it. I believe that composition is largely an intellectual process whose success is either confirmed or disconfirmed by the passions. But, on the other hand, listening and experiencing music is a purely Dionysian process. Music appeals directly to the passions– it bypasses the intellect– only to be rationalized post hoc by the mind. Schopenhauer argued these same things, claiming that music itself was an expression of a universal Will. I favor a much more naturalistic approach: there is no need to cloud the metaphysical landscape with such concepts as a universal Will.

Creating music is mostly Apollonian. Appreciating music is mostly Dionysian. Now, I would argue that music in and of itself has absolutely no intellectual content, but as soon as you start adding language to the pure music, you make the scenario much more complex. Language is obviously a form of communication that requires the intellect, and is therefore an Apollonian process. So you have the music that appeals directly to the passions with lyrics that are communicating directly to the intellect. Music with lyrical content appears– under this model– to be both Apollonian and Dionysian.

The distinction between art and craft is very important to me. It very directly influences how I approach the lyric writing process. If art is made for appreciation, and craft is made for a specific utilitarian task, then a lot of the Church’s music is craft and not art. As soon as the combination of music and lyrics were created with the purpose of convincing, proving, codifying creed, etc., it has a purpose and is thereby disqualified from ever being true art. This is one of the reasons that I choose to communicate indirectly with Sympathy’s lyrics. I do not want to apply an easy-to-interpret lyric to a song because three things happen in that case: first, what was once art becomes a mere propaganda tract; and second, the pure aesthetic experience of the music (the Dionysian) is overwhelmed by the lyrical content (Apollonian) and the compositions strength is greatly reduced in power; and lastly, I believe the most potent lyrics are those that allow the listener to uncover their own meanings within the context of the song. If the lyrics are overly specific, they do not allow for listeners to uncover their own interpretations because all the work has already been done for them.

Return to Internet Exclusives

Related Stories :

Comments