The “national” in music is a complex network of ideological, historical, social, aesthetic, political, and philosophical concepts, and exceeds the mere adoption of musical characteristics as expression of a locality.71 As Murphy (2001, 2) notes, it is impossible to recognize a normative definition of “national” in theoretical literature: the term can serve as a starting point to assess, for example, cultural, ethnic, or regional classifications. Particularly influential in discussion on the concept are several studies from the 1980s, which emphasize the “imaginary” nature of nations and traditions, or nations as social inventions rather than objective truths. This aspect was introduced already by Gellner (e.g. 1964), but became particularly notable in the studies by Anderson (2006 [1983]), Hobsbawm and Ranger (eds. 1983), and Smith (1986). Not surprisingly, they influenced discussion on the concept of nationality in Western art music as well. Whereas many older (Abraham 1949), but also somewhat more recent (Finscher 1984), accounts focus primarily on the national as musical expression—particularly locating “folk qualities” and measuring the artistic “successfulness” of musical works by how well they manage to integrate these elements into the tradition of Western art music—
recent scholarship has discussed both the creation and use of music in national and nationalist contexts as a process involving social and cultural aspects (e.g.
Stokes ed. 1997; Bohlman 2004; Curtis 2008).
71 Dahlhaus (1989); Stokes (ed. 1997); Taruskin (1997); Murphy and White (eds. 2001);
Steinberg (2004); Bohlman (2004); Curtis (2008).
Instead of regarding the “national” in music as solely either a social construct or as musical material, however, the two often become intertwined.
In this approach, musical characteristics recognizable as national elements are considered reflections of the time and place of their emergence (e.g. Taruskin 1997; White and Murphy eds. 2001; Steinberg 2004). This viewpoint—not related solely to the use of individual musical elements but also to music in a wider perspective—regards musical works as what could be called a discourse rather than as autonomous objects of art detached from the surrounding society (Dahlhaus 1983). In this context, they become cultural-historical subjects “trying to do” something (Steinberg 2004, 4)—that is, conveying ideas and values related to the social and temporal context of their emergence.
The present study also follows this view of the role of national elements in musical works. Although locating and recognizing Japanese elements is based on music analysis, it is not applied only to recognize certain characteristics as expressions of a Japanese quality, but also to understand what further aim they serve, and what meanings they convey and imply in their socio-cultural sphere. To phrase it more simply, the question posed by this study is not only what Japanese elements in music are, but also what they represent.
When assessing both questions, it is important, already here, to recognize the differences between the aims of musical nationalism in prewar Japan and Europe. Western art music composition and nationalism originated in Japan in an entirely different context than in the West—both historically and socially—and, as the examples in this study show, it did not necessarily involve the issues that fascinated composers in nineteenth-century Europe.72 Whereas European “national composers” were absorbed in their “national projects,”
that is, nation-building by musical means and voicing the spirit of the people or the “folk” (Bohlman 2004; Steinberg 2004; Curtis 2008), the Japanese national school followed a different course. At the same time, the use of Japanese elements also escapes the later criticism of orientalism in the West (most famously, Said 1978; see also Locke 2009), as Japanese composers were expressing their own culture—albeit through a Western form of art.
When Japanese-style composition emerged in the late 1920s, the profession of composer was still obscure in the eyes of the Japanese public (Kiyose 1963a, 13). Furthermore, the national school mostly represented the unestablished “outsiders” in the hierarchic music world, and had difficulties in presenting their works and ideas to the public in general. In this context, it seems unlikely that they were on a quest to build up the Japanese nation by musical means in the same sense as their Western counterparts.73 This began to change only in the late 1930s, with kokuminshikyoku and events like the festivities of 1940, but as discussed, they also involved other composers than
72 For more on differences between Japanese and Western modernism in general, see Tsukatani (1976) and Silverberg (2006).
73 The only exception here was possibly Yamada Kōsaku, who was well aware of his role as a leading composer and a “musical ambassador” of Japan (e.g. Pacun 2006, 72). As discussed in Chapter 2.2, it was in the late 1930s when the profession of composer became more widely recognized and understood.
those in the original national school. Furthermore, they were projects initiated by state nationalism rather than a romantic idea of conveying the voice of the people by musical means.
Of course, nation-building through music was also one possible aim for composers in Japan, but not a prominent one. Ishida Shigeru74 (1938) even criticized composers of the time for having no connection with the people, and focusing solely on elitist artistic ambitions. In this respect, the Japanese national school was more closely linked with modernist European composers and thought rather than nineteenth-century romantics.75 For the same reason, the analysis in this study does not focus on Japanese-style composition as a
“national project,” or emphasize the significance of a “national reception” like Dahlhaus (1989, 87), but rather examines it as various courses taken by individual composers.
The question of what Japanese elements are is approached through music analysis; a method for this is proposed below. To recognize and identify these elements in the first place, emphasis is placed not solely on musical characteristics as such, but also on examination of the composers’ views about Japanese music and culture, to understand how they perceived the use of Japanese elements and how they sought to express their ideas musically. Here, one is tempted to adapt Bohlman’s (2004) and Curtis’s (2008, 32–33) view of European composers consciously participating in building the “national”
through musical works to analysis of musical material. Although both refer to music promoting the “national projects” in Europe, the appearance of national elements in musical works can, similarly, be considered a compositional method applied by composers intentionally to reach a specific goal. Here, again, we encounter an aspect that differentiated the Japanese national school from their European counterparts. “National composers” such as Sibelius and Nielsen were thought of as representing a “national style” even when their work did not include influences from the traditional music of their countries (see Finscher 1984, 50). By contrast, composers with national styles recognized by the public did not emerge in Japan. This is why emphasis in identifying the “national” in Japanese music is on recognizing musical characteristics associated with Japanese culture.
Defining and identifying Japanese elements in musical material leads, however, only to recognizing the existence of certain musical characteristics.
They, as such, do not necessarily “mean” or convey anything, or enclose any further answer to what they represent. Here, again, one could extend Curtis’s (2008, 26) views on the “national” as a social construct to national elements in musical material: the “national” is not something that appears on a score or in performances of music, but ultimately emerges in ideas about music, and ideas about nationalism. To claim that one could discuss national elements in a “purely” musical context would, in fact, pose a paradox: the recognition of
74 Pen name of the philosopher and economist Mita Sekisuke (見田石介, 1906–1975).
75 Compare these ideas, for example, with those of the Les Six member Jean Cocteau (1921, 21) about the importance of composing “French” music in France.
musical characteristics as “national qualities” is already an assessment based on a discourse defining which elements can be recognized as “national” in the first place. In this sense, as well, music and conceptions of the national are in constant communication and interaction with their social context—not merely as something that reflect it, but as something that actively participate in forming it.76
This leads to the idea of national elements and musical works as discourses addressing phenomena of their time, and calls for examination of their historical context—both social and musical. By this approach, we can form an idea of what they possibly represent. Examples of this can include, amongst other things, the suggestion of national identity or an expression of political nationalism—but also the will to develop and renew Western art music from a Japanese point of view, or the desire for international recognition. It is not extraordinary for these various potential motivations to overlap.
To recognize a purpose or aim such as these behind musical elements, this study first examines the composers’ own discussion on their work, Japanese-style music, and Japanese culture and society in general. It should be noted that emphasizing intention in the analysis of Japanese elements differs from seeking to recognize artistic intention. Ashby (2004), for example, questions the importance of artistic intention in interpretations of modernist music altogether. However, to understand what a work of music communicates (what it represents), one must first understand what was intended—the adopted compositional techniques and methods (whatever they are). For example, it seems unlikely that a composer would quote a Japanese folk song without the intention to do so.77 This, however, does not hint at the meaning or context of the quotation. Recognizing the quotation is merely the first step to examining and discovering what it possibly conveys—be it an aspect ultimately intended or unintended by the composer.