# Writing about music



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

I am an English teacher but am a music lover - music is the art of arts is it not?

I do play the piano but not well enough to perform in public. I would love to express my love of music (especially of Bach , Mozart, Chopin) but am not sure how. Does anyone else have a strong desire to write about music? I have read a certain amount about music and enjoyed some of Roger Scruton's writing, but am not satisfied by what I have read. How can we write about fine music? Is it worthwhile.

THese are the problems with which I would like some help


----------



## Herkku (Apr 18, 2010)

To begin with, are you an English teacher or a teacher of English? No offence meant.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

You have to learn to dance about architecture before you will write about music.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

I never remember who it was, but someone once said that writing about music is like dancing about architecture. (Edit: Lol, I didn't see Aramis' comment before posting this. Maybe he remembers who it was.) The point being that music can never be translated into verbal language, and therefore it's basically pointless. This is kind of an extreme view and musicologist etc, are well aware the limitations of verbal discourse on music. For instance, it's chock full of metaphors, often drawn from visual analogy. (Like e.g. calling a chord "dark")

What is it that you wish to write about? Is it expressing your experience of music? I don't know what you've read (except for Scruton) but academic writings on music are naturally rather objective and scientific (that's a debate too), where the writers are often trying to find out what music is and how it works, how this and that piece works (analysis), why this and that development happened at some point in history etc. Is that what you find dissatisfactory? Other disciplines like music cognition and music psychology might have a more listener/experience based approach, but the style of writing will still be academic.


----------



## Herkku (Apr 18, 2010)

What are we doing here in this forum if not writing about music all the time? So, the comparison between writing-music and dancing-architecture - even it may be considered witty - is actually ridiculous. We can write about dancing and architecture as well, in fact about everything that happens to come to our mind.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

thanks for those replies. 

Yes - the dance about architecture remark is good. Someone also said that some architecture is like frozen music. But why not dance, or sing about archtitecture? - if the building is something like the Maria della Salute in Venice...

I dont want to write academically about music, though I think the Tovey / Girdlestone approach is or course valuable. I want to write about the feelings and thoughts which are embodied in music, about the thoughts of Mozart as he was writing (I mean apart from the 'I'll modulate into the dominant here' type), and the effects that music has on the listener. I myself am often transfixed by music and find myself wondering what it means, what it represents, how it should be interpreted. Derek Cook's 'THe Language of musis' is very interesting.

Some novelists have tried to write well about music, eg EM Forster in one novel (is it Howards End?) writes about the meaning and effects of a Beethoven symphony. 

I dont think it is pointless to write in detail about music - all powerful experiences are difficult to write about. But it is very difficult. I would like to try to write about music in a manner both artistic and expository, if that is possible

By the way, I am both an English teacher and a teacher of English


----------



## Herkku (Apr 18, 2010)

You write "I am an English teacher but am a music lover". Do you think that these roles would be mutually exclusive?

Seriously, if you want to write about music and read what others have written, you have come to the right forum! Welcome!


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

To Herkku..

Thankyou

Not mutually exclusive of course - but if you love music it will necessarily have an impact on other interests - so I find the more I have loved music the less I have found literature wholly fascinating. 

Words and music have held a kind of running battle over the centuries

I notice you are from Finland - am a great admirer of Sibelius


----------



## Herkku (Apr 18, 2010)

To Roberto...

Glad to hear that you like Sibelius. That's the best we can offer composerwise. I love his songs and the violin concerto, but I have some difficulties with the symphonies.

My interests have tended to vary from music to literature to movies and back to music and so on. Lately, I have been mainly interested in opera on DVD, where you have the music, the words and the picture as well! I know that most opera librettos don't make much sense, but coupled with some of the most beautiful music there is, you can forgive a lot...


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

Well, I am very fond of the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th symphonies, and think they are better than Mahler and Bruckner. Who in the 20th century wrote better symphonies than Sibelius? A great man!

One should be interested in not just one but several arts. Yes I am literary, but music exerts an enormous pull on me. When I listen to, say, my favourite Mozart and Bach, I feel as though I am in a very special world. And one has the strange feeling that they are in direct communication with oneself, at a most exalted intellectual, artistic and spiritual level. But I find it so hard to say what they are communicating.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Roberto said:


> I am an English teacher but am a music lover - music is the art of arts is it not?


Hello Roberto.

My 6th grade English teacher never liked the injustice I wreaked on the English language, interpenetrating it with any other utterance, unutterable in the English language or otherwise 
_
"Music is the art of the arts"_ : are you referring to a branch of the arts, which we bracket as 'aesthetics', which sees music as a _form_ of the arts? Art takes the form of the manifold not just the 'Platonic form'; yet the manifold holds no Hegelian hierarchy, thus neither music dominating other arts, nor photography dominating painting, or sculpture holding an epithet such as the 'art of arts' either, even if the provincial mindset teaches us otherwise.

When it comes to writing about music, Scruton is not an obvious choice for me (albeit populus, as in 'popular'). Schopenhauer's *Metaphysics of Music* is interesting (or essential?), although perhaps not particularly 'beautiful literature'. If you have learnt to read diagonally, then Bachelard's "*L'air et les songes*" offers an illuminating penetrating on the nature of the imagination behind such art. However what stands out, is the reverence of pure aesthetics, in the works of writers such as Etienne Gilson, whose "*Arts of the Beautiful*" is indispensible reading.

Well I suppose writing starts off with reading. The digestion of what is out there is a great starting point into writing. Then, the challenge of synaesthesia; or translation of music's inherent language into tangible metaphors for the mind remains the veritable challenge for the writer to decode satisfactorily in his own mind, before expressing this for others. Both steps themselves, are different forms of art - 'art', being that very art-i-fice in which the abstraction of the mind is a sign of power; not of the mind, but of the humanity which represents....the art of all the arts 

PS - piano music really sucks for me


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

*to Head case*

thanks for that

Guess i will have to forgive the piano failure.....

Have read a little Schopenhauer, but never heard of Gilson - I will look him up when I get the chance

I mean the purest of all the arts - where there is apparently an almost perfect fusion of form with expression, where the form is somehow the content and the meaning, where there is no effort in absorbing what is written or expressed- where, in short, there is an ineffable communication and communion of mind and spirit. A quasi religious experience, higher than the other arts.

Your remark about 'humanity' as an art is interesting - but it is not an art is it? What do you mean?....


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Is there an art to living? If there is, then humanity, and the expression of one's humanity itself, is an art - sine qua non, the art of this expression, is that very sublimation of the noumenal and spiritual quality of humanity, which cannot divorce substance from essence. Human expression ... is an art, however we lose that view when we become accustomed to the artlessness of human expression 

In its base form, art is not like this high-faluting form for most humans: it occupies a pragmatic role, one in which, the value of life, and the pondering thereof.... means less than its practical living and getting on with it.

Schopenhauer, like his bed fellow Nietzsche, need to be read with a pinch of salt, unlike Scruton whose writings suffers from too much oedema. The old Russian formalists laid the groundwork in the logic of their form vs content, rather than being purely plot driven: content <---> form <===> meaning. In contrast, structuralism offered a kind of mechanical hope at deriving meaning with some kind of logic: however both formalism and structuralism, only hint at devices or tools, for grasping meaning. There is a huge leap (chasm?) between [the banalities of structural modes of thinking; formalistic tendencies] and [the communication of the juncture where the mind and spirit]. The latter meeting of the mind with the art form coalesces in a living experience...which is moving. Baudelaire's warning however applies - that emotion expressed artlessly .... is pure sentimentality. Maybe we cannot write in the way which you aspire, without descending into the pessimism of Schopenhauer, or referencing the arts of the music elliptically, or diagonally, through cross-disciplines, as other writers do. Maybe this is why, writers who can unshackle the limitations of language, and move into the preternatural world of music, which transcends language, are as mythological as a species, as other winged serpents 

In a classical sense, every art form, being an abstraction of the primary form, has its own expression. Hegel sees a hierarchy of order; one thing being higher than another, all being subsumed in one overarching and systematic way of knowing the phenomenal world.

These days we are less grandiose than Hegel and we choose to grasp at straws: we can bring to bear on 'that fusion of form with expression', when we realise that our participation, and it is that participation, in the Buberian sense: "I and thou" - as in 'here I am ... being moved by this or that piece of music, as it 'speaks' to me, as a "you". that dialogic sense of knowing the phenomenal world is in fact...the very structure of the communion of mind and spirit which you reference. In this respect, music as a higher form than other art forms, is a view I would abolish, precisely because the higher art form, lies in that fundamental mortar paste of human life: the connection, between "I" and "thou", when we see music, painting, sculpture, or cinema and so on, as that "thou" which speaks to me, in its own form.

That's what I mean 

Clear as mud eh. Well Scriabin & Myaskovsky's romantic piano sonatas; Debussy's impressionistic Preludes and Szymanowski's folksy Mazurkas are actually piano pieces I do like 

PS _ Etienne Gilson was a medieval philosopher; his conception of aesthetics draws from the Thomistic perspectives of the arts and stands in diametric opposition to the post-modern relativism of Scruton and his cronies


----------



## Wumbo (Jun 29, 2010)

Ekphrasis! There's even a word for what you're trying to do 

I would say, the very most important thing when I read writing about music, is that it not be cliche. When you start to use popular terms and methods of describing music, it basically just proves you don't know how to write and I want to vomit. Most reviews for albums are so terrible... I think think that you should write about music in a similar way to the way you would write an essay about a book. Come up with an interesting thesis, and try to prove it with points in the music. You'll learn a lot about music by doing this, and you won't end up with wishy washy 'LUSH HIGHS' and 'heart throbbing bass!' that doesn't mean anything to anyone.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

To Head case

Thanks. That is interesting, though you are better trained in philosophy than I am and I didnt follow every point. I am going to read some Gilson. 

Is there an art to living? - yes, there is of course in the loose sense. But it cannot be considered in the same way as the arts of music, painting etc. There is no discreet product except perhaps in the eyes of 'God'. What are the individual works of art of the living human being? Daily words and deeds?

Back to music: if I listen to Mozart K421 - string qt in D mi - I hear something truly miraculous - more miraculous to me than the miracles of Christ. I hear a human art become what we might call divine - enter the realm of the eternal, the superhuman. THis is not like a poem or a novel or a painting - there is no messy tarnished language, no paint, no clumsy human story - instead there is the pure flowing aesthetic order, which I could only compare to some perfect landscape or perhaps a vista of space, or perhaps the human being if we are in love with that being.

German culture has been the most aware of this power of music - because the Germans have been the most profound idealists in modern history. 

Will return to this but am unable to continue at the moment........


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

TO Wumbo

yes - ekphrasis, the most famous example being I think the famous description of the shield of Achilles in the Iliad. But this is something for which Keats is also famous

thanks for reminding me of that. Good advice too


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Why not start your own blog on classical music? It's very easy to do. Just go to blogger or 
wordpress etc, and start your own. You can discuss the music of the composers you love,your favorite performers, recordings etc. 
I have a blog of my own at the website blogiversity.org, a website with blogs on a wide variety of topics,and I cover classical music for it.
I'm a professional musician myself, and my blog is geraed toward classical newbies and people who would like to get to know this kind of music. I discuss all aspects of classical music,orchestral music,opera,chamber music, choral works, music history, current events in classical music, recordings, etc. The blog is called simply "The Horn"(an instrument I used to play), and just go to blogiversity.org and click on my posts,which are listed on the home page.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

thanks - I will certainly take a look at your blog


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Hey Roberto,

just some thoughts which I wonder ... might help.

What is the function of art? Is such a question meaningless, insofar, as art, defies pragmatism, and utility?

If I accede that art....the function of art ... is to "inspire" (a view taken after Thomas Merton's writings), then when I survey the 'art of living' - what better example is there, than a living example of such inspiration? Yes indeed...the form of the specific arts, all open different dimensions of whatever function it offers. Art in the form of word, is represented by the 'oral tradition'. The liturgical works of St John which are spoken reflect this dimension of art: word, which fuses strope, antistrope, into antiphons and responsorials. Such forms of art are not alien to those who appreciate music, right?

Yes - there is 'the art of doing' (in whichever field you choose); and the 'art of listening' (Erich Fromm's classic is here too).

Yet there are other modes of understanding art. Etienne Gilson's one moves from mere expression (e.g. blogging is not an art sorry!) to 'making'. His 'Form and Substances of the Arts' is fascinating reading in this respect, concentrating on the more conventional forms of art which we come to appreciate.



Roberto said:


> Back to music: if I listen to Mozart K421 - string qt in D mi - I hear something truly miraculous - more miraculous to me than the miracles of Christ. I hear a human art become what we might call divine - enter the realm of the eternal, the superhuman.


I recall back to my early days in the lectures of the psychology of music, and think of Winnicott's term "the transitional space" or object. Music is a form of that transitional space, or art, which connects the human impulse to seek out nurture, self-growth, yet validation in a more profound way than the concrete can ever describe.

Well, philosophy is just a tool for discovering and knowing, as well as sifting out debris or dirt from the hidden gems. In your example of Mozart K421 string quartet ... why are you moved this way...yet others are not? If it is more miraculous to you than the miracles of Christ, is this a function of a personal detachment, from the miracles of Christ (that is .. ..these mean little to you), and the connection from Mozart's K421, offers that connection in the Winnicottian transitional space?

Admittedly, there are too many precepts introduced in the above to sift out, however philosophically speaking, the approximation of a metaphor: 'human art becomes what we might call divine' ... can only bring to bear back on the speaker, this basic tenet: this is the realm of pure subjectivity: that is - I 'invoke' the 'miraculous'..'or the 'ethereal' or the 'eternal' when I listen to K421. If others do not feel this way, yet I do...then in essence, K421 ... is what I make of it, not a universal portal to eternity for all"



> THis is not like a poem or a novel or a painting - there is no messy tarnished language, no paint, no clumsy human story - instead there is the pure flowing aesthetic order, which I could only compare to some perfect landscape or perhaps a vista of space, or perhaps the human being if we are in love with that being.


The structure of human experience in relation to listened-to music: how do you conceive of this? Like a pure flowing aesthetic order? In which case, flowing from where? From the start of the music, to the end of the music? If so, then the flow itself, is structured by the musical clef, or the notation on the score: this is no different from language of the verbal domain. Or is it an intersubjective one: one in which "I" experience music which connects to music, as a "you", just as a couple in love connect with one another. 
There are other possibilities to fathom in the human experience of music....perhaps its best not to narrow it down to just those two....brain death over here - someone else can do some thinking instead of me 



> German culture has been the most aware of this power of music - because the Germans have been the most profound idealists in modern history.


Lol. I don't like piano music and the Teutonic-Viennese Axis isn't far behind lol


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

*to Head case*

You spoke of the art of living - I think living is the product and practice of character: and character could not be considered an art, since one cannot make oneself. Art consists in the making of works of art.

However, although I am a lover of art, I do not think that aesthetic goals are necessarily the highest ones. That is, goals that are aesthetic and little else. But if the aesthetically powerful is combined with intellectual and moral force, it is hard to think of a greater means of self-expression. This is true of the great composers - Mozart, Bach and others. It is also true of Dante and Shakespeare, and Wren.

So I don't agree with Nietzsche when he writes that 'only as an aesthetic phenomenon are world and existence forever justified'. Aesthetic phenomena are essential, but there are other valid ways of justifying existence.

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche thought music was the supreme art, and I agree with them. It has an unrivalled ability to strike the senses and the intellect simultaneously. I feel somehow involved with music at a deep level. Thomas Mann is a very interesting writer in this respect. He is one of the few great novelists to be highly sensitive to music, so that he works it into the fabric of his thinking and writing


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

*to Head case*

Just posted the last thoughts when your previous appeared - hadnt seen it before, so my post makes no mention of it. Will read and reply!


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

*to Head case*

Interesting and very detailed response, for which thanks

The function of art cannot be stated as a singularity. The various functions include:


to give aesthetic satisfaction, to be in some way beautiful (if possible) or at least appealing
to engage the listener/reader's mind at a high level
to lift the thoughts of or inspire the receiver
to offer a powerful interpretation of aspects of the world
to present a high level of artistic ability - an admirable 'performance'

there are many ways of stating the above.

Why am I so drawn to certain masterpieces such as K421? There is no doubt at all that it is a major work of art - beautiful - perfect even; a brilliant intellectual feat; uplifting, yes, in the sense that one is taken out of oneself into the elevated realm of the interplay between the four instruments; and so on. If it is inspiring, what does it inspire me to do? To know more about music and about Mozart; to admire the culture that surrounded the Mozarts; to spend my time wisely, because one can sense the great effort behind this music; occasionally it has a negative effect - I feel incapable before this music - I cannot perform it, I cannot compose a piece like it, so I feel weak. But all great artists have this effect on us. This is not, though, virtuoso music like Liszt's or others - it is refined, elegant, challenging but not vastly demanding technically. At other times Mozart inspires me to try to create work of my own, even though I know it will be inferior to his. However, the problem posed by Mozart's perfection is significant. That is a reason to compare his musical miracles to Christ, who has often been spoken of as the perfect man (and who was an artist himself - a storyteller and preacher of genius: his miracles are not exactly convincing but the accounts of them demonstrate his spiritual power).

more later.....


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

*to continue.....*

I feel I am in difficult territory on this matter, where deep problems exist and where the truly great artists in a sense battle for one's soul. There is the legend of the men who sold their soul to the devil - my own problem is different - I have been uncertain what to sell my soul for - in other words, literature or music (the problem of the dilettante).

'Hamlet' is a great work of art (which also has its own 'music' - the rhythms of Shakespeare's superb pentameters - prose too); why would it be challenged by K421 or K466 the D mi concerto (significance of D minor to M!), or 'The Marriage of Figaro'? To fans of Hamlet who are no great lovers of M this would of course be no problem. If you love music it is a problem: which deserves your admiration more? How can you admire them both at the same time? How do you reconcile your fascination with one with your fascination with the other?

The answer to this, by the way, is NOT to revere opera as the greatest of arts. It may be that a couple of Mozart's operas are the finest of all works or art, but if this is the case (and I don't think it could ever be proved even by the greatest logical analyst), then that is because, as I said before, Mozart was a miracle-worker, because he was, of all composers, the 'son of God'. But the fact that he could create sublime operas does not mean that opera is the finest form - the fact that it is not has been shown by all the other operas that lay claim to greatness - and this includes Fidelio and Wagner - these operas are works of genius but are not sublime, lying almost beyond question or cavil as I think Figaro does.

No - you do not turn 'Hamlet' into an opera, thankyou: nor do you simply use Mozart as soundtrack as in 'Elvira Madigan'. You can say of course: 'I will go to see 'Hamlet' on Tuesday, and listen to Mozart on Thursday, and I will get much out of each. You can seek to understand both as deeply as you can; you can learn them off by heart; you can even perform them, playing some role in the play and whatever you can of the Mozart. You could try to imitate them - you could think your own Hamlet thoughts; you could invent your own Mozart tunes. But anyone who goes on in this way might well go mad or lose their way. In the end you must choose - only one of them will be your true inspiration.

It is like having to choose between Christ and Buddha, perhaps; or perhaps it is a little like choosing between two women one loves; or two careers which meet at the crossroads. A decision is needed. Life forces decisions where action is required - but still the doubts and questions and problems exist in the heart and soul.

Whatever is personal is also shared with the culture. My problem, expressed of course in rather different terms, is a universal problem of our culture. Everyone of intelligence and sensitivity to the arts must be affected by it, and try to make their own decisions. The reason for this is that none of us is either Mozart or Shakespeare (or Bach, or.....). We have to place ourselves in relation to the great artists of the past.

That is why I wish to write about Mozart - because he means (and has meant) so much to me, and because I cannot write music, and it is too late to learn (though I did try to learn for a couple of years). Yes, I would love to have been a composer - but then, I would also love to have been a concert pianist, or violinist. One falls back, in a practical way, on what one _can_ do - I can write, I argue, and therefore this is my medium, inadequate though it is for many tasks, and limited though my skills are.

This has become rather personal - but as you have pointed out, the subjective has a great role in matters of taste and appreciation. One has to be personal. That indeed is one of the things that artists teach us - and this perhaps is where you Winnicott transition comes in: but I also feel that one's admiration for a great artist should in a sense also be impersonal - 'he is a truly great artist - this is a fact that lies far beyond my interest in his works. We know as a truth beyond question that this man is great.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

*Beauty*

The idea of inspiration is bound up with our idea of what is beautiful.

To the mathematician, a great formula is beautiful. But most of us cannot see this beauty. We can only sense that it is extremely clever.

We can all perceive the beauty in a landscape, a painting, a piece of music. I believe the main function of art is to make us appreciate life. Many people have little need of art - this could of course be because they are happy philistines, who love people and places, but it could also be because they are stunted and sluggish. Either way, they are not whole people.

The main challenge to the aesthetic view of life is from the religious or the moralistic. Religion may incorporate art of course ('the beauty of holiness' - Palestrina, Tallis, et al), or it may not (strict Puritanism etc). Christ, confronted by a Roman Palestrina or Victoria, might have said, 'Cast away your instruments and give unto the poor'; or would he have said, 'Cast away your formal garb and follow me'; or perhaps even 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's'. Would he have thought counterpoint a vain pursuit? Mozart the over-refined creator of luxury products for aristocrats?? The thought is incongruous but interesting. Christ and his followers, one might say, had important things to say to Mozart; perhaps Mozart would have had important things to say to Christ, as it were.

It has been said that the angels play Mozart for their pleasure in Paradise. One cannot imagine them acting in plays though, very easily.

It is not the main function of life to appreciate art, of course, for all but a few. (Nor is to create art.) But then, there are the few, and the good scholars and critics are valuable too, indeed indispensable. We need them. They are mediators and interpreters, priests of art rather than gods or sons of gods (the divinely inspired).

I would love to visit the Underworld like Dante and meet the shades of great men. But I seem to be rambling.......


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Howdy

You've been busy I see 



Roberto said:


> Interesting and very detailed response, for which thanks
> 
> The function of art cannot be stated as a singularity. The various functions include:
> 
> ...


There is no dispute here at all: whereas Merton talks of the highest function of art, there is no predication on the basis that only a tunnel vision approach exists for art.

Thus - why then, do readers conceive of Merton's quote:_* "the function of art ... is to inspire"*_
in the singular?

All of the items you have listed ... are various forms of this inspiration. You see that the 'function of art' is not singular; see much further beyond - Inspiration itself ... is not singular either. This is its power; its heterogeneity. There is always scope for any one to be inspired.



> 'There are many ways of stating the above'


Merton's views have some utility: however understanding the 'philosophy of inspiration' may take you to task. Is this a branch of 'the psychology of listening to music'? or as you've alluded in a later post.... Other aesthetic philosophers are interesting. Again, not to say that Nietzsche or Schopenhauer's views ever have the last word on aesthetics: such a view would run against the open horizon which 'aesthetics' lays out before us. Gadamer sees a distant horizon, where fusion of yours and Mozart's, is a symbiotic process, one which (returning to Baudelaire) must free itself from sentimentality in order to find its own voice.



> The idea of inspiration is bound up with our idea of what is beautiful.


Although this might be a start, let's consider how this is reflected on this forum:

1). X is inspired by baroque music
2). Y is inspired by romantic music
3). X is unmoved by romantic music
4). Y is moved by romantic music and sometimes baroque

The mathematician will come in and hypothesize about X and Y ...

however none of this brings him any closer to the inspiration which X and Y hold. The elucidation of the relationship between X + music, and Y + music, is of a different order of participation: 'experience'.

Thus:



Roberto said:


> _
> At other times Mozart inspires me to try to create work of my own, even though I know it will be inferior to his. However, the problem posed by Mozart's perfection is significant. That is a reason to compare his musical miracles to Christ, who has often been spoken of as the perfect man (and who was an artist himself - a storyteller and preacher of genius: his miracles are not exactly convincing but the accounts of them demonstrate his spiritual power)._


None of what you've written, will stand up as a robust argument. Perhaps this sounds harsh, however consider this:

1. You have heard Mozart's string quartet K421
2. You have not witnessed the miracles of Christ.

No. 1). constitutes your field of experience. 
No. 2). constitutes the field of 'religious faith': not of experience.

If for instance, you wish to assert, that No.2 constitutes the field of experience, then per force, the argument follows that if your experience of Christ's miracles is less than Mozart, then you have insufficient faith. Sorry 

The corollary - having 'heard' people talk about Mozart, and testify that his works are beautiful and stupendous: would that be sufficient? Why then, does X get moved, but Y does not? Now we are back into the realm of the psychology of music, away from 'what inspires'; 'aesthetics' itself. On a forum, it finds its most base expression in the form of opinion threads....but we can see beyond that layer and connect with what we can grasp from distillations of others' taste.

Having said that, there is much beauty in a classical sonata form - menuetto - allegretto - allegretto ma non troppo. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Isa Krejci's string quartet No. II in D minor if you have not already?

This is a source for great inspiration too 

Toodles - I've got a ferry to catch!


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

*To Head case*

Hi...

Merton - point taken: 'to inspire' - though it is not the whole story I think. A more pointed question is 'what are the functions of music?' or better still, 'What should the functions of music be in a good society?' And the corollary - 'How should it be organised?' Questions which goes back to Plato but to which few thinkers have addressed themselves in detail since (or at least, as far as I know, though again Nietz and Schop come to mind). For instance, I would argue that the present system of organising music in Europe is proven to be hopelessly inadequate by the results (proof being in extremely messy and indigestible pudding)

Gadamer - don't know this, but the point about sentimentality must be right (though one man's sentimentality is another's....?)

Christ - yes, fair enough. There is not a lot of mileage in my comparison. But I thought it serve to emphasise my perception of Mozart; (actually the real 'miracles' of Christ were not in any case the water-into-wine stuff, but the following, devotion and momentum that he generated, and 'inspiration' is not a bad term for that).

Isa Krejci.... noted! thankyou


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

> Merton - point taken: 'to inspire' - though it is not the whole story I think. A more pointed question is 'what are the functions of music?' or better still, 'What should the functions of music be in a good society?'


I don't think so - if anything the plane of questioning then points and shifts, from the spiritual, down to the socio-cultural strata.

Frankly - the socio-cultural epiphenomena which constitutes 'the functions of music in a good society' are beyond me. I live in a bad society. It is filled with the likes of symphony lovers, X Factor, Take That, Justin B, Justin Timberlake - performing humans for commercial circus tricks, rather than purely classical chamber string quartet performers and listeners  (j/k - honest!).

As a listener, it is the spiritual connection with the music which motivates me to enjoy it as I do; not what others read, or write about music, as interesting and useful as that can be, in turning out insights and interest in music which I know. Some listeners do appreciate this kind of reification around music; the life of the composer who wrote such music becomes that centralised focus for understanding their 'inspiration'. As such, the historical; the geographical and ultimately, the contextual factors around a piece of inspiring music come into the fore....and this is precisely the kind of pleasure many of us derive from reading CD liner notes which offer nuances of interest, about a piece of music...or perhaps, stimulate us to locate the source of inspiring music, in the kind of 'functions' which you have alluded to.

Inspiration is never the complete story (what is? this 'completeness' can only ever be wholeness, or the philosophy of holiness - that completion of man's incomplete state and his restitution to achieve 'holiness'); it is a juncture, where a listener can derive a connection ("inspiration") from a piece of music, and bring himself into reflection, on his emotional reaction to this inspiration. When Baudelaire penned 'Les Fleurs du mal', few who critique it, can justly refer to "The Flowers of Evil" as 'sentimental'. Similarly, it is not overt from Baudelaire's writing, that his own influence, derived from a near forgotten spiritual source - the writings of Swedenborg. Those who understand Baudelaire ... have no necessary connection nor interest in Swedenborg (and this is borne out by the relative consciousness of Baudelaire in literature, but not of Swedenborg, whose obscurity makes him all the less interesting for the already disinterested).

Thinking of your interest, raised to the highest form, that is, inspiration from Mozart's K421: can you express yourself any clearer without this 'inspiration', and render the writings of your love for K421, comprehensible to others?

Inspiration has its own rules and consequences. Some can be poor (for instance - imitation (mimesis), or copying (plagiarism); on another level: 'quoting' within music, which happens often with composers who use motifs, (e.g. B-A-C-H), or other quotes (from folk music); then there is 'transformation', where inspiration, is woven into the composer's own language (thinking here of Bartok and Myaskovsky's string quartet cycles in particular) where inspiration and the emotional reaction to inspiring music, generates a creative force spiritually linked to the very source which inspired it, yet is not held hostage to the very music which inspired it.

I like George Rochberg's example in the string quartets in this respect. Although he wrote his early string quartets (no. I & II) in the post-Schoenberg vein, he did not divorce his critical faculties from his emotional inspiration: essentially, Schoenberg's influence led him to explore the limits and boundaries of his inspiration ... before abandoning serialism and duodecaphony and his love of Schoenberg.... to become his own man with his own musical language. In this respect we move on from our sources of inspiration: we must move on, otherwise we are indeed 'trapped' in a form of sentimentality, which approximates cult worship of a piece; a method, or a school of thought. Inspiration itself can serve to mask, the failure of maternal separation and failure to grow up as an individual proper, who has his own independent reference points or language, being reliant on one or other piece of music, as a 'crutch' to prop up oneself.

Returning to your thoughts on 'writing about music': it is probably very important for the reader to sense a central arching backbone in your question, rather than finding that the question splinters too quickly into 100 different questions, thus losing the plot. Not all readers will have a background in logic and the philosophy of music, so it's probably important, to use every post in this thread as a good example of what _not _to write about

Keep going. As Beckett's literature reads: "I can't go on - I'll go on."


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

Headcase

Thanks again for your interest. 

You are evidently far more knowledgeable than I am in the field of the quartet - I have read some of you posts on juranbai's thread! Impressive. 

Regarding possible inspirations offered by K421: one way would be to go through the score page by page and try to explain not only what is going on but also what effect it has. Mozart has a wonderful ability to create the most as it were mouthwatering effects, be they in counterpoint or harmony or development ........... I think this would be a worthwhile way of understanding and expounding his music

Another way would be to say nothing at all about the quartet, but to write a part of a story inspired by it… This might take the form of dialogue, since the quartet is a kind of musical dialogue, and one might develop character according to characteristics of the music, eg interpret the first violin as a charming and talkative girl with a slightly plaintive voice or whatever. Does this sound very eccentric?

A third way would be to interpret the music in terms of what Mozart seems to be saying to us in extra-musical terms: that at this point he is saying we must be deliberate and reflective by repeating the note slowly at an octave; and here is intimating that a leisurely exposition of the theme is both delightful and important; but then here a more passionate and urgent passage tells us that life is not so simple…

Nothing very original about these, though I have yet to see any of them in print. I will be honest – I scarcely know what I want. Mozart speaks to us with great eloquence – he almost leaves us, though, speechless. This is not how it should be. I am trying to formulate some worthwhile way of responding to him – and then when I have worked it out I could perhaps find ways of writing about other composers.

At heart it is the problem posed by anything really beautiful - it arouses desire. You want to possess it, to absorb it, to reproduce it. If it is a person you feel the need to tell him or her that you love them ..... But really, human beauty is in some ways a simple matter in comparison to musical beauty .....


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

As an afterthought to the above, I wonder if you have read Vikram Seth's novel _An Equal Music_, which is about a string quartet and their favourite pieces (which include Haydn, Schubert and Bach arrangements).

It is a sensitive, interesting novel, which has much to say about musicianship, though for obvious reasons not an exciting read! A double CD was produced to accompany it, which was a nice idea

That is one way music has inspired a writer to good effect


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

*Thread revival?*

The purpose of this thread was to encourage discussion of such questions as:


how can music generate good writing?
what are the most interesting ways of writing about music?
can writing ever aspire to the power of music, and if so, how?

any takers?


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

Well, answer that as you would answer a pupil who posed those questions.

How can music generate good writing? Music requires a certain number of written genres, three or four of which spring to mind because I do them. There is a need for programme notes aimed at an audience ignorant of music, or one with only a little knowledge of music. There is a need for publicity to attract audiences. There is a need for music/concert reviews. There is a need for writing about musical happenings generally and analytically in social contexts. All of those are formal in style, although the latter has more flexibility. 

There are several interesting ways of writing about music and it will depend on the level of knowledge about the actual music as to how this can be tackled. I write reviews but very seldom critique the music in greater depth than one or two sentences. My take tends to be more of a report, usually with a fact or two about the music or one of the musicians, then a light critique - two sentences if it is positive. One negative sentence and one positive sentence otherwise. Then usually something about forthcoming concerts. I seldom deviate much from this pattern. 

Interviews with musicians, stories about upcoming events, and information about the music scene in your city is generally a wonderful way of acquainting yourself with what is happening and you will usually be invited to the concert or recital as a side benefit of the exercise.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

Thanks for that.

I think you're lucky to be a music journalist - I did a few pieces once, but wrote rather more about literature. Top music journalism can give a real sense of the power of music - would you agree? Schumann's writing for example makes you imagine that you are there,sometimes, listening. And Roman Rolland writes powerfully about music - he really had to, since he was writing about a composer. Have you read any of his novels?

I mean - in what ways can writing aspire to something equivalent to the power of music? The obvious answer is through poetry, and poetry can of course be harnessed to the power of music. But my feeling is that usually the music rather overwhelms the words.

I sometimes think that we ought to redress the balance on occasion - that a composer aim to _accompany _the words of the poet or storyteller. I love Stravinsky's 'The Solder's Tale' for that reason, and 'Peter and the Wolf'. But I don't know other works of that type - there must have been others written.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

Here is another question:

What pieces of writing, in whatever genre, equal or approach the spellbinding power of music?

A few possible candidates: Poetry - Keats' _Ode to a Nightingale_; Eliot's _Lovesong of J Alfred Prufrock_; A good deal of Dante; 
Prose - some chapters of great novels have a kind of operatic power eg the closing chapters of _ Buddenbrooks_ by T Mann (and also his _Death in Venice_); _Heart of Darkness_ by Conrad; or _Sons and Lovers_ by Lawrence. The reader is caught up in the threads of narrative and themes and images in a way that is analogous to opera, or indeed other forms of music perhaps


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

If you want a general description of what music is and does, and also how to put it together, Copland has a good book
http://www.amazon.com/What-Listen-M...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339297033&sr=1-1

I do not follow it at all. I get specific books for specific composers. Plus a big fat review book.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

I don't know the book - looks well worth acquiring thanks. Leonard Bernstein wrote one which perhaps covers similar ground


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Roberto said:


> I don't know the book - looks well worth acquiring thanks. Leonard Bernstein wrote one which perhaps covers similar ground


Have you read it? It sounds like maybe you have, but if not, the first chapter (or the introduction or something; I forget) is specifically focused on the topic of writing about music, and relates to your original questions.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

Meaghan said:


> Have you read it? It sounds like maybe you have, but if not, the first chapter (or the introduction or something; I forget) is specifically focused on the topic of writing about music, and relates to your original questions.


No - I've only heard about it the other day - but I have it on my reading list. I expect what Bernstein does is explain the approach he is taking ... Now what I need is a great deal of time off to do some concentrated reading and listening.......


----------

