# Substance.



## SeanW (Jul 5, 2011)

Hello, my name is Sean (obviously!), I'm new here, and yes this is my first post. I've been "lurking" on this forum and others for a while as an enthusiast of classical music, and would like to know your opinion on something!

What is "substance"? As a fan of Mozart, it's something that comes up a lot: "Mozart sounds pretty but his music lacks substance!". I'm just curious, in your opinion, as to how one would describe "substance" within music.

No, this is not an argument, I don't want to "challenge" you to make a point that Mozart has substance or something, I'm just genuinely curious. All replies are, of course, welcome!

Cheers! :tiphat:


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

> What is "substance"? As a fan of Mozart (yes, him!) it's something that comes up a lot: "Mozart sounds pretty but his music lacks substance!


In this case, it's a cliche dismissal that shouldn't be read into too much. When they say it like this they're probably equating substance with drama and hardship, because as we know Mozart lived a not particularly tragic life and wrote a good deal of "easy" music for his time. (Contrast to bleeding hearts like Beethoven/Mahler.)

Substance is important but it's a vague word and should be elaborated on whenever it's used. To me it's compositional integrity in any sense. If a melody would be enjoyable no matter whether it was played by an orchestra, banjo or cheap MIDI, then I think it's safe to say it has substance.


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

If a composer writes music that you have to listen to twenty times, preferably with you having the score in one hand and a critique in the other, before you "get it", that composer is described as "having substance". 

If another composer writes equally complex music whose beauty becomes apparent at the first listening, he is described as "lacking substance", no matter how much further listening deepens your appreciation for his music.

Critics who don't have a clue will rate the following composers as "lacking substance": Mozart, Schubert, Tchaikovsky; possibly Chopin and Mendelssohn. This comes from the critics' in-depth knowledge of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik", "Ave Maria", and "1812 Overture" as truly representative works of those composers. When these critics are reminded of the Jupiter Symphony, C Major Quintet, or Eugene Onegin, they change the subject to how much "substance" there is in Boulez' "Le marteau sans maitre"...


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Actually, Mozart's music has a lot going on both under the surface and on the surface. Music of his caliber requires deeper study than just a superficial hearing. 

As Charles Rosen said of the first movement of his G minor symphony, it's like a woman who is so beautiful you don't notice how sad she is.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Yeah, Tchaikovsky is often accused of lacking substance by, supposedly, writing music that it too emotional. Tchaikovsky put whatever mood he was trying to portray in a particular piece into it in bucketloads. Personally, I love the gushing, thumping, melodrama of his works - if you are going to say something, might as well do it in CAPITAL LETTERS.  And, of course, that is a gross overgeneralisation of his works. There are lots of more subtle pieces that are just overshadowed by the 1812 and the Romeo and Juliet Overture, among others. Generally, accusations of lack of substance are levelled by people who are bored of the popularity of some pieces that are universally recognised by the average Joe. Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

SeanW said:


> [...]
> What is "substance"? As a fan of Mozart, it's something that comes up a lot: "Mozart sounds pretty but his music lacks substance!". I'm just curious, in your opinion, as to how one would describe "substance" within music.
> 
> No, this is not an argument, I don't want to "challenge" you to make a point that Mozart has substance or something, I'm just genuinely curious. All replies are, of course, welcome!
> ...


"All replies" may not be welcome. You are posing a question to which you already 'know' the answer. Looks like it has served its purpose though, so congrats.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I've always taken 'substance' in a musical context to suggest 'more beneath the surface'. An artist has put enough into a work that it is intriguing on more than one level, and/or the work has a certain denseness that usually can only be fully revealed after more than one listen. These works may or may not be immediately gratifying on first listen.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "All replies" may not be welcome. You are posing a question to which you already 'know' the answer. Looks like it has served its purpose though, so congrats.


Yeah definitely, I

waht


----------



## SeanW (Jul 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "All replies" may not be welcome. You are posing a question to which you already 'know' the answer. Looks like it has served its purpose though, so congrats.


Yes, all replies are welcome. I'm afraid I do not know the answer, as each persons' interpretation would be different. I also suppose it has served its' purpose since some people replied with what their opinion of "substance" is. Very interesting!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

There is a certain prejudice not only against Mozart (and Tchaikovsky) but also against certain writers and artists whose work is seen as "too beautiful". Unfortunately, some make the assumption that tragedy and angst and other "darker" emotions are easier to convey (and convey masterfully) than joy, and wit, and humor and thus signify something more "profound"... something of greater substance. Of course this is but nonsense. _Don Qixote_ and _Tristram Shandy_ are in no way inferior as novels to _The Brothers Karamazov_ or _Les Miserable_ because they focus more upon comedy and wit.

Ultimately, I am in agreement with Oscar Wilde who declared, _"All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors."_ The failure to recognize real "substance" in the work of Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, etc... is not a failure upon the part of the listener far more than upon the part of the composer.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I suppose if I'd ever read or heard that Mozart lacked substance, I'd been able to ignore that. 

If I couldn't ignore it, I'd try really hard.


----------



## Stasou (Apr 23, 2011)

Sometimes I think people try to make listening too difficult. Is there really a point in trying to find something wrong in every composition ever created? If it sounds good, who needs substance anyway?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> In this case, it's a cliche dismissal that shouldn't be read into too much. When they say it like this they're probably equating substance with drama and hardship, because as we know Mozart lived a not particularly tragic life and wrote a good deal of "easy" music for his time. (Contrast to bleeding hearts like Beethoven/Mahler.)


Often, listeners may be more concerns about the life of a composer rather than their music. Sometimes, this tendency to experience music combined with an obsession with "psycho-biographies" can actually cloud our ability to just simply take in the music (take it on it's own terms/merits, etc.)



> Substance is important but it's a vague word and should be elaborated on whenever it's used. To me it's compositional integrity in any sense. If a melody would be enjoyable no matter whether it was played by an orchestra, banjo or cheap MIDI, then I think it's safe to say it has substance.


That's true, and a related issue is that some audiophiles get so obsessed with things like recording quality, that they lose sight of the essence of the music. I listen to all kinds of recordings, from the ancient ones on wax cylinders to the modern digital & SACD ones. My focus with all these tends to be the music, rather than the quality of the recording. I'm not saying that's also important, of course it is, but it's not the be all & end all.



Manxfeeder said:


> Actually, Mozart's music has a lot going on both under the surface and on the surface. Music of his caliber requires deeper study than just a superficial hearing.


This is true, a lot of these masterpieces are not well served if one just listens to them once & dismisses them for whatever reason - eg. Judging things as superficial, too heavy, not well orchestrated, whatever doesn't really speak to giving these things a "fair go" so to speak.



crmoorhead said:


> …Generally, accusations of lack of substance are levelled by people who are bored of the popularity of some pieces that are universally recognised by the average Joe. Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say.


I agree with this, a number of people I've come across virtually on other forums detest things like Ravel's _Bolero_, Vaughan Williams' _Fantasia on Greensleeves_, Mozart's _Eine Kliene_, basically anything that has sold lots of records & is generally known by "the great unwashed." I've even been known to get into this negative vibe myself, criticizing composers like Saint-Saens on this very forum in the distant past, but now that I've simply listened to the man's music rather than bullsh*ting, I've come to enjoy it heaps. Last year, I went to a performance of his _Carnival of the Animals_, and it was a lot of fun, quirky, imaginative, even profound (the famous dying swan bit). Sometimes, the more people get into the more kind of obscure or esoteric composers, they begin to develop snobbish attitudes about the more popular things. I don't think that makes any sense. It has more to do with ideology than commonsense, musical or otherwise.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> There is a certain prejudice not only against Mozart (and Tchaikovsky) but also against certain writers and artists whose work is seen as "too beautiful". Unfortunately, some make the assumption that tragedy and angst and other "darker" emotions are easier to convey (and convey masterfully) than joy, and wit, and humor and thus signify something more "profound"... something of greater substance. Of course this is but nonsense. _Don Qixote_ and _Tristram Shandy_ are in no way inferior as novels to _The Brothers Karamazov_ or _Les Miserable_ because they focus more upon comedy and wit.


This makes me remember, a high school teacher of mine used to tell us often that writing a comedy is no more easy than writing a drama or tragedy. Indeed, he said that sometimes it's harder to write good comedy, as with that, you kind of have to make the audience come out of their shell a bit, let their hair down, that sort of thing. Berlioz said that guys like Donizetti & Rossini (speaking to their comic operas esp., that were conquering the Parisian stage at the time) were more like good cooks but composers of little or no substance or real musical merit. Again, his argument was more based on nationalism & sour grapes more than real objective judgement (don't get me wrong, I love BOTH Berlioz & the Italians, but for different reasons).



Stasou said:


> Sometimes I think people try to make listening too difficult. Is there really a point in trying to find something wrong in every composition ever created? If it sounds good, who needs substance anyway?


That's right, I think it's wise to kind of "cut the cr*p" & just "go with the flow" of where the music takes you. It's the old adage of the glass half empty rather than it being half full. I'd rather be positive than negative about these things. If a composer gives me 5 per cent on the first listen, s/he may well give me 10 or 15 per cent the next listen, and more on the third listen & so on. Of course, these things are impossible to quantify. Yet here we are often making "rankings" and "lists" of the great masterpieces. I don't really know if it's necessary to do that???...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

SeanW said:


> Hello, my name is Sean (obviously!), I'm new here, and yes this is my first post. I've been "lurking" on this forum and others for a while as an enthusiast of classical music, and would like to know your opinion on something!
> 
> What is "substance"? As a fan of Mozart, it's something that comes up a lot: "Mozart sounds pretty but his music lacks substance!". I'm just curious, in your opinion, as to how one would describe "substance" within music.
> 
> ...


I often (but not always) like to think of it as relative substance rather than absolute substance. It's easier to compare the relative substance of Mozart's music versus Antonio Salieri's for example, even though Salieri was still an able composer capable of writing music of substance.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I think, if a musical piece makes me come back to it again and again, if it rewards me with repeated listens, not as background music but as something that I keep sinking into and it keeps up my interest, then it has substance, regardless of its complexity, accessibility or temper.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

Stasou said:


> Sometimes I think people try to make listening too difficult. Is there really a point in trying to find something wrong in every composition ever created? If it sounds good, who needs substance anyway?


I echo the sentiment - No need to overthink things. Sometimes, music, circumstances surrounding the audition (often the first audition) conspire to make or break a piece of music. It is a very personal experience. As we say in French, "tous les gouts sont dans la nature".

An anecdote: I used to LOVE Sibelius' second symphony, and I LOVED the recording by Andrew Davis and the Toronto Symphony. I was listening to it one day (we were still in Montreal at the time, and was between jobs, home alone). The phone rings - I was negociating with a perspective employer, and got the "bad news" that the job had been eliminated, and there would be no offer. I NEVER have been able to listen to that symphony with the same pleasure SINCE.

I know this has nothing to do with substance, but it does illustrate that "circumstance" plays a large role in how people feel about certain works.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I've come across virtually on other forums detest things like Ravel's Bolero, Vaughan Williams' Fantasia on Greensleeves, Mozart's Eine Kliene, basically anything that has sold lots of records & is generally known by "the great unwashed." I've even been known to get into this negative vibe myself, criticizing composers like Saint-Saens on this very forum in the distant past, but now that I've simply listened to the man's music rather than bullsh*ting, I've come to enjoy it heaps. Last year, I went to a performance of his Carnival of the Animals, and it was a lot of fun, quirky, imaginative, even profound (the famous dying swan bit). Sometimes, the more people get into the more kind of obscure or esoteric composers, they begin to develop snobbish attitudes about the more popular things.

This sort of thing starts back in grade school when you get the student who rolls his of her eyes at this or that popular rock band (regardless of their merit) and then proceeds to brag about this of that unheard of band from outer Mongolia that is the real ****. Personally, I don't understand dismissing a work of music because of its popularity (popularity is no measure of merit... for or against). It isn't through any fault of the composers that certain works (The Brandenburg Concertos, The Four Seasons, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, the 5th Symphony, Bolero, Rodeo, etc... are overplayed and/or over-used in commercials, films, etc... Personally, I watch so little TV and almost never listen to the radio, so I have little notion of something being overplayed. But I do sense that some imagine that to cite some obscure composers as ones favorites is something akin to bragging rights. I like to explore the music of less-well known composers... and even some among the more esoteric contemporaries... but that doesn't keep me from also enjoying Mozart, Bach, and Wagner and recognizing their merits... or even appreciating the works of the "lighter" composers such as Johann Strauss, Franz Lehar, Jacques Offenbach, etc...

This makes me remember, a high school teacher of mine used to tell us often that writing a comedy is no more easy than writing a drama or tragedy. Indeed, he said that sometimes it's harder to write good comedy, as with that, you kind of have to make the audience come out of their shell a bit, let their hair down, that sort of thing. Berlioz said that guys like Donizetti & Rossini (speaking to their comic operas esp., that were conquering the Parisian stage at the time) were more like good cooks but composers of little or no substance or real musical merit.

Of course there is the classic quip, "Dying is easy; Comedy is hard, attributed to the Shakespearean actor Edmund Keane. Personally, I'm not convinced of the merits of Berlioz' operas over those of Donizetti, Rossini, or Bellini... and all three of them were far more successful at composing operas than such towering masters of profundity as Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, and Mahler.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Welcome to the forum ! Substance is in the ear of the listener. Many critics, fans and musicologists will accuse a work or a composer of "lacking substance" if they happen to dislike a work or the composer's music in general.
With Mozart, it's important to realize that he wrote many pleasant but rather formulaic works to please the aristocracy,. Many of them wanted pleasant,diverting works to make mealtime more fun. 
But he also wrote much more complex and meaty works, such as his last six symphonies, some of the piano concertos, the unfinished Requiem, Don Giovanni and other works, which some congoscenti of the time found much too complex to understand on first hearing.
You may remember the story about the Emperor Joseph, who was a admirer of Mozart said when he attended the first performance of the Mozart's opera "The Abduction From the Seraglio "? He stated that there were "too many notes" in it. 
He couldn't quite digest the opera on first hearing. 
No one could accuse Don Giovanni,Le Nozze Di Figaro, The Magic Flute, the clarinet concerto, the late piano concertos, the Requiem, the mature masses, and the famous trilogy of the last three symphonies etc of lacking substance !


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Substance, in reference to music, is a word used by people who think they understand what music is. They normally fail to realise that the 'substance' is the music i.e. the sound. To say any music lacks substance is nonsense. It's like saying the music lacks what makes it music.

So Mozart's music has plenty of substance, it's just that the substance is rubbish.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

For many, I think having "substance" might be defined as saying a _lot_ with a _little_. (Which is probably, in reality, a better definition of "economy" than it is of substance - but, I think the two are often confused in practice.)

That doesn't mean the work itself has to be short. What it does mean is the ability to create profound and moving statements out of the smallest of musical kernels.

But, to put it into perspective, Brahms is reported to have given an autograph by writing out the opening measures of "The Blue Danube" and signing it, "Not, alas, by Johannes Brahms". So, maybe substance isn't all it's cracked up to be.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Argus said:


> Substance, in reference to music, is a word used by people who think they understand what music is. They normally fail to realise that the 'substance' is the music i.e. the sound. To say any music lacks substance is nonsense. It's like saying the music lacks what makes it music.
> 
> So Mozart's music has plenty of substance, it's just that the substance is rubbish.


It would seem here that you are just assigning your own personal definition to a term that you don't understand. Because you don't seem to understand what might give one piece of music more substance than another, you assume that substance is just another term for music itself?

Lets use a food analogy - At first glance whole wheat bread and white bread seem very similar and seem to serve the same function. In fact in the past many people used to think white bread was actually healthier than whole grain. In fact they both appear to be made up of 'substance'. However they will have very different effects in the human digestive system. Where the one has many nutrients and fiber, in comparison white bread could be said to offer very little of 'substance', even if it may look and feel similar, and to some may taste quite good. However the objective reality is that it simply isn't as good for one's body, due to its lack of substance.

The same type of analogy could be used between _many_ (not all) modern pop songs, and a Mozart late symphony. These two pieces will have very different effects on the human psyche, whether people want to believe this or not. Where the Mozart symphony will tend to suggest ideas relating to profound human experience to those receptive to it, and concepts beyond verbal description, the majority of modern pop songs deal with very simple ideas in comparison usually related to more materialistic things and very transient human emotions. Therefore in the same way as some foods are life-giving and others are destructive, in a similar way it can be seen that some pieces of music give more than others, and clearly have more 'substance' for the human mind and emotions.

Edit - I'd like to add that for many brought up on junk-food - healthy food starts to taste terrible in comparison. (all though if you'll notice human babies prefer the healthiest human foods - fruits)

In the same way to many people brought up on junk-music - music of substance can start to sound bad ie - Mozart. These forms of brainwashing can take some effort to see past. It doesn't change the objective qualities of substance within food or music.


----------



## SeanW (Jul 5, 2011)

Thank you for all the responses everyone! I quite enjoyed reading through them all, some very interesting thoughts on the subject. I signed up for the right forum it would seem!


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

tdc said:


> It would seem here that you are just assigning your own personal definition to a term that you don't understand. Because you don't seem to understand what might give one piece of music more substance than another, you assume that substance is just another term for music itself?
> 
> Lets use a food analogy - At first glance whole wheat bread and white bread seem very similar and seem to serve the same function. In fact in the past many people used to think white bread was actually healthier than whole grain. In fact they both appear to be made up of 'substance'. However they will have very different effects in the human digestive system. Where the one has many nutrients and fiber, in comparison white bread could be said to offer very little of 'substance', even if it may look and feel similar, and to some may taste quite good. However the objective reality is that it simply isn't as good for one's body, due to its lack of substance.
> 
> ...





Argus said:


> Substance, in reference to music, is *a word used by people who think they understand what music is*.


Thanks for providing an example.

Music isn't food.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Argus said:


> Music isn't food.


Jeez - wrong again. You're on a roll, guy.



(food for the soul)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Argus said:


> Music isn't food.


For Black Sabbath devotees, indeed.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> "Music isn't food."
> 
> For Black Sabbath devotees, indeed.


Yeah, it makes sense people with taste would look at music in a deeper way than something that assists a biological process.


----------

