# Is instrumental music, by itself, a complete art form, or is it lacking something?



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm beginning to think that instrumental music, as an art unto itself, is incomplete. 

The Greeks thought so; they always used music to accompany drama, where it became part of a complete artistic, poetic statement. 

Art (poetry, drama) is ideally supposed to deal with Man, and have some sort of message, in order for it to say something that's not abstract, self-referential, and 'music for music's sake.'

Where is the poetry, the art, the Dionysian element, the drama, the story, in music by itself? 

It's not there; instrumental music becomes a self-referencing thing unto itself without a human voice or story attached to it; even Bob Dylan, singing a song with a message, with a guitar, communicates better with most people than some guy in a tuxedo playing a Handel sonata.

I remind you that instrumental music is an anomaly; music without text, voices, or narrative, did not make its appearance until much, much later in the development of music.

The performance of a Beethoven sonata, by a pianist in a concert hall, is simply doing 'lip service' to the idea of a dramatic performance. 

What are we doing sitting there, watching some guy in a tuxedo banging away? There's no essential plot or narrative there; we could close our eyes and get the music just as well, or even listen to a recording at home. Why go through the pretense of a 'performance' unless it's an opera? I don't see the point.

Unless you are a 'specialist' who likes music for its structure, its chord progressions, its texture, and its compositional methods, instrumental music by itself holds no promise of any artistic message, effect, or poetic revelation, apart from its existence as a relatively specialized language of sound, abstract, referring to no other artistic or poetic purpose except as itself; and this seems to be lacking as an art form for most people.

We are visually oriented, not aurally. We want to see and experience other people, in the context of dramatic action, as a dance performer, or even as KISS in costumes, breathing fire. Even a rock band knows this; 

MUSIC BY ITSELF IS NOT ENTERTAINING unless you're a specialist or a music nerd. Face the facts!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think different people have different genetic software or wetware. My closest friend is _only_ interested in words and a beat. I on the other hand am mostly interested in harmony or timbre and rhythm and words are secondary. As an illustrator I am perfectly happy thinking without words. You don't need words to make a statement about the human condition.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Are you serious or are you playing devil's advocate? I can't tell...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*Is instrumental music, by itself, a complete art form, or is it lacking something?*


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Yes, I think instrumental music is complete by itself, when composed by an expert.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The performance of a Beethoven sonata, by a pianist in a concert hall, is simply doing 'lip service' to the idea of a dramatic performance.
> 
> What are we doing sitting there, watching some guy in a tuxedo banging away? There's no essential plot or narrative there; we could close our eyes and get the music just as well, or even listen to a recording at home.


I'd rather go to a Georg Friedrich Haas concert, more often than not--you don't have to close your eyes when the space is in pitch darkness.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> I'd rather go to a Georg Friedrich Haas concert, more often than not--you don't have to close your eyes when the space is in pitch darkness.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*Really, things have changed a lot since the fourth Century B.C.E.*


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> ...What are we doing sitting there, watching some guy in a tuxedo banging... dramatic action, as a dance performer, or even as KISS in costumes, breathing fire...











There are many dubious and false premises in there too like "we are visually oriented, *not aurally*" as well as some faulty logic like the implied argumentum ad populum.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Beethoven's Opus 111 sonata alone conveys more about the ineffable than any play, opera, liturgy, novel, painting, or dance ever created. That ought to be worth something.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I feel that instrumental music is lacking certain degree of humanity acquired by presence of the human voice, but I still think that argumentation of the OP is gibberish.

Is intellectual gibberish, by itself, a complete art form, or is it lacking something?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

GGluek said:


> Beethoven's Opus 111 sonata alone conveys more about the ineffable than any play, opera, liturgy, novel, painting, or dance ever created. That ought to be worth something.


I like this statement, except for the "more about". What the music conveys is the quality known as 'The Ineffable'. 'Pure' music is able to do this _because_ 'the details' are not conveyed.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Well then call me a music nerd because I love instrumental music and I don't listen to opera for the plot.

Sure there are works that are made interesting by adding extra musical elements (i.e. the "drama" of a Beethoven sonata, where there is no story there until the listener says so), but how can you say the music by itself is not entertaining. Mozart's piano concertos? Tchaikovsky's orchestral suites? Chopin's nocturnes? I sincerely hope you aren't serious about this


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Worst thread ever!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Instrumental is my jam. I'm not overly fascinated with diction in music, but I do love hearing the human voice used more as an instrument rather a textbook translator. Most people don't have anything good to say anyway, so just play me some wondrous tunes.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> Most people don't have anything good to say anyway, so just play me some wondrous tunes.


From that point of view even instrumental music has nothing to say. If you disagree, try to explain your opinion with notes


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> From that point of view even instrumental music has nothing to say. If you disagree, try to explain your opinion with notes


I think we arrange tones much better than we chatter. Of course... I'm on a 'talk' site, so my hypocrisy knows no bounds.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm beginning to think that instrumental music, as an art unto itself, is incomplete.
> 
> The Greeks thought so; they always used music to accompany drama, where it became part of a complete artistic, poetic statement.
> 
> Art (poetry, drama) is ideally supposed to deal with Man, and have some sort of message, in order for it to say something that's not abstract, self-referential, and 'music for music's sake.'


Who cares what the Greeks thought. I'll decide what art I'll treat as art and what music I'll attach value to...I don't need to be told (though I'm happy to be informed).


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> MUSIC BY ITSELF IS NOT ENTERTAINING unless you're a specialist or a music nerd. Face the facts!


I'll face the music instead


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP:

As John McEnroe used to say: You* CANNOT* be serious!!!!


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Also, let's take a moment to move outside of the realm of classical. Why is jazz popular? Why is house/dubstep/electronic music popular? There are little to no lyrics in those, there are no stories in those, there's no "drama" to watch or follow along. According to the OP, there's no reason for anyone to enjoy these genre of music. Obviously, this is false.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm beginning to think that instrumental music, as an art unto itself, is incomplete.
> 
> The Greeks thought so; they always used music to accompany drama, where it became part of a complete artistic, poetic statement.


This is the sort of nonsense Wagner tried to sell, but he had the excuse of being a self-serving egomaniac.



millionrainbows said:


> Art (poetry, drama) is ideally supposed to deal with Man, and have some sort of message, in order for it to say something that's not abstract, self-referential, and 'music for music's sake.'


Nonsense. Plenty of visual art and poetry without "a message." Novels don't need "messages" either.



millionrainbows said:


> Where is the poetry, the art, the Dionysian element, the drama, the story, in music by itself?


You apparently haven't read much serious criticism of the last four decades. Narrative and dramatic analysis is a multifaceted and burgeoning field in music.



millionrainbows said:


> It's not there; instrumental music becomes a self-referencing thing unto itself without a human voice or story attached to it; even Bob Dylan, singing a song with a message, with a guitar, communicates better with most people than some guy in a tuxedo playing a Handel sonata.


And we who actually understand instrumental music are supposed to care why exactly?



millionrainbows said:


> I remind you that instrumental music is an anomaly; music without text, voices, or narrative, did not make its appearance until much, much later in the development of music.


This is just historically inaccurate. Instrumental music has existed from the time humans first banged on logs. And it has been notated for about 800 years.



millionrainbows said:


> The performance of a Beethoven sonata, by a pianist in a concert hall, is simply doing 'lip service' to the idea of a dramatic performance.
> 
> What are we doing sitting there, watching some guy in a tuxedo banging away? There's no essential plot or narrative there; we could close our eyes and get the music just as well, or even listen to a recording at home. Why go through the pretense of a 'performance' unless it's an opera?


Uhhh . . . because it is a performing art?



millionrainbows said:


> I don't see the point.


Don't worry, there are lots of aesthetically impoverished people who don't comprehend instrumental music. There may even be support groups they can join.



millionrainbows said:


> Unless you are a 'specialist' who likes music for its structure, its chord progressions, its texture, and its compositional methods, instrumental music by itself holds no promise of any artistic message, effect, or poetic revelation, apart from its existence as a relatively specialized language of sound, abstract, referring to no other artistic or poetic purpose except as itself; and this seems to be lacking as an art form for most people.


It is sad that _you_ derive no artistic effect, revelation, or value from instrumental music. The "language of sound" bit is a tired cliche.



millionrainbows said:


> MUSIC BY ITSELF IS NOT ENTERTAINING unless you're a specialist or a music nerd. Face the facts!


Threads voicing populist misconceptions and feigning monumental ignorance just to get a reaction aren't entertaining either.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

This is actually a great thread because it challenges something that we all instinctively deem to be a given. Everyone here, myself included, and probably millionrainbows as well, thinks that at least on some level, instrumental music is complete. But what if it isn't? This of course leads us to the old question: What is art? Or rather: What should art be?

A bourgeois or Kantian view of art says that pure art is something non-communicative that has to be contemplated. A bourgeois society is static with the exception of the soothing back-and-forward motion of supply and demand. Art is not a force that moves society forward, it is either simple recreational entertainment or abstract "high art" that engages the viewer in deep contemplation that produces pleasure. Either way, it it something that renews the working capacity of the bourgeois person and prepares him for another cycle of producing goods. Abstract painting, instrumental music and literary works that rely on structures and tropes fit well to this view of art.

Another rather similar view would encourage the same types of art. This is a religious society that does not embrace change or innovation. Pure instrumental music fits well to the glorification of God, provided that the forms of worship are seen as final, true and immutable. It may stir all possible emotions, but only very abstract or even "fuzzy" thoughts. With this I mean thoughts that come outside of the realm of music. Of course instrumental music may stir the widest range of "musical" thoughts.

When we add words to music, the thought-process of the listener changes. It is, then, much harder to stay in the realm of the abstract. We start to think about the realm of human beings, beings who communicate ideas and form societies based on these ideas. Hegel thought that poetry was the greatest art, surpassing music because of its ability to communicate more precisely and less abstractly, yet retaining the qualities of music in its rhythm and structure. And a Hegelian society and view of art is of course one that is ever progressing, a thought-process that drives our understanding of ourselves forward. Art is human-centered, not abstract. The abstract Pyramids are inferior to representative Greek Sculpture, after which art starts to decline in the Christian era, as the content overcomes form, leading ultimately to the "end" of art, as art becomes limited by its very form, unable to communicate the truths that can still be expressed by Religion and finally Philosophy. Art is still made but it has reached its limits (Arthur Danto thinks this happened in the sixties with Andy Warhol). Still, its function is to communicate its truth, not inside its own sphere but in the realm of humanity in general.

What is the prevailing Modernist view, then? Modernism was committed to the idea of progress, but went straight to the abstract. So, art should communicate, but progress at the same time. Then, the forms of communication grow ever more abstract, to progress from previous forms. Now these abstract paintings and pieces of instrumental music are not to be idly contemplated, but arduously translated. No wonder Modernists are so depressed, this is a very difficult task, and requires very good art critics who have consumed the whole history of art and are experts at talking to the general public.

Of these views that I conjured up (please don't take them too seriously, I'm writing this at the middle of the night and very tired), three lead to abstract art, including instrumental music. But these views are very flawed. One represents a society that is really static but in deceptive circular motion, another a honestly and bluntly static society, and the third a society that progresses but becomes suspicious about language, thus alienating art from the public. One view embraces representation and vocal music, because it insists a society that advances with the dialectic of language, but alas, it leads to the end of art, which is rather sad for us art-consumer types!

Maybe the take-home lesson is that vocal music is very human and very compatible with general Reason, and it is needed until we reach a perfectly satisfying society, after which we can stick to abstract art and instrumental music. Meanwhile, we can of course bask in the pure Kantian glory of instrumental music and do no harm to anyone, but we should remember, that it communicates very few clear ideas outside its own, very limited sphere.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Burroughs said:


> Worst thread ever!


Well, if not, it is at least on the Bookie's top two or three places to win list!


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Whether I agree with millions or not I can rarely fault him in terms of effort, he wants to open a dialogue and is careful to make his case in a fitting manner. This is leagues beyond the polls we are subjected to day in, day out, in which discussion is actively discouraged as much as possible.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Whether I agree with millions or not I can rarely fault him in terms of effort, he wants to open a dialogue and is careful to make his case in a fitting manner. This is leagues beyond the polls we are subjected to day in, day out, in which discussion is *actively discouraged as much as possible.*


_Explicitly_ discouraged, even. Yikes!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> Whether I agree with millions or not I can rarely fault him in terms of effort, he wants to open a dialogue and is careful to make his case in a fitting manner. This is leagues beyond the polls we are subjected to day in, day out, in which discussion is actively discouraged as much as possible.


Oh, be sure, he knows exactly what he's doing. Although sometimes I can't tell if he's screwing around or if he's really trying to probe an in-depth conversation by shaking the bucket to awaken the zombies. Maybe a little of both.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I would say that instrumental music lacks something. So does every other art form. It's that very sense of yearning incompletion that makes each form so powerful in its own way.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I can't remember if it was Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle who disliked art, poetry, and music. One of them believed that, since we are once removed from reality by being limited to our senses, then art was twice removed because it is our perception of our limited view of reality. Like the famous, "This is not a pipe" painting










Anyway, instrumental music does lack something, I would agree. It lacks articulated "meaning", as in any "message" it tries to convey is up for interpretation, so different people will have different perspectives on the same thing. This reflects how our senses limit us to one view of reality, only on a scale that is slightly more removed.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm beginning to think that instrumental music, as an art unto itself, is incomplete.
> 
> The Greeks thought so; they always used music to accompany drama, where it became part of a complete artistic, poetic statement.


*That's what you get when you opt out for monophony and a tiny bit of monophony!*



millionrainbows said:


> We want to see and experience other people, in the context of dramatic action, as a dance performer, or even as KISS in costumes, breathing fire. Even a rock band knows this....


*That's what you end up hungry for when you opt out for monodony, monophony, or the dead simplest forms of homophony -- like pop tunes and rock songs!*



millionrainbows said:


> MUSIC BY ITSELF IS NOT ENTERTAINING unless you're a specialist or a music nerd. Face the facts!


*That's what you end up hungry for when you opt out for monodony, monophony, or teethe on the dead simplest forms of homophony -- letting the musical part of your brain atrophy, feeding it the likes of folk music, pop tunes, and rock!!*


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Novelette said:


> _Explicitly_ discouraged, even. Yikes!


Actually, _implicity,_ or 'that one' would have been slapped down by HQ looooooong ago.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I've always thought that instrumental music is the most complete and coherent artistic style precisely because it is abstract. It is not limited to a specific time, place and cultural context. It can be approached by anyone and appreciated with no prior knowledge required.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I don't think this thread topic is packed with sincerity. A few more of these and I'd have to consider moving on.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Yes, I think instrumental music is complete by itself, when composed by an expert.


Can agree but the trouble was and still is, there are far less experts. Worse still, anyone can call themselves a composer these days because it is art.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

millionrainbows sure loves taking the **** out of people.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I suspect the odd thing about the way we do music is how little participation we do; the lack of words is not necessarily that strange. As far as I can tell, it is pretty common around the world to have instrumental music as well as to have songs. 

However, music with words is probably destined to be more popular at all times and in all places because the lyrics can appeal to people who don't get into the music itself.


----------



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm beginning to think that instrumental music, as an art unto itself, is incomplete.
> 
> The Greeks thought so; they always used music to accompany drama, where it became part of a complete artistic, poetic statement.


The Greeks also thought that any math that couldn't be drawn with a straightedge and compass was invalid. They were wrong about that _too_.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> I would say that instrumental music lacks something. So does every other art form. It's that very sense of yearning incompletion that makes each form so powerful in its own way.


Now _that_ is a provocative thought.

Being provoked, I must think...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Silly talk. Every piece of music, no matter what forces it's written for, no matter how bad or good, however short or long, is always exactly what it is. How then can it "lack" something?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Now _that_ is a provocative thought.
> 
> Being provoked, I must think...


If you come up with anything, let me know.

*Someone* has to explain to me what I meant.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Silly talk. Every piece of music, no matter what forces it's written for, no matter how bad or good, however short or long, is always exactly what it is. How then can it "lack" something?


I'm with KenOC on that one.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> MUSIC BY ITSELF IS NOT ENTERTAINING unless you're a specialist or a music nerd. Face the facts!


THIS THREAD BY ITSELF IS NOT ENTERTAINING unless you are the author or an iconoclast who likes to "stir the pot." Face the facts!

V


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> millionrainbows sure loves taking the **** out of people.


Thirsty for something, then, I suppose.


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

For my part, I love sound. When it's organized in such a way as to give a sense of direction or purpose, so much the better. I often find visual elements to be a distraction, although if the visual and audible are sufficiently integrated (as in ballet) I can enjoy them both. Lyrics aren't necessary, but again if they are integrated with the music I can enjoy both. But I would never feel that a Haydn symphony or a Ligeti Etude were incomplete because it lacked visual or lyrical content. 

By the way, Harry Partch went into great length on this topic in his "Genesis of a Music." I'm curious as to whether you're familiar with it. I've read it may years ago and didn't have a lot of sympathy for what I then viewed as a extreme, even isolationist view. But it was fascinating reading.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

violadude said:


> Are you serious or are you playing devil's advocate? I can't tell...


That's an astute observation, violadude. A little of both, actually, but I'm working on a new "theory" about narrative "content: and what this means, even as applied to 'abstract' art and music, which I'm beginning to think has an unrecognized "narrative" which must be known to get into the work in more depth.

Even supposedly 'abstract music' or music which is appreciated as such, regardless of origin, like Rite of Spring (I know, it's a ballet with a plot), which is appreciated on an abstract level without the dancers. It is full of 'dramatic gesture.'


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Xaltotun said:


> This is actually a great thread because it challenges something that we all instinctively deem to be a given. Everyone here, myself included, and probably millionrainbows as well, thinks that at least on some level, instrumental music is complete. But what if it isn't? This of course leads us to the old question: What is art? Or rather: What should art be?
> 
> .


Ah, yes, Xaltotun, this makes up for all the negative responses. Food for thought.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Whether I agree with millions or not I can rarely fault him in terms of effort, he wants to open a dialogue and is careful to make his case in a fitting manner. This is leagues beyond the polls we are subjected to day in, day out, in which discussion is actively discouraged as much as possible.


Crudblud! I didn't know you cared!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Oh, be sure, he knows exactly what he's doing. Although sometimes I can't tell if he's screwing around or if he's really trying to probe an in-depth conversation by shaking the bucket to awaken the zombies. Maybe a little of both.


You and violadude think alike on this...you can't trust me...:lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> That's an astute observation, violadude. A little of both, actually, but I'm working on a new "theory" about narrative "content: and what this means, even as applied to 'abstract' art and music, which I'm beginning to think has an unrecognized "narrative" which must be known to get into the work in more depth.
> 
> Even supposedly 'abstract music' or music which is appreciated as such, regardless of origin, like Rite of Spring (I know, it's a ballet with a plot), which is appreciated on an abstract level without the dancers. It is full of 'dramatic gesture.'


Is your theory that all instrumental music has an implied plot, or only that some does?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> Is your theory that all instrumental music has an implied plot, or only that some does?


Some definitely does, and maybe all does. Instrumental music is not, literally, about any particular "narrative." This doesn't mean it has no other meaning, such as evoking strong emotional states. Instrumental music, when divorced from literal action and drama, lost its connection to *explicit* meaning, and was revealed for what it is: a non-representational medium, the *abstract evocation of "inner" states of being,* which, coincidentally, is exactly what "abstract art" does: it reveals the artist's, and by empathy, the viewer's inner emotional state of being. Music gradually divorced itself from drama over several centuries. Look at the rise of instrumental forms: the symphony, the concerto, tone poems, etc.

In instrumental Romanticism, although it was music divorced from drama, still had residual traces of drama, expressed as *dramatic gestures.
*
This "splitting" of drama from music opened-up a new can of worms, giving us the whole range of the non-specific "feelings" evoked by music, which are by their very "non-narrative nature" fleeting, transitory, and ephemeral, unclear, evocative, vague, and indefinable (meaning non-narrative).

So what was earlier said about instrumental music being 'vague' is true, and this keeps it from becoming too explicit in literal meaning, which can work in two directions. It is divorced from explicit meaning of text or dogma, but it can also be used to take advantage of this vagueness, as a malleable, passive vehicle for whatever purpose we choose.

And this is why, by itself, instrumental music is a sort of *passive *vehicle, easily used to accentuate action or drama, or to enhance some other more explicit purpose, but by itself, incomplete in conveying any explicit artistic purpose, except as sensual stimulation.

In this sense, I can't see how instrumental music is superior to the 'mindless dance music' Petr was so vehemently appostulating, since it is an 'empty' sensual experience. Apparently, titillation in itself is enough for some music lovers. But where did the 'art' go?

It's clear from the responses that music is seen as a medium of expressing emotions. Nobody seems to think about the more explicit content of it, or the 'artistic' goals or message.

There is lots of implied meaning in different genres of music, such a heavy metal and rock music in general, which expresses adolescent concerns: rebellion, resistance to assimilation, physicality. These, however shallow, are 'artistic goals.'


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Actually, _implicity,_ or 'that one' would have been slapped down by HQ looooooong ago.


Quite. Unless mutual league........


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Well for me Mozart piano concertos or Haydn symphonies are a 'complete ' art form 
Doesn't matter what you chose there could always be more added to any piece of music but it wouldn't in my mind make it more complete.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Do any of these need music, dance, a story? After all, we stand or sit and just look at them 

.........






.....






.....








I do think that if a person's early experiences with music have all been folk song, pop or rock (almost always a song) that _they will be almost forever bound to the Orphic Myth,_ able to only relate any music they hear to song and - or dance, and they will likely forever after feel a lack when they later first encounter 'absolute' instrumental music, i.e. always expecting it should somehow relate to dance, song, or some very literal narrative.

It is easy to say to those without an early experience of absolute classical music, "Just drop the expectations you have of music," but the fact they were first imprinted with non-classical music and then repeated that exposure from earliest childhood often into their late teen years or early adulthood must make it difficult, or impossible, for any with such a background to completely disassociate themselves from it in order to 'hear the sense' in a piece of music which is 'just music.'


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

^ ^ PetrB, my own life experience indicates that you are wrong.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ukko said:


> ^ ^ PetrB, my own life experience indicates that you are wrong.


Hey, if the OP can construct something so clearly outrageous to stir the pot, why not...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Cosmos said:


> Anyway, instrumental music does lack something, I would agree. It lacks articulated "meaning", as in *any "message" it tries to convey is up for interpretation, so different people will have different perspectives on the same thing*. This reflects how our senses limit us to one view of reality, only on a scale that is slightly more removed.


This is true of all art, surely?


----------



## BRHiler (May 3, 2014)

"Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent.”

― Victor Hugo, Hugo's Works: William Shakespeare


----------



## BRHiler (May 3, 2014)

And on a personal note, I actually prefer non-vocal music because of the reasons why the OP said we needed words. My dad told me when I was young that when I listened to classical music I would make up a story to go with it. Now, it's a little more involved and less cut and dry. 

Take Shostakovich #5. We all know that this piece was his "redemption" piece after the debacle that was Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk (thanks to Stalin). Shostakovich himself said that #5 was "an artist's creative response to just criticism"

BUT, I also believe (from research and personal opinion) that D.S. was very tongue in cheek with the statement and the symphony. On the surface level, yes, it's a triumphant piece of music with a proud, strong ending. But if you study the piece and the history surrounding it, the ending is anything but triumphant. The strings and WW's screaming eighth note A's for literally the last two minutes to me sounds like someone strangling you saying, "You will be happy! You will be happy!" It's a forced victory with a lot of anger in it. This is just one of many examples of, again my opinion, hidden and less than obvious digs at Stalin and the Communist Party

Now, would D.S. have gotten away with all of this if he had words to go with the music. I believe the answer is no. This absolute music (i.e. not programmatic) doesn't have a story, but there's a lot more involved than the notes, and rhythm, etc. 

When I listen to programmatic music, I try to envision the story in the music, and that's honestly the way I prefer it to be. It's similar with reading a book. You have your own image of what the characters look like. If you see the movie for the book, then read the book, you have their image in your mind, not your own.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_


Xaltotun said:



This is actually a great thread because it challenges something that we all instinctively deem to be a given. Everyone here, myself included, and probably millionrainbows as well, thinks that at least on some level, instrumental music is complete. But what if it isn't? This of course leads us to the old question: What is art? Or rather: What should art be?

A bourgeois or Kantian view of art says that pure art is something non-communicative that has to be contemplated. A bourgeois society is static with the exception of the soothing back-and-forward motion of supply and demand. Art is not a force that moves society forward, it is either simple recreational entertainment or abstract "high art" that engages the viewer in deep contemplation that produces pleasure. Either way, it it something that renews the working capacity of the bourgeois person and prepares him for another cycle of producing goods. Abstract painting, instrumental music and literary works that rely on structures and tropes fit well to this view of art.

Another rather similar view would encourage the same types of art. This is a religious society that does not embrace change or innovation. Pure instrumental music fits well to the glorification of God, provided that the forms of worship are seen as* final, true and immutable.* It may stir all possible emotions, but only very abstract or even "fuzzy" thoughts. With this I mean thoughts that come outside of the realm of music. Of course instrumental music may stir the widest range of "musical" thoughts.

Click to expand...

_
Besides the fact of music being instrumental, let us consider the ear vs. the eye.

The act of *notation *creates a musical art form which is visual (not aural) and creates a commodity, a real object, which is not dependent on biological memory (aural folk-forms) but becomes a definitive musical text, an unchanging replica, which is the musical corollary to scriptural text. This is desirable for those agents (such as the Church, upper-class nobles, or State) who wish to convey a consistent, unchanging message. This distinguishes aural (ear-based) folk forms from Church music, where notation evolved out of convenience in remembering chant, and coordinating large groups of singers toward a singular purpose.
_


Xaltotun said:



When we add words to music, the thought-process of the listener changes. It is, then, much harder to stay in the realm of the abstract. We start to think about the realm of human beings, beings who communicate ideas and form societies based on these ideas.

Click to expand...

_
But instead of either/or, consider how notated music can be used in its old familiar Greek function as an enhancement to a text-based verbal, or dramatic/ritual content. Music becomes a sugar-coated pill which makes the ideology more appealing, just as music makes commercials more exciting. Thus, music is used again as a passive vessel to convey ideological content, because of its 'fuzzy' abstract, open-ended nature.

_


Xaltotun said:



Hegel thought that poetry was the greatest art, surpassing music because of its ability to communicate more precisely and less abstractly, yet retaining the qualities of music in its rhythm and structure. And* a Hegelian society and view of art is of course one that is ever progressing, *a thought-process that drives our understanding of ourselves forward.

Click to expand...

_


Xaltotun said:


> *Art is human-centered, not abstract.
> 
> *_The abstract Pyramids are inferior to representative Greek Sculpture, after which art starts to decline in the Christian era, as the content overcomes form, leading ultimately to the "end" of art, as art becomes limited by its very form, unable to communicate the truths that can still be expressed by Religion and finally Philosophy. Art is still made but it has reached its limits (Arthur Danto thinks this happened in the sixties with Andy Warhol). Still, its function is to communicate its truth, not inside its own sphere but in the realm of humanity in general._


_
_
When music becomes a commodity, it becomes dehumanized. I tend to disagree with the direction you are headed here. Whenever art becomes a vehicle for the conveyance of power or religion, it becomes dehumanized, in that it expresses a more collective, unifying ideology, which is where the power and control-base is.

The Greeks celebrated the beauty of the human form in their figurative sculpture, which is true art, but the architecture was monolithic and represented the collective, as with the Colliseum, where the drama of power was played out in cruelty.

_


Xaltotun said:



What is the prevailing Modernist view, then? Modernism was committed to the idea of progress, but went straight to the abstract. So, art should communicate, but progress at the same time. Then, the forms of communication grow ever more abstract, to progress from previous forms. Now these abstract paintings and pieces of instrumental music are not to be idly contemplated, but arduously translated. No wonder Modernists are so depressed, this is a very difficult task, and requires very good art critics who have consumed the whole history of art and are experts at talking to the general public.

Click to expand...

_I disagree with you here; *abstraction* is by its very nature non-ideological, referring only to itself and its materials (paint is a brushstroke, just paint, and is not used to represent or fool the eye). Abstraction tends to be an inward-turning of the individual, concerning his inner states of being, not ideology.

Recall the fascist, Nazi, Soviet, and Chinese resistance to modernism and abstraction. Schoenberg developed serial methods as a way of taking artistic control of music away from the burden of Viennese traditional tonality and forms, which had treated Mahler and him so shoddily. This gave Schoenberg artistic control, and he was no longer carrying the flag of nationalism which reached its apotheosis in WW II.

_


Xaltotun said:



Of these views that I conjured up (please don't take them too seriously, I'm writing this at the middle of the night and very tired), three lead to abstract art, including instrumental music. But these views are very flawed. One represents a society that is really static but in deceptive circular motion, another a honestly and bluntly static society, and the third a society that progresses but becomes suspicious about language, thus alienating art from the public. One view embraces representation and vocal music, because it insists a society that advances with the dialectic of language, but alas, it leads to the end of art, which is rather sad for us art-consumer types!

Click to expand...

_I find the general thrust of your ideas to be quite intriguing, not only for the fact that they are productive and positive in spirit to this thread. 
_


Xaltotun said:



Maybe the take-home lesson is that vocal music is very human and very compatible with general Reason, and it is needed until we reach a perfectly satisfying society, after which we can stick to abstract art and instrumental music. Meanwhile, we can of course bask in the pure Kantian glory of instrumental music and do no harm to anyone, but we should remember, that it communicates very few clear ideas outside its own, very limited sphere.

Click to expand...

_A noble sentiment, but I think it all depends on who is wielding the power and creating the forms. I think Beethoven, the first independent composer to embody individual values to empower the artist, used instrumental forms because of their open, free, abstract nature, which allowed him, like all abstract art does, to express his inner feelings and vision, rather than reflect an outer reality or ideology.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I didn't read the entire initial post, but for this last sentence:

"MUSIC BY ITSELF IS NOT ENTERTAINING unless you're a specialist or a music nerd. Face the facts!"

I couldn't disagree more! Music by itself is very entertaining and it is not just classical, but jazz, rock and ethnic art musics, that make extensive use of instrumental music. The huge fan bases for these musics, that span centuries, indicate that instrumental music is definitely not just for specialists and nerds.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> I didn't read the entire initial post, but for this last sentence:
> 
> "MUSIC BY ITSELF IS NOT ENTERTAINING unless you're a specialist or a music nerd. Face the facts!"
> 
> I couldn't disagree more! Music by itself is very entertaining and it is not just classical, but jazz, rock and ethnic art musics, that make extensive use of instrumental music. The huge fan bases for these musics, that span centuries, indicate that instrumental music is definitely not just for specialists and nerds.


I think "entertainment" is a complete form, and it needs drama or some sort of action, like ballet. I think instrumental music is more self-directed "art," and those connoissuers who understand the language will derive its full benefit.

Jazz is another story altogether.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Recall the fascist, Nazi, Soviet, and Chinese resistance to modernism and abstraction. Schoenberg developed serial methods as a way of taking artistic control of music away from the burden of Viennese traditional tonality and forms, which had treated Mahler and him so shoddily. This gave Schoenberg artistic control, and he was no longer carrying the flag of nationalism which reached its apotheosis in WW II.


Oh, was that why?

I've always been wondering why his first 12-tone piece was a _waltz_. Now I know! It's because he wanted to declare his independence from Viennese traditions!

Wait, that doesn't make any sense...


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think "entertainment" is a complete form, and it needs drama or some sort of action, like ballet. I think instrumental music is more self-directed "art," and those connoissuers who understand the language will derive its full benefit.
> 
> Jazz is another story altogether.


Idk if I agree with the notion that instrumental music isn't entertaining. I mean, listening to it is how I often entertain myself! While you could focus on the artistic aspect, there are plenty of pieces that aren't great works of art, or that compelling, that are still fun to listen to (foot tapping rhythms, fun melodies, etc.).


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> ...those connoissuers who understand the language will derive its full benefit.


I wouldn't dispute that, but there is enough there for anyone.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Oh, was that why?
> 
> I've always been wondering why his first 12-tone piece was a _waltz_. Now I know! It's because he wanted to declare his independence from Viennese traditions!
> 
> Wait, that doesn't make any sense...


It does make sense to me, in that Schoenberg was a conservative by origin, became disenchanted with the treatment he received, and by _subverting _a traditional form, and melding it to his own aims, he was thus 'appropriating' the waltz for his own personal artistic use, rather than perpetuating it as a Nationalistic symbol of German music, like* Richard Strauss' *slight tweaking of the waltz in *Der Rosenkavalier*_ (Wow! He modulated to a distant area!)
_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Cosmos said:


> Idk if I agree with the notion that instrumental music isn't entertaining. I mean, listening to it is how I often entertain myself! While you could focus on the artistic aspect, there are plenty of pieces that aren't great works of art, or that compelling, that are still fun to listen to (foot tapping rhythms, fun melodies, etc.).


Give me some slack in this exact quoting. My meaning may change their colors in different contexts. I'm a poet, probing for meaning. It may be inexact at times, not totally consistent like a mathematical theorem.

Instrumental music is 'entertaining' in a limited sense, but it is incomplete as a total art form for most of the general public. It is abstract by nature. It did not rise to prominence until the concept of 'art' had developed.

This applies to notated music, which is 'institutional' by nature.

Jazz is instrumental, but it is essentially a 'folk' form, representing a collective of humanity, not an institutional ideology.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Recall that serialism came to this country after the Nazis declared it 'degenerate,' with the disenfranchised composers like Stephan Wolpe and Ernst Krenek. 

Krenek said he always felt serialism was 'anti-Nazi,' so there is a definite anti-nationalistic thrust to it, which made it appealing to new post WW-II composers. In this way, serialism has political implications, and I think Schoenberg developed his 12-tone method for more than musical reasons.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

PetrB said:


> I do think that if a person's early experiences with music have all been folk song, pop or rock (almost always a song) that _they will be almost forever bound to the Orphic Myth,_ able to only relate any music they hear to song and - or dance, and they will likely forever after feel a lack when they later first encounter 'absolute' instrumental music, i.e. always expecting it should somehow relate to dance, song, or some very literal narrative.
> 
> It is easy to say to those without an early experience of absolute classical music, "Just drop the expectations you have of music," but the fact they were first imprinted with non-classical music and then repeated that exposure from earliest childhood often into their late teen years or early adulthood must make it difficult, or impossible, for any with such a background to completely disassociate themselves from it in order to 'hear the sense' in a piece of music which is 'just music.'


I think you have an interesting posit here. I never considered that. I think to Ukko's point, there are exceptions. Perhaps Ukko already had a natural disposition towards classical music but was just never exposed to it considerably. Conversely, I'm sure there are those who are born and raised on classical, never hear Rock for the first 25 years of their life, reject classical music (perhaps was never moved by it in the first place) and become a life long "rocker."

I instinctually agree with your premise. I am sure it is more difficult for most people who have only been exposed to folk/pop music for decades to suddenly and easily acclimate to classical music. Pity that one must always include exceptions to any generalization nowadays. It's as if everyone has forgotten that exceptions are ALWAYS insinuated in any rule or generalization. Hence the word "generalization."

V


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> That's an astute observation, violadude. A little of both, actually, but I'm working on a new "theory" about narrative "content: and what this means, even as applied to 'abstract' art and music, which I'm beginning to think has an unrecognized "narrative" which must be known to get into the work in more depth.
> 
> Even supposedly 'abstract music' or music which is appreciated as such, regardless of origin, like Rite of Spring (I know, it's a ballet with a plot), which is appreciated on an abstract level without the dancers. It is full of 'dramatic gesture.'


There is a well-developed subdiscipline in music theory and musicology, usually called musical narrative theory, in which these possibilities have been explored for the last fifty years. Among the studies most directly relevant to what you seem to be proposing are Fred Maus's "Music as Drama," in which musical structure is parsed as coherent series of dramatic gestures (in _Music and Meaning_, ed. Jenefer Robinson). Phillip G. Downs approached the first movement of the _Eroica_ as abstract drama in the late 1960s (in The Creative World of Beethoven). James Webster did an abstract dramatic analysis of Brahms's Tragic Overture. Some of the best minds in modern music scholarship have also made contributions to this field (Leo Treitler, Anthony Newcomb, Edward T. Cone, and many others). Numerous other studies have approached music as a form of abstract drama. If you haven't read this material, you might want to do so before you reinvent a well-worn wheel.

The hundreds of studies done in musical narrative and dramatic interpretation offer myriad perspectives on the ways and means by which instrumental music goes beyond abstract patterning or entertainment and thus aligns it with the essential concerns of humanistic experience.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Do any of these need music, dance, a story? After all, we stand or sit and just look at them
> 
> .........
> View attachment 44190
> ...





Varick said:


> I think you have an interesting posit here. I never considered that. I think to Ukko's point, there are exceptions. Perhaps Ukko already had a natural disposition towards classical music but was just never exposed to it considerably. Conversely, I'm sure there are those who are born and raised on classical, never hear Rock for the first 25 years of their life, reject classical music (perhaps was never moved by it in the first place) and become a life long "rocker."
> 
> I instinctually agree with your premise. I am sure it is more difficult for most people who have only been exposed to folk/pop music for decades to suddenly and easily acclimate to classical music. Pity that one must always include exceptions to any generalization nowadays. It's as if everyone has forgotten that exceptions are ALWAYS insinuated in any rule or generalization. Hence the word "generalization."
> 
> V


I think part of the problem is that music notation created a division between creator and performer, which is instinctively dehumanizing on a certain level.

Music (folk or tribal) started out as a participatory experience, demanding involvement and collective experience; thus the appeal of "tribal" rock concerts in which the audience is involved to a much greater degree than the detached, cool separation experienced in a classical concert hall.

This separation of composer and performer is really a characteristic of "art" music which is notated. It was created for the entertainment of an isolated segment of humanity which was an elite (Church ritual or entertainment of royals), and it served their purposes as an object of contemplation, not as a collective, participatory experience.

In the end, it is really not crucial whether music is instrumental or not; what matters is its essence, and the purpose it serves. Black jazz is a viable and compelling form even to those outside the circle, because it expresses the alienation and dehumanizing experience of capitalism, where music becomes a commodity rather than a human expression.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> ...those connoissuers who understand the language will derive its full benefit.


...but this is true of just about anything, from popular music, including jazz, classical -- any of the fine arts, or in other disciplines like philosophy, maths, science....

...so, *"so what?"*

Otherwise, this implies or seems to have a sub-text of desire for a simplification or dumb-down of any of the finer and fine arts in order that they be more generally populist / popular.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I wonder if the level you're trying to reach has an audience here. Even if it did, this is still a rather difficult subject to pursue on a forum, although I admire your ambition for something more. I feel most of your post deal in a sort of 'intuitional' basis were intellectual discussions break down, and just don't fulfill, after a certain depth. Most want "concrete factualisms" to land on and feel secure about... where you're conversations require more dedication and subjectivity to bear fruit, and it doesn't seem many have the will to do this on a classical music forum. It should be more and more obvious of the surrounding goals by how the absurd 'pole threads' garner more attention than anything else... and there actual are a lot of intelligent members here. Imagine how other forums are....

But like I said, I admire your push for something a bit deeper. 

:tiphat:


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

Question(s): "_ Is instrumental music, by itself, a complete art form, or [ii] is it lacking something?"

Answers: (i) yes; (ii) no._


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Did you seriously say that Schoenberg wasn't nationalistic? XD I guess Chopin wasn't either then.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

The concept of art and music as mere 'entertainment' is deplorable. All great art is sacred and true; an expression love.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Did you seriously say that Schoenberg wasn't nationalistic?


From Wiki:
-------------------------------------------
In August 1914, while denouncing the music of Bizet, Stravinsky and Ravel, he wrote: "Now comes the reckoning! Now we will throw these mediocre kitschmongers into slavery, and teach them to venerate the German spirit and to worship the German God."
-------------------------------------------
I'm sure he wasn't like that all the time, but it does seem fairly nationalistic.

Also, upon developing the 12-tone system: "I have made a discovery that will ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

LOL. Look at it this way and see if the postulation _really_ makes any sense.

A book, considered fine literature, is incomplete as a satisfying entertainment because it lacks illustrations and an accompanying CD to pop in as background music for each chapter.

I think what you are getting at with the folk audience and the folk narrator - story teller / performer is so worlds apart you may as well extol the virtues of living with only candlelight, no electricity, and making our own soap. Basically, you are saying the authors of the world might give it up and instead become story tellers who keep their repertoire in memory only and perform for the village folk around the fire, or a small group gathered around the hearth.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I think part of the problem is that music notation created a division between creator and performer, which is instinctively dehumanizing on a certain level.


Dehumanising? Why? How? Only if you are of the opinion that there is some ideal cultural state for a human being in the first place and that certain cultural practices will either elevate or reduce.

Am I dehumanised by discussing Stravinsky's art here on TC instead of getting up and dancing to the Rite?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Is noise sounds, noise genre type of music, by itself, a complete art form, or is it lacking something? Serious question, becaise the examples I suggested are as pure as noise as you can get without human voices. If this also qualifies, then I think so does normal sounding istrumental music by implication.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I'm getting a little bit tired and disappointed with this, so I'll throw in some more to discuss:

Is the music of Debussy the ultimate realization of the Wagnerian ideal? 

Are all the music genres and styles contained in the orchestral works of Second Viennese School; can these be isolated via a common systematic operator? 

Does musical innovation actually exist or is it a pervasive illusion?

From an absolutely technical stand point, Can Mahler's late symphonies be considered 'Baroque music'? If not, Why not?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I'm getting a little bit tired and disappointed with this, so I'll throw in some more to discuss:
> 
> Is the music of Debussy the ultimate realization of the Wagnerian ideal?
> 
> ...


Totally reasonable, all of them


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> ...but this is true of just about anything, from popular music, including jazz, classical -- any of the fine arts, or in other disciplines like philosophy, maths, science...Otherwise, this implies or seems to have a sub-text of desire for a simplification or dumb-down of any of the finer and fine arts in order that they be more generally populist / popular.


That's a n*egative *way of positing this dialectic. 

Notated art music was developed to further the aims of the ruling class. Music became a commodity for their benefit and power.

Art is unlike math, medicine, or science, because it is non-utilitarian. It's highest purpose should be to express the human experience. That's not a 'dumb-down"---that's humanity. The same thing happened to religion, which should be available to everyone.

It's still true today: Johnny Cash was rejected by the 'country music industry' because he was an old has-been, until "the grass roots people' recognized his worth and respected him in his last days with new recordings. This was in direct opposition to the Nashville Music Industry, who had other 'commodities' to sell us.

You must retain the humanity in music, or it becomes an alienating experience. Only when art resonates with the people does it become relevant and meaningful as art.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Did you seriously say that Schoenberg wasn't nationalistic? XD I guess Chopin wasn't either then.


He might have been nationalistic at first, but after he was forced out of Germany, I think his nationalism waned a bit. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> The concept of art and music as mere 'entertainment' is deplorable. All great art is sacred and true; an expression love.


Agreed! What you mean is that all great art is an expression of humanity in the collective, universal sense, not a commodified product designed to perpetuate profitability.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Originally Posted by BurningDesire **Did you seriously say that Schoenberg wasn't nationalistic?
*


KenOC said:


> From Wiki:
> -------------------------------------------
> In August 1914, while denouncing the music of Bizet, Stravinsky and Ravel, he wrote: "Now comes the reckoning! Now we will throw these mediocre kitschmongers into slavery, and teach them to venerate the German spirit and to worship the German God."
> -------------------------------------------
> ...


Later, after he was forced out of his "beloved" Germany, he returned to "the God of the Jews." You left that part out. :lol:



KenOC said:


> Also, upon developing the 12-tone system: "I have made a discovery that will ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years."


Funny, the Nazis didn't think so. Plus, I think he was wrong! How does serialism promote nationalism? :lol:

By retreating into 12-tone 'abstraction,' Schoenberg (unwittingly, perhaps) was essentially dismantling the established musical language of the bourgeois and the State, which had been tonality. I notice that there's no atonal national anthems! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> LOL. Look at it this way and see if the postulation _really_ makes any sense.
> 
> A book, considered fine literature, is incomplete as a satisfying entertainment because it lacks illustrations and an accompanying CD to pop in as background music for each chapter.
> 
> I think what you are getting at with the folk audience and the folk narrator - story teller / performer is so worlds apart you may as well extol the virtues of living with only candlelight, no electricity, and making our own soap. Basically, you are saying the authors of the world might give it up and instead become story tellers who keep their repertoire in memory only and perform for the village folk around the fire, or a small group gathered around the hearth.


No, you are erroneously equating the aural (ear) with primitivism. The aural is collective and participatory, and 'tribal' rather than being the tool of an elite ruling minority.

You are not seeing the qualities of aurality in the correct perspective. You must compare it to the visual, and understand that one is not better than the other; they are different modes of experience, with different consequences.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_*Originally Posted by millionrainbows *__*I think part of the problem is that music notation created a division between creator and performer, which is instinctively dehumanizing on a certain level.

*_


MacLeod said:


> Dehumanising? Why? How? Only if you are of the opinion that there is some ideal cultural state for a human being in the first place and that certain cultural practices will either elevate or reduce.


When notation separated composer from performer (which used to be united as one), then the musician became a 'performer' who simply read the score, at the service of the composer and conductor, in an *hierarchy* of power which went from the top of the pyramid down, with instrumentalists at the bottom. This is what I referred to as 'dehumanizing.'

Jazz is improvisatory; it is a very human expression of the personality of the player, who is empowered, unlike the second oboist on the third row of a symphony orchestra.



MacLeod said:


> Am I dehumanised by discussing Stravinsky's art here on TC instead of getting up and dancing to the Rite?


Yes, in the sense that you are now a detached observer rather than an active participant in the actual creation of sound. This is what art music is for: the detached amusement of the elite, as an object of contemplation.

By 'dehumanizing,' I mean that the music is serving an agenda of an elite power-class *(hierarchical), *rather than being a spontaneous expression of a collective humanity or group *(non-hierarchical, collective, or tribal),* like jazz is.

Let's see you dance anyway! :lol:

There are other, more crucial reasons that it is dehumanizing, but I'll wait until those come up for invalidation to explain further.:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I'm getting a little bit tired and disappointed with this_ *(you and me both! - ed.), *_so I'll throw in some more to discuss:
> 
> Is the music of Debussy the ultimate realization of the Wagnerian ideal?


No, not in the sense I'm thinking of. You'd better articulate that Wagnerian ideal. Do you mean art-drama as one?

Otherwise, I see Debussy as being in opposition to Wagner's nationalism, because Debussy further eroded nationalism's essential language, tonality, further than Wagner did. Debussy was moving 'inward' to poetic territory, away from the outward-directed reality of nationalism. It is this inward-travelling introspective poetic abstraction which modernism embodied, which was the antithesis of nationalism and 'social realism.'



Richannes Wrahms said:


> Are all the music genres and styles contained in the orchestral works of Second Viennese School; can these be isolated via a common systematic operator?


I don't see 'genres and styles' as being the crucial element. I see the deliberate, systematic dissolution of the tonal hierarchy as being the most important 'systematic operator.'



Richannes Wrahms said:


> Does musical innovation actually exist or is it a pervasive illusion?


To be innovative, I would think that music, like all art, should reflect the experience of the social matrix it is immersed in, and this can become quite complex, like trying to predict the weather.



Richannes Wrahms said:


> From an absolutely technical stand point, Can Mahler's late symphonies be considered 'Baroque music'? If not, Why not?


Well, that depends on what sense you intend "Baroque" to mean. I see the question as flawed, because Baroque music can't be defined in 'absolutely technical' terms, for my purposes. If you have a point concerning this, it's your job, not mine, to explain it.

Generally speaking, Baroque music came out of a more collective mindset than late Romanticism, so it had less to do with expressing the individual's experience, and more to do with furthering the purposes of authority.


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

I like "total systematic operator" :lol:



PetrB said:


> Totally reasonable, all of them


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> That's a n*egative *way of positing this dialectic.
> 
> *Notated art music was developed to further the aims of the ruling class. Music became a commodity for their benefit and power.*


You could say the same about the invention of writing. Sorry, I find both just ludicrous because they fly in the face of mankind's inherent tendecy to invent and develop ideas -- the very motivation for coming up with writing and music notation.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2014)

All I can say, million, is that you do like a fanciful idea, and you might like to think more carefully before suggesting that people here are in some way 'dehumanised'.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I think part of the problem is that music notation created a division between creator and performer, which is instinctively dehumanizing on a certain level.


I'm with MacLeod on this one. How on earth is that dehumanizing? Then every book is dehumanizing because there is a division between author and reader. Every painting is dehumanizing between the artist and the viewer and on and on. By creating notation, much like creating words, you are elevating the art hopefully to the sublime and inspiring the human condition.

That notation elevated our understanding and allowed an explosion of creativity within music, much like written language allowed a greater understanding and an explosion of creativity within human communication. From that you got chant, diatonic form, the well tempered clavier and on and on and as for written language we got documentation of history, specificity, literature and poetry.

Oh no my friend, what you see as diminishment, I see as glorious growth, potential, and because of all that a great wealth in humanity.



millionrainbows said:


> Music (folk or tribal) started out as a participatory experience, demanding involvement and collective experience; thus the appeal of "tribal" rock concerts in which the audience is involved to a much greater degree than the detached, cool separation experienced in a classical concert hall.


You've written about this before as if a "collective" experience is always better than a solo experience or one with a few people. In some cases I'm sure this is true and in other cases it is not.



millionrainbows said:


> This separation of composer and performer is really a characteristic of "art" music which is notated. It was created for the entertainment of an isolated segment of humanity which was an elite (Church ritual or entertainment of royals), and it served their purposes as an object of contemplation, not as a collective, participatory experience.


Again, not quite sure why that is necessarily a bad thing.



millionrainbows said:


> In the end, it is really not crucial whether music is instrumental or not; what matters is its essence, and the purpose it serves. Black jazz is a viable and compelling form even to those outside the circle, because it expresses the alienation and dehumanizing experience of capitalism, where music becomes a commodity rather than a human expression.


Not quite sure how capitalism is alienating and I certainly don't understand how capitalism is "dehumanizing." With all it's flaws (and there are many), I would say that capitalism has allowed more people to elevate human life to a quality never seen in human history (look at the west), a higher standard of life to a greater percentage of the human population ever before in human history (almost all of human history is .00001% of man living large and well, and the other 99.99999 living in absolute squalor), and a longer healthier lifespan than has ever been. It has done all of this through creating wealth. I can't possibly see anything MORE humanizing.

I've often stolen the Churchill quote about democracy and applied it to capitalism: Capitalism is the worst economic system ever created in the history of the world... except all the others.

V


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Is noise sounds, noise genre type of music, by itself, a complete art form, or is it lacking something? Serious question, becaise the examples I suggested are as pure as noise as you can get without human voices. If this also qualifies, then I think so does normal sounding istrumental music by implication.


Serious question: Is this the only thing you enjoy discussing about classical music?


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I think that instrumental music is artistically superior to vocal music. Instrumental music doesn't need any extra musical associations, it can stand on it's own.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> Serious question: Is this the only thing you enjoy discussing about classical music?


Good question! Maybe Art could start an Ignaz Pleyel composer page - I don't think anyone else has yet. This rather dainty wikipedia quote might be a good start:



> In his own time, Pleyel's reputation rested at least in part on the undemanding character of his music. A reviewer writing in the Morning Herald of London (1791) said that Pleyel "is becoming even more popular then his master [Haydn], as his works are characterized less by the intricacies of science than the charm of simplicity and feeling."


That's some gold to work with there Art - you could try being positive about some of the music you like!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> Serious question: Is this the only thing you enjoy discussing about classical music?


I think that cant has worn out its welcome so much on the campus of the music school, with the music teachers, the student peers, that TC is the only outlet left


----------



## BRHiler (May 3, 2014)

If written notation is the issue, then what about writing? It also is merely symbols written down to convey information.


----------



## BensonhoistLesbianChoir (Jun 15, 2014)

You know, I have thought about this a lot. I have reached the conclusion that a piece of instrumental music has to be very powerful to be able to stand alone. The composer has to have poured a lot of emotion into it, and I think very few people are able to express their thoughts and feelings adequately through music. It takes a great deal of talent to be able to convey what you are feeling in that way... I found instrumental music to be boring at most times, and only a handful of classical music pieces have been able to "speak" to me. I mostly prefer music that has lyrics, and I feel that lyrics and the way they are sung are more important than music. Music is something..."flimsy" to me at most cases. I just think it's secondary to the story being told. I can listen to a song with bland music if the lyrics and execution is good. 

So, to sum up, I think that whether instrumental music is a "complete" form of art or not depends on the composer, and therefore we shouldn't group all pieces of instrumental music together. However, from what I've heard so far (in terms of inst. music), I have to say I prefer music that has lyrics.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Isn't all "Art" by it self incomplete by nature?

It is when "the art" is colliding with its "audience" it attain the possibility of becoming "complete" in any sense!?

/ptr


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

BensonhoistLesbianChoir said:


> You know, I have thought about this a lot. I have reached the conclusion that a piece of instrumental music has to be very powerful to be able to stand alone. The composer has to have poured a lot of emotion into it, and I think very few people are able to express their thoughts and feelings adequately through music. It takes a great deal of talent to be able to convey what you are feeling in that way... I found instrumental music to be boring at most times, and only a handful of classical music pieces have been able to "speak" to me. I mostly prefer music that has lyrics, and I feel that lyrics and the way they are sung are more important than music. Music is something..."flimsy" to me at most cases. I just think it's secondary to the story being told. I can listen to a song with bland music if the lyrics and execution is good.
> 
> So, to sum up, I think that whether instrumental music is a "complete" form of art or not depends on the composer, and therefore we shouldn't group all pieces of instrumental music together. However, from what I've heard so far (in terms of inst. music), I have to say I prefer music that has lyrics.


I think the above says more about the preferences of one listener than it does about instrumental music in general.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I have never cared for a single word in any music I have ever listened to. And I like singing. I just don't listen to the words. I care for all other aspects of music except words.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DeepR said:


> I have never cared for a single word in any music I have ever listened to. And I like singing. I just don't listen to the words. I care for all other aspects of music except words.


I think the above says more about the preferences . . . etc.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

DeepR said:


> I have never cared for a single word in any music I have ever listened to. And I like singing. I just don't listen to the words. I care for all other aspects of music except words.


I'm pretty close to this feeling. It's almost useless when music is able to say so much more.


----------



## BensonhoistLesbianChoir (Jun 15, 2014)

You're right! Sorry I didn't really contribute to this debate


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

BensonhoistLesbianChoir said:


> You're right! Sorry I didn't really contribute to this debate


It's OK. Actually, on a topic of this sort, it's hard to express more than individual preferences. We can try to make a broader argument, of course, but so far no one has seemed that convincing.


----------



## BensonhoistLesbianChoir (Jun 15, 2014)

amfortas said:


> It's OK. Actually, on a topic of this sort, it's hard to express more than individual preferences. We can try to make a broader argument, of course, but so far no one has seemed that convincing.


I don't know about others here, but I have never studied music and I know nothing about it. I don't know how to play any instruments and I don't even know how to recognise the musical notes! I'd like to learn, but for now I know close to nothing. Therefore, all I can provide is my subjective opinion in all subjects. I can only say what I like and don't like :/


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

BensonhoistLesbianChoir said:


> So, to sum up, I think that whether instrumental music is a "complete" form of art or not depends on the composer, and therefore we shouldn't group all pieces of instrumental music together. However, from what I've heard so far (in terms of inst. music), I have to say I prefer music that has lyrics.





amfortas said:


> I think the above says more about the preferences of one listener than it does about instrumental music in general.


If I am interpreting Bensonhoist's screen name accurately, I think it might also reflect something about a broader demographic: singers. Many I have known share this feeling about instrumental music.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

BensonhoistLesbianChoir said:


> I don't know about others here, but I have never studied music and I know nothing about it. I don't know how to play any instruments and I don't even know how to recognise the musical notes! I'd like to learn, but for now I know close to nothing. Therefore, all I can provide is my subjective opinion in all subjects. I can only say what I like and don't like :/


That's fine, and a forum like this is the perfect place for it.

Don't mind me. I'm recovering from some pretty serious neck surgery that's left me largely immobilized for the time being, and at risk of becoming a grumpy old man. Please forgive me taking my crankiness out on you.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

amfortas said:


> Don't mind me. I'm recovering from some pretty serious neck surgery that's left me largely immobilized for the time being, and at risk of becoming a grumpy old man.


Hah! I'm recovering (if that's the word) from a lower back injury and can outgrump any grump you wish to offer! :lol: The expression in my avatar is not over-excited ecstasy.

Seriously, hope all gets well soon. And me too!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

BensonhoistLesbianChoir said:


> I found instrumental music to be boring at most times, and only a handful of classical music pieces have been able to "speak" to me.


Out of curiosity, which pieces have managed to peak your interest?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Lyrics are a humongous limiting factor. This shouldn't have to be elaborated. Go listen to an instrumental piece and almost anything goes. Go listen to a piece with a set of lyrics, and usually only that goes. Lyrics direct you to a thinking pattern when the music is playing. It's virtually a strange-hold on the imagination.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Lyrics are a humongous limiting factor. This shouldn't have to be elaborated. Go listen to an instrumental piece and almost anything goes. Go listen to a piece with a set of lyrics, and usually only that goes. Lyrics direct you to a thinking pattern when the music is playing.


Not if you don't pay any attention to the lyrics 

But seriously, even if I'm listening to a pop tune in English my mind just sort of blots the lyrics out. I have to actively pay attention to notice what they are saying.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

violadude said:


> Not if you don't pay any attention to the lyrics
> 
> But seriously, even if I'm listening to a pop tune in English my mind just sort of blots the lyrics out. I have to actively pay attention to notice what they are saying.


Same here, but you see what i'm saying, aye? Focus on the lyrics and your imagination is chained to just that. No lyrics and you can go anywhere.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Focus on the lyrics and your imagination is chained to just that. No lyrics and you can go anywhere.


Another angle on this. E.T.A. Hoffman on Beethoven, 1810: "It may be because of it that vocal music that does not allow to him the character of infinite longing. It is his instrumental music that attracts the multitudes."


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2014)

Music with lyrics.
Music without lyrics.
Each has its place.
I like both, just as I like classical as well as rock/pop/alt etc etc etc.

My imagination is not 'chained' to anything, but some posters here seemed to be chained to one or two inflexible ideas about what music must and mustn't be...

Vesuvius -


> Lyrics are a humongous limiting factor. This shouldn't have to be elaborated. Go listen to an instrumental piece and almost anything goes. Go listen to a piece with a set of lyrics, and usually only that goes. Lyrics direct you to a thinking pattern when the music is playing. It's virtually a strange-hold on the imagination.


pikiwiki -


> I think that instrumental music is artistically superior to vocal music. Instrumental music doesn't need any extra musical associations, it can stand on it's own.


I'm very happy for you both the believe what you wish for yourself, but please don't foist your opinions as objective truths.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_*Originally Posted by millionrainbows: *__*That's a negative way of positing this dialectic. *_

*Notated art music was developed to further the aims of the ruling class. Music became a commodity for their benefit and power.*



PetrB said:


> You could say the same about the invention of writing.


Yes, I could, and I will.

Writing is a visual medium as well, which also served the purposes of an increasingly industrialized society. The printing press was the ultimate culmination of this. Ironically, though, this put the Bible (the first Gutenberg German translation) into the hands of the masses, and sapped the Church's formerly exclusive power.



PetrB said:


> Sorry, I find both just ludicrous because they fly in the face of mankind's inherent tendecy to invent and develop ideas -- the very motivation for coming up with writing and music notation.


Oh, there is no doubt that notation helped further musical ideas; I never said it didn't. It also served the ruling class.

*Music involves people.
*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> All I can say, million, is that you do like a fanciful idea, and you might like to think more carefully before suggesting that people here are in some way 'dehumanised'.


I thought we'd been over this, McLeaod.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Varick said:


> I'm with MacLeod on this one. How on earth is that dehumanizing? Then every book is dehumanizing because there is a division between author and reader. Every painting is dehumanizing between the artist and the viewer and on and on. By creating notation, much like creating words, you are elevating the art hopefully to the sublime and inspiring the human condition.
> 
> That notation elevated our understanding and allowed an explosion of creativity within music, much like written language allowed a greater understanding and an explosion of creativity within human communication. From that you got chant, diatonic form, the well tempered clavier and on and on and as for written language we got documentation of history, specificity, literature and poetry.
> 
> ...


I never said that notation did not lead to great advances in musical thinking. Aside from that, it did, however, reflect the aims, purposes, and hierarchical structure of the ruling class, and in most cases at the expense of being a natural expression of the human condition. In that sense, in that the power of music was wrested from its function as an expression of humanity, it is dehumanizing, and I will always think this to be true. That's why I like jazz, folk, and any good music which is a sincere expression of humanity.

Now, this notated hierarchy has been replaced by a new power: commodification of music.



Varick said:


> Not quite sure how capitalism is alienating and I certainly don't understand how capitalism is "dehumanizing." With all it's flaws (and there are many), I would say that capitalism has allowed more people to elevate human life to a quality never seen in human history (look at the west), a higher standard of life to a greater percentage of the human population ever before in human history (almost all of human history is .00001% of man living large and well, and the other 99.99999 living in absolute squalor), and a longer healthier lifespan than has ever been. It has done all of this through creating wealth. I can't possibly see anything MORE humanizing.


Hurrah for capitalism.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> it did, however, reflect the aims, purposes, and hierarchical structure of the ruling class, and in most cases at the expense of being a natural expression of the human condition.


Since the poor were, presumably, illiterate, it would be unlikely that those doing the notating (or those paying for the notating to be done) were anything other than the ruling class, so why would it reflect anything else? You seem to be making much of the obvious, but then, the illogical, in suggesting that music transmitted by notation was not "a natural expression of the human condition." Of course it was, but it was an expression of the conditions of the humans doing the expressing!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BRHiler said:


> If written notation is the issue, then what about writing? It also is merely symbols written down to convey information.


Same thing, same function. Writing (phonetic) is speech in visual form


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ptr said:


> Isn't all "Art" by it self incomplete by nature?
> 
> It is when "the art" is colliding with its "audience" it attain the possibility of becoming "complete" in any sense!?
> 
> /ptr


I'll answer that and include Varick's quote:



Varick said:


> Not quite sure how capitalism is alienating and I certainly don't understand how capitalism is "dehumanizing." With all it's flaws (and there are many), I would say that capitalism has allowed more people to elevate human life to a quality never seen in human history (look at the west), a higher standard of life to a greater percentage of the human population ever before in human history (almost all of human history is .00001% of...blah, blah...
> V


The typical adolescent listener who listens to prefabricated pop music all the time is what I call "The Alienated Consumer." He has been alienated from the true human legacy of music and art, and is fed a diet of empty, vapid music and celebrity.

The 'side'effects' of this can be seen in other countries, for example where Michael Jackson was (is) universally venerated as the biggest, best thing since Jesus Christ (kudos to John Lennon). Yes, isn't capitalism wonderful, keeping all those poor third-world listeners nourished with 'great art.'


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Since the poor were, presumably, illiterate, it would be unlikely that those doing the notating (or those paying for the notating to be done) were anything other than the ruling class, so why would it reflect anything else?


Jazz and bluegrass was developed by "illiterates" as well. Don't equate the aural with primitive qualities, or Yo Yo Ma and Edgar Meyer will attack you with their large-bodied instruments, after the Silk Road Ensemble gig is over.



MacLeod said:


> You seem to be making much of the obvious...in suggesting that music transmitted by notation was not "a natural expression of the human condition."


_Well, I say that because, in most cases, it was serving some other purpose. N_otation, and training on instruments, was a concern of wealthy, educated people who could afford it. I have nothing against education, but notated music must be seen in the context of its social and political implications, as a tool of the ruling class, to create an elite.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

What about surf music? Nobody has mentioned that...:lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Jazz and bluegrass was developed by "illiterates" as well.


Is that a fact? All of them were illiterate? How do you know that?

You also wrote, "The typical adolescent listener who listens to prefabricated pop music all the time..."

It's pretty easy to speak of people as broad homogeneous classes when you don't know them. When you do, people seem to be quite different from one another in my experience.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> _Well, I say that because, in most cases, it was serving some other purpose. N_otation, and training on instruments, was a concern of wealthy, educated people who could afford it. I have nothing against education, but notated music must be seen in the context of its social and political implications, as a tool of the ruling class, to create an elite.


No, it mustn't. You're welcome to your theory, but unless you're going to come up with some clear evidence that there was orchestrated intent on the part of the ruling class to invent notation to deprive the ruled classes of the natural means of expression, I don't have to accept it at all.

And _I'm_ not equating the aural with primitive qualities - if anyone is, it's _you_!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> No, it mustn't. You're welcome to your theory, but unless you're going to come up with some clear evidence that there was orchestrated intent on the part of the ruling class to invent notation to deprive the ruled classes of the natural means of expression, I don't have to accept it at all.


History can't be 'proven' like science, but I have presented a clear, logical case.

I never said the bourgeois "invented" or "schemed" to devise notation; notation simply developed from the power base (the Church) as a form of musical writing, and was a useful tool in furthering their aims: To organize music and its performance hierarchically, as opposed to it being out of their control as a communal participatory experience...recording technology has changed all that now, and replaced it with capitalism and music as a commodity.

It's up to us, as the people, to seek out and support the music we feel is best, and reflects our humanity. Ironically, in many cases, this is now 'classical' music. Classical's past, as a tool of the ruling elite, should not ruin our pursuit of it as a true art form. It is now up for grabs by the likes of Gustavo Dudamel, and other aspiring musicians, who will use it in a more human way; to bring people up out of poverty and enlighten them.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_*Originally Posted by millionrainbows *__*Jazz and bluegrass was developed by "illiterates" as well.
*_


KenOC said:


> Is that a fact? All of them were illiterate? How do you know that?


Notice my quote marks around the term: I was sarcastically using that term in response to McLeod's use of it. You left that part out. :lol:

Yes, most of them play by ear.



KenOC said:


> You also wrote, "The typical adolescent listener who listens to prefabricated pop music all the time..."
> 
> It's pretty easy to speak of people as broad homogeneous classes when you don't know them. When you do, people seem to be quite different from one another in my experience.


Oh, you mean the way market research treats people as broad homogeneous classes? Thank Ronald Reagan for deregulating FCC radio ownership.

Capitalism created the alienated, manipulated listener. It's the same all over the world, because of the pervasiveness of media and pop marketing. Profit is the name of the game. There's a sucker born every minute.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Notice my quote marks around the term: I was sarcastically using that term in response to McLeod's use of it. You left that part out. :lol:


Was there something wrong with my use of the term to describe those who were not members of the ruling class and were incapable of notation - a simple summary of your thesis?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Same here, but you see what i'm saying, aye? Focus on the lyrics and your imagination is chained to just that. No lyrics and you can go anywhere.


At least 98 percent of those who listen to pop music with lyrics are focused on the lyrics; to read some threads in the classical religious music category here, it seems at least 98% of those listeners aren't even discussing the music, but waxing on about the lyrics.

Yeah, *it seems for most listeners, lyrics -- hell, even a suggestive title to an otherwise absolute piece of music -- are indeed "a strangle hold on the imagination"* _(your phrase -- very well said indeed!)_

Like Violadude, when I listen I initially disregard texts completely: I usually give no weight to any title given the piece, either by composer or some after the fact publisher, writer, or other.

That is not a matter of a rigor or trained self-discipline, but for me (and it seems a few others) the actual note activity is so predominantly what is heard and all that is important (including any vocals, sans text) that any text content will get considered only after a good number of repeated listens.

I have it then, that the dimension words have in a piece of music, no matter how good, great, poetic, communicative or moving, can at best only meet the highest quality music as 'a good match,' but can not add anything to the value of the piece as music.


----------



## BensonhoistLesbianChoir (Jun 15, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> If I am interpreting Bensonhoist's screen name accurately, I think it might also reflect something about a broader demographic: singers. Many I have known share this feeling about instrumental music.


I don't think many people would be able to interpret my screen name correctly! If you have, then all I can say is... Stay Negative, my friend


----------



## BensonhoistLesbianChoir (Jun 15, 2014)

amfortas said:


> That's fine, and a forum like this is the perfect place for it.
> 
> Don't mind me. I'm recovering from some pretty serious neck surgery that's left me largely immobilized for the time being, and at risk of becoming a grumpy old man. Please forgive me taking my crankiness out on you.


You call that cranky??? You've been very polite in expressing your opinions so far; you have nothing to apologise for! I wish you a speedy recovery, and hope you find ways to pass time until then


----------



## BensonhoistLesbianChoir (Jun 15, 2014)

violadude said:


> Out of curiosity, which pieces have managed to peak your interest?


The (few) pieces I have heard by Barbara Strozzi, although one song had this screaming lady ruining everything with her voice... I remember thinking how great it would be if a man with a bass-baritone voice was singing instead of that woman...

My memory may be deceiving me, but I believe I have heard some of John Cooper's music and liked it.

Sorry if I'm not making sense, work and sleep deprivation have gotten to me


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Like Violadude, when I listen I initially disregard texts completely: I usually give no weight to any title given the piece, either by composer or some after the fact publisher, writer, or other.
> 
> That is not a matter of a rigor or trained self-discipline, but for me (and it seems a few others) the actual note activity is so predominantly what is heard and all that is important (including any vocals, sans text) that any text content will get considered only after a good number of repeated listens.
> 
> I have it then, that the dimension words have in a piece of music, no matter how good, great, poetic, communicative or moving, can at best only meet the highest quality music as 'a good match,' but can not add anything to the value of the piece as music.


That's exactly how it is for me as well. Thanks for explaining it so eloquently


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

BensonhoistLesbianChoir said:


> The (few) pieces I have heard by Barbara Strozzi, although one song had this screaming lady ruining everything with her voice... I remember thinking how great it would be if a man with a bass-baritone voice was singing instead of that woman...
> 
> My memory may be deceiving me, but I believe I have heard some of John Cooper's music and liked it.
> 
> Sorry if I'm not making sense, work and sleep deprivation have gotten to me


Ah, I haven't heard of either of those composers. What are some examples?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I think if anything, texts are incomplete without music. I mean, how many opera librettos would you like someone to get on stage and just read to you


----------



## BensonhoistLesbianChoir (Jun 15, 2014)

violadude said:


> Ah, I haven't heard of either of those composers. What are some examples?


I think this was the Barbara Strozzi song I was talking about 



 but it could have been this too 




Can't find anything from JC right now, sorry.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BensonhoistLesbianChoir said:


> I mostly prefer music that has lyrics, and I feel that lyrics and the way they are sung are more important than music.


This is highly typical of a listener whose majority of listening has been to songs, mainly pop songs or any songs more in the pop genre.

This perspective on music can come from anyone of any age, while it is most typical of those from a tween-to-teen demographic, some of whom may never later care for the genre of absolute (abstract) classical music exactly because it is not so literally specific in 'what it is about,' or 'what it means.'

There are plenty of adults whose entire spectrum of listening is still the popular genres of song, and the only 'instrumental' music they listen to is arrangements of songs which they already know and to which they recall the lyrics -- the lyrics being the sentimental connecting point.

If lyrics are a listener's main point of connection with any sort of music, probably most of classical music is not for them.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Music with lyrics.
> Music without lyrics.
> Each has its place.
> I like both, just as I like classical as well as rock/pop/alt etc etc etc.
> ...


Please... this is about as cut and dry logic as possible. Have no diction of ideas and your mind can roam free - Have a whole piece full of lyrical ideas and your mind is attracted to those ideas. Tell me how this is opinion? That is precisely why artist put lyrics into a piece of music... to direct your free-wondering mind into what they want you to imagine.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Please... this is about as cut and dry logic as possible. Have no diction of ideas and your mind can rome free - Have a whole piece full of lyrical ideas and your mind is attracted to those ideas. Tell me how this is opinion? That is precisely why artist put lyrics into a piece of music... to direct your free-wondering mind into what they want you to imagine.


Our brains are hard-wired to instantly focus upon anything resembling human speech, within the context of music or any other context

_*("Hey!" says the brain, "This might be critically important for my survival or welfare!")*_

There are classical FM stations whose aim is to provide 'nice classical wallpaper' who have a written policy of _no vocal music_... it is known to be that instantly distracting. (Only a very few are taken with pitch and timbre as being so dominant that they can literally ignore sung or spoken word with music.)


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ You have said this a number of times, PetrB, but I still find it difficult to accept. I suppose it (might) hold true for some, but I don't think it does with me. I grew up listening to popular and rock songs with lyrics, like most others, but at the age of 18, a German synthesizer band, Tangerine Dream, captured my fascination (and that of my entire circle of friends) with their first mega-success, the album Phaedra. Their music was entirely instrumental. I had also been listening to some of Pink Floyd's instrumental albums, such as Meddle and Atom Heart Mother at the time. I don't know if these late teenage/early adulthood exposures might have allowed me to break through to instrumental/classical music, but I think that the real reason, for me, was that instrumental music is less distracting. I have always been a reader and I have always found singing/talking to be impossibly distracting while reading, but I am able to read (with one eye) while listening to instrumental music (with one ear)


----------



## BensonhoistLesbianChoir (Jun 15, 2014)

PetrB said:


> This is highly typical of a listener whose majority of listening has been to songs, mainly pop songs or any songs more in the pop genre.
> 
> This perspective on music can come from anyone of any age, while it is most typical of those from a tween-to-teen demographic, some of whom may never later care for the genre of absolute (abstract) classical music exactly because it is not so literally specific in 'what it is about,' or 'what it means.'
> 
> ...


Did The Beatles and Elvis really do such damage to my musical taste?!

Really? I'm not trying to be challenging but my personal experience disproves you. As a student and later a teacher, I've met many teens and still interact with some on a daily basis. They ONLY care about the music. They couldn't care less about the lyrics as long as there's a "cool beat" to twerk or play air guitar to. Why do you think most popular songs these days have meaningless lyrics or just consist of two lines repeated throughout the song?

Maybe you are right, though maybe you aren't. How could we know, since I have heard so little classical music?

Also, you might have noticed that I didn't say ALL music. When I say "almost", I mean it. Right now, at least 20 instrumental pieces that move me come to mind. But none of them are classical music. I understand that some people only like one or two genres of music, but it is my opinion that in art, getting out of our comfort zones and widening our horizons once in a while is a very good thing. There's more to music than classical. There is jazz, blues, rock n' roll, rock (and all it's sub-genres), metal (except from that growling/screaming stuff that shouldn't be classified as music)...


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

violadude said:


> I think if anything, texts are incomplete without music. I mean, how many opera librettos would you like someone to get on stage and just read to you


It would make some opera's a bit more bearable or at least a lot shorter.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Please... this is about as cut and dry logic as possible. Have no diction of ideas and your mind can roam free - Have a whole piece full of lyrical ideas and your mind is attracted to those ideas. Tell me how this is opinion? That is precisely why artist put lyrics into a piece of music... to direct your free-wondering mind into what they want you to imagine.


The logic that says that The Beatles 'Blackbird' is going to prompt thoughts about the subject matter is, of course, inescapable. I'm not objecting to _that _logic.

I'm objecting to the opinion-held-as-objective-truth that music presented with such lyrics is inferior to music without. I also object to the negative associations that my mind is 'chained', that lyrics have a 'stranglehold'.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> ^ You have said this a number of times, PetrB, but I still find it difficult to accept.


That's OK - you don't have to accept the directions of the anti-lyric police, who want to chain your mind to the idea that lyrics have a stranglehold on you and you must, therefore, be an inferior listener!

Resist! Resist!


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2014)

> but it is my opinion that in art, getting out of our comfort zones and widening our horizons once in a while is a very good thing.....except from that stuff that I don't think should be classified as music)...


It's easy to feel that one has "opened one's mind" when the grand scope of artistic possibility is actually limited to what you like.


----------



## BensonhoistLesbianChoir (Jun 15, 2014)

arcaneholocaust said:


> It's easy to feel that one has "opened one's mind" when the grand scope of artistic possibility is actually limited to what you like.


I like listening to some country & folk music, blues, swing, jazz, hip hop/rap, rock & roll, rock, metal, heavy metal, punk, house, techno, electronic, disco, pop, latin, reggae and r&b music.

It's easy to feel that one "is the dog's ********" when the grand scope of opinions one listens to is actually limited to what your echo tells you.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Was there something wrong with my use of the term *(illiterate)* to describe those who were not members of the ruling class and were incapable of notation - a simple summary of your thesis?


Well, yes, because it's a perjorative term. Music was once a social, participatory, involving experience. Notation has had its usefulness and has advanced musical thinking, culminating in serialism, but it has also had the side effect of turning music into a specialized skill for an educated elite, by its division of labor (composer and king=employer/performer and musician=employee).

Musicians were not 'employees' before this; they were independent contractors.

People seem to have forgotten that music was once mainly a social and participatory experience, intimately tied to the musicians who created and performed it. With recording technology, this role of creator/performer is coming back slowly.

Meanwhile, alienated consumers like us consume classical music, just like Michael Jackson fans do.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Instrumental music without distracting lyrics was at one time used as Muzak or elevator music; it works great as dinner music, too, and for cooking shows on TV.

In fact, this idea of instrumental music as a 'backdrop' or accompaniment to some other form or activity (cinema) seems to *reinforce* the idea that instrumental music is incomplete in and of itself, but works better as an enhancing element.

An exception to this idea I would say is 'virtuoso' music, which is instrumental music designed to show off a performer's virtuosity.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Instrumental music without distracting lyrics was at one time used as Muzak or elevator music; it works great as dinner music, too, and for cooking shows on TV.
> 
> In fact, this idea of instrumental music as a 'backdrop' or accompaniment to some other form or activity (cinema) seems to *reinforce* the idea that instrumental music is incomplete in and of itself, but works better as an enhancing element.


Sure, that is one use. Another is lying down on the living room floor with the lights dimmed and one's attention focussed completely on the music. Because instrumental music works well for the former, does not mean that it works less well for the latter. Furthermore, the majority of music listeners today listen to vocal music/pop-rock songs and they do almost all of their listening while doing other things. This phenomenon of using music as background is so pervasive that people refer to their favourite popular music as the soundtrack to their lives. Also, in much (most?) popular music, the music is simplified and secondary to the lyrics. This is less the case in vocal classical music, but might still apply to some degree.

None of your arguments seem to hold. Instrumental music is as complete as vocal music. _It is even more complete, actually, as it does not rely on words or other non-musical cues to convey its message._


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2014)

BensonhoistLesbianChoir said:


> I like listening to some country & folk music, blues, swing, jazz, hip hop/rap, rock & roll, rock, metal, heavy metal, punk, house, techno, electronic, disco, pop, latin, reggae and r&b music.
> 
> It's easy to feel that one "is the dog's ********" when the grand scope of opinions one listens to is actually limited to what your echo tells you.


I cannot, for the life of me, see what about death and black metal could possibly negate its myriad musical qualities, so pardon my confusion.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, yes, because it's a perjorative term.


Well, I suppose it can be interpreted as such, and intended as such. I was using it as mere description of those who can't notate, or read notation: what's wrong with that?


----------



## BensonhoistLesbianChoir (Jun 15, 2014)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I cannot, for the life of me, see what about death and black metal could possibly negate its myriad musical qualities, so pardon my confusion.


I wasn't aware death and black metal had any musical qualities.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

BensonhoistLesbianChoir said:


> I wasn't aware death and black metal had any musical qualities.


Obnoxious and tacky are two.


----------



## BensonhoistLesbianChoir (Jun 15, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Obnoxious and tacky are two.


Tacky? Not sure, but maybe. I would say...pointless. Devoid of any meaning.

Although I guess it could be seen as a pitiful effort on the part of the band to get laid...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Well Millionrainbows, you've made it clear that you are disenchanted with the way the last 12 centuries turned out both with respect to advances in musical notation, the rise of instrumental art music, the (alleged) demise of participatory musical experience, and so on. So I imagine there is some counterfactual world you would find more satisfactory. I would be curious to hear what kind of art music, if any, would exist in this world, and how you would have liked to see advances in musical notation proceed, or how instrumental art music should ideally have evolved — if you have opinions on these matters.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Wait, is this a bash rock thread or what?


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2014)

BensonhoistLesbianChoir said:


> I wasn't aware death and black metal had any musical qualities.


You were beginning to strike me as one of those "music must be melodic, tonal, etc" types, so this surprises me 



> Obnoxious and tacky are two.


Obnoxious? Maybe. Tacky? Maybe. Simple? Maybe. Etc.... A neanderthal melody with a neanderthal rhythm is still music, whether people like it or not.

Quality is irrelevant here; as far as actual musical elements go, if metal is not music, neither are 80% of Lope's favorite avant-garde composers. (Both are obviously music, for the record).


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> I have it then, that the dimension words have in a piece of music, no matter how good, great, poetic, communicative or moving, can at best only meet the highest quality music as 'a good match,' but can not add anything to the value of the piece as music.


I'm not sure what you mean by your final clause, given the relevance of the first part of the sentence. I can't speak for anyone else, but as far as I'm concerned, an acknowledgement that a good match between music and lyrics is possible is all I was seeking.

That doesn't mean to say that I think that accompanying lyrics or text are necessary (for my enjoyment or understanding or any sense of completeness of a piece); I too sometimes find that I prefer to ignore words and just enjoy the music, though I don't find them an impediment.

It's also obvious - though given the ease with which some TCers seem to infer the worst, I feel the need to state it - that there is plenty of music around with banal, offensive, meaningless, trite (etc etc etc) words, which add nothing and subtract a lot. When the music is of limited value either, that makes the worth of the whole enterprise plunge into the negative!


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> ...there is plenty of music around with banal, offensive, meaningless, trite (etc etc etc) words, which add nothing and subtract a lot. When the music is of limited value either, that makes the worth of the whole enterprise plunge into the negative!


This couldn't be more true, unfortunately. I know a fair bit of rock music that I can only enjoy by disengaging my mind from the lyrics. Luckily, classical music appears to be largely unaffected by this 'bug'...  or is it just that it's mostly sung by shrieking sopranos in a language I don't understand?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> Sure, that is one use. Another is lying down on the living room floor with the lights dimmed and one's attention focussed completely on the music. Because instrumental music works well for the former, does not mean that it works less well for the latter.
> None of your arguments seem to hold. Instrumental music is as complete as vocal music. _It is even more complete, actually, as it does not rely on words or other non-musical cues to convey its message._


Well, of course, none of my observations about 'the ear vs. the eye' or 'instrumental music' are going to make any sense unless you compare them to the earlier aural' ways of music-making, and then the comparisons begin to define and clarify each other.

For example, a medieval guy back in 1200 would think that lying down on the living room floor with the lights dimmed and one's attention focussed completely on the music would be a weird, detached, anti-social, isolated, alienated way to experience music, because to him, music is a social, living, vibrant thing.



brotagonist said:


> Furthermore, the majority of music listeners today listen to vocal music/pop-rock songs and they do almost all of their listening while doing other things. This phenomenon of using music as background is so pervasive that people refer to their favourite popular music as the soundtrack to their lives. Also, in much (most?) popular music, the music is simplified and secondary to the lyrics. This is less the case in vocal classical music, but might still apply to some degree.


Well, you're not going to want to hear this, but that just reinforces what I've been saying. Music used to be a 'big deal,' now recordings are so pervasive that music is just ambience for many. Performances are the real deal. Music is real, social, living, and human, not an alienated consumer shut away in a darkened room.

This also reinforces my original point; that instrumental music, and indeed music itself, is best used as an enhancement or background for some real, human drama or dance activity, or ritual, or event. Or dinner! Ha ha ha...Otherwise, it is somehow incomplete or lacking as a complete art form. Where's the beef?


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> a medieval guy back in 1200 would think that lying down on the living room floor with the lights dimmed and one's attention focussed completely on the music would be a weird, detached, anti-social, isolated, alienated way to experience music, because to him, music is a social, living, vibrant thing.


Fortunately, we don't need to worry what he thought, fascinating though your speculation may be. We can just get on and enjoy music how we will, without being dictated to by history, or current conventions.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Because music is something you listen to, and doesn't require your eyes (which are our primary sensory organs), it is totally easy to listen to and enjoy a work of music whilst performing other activities. That doesn't mean it is merely an enhancement of another activity. It is a simultaneous experience. It doesn't mean that the music is incomplete. It means the people are able to fully enjoy the work while doing other things because many activities do not require very deep thought to do.

What is your reason for making this argument millions? Do you think music is just this bland artform that needs other forms to be truly enjoyed? Why are you even on this forum?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Also, what is with this absurd notion that musical notation was enacted to oppress illiterates? Are you some kind of musical SJW? I don't know if this has occurred to you, but music notation was developed so that people could record their ideas. And obviously that didn't stop people who never learned these techniques from making music as well, we just don't have records of their ideas precisely because they couldn't write them down. However we do have the continuing traditions of their work in the countless folk music idioms that have continued and evolved for centuries, all learned by ear and passed down aurally. Of course notation has allowed for much more elaborate and complex developments in music, I don't see how that is a bad thing. It kinda sounds like another not very well thought out idea, like the idea the Schoenberg wanted to break from nationalistic German roots when he was actually an extremely nationalistic composer who embraced his Germanic heritage heavily.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_*Originally Posted by millionrainbows *__*"...a medieval guy back in 1200 would think that lying down on the living room floor with the lights dimmed and one's attention focussed completely on the music would be a weird, detached, anti-social, isolated, alienated way to experience music, because to him, music is a social, living, vibrant thing."
*_


MacLeod said:


> Fortunately, we don't need to worry what he thought, fascinating though your speculation may be. We can just get on and enjoy music how we will, without being dictated to by history, or current conventions.





BurningDesire said:


> Because music is something you listen to, and doesn't require your eyes (which are our primary sensory organs), it is totally easy to listen to and enjoy a work of music whilst performing_* other activities.*_ That doesn't mean it is merely an enhancement of another activity. It is a simultaneous experience. It doesn't mean that the music is incomplete. It means the people are able to fully enjoy the work while doing _*other things*_ because many activities do not require very deep thought to do.


_* Other things, *_like elaborate dinners, coronation ceremonies, royal funerals and marriages, fireworks on the water...bring on the 'champagne wishes and caviar dreams.'





BurningDesire said:


> What is your reason for making this argument millions? Do you think music is just this bland artform that needs other forms to be truly enjoyed? Why are you even on this forum?


It sounds like the guy with headphones on is engaging in some sort of religious experience.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Also, what is with this absurd notion that musical notation was enacted to oppress illiterates?


That's a negative way of saying it. All I'm saying is that notation and its consequences (division of labor, hierarchy) developed slowly as a way of conveying music which suited the aims and purposes of the ruling and educated elite. If somebody got oppressed in the process, I guess that's just collateral damage. I'm sure they weren't trying to oppress anybody; they just had to get on with their lives, have dinner, and entertain.



BurningDesire said:


> Are you some kind of musical SJW? I don't know if this has occurred to you, but music notation was developed so that people could record their ideas.


Notation is just a visual form of *memory, *as opposed to biological (aural) memory. Recording technology is also an "ear" memory. Computers bring this into both realms, the ear and the eye.



BurningDesire said:


> And obviously that didn't stop people who never learned these techniques from making music as well, we just don't have records of their ideas precisely because they couldn't write them down. However we do have the continuing traditions of their work in the countless folk music idioms that have continued and evolved for centuries, all learned by ear and passed down aurally. Of course notation has allowed for much more elaborate and complex developments in music, I don't see how that is a bad thing...


I never said notation was a bad thing; it helped music progress greatly. Notation and its consequences (division of labor, hierarchy) just happened to be the best way to create a system and tradition which served the needs of the bourgeois ruling class, eventually squelching the original roots and social functions of music, and putting these elements (creation, performance, function, expressive purpose) into the exclusive hands of the elite, who used music to further their own aims.



BurningDesire said:


> It kinda sounds like another not very well thought out idea...


If my ideas were not well thought out, I would not be able to sustain a discussion which reinforces these points repeatedly, would I?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Instrumental music is really a form of absolute music. What is absolute music?

According to 19th century descriptions, absolute music is music for music's sake; purely instrumental, structure oriented, untouched by extramusical elements, and with a purely aesthetic rather than social function.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Notation and its consequences (division of labor, hierarchy) just happened to be the best way to create a system and tradition which served the needs of the bourgeois ruling class, eventually squelching the original roots and social functions of music, and putting these elements (creation, performance, function, expressive purpose) into the exclusive hands of the elite, who used music to further their own aims.


We should be clear, though, that at the time notation was being developed, and for quite some time afterward, the bourgeoisie was _not_ the ruling class.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> We should be clear, though, that at the time notation was being developed, and for quite some time afterward, the bourgeoisie was _not_ the ruling class.


Notation developed as it was needed. At first this was in the church, where all power resided, as writing. When the printing press was invented, and the Bible was translated into German, this all changed.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Instrumental music is really a form of absolute music. What is absolute music?
> 
> According to 19th century descriptions, absolute music is music for music's sake; purely instrumental, structure oriented, untouched by extramusical elements, and with a purely aesthetic rather than social function.


The first statement is blatantly incorrect: All absolute music is instrumental music (with the exception of pieces like Rachmaninoff's Vocalise where voice is used in a purely instrumental way). Not all instrumental music is absolute, the most obvious exception being program music. Much instrumental music, even that which was not programatic, was composed under the premise that it expressed important humanistic content. Of course, none of this fits with your argument

The definition you give is pretty much correct for the late nineteenth century, after the publication of Eduard Hanslick's _Vom Musikalisch-Schönen_. In the early nineteenth century, however, absolute music was not thought to be devoid of content, but rather, possessed of an ineffable content that could not be expressed in words. This definition stood for at least forty years.

Whether or not music was absolute or program music had no bearing on whether or not it had a social function. Innumerable works of absolute music were published to be played communally (e.g., chamber music), around the family hearth (solo piano works, music for piano four hands, etc.), and on the village green (band music). Once again, reality is at odds with your theses.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> The first statement is blatantly incorrect: All absolute music is instrumental music (with the exception of pieces like Rachmaninoff's Vocalise where voice is used in a purely instrumental way).


I'm citing absolute music as a new form of instrumental music, and a new way of considering instrumental music. It is a relatively new phenomenon, in that it is non-utilitarian and designed for silent contemplation, not a social function or any function unrelated to its being an object of contemplation. I'll leave the academic arguments alone.

The counter-response ignores and invalidates more than it defines or clarifies. Absolute music is designed for silent, detached contemplation, and does not have an explicit social function, narrative, supporting or enhancement function, or other utilitarian function which would _*overshadow *_its use as an art object of contemplation.

Any art or music is successful, to varying degrees, if it expresses honestly and sincerely the experience of the human condition; or, if that is not its concern, it should show a degree of fluency with the materials, on an abstract level.

Art or music is unsuccessful if its* sole *intent is profit, manipulation, or some other utilitarian purpose, or if this utilitarian purpose has permeated or overshadowed the creation at its inception, thereby removing any possibility of purity of intent as an independent creation.

Of course, all art and music can, or has been, assimilated as a commodity or product which can be bought and sold as an artifact, but this does not necessarily invalidate it, since the pervasive nature of capitalism and consumer media has appropriated almost everything for its own profit based purpose.

So, the 'content' of the art, which conveys meaning, must outweigh the 'form' it takes in this worldwide capitalist environment.

Art is successful when it is honest, and conveys a profound sense of our humanity,_ and these criteria are independent of any genre, form, or traditional ideology which in the past defined it as 'popular' or art music. 
_
Everything is a commodity now, and all forms of music and art have been placed on a level playing field. It's up to us, and us alone, to determine what is a 'success' or a 'failure,' and this may differ depending on one's awareness and sensibility. In fact, _the whole question revolves around that perception, which is ultimately personal and human; not based on definition or its supposed intention or appropriation._


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Thus, the symphonic tradition, which generally started with Haydn, and continued with Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Mahler, can be seen as the first step towards an instrumental form which was designed to be considered on its own, absolute music. Recording technology aided in this process of detached listening, which allows music which was formerly social, supporting a narrative, or ceremonial to be removed from its original context and contemplated as sound only.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm citing absolute music as a new form of instrumental music, and a new way of considering instrumental music. It is a relatively new phenomenon, in that it is non-utilitarian and designed for silent contemplation, not a social function or any function unrelated to its being an object of contemplation.


This is utterly wrong. Enormous quantities of absolute music were composed for the enjoyment of players in the home or wherever musicians, amateur and professional gathered. Here I am using the standard modern definition of absolute music, which is, simply, music without specific extramusical content.



millionrainbows said:


> I'll leave the academic arguments alone.


There are no academic arguments here. This is just basic definitions and basic music history.



millionrainbows said:


> Absolute music is designed for silent, detached contemplation, and does not have an explicit social function, narrative, supporting or enhancement function, or other utilitarian function which would _*overshadow *_its use as an art object of contemplation.


Silent contemplation has nothing to do with it. The most mundane divertimenti and other works of dinner music are perfect examples of absolute music. Such music is utterly utilitarian and no one is expected to listen to it with silent contemplation. This view of absolute music is mistaken and has no basis in music history or the philosophy of music.



millionrainbows said:


> Art or music is unsuccessful if its* sole *intent is profit, manipulation, or some other utilitarian purpose, or if this utilitarian purpose has permeated or overshadowed the creation at its inception, thereby removing any possibility of purity of intent as an independent creation.


Intent is completely irrelevant. If Beethoven had composed his Fifth Symphony with the intention of scaring mice or if Mozart had intended his piano concertos to disperse loitering teenagers of the 21st century, these facts would have nothing to do with the music's aesthetic value.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm citing absolute music as a new form of instrumental music, and a new way of considering instrumental music. It is a relatively new phenomenon, in that it is non-utilitarian and designed for silent contemplation, not a social function or any function unrelated to its being an object of contemplation.


I think I just choked on a chicken bone! The only piece I know meeting this description is, maybe, 4'33" -- and the last time I encountered it at concert I had a sudden attack of flatulence, which those around me certainly interpreted as social comment. :lol:

The development of chamber and piano music, until well into the 1800s, was almost entirely due to demand for sheet music by families and friends for their home performances, as EdwardBast says. "Silent contemplation" indeed!


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Instrumental music is absolutely a complete art form in my opinion. I don't need a story to lead the music along. The music tells its own story.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2014)

That said, more music than some wish to acknowledge carries a 'program' which is the 'DNA' of the composer. That may not qualify as 'extra-musical', but IMO, it counters to some degree the concept that 'absolute' music isn't 'about' anything.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The definition of absolute music I'm referring to is also mentioned in 19th century descriptions by E.T.A. Hoffman, Schopenhauer, and others. 

Absolute music is music for music's sake, purely instrumental, structure oriented (not pedagogical or designed to sell to ladies), untouched by extramusical elements (like those I just mentioned, social/parlor use), and with a purely aesthetic rather than a social function.

The point-by-point invalidations, and now, humorous pile-on, are so predictable.

At least I have a purpose behind my formulation of the idea of absolute music, which relates to this thread idea, and seeks to clarify the idea and make it more relevant to modern consumer times. since the old paradigm of absolute music is dead and gone. If you guys have some more noble purpose this, then please enlighten us.:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> That said, more music than some wish to acknowledge carries a 'program' which is the 'DNA' of the composer. That may not qualify as 'extra-musical', but IMO, it counters to some degree the concept that 'absolute' music isn't 'about' anything.


That's the orthodox view of the work as inviolate text.

See my blog on "Music and Dramatic Gesture."


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> That's the orthodox view


Not for some it isn't. I don't mind being orthodox anymore than I mind being a control freak.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The point-by-point invalidations, and now, humorous pile-on, are so predictable.


Well, fwiw, I agree with your general points (as I understand them--I haven't read the whole thread yet, and don't really get the source of the controversy). One of the joys of 18th-century music is to hear how masters like Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven developed increasingly difficult instrumental forms--even, in WAM's case, in his operas!--that were spurned by audiences and publishers but kept alive by musicians, and eventually (as you suggest) by the German philosophical tradition. The idea of the "sublime," in particular, was seen as a private achievement, and many thinkers thought that the greatest instrumental music could be a conduit to it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Dustin said:


> Instrumental music is absolutely a complete art form in my opinion. I don't need a story to lead the music along. The music tells its own story.





Blancrocher said:


> Well, fwiw, I agree with your general points (as I understand them--I haven't read the whole thread yet, and don't really get the source of the controversy). One of the joys of 18th-century music is to hear how masters like Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven developed increasingly difficult instrumental forms--even, in WAM's case, in his operas!--that were spurned by audiences and publishers but kept alive by musicians, and eventually (as you suggest) by the German philosophical tradition. The idea of the "sublime," in particular, was seen as a private achievement, and many thinkers thought that the greatest instrumental music could be a conduit to it.


Yes, I'm not dismissing instrumental music altogether, and I brought in the idea of absolute music to clarify some things. I think the best instrumental music will be 'absolute' music, in that it will be structure oriented, and concerned with actual musical materials and ideas rather than having some sort of overriding pedagogical, social, or profit-based purpose which overshadows the artistic qualities. Bach was such a genius that he could produce 'absolute' music before the term was even coined. His organ works, for example, are very dramatic and powerful, and have the musical substance which enables them to be 'contemplated' as absolute art music, transcending whatever social or utilitarian function they might have possessed.

In fact, the very idea of 'absolute' music is dead and gone. Since so much music is produced via recordings, the idea of 'absolute music' pretending to be free of social conditions and contingencies - and thus its very principles and reasons for existing - are now just a cultural relic.

But conversely, absolute music's continuing influence as an aesthetic paradigm - as evidenced by the Beethoven symphony freaks around here - has increased, even as its social and cultural capital has been equalized by all the other musical commodities in our capitalist society, now a level playing field of post-modernist proliferation of 'absolute music artifacts' up for consideration.

Ironically, if we define 'absolute music' as music heard without regard for the context surrounding its composition, whether actual, historical circumstances, or composer-devised, then more and more music is becoming 'absolute' as a consequence of the capitalist market.

In other words, music devoid of function or program, as 'true' music, has now been reduced to a utilitarian function; the day-to-day use of recordings.

Is the paradigm of 'art' music strong enough to endure this? Many here would think so.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Instrumental music is not lacking much because there are plenty of things to make it great such as monophony,polyphony,
homophony,antiphony & rhythm.Also there are plenty of instruments to give it a variety of sounds.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mtmailey said:


> Instrumental music is not lacking much because there are plenty of things to make it great such as monophony,polyphony,
> homophony,antiphony & rhythm.Also there are plenty of instruments to give it a variety of sounds.


But what do you look at while you're listening to it? The CD cover?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> But what do you look at while you're listening to it? The CD cover?


As for me, I generally have my eyes closed unless I think I might be attacked.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> No, not in the sense I'm thinking of. You'd better articulate that Wagnerian ideal. Do you mean art-drama as one?
> 
> Otherwise, I see Debussy as being in opposition to Wagner's nationalism, because Debussy further eroded nationalism's essential language, tonality, further than Wagner did. Debussy was moving 'inward' to poetic territory, away from the outward-directed reality of nationalism. It is this inward-travelling introspective poetic abstraction which modernism embodied, which was the antithesis of nationalism and 'social realism.'
> 
> ...


I'm going to regret this...

The Wagnerian ideal, perhaps the 'Schopenhauer ideal' as complete futility of any action. In the practical sense this has to do with the weakening of functional tonality (and a particular way of doing it). Only the aesthetic values remain as beauty reigns over when everything else breaks down.

About the containment of all styles in the works of Second Viennese School, the idea came from the various forms used by its members and the total chromatism as containing every harmonic possibility. You can find Brahms and Mozart in the phrases of Schoenberg or Mahler and Strauss in Berg or Debussy's études in Webern and impressionistic colouring and functional and non-functional progressions of intervals and dramatic devices later exploited by rock musicians and film music and so on.

As for Mahler's late music being Baroque, my point is: If we ignore all the Romatic extramusical crap and focus on technique, Wouldn't it be easier and closer to the truth to 'explain it' via Baroque (melody/polyphony based contrapuntal/counterpoint) 'theory'?


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> But what do you look at while you're listening to it? The CD cover?


 Well no i keep busy while listening to music.I may listen to while navigating online.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

mtmailey said:


> Well no i keep busy while listening to music.I may listen to while navigating online.


We arrive then at the difference between hearing and listening: if I am listening consciously I am trying to focus as much attention as possible on the music, if I am doing other things then I am distracted and merely hearing the music as part of my environment. I think this is important to this discussion as millions seems adamant that unless other senses are engaged there is something "missing" from the experience, but I believe that if I put some music on, close my eyes and remain still, focusing on the sounds, I am engaging completely (or as near as possible) with a complete work of art. When I am doing other things I am experiencing incompletely several complete things at once, in a sense improvising a hybrid creation of found parts which in itself is complete - and obviously highly variable depending on the components used and the arrangement of those components.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> We arrive then at the difference between hearing and listening: if I am listening consciously I am trying to focus as much attention as possible on the music, if I am doing other things then I am distracted and merely hearing the music as part of my environment. I think this is important to this discussion as millions seems adamant that unless other senses are engaged there is something "missing" from the experience, but I believe that if I put some music on, close my eyes and remain still, focusing on the sounds, I am engaging completely (or as near as possible) with a complete work of art. When I am doing other things I am experiencing incompletely several complete things at once, in a sense improvising a hybrid creation of found parts which in itself is complete - and obviously highly variable depending on the components used and the arrangement of those components.


Ok, granted, but let's look at the assumptions inherent in such a way of listening to purely instrumental ('absolute') music.

If you are hearing this as a complete work of art, then you are hearing it as purely structural music, in terms of harmonic progression, rhythm, timbre, and purely musical, sonic elements. There is no sung text, no overt plot, no action, no visual element...just pure sound.

This is even more Spartan than attending a concert recital of 'absolute music;' there, you at least have a performer to look at, even though he is engaged in producing sound, not acting or performing, and if he is, that is not really a part of the inviolate work as text.

I'm not saying that this is not art; but wish to point out that this is a detached, socially isolated way of experiencing art, which I'm not sure is in keeping with the original context the work was composed in.

To me, this reflects the situation of the 'alienated consumer' which capitalist commodity has produced, obsessively and compulsively consuming beverages, cars, any kind of product.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Ok, granted, but let's look at the assumptions inherent in such a way of listening to purely instrumental ('absolute') music.
> 
> If you are hearing this as a complete work of art, then you are hearing it as purely structural music, in terms of harmonic progression, rhythm, timbre, and purely musical, sonic elements. There is no sung text, no overt plot, no action, no visual element...just pure sound.
> 
> ...


To be spartan is to deny oneself luxury and comfort, I don't think I am denying myself any luxury by not looking at a pretty woman in a sparkling dress belt out Mendelssohn's _Violin Concerto_, rather I'm allowing myself an unimpeded listening experience, which for me can indeed be both comforting and luxurious. The visual element of performance is spectacle, it does not offer insight into the mechanics of music making, only a distraction from the music being made.

Listening alone is socially isolated, that's a truism, but far from being detached I believe it is the most involved one can be as a listener. We are entering into a direct relationship with the music, and we are, I think, much more receptive to it and the things going on within its boundaries. That is not being apart from the music, only apart from distraction.

I don't think this is obsessive or compulsive, I think it is careful and considered. The mass consumption of product is a mindless herd activity, we gain nothing from it but quite often meaningless items and the guarantee of more advertising campaigns, which will serve to guide us farther along the narrowest of paths through the widest of fields. On the contrary, to actively listen to music is to be mindful and alert, to develop one's awareness and focus while isolated from distraction, to explore on one's own terms - the gain is nonmaterial but certainly not immaterial.

(I probably could fit one more instance of "distraction" in there somewhere, but I'm content to keep it as is.)


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

It is possible to listen to music while doing other thing once i was walking in Fairmount Park while listening to marches.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

People are always doing things while listening. Some more than others. No one does absolutely nothing while listening to music. Try it... no thinking, no looking around, no getting up or moving. It's actually a silly concept.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> People are always doing things while listening. Some more than others. No one does absolutely nothing while listening to music. Try it... no thinking, no looking around, no getting up or moving. It's actually a silly concept.


When taken to nonsensical extremes it is incredibly silly, I agree.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> People are always doing things while listening. Some more than others. No one does absolutely nothing while listening to music. Try it... no thinking, no looking around, no getting up or moving. It's actually a silly concept.


Not so; it often applies to my listening sessions, and it's easy not to think.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Who's to judge what a focused listen is? Some can sit quiet and retain nothing... others can dance like a turkey and retain plenty. I'm saying there is no guidelines. Do what you want.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Ok, granted, but let's look at the assumptions inherent in such a way of listening to purely instrumental ('absolute') music.
> 
> If you are hearing this as a complete work of art, then you are hearing it as purely structural music, in terms of harmonic progression, rhythm, timbre, and purely musical, sonic elements. There is no sung text, no overt plot, no action, no visual element...just pure sound.
> 
> ...


I think that just listening in a "detached" way is almost the opposite of consumerism, instead of needing all the bells amd whistle to keep our attention span from being distracted it offers us only the thing that matters: the music.

May I ask why you are trying to politicise the music you are listening to? You mentioned your Marxist sympathies before but I fail to understand why you would want to incorporate the music that you listen to into your political views.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Ok, granted, but let's look at the assumptions inherent in such a way of listening to purely instrumental ('absolute') music.


Once again, "purely instrumental music" and "absolute music" are in no way synonymous. Your argument relies on this equation. The equation is incorrect.



millionrainbows said:


> If you are hearing this as a complete work of art, then you are hearing it as purely structural music, in terms of harmonic progression, rhythm, timbre, and purely musical, sonic elements. There is no sung text, no overt plot, no action, no visual element...just pure sound.


This is nonsense. We are hearing it as sound structures whose coherence are often intimately tied to the patterns of emotional, expressive and psychological experience. For centuries listeners, critics, and composers have attributed humanistic content to instrumental music. You are making the same mistake as pointed out above.



millionrainbows said:


> This is even more Spartan than attending a concert recital of 'absolute music;' there, you at least have a performer to look at, even though he is engaged in producing sound, not acting or performing, and if he is, that is not really a part of the inviolate work as text.


It is only spartan if you don't understand instrumental music and how it conveys content.



millionrainbows said:


> I'm not saying that this is not art; but wish to point out that this is a detached, socially isolated way of experiencing art, which I'm not sure is in keeping with the original context the work was composed in.


Perhaps you should educate us about how collective listening is supposed to work.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Music is music. It shouldn't require any aid.


----------

