# Technical Music vs Emotional Music



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm starting to appreciate more technical, "showboat" music these days. Rachmaninoff' comes to mind as an example.

I still love emotional music, and in my own compositions, that's where I shine, but perhaps with time, I'll be whizzing through scales with high intensity!

Thoughts?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Why is this framed as a dichotomy? Why do you think "emotional" music is any less likely to be technically difficult? Your example of Rachmaninoff seems particularly poorly chosen to make such a point. Listen to to Etudes Tableaux Op. 39. These works, like most of Rachmaninoff's piano music, are both highly difficult technically and strongly expressive:






or


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Technically, I'm a rather emotional person. Emotionally, I'm quite technical.
And, as soon as I can apply this self-analysis to music, I'll get back to this thread.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think you're trying to distinguish between emotional vs cerebral music, Capt'n? Both can be quite technical and expressive in different ways. I hear Schoenberg as quite cerebral, and yet very expressive, while not very emotional to me at least.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

you don't find these emotional?


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Rachmaninov does seem an odd choice.

On the point, though, I don't see the point of music which doesn't engage the emotions.
I can do a puzzle if I want an intellectual exercise without emotional content.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I just meant fast notes, displaying major chops vs more sensual and slow music. It's not necessarily that technical music lacks emotion, but I always used to look at it that way.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Compared to other genres, I don't really find Classical to be that emotional. There are exceptions like Debussy, Rachmaninoff, film scores, which is what I'd rather listen to if I want to be moved emotionally, but I usually find Classical to be more intellectually stimulating, even if that wasn't the composer's intention--that's what they were over-qualified to do.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> Compared to other genres, I don't really find Classical to be that emotional as it is cerebral. There are exceptions like Debussy, Borodin, Rachmaninoff, film scores, which is what I'd rather listen to if I want to be moved emotionally, but I usually find Classical music is more intellectually stimulating, even if that wasn't the composer's intention--that's because they were over-qualified.


It's fascinating how differently we all categorize and perceive things to me, probably why I am a Social Worker with a speciality in mental health therapy.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Fyi I don't think Rachmaninoff isn't intellectually stimulating, but I am throwing out a possible example of emotional music. I think Classical composers overall are more intellectually stimulating, and Rachmaninoff seems like both.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's fascinating how differently we all categorize and perceive things to me, probably why I am a Social Worker with a speciality in mental health therapy.


And perhaps why you are attracted to TC.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

This is a weird thread. I'm not sure I get the choice, bur I don't think I agree with _anyone_.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

Captain: I think you might need to clarify what you mean by these terms. Rachmaninov is arguably the most heart-on-sleeve, "emotional," late Romantic composer, yet you describe his music as "technical." Are you referring to the technique required to play his music on piano? 

Some of the greatest music ever composed is a combination of the two. Brahms comes to mind. He composed with a perfect adherence to Classical forms and superior skills as a craftsman (almost mathematically), yet his music is also imbued with a tender, almost naive-sounding lyricism which is very moving and could be described as emotional. Bach's great Chaconne from the 2nd Violin Partita is obviously technically brilliant, yet moving, profound, and, yes, "emotional." Berg's Violin Concerto was written using a very technically demanding method of composition, yet it reflects great emotion over a death. I think it's safe to say that nearly all the great music we discuss here combines both elements to some degree.

Captain, this isn't meant as a criticism; I think we just aren't exactly sure what you mean.


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

We could actually apply this generally to performers themselves regardless of music.
I had recently a discussion with a relative of mine about Bernstein vs Karajan and he concluded, “Karajan conducted with brain, while Bernstein conducted with heart”. 
In other words Karajan was the technical conductor, and Bernstein the emotional.

I tend to agree with that, most pieces regardless of composer come off as emotionally played with Bernstein in charge, and more technically correct (or systematically logical?) with Karajan.


Just my thoughts!


Apologies to Captainnumber36 for dragging the discussion to conductors instead of composers, just thought it might fit in to the talking points.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just meant fast notes, displaying major chops vs more sensual and slow music. It's not necessarily that technical music lacks emotion, but I always used to look at it that way.


So in "technical vs. emotional" you're just distinguishing fast and slow music....well, why didn't you just say so? Surely nobody here thinks that technical difficulty and emotional affect have no overlap.

In fact, pretty much every single major composer composes "emotional" music whether it be fast or slow-I know of no composer who composes music that is designed to elicit no emotion at all, except perhaps for Hanon and maybe Mereaux.

And Rachmaninov of all people should surely err on the "emotional" side by your definition. All his most famous moments are "slow and sensual".


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Axter said:


> We could actually apply this generally to performers themselves regardless of music.
> I had recently a discussion with a relative of mine about Bernstein vs Karajan and he concluded, "Karajan conducted with brain, while Bernstein conducted with heart".
> In other words Karajan was the technical conductor, and Bernstein the emotional.
> 
> ...


I think this post indicates why we are discussing a false dichotomy.

To get at the underlying emotion you have to be technically adequate, fine. Bad performances will tend to irritate.

However, IMO to produce the performance which will communicate emotion most fully, it is likely to be beneficial for the performance to be fully secure technically. Given that technical accuracy, the performance can reveal the patterns that the composer sought to create most effectively - and I believe the emotion comes from those patterns being realised. In a way that brings the listener closest to the composer and the performers, all pursuing the same shared vision, with the technical groundwork allowing the performance to fly.

If you veer too much towards being just "heart" in performance then there is a danger that the technical accuracy may be lost (by being de-emphasised) and the performance becomes wilfully self-indulgent. ("I can't be bothered with getting it right in a superficial sense; I'm going for the inner meaning", which to my mind is an excuse for not working harder.) The composer indicated one thing, and the performers are veering around in a less secure fashion (- that must be the case, or we would be saying that it is technically secure). The listener is at liberty to feel confused, rather than emotionally connected.

Clearly there is a chance that a "great" performance can result from self-indulgent meandering, but it's likely that many such performances will just be irritating to experience (apart from, maybe, in the mind of the performers).

Turning to Bernstein and Karajan: I imagine that Bernstein was highly capable technically; I also imagine that Karajan didn't spend his life doing what he did with only a technical angle to sustain his interest. To the extent that I agree about the difference, some may find Karajan more reliably able to engage my emotions, and Bernstein more hit-or-miss; others may find that Karajan focused too much on achieving a particular sound and lost something as a result, whereas Bernstein really "nailed it" in many pieces.

However, I think it serves little purpose to suggest that Bernstein was technically lacking or that Karajan was lacking in heart. I suspect they were both enormously talented people pursuing their own paths with both technical and emotional commitment.


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

Eclectic Al said:


> However, I think it serves little purpose to suggest that Bernstein was technically lacking or that Karajan was lacking in heart. I suspect they were both enormously talented people pursuing their own paths with both technical and emotional commitment.


I wasn't suggesting that by the way. What I meant was that one of them was emphasizing on one factor more than the other did and vice versa. Both of them were technically immensely gifted and brought some of their own emotions into their work. Its just that I feel that Karajan was more focused on the technical aspects of the work a bit more. This doesn't mean that Bernstein lacked it in anyway whatsoever.
There are certain works that I prefer Bernstein to Karajan, for example Mahler's symphonies, they are in Bernstein's territory for me. Bernstein nailed them each time both with NYPO and VPO. 
On the other hand, when it comes to Beethoven's 5th I think Karajan was technically on spot, while Bernstein took it to a different emotional level (based on his own interpretation surely). Just my opinion.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Isn't this basically the Horowitz debate? Some said that he was not such a great pianist because he played so many wrong notes, and others that it hardly mattered because he made such great music.

And yes, I think it is a mistake to boil Bernstein and Karajan down to one particular trait, thereby overemphasizing it, and call that a difference with any meaning.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> Compared to other genres, *I don't really find Classical to be that emotional*. There are exceptions like Debussy, Rachmaninoff, film scores, which is what I'd rather listen to if I want to be moved emotionally, but I usually find Classical to be more intellectually stimulating, even if that wasn't the composer's intention--that's what they were over-qualified to do.


Interesting how different people can have so distinct, in this case opposite, opinions. I'm yet to find music that moves me in a way that classical does. I think that the emotions a piece may stir can actually be improved by a good technique - the two things don't need to come separated. Classical is very rich both intellectually and emotionally in my opinion.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Can I just say that as a _very_ amateur pianist, whenever I see Rachmaninoff's sheet music, I see more black space than white space. And it's terrifying.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

All music is engineering. Only some of it moves us, and some does not.


----------

