# Is "Beautiful" a misused term to describe Classical Music?



## Sol Invictus (Sep 17, 2016)

It may be the most common word to describe art in general but does it apply?


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

It is to me. There certainly is beautiful classical music but from the way some people talk about it you would think the only classical music in the world is some gushy slow stuff.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

"Beauty in music is too often confused with something that lets the ears lie back in an easy chair." Charles Ives


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think sometimes people who aren't as good at articulating their views/reactions to music use the word Beautiful as a default because they don't have the verbiage to say more.

But it can be appropriate, and even in the people I speak of in the above sentence, a lot is conveyed in the tone of voice they use when describing the music which intuitively lets us understand what they are saying beyond the concrete term and definition.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think sometimes people who aren't as good at articulating their views/reactions to music use the word Beautiful as a default because they don't have the verbiage to say more.


I have a book from the 1940s which was owned by someone obviously in love with classical music titled Great Works of Music and How to Listen to and Enjoy Them. The owner meticulously wrote on each piece the date she heard it on the radio, the orchestra, and the conductor. Her notes of her impressions of the pieces are quaint: "I love this," "Too beautiful for words," "Not for this world." But she was experiencing something which she didn't know how to express in words, so she could only record her emotional reactions.

Like Hans Christian Anderson said, "Where words fail, music speaks."


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Sol Invictus said:


> It may be the most common word to describe art in general but does it apply?


It is not an invalid concern, and there are certainly situations where I have seen it used but it seems not apply at all, admitting that it may be a subjective reaction. My question would be, what should people say instead?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> It is not an invalid concern, and there are certainly situations where I have seen it used but it seems not apply at all, admitting that it may be a subjective reaction. My question would be, what should people say instead?


Sometimes it comes down to subjectivity. One may genuinely see a piece as beautiful that another finds erratic (Rite of Spring for example). Other times someone is just saying beautiful because they don't know what else to say do to lack of verbiage.

But I will say, say something that is genuine, yet appropriate so the listener of the review doesn't have to play investigator to see what the person is trying to get at.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> But I will say, say something that is genuine, yet appropriate so the listener of the review doesn't have to play investigator to see what the person is trying to get at.


You will, I hope, forgive me for saying that this is a very evasive answer, one which is really no answer at all. I think that most people presume they know what they are saying when they say beautiful. I think that most people, when they say that something is beautiful _are_ expressing a genuine feeling, and thus something genuine. I suspect that any word that might be used would potentially fall into the same issue as the concepts being described are necessarily abstract. I think the question posed is much harder to answer than simply to deny the use of one particular term.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Sol Invictus said:


> It may be the most common word to describe art in general but does it apply?


I suppose it depends on how we understand the word. To me, it is precisely the word to describe a great deal of classical music, because that is the whole point of classical music: creating structures that exist for their own sake, to be appreciated for their beauty.

A lot of pop music may be fun, or pretty, or very good for dancing, or very suitable as background in a supermarket. But very seldom does it have any real beauty. That is why we may greatly enjoy it, but it tends not to withstand repeated listening very well.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I would say it applies to some, but not all Classical Music, as in paintings too. I heard Renoir was criticized for just painting stuff that is beautiful or pretty to which he responded “To my mind, a picture should be something pleasant, cheerful, and pretty, yes pretty! There are too many unpleasant things in life as it is without creating still more of them.” Faure and Ravel wrote a lot of pretty/ beautiful works as did Mozart and Beethoven. But the Rite of Spring can't really be classified as pretty.


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

When it comes down to it, music lacks any descriptive words; so it borrows from the visual arts and science to describe these subjective ideas:

"Beautiful"
"Ugly"
"High"
"Low"
"Soft"
"Gentle"
"Dense"
"Colorful"
et al

And we take this for granted and take these descriptions literally, instead of recognizing we're using metaphors

But what can I say, I'm just another girl from Manhattan :lol:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I wouldn't call a lot of Beethoven's music beautiful. More like "emotion-stirring."

Beautiful music without underlying substance is simply dull.

Classical music is "beautiful". Classical music is "relaxing". I don't want to associate with anyone saying either of those things.


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> beautiful works as did Mozart and Beethoven. But the Rite of Spring can't really be classified as pretty.


I disagree about Beethoven, his whole demeanor was not expressing anything pleasant. It's quite gut-wrenching actually.

The Rite of Spring is old fashioned, quite easy to drift of to sleep with.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ziggabea said:


> I disagree about Beethoven, his whole demeanor was not expressing anything pleasant. It's quite gut-wrenching actually.
> 
> The Rite of Spring is old fashioned, quite easy to drift of to sleep with.


Yes and Beethoven could actually write "ugly" magnificent music, such as the Grosse Fuge.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Ziggabea said:


> When it comes down to it, *music lacks any descriptive words*; so it borrows from the visual arts and science to describe these subjective ideas:
> 
> "Beautiful"
> "Ugly"
> ...


I agree with you that metaphors are useful (and probably unavoidable!) when we talk/write about music. However, I disagree with your statement that "music lacks any descriptive words." There are many technical terms that exist specifically for the purpose of describing musical styles and sounds: words such as consonant, dissonant, chromatic, tonal, atonal, polyphonic, syncopated, and so on.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

hpowders said:


> *I wouldn't call a lot of Beethoven's music beautiful.* More like "emotion-stirring."
> 
> Beautiful music without underlying substance is simply dull.
> 
> Classical music is "beautiful". Classical music is "relaxing". I don't want to associate with anyone saying either of those things.


I completely agree! I would consider most of Beethoven's music sublime rather than beautiful.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Ziggabea said:


> I disagree about Beethoven, his whole demeanor was not expressing anything pleasant. It's quite gut-wrenching actually.
> 
> The Rite of Spring is old fashioned, quite easy to drift of to sleep with.


I was saying Beethoven did write a lot of music (not all) that is supposed to be beautiful like the "Spring" violin sonata, the 3rd movement of the 9th, the 2nd movement of he Emperor concerto. He writes highly contrasting moods and subjects.


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

Bettina said:


> There are many technical terms that exist specifically for the purpose of describing musical styles and sounds: words such as consonant, dissonant, chromatic, tonal, atonal, polyphonic, syncopated, and so on.


Well music theory is in it's own box, as it describes methods and systems that are more or less unrelated to how we perceive music personally. There are no musically exclusive words to describe what we experiece subjectively, so we turn to other arts and sciences


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Sublime is a kind of beauty, as is picturesque. It is a little more precise, conveying a sense of being awe inspiring, but it can be just as easily abused as the word beauty. (It just doesn't yet suffer from overuse, but it might if we ban "beauty" from the list of acceptable words.)


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I was saying Beethoven did write a lot of music (not all) that is supposed to be beautiful like the "Spring" violin sonata, the 3rd movement of the 9th, the 2nd movement of he Emperor concerto. He writes highly contrasting moods and subjects.


As my uncle said when I was a tot:

"Beethoven, just when he starts up he stops and then he starts again. The man can't stick to one tempo, time signature or dynamic, he just keeps pushing for more and more. Try Mozart first" :lol:


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sol Invictus said:


> It may be the most common word to describe art in general but does it apply?


Beauty is always in the eyes/ ears of the beholder.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

When I call a piece of CM beautiful, it's because that particular piece is, to my mind, beautiful. But that word doesn't apply to all CM any more than delicious applies to all food.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

If it's okay to use adjectives to describe music, then why wouldn't it be okay to use beautiful in a subjective way?



Pugg said:


> Beauty is always in the eyes/ ears of the beholder.


Right. But maybe that's why people have a problem with the word. If you only describe a particular work as "beautiful," it really does not describe the music in an objective way. Nobody really knows what that means in reference to one's idea of beauty. A professional critic who only uses that word alone to describe music would be a mediocre critic IMO, but I don't see a problem with someone describing or thinking of music as being beautiful in a general subjective way.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

The main problem here is, I think, that we consider the word "beautiful" to be a noun, i.e. something which can be found in _this_ world (of the senses), whereas it rather denotes something altogether metaphysical. Even such a genius as Goethe was once convinced that he would find the _Urpflanze_ (Archetypical plant) somewhere in the hills of Italy, but soon realized that it couldn't be found in _this_ world.

From this thread alone one can observe that the word "beautiful" is used in many a disparate ways, and hence it cannot be defined in one singular way. Nothing is "beautiful" in and of itself, but only before a perceiving subject, and _so_ it will always be a matter of personal opinion. (It has degrees, so to speak.)

Perhaps it is our personal _Ideal_ which we denote when we use the word "beautiful", and _thus_ we consider something to be "beautiful" when it adheres to this particular ideal?

Music can only be described by way of analogy. (For otherwise we would be expressing the very music itself, as it were.) As a general rule, though, I think it is an unfortunate misconception that classical music always seeks to be "beautiful".


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Forss said:


> The main problem here is, I think, that we consider the word "beautiful" to be a noun, i.e. something which can be found in _this_ world (of the senses), whereas it rather denotes something altogether metaphysical. Even such a genius as Goethe was once convinced that he would find the _Urpflanze_ (Archetypical plant) somewhere in the hills of Italy, but soon realized that it couldn't be found in _this_ world.


I am not sure how that would make it a noun, and if the fact that "beautiful" is actually an adjective is a problem, then there is always "beauty," which is a noun.



Forss said:


> From this thread alone one can observe that the word "beautiful" is used in many a disparate ways, and hence it cannot be defined in one singular way. Nothing is "beautiful" in and of itself, but only before a perceiving subject, and _so_ it will always be a matter of personal opinion. (It has degrees, so to speak.)


Like many other words, it is indeed a larger concept than might be suggested by the fact that it is only one word. Indeed, that flexibility is precisely one reason that is used so commonly, and why it mostly just conveys a sense of a favorable response. (I presume that it is this vagueness which the OP is decrying.) Perhaps it is the fact that we tend to stop describing the music after we say "beautiful" that is the problem. Even if prompted for more, we don't or really cannot provide it, that is, most of us probably would have trouble explaining what it is that we find beautiful about it.



Forss said:


> Perhaps it is our personal _Ideal_ which we denote when we use the word "beautiful", and _thus_ we consider something to be "beautiful" when it adheres to this particular ideal?


Again, we each have a kind of general sense of what is beautiful to us, and it is probably various ideals rather than simply one. When we say that something is "beautiful," we are actually describing our reaction to it. That reaction is personal, even if it might be shared by a wider number of other people. To move from this necessarily abstract discussion into something more concrete, someone in another thread singled out Schonenberg's Piano Concerto as something that he considered to be "beautiful," specifically using that attribute (although he may actually have said that he found "beauty" in it, which is essentially the same thing). When I listen to that same music, perhaps even the same performance, I find it to not only fail to be beautiful but to be the opposite. Here, we are at an impasse, because we evidently both mean something very different in using the same word. If pressed, we might give a breakdown of characteristics that support our generality of "beautiful," which might be more instructive, but would probably reveal other, underlying words that we use differently as well. We may be using the same words, but not necessarily with the same basis or to the same ends. (This sad fact is part of why so many discussions here, and elsewhere, seem inevitably to end in hostile controversy every time the subjects are brought up.)



Forss said:


> Music can only be described by way of analogy. (For otherwise we would be expressing the very music itself, as it were.) As a general rule, though, I think it is an unfortunate misconception that classical music always seeks to be "beautiful".


I do not think that all CM is, or attempts to be, "beautiful." It is just that most of the CM that I seek out and choose to listen to over and over again is precisely that music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Ziggabea said:


> Well music theory is in it's own box, as it describes methods and systems that are more or less unrelated to how we perceive music personally.


I assume you are using the royal we because "we," the collective, or elements thereof (that is, I), disagree! . Some of us keep theory out of the box and play with it daily. For those fluent with them, theory terms are deeply connected to our personal perception of music. For example, saying a piece is full of Neapolitan 6 chords conveys lots of information about its expressive qualities. Saying it is full of double chain suspensions does as well.



Ziggabea said:


> There are no musically exclusive words to describe what we experience subjectively, so we turn to other arts and sciences


Metaphorically borrowed terms and musically exclusive words are not mutually exclusive categories. High, low, dense, transparent, and all the rest, when applied to music, function as technical terms capturing objective properties.

Most important for the purposes of this thread, both metaphorical borrowings and technical theory terms are in a completely different category than the term beauty, because the former capture objective, easily isolated properties of musical works and "beauty" doesn't.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think we use the term beautiful in 2 ways: pleasant/pretty (like Renoir), and profound/brilliant. Saint Saens' the Swan is the former definition, and Bach's B Minor Mass is the latter. In the OP, the term beautiful could mean either, but when some people use the term as it applies to Classical, it is likely a stereotype, focussing on some well known and popular pieces of music like in those CD compliations, rather than collective whole. How many of us have heard the statement "Classical Music is relaxing?"


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2017)

Sol Invictus said:


> It may be the most common word to describe art in general but does it apply?


Misused? To Classical generally? No. To some specific pieces? Almost certainly, but that depends on the ears of the hearer.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Yes, why, of course it is an adjective! But my point is that many of us act _as if_ it were a noun, i.e. as something which can be found in _this_ world-and _so_, as a consequence of this misconception, we assume that it can be expressed in words. "Beauty" is rather _shown_ to us (as a pattern), and cannot, _for that very reason_, be expressed in words! I can ponder over a painting by, say, Vermeer only to be able to exclaim: "Gosh!", and that single utterance alone would encompass _so many_ things which can't, or shan't, be expressed in mere words.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

I doubt there is one composer who has written a higher ratio of beautiful/heart wrenching pieces to pieces actually composed then Beethoven. I am listening to his Op.109 piano sonata in E while writing this and it is beyond beautiful, and I could say the same for piece after piece that he wrote. Sometimes I throw my arms in the air and rudely exclaim 'How the **** did he do that?' Every time it is Beethoven, other composers do of course write beautiful music but none are ever or ever going to be in the league as Beethoven.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

beetzart said:


> I doubt there is one composer who has written a higher ratio of beautiful/heart wrenching pieces to pieces actually composed then Beethoven. I am listening to his Op.109 piano sonata in E while writing this and it is beyond beautiful, and I could say the same for piece after piece that he wrote. Sometimes I throw my arms in the air and rudely exclaim 'How the **** did he do that?' Every time it is Beethoven, other composers do of course write beautiful music but none are ever or ever going to be in the league as Beethoven.


Heart wrenching, I agree. Overwhelmingly "beautiful" music? Beethoven? Not the Beethoven I know. He seemed to be purposely writing the opposite of polite, aristocratic, drawing room beautiful, but dull, music. He was intentionally trying to be provocative. Can you see the drawing room aristocrats sitting there admiring the Eroica Symphony or the Missa Solemnis or the Emperor Piano Concerto, each in totality, as "so beautiful!" ?? I don't think so.


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

Beautiful is the generic descriptor people resort to when faced with anything that is clearly magnificent but somewhat (or very much) beyond their understanding. A lot of classical music has just these qualities: trancendental, profound, philosophical, abstract... all wrapped up in a nice, palatable package of notes. Most casual listeners would be drawn to the pleasant sounds and would get a vague sense of something greater behind those sounds, their fingers brushing against something curious in the depths of the melodies. They would be prompted to call the music "beautiful."


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2017)

hpowders said:


> Heart wrenching, I agree. Overwhelmingly "beautiful" music? Beethoven? Not the Beethoven I know. He seemed to be purposely writing the oppoisite of polite, aristocratic, drawing room beautiful, but dull, music. He was intentionally trying to be provocative. Can you see the drawing room aristocrats sitting there admiring the Eroica Symphony or the Missa Solemnis or the Emperor Piano Concerto, each in totality, as "so beautiful!" ?? I don't think so.


I can see that the OP might need to define what he means by 'beautiful' since the word clearly means different things to diffirent people.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

I often use "beautiful" for music because that's what it is!!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

beetzart said:


> I doubt there is one composer who has written a higher ratio of beautiful/heart wrenching pieces to pieces actually composed then Beethoven. I am listening to his Op.109 piano sonata in E while writing this and it is beyond beautiful, and I could say the same for piece after piece that he wrote. Sometimes I throw my arms in the air and rudely exclaim 'How the **** did he do that?' Every time it is Beethoven, other composers do of course write beautiful music but none are ever or ever going to be in the league as Beethoven.


For you I suppose so


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I usually only use the term when discussing album covers.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Phil loves classical said:


> For you I suppose so


As you seem to keep pointing out.


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2017)

beetzart said:


> I doubt there is one composer who has written a higher ratio of beautiful/heart wrenching pieces to pieces actually composed then Beethoven. I am listening to his Op.109 piano sonata in E while writing this and it is beyond beautiful, and I could say the same for piece after piece that he wrote. Sometimes I throw my arms in the air and rudely exclaim 'How the **** did he do that?' Every time it is Beethoven, other composers do of course write beautiful music but none are ever or ever going to be in the league as Beethoven.


I'd have to disagree. Much as I like Beethoven, I find the 'beautiful pieces: pieces composed' ratio is higher for Sibelius. You may wish that phil didn't keep pointing out that your claim is applicable only to you...but it is.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I'd have to disagree. Much as I like Beethoven, I find the 'beautiful piecesieces composed' ratio is higher for Sibelius. You may wish that phil didn't keep pointing out that your claim is applicable only to you...but it is.


i find Ravel wrote a lot more beautiful music than Beethoven. I wish I could leave Beezart alone, it's just when he makes certain claims, i find it irresistible not to respond. sorry Beezart.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> I'd have to disagree. Much as I like Beethoven, I find the 'beautiful piecesieces composed' ratio is higher for Sibelius. You may wish that phil didn't keep pointing out that your claim is applicable only to you...but it is.


I can live with that. I do like other composers, listening to Bruckner now. I love Sibelius especially Syms 1,5, and 7. Beautiful is the go to adjective if you find yourself overawed by something, be it a vista, music, poetry, etc. It is cliched maybe but it does the trick. Sometimes I punch the air at the highlights of Tchaikovsky's symphonies (I love all 6, but not mad about the Manfred). Sorry, I find it hard to reign in my Beethoven appreciation, and this is a classical muisic forum after all.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Phil loves classical said:


> i find Ravel wrote a lot more beautiful music than Beethoven. I wish I could leave Beezart alone, it's just when he makes certain claims, i find it irresistible not to respond. sorry Beezart.


Well let's thank subjectivity to help us draw an arbitrary line in the sand. What claims have I made of late, Phil? Before the beautiful one.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

beetzart said:


> Well let's thank subjectivity to help us draw an arbitrary line in the sand. What claims have I made of late, Phil? Before the beautiful one.


I just meant generally about no one ever in the same league as Beethoven.... Punching the air in Tchaikovsky Symphonies? :lol:


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

brianvds said:


> A lot of pop music may be fun, or pretty, or very good for dancing, or very suitable as background in a supermarket. But very seldom does it have any real beauty. That is why we may greatly enjoy it, but it tends not to withstand repeated listening very well.


I find that a very curious statement. There are many popular songs/records that are considered 'evergreen' and each generation finds real beauty in them.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

JAS said:


> You will, I hope, forgive me for saying that this is a very evasive answer, one which is really no answer at all. I think that most people presume they know what they are saying when they say beautiful. I think that most people, when they say that something is beautiful _are_ expressing a genuine feeling, and thus something genuine. I suspect that any word that might be used would potentially fall into the same issue as the concepts being described are necessarily abstract. I think the question posed is much harder to answer than simply to deny the use of one particular term.


I agree most answers are genuine, but what qualifies as appropriate is providing an accurate description of your thoughts on the piece. Sometimes people need help finding the vocabulary to describe their feelings, something I love doing. People use words incorrectly all the time but tone of voice conveys something different than the verbiage utilized. This is a concept I'm familiar with greatly as being a therapist!


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Most important for the purposes of this thread, both metaphorical borrowings and technical theory terms are in a completely different category than the term beauty, because the former capture objective, easily isolated properties of musical works and "beauty" doesn't.


Do you consider "beautiful" to be a objective trait written into the score?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Nothing is more difficult than attempting to translate impressions from abstract feelings derived from a musical performance into words, which is why music criticism is such a folly!

"Beautiful" means nothing to me as to whether I will like a certain performance.


----------

