# An Interesting Quote of 20th Century Composer Vagn Holmboe



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

20th century Danish composer Vagn Holmboe (1909-1996) wrote about his own symphonies in 1943 (italics as per Holmboe):

"For a modern composer it is natural that music _cannot describe_ emotion and its manner, or in other words: emotion is _not the purpose_. One can, however, say that emotion is the _driving force_, the _reason why_ composers express themselves in the material with which they feel at home: music. This emotion-based cause, of whatever kind it may be, can be of no significance for the listener when he is dealing with works of art. _That_ must be able to stand alone, with neither explanation nor justification, like a synthesis of emotional tension, compositional power and technical mastery."

What do you think? I particularly like the last two sentences, and I'm often skeptical of "conceptual based pieces of music" which without the verbosity that goes with it, can seem rather vacuous on its own. (Classic example of course, if Cage's _4'33"_).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm suspicious of all strictures. If a composer or a listener wants to follow VH's program, that's fine. It's the absolute proscriptive nature of the statement that makes me suspicious. So, if a modern composer wants to (try to) describe emotion, or wants emotion to be the purpose of her music, I suspect that'd be fine; and if a listener wants to take the "emotion-based cause" of the music into consideration, I suspect that'd be fine too.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Vagn Holmboe said:


> For a modern composer it is natural that music _cannot describe_ emotion and its manner, or in other words: emotion is _not the purpose_. One can, however, say that emotion is the _driving force_, the _reason why_ composers express themselves in the material with which they feel at home: music. This emotion-based cause, of whatever kind it may be, can be of no significance for the listener when he is dealing with works of art. _That_ must be able to stand alone, with neither explanation nor justification, like a synthesis of emotional tension, compositional power and technical mastery.


I actually agree with this. Music now isn't about expressing emotions even if the music evokes emotions in the listener. That doesn't mean music is now unemotional though because there are plenty works from the second half of the 20th century to the 21st century that might make the listener interpret them as angry, sad, joyful etc. but the same music might evoke different emotes in another listener. Music now doesn't express emotions, music may or may not evoke them in the listener though.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Artistic creation is the pinnacle of selfishness and vanity!!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I actually agree with this. Music now isn't about expressing emotions even if the music evokes emotions in the listener. That doesn't mean music is now unemotional though because there are plenty works from the second half of the 20th century to the 21st century that might make the listener interpret them as angry, sad, joyful etc. but the same music might evoke different emotes in another listener. Music now doesn't express emotions, music may or may not evoke them in the listener though.


Speak for yourself  All of my music expresses emotions and ideas, and there's several that are basically portraits of a single feeling, whether it be homesickness or loneliness.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Speak for yourself  All of my music expresses emotions and ideas, and there's several that are basically portraits of a single feeling, whether it be homesickness or loneliness.


I am obviously a better composer than you.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I am obviously a better composer than you.


pft, when you write a piece that combines modal, plain-chant style writing with atonal pitch set composition for electric clarinet, then you can talk


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> pft, when you write a piece that combines modal, plain-chant style writing with atonal pitch set composition for electric clarinet, then you can talk


Does a piece that combines modal, plain-chant style writing with atonal pitch set composition for electric basset horn count?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Self-expression is vastly over-rated in our current times, within and outside of the arts. Since it is over-valued and overemphasized, it becomes a too frequent point of mention as well.

Music is a non-verbal medium, and anything past what Stravinsky so rightly said, "Music can only express itself," and later ceded a tacked on, 'It has the power to evoke a strong emotional response.' is pretty much not a direct musical matter.

Those 'evoked emotions' are well after the fact of the music being made, including what the composer or performer is busy with while making or performing it. Ergo, the 'expression' or what is thought to be expressed is again secondary, a reaction, and wholly subjective.

I think it is virtually impossible to 'directly express' any specific emotion when writing or performing, and a bit of a delusion is needed to believe one is 'directly expressing' themselves when writing or performing.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Holboe was around 34 years old then. Generally a good age. The worst stages of youthful over-excitement and raving romanticism have passed. Sobriety and disillusionment have begun to set in. The intellect is slowly taking control - that is, of whatever portion of oneself the id is willing to pass up.

He says that the emotional cause of a work is of no significance to the listener. I read that as a statement in favour of absolute music. If you provide the backstory to a certain piece, through a telling title perhaps, you limit the range of associations that listeners might have. You over-determine listerners' interpretation. And you ask the listerner to merely join you in that particular emotion, to sympathize with you, maybe even to identify.

I have no idea what the slow movement of Brahms' first piano trio is about. I only know that it's incredibly touching. But why? I'd have to look into myself to find out. To me, that makes it much more power- and meaningful.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

science said:


> I'm suspicious of all strictures. If a composer or a listener wants to follow VH's program, that's fine. It's the absolute proscriptive nature of the statement that makes me suspicious. So, if a modern composer wants to (try to) describe emotion, or wants emotion to be the purpose of her music, I suspect that'd be fine; and if a listener wants to take the "emotion-based cause" of the music into consideration, I suspect that'd be fine too.


In other words, whatever floats your boat as they say!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Self-expression is vastly over-rated in our current times, within and outside of the arts. Since it is over-valued and overemphasized, it becomes a too frequent point of mention as well.
> 
> Music is a non-verbal medium, and anything past what Stravinsky so rightly said, "Music can only express itself," and later ceded a tacked on, 'It has the power to evoke a strong emotional response.' is pretty much not a direct musical matter.
> 
> ...


What about opera?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Self-expression is vastly over-rated in our current times, within and outside of the arts. Since it is over-valued and overemphasized, it becomes a too frequent point of mention as well.
> 
> Music is a non-verbal medium, and anything past what Stravinsky so rightly said, "Music can only express itself," and later ceded a tacked on, 'It has the power to evoke a strong emotional response.' is pretty much not a direct musical matter.
> 
> ...


Oh, I agree, with the part about it being virtually impossible to 'directly express'. I disagree with your assertion that self-expression is vastly over-rated, as its really all you can do as an artist (IE, anything you create is created through your vision and viewpoint, and will inherently be shaped by your imagination, no matter how 'objective' you want your art to be). I think music is the most abstract of any artform, and I think its virtually impossible to directly express through the music without telling somebody what it means. Some people may interpret it the way I wrote it, but many will likely not. I'm alright with that though. I intend the piece to express loneliness, and some people will get that, and some people won't, and their different interpretation is just as valid as my original intent.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Andreas said:


> Holboe was around 34 years old then. Generally a good age. The worst stages of youthful over-excitement and raving romanticism have passed. Sobriety and disillusionment have begun to set in. The intellect is slowly taking control - that is, of whatever portion of oneself the id is willing to pass up.
> 
> He says that the emotional cause of a work is of no significance to the listener. I read that as a statement in favour of absolute music. If you provide the backstory to a certain piece, through a telling title perhaps, you limit the range of associations that listeners might have. You over-determine listerners' interpretation. And you ask the listerner to merely join you in that particular emotion, to sympathize with you, maybe even to identify.
> 
> I have no idea what the slow movement of Brahms' first piano trio is about. I only know that it's incredibly touching. But why? I'd have to look into myself to find out. To me, that makes it much more power- and meaningful.


Well whats wrong with that? Whats wrong with solidifying the meaning of music as much as a composer can? Being vague and abstract and ambiguous is fine to, but whats wrong in being very specific too? Nobody begrudges literature for not being extremely vague.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

I Posted in the wrong thread... must be all the drugs sorry.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Anyone interested in these sort of topics or subjects should read "Emotion and Meaning in Music" by Richard B. Meyer.

http://www.amazon.com/Emotion-Meani...1&keywords=emotion+and+meaning+in+music+meyer


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> In other words, whatever floats your boat as they say!


Well after all, it's music, not ethics or scientific research. If one person takes a different approach or gets a different result than another person, we don't need to amend any constitutions or inform the NIH that we've lost control of our bacteria cultures.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

BurningDesire- Speak for yourself  All of my music expresses emotions and ideas, and there's several that are basically portraits of a single feeling, whether it be homesickness or loneliness.

How can you possibly be the judge of that? You can say all you want about what your music expresses, but if the audience doesn't get that... or has an altogether different response?


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Well whats wrong with that? Whats wrong with solidifying the meaning of music as much as a composer can? Being vague and abstract and ambiguous is fine to, but whats wrong in being very specific too?


There is nothing wrong with it, composers are free to do as they wish. Some of my favourite music is program music. Generally though, for me, music loses much of its magical aura if it is intended to represent any one specific concept or situation (with the exception of sacred music).


----------



## Krisena (Jul 21, 2012)

Andreas said:


> Generally though, for me, music loses much of its magical aura if it is intended to represent any one specific concept or situation (with the exception of sacred music).


I like the idea that holy music loses its magic when reckognized as holy. Hehe.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I'm not very interested in the composer's 'emotional intentions'. Rather, I'm interested in my 'emotional' response as a listener ('emotion' in a very broad sense). I don't care if the music is well 'crafted' with respect to some system, I don't care if the music accomplishes the ideas of the composer. At the end, I judge music almost entirely with my subjectivity. If the music provokes me feelings that I appreciate at an emotional or intellectual level, I like that music, and that's all. I think that the appreciation of art is a private thing.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> BurningDesire- Speak for yourself  All of my music expresses emotions and ideas, and there's several that are basically portraits of a single feeling, whether it be homesickness or loneliness.
> 
> How can you possibly be the judge of that? You can say all you want about what your music expresses, but if the audience doesn't get that... or has an altogether different response?


I just said what it expresses, what I expressed in it. How can I be the judge of that? Well I wrote it for one. Its fine if people get a different response to it, but that doesn't change what _I_ expressed originally. Thought this would be obvious.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Andreas said:


> There is nothing wrong with it, composers are free to do as they wish. Some of my favourite music is program music. Generally though, for me, music loses much of its magical aura if it is intended to represent any one specific concept or situation (with the exception of sacred music).


For me I only enjoy sacred music as absolute music  I personally am not fond of religion, and I tend to view sacred music as an expression of the composer's emotions and feelings, and ignore the associations with nonsense.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

aleazk said:


> I'm not very interested in the composer's 'emotional intentions'. Rather, I'm interested in my 'emotional' response as a listener ('emotion' in a very broad sense). I don't care if the music is well 'crafted' with respect to some system, I don't care if the music accomplishes the ideas of the composer. *At the end, I judge music almost entirely with my subjectivity.* If the music provokes me feelings that I appreciate at an emotional or intellectual level, I like that music, and that's all. I think that the appreciation of art is a private thing.


Err.

Your premise starts off well, but then ends up with a premise, that you could worship listening to a tomato being fried in Quail sauce and consider this the zenith of musical achievement.

Baudelaire, in the Painter of Modern Life, describes clearly how sentiments must be sublimated, for a writer, to move beyond the sentimentality of his own intent. Yes - I can see this too, with respect to a composer, whose works must be taken, for their aural impact on the listener, and not through a clever spiel of several 1000s of words in a thesis to sell the emperor's new clothes.

I've highlighted the sentence, where the great premise you've started off with, becomes unhinged. It is not, that music is appreciated ...in all of your subjectivity; it is the very intersubjective medium of music ...that relationship between [composer---music as a medium ---you] which forms that intersubjectivity.

This is why, a composer's music, which is a part of his own spirit; his own psyche, becomes a part of our own appreciation (aesthetic). We are moved, not as monads i.e. not as individuals in a vacuum. We connect with music, because a living being ~ a composer ~ wrote it. Not because a computer algorithm or a fried tomato making its own frying sound impresses us.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> 20th century Danish composer Vagn Holmboe (1909-1996) wrote about his own symphonies in 1943 (italics as per Holmboe):This emotion-based cause, of whatever kind it may be, can be of no significance for the listener when he is dealing with works of art. That must be able to stand alone, with neither explanation nor justification, like a synthesis of emotional tension, compositional power and technical mastery."


Just trying to remember what these two sentences were 

I gather, Vagn is not espousing, an emotionless detached (mechanical; virtuoso or technically sterile and technically perfected) performance, like that of Saint-Saens, who saw emotion as an obstacle in refining the art of composition.

His 'synthesis' of composition, is drawn from emotional tension: so he is not on the same backward wavelength as Saint-Saen before him.

What he seems to be saying, is no different, than anything else written above - or elementary college writing assignments, which argue that divorcing authorial intent (compositional intent) here, without being sentimentalised and sentimentally hooked on a love for one's own, enable a writer/composer to go further, than seeing no further than his own vanity.

I didn't take too well to his complete string quartet cycle either. It just seems to move around in circles for me :/


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Head_case said:


> Err.
> 
> Your premise starts off well, but then ends up with a premise, that you could worship listening to a tomato being fried in Quail sauce and consider this the zenith of musical achievement.
> 
> ...


It is clear that my 'subjectivity' will be influenced by my interaction with the world. Also, as humans beings, we all have brains which function in very similar ways, so it's probable that my personal feelings towards some piece will be shared by other person/s as well, maybe even with the composer. What I'm trying to say is that it is a very complex interaction of many things what makes you to like some piece, and that's because the role of this loose term of 'subjectivity' in all this. 
That's the key difference between the system of validation of art compared to, say, mathematics.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

violadude said:


> Anyone interested in these sort of topics or subjects should read "Emotion and Meaning in Music" by Richard B. Meyer.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Emotion-Meani...1&keywords=emotion+and+meaning+in+music+meyer


I looked at some Amazon reviews and one says this book requires a "strong background in music theory and form." I might be interested, but I'd hesitate to buy a book that requires much more knowledge than I have. Do you think one needs a strong music theory background?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Head_case said:


> I've highlighted the sentence, where the great premise you've started off with, becomes unhinged. It is not, that music is appreciated ...in all of your subjectivity; it is the very intersubjective medium of music ...that relationship between [composer---music as a medium ---you] which forms that intersubjectivity.
> 
> This is why, a composer's music, which is a part of his own spirit; his own psyche, becomes a part of our own appreciation (aesthetic). We are moved, not as monads i.e. not as individuals in a vacuum. We connect with music, because a living being ~ a composer ~ wrote it. Not because a computer algorithm or a fried tomato making its own frying sound impresses us.


I don't think a living composer has much _necessarily_ to do with musical enjoyment. I fully expect computers to write great/beautiful/interesting music in several centuries (maybe much shorter). I would have no trouble connecting with music from computers. My relationship with the sounds is what moves me to like music. The composer (whether living being or artificial intelligence) obviously creates the music, but generally I have no relationship with the composer. Often I know nothing whatsoever about the composer, yet I may love their music.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I looked at some Amazon reviews and one says this book requires a "strong background in music theory and form." I might be interested, but I'd hesitate to buy a book that requires much more knowledge than I have. Do you think one needs a strong music theory background?


It is full of music quotations so you must be able to read fairly well I'd say.
Interesting book.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Let's turn robots ... Emotions are useless /Sarcasm.

Hi, I'm back .. at least with a dial-up. I've had problems finding a new connection. I still haven't found a faster solution


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Speak for yourself  All of my music expresses emotions and ideas, and there's several that are basically portraits of a single feeling, whether it be homesickness or loneliness.


Do post some of your music here, and let me be the judge.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

composing is identical to the days of the 17th century. they compose to earn a living.

some composers would stop classical style and move to impressionism to keep earning. nowadays it's composing for visual arts.

cant see whats changed emotionally. an opera, ballet or star wars.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

LordBlackudder said:


> composing is identical to the days of the 17th century. they compose to earn a living.
> 
> some composers would stop classical style and move to impressionism to keep earning. nowadays it's composing for visual arts.
> 
> cant see whats changed emotionally. an opera, ballet or star wars.


If you are saying that writing a film score today is equivalent to Mozart and Wagner writing opera or Stravinsky and Tchaikovsky writing for ballet then I believe you are very much mistaken.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> If you are saying that writing a film score today is equivalent to Mozart and Wagner writing opera or Stravinsky and Tchaikovsky writing for ballet then I believe you are very much mistaken.


Your opinion is WRONG

Though I wouldn't compare most film music to those in terms of quality, personally.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Your opinion is WRONG
> 
> Though I wouldn't compare most film music to those in terms of quality, personally.


I was not expressing an opinion. It is a fact. If you think Zimmer, Shore, Williams, Elfman and the like, are today's Mozart, Weber, Verdi, Wagner and the like. Then I am sorry to say your opinion is WRONGER


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I looked at some Amazon reviews and one says this book requires a "strong background in music theory and form." I might be interested, but I'd hesitate to buy a book that requires much more knowledge than I have. Do you think one needs a strong music theory background?


Eh, more than music theory, you need a fairly biggish vocabulary and the ability to follow long, complicated lines of thought.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I was not expressing an opinion. It is a fact. If you think Zimmer, Shore, Williams, Elfman and the like, are today's Mozart, Weber, Verdi, Wagner and the like. Then I am sorry to say your opinion is WRONGER


Well many of both lists are pretty mediocre compared to the true masters :3

Though even Mozart isn't as insipid as Zimmer. *gag*


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Well many of both lists are pretty mediocre compared to the true masters :3
> 
> Though even Mozart isn't as insipid as Zimmer. *gag*


Let's put it this way: Anyone who goes to see Pirates Of The Caribbean for the music alone is sad. Anyone who goes to see Parsifal for anything _but_ the music alone is mad.
:lol:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

LordBlackudder said:


> ... or star wars.


Speaking of _Star Wars_, I quite like the well known _Imperial March_ theme, certainly sounding very menancing, and well crafted by John Williams. Great film music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't know this composer's, Holmboe's, music, but I think I agree with HC that the last sentence does apply to a good deal of music I like (not only classical either) -



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> ... _That_ must be able to stand alone, with neither explanation nor justification, like a synthesis of emotional tension, compositional power and technical mastery."...


If course, as some have pointed out, a lot of post-1945 music goes against this (or the "emotional" component at least), and aims for different things. I too am no fan of conceptual art or its musical equivalents, but I do like things like some electronic music, musique concrete, acoustic music with amplification, etc.

Of course, sometimes the emotions are not refined but 'gut' and 'visceral,' even psychopathic. I'm talking about composers I like eg. Xenakis, Ligeti, Schnittke, etc. Some are uncomfortable, deliberately, depicting this crazy world of ours. The other thing is I often like music that has some autobiographical element, where the composer takes his mask off, and reveals his life and thoughts directly.

But it all boils down to the composer's vision. Some like Varese do it in a way that images a kind of post industrial Holocaust, very bleak soundscape, eg. his 'Deserts.' Others, like a Carl Vine piece for cello with amplification/electronic mixing called 'Inner World' does have a good deal of melody, which I associate with emotion, but it also incorporates the rythyms of contemporary music, of rock and so on. I can name other examples. These are not 'concept' pieces, but they are electronic works of different sorts (which I'd imagine this Holmboe did not get inovolved with, electronics, but neither have others like Elliott Carter, who is still an innovator despite avoiding electronics and writing only for acoustic instruments). Carter was also not a fan of the chance based things of John Cage, yet they both lived in New York. So there is no need to like 'conceptual' things if you don't as a composer, you can still do amazing things.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I think music is the most abstract of any artform, and I think its virtually impossible to directly express through the music without telling somebody what it means. Some people may interpret it the way I wrote it, but many will likely not. I'm alright with that though. I intend the piece to express loneliness, and some people will get that, and some people won't, and their different interpretation is just as valid as my original intent.


My music teacher was just talking about this the other day; he said that you can interpret music the way you want to (unless it's something like Mozart...), the only person who can tell you that you are wrong is the composer. At that time he was talking about Paganini's 16th Caprice, for all we know the piece was written about how Paganini's father used to shut him in his room and not come out for hours/days, but you could really put it to any story. You could make it happy or sad, angry or (I was going to say peaceful but I don't think it could ever be peaceful!).



> "*For a modern composer* it is natural that music cannot describe emotion and its manner, or in other words: emotion is not the purpose. One can, however, say that emotion is the driving force, the reason why composers express themselves in the material with which they feel at home: music. This emotion-based cause, of whatever kind it may be, can be of no significance for the listener when he is dealing with works of art. That must be able to stand alone, with neither explanation nor justification, like a synthesis of emotional tension, compositional power and technical mastery."


That's exactly it: for a _modern composer._ Maybe if they stop showing off and put some emotion into the music I might like more modern music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sid... have you looked into something like Spotify... now available in Australia? The price is quite reasonable; the music selection incredibly broad, and you can listen to a lot of composers and performers before (or even in place of) making the decision to purchase. I just mention this as you brought up Holmboe, whose music I came across on Spotify.


----------

