# Kitsch and classical music



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Is there such a thing? Are all pieces of music written in their respected eras works of art? What springs to mind is Johann Strauss and his waltzes, could they be classed as kitsch? 

Beethoven and Bach couldn't help but produce works of art, it would have been impossible for them not to. Yet the bagatelles by Beethoven could be the nearest to kitsch that he got, or Rage over a Lost Penny, and Wellington's Victory. Then I suppose Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture is definitively kitsch. 

I suppose what I am trying to say to is how do you define something as a work of art or not?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

beetzart said:


> I suppose what I am trying to say to is how do you define something as a work of art or not?


Easy. If you like it, it's art. If you don't like it, it might still be art, but if it's liked by people you don't like, it isn't art.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Strauss has been kitsch ever since... him....


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Tallisman said:


> Strauss has been kitsch ever since... him....
> View attachment 94712


He made Strauss music kitsch.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Easy. If you like it, it's art. If you don't like it, it might still be art, but if it's liked by people you don't like, it isn't art.


No I like a lot of kitsch


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> No I like a lot of kitsch


I think that means you hate yourself. Or something.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

"Kitsch". Sounds like some kind of intoxicating alcoholic syrup I would like to spoon over vanilla ice cream.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Composing masterpieces, say Bach's Toccatas, is similar to the why do people climb mountains question. Because they are there and they can. Bach wrote his masterpieces because he could. Works of art just poured from him. Take the cantatas. He didn't have to write so many and could have used other composers' cantatas but he wrote one a week for two years, I believe. I think I have listened to all his cantatas and there is not one dud amongst them. At present my favourite is BWV 4. Very ahead of its time. Like I said he did it because he could.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

hpowders said:


> So the Beethoven Bagatelles, those perfect little gems, are now "kitsch" just because they are not each 40 minutes in length?
> 
> What's next for the "kitsch censors", the Debussy Preludes?
> 
> Ridiculous!!


I didn't say they were kitsch but maybe the closest thing he wrote that may be classed as kitsch.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

I have always found terms like 'kitsch' difficult to grasp (or 'camp' which is even harder to grasp). The idea is that kitsch pretends to be art yet is only pleasing to the uneducated masses and has no (or little) artistic value. One could argue that all lasting pieces of music are not kitsch because if they were they wouldn't have lasted. If you are very harsh then perhaps you could argue that e.g. Bruch's Violin Concerto is kitsch because it is not innovative but only pleasing to the masses.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Agamemnon said:


> I have always found terms like 'kitsch' difficult to grasp (or 'camp' which is even harder to grasp). The idea is that kitsch pretends to be art yet is only pleasing to the uneducated masses and has no (or little) artistic value. One could argue that all lasting pieces of music are not kitsch because if they were they wouldn't have lasted. If you are very harsh then perhaps you could argue that e.g. Bruch's Violin Concerto is kitsch because it is not innovative but only pleasing to the masses.


Famously Kundera defined kitsch as "the absolute denial of ****", that's to say, a form of art which browbeats you into conforming with its comforting reassuring view of the meaning of life.



> Il s'ensuit que l'accord catégorique avec l'être a pour idéal esthétique un monde où la merde est niée et où chacun se comporte comme si elle n'existait pas. Cet idéal esthétique s'appelle le kitsch.


(de L'Insoutenable légèreté d'être)

This conception of Kitsch seems very useful to me, and it seems to help identify what's going on in some music by 19th century composers like Beethoven and Brahms.


----------



## bigboy (May 26, 2017)

In recent years and in other fields of art there have been some artists trying to seriously engage with the concept of kitsch through their work (I have in the back of my mind people like Nerdrum). Is there a similar thing happening in the music world?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

bigboy said:


> In recent years and in other fields of art there have been some artists trying to seriously engage with the concept of kitsch through their work (I have in the back of my mind people like Nerdrum). Is there a similar thing happening in the music world?


Maybe some of things Reinbert de Leeuw did with Schumann lieder.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

bigboy said:


> In recent years and in other fields of art there have been some artists trying to seriously engage with the concept of kitsch through their work (I have in the back of my mind people like Nerdrum). Is there a similar thing happening in the music world?


Cziffra embraced the kitsch in some of Liszt's pieces and he hammed it up as much as he could! That's not exactly recent, but perhaps that counts as a positive engagement with kitsch?


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

There's a whole discipline called aesthetics that deals with questions like "what is art", and building on that, questions like "what is kitsch". Definitive answers have not been found, but there are dozens or hundreds of books written on the subject, and reading them really enlightens you.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

This is a nice discussion of kitsch; some good examples also:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30439633

I treasure my painting-on-velvet of Jesus and Elvis together in Heaven. Certain bits of music composed during the Soviet era can be considered kitsch.


----------



## bigboy (May 26, 2017)

I think this is an intriguing example: from what I understand, Shostakovich would often put sly jokes or critiques in his music as a way to slip "subversive" content past the censors. I also see what you mean by this piece having a certain kitsch factor to it. Do you think this a tongue in cheek sort of piece for Shostakovich, or do you think he is really being earnest here?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

bigboy said:


> I think this is an intriguing example: from what I understand, Shostakovich would often put sly jokes or critiques in his music as a way to slip "subversive" content past the censors. I also see what you mean by this piece having a certain kitsch factor to it. Do you think this a tongue in cheek sort of piece for Shostakovich, or do you think he is really being earnest here?


I think he composed what he had come to expect that Comrade Stalin and the others with power over him wanted to hear: "heroic", uplifting, inspiring music that would make the hearts beat faster in the chests of the masses. Part of his intention may have been tongue in cheek, but I'm pretty sure he also was well aware that those expectations of his superiors needed to be met.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Kitsch is art, but bad art, in which expressive intention is unsupported by structural strength and stylistic integrity or originality, and which therefore appears incongruously shallow, sentimental, garish, trite, and even ridiculous. Kitsch can be appreciated as kitsch only by those sensitive to the formal and stylistic qualities that distinguish fine art.

Strauss waltzes, mentioned in the OP, are not kitsch; they're just light music that doesn't pretend to say more than it actually does. The best of Strauss's music is excellent of its kind, "of its kind" being the important consideration, and can even achieve a kind of depth in that context. "Wellington's Victory" is somewhat kitschy because it's about a subject - war - that it treats very superficially, but it's saved from total kitschiness by the fact that it doesn't pretend to be profound. I would rate the "1812" as slightly less kitschy than "Wellington" because it's just better, but I'm not going to fight about that. Beethoven's bagatelles are not kitschy in the least, and "Rage Over a Lost Penny" is just a bit of amusement.

Romanticism is prone to kitschiness because it often fails to fulfill, through form and style, its expressive ambitions, resulting in mere sentimentality and pretentiousness. Classicism can fail in the direction of superficiality and triteness, but by its essential formality and restraint avoids kitschiness. Modern art, especially Postmodernism, may use kitschiness ironically, which potentially makes kitchiness less kitschy because the artist is in on the joke and informs us through some sophistication of style. It's a mark of true kitsch that it seems to be a sincere expression, and that the artist seems to imagine his art as more meaningful than it is.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Kitsch is art, but bad art, in which expressive intention is unsupported by structural strength and stylistic integrity or originality, and which therefore appears incongruously shallow, sentimental, garish, trite, and even ridiculous. Kitsch can be appreciated as kitsch only by those sensitive to the formal and stylistic qualities that distinguish fine art.
> 
> Strauss waltzes, mentioned in the OP, are not kitsch; they're just light music that doesn't pretend to say more than it actually does.


Indeed; I don't like Strauss' music, but I wouldn't call it kitsch, for precisely the reason you point out: it isn't pretentious or overly soppy. I think some people might experience Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninov as a bit kitschy (though I am not among them). Whenever a composer ventures into emotional expression, he is on thin ice.

A lot of contemporary instrumental composers might also be accused of producing kitsch; Einaudi comes to mind (though once again, I wouldn't level that accusation, or alternatively, I'd freely admit to a liking for kitsch!)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Kitsch is art, but bad art, in which expressive intention is unsupported by structural strength and stylistic integrity or originality, and which therefore appears incongruously shallow, sentimental, garish, trite, and even ridiculous. Kitsch can be appreciated as kitsch only by those sensitive to the formal and stylistic qualities that distinguish fine art.
> 
> Strauss waltzes, mentioned in the OP, are not kitsch; they're just light music that doesn't pretend to say more than it actually does. The best of Strauss's music is excellent of its kind, "of its kind" being the important consideration, and can even achieve a kind of depth in that context. "Wellington's Victory" is somewhat kitschy because it's about a subject - war - that it treats very superficially, but it's saved from total kitschiness by the fact that it doesn't pretend to be profound. I would rate the "1812" as slightly less kitschy than "Wellington" because it's just better, but I'm not going to fight about that. Beethoven's bagatelles are not kitschy in the least, and "Rage Over a Lost Penny" is just a bit of amusement.
> 
> Romanticism is prone to kitschiness because it often fails to fulfill, through form and style, its expressive ambitions, resulting in mere sentimentality and pretentiousness. Classicism can fail in the direction of superficiality and triteness, but by its essential formality and restraint avoids kitschiness. Modern art, especially Postmodernism, may use kitschiness ironically, which potentially makes kitchiness less kitschy because the artist is in on the joke and informs us through some sophistication of style. It's a mark of true kitsch that it seems to be a sincere expression, and that the artist seems to imagine his art as more meaningful than it is.


I think the whole area is interesting and I just want to present some ideas, without being at all certain of their validity.

I think that you're right to say that Romanticism is prone to kitschiness, though I'm less convinced by your reasons. It's where 19th century music tries to offer consolation and comfort that it collapses all too often into kitsch.

To come at it from a different point of view, I think it would be wrong to describe Schoenberg's op 45 string trio as kitsch, or Shostakovich's op 147 Viola sonata. Both are very expressive. But the nature of what they express allows a place for uncomfortable things. Similarly for Gotterdammerunng.

One of the best thing Furwangler did was find a way of saving Brahms's second symphony from collapsing into kitsch.


----------



## Marinera (May 13, 2016)

I don't know if I simply dislike Albinoni's Adagio or consider it a kitch. Perhaps I'm just confusing the two


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

beetzart said:


> Kitsch and classical music


have nothing to do with each other.

classical music has not been supposed to be kitsch, even when it portrays one.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Zhdanov said:


> have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> classical music has not been supposed to be kitsch, even when it portrays one.


Yep, we have established that. Music composed in its respected era is surely never kitsch. You would never say a Haydn piano sonata is kitsch like you wouldn't say a Bach Brandenburg concerto is, too.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> This is a nice discussion of kitsch; some good examples also:
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30439633


Thanks for this; an interesting perspective.

Two points on what Scruton says:

1. "Kitsch is fake art, expressing fake emotions, whose purpose is to deceive the consumer into thinking he feels something deep and serious, when in fact he feels nothing at all."
Well, aren't _all_ emotions in art fake? Sure, the artist may have had sincere emotions that (s)he intended to convey in the art, but the art is at one remove from the artist, and the observer one remove from the art. Whatever emotion the observer finds in the art is at best an excellent facsimile of the "real" emotion. No doubt our future robot overlords will find the notion of "fake emotion" quite hilarious.

2. "Kitsch, in other words, is not about the thing observed but about the observer. It does not invite you to feel moved by the doll you are dressing so tenderly, but by yourself dressing the doll. All sentimentality is like this - it redirects emotion from the object to the subject, so as to create a fantasy of emotion without the real cost of feeling it. The kitsch object encourages you to think, "Look at me feeling this - how nice I am and how lovable.""
The same thing can surely be said right back about modernism: "Look at me thinking this - how clever I am and how admirable." The disdain for "kitsch" - as with disdain for modernism or, I guess, anything else - seems to me to stem from a queasiness that _those people_ are ignoring us but still having a good time.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

By definition music can't be kitsch if it has some semblance of originality to it. If I were to compose a piano sonata in the style of Beethoven would that be kitsch? So, therefore, is modern pop/rock music not kitsch if it is original like the Beatles or Radiohead say, if they can be described as relatively original? 

You also have to take into account that music builds on what went before it. So Beethoven's early music is original to a point, but you can sense the inspirations he found in Clementi, CPE Bach, Mozart, and Haydn in his early piano sonatas. His later music becomes much more original and no one could see the Grosse Fugue coming, say.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> Easy. *If you like it, it's art.* If you don't like it, it might still be art, but if it's liked by people you don't like, it isn't art.


Then this be to me a work of art:









And it does make music once fully assembled and fitted with a good exhaust system.


----------



## bigboy (May 26, 2017)

Nereffid said:


> The same thing can surely be said right back about modernism: "Look at me thinking this - how clever I am and how admirable." The disdain for "kitsch" - as with disdain for modernism or, I guess, anything else - seems to me to stem from a queasiness that _those people_ are ignoring us but still having a good time.


I think this is a "tu quoque" that I can stand behind 

But in all seriousness, I think Scruton touches on this point: I think he is correct in saying that the task of avoiding kitsch is a non-trivial one, and as a result some artists throw themselves headlong into this negative space left by kitsch/sentimentality/..., which has become its own cliche. I certainly have come across these sort of pieces in galleries and my experience is roughly like the one you describe. (This is to say nothing of the art which actively seeks to embrace kitsch as a way around this problem, "the best way out is always through"?)

Nevertheless, he doesn't use the word "kitsch" to describe this sort of art, only that it is "cliche". I can't help but wonder if in fifty or one hundred years time (or whenever the robot overlords show up  ) we will look back on these painfully cerebral and self aware pieces with the same kind of patronizing fondness that we have for what we now call "kitsch"? Is the concept of kitsch flexible enough to contain both of these ideas?

I suppose part of what I am wondering (and what several others in this thread have wondered) is to what extent the history of the form plays into these questions? Could kitsch exist in a vacuum?
I think the real soft point in the article is that Scruton doesn't really engage with this question, and if he had maybe he would have a more complete answer to your criticism.


----------

