# Music which is meant to depict something



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

My wife who usually has a good ear for music was complaining that she can never hear the meaning of programme music. We tried Morning from Peer Gynt. She claimed only to know that it’s a sunrise because of an old TV ad. We tried other pieces. She didn’t get the thunderstorm in Beethoven’s 6th, nor the Fireworks in Handel’s music. Only Lumbye’s Kopenhagener Steam Railway Galopp was obvious to her. Do we only know what programme music depicts because we’ve read about it somewhere? Is there music where it’s obvious?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Hermastersvoice said:


> My wife who usually has a good ear for music was complaining that she can never hear the meaning of programme music. We tried Morning from Peer Gynt. She claimed only to know that it's a sunrise because of an old TV ad. We tried other pieces. She didn't get the thunderstorm in Beethoven's 6th, nor the Fireworks in Handel's music. Only Lumbye's Kopenhagener Steam Railway Galopp was obvious to her. Do we only know what programme music depicts because we've read about it somewhere? Is there music where it's obvious?


Play her the Storm Interlude from Peter Grimes and see if she can hear the ropes striking the masts!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Hermastersvoice said:


> My wife who usually has a good ear for music was complaining that she can never hear the meaning of programme music. We tried Morning from Peer Gynt. She claimed only to know that it's a sunrise because of an old TV ad. We tried other pieces. She didn't get the thunderstorm in Beethoven's 6th, nor the Fireworks in Handel's music. Only Lumbye's Kopenhagener Steam Railway Galopp was obvious to her. Do we only know what programme music depicts because we've read about it somewhere? Is there music where it's obvious?


Your wife is ahead of the game.

IMO there is nothing sillier than what has been called "program music." *Listen to the music as music*; every work that has been said to have a program is primarily music to be listened to on its own terms. There is absolutely no need to know anything about a story, or whatever has been said the music is supposed to represent. Unless it is an opera or song, I don't consider any instrumental music as "programmatic."

If you wish to follow a story, watch a movie or read a book.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> Your wife is ahead of the game.
> 
> IMO there is nothing sillier than what has been called "program music." *Listen to the music as music*; every work that has been said to have a program is primarily music to be listened to on its own terms. There is absolutely no need to know anything about a story, or whatever has been said the music is supposed to represent. Unless it is an opera or song, I don't consider any instrumental music as "programmatic."
> 
> If you wish to follow a story, watch a movie or read a book.


I would be on a similar position, but I think that something like The unanswered question without the program/description/explaination made by Ives would make the work a lot less fascinating and interesting.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Richard Strauss claimed that he could describe a knife and a fork through his music if someone paid him enough money. And in fact, after listening to a performance of Strauss' _Sinfonia Domestica_, a critic remarked that he could actually hear the clatter of the knife and fork, but failed to specify the passage. According to Strauss, a sensitive listener could ascertain the very hair color of some of the romantic partners of Don Juan in Strauss' symphonic poem of the same name, simply by the sound of the music alone. Conductor Scott Speck says that Strauss uses fiery, impetuous-sounding music to convey the hair color, but I have yet to see a chart which accurately matches the varying intensities of Strauss' music to specific shades of hair color.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden (Jul 15, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Your wife is ahead of the game.
> 
> IMO there is nothing sillier than what has been called "program music." *Listen to the music as music*; every work that has been said to have a program is primarily music to be listened to on its own terms. There is absolutely no need to know anything about a story, or whatever has been said the music is supposed to represent. Unless it is an opera or song, I don't consider any instrumental music as "programmatic."
> 
> If you wish to follow a story, watch a movie or read a book.


I agree with you about the music being primary, but if we're being honest about "music being listened to on its own terms," then we must honor many composers' intentions to evoke in their listener's mind's eye, er, _ear_, a specific image. Those _are_ its terms. Otherwise, "program music" would not exist as such and composers would not bother to title their works as many have and continue to do. Many composers enjoy the interplay and/or tension they create between the abstract and the material. Certainly LvB was one of those when he noted that the _Pastorale_ contained "more an expression of feeling than painting." To the other extreme, say, is Leroy Anderson's _Typewriter._


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Do we only know what programme music depicts because we've read about it somewhere? Is there music where it's obvious?


I don't think it's always true (sometimes a piece of music that is supposed to depict something to my imagination brings something completely different), but I would say that there are certain pieces where the title/description seems to fit the music extremely well. If I think of Reflets dans l'eau of Debussy, it's really hard for me not to see a connection with the shimmering surface of the water moving and well, reflecting the light in all directions. It's hard not to think about the wind between the trees listening to the ending of Tapiola.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I can't listen to the Liszt B Minor Sonata - one of my favorite pieces in any genre - without my mind making parallels to the story of the Fall of Man as imagined by Milton in Paradise Lost. I don't know why this is so; I thought of it this way even before reading any commentaries on it. There is something epic and supernatural about it. Weird, though, that this is one of Liszt's few works that he didn't assign a program. So most likely it is supposed to be "pure music." But I can never _not_ hear it that way, from the very first strange low notes like the primordial rumblings of something cosmic stirring from the vast void of the waters.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I am very sceptical of the notion that music can depict something or communicate some thoughts. If I have not read previously that Bruckner's symphonies are "cathedrals of sound" and that Bruckner was so religious, I would never suspect any spirituality in his music. The only reason I associate Bruckner with God is because I have read about it.


----------



## Skakner (Oct 8, 2020)

Even "program music" generates different responses (feelings, thoughts etc) to different listeners.
I believe that the title and not the music itself, creates correlations.
If we give three completely random titles to a specific piece of music, we'll get three different responses from three different listeners.
Music is by nature abstract.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

norman bates said:


> I would be on a similar position, but I think that something like The unanswered question without the program/description/explaination made by Ives would make the work a lot less fascinating and interesting.


So... I don't quite agree. We don't need any literally story of an "Unanswered Question", for the musical elements have semiotic significance and speak for themselves.

And really, there are just three main musical elements! The strings, the trumpet, and the woodwinds.

The diatonic/modal slow quasistatic string chorale, even though it need not literally represent anything in a literary program like the "silence of the druids", has a clear musical signalling role. The teasing trumpet call that alternates between ending in C and B is like a kind of question in the way the pitch contour resembles the way a human being's voice would ask a question. We don't need to necessarily label it as an eternal existential question about the meaning of life, but it nevertheless evokes the feeling of a question. The woodwinds' increasingly agitated responses, even going as far to directly quote and mock the question itself, are all in the musical score. Again, we don't need to label the woodwinds as a direct literary element.

We don't need, per se, to give these three main elements in the Ives work a literary story for their semiotic importance to produce the musical effect.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

norman bates said:


> I would be on a similar position, but I think that something like The unanswered question without the program/description/explaination made by Ives would make the work a lot less fascinating and interesting.


I have listened to that work countless times and enjoyed it, it is one of my favorite works by Ives. But I never knew it had a program. I certainly do not want to know what it is at this point.



RICK RIEKERT said:


> Richard Strauss claimed that he could describe a knife and a fork through his music if someone paid him enough money. And in fact, after listening to a performance of Strauss' _Sinfonia Domestica_, a critic remarked that he could actually hear the clatter of the knife and fork, but failed to specify the passage. According to Strauss, a sensitive listener could ascertain the very hair color of some of the romantic partners of Don Juan in Strauss' symphonic poem of the same name, simply by the sound of the music alone. Conductor Scott Speck says that Strauss uses fiery, impetuous-sounding music to convey the hair color, but I have yet to see a chart which accurately matches the varying intensities of Strauss' music to specific shades of hair color.


Strauss may wish to set that as a goal for his compositions. But I think it is a waste of time and lowers the bar for what music is able to achieve. I've never been a fan of Richard Strauss's music, in part because of this kind of statement which I was aware of, but mainly because I don't like the sound of his music.



Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> I agree with you about the music being primary, but if we're being honest about "music being listened to on its own terms," then we must honor many composers' intentions to evoke in their listener's mind's eye, er, _ear_, a specific image. Those _are_ its terms. Otherwise, "program music" would not exist as such and composers would not bother to title their works as many have and continue to do. Many composers enjoy the interplay and/or tension they create between the abstract and the material. Certainly LvB was one of those when he noted that the _Pastorale_ contained "more an expression of feeling than painting." To the other extreme, say, is Leroy Anderson's _Typewriter._


Composers have many ideas about how they wish their music to be perceived and what they might wish to evoke in the minds of an audience. However, once the work enters the public realm, the work has a life of its own. Some performers/conductors may wish to honor a composer's program, but there is no law that a work cannot be performed successfully without a reference to the composer's program.

Anyone is free to enjoy a work and its program. For me I've never been a fan program music and ignore all extra-musical aspects, e.g. programs, biographical or historical information, etc., when I listen to a work.


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

> Is there music where it's obvious?


Stockhausen - Helicopter quartet.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I suggest stepping into the Colosseum with Ottorino Respighi, along with the beasts and the martyrs, the crowd, the horns, of _Circenses_ that opens Roman Festivals. If you manage to avoid being eaten by the lions, you will tell others about the power of descriptive music.


----------



## Skakner (Oct 8, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Composers have many ideas about how they wish their music to be perceived and what they might wish to evoke in the minds of an audience. *However, once the work enters the public realm, the work has a life of its own*.


Exactly!!
Anyone of us, perceives and understands the work with his own unique way, which may be far from the composer's will.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You have to be able to think abstractly, and metaphorically, and be in touch with your emotions in order for music to create references in your mind. It's called "imagination," and has no one-to-one correspondence of meaning as words do. 
Most people have been trained to think logically and objectively, so it is usually beyond their capacity.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Pavel Wranitzky Grand Symphony for the Peace with French Republic Op.31 (1797)

0:00 The Revolution
4:55 English March
8:32 March of the Austrians and Prussians 
11:19 The Fate and Death of Louis XVI 
14:23 Funeral March 
18:21 English March 
19:20 March of the Allies 
20:42 The Tumult of a Battle 
23:29 The Prospects of Peace 
25:28 Rejoicing at the Achievement of Peace


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Your wife is ahead of the game.
> 
> IMO there is nothing sillier than what has been called "program music." *Listen to the music as music*; every work that has been said to have a program is primarily music to be listened to on its own terms. There is absolutely no need to know anything about a story, or whatever has been said the music is supposed to represent. Unless it is an opera or song, I don't consider any instrumental music as "programmatic."
> 
> If you wish to follow a story, watch a movie or read a book.


Just speaking anecdotally, I have always had a lot of difficulty with Buxtehude's music. One thing which helped me enjoy it more was reading Hans Davidsson's booklet essays for his recordings. Davidsson thinks in terms of stories, images, and his essays talk about that in some detail.

Cortot used to do similar things for music by Chopin, there are videos of him in masterclasses doing it. You know the sort of thing: this part of the nocturne is a patriotic anthem, this part the sound of bombs exploding. Yudina famously did it for Brahms too. I enjoy that sort of thing very much. Just like it seems to help some performers find an interpretation it sometimes seems to help me find a way of listening.

In a way, I think I'm not very musical, not as musical as you certainly. I like ideas, concepts.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> Cortot used to do similar things for music by Chopin, there are videos of him in masterclasses doing it. You know the sort of thing: this part of the nocturne is a patriotic anthem, this part the sound of bombs exploding.


I think the most famous programmatic story attributed to Chopin is probably the one about his 2nd piano sonata (probably not intended by Chopin himself).
The first movement depicts the life of a Polish knight in war, all the glories and miseries he goes through.
The 2nd movement depicts his triumphant return to home. 
But soon after he dies from the injury he received in the war, the 3rd movement depicts the funeral march for his death.
The 4th movement depicts the dreary atmosphere and winds blowing in his graveyard.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Music can't paint specific pictures and can't tell specific stories. But this isn't a flaw in the idea of program music. If the music is good - if it works as a composition - we're free to make of its title or program what we wish. We can ignore them altogether, or we can use them, as the composer generally intends, as a way of understanding extramusical experiences and ideas that inspired him.

I'm glad to have the titles of great tone poems such as Sibelius's "Swan of Tuonela" or Rachmaninoff's "Isle of the Dead." Heard with their titles in mind, these works are keenly evocative of specific realms of experience, not only emotionally but visually (and in the latter case we have the composer's direct visual inspiration in the unforgettable images of Arnold Böcklin).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_the_Dead_(Rachmaninoff)

Programmatic works that try for overly specfic depictions of objects and events please me less. Frankly, I've never cared to investigate what's supposed to be going on in some of Strauss's tone poems. But maybe I just don't find the music very affecting. It often sounds as if it needs a movie attached to it, or a TV sitcom.

Maybe the most natural home for programmatic music is opera, with its specific emotions, events, locales and atmospheres. No one I can think of composed programmatic music in greater quantity, or to more specifically evocative effect, than Wagner, who summons up a distinct and detailed world in sound with each work. His music was, rather unfortunately, the direct inspiration for innumerable, largely forgotten attempts to carry his sonic evocativeness into purely instrumental music, a feat only the best composers could bring off.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden (Jul 15, 2020)

As my wife can bear witness, when we first heard Prokofiev's _first violin sonata_ I told her I could hear the wind between the tombstones. I was only partly surprised, weeks later, when I was reading up about the work and learned that Prokofiev himself thought of those passages as "'wind passing through a graveyard'.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> You have to be able to think abstractly, and metaphorically, and be in touch with your emotions in order for music to create references in your mind. It's called "imagination," and has no one-to-one correspondence of meaning as words do.
> Most people have been trained to think logically and objectively, so it is usually beyond their capacity.


To me it's called mundane. I get much more from the music without associating a story line or object, or weather. Honestly, that's just trite to my way of thinking.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> You have to be able to think abstractly, and metaphorically, and be in touch with your emotions in order for music to create references in your mind. It's called "imagination," and has no one-to-one correspondence of meaning as words do.
> Most people have been trained to think logically and objectively, so it is usually beyond their capacity.


My goodness! Where should I look for this great majority of people who have been trained to think logically and obectively? And where did they receive their training? Seeing what's going on in this country in the time of Trump and Covid-19 (wear a damned mask!), I'd say those academies should have their accreditation revoked.

On another matter, I believe the chasm you envision between "logical thinking" and "metaphorical thinking" fails to describe the true nature of mental processes. Human thought is inescapably metaphoric, and effective metaphor depends on logic. A useful metaphor must make logical sense; there are reasons why one thing can stand for another, and the perception of a metaphor's aptness is a logical perception, not a mere "feeling." Association lacking such sense, in anyone beyond infancy, is at best pointless fantasizing and at worst a sign of irrationality, a mental defect or aberration.

As far as the response to music is concerned, nothing is more natural than to find music expressive, whether or not what is being expressed is named, or even has a name. Music's expressiveness is rooted in correspondences with reality akin to metaphor, and this "cross-domain" perception is more or less universal regardless of whether a person is "trained to think logically and objectively."


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> Listen to the music as music


yeah? Mozart symphony 33 part 4 is just music and nothing else, if so?






at 1:25 you hear the sound of the flogging they practiced in the army,

right then you hear the portrayal of battered soldiers limping away back to barracks.

music is narration, like in books, that brings a message comprising symbols, images and stories.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> I have listened to that work countless times and enjoyed it, it is one of my favorite works by Ives. But I never knew it had a program. I certainly do not want to know what it is at this point.


because you fear that it could be indeed more fascinating reading it?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SeptimalTritone said:


> So... I don't quite agree. We don't need any literally story of an "Unanswered Question", for the musical elements have semiotic significance and speak for themselves.
> 
> And really, there are just three main musical elements! The strings, the trumpet, and the woodwinds.
> 
> ...


I disagree, because I remember listening to it at first without reading its program, and nothing in it said to me the meaning intended by Ives. It was just atmospheric music (and taken just from a musical standpoint, at least compared to a lot of other works of Ives, not even that interesting). The story gives it definitely a new layer of meaning and to me is an essential part of the work.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> yeah? Mozart symphony 33 part 4 is just music and nothing else, if so?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, there are references to folk music in Mozart. It's interesting that, although some of Mozart's contemporaries were writing explicitly programmatic symphonies, Mozart himself wasn't interested in writing one. Haydn composed in his 93rd symphony a "farting noise" in the bassoons, but didn't actually write on the score that it is a farting noise.
Aside from Pavel Wranitzky's Grand Symphony for the Peace with French Republic Op.31 (1797),
J.H. Knecht's "Le portrait musical de la nature (1784)" is another good example of 18th century musical programme. ( the smooth transition between the 4th and 5th movements, and thematic linking of the 1st and 4th movements are also interesting. I think Wranitzky also has these elements, in the 1st, 3rd, final movements of his Grand symphony. )
I think J.H. Knecht was to Beethoven in a similar way the Salzburg post-baroque master J.E. Eberlin was to Mozart. 
Expressions like this -[ 0:27 ] remind me of Beethoven's 9th -[ 3:27 ]. Both Knecht and Beethoven sound more "pastoral" in feel to me than Mozart.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Jacck said:


> I am very sceptical of the notion that music can depict something or communicate some thoughts.


Talk to some Mahler-heads then! They will school you how Mahler was a major existentialist philosopher communicating his thoughts very clearly with the orchestra. Or maybe it would be easier to find some hard Bach fans, who will tell you just how much Immanuel Kant level depth can be found in a single prelude of the WTC.

mumbo jumbo

Music can at best imitate sound cues associated with physical movement and human speech.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

norman bates said:


> because you fear that it could be indeed more fascinating reading it?


I have no interest in narratives for instrument music - I don't like limiting how I experience a work.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Zhdanov said:


> yeah? Mozart symphony 33 part 4 is just music and nothing else, if so?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't hear any of that, and frankly think what you are describing lowers the music to the level of a cartoon. If this kind of story adds to your enjoyment of Mozart, so be it. But I do not want to include that kind of drivel, and in fact try to keep my mind empty as I listen.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn (Feb 26, 2020)

The program has a stimulating effect, but also a limiting one. In some cases it is desirable to meet the audience halfway with a program (which can always be concocted after the fact), but it should be used and dropped when a higher level of understanding is reached.

In the later symphonies of Gustav Mahler, for example, I have found that a programmatic explanation often opens the doors to understanding. Can you hear the haunted waters of the opening of the 7th, or feel the cool breezes of the Nachtmusik II? And yet they are only sensory analogues to experiences too abstract for words.


----------



## Skakner (Oct 8, 2020)

Maybe it's a little simplistic but...
We can't draw (or understand) a picture using words or sounds
We can't write (or understand) a poem using colors or sounds
We can't compose (or understand) music using words or colors
Every art has it's own toolbox.

Personally I don't need any programmatic guidance or explanation (either from the composer or anyone else) to perceive and enjoy music. I don't care about what the composer had in mind or what he was trying to express. The only explanations I would happily accept, are those regarding the music itself, the technical aspect.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Isaac Blackburn said:


> The program has a stimulating effect, but also a limiting one. In some cases it is desirable to meet the audience halfway with a program (which can always be concocted after the fact), but it should be used and dropped when a higher level of understanding is reached.
> 
> In the later symphonies of Gustav Mahler, for example, I have found that a programmatic explanation often opens the doors to understanding. Can you hear the haunted waters of the opening of the 7th, or feel the cool breezes of the Nachtmusik II? And yet they are only sensory analogues to experiences too abstract for words.


I read that Mahler insisted that all great music has as "inner program"; especially when dealing with Beethoven, who Mahler idolized and modeled himself after as a symphonist. The Music critic Harold Schonberg suggested that every slow movement ever composed by Mahler (and Bruckner) was an unconscious attempt to re-write the slow movement (_Adagio_) from Beethoven's _9th_. And speaking of the _unconscious mind_, it occurs to me that Mahler was composing in Vienna probably just a few streets away from where Freud was unlocking our "inner conflicts" through psychoanalysis, and conversing endlessly with his buddy, Carl Jung, on how every dream, every joke, every slip-of-the-tongue, and every figure of speech, and every action, has a hidden meaning. This was also around the same time that Havelock Ellis thought he had solved the riddle behind Tchaikovsky's _Symphony #6 "Pathetique"_ and suggested it was a tragedy having to do with the composer's orientation not being accepted at the time. Meanwhile, Rachmaninoff sought help from a psychologist in order to break a period of stagnation, and while in a state of hypnosis, the psychologists repeated: "You WILL write your piano concerto!." This was also the same time, that Stravinsky stated that _Rite of Spring_ came to him in a dream.

Like all of us, Mahler was a product of his times, and Mahler even had his own time on the "couch" with Dr. Freud.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn (Feb 26, 2020)

Coach G said:


> I read that Mahler insisted that all great music has as "inner program"; especially when dealing with Beethoven, who Mahler idolized and modeled himself after as a symphonist. The Music critic Harold Schonberg suggested that every slow movement ever composed by Mahler (and Bruckner) was an unconscious attempt to re-write the slow movement (_Adagio_) from Beethoven's _9th_...


Mahler was always giving new forms to the _archetypal Adagio_, but I wouldn't say he was trying, even unconsciously, to write Beethoven's Adagio. 
All music certainly has an "inner program": the progression of values throughout the piece. It is intramusical (tempo, rhythm, key), not extramusical, in nature, and so is not really a program at all.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> Haydn composed in his 93rd symphony a "farting noise" in the bassoons,


spot on and beat me to it, for i won't speak out something like that on here.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

In the 19 c program symphonies were the norm - even expected. Hence the many program symphonies of Joachim Raff. And the tone poems of many composers, not just Liszt. There were program notes that detailed the action, so to speak, to keep the audience aware of what was going on. Now, without those program notes, most of it is just music that may or may not be able to convey some meaning. Mahler didn't think program notes helped, so banished all his from his symphonies. There are some works so cleverly written that the scene is hard to miss: think Ferde Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite movement "On the Trail". The scoring and rhythm make the meaning clear to almost everyone, but even then the middle section with the celeste part needs an explanation. So without some program or title, it's hard for music to really express a ction, location, or anything.

Several years back for a Christmas concert, I programmed Fry's "Santa Claus Symphony". The score details the action, but frankly without that knowledge the audience would have no idea what's supposed to be going on. I had large posters printed up, stacked on an easel behind the first violins. Just like an old vaudeville act, when the scene changed, a period costumed young lady would switch to the next poster. The audience loved it and with that help, the music made all the sense in the world.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Skakner said:


> Maybe it's a little simplistic but...
> We can't draw (or understand) a picture using words or sounds
> We can't write (or understand) a poem using colors or sounds
> *We can't compose (or understand) music using words or colors*
> ...


How well acquaintaned are you with Wassily Kandinsky? The man was a genius: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2006/jun/24/art.art


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> what you are describing lowers the music to the level of a cartoon.


that's Mozart for you, get a life, listen to music as is, and if you want something different - move on to Wagner's.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Isaac Blackburn said:


> The program has a stimulating effect, but also a limiting one.


yes, there are limits to everything, music included and, make no mistake, the transcedental nature of music is in its transcedent technology, not in the expectations of a listener and his imagination, because music is a much more serious matter, sometimes that of life and death - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommaso_Traetta#Biography - _'There is a story, told by the Traetta association in Bitonto, that he left St. Petersburg under threat of assassination by the empress-it seems he was enraged that she insisted on a happy ending for Antigona, and in revenge put music for Polish independence into the final chaconne. He left in time, but his librettist was poisoned'_


----------



## Skakner (Oct 8, 2020)

annaw said:


> How well acquaintaned are you with Wassily Kandinsky? The man was a genius: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2006/jun/24/art.art


For many years, there was a Kandinsky painting in my living room.
From time to time I have a Kandinsky painting as wallpaper to my smartphone.
But when I want to listen to music, I won't stand in front of a painting...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Think of program music as a multimedia art form. Disparaging as irrelevant the programmatic associations intended by the composer - whether it takes the form of an attached poem or a simple title - makes as much sense as disparaging the words of a song or the story and staging of an opera. There's nothing wrong with listening to a song or an opera as "pure music," but doing so is not equivalent to experiencing the entirety of the work.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Think of program music as a multimedia art form. Disparaging as irrelevant the programmatic associations intended by the composer - whether it takes the form of an attached poem or a simple title - makes as much sense as disparaging the words of a song or the story and staging of an opera. There's nothing wrong with listening to a song or an opera as "pure music," but doing so is not equivalent to experiencing the entirety of the work.


Yes, but with songs and opera the words *are there*, they are an integral part of the work. With program music the "program" is not an explicit part of the work. One can take it or ignore it. For me, the work ought to stand on its own without any outside information.

And in fact, I see these programs as compromising the music, not enhancing it. There is hardly anything worse than taking something abstract, ephemeral, evocative, open-ended, limitless, i.e. music, and attaching it to a concrete story or image.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> There is hardly anything worse than taking something abstract, ephemeral, evocative, open-ended, limitless, i.e. music, and attaching it to a concrete story or image.


How can it be both evocative and abstract? I mean, if it's evocative it has to evoke something, and that something is the extra musical meaning of the music.

Ha ha! Got ya.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Think of program music as a multimedia art form. Disparaging as irrelevant the programmatic associations intended by the composer - whether it takes the form of an attached poem or a simple title - makes as much sense as disparaging the words of a song or the story and staging of an opera. There's nothing wrong with listening to a song or an opera as "pure music," but doing so is not equivalent to experiencing the entirety of the work.


I suspect that those who disparage the very idea of program music, or music that in any way represents what it presents or conveys a story, are pleading for music that is totally abstract, with no tangible connections or limitations. They are pleading this because they want to justify even the most awful and noisy modern offerings as being music, including mere sounds run though computer algorithms. I have read their arguments, and listened to many of their posted links to examples they advocate, and am confident that they are wrong in both the basic argument, and the ends to which they argue it.


----------



## Plague (Apr 4, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Yes, but with songs and opera the words *are there*, they are an integral part of the work. With program music the "program" is not an explicit part of the work. One can take it or ignore it. For me, the work ought to stand on its own without any outside information.
> 
> And in fact, I see these programs as compromising the music, not enhancing it. There is hardly anything worse than taking something abstract, ephemeral, evocative, open-ended, limitless, i.e. music, and attaching it to a concrete story or image.


Now you have two holy principles:

Musical Autonomy Principle: a musical work "ought to stand on its own without any outside information".

Musical Purity Principle: music should be "something abstract, ephemeral, evocative, open-ended, limitless".

What are the justifications for these principles? They sound unintuitive and pretentious to me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Yes, but with songs and opera the words *are there*, they are an integral part of the work. With program music the "program" *is not an explicit part of the work.* One can take it or ignore it. For me, the work ought to stand on its own without any outside information.
> 
> And in fact, I see these programs as compromising the music, not enhancing it. *There is hardly anything worse than taking something abstract, ephemeral, evocative, open-ended, limitless, i.e. music, and attaching it to a concrete story or image.*


Nice trick, but no cigar. Yes, you can ignore a title or a poem published at the head of a tone poem. But you can also listen to an opera at home, with no staging, and enjoy the music with no comprehension of the language in which it's being sung.

There's nothing wrong with preferring absolute music to program music. But there is certainly no logical justification for considering it inherently superior. All you're doing here is DEFINING, arbitrarily, a programmatic idea as not being an "explicit part of the work." A title or a poem attached to a piece by the composer and published with it in black and white print with the intention of our reading it is as explicitly a part of that piece, as conceived and presented by the composer, as the notes which follow.

My suggestion that a programmatic work is a multimedia product, consisting of both music and literature, the two arts intended to interact with each other in the mind of the listener, is perfectly accurate and doesn't presume to know better than the composer what he is trying to do or ought to have done.

The word "ought" really ought to be left out of any discussion of how to enjoy a work of art. It's perfectly fine to make of a program - including a work's title - whatever we wish, but not to disparage the EXPLICIT intentions of the artist and claim that his artistic choices "ought" not to be relevant. There is "hardly anything worse," in matters of aesthetics, than to strike a pose of authority that doesn't belong to us.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Nice trick, but no cigar. Yes, you can ignore a title or a poem published at the head of a tone poem. But you can also listen to an opera at home, with no staging, and enjoy the music with no comprehension of the language in which it's being sung.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with preferring absolute music to program music. But there is certainly no logical justification for considering it inherently superior. All you're doing here is DEFINING, arbitrarily, a programmatic idea as not being an "explicit part of the work." A title or a poem attached to a piece by the composer and published with it in black and white print with the intention of our reading it is as explicitly a part of that piece, as conceived and presented by the composer, as the notes which follow.
> 
> ...


I am not "striking a pose" of authority. I am stating my opinion. I thought that was assumed what we all are doing.

So, you will never convince me I am wrong for thinking a program added to instrumental music is irrelevant and sometimes distracting and harmful to my enjoyment of the music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> I am not "striking a pose" of authority. I am stating my opinion. I thought that was assumed what we all are doing.
> 
> So, you will never convince me I am wrong for thinking a program added to instrumental music is irrelevant and sometimes distracting and harmful to my enjoyment of the music.


I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong to prefer listening to program music without regard to the program. You have every right to do that. What's wrong are statements like "there is hardly anything worse than taking something abstract, ephemeral, evocative, open-ended, limitless, i.e. music, and attaching it to a concrete story or image," and I'm saying _why_ such statements are wrong.

In general, we should be careful not to express mere tastes and preferences in terms of quasi-moral evaluations. Specifically, the idea that when Rachmaninoff, inspired by a work of visual art, composed a piece and called it "The Isle of the Dead," he was doing something "wrong" - something which could "hardly be worse" - is ridiculous. The fact is that if you don't know what inspired the work you're missing an aspect of it which Rachmaninoff apparently valued highly, and that supposition is quite clear from the character of the music he composed.

As I said, you're free to listen to music however you please, but not to claim that your way is superior.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong to prefer listening to program music without regard to the program. You have every right to do that. *What's wrong are statements like *"there is hardly anything worse than taking something abstract, ephemeral, evocative, open-ended, limitless, i.e. music, and attaching it to a concrete story or image," and I'm saying _why_ *such statements are wrong*.
> 
> In general, we should be careful not to express mere tastes and preferences in terms of quasi-moral evaluations. Specifically, the idea that when Rachmaninoff, inspired by a work of visual art, composed a piece and called it "The Isle of the Dead," he was doing something "wrong" - something which could "hardly be worse" - is ridiculous. The fact is that if you don't know what inspired the work you're missing an aspect of it which Rachmaninoff apparently valued highly, and that supposition is quite clear from the character of the music he composed.
> 
> As I said, you're free to listen to music however you please, but not to claim that your way is superior.


It's not wrong for me, it is absolutely the truth of what I think and how I feel. Am I supposed to stop myself from expressing myself because someone might disagree with me? Btw, I don't think I said my way was superior for anyone other than myself.

I'm not saying Rachmaninoff was wrong. But I don't want to know about his motivation in writing his music. I don't want to know why any artist created anything. My response to any art is based on the work - the work bounded by the corners of the score or the canvas. I am not interested in any biographical information, or any information about what the composer was trying to accomplish.

So for me *there is hardly anything worse than taking something abstract, ephemeral, evocative, open-ended, limitless, i.e. music, and attaching it to a concrete story or image*.

If you disagree, I can respect that but won't change anything about what I think.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> . . . As I said, you're free to listen to music however you please, but not to claim that your way is superior.


Actually, I think anyone is free to claim that his or her way of listening to music is superior, and the rest of us are free to sneer at the idea.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Yes, but with songs and opera the words *are there*, they are an integral part of the work. With program music the "program" is not an explicit part of the work. One can take it or ignore it. *For me*, the work ought to stand on its own without any outside information.
> 
> And in fact, *I see* these programs as compromising the music, not enhancing it. There is hardly anything worse than taking something abstract, ephemeral, evocative, open-ended, limitless, i.e. music, and attaching it to a concrete story or image.


I made it clear I was speaking only for myself not lecturing to the world.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> How can it be both evocative and abstract? I mean, if it's evocative it has to evoke something, and that something is the extra musical meaning of the music.
> 
> Ha ha! Got ya.


I think SanAntone is not mistaken in this regard - abstract music or painting can be evocative but whatever it evokes is down to the perceiver not necessarily the artist. Even total abstractness can resemble something in the mind of the viewer or listener. I'm sure you agree that even extreme contemporary music can be emotionally evocative, even if it's totally abstract (as is most of classical music and music in overall). One very interesting example of intentional abstract expression is Nielsen's 4th symphony. He wrote about it:

_"[...] I have an idea for a new work which has no programme, but which is to express what we understand by Life Urge or Life Expression - that is, everything that moves, that has the will to life, that cannot be called either bad or good, high or low, large or small, but simply 'That which is life' or 'That which has the will to life' - you understand, no particular idea of anything 'magnificent' or anything 'fine and delicate' or warm or cold (violent perhaps) but just life and motion, yet different, very different, but in a context, and sort of constantly flowing, in one great movement in one flow. _
...
_Music, even with all its resources, cannot even express the very simplest concepts of yes or no, and even when joined with words it expresses one thing or another just as well or just as poorly._"

So, while music remains entirely abstract no matter what, it still has an immense expressive power that can serve a programme well (and the programme can serve the music very well, too). I have found that when listening to some works (like Bruckner's 4th) the programme helps me a lot to grasp the works - the programme sort of indicates what I should be looking for, what emotions this should or could evoke. And also, I cannot imagine listening to opera with no regard to the programme - the sung text - vocals - are entirely abstract sounds as well, which (in theory) could similarly be entirely separated from their meaning.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> It's not wrong for me, it is absolutely the truth of what I think and how I feel. Am I supposed to stop myself from expressing myself because someone might disagree with me? Btw, I don't think I said my way was superior for anyone other than myself.
> 
> I'm not saying Rachmaninoff was wrong. But I don't want to know about his motivation in writing his music. I don't want to know why any artist created anything. My response to any art is based on the work - the work bounded by the corners of the score or the canvas. I am not interested in any biographical information, or any information about what the composer was trying to accomplish.
> 
> ...


It remains a fact that when a composer attaches an evocative title or verbal description to a work, that title or description is _part of the work,_ and it's simply inaccurate to claim that it isn't. Where you and I would certainly agree is in wanting the work to make sense in purely musical terms and to be enjoyable as an aural experience. I find that I can listen to a good tone poem such as those of Sibelius either with or without reference to its program. Both approaches are enjoyable and valid.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> How can it be both evocative and abstract? I mean, if it's evocative it has to evoke something, and that something is the extra musical meaning of the music.
> 
> Ha ha! Got ya.


It is evocative in the mind of the listener, that is unless the listener has been told what the work is supposedly evoking. It is abstract to the extent that it is not nailed down what the work is about. I am all for total freedom in how I approach a work. Which is why I resist information I am informed of about the work, which serves to limit that freedom.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> It remains a fact that when a composer attaches an evocative title or verbal description to a work, that title or description is _part of the work,_ and it's simply inaccurate to claim that it isn't. Where you and I would certainly agree is in wanting the work to make sense in purely musical terms and to be enjoyable as an aural experience. I find that I can listen to a good tone poem such as those of Sibelius either with or without reference to its program. Both approaches are enjoyable and valid.


A title is part of the work and maybe if the narrative is part of the notes attached to the score, it can be said to be part of the work - but both can be ignored (which I always do).

The music written in the score cannot be ignored.

I am talking about what *I focus on* while listening, or more accurately what I _don't_ focus on. I try to leave my mind as open as possible, listening to the sound of the work _without thinking about_ what I am hearing. The last thing I want is to be trying to hear what is supposedly being described in the music. That is the opposite of how I enjoy listening to music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> A title is part of the work and maybe if the narrative is part of the notes attached to the score, it can be said to be part of the work - but both can be ignored (which I always do).
> 
> The music written in the score cannot be ignored.
> 
> I am talking about what *I focus on* while listening, or more accurately what I _don't_ focus on. I try to leave my mind as open as possible, listening to the sound of the work _without thinking about_ what I am hearing. The last thing I want is to be trying to hear what is supposedly being described in the music. That is the opposite of how I enjoy listening to music.


Very little program music requires the mental processes you scorn. Most tone poems and other works with evocative titles make no demands on the act of listening, but merely provide a provocative, gentle nudge to our imaginations. Many listeners find this extra dimension enjoyable, and every listener will imagine or picture something a little different and unique to him or her. Sibelius provides this for his _Tapiola: _

"Wide-spread they stand, the Northland's dusky forests,
Ancient, mysterious, brooding savage dreams;
Within them dwells the Forest's mighty God,
And wood-sprites in the gloom weave magic secrets."

No one needs to think of anything specific in response to this, or needs to be thinking about it while listening. I know I don't. Sibelius certainly intends for his music to create its own impressions. But the words are quite evocative in themselves, and hearing the music knowing them is an experience subtly different from hearing it without. It's pretty hard to deny the extraordinary imaginative skill with which Sibelius has entered into and expressed the mythical world evoked by the poem. Music has amazing expressive capabilities, and the alliance with poetry reveals another dimension of its powers. Why not hear the piece both ways?


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Hermastersvoice said:


> My wife who usually has a good ear for music was complaining that she can never hear the meaning of programme music. We tried Morning from Peer Gynt. She claimed only to know that it's a sunrise because of an old TV ad. We tried other pieces. She didn't get the thunderstorm in Beethoven's 6th, nor the Fireworks in Handel's music. Only Lumbye's Kopenhagener Steam Railway Galopp was obvious to her. Do we only know what programme music depicts because we've read about it somewhere? *Is there music where it's obvious?*


I just noticed this thread.
To be honest, there is indeed music where it is obvious.
In Eriks Esenvalds's "St Luke Passion", it is pretty obvious to any listener what is going on.
You hear the hammer banging in the nails
The tenor sings "Father!"
More banging
"forgive them "
more banging
"for they know not"
more banging
"what they do!"
The first time I listened to this I sat right up when this happened. Oh yeah, I'm listening to a "Passion" alright. Scared the hell out of me.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Why not hear the piece both ways?


Because I find narrative programs irrelevant and detrimental to my enjoyment and have zero interest in them. But in general I avoid works that describe themselves as tone poems. Since I don't listen to much orchestral music, anyway, it is not hard.

Even a work like Schubert's string quartet "Death and the Maiden", something I've heard hundreds of times, I still don't know why it is titled that way, and don't care.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> It is abstract to the extent that it is not nailed down what the work is about.





SanAntone said:


> I find narrative programs irrelevant and detrimental to my enjoyment and have zero interest in them.


then what the talk is about? the right to remain ignorant with listening to mere sounds instead of music?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Because I find narrative programs irrelevant and detrimental to my enjoyment and have zero interest in them. But in general I avoid works that describe themselves as tone poems. Since I don't listen to much orchestral music, anyway, it is not hard.
> 
> Even a work like Schubert's string quartet "Death and the Maiden", something I've heard hundreds of times, I still don't know why it is titled that way, and don't care.


I'll tell you even if you don't care! The Schubert quartet is named after his song, "Death and the Maiden," simply because it's the main melody of that song that he uses for his theme and variation movement. The quartet isn't programmatic, though I wouldn't doubt that some have read a program into it. I'm not sure, but I suspect the work's nickname wasn't given it by Schubert.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I'll tell you even if you don't care! The Schubert quartet is named after his song, "Death and the Maiden," simply because it's the main melody of that song that he uses for his theme and variation movement. The quartet isn't programmatic, though I wouldn't doubt that some have read a program into it. *I'm not sure, but I suspect the work's nickname wasn't given it by Schubert.*


I've read it indeed wasn't. The work was publically premiered after Schubert's death and the only thematic component seems to be the quotation of his own song, which by itself isn't exactly a programme.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Because I find narrative programs irrelevant and detrimental to my enjoyment and have zero interest in them. But in general I avoid works that describe themselves as tone poems. Since I don't listen to much orchestral music, anyway, it is not hard.
> 
> Even a work like Schubert's string quartet "Death and the Maiden", something I've heard hundreds of times, I still don't know why it is titled that way, and don't care.


Do you feel the same about music inspired by pictures? For example Hughes Dufourt's Saturne






Which is inspired by Goya's picture of the God Saturn eating his son


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Do you feel the same about music inspired by pictures? For example Hughes Dufourt's Saturne
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. I ignore all information about what inspired a work, including the title (which is why I prefer titles such as String Quartet No, 12 instead of some title). Either the music will interest me or not. Associating a painting with the work is a detour away from the music. Even if the idea came from the composer; I just don't care about that kind of stuff.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Yes. I ignore all information about what inspired a work, including the title (which is why I prefer titles such as String Quartet No, 12 instead of some title). Either the music will interest me or not. Associating a painting with the work is a detour away from the music. Even if the idea came from the composer; I just don't care about that kind of stuff.


I think the best listening is interpretation. The extramusical content is a tool for interpretation. Without the image I couldn't make sense of that passage at about 40 minutes where Dufourt holds down a note for a long time. The picture helps me to understand that this is a representation in music of the horror of Saturn's murder and cannibalism. Without the picture, that major musical event would be a sort of none-sense.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I think the best listening is interpretation. The extramusical content is a tool for interpretation. *Without the image I couldn't make sense of that passage at about 40 minutes where Dufourt holds down a note for a long time.* The picture helps me to understand that this is a representation in music of the horror of Saturn's murder and cannibalism. Without the picture, that major musical event would be a sort of none-sense.


For me this is the defect of program music: Serious art music is lowered to the level of movie music, i.e. the music is being used to depict, enhance, or in some way augment a visual image or scene.

I prefer to listen to music in which the composer's only aim is to write the best music he can imagine without ulterior motivations associated with non-musical content.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

It doesn't take much to find programmed music that sounds like what it says it depicts. Holst's The Planets and Beethoven's "Moonlight" sonata, just to name two famous pieces of program music, paint their portraits well. So does Beethoven's "Pastoral" piano sonata 15, far more so in my opinion than the same-named symphony.

Respighi's Roman Trilogy has been named several times; try Ibert's Escales (ports of call) sometime as well. He wrote that from memories he had as a sailor in the Mediterranean. It depicts actions and movements at three ports. The All Music Guide has interesting things to say about it and similar music:

"Jacques Ibert enjoyed a major sensation when his Escales was premiered in 1924. As a sumptuous, brilliantly orchestrated work depicting sunny climes in perfect postcard music, Ibert's suite follows in the steps of such predecessors as Saint-Saëns' Suite algérienne (1880), Chabrier's España (1883), Debussy's Ibéria (1905-1908), and Ravel's Rapsodie espagnole (1907).

"In the span of about 15 minutes, Escales retraces a voyage Ibert himself might have made while he was in the Navy during World War I, cruising the Mediterranean. The first movement, "Rome-Palermo," evokes the sights and sounds of these major Italian centers with a melody of appropriate regional flavor. "Tunis-Nefta" brings the sailors ashore in Northern Africa; timpani and pulsing strings provide a hypnotic beat while an oboe imitates the chromatic improvisations of local reed instruments. "Valencia," a whirling dance scene, brings the suite to a close with a portrayal of Spanish culture at its liveliest."


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

larold said:


> It doesn't take much to find programmed music that sounds like what it says it depicts. Holst's The Planets and Beethoven's "Moonlight" sonata, just to name two famous pieces of program music, paint their portraits well. So does Beethoven's "Pastoral" piano sonata 15, far more so in my opinion than the same-named symphony.
> 
> Respighi's Roman Trilogy has been named several times; try Ibert's Escales (ports of call) sometime as well. He wrote that from memories he had as a sailor in the Mediterranean. It depicts actions and movements at three ports. The All Music Guide has interesting things to say about it and similar music:
> 
> ...


If this post is directed at me, then you are confused. I am not asking for recommendations of "good" program music to change my opinion of it.

I never listen to Holst's _The Planets_, or any of Respighi's or Ibert's music. I am just not interested in what they do. Beethoven had nothing anything to do with the subtitle "Moonlight Sonata." His title is *Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp minor*, marked Quasi una fantasia, Op. 27, No. 2. The phrase Moonlight Sonata was attached to it after he was dead by some idiot.

There are two reasons why I don't listen to program music: 1) I am not interested in orchestral music and 2) I am not interested in program music.

If I want music partnered with narrative I listen to some kind of vocal music: opera, songs, choral music, etc.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> If this post is directed at me, then you are confused. I am not asking for recommendations of "good" program music to change my opinion of it.
> 
> I never listen to Holst's _The Planets_, or any of Respighi's or Ibert's music. I am just not interested in what they do. Beethoven had nothing anything to do with the subtitle "Moonlight Sonata." His title is Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp minor, marked Quasi una fantasia, Op. 27, No. 2. *The phrase Moonlight Sonata was attached to it after he was dead by some idiot.*
> 
> ...


Heh, heh, the name is thought to come from a review of Ludwig Rellstab's review, an influential music critic of his time. Apparently, Schubert used his texts in the first seven songs of Schwanengesang. So, I'm not quite sure if we should call him an idiot, especially as he didn't give the nickname. His review just inspired it, as far as I understand. But agreed, it's not exactly programmatic .


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> For me this is the defect of program music: Serious art music is lowered to the level of movie music, i.e. the music is being used to depict, enhance, or in some way augment a visual image or scene.
> 
> I prefer to listen to music in which the composer's only aim is to write the best music he can imagine without ulterior motivations associated with non-musical content.


There's a hierarchy in your thinking in this post, music without representational aspirations is superior to programme music. But you've not argued for it. In other posts my impression was that you believed something different: that you personally can't be bothered with programmes because you don't find them helpful. According to the first view, _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ is inferior to the Strauss Horn Concertos. Not necessarily so according to the second view.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> There's a hierarchy in your thinking in this post, music without representational aspirations is superior to programme music. But you've not argued for it. In other posts my impression was that you believed something different: that you personally can't be bothered with programmes because you don't find them helpful. According to the first view, _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ is inferior to the Strauss Horn Concertos. Not necessarily so according to the second view.


I can see why you would think that, I may have been unclear.

Here's my view stated as simply as I can: I may or may not enjoy a work which is known to be programmatic. It would all depend upon the actual musical content irregardless of any program. However, I also think the entire idea of program music is a flawed concept for the reasons I've stated previously.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I can see why you would think that, I may have been unclear.
> 
> Here's my view stated as simply as I can: I may or may not enjoy a work which is known to be programmatic. It would all depend upon the actual musical content irregardless of any program. However, I also think the entire idea of program music is a flawed concept for the reasons I've stated previously.


I'm late to this, but, SanAntone, is there a crossover of this idea to painting and sculpture? Is fully abstract pictorial art and sculpture preferred by you to art that clearly depicts something other or beyond itself? Also, if such pictorial art--let's say any of the statues of David--are not given titles by the artist/sculptor, are they more palatable? I am thinking of Bernini's statue of David if it were titled "Shape", or "Energetic, Intense Young Boy". Or had no title at all.

My own experience is that being privy to a composer's "intent" as indicated by a composer's title and/or synopsis works as a separate, parallel good thing working alongside the music itself to give pleasure--it does not necessarily make the music sound better, but it provides a broad artery through which the experience can flow more freely, in greater accord with the composer's mind and intention.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> I'm late to this, but, SanAntone, is there a crossover of this idea to painting and sculpture? Is fully abstract pictorial art and sculpture preferred by you to art that clearly depicts something other or beyond itself? Also, if such pictorial art--let's say any of the statues of David--are not given titles by the artist/sculptor, are they more palatable? I am thinking of Bernini's statue of David if it were titled "Shape", or "Energetic, Intense Young Boy". Or had no title at all.
> 
> My own experience is that being privy to a composer's "intent" as indicated by a composer's title and/or synopsis works as a separate, parallel good thing working alongside the music itself to give pleasure--it does not necessarily make the music sound better, but it provides a broad artery through which the experience can flow more freely, in greater accord with the composer's mind and intention.


With representational art the subject is obvious, a title is usually superfluous. If I were looking at a Cezànne painting of a bowl of fruit, I don't need to be informed if they were apples or peaches. For non-representational or abstract art I ignore titles and just look at the painting. When I walk through a museum I often ignore the title blocks and just gaze at the picture or sculpture. I do read biographies but try to keep that separate from an experience of the work.

I guess my interest is in a pure experience of the work without any nudges by the artist or composer about what they intended. I don't need to know that.

I'm not interested in "meaning" or "understanding", I am after a pure aesthetic experience, which I often find very rewarding. I look at art or listen to music much like I appreciate images and sounds of nature. I approach art as if it were not created by someone, as if it just grew like a flower for me to see or hear. Which is why I probably like John Cage so much.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I'm not interested in "meaning" or "understanding", I am after a pure aesthetic experience, which I often find very rewarding. I look at art or listen to music much like I appreciate images and sounds of nature. I approach art as if it were not created by someone, as if it just grew like a flower for me to see or hear. Which is why I probably like John Cage so much.


Interesting to read this. One area where I feel the same is dance, less so in music or poetry or fine art. I do seem to have the DNA to respond to dance, movement, very strongly.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> I prefer to listen to music in which the composer's only aim is to write the best music he can imagine without ulterior motivations associated with non-musical content.


in that case, you are mistaken that you deal with art as such; should instead have tried mathematics.

art is an ideology, its not for dreamers who deliberately choose to stay ignorant.

the truth will transpire, if you want it or not.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I don't mind when composers state their music is meant to depict something, or was inspired by something real and concrete.
As long as the music can stand on its own it's all fine. Usually it's just "nice to know". Composers too have to find their inspiration somewhere.
Rachmaninoff couldn't have written a better piece with the Isle of the Dead painting in mind. But I would enjoy the music just as much if there was no connection to the painting.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with programmatic music, and it makes no difference whether a work is programmatic or abstract . It's true you can't really grasp the programmatic intent of a work without knowing the composer's intention, but this doesn't mean music can't actually depict extra-misc things or have a narrative content . 
If you hear a poem in a language you don't understand, this doesn't mean it has no meaning , and it's the same with programmatic music . You simply need to read the necessary information about a programmatic work before you hear it , and of course, this ha never been easier with the existence of the internet . 
If someone who knows little or nothing about classical music were to hear Debussy's "La Mer " without knowing anything about it, that individual would not guess it's meant to depict the sea in its various elements , but so what ? La Mer sounds like the sea period . Onlypedantic snobs dismiss programatic music out of hand .


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Couldn't agree more with your summation.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_It doesn't take much to find programmed music that sounds like what it says it depicts...If this post is directed at me, then you are confused._

I don't know who you are and I am not confused. It was merely a post in a discussion.


----------



## Fredrikalansson (Jan 29, 2019)

A program can't rescue bad music. All the great program music, probably starting with Byrd's The Battell, can be enjoyed abstractly.

When I first heard Beethoven's 3rd symphony, I knew nothing about it. I enjoyed it, but when I learned more about it, especially that it was a response to the crisis outlined in the Heilegenstadt testament, my appreciation deepened. I ceased to respect the symphony and grew to love it.

What about Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique? The fourth movement stands up musically, but to know it's a March to the Scaffold, and that the pizzicato at the end is the head dropping into a basket - well, it's just so much fun! And could Berlioz have achieved such a revolution in orchestral music making without a program to hang it on?

As for OP's wife, I wonder if she has a form of amusia? Read Oliver Sachs' fascinating book Musicaphilia.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I have a question. A piece of music I've been enjoying over this weekend is by Chaya Czernowin, called Hidden. It's clearly got a provocative title, and I was surprised that she goes further in the score, viz.



> HIDDEN is an attempt to get at what is hidden underneath expression or underneath music. It attempts to reach even further where there is a barely audible presence, which is on the edge of our perception. We do not know this presence, and it might be foreign, undecipherable. HIDDEN is a very slow moving 45 minute experience transforming the ear into an eye. The ear is given space and time to observe and orient itself in the unpredictable aural landscape. It is an underwarter, submerged landscape of rocks, inhabited by low vibrations which are felt rather than heard and with layers and layers of peeling away fog. Monolithic groups of sonic 'rocks' are seen/ heard from various angles. The piece is about observation; it tries to trace/ perceive/sense the emergence of expression. Chaya Czernowin


Is this music which is meant to depict something? Is it weaker music for being so? You can hear it easily enough


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

And is this meant to depict something, the title suggests it is


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> And is this meant to depict something, the title suggests it is


It depends on whether you choose, for example, the pioneering and allegedly patriarchal interpretation of Artaud and Starreveld, which sees the work as depicting a narrative of betrayal and mistrust; where the Apollo voice or the 'male page' is seen as well-balanced, rational and notated in a very rigid and structured way, and the Cassandra voice or the 'female page' is rather chaotic, hysterical and all over the place. Or you may choose the feminist interpretation of Dr. Ellen Waterman, which analyzes the narrative as depicting Cassandra's emotional evolution, as a woman in a patriarchal society. In which case, the work depicts sequentially 'blind ambition', 'formation of an individual voice', 'choice', hysteria', 'resolution. 'self-knowledge'). There are, of course, other possibilities. Ferneyhough says he sees the piece as gender-neutral. Really.


----------



## Zauberfloete (Dec 2, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> How can it be both evocative and abstract? I mean, if it's evocative it has to evoke something, and that something is the extra musical meaning of the music.
> 
> Ha ha! Got ya.


I understand what SanAntone said as "capable of evoking anything", not as "evocative of one thing in particular".


----------

