# Are there any aspects of music you don't respond to?



## DennyL (Jun 2, 2011)

I find, in conversation, I don't see the need to raise one's voice and shout, unless one knows that one it talking to someone who is a bit deaf, and I don't much like it when people shout at me, as though I might be more inclined to comply with what they want when they shout. I had a boss like that. Similarly, I don't much enjoy it when music raises it's voice and gets loud. Maybe this is why I seem to generally prefer chamber music, as it more rarely tries to raise its voice. Quite often an orchestral piece arrives towards its conclusion and starts to get louder and I think 'ok, I've got the point, calm down'. I can think of exceptions, such as the end of Mahler's third, which does get loud, but my pleasure in that is not about getting loud but the way I think, as it approaches its conclusion, that it has arrived at a climax, only to realise that it's in the foothills of the next one.

I wonder whether with the passage of time conversational styles and rhetoric change and now we are more inclined to use devices other than shouting to make our points, and that music that shouts is just using a device that was once effective in the past, but is less so now. Or is it just me?

What do people think?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I like solo and chamber music a lot, one of my 'focii' of classical music overall. But its not necessarily loudness but complexity. I think in terms of my taste, some things go beyond the pale of complexity, so to speak. I'm thinking of eg. Boulez's 'Sur Incises' here, and that's actually a chamber piece. Michael Tippett said that he thought that music should not be too simple or too complex for it to kind of 'work' or kind of connect with most listeners (and composers, musicians, etc.). He cited Sorabji as being to complex for his own good and also said he thought minimalism was like boring to him. I can't comment on Sorabji, but I do like some minimalism, but it depends (& I tend to take it in smaller doses than other musics I listen to).

So boils down to that and gut feeling. Some complex things I like, eg. Harry Partch. But others I just don't care for. I think its okay to be loud but I don't like it when they do it to kind of overdo it. Its not only loudness but that whole 'bigger than Ben Hur' type of aesthetic. So that's why Wagner is not my cup of tea, although in certain moods I can listen to and enjoy Bruckner and Mahler.


----------



## DennyL (Jun 2, 2011)

I think musical rhetoric follows the rhetoric in other parts of society, and now shouting just isn't as persuasive as it used to be. For instance theatre uses shouting quite a bit as a good device to fill an auditorium, but characters don't shout so much in cinema because a slight ripple of the jaw muscle caught by a close camera can be just as eloquent. Modern technology has changed the norm. Similarly, in the past an orchestra's main job was to fill an auditorium unaided, now we are used to amplification, and sheer volume has lost its potency. Music can make a similar point by other means, such as by dissonance, which is more allowable now, or by accelerating rhythm. An orchestra going loud now may not have the same effect on an audience now as it would have had 200 years ago. The rhetorical conventions have changed.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Subtlety is nice, inoffensive to one's ego, and overrated.

It may take skill to be subtle but it's much harder to pull off music for where the ends of the earth meets the heavens.

I prefer works that are unfathomably complex, unbearably long, and loud as hell.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

DennyL said:


> ...An orchestra going loud now may not have the same effect on an audience now as it would have had 200 years ago. ....


Well that makes sense to me, esp. in light of things like Haydn hearing Beethoven's first two symphonies - I think he heard both of them, or one at least - and he apparently did not enjoy them. Part of the reason would have been increased 'dissonace' and loudness in those works compared to Haydn's own works and also other composers of his older generation.

But given what we know of Haydn's tastes, I think he would have been apalled at Beethoven's 3rd symphony, the 'Eroica.' I don't think old papa actually heard it though. But in terms of public comments, Haydn had nothing but praise for his old pupil. He was a gentleman, I think he was the definition of good manners and not rubbishing other composers whose music he may not like that much.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well that makes sense to me, esp. in light of things like Haydn hearing Beethoven's first two symphonies - I think he heard both of them, or one at least - and he apparently did not enjoy them. Part of the reason would have been increased 'dissonace' and loudness in those works compared to Haydn's own works and also other composers of his older generation.
> 
> But given what we know of Haydn's tastes, I think he would have been apalled at Beethoven's 3rd symphony, the 'Eroica.' I don't think old papa actually heard it though. But in terms of public comments, Haydn had nothing but praise for his old pupil. He was a gentleman, I think he was the definition of good manners and not rubbishing other composers whose music he may not like that much.


I always like to think that Haydn was intelligent enough to realise that Beethoven might be a great composer, that insulting Beethoven's music was not an intelligent thing for him to do, and it might reveal his own 'fuddy duddy' tastes. Lets face it, if he had heard the Eroica and made some remark about hating it, we'd have never heard the last of it from music historians.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

DennyL said:


> I think musical rhetoric follows the rhetoric in other parts of society, and now shouting just isn't as persuasive as it used to be. For instance theatre uses shouting quite a bit as a good device to fill an auditorium, but characters don't shout so much in cinema because a slight ripple of the jaw muscle caught by a close camera can be just as eloquent. Modern technology has changed the norm. Similarly, in the past an orchestra's main job was to fill an auditorium unaided, now we are used to amplification, and sheer volume has lost its potency. Music can make a similar point by other means, such as by dissonance, which is more allowable now, or by accelerating rhythm. An orchestra going loud now may not have the same effect on an audience now as it would have had 200 years ago. The rhetorical conventions have changed.


Technology has changed things for cinema, because cinema is a definitive break from plays: it is a different, though strongly related, art form. For example, there is nothing to do with camera angles in plays, but from what I can see, film directors are very interested in them.

No such break exists in music. We listen to the same music recorded as we do in the concert hall, and the difference has more to do with atmosphere than anything else: indeed, recorded music is more limited in the strictest sense, because although you can play with the recording, there is a visual dimension that you miss, and can only appreciate in a lesser form (I think). Bach's Brandenburg 3 is a famous example, seeing the music being 'passed around' the players. The identification with the progression of technology in cinema, however, I think does not hold water in the argument you are trying to pose.



DennyL said:


> Music can make a similar point by other means, such as by dissonance, which is more allowable now, or by accelerating rhythm. An orchestra going loud now may not have the same effect on an audience now as it would have had 200 years ago. The rhetorical conventions have changed.


Loudness is one of the very few things at the disposal of a composer. When you think about it, there are very few things out of which a composer must make much: pitch, rhythm, timbre and dynamics. Taking away loudness from that takes away a significant amount of material for music to work with. Why should a composer restrict himself to other means when loudness is still at his disposal? Moreover, greater or lesser dissonance doesn't matter except for the contrast in the piece. Similarly volume wouldn't matter except for the contrast in the piece: there is a loud bit because you've just had a quiet bit. I cannot think of any moment in (good) music where loudness is unwarranted: perhaps you could argue it in some of the symphonic works of Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, or maybe Wagner.

I agree that perhaps we shall see some music specifically composed to be recorded and listened to in the bedroom. I will be interested to see what the differences will be with standard concert and chamber works.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ramako said:


> I always like to think that Haydn was intelligent enough to realise that Beethoven might be a great composer, that insulting Beethoven's music was not an intelligent thing for him to do, and it might reveal his own 'fuddy duddy' tastes. Lets face it, if he had heard the Eroica and made some remark about hating it, we'd have never heard the last of it from music historians.


Well I think he thought its wise to keep those types of opinions to oneself, so yes.

& re musicologists grabbing onto these things, yes I think it is a factor, for good or bad. Maybe more for bad. Saint-Saens famous rant at the premiere of Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring' saying that the opening bassoon was like a buffoon or something, well its reached the level of legend. But in reality, in his younger years, Saint-Saens had been the subject of similar rants on paper done by critics who thought anything since Beethoven's middle period (or something like that) was beyond the pale, too radical, basically not conservative enough for their tastes. But let's not forget, when he was at the Stravinsky premiere, Saint-Saens was like almost eighty years of age. He was at the end of his career while Stravinsky was just at the beginning. So its natural to have a generation gap like that.



Ramako said:


> ... I cannot think of any moment in (good) music where loudness is unwarranted: ...


Well its warranted I think if its the composer's vision to do it, his intention to put some thought across. Eg. in Penderecki's Hiroshima piece (the Threnody) he uses these glissandos and tone clusters, and also the members of the orchestra shouting, to give the effect of catastrophe, or horror, or chaos. Well, whatever it is, it's not pretty. & he deliberately did that. Of course, this type of thing can be for just 'formal' effect. Eg. Mahler used 9-note clusters in the opening 'Adagio' of his 10th symphony. The meaning here is more abstract but for me this is an utterance full of emotion.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well its warranted I think if its the composer's vision to do it, his intention to put some thought across. Eg. in Penderecki's Hiroshima piece (the Threnody) he uses these glissandos and tone clusters, and also the members of the orchestra shouting, to give the effect of catastrophe, or horror, or chaos. Well, whatever it is, it's not pretty. & he deliberately did that. Of course, this type of thing can be for just 'formal' effect. Eg. Mahler used 9-note clusters in the opening 'Adagio' of his 10th symphony. The meaning here is more abstract but for me this is an utterance full of emotion.


Interesting on the Mahler, I may have a look at that; I like the movement overall.

I must admit I had more in mind when Beethoven does his forte repetition of the main theme (many examples), which I thought was what DennyL was targeting in complaining of loudness. The whole idea of creating horror in music is a more controversial topic, and an interesting one aesthetically, but I must admit I have always been impressed by the ability of Mozart (perhaps Bach and Handel as well) to create the impression of terror in an entirely tonal controlled, even classical, way. Still, by Mahler the idea of the music 'breaking down' seems to have taken hold (his 9th).


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

If you've been reading the threads here you have a problem as half,at least,of the posters appear to beleve that shouting their opinions is the secret to success.
As for loudness in music, how would we have for instance Strauss' "Heldenleben" and Saint-Saens Organ Symphony without loudness to name just two---the louder the better I say ,there is also nothing like a hair raising crescendo of a great orchestra in the concert hall.
Those who want the reedy, squeeky sounds of early music or the hooting of madrigals are welcome to them naturally.
But even with solo piano the "Hammerklavier" and an amount of Liszt's music has to be loud for effect.
Lastly, not perhaps appreciated in your screed is the fact that earlier instruments were not capable of large volume.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

Some years, when funding has been in place, our local symphony orchestra has had a musical fireworks night with the fireworks set to go off to the cannon part of the 1812 Overture (Tchaikovsky). It is singularly the loudest music a full orchestra can produce. It is wonderful!


----------

