# Metaphors



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

When we discuss a piece of music we often try to find words that are more or less metaphorical for the qualities we hear in it. This seems to be the main alternative to a more technical analysis. Some find this practice too imprecise or vague but it works for many people. We use the words to describe why we like a piece or sometimes what we believe the piece lacks. Sometimes we use the words to praise (or to rubbish) a whole period or genre. Such words include “joyful”, “dark”, “exciting”, “angry”, “spiritual”, “serene”, “comical”, “biting” and many many more. I suppose you might also include words like "beautiful" or "ugly" - but they don't communicate very much. 

I wonder what metaphorical words work best for you to describe the music of each of the main periods – “contemporary”, “modern” (say since 1918), Romantic, Classical, Baroque, pre-Baroque. What qualities do you find in each of these periods and what qualities do the periods lack? 

Feel free to adopt your own categories for periods but please try to restrict yourself to broadly metaphorical terms and to avoid technical words with clear definitions in relation to music.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Let's give this a try,


pre-Baroque: divine restraint

Baroque: divine abundance

Classical: humanistic elegance

Romantic: watch out for phoneys, enjoy the real ones

Beethoven: individualistic fellowship

Modern: search for color

Contemporary: Ahem....


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

From old to new: angel music (Renaissance)), devotional (baroque), objective (classicism), subjective (romantic), otherworldly (modern/contemporary) 
...but not always at all


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

I can't find so many words, so I will give you only 2 divisions

1. Music to the point which is enjoyable for the average listener*. (80% of our music)
2. Music not to the point which is not enjoyable for the average listener. (20% of our music or less)

*average listener >> the listener who doesn't have a very deep relation with the less known musical forms but he can understand and appreciate the ''traditional'' well known forms of the classical, romantic etc. music. 


Nice topic!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Metaphors are essential to our understanding of music, emotionally!


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

How about physical metaphors: tones as objects, musical space, motion, high and low notes, etc.

I will weigh in on this when I have more time.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

I’m probably being too pedantic here, but all your words - joyful, dark, exciting etc. aren’t metaphors at all, just adjectives.

A metaphor is usually a phrase comparing something to something else: 

Wiki’s example is ‘All the world’s a stage...’
The world isn’t factually a stage, merely being compared to one.

So, are you actually asking for metaphors or adjectives?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

LezLee said:


> I'm probably being too pedantic here, but all your words - joyful, dark, exciting etc. aren't metaphors at all, just adjectives.
> 
> A metaphor is usually a phrase comparing something to something else:
> 
> ...


You have a point, but let me play mediator and say that some adjectives are in fact metaphorical. We speak of music as having "high" and "low" notes when sound is not spatial, and we call a Bruckner symphony "heavy" and and a Strauss waltz "light" when sound has no mass. To call a work "tragic" is not metaphorical (because we're really talking about our own feelings), but to call it "dark" is.

Clearly, when we try to describe music, we often must speak metaphorically.


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

Yes. We compare music to the physical world when we speak of high and low, heavy and light, dark and bright, energy, momentum, attraction, motion.

Many of these metaphors are so apt that we sometimes forget that we are speaking metaphorically. Tell someone that high notes aren't really high and see the funny look you get.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I've never seen a single word that could possibly act as a _metaphor_. A metaphor is representative or symbolic of something and requires two elements: something that's talked about that's being compared to something else to illuminate what's being talked about. It takes two to tango, at least two parts that are dancing together that try to invoke something that might be beyond words but perhaps a description related to a common experience. Just about everyone knows what a dance is. It's an approximation, characterization. But a single word description compares nothing. It's just an adjective that has various possible gradations of meaning but it invokes no visual or imagery. Otherwise, one might actually be cheating on the definition of the word 'metaphor,' which is supposed to compare two things to each other. I don't think it works, and it's not satisfying, descriptive, imaginative, accurate, or colorful as a definition... It can be just as false as a four-dollar bill.  Nevertheless, the choice of the right adjective can be illuminating too but just not as a metaphor.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> I've never seen a single word that could possibly act as a _metaphor_. A metaphor requires two elements: something that's talked about that's being compared to something else to give the sense of what's being talked about. It takes two to tango: at least two parts that are dancing together that try to invoke something that might be beyond words but perhaps a description related to a common experience. Just about everyone knows what a dance is. It's an approximation, characterization of what are actually two different things to give somebody an idea of something. But a single word description I would never consider a metaphor. It's just an adjective that has various possible gradations of meaning. Otherwise, one might actually be cheating on the definition of the word 'metaphor' which is supposed to compare two things to each other. I don't think it works, and it's not satisfying, descriptive, imaginative, accurate, or colorful as a definition. It as false as a three-dollar bill.


*met·a·phor*
/ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/

_noun:_ metaphor; plural noun: metaphors

"a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable." (Wiki)

A single word applied to a thing - an adjective applied to music, in this case - can easily be metaphoric. When I describe a tone as "high" or "low" I'm describing sound, which has no location in space, in terms of space. A "heavy" or "light" piece of music doesn't literally have weight. A "dark" or "bright" work neither emits nor reflects light.

Qualities perceived in one sense mode are quite ordinarily designated by terms for qualities perceived in a different sense mode, which are then metaphors for them. Terms such as "movement," "energy" and "color temperature," as applied to painting, are not literal descriptors for visual art, but metaphors, using one thing or category of things as an image to represent another.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> *met·a·phor*
> /ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
> 
> _noun:_ metaphor; plural noun: metaphors
> ...


As 
I would not consider "color temperature" a metaphor. "The painting has the color temperature of a blazing sun" is a metaphor. A metaphor is not something implied; it's something that's stated. It does not help to jump through 1000 hoops to confuse and blur the definition between an adjective and a metaphor. Cheaters never prosper and it's like offering someone $.25 in exchange for a dollar.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> I would not consider "color temperature" a metaphor. "The painting had the color temperature of a blazing sun" is a metaphor. A metaphor is not something implied; it's something that's stated. It does not help to jump through 1000 hoops to confuse and blur the line between an adjective and a metaphor. Cheaters never prosper and it's like offering someone $.25 in exchange for a dollar.


"Cool colors recede; warm colors advance" is a metaphorical statement familiar to every painter. "Cool," used as an adjective to describe the color blue, is a metaphoric descriptor. Nobody is jumping through any hoops.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Color temperature" is probably not a metaphor since it's a quantitative measure of the nature of light illuminating an object or scene. It's important in photography and in other visual arts and sciences. Instruments are sold to measure it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "Color temperature" is probably not a metaphor since it's a quantitative measure of the nature of light illuminating an object or scene. It's important in photography and in other visual arts and sciences. Instruments are sold to measure it.


Color temperature in art is based on observation of color/temperature relationships in nature, but is not a strict or literal rendering of them. Besides, colors themselves have no temperature, yet we say that a color IS cool or warm, not that it refers to actual temperature or makes us think of or feel temperature.

Also, I don't understand that graph. Is it telling me that a candle flame has a lower temperature (in Kelvin) than a clear blue sky?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Color temperature in art is based on observation of color/temperature relationships in nature, but is not a strict or literal rendering of them. Besides, colors themselves have no temperature, yet we say that a color IS cool or warm, not that it refers to actual temperature or makes us think of or feel temperature.
> 
> Also, I don't understand that graph. Is it telling me that a candle flame has a lower temperature (in Kelvin) than a clear blue sky?


A lower _color _temperature. Wiki has a good entry on this. "The color temperature of a light source is the temperature of an ideal black-body radiator that radiates light of a color comparable to that of the light source." So, just like heating a bar of metal, redder colors are cooler, and as the temperature increases the color passes through yellow, white, and blue (which would be the "warmest" in that sense). I suspect this is the opposite of the way painters think of it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> A lower _color _temperature. Wiki has a good entry on this. "The color temperature of a light source is the temperature of an ideal black-body radiator that radiates light of a color comparable to that of the light source." So, just like heating a bar of metal, redder colors are cooler, and as the temperature increases the color passes through yellow, white, and blue (which would be the "warmest" in that sense). *I suspect this is the opposite of the way painters think of it.*


Yes, it is the opposite. Temperature in art is rooted in common sensory experience, e.g., cold ice is blue, hot fire is orange, warm day is yellow, cool night is blue, etc.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Yes, it is the opposite. Temperature in art is rooted in common sensory experience, e.g., cold ice is blue, hot fire is orange, warm day is yellow, cool night is blue, etc.


Of course the village smithy has a different "common sensory experience." He knows that the metal is barely warm when it's a dull red, and he pumps his bellows until it's "white hot." I guess Jimmy Cagney knew that too!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Color temperature in art is based on observation of color/temperature relationships in nature, but is not a strict or literal rendering of them. Besides, colors themselves have no temperature, yet we say that a color IS cool or warm, not that it refers to actual temperature or makes us think of or feel temperature.
> 
> Also, I don't understand that graph. Is it telling me that a candle flame has a lower temperature (in Kelvin) than a clear blue sky?


Yes, for painters "color temperature" suggests some relationship to nature, but in itself gives no indication of where anything might fall on the color scale. Saying that "the color temperature is as green as a blade of grass" suggests where something might fall on the scale and whether it might be warm or hot, with green being in the cool range of the spectrum. The metaphor specifies a descriptive term by comparing it to something that's known and usually creates a visual or image in the mind. They can be quite wonderful and can carry the reader beyond the noun or singular adjective as dramatically as taking a ride on a spaceship. But no metaphor... no spaceship.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> Yes, for painters "color temperature" suggests some relationship to nature, but in itself gives no indication of where anything might fall on the color scale. Saying that "the color temperature was like a blade of grass" suggests where something might fall on the scale and whether it might be warm or hot, with green being in the cool range of the spectrum. The metaphor limits a descriptive term by comparing itself with something that's known.


No painter would ever say "the color temperature was like a blade of grass." That makes no sense either literally or figuratively. One could say "the grass is a warmer shade of green in light than in shade." I don't know what you're getting at here.


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

It does take two to tango. Linguists call these the source domain and the target domain when describing metaphors. When we say "this note is high" we are taking the physical world as the source domain and musical sound as the target domain. We are mapping the source on to the target. For more detailed info see Lakoff and Johnson's "Metaphors We Live By." It's a real eye opener to the pervasive use of metaphor in ordinary (non-musical) discourse.

I never metaphor I didn't like


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

LezLee said:


> I'm probably being too pedantic here, but all your words - joyful, dark, exciting etc. aren't metaphors at all, just adjectives.
> 
> A metaphor is usually a phrase comparing something to something else:
> 
> ...


Gosh. What a lot of discussion of what a metaphor is!

I must confess that I was coming from the view that music that is not programmatic or a drama is abstract and so can't be _literally _dark or even joyful. But as the examples I gave at least are likely to be widely recognised and understood I have no problem if my examples are called adjectives.

However, there is another thread just started that is joining the many before it in describing all modern/contemporary music as "dark". Now, I think I recognise what we mean when we describe a piece of music (or any art) as dark. But I don't recognise it in very much modern/contemporary music. So even the word "dark" may stand for different things. When applied to relatively new music (music that is new to us) we may merely mean "unclear" or "obscure"?


----------

