# Perfect form?



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I hear this thrown around, especially by music critics describing Mozart, and usually not with Beethoven. I feel there are many other composers that had achieved perfect form in various works. Is it just jargon to elevate one's favourite composer over another? What say you? 

Personally I feel there is no 'perfect' form in that sense those critics mean it. It's all give and take. What one work one thinks is perfect, another could think something else is more perfect (in proportion, dramatic arc, as I take it). I used to feel Beethoven went strayed too far and is too expansive, but other times I feel it's just right. 

Or else in a more objective, technical sense, perfect form means a composer follows the form perfectly without deviation, which doesn't prove one's a genius.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

If the repetitions were more varied or replaced by something as good or better, but different, Beethoven's 5th would be "perfect form" to me.

There are more arguable things to me in his other symphonies and in the symphonies of Mendelssohn.

Then comes all the rest, but of course Mozart, Bruckner, and Haydn (and Bach!) are all also strong, as are other works of the aforementioned two.

So I would say that there is a fairly large body of music with very strong form, but "perfect form" is an elusive beast. I can't say I've ever encountered it.

Although... I do recall vividly that when I first saw the piano sheet of Mendelssohn's Wedding March, and immediately recognized the flawless melodic logic of it, it was the happiest moment I've ever had while reading music. Every element was related to the previous ones and executed as well as it gets. No wonder it's probably the single most well-known tune in the West.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Perfection, especially as used in the phrase "perfection of form," is a really low bar. Hundreds of movements in sonata form are formally perfect. So are most binary dance movements. And perfect rondos are a dime a dozen. If one doesn't aim higher than mere perfection, I'm probably not going to be interested.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Perfection, especially as used in the phrase "perfection of form," is a really low bar. Hundreds of movements in sonata form are formally perfect. So are most binary dance movements. And perfect rondos are a dime a dozen. If one doesn't aim higher than mere perfection, I'm probably not going to be interested.


It's more than that, it's knowing what comes next. Works with great form flow naturally and have a symmetry that goes beyond the mathematical. Bernstein showed this in one of his lectures.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

1996D said:


> It's more than that, it's knowing what comes next. Works with great form flow naturally and have a symmetry that goes beyond the mathematical. Bernstein showed this in one of his lectures.


Some formally ingenious works are full of violent juxtapositions and have little natural flow. Some markedly asymmetrical forms work wonderfully well. Do you always think in these little truisms that sound like cliches of late 19thc criticism?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Some formally ingenious works are full of violent juxtapositions and have little natural flow. Some markedly asymmetrical forms work wonderfully well. Do you always think in these little truisms that sound like cliches of late 19thc criticism?


Watch the Bernstein lecture, he demonstrates with an orchestra.




Of course it's intuitive writing once everything is mastered, including one's own emotions, that leads to perfect form. There is no mathematical shortcut.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

To me form is synonymous with quality, that is, the interpretation you take away from a whole work, getting over the obstacles and onto seeing the big picture or whole impression. Form is the whole. Once you've heard a work, form can leave its impression. It's often correlated to length as well, ie. how big and symmetrical can you make a mountain, or how worthwhile and aesthetically balanced can you make a journey. Greater form can be achieved with greater length, but it's also more difficult.

The best work / form imo is probably within The Ring of Nibelungen.



1996D said:


> Watch the Bernstein lecture, he demonstrates with an orchestra.


This lecture in of itself is an example of bad form


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Perfect form is a) arguable as to what it is, b) unattainable for the most part, c) no guarantee of quality.

If you read historical music criticism and theory, the meaning of perfection changed rapidly. Examples that are often given are the G minor symphony of Mozart - no. 40. Schenkerian analysis reveals it's perfection. How many works by anyone ever have reached that level? Take the symphonies of Robert Volkman. Flawless, textbook perfect forms - and deadly dull without inspiration or value.

On the other extreme, there are works that are constantly berated for having poor form, but that hasn't stopped audiences and performers from loving them. The Tchaikovsky 1st piano concerto is a common example. So are the Mahler symphonies.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

1996D said:


> It's more than that, it's knowing what comes next. Works with great form flow naturally and have a symmetry that goes beyond the mathematical. Bernstein showed this in one of his lectures.


You must be thinking of his analysis of the first movement of Brahms' fourth symphony.






Perfection at its most perfect.



Fabulin said:


> Although... I do recall vividly that when I first saw the piano sheet of Mendelssohn's Wedding March, and immediately recognized the flawless melodic logic of it, it was the happiest moment I've ever had while reading music. Every element was related to the previous ones and executed as well as it gets. No wonder it's probably *the single most well-known tune in the West*.


That would be Brahms' Wiegenlied.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The most well-known theme is the one McDonalds paid numerous pop artists to incorporate in their music 15 years before McDs starting using it themselves.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

[ 1. Is it just jargon to elevate one's *favourite composer* over another? What say you? 
2. Or else in a more objective, technical sense, perfect form means a composer *follows the form perfectly without deviation*, which doesn't prove one's a genius. ]

I'm reminded of quotes by Ravel and Sibelius. The one by Ravel seems to imply case 1, whereas the one by Sibelius seems to imply case 2.

"He (Ravel) told the pianist Marguerite Long, who premiered it (Concerto in G Major), that he composed the exquisite slow movement "'two measures at a time,' with the assistance of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet."
*Mozart was his favorite composer*-Mozart "remains the most perfect of all," he remarked, repeating this evaluation in one way or another over the years."
< Paris on the Brink: The 1930s Paris of Jean Renoir, Salvador Dalí, Simone de Beauvoir, André Gide, Sylvia Beach, Léon Blum, and Their Friends, by Mary McAuliffe, Page 144 >

"Sibelius himself remarked that: 'To my mind a Mozart Allegro is the most perfect model for a symphonic movement. Think of its wonderful unity and homogeneity! It is like an uninterrupted flowing, where *nothing stands out and nothing encroaches upon the rest*.' This description also suits the first movement of his own Third Symphony very well."
< Sibelius, By Andrew Barnett, Page 183 >

"perfect" is one of those terms that are overused these days, so it is too vague to be meaningful in serious discussions. I think whoever uses the term should be specific what precisely he means by it. I think, in the common usage of the term in the case of Mozart, the term can mean both positive and negative connotations: "Mozart has craftsmanship, but nothing in his music really stands out". I don't think Sibelius used the expression "nothing stands out", to describe Mozart negatively. But sometimes, depending on the context and how it's used by people in other cases, the phrase can be perceived as having a negative connotation.

There's actually a lot of ingenuity and interesting elements in Mozart's form, take K. 491, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No._24_(Mozart)

"The orchestral exposition, 99 measures long, presents two groups of thematic material, one primary and one secondary, both in the tonic of C minor. The orchestra opens the principal theme in unison, but not powerfully: the dynamic marking is piano. The theme is tonally ambiguous, not asserting the home key of C minor until its final cadence in the thirteenth measure. It is also highly chromatic: in its 13 measures, it utilises all 12 notes of the chromatic scale.
The solo exposition follows its orchestral counterpart, and it is here that convention is discarded from the outset: the piano does not enter with the principal theme. Instead, it has an 18-measure solo passage. It is only after this passage that the principal theme appears, carried by the orchestra. The piano then picks up the theme from its seventh measure. Another departure from convention is that the solo exposition does not re-state the secondary theme from the orchestral exposition. Instead, a succession of new secondary thematic material appears. Musicologist Donald Tovey considered this introduction of new material to be "utterly subversive of the doctrine that the function of the opening tutti [the orchestral exposition] was to predict what the solo had to say."
One hundred measures into the solo exposition, which is now in the relative major of E♭, the piano plays a cadential trill, leading the orchestra from the dominant seventh to the tonic. This suggests to the listener that the solo exposition has reached an end, but Mozart instead gives the woodwinds a new theme. The exposition continues for another 60 or so measures, before another cadential trill brings about the real conclusion, prompting a ritornello that connects the exposition with the development. The pianist and musicologist Charles Rosen argues that Mozart thus created a "double exposition". Rosen also suggests that this explains why Mozart made substantial elongations to the orchestral exposition during the composition process; he needed a longer orchestral exposition to balance its "double" solo counterpart."

"The third movement features a theme in C minor followed by eight variations upon it. Hutchings considered it "both Mozart's finest essay in variation form and also his best concerto finale."
"Variations II to VI are what Girdlestone and Hutchings independently describe as "double" variations. Within each variation, each of the eight-measure phrases from the theme is further varied upon its repeat (AXAYBXBY). Variations IV and VI are in major keys. Tovey refers to the former (in A♭) as "cheerful" and the latter (in C) as "graceful". Between the two major-key variations, Variation V returns to C minor; Girdlestone describes this variation as "one of the most moving"."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"In the first movement of the G minor Quintet, excerpts from the principal subject serve as serial bases for various formations at the second subject stage, including extended retrograde versions. The minuet is a serial orgy. The three-note row B flat-C sharp-D operates again vertically as well as horizontally and derives, moreover, from the first and second subjects of the opening movement" 
< Strict Serial Technique in Classical Music, By Hans Keller, Page 16 >

The expression (in parallel major) of "happy sadness" or "sad happiness" of the minuet trio "being continued" in the final movement:
*[ 13:04 ]
[ 28:16 ]*









"The idea used in the first movement of an advancing momentum brought to a sudden
stop is again explored." 
(Elizabeth Dalton, 2016)
*[ 0:20 ]
[ 7:50 ]
[ 27:00 ]
[ 30:00 ]*









part-writing and suspensions involving slurred half-notes and chromatic eighth-note figures:
*[ 4:15 ]
[ 28:06 ]*









ascending chromatic figures accompanied by descending figures composed of longer note values:
*[ 4:44 ]
[ 26:20 ]*









-----


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> This lecture in of itself is an example of bad form


It gives a reality to music, takes it away from abstraction.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> The best work / form imo is probably within The Ring of Nibelungen.


Wagner's form can be very poor because of his overambition. The common criticism that his works are a sea of dullness with occasional great moments is valid, but his music has many more issues than that.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

1996D said:


> Wagner's form can be very poor because of his overambition. The common criticism that his works are a sea of dullness with occasional great moments is valid, but his music has many more issues than that.


So we're going to make every thread about the supposed inadequacies of certain composers?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

1996D said:


> Wagner's form can be very poor because of his overambition. The common criticism that his works are a sea of dullness with occasional great moments is valid, but his music has many more issues than that.


Such statements are subjective. Dullness is, as far as I know, a subjective concept not an inherent quality as such because it's dependent on the perceiver not the creator. A book which I think is dull can be very interesting for someone else. It's the same thing with the music of a composer.

I don't think that the form of everything Wagner composed was perfect but his works were very focused, thought-through, and even concise, considering what a huge amount of information he managed to convey in _only_ 4 hours. _Ring_'s operatic form is certainly structured. _Das Rheingold_ works as a prologue for the whole work, _Die Walküre_ focuses on Wotan, _Siegfried_ on Siegfried and _Götterdämmerung_ is the climax but gives more information about Brünnhilde than possibly any other of the operas. Wagner clearly knew how to divide information in a very reasonable manner. Thanks to leitmotifs, the musical form is affected by the form of content. Of course it suffers from a few shortcomings due to the long period which Wagner spent writing it, but despite that, it's a great achievement and quite unbelievable how he managed to pull off something like that. I don't think that analysing musical form of a 15-hour-long opera is similar to analysing that of Beethoven string quartets.

Even the structural form of Beethoven's late quartets has been criticised: movement's are very variable in their lengths. I love them despite that and it doesn't disturb me at all thanks to Beethoven's great skill - they are among the greatest achievements of Western classical music in my opinion.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

annaw said:


> Such statements are subjective. Dullness is, as far as I know, a subjective concept not an inherent quality as such because it's dependent on the perceiver not the creator. A book which I think is dull can be very interesting for someone else. It's the same thing with the music of a composer.
> 
> I don't think that the form of everything Wagner composed was perfect but his works were very focused, thought-through, and even concise, considering what a huge amount of information he managed to convey in _only_ 4 hours. _Ring_'s operatic form is certainly structured. _Das Rheingold_ works as a prologue for the whole work, _Die Walküre_ focuses on Wotan, _Siegfried_ on Siegfried and _Götterdämmerung_ is the climax but gives more information about Brünnhilde than possibly any other of the operas. Wagner clearly knew how to divide information in a very reasonable manner. Thanks to leitmotifs, the musical form is affected by the form of content. Of course it suffers from a few shortcomings due to the long period which Wagner spent writing it, but despite that, it's a great achievement and quite unbelievable how he managed to pull off something like that. I don't think that analysing musical form of a 15-hour-long is similar to analysing that of Beethoven string quartets.
> 
> Even the structural form of Beethoven's late quartets has been criticised: movement's are very variable in their lengths. I love them despite that and it doesn't disturb me at all thanks to Beethoven's great skill - they are among the greatest achievements of Western classical music in my opinion.


Being opera it's different because what comes next is dependant on the story, so the form can never be perfect. Operas are already long but Wagner makes them even longer to the point that his works can't be analyzed as a whole but in parts.

Th large moments of musical dullness in his works that need to take place in order for him to fit the pure dialogue can't be analyzed musically in terms of form because it's not music. Wagner is an ideologue much more than he is artist or composer.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2020)

IMO, 'Perfection' clearly means 'cannot be improved upon'.

If Mozart really wrote the 'perfect' piano sonata, who says so, what are their criteria, and has everyone since just wasted their time trying to do better?

IMO, all rhetorical questions aimed at those wielding rhetorical hyperbole (is that a tautology?)

I'm very happy for people to _claim _such things, in their excited response to a marvellous piece of music, as long as they recognise that, IMO, it is only an exuberance of rhetorical form. Not an objectively verifiable and unassailable statement of fact.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2020)

Waldesnacht said:


> So we're going to make every thread about the supposed inadequacies of certain composers?


Well, better that, than to make it about the inadequacies of certain posters.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

1996D said:


> Being opera it's different because what comes next is dependant on the story, so the form can never be perfect. Operas are already long but Wagner makes them even longer to the point that his works can't be analyzed as a whole but in parts.
> 
> Th large moments of musical dullness in his works that need to take place in order for him to fit the pure dialogue can't be analyzed musically in terms of form because it's not music. Wagner is an ideologue much more than he is artist or composer.


Why does the programmic nature of operas rule out the possibility of perfect form and does this expand to tone poems and other programmic works as well? Beethoven's 6th is also conveying narratives.

Wagner certainly composed music. One of the definitions of music which Merriam-Webster gives is "vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony". This was quite clearly Wagner's intention.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

annaw said:


> Why does the programmic quality of operas rule out the possibility of perfect form and does this expand to tone poems and other programmic works as well? Beethoven's 6th is also conveying narratives.
> 
> Wagner certainly composed music. One of the definitions of music which Merriam-Webster gives is "vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony". This was quite clearly Wagner's intention.


Only in part, much of his operas are filled with monotonous background music to the dialogue.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

1996D said:


> Only in part, much of his operas are filled with monotonous background music to the dialogue.


Whether you think it's monotonous or not, it's music, as you say yourself.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

annaw said:


> Whether you think it's monotonous or not, it's music, as you say yourself.


Not one that can be analyzed in terms of form.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Well, better that, than to make it about the inadequacies of certain posters.


well, then how about neither?


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2020)

Waldesnacht said:


> well, then how about neither?


Yup:clap: .


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

1996D said:


> Only in part, much of his operas are filled with monotonous background music to the dialogue.


You gotta be kidding. :lol:


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

1996D said:


> Not one that can be analyzed in terms of form.


That's why I said that the form of an opera cannot be analysed the same way as that of a string quartet, for example (I suppose you're saying the same thing?). I think operatic form has to be analysed differently. I described one way how it could be analysed above. Of course I do not mean to describe Wagner's use of rondo and sonata form. It's simply different and maybe so different that it shouldn't even be discussed too in-depth in a thread which intends to analyse the type of music where such more conventional forms are actually realised.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

annaw said:


> That's why I said that the form of an opera cannot be analysed the same way as that of a string quartet, for example (I suppose you're sayin the same thing?). I suppose operatic form has to be analysed differently. I described one way how it could be analysed above. Of course I do not mean to describe Wagner's use of rondo and sonata form. It's simply different and maybe so different that it shouldn't even be discussed too in-depth in a thread which intends to analyse the type of music where such more conventional forms are actually realised.











Albums like this are released precisely because musically a 4 hour opera is redundant. Again, Wagner is an ideologue that uses music to deliver his message, there is no other justification for such length so poor in musical content.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Was this thread about perfect form or imperfect form? I can’t remember.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Originally Posted by 1996D: 


> Wagner's form can be very poor because of his overambition. The common criticism that his works are a sea of dullness with occasional great moments is valid, but his music has many more issues than that.


Originally Posted by annaw:


> I don't think that analysing musical form of a 15-hour-long opera is similar to analysing that of Beethoven string quartets.


Annaw has it right. The fact that Wagner writes uninterrupted stretches of music that encompass entire acts of operas, acts lasting an hour or more, seems to tempt some people to make irrelevant remarks about those stretches based on a notion that they are abstract musical structures. They are not. They are dramatic structures, using music as an expressive language akin to the use of poetry in a verse drama. It needs to be said, however, that Wagner's long spans are full of cannily contrived forms, defined by thematic and key relationships, which may not be apparent to the casual listener, and these forms create a subjectively felt coherence which contribute immeasurably to the dramatic coherence of the whole. Verdi spoke admiringly of the "immense structure" of _Tristan_'s second act, and he was speaking of its musical structure.

How dull or absorbing one finds one of Wagner's musico-dramatic acts is not a question with an objective answer valid for all listeners. It should suffice to know that many people find them absorbing indeed. "Perfection" of musical form is not a reasonable standard to apply to an opera (not even to Mozart's, in case any Mozarteans are feeling complacent right now), but a great opera can achieve a sense of ultimate rightness which, for those who appreciate him, Wagner attains quite often. There is many an act in his operas, and some entire operas, from which I would not wish a single note removed or altered.

Is it safe, I wonder, to inquire of 1996D what Wagner's "more issues" might be?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

1996D said:


> Not one that can be analyzed in terms of form.


You could say the same about a Bach invention. There is no set form for any opera or invention, while both Wagner and Bach make use of motivic development. Wagner and Mahler are more loose in form than Bach. But there was no perfect form to begin with.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I hear this thrown around, especially by music critics describing Mozart, and usually not with Beethoven. I feel there are many other composers that had achieved perfect form in various works. Is it just jargon to elevate one's favourite composer over another? What say you?
> 
> Personally I feel there is no 'perfect' form in that sense those critics mean it. It's all give and take. What one work one thinks is perfect, another could think something else is more perfect (in proportion, dramatic arc, as I take it). I used to feel Beethoven went strayed too far and is too expansive, but other times I feel it's just right.
> 
> Or else in a more objective, technical sense, perfect form means a composer follows the form perfectly without deviation, which doesn't prove one's a genius.


The most perfect form is no form. A sense of things just happening. That's one of the great discoveries of music, particularly British music, over the past few years, that the delirium of formlessness can very well expand the listener's consciousness, better than planned, structured music. Here's an example.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> The most perfect form is no form. A sense of things just happening. That's one of the great discoveries of music, particularly British music, over the past few years, that the delirium of formlessness can very well expand the listener's consciousness, better than planned, structured music. Here's an example.


You're pulling our legs, aren't you? Is this some sort of koan?

I don't see how a lack of form "expands consciousness." What does that phrase mean to you? I've always thought that art existed for the purpose of enlarging one's reality, and it does so by selectively presenting to the mind a vast array of forms that represent and evoke things, raising our perception of phenomena to a higher plane. That's potentially quite an expansion of consciousness; we become conscious of more than we were before, seeing things in a new way made possible only by another mind sharing its conceptions with us.

What do people making random sounds have to offer consciousness?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I don't see how a lack of form "expands consciousness." What does that phrase mean to you? I've always thought that art existed for the purpose of enlarging one's reality, and it does so by selectively presenting to the mind a vast array of sounds that represent and evoke things, raising our perception of phenomena to a higher plane. That's potentially quite an expansion of consciousness; we become conscious of more than we were before, seeing things in a new way made possible only by another mind sharing its conceptions with us.


I am absolutely sure you're right to say that. Note I made a slight change. Can you spot it?



Woodduck said:


> I
> 
> What do people making random sounds have to offer consciousness?


I am absolutely sure you're wrong to suggest that Richard Emsley's _The Juniper Tree_ isn't evocative in the way you described. I can't explain how it can, at least not now, it's late here. But it can. And it can do it very well too.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> The most perfect form is no form. A sense of things just happening. That's one of the great discoveries of music, particularly British music, over the past few years, that the delirium of formlessness can very well expand the listener's consciousness, better than planned, structured music. Here's an example.


Hey, I like it. But I don't see it being that formless. The stuff that the singing, the drums, the winds, and the piano are doing are at least complementing each other. I can guess it was somewhat pre-planned, but not to the smallest detail.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Or else in a more objective, technical sense, perfect form means a composer follows the form perfectly without deviation, *which doesn't prove one's a genius.*


here's something for us to think about:






The highest voted comments on this video: 
"No one will ever know if you make a mistake that's for sure."
"If you make a mistake on this sonata, it's called "improvisation""

Does this work prove the composer as a genius of perfection?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Is it just jargon to elevate one's favourite composer over another?


I once talked about Mozart's extraordinary sense to place "stock phrases" in the right context. With later stuff like Debussy's Images, for example, even if a few notes are added or taken out, the piece will probably still sound fine. (I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing here) You can't really achieve the same with Mozart. "Perfection" may not be the best term to describe this thing about Mozart, but it's something that is an inherent property of his aesthetics. I think people can't come up with a better term, so they just stick to saying "perfection".

*[ 8:30 ]







[ 23:00 ]* 








_"Mozart's music is particularly difficult to perform. His clarity exacts absolute cleanness: the slightest mistake in it stands out like black on white. It is music in which all the notes must be heard."_ -Gabriel Fauré


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> The most perfect form is no form...


The likelihood that a composer believes that is inversely proportional to his/her skill.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> The likelihood that a composer believes that is inversely proportional to his/her skill.


.

Poppycock.

A acnsns


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I am absolutely sure you're right to say that. Note I made a slight change. Can you spot it?
> 
> I am absolutely sure you're wrong to suggest that Richard Emsley's _The Juniper Tree_ isn't evocative in the way you described. I can't explain how it can, at least not now, it's late here. But it can. And it can do it very well too.


Well, I can see that you're absolutely sure...

I'm not really into solving puzzles. I'm reminded of those "can you find ten differences between these pictures" quizzes in the children's magazines I used to see in doctor's offices.


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

Dukas: Sorcerers apprentice has the perfect combination of form and programme. I can't imagine a piece with more perfect form


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Rihm's _Jagden und Formen_ - hunting and making forms.






How it evolves is not necessarily determined in advance, like a set of rails. When you hunt for something no one need say - first do this, then do that. You start out, observe what happens, and then respond intuitively to decide the next step.

A hunt is a sort of _improvisation_.

The form of the hunt _is_ the hunt. The form of the music _is_ the quest for its own form.

These ideas are well established in classical music, going back all the way to Debussy's _Jeux_.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

http://www.kim-cohen.com/Assets/CourseAssets/Texts/Adorno_Vers une musique informelle.pdf

And here's Adorno's essay _Vers une musique informelle _, he means



> a type of music which has discarded all forms which are external or abstract or which confront it in an inflexible way. At the same time, although such music should be completely free ofanything irreducibly alien to itself or superimposed on it, it should nevertheless constitute itself in an objectively compelling way, in the musical substance itself, and not in terms of external laws. Moreover, wherever this can be achieved without running the risk of a new form of oppression, such an emancipation should also strive to do away with the system of musical co-ordinates which have crystallized out in the innermost recesses of the musical substance itself.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Rihm's _Jagden und Formen_ - hunting and making forms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd say well before that, back to when the Fantasia first came about.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> And here's Adorno's essay _Vers une musique informelle _, he means:
> 
> "a type of music which has discarded all forms which are external or abstract or which confront it in an inflexible way. At the same time, although such music should be completely free ofanything irreducibly alien to itself or superimposed on it, it should nevertheless constitute itself in an objectively compelling way, in the musical substance itself, and not in terms of external laws. Moreover, wherever this can be achieved without running the risk of a new form of oppression, such an emancipation should also strive to do away with the system of musical co-ordinates which have crystallized out in the innermost recesses of the musical substance itself."


An abuse of thought and language so profound is impossible to read without laughing.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> An abuse of thought and language so profound is impossible to read without laughing.


yes, it is reminiscent of the POMO - postmodern generator
http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Jacck said:


> yes, it is reminiscent of the POMO - postmodern generator
> http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/


It doesn't matter what you think because postmodernism is everywhere today and both academia and society (perhaps unknowingly) have fully embraced it. You're left to insult everything you don't understand like a bunch of 5 year olds.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

1996D said:


> It doesn't matter what you think because postmodernism is everywhere today and both academia and society (perhaps unknowingly) have fully embraced it. You're left to insult everything you don't understand like a bunch of 5 year olds.


as far as I can tell, the harder sciences still believe that there is an external reality independent of human thought, and that the goal of science is to build ever exacter models of this reality.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> It doesn't matter what you think because postmodernism is everywhere today and both academia and society (perhaps unknowingly) have fully embraced it. You're left to insult everything you don't understand like a bunch of 5 year olds.


Got news for ya, junior: it doesn't matter what _anyone_ here thinks - including, emphatically, _you._ But what Jacck thinks matters as much as what any of us do, so go back to composing your mediocre music and quit pretending you know anything that the rest of us don't.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Jacck said:


> as far as I can tell, the harder sciences still believe that there is an external reality independent of human thought, and that the goal of science is to build ever exacter models of this reality.


Sure, but deconstructionism still destroyed most of the ideas of the past. Past thinkers have been made to look like fools and have been exposed for both their biases and their childish excesses. Philosophy has been shown to only go as far as the individual who says it, with his personal life and shortcomings having a huge influence on how he sees the world and how he seeks to influence.

Philosophies are full of the persons' personal issues, except for the parts that just explain aspects of human nature and the laws that govern us.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Jacck said:


> as far as I can tell, the harder sciences still believe that there is an external reality independent of human thought, and that the goal of science is to build ever exacter models of this reality.


I don't think so.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> An abuse of thought and language so profound is impossible to read without laughing.


To start, think of the form of a free improvisation. I mean, not improvising a fugue or a cadenza, but a free fantasy.

To me traditional musical forms - sonata, theme and variations, canon - are a bit like sonnets and alexandrins. They're part of a tradition and rather beautiful but probably a hinderance to expressiveness compared with free verse. It's not for nothing that Shakespeare and Rabelais were better poets than Molière and Racine - the latter constrained by all sorts of conventions.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> as far as I can tell, the harder sciences still believe that there is an external reality independent of human thought, and that the goal of science is to build ever exacter models of this reality.


Unless there is more money to be made doing otherwise. (It is amazing how a paycheck can affect one's judgement.)


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I don't think so.


without this basic assumption (which is perfectly sane), no natural science could exist. The basic assumption behind all physics is that there is an external reality governed by laws of nature, that we can discover those laws and use that knowledge to our benefit. This basic idea is responsible for all of our technology. How can someone even deny it? You think that the laws of gravity or electromagnetism somehow depend on what you think about them? Or that the coronavirus is a construct of human thought?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> deconstructionism still destroyed most of the ideas of the past.


What a ridiculous statement.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Jacck said:


> without this basic assumption (which is perfectly sane), no natural science could exist. The basic assumption behind all physics is that there is an external reality governed by laws of nature, that we can discover those laws and use that knowledge to our benefit. This basic idea is responsible for all of our technology. How can someone even deny it? You think that the laws of gravity or electromagnetism somehow depend on what you think about them? Or that the coronavirus is a construct of human thought?


The issue is this. There may be many theories which predict what will happen and explain what has happened equally well, and each of those explanatory predictive theories may have different ontological implications.

Social, psychological factors seem to play a role in determining which one is eventually accepted by the scientific establishment.

There's a classic paper on this which you may be interested in and you may well find on line - « The Two Dogmas of Empiricism » by Willard Van Orman Quine. It's Quine's second dogma.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> To start, think of the form of a free improvisation. I mean, not improvising a fugue or a cadenza, but a free fantasy.
> 
> To me traditional musical forms - sonata, theme and variations, canon - are a bit like sonnets and alexandrins. They're part of a tradition and rather beautiful but probably a hinderance to expressiveness compared with free verse. It's not for nothing that Shakespeare and Rabelais were better poets than Molière and Racine - the latter constrained by all sorts of conventions.


You seem to have a limited notion of what form is.

Form is not being "constained by conventions." Improvisation doesn't imply formlessness. The improviser is constantly in search of form. Real artists know that form is liberating, not oppressive. Form is the universal vehicle and precondition of meaning. Every form has its own range of expressive possibilities, and every expressive need requires and generates form. The range of formal possibilities is effectively limitless because the range of artistic expression is limitless.

When Adorno talks about form being something separate from music and being imposed on it he is talking nonsense.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> The issue is this. There may be many theories which predict what will happen and explain what has happened, and each of those explanatory predictive theories may have different ontological implications.
> 
> Social, psychological factors seem to play a role in determining which one is eventually accepted by the scientific establishment.


I am sure that social and psychological factors do play a role in the construction of various narratives and explanations (or even scientific theories), but not all narratives and explanations are equal (as some postmodernists claim). I think the whole postmodernism is one of those explanations, which - from my perspective - does not offer much in terms of value. Maybe it is useful in art, or in philosophy, but as soon as it tries to creep into harder sciences, it becomes a pseudointellectual nuisance, that scientists are forced to fight. 
https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.1038/embor.2012.130


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Jacck said:


> I am sure that social and psychological factors do play a role in the construction of various narratives and explanations (or even scientific theories), but not all narratives and explanations are equal (as some postmodernists claim). I think the whole postmodernism is one of those explanations, which - from my perspective - does not offer much in terms of value. Maybe it is useful in art, or in philosophy, but as soon as it tries to creep into harder sciences, it becomes a pseudointellectual nuisance, that scientists are forced to fight.
> https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.1038/embor.2012.130


Science can quickly become bad science and be used to exercise control; postmodernism is useful everywhere.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> Science can quickly become bad science and be used to exercise control; postmodernism is useful everywhere.


Ever heard the term 'flight of ideas'?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> Science can quickly become bad science and be used to exercise control; postmodernism is useful everywhere.


I would say that postmodernism is useless everywhere, and the havoc it has wrought upon thought and language is intolerable.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Ever heard the term 'flight of ideas'?


Postmodernism is complicated, it's useful to society but not to the individual, and definitely not to the artist unless it's fully understood.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

1996D said:


> Science can quickly become bad science and be used to exercise control; postmodernism is useful everywhere.


such lack of understanding of basic scientific principles and rationality is the reason that 40% of Americans say that they would refuse a coronavirus vaccine, or that they believe conspiracy loons like Alex Jones. That is a direct consequence of postmodernism and the anti-scientific and anti-rational attitudes of a large fraction of the population. Scientific Englightment made the western culture so successful, postmodernism will destroy it


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Jacck said:


> such lack of understanding of basic scientific principles and rationality is the reason that 40% of Americans say that they would refuse a coronavirus vaccine, or that they believe conspiracy loons like Alex Jones. That is a direct consequence of postmodernism and the anti-scientific and anti-rational attitudes of a large fraction of the population. Scientific Englightment made the western culture so successful, postmodernism will destroy it


I disagree, postmodernism has been great, only recently have I understood its positive effects. It's infinitely complicated, but things are as they should be. Fear is driving your reaction, you should introspect.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

1996D said:


> Science can quickly become bad science and be used to exercise control; postmodernism is useful everywhere.


What is "bad science"? I admit the existence of money-motivated "bad science" which leads to fabrication, for example, but are there any examples of unintentional (done in the spirit of honest scientific inquiry) "bad science"?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

annaw said:


> What is "bad science"? I admit the existence of money-motivated "bad science" which leads to fabrication, for example, but are there any examples of unintentional (done in the spirit of honest scientific inquiry) "bad science"?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> every expressive need requires and generates form.


I think there's some truth in this part of your post.

I want to share an example of a composition which seems to me very expressive and meaningful, as expressive and meaningful as the crackling of a fire in the grate on a winter's day -- by Xenakis, an early piece called Concret PH


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Jacck said:


> without this basic assumption (which is perfectly sane), no natural science could exist. The basic assumption behind all physics is that there is an external reality governed by laws of nature, that we can discover those laws and use that knowledge to our benefit. This basic idea is responsible for all of our technology. How can someone even deny it? You think that the laws of gravity or electromagnetism somehow depend on what you think about them? Or that the coronavirus is a construct of human thought?





Jacck said:


> such lack of understanding of basic scientific principles and rationality is the reason that 40% of Americans say that they would refuse a coronavirus vaccine, or that they believe conspiracy loons like Alex Jones. That is a direct consequence of postmodernism and the anti-scientific and anti-rational attitudes of a large fraction of the population. Scientific Englightment made the western culture so successful, postmodernism will destroy it


I agree completely. It's the progress and advancement since the Enlightenment that allowed us to produce all the means for PM enthusiasts to write their thoughts, and who are sowing doubt on what has gotten us here.



1996D said:


> I disagree, postmodernism has been great, only recently have I understood its positive effects. It's infinitely complicated, but things are as they should be. Fear is driving your reaction, you should introspect.


I think the opposite, it's more reasonable for those PM enthusiasts to fear: they can never be sure what they think or see is real in the next moment. But I don't think you really understand what PM is, considering you're a fan of Plato who was against that sort of view.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think the opposite, it's more reasonable for those PM enthusiasts to fear: they can never be sure what they think or see is real in the next moment. But I don't think you really understand what PM is, considering you're a fan of Plato who was against that sort of view.


It's good for society at the moment, it's never been good for the individual, and it's absolutely awful for artists, yet if they can't get over the hump they shouldn't be making art at all, so in the end it's positive all around.

It's a gatekeeper and a sobering agent against intellectual extremism. It's also anti-authoritarian.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

1996D said:


> I disagree, postmodernism has been great, only recently have I understood its positive effects. It's infinitely complicated, but things are as they should be. Fear is driving your reaction, you should introspect.


Specifically, how has it been great?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I think there's some truth in this part of your post.


What about the rest of it? No truth there?



> I want to share an example of a composition which seems to me very expressive and meaningful, as expressive and meaningful as the crackling of a fire in the grate on a winter's day -- by Xenakis, an early piece called Concret PH


Interesting that you compare it to natural sounds, whose meaning for us is mainly a matter of association, and even import other images and ideas (grate, fire, winter).

Music of this sort is a very different thing from music as traditionally understood. I think attempts to compare them are unenlightening and lead to absurd arguments. This exchange began with such an argument (post #36): "The most perfect form is no form...the delirium of formlessness can very well expand the listener's consciousness, better than planned, structured music." Apples and aardvarks.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Deleted because I decided to.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> I think there's some truth in this part of your post.
> 
> I want to share an example of a composition which seems to me very expressive and meaningful, as expressive and meaningful as the crackling of a fire in the grate on a winter's day -- by Xenakis, an early piece called Concret PH


If it is in the category of the sound of a crackling fire then it's simply in the category of sound effects.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> If it is in the category of the sound of a crackling fire then it's simply in the category of sound effects.


But sound effects are meant to represent something specific (to make us think of that thing) and are not meant to be listened to for their own sake, which this is. Sounds can be interesting in themselves, as can any sensory-perceptual phenomenon. Abstract painting, in its more extreme forms that focus purely on gradations of colors and textures, seems to me similar to "noise music" of the sort represented by this Xenakis piece. The sensory elements are not being used to evoke anything beyond themselves; I am not directed by the painter or composer toward any specific associations or impressions, and my mind is free to supply any (or none) of its own.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

1996D said:


> It's good for society at the moment, it's never been good for the individual, and it's absolutely awful for artists, yet if they can't get over the hump they shouldn't be making art at all, so in the end it's positive all around.
> 
> It's a gatekeeper and a sobering agent against intellectual extremism. It's also anti-authoritarian.


It's anti-authoritarian in rhetoric, since "authoritarian" is defined as "those who disagree with our political stance". In practice it's about as authoritarian and conformist as you'll find.


----------



## Sequentia (Nov 23, 2011)

I suppose there are two main meanings that are given to this expression. One is the notion of perfect organization of thematic material. Bernstein, for example, said that what made Beethoven one of the greatest composers of all time was his sense of form, his ability to tell what the next note ought to be.

The other concept of perfect form is the idea that some forms are inherently better (or even more "natural") than others, and that anything that can be classified as a fantasia or work in free form is beneath serious listeners and "Top 10" lists.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Sequentia said:


> The other concept of perfect form is the idea that some forms are inherently better (or even more "natural") than others, and that *anything that can be classified as a fantasia or work in free form is beneath serious listeners and "Top 10" lists.*


I don't think most knowledgeable listeners feel this way considering the stature of the preludes of Bach, Chopin and Debussy, or Brahms op. 116-119 etc.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2020)

Sequentia said:


> I suppose there are two main meanings that are given to this expression. One is the notion of perfect organization of thematic material. Bernstein, for example, said that what made Beethoven one of the greatest composers of all time was his sense of form, *his ability to tell what the next note ought to be*.


Smashing chap, Bernstein. Good at putting in to ordinary words, some of the complex business of musical understanding. Handsome and engaging on TV.

But that last comment isn't really very insightful - at least, not as insightful as its repetition seems to suggest, nor as helpful to any uninitiated listener as it might seem.

While a composer works within the parameters of the expectations of a piano concerto or a string quartet circa 1800, there are limits to what the next note ought to be, determined by the notes that have come before. There's plenty of scope for novelty and surprise, but not for out and out absurdity. Schoenberg would not have gone down well had he demonstrated to a Viennese audience of 1810, his ideas of what the next note ought to be.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

More I think about it, I feel there is no such thing as perfect form except in the lowest and clearest sense as in following a set form without deviation which doesn't really tell anything about quality or inventiveness. Another thing is tighter form is not necessarily better than looser, or more expansive form and vice versa.

But the big 3 did have tighter form than the later Romantics. Rachmaninov is an example of expansive form which caused Copland to say "The prospect of having to sit through one of his extended symphonies or piano concertos tends quite frankly to depress me. All those notes ... and to what end?" But I don't see what most people prefer as being the paramount test of quality (or else pop will always win out).

Another view that Mandryka brought up was that perfect form is no form. Since no form at all would make music incomprehensible by nature, I would generalize it to mean the more freedom in form the more perfect in some way. Here is an example of something with a lot of freedom with minimal form. From 1:45 to 3:30 it is clearly held together loosely with the anchoring rhythm in the Xylorimba, even when the rhythms in the other instruments go with a different meter that propagates over time. The serialists did have form (in one form or another ), just not that recognizable in the traditional sense. But once you sense that form or anchoring principle, the freedom they are able to achieve with that form can't be attained by traditional tighter forms, while it can also be improvised (no longer strict serial, which a lot of contemporary music does). But I'm not saying it's better in any way.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

What about process music? You can't get a better example of perfect form than this:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Another view that Mandryka brought up was that perfect form is no form. Since no form at all would make music incomprehensible by nature,


What about free improvisation? Something like this (I love this stuff!)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> What about process music? You can't get a better example of perfect form than this:


Sure, it has very clear rhythmic forms. But what do you mean by perfect? A simple unchanging drum beat can have perfect form.



Mandryka said:


> What about free improvisation? Something like this (I love this stuff!)


It definitely has form, and not really that free. She's mimicking transient response waveforms. I used to do that myself to annoy my sister


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> But sound effects are meant to represent something specific (to make us think of that thing) and are not meant to be listened to for their own sake, which this is. Sounds can be interesting in themselves, as can any sensory-perceptual phenomenon. Abstract painting, in its more extreme forms that focus purely on gradations of colors and textures, seems to me similar to "noise music" of the sort represented by this Xenakis piece. The sensory elements are not being used to evoke anything beyond themselves; I am not directed by the painter or composer toward any specific associations or impressions, and my mind is free to supply any (or none) of its own.


I don't believe that abstract painting and 'noise' music have much in the way of a relationship given that there is little or no relationship between the senses of sight and sound. Various art pieces, contemporary or otherwise, can look pleasant on someone's wall, but there is no painting that can cause quite the same response as fingernails on a blackboard which some contemporary works with screeching strings come close to.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Waldesnacht said:


> That would be Brahms' Wiegenlied.


The thing that people hear before they reach the age when stable memories are formed? I think you are overestimating it. The memory of it in adults is certainly not as universal as that of the wedding march.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> The thing that people hear before they reach the age when stable memories are formed? I think you are overestimating it. The memory of it in adults is certainly not as universal as that of the wedding march.


"Well-known" is rather vague. I think most people would recognize in adulthood a simple tune they've heard many times during infancy. And surely the memory would be refreshed if they ever hear it again. You may be well be right, however.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Sure, it has very clear rhythmic forms. But what do you mean by perfect? A simple unchanging drum beat can have perfect form.


This is the sort of thing I meant when I said that the philosophies of contemporary music are different from those of classical music -So different in fact, I think they must be categorized as entirely different genres, like rock and jazz. The fans of the two sides can't understand each other, so they should part their ways. (Have separate forums).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> This is the sort of thing I meant when I said that the philosophies of contemporary music are different from those of classical music -So different in fact, I think they must be categorized as entirely different genres, like rock and jazz. The fans of the two sides can't understand each other, so they should part their ways. (Have separate forums).


What do you mean, "philosophies"?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> This is the sort of thing I meant when I said that the philosophies of contemporary music are different from those of classical music -So different in fact, I think they must be categorized as entirely different genres, like rock and jazz. The fans of the two sides can't understand each other, so they should part their ways. (Have separate forums).


Hard to see what you mean here. I guess the philosophy behind the music of composers X and Y are always likely to be different and all the more so if they each belong to a different era. Also, the variety in outlooks apparent in the music of different composers increased during the Romantic period - hence the fight between Brahms and Wagner, perhaps, but also it is hard to hear much in common between Brahms and Schumann - and, yes, this variety (this fruitfulness) increased even more through the 20th century. But you want to expel one group from the classical world based only (I suspect) on what you do and do not enjoy. That's an autocratic attitude at best and, given your ignoring of the public views of many fine performers (and of many of your fellow-TCers), suggests that you are extremely arrogant. I thought culture was meant to help us to avoid arrogance. But I suspect your attitude is not so different from Wagner's and Brahms's attitude to each others music ... attitudes that caused them both to miss out on so much.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> I don't believe that abstract painting and 'noise' music have much in the way of a relationship given that there is little or no relationship between the senses of sight and sound. Various art pieces, contemporary or otherwise, can look pleasant on someone's wall, but there is no painting that can cause quite the same response as fingernails on a blackboard which some contemporary works with screeching strings come close to.


Visual and aural arts are different, for sure, but part of the difference is in the way we take them in. If visual effects are unpleasant we can simply stop looking, whereas a piece of music is supposed to be listened to from beginning to end. There are paintings that would be quite annoying and depressing to have to stare at for ten minutes straight. Sound does have more physical impact, though.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> This is the sort of thing I meant when I said that the philosophies of contemporary music are different from those of classical music -So different in fact, I think they must be categorized as entirely different genres, like rock and jazz. The fans of the two sides can't understand each other, so they should part their ways. (Have separate forums).


Having separate forums is a perfect way to prevent mutual understanding. I prefer to try to understand even things I don't like. TC may be the only place I listen to Xenakis, but for the sake of discussion, at least, it's worthwhile.


----------

