# Bulldog's One-On-One Debate Thread #1



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Earlier today, Sid James was musing about a formal debate thread. After giving it some thought, I've decided to initiate a series of debate threads; this is the first.

Rules of the Road:

1. A member recommends a debate topic and participates in the one-on-one debate, assuming I don't have a problem with the topic.

2. A topic doesn't have to be entirely within the realm of classical music but must involve classical music.

3. After the topic is approved, another member comes forward to join the debate.

4. One-on-one debates proceed for 2 days. Every 3rd day, other members are free to offer their comments and insights. On those 3rd days, the 2 debaters refrain from posting. The debate ends when I feel that further discussion is of little merit.

5. The word "debate" has a formal ring to it, but I'm not looking for any formal proceedings that would be found in an academic debate. It would be just as reasonable to think of it as an harmonious 2 person discussion with interludes where others chime in.

6. I am not going to put up with any negative, hurtful, or insulting comments. If such comments keep cluttering the screen, I'll just bug out and others can do whatever the heck they want.

It's now time for a member to suggest the first debate topic. Don't be shy!


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

This thread is awesome. Prove me wrong.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> This thread is awesome. Prove me wrong.


It could be awesome or a train wreck. Time will tell.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Seems to me it should either be 4'33" Is A Great Work or John Williams Is A Great Composer.



Another interesting thing I saw recently was the claim that the orchestra represents humanity's greatest artistic achievement. 

If you want things to be truly interesting you should require people to argue the opposite of their actual position.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> It could be awesome or a train wreck. Time will tell.


Apparently, the mods thought it was so bad a train wreck they decided to dump it on the "Classical Music Discussion" landfill.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Apparently, the mods thought it was so bad a train wreck they decided to dump it on the "Classical Music Discussion" landfill.


I mistakingly put the thread in Polls/Games and requested the mod to move it where I felt it belonged.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Seems to me it should either be 4'33" Is A Great Work or John Williams Is A Great Composer.
> 
> 
> 
> Another interesting thing I saw recently was the claim that the orchestra represents humanity's greatest artistic achievement.


Are you agreeable to being a debater for one of the above topics?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Oh boy. Let's debate "subjectivity".. :lol:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

"That egalitarianism in art appreciation is a post-1950's reductivism"

But I'm not qualified enough to engage in the debate of this topic. I just know it is true.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

"That Music Listening be developed as an area of human accomplishment"


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> Are you agreeable to being a debater for one of the above topics?


Sure, why not. I'd be most interested in the third (since the first two were jokes and no one needs to read any more posts about them).


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Great! 

Debate Topic - Does the orchestra represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement?

Debaters - MatthewWeflen - which side do you take?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> Great!
> 
> Debate Topic - Does the orchestra represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement?
> 
> Debaters - MatthewWeflen - which side do you take?


I'll take "No."

Opening salvo:

Art needs to deliver emotional impact and illuminate the human condition in order to be considered "great."

While there are certainly pieces of music that achieve both, and orchestral music in its complexity is among the very best at delivering this, their illumination is generally much more vague than the sorts of illumination provided by the written word. Music and visual art are wonderful at conveying emotion but are generally less able to put across specific idea content. As such, I would say that the written word is able to illuminate more than those other two art forms, while still retaining the ability to deliver emotional impact.

When I think of the influence that some of the great works of literature have had upon humanity, e.g. Plato, Shakespeare, the Bible, I am hard pressed to imagine orchestral music having the same degree of influence over the same time periods.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Excellent. Who wants to take the position that the orchestra does represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement?


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

I'll take it on. If you agree to that I'll have my rebuttal in by 17:00 Greenwich Time.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Debate Topic - Does the orchestra represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement?

Debaters: MatthewWeflen/No - Roger Knox/Yes.

Roger has 48 hours to respond. Of course, a lot earlier would be good so we might have some back and forth between our two debaters before "interlude" day when other members offer their comments.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Debate Topic - Does the orchestra represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement?
> 
> Debaters: MatthewWeflen/No - Roger Knox/Yes.
> 
> Roger has 48 hours to respond. Of course, a lot earlier would be good so we might have some back and forth between our two debaters before "interlude" day when other members offer their comments.


Sorry the internet was down yesterday. Working on my response now.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Roger Knox said:


> Sorry the internet was down yesterday. Working on my response now.


Response:
Does the orchestra represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement? We are not talking about philosophy or religion, like Plato's works and the Bible that Matthew puts forward as artistic achievements. But unlike these, the orchestra is artistic first and foremost. Its greatness lies in bringing musicians with a dazzling variety of abilities together with audiences seeking artistic experiences, through the unified expression that is a work of music.

And who is to say that in the hands of great conductors the orchestra only vaguely illuminates the human condition? Think of the heroic Third Symphony of Beethoven, of our connection to nature evoked in Debussy's _La Mer_, or of cosmic adventures brought to life by John Williams' film music. Here music speaks directly to our hearts in the voices of its best composers, without the complication of literary constructions. And classical orchestral music is built to last also; it is now four hundred years since the vocal-orchestral masterpieces of the Baroque era began.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I'll take "No."
> 
> Opening salvo:
> 
> ...





Roger Knox said:


> Response:
> Does the orchestra represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement? We are not talking about philosophy or religion, like Plato's works and the Bible that Matthew puts forward as artistic achievements. But unlike these, the orchestra is artistic first and foremost. Its greatness lies in bringing musicians with a dazzling variety of abilities together with audiences seeking artistic experiences, through the unified expression that is a work of music.
> 
> And who is to say that in the hands of great conductors the orchestra only vaguely illuminates the human condition? Think of the heroic Third Symphony of Beethoven, of our connection to nature evoked in Debussy's _La Mer_, or of cosmic adventures brought to life by John Williams' film music. Here music speaks directly to our hearts in the voices of its best composers, without the complication of literary constructions. And classical orchestral music is built to last also; it is now four hundred years since the vocal-orchestral masterpieces of the Baroque era began.


I happily concede that music and visual art have a more _direct _connection to our emotions than the written word, though poetry may put the lie to that notion. But when people of future eras receive a piece of art, which work of art tells them more about the artist and their world?

The music of the Greeks is nearly lost to us. The music of the Babylonians already is. The sculpture of the Greeks is crumbling. Their painting is nearly non-existent. Only their writing has persisted until today, from the plays of Sophocles to the speeches of Pericles to the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. These works are holistic - they engage our emotions but also out minds, and they create a world that thrills and enlightens us. Music comes and goes. Writing has stood the test of time.

Beethoven's 'Eroica' is a great work of art, to be sure. But its context is already slipping away. Was it really about Napoleon or was it not? For whom does the funeral march toll? Beyond that, what tempo should it be played in? We would need words to tell us this. Music, because of its relative lack of informational content, always resides at a more aesthetic level and less of a holistic one.

But a piece of writing can not only be beautiful, it can transport us both in our emotions and our intellects to the time and place and lived emotional experience of its author. It can remove our particular experiences from the equation and show us what someone unlike ourselves feels. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle sparked a wave of reform and regulation that alleviated the suffering of millions. Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin made people feel the pain of slaves they would never meet, moving them to participate in a war of liberation. The list could continue. Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables." Elie Wiesel's "Night." John Steinback's "Of Mice and Men." Alice Walker's "The Color Purple."

None of Shostakovich's "protest" symphonies against Stalinism accelerated his demise. I've been listening to them over the past week, and I have to read about them in order to grasp their "idea content." Mostly I just enjoy the sounds, be they pretty or discordant. If the 'Eroica' is one of history's greatest "dis tracks," its insults are lost to us now, and Napoleon seemed to carry on just fine. Schoenberg's Verklärte Nacht is far more moving when one reads the poem on which it is based. I defy anyone to derive "pregnant lady and understanding boyfriend" from the notes on offer.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I happily concede that music and visual art have a more _direct _connection to our emotions than the written word, though poetry may put the lie to that notion. But when people of future eras receive a piece of art, which work of art tells them more about the artist and their world?
> 
> The music of the Greeks is nearly lost to us. The music of the Babylonians already is. The sculpture of the Greeks is crumbling. Their painting is nearly non-existent. Only their writing has persisted until today, from the plays of Sophocles to the speeches of Pericles to the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. These works are holistic - they engage our emotions but also out minds, and they create a world that thrills and enlightens us. Music comes and goes. Writing has stood the test of time.
> 
> ...


An eloquent case for writing and literature is presented above, one that earns my full respect. As "humanity's greatest artistic achievement," however, our poor orchestra is unfairly being asked to stand up against all literature of all time everywhere. A fairer comparison for the orchestra and its music might be something like "the novel since 1600."

Anyway, orchestral composers effectively draw on folk music and religious music, rich sources of high musical value that expand in time and space the orchestra's artistic range. The same is true of the myths, stories, art works and nature that motivate great orchestral music. I don't care if not all of the preceding sources are endure in some kind of object or record; do we admire African traditional music the less because much of it was preserved through oral transmission? And how long something has existed cannot be the touchstone of greatness, because survival may well be due to happenstance alone.

Finally, the social and political influence of music cannot be confused with great artistic achievement. If it was, I would be putting orchestral versions of "The Star-Spangled Banner" and "We Shall Overcome" at the top, which is absurd.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

The 3rd day/interlude has begun. This is the day when the two debaters refrain from posting while other TC members offer their observations and insights.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I reject the premise that the orchestra represents humanity's greatest artistic achievement. I even reject the notion that the orchestra is *music's* greatest artistic achievement.

Every musical genre/category has unique features not found in other genres. Instead of getting hung-up on which genre is superior, I think the most reasonable attitude is to recognize that a wealth of genres is available for folks because they collectively want them all. None is superior to another.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I also do not consider the orchestra humanity's greatest artistic achievement, but I don't much enjoy orchestral music, so I am biased. But what can we compare to "the orchestra"? A *form *like *the novel*, or the *theatrical play*, or *perspective paintings*? Or a physical object like "the book" or easel paintings? I think the invention of the book as opposed to the scroll was a bigger achievement than the orchestra.

Or are we comparing the music that was written for an orchestra and not the ensemble itself? But whose music? There are great orchestral works and there is dreck written for the orchestra. Oh, and what kind of orchestra? The Baroque's small string based ensemble of Bach, or the 100 instrument Mahlerian beast?

I don't think in terms of 'the greatest" of anything and cannot make much of a contribution to the question beyond wondering if the question itself was flawed.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I don't have too much to say other than I've gotten quite a laugh out of both sides.

Well done, gents. Top-notch TC humor.

But I wouldn't rank the orchestra as music's greatest artistic achievement either. Not even Western art music's greatest achievement. I think I'd even put the piano before it, and there are probably plenty of non-physical things (e.g. our notation system) that I'd put before the piano in terms of "greatness".


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

While literature is art, I don't really like the comparison to the visual arts or to music. Language, the written and spoken word, is learned as a child. Everybody can write. Creative writing is something different, but not entirely different. It's not difficult to write something that will evoke an emotional response in a reader, some reader. I like my chances, or anybody's chances, of writing a book over writing a symphony. Creative thinking does not always lead to great writing. Is Plato known for his philosophy or his ability to write? Shakespeare's writing was at times beautiful, but it's the stories and how they represent the human condition that have lasted more so than the words. 

"Does the orchestra represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement?" I think not. Music might be humanities greatest artistic achievement though. Forget about the orchestra. But does a composition exist in its pure form? There can be many copies made of it and it can be handed down from one generation to the next. Things can be lost, changed, added. But its essence is still the same as it was the day it was realized. Visual art suffers the ravages of time; paintings, sculptures and architecture have to be maintained and restored. Even at that they have been, and will be, lost to bombs, fires, and wrecking balls. Music might have the best chance of surviving.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

We are now back to two days of debate from Matthew and Roger..


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

OK, another stab:

Does the orchestra represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement?

Perhaps it would help define terms.

Of course "art" is slippery. The term probably originated with "techne" for the Greeks - *the skill, craft or art of making and doing*. I kind of like this definition, because I think that a teapot or a game console can be "art," as can cooking or something as mundane as mopping the floor. If the skill can be appreciated purely as a skill, it can be considered art. It has evolved over time to focus on *things created or done by human beings that are appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power*.

"Greatness" in a work of human art is also difficult to pin down. If I had to make a stab at it, I would say it has several key features: *emotional power, idea content, popularity, and endurance*. Speaking to the question of prehistoric or tribal music that we no longer possess, well, if it hasn't endured, it must not have been that "great." I believe (and hope) that something like Takeshi 6ix9ine's "Gooba" will not endure, even if it is momentarily popular, as judged by YouTube views. It has very little idea content besides self-aggrandizement, and the main emotions it inspires in me are disgust with an admixture of despair.

I do personally happen to believe that, _within the realm of music_, orchestral music is among the very "greatest" by these criteria. Its complexity is generally quite high, lending it a large quantity of idea content relative to other music (though vocal music of course has words to aid in this). The emotional power is also very high, music has a way of very keenly cutting to the limbic system of our brains, giving us a very immediate rush of feeling. Classical orchestral music was quite popular for a time, but has diminished in popularity to some degree. It has, however, endured to a greater degree than many other musical forms - classical music pervades our culture, as another recent thread full of YouTube videos amply demonstrated.

With all of that said, I think human writing surpasses orchestral music in terms of "greatness" as art by the criteria listed above (it is certainly art as defined above). It has an easier time enduring because of the nature of its data. As a global culture we are still consistently reading things from as far back as 800-700 BC. As far as popularity, the sales of a given book generally dwarfs the sales of a particular recording or written piece of sheet music. The idea content of writing is unparalleled, by the simple nature of the medium. The level of emotional power possible within written media is also very high, in part because of the access to the author's or character's interior mental states that is possible.

Something I considered when pondering a defense of the "no" proposition was the consideration of a message to an alien race. If we want to give them a flavor for who we are, a full-bodied understanding of what it means to be human, what medium should we choose? Orchestral music? (Of course I am aware of the Voyager Golden Record - I happen to think that Sagan et. al. really biffed it by only including audio-visual data as opposed to text - though they may have been limited by the analog nature of the medium) I think by far the most revealing and intimate things we can give to them would be written works, assuming the problem of translation can be surmounted. But we are not bound by such problems - with the exception of the Voynich manuscript (which is probably an elaborate joke/hoax), there really isn't a text that we as humans cannot decipher.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> OK, another stab:
> 
> Does the orchestra represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement?
> 
> ...


This is well done. You stated "human writing surpasses orchestral music in terms of greatness as art." The substitution of "orchestral music" for "the orchestra" I agree with, because it is the music that most directly counts as great art.

My problem is that the amount of "human writing" over time so far exceeds that of orchestral music that it seems in a different category. Let me try to reduce it and find a more apt comparison:

- "_literature_ surpasses orchestral music in terms of greatness as art." Not that comfortable, but I can live with this if nothing better exists. Literature as a whole at the very least has higher aspirations than "human writing." Maybe there's more of it ("popularity") than orchestral music because of its wider reach or greater clarity of ideas.

As for "greatness," I'm hearing the objections from all of the other observers. To me we have made progress in this debate and I have learned from everyone. I propose that for the purposes of this debate we retain "greatness," but understood in terms of Matthew's four key features: emotional power, idea content, popularity, and endurance. And, that we retreat from such other connotations as dominance, power, and celebrity.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Another 3rd day/interlude has begun. This is the day when the two debaters refrain from posting while other TC members offer their observations and insights.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fun thread. I'll say Music isn't even necessarily humanity's greatest achievement in Art compared to Literature or visual paintings. Reference to John Cage's 4'33" (oh no!). The point/perspective he made or tried to make is more effectively represented (analogously) in other mediums. Take poetry/prose. Post-modern thought in literature been well received and accepted, and Cage's hasn't (some may say shouldn't). Stravinsky said Music is powerless to express anything. That is particularly true of 4'33". It required some receptors other than a musical sensibility to appreciate.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

We are now back to two days of debate from Matthew and Roger.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Bulldog, I have two questions. Can I add another response before Matthew responds to my previous post? Also, can I respond to Phil's most recent post now?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Roger Knox said:


> Bulldog, I have two questions. Can I add another response before Matthew responds to my previous post? Also, can I respond to Phil's most recent post now?


Yes and yes.........................


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Does orchestral music represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement? Does literature surpass orchestral music in terms of greatness as art? I answer "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the second. This post is to clarify and add to my previous comments.

1. My reason for substituting _literature_ for _human writing_ is that there is a category error in comparing human writing to orchestral music. If one uses the idea of art as _techne_, human writing's scope is vastly larger than that of orchestral music, but we are not comparing for "scope." Art as _techne_ also correctly draws out the functionality that applies also to writing, but we are not comparing for "functionality." Later, Matthew notes that art has become "things created or done by human beings that are appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." Now we are getting closer to the quality in literature and orchestral music that we are comparing - _greatness_.

2. I note that some commentators oppose comparing for greatness, and/or the notion of greatness itself. But both debaters use it, Matthew has delimited it carefully, and it is a significant term of artistic judgment. For greatness, I will compare literature to orchestral music in terms of Matthew's four chosen components:

•	*Endurance*: I concede that human writing of words preceded that of the human writing of orchestral music, allowing greater scope to literature. But the data of word writing are less complex than that of orchestral music writing; it is easier to learn and to create meaningfully with it than is human music writing. Folk and religious literary traditions go back a long way, longer if one includes the connected verbal traditions, and continue today. But folk and religious musical traditions have endured for a long time too, and are in a symbiotic relationship with the later-developing and ongoing orchestral music. 
*Tie*

•	*Idea Content:* Again I concede the high level of idea content in literature. Nevertheless, there is a kind of redundancy insofar as writing obviously lends itself to ideas -- structuring and communicating perceptions of the world, expressing them as thoughts. By contrast, the idea content of music is slighted because its high perceptual demands and vital cognitive areas including attention, memory, and sequencing are not recognized. These components are highly complex in music, even more so in orchestral music, and involve the unconscious as well as the conscious brain.
*Advantage to orchestral music*

•	*Emotional Power*: Even if literature's reach is broader, the intensity and uniqueness required for artistic greatness is higher in orchestral music - which also offers a world of emotional expression and is especially powerful in the unconscious. In the genres of song, chorus, and oratorio that combine words and music, is the music that takes precedence - indeed a song with an ordinary text can be great because of its musical setting. And -- compare the emotional power of musical concerts to that of literary readings.
*Clear advantage to orchestral music*

•	*POPULARITY*: By virtue of its wider geographical and conceptual scope, plus the high proportion of humans who can read, literature is more popular than classical music. But orchestral music in the west also has a long tradition going back at least to 1600CE, and acknowledging its greatness at its best helps it continue in times of difficulty. 
*Clear advantage to literature*

*Overall advantage to orchestral music*


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Roger Knox said:


> Overall advantage to orchestral music


I would partly agree, but for a reason that I don't think you touched on there. And that is that literature depends on translation. No matter how well-done a translation of Dostoyevsky is, my not knowing any Russian is going to make my reading at best a second-hand, second-rate experience. Music doesn't need that kind of go-between, except maybe requiring a translation of a libretto. Now some translations are phenomenally well-done, like Luther's Bible translation or the Tyndale tradition in English, or various terrific translations of Shakespeare into German. But even then nuances of the original languages are lost.

However, in terms of impact on our ways of thinking, our religious or philosophical outlook, music doesn't come close to the written word...except as maybe a kind of supplement.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Roger Knox said:


> •	*Idea Content:* Again I concede the high level of idea content in literature. Nevertheless, there is a kind of redundancy insofar as writing obviously lends itself to ideas -- structuring and communicating perceptions of the world, expressing them as thoughts. By contrast, the idea content of music is slighted because its high perceptual demands and vital cognitive areas including attention, memory, and sequencing are not recognized. These components are highly complex in music, even more so in orchestral music, and involve the unconscious as well as the conscious brain.
> *Advantage to orchestral music*


I disagree with your evaluation here. I mean, come now. Are you really claiming that a piece of music can communicate more _information _than a piece of writing? The things you describe are not ideas, propositions, or worldviews. They are emotional states. If anything, the daily exercise of visiting TC and seeing people argue over which composer/conductor/piece is better than the other should be a strong indicator that music appreciation is highly subjective because the "ideas" present have been stripped of historical context and authorial intent, and are instead experienced by the listener on a non-cognitive basis (which is certainly enjoyable, otherwise I wouldn't be here), making arguments over them frustrating at best. Literature supplies these pieces of information and communicates _both _actual ideas _and_ profound emotional states.

As far as emotional power goes, I would simply submit that obviously, far more people are moved by great literature than are moved by orchestral music. Many, many more people read than enjoy orchestral music. Whether or not we want this to be the case is immaterial to whether it is the case.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I disagree with your evaluation here. I mean, come now. Are you really claiming that a piece of music can communicate more _information _than a piece of writing? The things you describe are not ideas, propositions, or worldviews. They are emotional states. If anything, the daily exercise of visiting TC and seeing people argue over which composer/conductor/piece is better than the other should be a strong indicator that music appreciation is highly subjective because the "ideas" present have been stripped of historical context and authorial intent, and are instead experienced by the listener on a non-cognitive basis (which is certainly enjoyable, otherwise I wouldn't be here), making arguments over them frustrating at best. Literature supplies these pieces of information and communicates _both _actual ideas _and_ profound emotional states.
> 
> As far as emotional power goes, I would simply submit that obviously, far more people are moved by great literature than are moved by orchestral music. Many, many more people read than enjoy orchestral music. Whether or not we want this to be the case is immaterial to whether it is the case.


As a supplement and response, firstly I am not saying that musical works communicate more information than written ones. Of course not. Please bear with me, I'm being absolutely serious here. As *consuono* notes there is something in music that becomes comprehensible to people despite differences in verbal language. The notion I'm working with here is: "that something" is the idea content of music as music. There are verbal or visual analogues that suggest such idea content: the rhetoric of Bach fugues, the question-answer structure in Mozart's phrases, the idée fixe of Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique and the leitmotifs of Wagner's operas, or Schoenberg's Grundgestalt (basic shape). But the key purpose is musical, as these processes or elements become the basis through variation of sections and even whole instrumental compositions, or of the refrains and scenes in operas. The orchestration of Debussy's works in layers, or of Mahler symphonies into varied textures ranging from chamber music-like delicacy to full orchestral grandeur, also show musical idea content coming from an extended thought process. I think that in terms of humanity's greatest artistic achievements, musical idea content is crucial. While music sometimes may combine with or accompany the verbal expression of noble thoughts and sociocultural ideals, such instances should not dominate our thinking about the artistic greatness of music.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I think we are at the point where all interested parties may post whenever they like.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Great!
> 
> Debate Topic - Does the orchestra represent humanity's greatest artistic achievement?


One thing that has always struck me as a rather amazing quality of orchestral music is what it takes to realize a symphony, that is, what is required to hear it performed.

First, it has to be written, a challenging task in itself and debated here already.

But without it being performed it's just a piece of paper with some coded message.

Second, to be realized, the orchestral music must be performed by up to one hundred musicians who can decode that message on paper. It takes years of training for each player to learn and perfect their instrument. Then there are the master craftsmen who make their instruments.

Third, it is all brought together into one harmonious sound by a conductor.

It takes a community of skilled people to hear an orchestral piece; it takes a significant slice of humanity to lift the music from paper to harmonious sound. A remarkable achievement.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

senza sordino said:


> One thing that has always struck me as a rather amazing quality of orchestral music is what it takes to realize a symphony, that is, what is required to hear it performed.
> 
> First, it has to be written, a challenging task in itself and debated here already.
> 
> ...


Definitely agreed. I am arguing as an exercise here. I love orchestral music and wouldn't want to live without it.


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

MatthewWeflen says:



> I disagree with your evaluation here. I mean, come now. Are you really claiming that a piece of music can communicate more information than a piece of writing? The things you describe are not ideas, propositions, or worldviews. They are emotional states. ... music appreciation is highly subjective because the "ideas" present have been stripped of historical context and authorial intent, and are instead experienced by the listener on a non-cognitive basis (which is certainly enjoyable, otherwise I wouldn't be here), making arguments over them frustrating at best. Literature supplies these pieces of information and communicates both actual ideas and profound emotional states.


Literature communicates information dependent on how well the "reader" understands the language, understands the language as it was spoken in the time period which it was written (see Shakespeare), understands the historical context of the time period, and has the requisite knowledge required to understand the ideas and concepts being articulated. I think I got up to page 75 in one of Hawking's books a couple of times. It is for the most part an unsolvable foreign language for 99% of us. And you can't knock music for being subjective; once you get into fiction - the really big section at the library - literature becomes very subjective.

Roger Knox:



> ...there is something in music that becomes comprehensible to people despite differences in verbal language. The notion I'm working with here is: "that something" is the idea content of music as music. There are verbal or visual analogues that suggest such idea content: the rhetoric of Bach fugues, the question-answer structure in Mozart's phrases, the idée fixe of Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique and the leitmotifs of Wagner's operas, or Schoenberg's Grundgestalt (basic shape).


That's a pretty good attempt, but I don't know what an idée fixe is or know a leitmotif when I hear one. A famous composer notated music so the marks on paper showed a path through a garden. Idea content? Yeah, I guess. I don't know that music presents any ideas other than those we perceive. I do think it has "that something" (which is as unexplainable as Hawking) and has no language barriers except the ones we create - which are quite often preconceptions.

Anyway, I liked the "what would the Aliens think"? reference earlier. You could sit them down with a copy of Ulysses and A Brief History of Time or you could put on Prélude à L'Après-midi d'un Faune and Mozart's 41. I think they would like the Mozart.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

gregorx said:


> That's a pretty good attempt, but I don't know what an idée fixe is or know a leitmotif when I hear one. A famous composer notated music so the marks on paper showed a path through a garden. Idea content? Yeah, I guess. I don't know that music presents any ideas other than those we perceive. I do think it has "that something" (which is as unexplainable as Hawking) and has no language barriers except the ones we create - which are quite often preconceptions.


I should have used English:

- an _idée fixe_ (fixed idea) is a melodic passage with a certain association, that recurs in a composition. The term is used for compositions by Berlioz, in particular the programmatic _Symphonie fantastique_ where a melody in the opening evokes the vision of a woman Berlioz was infatuated with. It comes back later in the Scene at a Ball and in the March to the Scaffold, with varied rhythm, length, orchestration, and so on. As idea content, in connection with the image and with the information given in the program, it is part of the musical development and the "narrativity" or story-like content of the piece. But even if you don't know the program, it stands out as a unifying element of the symphony.

- a _leitmotif_ (leading motif) is related to the above and carried further in Wagner. It is a recurring motif that is woven into the dramatic and musical development of a Wagner opera in more complex ways, and it may become a symbol. For instance in the Ring Cycle of four operas, a leading motif that is an arpeggio pattern downward and upward in a major 9th chord symbolizes the gold ring, fusing the musical content with the visual and ideational. One can enjoy the operas for their music alone, but the symbolic and psychological aspects are unlikely to be apparent unless you know what the leitmotifs are.

In post #37 I tried to present how music can work as idea content. There used to be a music analyst on the BBC, Hans Keller, who developed a way of conveying the musical idea content of a work by playing carefully chosen excepts only, without verbal commentary.

At this point I've presented what I have to say and rest my case. Ready to answer further posts though. And I love literature, too.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

It looks like this debate thread has reached its conclusion. I want to thank those TC members who contributed, especially Matthew and Roger. 

I do believe that this type thread has a viable future on TC if shepherded by the right person. Unfortunately, I am definitely not that person. So, if any member is interested in being that person, please go for it.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Actually, Bulldog, I thought that your setting up the debate and carrying it through worked very well, especially for our first time.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> I think we are at the point where all interested parties may post whenever they like.


I've played in symphony orchestras and studied them a lot. I always felt the orchestra developed over a 200+ year period as a response to the practical needs of music making in its time and place, and given the available technology and human resources at that time and place. It is an impressive example of human ingenuity. As I don't think it's meaningful to try to determine if orchestral music of 18th and 19th century Europe is "greater" than, say, operas, string quartets or piano music of that same period and place, I certainly wouldn't try to rank its greatness as compared to, say, Elizabethan drama or ancient Chinese poetry. Even the orchestra itself became a different thing in the 20th century due to commercial recording.

What I find interesting in this context is that the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, writing in the 18th century, ranked music as the least of the arts, and poetry as the best. Without getting into his rationale, I have to wonder if his thinking would differ if he had lived in the late 19th century and experienced the symphony orchestra at its formidable peak. It may be, especially as he was a writer but not a musician, he underestimated the expressive potential of music in a way few of us would today.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

That's interesting because well-known philosophers have had such radically differing views on music. In contrast to Kant, in the 19th century Schopenhauer in _The World as Will and Representation_ thought music was of special importance as a kind of primal force, and his views influenced Wagner. Nietzsche, who himself composed, was at first a follower of Wagner, but later he turned against Wagnerian opera in favour of Bizet who he thought exemplified a lighter Mediterranean spirit. So I agree with you that Kant's views and those of other philosophers were related to the times and places they lived in. As for "greatness" I think it's a word that tends to open up one's thinking and at least in that sense is worth discussing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics_of_music


----------



## BeatriceB (May 3, 2021)

Interesting thread but disappointing to see it didn't gain much interest compared to other longer threads on big discussions.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

BeatriceB said:


> Interesting thread but disappointing to see it didn't gain much interest compared to other longer threads on big discussions.


If you phrase this in some way that includes John Cage or John Williams, you might get a bigger reaction. Also "objective greatness."


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Kant thought music the least important art, because it was not representative. Schopenhauer thought it was the most sublime because it was not representative... I wouldn't totally exclude the possibility that it had something to do with the music they were exposed to or with their personal musical aptitude but it seems comparably well embedded in their philosophical systems regardless of personal preferences.


----------

