# Understanding the context



## Aurelian (Sep 9, 2011)

While listening to the 2nd movement of Shostakovich's 1st Violin Concerto, my mother asked me how I could stand it. When I explained it was a portrayal of Stalin, she understood what the music "said" - although she does not choose to listen to it.

Were there times when you liked, or at least better tolerated, a piece of music when you learned the historical or biographical context?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

No. Those 'understandings' are pollutants.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I just hate when works require listeners to get insight into composer's biography in order to have even basic understanding about what's going on there. If I will fall in love with some piece of music - great, I'll make sure to read about it and it's author, hoping that perhaps it will add to my reception. But can I be expected to do it before I appreciate the work, before it will reach me on it's own strenghts rather than by some misty connections with extra-musical stuff?


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I think it is better if a work can stand on its own two feet without needing to rely upon an extra-musical interpretation. I wonder how well known Penderecki's _Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima_ would be if he had kept the original title of 8'37''.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Winterreisender said:


> I wonder how well known Penderecki's _Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima_ would be if he had kept the original title of 8'37''.


Even more well known than it is, 8'37 is extremely catchy. People would think "if 4'33 is so brilliant and inspires so much discussion, 8'37 must be almost twice as much of masterpiece!"


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Through researching, reviews, discussion, album notes, etc., learning something about the background of a composition is unavoidable, but I try to 'let it go in one ear and out the other'. I just want to hear the music and have _my own experience_.


----------



## MrTortoise (Dec 25, 2008)

The music must stand or fall on its own. Same goes for musicians and their performances. I enjoyed the movie "Shine" that romantically portrayed the life of David Helfgott, however I'm not fond of his performances, no matter how much I like his story or think he is a bit wacky and cool personally.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I like just to listen as well, but I do find that context is often interesting, especially when talking to others who know little about classical music. 

For example, I listen to music in my classroom after classes are over for the day, and my colleague comes by sometimes for a chat. One day recently I was listening to Debussy's Violin Sonata. I told him it was one of the last things Debussy wrote, while Paris was being shelled and he was dying of colon cancer. I also told him of the story behind DSCH Symphony #7 when I had it playing. 

But for me context means setting, not what the music is about.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Aurelian said:


> it was a portrayal of Stalin


might well be that of Hitler if you sniff some coke while listening to it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Aurelian said:


> While listening to the 2nd movement of Shostakovich's 1st Violin Concerto, my mother asked me how I could stand it. When I explained it was a portrayal of Stalin, she understood what the music "said" - although she does not choose to listen to it.
> 
> Were there times when you liked, or at least better tolerated, a piece of music when you learned the historical or biographical context?


Your mother is a very wise woman!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Well, play a piece of "program" music for 10 different people without context and you will get 10 different vivid descriptions of what the music is about.

Arturo Toscanini said it best regarding the first movement of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony:
"To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle. To me it is allegro con brio."


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I totally go along with the idea that you should listen to the music for the music's own sake and appreciate what you find in it musically. At the same time, I have been word-oriented and story-oriented from my cradle, so if I know a poignant story about the music, I can't remain unaffected by it. I love 'David of the White Rock' and knew it as a Victorian sentimental song about a dying man. 'Help me to reach my beloved strings again - widow and children, God's blessing remain.' From the context, I imagined an old or middle aged man dying and leaving his family.






Just recently I read that it was composed by David Owen just before he died at the age of twenty-nine, and that 'The White Rock' was the name of his farm near Portmadoc. Double-plus added poignancy!

It is impossible to know what I would think about the tune if I didn't know it was connected with a dying man. 
The only way with me is to listen first, and find out the context afterwards!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ukko said:


> No. Those 'understandings' are pollutants.


Bravo! If not "pollutants" they are certainly an extra musical corruption, tainting the listener's perception by pulling their mind away from the import of the notes.

To paraphrase Detective Sergeant Joe Friday's line, 
_"Just the notes, ma'am."_

_It really does not matter what was said / portrayed, what was said they said / portrayed. or what was intended to be said / portrayed... *If it isn't in the notes*...._

If it is not in the notes, _*"What we've got here is failure to communicate."*_


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

In J S Bach's music at least, you can't play the music without knowing about the context. It's only by knowing about 17th century ideas about rhetoric and affect, articulation, ornamentation, counterpoint and (in the case of text based music at least) theology that you can decide how to play. 

Of course you could just ignore all that historical stuff and make up your own ideas about rhetoric and affect, articulation, ornamentation etc. That's what Landowska did I think (I'm not sure.) But in a very important sense, when "romantic" musicians do that they're probably not playing Bach's music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> I totally go along with the idea that you should listen to the music for the music's own sake and appreciate what you find in it musically. At the same time, I have been word-oriented and story-oriented from my cradle, so if I know a poignant story about the music, I can't remain unaffected by it. I love 'David of the White Rock' and knew it as a Victorian sentimental song about a dying man. 'Help me to reach my beloved strings again - widow and children, God's blessing remain.' From the context, I imagined an old or middle aged man dying and leaving his family.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As much as there is a ton of music which is vocal, ergo with text, I really would really welcome it when more people began to think of "music" as just the notes without any text.

Text _set to music_ is an entirely different ball of wax (N.B. I placed text to precede music, _in order of importance as to listener perception_), and for the sake of musical argument, text set to music is no longer "just music."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Bravo! If not "pollutants" they are certainly an extra musical corruption, tainting the listener's perception by pulling their mind away from the import of the notes.
> 
> To paraphrase Detective Sergeant Joe Friday's line,
> _"Just the notes, ma'am."_
> ...


Sure but you can't know what's in the notes without knowing about the historical context.

Let me give you an example. In J S Bach's music, you can't play the music without knowing about the context. It's only by knowing about 17th century ideas about rhetoric and affect, articulation, ornamentation, counterpoint and (in the case of text based music at least) theology that you can decide how to play.

Of course you could just ignore all that historical stuff and make up your own ideas about rhetoric and affect, articulation, ornamentation etc. That's what Landowska did I think (I'm not sure.) But in a very important sense, when "romantic" musicians do that they're probably not playing Bach's music.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I sometimes find that mental pollutants improve my appreciation of music, though I grant that that probably makes me a sick individual. I like the OP's point--if you don't enjoy thinking about a composer's life in relation to his/her works, you _may_ not be ready to immerse yourself in Shosty!

Context can be beautiful!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Bravo! If not "pollutants" they are certainly an extra musical corruption, tainting the listener's perception by pulling their mind away from the import of the notes.


I don't find it useful or at all rewarding to concern myself too much with the ways other people enjoy music. In fact, I don't even find it helpful when somebody tells *me* how to enjoy it.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

May I just quote an example in which the knowledge of the historical context is fundamental to better appreciate a piece of music?

Shostakovich: Symphony No.7, first movement.

Do you really think that your degree of appreciation would have been the same without knowing what was happening and why the composer used an otherwise quite stupid tune & variations?
And what about the use of the same tune by another composer, in the same terrible years but from the other side of the world?
(Bartok, concerto for orchestra)
Don't you think it's important, for a greater appreciation of the music, to place all that in the "historical context"?


I'd be more careful to label context as just "pollutants". I would rather say "it depends..."


----------



## CBD (Nov 11, 2013)

GioCar said:


> Shostakovich: Symphony No.7, first movement.
> 
> Do you really think that your degree of appreciation would have been the same without knowing what was happening and why the composer used an otherwise quite stupid tune & variations?


I know my degree of appreciation was not changed after I learned the context of that movement.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

CBD said:


> I know my degree of appreciation was not changed after I learned the context of that movement.


Ok, good for you. Mine changed a lot.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I've just been doing some digging for the "should be known better thread". Once of the pieces I was looking at was Dowland's Walsingham (a village near where we live). It was surprising how little people knew of the context of the piece or of its relevance to Dowland's life or of the tune itself - also used by Byrd. 

The village contained a shrine to Our Lady, dismantled in 1538, and Dowland like Byrd was a recusant and staunch papist. It may not entirely inform the music, but it all helps to understand the period.


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Arturo Toscanini said it best regarding the first movement of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony:
> "To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle. To me it is allegro con brio."


Yes, and I've always thought Toscanini's words explain a lot about why his performances, for all their technical brilliance, can so often seem bloodless and lacking in feeling. My guess is if you had been able to ask Beethoven what the first movement of the _Eroica_ was about, he wouldn't have said "allegro con brio."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> View attachment 34684
> 
> 
> I sometimes find that mental pollutants improve my appreciation of music, though I grant that that probably makes me a sick individual. I like the OP's point--if you don't enjoy thinking about a composer's life in relation to his/her works, you _may_ not be ready to immerse yourself in Shosty!
> ...


Context can be _interesting_. It does not change the import of the actual notes, it is extra-musical.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GioCar said:


> May I just quote an example in which the knowledge of the historical context is fundamental to better appreciate a piece of music?
> 
> Shostakovich: Symphony No.7, first movement.
> 
> ...


Actually, I don't. Making "the context" important is like expecting your grown children -- after you are long gone -- to walk through life with a note of explanation authored by their deceased parents pinned to their clothing.

(I believe that any work which relies much at all upon references is innately weak, i.e. not self-standing.)

But hey, I'm a classicist.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

'Context can be interesting. It does not change the import of the actual notes, it is extra-musical.' - quote, PetrB. :tiphat:

'The actual notes' - aren't they transformed by interpretation and dynamics? And may not those elements be guided, or influenced, by a narrative based on historical context? So if the way the music is played changes so much, influenced by the 'context' as it exists for the musician, is it wrong to 'hear' music differently, based on one's feelings for or understanding of context?

'Actual notes' just seems a bit bald, that's all. Can music ever be _just_ musical - doesn't it _always_ include extra-musical elements?

Very willing to be put right by PetrB or any other Music-Wallah; grateful, too.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

revdrdave said:


> Yes, and I've always thought Toscanini's words explain a lot about why his performances, for all their technical brilliance, can so often seem bloodless and lacking in feeling. My guess is if you had been able to ask Beethoven what the first movement of the _Eroica_ was about, he wouldn't have said "allegro con brio."


He might have said, "It is all about E-flat"


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

revdrdave said:


> Yes, and I've always thought Toscanini's words explain a lot about why his performances, for all their technical brilliance, can so often seem bloodless and lacking in feeling. My guess is if you had been able to ask Beethoven what the first movement of the _Eroica_ was about, he wouldn't have said "allegro con brio."


Toscanini was the least bloodless and lacking in feeling conductor,I know because I've seen him.
Your point about Beethoven's meaning for the movement shows that you don't appear to know what he meant.
The symphony was written to commemorate a "Son Of the Revolution" and was dedicated to Napoleon. But when Napoleon made himself Emperor he removed the dedication and chose an uninteresting prince.
Toscanini's purpose in life was to present the music as written and would never add his ideas to the performance.
If only many conductors would take a leaf out of his book !
What was completely bloodless and a complete disgrace were RCA's lousy recordings,but you can hear him live.
The orchestra was quite amazing in it's precision and has never been surpassed.
Interestingly the orchestra at Toscanini's memorial concert was the NBC by then renamed Symphony of the Air. The symphony was the "Eroica" and the conductor Bruno Walter.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Sure but you can't know what's in the notes without knowing about the historical context.
> 
> Let me give you an example. In J S Bach's music, you can't play the music without knowing about the context. It's only by knowing about 17th century ideas about rhetoric and affect, articulation, ornamentation, counterpoint and (in the case of text based music at least) theology that you can decide how to play.


You and I are in perfect agreement, though I did not parse it out in detail. What you have listed (including paying attention to the text if there is a text to be sung) is all part and parcel of interpreting a piece more or less correctly as to appropriate style.

It is all the romanticized extra-musical alleged or real biographical supposed (unproved) connections (legion for many a non-trained performer or listener) which then more than tend to become half the 'meaning' of the music, if not nearly predominating perceptions, which lead some to think they have a handle on 'what the composer meant' or 'what inspired them.'

There is a mountain of this sort of reaction in print in fora after fora, blog after blog. From my perspective, waaaay too many listeners are nearly immersed in believing that -- or that the piece "tells a story" is 'the way in' to understanding a piece or composer. _Certainly, it is a conveniently much easier way (though I believe it is in near complete error) of approaching an absolute piece of music vs. the complete abstraction it is._

The same piano teacher I had who was a stickler for knowing the period, style, etc. in performing a piece also said (of all those suppositions of what Chopin may have been thinking / feeling when he composed this piece or that) "Me, I don't care if he had a toothache when he wrote it."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> 'Context can be interesting. It does not change the import of the actual notes, it is extra-musical.' - quote, PetrB. :tiphat:
> 
> 'The actual notes' - aren't they transformed by interpretation and dynamics? And may not those elements be guided, or influenced, by a narrative based on historical context? So if the way the music is played changes so much, influenced by the 'context' as it exists for the musician, is it wrong to 'hear' music differently, based on one's feelings for or understanding of context?
> 
> ...


I have no intention of putting you on the spot, but do ask you to consider where they hey the 'narrative' of a Bach partita or a Mozart Symphony lies?

Certainly, the composer may have had in mind some extra-musical elements, but all we have from the composers are 'the bald notes.' That must sound frighteningly clinical to a great number of music lovers, while there is no need to despair; we innately bring our own extra-musical elements by way of our own psyches / personae _whenever we listen_. As both a player of music by other composers and one who dabbles in scribblings of music of my own invention -- when we listen, to mistake anything extra-musical as other than our own, well, I am profoundly convinced that is a mistake.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> He might have said, "It is all about E-flat"


He would have said "I don't give a damn about your miserable instruments. It's allegro con brio so play the damn thing like it's written. By the way, for those of you smirking, none of this stuff was written for you anyway!!"


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

GioCar said:


> May I just quote an example in which the knowledge of the historical context is fundamental to better appreciate a piece of music?
> 
> Shostakovich: Symphony No.7, first movement.
> 
> ...


@ Giocar, Your points are reasonable and well-taken; indeed the *Leningrad Symphony *is one of my favorites--especially its opening theme--which is both ominous, and yet strangely triumphant, at the same time. In saying all this--that is, placing a piece of music within a particular "historical context"--I have read accounts of Shostakovich's conceiving of and then composing the *Seventh* well *before* the Battle of Leningrad even took place.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I don't find it useful or at all rewarding to concern myself too much with the ways other people enjoy music. In fact, I don't even find it helpful when somebody tells *me* how to enjoy it.


I think this is, rarity of rarities, an actual discussion.

I also do not think anyone can successfully tell anyone else 'how to listen.' If you think for a moment, even if they were "telling you how to listen." the efficacy of their telling you how to listen is null -- unless they can, via paranormal possession, take over your brain


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> He would have said "I don't give a damn about your miserable instruments. It's allegro con brio so play the damn thing like it's written. By the way, for those of you smirking, none of this stuff was written for you anyway!!"


Infamously irascible, it is completely possible at times he was contrarian just for the fun of it


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"The notes, Ma'm, just the notes." I'm afraid this is impossible. Every note we hear comes through our filters of cultural familiarity, established musical conventions, and so forth. So it's never "just the notes" at all.

Further, to say "just the notes" implies that we can fully appreciate, say, Carnatic or Hindustani music with no knowledge of the forms involved, the swaras, scales, rhythms, and so forth. Obviously we can't, without some extra-musical learning. The same learning can and does help people enjoy Western music as well.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Context can be _interesting_. It does not change the import of the actual notes, it is extra-musical.


While I agree that's usually the case, I think that some composers work hard to make certain contextual elements in a work be "felt" by the listener/interpreter. The periodic appearance of a sequence of notes like DSCH in various works of Shosty probably wouldn't seem as significant if we didn't know a particular piece of context: his name! Knowing about the existence of musical allusions--and some rough idea of their provenance for the composer--can also change the ways we appreciate--and maybe even _hear_--certain pieces of music.

*p.s.* Let me gratuitously mention how much I enjoyed listening to Alban Berg's Violin Concerto today!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> "The notes, Ma'm, just the notes." I'm afraid this is impossible. Every note we hear comes through our filters of cultural familiarity, established musical conventions, and so forth. So it's never "just the notes" at all.
> 
> Further, to say "just the notes" implies that we can fully appreciate, say, Carnatic or Hindustani music with no knowledge of the forms involved, the swaras, scales, rhythms, and so forth. Obviously we can't, without some extra-musical learning. The same learning can and does help people enjoy Western music as well.


I believe there is a comment from literature covering that, goes something like "Bah, humbug!"


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Further, to say "just the notes" implies that we can fully appreciate, say, Carnatic or Hindustani music with no knowledge of the forms involved, the swaras, scales, rhythms, and so forth. Obviously we can't, without some extra-musical learning. The same learning can and does help people enjoy Western music as well.


But surely swaras, scales and rhythms are not extra-musical but rather integral to the music, and most people in non-western traditions learn about such things not through reading textbooks but rather through frequent exposure to the music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> *p.s.* Let me gratuitously mention how much I enjoyed listening to Alban Berg's Violin Concerto today!


Now _there's_ a man who loved his hidden codes!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Winterreisender said:


> But surely swaras, scales and rhythms are not extra-musical but rather integral to the music, and most people in non-western traditions learn about such things not through reading textbooks but rather through frequent exposure to the music.


I agree 100%. Frequent exposure from a very young age. Something many listeners are unlikely to have experienced with some genres of Western music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> "The notes, Ma'm, just the notes." I'm afraid this is impossible. Every note we hear comes through our filters of cultural familiarity, established musical conventions, and so forth. So it's never "just the notes" at all.
> 
> Further, to say "just the notes" implies that we can fully appreciate, say, Carnatic or Hindustani music with no knowledge of the forms involved, the swaras, scales, rhythms, and so forth. Obviously we can't, without some extra-musical learning. The same learning can and does help people enjoy Western music as well.


Well, that is why 'just the notes' are enough, exactly because of what people innately bring to those notes while listening (we all recognize midi-mechanical performance as lifeless:-(

I suppose some might feel the need for a crash course in East Indian Carnatic music before listening. On the fly, I, and a good number of folks heard of a recital by a famed Sitar player, and without so much as an introductory how do you do, needed no such crash course prior being held rapt for hours when we attended that recital played by Nikhil Banerjee and three other Indian musicians.

-- Ergo, no reason to paint the lily before just looking at and smelling it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Now _there's_ a man who loved his hidden codes!


Hey, you've got to make your own kind of fun!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

moody said:


> Toscanini was the least bloodless and lacking in feeling conductor,I know because I've seen him.
> Your point about Beethoven's meaning for the movement shows that you don't appear to know what he meant.
> The symphony was written to commemorate a "Son Of the Revolution" and was dedicated to Napoleon. But when Napoleon made himself Emperor he removed the dedication and chose an uninteresting prince.
> Toscanini's purpose in life was to present the music as written and would never add his ideas to the performance.
> ...


Exactly! Toscanini was one of the all time greats. Perhaps the poster is only familiar with his 1950's performances when Toscanini was an old man already, and performed everything too fast, but if he heard the performances from the 1939 Beethoven cycle or the great BBC recordings that he made, when he was in his prime, the poster would see how preposterous his claims are. The Leonore Overture Number 3 from that 1939 cycle is simply the best I've ever heard. And you will never hear better performances of Beethoven's 2nd and 4th symphonies than in that cycle. Many critics consider it the greatest Beethoven cycle ever recorded (live in studio 8H for 1-8 and live in carnegie Hall for #9).

Also one cannot forget the glorious Missa Solemnis Toscanini conducted in Carnegie Hall in 1940 with the likes of Zinka Milanov, Jussi Bjorling, Alexander Kipnis and Bruna Castagna. One of the greatest performances of all time!

I was simply going to ignore the post. I didn't find it worthy of an answer; the claims were so preposterous!

Do not equate the Toscanini of the 1950's with the Toscanini of 1930-1940. Night and day!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

By the way that "allegro con brio" quote by Toscanini is the greatest quote I know about faithfully serving the composer's intentions in the original score. Listen to Toscanini's 1939 NBC performance of the first movement of the Eroica Symphony. Allegro Con Brio it is. Exciting and moving with musicians performing as if their lives depend on it. That is what great conducting is all about.
Toscanini and Furtwangler could accomplish it. Few others.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> ...to say "just the notes" implies that we can fully appreciate, say, Carnatic or Hindustani music with no knowledge of the forms involved, the swaras, scales, rhythms, and so forth. Obviously we can't, without some extra-musical learning. The same learning can and does help people enjoy Western music as well.


Fully appreciate, form, what is 'going on,' and all that, sure. But your above construct also sounds perilously close to the notion one has to know all about classicism and sonata-allegro form to simply enjoy a Mozart Symphony... to which I say that is no more necessary for entry-level fascination and listening enjoyment than it is for music from non-western cultures.

_Music is the most visceral and fully sensate of all art forms_;listening is all it takes to get in or be in.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Fully appreciate, form, what is 'going on,' and all that, sure. But your above construct also sounds perilously close to the notion one has to know all about classicism and sonata-allegro form to simply enjoy a Mozart Symphony... to which I say that is no more necessary for entry-level fascination and listening enjoyment than it is for music from non-western cultures.


Agree that people have enjoyed music in blessed ignorance for many years. However, knowing something about the music (and its context!) can *and does *help them enjoy it more in many cases. That seems incredibly obvious, and I certainly don't personally know anybody who would have any argument with it.

Do you honestly claim this is untrue?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Agree that people have enjoyed music in blessed ignorance for many years. However, knowing something about the music (and its context!) can *and does *help them enjoy it more in many cases. That seems incredibly obvious, and I certainly don't personally know anybody who would have any argument with it.
> 
> Do you honestly claim this is untrue?


Uh, up front in line one, "Fully appreciate, form, what is 'going on,' and all that, sure."


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Good music is enjoyable on its own for sure. I do think knowing more about it, whether biographical or historical, adds another level of understanding. I certainly approach Mozart K. 310 differently now that I know he wrote it the summer his mother died.

We shouldn't be reductive about biography ("K. 310 is ONLY and DIRECTLY about the death of Mozart's mother!"). Music can just as easily be about experiences from a different time, or about imagined experiences, or about nothing at all, or just about allegro con brio. But, as background, it can be helpful. K. 310 struck me as a tragic piece _prima vista_, and the biographical information helps me understand it more.

Pieces intended by the composer to make a point beyond the scope of the piece, whether a political point or just making a parody of some other musical style, are best heard in context of those things. Turtles from Carnival of the Animals might be pretty if you didn't know Offenbach's Can-Can, but you'd totally miss the joke.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

We shouldn't and couldn't possibly give meaning and context to every note and every phrase of every piece ever written, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give meaning and context to anything. Some people suffer from paralysis by analysis. But Bach sounds different from Ligeti for many reasons. 

When is too much meaning given to a piece? I don't know but I'll know it when I see it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Aurelian said:


> While listening to the 2nd movement of Shostakovich's 1st Violin Concerto, my mother asked me how I could stand it. When I explained it was a portrayal of Stalin, she understood what the music "said" - although she does not choose to listen to it.
> 
> Were there times when you liked, or at least better tolerated, a piece of music when you learned the historical or biographical context?


I'd say that I do tend to get more out of music if I know what went on around it - not only in the composer's own life, but his inner circle of colleagues (both musical and other wise), trends in the arts at the time, as well as historical events.

A while back, I did a poll on different ways of seeing music, formalist and contextualist. The former focuses on the music, the latter on context. Not surprisingly given most people on this thread come across as formalist, they won out on that poll (I am in the contextualist camp) -

http://www.talkclassical.com/21483-formalism-contextualism.html

In terms of Shostakovich's music, he's the prime example of a composer whose music is often very much linked to context. Or more accurately, how he responded to his context, there are these hidden messages in there. Recently listening to his Cello Concerto #1, and reading about it, I discovered that the "Stalin theme" in the final movement (the quotation of Stalin's favourite song, Suliko) went unrecognised by Rostropovich, the cellist who commissioned the work, until the composer himself pointed this out to him. The two had a good laugh over that! In terms of the meaning, one can deduce this is less a homage to the dictator, more a comment laced with sarcasm so readily associated with this composer. The other thing is recently listening to Shostakovich's score to the film Hamlet, he put in there tambourine and bass drum, same as he did in his Cello Concerto #2. So I am wondering, with that fairground feel of Stravinsky's Petrushka so apparent in that concerto, why did he kind of "quote" it in Hamlet? Maybe we'll never know, but I like these connections, even if often their exact meaning is unknowable.

But I like making connections, I love the context, the biographies, the histories. My blog on TC (link in my footer below) delves into these things, into my discoveries and interests in this area. It can be just as interesting as the music itself and I find it enhances my enjoyment and appreciation of it greatly.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I listen to opera without knowing the plot or doing any effort to pay attention to what is being said, I only care for the music itself.


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Exactly! Toscanini was one of the all time greats. Perhaps the poster is only familiar with his 1950's performances when Toscanini was an old man already, and performed everything too fast, but if he heard the performances from the 1939 Beethoven cycle or the great BBC recordings that he made, when he was in his prime, the poster would see how preposterous his claims are. The Leonore Overture Number 3 from that 1939 cycle is simply the best I've ever heard. And you will never hear better performances of Beethoven's 2nd and 4th symphonies than in that cycle. Many critics consider it the greatest Beethoven cycle ever recorded (live in studio 8H for 1-8 and live in carnegie Hall for #9).
> 
> Also one cannot forget the glorious Missa Solemnis Toscanini conducted in Carnegie Hall in 1940 with the likes of Zinka Milanov, Jussi Bjorling, Alexander Kipnis and Bruna Castagna. One of the greatest performances of all time!
> 
> ...


Not worthy of an answer...preposterous... Hmmmm.... On the other hand, maybe just a difference of opinion. Yes, I've heard the 1930-1940 Toscanini and the 1950s. And I've encountered opinions of his work just like yours, but I've not dismissed them as unworthy or preposterous but evidence that, obviously, some listeners hear things in Toscanini that I don't. Besides, my statement was not unilateral. What I said was "can so often seem bloodless and lacking in feeling," not "_always_ bloodless and lacking in feeling." I still contend that's the case.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

hreichgott said:


> Good music is enjoyable on its own for sure. I do think knowing more about it, whether biographical or historical, adds another level of understanding. I certainly approach Mozart K. 310 differently now that I know he wrote it the summer his mother died.
> 
> We shouldn't be reductive about biography ("K. 310 is ONLY and DIRECTLY about the death of Mozart's mother!"). Music can just as easily be about experiences from a different time, or about imagined experiences, or about nothing at all, or just about allegro con brio. But, as background, it can be helpful. K. 310 struck me as a tragic piece _prima vista_, and the biographical information helps me understand it more.
> 
> Pieces intended by the composer to make a point beyond the scope of the piece, whether a political point or just making a parody of some other musical style, are best heard in context of those things. Turtles from Carnival of the Animals might be pretty if you didn't know Offenbach's Can-Can, but you'd totally miss the joke.


I think they are Tortoises,Turtles are different just ask one next time you get the chance, also Tortoises are much slower.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Agree that people have enjoyed music in blessed ignorance for many years. However, knowing something about the music (and its context!) can *and does *help them enjoy it more in many cases.


I am enjoying this debate & sprinkling _likes_ on opposing points of view because of their cleverness & humour. But :tiphat: KenOC, this really *does *seem the sensible approach to me too.

I can try - people can try - to enjoy 'just the notes', but even then I am listening to the musician's interpretation of them - dynamics - which for me imports some emotion into the music. (Yeah, yeah - not really there, blah, blah, I'm bringing the emotion, all because of our cultural system... But as with most people, when I hear musical phrases played with intensity or extra slowness, I react emotionally.)

So even if I have no context for a particular piece of music, I have my whole life experience and *the cultural context* of Western Society.

It is *theoretically possible *to listen to music, just the notes, with 'no-context' ears, and just appreciate an aural experience entirely on its own merits. But I don't think it's *actually* possible.

Even you, PetrB - (maybe even *especially* you, :tiphat: PetrB!) on the *rare *occasions when you hear a new piece of music, your brain will be slotting it into contexts of musical style of composition, historical fashions, style of performance, and since your brain enables you to hear, you will *not* be hearing 'just the notes'.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

But then - also - why should we *not* want to know about the context, which enriches so much?

I am not suggesting that a language-based art-form like literature is comparable to music. I am only using this *as a metaphor*. I spent all year once teaching Orwell's 'Animal Farm' to a class, explaining the political and allegorical significance. At the end, one of the girls handed the book back and said, 'It's a nice story, Miss, but - animals can't talk really, can they?'

It is *possible* to read 'Animal Farm' & just enjoy the story, but what would be the point?

It's *possible* to look at a medieval painting of a pelican & just admire the colours, but knowing the allegorical significance of this emblem adds so much more.

It's possible to listen to the tune of a 'Dance of Death' or a funeral march, but without the context of death rituals, which add *even more meaning and enjoyment*, what would be the point?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

KenOC said:


> "The notes, Ma'm, just the notes." I'm afraid this is impossible. Every note we hear comes through our filters of cultural familiarity, established musical conventions, and so forth. So it's never "just the notes" at all.


Not to mention the instruments - the whole point of HIP. The notes we hear depend on the instruments and the technique of the players; that''s why some HIP discs have more on the fiddles and their bows than on the music and its players.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

samurai said:


> I have read accounts of Shostakovich's conceiving of and then composing the *Seventh* well *before* the Battle of Leningrad even took place.


This was quite a controversial point which, afaik, has been settled in recent times. It's based on the writings by the musicologist Solomon Volkov whose "reliability" has been questioned a lot. Being himself strongly anti-Stalin/Soviet, he tried to place most of the composer's works in an anti/Stalin perspective. 
Re. the seventh symphony, he said that Shostakovich had planned the symphony before the German attack and that he had "other enemies of humanity" in mind when he composed the "invasion theme" of the first movement. (Volkov, Testimony). It looks like there are no objective evidences of that.

A very interesting thread anyway. :tiphat: to all contributors so far.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

My stand on context is that it should not be absent, and it cannot be absent from any listening. Without context there cannot be enjoyment. The context can be very personal - not adhering to any widespread reading of the piece. And on the flipside, it could be that your understanding of a piece of music is very close to everybody else's - that does not make the listening unworthwhile. Eg. I like soul music a lot - and there is not much variation in what you can feel while listening to Respect or What's Going On or My Girl (all great songs, highly recommended) but I like them because they are so rigid in what they represent that they attain historical importance.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

...I don't believe that "context" can change the music/composition, but it can certainly enhance the experience of experiencing it!

/ptr


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

ptr said:


> ...I don't believe that "context" can change the music/composition, but it can certainly enhance the experience of experiencing it!
> 
> /ptr


@ ptr, I think you have provided a perfectly concise summation of this interesting topic; it seems to me that both "sides" in this discussion have equally valid--and not in the least mutually exclusive--"arguments" here. 
For me, the bottom line is whether or not a piece of music moves one or reaches him/her on some kind of deeper--and almost ineffable--emotional/spiritual level. This is--again, at least to my way of thinking and judging--one of the criterion by which a work is "good" or not. Further gradations such as "best" or "worst" I shall leave to others with greater discernment (?) than I possess to ascertain.
In my construct then, the internal/emotional context brought by an individual listener to a piece of music is at least as important--if not more so--than the external/historical matrix in which it was conceived.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> View attachment 34684
> I like the OP's point--if you don't enjoy thinking about a composer's life in relation to his/her works, you _may_ not be ready to immerse yourself in Shosty!


If it is a must need to delve into a composer's life in relation to their works, maybe immersing yourself in those works is slipping into something far more shallow than some would care to admit.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I listen to opera without knowing the plot or doing any effort to pay attention to what is being said, I only care for the music itself.


I think that makes sense, just as say listening to a tone poem purely as music - with little or no reference to the literary basis of it - does too. A focus on the music itself is no better or worse than looking at other things, like plot in an opera, the poetry, historical figure or landscape that inspired a tone poem, or generally artistic milieu or cultural or historical contexts of different types of music. That pull between formalism and contextualism is about how we as listeners go about perceiving the music, how we access it. Some people will go one way, other people another. There are many ways to enjoy music, and that's what makes it interesting to read what other people think, how they react to, how they think about music. It's all about diversity.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Sid James said:


> I think that makes sense, just as say listening to a tone poem purely as music - with little or no reference to the literary basis of it - does too. A focus on the music itself is no better or worse than looking at other things, like plot in an opera, the poetry, historical figure or landscape that inspired a tone poem, or generally artistic milieu or cultural or historical contexts of different types of music. That pull between formalism and contextualism is about how we as listeners go about perceiving the music, how we access it. Some people will go one way, other people another. There are many ways to enjoy music, and that's what makes it interesting to read what other people think, how they react to, how they think about music. It's all about diversity.











It_ is _funny how many differerent visuals you can get for the same piece of music. When I hear the choral section from the
Main Title of the MGM Bronislaw Kaper _Mutiny on the Bounty_, I think of a returning, victorious Greek army coming into Athens-- laurels, chariots, and all. Ha. Ha. Ha.--- and not of the Bounty. . . I know, 'sacrilege.'


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

Winterreisender said:


> I think it is better if a work can stand on its own two feet without needing to rely upon an extra-musical interpretation. I wonder how well known Penderecki's _Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima_ would be if he had kept the original title of 8'37''.


Hard to say whether "Threnody" would have grabbed me as much with a more neutral title. But I like some of Penderecki's other "sound mass" pieces such as Polymorphia, so quite possibly.

I have a similar problem with Karel Husa's "Music for Prague, 1968" which may have been my introduction to modernism. In my senior high school year, our concert band rehearsed this and later performed the Toccata and Chorale movement in concert, with expectedly turbulent results! I found the music fascinating and strangely moving even before I was aware of its anti-invasion "program" but I'm not sure I fully understood what was happening until I read Husa's program notes.

I think perhaps more generally that music should be able to stand alone as music, with any extra-musical associations being supplementary but not vital to the musical enjoyment. It may be hard to separate the music from its program. But then, would "Till Eulenspiegel" or "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" be so popular if they weren't, first and foremost, good music?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Whistler Fred said:


> I think perhaps more generally that music should be able to stand alone as music, with any extra-musical associations being supplementary but not vital to the musical enjoyment. It may be hard to separate the music from its program. But then, would "Till Eulenspiegel" or "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" be so popular if they weren't, first and foremost, good music?


No, and the countless examples of forgotten or justly unpopular program music prove this.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Taggart said:


> I've just been doing some digging for the "should be known better thread". Once of the pieces I was looking at was Dowland's Walsingham (a village near where we live). It was surprising how little people knew of the context of the piece or of its relevance to Dowland's life or of the tune itself - also used by Byrd.
> 
> The village contained a shrine to Our Lady, dismantled in 1538, and Dowland like Byrd was a recusant and staunch papist. It may not entirely inform the music, but it all helps to understand the period.


Bull also wrote a set of Walsingham Variations. There's a perforemance by Léon Berben on youtube, a concert in Utrecht last year, which seems to capture some of the spirit of sadness and anger which you would expect from a victim of religious persecution.

It's a really good example of why context matters. Just compare what Léon Berben does with how Siegbert Rampe plays it, or Jan Belder. I think you see how the contextual information has really revealed the best afffekt for the music.

The wikipedia article refers to an article by Bradley Brookshire on the meaning of the variations. Does anyone have it? Can they scan it for me?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Sid James said:


> I think that makes sense, just as say listening to a tone poem purely as music - with little or no reference to the literary basis of it - does too. A focus on the music itself is no better or worse than looking at other things, like plot in an opera, the poetry, historical figure or landscape that inspired a tone poem, or generally artistic milieu or cultural or historical contexts of different types of music. That pull between formalism and contextualism is about how we as listeners go about perceiving the music, how we access it. Some people will go one way, other people another. There are many ways to enjoy music, and that's what makes it interesting to read what other people think, how they react to, how they think about music. It's all about diversity.


If the music wasn't that interesting to you in the first place would you really be bothered looking at anything else connected with the work?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> I think this is, rarity of rarities, an actual discussion.
> 
> I also do not think anyone can successfully tell anyone else 'how to listen.' If you think for a moment, even if they were "telling you how to listen." the efficacy of their telling you how to listen is null -- unless they can, via paranormal possession, take over your brain


Not just how to listen, but to tell someone what to listen to as well.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> View attachment 34831
> 
> 
> It_ is _funny how many differerent visuals you can get for the same piece of music. When I hear the choral section from the
> Main Title of the MGM Bronislaw Kaper _Mutiny on the Bounty_, I think of a returning, victorious Greek army coming into Athens-- laurels, chariots, and all. Ha. Ha. Ha.--- and not of the Bounty. . . I know, 'sacrilege.'


LOL. Without even checking, I'm sure it is just completely like the actual ancient Greek music of the time


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> I am enjoying this debate & sprinkling _likes_ on opposing points of view because of their cleverness & humour. But :tiphat: KenOC, this really *does *seem the sensible approach to me too.
> 
> I can try - people can try - to enjoy 'just the notes', but even then I am listening to the musician's interpretation of them - dynamics - which for me imports some emotion into the music. (Yeah, yeah - not really there, blah, blah, I'm bringing the emotion, all because of our cultural system... But as with most people, when I hear musical phrases played with intensity or extra slowness, I react emotionally.)
> 
> ...


This is, of course, correct. I have myself expressed this viewpoint many times, particularly to make a point against those visions of art as some kind of objective and cosmic thing... the truth is that most of our enjoyment comes from associations based on our cultural and intellectual background. So, the term "extra-musical" is intrinsically meaningless. It's nonsensical to pretend a science-like objectivity in a cultural construct like art. Its richness resides precisely in this cultural quality!.
In this sense, any kind of association is welcome, and probably it will enhance the experience.
_But_, having said that, I think there are different levels of associations. Some of them occur at a more deep level and some others are conscious and superficial associations, like that one about Shostakovich and his fights with the communist regime.
If you ask me, I'm fond of more abstract and actually musical associations (like the use of ethnic music and techniques, visual associations, conceptual associations, etc.), not the political ones. Those associations I mentioned give me more satisfaction.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2014)

Context (and its bedfellow, function), I think, is everything. Having the 'cultural baggage' is what I'm struggling to say. This is why certain artistic forms of expression remain 'closed' or 'meaningless' to me. *Kathakali* music and dance is one example that comes to mind; Japanese *Noh* is another.
This is by no means meant as denigration, I hope that's clear.
But in my own culture there is even now a 'fading red spectrum'(*) that indicates an increasing cultural distance and concomitant lessening of comprehension. I am thinking for example of *Beethoven's* _Missa solemnis_ where some of the intended symbols (flapping angels or cherubs' wings represented by fluttering flutes) are lost on certain listeners without that background, shall we say.

(*) I hope that's the right term. I wanted the term by which we use light (or its spectrum?) to measure the distances between the galaxies and so on. Scientists to the fore!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> I am thinking for example of *Beethoven's* _Missa solemnis_ where some of the intended symbols (flapping angels or cherubs' wings represented by fluttering flutes) are lost on certain listeners without that background, shall we say.


That is a perfect example of 'missing some detail' which was perhaps the association of another era. It is also a perfect example of the fact that without that, the fluttering flutes still have to 'make musical sense' whether the listener knows the precise intended analogy.

If you do not know the Tristan quote and the satiric use of it in Debussy's _Golliwog's Cakewalk,_ as well as what vaudeville and a cakewalk are, as a performer you will not bring the right tempo, style or inflection to that piece from the _Children's Corner Suite_; even if the performer inflects the joke very well, that reference will be missed. There, then, the notes have to also 'speak for themselves' whether the listener knows the reference or not.

My extreme about "just the notes" _is_ reactionary, against all those fairy-tale like conjectures and myths, like Beethoven composed the moonlight sonata for a blind girl to let her know what a moonlit night looked like (LOL, it did not even have the title Moonlight until well after publication, if not even, the composer's death.

All those freer Rorschach Blot-like associations we have are part and parcel of our own psyche, and whatever is embedded in memory stores of our culture, our perceptions. I would think thoe would be enough without pushing a biographical context too far -- but the too far is far too often the norm to which many go, ergo my broken-record / tape loop admonition, "Just the notes."


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

TalkingHead said:


> Context (and its bedfellow, function), I think, is everything. Having the 'cultural baggage' is what I'm struggling to say. This is why certain artistic forms of expression remain 'closed' or 'meaningless' to me. *Kathakali* music and dance is one example that comes to mind; Japanese *Noh* is another.
> This is by no means meant as denigration, I hope that's clear.
> But in my own culture there is even now a 'fading red spectrum'(*) that indicates an increasing cultural distance and concomitant lessening of comprehension. I am thinking for example of *Beethoven's* _Missa solemnis_ where some of the intended symbols (flapping angels or cherubs' wings represented by fluttering flutes) are lost on certain listeners without that background, shall we say.
> 
> (*) I hope that's the right term. I wanted the term by which we use light (or its spectrum?) to measure the distances between the galaxies and so on. Scientists to the fore!


Your scientific analogy is creative, but the wording needs more work. Now, the science rant!: "Light" is actually an electromagnetic wave (blame your compatriot Maxwell!). Most light (like the white sun light) we see is actually a superposition of a lot of different waves of different frequencies. When white light is decomposed in its components (in this case, all the colours of the rainbow), we call that a spectral decomposition, and the range of the different frequencies the spectrum. 
The red light has a lower frequency than the blue light.
The metric expansion of the universe causes a decrease in the frequency of the emitted light as it travels long distances. This affects all the different frequencies. Then, we say that the spectrum is being "shifted to the red".


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2014)

Thank you Aleazk, that was the term I wanted - red-shifted light!


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2014)

Just a question if I may, Aleazk about your name: Alea as in aléa? As in *alea*tory? Or am I barking completely up the wrong tree?


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2014)

PetrB said:


> That is a perfect example of 'missing some detail' which was perhaps the association of another era. It is also a perfect example of the fact that without that, the fluttering flutes still have to 'make musical sense' whether the listener knows the precise intended analogy. [...]


Yes, that is quite so. Its purely musical 'function' has not been eroded.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2014)

aleazk said:


> Your scientific analogy is creative, but the wording needs more work. Now, the science rant!: "Light" is actually an electromagnetic wave (blame your compatriot *Maxwell*!) [...]


What, Peter *Maxwell* Davies? I knew it, composers are the best at everything!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> LOL. Without even checking, I'm sure it is just completely like the actual ancient Greek music of the time


Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . Pre-_CISE_-ly. I don't care if art is true; I do care if it's _good_. I like H.L. Mencken's musing on the matter when he said, "Is Carlyle's 'Frederick' true? Who cares? As well ask if hte Parthenon is true, or the C Minor Symphony, or 'Wiener Blut.'


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> Just a question if I may, Aleazk about your name: Alea as in aléa? As in *alea*tory? Or am I barking completely up the wrong tree?


Aleazk has kindly replied to my query via PM. I will not be divulging the etymology of his name.

However, for a suitable amount of cash I will be happy to reveal that when he was ......... in ........., his history teacher, a monster known for his ......... and ........ with boys and other ......... once approached him and committed ........... . As a result of this heinous act of ........ with ....... he chose to name himself ........... . Realizing this would be too upsetting a name to be used on a public forum, he decided instead to apply an alggerhyth.. er, an algabritme, ...er, an algorithm (yes!) procedure whereby he could render his real name in code.

But as I said, I won't be revealing his real name, right, John?
Oops.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

TalkingHead said:


> Context (and its bedfellow, function), I think, is everything. Having the 'cultural baggage' is what I'm struggling to say. This is why certain artistic forms of expression remain 'closed' or 'meaningless' to me. *Kathakali* music and dance is one example that comes to mind; Japanese *Noh* is another.
> This is by no means meant as denigration, I hope that's clear.
> But in my own culture there is even now a 'fading red spectrum'(*) that indicates an increasing cultural distance and concomitant lessening of comprehension.


How much is this cultural baggage potentially less important should you experience and so get into the world of these other cultural works far more? I'm not saying some extra information wouldn't be useful in some circumstances, but repeated experience to the works within a new style to someone makes the unfamiliar more familiar eventually. Music in particular often has more abstract meaning, so once you get used to what the music is doing it may become more enjoyable and easier to work out whether you are hearing superior creativity or not. This goes for modern styles of Western culture that some people have just as much problem with as well.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Excuse me in advance for some mundane observations about the OP:



Aurelian said:


> While listening to the 2nd movement of Shostakovich's 1st Violin Concerto, my mother asked me how I could stand it. When I explained it was a portrayal of Stalin, she understood what the music "said" - although she does not choose to listen to it.


Where did you get this portrayal of Stalin idea? There is no credible source for this, so it likely comes from Ian MacDonald (_The New Shostakovich_), who thinks every instance of some simple two or three note rhythmic figure means Stalin. Richard Taruskin makes short work of this foolishness in his "Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth: Interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony." (In Shostakovich Studies, ed. David Fanning, Cambridge University Press (1995): 17-53.) This article, by the way, is readily understandable to amateur musicians and essential reading for anyone interested in the political context of Shostakovich's music.

More important, the scherzo of the First Violin Concerto is a playful, mercuric, pretty innocuous movement. If she hates that one, for God's sake, make sure she doesn't hear the one from the Tenth Symphony or the Tenth Quartet!



Aurelian said:


> Were there times when you liked, or at least better tolerated, a piece of music when you learned the historical or biographical context?


If I don't like a piece on its own merits, it is unlikely history or biography is going to sway me.

Re: The first movement of Beethoven's _Eroica_: It is not just _Allegro con brio_. It was one of Beethoven's first fully successful experiments with a new approach to sonata form. In a few words, the technique is to develop an opposition of elements within the principal theme over the length of the movement, systematically tying the fortunes of one element to a downturn in those of the other. The result is a sense of quasi-plottedness that has sent critics scurrying for extramusical associations since it was composed. Its supposed heroes have included Napoleon, Hector, Prometheus and a number of other entities concrete and abstract. It is quite likely Beethoven had some programmatic idea in mind. But the psychological coherence of its thematic drama stands on its own in abstract terms without any extramusical subject matter.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> There is no credible source for this, so it likely comes from Ian MacDonald (_The New Shostakovich_), who thinks every instance of some simple two or three note rhythmic figure means Stalin.


:lol: So nasty!

By the way, for anyone interested in Shosty's 8th SQ (and I know there are a few around here), I'd recommend the book on it by David Fanning, who makes a brief appearance in EdwardBast's post. I'm looking forward to reading his book on Nielsen's 5th Symphony when I have the opportunity.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> :lol: So nasty!
> 
> By the way, for anyone interested in Shosty's 8th SQ (and I know there are a few around here), I'd recommend the book on it by David Fanning, who makes a brief appearance in EdwardBast's post. I'm looking forward to reading his book on Nielsen's 5th Symphony when I have the opportunity.


I shouldn't have used the word "nonsense," and have edited my post. I meant no disrespect to Aurelian in either case, only to the source of the Stalin interpretation - which I am pretty sure I have correctly identified.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I shouldn't have used the word "nonsense," and have edited my post. I meant no disrespect to Aurelian in either case, only to the source of the Stalin interpretation - which I am pretty sure I have correctly identified.


My amusement was for the comment about MacDonald's book, and I didn't think you had any other target.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Where did you get this portrayal of Stalin idea? There is no credible source for this...


I suspect it's an accidental confusion with the 2nd movement of the 10th Symphony, which everybody seems to say is a "portrait of Stalin." I generally don't care for this type of speculation, but given what happens in the last movement of the symphony, it seems *almost* convincing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2014)

starry said:


> [...]How much is this cultural baggage potentially less important should you experience and so get into the world of these other cultural works far more? I'm not saying some extra information wouldn't be useful in some circumstances, but repeated experience to the works within a new style to someone makes the unfamiliar more familiar eventually. [...]


Yes, I think you're right, that repeated listenings/exposure will certainly help to get more familiar with musics from other cultures, to take away some of that gloss of the 'exotic'. But there will still be a whole network of 'references' that will be lost on me.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Also sometimes there can be more connections than we might initially think between art from different cultures.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

TalkingHead said:


> Aleazk has kindly replied to my query via PM. I will not be divulging the etymology of his name.
> 
> However, for a suitable amount of cash I will be happy to reveal that when he was ......... in ........., his history teacher, a monster known for his ......... and ........ with boys and other ......... once approached him and committed ........... . As a result of this heinous act of ........ with ....... he chose to name himself ........... . Realizing this would be too upsetting a name to be used on a public forum, he decided instead to apply an alggerhyth.. er, an algabritme, ...er, an algorithm (yes!) procedure whereby he could render his real name in code.
> 
> ...


Yes, TH, I'm Batman!... or maybe this guy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Yes, TH, I'm Batman!... or maybe this guy.


Gasp! You are Val Kilmer?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I suspect it's an accidental confusion with the 2nd movement of the 10th Symphony, which everybody seems to say is a "portrait of Stalin." I generally don't care for this type of speculation, but given what happens in the last movement of the symphony, it seems *almost* convincing.


Thanks Ken. I considered that possibility. And despite Volkov's having been largely discredited, I agree that the interpretation of the Tenth rings truish. There is a good reason for this; The overall structure mimics Beethoven's Fifth: In both cases, the theme of the scherzo derives from the symphony's opening notes and returns to threaten in the finale. In Beethoven's Fifth the recap negates it, in the Shosatkovich it is crushed by Shostakovich's signature motive. In both symphonies the scherzo theme is an antagonistic force, derived from the darkest image from the beginning of the work and threatening to overturn an uplifting (more or less) conclusion. If one buys into Volkov's claim that the symphony is "about Stalin and the Stalin years," then connecting the scherzo with Stalin is obvious. This, I think, is why it seems convincing. But this is a two-edged sword. For anyone who knows his history and grasps the connection between the Shostakovich and the Beethoven, as Volkov certainly did, manufacturing the whole thing would be child's play. It would just require putting a few sentences into the composer's mouth. Since the consensus is that _Testimony_ is at least partially fraudulent, and that even what is true in it is often second or third hand gossip, rather than the actual words of the composer, this would surprise no one.

Strangely enough, and though most sources have overlooked it, there is a scrap of independent confirmation of the Volkov interpretation. Galina Vishnevskaya, the renowned soprano and a close friend of the composer, wrote (I'm paraphrasing, the quote is on page 222-23 of her autobiography, but I don't own it) that the Tenth was Shostakovich's indictment of the tyrant to which he affixed his signature.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

starry said:


> If the music wasn't that interesting to you in the first place would you really be bothered looking at anything else connected with the work?


Whether a piece of music is interesting to me or not is not the issue here. Its about different ways of appreciating music. Some listeners go the contextual route, others the formalistic, but I think its fair to say no-one (or not many?) are at either extreme. Keep in mind that these days I tend to listen to music by major composers, so its unlikely their music hasn't got merit apart from any kinds of add-ons. Whether a person wants to just listen or go further and look at the history of the work and other associated things, it is entirely up to him or her. For some people, context is everything, for others its more about the music itself.

However, the "white cube" view promulgated by Modernism, that view of art as being wholly separate from things outside the gallery or concert hall, I don't agree with that. To me, understanding music and things like visual art is about relationships, connections, contrasts. Without knowing the context, one doesn't know how to make these links. So I question whether, truly, a piece of art can stand on its own? I doubt that, its kind of a dichotomy or syllogism to see art in that way, but each to his own! I'm not here to convince you or anyone that I am right and you are wrong. Its up to the individual listener or consumer of art to do their own thing, do what works for them to access, perceive and appreciate music however they wish.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Sid James said:


> To me, understanding music and things like visual art is about relationships, connections, contrasts. Without knowing the context, one doesn't know how to make these links.


I think you can make links without knowing loads of context. Listening to more music, viewing more works of art can create links in your mind too, directly between the art. Not that I'm saying knowing more context is bad, it can obviously be good in some instances. Then again, too much and maybe it can potentially obscure the very art you want to think about too, perhaps bring in some irrelevances, so some caution is needed.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

starry said:


> I think you can make links without knowing loads of context. Listening to more music, viewing more works of art can create links in your mind too, directly between the art...


I actually agree with that. Even if one listens to say Beethoven, one can hear his indebtedness to late Haydn and Mozart, purely on a formal level. I got to know Haydn after Beethoven, early on in my forays into classical music, and straight away I noticed a similarity. So this is true, however I think reading about the links just deepens one's appreciation, or potentially can do so.



> ...Not that I'm saying knowing more context is bad, it can obviously be good in some instances. Then again, too much and maybe it can potentially obscure the very art you want to think about too, perhaps bring in some irrelevances, so some caution is needed.


Yes there is the 'too much information' type factor. A little info can go a long way, but too much can be a burden and basically, overkill. Most often I go to find more information about a piece of music if something is puzzling me about it, if I need to know some more about it, or if I want to check whether a hunch I have about it is on the right track or not.

Speaking to that, I will bring your response a couple of days ago on my blog thread on TC here, since its the same issue:



starry said:


> Obviously I was making a generalisation like we often do on a forum, there are always some exceptions somewhere. In general though I think it helps if a piece can stand on it's own two feet rather than needing propping up.
> 
> ...There's just a whole load of assumptions that can crop up on this kind of subject and maybe that's why people involved with music feel they have to address it when they speak. Ultimately of course all that matters is whether the music is imaginative and creative on its own terms...


What I said about checking hunches, or you can call them assumptions, this is one reason why I like to read up on things I am listening to. Again, early on in my classical music journey, the first work I heard by Shostakovich was his Symphony #10. That tape had no liner notes come with it, but after listening to it then I felt that somehow the happy finale was out of place, it was kind of like an appendage to the whole thing, that it was fake. Later on, reading about the work and all the stuff about his motto, DSCH (and some more info about it in recent years, only decades later did I learn about how Shostakovich also encrypted the name of a student of his into the slow movement, Elmira (Nazirova) who was a confidant to him in the dark years of Stalinism, it's played by the french horn). So my hunch was correct in that case, and I was able to build on my experience with the music by getting more info about it.

But yes, music itself is the reference point, there is no use talking of the links between Beethoven and Haydn or Mozart, or about mottos in Shostakovich's music without actually hearing the music. You have to experience the music, that is the point, other things are adding to the experience with further knowledge. It can more finely tune or enhance your perception, but perception has to be there in the first place, through listening.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

How much music though has topical references within the notes? Most music is mainly written for an anonymous listener who will never know that much about the composer's life.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I haven't managed to read this entire thread yet so forgive me if this has been brought up, but certain elements of music judging within classical music seem entirely dependent upon context. For example if one hears a great piece of Romantic music and then finds out it was composed in the 19th century, it can possibly be considered a "great" piece of music. If one hears the _exact same piece of music_ but finds out the piece was composed in the 21st century, it is then often labelled as largely worthless pastiche. This type of context seems most important in the Western Classical tradition, and is one of the most fundamental ways a piece of music is judged. No piece of music in this tradition seems to be able to escape this type of context, which leads to composers striving to be more and more innovative.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

tdc said:


> I haven't managed to read this entire thread yet so forgive me if this has been brought up, but certain elements of music judging within classical music seem entirely dependent upon context. For example if one hears a great piece of Romantic music and then finds out it was composed in the 19th century, it can possibly be considered a "great" piece of music. If one hears the _exact same piece of music_ but finds out the piece was composed in the 21st century, it is then often labelled as largely worthless pastiche. This type of context seems most important in the Western Classical tradition, and is one of the most fundamental ways a piece of music is judged. No piece of music in this tradition seems to be able to escape this type of context, which leads to composers striving to be more and more innovative.


To add to this it seems as though in some ways classical music is just as much about exploration and even competition as it is about just the pure instinctive response or aesthetic enjoyment of the music - which doesn't seem to exist without this context.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

starry said:


> How much music though has topical references within the notes? * Most music is mainly written for an anonymous listener* who will never know that much about the composer's life.


I am not quite sure of that. Obviously all composers are more than happy if someone can listen to and appreciate/discuss their works, but imo music, considered as an "art" and not just a "type of communication medium", is a free and personal creation, written for anybody else but the composer's will.

Anyway this could be a very interesting topic for a new thread...


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

^^^^ Ready to face this objection: the same applies for all pre-romantic works where actually almost all "art" music was "commissioned" by the composer's "employer".


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

tdc said:


> For example if one hears a great piece of Romantic music and then finds out it was composed in the 19th century, it can possibly be considered a "great" piece of music. If one hears the _exact same piece of music_ but finds out the piece was composed in the 21st century, it is then often labelled as largely worthless pastiche.


Do you have an example? I've heard of this phenomenon before but I'm not aware of examples where the recently written piece stands up next to good examples of type and style from the time. Was Addinsell's Warsaw Concerto great? Maybe if it had been filled out to the length of a proper concerto?

I think GioCar nearly aligns with my understanding about the intention of composition. I would prefer to say that composers compose not so much to reach an audience as to write something they, the composer, thinks will sound great


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

GioCar said:


> I am not quite sure of that. Obviously all composers are more than happy if someone can listen to and appreciate/discuss their works, but imo music, considered as an "art" and not just a "type of communication medium", is a free and personal creation, written for anybody else but the composer's will.
> 
> Anyway this could be a very interesting topic for a new thread...


They aren't just more than happy, they write to please performers and listeners so that they can continue being full time composers. Obviously, it goes without saying, that they like to please themselves wherever possible too, but they have to write music which pleases beyond that. Even in the sense that it should stand out among their peers for their own personal satisfaction. Something completely esoteric would largely fail at this.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

starry said:


> They aren't just more than happy, they write to please performers and listeners so that they can continue being full time composers. Obviously, it goes without saying, that they like to please themselves wherever possible too, but they have to write music which pleases beyond that. Even in the sense that it should stand out among their peers for their own personal satisfaction. Something completely esoteric would largely fail at this.


Uhm... Isn't it an attitude mostly for pop-music composers? or maybe for Giovanni Allevi ?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> I haven't managed to read this entire thread yet so forgive me if this has been brought up, but certain elements of music judging within classical music seem entirely dependent upon context. For example if one hears a great piece of Romantic music and then finds out it was composed in the 19th century, it can possibly be considered a "great" piece of music. If one hears the _exact same piece of music_ but finds out the piece was composed in the 21st century, it is then often labelled as largely worthless pastiche.


What you propose is nigh to impossible, the point that the contemporary composer cannot genuinely have the personal psyche or context of the earlier period, and that is why a 'replicate' work from a later era is more than virtually impossible to make. This is a dance on the head of a pin argument, but it is truly the case (_as in "...you can't go home again")_ and it is what defines the difference between not original, but true, from the false which is pastiche.

There can be nothing directly genuine about consciously writing exactly within the style of another earlier era, and that is why those more replicate and student-like model pieces are regarded as student work / model pieces.

Good arguments for the above are all those successful retro-conservative composers whose works are admired: Brahms, Rachmaninov, Sibelius and the like. They are still, somehow, distinctly from their time, and distinctly 'not music sounding like that of another.'


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

dgee said:


> Do you have an example? I've heard of this phenomenon before but I'm not aware of examples where the recently written piece stands up next to good examples of type and style from the time. Was Addinsell's Warsaw Concerto great? Maybe if it had been filled out to the length of a proper concerto?


Well I think for one thing examples are scarce because there is less incentive for contemporary composers to compose such a piece outside of an exercise. But one example would be Penderecki's neo-romantic symphonies. Had they been written in the 19th century they surely could be considered ahead of their time and therefore "great" to some extent, yet they are certainly controversial works today, and are often criticized for being written in a more conservative style. Yes, there are plenty of works from the 19th century I consider better than Penderecki's symphonies, but I didn't say the hypothetical work was necessarily the best, but that it would likely be considered "great".


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> What you propose is nigh to impossible, the point that the contemporary composer cannot genuinely have the personal psyche or context of the earlier period, and that is why a 'replicate' work from a later era is more than virtually impossible to make. This is a dance on the head of a pin argument, but it is truly the case (_as in "...you can't go home again")_ and it is what defines the difference between not original, but true, from the false which is pastiche.
> 
> There can be nothing directly genuine about consciously writing exactly within the style of another earlier era, and that is why those more replicate and student-like model pieces are regarded as student work / model pieces.
> 
> Good arguments for the above are all those successful retro-conservative composers whose works are admired: Brahms, Rachmaninov, Sibelius and the like. They are still, somehow, distinctly from their time, and distinctly 'not music sounding like that of another.'


Yes I largely agree with this, but my point is that context makes a difference in how you view those composers. If you just listened to some Sibelius and Brahms and Rachmaninov without knowing what era they were from you would likely have a very different perspective on their music, how would you know who was more innovative? You could only judge the music on other factors.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I think we have to seperate the actual listening experience from how we think about the music when not listening. Knowing about context may enhance our thoughts and opinions of the music, but ultimately cannot enhance the listening experience itself. That's what I believe. 
If I like a piece and I've listened to it a hundred times, while not knowing anything about its context, I'm pretty sure I can have as much of a satisfying listening experience as someone who knows everything about the piece there is to know.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> Yes I agree with this, but my point is that context makes a difference in how you view those composers. If you just listened to some Sibelius and Brahms and Rachmaninov without knowing what era they were from you would likely have a very different perspective on their music, how would you know who was more innovative? You could only judge the music on other factors.


You are missing a key point with those who often say, as you did, about the exact same piece from one century instead having been written in a later century. None of the 'neoromantic' works of Penderecki set out to sound exactly like Brahms, which is basically what you set up by saying exact same piece but written in a later century... that just does not happen except for highly specific pastiche.

Controversy over Penderecki 'going' neoromantic after being thought of as an arch modernist is no more controversial than the controversy when Stravinsky did a volte-face and composed Pulcinella after his earlier 'wild' Russian works, and then having 'gone neoclassical' after that


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> Yes I largely agree with this, but my point is that context makes a difference in how you view those composers. If you just listened to some Sibelius and Brahms and Rachmaninov without knowing what era they were from you would likely have a very different perspective on their music, how would you know who was more innovative? You could only judge the music on other factors.


innovation is a tiny part part of the equation if you are speaking of retro-conservative composers, or those who 'go neo-retro.' What is important is that you would not, likely, think Sibelius wrote too much earlier than when he did, and that it doesn't sound like "newly discovered music written by a contemporary of Brahms."

Richard Addinsell's Warsaw Concerto was written because the film director wanted a Rachmaninov piano concerto (wholly contemporary at the time the film was being made) but could not afford the royalties for the Rachmaninov. _Ergo, the commissioned Addinsell film score piece is in reality a placebo, and worth about exactly what you would pay for a placebo vs. the real thing._


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> You are missing a key point with those who often say, as you did, about the exact same piece from one century instead having been written in a later century. None of the 'neoromantic' works of Penderecki set out to sound exactly like Brahms, which is basically what you set up by saying exact same piece but written in a later century... that just does not happen except for highly specific pastiche.
> 
> Controversy over Penderecki 'going' neoromantic after being thought of as an arch modernist is no more controversial than the controversy when Stravinsky did a volte-face and composed Pulcinella after his earlier 'wild' Russian works, and then having 'gone neoclassical' after that


No, what I said could easily happen, but not in the way you are suggesting. If someone listened to Mahler's symphonies and Penderecki's symphonies and did not know what composer was from what era, or was given the impression Penderecki's works were from the 19th century - it would drastically effect their view of the music. Yet if they listen to the _exact same piece_ given the context of era or time (an extra musical factor), there is a big difference in perspective though the music itself has not changed. I think it is fair to say this extra musical factor or element of "context" has a major effect on perspectives in classical music.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

DeepR said:


> I think we have to seperate the actual listening experience from how we think about the music when not listening. Knowing about context may enhance our thoughts and opinions of the music, but ultimately cannot enhance the listening experience itself. That's what I believe.
> If I like a piece and I've listened to it a hundred times, while not knowing anything about its context, I'm pretty sure I can have as much of a satisfying listening experience as someone who knows everything about the piece there is to know.


Who knows, someone who's lived under a rock, who's never heard (classical) music before, or even someone who's been deaf before, may eventually have a similarly satisfying listening experience with the same piece of music. 
So in that sense, I think music and all art should stand on its own and make a direct connection to its audience. 
If art requires knowledge of context before you can make anything of it, I think it's pretentious mumbo jumbo.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

GioCar said:


> Anyway this could be a very interesting topic for a new thread...


I'm sure this has been fully discussed here before, many thinking composers do not live in some Romantic isolation. The comparison to modern day pop music is irrelevant, every music has its market and niche however small or big.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2014)

If the music is "absolute" (like the piece referred to in the OP), it does not affect my judgement to learn about its historical or biographical context. I am generally not interested in political issues of any kind that supposedly affect music, so I would not go to any trouble to find out what might lurk beneath the surface of any such work.

Things are somewhat different if the piece in question is programmatic. I like to find out about the source of inspiration and if I reckon the music matches the "program" well (provided it is not political) I might occasionally be inclined to be more favourable towards it. 

For instance, there might be some musical peculiarities in the work that may not be fully apparent without knowing about the program that inspired it, but once such things are known it may be possible to develop a more sympathetic ear. For me this is the case with some of the symphonic poems of Liszt, Strauss, and Dvorak.

I am also of the opinion that one's appreciation of liturgical and sacred music is enhanced by knowing something about (I stress, "knowing", not "believing") the religious aspects that relate to that work. This almost seems self-evident to me, and is no different from suggesting that one's appreciation of, say, a historical opera, like Handel's Giulio Cesare in Egitto may be enhanced if you know about the relevant history concerning those events.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> No, what I said could easily happen, but not in the way you are suggesting. If someone listened to Mahler's symphonies and Penderecki's symphonies and did not know what composer was from what era, or was given the impression Penderecki's works were from the 19th century - it would drastically effect their view of the music. Yet if they listen to the _exact same piece_ given the context of era or time (an extra musical factor), there is a big difference in perspective though the music itself has not changed. I think it is fair to say this extra musical factor or element of "context" has a major effect on perspectives in classical music.


We will continue to disagree, then.

I find it difficult to imagine that a listener without 'book learning' but with some familiarity via listening would not notice some distinction between such a piece, perhaps without knowing exactly what that is or being able to articulate it, but at least something would 'let them know.'

This has something to do with how the cleverest of forgeries of 'original' old work are eventually uncovered -- always something about the sentiment and viewpoint, i.e. what is from the composer and within the work itself tells us that Pendercki piece is not at all from the same time or place as Mahler.

It is near impossible for me to get out of my context of being forever trained and full-time involved with music, though, so perhaps another without that sort of experience could quite readily get confused, and think of the work(s) differently, confusing when it was thought they were written, i.e. all those aspects you mentioned which I cannot imagine not being pretty apparent and so have that disagreement


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

As I have said elsewhere, I believe that music communicates musical - and _only_ musical - meaning. That is to say, the meaning cannot be expressed in words, nor can something with a meaning expressible in words be music, it is simply incongruous with reality. This idea of Shostakovich painting a portrait of Stalin in a violin concerto, no matter how much he or anyone else bought or buys into it, is a nonsense, plain and simple.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Who knows, someone who's lived under a rock, who's never heard (classical) music before, or even someone who's been deaf before, may eventually have a similarly satisfying listening experience with the same piece of music.
> So in that sense, I think music and all art should stand on its own and make a direct connection to its audience.
> If art requires knowledge of context before you can make anything of it, I think it's pretentious mumbo jumbo.


We are encumbered, de facto, with some notion of music, its various 'sounds likes' etc. BUT, my advocating "Just the notes, Ma'am" (a variant of "Just the facts, Ma'am.") when listening is very much to your point. The music, without knowing anythng about it at all, _is an entity_ which _ideally_ is like as meeting something completely new to you, and that entity has to be received / perceived on its face value and nothing else.

As Crudblud said, the rest of all the contextual stuff is just nonsense, though people will and do attach all sorts of literally extra musical associations to a mere piece of music.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

Reading some of these comments gives me the impression that some seem to feel that knowing the context of a piece almost _detracts_ from their appreciation of the piece.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Reading some of these comments gives me the impression that some seem to feel that knowing the context of a piece almost _detracts_ from their appreciation of the piece.


More like a parallel universe, it is there, but has no direct effect on the universe of the piece or its matter or behavior.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Reading some of these comments gives me the impression that some seem to feel that knowing the context of a piece almost _detracts_ from their appreciation of the piece.


For me it can go either way; If I know the 'background' before hearing the music though, I'll never know. The music of Prokofieff seems immune to this contamination. I think that is because my understanding of his mindset (he was an Ambrose Bierce without the bitterness) was established with his early works, and I detect it in everything after that - except in some interpretations of the 5th Symphony.

I heard the Symphonie Fantastique before knowing the background, and it works fine either way. Same deal with Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony; pathetique is just that.

What I'm trying to say is I want the chance to hear the music without the context _*first*_. The context has, too many times, been a distraction - because it stimulates cogitation. I've been trying to quit.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> As I have said elsewhere, I believe that music communicates musical - and _only_ musical - meaning. That is to say, the meaning cannot be expressed in words, nor can something with a meaning expressible in words be music, it is simply incongruous with reality. This idea of Shostakovich painting a portrait of Stalin in a violin concerto, no matter how much he or anyone else bought or buys into it, is a nonsense, plain and simple.


Maybe specific meanings of musical compositions are a matter of debate, but I believe that the general "style" or "idiom" in which a musical composition was written can reflect some tendencies of the society of which the composer, being a human being, was or is a part of. Take for example the current times - there's no single framework anymore which is used to create music. Synthesis of styles, pastiches, neo styles etc. might be an indication of a world where flow of information and its use is not restricted anymore. Where variety is virtue. And where the banal word "globalization" seems to be appropriate. From composers using only the folklore motives of their homeland, composers went to incorporate the folklore of distant cultures. Is the influence of eastern music on composers such as Debussy is a mere coincidence with the French colonization of Vietnam at the end of the 19th century? Maybe there's no specific meaning in music, but it's never without a context.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I thought Debussy heard some gamelan ensemble at one of the great exhibitions of the period (if I remember rightly). Not sure that makes his music Eastern however, it simply gave him some ideas, and his music works (or doesn't) based on the notes in his works.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

There MUST be context! Even if it is absolute music, at least some background on the music itself, and the composer, gives us context. Art does not exist in a vacuum.
Of course, there are "givens..."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

tdc said:


> No, what I said could easily happen, but not in the way you are suggesting. If someone listened to Mahler's symphonies and Penderecki's symphonies and did not know what composer was from what era, or was given the impression Penderecki's works were from the 19th century - it would drastically effect their view of the music. Yet if they listen to the _exact same piece_ given the context of era or time (an extra musical factor), there is a big difference in perspective though the music itself has not changed. I think it is fair to say this extra musical factor or element of "context" has a major effect on perspectives in classical music.


I don't know if it would really affect my view of the music all that much. I mean, Penderecki is still pretty dull either way...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I don't know if it would really affect my view of the music all that much. I mean, Penderecki is still pretty dull either way...


..LOL, I agree, but 







......._Meow!_


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> There MUST be context! Even if it is absolute music, at least some background on the music itself, and the composer, gives us context. Art does not exist in a vacuum.
> Of course, there are "givens..."


That's what I think, and I must say as an aside to tdc and others on this forum on the more contextualist leaning camp, we are clearly in a minority here.

In terms of music, its similar in visual art, contextual views are the more recent way of looking at things. As I have noted, the old decontextualised view (Stravinsky's famous adage that music is about nothing but itself, a view that many have in a way paraphrased here) its the classic Modernist line, and I see it as problematic to say the least. But to be more objective, both are equally valid ways of approaching art, its just that for me the contextual approach has worked very well.

In visual art, the art gallery that made the contextualist view more legitimised is the Quay d'Orsay in Paris. There you have paintings and sculptures side by side with industrial arts and crafts, photographs of the period, as well as panels explaining historical context, all housed in a heritage railway station:










Compare this with the Modernist cube that is the Whitney Museum in New York, devoid of any context, the viewer is just confronted with the art, that's it. If you know art it may be fine, but if you don't, you are in a way an outsider there:










These examples are at extremes in a way, and not directly related, since the Orsay is 19th and early 20th century art, the Whitney is contemporary art. However its the underlying practice of curatorship that I am comparing. One is the art plus context, the other is just the art. Do you see these two approaches, the contrast in theory (and underlying ideology)? The Orsay is more the Post-Modern type view, teh Whitney is the classic Stravinsky type Modernist view of art curatorship. The Orsay approach has been gaining strength since the 1980's, even though the Modernist approach still exists.

So I see context as giving more access, more information to appreciate the work of art, and do it more quickly. I can view an artwork or listen to a piece of music, but context gives me something extra to hang onto. It explains things a bit, provides a scaffold or guide for me to get into it quicker. It doesn't necessarily mean dumbing down or spoonfeeding the consumer of the artwork.

In terms of concerts of classical, the contextual approach has been happing too. At a number of concerts I've attended, the conductor talks a bit about the pieces, sometimes the composer is interviewed or say a few sentences, if its a premiere. This again acts as a guide, or potentially does. Its similar to guides in art galleries, either in person or an audio file downloadable as an app on your iphone (now replacing the old way with walkmans and headphones). After the tour you are free to look at the artworks as you wish, it basically gives you a quick run down as to things like what to look for in the image, its history, or what was going on in the artist's life at the time. Similar with music, some groups are now providing a more contextualised approach.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Of course you can compare art to other kinds of art, I probably said that before, though you don't have to go to a museum to do that. 

There's nothing wrong with getting more context for something you like and you are actually able to obtain information on. The problem is one thing....

Time.

People would mainly prefer to spend the time listening to more music/looking at more art etc than spending longer searching for more information and then sifting through that to work out what is relevant.

You can pick up things randomly along the way anyway, when you watch a documentary or read some interesting non-fiction. But specifically researching all the time on works and composers would take up a lot of time.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> There MUST be context! Even if it is absolute music, at least some background on the music itself, and the composer, gives us context. Art does not exist in a vacuum.
> Of course, there are "givens..."


Yes, there is always context, but again, it's the listener's choice to learn about context. The music should "work" on its own without knowledge of context, whatever that may be (anything outside the music itself). That's all some of us are saying. 
The same way you can appreciate nature without reading anything about it.
It's interesting that some think this is some kind of elitist view, while I think it's the other way around. It's elitist to think that knowledge of context is essential to be able to fully appreciate music (let's stick to music).
And let me ask this: What do you think the composers themselves would prefer? I think they would want their music to work even for a listener who is completely oblivious to who the composer is, when the piece was made, what inspired the piece, what composing techniques were used etc. Isn't that the ultimate goal of their music?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> The music should "work" on its own without knowledge of context, whatever that may be (anything outside the music itself). That's all some of us are saying.
> The same way you can appreciate nature without reading anything about it.
> It's interesting that some think this is some kind of elitist view, while I think it's the other way around. It's elitist to think that knowledge of context is essential to be able to fully appreciate music (let's stick to music).
> And let me ask this: What do you think the composer's themselves would prefer? I think they would want their music to work even for a listener who is completely oblivious to who the composer is, when the piece was made, what inspired the piece, what composing techniques were used etc. Isn't that the ultimate goal of their music?


LOL, I so agree with that! But just think of the _if_ of undoing all the speculations, research and academic and other writings on the contextual and what a good number of people would be out of business and on the dole -- and another lot of folk would be deprived of a major outlet which allowed them to indiirectly speak about themselves.

(The intriguing question with that 'what if, all that was gone' is what would be the next abstract thing they would all seize upon to 'contextualize?')


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Winterreisender said:


> I think it is better if a work can stand on its own two feet without needing to rely upon an extra-musical interpretation. I wonder how well known Penderecki's _Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima_ would be if he had kept the original title of 8'37''.


Agree entirely, especially those conceptual avant-garde pieces that need philosophical bla-bla to support it.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Agree entirely, especially those conceptual avant-garde pieces that need philosophical bla-bla to support it.


Hahahaha you guys - the whole point of conceptual art is the philosophical "blablabla". That's why it's called conceptual - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art

So while you may not like it - at least you get the point! lolz


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> Hahahaha you guys - the whole point of conceptual art is the philosophical "blablabla". That's why it's called conceptual - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art
> 
> So while you may not like it - at least you get the point! lolz


It seems that no matter what approach you take, some others will be hidebound determined _to not get it_ -- and then they may be proud of not getting it and make that a form of high distinction, rather like a qualification for yet another members only elitist club (because some people will glamorize just about anything


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DeepR said:


> Yes, there is always context, but again, it's the listener's choice to learn about context. The music should "work" on its own without knowledge of context, whatever that may be (anything outside the music itself). That's all some of us are saying.
> The same way you can appreciate nature without reading anything about it.
> It's interesting that some think this is some kind of elitist view, while I think it's the other way around. It's elitist to think that knowledge of context is essential to be able to fully appreciate music (let's stick to music).
> And let me ask this: What do you think the composers themselves would prefer? I think they would want their music to work even for a listener who is completely oblivious to who the composer is, when the piece was made, what inspired the piece, what composing techniques were used etc. Isn't that the ultimate goal of their music?


I humbly agree.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> LOL, I so agree with that! But just think of the _if_ of undoing all the speculations, research and academic and other writings on the contextual and what a good number of people would be out of business and on the dole -- and another lot of folk would be deprived of a major outlet which allowed them to indiirectly speak about themselves.
> 
> (The intriguing question with that 'what if, all that was gone' is what would be the next abstract thing they would all seize upon to 'contextualize?')


Not really. I look at it as a completely separate pursuit which can be enjoyable for its own sake but isn't needed for the fundamental music appreciation. In the 90s I read a lot about film, I had less films to see and that helped take up the slack for my burgeoning interest. Now I've got hundreds of films to see and I'm not so interested in reading about film now, I'm more interested in just seeing them.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

DeepR said:


> What do you think the composers themselves would prefer? I think they would want their music to work even for a listener who is completely oblivious to who the composer is, when the piece was made, what inspired the piece, what composing techniques were used etc. Isn't that the ultimate goal of their music?


It depends on the composer. The view that music should be appreciated in isolation from anything "external" is a distinctly Romantic and modernist view, so for most composers of those eras, you may be right. (But even then there are lots of exceptions. In the 30s, Weimar composers like Hindemith and Weill said they never conceived of music except within the context of the occasions and circumstances for which it was written. In the 50s, Britten was not only saying the same thing but was being given an Aspen Award for it. The pre-serial Schoenberg said that the form and structure of his music--i.e. the very things we think of today as not requiring consideration of anything external--were "inseparable" [his word] from his individual, subconscious psyche; the very last thing a piece like the Five Pieces for Orchestra was intended to do was make the composer's presence disappear.)

The insular view of music was definitely not the view of, say, Mozart, whose works (even, or especially, the instrumental works) are rife with symbolism of class and social codes, and were heard and enjoyed as such. Those same techniques later inspired Chaikovsky, who incorporated the same symbols into his symphonies and operas. The view was not the view of Bach, whose religious musical symbolism extends even to works that are not explicitly religious. It was not the view of any composer of Baroque opera, a genre where success was simply not possible unless the audience could discern a parallel between the story and the real-life aristocrats the opera was intended to mimic.

Not that there's anything stopping us today from enjoying these works in the "absolute" manner being espoused here. But that manner is for the most part _our_ manner, not the manner of most of the composers we apply it to.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> LOL, I so agree with that! But just think of the _if_ of undoing all the speculations, research and academic and other writings on the contextual and what a good number of people would be out of business and on the dole -- and another lot of folk would be deprived of a major outlet which allowed them to indiirectly speak about themselves.
> 
> (The intriguing question with that 'what if, all that was gone' is what would be the next abstract thing they would all seize upon to 'contextualize?')


The,ah, strength of your attitude is interesting. I seem to have drifted into the notion that performers, and composers to a lesser extent, have reason to be interested in the contextual appendix. The performer _could_ gain interpretive ideas, and the composer _could_ get a little guidance in where to find his muse - if he's still without one.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Even works were you think the context is important can be enjoyed, if they are of particular strength, without that context too. 

I'm not sure how important a composer's words are sometimes about music either, they are experts with notes not words and they may have other agendas away from the work itself. And once they send a work out there to be heard it's judged as music. They'd better put descriptive titles through the work if they think it's so important to have much context. Even then they might later regret doing that as Beethoven seemed to with his 6th symphony, later insisting it was 'more an expression of feeling than painting'.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

A clown avatar scares me. Perhaps, because it is out of context?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ukko said:


> The,ah, strength of your attitude is interesting. I seem to have drifted into the notion that performers, and composers to a lesser extent, have reason to be interested in the contextual appendix. The performer _could_ gain interpretive ideas, and the composer _could_ get a little guidance in where to find his muse - if he's still without one.


It may seem a conflict from what I've stated before, but I strongly believe (know that a performer is best off knowing as much about period, period style, context -- including the context of the ethos of the era, if they are to best convey a piece to an audience. What I also most strongly believe in is not making any of that evident, or "talking about it" to the audience via program notes or pre-concert lectures: there I do want the work, after the performer's work in preparation is done, "to speak for and of itself."

All the 'coding' within a piece, I think, cannot be conveyed -- that is unless the music itself clearly conveys it without further aid, that 'coding' is more than incidental to the meaning or worth of the piece.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

dgee said:


> Hahahaha you guys - the whole point of conceptual art is the philosophical "blablabla". That's why it's called conceptual - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art
> 
> So while you may not like it - at least you get the point! lolz


Why thank you, dgee.


----------

