# Is the Term "Beautiful" a Good Description of Music?



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The thread title question may sound odd, silly, or obvious, but I've read many TC posts that downgrade the usefulness of the term, "beautiful", when it is applied to music. I think many of us instinctively use "beautiful" to describe many works that strike us as inordinately pleasing in a certain way. Obviously there's nothing wrong with using the term, and I think we all know what the user means. 

Still, some on TC have questioned the usefulness saying it doesn't really convey much information. In some sense we could use the term to describe almost all music we really enjoy. Does it mean anything other than "I really like this work"? Certainly we could work harder to find more specific terms - compelling, harmonically satisfying, intriguing, melodically perfect, etc.. Or we could use a paragraph or two or more to delve more deeply into our response. Speaking in detail about music is actually quite difficult for most of us so working to give greater detail is often not worth the effort. 

How do you feel about the use of "beautiful" when describing music?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'm content to use the word and to offer an elaboration if and when that becomes necessary. The general meaning of the word is understood and it doesn't have to be a universal agreement, just like many other adjectives such as 'cold', 'boring', 'happy'. Aren't all those words disputable? Its use is both _a posteriori_ and subject to personal aesthetic sensibilities.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I have no problems with it and those that do not think it is appropriate should put forward a better one.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I was watching "Next Food Network Star" once, when Bobby Flay explains to one of the contestants how meaningless the term "delicious" is for food. He explained that it doesn't tell you anything. Was it bitter, unctuous, spicy, salty, crunchy, etc.?

BUT, on the other hand, all those words: bitter, salty, etc, can't tell somebody if you actually enjoyed it!

SO, my feeling is that words like beautiful are alright, but they are more of a summation, or possibly an entry point for greater description.

Talking about music is difficult. Almost all of us really suck at it and most of us know that we suck at it as well, so we are like baby seals trying to play baseball.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I think it's a fine term that's best to use in moderation.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

It is about as useful as describing something as 'great'.

P.S. Although probably a tad more useful than 'proven great'.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Becca said:


> It is about as useful as describing something as 'great'.
> 
> P.S. Although probably a tad more useful than 'proven great'.


Describing something as 'great' is not a problem either. The meaning of the word: large; elevated in power, rank, quality; outstanding; etc etc, is a perfectly good way of describing something.

The overuse of the word, sapping it of its immediacy and potency (in the same way _awesome_ is rendered impotent in U.S. English) is what makes it appear as though it isn't offering enough of a meaningful description.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Becca said:


> It is about as useful as describing something as 'great'.
> 
> P.S. Although probably a tad more useful than 'proven great'.


It is a generalisation so Becca what would be a better word? or do you want a full description bar by bar


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The day I have to think of descriptive words to describe classical music and the first thing I come up with is "beautiful" is the day I've become a superficial, lazy listener.

It's like my brother, a pseudo-classical music "lover", who always says, "classical music is so relaxing"!

"Beautiful". "Relaxing". Code words for people who aren't really involved with the notes. Superficial descriptions.

I listen to a lot of Bach. The music transports me into another dimension, whether it's closer to the Creator or not, I do not know, but it is to a better place. It also inspires me to be a better person, a musical moral code, so to speak.

"Beautiful"? "Relaxing"? Not in my descriptive vocabulary regarding classical music.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

hpowders said:


> I listen to a lot of Bach. The music transports me into another dimension, whether it's closer to the Creator or not, I do not know, but it is to a better place. It also inspires me to be a better person, a musical moral code, so to speak.


However, aren't these oft-repeated sentiments also clichéd and a bit lazy? The number of music reviews I've read where the reviewer reports being "transported to another world" or "coming face-to-face with one's creator" could probably wallpaper the Albert Hall (not recommended).

As for classical music having a direct impact on one's moral position and behaviour, well I find that highly unlikely.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

If people view music as the expression of "the complexities of the world," the word 'beautiful' is not likely to come up as much as it used to, when listeners were more inclined to go to concerts for enjoyment or for the refreshment of the spirit... It might have been one of the few escapes from the tedium and continual grind of daily life.

But in the post-modern world the desire and appreciation of beauty is sometimes suspect and may be more associated with being naive, escapist or unrealistic. There are evidently modern listeners who prefer being reminded of how out-of-whack the world is and the neurotic, anxious, and the profane, and perhaps the arts along these lines somehow help them to adjust to, or accept such conditions. It's not improbable.

I generally happen not to be one of them and have no reservations against enjoying the beautiful, because it can be harmonizing & soothing to the soul; but I can understand someone's interest in exploring "the complexities of the world", or the darker side of life, through the arts. Sometimes it's of interest to see how others view contemporary society through the challenge of the 'non-beautiful', even if one is not regularly inclined to join them.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Dan Ante said:


> It is a generalisation so Becca what would be a better word? or do you want a full description bar by bar


Reductio ad absurdum 

The OP said...


> Still, some on TC have questioned the usefulness saying it doesn't really convey much information.


...and I stand by my comment, given how subjective it is, it doesn't really convey much useful information


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Becca said:


> ...and I stand by my comment, given how subjective it is, it doesn't really convey much useful information


That approach would handicap you with a lot of vocabulary. even words with a supposedly fixed meaning have subjective interpretations. Going on in that vein makes it almost impossible to describe anything without going into great detail.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I agree that talking about music, let alone explaining one's _appreciation _of music, is often so difficult that it isn't even worth it. Kinda like making relationships with people, or trying to be a good person. It's just _hard_. Nor does it really negate the feelings/opinion of the person who has feelings when they can't quite explain to everyone's satisfaction, both the positive and negative feelings.

Enjoying stuff shouldn't have to be hard.

Or does it?

Doing hard things _is _worth it, from a psychological stance. If ever you want to venture not only to express your love of something, and even go so far as invite others share in your enjoyment of it, put your _everything _into it, even if it hurts. The process itself will make you think outside of yourself, about what makes people different, and how it's necessary to be in people's shoes if you want to spread the love. It's a healthy practice to think outwardly. First ask yourself, "How much do I _really _want people to know that I think X work is [insert superlative]?" and then ask "How much do I want _others _to enjoy this?" After contemplating these questions (and coming to a positive conclusion that yes, you do care enough), then begin the process. Ask questions, be thoughtful, be thorough, but most of all be open to engaging those who disagree with you. It's _excruciating_ to do this as a discipline. But that's how you raise the standard on yourself.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I agree that talking about music, let alone explaining one's _appreciation _of music, is often so difficult that it isn't even worth it.


Stravinsky said something like, "Whenever anyone writes two words about music, one of them is wrong."


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

I accept all approaches to music. For some reason, some people just don't see this strange movement of air molecules in the brain big deal. For those people, music means really nothing. Then there are people, who take music very seriously. Maybe some doctor can explain why.

Personally, I can be a naive escapist and depressive apocalyptic almost the same day. I don't know if it's the music affecting me or the other way around.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Stravinsky said something like, "Whenever anyone writes two words about music, one of them is wrong."


Stravinsky said a lot of things that can be safely ignored.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Beautiful is a vague word. Unless it's combined with other adjectives/adverbs, it doesn't communicate much on its own, because there so many different _kinds _of beauty. Some pieces of music are hauntingly beautiful (Schubert's Winterreise, for example), while other pieces might be beautiful in a charming and innocent way (many of Mozart's piano sonatas). There are even pieces which are beautiful in a terrifying way, such as the Queen of the Night's famous aria in The Magic Flute. Considering the vast range of expression that could be called beautiful, it's probably best to avoid the term altogether or to combine it with other words that specify the mood of the piece more precisely.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

I remember a scene from the film "Children of a Lesser God" where the woman, who is Deaf, asks her Significant Other, who is hearing, to show her how the music to which he is listening sounds. He sort of waves his hands, as I recall, maybe some facial expressions, body movements. As I watched, I remember thinking that he did a poor job, he wasn't expressive, it didn't seem to convey anything to her, or to me, for that matter. 

So when I got home, I tried my version of expressiveness to the same piece of music. It was incredibly difficult. Sometimes I was just trying to conduct, other times my eyes were closed and I was just swaying. I realized it was unlikely to convey anything to someone who couldn't hear. I have no idea how to solve that dilemma. 

Probably saying a piece of music is 'beautiful' or 'elegant' or 'moving' or whatever other term I generally use, is just as useless. To quote Yul Brynner, "It's a puzzlement."

(Hmmn. A very film-oriented answer.)
:tiphat:


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

To me 'beautiful' is a word I use in an emotional sense and whenever that is the strongest emotion I get when listening to music. So to me it's different from 'great'. Great is more neutral, beautiful refers to a specific kind of greatness.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

I think if someone doesn't understand or wants more specificity about my description of a piece of music, they are free to ask. If they don't, then I have said enough.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

eugeneonagain said:


> Stravinsky said a lot of things that can be safely ignored.


Another (don't know the source): "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Dan Ante said:


> I have no problems with it and those that do not think it is appropriate should put forward a better one.


Or, they should put forward five or six different words or categories that explain the effect more specifically than one blunt and vague one. For example, gracefulness can be an element of beauty, and just as in drawing, musical lines of certain shapes, curvatures and changing volumes are heard as more graceful than others (by intersubjective agreement or consensus). Likewise, subtly blended color can be an elements of beauty, as can certain velvety or caressing textures. And felicitous brading and interweaving of lines can be satisfying, along with mirror correspondences and other symmetries. Perhaps it's not a matter of appropriateness so much as precision and expression?



KenOC said:


> Another (don't know the source): "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."


By which I assume you mean it takes lots of practice?


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Or, they should put forward five or six different words or categories that explain the effect more specifically than one blunt and vague one. For example, gracefulness can be an element of beauty, and just as in drawing, musical lines of certain shapes, curvatures and changing volumes are heard as more graceful than others (by intersubjective agreement or consensus). Likewise, subtly blended color can be an elements of beauty, as can certain velvety or caressing textures. And felicitous brading and interweaving of lines can be satisfying, along with mirror correspondences and other symmetries. Perhaps it's not a matter of appropriateness so much as precision and expression?


Absolutely you can use as many words as you like but 'Beautiful' is a generalisation and covers many things:

breathtakingly beautiful scenery

beautiful weather

a beautiful woman

or heaven forbid "a beautiful piece of music


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Bettina said:


> Beautiful is a vague word. Unless it's combined with other adjectives/adverbs, it doesn't communicate much on its own, because there so many different _kinds _of beauty. Some pieces of music are hauntingly beautiful (Schubert's Winterreise, for example), while other pieces might be beautiful in a charming and innocent way (many of Mozart's piano sonatas). There are even pieces which are beautiful in a terrifying way, such as the Queen of the Night's famous aria in The Magic Flute. Considering the vast range of expression that could be called beautiful, it's probably best to avoid the term altogether or to combine it with other words that specify the mood of the piece more precisely.


In general I agree that it would be better to couple "beautiful" with other descriptive words to give a better description of the music. I think many of us struggle with that, but even if we were to succeed, I'm not sure how much information is actually conveyed. If someone says hauntingly beautiful, I'm not really sure what to make of that. Maybe people could say beautiful in the Mozart Sinfonia concertante sense or beautiful in the Scelsi Uaxuctum sense. Still there is uncertainty.

To me the term beautiful describes one's response rather than the music. When I say Mozart's Sinfonia concertante is beautiful or even sublimely beautiful, I'm basically saying this work affects me powerfully in a positive way. I'm not really describing the music.

I think the usefulness of the term may be twofold. First, one learns about the speaker and how certain music affects her. If they say, "I like Mozart's Sinfonia concertante," that tells you someone slightly different from "I think Mozart's Sinfonia concertante is beautiful." Perhaps the speaker means the same thing, but the latter describes a stronger reaction. Second, we may evaluate potential new works to try based on others' suggestions. If someone says, "Mozart's Sinfonia concertante is beautiful," we may be ever so slightly more inclined to sample it than when someone says, "I enjoy Mozart's Sinfonia concertante."


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Bettina said:


> Beautiful is a vague word. Unless it's combined with other adjectives/adverbs, it doesn't communicate much on its own, because there so many different _kinds _of beauty. Some pieces of music are hauntingly beautiful (Schubert's Winterreise, for example), while other pieces might be beautiful in a charming and innocent way (many of Mozart's piano sonatas). There are even pieces which are beautiful in a terrifying way, such as the Queen of the Night's famous aria in The Magic Flute. Considering the vast range of expression that could be called beautiful, it's probably best to avoid the term altogether or to combine it with other words that specify the mood of the piece more precisely.


I agree with Bettina's post. In the end, "beautiful" as a descriptor for music (or, for anything, for that matter) remains a highly subjective opinion. One person's beautiful may well be another person's ugly. At best the term is vague and can be even misleading. 
Strangely, to keep on the topic of music, I would propose that Bach's _Goldberg Variations_, Mahler's Fifth Symphony, the Beatles' "Yesterday", and Penderecki's _Threnody_ are all beautiful. They are also vastly different, and trying to come up with a commonality one is left with the rather vague term "music". Is that really all they have in common to make them "beautiful"?

I, of course, have used the term "beautiful" (and "hauntingly beautiful" and "terrifyingly beautiful") to describe musical works, but I know I was never more than generalizing when I made the remarks. I know folks who are bewildered by the _Goldberg Variations _and who see little to no "beauty" there; folks who would dismiss Mahler's Fifth as "too long" to be beautiful (maybe they'll settle for the Adagio!); folks who prefer rap music to the Beatles; folks who think I'm absolutely nuts to listen to something like Penderecki's _Thren_.

I'm fond of pointing out that art created to appear (or sound) ugly can be considered beautiful as a crafted work. The Greek tragedy _Oedipus_ is a horrifying play in which a king who kills his father and marries his mother and has four children with her stabs out his eyes and stumbles off into exile a shattered man. Yet, this remains, to me, one of the supreme beauties in art. So with Shakespeare's _Macbeth_, the film creature "the Alien" from the _Alien _movie, Picasso's _Guernica_, and the Penderecki _Thren_. Well crafted ugliness which achieves its artistic goal is beautiful as artistic achievement. Just because I do not prefer rap music does not mean it lacks beauty. I'm just not one to trust in assessment of beauty, I suppose. I would tell you the Michelangelo _David_ is beautiful, that the Racine tragedy _Phaedre_ is beautiful, that Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony is beautiful, that Nat King Cole's version of "Nature Boy" is beautiful, but what meaning does that really have?

At best, we can measure someone else's assessment of "beautiful" only by our own understanding of the word. If that someone finds pornography to be beautiful and we find it to be something else, we find ourselves in a debatable position. And every assessment of "what is beautiful" must eventually come down to a debatable position.

So, leave me with my _Goldberg Variations_, my Tchaikovsky and Mahler and Beatles and Penderecki ... and I'll leave you with your whatever, and if we can both respect that our tastes differ but that's okay, then things can keep moving on smoothly. It is, after all, only art. Isn't it?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I'd say "beautiful" works best when both speaker and listener are on common ground. If we both have a fondness for Classical-era piano concertos, and you start talking about one I've never heard, then telling me there's a _beautiful_ slow movement will be helpful. It doesn't necessarily mean I'll find it beautiful, or as beautiful as you do, but given our common ground I'll already have a rough idea of the sort of music it is.
Remove the common ground, and "beautiful" can be meaningless. If I say (to take my response in that other thread) Michael Gordon's _Rushes_ is beautiful, but you don't like minimalist music, then it's more likely that you'll think I'm an idiot.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2017)

JeffD said:


> I think if someone doesn't understand or wants more specificity about my description of a piece of music, they are free to ask. If they don't, then I have said enough.


Agreed. Conversation, assuming that's what we're here for, (and not merely an exchange of lectures) requires a 'contract' between poster and reader. If the reader is satisfied with with the poster's terminology, suiting the matter under discussion, then there's nothing wrong with 'beautiful' (or its cheaper, briefer sibling 'nice').


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> I'd say "beautiful" works best when both speaker and listener are on common ground.


Perfect summary, Nereffid.

I'm surprised some buffoon on the TV hasn't coined a new word to replace beautiful. They've replaced several good food descriptors, on cooking shows, with the ridiculous and meaningless 'flavoursome' (don't get me started on that one) so I suggest we replace beautiful with 'lovelysome'. It means nothing so should turn out to be popular.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Is it not possible that the definition of things, such as 'beauty', can only be described by one's internal reactions? Is it not possible to know what's going on in that inner realm? Otherwise descriptions and definitions, whether related to music or not, are routinely placed outside oneself as something entirely separate or "objective". Surely such works as the Bruch or Mendelsson violin concertos (or something equivalent) provide an opportunity to look inside and experience how one is reacting to the sonorities, melodic lines and harmonies of what's being played, and somehow there's an equal inner response that can at least be partially identified that takes the experience out of the realm of the completely mysterious or unknown. Nevertheless, there's always the likelihood that certain subtle, delicate and exquisite reactions may always remain beyond any possible description.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

mmsbls said:


> How do you feel about the use of "beautiful" when describing music?


very good and most precise at that without fake notions like 'new' etc.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

Zhdanov said:


> very good and most precise at that without fake notions like 'new', 'beautiful', 'great' etc.


Fixed it

Daniel


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Another (don't know the source): "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."


This actual quote is one attributed to the actor/musician Martin Mull. John Lennon once rendered it as :"Talking about music is like talking about f******." It's also been attributed to Frank Zappa, Steve Martin, Gore Vidal, Thelonious Monk and Elvis Costello (who credits Mull).

I think the form of the saying is a basic one - and probably very old - rendered in many ways. Stravinsky is a always having quotes attributed to him.

The story about George Gershwin asking Ravel to teach him and getting the reply: ""Why become a second-rate Ravel when you're already a first-rate Gershwin?" also exists as one from Stravinsky where he supposedly said: "How much do you earn" and hearing the answer replied: "then you should be teaching me". I doubt he said it, but some people considered him a great wit (not a typo) and he probably has quotes attributed to him.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Fixed it


not accepted. offer rejected.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

If we're ditching the word "beautiful" on the grounds that it is vague, that it is general, that it is unable to convey adequately the impact of music, and/or that it comes in too many varieties, can we ditch other words that pose the same problems? For starters, I'll nominate "expressive," "modern," "tonal," "atonal," and "classical."


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

mmsbls said:


> The thread title question may sound odd, silly, or obvious, but I've read many TC posts that downgrade the usefulness of the term, "beautiful", when it is applied to music.


It is indeed somewhat odd, silly and obvious because music - as all art - aims to be beautiful, which means that it aims to be pleasing in an aesthetic way. Then again, that holds true for classical art. Modern art - which already starts with romanticism - doesn't aim to be beautiful but to be sublime which means that it aims to be awesome (shocking) instead of simply pleasing (which is why many people feel that modern art is 'ugly')...


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I don't exactly have a problem with the word, but I know I try not to use it often. I'd rather use "good" or "awesome", but I suppose they are sort of equivalent to "beautiful". So, use whatever you want to use!


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

To have a so-called 'beautiful' experience is often synonymous with not being able to find a suitable language to describe it. One may be overwhelmed by, say, the beauty of a sunrise only to be able to utter: "Gosh!" - Sure, it is an honest expression of a genuine feeling, etc., etc., but far from a suitable representation of the experience. Proust's major contribution to this (artistic) discussion was precisely this: that one ought to describe the _feeling_ of the experience, not the experience as such. (Music can only be described by way of analogy, as it were.) The core of the 'beautiful' experience must lie in the very _relationship_ between one's associations, memories and feelings that it awakens.


----------



## Sol Invictus (Sep 17, 2016)

I can assume this is a reply to my thread of about a month or two back? I kind of regret that post considering beauty is subjective. It was a dumb question. I'm willing to admit that.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Sol Invictus said:


> I can assume this is a reply to my thread of about a month or two back? I kind of regret that post considering beauty is subjective. It was a dumb question. I'm willing to admit that.


Actually your thread was not the catalyst for this thread although I feel a bit stupid for not realizing that another thread had recently explored this subject. I had started a thread a couple of years ago that used the term in reference to music, and several people explained how useless the term was. Recently I saw a post that questioned the term as well.

I don't think your thread question is dumb at all. I realize that the term doesn't convey much information about a work, but I don't know a better term to convey how I feel about some works.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Eschbeg said:


> If we're ditching the word "beautiful" on the grounds that it is vague, that it is general, that it is unable to convey adequately the impact of music, and/or that it comes in too many varieties, can we ditch other words that pose the same problems? *For starters, I'll nominate "expressive," "modern," "tonal," "atonal," and "classical."*


No one in this thread is proposing a complete ban on the word "beautiful." Many of us, including myself, are simply suggesting that this word is most useful when combined with other descriptive words.

The words that you've listed above strike me as being much more specific than the vague word "beautiful." For example, "tonal" and "atonal" are specific technical terms which describe the language of a composition. Even though those words may not inform us of whether the listener likes the piece, they tell us something about the types of sounds that we can expect to hear.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2017)

Checking the definition of the word with Oxford, I can't see what's wrong with it.



> Pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically


It says one thing clearly - about the impact of the beauty on the perceiver - and implies another - that the beautiful thing has certain qualities that are deemed beautiful. Why would anyone expect any _single _word to say more than it is designed to do? It strikes me that it's better to say that "Sibelius 6th Symphony is beautiful" because it tells the reader at least two things about the work where "Sibelius 6th Symphony is melancholic" says only one.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Agreed. Conversation, assuming that's what we're here for, (and not merely an exchange of lectures) requires a 'contract' between poster and reader. If the reader is satisfied with with the poster's terminology, suiting the matter under discussion, then there's nothing wrong with 'beautiful' (or its cheaper, briefer sibling 'nice').


"Beautiful" vs. "nice". Hmm.
Suppose your niece who has been taking piano lessons performs in her first public recital, one for the pleasure of friends and family along with other newly launched piano students, and she plays a rather lackluster piece by Grieg, say one of the Lyric Pieces. And afterwards you tell her it was "nice".
Would you mean something different if you told her it was "beautiful"? Would she be right to take it that she did a much better performance to earn the "It was beautiful" rather than the "It was nice"?
Language can be complex. Synonyms are not always synonymous. I would rather be praised for playing a Lyric Piece with the term "beautiful" than "nice". It just seems to me that there is less wriggle room in "beautiful" than there is in "nice".


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> "Beautiful" vs. "nice". Hmm.
> Suppose your niece who has been taking piano lessons performs in her first public recital, one for the pleasure of friends and family along with other newly launched piano students, and she plays a rather lackluster piece by Grieg, say one of the Lyric Pieces. And afterwards you tell her it was "nice".
> Would you mean something different if you told her it was "beautiful"? Would she be right to take it that she did a much better performance to earn the "It was beautiful" rather than the "It was nice"?
> Language can be complex. Synonyms are not always synonymous. I would rather be praised for playing a Lyric Piece with the term "beautiful" than "nice". It just seems to me that there is less wriggle room in "beautiful" than there is in "nice".


My post above shows the difficulties we encounter with language. As I re-read it, I noted the word "lackluster" (which I had meant for the girl's playing) could be describing the work itself by Grieg (whom I don't think did anything lackluster!). So I apologize for any confusions.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> "Beautiful" vs. "nice". Hmm.
> Suppose your niece who has been taking piano lessons performs in her first public recital, one for the pleasure of friends and family along with other newly launched piano students, and she plays a rather lackluster piece by Grieg, say one of the Lyric Pieces. And afterwards you tell her it was "nice".
> Would you mean something different if you told her it was "beautiful"? Would she be right to take it that she did a much better performance to earn the "It was beautiful" rather than the "It was nice"?
> Language can be complex. Synonyms are not always synonymous. I would rather be praised for playing a Lyric Piece with the term "beautiful" than "nice". It just seems to me that there is less wriggle room in "beautiful" than there is in "nice".


I offered 'nice' as an example of a word that gets criticised for being overused and carrying insufficient meaning - in other words, suffering the same criticism as 'beautiful' is here. I wasn't suggesting that they are the same, though checking Oxford, there's less between them than common (mis)usage might suggest.



> 1. Giving pleasure or satisfaction; pleasant or attractive


I tend to use it only for its second meaning:



> slight or subtle or Requiring careful consideration


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Good topic. I think we might all agree some pieces of music are "beautiful" and that no further semantics are needed:






As is this one:






And, again, this which I've also had described to me as "restful" (gagging action):






Schumann described Schubert's Symphony No. 9 as being "_of heavenly length_". I was surprised he was so prosaic with the written word, but that was how it affected him.

Clearly, much music doesn't warrant the "beautiful" label, but some other more apposite description. For me, it's when 'beautiful' is what people specifically want in their music, and ONLY beauty, that I have a problem. Those people wouldn't like this precisely because it *ISN'T* 'beautiful', but I can't live without it because it IS NOT BEAUTIFUL but something else ineffable:






I've had people say to me, "*that's NOT beautiful*". So, I wouldn't say it's inappropriate to describe music as "beautiful", but it upsets me when people are unwilling to listen to music because they deem it NOT BEAUTIFUL. They are either incapable or unwilling to find another descriptor.

Here's what Clara Schumann said about some of the music of her beloved Brahms, and it's not a world away from "beautiful":

"Johannes has played me some magnificent numbers from a German Requiem, and a string quartet in C minor. But I am most moved by the Requiem; it is full of thoughts at once tender and bold, I have no clear idea of how it will sound, but to my own mind it sounds glorious" (Clara Schumann, "_An Artist's Life, Based on Material Found in Diaries and Letters_, Vol. 2", ed. Litzmann, trans. Hadow).


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> For me, it's when 'beautiful' is what people specifically want in their music, and ONLY beauty, that I have a problem.


Hang on - you mean there are people who _don't _want the music to "please their senses or mind aesthetically"? That seems to me an impossibility


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

I said they ONLY WANT something to be beautiful, nothing else. Pleasing the senses? You can use perfume or chocolate for that. Take my advice and stick with the Mascagni!!!

What kind of experience would please the mind but not necessarily be beautiful? A debate with Jordan Peterson would be my go-to in pleasing the mind, but 'beautiful'? Clearly not.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> What kind of experience would please the mind but not necessarily be beautiful?


Check your definition of the word.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Surely the beautiful has existed in music for centuries as one of its primary attribute. But as one gets older there are benefits by expanding one's emotional range, and perhaps one of the keys for doing that is by not slapping a label on everything, which can quite often activate the intellect more than the heart.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Check your definition of the word.


I was using *yours* - SENSES *OR* MIND - and I can't see any point in engaging with atomic-sized parsing of a word for its meaning. I prefer to stand by my original post. Cheers.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Surely the beautiful has existed in music for centuries as one of its primary attribute. But as one gets older there are benefits by expanding one's emotional range, and perhaps one of the keys for doing that is by not slapping a label on everything, which can quite often activate the intellect more than the heart.


I have a problem with people who only want music to be BEAUTIFUL and nothing else...not challenging, complex, uplifting, visionary, knotty, ingenious, glorious, ingenious....just "isn't this beautiful?". Play them something which doesn't purely fit that single description and they'll more often as not say "that's not so beautiful; I don't like it". And they could be talking about Beethoven or Bach.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I was using *yours* - SENSES *OR* MIND - and I can't see any point in engaging with atomic-sized parsing of a word for its meaning. I prefer to stand by my original post. Cheers.


Yes. Senses or mind...but who is looking for something in music that doesn't please?


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Something does not have to be "beautiful" to please!! But those who insist that it should be beautiful aren't getting their money's worth, IMO. I don't regard the Bach 48 as 'beautiful' but it's undoubtedly absolutely wonderful, challenging and inventive music of the highest order. I don't know a single person who would describe it as 'beautiful' but who would STILL find it pleasing to the mind.

Is this "beautiful"? It's virtuosic, humorous, clever, imaginative but......


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Something does not have to be "beautiful" to please!! But those who insist that it should be beautiful aren't getting their money's worth, IMO. I don't regard the Bach 48 as 'beautiful' but it's undoubtedly absolutely wonderful, challenging and inventive music of the highest order. I don't know a single person who would describe it as 'beautiful' but who would STILL find it pleasing to the mind.
> 
> Is this "beautiful"? It's virtuosic, humorous, clever, imaginative but......


You've lost me altogether. You say you accept my definition (actually Oxford's) and yet reject it in practice. If the Couperin pleases my mind or senses, then it's beautiful, isn't it? And to want something that isn't beautiful from music (ie, it doesn't please either the mind or senses) seems perverse.

I suspect, then, that you agree with those who either think 'beautiful' isn't enough (it's too generalised) or it's wrong (because you take it to mean something more specific such as "shapely in form" or "pretty" or...)


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

According to modern philosophy (Burke, Kant) 'beautiful' is somewhat equivalent to 'comprehensible': reality is presented to us in a way we can understand reality which makes (the presentation of) reality pleasing. Beauty is the projection of our will upon nature: that's why it is similar to teleology, i.e. the projection of purposes upon nature (the tree grows above the smaller ones AS IF it strives to catch more sun light; everything acts and evolves AS IF God has a plan with it). Like teleology, beauty provides the world meaning (in an otherwise meaningless universe).

BUT... not all art is beautiful (or intends to be beautiful) because beauty is only one aesthetic category...


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Agamemnon said:


> According to modern philosophy (Burke, Kant) 'beautiful' is somewhat equivalent to 'comprehensible': reality is presented to us in a way we can understand reality which makes (the presentation of) reality pleasing. Beauty is the projection of our will upon nature: that's why it is similar to teleology, i.e. the projection of purposes upon nature (the tree grows above the smaller ones AS IF it strives to catch more sun light; everything acts and evolves AS IF God has a plan with it). Like teleology, beauty provides the world meaning (in an otherwise meaningless universe).
> 
> BUT... not all art is beautiful (or intends to be beautiful) because beauty is only one aesthetic category...


Excellent!! Completely agree. And I caught a bit of Andre Rieu last night on pay TV - rather timely as we were having this discussion. It struck me that a significant problem with Andre Rieu is precisely because he's attempting to achieve "beautiful concerts". Everyone is decked out in 'historical' livery, with the men in dinner suits and the women in softly coloured kitsch dresses. All the music is familiar, singable, always tonal and delivered in such a way that it never jars the ears with such things as dissonance. Those audiences would regard Rieu's concerts as "beautiful" - to the eye and the ear. And the impressario Rieu has made a calculated decision to appeal to that, en mass. There is simply no room for a 'dissenting voice' on the program. Even the attempts at humour are often cloying, even patronizing and infantile. It's the McDonald's Hamburger effect; high in calories and low on nutrition.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Agamemnon said:


> BUT... not all art is beautiful (or intends to be beautiful) because beauty is only one aesthetic category...


Of course. I certainly don't find all music beautiful. Fortunately, that wasn't what the OP was asking.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Insofar as music changes brain chemistry and can incite brain imagery, I think it can certainly be beautiful. It can also be ugly, bland, pleasing, syrupy and many other narrative descriptions.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Start a thread on definitions and it will go for ever (no I better modify that before someone starts on a definition of for ever) lets say a long time.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Clearly, much music doesn't warrant the "beautiful" label, but some other more apposite description. For me, it's when 'beautiful' is what people specifically want in their music, and ONLY beauty, that I have a problem. Those people wouldn't like this precisely because it *ISN'T* 'beautiful', but I can't live without it because it IS NOT BEAUTIFUL but something else ineffable:


The idea of enjoying music that is not beautiful is interesting. I actually started a thread about that topic. The responses were quite varied, but some people definitely said they do not enjoy any music they do not find beautiful. And they were not talking about music everyone would agree is beautiful.

In fact one of the things that came up in that thread was exactly the Grosse Fuge. Years ago when I first heard it, I was a bit shocked and most definitely did not enjoy it. Eventually I came to love it, and now it's one of my favorite quartets. Personally I find it beautiful. Maybe there are other words, and possibly better ones, but without question it's beautiful to me.

Obviously "beautiful" can mean different things to different people, and people can respond differently to music. You mentioned Bach's preludes and fugues. When I started that thread, I thought many people would likely say some of Bach's works are not beautiful. Others say they are supremely beautiful. Bach's cello suites are difficult for many, but I view some movements as almost unimaginably beautiful.

One could argue that those who say every work they like is beautiful are not using the term correctly, or at least using the term differently from most. I'm not certain that is the case.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Dan Ante said:


> Start a thread on definitions and it will go for ever (no I better modify that before someone starts on a definition of for ever) lets say a long time.


I don't view this thread as concerned with definitions. People may have differing views of what beautiful means, but the question is relevant almost whatever one's definition.


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

Beautiful is an irrelevant term, just saying it as it is. It's like a deaf and a mute arguing over what something feels like. Not only that but also the over-exaggerated importance of that said thing.


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

That idea that something has to be quote/unquote "beautiful" to be of value expression is really one of the most fake, plastic, unhuman things I've ever heard. If anything, it supports false anti-artistic, manufactured ideals that are the opposite of what art has done since day one.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

ST4 said:


> Beautiful is an irrelevant term, just saying it as it is. It's like a deaf and a mute arguing over what something feels like. Not only that but also the over-exaggerated importance of that said thing.


Irrelevant to music or irrelevant in general?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> The thread title question may sound odd, silly, or obvious, but I've read many TC posts that downgrade the usefulness of the term, "beautiful", when it is applied to music. I think many of us instinctively use "beautiful" to describe many works that strike us as inordinately pleasing in a certain way. Obviously there's nothing wrong with using the term, and I think we all know what the user means.
> 
> Still, some on TC have questioned the usefulness saying it doesn't really convey much information. In some sense we could use the term to describe almost all music we really enjoy. Does it mean anything other than "I really like this work"? Certainly we could work harder to find more specific terms - compelling, harmonically satisfying, intriguing, melodically perfect, etc.. Or we could use a paragraph or two or more to delve more deeply into our response. Speaking in detail about music is actually quite difficult for most of us so working to give greater detail is often not worth the effort.
> 
> How do you feel about the use of "beautiful" when describing music?


Beauty is more a visual description. So technically speaking, it is not correct to say a piece is beautiful. But of course in everyday use, we use the word to associate with anything that pleased us in a sensual way, just like an object of beauty does.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

ST4 said:


> That idea that something has to be quote/unquote "beautiful" to be of value expression is really one of the most fake, plastic, unhuman things I've ever heard. If anything, it supports false anti-artistic, manufactured ideals that are the opposite of what art has done since day one.


Not all art is meant to be beautiful. Sometimes things are made to show horrible things.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Of course. I certainly don't find all music beautiful. Fortunately, that wasn't what the OP was asking.


I didn't mean or say that all music should or should not be beautiful to all people. I meant (and actually said) that not all music even intends to be beautiful.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Not all art is meant to be beautiful. Sometimes things are made to show horrible things.


This is what I meant (and said).


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2017)

Agamemnon said:


> I didn't mean or say that all music should or should not be beautiful to all people. I meant (and actually said) that not all music even intends to be beautiful.


I know you didn't. I was agreeing with you.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I know you didn't. I was agreeing with you.


Then we can be friends again.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2017)

mmsbls said:


> The idea of enjoying music that is not beautiful is interesting. I actually started a thread about that topic. The responses were quite varied, but some people definitely said they do not enjoy any music they do not find beautiful. And they were not talking about music everyone would agree is beautiful.
> 
> In fact one of the things that came up in that thread was exactly the Grosse Fuge. Years ago when I first heard it, I was a bit shocked and most definitely did not enjoy it. Eventually I came to love it, and now it's one of my favorite quartets. Personally I find it beautiful. Maybe there are other words, and possibly better ones, but without question it's beautiful to me.
> 
> ...


At *13:09* Andras Schiff comments about the "Hammerklavier" and the notion of "beautiful"!


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> At *13:09* Andras Schiff comments about the "Hammerklavier" and the notion of "beautiful"!


I don't agree. If something is pleasant and somehow ideal with regards to its form how is it not beautiful?


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2017)

Improbus said:


> I don't agree. If something is pleasant and somehow ideal with regards to its form how is it not beautiful?


I agree with Schiff. He explains it perfectly. But, of course, you are absolutely entitled to your own response.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I agree with Schiff. He explains it perfectly. But, of course, you are absolutely entitled to your own response.


Unless I'm missing something (I haven't listened to the whole lecture) he does explain what he thinks but doesn't offer anything resembling proof of any kind, which doesn't make it incorrect but still won't convince me.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Not reading the whole thread, but I do think that beautiful is a very good term, especially so in relation to music. It can be used wrongly, but that is not the fault of the term. My take on the term is based on Kant's _Critique of Judgement._


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> At *13:09* Andras Schiff comments about the "Hammerklavier" and the notion of "beautiful"!


Interesting. He comments that the music is not beautiful and then plays a short portion that, to me, is without question beautiful. He also says the music is great, expressive, and true. I have a pretty good idea what someone means when she says music is beautiful, but I have no idea what Schiff means when he says music is true. I guess one problem is that it simply is difficult to talk about music. More so, since our feelings are subjective and vary from one person to another.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

mmsbls said:


> Interesting. He comments that the music is not beautiful and then plays a short portion that, to me, is without question beautiful. He also says the music is great, expressive, and true. I have a pretty good idea what someone means when she says music is beautiful, but I have no idea what Schiff means when he says music is true. I guess one problem is that it simply is difficult to talk about music. More so, since our feelings are subjective and vary from one person to another.


What he means is perhaps that the music expresses something _truly meaningful_, that it gives voice to the composers true emotions and ideas or something about the human condition in general, thus being true in a looser sense of the word, but this too might be problematic.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2017)

Schiff has in mind a narrower meaning of beautiful which is obviouly shared by some here (Art Music for one, I think) but which does not correspond to what a dictionary says.

Purists might insist we stick with the dictionary. Anti-purists might insist that a dictionary is not a strict rule book, but merely a record of contemporary speech usage, that meanings will change over time, and that the purists had better get used to it. That's all well and good, but without some commonality to our use of language, the value of language in sharing our common experiences would be significantly undermined.

Imagine the terror when 'tonal' and 'atonal' come to mean the same thing because of the evolution (or the corruption) of their use!


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Schiff has in mind a narrower meaning of beautiful which is obviouly shared by some here (Art Music for one, I think) but which does not correspond to what a dictionary says.
> 
> Purists might insist we stick with the dictionary. Anti-purists might insist that a dictionary is not a strict rule book, but merely a record of contemporary speech usage, that meanings will change over time, and that the purists had better get used to it. That's all well and good, but without some commonality to our use of language, the value of language in sharing our common experiences would be significantly undermined.
> 
> Imagine the terror when 'tonal' and 'atonal' come to mean the same thing because of the evolution (or the corruption) of their use!


Totally agree I am unashamedly a purist.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

Beautiful means aesthetically pleasing. It is a meaningful term, since we have a common agreement on what the word means.

Sometimes that is all you can say. Listening to the last moments of RVW's sixth symphony last night I felt a complex series of emotions and ideas: a quiet reflection on acceptance of death, a solemn feeling tinged with regret, with a slight dash of joy that is natural, the order of life, nostalgia for the past and contemplation of my own mortality. It is difficult to describe all that but I can say that it is beautiful. It is inadequate but the alternative is very purple prose. Choose your poison.

None of you should be so quick to criticize the language posters choose and berate them for it. This community should strive to be all inclusive. Don't alienate posters because they can't or won't articulate their opinions on par with a music critic. This is a message board for celebrating a shared love of classical music. This is not Classics Today or Gramophone.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2017)

haydnfan said:


> Beautiful means aesthetically pleasing. It is a meaningful term, since we have a common agreement on what the word means.


I'd agree, but with one slight alteration, based on reading what some others have posted.



haydnfan said:


> Beautiful means aesthetically pleasing. It is a meaningful term, *if *we have a common agreement on what the word means.


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

I would be more inclined to change the title of the thread to:

"Is the Term "Beautiful" even a description of Music at all?"

Music the most abstract of all the arts, regardless of era or genre. The aesthetic concept of "beauty", is too visual psychology to have any meaning. It is also very non-descriptive, rather much like a hole in the wall that says "large items only", who the hell knows what exactly goes in there? and the building has no logos or business signs. 
The concept of beauty in music is also just too limiting. To narrow everything down to; this is "beautiful" music and this is not "beautiful" music, feels like preschool.

The word "beauty" is a visual thing, a beautiful woman for instance exists but it's a subjective thing related to both your perceptions of people (both physically and emotionally) and sexuality (the root of all human and animal mentality)


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

ST4 said:


> I would be more inclined to change the title of the thread to:
> 
> "Is the Term "Beautiful" even a description of Music at all?"


The term beautiful gives information about the effect of the music on the person using the term. If one knows the person using the term reasonably well, one may learn something about the music.



ST4 said:


> The concept of beauty in music is also just too limiting. To narrow everything down to; this is "beautiful" music and this is not "beautiful" music, feels like preschool.


I'm not sure I've encountered anyone dividing music into a set of beautiful music and another set of non-beautiful music. Most people simply use beautiful as a description of the music (but really a description of how the music effects them). I will say that every professional musician I've ever know uses the term in relation to music (and not rarely). To me, it seems quite natural to say a work (or maybe a particular passage) of music is beautiful.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2017)

mmsbls said:


> Interesting. He comments that the music is not beautiful and then plays a short portion that, to me, is without question beautiful. He also says the music is great, expressive, and true. I have a pretty good idea what someone means when she says music is beautiful, but I have no idea what Schiff means when he says music is true. I guess one problem is that it simply is difficult to talk about music. More so, since our feelings are subjective and vary from one person to another.


I think what you've said is correct and I'm unsure about Schiff's rhetorical flourish with "true". Perhaps in the Keatsian sense of "beauty is truth" etc.?

But what I've been driving at is the notion that a great deal of art music cannot simply be described as 'beautiful'. For me, at least, that's too glib a response and that's what Schiff was driving at with his comment. It's a great discussion to have because I've thought about this myself over the years and have to admit it does jar when somebody in our music group responds to a piece by cooing "oh, that's so beautiful" - when any number of other responses would be apposite. But, there it is. As you quite rightly suggest, "it is very difficult to talk about music".


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

I wish I had a man to tell me I'm beautiful


----------



## Timothy (Jul 19, 2017)

Ziggabea said:


> I wish I had a man to tell me I'm beautiful


Men are animals, decedents of ape-kind. They only want one thing which they disguise in their minds to be other things of which are not. Be free and happy and enjoy life, the only life you will get will be this one before the next one


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Ziggabea said:


> I wish I had a man to tell me I'm beautiful


If that's you in your avatar you're not as beautiful as Brahms but still quite beautiful.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Ziggabea said:


> I wish I had a man to tell me I'm beautiful


Raises hand. 

By the power vested in me as a cosmic scoundrel, you are hereby granted all the love you could ever possibly want, north and south, east and west, up and down... As ye give, so shall ye receive.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

ST4 said:


> The word "beauty" is a visual thing, a beautiful woman for instance exists but it's a subjective thing related to both your perceptions of people (both physically and emotionally) and sexuality (the root of all human and animal mentality)


But if music is visual, what then? People often associate music with images and ascribe to it other visual qualities, so they might perceive music and the visual in the same way aesthetically.


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

Improbus said:


> If that's you in your avatar you're not as beautiful as Brahms but still quite beautiful.


Yes it is me  (it took ages to workout the settings of this site, why is it so difficult?)

The comment was meant as a joke but I am single tho.
Damn it Ziggabea, now look what you've got yourself into :lol:


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Ziggabea said:


> Yes it is
> 
> The comment was meant as a joke but I am single tho.
> Damn it Ziggabea, now look what you've got yourself into :lol:


I'm a man by the way, considering that you wanted to hear it from a man.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Jeeeeeez now we have a dating site.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> [Schiff] comments that the music is not beautiful and then plays a short portion that, to me, is without question beautiful. He also says the music is great, expressive, and true. I have a pretty good idea what someone means when she says music is beautiful, but I have no idea what Schiff means when he says music is true.


It sounds to me like Schiff is using "beauty" in a traditional pre-19th century sense, which would be consistent with his entire lecture series, much of which is devoted to describing Beethoven's sonatas from a pre-19th century perspective. Unlike the fully romantic sense of the term, Schiff seems to take "beautiful" to mean not only aesthetically pleasing but also having something like "grace" or "elegance." It's the same standard by which, say, a rose is considered beautiful but a gargoyle is not, however fascinating or powerful the latter might otherwise be. It's not an insult to the gargoyle to call it ugly, according to this view, because the ugliness is part of the point of a gargoyle. (A romantic, by contrast, would say that a gargoyle has its own kind of beauty, and that maybe it's a "better" kind of beauty precisely because it flouts traditional standards of beauty.)

I think Schiff is saying that the choppy rhythm from the Hammerklavier excerpt he plays is _supposed_ to sound choppy. We're meant to hear it as awkward and disorienting. If, in our eagerness to see Beethoven forging his own standards of beauty, we hear that passage as having just as much beauty as a Mozart melody, I think Schiff would say we've missed the point. The awkwardness is part of Beethoven's intended effect. This, at any rate, is how I interpret his remark that the passage is "true": the awkwardness of the rhythm is a necessary component of what the music "means." Not hearing the awkwardness is kind of like not hearing what Beethoven is saying.

All of this is comparable to what is traditionally said about the Ninth Symphony, for example. The chord at the start of the last movement, that ear-splitting B-flat against a D minor triad, was a source of grotesque fascination for the early 19th century. Even for those who defended the work, it was not an insult to the symphony to think of that chord as harsh and unbearable. The harshness was part of its meaning, just like a gargoyle's ugliness. It's a shocking chord, a powerful one, a profound one... but not a beautiful one.

I'm guessing Schiff's description is counterintuitive to most of us because we have a more romantic understanding of beauty: if the passage "works," if it makes aesthetic sense, then it's beautiful. (Keats: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty.") I imagine most fans of the Ninth think they're siding with Beethoven when they hear that last movement chord as aesthetically pleasing. But what Schiff seems to be saying is that we lose something of Beethoven's intended effect if we are not bothered by a B-flat against an A, or if we don't find that choppy rhythm awkward. We know that Beethoven liked to shock, so Schiff is trying to be faithful to Beethoven by preserving the shock.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

"Beautiful" is a perfectly acceptable term. All that's really important is to know whether we're using the word mainly to point out a piece's intrinsic, compositional attributes or to indicate our subjective response to it. In the former sense we're talking about the way the elements of a piece work together to make a satisfying whole. Coherence is the minimum requirement for intrinsic beauty: the music seems, on sufficient acquaintance, to fit together and to go the way it should. The human mind is so constituted as to perceive and value beauty in this sense, and can do so to a great extent even in spite of variances in personal taste. I can hear that a Mozart piano sonata is beautiful whether I personally enjoy it or not. Obviously it's harder for us to perceive the beauty in some things than in others, depending on our perceptual skill, our familiarity with the style, our personal temperament, and so forth.

"Beautiful" in the sense of "pleasing to me" is pretty useless except as a sharing of one's enthusiasm with friends. Some things are pretty universally found to be beautiful, i.e., pleasing to the mind, senses, or emotions; other things, such as the sound of a harpsichord or a soprano's vibrato, may divide opinion sharply. But describing these things as beautiful imparts little information except about oneself. I announce a beautiful sunset only to share my feelings and possibly lure someone else outdoors to see it. But I speak of beauty in art not only to share a perception but to identify something inherently worthy of admiration, and to open up my mind and the minds of others to further insight and understanding. Speaking of beauty can thus be not a conclusion but a gateway. It's a not unbeautiful place to start.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2017)

Eschbeg said:


> It sounds to me like Schiff is using "beauty" in a traditional pre-19th century sense, which would be consistent with his entire lecture series, much of which is devoted to describing Beethoven's sonatas from a pre-19th century perspective. Unlike the fully romantic sense of the term, Schiff seems to take "beautiful" to mean not only aesthetically pleasing but also having something like "grace" or "elegance." It's the same standard by which, say, a rose is considered beautiful but a gargoyle is not, however fascinating or powerful the latter might otherwise be. It's not an insult to the gargoyle to call it ugly, according to this view, because the ugliness is part of the point of a gargoyle. (A romantic, by contrast, would say that a gargoyle has its own kind of beauty, and that maybe it's a "better" kind of beauty precisely because it flouts traditional standards of beauty.)
> 
> I think Schiff is saying that the choppy rhythm from the Hammerklavier excerpt he plays is _supposed_ to sound choppy. We're meant to hear it as awkward and disorienting. If, in our eagerness to see Beethoven forging his own standards of beauty, we hear that passage as having just as much beauty as a Mozart melody, I think Schiff would say we've missed the point. The awkwardness is part of Beethoven's intended effect. This, at any rate, is how I interpret his remark that the passage is "true": the awkwardness of the rhythm is a necessary component of what the music "means." Not hearing the awkwardness is kind of like not hearing what Beethoven is saying.
> 
> ...


What a wonderful, eloquent response and I completely agree with you. Thanks for those insights.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> "Beautiful" is a perfectly acceptable term. All that's really important is to know whether we're using the word mainly to point out a piece's intrinsic, compositional attributes or to indicate our subjective response to it. In the former sense we're talking about the way the elements of a piece work together to make a satisfying whole. Coherence is the minimum requirement for intrinsic beauty: the music seems, on sufficient acquaintance, to fit together and to go the way it should. The human mind is so constituted as to perceive and value beauty in this sense, and can do so to a great extent even in spite of variances in personal taste. I can hear that a Mozart piano sonata is beautiful whether I personally enjoy it or not. Obviously it's harder for us to perceive the beauty in some things than in others, depending on our perceptual skill, our familiarity with the style, our personal temperament, and so forth.
> 
> "Beautiful" in the sense of "pleasing to me" is pretty useless except as a sharing of one's enthusiasm with friends. Some things are pretty universally found to be beautiful, i.e., pleasing to the mind, senses, or emotions; other things, such as the sound of a harpsichord or a soprano's vibrato, may divide opinion sharply. But describing these things as beautiful imparts little information except about oneself. I announce a beautiful sunset only to share my feelings and possibly lure someone else outdoors to see it. But I speak of beauty in art not only to share a perception but to identify something inherently worthy of admiration, and to open up my mind and the minds of others to further insight and understanding. Speaking of beauty can thus be not a conclusion but a gateway. It's a not unbeautiful place to start.


Largely in agreement with this; you're suggesting that 'beautiful' is an invitation and entry point for further investigation? An intriguing and original idea!!

I'm not sure I agree that something has to be 'coherent' to be beautiful. Many works of art, like "Guernica", seem to be incoherent, even inchoate and forged from horror, but they can still be expressively beautiful and chaotic without immediate order to the viewer (if that makes any sense). Out of the chaos steps order when we begin to understand. That understanding itself can be a beautiful thing for some of us. For me, personally, it's usually a revelation.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2017)

ST4 said:


> The word "beauty" is a visual thing,


Says who ?


----------

