The Classical Chat Thread

[Karl Henning]

Agreed;  I think that if anything, Chopin was more of a classicist than was Mendelssohn.

[Florestan]

@ North Star

Romantic or anti-Romantic, are you going to claim that there is a single note in the whole output of Chopin which did not express his soul, and that there is a single emotion in his music which he did not personally experienced?

[North Star]

The Romantics changed the musical language into something more expressive, but that doesn't necessarily prove that all of their works were inspired by personal emotions, I'd be particularly loathe to include Chopin there, as he was in many ways an anti-Romantic.

Romantic or anti-Romantic, are you going to claim that there is a single note in the whole output of Chopin which did not express his soul, and that there is a single emotion in his music which he did not personally experienced?

To the same extent as I could make the same claim of the output of Bach.

[Karl Henning]

To the same extent as I could make the same claim of the output of Bach.

Indeed.

[Florestan]

To the same extent as I could make the same claim of the output of Bach.

You won´t get any argument from me on this matter.

[Karl Henning]

You won´t get any argument from me on this matter.

Indeed.

:-)

[NorthNYMark]

@ North Star

Romantic or anti-Romantic, are you going to claim that there is a single note in the whole output of Chopin which did not express his soul, and that there is a single emotion in his music which he did not personally experienced?

I have to admit that claims like this tend to bring out my skeptical side--especially when brought down to the level of "a single note."  Though the question was not addressed to me, my immediate, instinctual answer, is "Of course not every note "expresses his soul," and of course there are "emotions in his music which he did not personally experience."  Now, my instinctual reaction may not hold up to deeper scrutiny, but in this case, my skeptical response probably starts with my incomprehension of the phrase "emotions in his music." I don't see how there can be emotions in music--rather, emotions may be provoked by music, but I assume that such emotions will differ from person to person, though some emotional responses to certain sounds and sound combinations may be more common than others.  Also, I'm not sure that "his soul" is something that can be "expressed."

To me, the very fact that there is any (let alone so much) disagreement on these works and the emotional responses they can or should provoke suggests that they are anything but pure and direct conveyors of the composer's emotional state. An additional factor getting in the way of such a conception would be the many formal conventions to which the romantic composers still adhered--for example, if a 19th century composer were feeling emotions that would be most accurately conveyed by something like Pli Selon Pli or Become Ocean, I don't think they would (or could) have composed such works, despite those emotions.  In that sense, your description of the classical "tool set" model seems equally applicable to the Romantics, and to everyone else, for that matter.  Each composer, in each age, has a specific and limited set of tools at their disposal with which to produce emotional effects in listeners (which probably involves some attempt to imitate emotions they have felt themselves at some point, but probably not, in most cases, at the actual moment of composition).

[Florestan]

of course there are "emotions in his music which he did not personally experience." 

Name three, please.

in each age, has a specific and limited set of tools at their disposal with which to produce emotional effects in listeners (which probably involves some attempt to imitate emotions they have felt themselves at some point, but probably not, in most cases, at the actual moment of composition).

Agreed, with the caveat that there is no "moment of composition". Even Mozart took one whole night to write the Don Giovanni overture.   

In the case of the Romantics, for instance, between the moment a musical idea sprang in their mind (prompted by whatever feeling, emotion or state of mind they experienced at that precise moment in time, or around it) and the moment the last note was written down for good whole weeks, or months or even years may have passed. Of course one cannot compose a whole work while being in a state of religious rapture or deep longing or burning jealousy or whatever --- but there is no denying that the musical idea(s) upon which the work is built sprang in precisely such feverish states. Take Schumann, for instance, who composed most of his greatest piano works out of love for Clara Wieck and precisely as a testimony and musical embodiment to that love. Or take Mahler, whose work is almost like a musical autobiography.

[Karl Henning]

Name three, please.

There may be emotions felt by the listener to the music, which the composer himself did not experience.

[Karl Henning]

The problem, again (of course) is, "Does music contain emotion?"  Emotion in music has not become any less slippery a phrase, no matter how often we return to the topic.


Anyone surprised?

[Florestan]

There may be emotions felt by the listener to the music, which the composer himself did not experience.

You seem to say that the listener may feel, say, sadness while listening to a piece which Chopin wrote (or more correctly, started writing) while feeling cheerful/neutral, or viceversa --- did I get it right?

The problem, again (of course) is, "Does music contain emotion?" 

Music, just like any other art, induces emotion by using a specific set of tools.

[Karl Henning]

You seem to say that the listener may feel, say, sadness while listening to a piece which Chopin wrote (or more correctly, started writing) while feeling cheerful/neutral, or viceversa --- did I get it right?

No, because those are emotions which the composer himself felt (I expect).

Music, just like any other art, induces emotion by using a specific set of tools.

All right, that is a reasonable proposal!

Two Three corollary q.'s:

• Does (need) all art induce emotion?


• If two people disagree on the nature of emotion induced by a given artwork, how do we determine which of them is the emotion intended by the artist?  Or that the artist did not intend to induce any particular emotion?


• Does the art induce emotion, or does the audience deduce emotion?

[Karl Henning]

BTW:

Romantic or anti-Romantic, are you going to claim that there is a single note in the whole output of Chopin which did not express his soul, and that there is a single emotion in his music which he did not personally experienced?

Hence my observation on the slipperiness of music containing emotion.

I think your new verb better suited to the topic!  And I dare say that there are emotions deduced from Chopin's music which he did not personally experience.

[NorthNYMark]

Karl's answers here are pretty much exactly what I was attempting to get at, but with far more succinctness.  Thank you!

[Jaakko Keskinen]

I'd be particularly loathe to include Chopin there, as he was in many ways an anti-Romantic.

I don't know, I find Chopin having many romantic attributes in his music. Whether he was a true Romantic as a man, I cannot say, because I know embarrassingly little about his life. I guess I should read a Chopin biography.

[Ken B]

BTW:

Hence my observation on the slipperiness of music containing emotion.

I think your new verb better suited to the topic!  And I dare say that there are emotions deduced from Chopin's music which he did not personally experience.

DING DING! Pedantry time! I think "deduce" an inapt word here. No shame on Florestan, who is not a native English speaker, nor on Karl who as a Bostonian isn't one either, but a better word is educe.

[Karl Henning]

Dang if he ain't half right!

[Florestan]

No, because those are emotions which the composer himself felt (I expect).

Well, that´s precisely my point.

• Does (need) all art induce emotion?

What is art?

If two people disagree on the nature of emotion induced by a given artwork, how do we determine which of them is the emotion intended by the artist?

In the case of the Romantics or the Moderns, by studying the composer´s biography, particularly the events surrounding, or triggering, the beginning of the creation of that given artwork. In the case of the Classical composers, by studying the musical rhetoric of their time. In the case of the Baroque composers, by studying the Affektenlehre. In the case of the Renaissance and Medieval composers, by understanding the texts being sung.

Or that the artist did not intend to induce any particular emotion?

IMHO an artist who creates an artwork without any intention whatsoever to induce emotions / feelings / states of mind (remember this is the triad I´ve been using all the way) is not an artist but a charlatan.

• Does the art induce emotion, or does the audience deduce emotion?

With all due respect, this is semantical hairsplitting.

But all these are theoretical questions, let´s refer the matter to an actual artist. You are a composer yourself. May I ask why do you compose music? What is your purpose in putting pen to paper to arrange notes on a stave? Let´s take Out in the Sun: would you please tell us how and why did the idea sprang in your mind, and what was your purpose in composing it? These would be some most illuminating answers, very much relevant for the topic at hand. Of course you are under no obligation to answer but if you choose to do so I thank you in advance.

[jochanaan]

BTW:

Hence my observation on the slipperiness of music containing emotion.

I think your new verb better suited to the topic!  And I dare say that there are emotions deduced from Chopin's music which he did not personally experience.

Evoke is the verb I like to use.  It is beyond sense to say that composers feel no emotion as they write, that performers feel none as they play, or that audiences feel none as they listen.  But whether they are the same emotions is a different question...

[Karl Henning]

But all these are theoretical questions, let´s refer the matter to an actual artist. You are a composer yourself. May I ask why do you compose music? What is your purpose in putting pen to paper to arrange notes on a stave? Let´s take Out in the Sun: would you please tell us how and why did the idea sprang in your mind, and what was your purpose in composing it? These would be some most illuminating answers, very much relevant for the topic at hand. Of course you are under no obligation to answer but if you choose to do so I thank you in advance.

I started quite abstractly, really.  The two initial drivers were:  First . . . I had been writing quite a bit of music for church, where the music needed both to be of a certain character, and technically within reach of a very modest choir.  So before any consideration else, I wanted to write something fast, something challenging, and for a group of instruments.


Secondly, I wanted a full, brassy sound to the group, but with a generally low center of registral gravity.  With that goal in mind, I dreamt up the group:  six saxophones, two tenor trombones, one bass trombone and tuba.  (That is how I composed the 5-minute exposition originally, although the composition of the ensemble I later changed, swapping clarinets for two of the saxophones.)


I don't remember exactly where in the process I came up with the title;  but I had certainly already composed 2-3 minutes of the piece before I settled on a title.