Non-Symphonist Symphonies

[Grazioso]

But for instance, is a composer - such as, say, Martinů or Milhaud - with an output of wider scope equally as committed to this manner of thought in his writing, or do they simply write a symphony because this is the form that arbitrarily comes to mind when they set themselves their current compositional challenge? For example, regardless of the brilliance of Martinů's symphonies, does he ally himself with this concept as strongly as, say, Holmboe or Vaughan Williams? I'm not sure whether it's just a question of number, as Brahms is a total symphonist - he viewed this as a high means of expression and developed it with great precision from his first to fourth.

Martinu brings an interesting addition to the discussion: the quotidian question of money and patronage. His first symphony was a commission, written decades into his compositional career. Likewise Milhaud's 1st symphony.

If pay and performances aren't in the offing, I can imagine some very practical artists not being to keen to engage in the long task of writing a symphony.

BTW, if over-thinking like this disgruntles you in some way, then ignore it. I like it. (Pre empting an inevitable "it's all good music, why bother" comment )

Classification is useful not merely for cataloging the world but precisely because it elicits thoughtful questions. What happens when object X doesn't obviously fit into either category A or B? Perhaps the categories are defined poorly. Perhaps a new category needs to be created. Perhaps we misjudged X in the first place. That sort of goad to more careful observation is salutary.

[some guy]

Classification is useful not merely for cataloging the world but precisely because it elicits thoughtful questions. What happens when object X doesn't obviously fit into either category A or B? Perhaps the categories are defined poorly. Perhaps a new category needs to be created. Perhaps we misjudged X in the first place. That sort of goad to more careful observation is salutary.

Now these are some interesting observations/conclusions. And here I was just thinking, for the umpteenth time, that philosophical discussion was impossible online. Well, OK. It still may be. But this encourages me to ask a few questions/make a few observations of my own.

I noticed in my own listening that categorizing was more useful when I was just starting out. It's use for me, anyway, as a neophyte, was to provide some sense of stability in an unfamiliar world. But that must have been like in the first few days, for I recall being almost instantly aware of the exceptions--along the lines of why I was such a popular student in elementary school. "But what about...?" I did make my own categories for awhile before giving up the whole venture.

So here are some "perhapses" of my own. Perhaps X is sui generis. Perhaps all truly interesting and valuable things are, to some extent. Which means that perhaps any categories will be insufficient to capture the essence of any thing. Perhaps judging is not quite the most appropriate thing to be doing with objets d'art (if I may try to recapture the oldest meaning). Perhaps careful observation is not the most important thing about an aesthetic experience. Perhaps careful attention and receptivity are.

If that's true, categorization is possibly not a good idea at all. It certainly seems, in its manifestations in music blogs and online forums anyway, to diminish the splendor of really listening to a piece with all your heart and mind.

[The new erato]

Categorization is necessary to bring som kind of order into a world that otherwise would seem chaotic (it's much easier to talk about Beethovens 9th than his op 125, or his violin concerto instead of op 61). But with growing knowledge comes the recognition that classification becomes a hindrance, or that putting things into categories makes their uniqueness less obvious. It's the classic conflict between order and content.

[Grazioso]

I noticed in my own listening that categorizing was more useful when I was just starting out. It's use for me, anyway, as a neophyte, was to provide some sense of stability in an unfamiliar world. But that must have been like in the first few days, for I recall being almost instantly aware of the exceptions--along the lines of why I was such a popular student in elementary school. "But what about...?" I did make my own categories for awhile before giving up the whole venture.

So here are some "perhapses" of my own. Perhaps X is sui generis. Perhaps all truly interesting and valuable things are, to some extent. Which means that perhaps any categories will be insufficient to capture the essence of any thing. Perhaps judging is not quite the most appropriate thing to be doing with objets d'art (if I may try to recapture the oldest meaning). Perhaps careful observation is not the most important thing about an aesthetic experience. Perhaps careful attention and receptivity are.

If that's true, categorization is possibly not a good idea at all. It certainly seems, in its manifestations in music blogs and online forums anyway, to diminish the splendor of really listening to a piece with all your heart and mind.

Have you studied Zen Buddhism by chance?  "Perhaps careful observation is not the most important thing about an aesthetic experience. Perhaps careful attention and receptivity are" With this I quite agree, with one proviso: it's in the nature of our binaristic, classifying mode of thinking (something must be X or not X) to categorize and analyze (and to try to force round pegs into square holes). While this approach shouldn't be given undue precedence, it is there and it is powerful, so the question is, what to do with it?

Ideally with art, this ingrained way of assessing the world should be a spur to more careful examination. Let's say that someone tells you a pieces is in sonata form. To determine the validity of that assertion, you need to find a working definition of "sonata form" and then must consciously analyze and articulate musical structure when otherwise you might not, and then perhaps return to revise your definition. More like the scientific method than "Is so! Is not! You suck!"

I'd be the first to leap up and say that our emotional response to music is paramount, and yet I won't deny that we are intellectual creatures and that art can raise all kinds of interesting intellectual questions.

[some guy]

I have studied Zen Buddhism a bit. But not by chance.

And I love your Hedberg quote by the way.

I think your question "what to do with it?" is dead on. Perhaps I perceive that so much leads us away from the music instead of deeper into it, that I'm extremely suspicious of things like ranking and categorization and the whole question of "greatness."

[Grazioso]

Well there are people who are better at things than others for one, and two .. great art withstands the test of time, and gathers meaning. Nothing to be 'suspicious' about, it's reality.

On the contrary, I think it's healthy to be leery of any categorization since there's often a sort of political component working behind the scenes: categorization is in a sense a tool for exclusion, with one binaristic classification being either overtly or subconsciously privileged over its mate. If it's not X, then it's Y (and we don't really like Y).

In the arts world, exclusion for whatever reason can mean being hidden away or going unsupported or unperformed, to where a work doesn't get a fair chance to stand the test of time.

I saw a very interesting documentary on Rudolf Bauer, one of the great early non-objective painters. He was arrested in Nazi Germany for his "entartete Kunst" (degenerate art) and essentially hounded out of the country. In the US, he was a favorite of Solomon Guggenheim, whose museum was to center on Bauer's work. Yet because of a convoluted falling-out with Guggenheim and the Guggenheim Foundation, the museum opened without any of the 100+ Bauer works they owned being displayed, and the paintings remained locked away in the basement for decades. This for a painter who has been compared to Kandinsky. Only in the last decade has he been getting some attention; it remains to be seen if his work will ever truly come out of the shadows.

"Great art" doesn't magically withstand the test of time all by itself. People need to be involved, with all the problems that might entail.

[starrynight]

Classification can be useful as a point of comparison, comparing is a useful tool in assessing and understanding the art of what you hear.  Of course if people make comparisons that bear little relation to what they are listening to it can hinder understanding.

[Grazioso]

Classification can be useful as a point of comparison, comparing is a useful tool in assessing and understanding the art of what you hear.  Of course if people make comparisons that bear little relation to what they are listening to it can hinder understanding.

It's a tool. You can build a house with a hammer or hit someone over the head with it.