Janáček vs. Bartók

[Luke]

I'm not discounting anything Janacek said, I'm merely making the point that what we, the listeners, perceive the music in our own way despite what the composer said about their music. Luke said he hears one note after another of heartfelt emotion in Janacek's music and I simply do not.

More than that, though, I'm saying that it was his stated aim to achieve that goal, and it wasn't Bartok's. Not

a) that one approach 'beats' another

nor

b) that a composer's words and intentions will necessarily translate into his music

but nevertheless, what I do feel is that this attitude (well, actually it was closer to a belief and a conviction) of 'say it as directly as you can, without the middleman of technique(s) interfering' is audible in Janacek's music, and it is that which I respond to most, I think. Not just the expression, but the unquenchable urge to be expressive at all costs, even if it means 'mistakes'. Tippett shares this, so does Havergal Brian (though Tippett has his techniques, and maybe they do get in the way sometimes). It's what I love most about all three composers (and they are all very dear to me indeed), but it is in Janacek to a greater degree than it is in anyone else, in my experience. This is why I said that he was a revolutionary in his own way, and it's why, I think, Mellers said that everyone else was irrelevant next to Janacek, no matter what technical innovations they introduced.

[Luke]

I think that a composer's attitude towards expression can be one of the most revealing nd touching aspects of his music, FWIW. I'm thinking of Brahms, another of my very dearest composers, and I'm thinking of the way he uses strict techniques to butress the most emotional of music. I'm thinking specifically, in fact, of the op 119/1 Intermezzo, one of his very last pieces, that extraordinary work which Clara Schumann called a 'grey pearl.' Here the most obscure, glowing harmonies are created from echt-Brahmsian chains of falling thirds - it is Brahms at his most condensedly Brahms. There is indeed a sublime silvery sheen over this music, over the floating harmonies which appear and disperse like mists. Around and above it Brahms places a melody and a bass line, framing it, pointing it up - but, typical of Brahms, these two lines are in fact a strict canon. I've always felt this two well-defined and contrapuntally-related lines to be like a shell (appropriately, continuing Clara's nacreous metaphor) protecting the delicate, exposed, self-revelatory expressive parts inside.

A fanciful expansion of the metaphor, maybe, but perhaps it contains a seed of truth - one we might glimpse in what we know of Brahms the man, and of course what we know from his music: that inside the formidable exterior is a passionate heart, which, however, he only lets speak publically when all else is strict and correct and proper. Maybe that is why he destroyed so many works, who knows? Perhaps they revealed too much without the butress of technique to supprt them.

Just my musings. Brahms is different from Janacek in this, in my estimation. Someone like Ravel, though (another of my favourites) is surprisingly close to Brahms in this respect if no other. Maybe its why I love them both so much. (Actually, I think it probably is this). What I am trying to say is that there is not one right way to be an expressive artist, but that the composer's attitude to letting his music speak - whether unfiltered and honest like Janacek, or guarded and protected like Brahms - is in itself expressive, even if often unconsciously so (not in Janacek's case). Maybe I respond to this more than most people do!!! 

[Luke]

That an artist claims to have a particular motivation or objective in his work - which claim has to be taken at face value - does not mean either that the artist necessarily succeeds in realising that aim, or even if he does, that that is necessarily what is most apparent to the observer.

Yes, but I didn't disagree with that. In fact I said it too 

I"m sorry, I am not writing well today, it's lack of practise - I've hardly been here for weeks and weeks, far too busy IRL. I'm not about to make claims such as 'X says he intended this in his work, therefore it is present.'

Otherwise we might as well all go and listen to Dzorelashvili

What I am saying (or part of it) is that Janacek's stated approach to his music, though not quantifiable and verifiable in the way that e.g. Bartok's use of additive rhythms (or Schoenberg's of twelve tone technique or [insert here]) is quantifiable and verifiable, was equally fundamental to his approach to composing, if not even more so.* So it is something we should take into account when we are discussing the  innovatory or revolutionary aspects of his music.

This fact expains, in part, why I think he is a composer of significance. The fact that to my ears and mind 1) the approach works and pays enormous dividends and 2) I find Janacek's attitude to honest [self-]expression itself to be moving, expains why I love the man's music so much.  They aren't the same thing, but my vote for Jancek was based on both of them.


*to Schoenberg the 12 t-t was not everything, it was just a tool; to Janacek his theories about the expressive power of every note were everything, musically speaking

[eyeresist]

I don't think this is right or even accurate. Or, it is only true for the listener who decides to discount what the composer has explicitly said. Which is an interesting approach, but . . . .

I would say the notes speak louder than the words, or anyway they should.

[Karl Henning]

I would say the notes speak louder than the words, or anyway they should.

And — what does this mean? TIA

[Cato]

More than that, though, I'm saying that it was his stated aim to achieve that goal, and it wasn't Bartok's. Not

a) that one approach 'beats' another

nor

b) that a composer's words and intentions will necessarily translate into his music

but nevertheless, what I do feel is that this attitude (well, actually it was closer to a belief and a conviction) of 'say it as directly as you can, without the middleman of technique(s) interfering' is audible in Janacek's music, and it is that which I respond to most, I think. Not just the expression, but the unquenchable urge to be expressive at all costs, even if it means 'mistakes'. Tippett shares this, so does Havergal Brian (though Tippett has his techniques, and maybe they do get in the way sometimes). It's what I love most about all three composers (and they are all very dear to me indeed), but it is in Janacek to a greater degree than it is in anyone else, in my experience. This is why I said that he was a revolutionary in his own way, and it's why, I think, Mellers said that everyone else was irrelevant next to Janacek, no matter what technical innovations they introduced.

It is very nice to have the very perceptive Luke Ottevanger back in action.   0:)

I also voted for Janacek.  Luke's thoughts here on Janacek parallel mine rather closely.  What gives Janacek - for me - the edge over many others, not necessarily just Bartok, is the eccentric individuality of his expression.  His "compositional voice" rattles my soul much more often than Bartok, whose works can do that, (e.g. the Sixth String Quartet), but just not as often or to the same degree.

Time's up!

[starrynight]

And — what does this mean? TIA

Well normally it would mean that the music itself says far more than any words about it could do.

[Karl Henning]

I would say the notes speak louder than the words, or anyway they should.

Well normally it would mean that the music itself says far more than any words about it could do.

So, both of you are participants here in the Good Music Guide Forum.  Are you suggesting to me that you've neither of you wasted your time posting words about music, since (after all) the music itself can do all the talking? Or does the lion's share of the talking? Or does the louder talking?

[Karl Henning]

The alternative would seem to be that listening to what is said about music is at least as important as listening to the music itself.

One of my points is that the comparative is flawed.

Another is the innumerable historical instances where a composer had to offer verbal apologetics in order to guide listeners away from prejudicial hearing.  Now, this may seem to you silly, but there have in fact been times when what the composer had to say, was 'as important as' the music itself.

[starrynight]

I've talked quite a lot about music on forums, popular as well as classical, however normally I like to do so in more general terms and make connections about the period or style, other composers and other subjects mixed into it  For instance if someone does a review of a specific album or piece (which tend to be quite long on the internet) I tend to glance over it a bit, because I know that it would never be as good as me hearing the music myself.  I don't think you need to do big descriptions for music as often now people can listen to it themselves anyway.