Classical music and emotions

[Florestan]

can we move on?

Frankly, I don't think the debate can. or will, be ever settled. And the more I think about it, the more I find it irrelevant. Music is the most elusive of arts and there is no one single right way to experience and appreciate it. The most important thing, after all, is to listen to, and enjoy, it. Whether the emotional response is triggered exclusively by the inherent properties of a musical wotk, or solely by an associative process in the mind of the listener, or a combination of the two is, when all is said and done, immaterial. It might be of interest to psychologists and philosophers but adds or subtract nothing to and from the pleasure of listening. One gets that pleasure by overt emotional involvement, another one by abstract intellectual auricular contemplation, yet another one by both in turns. There is plenty of music to enjoy for each of the three approaches.The bitter quarrel over who is right (in which I deeply regret having taken part) is useless. De gustibus non disputandum est. As Debussy put it, pleasure is the only law.

[Karl Henning]

Frankly, I don't think the debate can. or will, be ever settled [....]

Overall, a post of virtues full; but here is the nub.

Somehow I am put in mind of a rhyme, and my age may well have been in single digits yet when first I read it:

"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

; )

[The new erato]

I second that emotion.

[Daimonion]

Frankly, I don't think the debate can. or will, be ever settled. And the more I think about it, the more I find it irrelevant. Music is the most elusive of arts and there is no one single right way to experience and appreciate it. The most important thing, after all, is to listen to, and enjoy, it. Whether the emotional response is triggered exclusively by the inherent properties of a musical wotk, or solely by an associative process in the mind of the listener, or a combination of the two is, when all is said and done, immaterial. It might be of interest to psychologists and philosophers but adds or subtract nothing to and from the pleasure of listening. One gets that pleasure by overt emotional involvement, another one by abstract intellectual auricular contemplation, yet another one by both in turns. There is plenty of music to enjoy for each of the three approaches.The bitter quarrel over who is right (in which I deeply regret having taken part) is useless. De gustibus non disputandum est. As Debussy put it, pleasure is the only law.

Hello Florestan, I will send you PM as soon as your box is not full Apologies for all the others reading this message!

[aukhawk]

Hmmm...I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel that if a piece is considered "important," then, because I love music and consider it very important in my life, I should at least take time to sit down and listen to such a piece, with as much attention and non-prejudice as I can.  Then if I don't like it, at least I can say I gave it its chance.

I'm curious now - if the music in question is of a type that is performance-led - such as, to use a recent example upthread, a Chopin Mazurka - how many different performers would you listen to before deciding to listen elsewhere? 
It's just that - I find life is a bit too short to listen to music I don't like, so it pays to be a bit selective up-front.

Having read this thread with interest, I think it's been thrown off track by considering mostly music that has a clear textual link.  That includes everything from a 'titled' symphony - which should be predominantly abstract because that's what a symphony is - but once you know the association between Beethoven 6 Movt IV and 'Storm' then you are never going to eradicate it - but that is a NON-musical association.  To things like Wagner's Ring - where the music exists largely to serve the text, or Glass' Einstein where the words are very secondary to the music, only there to add texture.

All these cloud the issue with non-musical consideration.  It would be better surely to cite the non-vocal works of Bach, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich.  Are they abstract?

[edited to add - and Romanticism is a bit of a red herring too - the wider Romantic movement (for good or ill) was not confined to music and was probably more strongly expressed in other media.   Music is, if you like, at the 'abstract' end of the Romantic spectrum.

[some guy]

I find life is a bit too short to listen to music I don't like.

I have heard this said many times over the years, especially the last couple of years that I've participated in online discussions of music.

It seems, on the face of it, a very peculiar statement. How does one come to like any particular piece? Is it always instantaneous? If not, and if a piece that has not pleased at first becomes a favorite, then it would seem like the shortness or longness of "life" is neither here nor there.

And this business of selectivity. If it's not you selecting--if it's not you doing the listening and the deciding--then all this means is that you've given over the business of selecting what you like to someone else, which also seems very peculiar. And also seems to have nothing to do with the duration of "life."

Here's what I'd say: Life is too short to give it over to other people to live it for you.

Or this: Life is too short to listen only to what you already know you like.

[Mirror Image]

Or this: Life is too short to listen only to what you already know you like.

I disagree with this. People listen to the same works over and over again because they love the music and they get fulfillment and enrichment out of it. What's it to you that I listen to Stravinsky's Petrouchka everyday? Does this affect your own life? In short, there's nothing inherently wrong with someone who listens to a lot of the same works. People should enjoy themselves while they're here and not worry about what they should or shouldn't be listening to.

[North Star]

I disagree with this. People listen to the same works over and over again because they love the music and they get fulfillment and enrichment out of it. What's it to you that I listen to Stravinsky's Petrouchka everyday? Does this affect your own life? In short, there's nothing inherently wrong with someone who listens to a lot of the same works. People should enjoy themselves while they're here and not worry about what they should or shouldn't be listening to.

But... Have you always listened to Petrouchka, John?

[Mirror Image]

But... Have you always listened to Petrouchka, John?

What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that it shouldn't matter to any of us whether someone listens to Beethoven's 9th over and over again. This doesn't make them narrow-minded or indifferent to music. Many people simply don't ever get past a few composers and there's nothing wrong with that, but if the day comes that they ask me for help or for me to recommend something, I'll be happy to help them.

I'll also add that not everybody has the exploratory attitude I have had all my life in regards to music.

[North Star]

What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that it shouldn't matter to any of us whether someone listens to Beethoven's 9th over and over again. This doesn't make them narrow-minded or indifferent to music. Many people simply don't ever get past a few composers and there's nothing wrong with that, but if the day comes that they ask me for help or for me to recommend something, I'll be happy to help them.

Listening to some piece(s) a lot doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't also explore new (to oneself) music. They are not mutually exclusive. Otherwise agreed.

[Mirror Image]

Listening to some piece(s) a lot doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't also explore new (to oneself) music.

This is true.

[Florestan]

What's it to you that I listen to Stravinsky's Petrouchka everyday? Does this affect your own life?

Of course it doesn't, but superciliously lecturing other people seems to be his favorite pastime. His holier-than-thou attitude strongly reminds me of a great Menckenism: "Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

[Karl Henning]

Of course it doesn't, but superciliously lecturing other people seems to be his favorite pastime. His holier-than-thou attitude strongly reminds me of a great Menckenism: "Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

Ah, the inimitable Mencken! IIRC (and this is no material quibble, of course) the original has the additional savor of a colloquialism: "... that someone, somewhere, is having a good time."

[Florestan]

Ah, the inimitable Mencken! IIRC (and this is no material quibble, of course) the original has the additional savor of a colloquialism: "... that someone, somewhere, is having a good time."

More apt a formulation, indeed.

[some guy]

I disagree with this. People listen to the same works over and over again because they love the music and they get fulfillment and enrichment out of it. What's it to you that I listen to Stravinsky's Petrouchka everyday? Does this affect your own life? In short, there's nothing inherently wrong with someone who listens to a lot of the same works. People should enjoy themselves while they're here and not worry about what they should or shouldn't be listening to.

But you didn't disagree with it. And I listen to the same works over and over again, too, for the same reasons.

Plus, when Northstar said "Listening to some piece(s) a lot doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't also explore new (to oneself) music," you agreed with that, which was exactly in line with what I had said. (Read what I said, again, maybe?)

I was making a philosophical observation about a perspective, not setting up a pattern for someone else's life nor even saying that there's something wrong with someone who listens over and over again to their favorites.

I dunno what to say here, guys. I already suggested that Mirror read what I said, again. And perhaps Florestan could as well. I don't want to just repeat myself here. I guess I could add that I was using "you" in the sense of "one."

Perhaps what I needed to have said was that life is too short to listen to only (this is the word everyone missed, I trow) what I already know I like. But I wanted to make a general observation, not a credo.

[Gurn Blanston]

Perhaps what I needed to have said was that life is too short to listen to only (this is the word everyone missed, I trow) what I already know I like. But I wanted to make a general observation, not a credo.

It is intellectually simpler to take one phrase, out of context, and use it as a representation of an entire philosophy than it is to address several points which represent a fairer and more complete picture of what one's thoughts were. I did it here, by way of illustration and to cut to the chase, so to say. I think that people owe it to someone with whom they disagree to give a cogent response that represents the argument fairly, including mentioning points that might weaken ones own position. Where else would compromise come from? Any other sort of engagement is false, insulting and destined to failure. In short, a waste of everyone's time. 

[Ten thumbs]

In this busy world, it is possible to enjoy the existence of works without actually listening to or playing them. I am currently exploring Kirchner's piano music, which is not in the same league as Beethoven. For that reason, it is some time since I played a Beethoven sonata (Haydn and Schubert, yes). Nevertheless, the thought of them gives me great pleasure.

[Sammy]

I'll also add that not everybody has the exploratory attitude I have had all my life in regards to music.

My hero!!  I'll be sending you a gold star in the mail.

[Johnll]

It is intellectually simpler to take one phrase, out of context, and use it as a representation of an entire philosophy than it is to address several points which represent a fairer and more complete picture of what one's thoughts were. I did it here, by way of illustration and to cut to the chase, so to say. I think that people owe it to someone with whom they disagree to give a cogent response that represents the argument fairly, including mentioning points that might weaken ones own position. Where else would compromise come from? Any other sort of engagement is false, insulting and destined to failure. In short, a waste of everyone's time. 

I resolve to be TRY to be that even handed and rational.

[Gurn Blanston]

I resolve to be TRY to be that even handed and rational.

Can't ask more, can I?