Music and struggling

[Cato]

Quote from: Cato on November 30, 2015, 01:58:12 PM

I suspect for many people the "effort" (whether you use the term or not) is the sense of pleasure also found in completing puzzles or figuring out a mystery novel a chapter or two before the end, etc.  It is not a struggle in the sense of painful agony, but the fun struggle to complete a model airplane with 100 parts.

Pretty much...

Music that reveals all its impact on a first listen is generally less satisfying that music which appeals but requires some concentration from me and some unlocking. See: the vast majority of things I've said about Vagn Holmboe while trying to evangelise the forum singlehandedly as to his genius.

Very nice idea, and there is an adjacent phenomenon, where one believes that the old warhorse "has nothing left to say," and so one ignores it, or even rejects it as unworthy of a visit.  And then, one day, one hears it again, and everything about it is like new: perhaps a young conductor has somehow invigorated it or simply the passage of time has changed one's ears.  But there it is, a Schubert Eighth or a Tchaikovsky Fourth or a von Suppe' overture, and suddenly one wonders why the earlier rejection had ever occurred!

[relm1]

I find this quote from Igor Stravinsky's autobiography relevant.  He discusses the pros and cons of musicians connecting with wider audiences and how with the advent of new technology (he was referring to radio though it could just as easily have been the web) would ultimately weaken the impact of music because it asks less of its audience.  Stravinsky convincingly makes the case that the ease that it takes listeners to hear music ultimately deadens their interest in music.  What do you think about this?  Does effort result in greater appreciation?

"The propagation of music by mechanical means and the broadcasting of music - that represent formidable scientific conquests, which are very likely to spread even more - merit close examination as for their importance and their effects in the domain of music. Of course, the possibility for both authors and performers to reach the masses, and the fact that these masses are able to make themselves acquainted with musical works, represent an unquestionable advantage.  However, it cannot be concealed that this advantage is dangerous at the same time. In the past, someone like Johann-Sebastian Bach had to walk ten leagues in order to hear Buxtehude perform his works. Today, any inhabitant of any country simply has to either turn a knob or play a record in order to listen to the piece of his choice. Well! It is in this very incredible easiness, in this very lack of effort that lies the vice of that so-called progress. In music, more than in any other branch of art, comprehension is only given to those who actively contribute to it. In itself, the massive reception is not enough. The listening of certain combinations of sounds, and the automatic growing accustomed to them does not necessarily involve the fact of hearing and grasping them, for one can listen without hearing, the same way one can watch without seeing. What renders people lazy is their lack of active effort and their developing of a liking for this easiness. People no longer need to move about as Bach had to; the radio spares them the traveling. Neither do they absolutely need to make music themselves and to waste time studying an instrument in order to know the musical literature. The radio and the disc take over. As a result, the active faculties, without which music cannot be assimilated, gradually atrophy among the listeners who no longer train them. This gradual paralysis leads to extremely serious consequences. Overwhelmed with sounds, the most varied combinations of which leave them indifferent, people fall into a sort of mindless state, that deprives them of all ability to judge, and renders them indifferent to the very quality of what they are served. In the near future, such disorganized overfeeding is more than likely to make listeners lose their hunger and their liking for music. Indeed, there will always be some exceptions - some people within the hoard will be able to select what they like. However, concerning the masses, one has all the reasons to fear that instead of generating love for and understanding of music, the modern means involved in spreading music will lead absolutely to opposite results; it is to say, they will lead to indifference, to the inability to recognize them, to be guided by them, and to have any reaction of some value." Igor Stravinsky - "Chronicles of My Life" - 1935

I don't believe just because something is challenging or difficult means it is great art but that challenge in understanding music rewards the effort put forth.   Part of the joy of classical music is in how it rewards effort. In Stravinsky's own words: "In music, more than in any other branch of art, comprehension is only given to those who actively contribute to it. In itself, the massive reception is not enough." I also believe as one becomes more comfortable with challenge, they must expose themselves to greater challenge. Sort of like working out – if the weights are too easy, you need to graduate to bigger weights so your muscles maintain a balance of effort to reward.

[Brian]

I do agree wholeheartedly with the concept of struggle as is represented in your first four points, however I can't say I relate with point 5 and the remarks made in your postlude to your list. On the idea of music being a puzzle, well, from a performer's perspective I can completely understand where a struggle to understand a musical language and aesthetic lies. More often than not it is related to the amount of knowledge one may have on the objective aspects of music. From a listener's perspective I still find that listening to music is never a struggle to understand, yet it is a changing and expanding personal taste in music over time. Familiarity, mood, expectations etc. are all things that happen when choosing something to listen to and ultimately influence the listening experience.

You mentioned Carter, so here's my own experience of his music this year/ I recently performed a piece of music by Elliott Carter for solo guitar called 'Shard.' I struggled whilst learning it due to my technical abilities (the last page of it is a nightmare to play!!!) but on another level I did struggle with creating a strong, musical interpretation once I had mastered the technical aspects. I soon looked over the composition for a second time, and without the guitar, to embark on an analysis of the composition. Carter's use of metric modulation to smoothly move from one tempo/meter to another was a key element in the interpretation of it, because what essentially happens is that he uses rhythmic and metric centres in the same way Mozart would use harmonic/tonal and thematic centres to create a sense of an overarching musical 'narrative' where music moves away from and returns to the opening theme(s) and home key. This piece I played ended up being an exploration of textures and contrapuntal voices on the guitar within Carter's methods of harmonic and melodic writing with a structural 'narrative' implied by the tempo and meter. The modulations to other tempos and meters created the same kind of underlying musical tension as the modulations to various related keys do in a sonata-form composition.

These kinds of compositional things, however, are near-impossible to be picked up by anyone listening to the music and basically are only ever mentioned much when working out how to interpret the music or if someone somewhere has to do an analysis of it (here's one if anyone is interested https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/G_Capuzzo_Elliott_2003.pdf). From the perspective of purely listening to the music, a live performance may be very interesting for unfamiliar music that one may 'struggle' with, especially if one walks away having found the music to be characterful due to the interpretation! Schoenberg explained once that his music was merely 'badly played' when addressing the 'difficulty' of his music. Perhaps, over time, newer works (which people allegedly struggle with more often) will have stronger interpretations due to more scholarly work done on them and a greater body of recorded performances. I am just speculating here though, but this reasoning could be true for some people.

I mentioned Carter because some guy mentioned it at the very top of the thread, but now you've succeeded in making me want to listen to this piece. There are definitely lots of things you learn about a work while performing it, which you could or would miss just listening, but hey...it sounds worth a try.

[Karl Henning]

And . . . are we speaking of effort, as if it were a bad thing? . . .

0:)

[bigshot]

I *always* think about music. Same with movies, books and plays. We live in a passive society that seems to think the world exists to entertain us. It doesn't. We are supposed to try to make sense of the world and communicate with each other through the arts.

Artur Schnabel resisted recording because he couldn't deal with the disrespect of Beethoven by some guy in a t shirt eating a ham sandwich listening to a record of a Beethoven sonata. I don't personally care about the dress code, but I do think it's disrespectful to an artist to turn your brain off while listening to his work.

[Henk]

I *always* think about music. Same with movies, books and plays. We live in a passive society that seems to think the world exists to entertain us. It doesn't. We are supposed to try to make sense of the world and communicate with each other through the arts.

Artur Schnabel resisted recording because he couldn't deal with the disrespect of Beethoven by some guy in a t shirt eating a ham sandwich listening to a record of a Beethoven sonata. I don't personally care about the dress code, but I do think it's disrespectful to an artist to turn your brain off while listening to his work.

A bit evangalist words. Sure we need to develop ourselves and make sense of things. But also to enjoy our time.

Did Schnabel perform for the guy or did the guy just play a recording on his stereo?

Considering the first scenario:

I don't think the behaviour of that guy was disrespectful to Beethoven (because we are not attendees at his funeral..), but more to the performer, in this case Schnabel, himself.

Has to do more with politeness and codes. In a concert hall codes are different than a pop festival. Why that is, is more a question of tradition and stature (maybe Beethoven can be considered a signifier of this stature, I think Schnabel feels it more in this way). I don't think it would be a progression if we should change these codes and make everyone eat and drink in a concert hall. Otherwise the distinction between high and low culture would dissolve, which would be a bad thing.

So, wise act by Schnabel, preserving the good habits.

Personally I wouldn't go in a t-shirt to a concert hall. With hot weather I would rather prefer a polo or something.

[Brian]

Time to reply to some guy's reply to me. I think some guy must have picked up some sort of hostility from me, that I wasn't aware of writing; maybe that accounts for some of his tone...

Yes, but I wasn't talking about performers.

No, but I wanted to mention it. It wasn't personal to you or meant to refute you.

OK, but what are they? What are the "weird" ones? What are the perfectly fine ones? You're leaving us hanging here, Brian! Finish your thought.

I'm hoping this series of posts, in general, expands on the thought.

I see struggling as an active, conscious thing, something that is not pleasant. That is, I see the reports of struggling as indicating that for the strugglers, struggling is conscious and unpleasant. And I said already that for me it's a matter of awareness. If I am expending effort in listening to music, I am not aware of it. What I am aware of is the music. And music, generally, is something I quite like.

So one thing we're up against here is we are just using different definitions of "struggling". Apparently there are people who are listening, masochistically?, to music they don't get, which makes them feel unpleasant and which grates them, but they keep listening to it anyway. I haven't really noticed these people as much as you have, maybe? The one (really inspiring!) example I can recall is when a whole bunch of Sibelians chipped in to help Elgarian try and digest Sibelius's Seventh Symphony. But that ended up producing one of the best, and most musically-interesting, discussions this board has had. I doubt Alan would characterize his "struggle" as being what we're here calling perplexing and weird.

I think that Elgarian is right, btw, that part of the issue here, too, is we're just different listeners. For instance:

I find the concept of difficulty--all of it, including struggle and ease--not useful for describing anything that happens to me when I listen to music.

You are indeed a lucky so-and-so!

Certainly, this thread has pretty clearly pushed the idea that listening to music is fun. That at the very worst, if something is difficult and needs to be struggled with, the effort is worth it, because listening to music is fun.

I'm in it for the fun, too, mostly. Here we can find a great deal of common ground! Even if music requires "struggling" (the good kind), it can still be fun.

[Henk]

I'm in it for the fun, too, mostly. Here we can find a great deal of common ground! Even if music requires "struggling" (the good kind), it can still be fun.

Classical music and jazz as well brings me rather in a certain state of mind that is productive. Instead of watching screens like I do now. I could do without GMG, I often ask myself what I am doing here..

I don't know listening to classical music is fun. Yeah, if you do it in an excessive way, then it must be to keep it going..

[Elgarian]

The one (really inspiring!) example I can recall is when a whole bunch of Sibelians chipped in to help Elgarian try and digest Sibelius's Seventh Symphony. But that ended up producing one of the best, and most musically-interesting, discussions this board has had. I doubt Alan would characterize his "struggle" as being what we're here calling perplexing and weird.

I can honestly say that no discussion about a piece of music has ever had anything like so much impact on me as that one had, and its effects still echo. The 'struggle' which, after over 40 years of trying, was getting more than a bit wearing ["I love lots of Sibelius so why can't I like this??!!"], was transformed by the discussions and the new way of listening I was able to develop as a result. I used to sit there thinking OK, that bit's good, but I want more of it and he won't give it to me, and what does this new bit have to do with anything anyway? It's such a relief to be able to listen to it now with familiarity, and even at certain moments smile because I remember some of the things that we said, and still, after all this, feel that final staring into the endless musical night of the finale.

Where did the struggle end and the pleasure begin? And is staring into the endless musical night a pleasure, anyway?

Which reminds me of something else I wanted to raise about the 'pleasure' aspect. A few weeks ago I heard the most wonderful performance of Elgar's violin concerto that I've ever heard, in a concert in Malvern (Alexander Sitkovetsky and the ESO). It was so intense I could hardly breathe. My chest muscles became so knotted up that it was physically painful. The windflowers stabbed at me like stilettos. I couldn't bear for the music to end, even though when it did end I knew it would be less painful.

Where's the pleasure, and where's the struggle in all that? Which is which?

[Henk]

I can honestly say that no discussion about a piece of music has ever had anything like so much impact on me as that one had, and its effects still echo. The 'struggle' which, after over 40 years of trying, was getting more than a bit wearing ["I love lots of Sibelius so why can't I like this??!!"], was transformed by the discussions and the new way of listening I was able to develop as a result. I used to sit there thinking OK, that bit's good, but I want more of it and he won't give it to me, and what does this new bit have to do with anything anyway? It's such a relief to be able to listen to it now with familiarity, and even at certain moments smile because I remember some of the things that we said, and still, after all this, feel that final staring into the endless musical night of the finale.

Where did the struggle end and the pleasure begin? And is staring into the endless musical night a pleasure, anyway?

Which reminds me of something else I wanted to raise about the 'pleasure' aspect. A few weeks ago I heard the most wonderful performance of Elgar's violin concerto that I've ever heard, in a concert in Malvern (Alexander Sitkovetsky and the ESO). It was so intense I could hardly breathe. My chest muscles became so knotted up that it was physically painful. The windflowers stabbed at me like stilettos. I couldn't bear for the music to end, even though when it did end I knew it would be less painful.

Where's the pleasure, and where's the struggle in all that? Which is which?

It's all fun, they say.

Sounds like a heavy experience, never heard such a thing. It touches your soul deep apparantly. I don't consider this fun. Fun is in a relation between humans, I would say, as sports and games.

[Elgarian]

It's all fun, they say.

But that's the thing, you see. It IS all fun. The most solemn and enriching fun I know.

[Karl Henning]

3. Struggling is not always entirely in the listener's mind. Other circumstances can factor into it.

Maybe I've already told this story.  But my second performance of Thoreau in Concord Jail involved a certain degree of struggle.

Not for me:  I was well practiced, had plenty of energy and stamina.  I gave what I thought was a signally good performance of the work.

But the program that evening was lopsided, the first 'half' was shorter than the second, so that paltered a bit with the audience's expectations.  Thoreau was a 25-minute "middle" of the second (and longer) portion of the program, and the listeners were seated in old-style wooden pews . . . simply not a very physically comfortable experience for them.

I don't think that would have been much of an obstacle for the listener who was engaged with the piece.  But for a fellow composer who (truth be told) is inclined to dismiss the piece as Abstract (horrors!), the experience was like "being in jail ourselves."

[Henk]

But that's the thing, you see. It IS all fun. The most solemn and enriching fun I know.

Exactly, like I added to my reply:

"Sounds like a heavy experience, never heard such a thing. It touches your soul deep apparantly. I don't consider this fun. Fun is in a relation between humans, I would say, as sports and games."

[Henk]

"Everything is fun." Who here would like to defend this thesis?

[Karl Henning]

"Everything is fun." Who here would like to defend this thesis?

The fellow who brought it forward, I should think 

It's all fun, they say.

[Henk]

The fellow who brought it forward, I should think 

Ok, I gonna a stab you with a knife, watch out!

[Henk]

No GMG moderator correct this, so I'm afraid you lie there alone, bleeding, Karl. Not so fun, so here is a plaster for you.

[some guy]

Time to reply to some guy's reply to me. I think some guy must have picked up some sort of hostility from me, that I wasn't aware of writing; maybe that accounts for some of his tone...

I was aware that I was conveying hostility, and I struggled (!) to remove that tone wherever I found it. And I apologize for failing.

(I did not, just by the way, pick up any sort of hostility from you. Any of it in our exchange was entirely from me, in spite of my feeble attempts to remove it. Heigh ho.)

[Henk]

It's actually a lot of fun, Karl! But now, back to work!

[Sergeant Rock]

But for a fellow composer who (truth be told) is inclined to dismiss the piece as Abstract (horrors!), the experience was like "being in jail ourselves."

I haven't contributed to this thread, and I hesitate now...but yes, I struggle with your "Concord Jail"    I will continue the struggle, though, until it becomes struggle-free   


Sarge