Emotion and music

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Sooooo, like, what is it? Emotion comes from human beings right? Sounds can certainly evoke them too right? What makes some music or interpretation more emotional than others? People seem to bring this up when talking about repertoire and even more with interpretation.......but it seems a tricky thing for me to really understand. Maybe you all know what this is?

[Mandryka]

Sooooo, like, what is it? Emotion comes from human beings right? Sounds can certainly evoke them too right? What makes some music or interpretation more emotional than others? People seem to bring this up when talking about repertoire and even more with interpretation.......but it seems a tricky thing for me to really understand. Maybe you all know what this is?

One way into this question is through evolutionary psychology -- the way we've evolved with certain emotional responses to sounds hard wired  -- the cry of a baby, the roar of a lion,  the laughter of a child etc. 

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

One way into this question is through evolutionary psychology -- the way we've evolved with certain emotional responses to sounds hard wired  -- the cry of a baby, the roar of a lion,  the laughter of a child etc. 

Do you listen to much experimental vocal music?

[Mandryka]

Do you listen to much experimental vocal music?

Stockhausen, Cage, Kurtag, Birtwistle, Harvey and Ferrari certainly. But my point really is that certain forms of sound seem to be connected with emotion and action in a way which transcends convention, which is in fact biological, part of our animal natures.

[BasilValentine]

It is impossible to get too deeply into this topic in a few paragraphs, but:

Its shifting relationship to human emotion (or affect) and coherent sequences thereof has been a primary determinant of musical structure for most of the last 350 years. In the Baroque Era music was thought to evoke it; The composer's role was understood by analogy to that of an orator, that is, to move a listener to feel one affect in any particular movement (the Doctrine of Affections). This is why movements of baroque concertos and sonatas are overwhelmingly monothematic and why melodic figures were catalogued like rhetorical figures. Musical structures were analyzed by analogy to well-formed orations and classical rhetorical theory was the well-spring of musical theory and aesthetics.

In the Romantic Era music was thought to express emotion and the coherence of musical structure from miniatures to the largest thematically unified multimovement cycles was inextricably tied to the coherence of the expressive sequences it embodied. This is why the majority of sonatas and symphonies beginning in the minor mode end in the major, why it was commonplace to link this overall trajectory to the transformation of themes from beginning to end, and why miniatures tended to use simple forms with obvious narrative implications (e.g., ternary and varied ternary forms). Movements in sonata form, especially those in the minor mode, began to fall into standard plot like sequences.

In the Classical Era the connection was muted or suppressed, which is why the relatively rare sonatas and symphonies in the minor mode stand out so strongly.

[Cato]

A review in the Wall Street Journal recently appeared about a book on the perception and reception of classical music:

...One does hear intelligent people lament that they don't "understand" classical music, as if understanding were somehow essential to loving it. Mr. Swafford is more interested in making people feel at home by humanizing composers and works, recounting their lives with the right mixture of familiarity and wonder. Above all, he wants to help people discover compositions they might enjoy....As befits a composer, he leads us on a personal tour through 20th-century music and conveys its excitement and greatness. Commendably, he gives as animated and persuasive an account of Arnold Schoenberg as of Igor Stravinsky while noting that Schoenberg has had a much harder time winning audiences' hearts. Schoenberg's atonality, he emphasizes, was a means to an end, that of creating "intensely expressive music" reflective of his time and place. "My works are not twelve-tone compositions," Schoenberg said; "they are twelve-tone compositions." At times, Mr. Swafford directs his readers to wonderful pieces that they might not otherwise encounter, such as Béla Bartók's haunting "Cantata Profana," in which the eerie voices of hunters merge into the songs of the magic stags they are stalking....

"Intensely expressive music"... but expressive of what?  One assumes that would be up to the individual listener to decide.  "Reflective of his time and place"...more specific, and not bad a phrase, given that the human condition does create parallels now and then of previous circumstances.

"Eerie voices" in Bartok's Cantata Profana: I do wonder whether the ears and minds deadened by (e.g.) watching superhero movies or these automotive epics with Mr. Diesel, would feel anything eerie about it.  I hope so, but am not so sure.

See:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mozart-for-the-masses-1492554859?tesla=y

[Monsieur Croche]

Bah. Humbug 

Barring all the extramusical elements of text, even a suggestive title, no givens as to mood, inspiration, the composer's biography, and removing any and all context of the Apollonian-Terpsichorean myth, what is left is a bunch of notes 'titled' with something very far removed from emotion, those titles usually of a form (sonata, sinfonia, etude, etc.), and being very neutral, or likewise fairly neutral, as Feldman did, "Piano and String Quartet."

Remove from the listener all the above that may influence, small or great, and predispose them to expect 'an emotion.' Further -- this is important -- blindfold them so they can not see the illustration on the CD, the program notes, the players who may 'mug it up' during a performance and in so doing telegraph -- like an actor does-- a particular emotion. 

Put that all in to the mix, and all that remains is the listener's personal reaction to what they are hearing, have heard.  Music (absolute music, anyway) is an Aural Rorschach blot, with as much emotional 'content' as any Rorschach blot.

'Tis a mystery ;-)

[Florestan]

a bunch of notes 'titled' with something very far removed from emotion, those titles usually of a form (sonata, sinfonia, etude, etc.), and being very neutral, or likewise fairly neutral, as Feldman did, "Piano and String Quartet."

This is wrong on multiple levels.

The title, say,  "string quartet" is anything but neutral, or abstract. It comes with a heavy cultural, social and ideological baggage, to which it is inextricably linked and from which it can't be abstracted (supposing such an operation is possible at all) without devoiding it of any meaning and significance (more on this below).

The act of composing a "symphony" in Vienna in the second half of the 19th century is anything but neutral, or abstract. On the contrary, it is full of cultural, social and ideological significance, symbols, idea(l)s and expectations.

The idea that somehow music is created ex nihilo, without any wider cultural, social or ideological roots and significance beyond a mere bunch of notes on the staves goes against history, experience and common sense. It is simply untenable.

Barring all the extramusical elements of text, even a suggestive title, no givens as to mood, inspiration, the composer's biography, and removing any and all context of the Apollonian-Terpsichorean myth, what is left is

Remove from the listener all the above that may influence, small or great, and predispose them to expect 'an emotion.' Further -- this is important -- blindfold them so they can not see the illustration on the CD, the program notes, the players who may 'mug it up' during a performance and in so doing telegraph -- like an actor does-- a particular emotion. 

What you argue for is operating as a listener in a sort of cultural, social and ideological vacuum. But this is (1) an execrcise in futility, because it is downright impossible: nobody (and I mean, nobody, not even you) can even for a second abstract their existence, thoughts and feelings from their cultural, social and ideological environment; everybody (and I mean, everybody, even you) is a children of their time and place; one can of course go against the cultural, social and ideological presuppositions and idea(l)s of the time and place, but one cannot escape them completely any more than can escape wetting their bodies while swimming naked, and (2) an exercise in absurdity, because outside any cultural, social and ideological framework whatsoever, a piece of music (or indeed a work of art in general) loses all meaning and significance; art is a social phenomenon and cannot be abstracted from its social context, not even theoretically.

Put that all in to the mix, and all that remains is the listener's personal reaction to what they are hearing, have heard.

This point is moot, because the listener personal's reaction to what they are hearing was always* the ultima ratio, and even the most self-absorbed composers were aware of that and acted accordingly.

* Well, at least since the early 18th century; I doubt that the listener's personal reaction was of much concern for Palestrina, or even for JS Bach in some of his (most important) works.

Music (absolute music, anyway) is an Aural Rorschach blot,

It is nothing of the sort, not by a long stretch of imagination. A Rorschach blot is randomly generated, while absolute music is (generally speaking) carefully planned, notated and performed. With a Rorschach blot, the person is invited to make whatever he can of it, while with absolute music the listener is invited to figure out what the composer made out of it. They couldn't be more different in conception and intent.

'Tis a mystery ;-)

The only mystery is whether you are being serious or just provocative.

[Jo498]

We have >2500 years of texts documenting the close relationship between music and emotional reactions.
Not sure how old the David-Saul-episode in the Old Testament or the Orpheus myths are, but in the 4th century BC in Plato's "Republic" we already have something like a "theory" on how the respective musical modes influence people differentially. And most of them were to be banned in the "ideal state" because such music is not conducive to produce tough warriors and clear minded philosophers but rather lazy indulgent softies

So by all means, we should go with Stravinsky's flippant remarks about music only being music or Toscanini's "only Allegro con brio" that were polemics (probably well deserved!) against some overreaching romantic viewpoints wrt music and meaning and music and emotion and ignore the three millenia of cultural history that clearly document the deep connections.

[Mahlerian]

It is nothing of the sort, not by a long stretch of imagination. A Rorschach blot is randomly generated, while absolute music is (generally speaking) carefully planned, notated and performed. With a Rorschach blot, the person is invited to make whatever he can of it, while with absolute music the listener is invited to figure out what the composer made out of it. They couldn't be more different in conception and intent.

Rorschach ink blots (the original ones, at least) are not randomly generated, they were specifically designed.  They had to be ambiguous enough to provoke a range of responses in a way that randomly generated images could not, but suggestive enough to obtain those reactions.

[Florestan]

Rorschach ink blots (the original ones, at least) are not randomly generated, they were specifically designed.  They had to be ambiguous enough to provoke a range of responses in a way that randomly generated images could not, but suggestive enough to obtain those reactions.

Be it as it may, they've got nothing to do with absolute music.

Now that I think of it, the whole thing is extremely funny: Mr. Croche wastes no opportunity to lambast Romantic music and aesthetics, yet his own musical philosophy is premised upon the typically Romantic notion of "absolute music" (an ideologically loaded concoction of the German Romantics) and the typically Romantic strategy of indiscriminately applying modern concepts and categories to the the past (|Haydn arguably did not compose a single note of "absolute music" in his whole life, the very concept being completely alien to his time and place).

[Monsieur Croche]

This is wrong on multiple levels.

The title, say, "string quartet" is anything but neutral, or abstract.  It comes with a heavy cultural, social and ideological baggage, to which it is inextricably linked and from which it can't be abstracted (supposing such an operation is possible at all) without making it devoid of any meaning and significance (more on this below).

The act of composing a "symphony" in Vienna in the second half of the 19th century is anything but neutral or abstract.  On the contrary, it is full of cultural, social and ideological significance, symbols, idea(l)s and expectations.

The idea that somehow music is created ex nihilo, without any wider cultural, social or ideological roots and significance beyond a mere bunch of notes on the staves goes against history, experience and common sense. It is simply untenable.

What you argue for is operating as a listener in a sort of cultural, social and ideological vacuum.  But this is (1) an exercise in futility, because it is downright impossible: nobody (and I mean, nobody, not even you) can even for a second abstract their existence, thoughts and feelings from their cultural, social and ideological environment; everybody (and I mean, everybody, even you) is a child of their time and place; one can of course go against the cultural, social and ideological presuppositions and idea(l)s of the time and place, but one cannot escape them completely any more than can escape wetting their bodies while swimming naked, ...

Steeped in classical music, instrumental performance, then theory and composition -- for pretty much my lifetime since the age of six, I am also "a child of my time."  I am quite aware of 'the tradition" and the literature from that tradition.  I think I am, by clear contrast to you, far less the sentimentalist about it all. 

When I think of 'string quartet,' I am of course aware of so much of the repertoire for that particular group of instruments, but I have never 'waxed sentimental,' about all the body of works in that format, nor associated the previous works with, say, a string quartet by Brian Fernyhough, or Terry Riley.

There is, more plainly, that plain designation of what instrumental forces a piece of music is written for and uses.  Ergo, when I see a title like Morton Feldman's Piano and string quartet, I take it on face value as a list of the instruments he wrote that music for; the title does not, for me, conjure up any associative memories of other piano quintets.  When I see 'String Quartet' it takes no effort of forgetting, or disassociating all the other music written for string quartet:  to me it is simply a designation of instrumental registration.  I would argue, without denying knowledge of musical / cultural history, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

...and (2) an exercise in absurdity, because outside any cultural, social and ideological framework whatsoever, a piece of music (or indeed a work of art in general) loses all meaning and significance; art is a social phenomenon and cannot be abstracted from its social context, not even theoretically.

Some people are heavily contextualist, others are not.  I know all the contexts, don't feel them when listening to any particular piece, don't sentimentally dwell on them.  Yes, I am quite aware I am listening to 'Classical' and all that implies when I'm listening to Mozart, or "Romantic" and all that implies when listening to romantic era music, yet, I do very much take things one thing at a time, and also, if "thinking about it" as per what I am hearing, I recall back then (childhood) and now, pretty much listening to any one work for what it is -- musically, not culturally or socially, and not for much of anything else.

I do not think there is any right, or wrong, about one approach over another.  Those who are heavily contextualist will say that the more neutral, isolated listening will have that listener missing out on a quantity of riches, while the other (I) would argue that you will not experience the essence of the tree if you are dwelling on the forest. 

This circles back to your statement, "What you argue for is operating as a listener in a sort of cultural, social and ideological vacuum."  You understood me correctly.  Maybe it is more an Eastern way of thought and approach which is animist, i.e. there is a singularity of personalty and an individual essence to each and every thing;  if you think of "rock" as "all rocks," you then very much miss the experience of the one rock you are spending time regarding, feeling, walking around.  Then, yes: I do argue for as much as is possible ignoring (or at least suspending) all the social and cultural contexts many do attach to what they hear, for the bettering of being wholly in the present and fully attendant to what they are hearing now, whether it is ancient music or the most recently written piece.

I did not mean to actually bait anyone when I wrote my post, but your full response certainly shows a reaction I did intend to provoke;  in listing all those things, I did hope to make people aware of just how much baggage they do bring to listening to any piece of music, to become aware of what they do bring with them to many a performance or hearing, and to at least to provoke them into questioning if they need to travel with so much baggage ;-)

This is because, whatever the school of thought or from whence it came, I am a huge advocate of listening to any one piece of music for what it is, quite on its own and as unfettered as possible from the baggage of the cultural / social history of all of western art music plugging both ears and mind with all those extramusical associations.

A friend told me of an art museum in Germany that has a mixed collection, old Chinese art, European art, etc.  Works from different cultures and eras are set side by side, with, say, an antique Chinese chair next to a 20th century European painting, with an antique Greek statue nearby.  None of the works are labeled.  I love the idea, others abhor it.  Clearly, a polar difference in temperaments. ;-)


Always best regards.

[Uhor]

There are people that presented with (for example) an athematic piece, feel nothing and/or do not recognise the piece as "music". This probably has more to do with preconceptions in the listener than what is being discussed here though.

[Monsieur Croche]

There are people that presented with (for example) an athematic piece, feel nothing and/or do not recognise the piece as "music". This probably has more to do with preconceptions in the listener than what is being discussed here though.

I can not imagine anyone thinking that somehow, awareness of music literature and its historic and social contexts can not other than make for preconceptions of what one is about to hear, is hearing.  They are inexorably intertwined.

[Uhor]

The heuristics of the holistic is to forget everything and write a fugue that we can sing(, or not if this sentence makes any sense anyway).

[Monsieur Croche]

The heuristics of the holistic is to forget everything and write a fugue that we can sing(, or not if this sentence makes any sense anyway).

"The Mbenga (Aka/Benzele) and Baka peoples in the west and the Mbuti (Efé) in the east are particularly known for their dense contrapuntal communal improvisation. Simha Arom says that the level of polyphonic complexity of Mbenga–Mbuti music was reached in Europe only in the 14th century. The polyphonic singing of the Aka Pygmies was relisted on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2008." ~ Wikipedia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKLxFmnYO_I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW8j8XaE3iM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkQTEqwTs7Q

[Monsieur Croche]

"Why Pygmies Aren't Scared By The Psycho Theme."

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/09/375418410/why-pygmies-arent-scared-by-the-psycho-theme

[Uhor]

Be it Hungarian or Georgian or, whatever keeps the ghost of late Hindemith away.

[Monsieur Croche]

Be it Hungarian or Georgian or, whatever keeps the ghost of late Hindemith away.

This should do the trick.

https://www.youtube.com/v/R6EFGuXEowk

[Florestan]

I do not think there is any right, or wrong, about one approach over another.  Those who are heavily contextualist will say that the more neutral, isolated listening will have that listener missing out on a quantity of riches, while the other (I) would argue that you will not experience the essence of the tree if you are dwelling on the forest. 

This circles back to your statement, "What you argue for is operating as a listener in a sort of cultural, social and ideological vacuum."  You understood me correctly. [...]I do argue for as much as is possible ignoring (or at least suspending) all the social and cultural contexts many do attach to what they hear, for the bettering of being wholly in the present and fully attendant to what they are hearing now, whether it is ancient music or the most recently written piece.

I assume HIP is anathema to you. Am I wrong?

Always best regards.

Likewise.