What's the point of Beethoven's piano sonatas?

[some guy]

I'm not so sure about the cogent input, Gurn. For one, as someone else has already pointed out, the question in the OP is problematic, and no one has of yet made any inroads on solving that problem.

But a couple of things have stood out for me. One of them is the whole glamor of evolutionary theory. When faced with things that don't seem to fit evolutionary theory, one possibility is certainly to try to find out how to fit those things into the theory. For me, however, it seems simpler to conclude that the theory just doesn't account for everything that happens. That Beethoven's sonatas, for instance, don't seem to advance any evolutionary imperatives doesn't seem as troublesome to me as it does to Mandryka because I don't think evolution is the only game in town.

The other is a bit more specific, and that is your comment about all the things 20th century composers rejected. Yeah, there is always talk of rejecting this or that thing from the past, rejections that sometimes (often?) seem to be anything but to observers from an even later time. i remember in grad school looking at the revolution in thought called the Renaissance, which looked to me (and had come to look to a multitude of others) as a continuation of the middle ages, not a break from it. We're still close enough to the early 20th century for the notion of rejection to seem valid. And the idea that what defined the 20th century was this negative thing of rejecting the values of the preceding century. Seems to me, looking at all the various things that happened in that time, that the the 20th century is very much a continuation of the 19th, with the major issues of the 19th continuing to be worked out in the next century (and indeed, still being worked out even now).

More importantly, though, are all the positive things that composers contributed in the 20th century. 20th century composers, as I see them, anyway, were much more interested in doing things, new things, than in rejecting old things. For a simple example, a love of the possibilities opened up by taking all the 12 tones of a scale as more or less equal does not in any way indicate a hatred of the possibilities of the more heirarchical tonal system or even a rejection of them. Nor does an interest in tighter and tighter harmonies in any way indicate a rejection of the wider harmonies of the past. Using more and more minor seconds doesn't necessarily mean that using lots of major thirds and fifths is a bad thing. It only means that minor seconds are coming to be seen as also desirable.

Very little of the activities of 20th century composers needs to be expressed in the negative. Serialism, polytonality, instrumental exploration, indeterminacy, polystylism, electronics (live and fixed), minimalism, eai, microtonality can all be expressed as positive things, things people did and do because they wanted to, not because they felt like rejecting something.

[Mandryka]

What do you think the role is for the idea that some of the avant garde post war were rejecting all the old forms because for them they had a whiff of Nazism?  Hence things like Gran Torso and For Samuel beckett. Someone said to me that people still talk like this in the big German music festivals.

I think it's worth enquiring why Beethoven's piano sonatas are valued. I'm not sure what alternative approaches there are other than evolution. Just saying "they're fun" or "they're beautiful" doesn't answer the question, it just relocates it (why do we think it's fun? No other species does.) What are the other games in town? Neo-platonism?  The composer expressing his vision of some spiritual truth? I can't believe anyone would want to go down that route.

I think that you're wrong to say that no-one has made inroads on the problem. The suggestion that the value of abstract music comes from the listener constructing a narrative in his imagination may well be developable. And of course that's an inroad because reflecting on narratives has a benefit to our survival as a species.

I like the idea, by the way, because I'm interested in the role of the listener.

[Ras]

What do you think the role is for the idea that some of the avant garde post war were rejecting all the old forms because for them they had a whiff of Nazism?

Makes me think about the baby and the bathwater!

[Mandryka]

The point of the LvB sonatas for me, as a musician, is that I get to play them. This allows an expressive outlet for me that is otherwise virtually unavailable. Yes, I can sing but I don't think what I produce vocally is very good. How many people hum, whistle or even sing music? A goodly proportion of the population. Why do we do this?

As I said before it is an emotional outlet. We can express joy, anger, sorrow. love, happiness, etc, etc simply by engaging our vocal chords.

When I play the sonatas, I can also express all of these states. Now if you listened to me you probably wouldn't hear that because I'm an ordinary pianist. But I'm not playing for you. I'm playing for me! And I can feel these emotions as I use my fingers on the keyboard.

Now this is where top pianists come in. They can express themselves so well that you can hear the emotive aspect of the music.

To illustrate this point, in 2005 I developed a case of severe clinical depression. To help me through it I turned to music, specifically Bach. I both listened to and played Bach ad infinitum and the P&Fs plus the Choral Preludes were my mainstay for my playing. I also did a lot of listening and went beyond the keyboard repertoire. It worked! The glorious music of JSB brought me out of the worst period of my life.

The original question posed by Howard is what 's the point of LvBs piano sonatas? I could transpose this to "What's the point of the Bach's WTC?" As you've just read you already have one answer.

(Apologies to Holden if I've misunderstood. )

This is a really interesting post and it very much ties in with the evolutionary approach. Holden is effectively saying that playing the Beethoven sonatas was, for him, a tool which helped him survive.  And he links that to the fact that, playing them allowed him to "role play" all sorts of emotions privately  in his head. It's as if, for him, playing the music is a way of imagining  joy, anger, sorrow. love, happiness. And that game of imagination helped him to deal with those emotions in real life better.

And I'm wondering now if anything analogous happens for the listener. Is it the case that in listening to, for example, a Beethoven sonata, the listener acquires new knowledge, strategies and tools for understanding his life?

Maybe something like this is true: music stands to adults as play stands to children.

By the way, this line of thinking seems to show that the discussion yesterday with Gurn and Florestan was a red herring. What matters is not what the composer intended when he wrote the music, but the uses that performers and listeners make of the music. Whether Haydn intended the F minor variations to be an authentic testimony of his love is neither here nor there. What matters is whether he created a tool by which performers and listeners can better live and better love.

(It would be interesting to hear from composers. Does composing music help them understand life?)

[Mandryka]

Note also that narrative plays no role in Holden's testimony. Just using music as a vehicle to learn about the nature of certain states of mind was enough to equip him to live with those states better. The focus on the creation of a coherent diegesis may be a red herring too!

But what was not a red herring was imaginative play.  Music helps us get in touch with our inner child.

Is this what music therapy is about?

[ChopinBroccoli]

Are these sentences really true? They may be, but  they're not obviously true to me.

1. J S Bach had no fondness for his instrumental music, he wrote it because he was either ordered to, or he saw a demand with an opportunity for income.
2. Sainte Colombe had no fondness for his instrumental music, he wrote it because he was either ordered to, or he saw a demand with an opportunity for income.
3. Froberger had no fondness for his instrumental music, he wrote it because he was either ordered to, or he saw a demand with an opportunity for income.
4. Byrd had no fondness for his instrumental music, he wrote it because he was either ordered to, or he saw a demand with an opportunity for income.
5. Christopher Tye had no fondness for his instrumental music, he wrote it because he was either ordered to, or he saw a demand with an opportunity for income.
6. Esaias Reusner had no fondness for his instrumental music, he wrote it because he was either ordered to, or he saw a demand with an opportunity for income.
7. Eustache de Caurroy had no fondness for his instrumental music, he wrote it because he was either ordered to, or he saw a demand with an opportunity for income.
8. Costanzo Festa had no fondness for his instrumental music, he wrote it because he was either ordered to, or he saw a demand with an opportunity for income.

I think they're nonsense, frankly

[Jo498]

Evolutionary "explanations" of not strictly biological things are highly problematic. There has been quite a bit of criticism about that for decades (one is a book by Philip Kitcher "Vaulting ambition" already from the 80s or 90s). I think that most "evolutionary explanations" tend to completely miss the point. The whole point about joy from aesthetic perception is that it is different from the joy of sex, food etc. Sure, it correlates with some lighting of brain regions in certain image-making experimental setups. But everything does, so that does not mean much and doesn't explain anything. (No psychophysical dualist thinks that the mind is totally independent of the brain, so of course stuff lights up in som experiment.)
And if a slightly more interesting "explanation" is brought forth, e.g. that communal aesthetic experiences strengthens communities so they are more successful and outcompete and outbreed others. Or individuals show their distinction with either creating or valuating art and therefore attract better mates etc. This is all missing the specifics about aesthetic experience because the mate attraction works also with different characteristics, like being a brawny badass, so one has to explain why some cultures shift from appreciation of brawny badasses to consumptive artists etc. (It already takes for granted that art can replace the more obvious/base indicators of fitness (like physical strength or social status), so it doesn't explain art and basically begs the question why art grants special social status etc.) And even more the specifics of particular works in a particular culture (like Beethoven sonatas).
So the evolutionary babble tends to be wrong or trivially true, miss the point, boringly unexplanative etc.

Western music (and maybe also Indian Classical and others, I don't know) has had a cultural evolution that left behind its functional origins in dance, worship etc. and made the appreciation of music "for its own sake" possible. This probably started already in the late middle ages although vocal and often functional music still dominated for a long time. But it came to its maturity in some instrumental works by Bach (even if they are technically for teaching/learning composition) and then especially in the instrumental music of the classics and romantics. The whole point about this music is that it is not about something else. It's not about anything but giving a contemplative aesthetic experience for its own sake. And while it is probably rather unsual in cultural history to have music/art created especiall for this "purpose" (i.e. having no other purpose but itself) the "mode" of aesthetic perception, i.e. appreciating something for only its beauty without considering representation of content or function is certainly possible in many other situations. E.g. natural beauty. (I actually remember reading the claim by one "evolutionary aesthetician" that we prefer natural sights that indicate good harvests or whatever. This seems not only a simply-minded just-so-story, but utterly wrong on the level of mere description of the phenonmenon. Trees in flower are beautiful although a late frost could completely ruin any prospects for apples or cherries. Likewise the colored trees in autumn are beautiful even if the harvest before was bad etc.)

[San Antone]

Evolutionary "explanations" of not strictly biological things are highly problematic. There has been quite a bit of criticism about that for decades (one is a book by Philip Kitcher "Vaulting ambition" already from the 80s or 90s). I think that most "evolutionary explanations" tend to completely miss the point. The whole point about joy from aesthetic perception is that it is different from the joy of sex, food etc. Sure, it correlates with some lighting of brain regions in certain image-making experimental setups. But everything does, so that does not mean much and doesn't explain anything. (No psychophysical dualist thinks that the mind is totally independent of the brain, so of course stuff lights up in som experiment.)
And if a slightly more interesting "explanation" is brought forth, e.g. that communal aesthetic experiences strengthens communities so they are more successful and outcompete and outbreed others. Or individuals show their distinction with either creating or valuating art and therefore attract better mates etc. This is all missing the specifics about aesthetic experience because the mate attraction works also with different characteristics, like being a brawny badass, so one has to explain why some cultures shift from appreciation of brawny badasses to consumptive artists etc. (It already takes for granted that art can replace the more obvious/base indicators of fitness (like physical strength or social status), so it doesn't explain art and basically begs the question why art grants special social status etc.) And even more the specifics of particular works in a particular culture (like Beethoven sonatas).
So the evolutionary babble tends to be wrong or trivially true, miss the point, boringly unexplanative etc.

Western music (and maybe also Indian Classical and others, I don't know) has had a cultural evolution that left behind its functional origins in dance, worship etc. and made the appreciation of music "for its own sake" possible. This probably started already in the late middle ages although vocal and often functional music still dominated for a long time. But it came to its maturity in some instrumental works by Bach (even if they are technically for teaching/learning composition) and then especially in the instrumental music of the classics and romantics. The whole point about this music is that it is not about something else. It's not about anything but giving a contemplative aesthetic experience for its own sake. And while it is probably rather unsual in cultural history to have music/art created especiall for this "purpose" (i.e. having no other purpose but itself) the "mode" of aesthetic perception, i.e. appreciating something for only its beauty without considering representation of content or function is certainly possible in many other situations. E.g. natural beauty. (I actually remember reading the claim by one "evolutionary aesthetician" that we prefer natural sights that indicate good harvests or whatever. This seems not only a simply-minded just-so-story, but utterly wrong on the level of mere description of the phenonmenon. Trees in flower are beautiful although a late frost could completely ruin any prospects for apples or cherries. Likewise the colored trees in autumn are beautiful even if the harvest before was bad etc.)

I agree with what you write in this post.  That bolded part does not make sense to me, since I don't think I am alone in appreciating the beauty in a photograph such as this one:

[Florestan]

What matters is not what the composer intended when he wrote the music, but the uses that performers and listeners make of the music.

That's what I've been saying for years.

[Florestan]

(Apologies to Holden if I've misunderstood. )

This is a really interesting post and it very much ties in with the evolutionary approach. Holden is effectively saying that playing the Beethoven sonatas was, for him, a tool which helped him survive.  And he links that to the fact that, playing them allowed him to "role play" all sorts of emotions privately  in his head. It's as if, for him, playing the music is a way of imagining  joy, anger, sorrow. love, happiness. And that game of imagination helped him to deal with those emotions in real life better.

The question is, can someone imagine joy when playing/ listening to sorrowful music, or sorrow when playing/listening to joyful music? "Imagine", as different from "feel".

[San Antone]

The question is, can someone imagine joy when playing/ listening to sorrowful music, or sorrow when playing/listening to joyful music? "Imagine", as different from "feel".

When I am listening to "sad" music, i.e. music written for a sad occasion, e.g. a requiem or Dowland's Lachrimae (or even a pop song about a breakup), I do not feel sad nor do I imagine sadness.  I experience some form of joy at the craft of the composer which is present in the music and which I perceive as beautiful. 

Beauty does not cause sadness, at least not in my experience.

[Florestan]

When I am listening to "sad" music, i.e. music written for a sad occasion, e.g. a requiem or Dowland's Lachrimae (or even a pop song about a breakup), I do not feel sad nor do I imagine sadness.  I experience some form of joy at the craft of the composer which is present in the music and which I perceive as beautiful. 

Beauty does not cause sadness, at least not in my experience.

I don't know. There are numerous testimonies from different people about crying with sadness or joy when listening to this or that music, which clearly implies feeling intensely sad or joyful. That's why I distinguished between imagine and feel.

My question was, for instance, can someone imagine a joyful narrative or situation when listening to Chopin's funeral march? Or a sorrowful narrative or situation when listening to Haydn's finale of Symphony 88?

[San Antone]

I don't know. There are numerous testimonies from different people about crying with sadness or joy when listening to this or that music, which clearly implies feeling intensely sad or joyful. That's why I distinguished between imagine and feel.

My question was, for instance, can someone imagine a joyful narrative or situation when listening to Chopin's funeral march? Or a sorrowful narrative or situation when listening to Haydn's finale of Symphony 88?

I have felt sadness when hearing some music, music which I connect to a sad experience.  The music is not causing the sadness, however, but triggering a sad memory. 

I never imagine a narrative when listening to music - even to music which was written with a narrative in the mind of the composer (one of the so-called tone poems).  Music is something I experience differently from any other stimulus, it is unique form of sound which I can appreciate on its own terms.  I would have to work to divert my attention to something like a narrative, a behavior which would cheapen, or undermine, my experience of the music.

[Mandryka]

Evolutionary "explanations" of not strictly biological things are highly problematic. There has been quite a bit of criticism about that for decades (one is a book by Philip Kitcher "Vaulting ambition" already from the 80s or 90s). I think that most "evolutionary explanations" tend to completely miss the point. The whole point about joy from aesthetic perception is that it is different from the joy of sex, food etc. Sure, it correlates with some lighting of brain regions in certain image-making experimental setups. But everything does, so that does not mean much and doesn't explain anything. (No psychophysical dualist thinks that the mind is totally independent of the brain, so of course stuff lights up in som experiment.)
And if a slightly more interesting "explanation" is brought forth, e.g. that communal aesthetic experiences strengthens communities so they are more successful and outcompete and outbreed others. Or individuals show their distinction with either creating or valuating art and therefore attract better mates etc. This is all missing the specifics about aesthetic experience because the mate attraction works also with different characteristics, like being a brawny badass, so one has to explain why some cultures shift from appreciation of brawny badasses to consumptive artists etc. (It already takes for granted that art can replace the more obvious/base indicators of fitness (like physical strength or social status), so it doesn't explain art and basically begs the question why art grants special social status etc.) And even more the specifics of particular works in a particular culture (like Beethoven sonatas).
So the evolutionary babble tends to be wrong or trivially true, miss the point, boringly unexplanative etc.

Western music (and maybe also Indian Classical and others, I don't know) has had a cultural evolution that left behind its functional origins in dance, worship etc. and made the appreciation of music "for its own sake" possible. This probably started already in the late middle ages although vocal and often functional music still dominated for a long time. But it came to its maturity in some instrumental works by Bach (even if they are technically for teaching/learning composition) and then especially in the instrumental music of the classics and romantics. The whole point about this music is that it is not about something else. It's not about anything but giving a contemplative aesthetic experience for its own sake. And while it is probably rather unsual in cultural history to have music/art created especiall for this "purpose" (i.e. having no other purpose but itself) the "mode" of aesthetic perception, i.e. appreciating something for only its beauty without considering representation of content or function is certainly possible in many other situations. E.g. natural beauty. (I actually remember reading the claim by one "evolutionary aesthetician" that we prefer natural sights that indicate good harvests or whatever. This seems not only a simply-minded just-so-story, but utterly wrong on the level of mere description of the phenonmenon. Trees in flower are beautiful although a late frost could completely ruin any prospects for apples or cherries. Likewise the colored trees in autumn are beautiful even if the harvest before was bad etc.)

Why do you think the experience of art music is something human beings (as opposed to other species) value?  (Sorry if you've answered it, I'm feeling a bit obtuse today.)

[some guy]

No one has mentioned it yet, but so few people value the experience of art music (or maybe it's so few people experience art music) that that cannot have any statistical value.

You keep asking for explanations of the significance of a thing for "people" which very few individuals find significant.

The answer to "why do people value the experience of art music?" is "people do not value the experience of art music, not by and large, anyway.

(That is, to gild the lily, the experiences of a tiny minority cannot be significant for the survival of the whole species.)

[Mandryka]

Well, I think you're wrong. Classic FM manages to make money through advertising sales. Each city has its symphony hall. Beethoven and Mozart big boxes are released ad nauseam. Everyone can recognise The Four Seasons.

[San Antone]

For the purpose of this thread, it is irrelevant that the size of the Classical music audience is a fraction of that for other genres.  The concerns of the Classical music audience are what matter regarding the subject of this thread.  After all, Beethoven sonatas do not figure in the minds of many among the Rock, Country, Pop, Rap, etc. audiences.

More disturbing to me is Mandryka's desire to try and nail down why we (as human beings) enjoy instrumental music:

"Why do you think the experience of art music is something human beings (as opposed to other species) value?"

How are we to know if dogs enjoy Beethoven?  My cats appear to ignore the constant sound of music playing in my home, but then again, maybe they enjoy it.  Who knows?

I couldn't begin to tell you why they might enjoy it - I can't even tell you why I enjoy listening to music. 

Why don't you tell us why you, Mandryka, enjoy listening to music?

[Mandryka]

For the purpose of this thread, it is irrelevant that the size of the Classical music audience is a fraction of that for other genres.  The concerns of the Classical music audience are what matter regarding the subject of this thread.  After all, Beethoven sonatas do not figure in the minds of many among the Rock, Country, Pop, Rap, etc. audiences.

More disturbing to me is Mandryka's desire to try and nail down why we (as human beings) enjoy instrumental music:

"Why do you think the experience of art music is something human beings (as opposed to other species) value?"

How are we to know if dogs enjoy Beethoven?  My cats appear to ignore the constant sound of music playing in my home, but then again, maybe they enjoy it.  Who knows?

I couldn't begin to tell you why they might enjoy it - I can't even tell you why I enjoy listening to music. 

Why don't you tell us why you, Mandryka, enjoy listening to music?

Oh dear!

William Empson used to read Homer in Greek to his dog. He felt that the value of the poetry lay in the music of the sounds of the words, and that his dog was civilised enough to appreciate it.

[Florestan]

Oh dear!

Yes, please, do tell us why you enjoy listening to music in general and to Beethoven's piano sonatas in particular. It would be very interesting, not only for me I'm sure, to see how you answer your own question.

[prémont]

There are numerous testimonies from different people about crying with sadness or joy when listening to this or that music, which clearly implies feeling intensely sad or joyful.

Yes, and that's why Holden's life-affirming testimony above doesn't need to be typical of our species. Music may just as well help other people to commit suicide. At least in litterature we have a well known example of this in Die Leiden des jungen Werthers.