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

[Gurn Blanston]

Is that your answer? That you construct the narrative in your head, and that's why they matter to you. I.e. the reason that the instrumental art music matters is ultimately the same as why any narrative matters.  Hmmmm, that's interesting.

It's a good answer, and runs well alongside the historic fact that for centuries., until the end of the 18th century, vocal music was considered the only serious music, the only music which could convey anything at all. Instrumental music was merely a pastime. IMO, it is a stage of cultural evolution to realize that only from the early 19th century, did instrumental music give as good as it got in this struggle for supremacy. This ability to "construct a narrative in [one's] head" is a new stage of intellectual refinement.

The pioneers of this were the generation that matured in the later second half of the 18th. Haydn 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. He did, however, love his (and others') vocal music, and put them on the highest plane of appreciation. In this, he was mirroring his peers, who were continuing the beliefs of dozens of earlier generations. Even Mozart greatly preferred his own vocal music.

In the 19th century, there was a battle waged on this subject. I suggest ETA Hoffman, Edward Hanslick and many others who wrote about 'absolute music'. By all appearances, instrumental music came out on top, for now. Thus, the more evolved consciousness can indeed "construct a narrative in [his] head". We do. It satisfies some indefinable need in us. We 'like' it.

That's my opinion, I might be wrong.

[Ratliff]

It certainly is quite a common approach to music, there are films of Cortot teaching where he creates a narrative around quite abstract music by Chopin and/or (can't remember) Schumann.

My problem is that the music which matters most to me -- for example the canons at the end of Art of Fugue, or Eliane Radigue's  Occam Ocean -- seem to resist this approach!

You mentioned, as an example, Beethoven piano sonatas, which are multi movement works organized around exposition and development. For a work like a canon or fugue, aesthetic beauty is more primary, perhaps accompanied by evocation of a mood.

[Mandryka]

I need time to think about these interesting ideas.

As far as I remember the people who believed in the value of instrumental music were tied to a sort of platonism, the idea that the composer had freed himself of the rough uncouth world of material objects, the shadows in the cave, and had caught a glimpse of the radiant absolute, and was communicating that glimpse in his music.

I wonder if anyone would seriously uphold such a view now.

[Mandryka]

And I'm reminded, I'm not sure how relevantly, of this famous thing that Schoenberg said in a letter to Busoni

Harmony is expression and nothing else. ... Away with Pathos! Away with protracted ten-ton scores .... My music must be brief. Concise! In two notes: not built, but "expressed"!! And the results I wish for: no stylized and sterile protracted emotion. People are not like that: it is impossible for a person to have only one sensation at a time. One has thousands simultaneously. ... And this variegation, this multifariousness, this illogicality which our senses demonstrate, the illogicality presented by their interactions, set forth by some mounting rush of blood, by some reaction of the senses or the nerves, this I should like to have in my music.

The reason I think I was reminded of it is that I associate narration with logic.

[Holden]

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.

[Holden]

Haydn 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. He did, however, love his (and others') vocal music, and put them on the highest plane of appreciation. In this, he was mirroring his peers, who were continuing the beliefs of dozens of earlier generations. Even Mozart greatly preferred his own vocal music.

I've never really got into Haydn's sonatas. This might explain why.

[Madiel]

If you want to really boil this down to neurons firing (which is a general question about "art", not specifically about instrumental music).

We have systems designed to find some things attractive and some things unattractive. At base level these are systems designed to attract us to things that are good for us (food, mates) and discourage us from things that aren't good for us (poisons, dangerous things).

It is possible to hijack these systems and manipulate them. Whether it's how plants learned to recruit animals with pretty colours (red is highly noticeable to birds and mammals, whereas plants that want to get the attention of insects use a fair bit of ultraviolet), or members of our own species working out how to use make-up and clothing to enhance attractiveness, or artists figuring out how to make appealing art.

The point of Beethoven's piano sonatas is that Beethoven was very good at figuring out how to create music that got a reaction. And got rewards for doing so.

You're basically asking "why create this thing that I find nice", and the answer is for the purpose of you considering it to be nice.

[Mandryka]

The question which really interests me is why our species values instrumental art music. That's really what I was trying to get at, though I maybe could have framed it better.

There is, I'm sure, a physiological causal mechanism underlying the response in each of us. However it's a different type of cause that I was seeking. I wanted  to investigate why that physical mechanism has developed. In particular I was keen to explore whether there is an evolutionary basis for it.

[Madiel]

There is, I'm sure, a physiological causal mechanism underlying the response in each of us. However it's a different type of cause that I was seeking. I wanted  to investigate why that physical mechanism has developed. In particular I was keen to explore whether there is an evolutionary basis for it.

Shrug. We like sounds. It's still not clear what answer you actually want. Perhaps if you write it down we can then give it to you.

[Mandryka]

Perhaps if you write it down we can then give it to you.

[edited by GB]

[Madiel]

[edited by GB]

Mister, you're the one who asked an almost impossible question, we're still trying to answer it, you're getting a number of answers and then basically saying they don't meet your needs.

There are all sorts of theories as to why music has developed. I doubt any of them specifically pertain to instrumental music or Beethoven sonatas, though. I've no idea whether any of them are useful to you because you're basically spending all your time telling us that we haven't got it right. Which presupposes you know what "right" is.

I gave you an evolutionary answer. To which your response was... you want an evolutionary answer.  What exactly are you looking for, an explanation of why the sense of hearing exists? It exists, like other senses, because it gives organisms information about the world around them. That information is useful. Our senses are tuned to find some things nice to sense. It is possible to tap into that. I'd say that humans are clever that way, but it's hardly a uniquely human ability. Male birds make noises that are attractive to female birds, and in some cases being the best singer is what gets you a date.

[Gurn Blanston]

I've never really got into Haydn's sonatas. This might explain why.

I doubt it, unless you also don't get into Mozart or basically anyone before Beethoven except CPE Bach maybe. It's an early music thing, not a Haydn thing.

[Florestan]

To see Gurn speaking of musical Romanticism in terms like "cultural evolution" and "intellectual refinement" fills my heart with joy. 

[prémont]

To see Gurn speaking of musical Romanticism in terms like "cultural evolution" and "intellectual refinement" fills my heart with joy. 

He may be wrong, though. 

[Florestan]

He may be wrong, though. 

Ha ha, good one. 

[Gurn Blanston]

To see Gurn speaking of musical Romanticism in terms like "cultural evolution" and "intellectual refinement" fills my heart with joy. 

As a scientist, I see evolution as change rather than progress improvement. THEY saw it as intellectual refinement...

[Mandryka]

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.

[Mandryka]

" This ability to "construct a narrative in [one's] head" is a new stage of intellectual refinement." says Gurn.

A major trend in C20 modernism has been the rejection of cause and effect narratives in art. The idea is that art based on coherent narratives is at best a solace and at worst a lie, because as a matter of fact, our perception of the world is made up of incoherently juxtaposed elements, our explanations (narratives) are always defeasible. This is, I guess, what led Faulkner to write The Sound and The Fury a century ago, and indeed Proust to write Recherche, and why Schoenberg wrote music which defies narrative understanding, pieces like the op 31 variations.

[Ratliff]

" This ability to "construct a narrative in [one's] head" is a new stage of intellectual refinement." says Gurn.

A major trend in C20 modernism has been the rejection of cause and effect narratives in art. The idea is that art based on coherent narratives is at best a solace and at worst a lie, because as a matter of fact, our perception of the world is made up of incoherently juxtaposed elements, our explanations (narratives) are always defeasible. This is, I guess, what led Faulkner to write The Sound and The Fury a century ago, and indeed Proust to write Recherche, and why Schoenberg wrote music which defies narrative understanding, pieces like the op 31 variations.

Yes, a human being is at essence a bundle of perceptions and experiences, but the brain's main job is to assemble it into a narrative. Nothing wrong with giving the brain what it wants...

[prémont]

The question which really interests me is why our species values instrumental art music. That's really what I was trying to get at, though I maybe could have framed it better.

There is, I'm sure, a physiological causal mechanism underlying the response in each of us. However it's a different type of cause that I was seeking. I wanted  to investigate why that physical mechanism has developed. In particular I was keen to explore whether there is an evolutionary basis for it.

I think evolution, which largely seems to happen casually, came before its teleologically interpreted purpose. So we don't have ears in order to be able to hear, but evolution gave us ears and the result is, that we are able to hear. In the same way I think it was by chance we developed taste for music and for the beauty of life. We are generally too inclined to seek a purpose with everything, but probably we delude ourselves.