Is It Music or Gibberish ?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Aiyiyiyi!  Amazing how the thread entangles itself when I'm out of town a few days!

Obviously the solution, John, is for you never to leave home.

And even the relatively meaningless question "Is the written text music or isn't it?" has reared its air-filled head. For the record, my take is that the written text is not in itself music, but rather bears the same relationship to performed music that an architect's blueprint bears to the completed building.  The difference is, of course, that musicians can alter the blueprint without the music falling apart--if they do it well and subtly.  And you don't usually get more than one significant building out of a single blueprint.  (The endless suburbs around our major metropolitan areas hardly count as significant--except in the way they destroy virgin land. )

I don't think it a quite "meaningless" question, nor do I echo Mr. Ross's opinion that it is a semantic non-issue. And in relation to the blueprint analogy, there are cases where an architect has been considered as having made a major contribution even though his buildings may never be built - or at most a scale model made. The "blueprint" suggests that the written text is a waystation en route to a performance, which by implication is the fulfillment of what is only implicit in the blueprint. While I accept that as one aspect of the issue, from another perspective the written text is also the end result of a composer's labors - and thus, even when not being performed, can be in itself a source of aesthetic pleasure, contemplation, study, and so forth.

[jochanaan]

Obviously the solution, John, is for you never to leave home.

Obviously! 

I don't think it a quite "meaningless" question, nor do I echo Mr. Ross's opinion that it is a semantic non-issue. And in relation to the blueprint analogy, there are cases where an architect has been considered as having made a major contribution even though his buildings may never be built - or at most a scale model made. The "blueprint" suggests that the written text is a waystation en route to a performance, which by implication is the fulfillment of what is only implicit in the blueprint. While I accept that as one aspect of the issue, from another perspective the written text is also the end result of a composer's labors - and thus, even when not being performed, can be in itself a source of aesthetic pleasure, contemplation, study, and so forth.

True.  And when the composer's labors cease, then labor begins for everybody else involved.

Ofttimes a score is a thing of beauty in itself--yet all the pleasure I take in scores (I speak only for myself) is in imagining or anticipating a live performance.

[Cato]

To the decons       of course, a score is simply an opinion!

Given the attitudes of some conductors, on this point at least they might be right!

[DavidRoss]

And even the relatively meaningless question "Is the written text music or isn't it?" has reared its air-filled head. For the record, my take is that the written text is not in itself music, but rather bears the same relationship to performed music that an architect's blueprint bears to the completed building.  The difference is, of course, that musicians can alter the blueprint without the music falling apart--if they do it well and subtly.  And you don't usually get more than one significant building out of a single blueprint. 

I think your blueprint analogy nails it down, Jo--except, rather than a blueprint for, say, the Guggenheim, it's more a like a basic blueprint for a tract house subject to a number of modest variations when the homes are actually built.    While the architect is at work on the blueprint, he's designing a house, but few would mistake the blueprint for the house itself, even though a trained eye can visualize the house from the score blueprint.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I think your blueprint analogy nails it down, Jo--except, rather than a blueprint for, say, the Guggenheim, it's more a like a basic blueprint for a tract house subject to a number of modest variations when the homes are actually built.    While the architect is at work on the blueprint, he's designing a house, but few would mistake the blueprint for the house itself, even though a trained eye can visualize the house from the score blueprint.

And I would reiterate that although this point of view is valid, it is reductive and limited to only one perspective - i.e., that the sole interest of music is performance. Even the last sentence of your post implies that all the trained eye is doing is "visualizing" the performance from looking at the "blueprint."

What this all leaves out, however - and where the blueprint analogy has no weight whatsoever - are other aspects of music that are of great interest to many musicians and certainly all musicologists: such things as the study of a composer's formal procedures, the development of a composer's style through his career, a composer's influences, the history of musical forms and periods, the relation of music to other arts and other currents in history, and so forth. A great deal of this study depends on scores and is independent of recorded or live performance. It may not be a perspective that interests you personally or Jochanaan, but that does not make it secondary or invalid.

[jochanaan]

And I would reiterate that although this point of view is valid, it is reductive and limited to only one perspective - i.e., that the sole interest of music is performance. Even the last sentence of your post implies that all the trained eye is doing is "visualizing" the performance from looking at the "blueprint."

What this all leaves out, however - and where the blueprint analogy has no weight whatsoever - are other aspects of music that are of great interest to many musicians and certainly all musicologists: such things as the study of a composer's formal procedures, the development of a composer's style through his career, a composer's influences, the history of musical forms and periods, the relation of music to other arts and other currents in history, and so forth. A great deal of this study depends on scores and is independent of recorded or live performance. It may not be a perspective that interests you personally or Jochanaan, but that does not make it secondary or invalid.

It's true that I did not give thought to those important considerations, Sforzando, when developing my analogy; but I'd guess that the architects among us would say that similar studies are equally fascinating to students of architecture.  Many volumes have probably been written on, say, how Michelangelo Buonarotti's designs influenced Christopher Wren's work on St. Paul's in London, or such subjects. Perhaps some choreographer has even choreographed a dance about it.

[LVB_opus.125]

On relativism: Do I favor a piece of music because it's good, or is the piece of music good because I favor it?

I'm paraphrasing you know who right here but I feel that a distinction can be drawn here. For instance, sometimes I will favor something, a film, painting, song, that I clearly know is not "good." For instance, Troll 2 is a notoriously bad movie, and that's a fact, not an opinion. Yet at the same time I love that movie - but I recognize its badness. So in this case I favor something not because it's good, and the object is also not in the state of being "good" in which to be favored. Yet so it is favored, in all its badness. This is why there is a difference between favorite and great or best, better art. A favorite can be bad, objectively. And also a favorite can be good, objectively. Something great simply is, love it or hate it.

Can the relativists/subjectivist simply admit that some have better taste than others?

[Josquin des Prez]

I don't think it matters whether you favor something over something else. Art has never been about personal enjoyment, it's about self edification (to put the matter in excruciatingly simple terms). After all, the greater a work of art is, the longer it takes to enjoy it because of it's complexity and originality. Compare a Beatles song with the Art of Fugue. The first is instantly enjoyable while the latter takes a lot of effort and time before it begins to unravel itself (particularly if you are unfamiliar with concepts like counterpoint, harmonic progression and so forth, which most people are), but you persevere with it, right? And even after learning the piece, it's secrets always remain elusive and hard to grasp, but that's ok because the struggle is what keeps you going in the first place. Indeed, what is usually considered great art is often antithetical to direct enjoyment, which is often reputed as being vulgar and superficial.

The idea that the purpose of art is personal enjoyment, that it's all about having "fun", and that therefore the greatness of a work of art it's directly proportional to it's entertainment value is fundamentally flawed. The true purpose of art is spiritual fulfillment, and what is that without struggle?

[Mark G. Simon]

I don't think it matters whether you favor something over something else. Art has never been about personal enjoyment, it's about self edification (to put the matter in excruciatingly simple terms).

Quite the contrary, art is all about personal enjoyment, and if you can be edified in the process, so much the better.

The idea that enjoyment and spiritual fulfilment are opposed is fundamentally flawed. If you don't enjoy what you're listening to, you're never going to be spiritually uplifted.

Indeed, what is usually considered great art is often antithetical to direct enjoyment, which is often reputed as being vulgar and superficial.

Nothing like a blanket generalization, eh? But really, if you cede the idea that the Beatles are more enjoyable than the Art of the Fugue, you've already lost the battle. I don't listen to any music I don't enjoy. I enjoy the struggle to understand a difficult piece of music. I also enjoy a good tune. It is very important to the art of music that there be both. A well written piece of music should have elements that appeal immediately as well as deep structure that doesn't reveal itself except after many listenings.

But this too is a generalization. Yes, there can be great works which can only be appreciated after much study. But to say that all music has to be this way is unacceptable, because it boxes in art to only a small level of experience. In my opinion, the deepest art can be appreciated on many levels, from the immediately gratifying to the subtly obscure, all in one piece. But it is possible to have great music that exists only on the extremes.

[mahler10th]

Recently I've been listening to Lutoslawski again - to an untrained ear his symphonic pieces could indeed be gibberish.  My own 'ear' IS untrained, but the gabble which Lutoslawski comes out with seems to make perfect sense in an other worldly sort of way.  Everything is in order even in disorder.

Mark: "It is very important to the art of music that there be both. A well written piece of music should have elements that appeal immediately as well as deep structure that doesn't reveal itself except after many listenings...But to say that all music has to be this way is unacceptable, because it boxes in art to only a small level of experience. In my opinion, the deepest art can be appreciated on many levels, from the immediately gratifying to the subtly obscure, all in one piece. But it is possible to have great music that exists only on the extremes."

Yes, this thread is helping me come to terms with what it is I like about Lutoslawski (and others, mainly Polish), who differ so dramatically from the late Romanticism composers who are for the most part my staple diet.  I guess music by any composer carries it's own signature mark. This mark talks to us in a way which we ourselves cannot understand, but connects to our core.  Thus we pick up their flag and hoist it for all to see (even when we ourselves haven't a bloody clue what it's about...).  There IS something deeply spiritual in the process of finding a connection with certain pieces - sometimes, perhaps most times we understand it completely and continue in the joy of it - but sometimes we have no idea why we enjoy something and what it does to us - it is at these moments music becomes MAGIC.

[LVB_opus.125]

I don't think it matters whether you favor something over something else. Art has never been about personal enjoyment, it's about self edification (to put the matter in excruciatingly simple terms). After all, the greater a work of art is, the longer it takes to enjoy it because of it's complexity and originality. Compare a Beatles song with the Art of Fugue. The first is instantly enjoyable while the latter takes a lot of effort and time before it begins to unravel itself (particularly if you are unfamiliar with concepts like counterpoint, harmonic progression and so forth, which most people are), but you persevere with it, right? And even after learning the piece, it's secrets always remain elusive and hard to grasp, but that's ok because the struggle is what keeps you going in the first place. Indeed, what is usually considered great art is often antithetical to direct enjoyment, which is often reputed as being vulgar and superficial.

The idea that the purpose of art is personal enjoyment, that it's all about having "fun", and that therefore the greatness of a work of art it's directly proportional to it's entertainment value is fundamentally flawed. The true purpose of art is spiritual fulfillment, and what is that without struggle?

I agree. And this is the point I was trying to make: that great art simply *is*. It cannot be considered as lesser simply because we don't always enjoy it. The greatness of art is independent of our lowly opinions.

[greg]

Recently I've been listening to Lutoslawski again - to an untrained ear his symphonic pieces could indeed be gibberish.  My own 'ear' IS untrained, but the gabble which Lutoslawski comes out with seems to make perfect sense in an other worldly sort of way.  Everything is in order even in disorder.

exactly how i feel about some of my favorites, like Xenakis & Penderecki.

[Monsieur Croche]

I agree. And this is the point I was trying to make: that great art simply *is*. It cannot be considered as lesser simply because we don't always enjoy it. The greatness of art is independent of our lowly opinions.

Well, music is neither entirely objective nor entirely subjective, Ludwig. Your post presumes that there is some universal criterion for the 'greatness' of an artwork, when in truth there is none. We may well establish some facts regarding the value of a composer within a well-established framework, but the framework itself will always be subjective.

Of course, reducing everything to mere taste seems to me like a ridiculous way to approach music. The entire classical music tradition, after all, is founded on our capacity to pass objective judgement on artistic value: From the hundreds of composers scattered throughout history, which ones should we consider great enough to form the backbone of this tradition? I wonder if the hardcore relativists among us wish to declare this tradition irrelevant. This brings to mind Ned Rorem, who once said to the effect that young American composers were writing bad music without having any knowledge about such basic aspects of theory as traditional counterpoint, because they were told that it wasn't necessary to learn them! (I forgot the exact words). Now, Rorem's hostility to 'modern' music is well-known, and his remark needs to be taken with a grain of salt. However, there is no doubt to my mind that such an absurd situation would have its roots partially in the practice of taking artistic subjectivity to extremes. It is not in my capacity to judge the prevalence of this problem, but thankfully this writer (mortal, reactionary, intellectually provincial) has had the good luck to avoid exposure to music composed in such a vacuum, whose content may only reflect the input from its environment!

Quite the contrary, art is all about personal enjoyment, and if you can be edified in the process, so much the better.

The idea that enjoyment and spiritual fulfilment are opposed is fundamentally flawed. If you don't enjoy what you're listening to, you're never going to be spiritually uplifted.

Nothing like a blanket generalization, eh? But really, if you cede the idea that the Beatles are more enjoyable than the Art of the Fugue, you've already lost the battle. I don't listen to any music I don't enjoy. I enjoy the struggle to understand a difficult piece of music. I also enjoy a good tune. It is very important to the art of music that there be both. A well written piece of music should have elements that appeal immediately as well as deep structure that doesn't reveal itself except after many listenings.

But this too is a generalization. Yes, there can be great works which can only be appreciated after much study. But to say that all music has to be this way is unacceptable, because it boxes in art to only a small level of experience. In my opinion, the deepest art can be appreciated on many levels, from the immediately gratifying to the subtly obscure, all in one piece. But it is possible to have great music that exists only on the extremes.

Well-said, Mark; those are exactly my sentiments. Almost. I personally believe that there is a line to be drawn between entertainment and art... In other words, it is not enough for art to be just for enjoyment of the senses; it must also be capable of edification, whether intellectually, spiritually, etc. etc. To borrow your own words, great art needs to engage the audience on multiple levels.

[drogulus]

My post wasn't specifically meant for you. But there's a differece between music one doesn't like, or understand, or whatever, and bad music. Just as music you like isn't automatically great music. I like lots of dross. If one dislikes great music, and likes c..p, it's your joy or loss or whatever.

    I agree with this as far as it goes. I have a hard time with extending it to a definition of great music that doesn't depend on anyone liking it. And if it depends on someone liking it, what Board of Experts qualifies to rule out some music as gibberish?

    I don't have a conclusive answer to this. The closest I can come is that there are social elements to the valuation, where some circles deploy their expertise one way and other groups do so differently, and there's no fact of the matter that could adjudicate any difference that may arise. So the quarrel between various tendencies can't be decided by a fact either way, leaving the issue a historical one about what has been valued in the past. That doesn't give much guidance about recent developments.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

That doesn't give much guidance about recent developments.

I guess time will bear out which side is the 'victor'. Though by that time it'll probably be of little consequence to any of us...

[karlhenning]

. . . That doesn't give much guidance about recent developments.

In any event, the worth of art created in our day, is not going to be determined by those at present who wring their hands at it.

[Mark G. Simon]

Well-said, Mark; those are exactly my sentiments. Almost. I personally believe that there is a line to be drawn between entertainment and art...

The difference is this: Art is entertainment with an extra dimension added. One might compare it to a two-dimentional vs. three-dimensional object. Both have height and length, but art also has depth. The two are not polar opposites. Art encompasses entertainment but is not limited to it. All art is entertainment, but not all entertainment is art.

[drogulus]

The difference is this: Art is entertainment with an extra dimension added. One might compare it to a two-dimentional vs. three-dimensional object. Both have height and length, but art also has depth. The two are not polar opposites. Art encompasses entertainment but is not limited to it. All art is entertainment, but not all entertainment is art.

    That's the distinction that I'd like to make. I just can't quite make it. This suggest that something other than someone saying "this isn't just entertainment, it's art" decides the issue, a definite something that could be agreed upon.

    The example of Shakespeare shows you can climb the ladder of entertaining junk all the way to high art without ever crossing an identifiable line, and this is true for memorable popular music and the Godfather films as well. You could insist on some kind of high art intention but that throws out way too much, doesn't it?

[drogulus]

On relativism: Do I favor a piece of music because it's good, or is the piece of music good because I favor it?


Can the relativists/subjectivist simply admit that some have better taste than others?

    The hard part is deciding between competing versions of good taste, especially when you find both of them persuasive. 

    I'm not saying that good taste is what I like, but that it's relative to the interpretive communities that care enough to have an opinion. When they disagree, as they frequently do, what decides between them? I hope it's nothing other than history.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

The hard part is deciding between competing versions of good taste, especially when you find both of them persuasive. 

    I'm not saying that good taste is what I like, but that it's relative to the interpretive communities that care enough to have an opinion. When they disagree, as they frequently do, what decides between them? I hope it's nothing other than history.

Well, you either become a hard-liner or you accept that the good folks who are pro "gibberish" might actually be onto something. And by 'good folks' I mean the "interpretive communities" you see here on this board. At least we steer clear of "Britney Spears" is art...

Other than that I don't see any other option other than giving it up to history.