theatrical music (wrong music)

[Josquin des Prez]

You can't wrap things up in a tidy "what Beethoven would do" type of pigeonhole. It just doesn't work that way. That's not art - that's not genius. That's stunted. No artistic genius would ever retread old material. LEAST OF ALL BEETHOVEN!!!!

Me thinks you just didn't understand what i was getting at. Typical.

As far as Berlioz, he didn't WANT to do it the way Beethoven did it. And the same could be said of any true artist.

That's hardly the point. My point is that with Berlioz his individual consciousness just wasn't developed enough to escape some of the trappings of the culture from which he sprung, and his talent suffered as a consequence. There is a reason why he isn't usually considered in the same league as Beethoven. Genius has nothing to do with talent, it has nothing do with intelligence, it has nothing to do with innovation. Genius is about individualities. The greatest a sense of himself an artist has, the more he can probe beyond the arbitrary conventions of his environment and aim for something higher. With Berlioz, and Liszt to an ever greater extended, their consciousness was far too diluted in the "group" mentality of the day, so that there's a lot of superficial elements running through their work, which, albeit great in many ways simply stop short from achieving real genius.

The problem with "programmatic" music is that those artists put their inspiration at the service of an ideal borne within this "general" consciousness as opposed to their own individual selves. The reason i used Beethoven as an example is that his music is individual consciousness developed to it's extreme consequence. His late works in particular are a perfect example of what i define as genius: the heightening of individual consciousness to highest possible level, so that IT becomes it's own universe, a finite entity into itself.   

With Berlioz you have both Berlioz as the man and Berlioz as the great Romantic composer. With Beethoven you have Beethoven and nothing but Beethoven, and a much more defined and developed Beethoven at that. Do you see what i'm trying to convey here?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Do you see what i'm trying to convey here?

Sure I do. You're the anointed one and we're all heathens. Why can't we see it the way you do?

We're all "relativistic" morons who deserve lynching, not consideration.

But you're forgetting one very important thing: what if you're wrong?

What if it's YOU who simply doesn't get it? Not us?

Chew on that, grasshopper.

[Grazioso]

The problem is that when you are trying to express anything beyond what lies in the deepest regions of your own individual consciousness the results are always inferior. Compare late Beethoven with Berlioz's literary works. The difference is so stark there's an abyss between those means of expression, and one is infinitely below the other.

As if "what lies in the deepest regions of your own individual consciousness" is somehow utterly divorced from one's experiences of the natural world, understanding of history, appreciation of literature, and all the other things that have inspired program music. Do you not think that a composer might, for example, find that his "own individual consciousness" deeply resonates with, or is deeply shaped by, his experience of the natural world? Or that he might find deep symbolic parallels between his own deepest emotions and desires and natural phenomena? It's no mistake--or bit of artistic laziness--that artists in various media, including music, have turned to the mountains or the sea as a recurring theme throughout history and across cultures. Those are things with powerful emotional impact, numerous symbolic connotations, and for many people of the world, a fundamental influence on daily life and how one perceives one's environment.

[M forever]

That's hardly the point. My point is that with Berlioz his individual consciousness just wasn't developed enough to escape some of the trappings of the culture from which he sprung, and his talent suffered as a consequence.

How do you come up with nonsense like that? Is that some kind of negative genius?

With Berlioz you have both Berlioz as the man and Berlioz as the great Romantic composer. With Beethoven you have Beethoven and nothing but Beethoven, and a much more defined and developed Beethoven at that. Do you see what i'm trying to convey here?

Yes. You are trying to convey that you have some extraordinary insights about what "true genius" is. When in reality you don't even understand the most basic things about how artists like Beethoven are related to their environment. Beethoven was very much a child of his time and his environment and the issues which were relevant in his time. Which are reflected in his work everywhere. And which are part of why his work is so very "relevant". That doesn't make him any less of a "genius". Nor does it make Berlioz less of a "genius" or whatever he was.

The above is pretty much total and pretentious nonsense.

Would you like to try again?

[knight66]

Would you like to try again?

Oh for goodness sake, no. Reading it first time round was like chewing a wasp and I would need a helicopter to aid me in suspending my disbelief in such, 'insights'.

Why on earth is there this competition between such different artists as Beethoven and Berlioz? It is the old pointless apples/oranges comparison game yet again.

Mike

[jochanaan]

Isn't this a vague statement, Jochanaan. "Music should only express itself", is imo far more concrete and convincing. The argument is that music should not be subordinate to other things.

Read the rest of my sentence and I think you'll find that it's clear enough.

And all this business about music being "subordinate" in opera or program music is, to put it bluntly, nonsense.  True, the music at times may take a back seat to the action, but by no means all the time; and in doing so it becomes part of a whole that is even greater than itself.  And there are moments in every great opera (and most not-so-great ones) where the music takes center stage and becomes "absolute music" for a time.

[zamyrabyrd]

My point is that with Berlioz his individual consciousness just wasn't developed enough to escape some of the trappings of the culture from which he sprung, and his talent suffered as a consequence. ...With Berlioz, and Liszt to an ever greater extended, their consciousness was far too diluted in the "group" mentality of the day, so that there's a lot of superficial elements running through their work, which, albeit great in many ways simply stop short from achieving real genius.

Berlioz was one of the creators of Romanticism, perhaps influenced by Weber and (as I believe Mike said) by Mehul. The Symphonie Fantastique appeared in 1830, only a few years after Beethoven's last works.
The "slow" movement was definitely influenced by Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, itself clearly a programmatic work.

ZB

[Josquin des Prez]

As if "what lies in the deepest regions of your own individual consciousness" is somehow utterly divorced from one's experiences of the natural world, understanding of history, appreciation of literature, and all the other things that have inspired program music.

But it is. A truly developed individual consciousness is essentially it's own universe, existing in a state completely independent of all external influences. This is what gives genius that "timeless" quality. The problem with program music is that the individual consciousness of the artist has to step aside to make space for an external entity, an entity dictated by a general consciousness which is shared by all those who lack a defined individuality of their own, so that the results are always artificial and arbitrary, albeit they may not be altogether unpleasant.

It is true that many artists often try to draw "inspiration" from sources outside of themselves and usually like to specify what those sources are (I.E., this work was inspired by this and that and so on and so forth). But of course, we are not talking about artists in general, we are talking about genius.

If you think that program music yields the same results of what an highly developed individual consciousness can do more power to you i guess, but you'll never get me to agree to that.

[Josquin des Prez]

We're all "relativistic" morons 

Prove me wrong. As far as i'm concerned, only a fool would argue that Berlioz is as great as a composer as Beethoven, and yet, here it is.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Prove me wrong.

The need for ME to prove anything is long past:

Why did you bother to respond? He or She didn't actually say anything.

The above is pretty much total and pretentious nonsense.

Oh for goodness sake, no. Reading it first time round was like chewing a wasp and I would need a helicopter to aid me in suspending my disbelief in such, 'insights'.

And all this business about music being "subordinate" in opera or program music is, to put it bluntly, nonsense.

The Symphonie Fantastique appeared in 1830, only a few years after Beethoven's last works.
The "slow" movement was definitely influenced by Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, itself clearly a programmatic work.

Clearly you haven't proven anything, yourself! And the burden of proof has ALWAYS been on you. You're the one with all the novel ideas. But all we get from you is gibberish that no one can understand. Disproving gibberish isn't our job.


As to this from you:

As far as i'm concerned, only a fool would argue that Berlioz is as great as a composer as Beethoven, and yet, here it is.

I think it's safe to say that what you're concerned about hasn't any relevancy around here.

[Philoctetes]

The need for ME to prove anything is long past:


Clearly you haven't proven anything, yourself! And the burden of proof has ALWAYS been on you. You're the one with all the novel ideas. But all we get from you is gibberish that no one can understand. Disproving gibberish isn't our job.


As to this from you:

I think it's safe to say what you're concerned about hasn't any relevancy around here.

People like that won't listen.
See various others.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

People like that won't listen.
See various others.

^
^

[jochanaan]

Prove me wrong. As far as i'm concerned, only a fool would argue that Berlioz is as great as a composer as Beethoven, and yet, here it is.

Or, perhaps, a fool who believes that we can define human greatness with any precision.  And many who are not fools have argued precisely that, in some things, Berlioz was as great as Beethoven or greater.  Certainly his orchestration is more advanced and colorful.  (But don't try to argue seriously that Beethoven was an "inferior" orchestrator! )

[Josquin des Prez]

And many who are not fools have argued precisely that, in some things, Berlioz was as great as Beethoven or greater. 

Not on the things that truly matter, which is why one is greater then the other. 

[DavidRoss]

Or, perhaps, a fool who believes that we can define human greatness with any precision.  And many who are not fools have argued precisely that, in some things, Berlioz was as great as Beethoven or greater.  Certainly his orchestration is more advanced and colorful.  (But don't try to argue seriously that Beethoven was an "inferior" orchestrator! )

Many are shocked and hurt when I tell what I think about Beethoven's orchestration skills.

If only 71dB & Josquin & Corkie & Pinkie & dzalman & paulb & Ernie & perfectwaggie would all get together at once on one thread!  That would settle everything, once and for all!

[scarpia]

I must say the original post on this thread was, to me, unadulterated nonsense.

In a literal sense musics is a succession of sounds with definite frequency and rhythm.  Music transcends its literal definition because human beings have strong intellectual or emotional reactions to such sequences of sounds.  You can make a distinction between the intellectual pleasure of hearing music that is especially ingenious in its formulation and emotion pleasure derived from experiencing the emotional states evoked by music.

But all great music is "program music."  It is all constructed to bring the listener through a sequence of moods or emotions that are evoked in the listener when music is heard.  The difference between "program music" and absolute music is mainly whether the composer divulges the program to us or not.  Even in "absolute" music the composer has chosen a sequence of moods or mental states that he or she wants to evoke in the listener.  I don't see how one can justify the statement that the music is necessarily of a lesser quality if the composer was to some extend guided by an idea that is disclosed to the listener. 

It is also worth pointing out that Beethoven's late works, which seem to be tossed about as proof that absolute music is superior and deeper, in some cases have explicit programs associated with them (such as the quartet in a-minor Op 132 and Op 135).  I don't see that this source of inspiration makes them lesser works.  In my view, "program music" can be of the highest quality precisely when the "program" and the musical mechanisms used to express it mesh perfectly.

[eyeresist]

But all great music is "program music."  It is all constructed to bring the listener through a sequence of moods or emotions that are evoked in the listener when music is heard.  The difference between "program music" and absolute music is mainly whether the composer divulges the program to us or not.  Even in "absolute" music the composer has chosen a sequence of moods or mental states that he or she wants to evoke in the listener.

I don't think this is a useful definition of program music. Yes, all good music constitutes a "musical journey". Program music insists that the listener adhere to prescribed thought, feeling and imagery, conforming to an extramusical narrative. At its least musical, program music doesn't make sense to the listener without knowledge of the program.

[scarpia]

I don't think this is a useful definition of program music. Yes, all good music constitutes a "musical journey". Program music insists that the listener adhere to prescribed thought, feeling and imagery, conforming to an extramusical narrative. At its least musical, program music doesn't make sense to the listener without knowledge of the program.

For most of the best program music that I am aware of this is decidedly not the case.  Sibelius' Tapiola can be regarded as a symphony, or you can make up your own program to imagine as it unfolds.  You can easily listen to Strauss' Don Juan without trying to match up particular elements of music with particular elements of the story, and Strauss did not supply any detailed explanations.  It is a glorious rondo with seductive episodes alternating with a vigorous theme, which is gradually transformed as the piece proceeds.  Liszt only specified that Les Preludes contained four episodes labeled (1) Dawn of Existence; Love; (2) Storms of Life; (3) Refuge and Consolation in Rural life; (4) Strife and Conquest.  I fail to see how this "insists that the listener adhere to a prescribed thought, feeling and imagery, conforming to an extramusical narrative" any more than the tempo markings such as "Allegro con brio,"  "Marcia funebre: adagio assai,"  "Scherzo: allegro vivace" or "Allegro molto."

[Grazioso]

I don't think this is a useful definition of program music. Yes, all good music constitutes a "musical journey". Program music insists that the listener adhere to prescribed thought, feeling and imagery, conforming to an extramusical narrative. At its least musical, program music doesn't make sense to the listener without knowledge of the program.

It doesn't insist on anything, but rather suggests associated inspiration, imagery, ideas, or moods, which is quite a different matter. I've never encountered a piece of music that somehow dictates I listen or perceive in a certain way. The music itself--and any associated written or verbal framework--merely guides me.

[(poco) Sforzando]

For most of the best program music that I am aware of this is decidedly not the case.  Sibelius' Tapiola can be regarded as a symphony, or you can make up your own program to imagine as it unfolds.  You can easily listen to Strauss' Don Juan without trying to match up particular elements of music with particular elements of the story, and Strauss did not supply any detailed explanations.  It is a glorious rondo with seductive episodes alternating with a vigorous theme, which is gradually transformed as the piece proceeds.  Liszt only specified that Les Preludes contained four episodes labeled (1) Dawn of Existence; Love; (2) Storms of Life; (3) Refuge and Consolation in Rural life; (4) Strife and Conquest.  I fail to see how this "insists that the listener adhere to a prescribed thought, feeling and imagery, conforming to an extramusical narrative" any more than the tempo markings such as "Allegro con brio,"  "Marcia funebre: adagio assai,"  "Scherzo: allegro vivace" or "Allegro molto."

Yes - and consider the program for Beethoven's 5th symphony as well: the heroic struggle to overcome fate, ending in triumph. This myth of the heroic is one of the most powerful metaphors in musical history, shaping our overall sense of Beethoven even though many of his works depart considerably from the program for the 5th. A program need not be as detailed as to say, "In this bar, the hero removes his sword from its scabbard and brandishes it in the bright sun," but it is there nonetheless. Pace Toscanini, it's not just "Allegro con brio."