theatrical music (wrong music)

[(poco) Sforzando]

Is there such 'pure' music?

Good question. But whether true or not, the concept became an ideal for certain aestheticians, such as the English critic Walter Pater (1830-84), who wrote, "All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music." By this he meant that in music, there is no distinction between content and form, that music is complete within itself. Similarly, for Eduard Hanslick (1830-1904), expression in music is based solely on form, and attempts to use word-painting or other extra-musical associations are foreign to the nature of music. For this reason, Hanslick had many reservations concerning Wagner, which caused the composer to caricature Hanslick as the rule-bound pedant Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger. Again similarly, Stravinsky wrote as follows in his autobiography:

For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc....Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention - in short, an aspect unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being.

These are prime examples of the "pure" view of music. But this is only one current in musical aesthetic thinking, as I'll try to develop when I add on to this post or write a follow-up later. And it shouldn't be forgotten that for this same Stravinsky who denied any expressive powers for music, the opening of his own Rite of Spring evoked "the violent Russian spring that seemed to begin in an hour and was like the whole earth cracking."

[Philoctetes]

I suppose for me the notion of 'pure' isn't a real one. I would say that composer intent (the inspiration behind, etc.) would make such a notion, at best, weak.

[karlhenning]

Is there such 'pure' music?

What referentiality is there in the Prelude and Fugue in C Major of the WTC Book I?

[karlhenning]

I suppose for me the notion of 'pure' isn't a real one. I would say that composer intent (the inspiration behind, etc.) would make such a notion, at best, weak.

Why, when sometimes the composer simply plays with sound?

[Philoctetes]

What referentiality is there in the Prelude and Fugue in C Major of the WTC Book I?

Isn't the fact that it was included in a 'book' of sorts proof to a larger intent than simply pure musicality?

[M forever]

What referentiality is there in the Prelude and Fugue in C Major of the WTC Book I?

It's about eternity.

[Philoctetes]

Why, when sometimes the composer simply plays with sound?

Doesn't the notion of composition, as such, imply that they have a larger frame in mind?

[Mark G. Simon]

When an attractive woman walks by I often enjoy contemplating the aesthetically pleasing lines and forms offered to my view. My thoughts in such a situation, however, are rarely such that could be considered pure.

[scarpia]

Returning to Stravinsky's quote

For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc....Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention - in short, an aspect unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being.

Just proof that we should only pay attention to what artist create, and not to the rationalization for what they create.  Of course music is just a sequence of sounds, consisting of compression waves propagating in air.  They do not express anything directly.  Expression comes from the emotions or feelings that we associate with those sounds, which are part cultural, part instinctive.  Any composer write with knowledge of the impression a certain combination of notes will have on the listener.

[karlhenning]

Returning to Stravinsky's quote

Just proof that we should only pay attention to what artist create, and not to the rationalization for what they create.  [. . .]  Any composer write with knowledge of the impression a certain combination of notes will have on the listener.

You're missing part of Stravinsky's point, then.  There's nothing fixed about the nature of such impressions.

And, it must be said, there is more value in the Stravinsky quote than in your glib dismissal.

[scarpia]

You're missing part of Stravinsky's point, then.  There's nothing fixed about the nature of such impressions.

And, it must be said, there is more value in the Stravinsky quote than in your glib dismissal.

If that's what he meant, then that's what he should have said. 

What he did say was

Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality.

Expression has always been an inherent property of music, it has always been the purpose of its existence.  The fact that you must have some cultural awareness to appreciate it doesn't change that fact and doesn't make the expressive power of music "an illusion."  The English language is also just a sequence of sounds.  That you should run out of the building if I shout "Fire" isn't an illusion.  I can listen to some of that weird music from India which sends Indian people into transports of ecstasy and think, "well that's just some weird sounds."  That doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the music is to express something, and that within the context of Indian music it does express something. 

What is going on here is that Stravinsky had an innate need to shock people.  When he got old and his music became boring and didn't shock anyone he switched to making idiotic statements about the nature of music.  I think my glib dismissal has very little value, but more value than Stravinsky's statement.

[Wanderer]

Why, when sometimes the composer simply plays with sound?

Which reminds me, Hindemith's Ludus tonalis still lingers on the wish list.

[karlhenning]

Which reminds me, Hindemith's Ludus tonalis still lingers on the wish list.

Yes, and I think the Kammermusiken function pretty much as pure music, too.

[karlhenning]

What is going on here is that Stravinsky had an innate need to shock people.  When he got old and his music became boring and didn't shock anyone he switched to making idiotic statements about the nature of music.

You are really in glib dismissal mode, aren't you?  You might get your facts straight (he was not an old man when he said this), and you might keep your flip preferences separate from fact (Stravinsky's music never became "boring").

[Philoctetes]

You are really in glib dismissal mode, aren't you?  You might get your facts straight (he was not an old man when he said this), and you might keep your flip preferences separate from fact (Stravinsky's music never became "boring").

You're right. It always was.

[karlhenning]

Various trends in this thread will have trouble getting general traction, because of the slipperiness of terms/ideas.

There is a good point in Mark's comment about art 'turning away' from entertainment; and yet (again) it depends on what entertainment means . . . I think there is an essential way in which Liturgical music operates otherwise than entertainment.

And I actually think that Stravinsky is perfectly right in observing that Expression has never been an inherent property of music. Its expressive power is, one might say, bestowed upon it.  What does a descending minor third express?

You're right. It always was.

Ever the humorist!

[Philoctetes]

Yes, and I think the Kammermusiken function pretty much as pure music, too.

I think the act of applying a title or declaring such and such as a composition demarks it from being 'pure' music.

[karlhenning]

I think the act of applying a title or declaring such and such as a composition demarks it from being 'pure' music.

No. Yes.

[Philoctetes]

No. Yes.

Thankfully, in questions of art, both answers do have various applications.

[scarpia]

You are really in glib dismissal mode, aren't you?  You might get your facts straight (he was not an old man when he said this), and you might keep your flip preferences separate from fact (Stravinsky's music never became "boring").

No reference was given, I have no way of knowing exactly when the quoted material was written.  I assume it was written after the Rite of Spring because, after all, would anyone pay any attention to such banal statements if they were written by someone who wasn't already famous?  Boring is the wrong word for post-rite Stravinsky, non-controversial is what I mean.