theatrical music (wrong music)

[scarpia]

Its expressive power is, one might say, bestowed upon it.  What does a descending minor third express?

And who, may I ask, does this bestowing?  It is an agreed-upon, although somewhat vague language, just like any other language.

[Mark G. Simon]

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 there is an essential way in which it operates otherwise than art. Chant is not intended to be listened to for its own aesthetic sake, but for the sake of leading worshipers to prayer and contemplation.

[jochanaan]

For all Stravinsky's words about music's essential inability to express anything, he sure spent a lot of time writing "theatrical" and other program music.  Apollon musagète, "The Fairy's Kiss," the Symphony of Psalms, Oedipus Rex--those were all written in his "neoclassical" period when he was supposedly focusing on absolute music.

[(poco) Sforzando]

For all Stravinsky's words about music's essential inability to express anything, he sure spent a lot of time writing "theatrical" and other program music.  Apollon musagète, "The Fairy's Kiss," the Symphony of Psalms, Oedipus Rex--those were all written in his "neoclassical" period when he was supposedly focusing on absolute music.

Exactly my point with The Rite of Spring. And even though Petrouchka in the concert hall stands full well on its own, I was really astonished when seeing it danced (by American Ballet Theatre two years ago) at how closely the musical setting mirrors even the smallest details of the choreography.

[Mark G. Simon]

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." 

You might consider, though, that if one listener finds the ending of Shostakovich's 5th to be triumphant, and another finds it tragic, is one right and the other wrong? If the expression is somehow encoded in the music then both listeners cannot be right. But supposing that music cannot, as Stravinsky says, express anything? Then we have to conclude that the expressive quality of the Shostakovich 5th originated in the minds of the two listeners. In that case music, is not a transmitter of emotion but a provoker of emtional reactions. The emotion that the listeners feel is not an illusion, but the perception that the emotion comes from the music itself is an illusion.

The great composers, Stravinksy included, are masters of illusion.

[karlhenning]

Very nicely expressed, Mark!

[scarpia]

You might consider, though, that if one listener finds the ending of Shostakovich's 5th to be triumphant, and another finds it tragic, is one right and the other wrong? If the expression is somehow encoded in the music then both listeners cannot be right. But supposing that music cannot, as Stravinsky says, express anything? Then we have to conclude that the expressive quality of the Shostakovich 5th originated in the minds of the two listeners. In that case music, is not a transmitter of emotion but a provoker of emtional reactions. The emotion that the listeners feel is not an illusion, but the perception that the emotion comes from the music itself is an illusion.

The conclusion of Shostakovich 5 may be deliberately ambiguous or ironic.  If someone asks me for a recommendation for Karl Henning and I say "You would be lucky get get Mr. Henning to work for you," that might that Mr. Henning is such a good worker you'd be lucky to get him, or that Mr Henning is so lazy you'd be lucky if he does any work at all.  Does that mean that all meaning in the English language is an illusion?

Finally, I fail to see what your distinction between provoking and transmitting emotion has to do with it.  Of course the only thing that music literally transmits is acoustic energy.  I only argued that provoking an emotional response was a primary purpose of music.  To the extent that the response is as the composer expected, it is figuratively transmitted. 

[karlhenning]

The relation of meaning to language is one thing (and a far nearer thing).  The relation of meaning to music, is another.

[scarpia]

The relation of meaning to language is one thing (and a far nearer thing).  The relation of meaning to music, is another.

You seem to be trying to demonstrate practically that there is no meaning in the English language.

[Philoctetes]

You seem to be trying to demonstrate practically that there is no meaning in the English language.

Well that's true. Meaning always seems to be rather tenuous.

[karlhenning]

You seem to be trying to demonstrate practically that there is no meaning in the English language.

I shall not want.

[Mark G. Simon]

Of course the only thing that music literally transmits is acoustic energy. 

So then, you agree with Stravinsky after all. Very well. No need for further argument.

[scarpia]

So then, you agree with Stravinsky after all. Very well. No need for further argument.

When the supposed debate has reached this inane level it is clearly time to give up.

[Mark G. Simon]

Please let us know when you have something ane to say.

[Philoctetes]

When the supposed debate has reached this inane level it is clearly time to give up.

Supposed is correct. There was no actual debate.

[DavidRoss]

Ok, you caught me, I confess...I enjoy "theatrical music," like Mozart's operas, Stravinsky's ballets, Sibelius's tone poems and incidental music, even some downright wrong program music, like Strauss's Til Eulenspiegel.

I guess there's nothing for it but to turn myself in.

Better cuff me, officer:

[eyeresist]

It doesn't mean that all program music is self-sufficient, but the best of it is.

I agree with this.

And even though Petrouchka in the concert hall stands full well on its own, I was really astonished when seeing it danced (by American Ballet Theatre two years ago) at how closely the musical setting mirrors even the smallest details of the choreography.

Might you have this the wrong way round?

[Joe_Campbell]

Finally, I fail to see what your distinction between provoking and transmitting emotion has to do with it.  Of course the only thing that music literally transmits is acoustic energy.  I only argued that provoking an emotional response was a primary purpose of music.  To the extent that the response is as the composer expected, it is figuratively transmitted. 

That may be the purpose of music, but it is not a property inherent to the music itself. It's a dependency. The composer associates a given set of emotions with the music he (Im using masculine for the sake of simplicity) writes based on his emotional development. At best, he can assume that others have experienced similar emotional development, and thus relate to the his intentions. The composer depends on the notion that his audience's emotional framework will have a passing similarity to his own.

You may claim ambiguity in a particular piece by Shostakovich, but the point remains is that there is a large body of music that you must claim to be intentionally ambiguous if you are to stand by this claim, because many different people will have many different responses to the same music. (unless of course, there is only one right response )

[Wanderer]

Ok, you caught me, I confess...I enjoy "theatrical music," like Mozart's operas, Stravinsky's ballets, Sibelius's tone poems and incidental music, even some downright wrong program music, like Strauss's Til Eulenspiegel.

I guess there's nothing for it but to turn myself in.

Better cuff me, officer:

Get in line, mister! 

[zamyrabyrd]

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

There may be more than meets the eye or ear in the WTC:
http://bach.tuning.googlepages.com/

ZB