theatrical music (wrong music)

[Henk]

Reading all of your latest responses, it is clear that the problem is that none of us has the slightest idea of what you're talking about. If you're not talking about opera or incidental music, or even program music, what on earth are you talking about? What is this music which "represents theatre" and what distinguishes it from music which doesn't represent theatre?

Sorry, if I'm unclear. Wagner's Leitmotiv is for me an example of music becoming "instrumental theatre", a term which Kagel introduced. I googled a bit: "... Kagel's compositional work and his concept of «instrumental theater»,in which the process of music-making itself is transformed into a theatrical act, as in Der Schall (1968), Acustica (1968-70), Staatstheater (1967-70), and Exotica (1972)." Maybe also Nono did make a sort of "instrumental theatre", wikipedia states: "After the theatrical excesses of Al gran sole, which Nono later remarked was a "monster of resources" (Stenzl, 1995), the composer began to think along the lines of an opera or rather a 'musica per dramatica' without any visual, stage dimension. In short, a drama in music" There are more modern composers making ´instrumental theatre` or "theatrical music" so it really has become a genre.

Kagel also composed an "anti-opera". "Kagel intended Staatstheater not only as a "negation of opera, but of the whole tradition of music theatre." I don't know what that has to mean. Ligeti, in reaction to this, wrote an 'anti-antiopera', Le Grand Macabre. But i don't know what this all means. Besides, Kagel also composed absolute music.

Here are a few interviews with Kagel, strange man, talks for example about that "each sound is its own motif":
http://www.beckmesser.de/neue_musik/kagel/int-e.html
http://www.bombsite.com/issues/88/articles/2667

[(poco) Sforzando]

It's nice to know we've spent eight pages not knowing what topic we've been discussing, only to find out you don't know what your supposed topic means either.   

[karlhenning]

. . . and it was all just a dream.

[Henk]

It's nice to know we've spent eight pages not knowing what topic we've been discussing, only to find out you don't know what your supposed topic means either.   

. Sorry about that. But I really did know what my topic means, is it still not clear? My idea of instrumental theatre or theatrical music how I call it haven't changed.

[karlhenning]

. Sorry about that. But I really did know what my topic means, is it still not clear?

Let's have it again . . . .

[Henk]

Let's have it again . . . .

Well i showed at least that instrumental theatre is a common term. So explain to me what's not clear..

[karlhenning]

It baffles me that you call it a common term; this is the first I have ever seen the phrase "instrumental theatre."

So, no, I have not the faintest idea what you mean, mijn vriend.

[jochanaan]

Sorry, if I'm unclear. Wagner's Leitmotiv is for me an example of music becoming "instrumental theatre", a term which Kagel introduced. I googled a bit: "... Kagel's compositional work and his concept of «instrumental theater»,in which the process of music-making itself is transformed into a theatrical act, as in Der Schall (1968), Acustica (1968-70), Staatstheater (1967-70), and Exotica (1972)." Maybe also Nono did make a sort of "instrumental theatre", wikipedia states: "After the theatrical excesses of Al gran sole, which Nono later remarked was a "monster of resources" (Stenzl, 1995), the composer began to think along the lines of an opera or rather a 'musica per dramatica' without any visual, stage dimension. In short, a drama in music" There are more modern composers making ´instrumental theatre` or "theatrical music" so it really has become a genre.

Kagel also composed an "anti-opera". "Kagel intended Staatstheater not only as a "negation of opera, but of the whole tradition of music theatre." I don't know what that has to mean. Ligeti, in reaction to this, wrote an 'anti-antiopera', Le Grand Macabre. But i don't know what this all means. Besides, Kagel also composed absolute music.

Here are a few interviews with Kagel, strange man, talks for example about that "each sound is its own motif":
http://www.beckmesser.de/neue_musik/kagel/int-e.html
http://www.bombsite.com/issues/88/articles/2667

Could it possibly be that you simply don't like Kagel's music, and thus are unable to accept his ideas about "instrumental theatre"?

On the other hand, Kagel and others seem to have run head-on into the notorious inability of music to express or evoke any consistent mind-images or emotions without external references.  In other words, without a common knowledge of musical symbolism, any piece of music might evoke any emotion at all in the listener, or none.  (Although "none" seems unlikely when it's music as powerful as, say, Beethoven's, it is entirely possible given, say, a listener from an isolated Central Amazon native tribe who has never heard Beethoven before.  And that's entirely fair, since I doubt most of us would understand his drumming and chanting without extensive study. )  Therefore, to guarantee a consistent response to their music that has often been called "understanding," many composers let us know these references.  On the other hand, some such as Mahler were distinctly ambivalent about giving the references, and many others simply suppress them.

I sometimes think that the only difference between "absolute music" and other kinds is whether we know the references or not.

[Henk]

Could it possibly be that you simply don't like Kagel's music, and thus are unable to accept his ideas about "instrumental theatre"?

On the other hand, Kagel and others seem to have run head-on into the notorious inability of music to express or evoke any consistent mind-images or emotions without external references.  In other words, without a common knowledge of musical symbolism, any piece of music might evoke any emotion at all in the listener, or none.  (Although "none" seems unlikely when it's music as powerful as, say, Beethoven's, it is entirely possible given, say, a listener from an isolated Central Amazon native tribe who has never heard Beethoven before.  And that's entirely fair, since I doubt most of us would understand his drumming and chanting without extensive study. )  Therefore, to guarantee a consistent response to their music that has often been called "understanding," many composers let us know these references.  On the other hand, some such as Mahler were distinctly ambivalent about giving the references, and many others simply suppress them.

I sometimes think that the only difference between "absolute music" and other kinds is whether we know the references or not.

Interesting post. Let me think about it.

I talk about the idea of "instrumental theatre" (Kagel's term) or "theatrical music" (my term, which is slightly broader, it also contains Wagner's use of the Leitmotiv for example). Maybe you can say that when sounds are used as motifs you can call music theatrical music. Kagel's doctrine, which I don't share, is that each sound is it's own motif. Isn't that crazy?

If Kagel speaks (do you have quotation?) about inability of music to express or evoke any consistent mind-images or emotions without external references, he's not really (despite I think it's a negative statement about music) in contradiction with Stravinsky saying (which is more positively formulated) that music don't express anything then itself. But Kagel contradicts himself in a very strange way if he states that each sound is it's own motif. Or does he try to say that sounds has a kind of "musical motifs", which are motifs exlusive in music, that only exists in sounds/music. That makes it more weird, so I think he's contradicting himself. Or, what is more acceptable, that Kagel makes each sound it's own motif if he makes "instrumental theatre".

[Henk]

It baffles me that you call it a common term; this is the first I have ever seen the phrase "instrumental theatre."

So, no, I have not the faintest idea what you mean, mijn vriend.

Ok, it's not a very well-known term, but it's common, you can google and you find some interesting articles about it.

[jochanaan]

...Kagel's doctrine, which I don't share, is that each sound is it's own motif. Isn't that crazy?

Not necessarily.  In certain pieces, the mere sound of a certain instrument may become a motif in itself.

If Kagel speaks (do you have quotation?) about inability of music to express or evoke any consistent mind-images or emotions without external references, he's not really (despite I think it's a negative statement about music) in contradiction with Stravinsky saying (which is more positively formulated) that music don't express anything then itself.

This time I was unclear.  Those are my words, not Kagel's.

But Kagel contradicts himself in a very strange way if he states that each sound is it's own motif. Or does he try to say that sounds has a kind of "musical motifs", which are motifs exlusive in music, that only exists in sounds/music. That makes is more weird, so I think he's contradicting himself.

"Do I contradict myself?  Well, then, I contradict myself." --Walt Whitman.

Seriously, it is not a crazy thing for sounds to be motifs in the composer's mind.  But it's unrealistic of a composer to expect that the audience or even the performers will see them as such without an explanation.  That's the wall Wagner, Kagel and others are up against.  But this in no way invalidates the concept of "instrumental theatre" or theatrical or program music in general.

[Henk]

Not necessarily.  In certain pieces, the mere sound of a certain instrument may become a motif in itself. This time I was unclear.  Those are my words, not Kagel's."Do I contradict myself?  Well, then, I contradict myself." --Walt Whitman.

Seriously, it is not a crazy thing for sounds to be motifs in the composer's mind.  But it's unrealistic of a composer to expect that the audience or even the performers will see them as such without an explanation.  That's the wall Wagner, Kagel and others are up against.  But this in no way invalidates the concept of "instrumental theatre" or theatrical or program music in general.

Ok, it's not crazy itself, but what I try to say the whole time is that music then has become subordinate to theatre, with all those motifs. Music has lost it's "function", it represents something, and it is nothing, which is sad, crazy, sick-making. And Kagel has made it to a doctrine with his idea that each sound is it's own motif. Maybe the composer doesn't realize, but Nietzsche did, and I do.

[Henk]

Addition. It still is music with all those motifs, it doesn't represent something, but it's music made subordinate to theatre, because of the motifs. And that's not a good thing. It lost it's own "function". Thanks to Nietzsche I noticed it. And I think I really understand things now, thanks to this thread.

[karlhenning]

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist . . . .

[Henk]

If Kagel speaks (do you have quotation?) about inability of music to express or evoke any consistent mind-images or emotions without external references, he's not really (despite I think it's a negative statement about music) in contradiction with Stravinsky saying (which is more positively formulated) that music don't express anything then itself.

This time I was unclear.  Those are my words, not Kagel's.

Jochanaan, one remaining subtopic. Do you think Kagel's sees it that way? Why do you think that?

"Do I contradict myself?  Well, then, I contradict myself." --Walt Whitman.

Good one.

Henk

[Henk]

Not necessarily.  In certain pieces, the mere sound of a certain instrument may become a motif in itself.

Like I said (I added later): Kagel makes each sound it's own motif if he makes "instrumental theatre". But to state that each sound is it's own motif, always, is weird. Only a composer going crazy could state such a thing.

[karlhenning]

Erratum & Expansion Dept

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

[Henk]

Erratum & Expansion Dept

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

That's why it's a good one. To irritate your discussion companion. Of course you should only use it in a lost position.

[karlhenning]

The irritated discussion companion is part of the multitudes I include. I am unmoved.

[Henk]

The irritated discussion companion is part of the multitudes I include. I am unmoved.

Then it gets creepy for the discussion companion. What to do now?