Classical music and emotions

[Florestan]

While true, how they did this was much more subtle

Please be so kind as to enlighten us about why and how are Vivaldi's The Four Seaspns or Telemann's Don Quijote more subtle than Natanael Berg's Symphony No. 2 "The Four Seasons" or Richard Strauss's Don Quijote. Many TIA.

The Romantic composers took that idea and went in the extreme direction of elevating this idea  to a higher value, to the point that composers aspired to descriptive goals for beyond anything ever contemplated by composers from previous eras..

For sure, taking a previously used idea and going beyond anything ever contemplated in that respect by previous eras is a capital sin worth of the hottest places in Hell...

Never mind that the Romantics had the loftiest ideas ever conceived about music, its purpose and possibilities; never mind that the Romantics liberated music and musicians from the servitude that was their lot in previous eras (a moderate servitude during Baroque, a rigid one during Classicism); never mind that it is to the Romantics and their influence that we owe pretty much anything of value in our current habits, from weekly concerts to the complete cataloging of Haydn's works to musical education for each and everyone regardless of social status and everything in between --- they'll never atone for their greatest, most unforgivable and gruesome crime: fusing music, poetry and painting into one single whole. They should have known better ever since Plato: trying to get people outside their cave box is a most risky business.

My point was that "absolute" music during the Baroque and Classical periods drifted during the Romantic period to more programmatic music.

The concept of "absolute music" was not conceived of, nor elaborated on, until much later than the Baroque and Classical eras died a natural death. Not to mention that the very terms Baroque and Classical are... oh the horror, Romantic inventions.

This was rectified during the 20th century as programmatic music was viewed as an embarrassing detour, so much so, that Leonard Bernstein cautioned his audience to ignore the program of the Pastoral Symphony as it tended to obscure the music.

Can't believe my eyes! Bernstein, the anti-Romantic! What planet are you living on, man?

[Florestan]

Part of what I dislike about Romantic music was the loosening of the bonds of restraint that characterized the Classical period and previous eras. 

Oh, I can safely bet that when you were first time in love all you could think of was "What would my grandmother do?" and "Hey, don't put your hands there, honey, it's not in my handbook!"... 

[Ten thumbs]

I think the reason I, and possibly others, do not find music from the Romnatic period as enjoyable as that from other periods, is precisely because Romantic composers made an overt attempt to manipulate and appeal to the emotions of their audience.

Maybe they did - some of the time, but mostly not, at least no more so than in other periods. Chopin's Mazurkas are not overtly more emotional than Bach's fugues.

[PaulR]

I am not saying Bach thought he was writing absolute music, but that was what he was writing as described by us.  And despite treatises describing G Minor as a "sad" key, this did not mean that composers went to the lengths as did Romantic composers with how they abused this idea of music expressing an emotion.  Part of what I dislike about Romantic music was the loosening of the bonds of restraint that characterized the Classical period and previous eras.  This is what I meant by a more subtle use.

The 6th Symphony does have a program, and Beethoven consciously added scene titles to the movements, but which he cautioned against be taken too literally.  However, during the Romantic age, his 6th was performed with stage enactments of the scenes anyway.

Bernstein was advising his audience to ignore the movement titles and listen to the music as if they did not exist, which is how I've always done it.

You are maintaining an incorrect position.  While the 6th has titles and evokes feelings and a character (which are programmatic elements), it is still does not have a program.  They are character pieces.  The first symphony that had a program was Symphony Fantastique by Berlioz, well after the 6th was premiered. 

If the music did have a program, I would say Bernstein would be misguiding the listeners and doing the music an injustice.

[Gurn Blanston]

You are maintaining an incorrect position.  While the 6th has titles and evokes feelings and a character, it is still does not have a program.  They are character pieces.  The first symphony that had a program was Symphony Fantastique by Berlioz, well after the 6th was premiered. 

If the music did have a program, I would say Bernstein would be misguiding the listeners and doing the music an injustice.

The 6th was what was called at that time a 'characteristic symphony'. While it didn't have a programme as such, it did have the full intent to be totally evocative. In this case of a return to the countryside. I heartily recommend 'The Characteristic Symphony in the Age of Haydn & Beethoven' by Richard Will. It breaks down the differences between Baroque/Classical works and Romantic programme works. Quite interesting.

[asin]0521802016[/asin]

[PaulR]

The 6th was what was called at that time a 'characteristic symphony'. While it didn't have a programme as such, it did have the full intent to be totally evocative. In this case of a return to the countryside. I heartily recommend 'The Characteristic Symphony in the Age of Haydn & Beethoven' by Richard Will. It breaks down the differences between Baroque/Classical works and Romantic programme works. Quite interesting.

[asin]0521802016[/asin]

I'm not denying that it evokes certain feelings and characteristics, it certainly does.  That is not my position.  It is not a programmatic piece of music. 

Also, a lot of the major composers had issues with programmatic compositions.  Like Mahler, Brahms, Schumann (Though, a bit early), Tchaikovsky, and Bruckner (to a degree at least).

[PaulR]

And I think you are belaboring a distinction without much of a difference.

Without any distinction, definitions are worthless.  The Pastoral doesn't have a central narrative that describes any sequence of events outside the music.  The only movements you could argue it does, are the last two.  That would be stretching the boundaries of what programmatic music is.   It is not like the Symphony Fantastique where there is a central narrative. 

[Ten thumbs]

And I think you are belaboring a distinction without much of a difference.

On the contrary. In programme music, the programme is the structure. Characteristic music on the contrary is nearly always based on classical structural forms, as indeed is the Pastoral Symphony. If your point of view were correct then virtually every classical symphony or sonata etc. must be classed as programmatic, as the movements are put together in a particular order to create an overall balance and develop the material to a satisfactory conclusion.

[Johnll]

My point was that "absolute" music during the Baroque and Classical periods drifted during the Romantic period to more programmatic music.  This was rectified during the 20th century as programmatic music was viewed as an embarrassing detour, so much so, that Leonard Bernstein cautioned his audience to ignore the program of the Pastoral Symphony as it tended to obscure the music.

If only Bernstein had rectified HIMSELF. If he had he would never have written West Side Story or Candice. Consider the embarrassment he now feels titling his first symphony the Jeremiah since it could not have anything to do with that mythical figure. It was just empty sounds strung together in a clever way like much c20 talk.

[some guy]

Generally we've seen two positions articulated which attempt to identify the source of emotion when people listen to music. The emotions come from the music or from the listener.

I think that the argument has gone on so long, and the positions are held so strongly, because there is a hidden agenda. After all, realistically it would seem not to make much difference to someone's experiencing emotions when listening to music where those emotions are coming from, the listener or the music. (Or, my preferred option, from the activity of listening itself--the engagement of a listener with those sounds.)

So why are we still arguing? Because something else is at stake. If the emotions are being expressed by the music, then if a listener does not feel any emotions (or feels only negative emotions), then the listener is free to blame the music. The music doesn't reach me? It's the music's fault (the composer's fault).

If, however, the emotions are something that come from the listeners in response to the music, then the listener must take some responsibility for a failure to connect. And it seems that increasingly so since the early 19th century (not the early 20th, as a persistent but invalid narrative has it) that listeners do not want to take any responsibility for any disconnect.

It's not surprising that the majority of such failures are with newer music--newer being, by its nature, less familiar, nor that what we actually have here is a convenient way for certain listeners to deny newer music qualities that are commonly accepted for older, more familiar music. Hence the laments that newer musics just don't have the beauty or value of older music. Hence the laments that music since [put practically any date here, since practically every date has been used for this since at least Mozart's time] has gone downhill fast, that only music before [          ] is universally accepted by the best judges (hah! I make joke) as being of high quality.

It is a failure, I maintain, to accept responsibility for your own listening.

[Johnll]

It's not surprising that the majority of such failures are with newer music--newer being, by its nature, less familiar, nor that what we actually have here is a convenient way for certain listeners to deny newer music qualities that are commonly accepted for older, more familiar music. Hence the laments that newer musics just don't have the beauty or value of older music. Hence the laments that music since [put practically any date here, since practically every date has been used for this since at least Mozart's time] has gone downhill fast, that only music before [          ] is universally accepted by the best judges (hah! I make joke) as being of high quality.

It is a failure, I maintain, to accept responsibility for your own listening.

You cut right to the heart of it. It is the standard c20 oh I personally am So So So sophisticated BS why do nor admire ME! Some of us still do not realize how superior you are, and even were you to be, I still refuse to pucker. That is Someguy I will not deliver.

[jochanaan]

Well, I for one have no agenda but to spread love of music.  And there is a very subtle conflict of interest there since I play the stuff.

[Florestan]

As a listener, I have no responsibility whatsoever to anyone, composer or performer; nor am I under any obligation to like, or even to try liking, everything I hear. I have not asked anyone to compose or perform anything; it is the artists themselves who choose to make their work public and it is entirely their own responsibility for the succes or the failure of their work; and if they can't stand a negative response from the public, then they should consider other careers than composing or performing.

The opposite idea, implying that failure to like a specific work or performance is indicative of a deficiency or guilt or lack of responsibility at the listener's end, would be ridiculous if it weren't absurd, or viceversa. I strongly suspect that it comes much less from the artists themselves (after all, were they to adopt it, the public would promptly and rightly rebuke them as supercilious jerks) than from some guys who for whatever obscure reasons imagine that listing as favorite composers a hundred names nobody but themselves have ever heard of makes them brighter and smarter than everybody else.

[Sammy]

Generally we've seen two positions articulated which attempt to identify the source of emotion when people listen to music. The emotions come from the music or from the listener.

I think that the argument has gone on so long, and the positions are held so strongly, because there is a hidden agenda. After all, realistically it would seem not to make much difference to someone's experiencing emotions when listening to music where those emotions are coming from, the listener or the music. (Or, my preferred option, from the activity of listening itself--the engagement of a listener with those sounds.)

So why are we still arguing? Because something else is at stake. If the emotions are being expressed by the music, then if a listener does not feel any emotions (or feels only negative emotions), then the listener is free to blame the music. The music doesn't reach me? It's the music's fault (the composer's fault).

If, however, the emotions are something that come from the listeners in response to the music, then the listener must take some responsibility for a failure to connect. And it seems that increasingly so since the early 19th century (not the early 20th, as a persistent but invalid narrative has it) that listeners do not want to take any responsibility for any disconnect.

Beats me why you and a few others insist on looking at this matter in terms of blame/responsibility.  Nobody's to blame and nobody's responsible.  Music is for enjoyment, not pointing fingers.  However, I suppose that you're into pointing the finger (at others).

[jochanaan]

As a listener, I have no responsibility whatsoever to anyone, composer or performer; nor am I under any obligation to like, or even to try liking, everything I hear. I have not asked anyone to compose or perform anything; it is the artists themselves who choose to make their work public and it is entirely their own responsibility for the succes or the failure of their work; and if they can't stand a negative response from the public, then they should consider other careers than composing or performing.

The opposite idea, implying that failure to like a specific work or performance is indicative of a deficiency or guilt or lack of responsibility at the listener's end, would be ridiculous if it weren't absurd, or viceversa. I strongly suspect that it comes much less from the artists themselves (after all, were they to adopt it, the public would promptly and rightly rebuke them as supercilious jerks) than from some guys who for whatever obscure reasons imagine that listing as favorite composers a hundred names nobody but themselves have ever heard of makes them brighter and smarter than everybody else.

Hmmm...I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel that if a piece is considered "important," then, because I love music and consider it very important in my life, I should at least take time to sit down and listen to such a piece, with as much attention and non-prejudice as I can.  Then if I don't like it, at least I can say I gave it its chance.  And that's all I or anyone else can ask--but if one claims to "love music," it's a fair thing to ask.

[Ten thumbs]

Absolute music is presumably not meant to be enjoyed, as pleasure is an emotion.

[Karl Henning]

. . . No composer can aim to reach every listener . . .

Alas! that you speak all too truly.

. . . and I agree they should not take offense at those listeners who fail for whatever reason to "get" their music.

This, too.

[Florestan]

Hmmm...I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel that if a piece is considered "important," then, because I love music and consider it very important in my life, I should at least take time to sit down and listen to such a piece, with as much attention and non-prejudice as I can. 

I did just that with Xenakis. It didn't work. 

No composer or performer has any obligation to you to write music which presumably you are able to appreciate.  The best they can do is write the best music they can, the kind of music that makes sense to them and serves their compositional purposes.   They probably hope to find an appreciative audience, which may or not include you. 

Absolutely, I agree 100%.

[Florestan]

Absolute music is presumably not meant to be enjoyed, as pleasure is an emotion.

[Karl Henning]

Absolute music is presumably not meant to be enjoyed, as pleasure is an emotion.

Welcome to that part of the conversation (more interesting in some ways) where we explore the distinction between expressing content, and having an effect upon the listener's emotions.

I could go back through the thread and find posts where one or another of us explicitly expresses the idea that we frequently respond emotionally to music.  Need I bother, or can we move on? ; )