Lookin' for a new composer

Those of you delivering verbal kickings to Richard Strauss are quite misguided, in my opinion: if you doubt this, listen to Orfeo's recently released Rosenkavalier, recorded live and untouched in Munich in 1973, conducted with matchless verve by Carlos Kleiber. This was taped at a time when CK was locally famous in Munich, but a couple of years before he became world famous with THAT Vienna recording of Beethoven's Fifth.

Listen, and learn!

Dear Graham,

I remember as a small child finding a lot in the music of Elgar, and to some degree I still do.

Analogous to Elgar's status as a second division composer along with many other famous names including Richard Strauss, it might be born in mind that Adrian Boult [analogoues to Hans Knapertsbusch for R Strauss] was both one of Elgar's most constant and great advocates, but also one of his sternest critics. Boult doubted that Elgar's music would last and indeed apart from The Dream Of Gerontius, and the Two Concertos, it is an extreme rarity in the concert hall these days.

We may all enjoy something that history shows is not so very significant, but it does not really make sense to advise beginers to start with something less than diamond quality!

Brahms makes both Elgar and R Strauss appear mere musical children ...

But I do agree that there are some good tunes in Rosenkavalier.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear Glenn,

Isn't it such a strange one?

It would not be only mine but a historical verdict. Brahms is one of the few composers of the the top tank, whilst Richard Strauss is now consigned to a second division musicans whose noisiness is inversely proportional to his depth.


Perhaps the perception of R Strauss is different in the USA, but he is even more rarely performed in the UK these days than Mahler, or Schoenberg.

ATB from George

I don't know what planet you live on George but I have never read such utter tripe in my life. You obviously have no idea of how frequently Strauss, Schoenberg and in particular Mahler are performed in UK concert halls. In fact Mahler symphonies, Strauss tone poems and in particular the very "noisy" operas Salome, Elektra and the sublime Rosenkavalier are guaranteed to pack out halls in London and elsewhere. Open your eyes, please.

Sister xx

I have to remind people that my musical knowledge started with the Beatles. I had grade school classes where we learned the scale and what a G clef was. I have no real knowledge of music, so bombastic is more entertaining than subtle variations tho I do often judge a composition by it's slow movement. If it is interesting then it bodes well for me.

I had a roommate 20 years ago that thought all romantic music was awful, only the classical period where woodwinds answered the strings, back and forth. I thought it pretty but give me Beethoven and Stravinsky any day.

At the LA Phil I sit behind the orchestra anytime the percussionists pick up an instrument I take note. I'm going in for an operation and a friend is really sad he has to give my extra ticket to Ein Heldenleiben (sp?) to someone else, he said it's not often preformed live.

take my comments as being uneducated even after 20 years of casual and active listening to classical music. Looking at a musical score is like hieroglyphics.

quote:

Originally posted by Sister E.:
You obviously have no idea of how frequently Strauss, Schoenberg and in particular Mahler are performed in UK concert halls.

What's the deal with Schoenberg? I heard a piece of his the other day and I must say, it was at once very beautiful but also god-awful. It's like he didn't know how to edit or tell a story and just threw a bunch of exquisitely written sentences together at random. Perhaps I am being harsh as a neophyte and all; but I remember having a very negative response to Schoenberg's music. The fact that the conductor felt he had to explain the piece before performing it didn't help.

That was Schoenberg's style, lots of notes. I have an exquisite 2 LP box of Guerrelieder given to me years ago, I've never made it to the second LP, only once to the second side of the first, but it has a ravishing opening.

In serial music he had a set of rules and one rule was not to repeat the same thing twice. It's really really difficult to listen to in his tuning.

I love Webern's 5 short pieces for orchestra, same serial idea but in a haiku setting. We get it next winter in LA.

Another box set I have is Shostakovich's string quartets, I've heard most of them but can't take more than one at a time. and I LOVE adventuresome music. I'll pull that one down again while I get over my operation. One more try for the gipper!

Yes George in some ways I agree, 20th C music and many of the recent composers have lots of "color" and rarely "depth". I've heard many recent works where lots of light percussion and noodling on strings but no melody, at least to my ears. The only one I like is John Adams yet his recent stuff has left me cold. Rain Tree and a Christmas oratorio a few years back.

I saw Strauss' Salome at Met HD and loved it and shocked at it. The last part visually was gagging but closing my eyes it was fabulous love aria. I loved being shocked tho and out of my comfort zone. I've not seen or heard Electra.

I love Mahler symphonies they way they drift, but honestly can't make one out from another. Not like Beethoven where it's clearly a different symphony.

I know you like Hyden for his clarity and brevity I heard one on radio today while I was at the computer and it was over toot sweet.

It just ended as I finished a long email to my sister. LOL

quote:

Originally posted by mudwolf:
That was Schoenberg's style, lots of notes. I have an exquisite 2 LP box of Guerrelieder given to me years ago, I've never made it to the second LP, only once to the second side of the first, but it has a ravishing opening.

In serial music he had a set of rules and one rule was not to repeat the same thing twice. It's really really difficult to listen to in his tuning.

Definitely not my kind of style. I don't like having to know what the artist's intention is in order to appreciate the work. It should be apparent from the music itself.

Dear Naijeru,

If you like music that stands without needing any background understanding of the composer's intentions, then you will find the true classics the place to find gold.

In the Baroque and Classical times the great majority of the instrumental [if not the vocal] music that we still have in the repertoire is freestanding, and explains its self. This is sometimes called "pure" music, and contrasts with "programmatic" music, which has an explanation, which is more or less essential to comprehending it and enjoying it at the best.

The tendency for composers to use a programme to explain their music grew in the 19th century with the rise of the Romantic Movement. Some Romantic composers generally refrained from "programme" music, though few completely ignored it.

Among the great composers of "pure" music from the romantic era are Brahms and Sibelius, who happen to be my favourites among the Romantics.

I also have the greatest admiration for the idea of music that is highly compressed in terms of content, such as Bach and Haydn so frequently composed. One is left wishing it could have gone on longer. In the long run this far more satisfying than wishing that the music were less long!

As the Musical Romantic Movement developed, musical forms such as the Symphony tended to grow longer in terms of time for performance, and actually less concise and compressed in content, and made up for this lack of musical power by scoring the music for ever bigger and louder orchestras, possibly as a sort of Freudian cammoflage for the reletively thinner musical content, that would show up painfully with a less lush pallet of scoring.

I can think that this is somewhat indulgent on the part of composers, as we only have a specific lifetime to enjoy music!

Which Symphony is preferable, one that is perfectly crafted and emotionally involving lasting say 30 minutes, or one that is just as involving but lasting 75 minutes?

To be honest I admire what Berg and Webern managed in their attempts to restore concision to music and this is only made the more disappointing for me in the simple fact that what they wrote seems to be mostly incomprehensible to me. It seems to require a learning of a whole new artificial language for music, rather than taking the natural harmonic and melodic pulse used before, which emanates from nature itself by organising the sounds that are natural in a way [ie based in parterns and shapes of forms that we recognise as being euphonic without even the smallest musical education], but devastatingly involving in a way that defies words, once organised into great artworks, such as, for example, a Bach concerto or a Haydn symphony.

This observation applies to "pure," or "non- programmatic" music.

Programme music is something that tells us a story defined by words, whereas the "pure" variety, speaks at an elemental level completely and utterly beyond precise or universal understood description in words. "Pure" music speaks to each of us slightly different. Effectively it speaks to us of the cosmos, but politely as an individual. No other branch of art can emulate its scope.

ATB from George

quote:

To be honest I admire what Berg and Webern managed in their attempts to restore concision to music and this is only made the more disappointing for me in the simple fact that what they wrote seems to be mostly incomprehensible to me. It seems to require a learning of a whole new artificial language for music, rather than taking the natural harmonic and melodic pulse used before, which emanates from nature itself by organising the sounds that are natural in a way [ie based in parterns and shapes of forms that we recognise as being euphonic without even the smallest musical education], but devastatingly involving in a way that defies words, once organised into great artworks, such as, for example, a Bach concerto or a Haydn symphony.

I was going to ask you about Webern, George, but you pre-empted me! I find his music intriguing for the reasons you mention - the concision, and (maybe) the concentration of musical ideas. Didn't he base one of his pieces on something by Bach, or am I imagining that? Anyway, the fascination I feel for his work, has not yet been replaced by a clear sense of enjoyment, but he is a composer I keep coming back to for another "go".

I know all creation of art forms take an organization and a philosophical concept which is wonderful to see how it unravels, or the many variations it can take. I often find tho that some artists can get so involved in these abstract thoughts it can kill the piece. And other times so plain as to be boring. I'm thinking of portraiture right now, Rembrandt vs Warhol.

Many modern artists cloak themselves in a mind boggling concoction they loose the beauty and passion. I heard a talk in grad school about clear communication. She used the words "eschew obfuscation" which was so funny to many of us because one guy in the class would talk on such a high level you really didn't know what he was getting at. He always railed at simplistic language and concepts.

I have to try Lulu and Wozzeck but at home where I can turn it off if I find it unbearable. 12 tone and many other tonal systems have mathematical preciseness but can be unbearable as I've found out more than a few times, tho a bit of microtonal effects can add spice to a piece.

This thread has been a fun read.

Thanks for that write up George!

By programme music, do mean works that have a story to go along with them (i.e. 'Peter and the Wolf')? In that case I certainly will explore more on the side of "pure" music although I'm not entirely opposed to programme. I can imagine music that may have a story I can guess at without knowing the intended meaning and still enjoy. What I am vigorously opposed to though, and I guess programme music does approach this, is a kind of music that adheres to rules or a theory that the audience must know. Pelleas und Melisande falls into that category for me because I found it entirely incomprehensible and exhausting. I can see how a performer might like it though because each performer must concentrate on his or her piece which in that isolation may be very enjoyable.

I am intrigued by the idea of music being compressed in terms of content. I find early Duke Ellington recordings fascinating because of what he was able to accomplish in a mere three minutes. Compression (if I am using the term correctly) in Ellington's music happens with the benefit of tempo and call and response rather than with a deafening cacophony of a big orchestra making lots of noise.

I've picked up a couple of Brahms symphonies based on the recommendations in that Brahms thread. Considering Haydn, would you still suggest starting with the London symphonies?

Any music with words is pinned down by those very words!

But real "programme" music has a written narrative, such as The Fanastic Symphony by Berlioz, which has movement titles which make is very clear that aspects of the music are entirely descriptive of physical events.

Richard Strauss's Tone Peoms have narratives, and so does Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony - just a few examples.

In "pure" music I suspect that sometimes the composer may well have had his or her own narrative in mind, but the music stands for the listener perfectly well without knowing what it might have been.

I suspect that it is this very dilution of the purity of the music which makes opera, in all but a handful of casses, virtually indigestible for me! In the days of my playing I enjoyed playing it, but never could imagine listening to it with the same pleasure!

ATB from George

PS: I would think that the London Symphonies represent possibly the finest introduction to classical music that exists. As individuals they each have something special. As a set of Symphonies, they are not embarrassed by any comparison with any set from any composer. This is not quite to say that they are the greatest symphonies ever wtitten, but rather that they are certainly in that bracket which rules out any reason to put things in order of significance. Works of genius - great works by any measure. And great fun as ell! Full of joy, but touched often enough with moments of emtional probing of doubt as to be anything but trite. The Philips set with Colin Davis is a very fine [and by now inexpensive] first set to get.

Stravinsky's "Petrushka" and "Pulcinella" are two good examples of program music that succeed quite well as pure music, with a density of composition the equal of Bach.

Hi George,
I do really want to make sure I understand your post within the meaning you intended it to be so I do have a few questions. When I read it through, I suspect I might be hasty in jumping to the wrong conclusion. Then again, from the start, I think we are working from different definitions, for that matter, of "Program Music" and "Absolute or Pure Music". Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Firstly, I feel that you are defining these terms arbitrarily based on your personal likes or dislikes. It is clear you prefer something called "Absolute or Pure Music" over something called "Program Music". I base this on your carefully chosen opening remarks:

quote:

If you like music that stands without needing any background understanding of the composer's intentions, then you will find the true classics the place to find gold.

By deduction, we know you mean "Absolute or Pure Music" here and then again following this we conclude you are speaking of "Program Music" and connecting it to that of most Romantic Music with the following statement...

quote:

As the Musical Romantic Movement developed, ..., possibly as a sort of Freudian cammoflage for the reletively thinner musical content,

Later, it seems you link Atonal music with Program music and Tonal music (from the Classical/Baroque period) with Pure music.



I would argue that the difference between "Program Music" and "Absolute or Pure Music" is not as well defined or rigid as you have implied.

By definition you would correctly say, as you have, that "Program Music" is purely based on or derived from clearly highlighted literary or pictorial associations; in contrast, you are correct in saying "Absolute or Pure Music" is simply devoid of these literary or pictorial associations. But these are academic definitions. How can anyone believe that the music of Bach, Haydn, or even Brahms (to name several of the composers you believe to be creators of "Absolute or Pure Music") cannot be Programmatic in nature. Any musician that has ever played this music will tell you that they are playing more than just notes. Most composers write music with a picture or feeling in mind and if you know this music on a personal level it would be hard to state it otherwise. Compare this to a March at a military parade. By your definitions, this would be Pure Music as it is only notes that serve a function or purpose. Their is nothing musically interesting or engaging about the music itself other than as a background beat keeper.

Which of the following then is "Program Music" or "Absolute or Pure Music"

1) Capriccio in B flat major on the Departure of his Most Beloved Brother, BWV 992 by Johann Sebastian Bach
2) Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen, BWV 12 by Johann Sebastian Bach
3) Toccata in D major, BWV 912 by Johann Sebastian Bach
4) Passacaglia in C minor, BWV 582 by Johann Sebastian Bach

5) Seven last words of Christ on the Cross, Op. 51/H 3 no 50-56 by Franz Joseph Haydn
6) Quartet for Strings in D minor, Op. 103/H 3 no 83 by Franz Joseph Haydn

7) Sonata for Piano no 26 in E flat major, Op. 81a "Les Adieux" by Ludwig van Beethoven
8) Sonata for Piano no 31 in A flat major, Op. 110 by Ludwig van Beethoven


I could go on but this is enough to make the point. I would say that each of the above could fit nicely in either category if you wanted it there. Does having a name attached to a piece change anything? Is "Les Adieux" "Program Music" and Sonata No. 31 "Absolute or Pure Music" ? In the end does it really matter? If you understand what is happening in the music and how it develops and are able to be affected by the themes etc. isn't this what matters? If we are not told anything we will likely listen to this piece as "Absolute or Pure Music" and even if we knew the context as we become more familiar with the piece we would probably listen to it as "Absolute or Pure Music" still. Sometimes terms are meant to be used strictly in an academic sense but in the real world the distinction matters very little.

Whether "Les Adieux" was named that way with a specific intention or not the piece still tells a story and conveys a particular feeling or emotion. If you listen with an open mind and spend time with the music chances are that you would emotionally end up at the same conclusion. But it was written this way (with Beethoven's ideas) and the themes and text of the piece were not created by random placement of the notes on a page. Beethoven had a clear picture of what he wanted to say or express. The Op. 110 is no different in this way despite the fact that it was not named.

I could also say that whether a piece has a particular Program to it or not, every individual person that hears it will hear it only based on their own experiences and context anyway even though we are told specifically what it is about. You might hear certain things and I will likely hear other things because we will always be individuals and no one else shares our experiences and outlook in life.

quote:

"Pure" music speaks to each of us slightly different. Effectively it speaks to us of the cosmos, but politely as an individual. No other branch of art can emulate its scope.

Here, I have to beg to differ with you especially in regards to the last sentence. In light of my above explanation, it is arguable as to what is truly "Program Music" or "Absolute or Pure Music" but by your definition what is art and what isn't is supposedly easily and can be arbitrarily defined. Secondly, since true "Program Music" is associated with literature, painting, poetry I would find it hard to suggest that for some personal reason this is no longer great art. It is because of this association (music with other art forms) that both music and other forms of art are strengthened, not weakened. I don't think one has to compete with the other.


Now, pardon me, but I need desperately to listen to the relatively thinner musical content of Schubert's Winterreise and contemplate my cursed Oedipus Complex.

Best Regards,
Doug

Okay, I have seen the terms tonal, atonal and tone poem bandied about enough times to realize that the concept of tone is a VERY IMPORTANT THING; but I have no idea what this means wrt classical music. If it's not too much trouble, can anyone explain? A link to a good introductory article would be nice.

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
Hi George,
I do really want to make sure I understand your post within the meaning you intended it to be so I do have a few questions. When I read it through, I suspect I might be hasty in jumping to the wrong conclusion. Then again, from the start, I think we are working from different definitions, for that matter, of "Program Music" and "Absolute or Pure Music". Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Firstly, I feel that you are defining these terms arbitrarily based on your personal likes or dislikes. It is clear you prefer something called "Absolute or Pure Music" over something called "Program Music". I base this on your carefully chosen opening remarks:

quote:

If you like music that stands without needing any background understanding of the composer's intentions, then you will find the true classics the place to find gold.

By deduction, we know you mean "Absolute or Pure Music" here and then again following this we conclude you are speaking of "Program Music" and connecting it to that of most Romantic Music with the following statement...

quote:

As the Musical Romantic Movement developed, ..., possibly as a sort of Freudian cammoflage for the reletively thinner musical content,

Later, it seems you link Atonal music with Program music and Tonal music (from the Classical/Baroque period) with Pure music.



I would argue that the difference between "Program Music" and "Absolute or Pure Music" is not as well defined or rigid as you have implied.

By definition you would correctly say, as you have, that "Program Music" is purely based on or derived from clearly highlighted literary or pictorial associations; in contrast, you are correct in saying "Absolute or Pure Music" is simply devoid of these literary or pictorial associations. But these are academic definitions. How can anyone believe that the music of Bach, Haydn, or even Brahms (to name several of the composers you believe to be creators of "Absolute or Pure Music") cannot be Programmatic in nature. Any musician that has ever played this music will tell you that they are playing more than just notes. Most composers write music with a picture or feeling in mind and if you know this music on a personal level it would be hard to state it otherwise. Compare this to a March at a military parade. By your definitions, this would be Pure Music as it is only notes that serve a function or purpose. Their is nothing musically interesting or engaging about the music itself other than as a background beat keeper.

Which of the following then is "Program Music" or "Absolute or Pure Music"

1) Capriccio in B flat major on the Departure of his Most Beloved Brother, BWV 992 by Johann Sebastian Bach
2) Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen, BWV 12 by Johann Sebastian Bach
3) Toccata in D major, BWV 912 by Johann Sebastian Bach
4) Passacaglia in C minor, BWV 582 by Johann Sebastian Bach

5) Seven last words of Christ on the Cross, Op. 51/H 3 no 50-56 by Franz Joseph Haydn
6) Quartet for Strings in D minor, Op. 103/H 3 no 83 by Franz Joseph Haydn

7) Sonata for Piano no 26 in E flat major, Op. 81a "Les Adieux" by Ludwig van Beethoven
8) Sonata for Piano no 31 in A flat major, Op. 110 by Ludwig van Beethoven


I could go on but this is enough to make the point. I would say that each of the above could fit nicely in either category if you wanted it there. Does having a name attached to a piece change anything? Is "Les Adieux" "Program Music" and Sonata No. 31 "Absolute or Pure Music" ? In the end does it really matter? If you understand what is happening in the music and how it develops and are able to be affected by the themes etc. isn't this what matters? If we are not told anything we will likely listen to this piece as "Absolute or Pure Music" and even if we knew the context as we become more familiar with the piece we would probably listen to it as "Absolute or Pure Music" still. Sometimes terms are meant to be used strictly in an academic sense but in the real world the distinction matters very little.

Whether "Les Adieux" was named that way with a specific intention or not the piece still tells a story and conveys a particular feeling or emotion. If you listen with an open mind and spend time with the music chances are that you would emotionally end up at the same conclusion. But it was written this way (with Beethoven's ideas) and the themes and text of the piece were not created by random placement of the notes on a page. Beethoven had a clear picture of what he wanted to say or express. The Op. 110 is no different in this way despite the fact that it was not named.

I could also say that whether a piece has a particular Program to it or not, every individual person that hears it will hear it only based on their own experiences and context anyway even though we are told specifically what it is about. You might hear certain things and I will likely hear other things because we will always be individuals and no one else shares our experiences and outlook in life.

quote:

"Pure" music speaks to each of us slightly different. Effectively it speaks to us of the cosmos, but politely as an individual. No other branch of art can emulate its scope.

Here, I have to beg to differ with you especially in regards to the last sentence. In light of my above explanation, it is arguable as to what is truly "Program Music" or "Absolute or Pure Music" but by your definition what is art and what isn't is supposedly easily and can be arbitrarily defined. Secondly, since true "Program Music" is associated with literature, painting, poetry I would find it hard to suggest that for some personal reason this is no longer great art. It is because of this association (music with other art forms) that both music and other forms of art are strengthened, not weakened. I don't think one has to compete with the other.


Now, pardon me, but I need desperately to listen to the relatively thinner musical content of Schubert's Winterreise and contemplate my cursed Oedipus Complex.

Best Regards,
Doug

Doud,

Big points. Will reply tonight. There is a reason why I used "pure" in inverted commas each time.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by Naijeru:
Okay, I have seen the terms tonal, atonal and tone poem bandied about enough times to realize that the concept of tone is a VERY IMPORTANT THING; but I have no idea what this means wrt classical music. If it's not too much trouble, can anyone explain? A link to a good introductory article would be nice.

A tone poem is a single movement piece for orchestra, frequently with multiple "episodes", that elaborates a published story. Richard Strauss turned these out like pancakes.

Tonal music is based on the harmonic series as it exists in nature, while atonal music is usually based on a set of rules divorced from nature.

Get a Harvard Dictionary of Music and read an entry every night :-)

About this distinction between pure music and program music, it is quite simple.

If a composer publishes a story line with characters and a plot to go with a piece of music, then the music is "program" music. Thus all operas, ballets and tone poems are program music. On the other hand, if the composer intends the listener to react to the music as played with no reference to such a program, the music is "pure". The terms "program" and "pure" are intended to convey no more than this,
although many spirited exchanges would leave you to think more is involved than the presence or absence of a story line. Don't worry, nothing more is involved than the presence or absence of a story line. Absolutely nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
Which of the following then is "Program Music" or "Absolute or Pure Music"

1) Capriccio in B flat major on the Departure of his Most Beloved Brother, BWV 992 by Johann Sebastian Bach
2) Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen, BWV 12 by Johann Sebastian Bach
3) Toccata in D major, BWV 912 by Johann Sebastian Bach
4) Passacaglia in C minor, BWV 582 by Johann Sebastian Bach

5) Seven last words of Christ on the Cross, Op. 51/H 3 no 50-56 by Franz Joseph Haydn
6) Quartet for Strings in D minor, Op. 103/H 3 no 83 by Franz Joseph Haydn

7) Sonata for Piano no 26 in E flat major, Op. 81a "Les Adieux" by Ludwig van Beethoven
8) Sonata for Piano no 31 in A flat major, Op. 110 by Ludwig van Beethoven



Best Regards,
Doug

Of these, "The Seven Last Words of Christ" is the only one that is clearly "program" music.

I do not think that a designation of "pure" or "program" tells the listener anything about the quality of the music. But it does alert the listener to limber up his ears, as much "program" music makes liberal and unexpected use of well known musical forms, such as sonata form, variation or the various dance forms.

quote:

Now, pardon me, but I need desperately to listen to the relatively thinner musical content of Schubert's Winterreise and ...

Dear Doug,

I do pardon you. What possible value would there be in my attempting to answer the line written by you at the end of your post? I am left speechless by it. "Thinner than what?" I wonder if it is sarcastic or simply tendentious? You seem to have entirely failed to comprehend what I was driving at. I could restate it all, but will save the bandwidth.

Please forgive me, but we are talking entirely at cross-purposes here, or so it seems from your large post of Wed 10 March 2010 at 03:12.

I cannot see any basis for any of the assumptions you seem to apply to what I wrote. Such assumptions seem to suggest that you think I have an individual interpretation of what "programme" and "pure" forms of are. I don’t. Individual interpretations of these are pointless and do not make for a useful discussion. I am prepared to look in Grove for a precise wordy definition of such things …

I cannot find anything to argue with in posts about what is "programme" and what is "pure" music by Mike Eschman since this morning.

ATB from George

Mike, while this is only my personal belief I would have to say that all the music listed is Programmatic.

Certainly, the Capriccio had a story behind it given the title. Is the Kantata - Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen not clearly giving you a story to follow and making the intent clear?

In fact, my argument is that these composers did not write music that did not come from pictures in there mind or without some intent. The joy of listening for me comes from understanding the intent. Others will have different opinions on this, of course.

The one example here is the Beethoven sonatas. Is the Op. 81a Piano Sonata programmatic? Absolutely.

After the French attack on Vienna, led by Napoléon, Beethoven wrote this Sonata. The dedication on the piece stated, "On the departure of his Imperial Highness, for the Archduke Rudolph in admiration". My Henle Urtext score also says that Beethoven wrote on the score the date 4 May 1809 from Vienna. The Duke was of course a patron of Beethoven’s. The three movements depict how the Archduke fled Vienna and then eventually returned. So this is like reading an entry in Beethoven's diary.

These are the descriptions that starts each movement:
1. Das Lebewohl (Les Adieux - The Farewell); Adagio - Allegro
2. Abwesenheit (L'Absence - The Absence); Andante espressivo (In gehender Bewegung, doch mit viel Ausdruck)
3. Das Wiedersehen (Le Retour - The Return); Vivacissimamente (Im lebhaftesten Zeitmaße)

The word Lebewohl has three syllables: Le - be – wohl and each syllable is written above the first three chords of this movement. This isn’t common at all for Beethoven to do. It is from the end of his Middle Period in the Sonatas and the start of when he specifically started writing German instructions often omitting the usual Italian terms. Again, the chords Beethoven uses to represent Le-be-wohl correspond very closely to how you would say it. Go to your piano and try saying and playing this. I think this association is important and does heighten ones sense of understanding the music and context. That motif now has meaning rather than being some music being played.

How can this not be programmatic? Then I ask the question how a composer, like Beethoven, who wrote something called Symphony No. 1 or Piano Sonata No. 3 etc. could not have the same intent with the generic titled compositions. In other words, it all starts with ideas. If the great composers didn’t have ideas to share about themselves or the world around them, then this music would indeed be very boring. Every other piano sonata of Beethoven, including the unnamed ones, have the same DNA all over them; they are simply not incidental, background music and never will be. Whether you choose to believe so or not they represent personal feelings (about sorrow, joy, love etc) or they may be feelings related to social or political events happening at the time such as the Les Adieux above. The bottom line is they are about something that Beethoven felt strongly about.

Going back to the quote from George where he said,

quote:

“If you like music that stands without needing any background understanding of the composer’s intentions,….”

This is where I’d like to draw your attention to because I find this idea would be like an English speaker reading a book written in French. Going through the motions of sounding out the words but not understanding there intent and meaning strikes me as somewhat of a useless exercise. We read the book precisely because we want to know the author’s intentions / viewpoint is and what is behind the story and the characters. Then we think about this against our own perspective, talk about it, discuss it and this is how we grow and learn. We should want to get as close to the intentions of the author or composer or artist if we truly want to receive benefit from the experience. This is the difference between understanding as a child or understanding as a grown, thinking, intelligent being. So I honestly do not understand why one would avoid deepening your own understanding?

The other suspicion I have is that when a composer did not specifically write about or direct our attention to something the game was to hide clues within the music and see who could figure this out (and maybe only the inner circle of acquaintances). Haydn clearly did this (check out the later named symphonies) as did a host of others like Schumann, Liszt and Brahms, to name but a few. For instance, Schumann’s Carnaval, (subtitled Little Scenes on Four Notes) is based on the coding of four letter ASCH. It becomes a musical story and makes playing it or listening to it much more gratifying. Much of his music also contained love notes to Clara buried with the notes; musical cryptograms, if you will.

Another example of music that displays clear intent of the composer yet he didn’t write it clearly at the top of the score could be Brahm’s E flat major Trio for Piano, Violin and Horn. From what I have read about this piece is that Brahm’s played the Horn as a young boy. He obviously would of played for countless hours for his mom around the house while growing up. He wrote this trio in the year that his mother died so the intent of choosing the horn becomes clear. When one listens to the third movement, marked Adagio mesto, it becomes sadly apparent what this music’s “Program” is about. This is the product of a composer transferring his sorrows and cries directly to music. The horn, in my opinion, represents so truly this emotion of a human cry (or wailing) when written and played in a specific manner. This knowledge and understanding makes a powerful combination. I could never go to a live performance in public if this part was played as I’d fall to pieces….
Now, do you need to know things like this to listen to the music – no. If you want to get closer to the inner workings of a composer as a human being and have somewhat of a relationship– then, yes.

I largely have this view simply because I wear two hats within the world of music; I’m an avid listener but also a player. To play a Beethoven Piano Sonata effectively, you have to make some sort of commitment as to what you want your listener to hear. You can only do this through knowledge. This knowledge should be based as closely as possible to what is know about the composers intentions. This is what conductors and musicians do and you cannot communicate in a real way unless you somehow have an understanding of the background behind the composer’s intentions. Otherwise you simply are playing and/or listening to elevator music at a supermarket.

Regards,
Doug

George,

Point taken. You could not have been clearer that there will be no discussion.

Goodbye,
Doug

Florestan, it is an entirely different process for Stravinsky to develop themes that represent characters and fit them into a composition so that they follow a narrative, than it is for Bach to write a Well Tempered Clavier.

That is really my only point, that we are discussing two different compositional techniques.

As you point out in your examples, there are many pieces of music that offer a hint of narrative intent without developing a full blown story line.

I listen to much music that was written using each of these techniques, and enjoy them both tremendously.

I guess I'm not certain where the argument is.

Possibly - if there is something to discuss - it may along the lines be that, as Doug suggests, the line between pure music [as academically defined] is blurred by works [by Beethoven, who does do this in some his works, for example], where no actual programme is specified, but which hint at a hidden narrative.

As there is no specific reference to any spelled out narrative "programme" then I would expect that each of us might [if we were minded to do so] come up with quite different ideas of what the narrative might have been.

In a way it might be interesting to speculate as to what was the narrative as imagined by each of us as individuals, in the cases where the music does seem to have one but it is not made clear by the composer.

As a child I used to apply narratives to Symphonies! I can't remember them now, but after encountering Beethoven's Eighth Symphony and then the Seventh only a few days later at the age of ten, I gave it up! I found music that seemed to need no narrative for me, and dreaming them up for such music seemed to spoil my concentration on the cosmic possibilitiy in the music, which seemed to me, and still does, too big to pin down with words!

So really it is not possible for me to add much of use to such a discussion. The music that appeals the most to me is that which is too big to pin down in words, for me...

Perhaps the very fact that I do not link music with my own imagined narrative, and don't tend to enjoy quite a proportion of Romantic Music, which is particularly directly tied to a "programme," could be seen as me making a link between the Romantics and "programmatic" Music, but I do not. Clearly Brahms and Sibelius are Romantic composers, and yet their "pure" music is as lacking in the need for an additional imagined "programme" as the "pure" music of Bach, IMHO.

ATB from George

Without ever really thinking about it, I stick to the narrative (or absence of one) as supplied by the composer, as I think without reflection, that it is the composer's prerogative to use or not use such materials.

In the absence of such external props to the music, the listener is best served by focusing his full attention on the music itself. Still, when a composer provides such materials, reflection on these narrative materials can illuminate the understanding of his music.

I think two good examples are Bach's Brandenburg Concertos, which possess no narrative and would not benefit from having a narrative, and the St. Matthew's Passion, which is pointless in the absence of the libretto, which the music is meant to illuminate.

In any case, supplying an imagined narrative of the listener's own creation seems to me a fruitless exercise unrelated to appreciating
a composer's music. Just imagine doing the same with a Thomas Hardy novel.