Thread: Musical appreciation Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020032
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
So I saw and followed a link to a survey on musical appreciation form twitter the other day.
You don't have to follow, it is just for context, but it is quite interesting.
I think it raises some interesting questions. What is it that makes you go all chill over music. What stirs the emotions? And why - not about particular pieces, but about styles and feelings?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
This may be a useful link.
I find that some music leaves me cold, some stirs me on very deep emotional levels, but I find it hard to analyse these variable reactions more deeply. The best word I can find is that I 'resonate' to some pieces of music more than others, and that 'resonance' can open the door to the most profound feelings of which I am capable; joy and sorrow in particular.
In my case, the resonance does not seem to be genre-specific. Classic and contemporary, secular and religious, with or without words, don't seem to provide much of a clue as to the depth of the 'resonance' I feel.
But I know what I like, and I know what moves me.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
A very interesting set of questions, and an interesting exercise to think about them.
I'm not sure that focusing on the chills is the best approach. I almost never get the chills from Brahms, say, he just isn't that sort of composer (though there's always the possibility of the next brilliant performance).
In fact my main physical responses to music are to want to dance or to produce tears.
I am also aware of having worn many pieces of music out. After the eighth time they no longer do it, and it gets harder and harder to find new pieces and new genres where I'll get that wonderful feeling again. It doesn't seem to matter, though. I still enjoy stuff that has a gentler effect.
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on
:
it does seem to me that we are still a long way from saying why a particular piece of music has a specified effect. We do seem to have forgotten quite a lot since the Baroque era when composers could use particular techniques to convey the required emotion, but even then it was far from being an exact science. Part of the problem could be the complexity of human emotions, for instance a song with a feeling of sadness can bring with it an emotional release and ultimately joy; and music which on the face of it carries no emotional charge at all, for instance a Bach fugue or church plain chant, can nevertheless bring joy, or at least, a relief from sadness.
People can develop over time. For instance, vocal music used to hold little charm for this pirate, who preferred orchestral music; more recently, possibly as a result of trying to learn how to sing properly, I have come to prefer the sound of the human voice, at its purest when unaccompanied. YMMV.
I have also come to suspect that, while there is music and dancing, all is not lost.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
One of my comments was that it is very much at the time and place. It doesn't always work somewhere else or another time.
So I love November Rain - the first time I heard it it gave me a chill, but not any more. Still stunning, but doesn't grab me like it did.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
This is a fascinating subject, one which I consulted whilst looking at the links between music and movement in charismatic churches. The composers of 'charismatic' songs certainly know how to elicit emtion (work people into a frenzy, get them weeping or jumping, for example). One common technique I observed was of rising melody line and crescendo. In my experience this is not confined to charismatic congregations but it is found more frequently there.
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I almost never get the chills from Brahms, say, he just isn't that sort of composer (though there's always the possibility of the next brilliant performance).
I must leap to the defence of Brahms. Two pieces I cannot listen to if I am not in a robust emotional state are the Adagio of his first piano concerto and the final movement of his German Requiem. There is pretty much no other music to which this applies.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I am currently learning this Brahms piece. Every time I ask my piano instructor to illustrate a point of technique or interpretation, she ends up playing the entire piece herself. She has said that it is the most beautiful thing she's ever heard.
I wouldn't go that far but I have to agree that it is incredibly beautiful. The piano was Brahms' instrument, and he knew how to draw out of it the sweetest sounds and the darkest tones at the same time.
Schubert did almost the same thing with his Impromptus, and Chopin with his Nocturnes and Preludes.
I think that what makes memorable, as opposed to forgettable music, is a composer who completely understands not only music theory but also his instrument, inside and out.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
Visuals, whether in the mind or virtual, can be part of experiencing those heart-string pluckings. We had to anticipate that an item (or four) in our carol service this year was likely to result in applause by some so the congregation was asked at the start of the service to remain silent. The piece in question which we anticipated would elicit tears / chills, was 'Gabriel's oboe' played beautifully by a student trumpet player with her grandfather on the organ, accompanied by a video clip of the journeying of the wise men (produced by a well-known church). Emotions were certainly present and the moment was not lost in the minute or two of silence that followed.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Good to see you posting, Mark Wuntoo.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
This is a fascinating subject, one which I consulted whilst looking at the links between music and movement in charismatic churches. The composers of 'charismatic' songs certainly know how to elicit emtion (work people into a frenzy, get them weeping or jumping, for example). One common technique I observed was of rising melody line and crescendo. In my experience this is not confined to charismatic congregations but it is found more frequently there.
I disagree. Music and the situation in which one experiences it in cannot be separated easily. ISTM, charismatic composers are in no way special, the expectations of a charismatic service are the main elements of the reactions.
But this is not unique, because we do not experience anything as an isolated phenomenon.
ETA: the most frequent place to experience the link between music and heightened emotion is the cinema.
[ 24. December 2016, 17:26: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Good to see you posting, Mark Wuntoo.
Thank you and a very happy Christmas to you, too.
I remain 'far off' and getting further but my reading of the Ship remains constant, whilst not posting so frequently. Occasionally, a thread grabs me and this is one. You will know from my MW reports that my style is usually based on and written out of my own experience (for good or ill).
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Context can be a big thing in appreciation.
Up until the age of 45 I did not understand country. To me it was the music that fat middle aged business men put on stetsons and listened to harking back to the Old West of Roy Rogers and John Wayne. Either that or the music middle aged women line danced to. Living in the UK gave me no other context.
Then I found myself in the Arizona Desert with the car radio on. The music choice was, to quote from The Blues Brothers, both sorts, Country, and Western. The context had changed and I had a better understanding, I even own some country.
I still can't stand the stuff that women in the UK line dance to though.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I am currently learning this Brahms piece. Every time I ask my piano instructor to illustrate a point of technique or interpretation, she ends up playing the entire piece herself. She has said that it is the most beautiful thing she's ever heard.
I wouldn't go that far but I have to agree that it is incredibly beautiful.
Lady Ann Bothwell's Lament, a gorgeous thing. And, Rocinante, Brahms is one of my favourites. The survey SC linked to asked for my three favourite composers and after Bach and Schumann I put Brahms. The second subject of the first movement of his 1st piano concerto gave me one of my most powerful musical responses while I was still in my teens. I felt as if my spine had been gripped by an electric charge. The adagio is wonderful, too.
In 'Unapologetic' Francis Spufford talks about Mozart's clarinet concerto saying that it doesn't sound as if Mozart finds this music difficult to write, or as if he can only just do this. It isn't effortful. Brahms has this, too, except when it's me playing it.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I do like a number of classical pieces, but the songs that give me chills are really in the American Folk genre. I think the closer I experience what is described the more likely I will experience chills
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I'm always carried away by Variations on a theme of Haydn by Brahms. Chills isn't the exact word, the music has a sweeping inevitability.
[ 25. December 2016, 02:37: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
What is it that makes you go all chill over music. What stirs the emotions? And why - not about particular pieces, but about styles and feelings?
In short, I don't know, but some observations. I listened to much the same sort of music for most of my teenage years and through my twenties, into my early thirties. Then it started to change - well, broaden, I think, to the point where there isn't a hell of a lot I don't listen to.* I have asked myself about the musical metamorphoses I have been through.
I think it's worth observing that in the last ten years, I have 1.) become a parent, 2.) not had a 'career' in any usual sense, although I have had 'work' for much of the time; 3.) been quite ill for a year, and 4.) lost my father. Obviously all of this stuff has enormous emotional impact.
When my daughter was young she was very hard to settle, sleep, entertain, etc. I dealt with this by playing and/or singing nursery rhymes to her, and playing her classical music (long a favourite genre of mine). I found that when she was finally asleep I would jam some headphones on, sit down at my computer, and listen to the loudest, crashiest, raw-est, yelling-est, most primitive sounding stuff I could find and just eat it all down. Which is to say, I developed quite an appreciation for punk, not just its sound but its whole anarchistic ethos.
In the year after my father died, I listened to music, by myself, with headphones on, in just about every spare second I had. I was shutting other people out, and escaping into a kind of emotional space where I could actually deal with being emotional. I mostly listened to the sort of stuff he would have listened to, at the beginning, Irish folk music and so on, and that blossomed out into other related genres, all of which were good to experience.
I'm not in a bad place emotionally at the moment, and what I'm listening to and how much of it I listen to is absolutely all over the place, literally all over the place. YouTube is good for this - always throwing up some thematic suggestions at the end of a piece, along with some totally random ones. I have gone on some simply glorious tangents by clicking on a random one.
If I had to pick one thing that consistently, consistently, gives me the chills, it would be the sound of massed pipes. It's, like, why I have ears - it's that good.
If I had to pick one favourite song - well, that's really hard, but I think it would be 'America' by Simon and Garfunkel. There is just so much going on with it, I don't get sick of hearing it.
----
*The main thing I can't (yet) take is dance/electronic/hardstyle etc., coincidentally my husband's music of choice. We make extensive use of headphones in our house.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I am currently learning this Brahms piece. Every time I ask my piano instructor to illustrate a point of technique or interpretation, she ends up playing the entire piece herself. She has said that it is the most beautiful thing she's ever heard.
I wouldn't go that far but I have to agree that it is incredibly beautiful. The piano was Brahms' instrument, and he knew how to draw out of it the sweetest sounds and the darkest tones at the same time.
Schubert did almost the same thing with his Impromptus, and Chopin with his Nocturnes and Preludes.
I think that what makes memorable, as opposed to forgettable music, is a composer who completely understands not only music theory but also his instrument, inside and out.
A beautiful piece and then that link with Radu Lupu playing, a master pianist nearly as good as Dinu Lipatti.
The music that does that extra for me are the Bach solo cello suites and in particular the fifth with its magnificent fugue. Casals described these suites as a conversation between performer and composer - not quite right as it's a 3 way conversation, with God as the third.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Bach wrote for God, and God blesses us by allowing us to listen to his record collection.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Bach as recording artist?
How many albums did he release in his lifetime?
Ok, a pedantic point. Bach 'does it' for me.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Which is interesting, because he doesn't for me. A few classical pieces do, but very few.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Which is interesting, because he doesn't for me. A few classical pieces do, but very few.
But is you listen carefully you will find something in your music collection where the bass line is ripped off JSB,
JS Bach, the greatest bass line writer in the history of rock music (Via Jack Bruce who at lest was open about being influenced by Bach.)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Bach as recording artist?
How many albums did he release in his lifetime?
Shh! It was hoped nobody would notice it was more than it was actually possible for one man to write in that period ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Which is interesting, because he doesn't for me. A few classical pieces do, but very few.
But is you listen carefully you will find something in your music collection where the bass line is ripped off JSB,
JS Bach, the greatest bass line writer in the history of rock music (Via Jack Bruce who at lest was open about being influenced by Bach.)
Oh yes, undoubtedly. It isn't that I don't like any JSB, just that he is not who I go to for emotional zap.
The one I focussed on is Flaming Lips "The Castle".
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Being a parent will throw you entirety off.
We went to a Dolly Parton show this summer. She spends the first third of the show talking about being poor as a child, but mom and dad making sure that you had everything you needed.
Chills? A bit more than that. Absolute prolonged weeping.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Knowing the stories behind songs does sometimes help. The story behind "Tears in Heaven" is so sad, and the song so lovely, it has to give you chills, I think.
Which is, I think, about emotional connection.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
I never get chills to music. In fact until reading the intro information to the survey I didn't realise people literally got chills up their spines and goosebumps from music. I thought that was just an expression to explain the strong emotions music can evoke. Unfortunately by answering honestly I couldn't do the listening part of the survey.
I do get strong emotions to music, sometimes from the style and sometimes from memories linked to the music I am listening too. I tend to daydream to music a lot too. Some music I can't listen to at all. Heavy metal and certain types of 1990s grunge music just make me feel depressed or angry. Certain songs from musicals, classical pieces, folk music (especially Irish or Scottish, but also 1970s music my parents played when I was a child)and pop ballads evoke the most positive emotions for me. Happiness or a feeling of relaxation or strength - sometimes just general positive feelings. Some music has tastes for me too, as I have a form of taste synaesthesia. Music I don't like in particular tastes like food or drinks I dislike. Boring music tastes like overcooked, bland meat.
It's interesting that different styles of music evoke different emotions for different people and that this can vary culturally too. Then there are some songs and pieces of music that seem to be very popular and evoke positive emotions for most people across many generations or even centuries.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I use Sweet Honey in the Rock's Sing O Barren One when I can't control my thoughts properly. It's a truly beautiful song, and quite long. As soon as I realise that I'm not listening to the lyrics, I put it back to the start of the song and begin again.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I think that what makes memorable, as opposed to forgettable music, is a composer who completely understands not only music theory but also his instrument, inside and out.
Not sure about this… I am currently doing battle with Rachmaninov’s cello sonata in G minor. I wanted to learn it because it is one of those fabulously beautiful pieces which reduces me to a gibbering wreck, but man is it hard in places. In relation to that wretched passage in four flats on which I have spent the last three lessons, my teacher just said to me, “What can you do? It was written by a pianist…”
Also Beethoven wrote stuff that isn’t really playable by anyone on any instrument at all ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
To wit: when amateur orchestral musicians are faced with a Beethoven symphony, the frequent reaction is to turn up at one’s music lesson crying “helllllllllp, I’m trying to play this and my technique’s all over the place”. You then get a surprise when the teacher looks at it and says, “To be honest with you, in 60% of professional orchestras their technique’s all over the place as well. Do your best.” Beethoven was a chills-inducing genius, which is why people make superhuman attempts to play his works, but he never really considers their suitability for the instruments he scores them for. He wrote what he wrote and it’s up to the musician to deal, technique be damned
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am currently doing battle with Rachmaninov’s cello sonata in G minor. . . . My teacher just said to me, “What can you do? It was written by a pianist…”
Also Beethoven wrote stuff that isn’t really playable by anyone on any instrument at all. . . .
The Rachmaninov anecdote proves my point. He was not a cellist.
I think that Beethoven's -- I hesitate to say problem -- was his hearing loss. He really couldn't hear much of what he wrote, especially in his later years. Even so, he managed to crank out works of absolute genius.
I've sung the Ninth Symphony and have always felt that Beethoven wasn't really hearing the parts. The bass part isn't bad, if perhaps a little pedestrian, but the poor tenors really have their work cut out for them!
I've heard it said that some of his later piano works were unplayable on instruments of his day -- that they'd fall apart if anyone tried to do it. The Waldstein and Appassionata sonatas are examples of that. Of course, today's pianos can take them in stride -- not that all pianists can!
Also, remember that all works of a genius are not works of genius. Mozart was unique in the genius world. His Symphony No. 40 is just one example. But a large percentage of his works are pure drivel, what would pass for Muzak today.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I think we’re talking at cross purposes. Rachmaninov wasn’t a cellist, and consequently bits of his sonata are hell to play. Nothing forgettable about it though. This conversation was about “chills” – and if it doesn’t give you those, you should check you still have a pulse .
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
'Strange meeting' from Britten's War Requiem gives me chills, as does the repeated Devil's interval theme throughout the piece, sung by the chorus.
'Praise to the Holiest' chorus from The Dream of Gerontius, is another 'chills' place for me, though I have to have the run up to it from the Angel's introduction.
And 'Spring Offensive' from Bliss's 'Morning Heroes', though admittedly that's probably more to do with the words, as the music is very peripheral in that section.
Posted by Clemency (# 16173) on
:
How about links between place and music?
Driving around Iceland a few years ago with Sigur Ros on the car stereo....resonance indeed
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Or music and activity. If I want my best performance on twisty roads, fast and "driving" music helps focus my effort.
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Also, remember that all works of a genius are not works of genius. Mozart was unique in the genius world. His Symphony No. 40 is just one example. But a large percentage of his works are pure drivel, what would pass for Muzak today.
Could it be that, to get great music, you need to churn out a lot to work out what works and what doesn't.
That doesn't explain Beethoven, though.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Also, remember that all works of a genius are not works of genius. Mozart was unique in the genius world. His Symphony No. 40 is just one example. But a large percentage of his works are pure drivel, what would pass for Muzak today.
Remember, too, that most composers do not write a work when "the music muse" strikes them - they are commissioned and given both a brief and a timescale. Many too have "day jobs" which may not even have anything to do with music - for instance Borodin was an outstanding medical chemist.
Of course composers will have ideas running round inside their heads and notebooks full of fragments - but it's a long way from those things to writing a work of genius. So it's not surprising if a large proportion of their work falls into the "competent" rather than "outstanding" bracket.
I'm sure that the same is true for artists in other genres - and, dare I say, for preachers who are charged with producing an inspirational and original magnum opus twice every Sunday.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Or music and activity. If I want my best performance on twisty roads, fast and "driving" music helps focus my effort.
I've been listening to a New Wave station lately. Any time Blondie's "One Way or Another" comes on, my driving... changes. Like all of a sudden I'm in a car chase scene cut out of an episode of "The A-Team."
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Also, remember that all works of a genius are not works of genius. Mozart was unique in the genius world. His Symphony No. 40 is just one example. But a large percentage of his works are pure drivel, what would pass for Muzak today.
Could it be that, to get great music, you need to churn out a lot to work out what works and what doesn't.
That doesn't explain Beethoven, though.
Or J S Bach, or Monteverdi either.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
I was on my way to Quaker Meeting on Christmas Day when a local radio station played a previously taped 2016 Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols from King's College, Cambridge.
When I heard the solo into to "Once in Royal David's City," I burst into tears.
I was overcome with a desire to pay attention and try to live well the values and ideals that have been important for so long (not talking about religious dogma here) and that seem to be lacking in modern western society with all its lack of civility and obsession on politics.
This song was what I needed for hope and uplifting.
sabine
[ 29. December 2016, 14:45: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I've sung the Ninth Symphony and have always felt that Beethoven wasn't really hearing the parts. The bass part isn't bad, if perhaps a little pedestrian, but the poor tenors really have their work cut out for them! .....
My wife (soprano) knows the "Ode to Joy" as "Ode to Shriek". (In fairness to Beethoven, concert pitch as gone up quite a bit since his day.)
I have never felt that writing for the singing voice really came naturally to Beethoven. In contrast to Monteverdi, or Purcell, or Mozart, or ...
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
I have never felt that writing for the singing voice really came naturally to Beethoven.
No, it certainly wasn't his forte. My choral group is going to do "Hallelujah" from "Christ on the Mount of Olives" at our upcoming spring concert series. In doing research to prepare program notes (which I do for our programs), I learned that Beethoven thought that the libretto was so bad that he couldn't think of ways to improve upon it. Critics and audiences agreed, and we never hear "Christ on the Mount of Olives" anymore except for that one chorus.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Could it be that, to get great music, you need to churn out a lot to work out what works and what doesn't.
That doesn't explain Beethoven, though.
Genius/talent, like other traits, is varied and is only one aspect of a person's life.
Chuck Berry is rightfully considered a cornerstone of what rock music is, but many of his songs are derivative of his earlier works. So an important innovator, but not a constant one.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Also, remember that all works of a genius are not works of genius. Mozart was unique in the genius world. His Symphony No. 40 is just one example. But a large percentage of his works are pure drivel, what would pass for Muzak today.
This sounds pretty harsh! About what fraction of his music was pure drivel, would you say? And can you suggest any particularly heinous examples? (I ask not knowing if your statement reflects your understanding of criticism you've read, or your own experience.)
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I'm not familiar with all of Mozart's output, so I couldn't attach a figure to my assertion. But for an example, the so-called "Church Sonatas" and some of the Divertimenti.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And I'm sure a lot of his music was intended to be "background music" for Court and social occasions, rather than for Listening To Seriously.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Mozart did start composing when he was two, so there is a lot of very early stuff. Brahms burnt a lot of pieces he was unhappy with. Beethoven moved through different styles, and his early work, while not drivel, is not trying to do the amazing things his later stuff does; the first piano sonatas are by someone not yet capable of writing the last handful. Beethoven's appeal is partly about the effort it cost him to write. His manuscripts are messy with corrections, and you can often hear the struggle in his music. Mozart's appeal is partly in the apparent effortlessness of his music, as if he was an alien receiving downloads from the mother ship.
R Schumann wrote many of his best pieces in his late teens and early twenties. Chopin was already firing on all cylinders when he started, the Etudes, for example, are quite early works. Mendelssohn wrote his famous Octet when he was not yet seventeen.
And then there's he tragedy of JS Bach, who wrote acres of music on demand, and still had to teach the local kids and argue for his firewood allowance. Somewhere between a quarter and a half of his output has no known musical value whatsoever, because we've lost it. Some of the stuff we do have, about a hundred and fifty CDs in a complete edition, must be mediocre, but it's very hard to find it.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
You also have to factor in that Mozart was a lazy sod, who is frequently doing only as much as he has in order to get paid.
Take Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. It’s a pleasant enough little thing, but it is most definitely wallpaper. There are repeats flippin’ everywhere. In the last movement (which I quite like, but still), you play the opening theme no less than half a dozen times. Our Wolfie has written five minutes’ worth of music and spun it out to make it last a quarter of an hour.
Mozart’s truly great works are the ones where he’s actually applying himself and making an effort – the late symphonies and the operas, for example.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
There is, of course, the version of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" he composed after a little-known holiday in Scotland - enjoy!
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Some of the stuff we do have, about a hundred and fifty CDs in a complete edition, must be mediocre, but it's very hard to find it.
Must be mediocre?????? Go and thoroughly wash your hands.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Of course, prolific composers such as Bach weren't above recycling or reworking their music. Much of the B Minor Mass is "second-hand" material - yet the piece has a unity which utterly transcends its origins.
(Having said that, the "Quoniam Tu Solus" with its horn obbligato always makes me giggle).
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
But then you get the Art of Fugue, all technically perfect as the simple theme goes through all those variations but remaining a joy just to listen to.
Given the quantity of music Bach had to compose on a weekly basis, it's inevitable that he reworked a useful piece. Take the Christmas Oratorio where the final section commences with an incredibly florid theme and variations combined with the Passion Chorale.
[ 30. December 2016, 09:39: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
You also have to factor in that Mozart was a lazy sod, who is frequently doing only as much as he has in order to get paid.
Take Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. It’s a pleasant enough little thing, but it is most definitely wallpaper. There are repeats flippin’ everywhere. In the last movement (which I quite like, but still), you play the opening theme no less than half a dozen times. Our Wolfie has written five minutes’ worth of music and spun it out to make it last a quarter of an hour.
Mozart’s truly great works are the ones where he’s actually applying himself and making an effort – the late symphonies and the operas, for example.
I suppose the title of EKN says a lot about its worth and purpose. When you've heard it more than about four times it becomes very irritating.
We're mainly talking here about music written before recordings. Unless you played in an orchestra, you wouldn't expect to hear a Mozart Symphony more than once or twice in a life time, and then only if you were the sort of wealthy person who dressed in fine clothes and went to concerts.
Instrumental works were even more obscure, mostly intended to be played by musicians and instrumentalists for their own pleasure. Bach's Goldberg Variations were only published because he was sufficiently proud of them to pay for their publication - 100 copies, I think. He would probably be astonished to know that from the late 20thC you could sometimes hear them performed in a concert hall, or that someone might sit down and listen to a recording of the whole 75 minutes. He would hope that a tiny number of very able musicians might get a copy and now and then play through this and that variation and enjoy the skill in their composition. It was an essentially private achievement.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
"It may be that when the angels go about their task praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they play Mozart". (Karl Barth).
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Didn't Barth require one of his women to wake him up by playing Mozart on the gramophone?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
He would hope that a tiny number of very able musicians might get a copy and now and then play through this and that variation and enjoy the skill in their composition. It was an essentially private achievement.
Something that amazes me is the trumpet part. The trumpets of Bach's time were less technologically advanced and, I imagine, a fair bit harder to play. Nevertheless the Brandenburg Concertos contain trumpet parts that, today, only a few professional musicians can tackle with any confidence. This is with the best instruments money can buy and the global pool of musicians to choose from. How Bach expected to find trumpeters in 18th C Liepzig to play them is beyond me.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Surely it wasn't a case of "How did he find them?" though. Presumably he wrote or arranged in accordance with the resources he knew he had available at the time.
So a Church cantata without a trumpet part may have been written (initially, at least) for a Sunday when the player was out-of-town.
Might one also suggest that performances in Bach's day may have been less than perfect? (A bit like our expectations of the Early Church!)
[ 30. December 2016, 12:56: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Alison Balsom plays the traditional trumpet and there are recordings of her playing Bach on her latest album (I've seen her play Purcell)
(And there were people standing around the back of Kings College Cambridge listening to what could be heard during the Nine Lessons and Carols. To get in, people had to be in the queue by 8:30am.)
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The Brandenburgs were definitely not private works. This was prestige music, and I guess the difficulty level would be part of the deal. Wikipedia tells me the trumpet part was intended for a noted soloist on something called the clarino.
Churches and cathedrals often had paid choirs. Think of that - a group of professional singers who had sung together for many years. There's nothing like that available today. Thomas Tallis's Spem in Alium is incredibly difficult, requiring forty independent singers in eight five-part mini-choirs, one of each eight being a high tenor. Performances are very rare today, and apparently the best sound is obtained by sitting inside the ring of 40 singers, so it's very exclusive.
I think there's evidence that today's instrumentalists are better, and there are tales of under-rehearsed and chaotic first performances, but choirs were probably better in Bach's day.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
But how common were such choirs, outside big cities and cathedrals? I have no idea, but I suspect that the picture would have been very different for the majority of rural/small town worshippers, unless the local Count or Elector funded the church musicians.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Wikipedia tells me the trumpet part was intended for a noted soloist on something called the clarino.
And it tells me that a clarino might not even have existed.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Alison Balsom plays the traditional trumpet and there are recordings of her playing Bach on her latest album (I've seen her play Purcell)
Sure, there are a few who can pull it off. A few in the world. And there just happened to be one in Liepzig?
Granted it may be that lower standards were settled for, but to even get into the register to start to be able to play the Brandenburg is a pretty impressive feat.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Wikipedia tells me the trumpet part was intended for a noted soloist on something called the clarino.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And it tells me that a clarino might not even have existed.
I think the confusion is over the terms, but I think the consensus is that whatever a clarion was (and whether it was the same thing as a clarino) there was a "natural trumpet" with no valves in Bach's time a bit like this.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I meant Alison Balsom can play the trumpet as found in Bach's time and play Bach, Purcell and a range of other music on it. That trumpet has no valves: the traditional or baroque trumpet. She has recorded albums of Bach on a modern trumpet too.
But if I look there are others playing Bach on the baroque trumpet - Justin Bland, John Foster, lots more that I'm not going to irritate the hosts by linking - and playing on ancient instruments now is a specialised activity.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Alison Balsom plays the traditional trumpet and there are recordings of her playing Bach on her latest album (I've seen her play Purcell)
Sure, there are a few who can pull it off. A few in the world. And there just happened to be one in Liepzig?
But the Brandenburg concerti predate Bach's move to Leipzig and may even have been written while he was still at Cothen. "A well-known online encyclopedia" suggests that the Margrave of Brandenburg wouldn't have had the musical resources available to perform them and that they may never have been played until after their rediscovery in 1849.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I meant Alison Balsom can play the trumpet as found in Bach's time and play Bach, Purcell and a range of other music on it. That trumpet has no valves: the traditional or baroque trumpet.
Yes, I got that. I realize there are a few people who can do it, I just think it is remarkable that out of the global pool there are relatively few of them compared with the likelihood that Bach would know a few people able to do this sort of thing.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But the Brandenburg concerti predate Bach's move to Leipzig and may even have been written while he was still at Cothen. "A well-known online encyclopedia" suggests that the Margrave of Brandenburg wouldn't have had the musical resources available to perform them and that they may never have been played until after their rediscovery in 1849.
OK. Well it seems even more odd to write a piece with a spectacularly difficult virtuoso part and not at least having an inkling that it would be playable. Some other trumpet parts he wrote are spectacularly difficult as well - like the Mass in B minor including the Quoniam part you mentioned earlier.
I wonder if, like hatless suggests for choirs, there was more opportunity for very intense practice by individuals and groups of individuals in a church setting where usually those people would have day jobs and not get into serious professional playing.
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I meant Alison Balsom can play the trumpet as found in Bach's time and play Bach, Purcell and a range of other music on it. That trumpet has no valves: the traditional or baroque trumpet. She has recorded albums of Bach on a modern trumpet too.
But if I look there are others playing Bach on the baroque trumpet - Justin Bland, John Foster, lots more that I'm not going to irritate the hosts by linking - and playing on ancient instruments now is a specialised activity.
I've played on both modern trumpet and baroque trumpet. They are different experiences. The baroque trumpet took me a weekend to get used to but was enormous fun (I'd been given one week between being lent it and playing the third trumpet in the concert, alongside two much more experienced players taking the two high parts).
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
That trumpet part in the second Brandenburg concerto really is something, isn't it. In fact the whole concerto is, IMNSHO. It's the summation of the northern Baroque.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
It is something, indeed. The fact it's so hard to say what it is, is, I think, evidence that the something is something to do with the one who has a name.
I remember listening one morning, it might well have been another Saturday, to this Brandenburg Concerto and being so thrilled by it that all I could think of was to say that it had all been worth it; everything I had been through was justified by being able to enjoy this music. Sounds more like a brain defect than an argument, but it's typical of the superlatives the very best music pushes us towards. It's good, but it's something, too.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
According to John Eliot Gardner's book, Bach spent a lot of time complaining about the way his musicians refused to practice. Though it may be that choirmasters are expected to complain about that as part of the job.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think it raises some interesting questions. What is it that makes you go all chill over music. What stirs the emotions? And why - not about particular pieces, but about styles and feelings?
Quoting the original post, because frankly the thread seems to have wandered off into something else entirely.
Here's what I ended up writing in response to the survey: "I think often it has to do with setting up a musical pattern of some kind, and then breaking it at just the right moment/in just the right way. Some sort of small musical surprise that strikes me as beautiful."
I very much think of music in terms of structure and pattern, and a delicate balancing act between predictability and randomness. Too much predictability and I find music becomes boring and mindless for me. Not enough and I feel that it loses its cohesiveness.
I think there's also something very different about hearing a piece of music that you've not heard before. There's a capacity for a genuine, complete surprise in that context that you can't have with something you're really familiar with, and the existence of recorded music has very much changed our experience of music. There are certain pieces/songs where I can still remember getting a chill over something unexpected, and it involved a break in the pattern that had been set up.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Driving to early church this morning, we listened to Bach's Cantata, BWV78: Wir eilen (We hasten) arranged well for instruments alone. That shows what Orfeo's talking of, a line progressing along what you think is a predictable path but then making the leap of a 5th when you don't expect it - but being exactly correct and with everything else looked after properly. In a lesser composer, the last bit's all too often missing; Bach always gets it spot on.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I very much think of music in terms of structure and pattern, and a delicate balancing act between predictability and randomness. Too much predictability and I find music becomes boring and mindless for me. Not enough and I feel that it loses its cohesiveness.
I think one can expand that to talk about rules and definitions in music as well. Having a defined scale is pretty essential to produce any sort of intelligible music. One can have
atonal stuff which is free of that rule, although semitones are still defined. It's not my cup of tea but people apparently get something from it.
On the other hand a completely unwavering and rigid following of a particular scale with no accidentals can be a bit dry.
The same continuum exists in time signatures. Rigidly holding to a beat is pretty tedious and unexpressive. Lacking any kind of sign-posts leaves one a bit floundering though.
On the familiarity issue though I find that I don't really enjoy any complex bit of music until I know it. I can't listen to a Bach choral work and take it in at once. I only really start enjoying it when I have some feeling for what is going on.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
According to John Eliot Gardner's book, Bach spent a lot of time complaining about the way his musicians refused to practice. Though it may be that choirmasters are expected to complain about that as part of the job.
Perhaps they got a productivity bonus for doing so?
By the way, I found Gardiner's book unutterably tedious - I'm glad I didn't buy it but only had it from the library.
[ 01. January 2017, 15:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I very much think of music in terms of structure and pattern, and a delicate balancing act between predictability and randomness. Too much predictability and I find music becomes boring and mindless for me. Not enough and I feel that it loses its cohesiveness.
I think one can expand that to talk about rules and definitions in music as well. Having a defined scale is pretty essential to produce any sort of intelligible music. One can have
atonal stuff which is free of that rule, although semitones are still defined. It's not my cup of tea but people apparently get something from it.
On the other hand a completely unwavering and rigid following of a particular scale with no accidentals can be a bit dry.
The same continuum exists in time signatures. Rigidly holding to a beat is pretty tedious and unexpressive. Lacking any kind of sign-posts leaves one a bit floundering though.
Yes, agree with all of this.
The bit about "signposts" reminded me of something I read about Haydn a few years ago, and how he made this a key part of what we now think of as the Classical style.
And that, among other things, this is why his musical jokes work. How is it that he manages to make audiences regularly laugh, at the end of the 'Joke' string quartet, with no words at all? It's because of signposts with double meanings that fool the listener, and people enjoy the cleverness of the trick.
I think all the best music sets up rules and definitions, and then finds ways to play with them....
...I'm going to expand on this but put it into a 2nd post.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Okay, the reason I'm going for a 2nd post is that I now have a legitimate excuse to witter on about Tori Amos and I'm afraid I won't be able to resist.
Because I had a magical moment with her a couple of years ago, in conversation. Yes, I've spoken to my musical idol. Of course!
But this is what I talked to her about: about musical rules and definitions. And about each album having a somewhat different set of rules. I told her how, to me, the process of getting to know each new album was a process of understanding the rules it worked by.
This is not unique to her by any means. I think this is what all the best musicians do - each period or era, they are setting up a new musical "language" with its own "grammar" and then working through what is possible in that space.
At the time I was talking to her, though, she was showing how she could even do something like this in individual concerts. On that tour she was starting with the same song every night, but then heading off on a different path each time. On successive nights, I went to one concert that was full of sweet and pretty and beautiful tunes, and another that went dark and angry before gathering some inner strength. Each concert had quite different musical, psychological signposts.
...and she got very excited by all this and gave me a hug. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is not unique to her by any means. I think this is what all the best musicians do - each period or era, they are setting up a new musical "language" with its own "grammar" and then working through what is possible in that space.
No, I'm sure you're right that Tori isn't unique.
To be serious though, perhaps one can extend the argument to all art - sculpture, painting, novels - they all need some grammar and language within which they are internally consistent, albeit with exceptions.
And many of these conventions and grammar rules are very culturally determined which can limit how well art travels. Although really great art and motivated audiences can cross the barrier.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0