Thursday, May 21, 2009
Whitney Houston never sang Mozart's "Queen of the Night"
The article did, however, raise some interesting questions about Enlightenment thought:
1) What are some of the unifying themes that Subotnik puts forth for connecting this cast of characters? Is it safe to relate them in the way that she did? Or are the similarities just the result of a composer who as run out of material?
2) Soren Kierkegaard's concepts of individualism and "interpreting the meaning for yourself" are exactly what Subotnik is expressing in her article, a unique view on an popular opera that has certainly been taken apart by scholars in the many years since its creation. How else does Kierkegaard's philosophy, or the philosophy of the Enlightenment, have a home in "The Magic Flute"?
3) What aspects of "The Magic Flute" make it appeal to a "unusually diversified audience" (1)? Is it the style? The showcasing of virtuosic vocalists? The reuse of traditional melodies? Expand on Subotnik's claim that its success is because it "draws upon such a wide range of musical and theatrical traditions that it presents a basis of appeal to everyone" (2). If it is indeed so diverse, how can it be unified?
-----
...and for those of you wondering about the title, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ8lto5ljhQ
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A Valid Observation, but a bit of a stretch in argumentation (Simon)
Rosengard believes that the long-lasting popularity of The Magic Flute was caused primarily by its accessibility across a wide range of audience members; more specifically, across social classes. It accomplishes this not by including pleasurable material for each class, but rather by telling the audience that class doesn't actually matter. It is unlikely that Mozart, at his writing desk, was thinking to himself, "Aha, I will write an opera that appeals to as many classes as possible and tells them that class doesn't actually matter!" But it is entirely feasible that the pervasiveness of the Enlightenment was great enough to insert social equity into every artists' consciousness, and Mozart was simply the soul expressive enough to get the point out.
Papageno, Tamino, and the Queen all as "natural" = identity crisis
Papageno’s existence adheres to natural order: his repetitive musical gestures signal a natural cyclicality, and he exists in a world that makes no social distinctions; he does not question his existence or sense of self as he is part of a larger natural order that doesn’t employ reason in drawing distinctions and classifications. The Queen embodies “natural” characteristics through her loss of emotional control which ignores her social rank and duties of which she is completely aware, enforcing the maxim of human worth based outside of social order. Tamino, on the other hand, signifies human worth through his employment of reasonable decisions and creative capacity in his aria that confirms he is a man of culture, an artist. This relates to the enlightenment perspective that “the man who is truest to nature is the man of culture; for it is civilized man who is truest to his own distinctively human nature, which is based on reason” (20).
While Tamino’s use of reason supports the maxim, it reveals a contradiction that is either this author’s folly or a contradiction of enlightenment thought: Papageno is natural due to the lack of reasonable discretion as a man outside of normal culture – for in his world it is unnecessary - whereas Tamino is natural by embodying those very concepts that Papageno autonomously defies. The contradiction is a definition of the “natural” through the non-cultured as well as the extremely cultured. How can this contradiction be reconciled? What is “natural” to enlightenment thinkers, if what occurs in nature (Papageno) does not match what occurs in culture (Tamino)?
Does the queen’s momentary emotional abandonment of social rank justify her “naturalness” even though she’s an evil queen that exploits said rank for personal gain? Her insincerity is as opposite to nature as Tamino’s employment of reason supposedly is. So there is another contradiction in enlightenment thought: How can the opposites of emotion and reason embody the natural?
Here the characters Papageno, the Queen, and Tamino are each different and represent different aspects of society. Papageno is a character that represents the "natural" state of humans in general. He is lacking "culture"; the inability to form social relations or "social contracts" by his inability to see "differences" between himself and them; and his lack of "desires" which causes one to "use signs in order to communicate" (4). He in many instances is much more like an animal than an actual human, yet his value as a human being is still valuable even though it seems he has not social status.
Where Papageno is on the one extreme of true "naturalism", the queen is on the opposite as being "insincere" and following "authenticity". In her Aria, she is initially thought to be sincere and emotional about her daughter being kidnapped, but it is all a ploy to gain the attention of Tamino. Here the "sincerity, is undertaken for reasons of social advancement (12). The queen doesn't act sincere for the sake of sincerity but for an alternative motive to help gain Tamino's help. It is afterwards that she displays her "real" nature and the music changes accordingly. Trilling describes the concept of "authenticity" (14) when one focuses on keeping a facade of sincerity for the sole purpose of maintain a social status that one eventually is deprived of all forms of genuine sincerity(13). The Queen herself is reflective of this change as she herself cannot display any genuine sincerity anymore because of her strong focus on her social standing as a queen. In this case, her value as a human is not high, even though she has such a high social standing reiterating the fact that "social rank does not equal human worth".
Tamino on the other hand is somewhere inbetween both Papageno and the Queen. He is able to express genuine and real emotions unrelated to his social rank, unlike the Queen. He is also characterized with "an active faculty of reason"(19), in which is reflective of Papageno's nature, yet does not have the limitation of being uncultured like Papageno. In this case he is the best of both worlds with none of the flaws. He is a man of culture, of reason, and of true human emotions. He is the reflection of the ideals of the enlightenment.
In what ways does the piece not a reflection of aspects of the enlightenment period? Isn't it interesting to note that although "social rank does not equal human value" that the main characters Tamino is still a prince and the princess is still a princess?
Although the point of the play is that "social rank does not equal human value", can one not see that social rank does indeed play a role in the human value of a person? Would the queen naturally be a sincere person deep down if she wasn't focused on her social rank or is she just naturally a cruel person?
A Bird-Catcher, a Queen, and a Prince walk into a bar...
Through this analytical lens, we can see that Papageno represents the most natural of men, completely devoid of an awareness of social constructs of any kind. At the other end of the spectrum, the Queen of the Night utilizes her social power and cultural awareness in a way that is so contrived and artificial as to alienate her from anything natural or human. Tamino, then, is the best of both worlds: "the man of ultimate worth" (20). His character combines nature and culture with reason, which is the main goal of the Enlightenment.
So what, then, are we to take away from this article? I will admit I found her close analysis of the music very illuminating, but her overall analysis lacking. She does not, in my opinion, effectively tie her musical analyis back to her thesis in a way that let's me know what she wanted me to gain from the article as a whole. It seems to me as if she merely provided more evidence to an assertion about the opera's meaning that is fairly straightforward. On the one hand, she astutely ties her analysis into the ideas of the Enlightenment; however, she fails to expand upon her mention of the concept of unity from a nineteenth-century perspective. I would have been interested in reading about how a nineteenth-century critic would analyze the same pieces she did and come up with a different interpretation of Mozart's message to society.
Therefore, I will turn that question over to you guys: in what ways would someone from the nineteenth century view the message of this opera differently? What factors would lead to those differences?
Thinking back to Lowe's article on social context and understanding of meaning and symbolism in music, would you say that Subotnik's Enlightenment-centered analysis is more valid than one from the nineteenth-century?
What are your thoughts on Subotnik's analysis of the Queen's aria with regards to trickery, authenticity/sincerity, and manipulation? Do these things imply an absence or loss of an individual, natural self?
I still want to know whose flute it is...
Although I would not dispute this conclusion, and I greatly admire the detailed analysis of the various arias, I found myself wondering "so what?" The opera is a tremendous product of Enlightenment philosophy and Mozart is a genius. Tell me something I don't know. Even in the opening few paragraphs when Subotnik was supposedly telling us what she was going to argue in the article, I ended the introduction with a question mark floating six inches above my head. I know she said something about the "unity" of the opera, but my mind was too dense to get much else. My confusion aside, I did find her interpretations of the various arias and characters fascinating.
Papageno is described as the epitome of the "natural" man, autonomous from society and completely self-sufficient. The Queen of the Night initially expresses very natural maternal instincts in the sorrow she supposedly feels for her daughter, but resorts back to traditional heirarchy and societal structure in her reversion back to aristocratic stylings. Subotnik describes Tamino as the perfect blend between the two; a cohesion rather than collision of the "natural" and the "cultured".
With this tension in mind, what is the relationship between the natural and the cultured in our contemporary society? What are our attitudes concerning human worth, and are those reflected in our music as strongly as in Mozart's? How?
Subotnik brings up an interesting discussion of sincerity and authenticity. This concept seems to relate back to our consideration of music as conversation. With LeGuin, we were introduced to the idea of music as discourse. With Haydn, we saw music was capable of making jokes, serving as comedy. In light of the concept of sincerity (as discussed in association with the Queen of the Night), it appears that music can also deceive or lead astray. But this got me to wondering, can music actually lie? I'm not sure that question is helpful, but it made me think.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Please check this out!!!
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/john_walker_re_creates_great_performances.html
I accidentally ran across this while surfing the web and it very closely corresponds to what we read. It is also VERY interesting.
Enjoy!
"Mechanical Music", Fake Ducks, and the Relationship between Men and Machine
In discussing the importance of expression, Richards presents us with two contrasting views. The "less exalted spheres", apparently tired of "simplicity", were all too delighted with the marvels that musical machines could produce. Others were appalled by the idea of the humanity of music disappearing and fought for the importance of passion and expression within a piece of music. To hearken back to previous points of the article, what makes a piece of music unique and transcendent was supposedly its connection to it's human creator; the minute its creator disappeared, the possibility of "conversation" ceased to exist and the music became stale and, frankly, pointless.
Mozart himself seemed to be part of this mechanical craze; he was a lovable freak, seemingly above normal human abilities who had inherent "automatic" connections to music. He himself was a remarkable machine, something more than human which could unearth deeper meanings and experiences than we alone could find. He was "automatic" and "natural", and so was his music. This innate connection can be seen in the Fantastie K.608.
What Mozart seemed to do with his Fantasies was combine both necessary elements: use the technical prowess of a machine to strengthen his music's emotional power. He mastered both, isolated the best in each, and made the two ideas compatible with one another. "Expressionists", for lack of a better term, could listen guilt-free and enjoy the experience, while "machinists" could see the necessity of a great mind behind an extraordinary machine in order to produce something sublime.
Questions!
Does the fact that Mozart's Fantasie K.608 was written for a musical clock really diminish it's value as a piece of music? Even though it was written by an individual, does music lose some value in the transition to being played by a machine?
How could it be argued that the values of the Enlightenment are both upheld and destroyed by an audience's preference for "mechanical music" over that of a live performer? What does it say about the listeners themselves that some found more "truth", as Gluck might say, and sublimity in musical pieces only playable by a machine?
Harking back to my discussion of the control of nature, do you feel that music is an area in which people desire control, or ignorance? As listeners, do we prefer to be washed over with music, not contemplating it, or forcing ourselves to grasp its undefinable concepts? As creators, do we feel the need to understand or communicate our meaning, or do we simply create what we feel we must? Which is preferable? How does this connect to the increasing use of technology to create music?
(Hope this isn't too late! Thanks guys.)
I'm confused.
-What, then, would be the different effect of this piece being played not on the organ or on a bunch of wind instruments, but on the originally intended instrument, the clock?
The author implies that one organist simply cannot perform the piece as written, whereas a machine has no problems doing so.
-Are we missing a sense of congruency that lacks in human performances of automated music?
The piece was touted to be around 8-9 minutes long. The recordings on the organ range from 10:30 to nearly 13 minutes. Only the winds could achieve the timing that the mechanical clock.
-Why can’t the organ achieve the speed of a machine? Is the machine more technically advanced than fingers?
Human interpretation of mechanized processes is inherently imperfect. Also, Mozart’s counterpoint is very intricately contrived, painstakingly precise. We can read the notes on the page, but performers take liberties with their own interpretations.
-Are we, listeners of human interpretations, missing some of the sublimity that is supposedly present within the mechanical rendition of this same piece?
I’m still confused.
Automatic Genius (Doug)
more astonishing for people of the late 18th century to consider the changes in music’s values over the following two-hundred years. I would argue that one of the primary values of music in society today lies in paying tribute to music of past. Today’s music scene largely embodies the idea that the historical music of Mozart can be accurately replicated on a concert Steinway. But how can a performer inject expression into in a work of Mozart when they are so ignorant that they play it on the wrong instrument to begin with? When considering this model, is it safe to assume that the historical performances of today are not much different than “mechanical music” of the late 18th century? That is to say, they are nothing but a replication of the creative genius of a composer like Mozart by means of an instrument that cannot truly do justice to that work.
It is interesting to consider clock music of the 18th century though a modern lens. With the technology in music today, is today’s “mechanical music” more capable of showing expression within it, or does it face the same barriers as two-hundred years ago?
In many ways this clock music was not viewed in a “serious” manner in the 18th century. However, I would argue in some ways this music could be viewed as extremely progressive. In what ways is “mechanical music” a progressive, and even in some cases, expressive, idea? Was this type of music important to history ,or just a good commission for composers of the era?
Apologies
I'm sorry but my post is going to be a little late tonight. If you'd like to comment, I should have it up by 1130pm or 12am at the latest. Again, I'm really sorry for this.
Dev
Monday, May 11, 2009
If it looks like a duck, and smells like a defecating duck, it probably cannot play the flute (Mike)
This article discusses the effect of the industrial revolution with regard to machines taking over tasks that have traditionally been reserved for humans. The broader movement of the period may be seen in the anecdote on p. 380 about Haydn being sent machine made stockings in thanks for his contribution to the musical scene in England. It seems to me that this gesture would have been far more meaningful if the stockings had been hand made, but that seems to be a matter of my personal opinion. However, when we look at the mechanical flute player that actually played the instrument cleanly and without errors, we see the same arguments are being applied in that people like Quantz. He says that even though the mechanical device may play equally as well or even better than a human, it will not move you because it cannot interpret the music and play it in a way that moves you. In both cases we see that the argument that humans are better than machines comes down to the axiom, it's the thought that counts. So my first question is, with technology increasing at the rate it has since the 18th century and still on the rise, if there is a way to create a machine which is capable of arousing the passions in a listener, is there still a barrier which keeps human musicians in a superior position to music making machines?
Was it just their novelty, or was there something else that made mechanical music making machines so popular in the late 18th century?
Is this barrier between humans and machines in power of musical expression just due to the fact that we haven't become skilled enough in making machines?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Yumi: nature vs machine, composition vs performance
While admiring the genius of Mozart, Richards raise two big discourses of music: Nature vs the Machine, and the composition itself vs performance.
Against some philosophers who claim that the human body be considered a kind of machine, Richard insists on the significance of humanity. Even though human makes mistakes, the expression is the most significant factor of music and human decisions which are founded on reflection produce a conviction of their justness (381). Richard also describes Mozart as automatic genius, “most ‘automatic’ and at the same time most ‘natural’ of all musical instruments” (382). Do you agree with the comparison of Mozart as automatic genius? If you don’t, do you think Mozart is natural or mechanical/automatic?
The significance of expression raises another question: are mechanical virtuosity and perfect performance better than the music-making with expression and soul? In the Le Guin article, we discussed that the composition itself define the value of music today, as compared to the 18th century when performers were the main interest of music listeners. Richard mentions that people praised the greatness of Mozart’s works for music clocks, disregarding the uncultured aspects of the instrument. Do you think this is when people started valuating music separately from performance? Also, Richard cast the question, could the music machines “in fact ‘speak’ in the sense of having the rhetorical power to persuade?” (382)
Richard closes the discourse by suggesting the solution that K. 608, the piece for a mechanical instrument, is actually natural and a powerful signifier of sublime, because “its superb ‘automatic’ presentation of fugue, temporarily collapses the distinction between man and machine” (387). I personally have a difficulty with thinking fugue natural. Why is fugue natural?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Rhetoric vs Truth (AKA Haydn vs Beethoven)
Haydn's music is compared with rhetoric as he is referred to as an "orator" as much like a lawyer who persuades everybody to his argument whether with his rhetoric skills, Haydn's music contains many aspects of rhetoric in which it is pleasing and gains the acceptance of everybody(from amateur to professional and inexperienced to the connoisseur). Also much like an "orator" Haydn composes his music with the point or where the music will go in mind, so the audience does not have to think for themselves.
Mozart and Beethoven on the other hand are compared as great "philosophers" or thinkers as their compositions differ from Haydn in that they invoke contemplation among the audience instead of an already stated idea that Hadyn offers. Here their music is referenced more as philosophy as they do not dictate what the audience hears or should feel but leaves it to their own interpretation (an idea that dictates the way music should be composed up to this very day).
Because of the later composers approach to music that stimulates the mind, Haydn was considered to be "orator" in the negative sense in which he made music that pleased our senses but not our intelligence.
Questions
1.) Bonds makes a comment in which that there is a battle between "truth" and "rhetoric". In musical terms, "truth being the musical idea and rhetoric being the "logic, technique, and art" of presenting that idea" (120). In the analogy to oration and morality, ideally truth should always wins. However in terms of music, is Rhetoric really as bad as Bonds makes it to be?
2.) With the change in perception of listening, Hadyn's music is considered inferior to future composers as his music basically "leads us" into where we are suppose to go instead of "opens up to us" (123). Is this fair to discredit Hadyn's music as being non-intelligent when his usage of rhetoric is quite good? Why or why not.
3.) When looking into music of Haydn and future composers and taking into consideration the period of enlightenment, one can see that Haydn's music exhibits the true nature of the enlightenment while the future composers (i.e. Beethoven and Mozart) exhibits characteristics that are actually contrary to the enlightenment period. Examples of this is how Haydn music catered to the masses, while Beethoven and Mozart only catered to the intelligent; and also how Hadyn's music seem to be more "earthy" going in line with the naturalness of the Enlightenment while Beethoven is "sublime" and "divine" which leans toward the supernatural. Do you think the progression of music from Hadyn to Beethoven has made a backwards turn as it seems to deviate from the nature of the enlightenment? If so, why or why not?
Not Just Another Reading on How to Carve Ancient Buildings out of Cork (David)
Something happened, though. Something changed. The philosophies of several enlightenment thinkers spurred by the philosophers of antiquity justified a new meaning of music—one that was characterized not by the ability of the composer to reach down and speak to the audience, but for the ability of the composer to enlighten the audience. Beethoven championed this ideology as he “opens up to us” a world of divine indulgence, and shifts the responsibility of what is heard from the composer to the listener (Bonds 122).
Does instrumental music champion vocal music, or is it the other way around? What inherent qualities of the champion defend its superiority? Is it possible to “perceive infinity in a dim sort of way”? Can we “truly comprehend it”, if only to “stand in awe of…the ‘mathematical sublime;” (Bond 121)?
In the modern day, it seems like we have developed a 21st century ear—unique in taste and perception. An ear both refined to the aesthetic beauty and native qualities of a piece of music, as well as being critical towards the intellectual beauty. What precipitated this change in behavior? Was it at all influenced by Enlightenment thinking?
Rhetoric Vs. Truth
Rhetoric versus Truth: The Battle for our Minds and Ears
Question:
I've stated that in the 18th century, Beethoven and Haydn were thought of, and listened to, in different mindsets. Although at times one was lauded over the other, no one ever attempted to apply both types of music to one paradigm. Why do we now do this in the 19th century by, as Bonds puts it, "listening to Haydn in the age of Beethoven"? Why do we deem it appropriate to see all music as striving towards truth as epitomized by Beethoven? Not only that, why do we then demonize music that may in fact we striving towards a different end, like Haydn's rhetoric, and label it less worthwhile? When did this change in mindset occur and how?
Continuing on, Bonds then clarifies the givens within the perspectives of "rhetoric" versus "truth". Rhetoric, as represented by Haydn, invokes the image of music as a conversation, a conversation that listeners have no need to be a part of. Listens should be able to sit back, relax, and understand immediately what they are experiencing with no energy expended at all. Truth, represented by Beethoven, put forth music as "an object of contemplation", where the responsibility of perception was emphasized and the listener now had full control.
In the 19th century, the paradigm completely changes and rhetoric was now seen as the sliest form of deception, with no substance or purpose behind it besides to hide the truth. And from there comes the formation of a battle field: if rhetoric is used to hide truth, then truth must be purer, more sublime, and more worthwhile of the exertion of our minds. Thus truth and rhetoric, once seen as walking hand in hand, now were separated forever.
Question:
Is this assumption true? The Greeks once held rhetoric in the highest esteem because of its innate connection with "truth". Was this change in mindset seen as an improvement on traditional Enlightenment values?
Finally, was this change of preference from Haydn to Beethoven made because of Beethoven's true superiority to Haydn or simply because listeners of the time needed something new? If it's assumed that human preferences changes quickly and often, why has this paradigm of Beethoven lasted for so long?
Music as Truth: listening as philosophy
The differences in the mentalities approaching Haydn and Beethoven's music led to varying requirements of interpretation. As Bonds writes, "The second premise of listening within a rhetorical framework is that the burden of intelligibility lies with the composer" (111). Thus, with Haydn's rhetorical nature, he took responsibility for making his music intelligible to his listeners. That "burden of intelligibility" shifted with Beethoven to require much more of the audience, transforming music into a philosophical pursuit of truth rather than merely a "medium of entertainment" (127).
As Bonds suggests, "We tend to be somehow suspicious when, in the confines of the concert hall, a new work seems too easy to grasp" (128). As music has come to represent truth more than rhetoric, we treasure the process of absorbing and filtering the meanings expressed. We no longer expect the composer to make his "message" succinct and to the point, understandable at every angle. In the light of a philosophical perspective, such simplicity seems to cheapen the art almost to the degree of triteness.
1. In the interpretation and appreciation of music, is rhetoric or truth (as Bond calls them) more important? Are they hierarchical in significance, or are they merely different?
2. How would modern music measure up if judged by the rhetorical framework of perception?
3. Bonds mentions various perspectives on music as language (including similar views as those expressed in LeGuin's article). Carrying on a tangent of our conversation from last week, is that which is communicated in music completely subjective in interpretation, or do we believe there are innate and universal expressions that form an objective or "absolute truth" for all societies and cultures?
4. On an even more philosophical note, can music be said to be truth, or is it more rightly an expression of truth? In either case, could we term music as a "relative" kind of truth (since it can be interpreted meaningfully by individuals in very different ways), or does it hold a semblance of absolutism (this is connected with the end of question 3)?
Haydn: The Clever Orator (Margaret)
Bonds reminds us a bit of Lowe's article when he asserts that "every individual brings to the act of listening a matrix of assumptions and expectations - usually unconscious but no less significant - that shapes the experience of hearing a work of music, be it new or old" (Bonds 111). With this in mind, Bonds studies the perception of Haydn's music within a rhetorical framework based on the function of music as a language and the "burden of intelligibility." This burden is important in Bonds' analysis; we can follow the shift in listening technique by paying attention to where or on whom this burden falls as time passes.
The early nineteenth century saw the burden fall on the listeners and not the composers, as Beethoven begins to write music with no intention of "leading" the listener along in their comprehension of his musical ideas. The effect of this change is that the "individual who assumes it will be his or her responsibility to make sense of the work at hand listens in a manner far different from one who relies on the composer to act as an orator" (Bonds 125).
These differences can also be tied to the debate over the importance of rhetoric versus philosophy, and whether rhetoric is anything more than a clever job of making the truth more appealing or perhaps even concealing the truth in a way that entices the listener to do or think something they otherwise would not.
One question Bond poses here is this: "How can an idea be separated from the manner in which it is expressed?" This is a similar idea to the one posed in LeGuin's article: "How can a sonata ever be better than its performance?" My question, then, for you is: Is a composition only as good as a listener's reaction to it, or can it be deemed worthy of high praise as its own entity, regardless of whether most listeners claim to have an understanding of it? What implications does this have for composers who are beginning a new piece? To whom does the work need to seem worthwhile, and what musical aspects do you think played into those decisions in the nineteenth century? Are they the same musical aspects that composers strive for today?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Listening Enlightened?
This article was a bit more confusing than the last few, since there were a lot of different terms that were thrown around, such as intertextuality and subjectivity. First, the discussion of musical meaning came about; then came talk of interpretation of this meaning, both in terms of direct imitation and subjective thought. The link between context and text seems to me a little unclear, as the author never explains the text as the music. The reasoned, fictive, subjective accounts of the reception of Haydn at the end of the article are an interesting leap into the eighteenth century mindset, using the philosophy described in the first half of the reading. The question that is pressing on my mind concerns the “multiplicity” of interpretations, which is discussed often: If listening became so subjective, so open to many interpretations, how was the concept of listening constrained before the enlightenment? Was free interpretation allowed previously? There isn’t much in the text that describes the previous state of musical interpretation, and I think this would be important in postulating that there was a change in the perception of the music of Haydn and Mozart.
Interpretation as a One-to-One Function (Simon, 4/28)
Korsyn's metaphor of nesting dolls that encapsulate each other reminded me of a very similar concept in real number analysis: that of boundedness. If some set, whether finite or infinite, is bounded, then there exists a disc that has all the points of the set interior to it. No matter how large one makes the disc, the infinite nature of human thought means that there is still more “stuff” outside of the disc than inside. This means, among other things, that no matter how broad a piece of music is, there exists some element outside the boundary, some idea that cannot be derived from the music. Is this a problem? Furthermore, if the set of possible interpretations is bounded, then no amount of patching or adding interpretations to the piece will ever encompass all ideas and feelings the human mind can evoke. Is this a problem?
Lowe throws around a few words that attempt to explain how music is distributed and processed. Expression, imitation, and suggestion are all used by 18th century thinkers to describe the role music plays in regard to nature. Are these simply gradients of relation? Or does each different term have some correspondence with a particular way music is processed by a listener?
Despite a disassociation with both the subject and musical content of “With Horns and With Hounds,” the merchant draws a quick connection between this folk melody and the Haydn's first movement. This, and the similar connection made by the noble, indicate that there may be stronger correlation between content and interpretation than previously argued. Certainly, the two attentive listeners feel different emotions towards the hunt, but it is the hunt that they both immediately focus on. Does this indicate a circumscribing or limitation of interpretation?
Yumi: Program music vs listeners' perception
Later in this article, Lowe takes three different fictional characters listening to Haydn symphony No. 88 for their first time to explain the centrality of intertextuality and subjectivity. Three different characters of different sex, status, and culture like/dislike the different parts of the symphony, and have different interpretations of the same measure. Lowe conclude this discourse by asserting that “to construct meaning freely assures the instrumental music of the late eighteenth century an ability to generate pleasure, aesthetic and otherwise, among its diversity of listeners.” (98)
1. Do you think the eighteenth-century music is program music? Although the concept of program music was not firmly established yet at that time, composers imitated nature through composition. On the contrary, do you still call it program music even though listeners perceive the music in different way than composers intended?
2. If all the instrumental music was subjective, how do you think composers strived to evoke a certain emotion? Do you think there was any technique composers used? or was it impossible to compose any music which everyone perceive it in the same way?
Monday, April 27, 2009
One argument of this article is that emotion in music is largely subjective. Do you believe this to be true? Why or why not?
In the 20th century, composers used many other means to portray emotions within music. What are some other techniques which can be used to portray emotion in music? If you don’t know any techniques used in the 20th century, invent some of your own ideas.
Most would argue that it was not a goal of music predating the enlightenment to evoke emotions in the listener though a composer’s music. Based on your own observations vs. what we have learned in this class, do you believe this to be true? Why would emotion by means of association not be a characteristic of pre-enlightened music?
Historical Fiction (Mike)
After this discussion, Lowe moves on to discuss how well-informed fiction can be a powerful tool in historical writing. In demonstration of this principle and the crux of the article, he combines this position with Eco’s and writes three historically informed though fictional accounts of a first (and only) hearing of Haydn’s op. 88 from the point of view of an Austrian nobleman, English banker, and a wealthy woman in post-revolutionary Paris who has recently come into her money. The accounts are interesting for many reasons, but the one that sticks out most to me is how the imitations in the music are interpreted by the listeners. When we have previously read and discussed the idea of imitation in 18th century music it has seemed like the imitation written into the music was interpreted in the same way by the majority of the audience present. This is true for the first tier of interpretation by the characters in that most of the time the characters interpret the musical signals to represent the same things, but in each case their experiences with the ideas that these musical ideas represent cause them to follow different thought processes and experience different emotions than their counterparts. In light of all of this discussion, all of the theories presented in the beginning of the article, and you previous experience with historical methods and 18th century imitation, does this fictionalized approach seem like a valid way to address imitation in 18th century music?
Lowe makes a big deal out of the fact that this will likely be the only time that her characters will hear this symphony performed, do you think that the practice of imitation is used in part to give the audience something to connect with since a deeper study of the music is inconvenient or all together impossible?
What do you think about the idea of Handel being part of the cannon of the Academy of Ancient music in the late 18th century?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
I wonder what Dan Brown would have to say about this... (David)
Is the cultural shift from masculine to feminine seen elsewhere in the arts of the seventeenth century (in literature, for example)?
What precipitated this gendered shift? Was it a byproduct of the surrounding culture, or did the musical shift catalyze a paradigm shift in the society? Were female composers the cause of the change? If no, why not?
Why is Germany, with such proximity to “romantic” (read: feminine) areas like France and Italy, the hotbed of masculine thought?
Given modern society’s preoccupation with affording equal rights of the sexes, are we currently living in a definitively masculine or feminine age? What sort of cultural clues justify your opinion?
Masculinity in Music... Fact or Fable?! (by Simon)
"A Gendered Discourse"
If “the effeminate minuet” is a “transgression of symphonic unity and seriousness” (Head, 144), does the minuet have a place in music at all? What is Head implying composers thought about effeminate work as a whole?
Head places a great deal of emphasis upon “effeminate” versus “feminine”. What’s the difference? If effeminate work was a transgression, was feminine music one as well?
Head comments on how the sublime was associated more with masculine work than feminine. Does this imply worthiness upon masculine work rather than feminine? What does it imply as to where feminine work should be performed, how it should be discussed, etc?
How did C.P.E. Bach seem to skirt by this notion of impropriety even though he included a tempo di minuetto section in some of his work?
Head reading
Mr. Head brings up an interesting discussion point when talking about gender and music of the 18th century. The gender boundaries/stereotypes are consistent with what we would assume: men are powerful, reasoned, authoritative, and objective; whereas women are pleasant, charming, soft and gentle. Head makes a reasonable connection between music and this gender binary (interesting bit about constructionist thought that wasn’t expanded upon), saying that the symphony is inherently masculine and the minuet and rondo are intrinsically feminine. Circular form, simple ideas, and light-hearted markings all led to the feminine labeling of the dance forms. There was more than one instance where I wasn’t sure if Head was talking about music or women, because he refers to the rondo as “the object of a critical male gaze” as if the rondo were physically a woman. There were even anatomical inferences that I made (maybe I read too far into the text: circularity and women? Not going there…). The issue of performance practice compared to the music was a good point too, so it would be difficult to analyze only the music, as is current practice. In this way, the primary source documents come in handy.
My discussion question veers slightly off topic from the feminine aspects of the reading into the masculine realm: if the feminine music, rondos and minuets, had functions like French courtly dances, what was the function of the “masculine” symphonic music? Sure the march is described as useful for parades and military events, but what of the rest? Why is it that the feminine music has apparent function whereas the masculine has none?
Cameron
"Like Beauty Spots on the Face of a Man" (Doug)
As stated in my opening statement, I believe there are still gender roles being assigned within modern music. What other musical examples can you think of where you see these roles being implied in today’s society?
While this analysis of 18th century music is intriguing, it is only someone’s interpretation. Do you agree with this notion of music having gender representation?
While gender roles in music of the 18th century imply a lot about the society of that time, it can also be view that the gender roles in society imply a lot of things about music in the 18th century. How would you look at minuets and marches through the lens of the 21st century? Can you see marches being effeminate and minuets being masculine in a way that was perhaps not perceived through a scope of the 18th century?
Music Can't Reproduce (unless it echoes)
So how were these judgments applied to music? 18th Century theorists believed that music had "character" of its own (152). Koch described this character as "those features and individual characteristics through which [a work] can be distinguished from another: meter, tempo, rhythm, and the type and use of melodic figures, the form, the accompaniment, the modulation, the style, the underlying feelings, the particular way in which they are expressed - all these contribute, now more, now less, to the particular character of a composition" (152). As Matthew Head suggests, the "underlying feelings" of a piece has especial significance in Koch's estimation. The various words and emotions used to describe such feelings often had masculine or effeminate implications. By cumulative effect, certain styles of music came to be viewed as either masculine (the march, symphony, concerto) or effeminate (minuet and rondo).
Let us remember that to say something is masculine or effeminate is not to say it is male or female. The former are merely descriptions of character traits which, in a given time period, are believed to be evident in one gender more than another. Thus to use masculinity and effeminacy to describe music does not ascribe gender to it, but rather uses commonly understood terminology in order to ease the comprehension of subtle nuance. However, the culture in which a given discourse takes place does influence the perception of one quality as superior to another (the masculine often taking that role). But this appears to me to be more of a discussion on the perception of gender rather than the comprehension of music.
Take the terminology away from the "gender debate" for a moment and it is not unlike the analogy of music to conversation (as discussed in LeGuin's essay). Music is neither a conversation nor is it gendered in any conceivably tangible way. C.P.E Bach's "manly" minuet in his Concerto in c, H. 474 is an example of the blurring of the lines in gender. As for conversation, harmony in music requires multiple voices to speak at once, which we know if reflected in spoken discourse would only lead to confusion, musically represented by harmony's opposite: dissonance. But although both analogies fall short at some point, their usefulness in musical discourse is not sacrificed in turn. We can debate about the misogynistic qualities of gendered musical conversation, but political correctness aside, the use of gendered terms is helpful (like conversational qualities) in discussing and understanding the "underlying feelings" of a given piece of music.
We all attribute qualities to the masculine and feminine (or effeminate?). The significance of the 18th century use of such terminology is indicative of the contemporary views of gender, but more significantly for our class, it reinforces the fact that music of the time was considered to have innate qualities of character.
1. The use of gender in musical discussion is something that I think is both dangerous to accept without question and thoughtless to discard without consideration. In what ways are the uses of gendered language accurate in their depiction of music? In what ways are they faulty?
2. Slightly off-topic: We have seen different philosophers compare music to both conversation and gender in an attempt to express its meaning and subtle qualities. This raised an interesting question for me: Is it possible to describe music accurately? Or are our analogies and terminology insufficient to capture its meaning, an over-intellectualization of beauty?
Discourse of gender characterization of the Galant style
The masculine genres of the 18th century were the fugue, concerto, and symphony and the feminine styles being the minuet and the rondo form. The masculine fugue declined in popularity and the concerto and symphony started to exhibit "feminine" traits. The minuets and rondos were considered feminine in particular because of their feminine content (i.e. short easy melodies, nice harmony, etc.). The rondo was also considered feminine not only in content but in form, as the refrain resembled a circle which is a commonly attributed to the female (159-160).
The topic was mainly based on the perceptions of men and not women. By this I mean that masculine was defined as characteristics that a man should have while "effeminine" characteristics were defined as characteristics that a man doesn't have instead of traits of the female. Later on of course this perception changed.
Questions?
In what ways do the styles do the Galant Styles resemble the "effeminine" characteristics that North German Theorists mention?
Although content of a musical piece is considered important as in categorizing an musical piece or genre as "feminine" or "masculine", form is also an important matter. How is it that form can be attributed to a gender classification? What is a "feminine form" with a "masculine content" or vise versa? How is the bach concerto an example of this duality?
C.P.E. carefully showing his effeminate side? (Mike)
What do you think about how subjective many of the arguments are from the critics with regard to what is feminine and what is not (eg. Cramer’s argument that the theme of C.P.E.’s rondo is representing an enchanting maiden etc.) when Head clearly states that arguments like this are contingent on decisions made with regard to the performance of the theme?
What do you think of the sublime vs. beautiful argument made by Head on pg. 151?
Head and the Genderization of music
Head’s main point is that such descriptions reveal that music is “a gendered discourse” (144) guided by a value of the masculine over the feminine; this is reinforced by the modern scholarly obsession of form (masculine) over character (feminine) which “alerts us to the possible masculine bias of the discourse” (154). While he notes “the ramifications of beliefs about gender and genre in eighteenth century society and music making” are yet to be determined, it is apparent that the genderization of musical forms, styles, and individual pieces has been arbitrated by the higher value placed on masculine characteristics and resulted in the continuation of a style which openly champions the continuing masculine bias (166). The “ramifications” are not the preference of one style over another, but the preference of one gender over another based on the characteristics attached to them.
Why might the ideas of passivity, obedience, frivolity, and other traits associated with the minuet be viewed as negative in this time? What specific musical terms can we attach to these supposed traits?
Head claims the traits of femininity appear in the minuet, which was done away with in the second half of the 18th century, and the gallant style, which became increasingly more influential. While effeminacy in European culture was beginning to be abandoned later in the century, we see a contradiction in the simultaneous prevalence of the gallant style, which is characterized with effeminacy. Was the notion effeminacy really abandoned in the second half of the century, or were its supposed characteristics devalued in dress, manner, cultural discussion, etc, as its characteristics reemerged in new gallant style? There seems to be a paradox going on here – while men across Europe “put aside their frilled cuffs” and “skirted satin coats,” it seems the dominant gallant style picked them back up and continued such feminine traits as grace, passivity, and non-seriousness (143).