One of the reoccurring theme of this reading is that the main protagonist (named "me") is a modern day person who joins in on an intellectual conversation about music with a group of people in a salon from an earlier time period. The antagonist "me" has a more mechanical view of music, analyzing 18th century music bit by bit and while the other individuals of the salon and (who happen to be from the time period that "me" is analyzing) don't have such an idolized view of their music but view it more as a sense of entertainment. This contrast of perceptions of music at-the-time and future perceptions is a reoccurring theme of most of the reading.
"Me" is shown to have a stereotypical systematic view of music as he states "We (the modern people) tend nowadays to esteem the work independently of its execution; and we judge the execution according to the ethics of production and perfection that entered European society with the industrial revolution" (16). The view of the people can be summed up with Buffon's quote of "... in the salon we remain among the concerns of ordinary men and women. Here, we are more likely to feel indifference toward a very ingenious work; ...the conversation of a friend will always please me more than that of Voltaire" (18).
The metaphor here is that the people of the salon view the music as nothing to be taken too seriously or to be analyzed academically as "me" does. This is a sharp contrast with the audience's perception of their own music of the 18th century and future generation's perception of the music. This contrast of how they are viewed is also depicted in the layout of their performances; where in the past had small salon venues where the noisy audience was composed of people of all backgrounds, while compared to the future generations where we have large venues that cater to a sophisticaed class and must have absolute silence.
The "nameless charm" is another important aspect that helps to show the difference between modern day and at-the-time perception (27). The "nameless charm" is a feeling that one gets from listening to the music and the interpretation that one views. "Me" views the music as structural sections of a harmony section, melody, and tunes. On the other hand, the salon goers view the piece as a nostalgic feeling that gives them either memories or places them in a dream like state from the sound of the music.
Questions
Is it true that we over analyze music or arts in general too much? Is it possible that the music we consider popular today is subject to the same process of deeper analysis in the future as the character "me" did to the music of the past?
Is there a "nameless charm" felt when we listen to the pieces today or is it more of a systematic analysis?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Oh, Le Guin and Her Strange Dreams
The text by Elizabeth Le Guin addressing the relationship between conversation and music was very intriguing to me, but for very different reasons that those previously listed on this blog.
Preface:
I see a great deal of things in a theatrical perspective; I try to see everything’s connection to theatre, performance, presentation, the relationship of art to life and visa versa. I am coming into this class as a Theatre major, with many different history, theory, and performance classes under my belt. For better and worse, I feel as if I’m not coming from nor going to the same point as many of my classmates; that said, I’m excited to learn from everyone and see how my view fits in among everyone else’s.
First of all, I refer to this work as “text” because I am utterly lost as to what to refer to it as. What stuck me initially is the fact that Le Guin chose to write in this style. She could’ve written a very poignant paper, or presented this at a conference, but she chose to present her thoughts in a very dramatically charged structure. I could easily imagine turning this into a thought-provoking, if perhaps somewhat dry, play or performance. She has us, her audience, witnessing a conversation about the nature of conversation.
Question: Why do you think putting her thoughts into this form was particularly affective or not affective? How did the conversation on conversation affect your ability to look at yourself as a participant?
Secondly, on pages 15 and 16, Le Guin has herself and “Him” discuss the nature of performance: the idea of a solid, concrete entity (here a sonata) growing or falling in value because of the assessment of its performance. “Him”, actually Diderot, states “…when you are that close to the making of music you don’t judge it the same way you would at the concert spirituel” (Le Guin 15-16). The topic is revisited later on with Morellet and Buffon on page 18, where they state, “[Dramatic] art is admirable and grand, but that is of the forum of the theatre, not of the salon….Yes, in the salon we remain among the concerns of ordinary men and women” (Le Guin 18). Le Guin and her historical cohorts are making the differentiation between big theatres and concert halls, where “professional” concerts were held, and “salons”, where small gatherings among friends featured some music.
Question: Although “salons” themselves have disappeared from society, do you think we have a modern day equivalent? With the invention of portable music players, stereos, and technology used to bring music everywhere, how has our relationship to music changed along with them? What does Buffon mean when he makes his statement about “concerns of ordinary men and women”? Is there any gray area between the experience of sitting at the theatre and sitting at a “salon”?
Thirdly, on page 21, the process of learning conversation is discussed. Morellet states, “…one takes [conversation] in through company meals and in conversations with many quick-witted people; and we make progress hereby through daily intercourse” (Le Guin 21).
Question: Does the same apply to music? Is the best way to learn about music and how to perform music is to participate, both in playing it or listening to it? Where do classes like this one fall into our ability to understand music itself? Does music itself require a certain understanding of the subtly and art of conversation?
Fourthly, the discussion of human characteristics attributed to musical lines and pieces arises on page 26. The characters acknowledge that people have been doing this for years; “It has been a favorite metaphor for talking about chamber music, since your day and before” (Le Guin 26). However, others retort that it is “But a metaphor only” (26). Finally someone raises the question, “Do these musicians actually converse with one another in any imaginable way?” (26).
Question: Well? Do they? Given that the text continues and different historical figures give their perspective on it, what are your own thoughts?
I personally had instances like “Peter and the Wolf” come to mind, in which the nature of instruments themselves are utilized into representing an animal, but also an idea, a prevailing nature, and therefore a strong emotional reaction.
Are emotional reactions to musical pieces engineered or imagined? If imagined, does that give them any less relevance?
The Le Guin was a very illuminated way to introduce the differences and similarities between the factual aspects of music of the 18th century and our relationship to it through the lens of our modern society.
Preface:
I see a great deal of things in a theatrical perspective; I try to see everything’s connection to theatre, performance, presentation, the relationship of art to life and visa versa. I am coming into this class as a Theatre major, with many different history, theory, and performance classes under my belt. For better and worse, I feel as if I’m not coming from nor going to the same point as many of my classmates; that said, I’m excited to learn from everyone and see how my view fits in among everyone else’s.
First of all, I refer to this work as “text” because I am utterly lost as to what to refer to it as. What stuck me initially is the fact that Le Guin chose to write in this style. She could’ve written a very poignant paper, or presented this at a conference, but she chose to present her thoughts in a very dramatically charged structure. I could easily imagine turning this into a thought-provoking, if perhaps somewhat dry, play or performance. She has us, her audience, witnessing a conversation about the nature of conversation.
Question: Why do you think putting her thoughts into this form was particularly affective or not affective? How did the conversation on conversation affect your ability to look at yourself as a participant?
Secondly, on pages 15 and 16, Le Guin has herself and “Him” discuss the nature of performance: the idea of a solid, concrete entity (here a sonata) growing or falling in value because of the assessment of its performance. “Him”, actually Diderot, states “…when you are that close to the making of music you don’t judge it the same way you would at the concert spirituel” (Le Guin 15-16). The topic is revisited later on with Morellet and Buffon on page 18, where they state, “[Dramatic] art is admirable and grand, but that is of the forum of the theatre, not of the salon….Yes, in the salon we remain among the concerns of ordinary men and women” (Le Guin 18). Le Guin and her historical cohorts are making the differentiation between big theatres and concert halls, where “professional” concerts were held, and “salons”, where small gatherings among friends featured some music.
Question: Although “salons” themselves have disappeared from society, do you think we have a modern day equivalent? With the invention of portable music players, stereos, and technology used to bring music everywhere, how has our relationship to music changed along with them? What does Buffon mean when he makes his statement about “concerns of ordinary men and women”? Is there any gray area between the experience of sitting at the theatre and sitting at a “salon”?
Thirdly, on page 21, the process of learning conversation is discussed. Morellet states, “…one takes [conversation] in through company meals and in conversations with many quick-witted people; and we make progress hereby through daily intercourse” (Le Guin 21).
Question: Does the same apply to music? Is the best way to learn about music and how to perform music is to participate, both in playing it or listening to it? Where do classes like this one fall into our ability to understand music itself? Does music itself require a certain understanding of the subtly and art of conversation?
Fourthly, the discussion of human characteristics attributed to musical lines and pieces arises on page 26. The characters acknowledge that people have been doing this for years; “It has been a favorite metaphor for talking about chamber music, since your day and before” (Le Guin 26). However, others retort that it is “But a metaphor only” (26). Finally someone raises the question, “Do these musicians actually converse with one another in any imaginable way?” (26).
Question: Well? Do they? Given that the text continues and different historical figures give their perspective on it, what are your own thoughts?
I personally had instances like “Peter and the Wolf” come to mind, in which the nature of instruments themselves are utilized into representing an animal, but also an idea, a prevailing nature, and therefore a strong emotional reaction.
Are emotional reactions to musical pieces engineered or imagined? If imagined, does that give them any less relevance?
The Le Guin was a very illuminated way to introduce the differences and similarities between the factual aspects of music of the 18th century and our relationship to it through the lens of our modern society.
Monday, March 30, 2009
A Visit to the Salon de Parnasse (Doug)
In this reading, many metaphors are used to connect parts of speech with music. Among these metaphors are the terms “rhetoric” (bound or unbound) and “dialect” (conversation or entretien). What ways does LeGuin connect both these functions of speech to music?
LeGuin draws upon gender when analyzing the conversation within the sonata. Do you think this analogy is suitable in Hadyn’s sonata?
LeGuin states, “What is more, it sometimes seems that the more casual the setting, the more easily seriousness may be engaged” (p. 20, par. 1). This idea connects to the idea that conversation most easily occurs when in more relaxed atmospheres. However, most art music in society today is played within a theater, which has a very formal atmosphere. Why might this be the case?
LeGuin’s writing spends a bulk of its time connecting parts of speech with different aspects of music. One of the most important connections made is by use of the metaphor of conversation, which denotes conversation as “a type of oration, divided among speakers and unbound as to theme” (p. 19 par. 5). According to this, LeGuin classifies conversation to be “unbound” in nature (p. 19 par. 3), allowing it to teach its participants new information as discourse unfolds. It is a unique characteristic of conversation to not be scripted, or have a determined objective, but instead be spontaneous in nature (p. 19 par. 1). Taking all of this into consideration, it is not at all surprising to me that LeGuin draws a direct correlation of conversation in speech to conversation in music. Personally, I have witnessed this discourse in music quite often, because the very idea of improvisation in jazz is centered around the discovery of new ideas based on discourse between musicians. However, the concept of a sonata representing a conversation is more discrete. This is because a sonata is notated, which prevents its tunes, harmonic ideas, and rhythms from being the source of our pleasure (p. 27 par. 2). Instead, conversation in a piece of notated music is rooted in the idea of musical interpretation (pp. 27-28). In this sense, is notated music a legitimate representation of conversation, or entretien? What about other forms of music (such as jazz) is more conversational than a sonata from the classical period and why?
LeGuin draws upon gender when analyzing the conversation within the sonata. Do you think this analogy is suitable in Hadyn’s sonata?
LeGuin states, “What is more, it sometimes seems that the more casual the setting, the more easily seriousness may be engaged” (p. 20, par. 1). This idea connects to the idea that conversation most easily occurs when in more relaxed atmospheres. However, most art music in society today is played within a theater, which has a very formal atmosphere. Why might this be the case?
LeGuin’s writing spends a bulk of its time connecting parts of speech with different aspects of music. One of the most important connections made is by use of the metaphor of conversation, which denotes conversation as “a type of oration, divided among speakers and unbound as to theme” (p. 19 par. 5). According to this, LeGuin classifies conversation to be “unbound” in nature (p. 19 par. 3), allowing it to teach its participants new information as discourse unfolds. It is a unique characteristic of conversation to not be scripted, or have a determined objective, but instead be spontaneous in nature (p. 19 par. 1). Taking all of this into consideration, it is not at all surprising to me that LeGuin draws a direct correlation of conversation in speech to conversation in music. Personally, I have witnessed this discourse in music quite often, because the very idea of improvisation in jazz is centered around the discovery of new ideas based on discourse between musicians. However, the concept of a sonata representing a conversation is more discrete. This is because a sonata is notated, which prevents its tunes, harmonic ideas, and rhythms from being the source of our pleasure (p. 27 par. 2). Instead, conversation in a piece of notated music is rooted in the idea of musical interpretation (pp. 27-28). In this sense, is notated music a legitimate representation of conversation, or entretien? What about other forms of music (such as jazz) is more conversational than a sonata from the classical period and why?
Thoughts on LeGuin (Margaret)
LeGuin, Elizabeth: “A Visit to the Salon de Parnasse”
Margaret Wehr
Blog entry – 3/31/09
LeGuin’s work is both an entertaining escape from reality and an eye opening commentary on the changing life of music over time. As we follow the main character to a fictional meeting of composers and musicians of the past, we learn that it is not only styles or preferences of music that change over time, but that the very way we think about certain music or compositional techniques can be very different depending on our place in the historical spectrum.
“How can a sonata ever be better than its performance?” asks Diderot of the main character; the notion that a piece can be judged as an entity separate from any performance of it is a relatively new concept compared to the Classical era (LeGuin 16). It seems that both our understanding and our reception of a sonata has been drastically altered over time. Diderot then goes on to discuss the differences between the rhetoric involved in the way we would approach a sonata today and the way he would have in his day: “There is a signal different between putting everyone in the same room both spatially and socially and the professional setting created by a podium, a stage, a proscenium” (LeGuin 18). This statement implies that it is more than just our understanding of the piece itself; it is our presentation of it that can also greatly affect its purpose in different centuries of its existence. Diderot would prefer to hear a sonata in an informal setting among friends and family, even if the quality of the performance is not as great as if he were to hear it in a grand hall played by a master (LeGuin 15). This dichotomy of public versus private functions for music is discussed in terms of a musical “conversation,” which is debated using the first movement of Haydn’s Trio in A-flat Major, Hob. XV:14 as an example.
Questions to consider:
What applications are there for this debate about what constitutes a “conversation” with regards to our understanding of classical music? And what does LeGuin really mean by, "conversational eloquence is best learned at the dinner table, and not from books" in terms of music (21)?
Overall, what are the differences LeGuin wants readers to note between the roles of music in the past versus its role today?
When the main character comments that it's "perfectly possible to get pleasure from something vague," what implications is she making for the way we experience music today (LeGuin 15)? Do you think this statement is an accurate interpretation of the life of classical music in a more modernized society?
Margaret Wehr
Blog entry – 3/31/09
LeGuin’s work is both an entertaining escape from reality and an eye opening commentary on the changing life of music over time. As we follow the main character to a fictional meeting of composers and musicians of the past, we learn that it is not only styles or preferences of music that change over time, but that the very way we think about certain music or compositional techniques can be very different depending on our place in the historical spectrum.
“How can a sonata ever be better than its performance?” asks Diderot of the main character; the notion that a piece can be judged as an entity separate from any performance of it is a relatively new concept compared to the Classical era (LeGuin 16). It seems that both our understanding and our reception of a sonata has been drastically altered over time. Diderot then goes on to discuss the differences between the rhetoric involved in the way we would approach a sonata today and the way he would have in his day: “There is a signal different between putting everyone in the same room both spatially and socially and the professional setting created by a podium, a stage, a proscenium” (LeGuin 18). This statement implies that it is more than just our understanding of the piece itself; it is our presentation of it that can also greatly affect its purpose in different centuries of its existence. Diderot would prefer to hear a sonata in an informal setting among friends and family, even if the quality of the performance is not as great as if he were to hear it in a grand hall played by a master (LeGuin 15). This dichotomy of public versus private functions for music is discussed in terms of a musical “conversation,” which is debated using the first movement of Haydn’s Trio in A-flat Major, Hob. XV:14 as an example.
Questions to consider:
What applications are there for this debate about what constitutes a “conversation” with regards to our understanding of classical music? And what does LeGuin really mean by, "conversational eloquence is best learned at the dinner table, and not from books" in terms of music (21)?
Overall, what are the differences LeGuin wants readers to note between the roles of music in the past versus its role today?
When the main character comments that it's "perfectly possible to get pleasure from something vague," what implications is she making for the way we experience music today (LeGuin 15)? Do you think this statement is an accurate interpretation of the life of classical music in a more modernized society?
Yumi : A Visit to the Salon de Parnasse / Elisabeth Le Guin
In this article, the author Le Guin explores the similarities between conversation and music.
The discussion starts from comparing the role of music now and that of late-18th century. On p. 15, Le Guin says that the music now and then have different ethics. Musicians and an audience, these two groups are separate today, on the contrary to late-18th century when the groups were all together making music. In response to the remark, Diderot suggests comparing them in terms of rhetoric. The people in the dialog discuss it from three aspects, using the Trio in A-flat Major as an example.
First, they discuss whether the sonata is oration or conversation. Some argue that it is oration because the piano part almost always plays melody. However, De Stael points out those speeches are not forbidden in conversation (p. 23). And Le Guin agrees that the strings seem to have less prominent roles but actually they are just playing their roles to reinforce the melody (p. 24).
The second point is that the sonata is similar to conversation in the way that there are various responses to the melody in music, for example, accompaniment or counter point. In mm. 1-13, the strings agree with the speech by piano. On the contrary, in mm.117-122, the strings show their disagreement to the theme in B major by not joining to the piano.
The third point “the importance of interpretation” is raised in response to the difficult challenge of Morellet: “Do these musicians actually converse with one another in any imaginable way?” (p. 26). Le Guin summarizes the words of De Stael, “our pleasure does not come from what we find upon the printed page” (p. 27). This statement also answers Rousseau who questions how a printed, in other words predetermined, music can be conversation.
At the last, Le Guin reaches to the conclusion that music resembles conversation in many ways. And, by writing this as a dialog, she leaves the space for readers to find their own answer to the question “Sonate, que me veux-tu?” (p. 17)
Questions:
1. While I enjoy the idea that music is rhetoric, I’d like to point out a paradox of this article. At the beginning of this article, the discussion is focused on the relationship between musicians and an audience. The music now is oration because the two groups are separated by “the professional setting created by a podium, a stage, a proscenium” (p. 18). On the other hand, the music in late 18th century is conversation because the two groups were put in the same room both spatially and socially (p. 18). However, when the people in the dialog actually apply this argument to the Hayden sonata, they start arguing that the piece is not oration but conversation because there are some conversational aspects between the piano and strings. What about the audience? Even though conversation is going on among the musicians, the reasons the author list in this article do not prove the main argument to compare the relationship between musicians and an audience to conversation. As I said this, do you think that music is conversation between musicians and an audience? Why?
2. From the view point of performer, do you think music is rhetoric? (not limited to conversation) I believe all of you are performer of some kind of music. When I play music, I always think what I want to say through this music, and how I can convey the message to the audience. So, I thought this idea to compare music to rhetoric was interesting. Do you agree with the idea?
The discussion starts from comparing the role of music now and that of late-18th century. On p. 15, Le Guin says that the music now and then have different ethics. Musicians and an audience, these two groups are separate today, on the contrary to late-18th century when the groups were all together making music. In response to the remark, Diderot suggests comparing them in terms of rhetoric. The people in the dialog discuss it from three aspects, using the Trio in A-flat Major as an example.
First, they discuss whether the sonata is oration or conversation. Some argue that it is oration because the piano part almost always plays melody. However, De Stael points out those speeches are not forbidden in conversation (p. 23). And Le Guin agrees that the strings seem to have less prominent roles but actually they are just playing their roles to reinforce the melody (p. 24).
The second point is that the sonata is similar to conversation in the way that there are various responses to the melody in music, for example, accompaniment or counter point. In mm. 1-13, the strings agree with the speech by piano. On the contrary, in mm.117-122, the strings show their disagreement to the theme in B major by not joining to the piano.
The third point “the importance of interpretation” is raised in response to the difficult challenge of Morellet: “Do these musicians actually converse with one another in any imaginable way?” (p. 26). Le Guin summarizes the words of De Stael, “our pleasure does not come from what we find upon the printed page” (p. 27). This statement also answers Rousseau who questions how a printed, in other words predetermined, music can be conversation.
At the last, Le Guin reaches to the conclusion that music resembles conversation in many ways. And, by writing this as a dialog, she leaves the space for readers to find their own answer to the question “Sonate, que me veux-tu?” (p. 17)
Questions:
1. While I enjoy the idea that music is rhetoric, I’d like to point out a paradox of this article. At the beginning of this article, the discussion is focused on the relationship between musicians and an audience. The music now is oration because the two groups are separated by “the professional setting created by a podium, a stage, a proscenium” (p. 18). On the other hand, the music in late 18th century is conversation because the two groups were put in the same room both spatially and socially (p. 18). However, when the people in the dialog actually apply this argument to the Hayden sonata, they start arguing that the piece is not oration but conversation because there are some conversational aspects between the piano and strings. What about the audience? Even though conversation is going on among the musicians, the reasons the author list in this article do not prove the main argument to compare the relationship between musicians and an audience to conversation. As I said this, do you think that music is conversation between musicians and an audience? Why?
2. From the view point of performer, do you think music is rhetoric? (not limited to conversation) I believe all of you are performer of some kind of music. When I play music, I always think what I want to say through this music, and how I can convey the message to the audience. So, I thought this idea to compare music to rhetoric was interesting. Do you agree with the idea?
Le Guin Response
At the outset of this reading it is made clear by the stranger, (who we later find out is Diderot,) that a large portion of the music observed by individuals in the 18th century was observed either at home or in small salons, while Le Guin states that in our generation the majority of performances of classical style music happen with a performing group separated from the audience across a room. In the current day, ensembles not only maintain this separation across a room but they also go through hours of polishing in rehearsal in order to produce a performance as close to technical perfection as possible. They are in the room to perform and then leave with no further discourse. Discourse concerning music in our time is usually separated from live performance of the music being discussed. On the other hand, as we see in the article, discourse and performance not only happened in the same place in the 18th century, but they were intertwined. The music and discourse both taking turns in being subservient to the other, and both free to take place at the same time. We see over the course of the reading that the musicians would begin to play and the other participants in the salon freely discussed over the music. And then at points the musicians would stop to participate in the conversation about what has been played. It also seems, though it does not take place in the reading, that it would be perfectly normal for the musicians to go back and replay certain sections of the piece to further the discourse. This type of interrelation between music and discourse is something that seems to occur rarely in our current musical climate. So my first question is, what do you think caused the shift from the 18th century paradigm of discourse and performance taking place together to the current paradigm of concert halls and academic discussion being separated in most cases.
Le Guin mentions that most audiences these days only vaguely understand what they are listening to during musical performances. Why do you think this has become the case?
Diderot asks Le Guin how a sonata can be better than its performance. How is the opinion implied by Diderot different from our current conceptions of pieces independent of performance and why did such a shift come to pass?
It is stated in the reading that the more familiar the setting is for a discussion, the easier it is to discuss important things. Is there an analogy to be drawn here between conversational settings and musical performance venues?
In the current age, the rehearsal is generally a private event to be participated in by an ensemble and if there is one, the director. It is unusual for guests to be invited to rehearsals and in many cases this privacy is jealously guarded. The performance in the article seems much more like a rehearsal than what I would call a performance, and this seems to be beneficial to all involved because both the audience and the performers are becoming more familiar with the piece from the inside out. The audience is also able to rewind and rehear things that they may have missed the first time. With all of these benefits to be had, why do you think this kind of event has come to happen only rarely in the current day?
Le Guin mentions that most audiences these days only vaguely understand what they are listening to during musical performances. Why do you think this has become the case?
Diderot asks Le Guin how a sonata can be better than its performance. How is the opinion implied by Diderot different from our current conceptions of pieces independent of performance and why did such a shift come to pass?
It is stated in the reading that the more familiar the setting is for a discussion, the easier it is to discuss important things. Is there an analogy to be drawn here between conversational settings and musical performance venues?
In the current age, the rehearsal is generally a private event to be participated in by an ensemble and if there is one, the director. It is unusual for guests to be invited to rehearsals and in many cases this privacy is jealously guarded. The performance in the article seems much more like a rehearsal than what I would call a performance, and this seems to be beneficial to all involved because both the audience and the performers are becoming more familiar with the piece from the inside out. The audience is also able to rewind and rehear things that they may have missed the first time. With all of these benefits to be had, why do you think this kind of event has come to happen only rarely in the current day?
Leguin Reading
This selection explores the idea of conversation in regard to music, making potential inherent connections between the two and raising a multitude of questions about how music and conversation may or may not resemble each other. Leguin sets the stage for the subject of this discourse - music - early on in the text (pg. 15, 3rd line). As the discussion manifests, however, we see the subject is primarily discourse/conversation itself, and the music becomes secondary, a resource to which we compare the initial ideas of conversation after they arrive. In this way, the subject of music has multiple functions in this discussion: It is the catalyst of the conversation, but as the questions center mostly on the idea of discussion, music secedes into the background as a resource to be called upon once one's ideas have already been manifested. The treatment of music in this discussion exposes one of the greater notions that we are embarking upon in this class, I believe: The audience is becoming involved. And not just by listening, but by incorporating the music into every step of the process of discussion. The participants of this conversation are extending the meaning of both music and conversation by incorporating the two and ceaselessly questioning every aspect of this connection that arises.
The meaning of this gathering is to converse, and explore other possible meanings throughout. Despite the free play of ideas, one very important question is never raised: Is it worth it to discuss music in these manners? The participants would readily say "yes, or else we wouldn't be here," but one can't help but notice the unreliability of the inferences made. For example, the narrator claims that Haydn knowingly expressed the meanings in his sonata that are exposed here in this discussion. How does one know that? This conversation is interesting because it relies on the idea that Haydn was embodying their ideas about conversation in his sonata, when in fact he himself is NOT part of the discussion. The participants seem to think that Haydn wrote this piece for the purpose of discussion, but such cannot be proved, and any compelling arguments in that direction are still extra-musical. The conversationalists' ideas are spawned much later than Haydn's sonata. While the music is treated secondarily as the resource from which to bounce their ideas off, it is in fact the notions arisen in conversation that are secondary to the music.
My questions, then, are: Should music be discussed in these manners, as representational of conversation, when conversation happens after the fact? Is it worth it to even ask the above question, as such may inhibit the kind of fruitful conversation we have just witnessed? Is music changing meaning, or is meaning changing music? More to come in class. The ideas here are quite general, and hopefully through discussion we can specify what this discussion really should be about.
The meaning of this gathering is to converse, and explore other possible meanings throughout. Despite the free play of ideas, one very important question is never raised: Is it worth it to discuss music in these manners? The participants would readily say "yes, or else we wouldn't be here," but one can't help but notice the unreliability of the inferences made. For example, the narrator claims that Haydn knowingly expressed the meanings in his sonata that are exposed here in this discussion. How does one know that? This conversation is interesting because it relies on the idea that Haydn was embodying their ideas about conversation in his sonata, when in fact he himself is NOT part of the discussion. The participants seem to think that Haydn wrote this piece for the purpose of discussion, but such cannot be proved, and any compelling arguments in that direction are still extra-musical. The conversationalists' ideas are spawned much later than Haydn's sonata. While the music is treated secondarily as the resource from which to bounce their ideas off, it is in fact the notions arisen in conversation that are secondary to the music.
My questions, then, are: Should music be discussed in these manners, as representational of conversation, when conversation happens after the fact? Is it worth it to even ask the above question, as such may inhibit the kind of fruitful conversation we have just witnessed? Is music changing meaning, or is meaning changing music? More to come in class. The ideas here are quite general, and hopefully through discussion we can specify what this discussion really should be about.
Salon de Parnasse, 3/31, Simon
Alright, I'm not seeing anyone else's post, so I suppose I'll make the dive.
A common theme of this conversation is the degree of “seriousness” present in a musical piece, or equivalently, a discussion. What makes a discourse serious rather than casual, or vice versa?
The guests break down a sonata’s voices into the roles of a satisfying conversation. What roles are discussed, and how do they parallel their corresponding part in the music?
A concern is raised that “unbound” rhetoric cannot be derived from a solidified source, such as a score or a text. How is this concern countered? What elevates music from being ink on a page to being something alive and real?
The guests compare the composer, the pianist, and the cellist all to the hostess of a musical conversation, and are unable to resolve which part best fits. What arguments are raised for each, and which do you believe best matches?
In this 18th-century scene, we witness a conversation in a salon typical to its era and locale. Here, the main objective of conversation is drawing a comparison between music (typical to the era and locale) and a conversation. As recursive as this may be, it serves to strengthen the point made, and gives the reader a solid feeling for the type of conversation referred to. One question raised near the end of the scene concerns the role of salonnière, a sort of hostess and mediator of a salon. Such a woman is expected to allow her guests to blaze their own paths, while subtly yet firmly influencing the flow of conversation towards amicableness and productivity. These attributes are in parts assigned to the composer, the pianist, and the cellist of a piece of music. What arguments are raised for each, and which do you believe best matches?
Metaphorical Musings - Steere on Le Guin
Elisabeth Le Guin’s “A Visit to the Salon de Parnasse” is an artful reconstruction of the thoughts and writings of several individuals into a coherent and engaging conversation concerning the art of making music. The central construct of this discussion revolves around the metaphor of music to conversation. Le Guin and her collective company display within their discussion the application of rhetorical terminology to the art of music, as Burkholder suggests was common amongst Eighteenth-century theorists in A History of Western Music (482). Musical terms such as “phrase” and “period” were derived from their counterparts in rhetoric (482). In deciphering and dissecting Haydn’s composition, the people gathered in Le Guin’s creative essay extend the rhetorical metaphor further.
First, Diderot and Morellet describe the separation of performer and audience (common in the modern era, but an anomaly in their own) as “orational” or “dramatic” (Le Guin 18). In describing the music of the Eighteenth-century salon, the word “conversation” is applied. Yet what is intriguing about the following discourse is the cycle of comparison and exception. Music is compared to a conversation, but it has a predetermined structure and subject, so therefore music is more similar to an entretien (22). Quintilian’s description of conversation as a form of “divided” oration which maintains a light impromptu feel presupposes a prohibition of serious material (19). And yet Pezzl reasons through to another exception, saying that both conversation and a composition might address serious subjects without a contradiction of terms (20). Thus, the application of terms changes again. In continuation, the piano is metaphorically referred to as the conversational catalyst that introduces the subject and stimulates the other participants (23). And yet, in a seemingly contradictory fashion, the string instruments are later described as the grounding force (24). The cello is specifically compared to an individual who speaks sparingly but with wit and wisdom, serving the other members (32).
Le Guin and her cohorts appear to be interested not so much in a line-upon-line comparison of music to rhetoric, but rather they use the language and comprehension of rhetoric in hopes of discovering the deeper reasons behind the pleasure derived from the musical art. The pleasure of music is not found primarily in the nuts and bolts of the composition, but something more abstract (27). This abstraction necessitates the use of creative and sometimes frivolous subjective interpretations (such as Pichler’s story on page 27) that allow an individual to glimpse into the deeper recesses of meaning in a musical work. Le Guin uses rhetorical metaphor to delve into an understanding of music, but as Diderot seems to suggest on page twenty six, a metaphor can only go so far.
In the hopes of understanding music even further, let us turn the tables on the analogy. In what ways does a conversational metaphor fall short when applied to music? We have looked at the similarities, but what are some of the differences not discussed in the essay?
Discussion Questions:
1. Does music have inherent quality in and of itself, or is value measured purely by the performance of a given piece? How does the musical expertise of the observer affect the answer to this question?
2. Salon music appears to have a strong emphasis on community. How does the musical culture of the modern era continue to cultivate community, and in what ways have we abandoned this relational commitment?
3. Much of musical terminology and discussion is derived from rhetorical language. The article explores the similarities of music to conversation, but in what ways does the conversational comparison fall short? Is metaphor insufficient?
[ex. Rousseau’s qualms with music as “conversation” (22,26)]
4. The article discusses the origins of the pleasure derived from music (27). Are these origins concrete, abstract or both?
5. On page 32, Diderot compares the composer to the salonniere. In what ways does the composer regulate the “conversation”? How has the tension between “freedom and direction”(32) in musical interpretation changed?
6. The presence and prominence of women in music salons appears to have challenged and influenced gender roles in society (33). How did this reality affect women’s social standing in the bigger picture?
First, Diderot and Morellet describe the separation of performer and audience (common in the modern era, but an anomaly in their own) as “orational” or “dramatic” (Le Guin 18). In describing the music of the Eighteenth-century salon, the word “conversation” is applied. Yet what is intriguing about the following discourse is the cycle of comparison and exception. Music is compared to a conversation, but it has a predetermined structure and subject, so therefore music is more similar to an entretien (22). Quintilian’s description of conversation as a form of “divided” oration which maintains a light impromptu feel presupposes a prohibition of serious material (19). And yet Pezzl reasons through to another exception, saying that both conversation and a composition might address serious subjects without a contradiction of terms (20). Thus, the application of terms changes again. In continuation, the piano is metaphorically referred to as the conversational catalyst that introduces the subject and stimulates the other participants (23). And yet, in a seemingly contradictory fashion, the string instruments are later described as the grounding force (24). The cello is specifically compared to an individual who speaks sparingly but with wit and wisdom, serving the other members (32).
Le Guin and her cohorts appear to be interested not so much in a line-upon-line comparison of music to rhetoric, but rather they use the language and comprehension of rhetoric in hopes of discovering the deeper reasons behind the pleasure derived from the musical art. The pleasure of music is not found primarily in the nuts and bolts of the composition, but something more abstract (27). This abstraction necessitates the use of creative and sometimes frivolous subjective interpretations (such as Pichler’s story on page 27) that allow an individual to glimpse into the deeper recesses of meaning in a musical work. Le Guin uses rhetorical metaphor to delve into an understanding of music, but as Diderot seems to suggest on page twenty six, a metaphor can only go so far.
In the hopes of understanding music even further, let us turn the tables on the analogy. In what ways does a conversational metaphor fall short when applied to music? We have looked at the similarities, but what are some of the differences not discussed in the essay?
Discussion Questions:
1. Does music have inherent quality in and of itself, or is value measured purely by the performance of a given piece? How does the musical expertise of the observer affect the answer to this question?
2. Salon music appears to have a strong emphasis on community. How does the musical culture of the modern era continue to cultivate community, and in what ways have we abandoned this relational commitment?
3. Much of musical terminology and discussion is derived from rhetorical language. The article explores the similarities of music to conversation, but in what ways does the conversational comparison fall short? Is metaphor insufficient?
[ex. Rousseau’s qualms with music as “conversation” (22,26)]
4. The article discusses the origins of the pleasure derived from music (27). Are these origins concrete, abstract or both?
5. On page 32, Diderot compares the composer to the salonniere. In what ways does the composer regulate the “conversation”? How has the tension between “freedom and direction”(32) in musical interpretation changed?
6. The presence and prominence of women in music salons appears to have challenged and influenced gender roles in society (33). How did this reality affect women’s social standing in the bigger picture?
Monday, March 23, 2009
Welcome to Music 362!
This is where we will put our opening statements ("posts") and respond to one another ("comments").
Spend a little time now getting familiar with posting. Note that you can do things like change the font, quote. . . even post pictures and other files!
When you post, be sure to give your post a title.
When you're done writing, be sure to hit "publish post."
Note that you can also save your post before publishing it. You can also type it in a word document and then paste it in a post.
Spend a little time now getting familiar with posting. Note that you can do things like change the font, quote. . . even post pictures and other files!
When you post, be sure to give your post a title.
When you're done writing, be sure to hit "publish post."
Note that you can also save your post before publishing it. You can also type it in a word document and then paste it in a post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)