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?