Unity is an ironic subject to address during the Enlightenment time, as Subotnik has done in her article "Whose Magic Flute", when individualism and personal thinking reign supreme. The characters of Papageno, 'The Queen of the Night', and Tamino were diagnosed in an attempt to convince the reader that these three seemingly unrelated characters were in fact unified by a common theme, exemplifying the Enlightenment thought that "social rank does not equal human worth" (20). The bridges that connect these three seemingly unrelated characters, one, a working-class bird catcher, another, the impassioned and wronged Queen, and yet another still, a noble prince that is unexpectedly taken up in the affairs of these people after a freak encounter with a snake. These bridges are not made of wood or steel, but of text and musical key. Subotnik is not lacking in her musical analysis, in fact she pursues this facet of her argument ad nauseam. Her discussion, though articulate, seems rather verbose and pretentious at times, dulling the reader with her whimsical and sometimes exaggerate claims.
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
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A Valid Observation, but a bit of a stretch in argumentation (Simon)
I'd apologize for doing this late, but I bet you're reading this Thursday morning, so I don't feel too bad.
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.
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.
She presents Papageno, Tamino, and the Queen as three entities on the gradient of social independence; Papageno natural but chaotic, the Queen controlled but deceptive, and Tamino the best of both. Her argument is based not off the characters' dialogue, but their arias, and the form of the music within, and this strategy makes debating her points a bit difficult. After all, who is to say that "a sudden, convulsive, and stylized conventional rush up and down the strings," (mm. 31-35) does not indicate base deception and melodrama from the Queen? Rosengard's talking points are similarly subjective across the board.
However, the conclusion concerning the Queen, in particular, seems a bit hazy. The writer states that by "reasserting the privileges of caste, the Queen loses all connection to the rest of humanity['s]... natural aspect." Yes, the Queen separates herself from nature, but she does this by reasserting the privileges of caste and class. She entreats Tamino for help as a Queen, as nobility, and she is spoken of as a Queen long before she first appears on stage.
On the other hand, the points for Papageno and Tamino are a bit more solid, and there is no denying that class indifference is a prevalent idea in the opera. So my questions are:
Is the distribution of the three characters across a gradient of social equity an apt one?
Did Mozart intend for his opera to be as laden with Enlightenment ideals as it is? For that matter, is it?
Do the themes we have discussed still "pop out" if we choose to only look at the text and dialogue of the characters, ignoring the more subjective musical analysis?
Papageno, Tamino, and the Queen all as "natural" = identity crisis
In this article Subotnik posits that The Magic Flute achieved such wide appeal to all echelons of society through its degree of “large-scale unity” derived from classical principles that ultimately profess the maxim “so social rank does not equal human worth” (2-3). This is made clear by the musics of Papageno, the Queen, and Tamino, which embody this maxim through the portrayal of what enlightenment thinkers consider to be “natural.”
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?
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?
The Magic Flute is considered a masterpiece as by Subotnik's definition, it is widely accepted by everyone from every class, whether high aristocrat or a low class individual(1). Although one of the reasons lie in its usage of many different styles that is incorporated in the piece, the character development and its usage is considered the main factor in Subotnik's perception of it being a masterpiece as they help to reiterate the maxim "Social rank does not equal human worth" (3).
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?
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...
In her analysis of the "unity" displayed in Mozart's The Magic Flute, Rose Rosengard Subotnik (what a name!) argues that the Enlightenment-era maxim, "Social rank does not equal human worth" can be applied to the characters of Papageno, the Queen of the Night, and Tamino. Each of these characters, through musical and textual elements evident in their respective introductory solo numbers, reflect certain levels of nature and society to create a social commentary based on the importance of social unity. This commentary stems from the depiction in the music of "a standard of human worth based on the relation of the character[s] to some conception of nature" (3).
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?
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...
I must admit, Subotnik's article "Whose Magic Flute?" struck me as an interesting series of thoughts that expressed a very simple concept in very extensive and detailed language. The central thought of the article was a basic maxim which Subotnik repeated after each individual example: that "social rank does not equal human worth". She argues that this maxim is expressed through multiple characters and arias in "The Magic Flute", and connects this fact with the universal popularity of the opera. Thus, "The Magic Flute" becomes an opera eloquently expressing Enlightenment ideals: the equality of man, the value of the individual, the supremacy of the natural, the natural as "cultured", etc.
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.
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!!!
I know it is late and most of you are not in the mood to have your minds blow, but WATCH THIS!
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!
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
Richards' Automatic Genius presents us with a distinct shift in musical style and preference during the 18th century: the prominence of "mechanical music" and the obsession with scientific analysis and breakdown of anything natural. The values of the Enlightenment had veered off into different directions, one touting that scientific explanation and, more importantly, mechanical imitation were the routes for discovering truth. The appeal of musical clocks and mechanical ducks fed off of the public's desire to see human mastery of the understandable world; by conquering nature, we could then one day control it.
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.)
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.
I have a recording of the Fantasie in F minor from an organ album that I purchased recently, and I listened to both of the recordings on NAS, and none of these were performed by a mechanical clock. Richards’ article was predicated on the interweaving of the piece and the context. I’m sure this mechanical clock was no defecating duck, but it still sounds like a work of intricate subtlety that’s worth hearing.
-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.
-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)
Music has developed hugely since the time of Mozart in rather unpredictable ways. Richards pinpoints a rather important moment of musical development in this article when he discusses composer’s first experimentations of “mechanical music.” Such music of the time was seen by academics as frivolous and was even commented on by Mozart himself as being “high-pitched” and “childish” (in reference to music for the clock, p. 367). Regardless of whether or not the composition was written for the clock, or mechanical flute, the issue arises questioning what aspects of music are most important. Is a piece of music’s brilliance determined by a composers uses of style, form, structure, and melody, or does its greatness depend on something greater than notation and creative genius? This is an awfully difficult question; especially considering the discussions we have had in class about topics such as “The Salon de Parnasse,” which suggests that music is a conversation between the performers. People of that era, I assume, would find the idea of music composed for the clock as absurd. However, Mozart arguably raised the limitations of this genre of composition. It is astonishing to consider how listener’s values have changed in a matter of fifty or so years. It would undoubtedly be even
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?
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
Hey everyone:
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
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 begins with a discussion of an organ piece by Mozart. One of the most important parts of this discussion with respect to this article is that the pieces is specifically written for a mechanical organ and there are some features of it which prevent it from being played by a single human on a traditional organ (for shear want of hands). This fact and the idea that this piece was played multiple times a day perfectly since it was being played by a machine specifically made for the piece set up the main argument of this essay, that of man vs. machine.
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?
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
Musical scholars of today and at that time often disregard the musical clock. It is criticized for being limited in range, high-pitched, and childish, also its ‘music’ is light weight and frivolous. However, when Mozart, the immortal genius, wrote several works for the kitsch instrument out of financial desperation, people praised laud the works to the skies. Although Mozart himself reveals that he despises the instrument in his letter to his wife, the pieces were serious works in the high style, containing learned counterpoints, fugal section, and complex harmonies. Scholars took the pieces as “incidental testimony to the genius of the composer, whose imagination and invention were able to transcend the limitations of a particularly distasteful commission” (367).
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?
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)
In the article of "Rhetoric vs. Truth",Bonds discusses the change in perception of listening over the centuries between Haydn and future composers compositions. Bonds refers to Haydn as a great "orator" while Mozart and Beethoven are referred to as great "philosophers". Both titles are reflective of how the composers composed their pieces as well as the perception of the audiences in the respective times.
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?
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)
It has been well established, both in this course, and throughout the history of Western practice, that music can serve as a vehicle for conveying ideas and expressing emotion. It was understood during Haydn’s era that music was synonymous with rhetoric, that a masterfully composed piece was one of great oration, and that vocal music, being more expressive, was superior to instrumental music (the connection to Le Guin’s article on music as conversation should go without saying).
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?
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
In this essay Bonds outlines why and how Haydn’s music was contemporaneously regarded as a representation of rhetoric through explaining the position of the listener, which changed throughout the end of the 18th C. and early 19th. The paradigm in Haydn’s time rested on the premises that music functions as a language, and that “the burden of intelligibility lies with the composer” rather than relying on the listener to “exert themselves unduly in following the trajectory of a musical discourse” (111). In the early 19th century when Beethoven was rising to acclaim, “the musical work came to be perceived not as an oration… but rather as an object of contemplation” (112). The difference of the two paradigms is the focus of this essay, which reveals the opposing stances of rhetoric: #1) that truth and rhetoric are intrinsically linked, or #2) that rhetoric veils truth, which is higher up, abstract, and separate from our attempts to explain it. By revealing how Beethoven’s sublimity was regarded, referring to Hoffmann’s celebrated review of Beethoven’s 5th, Bonds ultimately shows us that the preference for an abstract, absolute truth separate from rhetoric (argument #2) explains how “Haydn’s image declined so markedly over the 19th century” while Beethoven came to be regarded as divine (125). Was there a specific preference for rhetoric in Haydn’s time, and a specific preference for the sublime in Beethoven’s time, or were listeners just processing and changing according to the music that was provided them? Did the regard for a musical work as something to be contemplated begin with Beethoven, or does Hoffmann’s review reflect the social attitudes of the time?
Rhetoric versus Truth: The Battle for our Minds and Ears
Bonds' "Rhetoric versus Truth" summarizes the changes that occurred between the 18th and the 19th century regarding listeners' expectations for music, particularly instrumental music. Bond begins by establishing Haydn as the "orator" of the 18th century, capable of composing music "clear and erudite, energetic and natural, harmonious and not confusing, learned and not arid". Sarah and those in my Midterm study group will understand this reference: he seems the perfect mix between Stamiz and Sammartini. He is both forcing those around him to better themselves through his music and composing arrangements that are easy and fun to understand. He was continuously associated with rhetoric, not just by critics but by listeners as well, which affected how individuals experienced his music. Mozart, on the other hand, was "heard within an entirely different, non-rhetorical framework, one based on...truth" (Bonds, 111).
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?
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
As its title suggests, Bonds' article concerns the differentiation (or tension, perhaps) between rhetoric and truth as they pertain to music. Haydn, he argues, has been perceived as a master orator, a clever (or sly) composer who made his compositions accessible and understandable, creating music characterized by what Triest called "popular artfulness". Where Haydn's music was and is primarily understood in light of the rhetorical analogy, that of Beethoven was heard by his contemporaries and in the modern era as a more abstract expression of deeply profound truths.
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)?
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)
Papa Haydn's is a coffee shop in Portland, Oregon. This seems fitting, when we consider that he is associated with rhetoric and language, something we know was cultivated in the coffee shops of Europe in the eighteenth century. In "Rhetoric Versus Truth," Mark Bonds takes a look at Haydn's classification as a "clever orator" and what that says about the effects of different modes of listening on the understanding and reception of music at the turn of the nineteenth century.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)