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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd like to respond to the question of mechanical music versus "natural" music.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be this presupposition that music made by some machination is anti-human. I would argue this is a false assumption. Although a mechanical reproduction of music may lack certain elements of expression, the logistics of performance ultimately lie not in the technology, but rather the master technician who designs the machine. Thus, expression is not completely lost, but rather it is deferred to the inventor rather than to the composer or performer.
Thus, we see in modern music a broad array of uses for mechanical (or digital) expressions which are by no means devoid of passion. In fact, one could argue that the versatility of the digital age (or mechanics in general) allows creative minds an intense amount of freedom. And this does not remove music from the status of a "human" art, for it is the creative mind of a person which must design the technology in the first place. If we are to be truly honest, instruments are machinations which simply require more immediate attention from their human agents. Thus, the only truly natural music by this standard would be a cappella vocal music.
The significant difference between mechanical versus "natural" music, or that played directly by an individual on an instrument then is not the presence of technology, but absence of sameness. A live performance is different every time, even if only in details of nuance. In mechanical music there is never any differentiation (unless something malfunctions). We see this in the digital age with drum tracks, prerecorded accompaniments and lip-synched performances.
The point I am trying to make is simply that mechanical and natural are not at odds, but simply two sides of the same coin. If we lacked "mechanical" tendencies, we could never maintain a beat. If we lacked "natural" innovation, there would be no true creativity. Both sides could potentially be abused if over-emphasized, but much would be lost if we shunned one or the other. This seems most evident in Mozart's ability to create something - described as truly sublime by contemporaries - that was composed for an instrument with seeming deficiency of expression.