What we talk about when we talk about music

[some guy]

In the Piston thread, Ouled Nails mentioned Sessions, in particular the third symphony. I just received a CD of Sessions' symphonies 1, 2, and 3 in the mail yesterday, and have listened to the third symphony. It's a charming and ebullient work, with a shortish opening movement, a scherzo-like movement next, the slow movement in the third place, and a vigorous, energetic finale. All the themes of all the movements are pretty plain to hear, and repeated enough to make them all pretty memorable. (I got the impression, maybe false, that the finale is a kind of microcosm of the entire symphony.)

Listening to it, I was struck, again, with how true it is that people reveal something of themselves when they talk about music but very little about the music itself. Of course, music is really a relationship, that between the sounds themselves and a listener, but in posts to music forums, for instance, that relationship is quite skewed.

Posters reveal at least two things about themselves. One is their prejudices--often prejudices so deeply ingrained one must conclude that they will never be able to truly hear certain musics. How many people, do you suppose, will ever hear how twelve-tone pieces by Schoenberg sound as if written by the same man who wrote Verklaerte Nacht and Pelleas und Melisande, as indeed they were! (How many people will ever be able to listen to Shostakovich's music without thinking "Soviet oppression" or some such?)

The other revelation (and there may be more than two, of course) is where they are in their listening experience. If you can get people to go into any sort of detail about their responses to a piece, you can discover very quickly how they listen and how much listening they've done. And, of course, how flexible they are, how willing to grow and develop.

I popped this talk about larger philosophical issue out of the thread about Piston (whom I thoroughly enjoy), because Ouled's responses to Sessions' music there seemed to provide the perfect opportunity to talk about what we talk about when we talk about music. (Perfect because Ouled seems neither mired in prejudice nor unwilling to grow and develop, hence nothing I've said here could possibly be taken as a personal attack of Mr./Ms. Nails!)

 

[Ouled Nails]

Yes, some guy, you must be far more open-minded than this prejudiced listener of Sessions' third symphony.

To some individuals, quite a small minority I should think, everything, I mean absolutely everything, that qualifies as "modern" or "contemporary" is always excellent precisely because it is "modern" or "contemporary." If it sounds modern, it is ipso facto excellent. For such listeners, the aesthetic itself, rather than a work's ability to inspire, is the criterion of excellence.

I turn the table on you, here, because of the obvious insinuation in your orginating post: is not the real prejudice one's unconditional dismissal of any critical commentary about some modern works?

 

[some guy]

Yes, some guy, you must be far more open-minded than this prejudiced listener of Sessions' third symphony.

No. Perhaps more experienced in listening to, and understanding, and taking pleasure in nontonal musics. We all of us have prejudices and shortcomings. We all of us have knowledge and insights, too. Different ones for each of us, I'd guess. My post was not about you or about me but about what people reveal when they write about music.

To some individuals, quite a small minority I should think, everything, I mean absolutely everything, that qualifies as "modern" or "contemporary" is always excellent precisely because it is "modern" or "contemporary." If it sounds modern, it is ipso facto excellent. For such listeners, the aesthetic itself, rather than a work's ability to inspire, is the criterion of excellence.

And to some people, everything that sounds Romantic is always excellent precisely because it sounds Romantic. If it's Romantic, it's excellent. For such listeners.... And et cetera. To some people opera is horrible, despite there being as many differences between operas as between symphonies. But so what? If you've noticed, as you may be implying, that I only defend contemporary music, then let me explain something about that. I only defend music I think is good or that is being unfairly, unreasonably traduced simply because it's modern or contemporary. For that's a reality, too, that quite a large majority of posters to classical boards think that if a piece sounds modern, it is ipso facto crap. For such listeners, the aesthetic itself, rather than the work's ability to inspire, is the criterion for damning the work.

I turn the table on you, here, because of the obvious insinuation in your orginating post: is not the real prejudice one's unconditional dismissal of any critical commentary about some modern works?

I was not insinuating anything. I was agreeing that perhaps you were not yet ready to hear Sessions' third with complete understanding, as you had suggested yourself. And I took your other comments to mean, and I stated this explicitly, that you were not prejudiced. In any event, I do not unconditionally dismiss any critical commentary on modern works. I don't dismiss anything, for that matter. I tend not to criticize (in the conversational meaning of that word) anything, either. If someone were to criticize Phil Glass's music, I probably wouldn't join in at all. Same for Chopin, too, though. I just don't usually bag on composers I don't like just for bagging's sake. If I'm in the company of fellow lovers of new music, I may agree with negative assessments of Golijov or Henry, but never on a board like this. There are too many people too willing to dismiss unconditionally any modern music. I don't want to do anything to encourage that!

I assure you that there's lots of music in every century that I hate. I rarely share any of those dislikes, however.

 

[rojo]

May I interject?

I've read the posts the two of you have made in the other threads, as well the posts here. There seems to be a difference of opinion; one of you hears a clear main theme which provides coherence in the work, and the other does not.

I haven't any recordings of Sessions' works, but may I ask, what is the main theme? some guy, can you tell us? (Names of notes, or other relevant info.)

 

[some guy]

Hey rojo. I can't tell you the names of the pitches, not having perfect pitch, nor can I even tell you the names of the intervals, not having had freshman ear training for 35 years(!), but the first movement of Sessions' third starts out with a simple two note descending figure, repeated, to which is then added different noodly bits, a one note upbeat and a four note ascending thing, among others. The two note thing is turned upside down, too, natch.

That's the main theme (or motif) for movement one of the third. I've only listened to the piece twice, now, so cannot say for sure whether that four note seesaw theme is used throughout. I'm inclined to think it isn't. The piece sounds like itself and nothing else throughout, though. That is, I think you could "drop the needle" anywhere (as we used to say) into symphonies one and two (on the same CD) and no one would think that they were hearing a bit of number three.

 

[Ouled Nails]

I admire your dedication, some guy. What is clear to me is the existence of a world apart between his first and his third symphony. And, btw, there's nothing wrong in being tentative, exploratory, "venturing," as a composer seeks to adapt to rapidly changing aesthetic conditions.

We won't agree on "taste" because nobody here can do that to their own personal satisfaction. So, I reiterate that I do like his fourth and fifth.

 

[Fretless]

What great observations--and a nice way to start engaging my mind as I start a new week trying to teach 9-14 year-olds how to play orchestral music, which often is a huge challenge to my own beliefs about how music works and is learned.

Listening to it, I was struck, again, with how true it is that people reveal something of themselves when they talk about music but very little about the music itself. Of course, music is really a relationship, that between the sounds themselves and a listener

This is something I'm going to try to keep in mind and incorporate in some way into my lessons this week. It's something, as a music lover and instrumentalist since as far back as I can remember, that is deeply ingrained to the point where I have forgotten to bring it to the foreground of a child's experience with their instrument (it's very easy, with my time limitations with kids, to devolve into simple repetition of notes, which of course is necessary to learn the instrument, which most of them don't do on their own at home).

Posters reveal at least two things about themselves. One is their prejudices--often prejudices so deeply ingrained one must conclude that they will never be able to truly hear certain musics. How many people, do you suppose, will ever hear how twelve-tone pieces by Schoenberg sound as if written by the same man who wrote Verklaerte Nacht and Pelleas und Melisande, as indeed they were! (How many people will ever be able to listen to Shostakovich's music without thinking "Soviet oppression" or some such?)

So true--I had a love of Shostakovich's music starting mainly with hearing his 5th in college, and later played that and worked on one of his later string quartets, and everything we learned in those pieces were attached to the ideas of "soviet oppression" in an effort to help us identify more closely with the passion in the notes. It worked then, but now I would prefer to hear his music without thinking first of the emotional and political baggage, which is why I haven't listened to much of his music in years. It's almost as if I need to have that background in order to appreciate it, and I would like to get rid of that and experience the music on its own terms first.
I would say that a majority of non-entrenched music listeners experiencing foreign genres and composers for the first time (or, indeed, experienced listeners who have deep preferences/prejudices) need to have some of that kind of history given to them to help gather a foundation for them to cling to when the sounds go beyond what they can digest.

The other revelation (and there may be more than two, of course) is where they are in their listening experience. If you can get people to go into any sort of detail about their responses to a piece, you can discover very quickly how they listen and how much listening they've done. And, of course, how flexible they are, how willing to grow and develop.

I've learned more and more over the years that when I encounter music I dislike its mostly due to my own deficiencies as a listener, and I have learned to shut up with criticism until I felt I've truly absorbed that music.
When I encounter threads/conversations where criticism of music starts to become heated, I notice there is a lot of discussion about what kind of music is "better" than another, which is also a losing battle, it seems. Even though I feel that a Mahler symphony is leagues above a Toby Keith song, try explaining that to a die-hard country fan.

 

[Ouled Nails]

I feel that a Mahler symphony is leagues above a Toby Keith song

but you've got to love that bar....:grin:

 

[rojo]

^^ :grin:

Hey rojo. I can't tell you the names of the pitches, not having perfect pitch, nor can I even tell you the names of the intervals, not having had freshman ear training for 35 years(!), but the first movement of Sessions' third starts out with a simple two note descending figure, repeated, to which is then added different noodly bits, a one note upbeat and a four note ascending thing, among others. The two note thing is turned upside down, too, natch.

That's the main theme (or motif) for movement one of the third. I've only listened to the piece twice, now, so cannot say for sure whether that four note seesaw theme is used throughout. I'm inclined to think it isn't. The piece sounds like itself and nothing else throughout, though. That is, I think you could "drop the needle" anywhere (as we used to say) into symphonies one and two (on the same CD) and no one would think that they were hearing a bit of number three.

Thanks for that, some guy; now our readers (and myself, when I get around to acquiring this work,) will have some idea what to listen for. The noodly bits sound tasty. :grin:

Now, get busy with some interval recognition revision!

 

[greatcyber]

Very interesting, eh, Watson?

 

[rovikered]

It's all a question of taste !

 

[some guy]

A lot of people say that, but does anyone actually believe it?

 

[rovikered]

I do; I believe it's true.