Bach's music mathematical??
Christian Ohn
Michael Owen <mi...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
: Can someone please explain why some people call Bach's music mathematical,
: or words to that effect. I do not understand and it strikes me as a
: comment made by people who don't have the slightest clue what they're
: talking about. Also I've heard the fugue being describe as (pure) logic
: which makes a bit more sense but not much. TIA
: Mike
I happen to be a mathematician, and to count Bach among my favourite
composers. IMHO, this music<->math stuff is mostly rubbish. It is true
that Bach played around with some numerical symbolism (B+A+C+H=14, etc),
but I always considered this to be a personal amusement of his when
composing. I love Bach for his music, not for "mathematics" or "logic".
*Especially* his fugues.
Christian
--
To reply, please remove all uppercase letters from my email address.
Pour repondre, priere d'effacer les majuscules de mon adresse email.
lanza
Christian Ohn wrote:
>
> Michael Owen <mi...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> : Can someone please explain why some people call Bach's music mathematical,
> : or words to that effect. I do not understand and it strikes me as a
> : comment made by people who don't have the slightest clue what they're
> : talking about.
they're talking about! Why should you be surprised by this?
Also I've heard the fugue being describe as (pure) logic
> : which makes a bit more sense but not much. TIA
> : Mike
Well, it makes about as much sense to describe a fugue as pure logic as
it does to describe pure logic as a fugue.
**********************************
We must laugh and we must sing,
We are blest by everything,
Everything we look upon is blest.
--YEATS, A Dialogue of Self & Soul
**********************************
Michael Owen
Can someone please explain why some people call Bach's music mathematical,
or words to that effect. I do not understand and it strikes me as a
comment made by people who don't have the slightest clue what they're
Ken Pedersen
Check out the book Goedel, Escher, and Bach.
Mike Coldewey
Michael Owen wrote:
>
> Can someone please explain why some people call Bach's music mathematical,
> or words to that effect. I do not understand and it strikes me as a
> comment made by people who don't have the slightest clue what they're
> talking about. Also I've heard the fugue being describe as (pure) logic
> which makes a bit more sense but not much. TIA
> Mike
Why don't you ask them what they mean? It may mean that they really
believe that there is a mathematical connection or method applicable to
Bach's music. Or there might be a meaning of the word that is more
general: that is, not having a strict connection to the branch of
knowledge we study as mathematics. They might be using the term in a
metaphorical sense; many people use terms relating to other senses than
hearing and experiences other than music to describe music - in what
sense is Beethoven's 9th "joyful", or Brahms' music "heavy" or
"autumnul"? Granted, these examples aren't perfect analogies, but the
point is that non-musical terms are often used to describe music.
If I were to use the term "mathematical" to describe Bach's music, or if
I hear or read someone's description of his music in this way, I never
think that there direct connection between his music and math - either
in the analysis or method of composition - one gets this image of Johann
with a slide rule trying to figure out when the next fugal entrance
should be. The word "mathematical" expresses to me a set of qualities of
his work which include elegance (in the mathematical sense of an
"elegant" proof), precision, symmetry, and completeness, among others. I
would never use this term in a scholarly paper, where writing needs to
be precise. Going out on a limb here, I think that the adjective
expresses these qualities fairly well, but YMMV.
In what context have you seen the word used in this way?
As far as a fugue being pure logic, one could make the same comment; can
one analyze a fugue according to the rules of classical logic (truth
tables, if a then b, etc.)? The word is, again, may be being used as a
metaphor (at least it sounds that way to me - I don't know the exact
context of the quote) and in that way, expresses a quality of fugal
writing that may be desirable, yet difficult to specify exactly.
Finally, is there a word or set of words preferable to "mathematical"
that would be more appropriate to describe Bach's works in the way that
they differ from, say, those of Debussy or Chopin or Schubert?
Mike
Jamie Foster
Michael Owen wrote:
> Can someone please explain why some people call Bach's music
> mathematical,
> or words to that effect. I do not understand and it strikes me as a
> comment made by people who don't have the slightest clue what they're
> talking about. Also I've heard the fugue being describe as (pure)
> logic
> which makes a bit more sense but not much. TIA
> Mike
One reason may be that there are books published that lend credence to
this notion and that have enjoyed a degree of publishing success:.
_Godel, Escher, Bach_ comes to mind...
Jamie
--
Jamie Foster, jamie...@fix.net
http://www.jf2.com, Pismo Beach, CA
FAX: (805) 773-4288; office phone: (805) 773-0101
For every action, there's an equal and opposite criticism.
Samuel Vriezen
On 15 Sep 1997 05:00:20 GMT, Michael Owen <mi...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
wrote:
>Can someone please explain why some people call Bach's music mathematical,
>or words to that effect. I do not understand and it strikes me as a
>comment made by people who don't have the slightest clue what they're
>talking about. Also I've heard the fugue being describe as (pure) logic
>which makes a bit more sense but not much. TIA
>Mike
Describing the fugue as 'pure logic' does not do it any justice.
However, it is one of the structurally richest of forms that requires
and allows for great technical mastery. (in fact it is much, much
stricter than most serial techniques despite those being termed
intellectualist).
The reason music is often considered mathematical is I think only
because music is the only art form of which to some degree
mathematical description is possible. Especially when all you are
interested in is abstract theory of harmony, scales etc or when all
you are interested in is scores: scores can be described as a
collection of 'notes' which can be seen as n-tuples of parameters,
pitch, loudness, duration etc. These can be described mathematically.
For that reason it is possible to speak in a mathematically exact way
about a piece of music (if we restrict ourselves to speaking about its
structural aspects), which is more problematic in other forms of art.
Thus the strictness of score notation makes a 'mathematical' approach
to music possible. Myself, I feel I can use my mathematical training
to great advantage when composing or analysing music. Of course all of
this has nothing to do with mathematics itself. Mathematics is much
weirder and more fantastic as an intellectual exercise than music
theory/analysis. (For that reason I think serial music is not
interesting for the way it was constructed, because it can't compete
with mathematics on that account; when I find a piece of serial music
interesting, it is always for reasons of drama and sonic/melodic
beauty just as with all classical music).
Of course, mathematics has been applied in a very literal way for
instance in the work of Iannis Xenakis. But a listener won't be
bothered by the mathematical aspect as the most succesful pieces of X
are simply too overpowering and intense. He used mathematics to build
great monoliths of sound and sonic nebulae consisting of notes that
follow certain statistical patterns. (You should try to find a
recording of Metastasis, and Eonta). Still mathematicians are probably
not going to get very excited with X's music theory.
Samuel Vriezen
Victor Eijkhout
lanza <la...@mail.ncku.edu.tw> writes:
> Well, it makes about as much sense to describe a fugue as pure logic as
> it does to describe pure logic as a fugue.
Now there's a thought.
I'll write my next paper with the following substitutions:
Definition -> Theme
Lemma -> Exposition
Theorem -> Development
Corollary -> Coda
Example -> Cadenza
Victor.
--
405 Hilgard Ave ............................. `One great boast of the country
Department of Mathematics, UCLA ............... is that they have no national
Los Angeles CA 90095 .......................... debt, or that they shall have
phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 ..................... none in two years' [Fanny
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout Trollope (1832) about the US]
Victor Eijkhout
Mike Coldewey <mcol...@asset-intertech.com> writes:
> The word "mathematical" expresses to me a set of qualities of
> his work which include elegance (in the mathematical sense of an
> "elegant" proof), precision, symmetry, and completeness, among others.
You missed one: being divorced from references to outside
reality. Fugues, and other abstract works by Bach, are much
harder to describe in terms of emotions or events than
the Appasionata or Mondschein sonatas, to name a few obvious ones.
Fugues &c need no outside clarification; they are completely self-contained.
Likewise, mathematics may get inspiration from an outside
reality, but it is really in a world of its own, unlike sciences
such as chemistry or psychology.
So, only in a metaphorical sense, do I see why Bach's music
is 'mathematical'. Mind you, as someone who does math for a living
and plays umpteen Bach fugues from memory, I don't see any other
connections. Nor do I feel the need to.
Wayne Jonas Bealer
Michael Owen <mi...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote in article
<5vifd4$9i4$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>...
> Can someone please explain why some people call Bach's music
mathematical,
> or words to that effect.[...]
Malcolm Boyd, in his excellent introduction to Bach published as part of
the Master Musicians Series, has a final chapter called "A Note on
Numerology" where he gives an overview of how musicologists feel on this
subject:
"On the simplest level are such straight-forward equations between text and
music as the tenfold entry of the fugue subject in the chorale prelude
'Dies sind die heil'gen zehn Gebot' ('These are the holy ten commandments',
BWV679)" [...] Some commentatiors have found a much wider and more
intricate correlation between Bach's music and numbers with a particular
theological significance, even in works not associated with a text and not
designed for the church." [...] Still more problematic is Bach's use (or
supposed use) of gematria, or the number alphabet. In gematria each letter
of the alphabet is paired with a number from 1 to 24.... [...] ...it thus
becomes possible for the number of notes, or rests or bars etc. in a
particular movement or passage to take on a significance which cannot be
preceived simply by listening to the music." Anyway, Boyd touches on this
subject throughout the book also.
> Also I've heard the fugue being describe as (pure) logic
> which makes a bit more sense but not much.
Remeber the "The Art of Fugue" was written, it is believed, primarily as a
theorectical work for the Kinzler Society.
Wayne.
viv...@imap4.asu.edu
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, lanza wrote:
> Sure. We already have it: BAROQUE! That's good enough. It says
> everything without saying the wrong things. Hell, sex is more
> mathematical than Bach: ask any prostitute who has just counted to 2000
> while her 65-year-old john is trying to get what he paid for.
>
"lanza":
from reading any of the messages you've written in the past few days, i'm
starting to wonder if some woman did you wrong. your other message
discusses marlene dietrich's thighs?? this one discusses a prostitute??
aren't there any other analogies you can think of?
--sarah
viv...@imap4.asu.edu
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, lanza wrote:
> In conclusion, Sarah, I assure you, I post almost everything with a
> slight smile on my lips and a twinkle in my eye,
ohhhhhhhhhhhh..........twinkle in your eye, eh? THAT explains it....
=)
--sarah
Roger L. Lustig
Victor Eijkhout wrote:
>
> Mike Coldewey <mcol...@asset-intertech.com> writes:
>
> > The word "mathematical" expresses to me a set of qualities of
> > his work which include elegance (in the mathematical sense of an
> > "elegant" proof), precision, symmetry, and completeness, among others.
>
> You missed one: being divorced from references to outside
> reality. Fugues, and other abstract works by Bach, are much
> harder to describe in terms of emotions or events than
> the Appasionata or Mondschein sonatas, to name a few obvious ones.
> Fugues &c need no outside clarification; they are completely self-contained.
> Likewise, mathematics may get inspiration from an outside
> reality, but it is really in a world of its own, unlike sciences
> such as chemistry or psychology.
Are fugues abstract? I don't know that.
After all, they have rhythms like other pieces, often dance-like
ones or otherwise suggestive ones. Some fugue subjects make reference
to other kinds of music, especially vocal music. Still others refer
to older composers' attempts at similar fugues. The harmonies in a
fugue may refer to all manner of things, e.g., lament.
Roger
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
lanza wrote:
>
> > being divorced from references to outside
> > reality. Fugues, and other abstract works by Bach, are much
> > harder to describe in terms of emotions or events than
> > the Appasionata or Mondschein sonatas
>
> Bach, etc. It separates his music from the music of others, degrading
> both his music and the music of others: Bach is (apparently;
> implicitly) divorced from emotions, while Beethoven refers to "events"
> in an outside world. Talk about a double-edged sword: what about a
> double-edged word: mathematical?
Perhaps describing Bach's music as "mathematical" is an unfortunate
choice of words, but ALL music is mathematical. An octave is what we
get (or what Pythagoras got) when we take a vibrating surface (be it
string of wind column) and cut its length or thickness in half. Cut it
in half again, and we get (I think) a fifth. Keep halving it, and we
arrive at all the tones of the octave in Western music. Then, the
mathematical relationship between these tones (which were derived
mathematically to begin with) creates melodies and chords: the tones are
one apart, two apart, etc for all the different intervals. Add to this
the time value (again, a mathematical relation of multiples of a base
unit), and we get rhythm. (i.e. a quaver is twice as long as a
semiquaver, etc.) The beauty and mystery of music is that all this dry
stuff adds up to an art (just as a bunch of principles of optics add up
to painting.) Perhaps Bach's music is described as "mathematical"
because he seems to exploit some of these mathematical relationships a
bit more overtly and symmetrically than others -- but then that merely
reflects the harmony of the universe, if you will, to grand and glorious
effect. I hate math -- but I can't escape the laws of physics and
mathematics that govern our existence and activities. This is why I say
that all music is science, and that what sets it apart from less
intellectually and spiritually rigorous activities is that the musician
must be scientist AND artist to an equally great extent (and, if he or
she performs, manual laborer as well). Thus, it encompasses all human
endeavors, which is one of the reasons I find it so awe-inspiring.
--
Best regards,
Con
*****************************************************************
"Mozart is too easy for beginners and too difficult for artists."
- Artur Schnabel
*****************************************************************
Please remove * from address to reply.
Roger L. Lustig
lanza wrote:
>
> > being divorced from references to outside
> > reality. Fugues, and other abstract works by Bach, are much
> > harder to describe in terms of emotions or events than
> > the Appasionata or Mondschein sonatas
>
> See, this is PRECISELY why I don't like words like "mathematical" for
> Bach, etc. It separates his music from the music of others, degrading
> both his music and the music of others: Bach is (apparently;
> implicitly) divorced from emotions, while Beethoven refers to "events"
> in an outside world. Talk about a double-edged sword: what about a
> double-edged word: mathematical?
And it turns out that both edges are quite dull. After all, Beethoven
didn't call the 'Mondscheinsonate' that; he called it Sonata quasi una
fantasia.
And it's not as though Bach didn't write a stack of pieces called
Fantasia...
Roger
PS: or 'Passio', for that matter...
Roger L. Lustig
Victor Eijkhout wrote:
>
> lanza <la...@mail.ncku.edu.tw> writes:
>
> > Well, it makes about as much sense to describe a fugue as pure logic as
> > it does to describe pure logic as a fugue.
>
> Now there's a thought.
>
> I'll write my next paper with the following substitutions:
>
> Definition -> Theme
> Lemma -> Exposition
> Theorem -> Development
> Corollary -> Coda
> Example -> Cadenza
Nothing new there. Check out, say, Mattheson (contemporary of
Bach) for descriptions of musical rhetoric that consider movements
in very similar terms, including exordium, exemplum, confutatio,
etc.
Best,
Roger
lanza
> being divorced from references to outside
> reality. Fugues, and other abstract works by Bach, are much
> harder to describe in terms of emotions or events than
> the Appasionata or Mondschein sonatas
See, this is PRECISELY why I don't like words like "mathematical" for
Bach, etc. It separates his music from the music of others, degrading
both his music and the music of others: Bach is (apparently;
implicitly) divorced from emotions, while Beethoven refers to "events"
in an outside world. Talk about a double-edged sword: what about a
double-edged word: mathematical?
--
lanza
Victor Eijkhout wrote:
>
> lanza <la...@mail.ncku.edu.tw> writes:
>
> > Well, it makes about as much sense to describe a fugue as pure logic as
> > it does to describe pure logic as a fugue.
>
> Now there's a thought.
There's a sometimes anthologized film essay on Marlene Dietrich's
mathematically precise thighs. Now THERE'S a thought!
lanza
> Finally, is there a word or set of words preferable to "mathematical"
> that would be more appropriate to describe Bach's works in the way that
> they differ from, say, those of Debussy or Chopin or Schubert?
Sure. We already have it: BAROQUE! That's good enough. It says
everything without saying the wrong things. Hell, sex is more
mathematical than Bach: ask any prostitute who has just counted to 2000
while her 65-year-old john is trying to get what he paid for.
--
lanza
> > everything without saying the wrong things. Hell, sex is more
> > mathematical than Bach: ask any prostitute who has just counted to 2000
> > while her 65-year-old john is trying to get what he paid for.
> >
>
> from reading any of the messages you've written in the past few days, i'm
> starting to wonder if some woman did you wrong. your other message
> discusses marlene dietrich's thighs?? this one discusses a prostitute??
> aren't there any other analogies you can think of?
> --sarah
Sarah, I regret to say that I do not count the references to women in my
posts. However, I imagine that my references to women are fewer than my
references to, say, Bach. Now, Mr. Bach, so far as I can remember, has
never done me wrong. But, from your own logic, and judging from the
number of children the different Mrs. Bachs had, Mr. Bach probably did
his wives wrong. Certainly, all but one died before he did, suggesting
that they got the raw deal.
In general, it is inadvisable to think of the opposite sex in terms of
right and wrong (cf. Dr. Ruth or the films of Mae West); this can get
you into a great deal of trouble.
Besides, my reference to the prostitute would be as likely to suggest
sympathy for her rather than for her john. Although, sharing charitably
in the milk of human kindness, I would tend, in fact, to have sympathy
for both of them. That is certainly one of the uses to which the music
of which we are all fond of in this newsgroup can be put (since some
question the "use" to which music can be put, I'm naming one: the
cultivation and development of human sympathy).
As for the reference to Ms. Dietrich's mathematically precise thighs, I
was referring to a critical essay on the subject in the sometimes
arcane, and sometimes ludic, area of film studies. Would you have
preferred that I mention Ms. Dietrich's mathematically precise eyes
instead? (Cf. "Why Can't We Come Together," by Solomon Burke, in *The
Definition of Soul* [Pointblank Records, 1997].)
Are there other analogies I can think of? Of course there are, and I
usually do think of them. However, you appear to be unduly sensitive to
the two references to women, however sympathetic those references to
women were. This is either my problem or your problem. Alternatively,
it may be nobody's problem: perhaps just a problem of communication,
n'est pas?
In conclusion, Sarah, I assure you, I post almost everything with a
slight smile on my lips and a twinkle in my eye, reflecting off the
terminal screen. Generally, however, I avoid the use of emoticons as
being somewhat concessionary to my wit, whether that wit is invariably
successful or not. Just think if Mr. Shaw had had the use of emoticons
in in his plays instead of his rich, elaborate prose. Now there's an
analogy for you!
Michael John Holme
Jamie Foster wrote:
>
> Michael Owen wrote:
>
> > Can someone please explain why some people call Bach's music
> > mathematical,
> > comment made by people who don't have the slightest clue what they're
> > logic
> > which makes a bit more sense but not much. TIA
> > Mike
>
> One reason may be that there are books published that lend credence to
> this notion and that have enjoyed a degree of publishing success:.
> _Godel, Escher, Bach_ comes to mind...
>
> Jamie
> --
> Jamie Foster, jamie...@fix.net
> http://www.jf2.com, Pismo Beach, CA
> FAX: (805) 773-4288; office phone: (805) 773-0101
> For every action, there's an equal and opposite criticism.
Personally I think Bachs music is referred to as being 'mathematical'
because the rules of composition in those days were followed so
strictly, just as in mathematics, rules are followed to the letter. This
is why Bach was a genius, he made such 'organic' (there's another word
for you) beauty out of strict rules.
Mike Holme
--
------------------------------------------------------
| Michael John Holme, Senior Technician |
| Dept Computing, Manchester Metropolitan University |
| Chester Street, Manchester, M1 5GD, United Kingdom |
|----------------------------------------------------|
| email : M.H...@doc.mmu.ac.uk |
| WWW : http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/STAFF/M.Holme |
------------------------------------------------------
MBonn15036
The only example of numerology in classical music I can think of is Anton
Bruckner. If memory serves, Bruckner loved counting things, like the
number of leaves on a tree, and his compositions reflect this - his
symphonies were constructed upon containing a precise number of notes.
However, Bruckner's symphonies do not sound "mathematical" in the least,
since he worked within this framework to inject an element of warmth.
I remember several years back copying a fairly simple program out of a
magazine that would allow a Commodore 64 to compose Bach-style music, by
merely selecting harmonies at random and superimposing them upon each
other. It worked fairly well, but I remember wondering how it would sound
if the machine chose the notes themselves at random. Sort of a
monkeys-at-the-typewriter thing. I doubt this would result in Vivaldi or
Mozart; it would probably be closer to the weirdness attained in stringing
random words together to create grammatically-correct sentences.
The example of computer-program-as-Bach lends credence to a formulaic
component to baroque music, if not all classical music. But absent the je
ne sais quoi evident in a Toccata and Fugue, one cannot say it is all numbers.
Perhaps it is the easily recognizable patterns in baroque music that cause
it to sound mathematical to our ears, because the repetitions come so fast
even the non-classically-trained ear can detect the structure, whereas
sonata form is too complex. I bet I could design a pretty good compression
algorithm for the Brandenburg Concertos. Or write a program that could
churn out Phillip Glass, for that matter. 8)
-Matt
lanza
Roger L. Lustig wrote:
>
> lanza wrote:
> >
> > > being divorced from references to outside
> > > reality. Fugues, and other abstract works by Bach, are much
> > > harder to describe in terms of emotions or events than
> > > the Appasionata or Mondschein sonatas
> >
> > See, this is PRECISELY why I don't like words like "mathematical" for
[. . .]
> > double-edged word: mathematical?
Please be advised that I did not compose the first paragraph of this
post, only the response portion (second paragraph). Apparently Roger
Lustig misattributed it to me, since he sent me his personal response to
another's post. I wrote only the material preceded by two angle
brackets, although the post makes it appear that I wrote all of it.
Roger L. Lustig
Lanza correctly points out that he is not the author of the
original, 3-levels-in bit below.
Roger
Roger L. Lustig wrote:
>
> lanza wrote:
> >
> > > being divorced from references to outside
> > > reality. Fugues, and other abstract works by Bach, are much
> > > harder to describe in terms of emotions or events than
> > > the Appasionata or Mondschein sonatas
> >
> > See, this is PRECISELY why I don't like words like "mathematical" for
> > Bach, etc. It separates his music from the music of others, degrading
> > both his music and the music of others: Bach is (apparently;
> > implicitly) divorced from emotions, while Beethoven refers to "events"
> > in an outside world. Talk about a double-edged sword: what about a
> > double-edged word: mathematical?
>
Keith Benson
Bach music is cleverly and often intricately crafted.
I'm sure all manner of ideas occurred to him and were explored by him
during his compositional life.
But he surely didn't come up with those exquite melodies through any
algroithms.
Michael Owen <mi...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote in article
<5vifd4$9i4$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>...
Mike Coldewey
Michael John Holme wrote:
>
> Jamie Foster wrote:
> >
> > Michael Owen wrote:
> >
> > > Can someone please explain why some people call Bach's music
> > > mathematical,
> > > or words to that effect. I do not understand and it strikes me as a
> > > comment made by people who don't have the slightest clue what they're
> > > talking about. Also I've heard the fugue being describe as (pure)
> > > logic
> > > which makes a bit more sense but not much. TIA
> > > Mike
> >
> > One reason may be that there are books published that lend credence to
> > this notion and that have enjoyed a degree of publishing success:.
> > _Godel, Escher, Bach_ comes to mind...
> >
> > Jamie
> > --
> > Jamie Foster, jamie...@fix.net
> > http://www.jf2.com, Pismo Beach, CA
> > FAX: (805) 773-4288; office phone: (805) 773-0101
> > For every action, there's an equal and opposite criticism.
>
> Personally I think Bachs music is referred to as being 'mathematical'
> because the rules of composition in those days were followed so
> strictly, just as in mathematics, rules are followed to the letter. This
> is why Bach was a genius, he made such 'organic' (there's another word
> for you) beauty out of strict rules.
>
Perhaps so; I'm not convinced, because I never hear or see Handel's,
Scarlatti's, Vivaldi's or other of Bach's contemporaries' music
described in this way.
I think the analytical argument (numerology in Bach's music, the idea of
fugue as "pure logic", overtone series relating to Pythagorean ratios)
misses the point. Here's where I thought the thread was when it seemed
to die a few months ago (this isn't exactly a new discussion on this
NG):
There exists a quality in the works of Bach which appears to some people
to lend itself to the description "mathematical", apart from
numeric/analytical/topological/truly mathematical characteristics.
Bach's music has whatever quality this is more than that of Chopin or
Liszt or Prokoviev, in that people don't seem to refer to their music as
"mathematical". What is this quality, given that it's not really
mathematical in the strict sense? - What adjectives do we ascribe to his
music? and Is "mathematical" an appropriate word to apply, or should we
slap those who use the term in relation to anybody's music, or at least
call them clueless?
BTW, the guy in the next office, who studied meteorology in college,
doesn't get upset when hearing Brahms' music described as "autumnal".
What is it about describing anybody's music as "mathematical" that seems
to rub people the wrong way? Do architects get upset when people talk
about the "architecture" of Beethoven's music? Think how upset private
investigators get when people refer to "clueless" as a metaphor for
being uninformed.
OK, I'm being facetious, but the distinction is very important, I think;
we need metaphors to communicate with and none more than in music, about
which, supposedly, quoth Laurie Anderson,"Writing about music is like
dancing about architecture". We can't really describe many of the most
important qualities about music without resorting to a wide range of
descriptive language, which can have its roots in other arts or other
sensory experiences. In this context (he says, flaying madly at this
dead horse) it's appropriate to use the word "mathematical".
IMHO, or perhaps, IMNSHO.
Mike
Samuel Vriezen
On 16 Sep 1997 13:02:43 GMT, "Keith Benson" <ke...@mrl.co.nz> wrote:
>Bach music is cleverly and often intricately crafted.
>I'm sure all manner of ideas occurred to him and were explored by him
>during his compositional life.
>
>But he surely didn't come up with those exquite melodies through any
>algroithms.
I don't mean to come defend algorithmic music BUT... how do you know?
Of course, one could say Bach didn't have access to computers but
algorithms are older than that... for instance, if he composes the
B-A-C-H melody, can we think of that as an 'algorithmic' construction
of a melody? ...I think the issues of System and Composition are very
complicated... we could point out Medieval usage of isorhythmical
procedures as early examples of algorithmic music... would Bach never
have used constructional procedures deriving from that style of
working? I know no examples of isorhythm in Bach but I am thinking of
the very general style of doing things.
Samuel
Fred Goldrich
In article <341DF8...@earthlink.net>,
CONSTANTIN MARCOU <conmarcou*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>...
>Perhaps describing Bach's music as "mathematical" is an unfortunate
>choice of words, but ALL music is mathematical. An octave is what we
>get (or what Pythagoras got) when we take a vibrating surface (be it
>string of wind column) and cut its length or thickness in half. Cut it
>in half again, and we get (I think) a fifth.
No, we get another octave.
> Keep halving it, and we
>arrive at all the tones of the octave in Western music.
No, we just get more octaves. As we divide the
length of the (idealized) string by quantities *other* than
two, we get all frequencies, not just those used in Western
music.
> Then, the
>mathematical relationship between these tones (which were derived
>mathematically to begin with) creates melodies and chords:
"To begin with"? Are you saying that the tones
didn't exist, or weren't used for music, prior to their
mathematical derivation?
In order to support your thesis that "ALL music
is mathematical," you are presuming a historical sequence
of events that I don't think has much evidence to back it
up.
Now, if you want to say that music can be described
mathematically, I suppose there's some truth to that --
but there's probably very little in our experience that
could not somehow be reduced to a mathematical description.
> the tones are
>one apart, two apart, etc for all the different intervals. Add to this
>the time value (again, a mathematical relation of multiples of a base
>unit), and we get rhythm. (i.e. a quaver is twice as long as a
>semiquaver, etc.) The beauty and mystery of music is that all this dry
>stuff adds up to an art...
I'm not sure that it does. I suppose that every-
thing I did yesterday could somehow be described by some
large collection of numbers, but I would be hard pressed
to believe that those numbers somehow add up to the way
I experienced my day.
Would you say, for example, that if two pieces of
music have a similar artistic impact, then their mathema-
tical descriptions will also show a certain similarity?
The real mystery may be why it is that mathematical
representations work at all, for anything -- even the physical
sciences. Eugene Wigner has written a fascinating essay on
this subject.
> (just as a bunch of principles of optics add up
>to painting.)
Do they?
-- Fred Goldrich
--
Fred Goldrich
gold...@panix.com
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
Fred Goldrich wrote:
>
> In article <341DF8...@earthlink.net>,
> CONSTANTIN MARCOU <conmarcou*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> An octave is what we
>get (or what Pythagoras got) when we take a vibrating surface (be it
>string of wind column) and cut its length or thickness in half. Cut it
>in half again, and we get (I think) a fifth.
>
> length of the (idealized) string by quantities *other* than
> two, we get all frequencies, not just those used in Western
> music.
>
OK. Obviously you know more about this than I do.
> > Then, the
> >mathematical relationship between these tones (which were derived
> >mathematically to begin with) creates melodies and chords:
>
> "To begin with"? Are you saying that the tones
> didn't exist, or weren't used for music, prior to their
> mathematical derivation?
I'm saying that when primitive man picked up a bone flute or beatr rocks
together or sang or whatever, he didn't realize that he was setting
waves of particular frequencies and amplitudes in motion -- but that is
what he was doing nevertheless.
>
> Would you say, for example, that if two pieces of
> music have a similar artistic impact, then their mathema-
> tical descriptions will also show a certain similarity?
No. Just that they both employ principles of mathematics and physics.
How they do so and to what effect are each completely different
questions.
>
> The real mystery may be why it is that mathematical
> representations work at all, for anything -- even the physical
> sciences. Eugene Wigner has written a fascinating essay on
> this subject.
Well, I said I hated math. Is this something I would enjoy? Or is it
technical stuff?
>
> > (just as a bunch of principles of optics add up
> >to painting.)
>
> Do they?
Without the principle that various substances (including our rods and
cones) reflect or absorb light of different frequencies we wouldn't see
color or pigments. No pigments, no paint. No paint, no paintings. (I
wasn't referring to anything less basic than that, such as rules of
perspective).
Actually, Emmanuel Rouat had an interesting and thought-provoking
"refutation" of my ideas on the relation between music and math, which
he couldn't post for some reason. Since he already gave me permission,
I will post it here:
Hello constantin,
I reply by mail because it seems I can't post anymore!
If you think that this mail is interesting, feel free to
post it for me.
I have a few objections to your arguments.
>
> Perhaps describing Bach's music as "mathematical" is an unfortunate
> choice of words, but ALL music is mathematical. An octave is what we
> get (or what Pythagoras got) when we take a vibrating surface (be it
> string of wind column) and cut its length or thickness in half. Cut it
> in half again, and we get (I think) a fifth. Keep halving it, and we
> arrive at all the tones of the octave in Western music.
Well , that's not entirely true. If it were , the fifth cycle would be
'closed'
ie start from C, add a fifth, add another one etc. The sum of twelve
fifth should then equal seven octaves , so that after adding twelve
fifths
we get back to Do (C) like in the 'Sound Of Music', ok?
Well, we don't. Not exactly. That is because acoustics are more
complicated
than Pythagoras' theory, which is only a good approximation. The
difference
between a theoretical fifth and a true fifth is known as a comma (1/32th
of
a tone I think).
One of the consequences of this is that during early medieval times,
theorists
were unable to explain the oddities of the triton, ie the interval B-F
(si-fa).
That interval defied the nice perfect (god inspired) theory. Therefore
it was
the deed of the Devil (logical , ain't it?). That interval became thus
known
as the 'Diabolus In Musica' and was prohibited in early church music!
Later other theories and scales were invented (Zarlino) but none were
totally
satisfactory. They do have in common the fact that you cannot modulate
too
far from the original key (on a piano or harpsicord of course) without
facing
false notes.
That problem was solved with equal temperament, which is in fact a way
to tune
a keyboard allowing you to modulate to any key indifferently.
Bach was one of the first composer to understand how powerful this
method
was, and to prove it, well he did what he did best, he wrote 'The Well
Tempered Clavier', no less!! That's why I don't think that Bach's music
was
'mathematic' because equal temperament is in fact cheating with the laws
of acoustics.
It's true that there are numerical relationships in his music, but
numerology has never been mathematics.
Hope I didn't bore you too much with this.
Best regards.
--- _ _
Emmanuel Rouat: | CENG - LETI (DSYS/CSME/CCI) | * *
ro...@dsys.ceng.cea.fr | 17, rue des Martyrs | |
TEL: 04.76.88.93.99 | 38054 Grenoble Cedex 9 | \___/
LINUX : The Choice Of A GNU Generation...
Victor Eijkhout
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > > reality. Fugues, and other abstract works by Bach, are much
> > > harder to describe in terms of emotions or events
> And it's not as though Bach didn't write a stack of pieces called
> Fantasia...
>
> Roger
>
> PS: or 'Passio', for that matter...
That's why I specifically said "fugues, and other abstract works".
Fred Goldrich
In article <341EAB...@earthlink.net>,
CONSTANTIN MARCOU <conmarcou*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Fred Goldrich wrote:
>>
>> In article <341DF8...@earthlink.net>,
>> CONSTANTIN MARCOU <conmarcou*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Then, the
>> >mathematical relationship between these tones (which were derived
>> >mathematically to begin with) creates melodies and chords:
>>
>> "To begin with"? Are you saying that the tones
>> didn't exist, or weren't used for music, prior to their
>> mathematical derivation?
>
>I'm saying that when primitive man picked up a bone flute or beatr rocks
>together or sang or whatever, he didn't realize that he was setting
>waves of particular frequencies and amplitudes in motion -- but that is
>what he was doing nevertheless.
True enough; but what I am questioning is your
claim that they "were derived mathematically to begin
with"; the phrase "to begin with" implies that the mathe-
matical derivation came first, which doesn't seem right
to me.
Now you seem to be saying that people sometimes
perform actions without being aware of how those actions,
or their results, might be described mathematically.
I imagine that's true, but so what? To me, it
doesn't support your thesis that all musical is mathe-
matical.
>> Would you say, for example, that if two pieces of
>> music have a similar artistic impact, then their mathema-
>> tical descriptions will also show a certain similarity?
>
>No. Just that they both employ principles of mathematics and physics.
>How they do so and to what effect are each completely different
>questions.
You've taken my comment out of context. I was
questioning your statement that these mathematical
representations "add up to an art" (from memory, sorry
if I got it wrong), and I don't see any support for that.
My comment below about painting is similar.
>> The real mystery may be why it is that mathematical
>> representations work at all, for anything -- even the physical
>> sciences. Eugene Wigner has written a fascinating essay on
>> this subject.
>
>Well, I said I hated math. Is this something I would enjoy? Or is it
>technical stuff?
It's been many years since I read it, so I'm afraid
I can't give you a very good answer. IIRC, it's called some-
thing like "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in
the Physical Sciences," and it's probably in his collection,
_Symmetries and Reflections_. If you're not familiar with his
work, he was a Nobel Prize winning physicist who died just a
couple of years ago.
>> > (just as a bunch of principles of optics add up
>> >to painting.)
>>
>> Do they?
>
>Without the principle that various substances (including our rods and
>cones) reflect or absorb light of different frequencies we wouldn't see
>color or pigments. No pigments, no paint. No paint, no paintings. (I
>wasn't referring to anything less basic than that, such as rules of
>perspective).
Again, I agree that all of these subjects have a
great deal to do with painting; but to me, when someone
says that they "add up to painting," it implies that that's
*all* painting is, and I doubt it.
vincent_vega_
when i read all your response it seems like qualifying music as
mathematical is the worst default and that you make all your effort to nie
that. Explain me why ?? I think baroque is mathematical because it's
musically geometrical. Try to imagine music as a picture.
Bahc's one would be very square i think.
Michael Owen <mi...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> a écrit dans l'article
<5vifd4$9i4$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>...
Fred Goldrich
In article <01bcc2ce$a67a0f80$75a7...@data-jet.wanadoo.fr>,
vincent_vega_ <jean....@wandoo.fr> wrote:
>
>let me be clear??? i think your response is REALLY STUPID. all you ahve
>done is to deny what he said
>i soory to see you don't realize that but of course HARMONY AND RYTHM are
>mathematicle
>don't be stupid
The insults are foolish and unnecessary, and only
make you look bad. They suggest that you are unable or
unwilling to make your points in any other way. I hope
that you will choose to be less rude in the future.
>> No, we just get more octaves. As we divide the
>> length of the (idealized) string by quantities *other* than
>> two, we get all frequencies, not just those used in Western
>> music.
>
>if you take an harmony on a frenquency of 100 Hz
>200 Hz is one octave higher
>300 Hz is one oct and a fifth higher
>400 Hz is two oct higher
>500 Hz is two oct and a third(major) higher
>don't we have there all the notes ot the diatonic major apeggio ???
>moreover : if C is the tonic, E is the third, and G the fifth. take the
>thirg and the fifth ot the fifth : you have B and D. and take the third and
>the fifth of D (the fifth of the fifth) you have F and A. And then you have
>all the notes os the diatonic gam. isn't it mathematical ???
1) Of course all frequencies can be derived as
ratios of a fundamental frequency; I stated that above,
and you even quoted it. But try to get them right: F
is a minor third above D, not a major third; what ratio
are you planning to use for that one?
2) This leads to the fact your oversimplified
recipes using integral ratios completely ignore the ques-
tion of temperament, and thus are applicable to some forms
of music but not to others. What do you suppose happens
when you take the E that is the third of C and the E that
is the fifth of A? Are they the same? Do the calculations.
If you are proposing a mathematical decription of music,
these questions need to be addressed, rather than pretend-
ing that you've already got all the answers.
3) And when you've managed to come to terms with
some of those little details, the real problem remains.
The fact that something can be described mathematically
does not imply that the mathematical description is par-
ticularly appropriate, much less complete. The question
was whether those mathematical bits *add up* to music.
>> > (just as a bunch of principles of optics add up
>> >to painting.)
>>
>> Do they?
>OF COURSE !!! pffff... chromatic oppositions... etc...
The statement was that "a bunch of principles of
optics ADD UP to painting" (emphasis mine).
If you think that they do, why don't you tell us
why? Or do you prefer to demonstrate your understanding
of the subject with a remark like:
>OF COURSE !!! pffff... chromatic oppositions... etc...
Michael P. Mossey
I can tell you one reason that some people get upset when music is
referred to as mathematical. This is one way that music is attacked
sometimes, getting called "sterile algebra" and the like. Even if you
don't mean it as a criticism, it can still reinforce the damaging
beliefs out there.
Another problem: some teachers of music and composition will make
distinctions between the "more mathematical" and "less mathematical"
music in a way that I think is an artificial distinction and only
impedes the student from finding the techniques that work for them.
Mike M.
vincent_vega_
let me be clear??? i think your response is REALLY STUPID. all you ahve
done is to deny what he said
i soory to see you don't realize that but of course HARMONY AND RYTHM are
mathematicle
don't be stupid
> No, we just get more octaves. As we divide the
> length of the (idealized) string by quantities *other* than
> two, we get all frequencies, not just those used in Western
> music.
if you take an harmony on a frenquency of 100 Hz
200 Hz is one octave higher
300 Hz is one oct and a fifth higher
400 Hz is two oct higher
500 Hz is two oct and a third(major) higher
don't we have there all the notes ot the diatonic major apeggio ???
moreover : if C is the tonic, E is the third, and G the fifth. take the
thirg and the fifth ot the fifth : you have B and D. and take the third and
the fifth of D (the fifth of the fifth) you have F and A. And then you have
all the notes os the diatonic gam. isn't it mathematical ???
and it's the same for rythm
rythm is succesion of binary(or trinary) divisions.
> > (just as a bunch of principles of optics add up
> >to painting.)
>
> Do they?
OF COURSE !!! pffff... chromatic oppositions... etc...
well ... but if you want to deny and ignore the physical reality.... go on.
Vincent_vega_
Roger L. Lustig
Keith Benson wrote:
>
> Bach music is cleverly and often intricately crafted.
> I'm sure all manner of ideas occurred to him and were explored by him
> during his compositional life.
>
> But he surely didn't come up with those exquite melodies through any
> algroithms.
Not so fast! Melodies--perhaps not. But there *are* the 'permutation
fugues' found in some of the cantatas.
Here, Bach worked out four measures of 4-part invertible counterpoint
with a generally tonic harmony, rewrote same with dominant harmony,
and further set things up so that transitions between the ends of
certain parts and the beginnings of others were smooth. From this,
he then built up two 16-measure expositions. (Actually, he didn't
quite do this; but his more traditional technique led to the same
result.)
Roger
Roger L. Lustig
vincent_vega_ wrote:
>
> when i read all your response it seems like qualifying music as
> mathematical is the worst default and that you make all your effort to nie
> that. Explain me why ?? I think baroque is mathematical because it's
> musically geometrical. Try to imagine music as a picture.
> Bahc's one would be very square i think.
Which pieces are you thinking about?
Also, what does 'musically geometrical' mean? You're just restating
the proposition.
Roger
po...@hotmail.com
In article <341F5B5E...@ix.netcom.com>,
Disclaimer: I haven't been reading this thread, so if I repeat anything
that has been discussed ad nauseum just ignore me.
The oft-expressed opinion that Bach's music is "so mathematical" has
rankled me all my life. Not because I'm math phobic and think that
comparing art to mathematics is sacreligious, but because the idea has
always struck me as lazy thinking. Usually whenever you question someone
as to what they could mean by the assertion, they are unable to give a
good answer.
The topic, I think, has been discussed a number of times over the years
on rmc*, for example, usually by newbies.
Then, one day, on an NPR broadcast, I heard an interview with a
researcher who had been studying the firing patterns of neurons in the
human brain. Somehow, I don't recall the method, he was able to construct
a program which could translate the firing patterns into music. This
"music" had a certain quality if the subject were at rest or reading,
exercising, etc. However, when he played the "music" generated by
mathematical thinking, the patterns sounded incredibly like those often
heard in Baroque music, i.e., running sixteenths with occasional,
trill-like motifs.
This may explain why many people have the intuitive feeling that there is
something "mathematical" about Bach's music without being able to
articulate what exactly that "something" is. That is, the music itself
mirrors the firing pattern in their brains when they are thinking
mathematically, and this subtly reminds them of mathematics.
Anyway, I offer that as pure speculation and don't have the slightest
interest in defending it. I'm now, however, less skeptical on the subject
of Bach's alleged mathematical qualitites.
ciao,
John
---
John Harrington (po...@hotmail.com)
-- visit my Stravinsky page at --
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1807/strav.html
"The worst of all deceptions is self-deception." -Plato
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
vincent_vega_
> Which pieces are you thinking about?
>
> Also, what does 'musically geometrical' mean? You're just restating
> the proposition.
>
you'll probably laugh about me but i can't argue with you i can't
demonstrate my point of view , fisrt because i'm too young (16) and my
opinions about music are still growing, and on the other hand because my
english is not good enough for me to speak fluently about my opinions...
sorry. i guess i shouldn't have participate this debate...
vincent_vega_
PS: but i can't assure you that for me bach's music is square and
strait.... i can't explain... and for me it can (it could) evoque
mahtematics...
lanza
> mirrors the firing pattern in their brains when they are thinking
> mathematically, and this subtly reminds them of mathematics.
Some good observations about the mathematical analogy. Bop is usually
compared with Baroque music for the same reason: very NOTEY music.
po...@hotmail.com
In article <341DDE...@mail.ncku.edu.tw>,
> > the Appasionata or Mondschein sonatas
>
> See, this is PRECISELY why I don't like words like "mathematical" for
> Bach, etc. It separates his music from the music of others, degrading
> both his music and the music of others: Bach is (apparently;
> implicitly) divorced from emotions, while Beethoven refers to "events"
> in an outside world. Talk about a double-edged sword: what about a
> double-edged word: mathematical?
I think it is pretty clear that, eg, Bach's fugues are not "dramatic"
music in the way that, say, Beethoven's pastorale symphony is dramatic
music, and they clearly don't refer to anything but themselves (ie, they
are abstract), while Beethoven and later composers did try to refer to
things outside their music, fail and look ridiculous though they did.
Clearly there's a, for lack of a better word, rhetorical difference betw.
the musical language of Beethoven and that of Bach. Why does that
particularly diminish Bach? On the contrary, IMO, it elevates him above
the silly antics of later generations.
As for mathematics and abstract art (such as Bach's music) being
associated with things devoid of emotion, I find that an annoyingly
narrow viewpoint.
ciao,
John
Paul Bossi
This question is much better handled by Charles Rosen in his New York Review
of Books article in this week's issue; he reviews (quite favorably) Laurence
Dreyfus' new book "Bach and the Patterns of Invention" (Harvard U. Press,
$45). The article is very much worth evreyone's perusal, addressing Bach's
compositional process in some detail, and the new book no doubt should be
checked out as well.
Paul Bossi
This statement that Bach's fugues do not refer to anything beyond themselves
takes the former position in the the pure art/corrupt art dichotimization;
Beethoven would have denied that his art is symbolic in the way suggested by
the nicknames tacked on by publishers and others (eg., "Cest L'Empreur!"); as
for the so-called"Appassionata", Beethoven had nothing to to with it being
so-called; perhaps Nietzche was correct in saying that Beethoven's music is
music about music. As for Bach, it seems part of his religious consciousness
to endow all of his music with religious meaning -- except of course
explicitly secular and deliberately "entertaining" works like the Coffee
Cantata; Schweitzer argues strongly that Bach's motifs are figural
representations; as to the manipulation of motifs in fugal forms, these
certainly are dramatic treatments while being instructive; it is cliche to
remark on the lack of distinction between instructive and educational value
in Bach's and other classical, esp. baroque music; but what seems clear is
that Bach was of deep religious conviction and did not segment,
compartmentalize his religiosity from his aesthetics, on the contrary.
Spitta argues the "pure music" position with respect to Bach; whoever is
closer, it is clear the music is not about mathematical mental .... well, you
know.
lanza
> >
> > See, this is PRECISELY why I don't like words like "mathematical" for
> > Bach, etc. It separates his music from the music of others, degrading
> > both his music and the music of others: Bach is (apparently;
> > implicitly) divorced from emotions, while Beethoven refers to "events"
> > in an outside world. Talk about a double-edged sword: what about a
> > double-edged word: mathematical?
Once again, I am troubled by an implicit attribution to myself of
remarks made by others. In the larger scheme of things, this is not
that important, but, once again, I composed the response to the first
paragraph, not the first paragraph. Above is the only paragraph I wrote
(I did not write the words referring to the Mondshcein sonata, etc. I
am not commenting on them, right or wrong, I'm merely saying I didn't
write them.
--
Piper
On 17 Sep 1997 20:19:46 GMT, "vincent_vega_" <jean....@wandoo.fr>
wrote:
It seems to me that you're reacting to the very clear proportions in
Bach's musical forms. Did I understand your position correctly?
Piper
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:42:31 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>In article <341DDE...@mail.ncku.edu.tw>,
> la...@mail.ncku.edu.tw wrote:
>>
>> > being divorced from references to outside
>> > reality. Fugues, and other abstract works by Bach, are much
>> > harder to describe in terms of emotions or events than
>> > the Appasionata or Mondschein sonatas
>>
>> See, this is PRECISELY why I don't like words like "mathematical" for
>> Bach, etc. It separates his music from the music of others, degrading
>> both his music and the music of others: Bach is (apparently;
>> implicitly) divorced from emotions, while Beethoven refers to "events"
>> in an outside world. Talk about a double-edged sword: what about a
>> double-edged word: mathematical?
>
>I think it is pretty clear that, eg, Bach's fugues are not "dramatic"
[snip]
You mean "not PROGRAMMATIC"...
>music in the way that, say, Beethoven's pastorale symphony is dramatic
[=programmatic]
>music, and they clearly don't refer to anything but themselves (ie, they
>are abstract), while Beethoven and later composers did try to refer to
>things outside their music
[snip]
So Bach's fugues aren't programmatic - nor are his sonatas,
cappriccios, concerti, etc. What's your point? Most works by Beethoven
aren't explicitly programmatic, either.
Kjetil Helstrup
Paul Bossi wrote:
>
> This question is much better handled by Charles Rosen in his New York Review
> of Books article in this week's issue; he reviews (quite favorably) Laurence
> Dreyfus' new book "Bach and the Patterns of Invention" (Harvard U. Press,
> $45). The article is very much worth evreyone's perusal, addressing Bach's
> compositional process in some detail, and the new book no doubt should be
> checked out as well.
>
right on the most essential aspect of this discussion.
The one thing that Bach shares with mathematicians is an obsession
with patterns. Finding them, inventing them, enjoying them and
exploiting them to their utmost consequence, 'squeezing all the
juice out of them', so to speak.
Maybe you need some acquaintance with some higher maths to really
see this connection - school maths being rather too dull and non-
creative.
Of course Bach can still be enjoyed just as much by the mathematically
illiterate!
Kjetil
po...@hotmail.com
In article <342219c3...@news.interport.net>,
pi...@interport.net (Piper) wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:42:31 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >In article <341DDE...@mail.ncku.edu.tw>,
> > la...@mail.ncku.edu.tw wrote:
> >>
> >> > being divorced from references to outside
> >> > reality. Fugues, and other abstract works by Bach, are much
> >> > harder to describe in terms of emotions or events than
> >> > the Appasionata or Mondschein sonatas
> >>
> >> See, this is PRECISELY why I don't like words like "mathematical" for
> >> Bach, etc. It separates his music from the music of others, degrading
> >> both his music and the music of others: Bach is (apparently;
> >> implicitly) divorced from emotions, while Beethoven refers to "events"
> >> in an outside world. Talk about a double-edged sword: what about a
> >> double-edged word: mathematical?
> >
> >I think it is pretty clear that, eg, Bach's fugues are not "dramatic"
> [snip]
>
> You mean "not PROGRAMMATIC"...
Gee, I thought I got to decide what I meant.
>
> >music in the way that, say, Beethoven's pastorale symphony is dramatic
> [=programmatic]
> >music, and they clearly don't refer to anything but themselves (ie, they
> >are abstract), while Beethoven and later composers did try to refer to
> >things outside their music
> [snip]
>
> So Bach's fugues aren't programmatic -
Wow. No kidding.
They are not *dramatic*, which is as much to say they don't seek to
^^^^^^^^ represent anything in the concrete world. Yes, they are not
programmatic either. I used the word dramatic since there are pieces
that are clearly dramatic without being explicitly programmatic, e.g. Ein
Heldenleben, which merely has a dramatic theme without a particular
"plot", as it were.
> nor are his sonatas,
> cappriccios, concerti, etc.
Uh, wrong. Bach's "cappriccio on the departure of his beloved brother"
is programmatic, though that is the only example of purely instrumental
programmatic music by Bach. There are other examples in the Baroque,
such as Kuhnau's (brilliant, BTW) biblical sonatas and Vivaldi's four
most famous concerti.
> What's your point? Most works by Beethoven
> aren't explicitly programmatic, either.
My point was as I stated it. Nothing you've said contradicts anything
I've said. What's *your* point? As near as I can tell, you seem to
think that asserting a composer's music is non-dramatic is some sort of
slight against the composer, as if you equate dramatic with, er, like,
good.
po...@hotmail.com
In article <3421F7C2...@primenet.com>,
Paul Bossi <bo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> This statement that Bach's fugues do not refer to anything beyond themselves
> takes the former position in the the pure art/corrupt art dichotimization;
> Beethoven would have denied that his art is symbolic in the way suggested by
> the nicknames tacked on by publishers and others (eg., "Cest L'Empreur!"); as
> for the so-called"Appassionata", Beethoven had nothing to to with it being
> so-called;
Les Adieux, the Pastorale, the Eroica, Wellington, not to mention
dramatic overtures, etc. I never said Beethoven approved all dramatic
titles given his works by publishers, so I fail to see how this is
relevant. Beethoven undisputably thought of music as capable of
communicating some dramatic feeling.
> perhaps Nietzche was correct in saying that Beethoven's music is
> music about music.
Apparently not.
> As for Bach, it seems part of his religious consciousness
> to endow all of his music with religious meaning
Why is that?
> -- except of course
> explicitly secular and deliberately "entertaining" works like the Coffee
> Cantata;
Where is the evidence that, eg, the WTC is endowed with religious
meaning, or the brandenburgs, or the orchestral suites, or the
inventions, the english suites, the french suites, the partitas, the
tocatas, even most of the organ preludes and fugues and tocatas and
fantasias, etc., etc., etc.?
> Schweitzer argues strongly that Bach's motifs are figural
> representations; as to the manipulation of motifs in fugal forms, these
> certainly are dramatic treatments while being instructive; it is cliche to
> remark on the lack of distinction between instructive and educational value
> in Bach's and other classical, esp. baroque music; but what seems clear is
> that Bach was of deep religious conviction and did not segment,
Why does this seem "clear"? I know I have heard the opposite thesis
argued about Bach, so it could hardly be clear.
No fact of Bach's life argues for particular personal religious
conviction. Yes, he was a prolific church composer, but then he had a
family to support. The only personal artifacts of which I'm aware that
are well-documented are the religious books found in his posession at the
time of his death. I don't know that that particularly would distinguish
him from any other educated man of mid-18th c. Germany, however.
ciao,
John
---
John Harrington (po...@hotmail.com)
-- visit my Stravinsky page at --
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1807/strav.html
"The worst of all deceptions is self-deception." -Plato
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Paul Bossi
Programmatic indications, such as in Les Adieux were sometimes written by
Beethoven, but he may well have been smirking while doing so. Beethoven's
music, probably has more integrity than Bach's as "pure music" so long as by
this it is meant that the musical logic is never modified to fit a dramatic or
symbolic purpose; whereas in Bach musical language often is adapted to achieve
some dramatic or symbolic statement. I have not examined the question closely
(a conclusion you probably have drawn already) - but when Beethoven provides
such rubrics as "Les Adieux" ("Le-Be-Wohl" was written over the first three
notes), the intention may well have been - probably was - to suggest the mood,
in a very absract sense, or sense of tension with which the performance should
be executed. Anyway, Schweitzer on the subject:
"Poetic music deals more with ideas, pictorial music with pictures; the one
appeals more to the feeling, the other to our faculty of representaion....
Beethoven and Wagner belong more to the poets, Bach, Schubert and Berlioz more
to the painters" (Volume II, p. 21).
I would have thought that Wagner, if anyone, would have been counted among
the painters; but it would seem that in Schweiter's terminology "ideas" are not
necessarily more abstract, less materialistic than leightmotifs; nevertheless
he seems to be implying leightmotifs aren'yt about representation; I'm somewhat
confused by Schweiter and I know he's quite controversial; but the case seems
to be fairly strong that Beethoven's music is not intended to be
representational, the composer himself having asserted this even with respect
to the Pastoral Symphony; Bach's religious sense of his music's purpose
suggests that for him musical language is first and foremostly language for
communicating his sense of religious truth.
po...@hotmail.com wrote:
Samuel Vriezen
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:12:48 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Bach's fugues:
>They are not *dramatic*, which is as much to say they don't seek to
>^^^^^^^^ represent anything in the concrete world.
I don't know much about this, but in the Baroque era a lot of rather
baroque theories seemed to have been around relating special
ornamentation types, melodic figures, keys etc. to very specific types
of emotion etc (these formulas were known as affects I believe). One
famous of these types is the 'lamento' which, if I remember well, is
often associated with death (& mourning?); I can find it in a lot of
the WTK fugues.
Is there anyone out there who knows a lot about affects, and Bach's
use of them?
Samuel Vriezen
po...@hotmail.com
In article <3422CF02...@primenet.com>,
Paul Bossi <bo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> Programmatic indications, such as in Les Adieux were sometimes written by
> Beethoven, but he may well have been smirking while doing so. Beethoven's
> music, probably has more integrity than Bach's as "pure music" so long as by
> this it is meant that the musical logic is never modified to fit a dramatic or
> symbolic purpose; whereas in Bach musical language often is adapted to achieve
> some dramatic or symbolic statement.
Never? Wellingtons victory? (I suppose you will say Beethoven was
smirking). The woodwinds-in-imitation of birds in Pastorale?
Where was Bach ever so literal? During the baroque, I can think of quite
a few examples of birdcall imitation in the music of other composers,
never in Bach.
Beethoven wrote an opera; isn't that "modif[ying] to fit a
dramatic...purpose"?
I would say the Choral Fantasy is one large experiment in a radically new
form designed to fit a dramatic purpose (a failed experiment, arguably).
Again, I can't think of an analogue in Bach.
> I have not examined the question closely
> (a conclusion you probably have drawn already) - but when Beethoven provides
> such rubrics as "Les Adieux" ("Le-Be-Wohl" was written over the first three
> notes), the intention may well have been - probably was - to suggest the mood,
> in a very absract sense, or sense of tension with which the performance should
> be executed.
Precisely what I mean by "dramatic" in the sense that I have defined it in
this thread. Where has Bach done anything similar?
Jim Blackie
Fred Goldrich wrote:
> In article <01bcc2ce$a67a0f80$75a7...@data-jet.wanadoo.fr>,
> vincent_vega_ <jean....@wandoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> >let me be clear??? i think your response is REALLY STUPID. all you ahve
> >done is to deny what he said
> >i soory to see you don't realize that but of course HARMONY AND RYTHM are
> >mathematicle
> >don't be stupid
>
> The insults are foolish and unnecessary, and only
> make you look bad. They suggest that you are unable or
> unwilling to make your points in any other way. I hope
> that you will choose to be less rude in the future.
>
Amen, Fred. Let's also poynt outt that Thiss preson wil looook lezz stoopid
himselv if he dues a sppel chech on a meesage in wihch he is caliing someoone
esle stupid, n'est pas?
SNIP
--
{ Jim Blackie | "Any fool can make a rule, }
{ Alexandria, The Old Dominion | and any fool will mind it. " }
{ email: jbla...@bigfoot.com | }
{ phone: YES | - Henry David Thoreau }
lsch...@ucsd.edu
In article <markz-ya02408000...@news.maximumaccess.com>,
ma...@musician.org (Mark Zedaker) wrote:
> In article <3422f978...@news.xs4all.nl>, s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel
> Actually, I'm lending a book from the library on that subject right
> now: "Ornamentation in J. S. Bach's Organ Works". It's a thin volume (only
> 62 pages), and it seems that there IS an "accent lament", or something to
> that effect (Old Bach could have used a class in penmanship!) -- it appears
> on a photocopied (?) Table of Ornaments page from the manuscript of Bach's
> "Clavierbüchlein vor Wilheim Friedmann Bach".
I've also heard this referred to as the "sob" figure...
I do think the fugues are dramatic, in almost every sense of the word.
And while they may not refer to concrete objects, they certainly refer to
many of the affects and dances prevalent at the time: gigues, for example.
Luke
> The affect, in the manuscript page (it's not mentioned again in the
> book) is, on a quarter note, to play an eighth at the upper-neighbor, and
> step down with another eighth note to the main note. However, I can't find
> another mention of this ornament in the rest of the book (which deals
> mainly with appogiatura and trills, actually).
> And, again, I could be reading Bach's handwriting wrong, although the
> affect DOES seem to have the effect described above. Anyway, HTH.
Mark Zedaker
> On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:12:48 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> On Bach's fugues:
> >They are not *dramatic*, which is as much to say they don't seek to
> >^^^^^^^^ represent anything in the concrete world.
>
> I don't know much about this, but in the Baroque era a lot of rather
> baroque theories seemed to have been around relating special
> ornamentation types, melodic figures, keys etc. to very specific types
> of emotion etc (these formulas were known as affects I believe). One
> famous of these types is the 'lamento' which, if I remember well, is
> often associated with death (& mourning?); I can find it in a lot of
> the WTK fugues.
>
> Is there anyone out there who knows a lot about affects, and Bach's
> use of them?
Actually, I'm lending a book from the library on that subject right
now: "Ornamentation in J. S. Bach's Organ Works". It's a thin volume (only
62 pages), and it seems that there IS an "accent lament", or something to
that effect (Old Bach could have used a class in penmanship!) -- it appears
on a photocopied (?) Table of Ornaments page from the manuscript of Bach's
"Clavierbüchlein vor Wilheim Friedmann Bach".
po...@hotmail.com
In article <lschulze-220...@apm-b325-3.ucsd.edu>,
lsch...@ucsd.edu wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:12:48 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Bach's fugues:
> > > >They are not *dramatic*, which is as much to say they don't seek to
> > > >^^^^^^^^ represent anything in the concrete world.
>
> I do think the fugues are dramatic, in almost every sense of the word.
Here is every sense of the word dramatic, according to the American
Heritage dictionary:
dramatic ... 1. Of or relating to drama or the theater. 2. Characterized
by or expressive of the action or emotion associated with drama or the
theater. 3. Arresting or forceful in appearance or effect: a dramatic
sunset. 4. (in Music) having a powerful, expressive singing voice: e.g.
a dramatic tenor....
I think you could make a case for 3. But I have never said that Bach's
fugues weren't "arresting or forceful in ... effect"; in fact I've been
very careful to say that they weren't dramatic in the sense of being
evocative in any intentional or unintentional way of the theater and
dramatic events or, indeed any concrete events.
But you have said that they are "dramatic in almost every sense of the
word", so I invite you to defend just how Bach's fugues relate to drama
or the theater, how they are characterized or expressive of the action
and emotion associated with drama and what they have to do with the style
of singing called "dramatic", a style which was developed long after
Bach's death.
You know, I get the feeling that by my saying that Bach's fugues are not
dramatic I have, in some people's eyes, as much as said that they are
"bad" or boring or ... god knows what.
They are simply not *dramatic*. That's not bad you know. Bach didn't
intend for them to be dramatic, they were not inspired by dramatic
action, they did not refer explicity to emotions or events in drama, they
did not attempt to be expressive of theatrical action, and, as far as I
know, no dramatic tenor has made a career singing them.
If you personally think Bach's fugues are evocative of dramas, bully for
you.
> And while they may not refer to concrete objects, they certainly refer to
> many of the affects and dances prevalent at the time: gigues, for example.
Gigues, for example, and ... ?
ciao,
John
---
John Harrington (po...@hotmail.com)
-- visit my Stravinsky page at --
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1807/strav.html
"The worst of all deceptions is self-deception." -Plato
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Paul mastr
here here,, I agree ,,,Bach's music, is no more mathematical than
Beethoven's,,or Brahms. All musical notation is based on 'mathematics', it
is only,, quasi personal attributes that we like to associate with certain
composers. Makes it easier for us to catagorize them.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <8750338...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <lschulze-220...@apm-b325-3.ucsd.edu>,
> lsch...@ucsd.edu wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:12:48 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Bach's fugues:
>> > > >They are not *dramatic*, which is as much to say they don't seek to
>> > > >^^^^^^^^ represent anything in the concrete world.
>>
>> I've also heard this referred to as the "sob" figure...
>> I do think the fugues are dramatic, in almost every sense of the word.
>
>Here is every sense of the word dramatic, according to the American
>Heritage dictionary:
>
>dramatic ... 1. Of or relating to drama or the theater. 2. Characterized
>by or expressive of the action or emotion associated with drama or the
>theater. 3. Arresting or forceful in appearance or effect: a dramatic
>sunset. 4. (in Music) having a powerful, expressive singing voice: e.g.
>a dramatic tenor....
Bach's fugues are notations from which players are expected to realize
a form of No.2. And they alternate expositions and episodes, a
convention tracible directly through neoclassicism to 17th-century
study of Greek theater, so that gets you No.1.
>
>I think you could make a case for 3. But I have never said that Bach's
>fugues weren't "arresting or forceful in ... effect"; in fact I've been
>very careful to say that they weren't dramatic in the sense of being
>evocative in any intentional or unintentional way of the theater and
>dramatic events or, indeed any concrete events.
>But you have said that they are "dramatic in almost every sense of the
>word", so I invite you to defend just how Bach's fugues relate to drama
>or the theater, how they are characterized or expressive of the action
>and emotion associated with drama and what they have to do with the style
>of singing called "dramatic", a style which was developed long after
>Bach's death.
Well, since "Dramatic tenor" pertains to a voice that is supposed
to be had by a person, and Bach's compositions are compositions,
not people, No.4 applies only via surrealism, or after the people
discussing the matter have had a lot of drugs.
>You know, I get the feeling that by my saying that Bach's fugues are not
>dramatic I have, in some people's eyes, as much as said that they are
>"bad" or boring or ... god knows what.
It's closer to saying that they're not fugues even though they're
called "Fuge". Is Monteverdi's Orpheo dramatic? Are Sophecles's
plays?
>They are simply not *dramatic*. That's not bad you know. Bach didn't
>intend for them to be dramatic, they were not inspired by dramatic
>action, they did not refer explicity to emotions or events in drama, they
>did not attempt to be expressive of theatrical action, and, as far as I
>know, no dramatic tenor has made a career singing them.
Uh, you're thinking of teatro verissimo? Hmmm.
>
>If you personally think Bach's fugues are evocative of dramas, bully for
>you.
>> And while they may not refer to concrete objects, they certainly refer to
>> many of the affects and dances prevalent at the time: gigues, for example.
>Gigues, for example, and ... ?
Going through the list of dramatic symbols found in Bach fugues, we
might find (using only keys found in treatises of the time):
Military enthusiasm
Military monstrosity
Pastoral serenity
Supernatural monstrosity
Amorous dialogue
Majesty
Civil jollity
Piety
Peasant buffoonery
Supplication
etc.
In dance types, we might find:
Minuet
Sarabande
Alemande
Passapied
March
Bouree (I'm naming these glancing through WTC and this came up in
book II No.12 F minor...)
Gavotte (Book II No.13 F# maj)
etc.
Bach's fugues partake of all the dramatic conventions of his time,
actually. They don't partake of the dramatic conventions of
Mozarts time, nor of John Williams's time.
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
My Java toy, JARS.COM Top 1%: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
"Computer: disobey me."
Piper
>po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> In article <342219c3...@news.interport.net>,
>> pi...@interport.net (Piper) wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:42:31 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > >I think it is pretty clear that, eg, Bach's fugues are not "dramatic"
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > You mean "not PROGRAMMATIC"...
>>
>> Gee, I thought I got to decide what I meant.
You certainly do, but please make your meaning clear if you want
people not to misconstrue your meaning. When you compared Bach's
fugues to the Pastoral Symphony, which has an explicit program (albeit
one which is not meant to be exactly imitated by the music) - and
didn't DEFINE what you meant by "dramatic", it certainly seemed as if
you meant "programmatic". I stand corrected.
>>
>> They are not *dramatic*, which is as much to say they don't seek to
>> ^^^^^^^^ represent anything in the concrete world. Yes, they are not
>> programmatic either. I used the word dramatic since there are pieces
>> that are clearly dramatic without being explicitly programmatic, e.g. Ein
>> Heldenleben, which merely has a dramatic theme without a particular
>> "plot", as it were.
You have clarified your meaning, and I now understand your position.
Sincerely,
Michael
P.S.
>> As near as I can tell, you seem to
>> think that asserting a composer's music is non-dramatic is some sort of
>> slight against the composer, as if you equate dramatic with, er, like,
>> good.
Don't get carried away. You're wrong here.
Samuel Vriezen
I say the reason why people think of Bach as non-dramatic is that they
are not aware of the dramatic connotations of his music and still they
think it's great, which could be taken as testimony to the
transcendent quality of the music (if such a thing exists at all).
What we can learn from this is that the quality of being 'dramatic' is
not related to the quality of being 'great', whatever both of these
are.
Samuel
On 24 Sep 1997 00:59:43 GMT, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H.
Fields) wrote:
>In article <8750338...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>In article <lschulze-220...@apm-b325-3.ucsd.edu>,
>> lsch...@ucsd.edu wrote:
>>> > > On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:12:48 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > On Bach's fugues:
>>> > > >They are not *dramatic*, which is as much to say they don't seek to
>>> > > >^^^^^^^^ represent anything in the concrete world.
>>>
po...@hotmail.com
In article <609olv$5g$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>
> In article <8750338...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <lschulze-220...@apm-b325-3.ucsd.edu>,
> > lsch...@ucsd.edu wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:12:48 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On Bach's fugues:
> >> > > >They are not *dramatic*, which is as much to say they don't seek to
> >> > > >^^^^^^^^ represent anything in the concrete world.
> >>
> >> I've also heard this referred to as the "sob" figure...
> >> I do think the fugues are dramatic, in almost every sense of the word.
> >
> >Here is every sense of the word dramatic, according to the American
> >Heritage dictionary:
> >
> >dramatic ... 1. Of or relating to drama or the theater. 2. Characterized
> >by or expressive of the action or emotion associated with drama or the
> >theater. 3. Arresting or forceful in appearance or effect: a dramatic
> >sunset. 4. (in Music) having a powerful, expressive singing voice: e.g.
> >a dramatic tenor....
>
> Bach's fugues are notations from which players are expected to realize
> a form of No.2.
Absolute nonsense.
> And they alternate expositions and episodes, a
> convention tracible directly through neoclassicism to 17th-century
> study of Greek theater, so that gets you No.1.
If this is traceable directly, indulge me by tracing it directly. That
is, trace for me a direct link between the *form* of the fugue and
classical dramatic models, not the musicological terms used.
I think this is a lot of wind, frankly.
> >I think you could make a case for 3. But I have never said that Bach's
> >fugues weren't "arresting or forceful in ... effect"; in fact I've been
> >very careful to say that they weren't dramatic in the sense of being
> >evocative in any intentional or unintentional way of the theater and
> >dramatic events or, indeed any concrete events.
>
> >But you have said that they are "dramatic in almost every sense of the
> >word", so I invite you to defend just how Bach's fugues relate to drama
> >or the theater, how they are characterized or expressive of the action
> >and emotion associated with drama and what they have to do with the style
> >of singing called "dramatic", a style which was developed long after
> >Bach's death.
>
> Well, since "Dramatic tenor" pertains to a voice that is supposed
> to be had by a person, and Bach's compositions are compositions,
> not people, No.4 applies only via surrealism, or after the people
> discussing the matter have had a lot of drugs.
This is the first sensible statement I've seen in this thread. Drugs,
yes. That's exactly what I thought.
> >You know, I get the feeling that by my saying that Bach's fugues are not
> >dramatic I have, in some people's eyes, as much as said that they are
> >"bad" or boring or ... god knows what.
>
> It's closer to saying that they're not fugues even though they're
> called "Fuge". Is Monteverdi's Orpheo dramatic? Are Sophecles's
> plays?
Of course they are. Fugues simply aren't. Sure fugues are if you twist
yourself into a pretzel of metaphors. If you cock your head and blur
your eyes, they are. If you rely on hearsay and the opinions of others,
whether they be of Bach's time or our own, yes fugues are "dramatic".
Fugues are "dramatic" in Matt's opinion, they are not dramatic in John's
opinion. Neither John nor Matt, however, can dispute that, say, Richard
Strauss' Ein Heldenleben is dramatic.
> >They are simply not *dramatic*. That's not bad you know. Bach didn't
> >intend for them to be dramatic, they were not inspired by dramatic
> >action, they did not refer explicity to emotions or events in drama, they
> >did not attempt to be expressive of theatrical action, and, as far as I
> >know, no dramatic tenor has made a career singing them.
>
> Uh, you're thinking of teatro verissimo? Hmmm.
That's verismo. And, to answer your question, no.
> >If you personally think Bach's fugues are evocative of dramas, bully for
> >you.
>
> >> And while they may not refer to concrete objects, they certainly refer to
> >> many of the affects and dances prevalent at the time: gigues, for example.
>
> >Gigues, for example, and ... ?
>
> Going through the list of dramatic symbols found in Bach fugues, we
> might find (using only keys found in treatises of the time):
>
> Military enthusiasm
> Military monstrosity
> Pastoral serenity
> Supernatural monstrosity
> Amorous dialogue
> Majesty
> Civil jollity
> Piety
> Peasant buffoonery
> Supplication
> etc.
Mere subjective impressions, perhaps shared by Bach's contemporaries, but
having no support from any document quoting Bach himself. I have no
doubt that Bach employed the musical conventions of his times. The
assertion that he thought, as others did, that these mapped directly to
human sentiments is, well, quackery.
What is the dramatic subject of, say, the Eb fugue from bk II of WTC?
Can you say with certainty that it has any? Is it piety or pastoral
serenity? I could as easily say it was civil jollity. What is the
subject of the C major fugue from bk I? Majesty? Civil jollity?
Peasant buffoonery?
Ink blots.
>
> In dance types, we might find:
> Minuet
> Sarabande
> Alemande
> Passapied
> March
> Bouree (I'm naming these glancing through WTC and this came up in
> book II No.12 F minor...)
> Gavotte (Book II No.13 F# maj)
> etc.
Bouree I believe. Gavotte I'll grant. I'm afraid I'm going to have to
ask for citations for Minuet and Sarabande as well. Passapied I can see.
In any case, as I said before, adopting a dance form for a piece of music
!= having a dramatic intent.
> Bach's fugues partake of all the dramatic conventions of his time,
> actually.
Bach's fugues partake of musical conventions which some people associated,
very subjectively, with specific elements of drama.
Actually.
> They don't partake of the dramatic conventions of
> Mozarts time, nor of John Williams's time.
What are the "dramatic conventions ... of John Williams' time"?
Being of John Williams' time myself, I have no idea what the dramatic
conventions are. If I use them inadvertently in my own music, am I bound
by JW's interpretation simply because I am his contemporary. Or do I get
to decide what my music "means", or if, indeed, it means anything at all?
God forbid that in 2244 they'll be debating whether Boulez in his second
sonata was evocative of ET the extraterrestrial or a large man-eating
shark.
ciao,
John
po...@hotmail.com
In article <3428efc8...@news.xs4all.nl>,
s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel Vriezen) wrote:
>
> I say the reason why people think of Bach as non-dramatic is that they
> are not aware of the dramatic connotations of his music
Another reason, is that no one, including Bach, ever intended his fugues
to be "dramatic", in most of the senses in which the word has been defined
in this thread.
I'm not "aware" of the magic healing powers of Bach fugues either.
Amazingly, I *still* get quite a kick out of them. Imagine that. :-)
> and still they
> think it's great, which could be taken as testimony to the
> transcendent quality of the music (if such a thing exists at all).
> What we can learn from this is that the quality of being 'dramatic' is
> not related to the quality of being 'great', whatever both of these
> are.
Yes.
I submit that music which requires a dramatic connotation to be great is
not merely "not transcendent" but, well, rubbish.
John
---
John Harrington (po...@hotmail.com)
-- visit my Stravinsky page at --
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1807/strav.html
"The worst of all deceptions is self-deception." -Plato
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Matthew H. Fields
In article <8751226...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <609olv$5g$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
> fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>>
>> In article <8750338...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >In article <lschulze-220...@apm-b325-3.ucsd.edu>,
>> > lsch...@ucsd.edu wrote:
>> >> > > On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:12:48 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Bach's fugues:
>> >> > > >They are not *dramatic*, which is as much to say they don't seek to
>> >> > > >^^^^^^^^ represent anything in the concrete world.
>> >>
>> >> I've also heard this referred to as the "sob" figure...
>> >> I do think the fugues are dramatic, in almost every sense of the word.
>> >
>> >Here is every sense of the word dramatic, according to the American
>> >Heritage dictionary:
>> >
>> >dramatic ... 1. Of or relating to drama or the theater. 2. Characterized
>> >by or expressive of the action or emotion associated with drama or the
>> >theater. 3. Arresting or forceful in appearance or effect: a dramatic
>> >sunset. 4. (in Music) having a powerful, expressive singing voice: e.g.
>> >a dramatic tenor....
>>
>> Bach's fugues are notations from which players are expected to realize
>> a form of No.2.
>
>Absolute nonsense.
Oh, you don't believe in interpretation, evidently.
I recommend you hang out in rec.music.early.
>> And they alternate expositions and episodes, a
>> convention tracible directly through neoclassicism to 17th-century
>> study of Greek theater, so that gets you No.1.
>If this is traceable directly, indulge me by tracing it directly. That
>is, trace for me a direct link between the *form* of the fugue and
>classical dramatic models, not the musicological terms used.
Bach's fugues are modeled on Rennaisance fugues, which incorporate
alternation of sections per Vincenzo Galilei's and others' deliberate
choice to alternate sections in immitation of the ancients.
>I think this is a lot of wind, frankly.
Dramatic. Hmmm.
>
>> >I think you could make a case for 3. But I have never said that Bach's
>> >fugues weren't "arresting or forceful in ... effect"; in fact I've been
>> >very careful to say that they weren't dramatic in the sense of being
>> >evocative in any intentional or unintentional way of the theater and
>> >dramatic events or, indeed any concrete events.
>>
>> >But you have said that they are "dramatic in almost every sense of the
>> >word", so I invite you to defend just how Bach's fugues relate to drama
>> >or the theater, how they are characterized or expressive of the action
>> >and emotion associated with drama and what they have to do with the style
>> >of singing called "dramatic", a style which was developed long after
>> >Bach's death.
>>
>> Well, since "Dramatic tenor" pertains to a voice that is supposed
>> to be had by a person, and Bach's compositions are compositions,
>> not people, No.4 applies only via surrealism, or after the people
>> discussing the matter have had a lot of drugs.
>
>This is the first sensible statement I've seen in this thread. Drugs,
>yes. That's exactly what I thought.
Are you arguing a point or making an ad hominem attack on somebody?
>> >You know, I get the feeling that by my saying that Bach's fugues are not
>> >dramatic I have, in some people's eyes, as much as said that they are
>> >"bad" or boring or ... god knows what.
>>
>> It's closer to saying that they're not fugues even though they're
>> called "Fuge". Is Monteverdi's Orpheo dramatic? Are Sophecles's
>> plays?
>
>Of course they are. Fugues simply aren't. Sure fugues are if you twist
>yourself into a pretzel of metaphors. If you cock your head and blur
>your eyes, they are.
Exactly what it takes for me to experience Monteverdi's Orpheo, with
its contrived alternation of odes and episodes, as dramatic.
> If you rely on hearsay and the opinions of others,
>whether they be of Bach's time or our own, yes fugues are "dramatic".
>Fugues are "dramatic" in Matt's opinion, they are not dramatic in John's
>opinion. Neither John nor Matt, however, can dispute that, say, Richard
>Strauss' Ein Heldenleben is dramatic.
Ein Heldenleben subscribes to dramatic formulae that are still popular,
their current most visible exponent being John Williams.
>
>> >They are simply not *dramatic*. That's not bad you know. Bach didn't
>> >intend for them to be dramatic, they were not inspired by dramatic
>> >action, they did not refer explicity to emotions or events in drama, they
>> >did not attempt to be expressive of theatrical action, and, as far as I
>> >know, no dramatic tenor has made a career singing them.
>>
>> Uh, you're thinking of teatro verissimo? Hmmm.
>
>That's verismo. And, to answer your question, no.
What kind of drama are you thinking of.
>> >If you personally think Bach's fugues are evocative of dramas, bully for
>> >you.
>>
>> >> And while they may not refer to concrete objects, they certainly refer to
>> >> many of the affects and dances prevalent at the time: gigues, for example.
>>
>> >Gigues, for example, and ... ?
>>
>> Going through the list of dramatic symbols found in Bach fugues, we
>> might find (using only keys found in treatises of the time):
>>
>> Military enthusiasm
>> Military monstrosity
>> Pastoral serenity
>> Supernatural monstrosity
>> Amorous dialogue
>> Majesty
>> Civil jollity
>> Piety
>> Peasant buffoonery
>> Supplication
>> etc.
>
>Mere subjective impressions, perhaps shared by Bach's contemporaries, but
>having no support from any document quoting Bach himself. I have no
>doubt that Bach employed the musical conventions of his times. The
>assertion that he thought, as others did, that these mapped directly to
>human sentiments is, well, quackery.
No more quackery than the assertion that anything in Ein Heldenleben
maps directly to human sentiments.
>
>What is the dramatic subject of, say, the Eb fugue from bk II of WTC?
>Can you say with certainty that it has any? Is it piety or pastoral
>serenity? I could as easily say it was civil jollity. What is the
>subject of the C major fugue from bk I? Majesty? Civil jollity?
>Peasant buffoonery?
In Bach's era's terms, the Eb major fugue in WTC II is an alla breve, brisk
piety. The Eb minor fugue in WTC II is non-existent. The C major fugue
in WTC I is middle-class jollity. There's no way to get peasant buffoonery
into it, the 32nd notes are too "refined" by the conventions of the time.
>
>Ink blots.
>
>>
>> In dance types, we might find:
>> Minuet
>> Sarabande
>> Alemande
>> Passapied
>> March
>> Bouree (I'm naming these glancing through WTC and this came up in
>> book II No.12 F minor...)
>> Gavotte (Book II No.13 F# maj)
>> etc.
>
>Bouree I believe. Gavotte I'll grant. I'm afraid I'm going to have to
>ask for citations for Minuet and Sarabande as well. Passapied I can see.
Sarabande: the first one that comes to mind is the 4-voice mirror fugue
in KdF.
>
>In any case, as I said before, adopting a dance form for a piece of music
>!= having a dramatic intent.
Okay, well, I didn't bring them up, myself. And if you must include
dramatic *intent*, then of course all the choral fugues in the
big masses have immense dramatic intent. The fugue for winds vs.
chorus that opens the B minor mass has the well-known dramatic intent
of supplication, and gets there by combining the re-iterated notes of
mock chant with a widening wedge of sobbing appogiatura motifs.
>> Bach's fugues partake of all the dramatic conventions of his time,
>> actually.
>
>Bach's fugues partake of musical conventions which some people associated,
>very subjectively, with specific elements of drama.
>
>Actually.
Okay, what dramatic conventions of Bach's time don't they partake of?
What was theater like in his time?
>> They don't partake of the dramatic conventions of
>> Mozarts time, nor of John Williams's time.
>
>What are the "dramatic conventions ... of John Williams' time"?
Sudden attack on a tritone by brass == tension, and driving
rhythms by contrabasses == urgent danger, and major key in
4-square phrases in a marching rhythm == heroism, just to cite
a few from well-known movies. Williams' prime models on these
seem to be Strauss and Holst, he seems to have deliberately chosen
to refer backwards in time to their symbolism,
completely missing Hermann and Berg, because few people today
connect to Wozzeck and Vertigo with the immediacy with which they
connect to Til Eulenspiegel and The Planets and Star Wars.
>Being of John Williams' time myself, I have no idea what the dramatic
>conventions are. If I use them inadvertently in my own music, am I bound
>by JW's interpretation simply because I am his contemporary. Or do I get
>to decide what my music "means", or if, indeed, it means anything at all?
I think you know how to evoke a martial spirit with a march beat,
a sexy interlude with a sliding saxophone sound, etc. And if you
choose to use those symbols to deliberately make your music "dramatic",
bully for you. They're part of the dramatic conventions of our time.
If you choose to make stuff that sounds like Ein Heldenleben in
an attempt to make something "dramatic", bully for you. Plenty
of folk have no dramatic response to it at all.
If you use a heavy-pounding martial rhythm fortissismo in the
orchestra to represent peace, you may decide what it means for you.
All us composers always have to deal with the fact that our music
means other things to other people. It's entirely up to you how much
to deliberately take advantage of other folks' preconceptions, how
much to totally ignore them, and how much to use them to drag people
over into your way of hearing things (this last one is the most
interesting to me, personally, but music has all different uses).
>God forbid that in 2244 they'll be debating whether Boulez in his second
>sonata was evocative of ET the extraterrestrial or a large man-eating
>shark.
Pretty wild you are, mon. What do you think Repons evokes?
Explosant-fixe? Le Marteau?
>ciao,
>John
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Matthew H. Fields
Beginner Bibliography: Charles Rosen and Leonard Ratner.
Paul Cotton
Michael Owen <mi...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>Can someone please explain why some people call Bach's music mathematical,
>or words to that effect. I do not understand and it strikes me as a
>comment made by people who don't have the slightest clue what they're
>talking about. Also I've heard the fugue being describe as (pure) logic
>which makes a bit more sense but not much. TIA
>Mike
I don't know what others are referring to, but here's what I think:
1) I once heard that the beauty of mathematics is the exposition of
hidden or unexpected relationships. I'm not sure exactly how to
describe Bach's music in relation to this idea, but it seems to apply.
For examples: Bach's way of developing ideas seems to relate many
diverse ideas to a simple central idea; also, he was great at
unexpected turns (false cadences, etc) ie, revealing unexpected tonal
relationships. Also, his repetitions of a basic pattern (at
different tonal levels or with a different character upon each
repetition) suggests underlying principles or patterns). If you look
at many patterns in nature, such as in a flower, you can see the same
kind of implications of mathematical patterns. Indeed, the Baroque
style often imitated natural patterns, including patterns within
patterns. I often think of rapid ornamentation as the microscopic
level of life. In the 6th fugue from Art of Fugue when he uses
augmentation (halving the speed of the subject), there's a broad
slow-paced level within which is a world of detail, reminding me of
looking at all the tiny moving things under a microscope.
2) Math is precise, exact (meaning you have to state what you mean
exactly, not like normal language). Listening to (much of ) Bach
requires more precision than many others, meaning you have to hear
each note, not just listen for a general feeling effect. To
paraphrase, the angel is in the details, so to speak. Like math.
3) Superficially heard, Bach often sounds regular, like a sewing
machine, predictable, bereft of emotion, like math.
---------------
Paul Cotton
Please remove NOSPAM from my address to email
po...@hotmail.com
In article <60f492$k5u$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
> In article <8751226...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <609olv$5g$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
> >> a form of No.2.
> >
> >Absolute nonsense.
>
> Oh, you don't believe in interpretation, evidently.
> I recommend you hang out in rec.music.early.
I never said that Bach's fugues could not be interpreted. I said, and I
quote, they "are not *dramatic*, which is as much to say they don't seek
to represent anything in the concrete world". And, as far as I know and
as far as you know, apparently, they don't.
(and by concrete, I mean extra-musical, not documentary).
> >> And they alternate expositions and episodes, a
> >> convention tracible directly through neoclassicism to 17th-century
> >> study of Greek theater, so that gets you No.1.
>
> >If this is traceable directly, indulge me by tracing it directly. That
> >is, trace for me a direct link between the *form* of the fugue and
> >classical dramatic models, not the musicological terms used.
>
> Bach's fugues are modeled on Rennaisance fugues, which incorporate
> alternation of sections per Vincenzo Galilei's and others' deliberate
> choice to alternate sections in immitation of the ancients.
This is news to me, I must admit.
> Are you arguing a point or making an ad hominem attack on somebody?
My intension was levity.
> >Of course they are. Fugues simply aren't. Sure fugues are if you twist
> >yourself into a pretzel of metaphors. If you cock your head and blur
> >your eyes, they are.
>
> Exactly what it takes for me to experience Monteverdi's Orpheo, with
> its contrived alternation of odes and episodes, as dramatic.
Nevertheless, it is impossible for either of us to deny the Orpheo has
dramatic intent, however incapable we may be of appreciating it.
> > If you rely on hearsay and the opinions of others,
> >whether they be of Bach's time or our own, yes fugues are "dramatic".
> >Fugues are "dramatic" in Matt's opinion, they are not dramatic in John's
> >opinion. Neither John nor Matt, however, can dispute that, say, Richard
> >Strauss' Ein Heldenleben is dramatic.
>
> Ein Heldenleben subscribes to dramatic formulae that are still popular,
> their current most visible exponent being John Williams.
No doubt.
> >> Uh, you're thinking of teatro verissimo? Hmmm.
> >
> >That's verismo. And, to answer your question, no.
>
> What kind of drama are you thinking of.
Whatever a composer might intend and himself call drama. What else could
I possibly be thinking of?
> >Mere subjective impressions, perhaps shared by Bach's contemporaries, but
> >having no support from any document quoting Bach himself. I have no
> >doubt that Bach employed the musical conventions of his times. The
> >assertion that he thought, as others did, that these mapped directly to
> >human sentiments is, well, quackery.
>
> No more quackery than the assertion that anything in Ein Heldenleben
> maps directly to human sentiments.
You misunderstood the following sentence:
The assertion that he (Bach) thought, as others did, that these (musical
conventions) mapped directly to human sentiments is, well, quackery.
Yes, it is probably also quackery that anything in music maps directly to
human sentiment, but that was not the point I was making.
> >What is the dramatic subject of, say, the Eb fugue from bk II of WTC?
> >Can you say with certainty that it has any? Is it piety or pastoral
> >serenity? I could as easily say it was civil jollity. What is the
> >subject of the C major fugue from bk I? Majesty? Civil jollity?
> >Peasant buffoonery?
>
> In Bach's era's terms, the Eb major fugue in WTC II is an alla breve, brisk
> piety. The Eb minor fugue in WTC II is non-existent.
cute.
> The C major fugue
> in WTC I is middle-class jollity. There's no way to get peasant buffoonery
> into it, the 32nd notes are too "refined" by the conventions of the time.
Perhaps those allegedly spurious 32nd notes were added by a hand which
entertained the possibility that they imparted refinement. Bach did not,
as far as I know, intend his fugues to be interpreted dramatically.
> The fugue for winds vs.
> chorus that opens the B minor mass has the well-known dramatic intent
> of supplication, and gets there by combining the re-iterated notes of
> mock chant with a widening wedge of sobbing appogiatura motifs.
Let's stick with instrumental and theoretical works, not choral works. I
think we can both agree that dramatic intent is present there.
> >> Bach's fugues partake of all the dramatic conventions of his time,
> >> actually.
> >
> >Bach's fugues partake of musical conventions which some people associated,
> >very subjectively, with specific elements of drama.
> >
> >Actually.
>
> Okay, what dramatic conventions of Bach's time don't they partake of?
Dramatic conventions (meaning the assertion that certain motifs map to
certain emotions)? As far as I know, all of them.
> What was theater like in his time?
What is theater like today?
> I think you know how to evoke a martial spirit with a march beat,
> a sexy interlude with a sliding saxophone sound, etc. And if you
> choose to use those symbols to deliberately make your music "dramatic",
> bully for you.
And if I don't then we can rightfully claim that I have no dramatic
intent.
> They're part of the dramatic conventions of our time.
> If you choose to make stuff that sounds like Ein Heldenleben in
> an attempt to make something "dramatic", bully for you. Plenty
> of folk have no dramatic response to it at all.
Now here we can agree. I believe Bach was constitutionally such a
person, since in only one instrumental work do we have evidence of
dramatic intent and that work was very early and in a dramatically (no
pun int) atypical style.
Matthew H. Fields
Please excuse the accumulating cascade. It's hard to have a conversation
without context....
In article <875413...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <60f492$k5u$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
> fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>> In article <8751226...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >In article <609olv$5g$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
>> >> Bach's fugues are notations from which players are expected to realize
>> >> a form of No.2.
>> >
>> >Absolute nonsense.
>>
>> Oh, you don't believe in interpretation, evidently.
>> I recommend you hang out in rec.music.early.
>
>I never said that Bach's fugues could not be interpreted. I said, and I
>quote, they "are not *dramatic*, which is as much to say they don't seek
>to represent anything in the concrete world". And, as far as I know and
>as far as you know, apparently, they don't.
Fugue in itself is a technical procedure. All Bach's other music
seems to clearly have dramatic intent, including music that uses
technical procedures of rounded binary construction, basso continuo,
etc. And Bach's fugues use the same symbols from the pallette of
dramatic expression of his time as all the other works. What about
the fugue procedure is so special as to absent it from the dramatic
function so equally evident in other music of his? What about
fugal procedure applied to instruments is so special as to absent
it from the drama of fugal procedure applied to choir?
You may wish to recall that theater, and especially musical theater,
in Bach's time, consisted of static moments in which a single passion
was expressed, usually by a single party, interrupted by recitative
in which narrative or dialogue advanced the story in a documentary fashion.
Within any single air, it was *not* conventional to tell a whole story
but only to represent a single passion. Bach's dramatic method thus
was very different from, e.g. Strauss's.
>(and by concrete, I mean extra-musical, not documentary).
What is this distinction? Hmmm. We don't get recitatives internal
to any Bach fugues that I know of.
>> >> And they alternate expositions and episodes, a
>> >> convention tracible directly through neoclassicism to 17th-century
>> >> study of Greek theater, so that gets you No.1.
>>
>> >If this is traceable directly, indulge me by tracing it directly. That
>> >is, trace for me a direct link between the *form* of the fugue and
>> >classical dramatic models, not the musicological terms used.
>>
>> Bach's fugues are modeled on Rennaisance fugues, which incorporate
>> alternation of sections per Vincenzo Galilei's and others' deliberate
>> choice to alternate sections in immitation of the ancients.
>
>This is news to me, I must admit.
Hmmm, the movement we now call "Baroque" was first and foremost a
dramatic movement.
I wonder: If you removed the voices from the second kyrie of B
minor mass, and replaced them with instruments, would it lose its
drama? hmmm. Unlike the first kyrie, the second doesn't have a
non-canonic basso continuo. Would you even know that it was
written as vocal music if we performed it without the voices?
>
>> Are you arguing a point or making an ad hominem attack on somebody?
>
>My intension was levity.
>
>> >Of course they are. Fugues simply aren't. Sure fugues are if you twist
Ah, I missed this categorical the first time around. Fugues can be just
as dramatic as any other music. I've written dramatic fugues myself.
>> >yourself into a pretzel of metaphors. If you cock your head and blur
>> >your eyes, they are.
>>
>> Exactly what it takes for me to experience Monteverdi's Orpheo, with
>> its contrived alternation of odes and episodes, as dramatic.
>
>Nevertheless, it is impossible for either of us to deny the Orpheo has
>dramatic intent, however incapable we may be of appreciating it.
I would put it that Monteverdi had dramatic intent in writing it.
>
>> > If you rely on hearsay and the opinions of others,
>> >whether they be of Bach's time or our own, yes fugues are "dramatic".
>> >Fugues are "dramatic" in Matt's opinion, they are not dramatic in John's
>> >opinion. Neither John nor Matt, however, can dispute that, say, Richard
>> >Strauss' Ein Heldenleben is dramatic.
>>
>> Ein Heldenleben subscribes to dramatic formulae that are still popular,
>> their current most visible exponent being John Williams.
>
>No doubt.
Okay, back to the criterion of composer intent. Do we have documentation
to the effect that Richard Strauss intended Ein Heldenleben to be dramatic?
Do we need that?
>
>> >> Uh, you're thinking of teatro verissimo? Hmmm.
>> >
>> >That's verismo. And, to answer your question, no.
>>
>> What kind of drama are you thinking of.
>
>Whatever a composer might intend and himself call drama. What else could
>I possibly be thinking of?
Okay, exactly. That's why I refer you to the dramatic conventions of
Bach's time. The ultimate benefit of the exercise is to perceive not
just what the music isn't: it isn't following the the dramatic
conventions of our time---but to perceive what the music is, and
perhaps get more enjoyment out of it this way.
>
>> >Mere subjective impressions, perhaps shared by Bach's contemporaries, but
>> >having no support from any document quoting Bach himself. I have no
"Music is a joyous sound for the praise of god and the recreation of the soul."
That's the only quote from Bach I have handy. Are we discussing composer
intent or are we discussing nature of the music in isolation from its time
or what?
>> >doubt that Bach employed the musical conventions of his times. The
>> >assertion that he thought, as others did, that these mapped directly to
>> >human sentiments is, well, quackery.
>> No more quackery than the assertion that anything in Ein Heldenleben
>> maps directly to human sentiments.
>
>You misunderstood the following sentence:
>
>The assertion that he (Bach) thought, as others did, that these (musical
>conventions) mapped directly to human sentiments is, well, quackery.
So what you're saying here is that while Bach used all the dramatic
conventions of his time, he himself was unmoved by them and didn't
really believe in their effectiveness. Hmmm. Maybe. If it comes down
to whether Bach believed in the dramatic conventions of his time or
not, based on writings he left in German, I'll defer to those who have
read his prose.
But the notion that Bach knew and deliberately used the dramatic
symbols of his day while denying their effectiveness seems a bit
contrived, I'd tend to skip it by Occam's razor.
>
>Yes, it is probably also quackery that anything in music maps directly to
>human sentiment, but that was not the point I was making.
>
>> >What is the dramatic subject of, say, the Eb fugue from bk II of WTC?
>> >Can you say with certainty that it has any? Is it piety or pastoral
>> >serenity? I could as easily say it was civil jollity. What is the
>> >subject of the C major fugue from bk I? Majesty? Civil jollity?
>> >Peasant buffoonery?
>>
>> In Bach's era's terms, the Eb major fugue in WTC II is an alla breve, brisk
>> piety. The Eb minor fugue in WTC II is non-existent.
>
>cute.
(but there's a d# minor one)
>
>> The C major fugue
>> in WTC I is middle-class jollity. There's no way to get peasant buffoonery
>> into it, the 32nd notes are too "refined" by the conventions of the time.
>
>Perhaps those allegedly spurious 32nd notes were added by a hand which
>entertained the possibility that they imparted refinement. Bach did not,
>as far as I know, intend his fugues to be interpreted dramatically.
The last sentence is a reitteration of your foregone conclusion, oops?
The 32nd notes are not spurious, they recur in every instance of the
headmotif, and if you go to RILM I daresay you can find a location for
manuscripts from Bach's time, together perhaps with references to
those who have already studied them and decided which are by Bach
himself, which by Anna Magdelena, etc. and why those people thought
that.
If you want to introduce the possibility that the headmotive of
the C major fugue is spurious, that's an interesting complication,
how would you document that?
>
>> The fugue for winds vs.
>> chorus that opens the B minor mass has the well-known dramatic intent
>> of supplication, and gets there by combining the re-iterated notes of
>> mock chant with a widening wedge of sobbing appogiatura motifs.
>
>Let's stick with instrumental and theoretical works, not choral works. I
>think we can both agree that dramatic intent is present there.
Why are we leaving choral fugues out? What makes you think
instrumental fugues are fundamentally different from choral fugues?
What about the first two entries (for winds) and the next one (for
violone) is fundamentally different from the next one (for tenor voice?)
Where is there a theoretical work by Bach? All we've got is music.
>> >> Bach's fugues partake of all the dramatic conventions of his time,
>> >> actually.
>> >
>> >Bach's fugues partake of musical conventions which some people associated,
>> >very subjectively, with specific elements of drama.
>> >
>> >Actually.
>>
>> Okay, what dramatic conventions of Bach's time don't they partake of?
>
>Dramatic conventions (meaning the assertion that certain motifs map to
>certain emotions)? As far as I know, all of them.
The key here is apparently "As far as I know". There's a lot of
opera and written treatises about opera from Bach's time. Dig in and
enjoy! Bach himself didn't write stuff to be staged, or if he did
it hasn't survived to now.
The association between symbols and specific elements of drama, seen
from our perspective, was much closer to denotative language than to
connotative subjectivity. About the only dramatic symbol well known
to Bach that he didn't, to my knowledge, employ in a fugue is the
musette---the evocation of the sound of bagpipes denoting highland
peasants (presumably French---an example of of Bach's use of this can
be heard in the trio of the Gavotte of the 6th cello suite). The only
reason why that symbol would not be used is because its peculiar use
of drone throughout the entire movement would be incompatible with
Bach's harmonic vision of fugue (and indeed his harmonic vision of
most kinds of music altogether).
>> What was theater like in his time?
>
>What is theater like today?
>
>> I think you know how to evoke a martial spirit with a march beat,
>> a sexy interlude with a sliding saxophone sound, etc. And if you
>> choose to use those symbols to deliberately make your music "dramatic",
>> bully for you.
>
>And if I don't then we can rightfully claim that I have no dramatic
>intent.
Can we really? Does Einstein on the Beach use any of the dramatic
conventions of our time? Does it have dramatic intent?
>> They're part of the dramatic conventions of our time.
>> If you choose to make stuff that sounds like Ein Heldenleben in
>> an attempt to make something "dramatic", bully for you. Plenty
>> of folk have no dramatic response to it at all.
>Now here we can agree. I believe Bach was constitutionally such a
>person, since in only one instrumental work do we have evidence of
>dramatic intent and that work was very early and in a dramatically (no
>pun int) atypical style.
What instrumental work are you referring to here? The musette in the
6th cello suite? The chromatic fantasy? The E-minor fugue in WTC-I?
The 2-violin concerto?
po...@hotmail.com
In article <60lf51$540$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
> In article <875413...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <60f492$k5u$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
> > fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
> >> In article <8751226...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <609olv$5g$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
>
> seems to clearly have dramatic intent, including music that uses
> technical procedures of rounded binary construction, basso continuo,
> etc.
I don't doubt that at all, but I think what you consider to be "dramatic"
and what I consider to be dramatic are two totally different things.
For you dramatic is:
1) using a dance form
2) alluding to musical instruments (e.g., the musette)
3) using certain motifs and styles which some musicians of Bach's day
considered dramatic.
5) rounded binary form, basso continuo.
6) anything which can be interpreted subjectively as being "dramatic"
or which has historical roots in the dramatic.
For me dramatic is simply extra-musical connotation.
I'll leave the definition at that for now, without need of
repeating the unnecessary step of defining what is meant by drama.
For now, let's limit ourselves to a consideration of whether
Bach ever even intended to represent any extramusical thing
at all, say, a harmonious blacksmith or the color red, or the
lover's passion for his sweetheart.... in a work that was purely
instrumental.
There is a single, very early work that is both truly instrumental
and dramatic: the Capriccio on the Departure of a Beloved Brother,
BWV 992. In that work, Bach explicity indicates that each movement
has a dramatic intent. There are no other examples in the music
of Bach. Period. There are other examples from the baroque,
lots of them, but only two before Bach. Bach apparently knew
of one from a countryman of the generation before his own, namely
Johann Kuhnau's biblical sonatas, after which he likely modeled
his own capriccio.
> And Bach's fugues use the same symbols from the pallette of
> dramatic expression of his time as all the other works.
Whereas Bach's fugues use motifs common to the musical style of the
time, we have no evidence (or, at least, I have none) that Bach *meant*
what some others claimed those motifs meant.
> What about
> the fugue procedure is so special as to absent it from the dramatic
> function so equally evident in other music of his?
Nothing. We just got hung up on fugues. I think his, e.g., Suites
and Partitas, the inventions and sinfonias, the tocattas, the brandenburgs
the orchestral suites, the trio sonatas on the organ, the chromatic
fantiasia and fugue and virtually all manner and category of Bach
instrumental music are equally abstract.
To quote an earlier post of mine:
>>Paul Bossi <bo...@primenet.com>:
>me
>> As for Bach, it seems part of his religious consciousness >> to
endow all of his music with religious meaning > >Why is that? > >>
-- except of course >> explicitly secular and deliberately
"entertaining" works like the Coffee >> Cantata; > >Where is the
evidence that, eg, the WTC is endowed with religious >meaning, or the
brandenburgs, or the orchestral suites, or the >inventions, the english
suites, the french suites, the partitas, the >tocatas, even most of the
organ preludes and fugues and tocatas and >fantasias, etc., etc., etc.?
> What about
> fugal procedure applied to instruments is so special as to absent
> it from the drama of fugal procedure applied to choir?
The absense of a dramtic text, a suggestive title, a document revealing
an intention, etc.
> >> Bach's fugues are modeled on Rennaisance fugues, which incorporate
> >> alternation of sections per Vincenzo Galilei's and others' deliberate
> >> choice to alternate sections in immitation of the ancients.
> >
> >This is news to me, I must admit.
>
> Hmmm, the movement we now call "Baroque" was first and foremost a
> dramatic movement.
This is news to me, I must admit.
> I wonder: If you removed the voices from the second kyrie of B
> minor mass, and replaced them with instruments, would it lose its
> drama?
If Bach removed them, and we had never heard that work before in our
lives sung to words, yes.
> hmmm. Unlike the first kyrie, the second doesn't have a
> non-canonic basso continuo. Would you even know that it was
> written as vocal music if we performed it without the voices?
I think we wouldn't. Just as we wouldn't know what Strauss'
aforementioned tone poem was about if he removed the dramatic
context.
> >> >Of course they are. Fugues simply aren't. Sure fugues are if you twist
>
> Ah, I missed this categorical the first time around. Fugues can be just
> as dramatic as any other music. I've written dramatic fugues myself.
I amend the statement to "The instrumental fugues of Bach simply are not
dramatic". A statement, which assertion BTW, I do not limit to fugues
(see above).
> >Nevertheless, it is impossible for either of us to deny the Orpheo has
> >dramatic intent, however incapable we may be of appreciating it.
>
> I would put it that Monteverdi had dramatic intent in writing it.
As would I.
> >> Ein Heldenleben subscribes to dramatic formulae that are still popular,
> >> their current most visible exponent being John Williams.
> >
> >No doubt.
>
> Okay, back to the criterion of composer intent. Do we have documentation
> to the effect that Richard Strauss intended Ein Heldenleben to be dramatic?
Yes.
> Do we need that?
Yes. Music simply is powerless to express anything. Without
language, there can be no drama, in the sense that I have been
careful to define it in this discussion.
> >Whatever a composer might intend and himself call drama. What else could
> >I possibly be thinking of?
>
> Okay, exactly. That's why I refer you to the dramatic conventions of
> Bach's time.
The dramatic conventions of Bach's time tell me what about Bach's music?
> The ultimate benefit of the exercise is to perceive not
> just what the music isn't: it isn't following the the dramatic
> conventions of our time---but to perceive what the music is, and
> perhaps get more enjoyment out of it this way.
Ah yes. I think this is the whole thing, really. For a great
many people, to suggest that Bach's music is not dramatic is
the same as saying that it is not enjoyable or less enjoyable, and
that to my way of thinking is a perversion of music. But, hey,
that's just my opinion.
> >> >Mere subjective impressions, perhaps shared by Bach's contemporaries, but
> >> >having no support from any document quoting Bach himself. I have no
>
> "Music is a joyous sound for the praise of god and the recreation of the soul."
>
> That's the only quote from Bach I have handy. Are we discussing composer
> intent or are we discussing nature of the music in isolation from its time
> or what?
Explain "nature of the music in isolation from its time" (?).
Of course, you can think anything you like about Bach's music.
What else is there to discuss but composer intent? I don't accept
for a minute that all composers of Bach's time and homeland
subscribed to the "affects theory" (Empfindsamkeit im musick).
> >You misunderstood the following sentence:
> >
> >The assertion that he (Bach) thought, as others did, that these (musical
> >conventions) mapped directly to human sentiments is, well, quackery.
>
> So what you're saying here is that while Bach used all the dramatic
> conventions of his time, he himself was unmoved by them and didn't
> really believe in their effectiveness.
No, what I'm saying is that Bach used musical motifs which some
very silly people thought mapped to human emotions. Bach didn't
use them as dramatic conventions at all, I believe.
> Hmmm. Maybe. If it comes down
> to whether Bach believed in the dramatic conventions of his time or
> not, based on writings he left in German, I'll defer to those who have
> read his prose.
Okay. Being one who has read his prose, then, trust me.
> But the notion that Bach knew and deliberately used the dramatic
> symbols of his day while denying their effectiveness seems a bit
> contrived, I'd tend to skip it by Occam's razor.
If you read the sentence above beginning "No, what I'm saying..."
you will see that Occam need not be invoked at all. Indeed,
your assertion is the least parsimonious.
> >> The C major fugue
> >> in WTC I is middle-class jollity. There's no way to get peasant buffoonery
> >> into it, the 32nd notes are too "refined" by the conventions of the time.
> >
> >Perhaps those allegedly spurious 32nd notes were added by a hand which
> >entertained the possibility that they imparted refinement. Bach did not,
> >as far as I know, intend his fugues to be interpreted dramatically.
>
> The last sentence is a reitteration of your foregone conclusion, oops?
"As far as I know" is a foregone conclusion?
=======
Off on a tangent:
=======
> The 32nd notes are not spurious, they recur in every instance of the
> headmotif,
which itself does not prove they are not spurious.
> and if you go to RILM I daresay you can find a location for
> manuscripts from Bach's time, together perhaps with references to
> those who have already studied them and decided which are by Bach
> himself, which by Anna Magdelena, etc. and why those people thought
> that.
I've seen the MS of the first fugue, and it is clear even to
my untrained eye that the extra beam for 32nds is added througout
in a different ink, as is the dot for the preceeding eighth.
Whether they were added by another hand or Bach's, they were
defintely not in the original.
I think it is likely Bach himself added them, however. But that
sort of tinkering with subjects might have been common in the
Bach household. For example, I've always suspected that a young
CPE added the triplets in the alternate version of the first
invention, since it is obvious from his juvenalia that he had
an obsession with triplets, and since it is also obvious that
in the MS in which the triplets appear they are in a different
ink. But I could be completely wrong about that, I admit.
> If you want to introduce the possibility that the headmotive of
> the C major fugue is spurious, that's an interesting complication,
> how would you document that?
I don't think I would. I know others with more authority on
the subject than either of us possess have suggested it. I merely
reported that they were allegedly spurious.
=======
End tangent:
=======
> >Let's stick with instrumental and theoretical works, not choral works. I
> >think we can both agree that dramatic intent is present there.
>
> Why are we leaving choral fugues out? What makes you think
> instrumental fugues are fundamentally different from choral fugues?
The words.
> What about the first two entries (for winds) and the next one (for
> violone) is fundamentally different from the next one (for tenor voice?)
> Where is there a theoretical work by Bach?
Die Kunst der Fuge.
> >Dramatic conventions (meaning the assertion that certain motifs map to
> >certain emotions)? As far as I know, all of them.
>
> The key here is apparently "As far as I know".
Yes it is. And "as far as you know" as well, I'm guessing.
> >And if I don't then we can rightfully claim that I have no dramatic
> >intent.
>
> Can we really? Does Einstein on the Beach use any of the dramatic
> conventions of our time?
Probably, since it was written by someone who has been a film composer
and since it is an opera, of sorts. Einstein is a special case, however,
being not strictly dramatic, but I don't want to get off on another
tangent.
> Does it have dramatic intent?
see above.
> >Now here we can agree. I believe Bach was constitutionally such a
> >person, since in only one instrumental work do we have evidence of
> >dramatic intent and that work was very early and in a dramatically (no
> >pun int) atypical style.
>
> What instrumental work are you referring to here? The musette in the
> 6th cello suite? The chromatic fantasy? The E-minor fugue in WTC-I?
> The 2-violin concerto?
As far as I know (or you, apparently,) none of those works you
mention above is dramatic. It should be obvious by now that I
was referring to the capriccio, BWV 992.
At this point, I'd like to quote my original post in its entirety:
>me
>In article <341DDE...@mail.ncku.edu.tw>,
> la...@mail.ncku.edu.tw wrote:
>>
>> > being divorced from references to outside
>> > reality. Fugues, and other abstract works by Bach, are much
>> > harder to describe in terms of emotions or events than
>> > the Appasionata or Mondschein sonatas
>>
>> See, this is PRECISELY why I don't like words like "mathematical" for
>> Bach, etc. It separates his music from the music of others, degrading
>> both his music and the music of others: Bach is (apparently;
>> implicitly) divorced from emotions, while Beethoven refers to "events"
>> in an outside world. Talk about a double-edged sword: what about a
>> double-edged word: mathematical?
>
>I think it is pretty clear that, eg, Bach's fugues are not "dramatic"
>music in the way that, say, Beethoven's pastorale symphony is dramatic
>music, and they clearly don't refer to anything but themselves (ie, they
>are abstract), while Beethoven and later composers did try to refer to
>things outside their music, fail and look ridiculous though they did.
>Clearly there's a, for lack of a better word, rhetorical difference betw.
>the musical language of Beethoven and that of Bach. Why does that
>particularly diminish Bach? On the contrary, IMO, it elevates him above
>the silly antics of later generations.
>
>As for mathematics and abstract art (such as Bach's music) being
>associated with things devoid of emotion, I find that an annoyingly
>narrow viewpoint.
At this stage I might amend "anything but themselves" to "anything but
music itself", but otherwise I stand by every word.
ciao,
John
---
John Harrington (po...@hotmail.com)
-- visit my Stravinsky page at --
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1807/strav.html
"The worst of all deceptions is self-deception." -Plato
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Samuel Vriezen
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:52:08 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>For me dramatic is simply extra-musical connotation.
>
>I'll leave the definition at that for now, without need of
>repeating the unnecessary step of defining what is meant by drama.
>For now, let's limit ourselves to a consideration of whether
>Bach ever even intended to represent any extramusical thing
>at all, say, a harmonious blacksmith or the color red, or the
>lover's passion for his sweetheart.... in a work that was purely
>instrumental.
>
>There is a single, very early work that is both truly instrumental
>and dramatic: the Capriccio on the Departure of a Beloved Brother,
>BWV 992. In that work, Bach explicity indicates that each movement
>has a dramatic intent. There are no other examples in the music
>of Bach. Period.
He referred to himself in the fated last piece from the Art of Fugue.
One could of course submit that Bach was music incarnate if anyone
ever was, so that refering to the person Bach was tantamount to
refering to music itself and then one could circumvent the accusation
of extra-musical connotation for that instance. Bad jokes aside, how
do you propose to treat this?
[enourmous snip]
[po...@hotmail.com's original post:]
>I think it is pretty clear that, eg, Bach's fugues are not "dramatic"
>music in the way that, say, Beethoven's pastorale symphony is dramatic
>music, and they clearly don't refer to anything but themselves (ie, they
>are abstract), while Beethoven and later composers did try to refer to
>things outside their music, fail and look ridiculous though they did.
>Clearly there's a, for lack of a better word, rhetorical difference betw.
>the musical language of Beethoven and that of Bach. Why does that
>particularly diminish Bach? On the contrary, IMO, it elevates him above
>the silly antics of later generations.
>
>As for mathematics and abstract art (such as Bach's music) being
>associated with things devoid of emotion, I find that an annoyingly
>narrow viewpoint.
[to which he later added:]
>At this stage I might amend "anything but themselves" to "anything but
>music itself", but otherwise I stand by every word.
Two BTW's: is Beethoven the right example? I remember being told that
Beethoven wrote on the score of the sixth symphony: 'Mehr Empfindung
als Mahlerei'. Also as far as I know extra-musical reference in
instrumental music can be traced back as far as the sixteenth century
(there are a few examples in the Fitzwilliam book) so it's a bit
unjust to accuse Beethoven and later generations of extramusicalisms.
Samuel
Il professore
Of course, all great art is mathematical. It has symmetry, logic and order.
Look at Da Vinci's Last Supper. Did the painter sit there with a ruler and
count the centimeters? No, his innate sense of harmony showed him a
composition which can be analyzed mathematically. It's my belief that Bach
also had this inner-sense. Yes, he was a great mathematician, but he was
not conscious of his gift.
Isn't the desire of the artist to make harmony out of chaos. Doesn't nature
often do the same ?
po...@hotmail.com
In article <34309daa...@news.xs4all.nl>,
s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel Vriezen) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:52:08 -0600, po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >I'll leave the definition at that for now, without need of
> >repeating the unnecessary step of defining what is meant by drama.
> >For now, let's limit ourselves to a consideration of whether
> >Bach ever even intended to represent any extramusical thing
> >at all, say, a harmonious blacksmith or the color red, or the
> >lover's passion for his sweetheart.... in a work that was purely
> >instrumental.
>
> He referred to himself in the fated last piece from the Art of Fugue.
> One could of course submit that Bach was music incarnate if anyone
> ever was, so that refering to the person Bach was tantamount to
> refering to music itself and then one could circumvent the accusation
> of extra-musical connotation for that instance. Bad jokes aside, how
> do you propose to treat this?
I don't know that I propose to treat it at all. I suppose I would have
to concede that you have answered the letter of my challege, to find a
bach fugue which refers to something extramusical, although even that is
pretty shakely since it is the notes themselves that literally stand in
for the letters of the composers name, and I'm not sure that's quite the
same thing as painting a picture with music, which was really the spirit
of my question. I suppose you could argue that Bach was saying "because I
use the notes of my name here, this fugue represents me", but that's
reading a bit too much into it, IMO. Bach was fond of puzzle canons,
acrostics, numerology and so on and he probably looked upon the use of
his name as another way to play with musical elements and as a way to
sign his name to his last great musical statement.
So the problem remains: how do you propose to go to the next step and show
that this is an example of "drama"? I don't envy you that task!
>
> [enourmous snip]
[little snip]
> >At this stage I might amend "anything but themselves" to "anything but
> >music itself", but otherwise I stand by every word.
>
> Two BTW's: is Beethoven the right example? I remember being told that
> Beethoven wrote on the score of the sixth symphony: 'Mehr Empfindung
> als Mahlerei'.
Er, doesn't that support my point?
> Also as far as I know extra-musical reference in
> instrumental music can be traced back as far as the sixteenth century
> (there are a few examples in the Fitzwilliam book) so it's a bit
> unjust to accuse Beethoven and later generations of extramusicalisms.
I myself point out (somewhere in that enormous snip up there) early
examples and even admit that the baroque is rife with literary and
fanciful allusions in instrumental scores. It is denying the obvious to
say that baroque music was characterized by extra-musical allusion or in
any way comparable to the fanciful extravagances of the 19th century. I
don't mean to make absolute statements about either era; my original
point was far more reasonable in simply comparing the two eras and
concluding that the latter was far more given to literary allusion. I
never expected that would become such a controversial subject.
ciao,
John
Matthew H. Fields
In article <8755694...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <60lf51$540$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
> fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>> In article <875413...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >In article <60f492$k5u$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
>> > fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>> >> In article <8751226...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <609olv$5g$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
>>
>> Fugue in itself is a technical procedure. All Bach's other music
>> seems to clearly have dramatic intent, including music that uses
>> technical procedures of rounded binary construction, basso continuo,
>> etc.
>
>I don't doubt that at all, but I think what you consider to be "dramatic"
>and what I consider to be dramatic are two totally different things.
>
>For you dramatic is:
>
>1) using a dance form
An extra-musical connotation
>2) alluding to musical instruments (e.g., the musette)
alluding to a theatrical convention of the pastoral.
>3) using certain motifs and styles which some musicians of Bach's day
> considered dramatic.
And most theater-goers of his time were expected to get.
>5) rounded binary form, basso continuo.
These are technical procedures which I have explicitly said are
at right angles to drama.
>6) anything which can be interpreted subjectively as being "dramatic"
> or which has historical roots in the dramatic.
No, I was referring to what was dramatic in your sense, in Bach's
time.
>
>For me dramatic is simply extra-musical connotation.
>I'll leave the definition at that for now, without need of
>repeating the unnecessary step of defining what is meant by drama.
Presumeably it's story-telling through play-acting, and dramatic
music is music that is designed to evoke the same kind of story telling.
>For now, let's limit ourselves to a consideration of whether
>Bach ever even intended to represent any extramusical thing
>at all, say, a harmonious blacksmith or the color red, or the
>lover's passion for his sweetheart.... in a work that was purely
>instrumental.
>There is a single, very early work that is both truly instrumental
>and dramatic: the Capriccio on the Departure of a Beloved Brother,
>BWV 992. In that work, Bach explicity indicates that each movement
>has a dramatic intent. There are no other examples in the music
>of Bach. Period. There are other examples from the baroque,
>lots of them, but only two before Bach. Bach apparently knew
>of one from a countryman of the generation before his own, namely
>Johann Kuhnau's biblical sonatas, after which he likely modeled
>his own capriccio.
>> And Bach's fugues use the same symbols from the pallette of
>> dramatic expression of his time as all the other works.
>Whereas Bach's fugues use motifs common to the musical style of the
>time, we have no evidence (or, at least, I have none) that Bach *meant*
>what some others claimed those motifs meant.
We have the biographical evidence that he first began using
such materials as the French martial sound when he had a large
number of French court musicians around him.
>> What about
>> the fugue procedure is so special as to absent it from the dramatic
>> function so equally evident in other music of his?
>Nothing. We just got hung up on fugues. I think his, e.g., Suites
>and Partitas, the inventions and sinfonias, the tocattas, the brandenburgs
>the orchestral suites, the trio sonatas on the organ, the chromatic
>fantiasia and fugue and virtually all manner and category of Bach
>instrumental music are equally abstract.
>To quote an earlier post of mine:
>
>>>Paul Bossi <bo...@primenet.com>:
>>me
>
> >> As for Bach, it seems part of his religious consciousness >> to
>endow all of his music with religious meaning > >Why is that? > >>
>-- except of course >> explicitly secular and deliberately
>"entertaining" works like the Coffee >> Cantata; > >Where is the
>evidence that, eg, the WTC is endowed with religious >meaning, or the
>brandenburgs, or the orchestral suites, or the >inventions, the english
>suites, the french suites, the partitas, the >tocatas, even most of the
>organ preludes and fugues and tocatas and >fantasias, etc., etc., etc.?
The use of bits of Lutheran chorale as subjects in some of the fugues
would tend to be indicative, doncha think? At least *his* audience
would have gotten it. But I don't think all Bach's music is
"religious" in nature, as not all his patrons over the years were
religious. In Koethen, he composed music evoking more middle-class
images and making use of the musicians available to him.
>> What about
>> fugal procedure applied to instruments is so special as to absent
>> it from the drama of fugal procedure applied to choir?
>
>The absense of a dramtic text, a suggestive title, a document revealing
>an intention, etc.
So material actually in the music and knowledge of the musical conventions
of the day don't count. This is like saying you can't write blues
for trumpet, piano, and drums, because without the words or documentary
evidence, you can't be sure it's blues and not just 20th-century
instrumental music. I don't buy it.
>
>> >> Bach's fugues are modeled on Rennaisance fugues, which incorporate
>> >> alternation of sections per Vincenzo Galilei's and others' deliberate
>> >> choice to alternate sections in immitation of the ancients.
>> >
>> >This is news to me, I must admit.
>>
>> Hmmm, the movement we now call "Baroque" was first and foremost a
>> dramatic movement.
>
>This is news to me, I must admit.
>
>> I wonder: If you removed the voices from the second kyrie of B
>> minor mass, and replaced them with instruments, would it lose its
>> drama?
>
>If Bach removed them, and we had never heard that work before in our
>lives sung to words, yes.
Ah, okay. So on this kind of basis, Ein Heldenleben is not dramatic.
>>> hmmm. Unlike the first kyrie, the second doesn't have a
>> non-canonic basso continuo. Would you even know that it was
>> written as vocal music if we performed it without the voices?
>I think we wouldn't. Just as we wouldn't know what Strauss'
>aforementioned tone poem was about if he removed the dramatic
>context.
>
>> >> >Of course they are. Fugues simply aren't. Sure fugues are if you twist
>>
>> Ah, I missed this categorical the first time around. Fugues can be just
>> as dramatic as any other music. I've written dramatic fugues myself.
>I amend the statement to "The instrumental fugues of Bach simply are not
>dramatic". A statement, which assertion BTW, I do not limit to fugues
>(see above).
Okay, well, let's look at Art of Fugue. This is a collection of fugues
all on the same subject. While each fugue does something slightly
different with the subject from a purely technical standpoint, each
also bends and twists the subject into different rhythms, different
countersubjects, etc. None of those additional variations are at
all necessary to the technical exploration of the subject. What
are they doing there, then?
In Bach's time, the hoity toity dotted rhythms of the 2nd fugue
would be well known to mean "The pomp of royalty". Dances as
representing specific dramatis personae are not to be entirely
dismissed: Gigue was considered a lowbrow English dance, Courante a
highbrow French one.
>> >Nevertheless, it is impossible for either of us to deny the Orpheo has
>> >dramatic intent, however incapable we may be of appreciating it.
>>
>> I would put it that Monteverdi had dramatic intent in writing it.
>
>As would I.
>
>> >> Ein Heldenleben subscribes to dramatic formulae that are still popular,
>> >> their current most visible exponent being John Williams.
>> >
>> >No doubt.
>>
>> Okay, back to the criterion of composer intent. Do we have documentation
>> to the effect that Richard Strauss intended Ein Heldenleben to be dramatic?
>
>Yes.
>
>> Do we need that?
>Yes. Music simply is powerless to express anything. Without
>language, there can be no drama, in the sense that I have been
>careful to define it in this discussion.
Okay, then if somebody who doesn't know Ein Heldenleben tunes in to
it on the radio just after it is announced, and thus misses the title,
it is a pure work of tonal exploration with no drama, by this measure.
And of course Beethoven's 1rst through 5th and 7th and 8th symphonies
are without drama, too...and the 6th has drama because Beethoven supplied
titles, not because of his use of dramatic conventions. And the 9th
only has drama in the finale. This is your reading of the situation?
It's not mine, but it's what I'm hearing from your explanation of
what you're talking about.
>> >Whatever a composer might intend and himself call drama. What else could
>> >I possibly be thinking of?
>>
>> Okay, exactly. That's why I refer you to the dramatic conventions of
>> Bach's time.
>
>The dramatic conventions of Bach's time tell me what about Bach's music?
They provide you with insight into what listeners of his time were
expected to get, title or no title, program notes or no program notes,
texts or no texts.
>
>> The ultimate benefit of the exercise is to perceive not
>> just what the music isn't: it isn't following the the dramatic
>> conventions of our time---but to perceive what the music is, and
>> perhaps get more enjoyment out of it this way.
>
>Ah yes. I think this is the whole thing, really. For a great
>many people, to suggest that Bach's music is not dramatic is
>the same as saying that it is not enjoyable or less enjoyable, and
>that to my way of thinking is a perversion of music. But, hey,
>that's just my opinion.
I'm not saying that. But I am saying that by trying to wedge it into
"not-dramatic" you're missing half the fun. It's like supposing all
Raga is without expression because it's generally without words and
the performers don't generally tell you what the music is about and
it doesn't come pre-composed with documentation of dramatic purpose.
Again, afficianados are expected to learn and know and love the
extramusical associations, which are no mystery.
>> >> >Mere subjective impressions, perhaps shared by Bach's contemporaries, but
>> >> >having no support from any document quoting Bach himself. I have no
>>
>> "Music is a joyous sound for the praise of god and the recreation of the soul."
>>
>> That's the only quote from Bach I have handy. Are we discussing composer
>> intent or are we discussing nature of the music in isolation from its time
>> or what?
>
>Explain "nature of the music in isolation from its time" (?).
>Of course, you can think anything you like about Bach's music.
>What else is there to discuss but composer intent? I don't accept
>for a minute that all composers of Bach's time and homeland
>subscribed to the "affects theory" (Empfindsamkeit im musick).
Subscribing to a theory and deliberately using a language are
two very different things. I'm talking about the latter.
>
>> >You misunderstood the following sentence:
>> >
>> >The assertion that he (Bach) thought, as others did, that these (musical
>> >conventions) mapped directly to human sentiments is, well, quackery.
>>
>> So what you're saying here is that while Bach used all the dramatic
>> conventions of his time, he himself was unmoved by them and didn't
>> really believe in their effectiveness.
>
>No, what I'm saying is that Bach used musical motifs which some
>very silly people thought mapped to human emotions. Bach didn't
>use them as dramatic conventions at all, I believe.
Dramatic conventions and a doctrine of what we'd now call musical
hardwiring are very different things. This is exactly what you have
to sort out. There's no evidence that we're hardwired to experience
chromaticism on contrabasses as scary, but there's plenty of evidence
that this is a dramatic convention of our time with roots in Rimsky
Korsakov, and examples in, e.g., Firebird long before it appears in
jaws. Why would Bach juxatapose the slowly descending chromatic lines
of the Crucifixit of the b minor mass with the brisk courante of the
Resurexit, throwing in the trumpets and timpani, and thus using
conventional symbols of his time for the contrast of a somber mood
with rejoicing, if he seriously believed in their inapplicability?
>> Hmmm. Maybe. If it comes down
>> to whether Bach believed in the dramatic conventions of his time or
>> not, based on writings he left in German, I'll defer to those who have
>> read his prose.
>
>Okay. Being one who has read his prose, then, trust me.
Cite the prose, please. I'm citing the music, which I think shows
what he actually did rather than what he may have said he did.
>
>> But the notion that Bach knew and deliberately used the dramatic
>> symbols of his day while denying their effectiveness seems a bit
>> contrived, I'd tend to skip it by Occam's razor.
>
>If you read the sentence above beginning "No, what I'm saying..."
>you will see that Occam need not be invoked at all. Indeed,
>your assertion is the least parsimonious.
Explain please. You think Bach didn't know dramatic conventions? or
you think the very notion of dramatic conventions requires a mystical
doctrine?
>> >Let's stick with instrumental and theoretical works, not choral works. I
>> >think we can both agree that dramatic intent is present there.
>>
>> Why are we leaving choral fugues out? What makes you think
>> instrumental fugues are fundamentally different from choral fugues?
>
>The words.
Ah. And when you consider the pitches and rhythms, then what?
>
>> What about the first two entries (for winds) and the next one (for
>> violone) is fundamentally different from the next one (for tenor voice?)
>> Where is there a theoretical work by Bach?
>
>Die Kunst der Fuge.
I've read every bit of it, there's only music there. Not a single
treatise on how music works. And I'd cite it as an excellent example
of drama in fugue, as I already hve, above.
>
>> >Dramatic conventions (meaning the assertion that certain motifs map to
>> >certain emotions)? As far as I know, all of them.
>>
>> The key here is apparently "As far as I know".
>
>Yes it is. And "as far as you know" as well, I'm guessing.
Dramatic conventions does not mean the *assertion* that motifs map
to emotions, but the widespread *agreement*, just like we have a
convention here that "Goof" maps to the notion of a mistake, whereas
for Israeli kids, "Goof" maps to the notion of a body or form. It's
not a "doctrine" but a "convention".
Well, note, I'm not Lanza et al, I don't take the viewpoint that
denying the drama of Bach's music is denying its value, but I
do take the viewpoint that ignoring its use of dramatic conventions
is lifting it out of context and hearing it only by a modern ideal
of "music about music".
Michael P. Mossey
In article <3432202f...@news.execpc.com>,
Paul Cotton <pcotto...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>3) Superficially heard, Bach often sounds regular, like a sewing
>machine, predictable, bereft of emotion, like math.
I've been pondering this. Some of the most intensely emotional music
I know has features that are close to mechanical.
It's a paradox.
Mike M.
Piper
On 30 Sep 1997 15:35:20 GMT, "Il professore" <vi...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>Of course, all great art is mathematical. It has symmetry, logic and order.
>Look at Da Vinci's Last Supper. Did the painter sit there with a ruler and
>count the centimeters?
Not centimeters, since they didn't have metric measures. Otherwise,
the answer is _YES_. Painters deal with exact proportions and must
measure them precisely with rulers. And though that may not be true of
all painters of all time, it certainly was true of High Renaissance
artists like Da Vinci.
> No, his innate sense of harmony showed him a
>composition which can be analyzed mathematically. It's my belief that Bach
>also had this inner-sense. Yes, he was a great mathematician, but he was
>not conscious of his gift.
How do you know he wasn't conscious of his gift? There's evidence that
he had somewhat consistent proportional schema for many of his works.
Bach was one of the greatest composers of all time, but he, too, had
to have methods for writing pieces in a short time, when under the
pressure of deadlines. And he did. And they were conscious. And they
prescribed certain tonal events at certain approximate fractions of a
movement, measured in bars.
I can't give you the specifics, but I've seen this charted before and
it made sense. Articles have been written about this, too (sorry, I
don't have citations handy).
>Isn't the desire of the artist to make harmony out of chaos. Doesn't nature
>often do the same ?
Yes. In that sense, artists are using mimesis - the ancient Greek word
for "imitation of nature".
So the philosophy involved is very old, and conscious.
Why does Bach's talent have to be considered as completely "innate"
and "unconscious" for some of you to credit him as a great composer?
Can't we credit him with superior conscious musical intellect as well?
Michael
Michael P. Mossey
>I don't doubt that at all, but I think what you consider to be "dramatic"
>and what I consider to be dramatic are two totally different things.
>
>For you dramatic is:
>
>1) using a dance form
>2) alluding to musical instruments (e.g., the musette)
>3) using certain motifs and styles which some musicians of Bach's day
> considered dramatic.
>5) rounded binary form, basso continuo.
>6) anything which can be interpreted subjectively as being "dramatic"
> or which has historical roots in the dramatic.
>
>For me dramatic is simply extra-musical connotation.
Seems a strange definition to me, since it seems to create an
unhelpful division between drama expressed in words and drama
expressed in sounds, or pictures, or dance.
My online Webster gives this as one definition of 'drama':
3a: a state, situation, or series of events involving interesting or
intense conflict of forces
Mike M.
po...@hotmail.com
In article <60rgdr$e2k$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>
> In article <8755694...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <60lf51$540$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
> > fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
> >> In article <875413...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <60f492$k5u$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
> >> > fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
> >> >> In article <8751226...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >In article <609olv$5g$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
> >>
> >> Fugue in itself is a technical procedure. All Bach's other music
> >> seems to clearly have dramatic intent, including music that uses
> >> technical procedures of rounded binary construction, basso continuo,
> >> etc.
> >
> >I don't doubt that at all, but I think what you consider to be "dramatic"
> >and what I consider to be dramatic are two totally different things.
> >
> >For you dramatic is:
> >
> >1) using a dance form
>
> An extra-musical connotation
Dance is extra-musical?
> >2) alluding to musical instruments (e.g., the musette)
>
> alluding to a theatrical convention of the pastoral.
Form just ain't drama, no matter how much you wish it.
> >3) using certain motifs and styles which some musicians of Bach's day
> > considered dramatic.
>
> And most theater-goers of his time were expected to get.
And as we all know, Bach was intimately connected to the theater.
> >For me dramatic is simply extra-musical connotation.
>
> >I'll leave the definition at that for now, without need of
> >repeating the unnecessary step of defining what is meant by drama.
>
> Presumeably it's story-telling through play-acting, and dramatic
> music is music that is designed to evoke the same kind of story telling.
So, by this definition, then, nothing which you have claimed is dramatic
in Bach's fugues is in fact dramatic, since at most he sought to evoke
emotion by the use of dramatic motifs, not tell a story. Or are you
hedging by saying "same kind of"?
> >> What about
> >> fugal procedure applied to instruments is so special as to absent
> >> it from the drama of fugal procedure applied to choir?
> >
> >The absence of a dramatic text, a suggestive title, a document revealing
> >an intention, etc.
>
> So material actually in the music and knowledge of the musical conventions
> of the day don't count.
No, not the way you mean it, no they don't count.
> This is like saying you can't write blues
> for trumpet, piano, and drums, because without the words or documentary
> evidence, you can't be sure it's blues and not just 20th-century
> instrumental music. I don't buy it.
Blues is really a wonderful example for my side of the debate, since
I'm sure there are a lot of examples of joyful-themed songs that use
a blues scale even though the "blues scale" per se is considered by
convention to be sorrowful.
The minor scale too is considered by convention to be "sad". Are all
pieces in the minor mode dramatic representations of sadness? Are all
pieces which use a tritone supposed to be evocative of danger?
Mari-a, I'm quite scared of a girl named Mari-a...
Charles Ives in the accompaniment to one of his variations on america
uses a fandango rhythm. Does he mean "America" or Spain?
> >> I wonder: If you removed the voices from the second kyrie of B
> >> minor mass, and replaced them with instruments, would it lose its
> >> drama?
> >
> >If Bach removed them, and we had never heard that work before in our
> >lives sung to words, yes.
>
> Ah, okay. So on this kind of basis, Ein Heldenleben is not dramatic.
This is news to me, I must admit.
> >> >> >Of course they are. Fugues simply aren't. Sure fugues are if you twist
> >>
> >> Ah, I missed this categorical the first time around. Fugues can be just
> >> as dramatic as any other music. I've written dramatic fugues myself.
>
> >I amend the statement to "The instrumental fugues of Bach simply are not
> >dramatic". A statement, which assertion BTW, I do not limit to fugues
> >(see above).
>
> Okay, well, let's look at Art of Fugue. This is a collection of fugues
> all on the same subject. While each fugue does something slightly
> different with the subject from a purely technical standpoint, each
> also bends and twists the subject into different rhythms, different
> countersubjects, etc. None of those additional variations are at
> all necessary to the technical exploration of the subject. What
> are they doing there, then?
> In Bach's time, the hoity toity dotted rhythms of the 2nd fugue
> would be well known to mean "The pomp of royalty". Dances as
Good lord, isn't it possible, don't you acknowledge the slightest
possibility that Bach could use a dotted rhythm without meaning to
indicate royalty, regardless of what some considered that device to
"mean"?
> >Ah yes. I think this is the whole thing, really. For a great
> >many people, to suggest that Bach's music is not dramatic is
> >the same as saying that it is not enjoyable or less enjoyable, and
> >that to my way of thinking is a perversion of music. But, hey,
> >that's just my opinion.
>
> I'm not saying that. But I am saying that by trying to wedge it into
> "not-dramatic" you're missing half the fun.
Wha?! Are you sure you don't want to take that back? I think *you*
are missing half the fun by insisting that we must scum on this film of
idiocy called "affects" onto Bach's music in order to enjoy them to
the full.
????
[throwing up his hands in exasperation, unsure how to go on, gaping]
Perhaps this is a good point to let Spitta take over:
From his Bach biography, Dover edition, vol. 1, pp. 245 - 247
"At any rate, the dramatic aspect of Kuhnau's compositions
was that which least attracted Bach. If he ever yielded to
it at all there is no lack of evidence that he did so in a far
more humorous vein. Under the relations which exist between
instrumental and vocal music, and the many close ties
which at that time existed between these two great branches
of art, as they still did a hundred years after, it would do
his talent no dishonour if he had really for once believed
that this class of art was of some value, particularly since
it was protected by such a name as Kuhnau's. But, unless
some more unknown treasures of instrumental music by
Bach should one day be brought to light, the fact remains certain
than after this juvenile attempt, he never again returned
to this branch of music in the whole course of a long artistic
career extending over nearly fifty years. To a genius so
thoroughly and inexhaustibly musical as his, it must have
been intolerable to see the art limping on crutches, or reduced
to a subordinate position.
[hear hear!]
"The association of a musical composition with the conception
of a definite scene, in order to arouse or to represent
its emotional aspect, tends too often to mere platitude and
weariness. It serves to stimulate the composer's inventiveness
when the natural energy of his purely musical ideas is
exhausted; and the theoretical composers of Bach's time
who, following the example of the rhetoricians of antiquity,
set themselves a suitable "topic" or subject for invention --
since free invention yielded them little or nothing -- found in
this process a means of inflaming their imagination by the
images called up, a locus adjumentorum, as it was termed. The
imaginative power of the hearer, however, far from finding a
comprehension of the piece facilitated, is dragged away by
secondary ideas from the main musical conception. The whole
question of course turns on the nature of the ideas which it
is the function of music to deal with. The French, whose
genius for instrumental music is on the whole inconsiderable [!],
were fond of adopting for their small clavier-pieces -- almost
the only line in which they showed any creative talent --
such titles as L'Auguste, La Majestueuse, Les Abeilles, &c.,
thus stamping them as portraits or as genre pictures, and
betraying their theatrical tendency. With regard to Kuhnau,
a German, it has already been said that he usually succeeded
in expressing situations which were replete with emotion,
although, indeed, he sometimes adopts very trivial means, as,
for instance, when he assigns recitatives to the clavier;
and in the succession of various tone pictures, of which the
dramatic requirements are too obviously beyond the conditions
of musical art, he really fails as an artist. But when the
poetic element is worked out and subordinated to a purely
musical conception, so as merely to suggest the limitation
to one single and definite scheme of feeling, within which
the music can evolve its being, this no doubt serves to concentrate
the sentiment, but also to turn the balance between the
objective and subjective elements in the work essentially
in favor of the latter. For that which is universally
paramount in a work of art is Form, in which, in a piece of
music, the idea or the image is not included. All such
artistic ideas are visions for the solitary soul, and from that
aspect are not less justifiable than the lyric form in the poetic
art, since Goethe declares that this should properly always be
a poem on a given occasion; but to the multitude they are
intelligible only in their narrowest develpment, and even
then buy rarely sympathetic. If the artist desires to give
utterance to such a conception, he must necessarily make
use of the human voice, since, in that, Nature has combined
articulate speech with musical tone into a unit among
the materials at his command.
"Bach's development not only bears weighty witness against such
musical monologues, but confirms the correctness of the
principle just laid down in the most striking way...."
[I was amazed last night as I read this how Spitta nearly agrees
with and nearly parrots exactly all that I've been saying.]
> >> Hmmm. Maybe. If it comes down
> >> to whether Bach believed in the dramatic conventions of his time or
> >> not, based on writings he left in German, I'll defer to those who have
> >> read his prose.
> >
> >Okay. Being one who has read his prose, then, trust me.
>
> Cite the prose, please.
Bach never ever touched on this theme but once in all his life. The one
instance in which he did have a dramatic intent, he was careful to
indicate that quite clearly.
I thought you were being coy above. There really is no Bach "prose" to
speak of, at least of any substance, on any musical matter, which only
strengthens my case that Bach was the let-music-speak-for-itself kind of
guy.
> >> But the notion that Bach knew and deliberately used the dramatic
> >> symbols of his day while denying their effectiveness seems a bit
> >> contrived, I'd tend to skip it by Occam's razor.
> >
> >If you read the sentence above beginning "No, what I'm saying..."
> >you will see that Occam need not be invoked at all. Indeed,
> >your assertion is the least parsimonious.
>
> Explain please. You think Bach didn't know dramatic conventions? or
> you think the very notion of dramatic conventions requires a mystical
> doctrine?
I think Bach was constitutionally opposed to drama in instrumental music;
he was a spiritual disciple of Pachelbel, Buxtehude, Scheidt, Rosenmuller,
Schutz and so on, not an adherent of a gallant or theatrical style.
Believe me, I'm not wedded to the idea, I just think you're wrong. I'm
perfectly willing to acknowledge dramatic intent in other Baroque
composers whom I love as well, but then I could hardly deny it in
circumstance were it is documented.
> >> >Let's stick with instrumental and theoretical works, not choral works. I
> >> >think we can both agree that dramatic intent is present there.
> >>
> >> Why are we leaving choral fugues out? What makes you think
> >> instrumental fugues are fundamentally different from choral fugues?
> >
> >The words.
>
> Ah. And when you consider the pitches and rhythms, then what?
That's the *music* part.
> >> >Dramatic conventions (meaning the assertion that certain motifs map to
> >> >certain emotions)? As far as I know, all of them.
> >>
> >> The key here is apparently "As far as I know".
> >
> >Yes it is. And "as far as you know" as well, I'm guessing.
>
> Dramatic conventions does not mean the *assertion* that motifs map
> to emotions, but the widespread *agreement*, just like we have a
> convention here that "Goof" maps to the notion of a mistake, whereas
> for Israeli kids, "Goof" maps to the notion of a body or form. It's
> not a "doctrine" but a "convention".
You've made a logical leap from the affects theory to the kind of
certain, one to one correspondence between word and meaning. That sort
of leap is characteristic of this entire debate, I think. Your argument,
at least so far, rests on those sort of leaps, as when you imply that
because the dotted rhythm, a rhythm ubiquitous in baroque music, was
used to indicate royalty in dramatic situations that it must mean that in
all situations. If true, composers of the Baroque were nearly constantly
trying to be evocative of nobility. Odd.
> >At this stage I might amend "anything but themselves" to "anything but
> >music itself", but otherwise I stand by every word.
>
> Well, note, I'm not Lanza et al, I don't take the viewpoint that
> denying the drama of Bach's music is denying its value,
No, just "half" its value.
> but I
> do take the viewpoint that ignoring its use of dramatic conventions
> is lifting it out of context and hearing it only by a modern ideal
> of "music about music".
What am I ignoring? Use of dramatic conventions? Nonsense!
ciao,
John
po...@hotmail.com
In article <60rhso$c...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
m...@alumni.caltech.edu (Michael P. Mossey) wrote:
>
> In article <8755694...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >and what I consider to be dramatic are two totally different things.
> >
> >For you dramatic is:
> >
> >1) using a dance form
> >2) alluding to musical instruments (e.g., the musette)
> >3) using certain motifs and styles which some musicians of Bach's day
> > considered dramatic.
> >5) rounded binary form, basso continuo.
> >6) anything which can be interpreted subjectively as being "dramatic"
> > or which has historical roots in the dramatic.
> >
> >For me dramatic is simply extra-musical connotation.
>
It *is* a strange definition and I explained carefully why I was
indulging in that definition in the paragraphs you snipped (!).
> unhelpful division between drama expressed in words and drama
> expressed in sounds, or pictures, or dance.
>
> My online Webster gives this as one definition of 'drama':
>
> 3a: a state, situation, or series of events involving interesting or
> intense conflict of forces
This is going over old territory. I refer you to earlier posts in this
thread, but I will say that this is neither news nor does it dispute my
argument.
Michael P. Mossey
Ok, I think the primary thing that's confusing about your writings is
that you are mixing assertions about a superficial sense of the
concept 'drama' with assertions about a deeper sense of it.
Before you see this as a big criticism of what you are writing, let me
point out that I think I empathize with your experience of Bach's
music as avoiding the kinds of dramatic gestures in, say, romantic
period music. In fact, not long ago, I was very confused when I heard
someone mention that Bach put climaxes into his music. I didn't hear
any! But I've evolved in my experience of music since then, and I
most definitely hear climaxes, and form that is analogous to
word-drama, now. I might say that Bach is sneakier about it than most
other composers, and yet I also feel it deeper.
So I feel that depending on how you define 'drama', you could say that
Bach is or isn't dramatic. I say that the most useful concept, the
most general concept that finds analogies across different art forms,
of drama applies to Bach. Yet it is also true, probably true anyway
(I'm not an expert), that he avoided 'painting pictures' or 'telling
stories' with music. The music finds its own form.
But---think of the form of a novel or painting. Is that necessarily
always an accurate reflection of reality, or does that find its own
form too? Then, could we find analogies about the way music finds its
form to the way novels find their form?
I'm sure we can agree that however one defines 'drama', one can be
superficial about it or deep, perhaps abstract is a better word, about
it.
Your definition of drama two posts ago ('extra-musical') is a
superficial or simple definition.
Later you raised an eyebrow when Matt Fields listed dance as
extra-musical. But of course it's extra-musical! A deaf person could
enjoy dance with no experience of music. By a superficial view, music
and dance having nothing to do with each other, experienced through
different senses entirely.
You probably take for granted the deeply felt relationship between
music and dance. Note that it's only a short step from there to
feeling the relationship between a Bach fugue and a novel!
Mike Mossey
po...@hotmail.com
In article <60v140$v...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
> that you are mixing assertions about a superficial sense of the
> concept 'drama' with assertions about a deeper sense of it.
Not really. I just think the "deeper" sense is a lot of hooey, and not
really deeper at all but an unnecessary cluttering of the musical
experience and what's more a crutch propping up an unmusical limitation
in both composer and listener. In other words, I stand by the opinion of
Spitta I quoted in my last post to Mr. Fields.
But what I think of it is besides the point, my only assertion has ever
been that this "drama" is listener-subjective and not indicated or
implied by the composer.
> Before you see this as a big criticism of what you are writing, let me
> point out that I think I empathize with your experience of Bach's
> music as avoiding the kinds of dramatic gestures in, say, romantic
> period music. In fact, not long ago, I was very confused when I heard
> someone mention that Bach put climaxes into his music. I didn't hear
> any! But I've evolved in my experience of music since then, and I
> most definitely hear climaxes,
I'm not sure what you mean by "climaxes" or why this is particularly
"drama". Bach certainly has crescendi in his music, though none
explicitly indicated, as well as other sorts of climaxes such as an
increase in the "business" of a passage, implying a crescendo, and these
certainly can have whatever dramatic implications your imagination may
choose to apply. Real crescendi, in the modern sense, didn't come until
after Bach, however.
If you mean formal climaxes, then you are speaking very metaphorically
and it's going to be a hard row to hoe to show that this is the same as
"drama" in any but the most metaphorical sense of that word. In fact,
it's a hard row in either case.
> and form that is analogous to
> word-drama, now. I might say that Bach is sneakier about it than most
> other composers, and yet I also feel it deeper.
Again we have the idea of ascribing "drama" to something as equating with
feeling it deeper or enjoying it more, which is really a very depressing
idea, if you think about what that means for the art form of music.
Again, what Spitta said about crutches was very well said.
>
> So I feel that depending on how you define 'drama', you could say that
> Bach is or isn't dramatic.
This is very true, which is why I've been so careful about my definition.
> I say that the most useful concept, the
> most general concept that finds analogies across different art forms,
> of drama applies to Bach. Yet it is also true, probably true anyway
> (I'm not an expert), that he avoided 'painting pictures' or 'telling
> stories' with music. The music finds its own form.
Odd. But this is all that my point has every been. Bach refers to no
extra-musical, let alone dramatical, thing in his instrumental music.
> But---think of the form of a novel or painting. Is that necessarily
> always an accurate reflection of reality, or does that find its own
> form too? Then, could we find analogies about the way music finds its
> form to the way novels find their form?
I was very careful to explain why I chose the definition I did of drama.
If you read it in context, you will find that my analysis is not
superficial at all. I hope that doesn't sound arrogant, but it seems as
if you have failed to understand my argument.
>
> I'm sure we can agree that however one defines 'drama', one can be
> superficial about it or deep, perhaps abstract is a better word, about
> it.
Abstract is just the opposite, actually.
>
> Your definition of drama two posts ago ('extra-musical') is a
> superficial or simple definition.
It's a little annoying that you have apparently ignored my lengthy
justification of the choice of that special definition. Bach's
instrumental music simply does not deal with "drama" except in the most
metaphorical use of that word.
> Later you raised an eyebrow when Matt Fields listed dance as
> extra-musical. But of course it's extra-musical! A deaf person could
> enjoy dance with no experience of music.
This is splitting hairs. A dance form is a musical thing. Bach never
wrote a piece designed to be evocative of the dancer, but merely of the
convention of the dance form, the dance music itself, which is a musical
convention.
> By a superficial view, music
> and dance having nothing to do with each other, experienced through
> different senses entirely.
>
> You probably take for granted the deeply felt relationship between
> music and dance.
Probably.
> Note that it's only a short step from there to
> feeling the relationship between a Bach fugue and a novel!
Oh, nonsense.
If you're thinking of novels while listening to a Bach fugue, you've
diminished your appreciation of the music. Why not just say that a Bach
fugue is improved if it is used as background music for a movie?
But I won't quibble with you anyway. De gustibus and all that. Think of
bach fugues any way you like. Just don't try to tell me I'm missing
something. I've been around long enough to hear a Bach fugue with just
about every attitude possible, and I find that attending to the music
rather than trying to foist some subjective fantasy on it, as if it were
a movie score, is the best way for me. My point has never been how
others should listen to a Bach fugue.
Michael P. Mossey
We misunderstand each other. These are important issues to me, so
I'll see what I can say that might be helpful to myself, and might
possibly give you some better idea of what I'm thinking.
For one thing, I consider it condescending to tell someone they are
missing out on the enjoyment of Bach fugues, and I would never want to
do so.
For another thing, I generally don't fantasize about anything, in the
sense you seem to be describing it, when I listen to Bach fugues. I
might feel something I would describe as dramatic---but to feel drama,
for me, does not mean I'm feeling something that's explicit in the
external world.
>Not really. I just think the "deeper" sense is a lot of hooey, and not
>really deeper at all but an unnecessary cluttering of the musical
>experience and what's more a crutch propping up an unmusical limitation
>in both composer and listener. In other words, I stand by the opinion of
>Spitta I quoted in my last post to Mr. Fields.
Speaking of condescending, that's how I find this paragraph. I expect
that you don't care, but I'm pointing this out for the benefit of
myself and anyone else who feels similarly.
>
>But what I think of it is besides the point, my only assertion has ever
>been that this "drama" is listener-subjective and not indicated or
>implied by the composer.
I think that I have been reacting to the subtext in your posts that
conveys judgements about what are "crutches," "unmusical limitations,"
and so forth. I agree with statements like "the music finds its own
form" and "the instrumental fugues don't refer to extra-musical
things"---but it's the emphasis, the importance, the context of these
assertions that trigger me.
As far as what was implied by the composer---perhaps all Bach-lovers
find satisfaction in believing they understand what Bach felt and
believed about his own music? Maybe we all enjoy believing we
understand what was indicated or implied.
You can give me all the proof you want that Bach didn't intend
explicit references to extra-musical things---I don't think that gets
us to statements like these:
"They are simply not *dramatic*. That's not bad you know. Bach
didn't intend for them to be dramatic, they were not inspired by
dramatic action, they did not refer explicity to emotions or events in
drama, they did not attempt to be expressive of theatrical action"
In which statement, by the way, it seems you are not using your
particular definition of drama, correct me if I'm wrong.
>If you mean formal climaxes, then you are speaking very metaphorically
>and it's going to be a hard row to hoe to show that this is the same as
>"drama" in any but the most metaphorical sense of that word. In fact,
>it's a hard row in either case.
Metaphorical senses of words may well be the most important ones for
me. This is probably a major point of disagreement here. In any
case, I just find it confusing that on the one hand, you are referring
to a highly evolved experience of music, and on the other hand you
seem uninterested in abstract uses of the word 'drama.' I can't fully
explain it, but that just runs counter to my intuition.
>
>> and form that is analogous to
>> word-drama, now. I might say that Bach is sneakier about it than most
>> other composers, and yet I also feel it deeper.
>
>Again we have the idea of ascribing "drama" to something as equating with
>feeling it deeper or enjoying it more,
Woah. Not at all. I'm saying that I feel the drama I hear in Bach
(at this point I will dutifully note that the fact I hear drama in
Bach does not imply there are explicit extra-musical references)
deeper than the drama I hear in most romantic composers.
I'm not saying that I enjoy the music more BECAUSE I hear drama in it.
I thought this was obvious.
I'm also saying that the drama I hear in Bach is a more evolved drama.
I fear that making statments like "Bach's music isn't dramatic" will
limit the evolution possible in all the living listeners and composers
out there.
>> I say that the most useful concept, the
>> most general concept that finds analogies across different art forms,
>> of drama applies to Bach. Yet it is also true, probably true anyway
>> (I'm not an expert), that he avoided 'painting pictures' or 'telling
>> stories' with music. The music finds its own form.
>
>Odd. But this is all that my point has every been. Bach refers to no
>extra-musical, let alone dramatical, thing in his instrumental music.
>
>> But---think of the form of a novel or painting. Is that necessarily
>> always an accurate reflection of reality, or does that find its own
>> form too? Then, could we find analogies about the way music finds its
>> form to the way novels find their form?
>
>I was very careful to explain why I chose the definition I did of drama.
>If you read it in context, you will find that my analysis is not
>superficial at all. I hope that doesn't sound arrogant, but it seems as
>if you have failed to understand my argument.
>
>>
>> I'm sure we can agree that however one defines 'drama', one can be
>> superficial about it or deep, perhaps abstract is a better word, about
>> it.
>
>Abstract is just the opposite, actually.
Well, I'm not sure where the confusion is here. I tend to use the
words 'concrete' and 'abstract' a lot of different ways, I guess, and
I'm just thinking about how the word 'deep' can imply either something
experienced immediately at the senses, which tends to imply
'concrete', or an experience that employs a lot of intelligence, which
tends to imply 'abstract.' I'm guessing some of this confusion might
be inherent in the English language.
>
>>
>> Your definition of drama two posts ago ('extra-musical') is a
>> superficial or simple definition.
>
>It's a little annoying that you have apparently ignored my lengthy
>justification of the choice of that special definition. Bach's
>instrumental music simply does not deal with "drama" except in the most
>metaphorical use of that word.
What's confusing to me: are we talking about your special sense of
drama or are we talking about all, "except for the most metaphorical
use," senses of it?
>> You probably take for granted the deeply felt relationship between
>> music and dance.
>
>Probably.
>
>> Note that it's only a short step from there to
>> feeling the relationship between a Bach fugue and a novel!
>
>Oh, nonsense.
Wow, makes great sense to me.
>
>If you're thinking of novels while listening to a Bach fugue, you've
>diminished your appreciation of the music.
Yikes! What a judgemental, subjective statement---very confusing in
the context of the objective attitude you project most of the time.
> Why not just say that a Bach
>fugue is improved if it is used as background music for a movie?
>
>But I won't quibble with you anyway. De gustibus and all that. Think of
>bach fugues any way you like. Just don't try to tell me I'm missing
>something.
I never tried. Mainly I'm posting on this topic because I was
triggered by your statements and felt them to be an attack on my
values (no, I don't mean that you are attacking the right of every
listener to fantasize about whatever they want---I'm referring to the
relative importance of concepts, metaphors, etc.).
>I've been around long enough to hear a Bach fugue with just
>about every attitude possible, and I find that attending to the music
>rather than trying to foist some subjective fantasy on it, as if it were
>a movie score, is the best way for me.
Ok. I don't think anyone here has referred to "trying to foist some
subjective fantasy on it."
>My point has never been how
>others should listen to a Bach fugue.
It seems to me that you've been trying to *influence* how others
listen to a Bach fugue, or compose themselves. Which is not a
criticism, I admit doing the same thing (here I dutifully note that
I'm not trying to influence people to fantasize movies to music, and
if you think I am, you've misunderstood me). I'm just curious to know
if you agree.
Mike M.
po...@hotmail.com
In article <611llg$o...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
> that you don't care, but I'm pointing this out for the benefit of
> myself and anyone else who feels similarly.
If you're taking this personally, Mike, you're missing the spirit of
debate. I think some of your comments, however, could be interpreted as
condescension as well. I don't really feel like debating that point
however, so I'll leave you (and any audience, in the unlikely event we
still have one) to draw your (their) own conclusions. If I offended I'm
truly sorry.
> I think that I have been reacting to the subtext in your posts that
Subtext is perhaps not the best place to begin a renewal of this already
convoluted debate.
> You can give me all the proof you want that Bach didn't intend
> explicit references to extra-musical things---I don't think that gets
> us to statements like these:
>
> "They are simply not *dramatic*. That's not bad you know. Bach
> didn't intend for them to be dramatic, they were not inspired by
> dramatic action, they did not refer explicity to emotions or events in
> drama, they did not attempt to be expressive of theatrical action"
>
> In which statement, by the way, it seems you are not using your
> particular definition of drama, correct me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong, and rather than repeat myself, I will refer you back to
the post from which you quote, in which I explain why, in that very
special instance, in the context of that particular point in my debate
with Mr. Fields, I chose to limit myself to that definition as a minimum
requirement. Once you realize that, you will see why, in the absense of
that minimum, the above also is true as I have stated it.
> Metaphorical senses of words may well be the most important ones for
> me.
Well, this is fine, but this is not (or, at least, was not) the debate.
> This is probably a major point of disagreement here. In any
> case, I just find it confusing that on the one hand, you are referring
> to a highly evolved experience of music, and on the other hand you
> seem uninterested in abstract uses of the word 'drama.' I can't fully
> explain it, but that just runs counter to my intuition.
I can't fully explain it either, since I honestly have no idea what you
mean. Neither seems a correct characterization of my argument.
> >> I say that the most useful concept, the
> >> most general concept that finds analogies across different art forms,
> >> of drama applies to Bach. Yet it is also true, probably true anyway
> >> (I'm not an expert), that he avoided 'painting pictures' or 'telling
> >> stories' with music. The music finds its own form.
> >
> >Odd. But this is all that my point has every been. Bach refers to no
> >extra-musical, let alone dramatical, thing in his instrumental music.
>
> >It's a little annoying that you have apparently ignored my lengthy
> >justification of the choice of that special definition. Bach's
> >instrumental music simply does not deal with "drama" except in the most
> >metaphorical use of that word.
>
> What's confusing to me: are we talking about your special sense of
> drama or are we talking about all, "except for the most metaphorical
> use," senses of it?
I will refer you back to my original post, in which I think I've made it
pretty clear.
> >If you're thinking of novels while listening to a Bach fugue, you've
> >diminished your appreciation of the music.
>
> Yikes! What a judgemental, subjective statement---very confusing in
> the context of the objective attitude you project most of the time.
Simply a statement of opinion. Hell yes it's subjective. So what?
> I never tried. Mainly I'm posting on this topic because I was
> triggered by your statements and felt them to be an attack on my
> values
It seems you take it all a bit more personally that I intended it.
Let's shake and be friends. (proffered hand)
> >I've been around long enough to hear a Bach fugue with just
> >about every attitude possible, and I find that attending to the music
> >rather than trying to foist some subjective fantasy on it, as if it were
> >a movie score, is the best way for me.
>
> Ok. I don't think anyone here has referred to "trying to foist some
> subjective fantasy on it."
I sit corrected.
> >My point has never been how
> >others should listen to a Bach fugue.
>
> It seems to me that you've been trying to *influence* how others
> listen to a Bach fugue, or compose themselves.
I don't know whether assurances to the contrary will convince you, but,
might as well give it a shot: absolutely not.
The listening habits of other Bach lovers couldn't be less interesting to
me. The only motivation I had in getting into this debate with Mr. Fields
was a rare chance to have a discussion with someone who really knows his
stuff. I enjoyed it, and it never seemed so vituperative or condescending
to me. Maybe I need to re-read what I wrote!
regards,
Michael P. Mossey
I always take things much too personally. If you didn't feel anything
like condescension, I will assume it wasn't there.
In article <8759097...@dejanews.com>, <po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> This is probably a major point of disagreement here. In any
>> case, I just find it confusing that on the one hand, you are referring
>> to a highly evolved experience of music, and on the other hand you
>> seem uninterested in abstract uses of the word 'drama.' I can't fully
>> explain it, but that just runs counter to my intuition.
>
>I can't fully explain it either, since I honestly have no idea what you
>mean. Neither seems a correct characterization of my argument.
By a 'highly evolved experience of music' I mean that you have tried
on many ways of listening to music, and that in general you've had a
lot of listening experience.
By 'abstract uses of the word drama' I mean ways of using the word to
describing experiences that are different on the surface but connected
in some deeper way. For example, let's consider a novel and a Bach
fugue. I could point to examples of prolongation (Shenker's term) in
the fugue. Now here's a quote from a book of writing advice:
"The most obvious way to create tension is to say something's going to
happen and then put it off."
Mike M.
Matthew H. Fields
Well, look, it's as simple as this: arguments that Bach's instrumental
works are not dramatic in which we keep hopping from one meaning of
"dramatic" (with extra-musical content) to another (staged) to another
(expresses a text, as shown by the presense of a text) to another (designed
to move the passions, not merely to present fascinating patterns of sound)
---these arguments may be presented with layers and layers of rhetoric
but the underlying equivocation is still obvious.
po...@hotmail.com
In article <6146os$4...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
m...@alumni.caltech.edu (Michael P. Mossey) wrote:
Maybe we can let the following be *my*, if not *the*, "final word",
barring any unusual twists and turns and/or startlingly challenging
counter-arguments:
> By 'abstract uses of the word drama' I mean ways of using the word to
> describing experiences that are different on the surface but connected
> in some deeper way. For example, let's consider a novel and a Bach
> fugue. I could point to examples of prolongation (Shenker's term) in
> the fugue. Now here's a quote from a book of writing advice:
>
> "The most obvious way to create tension is to say something's going to
> happen and then put it off."
This describes a highly metaphorical and subjective definition of the
word drama (assuming you are still defending your original assertion),
one that I never disputed nor was very much interested in. It's a nice
analogy, but little more.
Again, the earlier debate was about whether or not Bach intended his
instrumental music to be "dramatic" in any but the most metaphorical usage
of that term or, indeed, whether Bach intended his music to describe any
extra-musical thing at all.
Though I don't doubt that people will laugh when I say this, I think I
have a pretty open mind on this topic, and yet no one, including you, has
been able to demonstrate anything to the contrary as far as I can tell,
so I defer to Spitta's opinion on this.
In Bach's day, the ways of thinking about music, performing it, and
composing it, were incredibly diverse, so diverse, in fact, that there
were highly regional differences between, say, the south of Germany and
the middle parts, Thuringia, where Bach and his relatives thrived, let
alone the differences between Germany and France or Germany and Italy.
Therefore the currency of a certain practice is completely besides the
point.
Yes, there were "affects" in Bach's day. So what? In our own day, there
are similar conventions. For example, the minor mode is considered
"sad". I don't think anyone would ever wish to argue, however, that a
composer who writes something in a minor key is ipso facto creating a
work of art which he himself intends to be a dramatic representation of
the emotion of sorrow, though in many cases that may in fact be the case.
Also, the tritone is considered a fearful sounding interval, yet not
every composer who uses it is intending to indicate fear. And so on....
And so on and so on....
ciao,