Late Romantics
Sonarrat Citalis
Romanticism when it was breathing its last, while also incorporating
some the advances of the 20th century. I'm speaking specifically of
Enescu, Szymanowski, Janácek, Roussel. These four each have deeply
distinctive voices, as unmistakable as any other, and they also share
a penchant for music that is quite complex in many ways, but remains
intelligible. They all left fabulous piano music, fabulous chamber
music and fabulous operas, still little known and little explored.
Georges Enescu or Enesco (1881-1955) - Unfortunately, the works of his
that get performed most often are unrepresentative early works. Most
trumpet majors know Legend, most viola majors know Concertpiece, and
just about everyone knows that Rumanian Rhapsody, but what violinists
know these sonatas, and when will the ensemble-size chamber music
become standard repertoire? And Oedipe is really striking, even if it
doesn't sound all that much like the tender-hearted Enescu of the
finely branched string quartets and piano quintet. Finally, I must
say I've encountered no other sonata of such rewarding complexity as
Enescu's D major.
Karol Szymanowski (1882-1937) - Seems to be fairly popular here at
Oberlin. The winner of this year's sophomore's prize played Métopes,
and a recent recital included the Op. 3 Variations. I hope to get the
chance to champion the Op. 33 Etudes or the Op. 62 Mazurkas.
Szymanowski's style varied quite a bit; it is the Polish-themed works
from his last years which interest me the most, such as the Op. 50 and
62 Mazurkas, the Symphonie Concertante for piano and orchestra, the
second Violin Concerto and the second string quartet. There is no
Chopin in these works; instead, he strikes the ear as a kind of Polish
Bartók with a particularly rarefied sense of harmonic color. And, of
course, King Roger was a major turning point in his life and retains
its full-flowered value.
Leos Janácek (1854-1928) - Also quite popular here; his string
quartets are performed regularly. He wrote many operas, of which
Cunning Little Vixen is the most popular (certainly after the recent
BBC animated production, which goes on sale May 20). He also left the
greatest quantity of piano music of any of these four. A decent
pianist himself, he seems to have left the duties of performing this
music to his dear student Rudolf Firkusny. It is sometimes very
awkward; playing through the CLV opera score suggests that Janacek
really didn't try to conform his music to the limitations of two hands
on a piano. Strange, too, is the total metrical freedom which seems
to be hand-tailored to suit the "voices" involved, rather than the
other way around as with many composers who followed him.
Albert Roussel (1869-1937) - Late (At 25) to begin composing, it took
time for him to become comfortable with it. He gradually abandoned
both Impressionism and neo-Classicism, both of which figured in his
first 10 opus numbers or so. This was a rugged man, and his toughness
comes through in such scores as the Fourth Symphony, the biting and
concise Piano Concerto, and the most grueling Sonatine this side of
Alkan. As an aside, he also taught such disparate figures as Satie,
Varèse and Martinu. He wrote quite a few ballets and experimented
with combining the ballet and the opera, such as in Padmâvatî. His
mature works have a unity and continuity to their sound-worlds which
can give the impression of being as solid as granite, a trait which he
successfully passed on to Martinu, who for whatever reason has become
much more popular writing music in actually a pretty similar vein.
-Sonarrat.
Scott Kurtz
difficult and abstruse, a more difficult postromantic nut to crack than
Schoenberg's String Quartet No. 1. I recently got Dutoit's set of the four
symphonies and hope to come to grips with No. 2 one of these days. If you
like Szymanowski, there are one or two haunting early vocal-orchestral
pieces by Witold Lutoslawski that show unmistakable ties to Szymanowski. I
tend to like Szymanowski's earlier, ecstatic pieces the most (Violin
Concerto No. 1, Stabat Mater, and Symphony No. 3). The Violin Concerto No. 2
seems too tame or subdued for my tastes. (In that respect it's rather
analogous to Bartok's Viola Concerto, though the blame for the latter
blandness might rest with Tibor Serly.)
Sonarrat Citalis <sona...@postmark.net> wrote in message
news:3dde371a.0305...@posting.google.com...
Raymond Hall
news:3dde371a.0305...@posting.google.com...
| Romanticism when it was breathing its last, while also incorporating
| some the advances of the 20th century. I'm speaking specifically of
| Enescu, Szymanowski, Janácek, Roussel. These four each have deeply
| distinctive voices, as unmistakable as any other, and they also share
I have similar tastes, and for late romanticism then add Dohnanyi to the
list. His symphony No.1 is fabulous (Botstein/LPO on Telarc), and his piano
music is wonderful (Pawlik Vol I on Naxos, does the Ruralia Hungarica, six
concert etudes, quite superbly).
Of those composers you quote in some detail, then Szymanowski heads my list
easily, followed by Janacek, and known to many of us. Roussel struck me as a
bit hard going frankly, especially as regards his symphonies, (too pungent
for my taste), but certainly his Bachus et Ariane, together with his Le
Festin de l'araignée, are distinct masterworks.
Enescu seems much too profuse with ideas for my taste also, although I must
admit I only have his string quartets No.1 and No.2, and obviously he is a
considerable composer.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
Larry Rinkel
news:3dde371a.0305...@posting.google.com...
> with combining the ballet and the opera, such as in Padmâvatî. His
> mature works have a unity and continuity to their sound-worlds which
> can give the impression of being as solid as granite, a trait which he
> successfully passed on to Martinu, who for whatever reason has become
> much more popular writing music in actually a pretty similar vein.
>
> -Sonarrat.
Of the composers you mention, Janacek is probably the most interesting to
me, but I wouldn't necessarily call him a late Romantic. Rachmaninoff is a
late Romantic. Janacek's style is far grittier and less sentimental. And I
wouldn't use an animated video to gauge the popularity of his operas, as
Jenufa and Katya Kabanova are every bit as widely performed as Vixen, in my
experience.
I found Enescu's 3rd violin sonata quite impressive when I heard it in
performance some time back. Haven't gotten too far with Oedipe, though I
have the CDs. The only composer on your list I don't really like is
Szymanowski, at least on the basis of King Roger and a few chamber works
I've experienced.
Thomas Muething
> Albert Roussel (1869-1937) - Late (At 25) to begin composing, it took
> time for him to become comfortable with it. He gradually abandoned
> both Impressionism and neo-Classicism, both of which figured in his
> first 10 opus numbers or so. This was a rugged man, and his toughness
> comes through in such scores as the Fourth Symphony, the biting and
> concise Piano Concerto, and the most grueling Sonatine this side of
> Alkan.
I love his music, especially the symphonies (Orchestre National de
France/Janowski). But I wouldn't call him a "late Romantic"
Thomas
--
"There's just two things in this world that I can't stand. It's people
who are intolerant of other people's culture ... and the Dutch!"
(Michael Caine, in "Austin Powers: Goldmember")
Thomas Muething
>
> Orchestre National de France/Janowski)
I mean: Orchestre Philharmonique de Radio France.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: I love [Roussel's] music, especially the symphonies (Orchestre National de
: France/Janowski).
Not Munch?
: But I wouldn't call him a "late Romantic"
Actually, I'm not sure that anyone [who knows what he is talking about]
would call any of the composers listed "late Romantic." "Post-Romantic"
is more like it.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Thomas Muething
>
> Not Munch?
I nearly picked up the "Elatus" CD with his Roussel 3+4 the other day.
> Actually, I'm not sure that anyone [who knows what he is talking about]
> would call any of the composers listed "late Romantic." "Post-Romantic"
> is more like it.
In Roussel's case, I'd agree with "Grove's":
"His later, neo-classical works, marked by wide-ranging regular themes
and motoric rhythms, include the Symphonies nos. 3 and 4, the orchestral
Suite in F, the Piano Concerto, the String Quartet and two ballets,
Bacchus et Ariane and Aenéas."
Larry Rinkel
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
news:ba09eh$5o5$2...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In article <3EC3A43A...@t-online.de>, Thomas Muething
<tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> : I love [Roussel's] music, especially the symphonies (Orchestre National
de
> : France/Janowski).
>
> Not Munch?
>
> : But I wouldn't call him a "late Romantic"
>
> Actually, I'm not sure that anyone [who knows what he is talking about]
> would call any of the composers listed "late Romantic." "Post-Romantic"
> is more like it.
>
Sonarrat Citalis
> : But I wouldn't call him a "late Romantic"
>
> Actually, I'm not sure that anyone [who knows what he is talking about]
> would call any of the composers listed "late Romantic."
> "Post-Romantic" is more like it.
For the last time, STOP BELITTLING ME. That little barb in the
brackets is totally unnecessary and serves only to make you look like
a troll.
-Sonarrat.
Sonarrat Citalis
I think Janacek, Szymanowski and Enescu are still very much in the
Romantic tradition, and although their earlier music makes a better
case for this consideration, that doesn't mean their mature output
isn't still basically Romantic. Calling them "post-Romantic" or the
like would suggest there was some huge departure, and I don't believe
there was. This is still highly expressive music based on
conventional harmonic ideas. Roussel is easier to argue the other
way, but at the least, the Fourth Symphony and the later piano works
shove the delicate touch of the Impressionist school off the cliff,
and they strike me hence as a regression to the full-blooded music of
years past.
> Janacek's style is far grittier and less
> sentimental.
Maybe, but so is Schumann's.
-Sonarrat.
Raymond Hall
Just accept Sonnarat, that Schultz is the most bitter, twisted arsehole to
ever pollute this NG. It only belittles itself as the pathetic warmongering
Israeli piece of shite it essentially is. Not yourself. Never accept the
fact that you are belittled. It shows low esteem, and I know you don't
suffer from that and neither should you either.
Schultz has been No.1 on my kill-file for eons and will remain so.
Psychiatric treatment is badly needed in its case.
William Quentin (Bloom)
<LRi...@optunderline.net> wrote:
>
>Of the composers you mention, Janacek is probably the most interesting to
>me, but I wouldn't necessarily call him a late Romantic. Rachmaninoff is a
>late Romantic. Janacek's style is far grittier and less sentimental. And I
>wouldn't use an animated video to gauge the popularity of his operas, as
>Jenufa and Katya Kabanova are every bit as widely performed as Vixen, in my
>experience.
>
I really like Janacek as well, and find his music very interesting. I
just recently heard his Slavonic Mass for the first time, and it is
fantastic. As far as his operas, I've only heard Vixen (which is one
of my favorite operas), but I hope to hear some more of them soon.
I also agree with Larry that calling Janacek a Romantic is a bit
troublesome. To be honest, I have a hard time calling anyone after
Wagner a Romantic. For me Wagner was the apex of Romanticism (for
both good and ill - mostly ill), and everyone after him was in some
way reacting to him, and was therefore "post-Romantic" or
"post-Wagnerian". I tend to think of this in terms of Tristan und
Isolde, which for me is the ultimate and logical conclusion of the
Romantic ethos, and the polar opposite of Beethoven's Ninth symphony
(which I would classify as the starting-point of Romanticism -- not
chronologically, but ideologically).
Basically, Beethoven's Ninth posits the Romantic belief in the
attainability of Ideas, Truth, Beauty, and all that other stuff.
That's why the Ode to Joy is so effective. It's such a simple tune,
and we all know it. Schiller's poem, trite as some of us may find it,
is a statement of the potency of human beings and their ability to
achieve their goals. The important thing to note, however, is that
what Beethoven and Schiller set up is a constant reaching for
transcendence. The Ninth tells us we can achieve it, but forty years
later Wagner would tell us otherwise.
Wagner of course talks about the same things Beethoven did (Truth,
Beauty, Love, Transcendence), but now we see the dark underbelly of
the Romantic dream. Rather than the hope of Beethoven, we see in
Tristan utter despair. We have within us these transcendental
longings, for personal agency, for Love, for Truth, but these are
forever out of our reach. This is what Isolde's Liebestod is all
about. For Wagner, we can never reach a joyous conclusion of harmony
and unity. That hope is dead forty years after Beethoven. Rather,
Wagner, still in thrall to these transcendental (read: unobtainable)
longings, quite rightly tells us that as long as we harbor these hopes
for the Ideal, the only way we can reach an end to our longing, so to
speak, is through Death. That, it seems to me, is/was the ultimate
end of Romanticism.
Interestingly, on purely musical grounds I think one can make the same
argument. In Beethoven's Ninth, we have the Ode to Joy. As I already
said and as we all already know, it's an incredibly simple tune. Any
child can hum it after just hearing it once. This speaks to
Beethoven's Romantic objective: a (musical) statement of the unity of
humanity under God, and of our ability to achieve that what we desire.
Tonality, in some ways, then, is the belief in God, is the belief in a
Just and Right center, the belief in Authority (the tonic). We always
circle this center, and we rightly and inevitably land upon it. This
is what binds us all together as human beings. In Wagner, however,
with the Tristan Chord, this belief in Tonality, in the location of a
universal goal, is shaken. Wagner attenuates Tonality, and all of a
sudden our easy belief in where we should be going is called into
question. We are immediately thrown into a state of uncertainty when
listening to Tristan und Isolde, and that uncertainty continues
throughout the entirety of the opera. There is no longer a way to
believe that we can satiate our desires or achieve transcendence, and
ultimately Tristan and Isolde never do. Rather than alighting upon
Dream (as perhaps Beethoven, with his optimism in the Ninth, does),
Wagner shows us that the only end in store for us, the only escape
from desire and the longing for the Ideal, and the only certainty in
our lives, is death. In fact, Wagner tries to show us that death
itself is the only thing that we can ever hope to achieve. Everything
else is illusion. Where does one go in Romanticism after this? It
is, after all, the logical conclusion to a belief in the transcendent.
Therefore, as I said before, any composer after Wagner necessarily
needs to be deemed, in my mind, either post-Romantic or
post-Wagnerian. Wagner, after all, killed Romanticism.
Of course, that's just in my humble opinion, and what I happened to be
thinking at the moment of writing this post. So don't hold me to it.
;-)
-Billy
Sonarrat Citalis
Well, besides the fact that Google Groups does not yet provide a
killfile for its customers, or anything else for that matter, he
clearly isn't a dunce.
To Mr. Schultz: you know what you're talking about, but it would be
much easier to appreciate that if you were tactful. You don't need to
be condescending or insulting in order to be right. Take it from
someone who's seen all the trolls there are to see... ;)
-Sonarrat.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in
news:3dde371a.03051...@posting.google.com:
>> Just accept Sonnarat, that Schultz is the most bitter, twisted arsehole
>> to ever pollute this NG. It only belittles itself as the pathetic
>> warmongering Israeli piece of shite it essentially is. Not yourself.
>> Never accept the fact that you are belittled. It shows low esteem, and I
>> know you don't suffer from that and neither should you either.
Recommended reading: Carnegie, Dale. _How to Win Friends and Influence
People_. I carry it around with my on my Palm Tungsten T (the original
text is out of copyright, or at least I think it is).
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
RMCR's most pointless, dumb and laughable chowderhead: Mark Coy.
Larry Rinkel
"Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)" <oyş@earthlink.net>
wrote in message news:Xns937D849BF68...@129.250.170.81...
> sona...@postmark.net (Sonarrat Citalis) appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:3dde371a.03051...@posting.google.com:
>
> >> Just accept Sonnarat, that Schultz is the most bitter, twisted arsehole
> >> to ever pollute this NG. It only belittles itself as the pathetic
> >> warmongering Israeli piece of shite it essentially is. Not yourself.
> >> Never accept the fact that you are belittled. It shows low esteem, and
I
> >> know you don't suffer from that and neither should you either.
>
> Recommended reading: Carnegie, Dale. _How to Win Friends and Influence
> People_. I carry it around with my on my Palm Tungsten T (the original
> text is out of copyright, or at least I think it is).
I'm sure someone will put it up on eBay.
And now that we're one big, happy family again:
Sonarrat: "This is still highly expressive music based on conventional
harmonic ideas."
That may well be, but that doesn't make it Romantic. (And in Janacek's case
at least, I'm not so sure the harmonic ideas are all that conventional - not
to mention idiosyncrasies of rhythm and orchestration. If Janacek's language
was so "conventional," why were his scores tampered with repeatedly in early
performances, to the point where even today the study score of the
Glagolitic Mass you can buy in Patelson's is an adulterated version? If SC
is so convinced Janacek's harmonic idea are conventional, I invite him to
turn to just the first page of the Sinfonietta, where the two upper Wagner
tubas play in bare parallel fifths, soon joined by a modal melody in the
lower Wagner tubas and the timpani. It is easier for us today to hear
Janacek's language than it would have been 70-80 years ago when he produced
the remarkable late works like the Mass and the five great operas. That
doesn't make him conventional, much less Romantic.)
Dropping the nom de dragon for a minute, I have no objection to Jeffrey's
proselytizing for music he adores, and I think he writes engagingly and
convincingly when he addresses specific works he knows well, as he did when
discussing the Shostakovich Op. 87 some months ago. But I think he gets into
trouble when he tries to generalize. It's difficult enough to define
Romanticism (is it a period? a style? something of both?), but when one gets
into composers some of whom can just as convincingly be described as
anti-Romantic, attempting a definition becomes murkier yet.
A statement like the following - "They all left fabulous piano music,
fabulous chamber music and fabulous operas, still little known and little
explored" - reminds me of something I said in class to Charles Rosen during
my salad days (yes, I had them too), when I thought I was complimenting him
for including a discussion of the Haydn piano trios in his book on The
Classical Style. Giving me the withering look that Rosen was so practiced
in, he replied, "Do you think you're the only person who's ever heard the
Haydn trios?" A word to the wise, Jeff.
William Quentin (Billy) Bloom: "Rather,
Wagner, still in thrall to these transcendental (read: unobtainable)
longings, quite rightly tells us that as long as we harbor these hopes
for the Ideal, the only way we can reach an end to our longing, so to
speak, is through Death. That, it seems to me, is/was the ultimate
end of Romanticism."
"This speaks to
Beethoven's Romantic objective: a (musical) statement of the unity of
humanity under God, and of our ability to achieve that what we desire.
Tonality, in some ways, then, is the belief in God, is the belief in a
Just and Right center, the belief in Authority (the tonic). We always
circle this center, and we rightly and inevitably land upon it. This
is what binds us all together as human beings. In Wagner, however,
with the Tristan Chord, this belief in Tonality, in the location of a
universal goal, is shaken. Wagner attenuates Tonality, and all of a
sudden our easy belief in where we should be going is called into
question. We are immediately thrown into a state of uncertainty when
listening to Tristan und Isolde, and that uncertainty continues
throughout the entirety of the opera. There is no longer a way to
believe that we can satiate our desires or achieve transcendence, and
ultimately Tristan and Isolde never do.
"Of course, that's just in my humble opinion, and what I happened to be
thinking at the moment of writing this post. So don't hold me to it."
Wouldn't dream of it, Billy, though in some ways I think you're right.
Beethoven's musical goal, the goal of classical sonata form, was always to
return to the tonic after whatever excursions he made to remote tonal lands.
The departure from the original tonic, and the return to it, in Beethoven
are often highly dramatic, much more so than in Haydn and Mozart, who often
speak the language of urbane drawing room comedy. And nowhere is Wagner's
failure to achieve tonal resolution more striking than at the climax (ahem)
in Act Two of Tristan, where the musical coitus is interruptus by Brangäne's
shriek and the discovery of the lovers by Marke and Melot. Yet even so,
Wagner's departure from the authority of the tonic is never complete, as
Isolde's Liebestod, resuming and recapitulating the music of her Liebesnacht
with Tristan, ultimately finds its beatific resolution in the prolonged B
major chord that ends the opera.
And Meistersinger, written after Tristan, if anything tries to convince
itself more firmly in the authority of tonality, by positing the fantasy of
an ideal society brought together by the power of song. Walther's Preislied,
very beautiful but much more regular in its phrase structures than the
disruptive improvisation of his "Fanget an!" in Act One, serves to unite the
entire town (or rather, the entire town minus one humiliated town clerk) of
Nuremberg through the glory of purely tonal music. True, Walther pouts
somewhat when Sachs grants him the status of Meister, but the lad is brought
around. Even so, there's something disruptive about a social order where
musical utopia is achieved at the expense of ridiculing an elderly man whose
only flaw is that he's an untalented pedant unfortunate enough to fall in
love with the same young girl the other two male leads are in love with. So
if the glorious C major harmonies rounding off the final tableau in Act
Three leave a slightly bitter aftertaste at least in this operagoer's mouth,
it seems that at least in this opera, Wagner wanted to assert a belief in a
Just and Right center, the belief in Authority (the Tonic).
Raymond Hall
news:73k9cvo75k4376n7a...@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 15 May 2003 11:49:42 GMT, "Larry Rinkel"
| <LRi...@optunderline.net> wrote:
|
| >
| >Of the composers you mention, Janacek is probably the most interesting to
| >me, but I wouldn't necessarily call him a late Romantic. Rachmaninoff is
a
| >late Romantic. Janacek's style is far grittier and less sentimental. And
I
| >wouldn't use an animated video to gauge the popularity of his operas, as
| >Jenufa and Katya Kabanova are every bit as widely performed as Vixen, in
my
| >experience.
| >
|
| I really like Janacek as well, and find his music very interesting. I
| just recently heard his Slavonic Mass for the first time, and it is
| fantastic. As far as his operas, I've only heard Vixen (which is one
| of my favorite operas), but I hope to hear some more of them soon.
|
| I also agree with Larry that calling Janacek a Romantic is a bit
| troublesome. To be honest, I have a hard time calling anyone after
Excellent post, even if others may debate some points. Following on from
what you say, and skipping the Viennese school, how would one, in the strict
sense, define a neo-classicist composer from a post-Romantic composer?
To me, there is often a blurring of distinction between the categories, and
maybe they are essentially the same. For instance, I would put (loosely) Bax
and Elgar (also Richard Strauss) as post-Romantic, and Walton and Piston as
neo-Classic. As far as Janacek goes, I would tend to classify him also as
more neo-Classic.
It seems as though categorization of 20th century composers can often be a
tricky process. Ultimately it matters not a jot of course.
Larry Rinkel
> It seems as though categorization of 20th century composers can often be a
> tricky process. Ultimately it matters not a jot of course.
>
It matters if you are interested (as I am) in musical history, and in trying
to understand musical styles. If those things are of no interest, then
perhaps they don't matter to you. But of course I agree that categorization
Raymond Hall
I didn't mean to disparage the study of musical history, and apologies if it
read that way. What I really meant was, that ultimately as far as *my*
listening experience goes, it matters not a jot. I should have made myself
clearer.
William Quentin (Bloom)
You're right to point out that Meistersinger is a bit troubling to the
argument I laid out above. To be honest, I'm not really sure what to
do with it, other than enjoy it. ;-)
I will say, however, that I don't think it all that surprising that
Wagner felt the need to follow up Tristan with the cheer of
Meistersinger. The themes of Tristan are profoundly bleak, and
Wagner, as much as he fashioned himself a follower of Schopenhauer,
still nonetheless needed (or rather, wanted) to get up the day after
Tristan was finished and continue living. In other words, the fancy
and fantasy of Meistersinger were probably necessary for Wagner to
even go on (in the existential sense), and in some ways I might
describe Meistersinger as the first post-Romantic work. It is, after
all, a reaction to the ultimate end of Romantic Idealism as embodied
by the crushing conclusion of Tristan und Isolde. (Btw, I would say
that Meistersinger's reaction is one of denial. That doesn't minimize
the greatness of its music, but in Nietzschian terms, at least, it's
merely a different response to the same sort of sickness we see in
Tristan. Instead of the complete surrender we see in Tristan, in
Meistersinger we see Utopian dreaming.)
As far as your comments in regard to Wagner and tonality, you're of
course right to say that ultimately Tristan und Isolde resolutely ends
in the realm of tonality. And this is only fitting, for Wagner, as I
argued above, is still very much a Romantic. Furthermore, I've read
that emphasizing the radical nature of the Tristan chord (in terms of
the history of musical theory, at least) is a bit misguided, and I
tend to agree with that (at least as much as I can considering my
minimal knowledge of musical theory). What I do think is so important
about it, however, and what I was trying to emphasize in my earlier
post, is *where* the resolution, Wagner's eventual affirmation of
tonality, occurs. Wagner, in the drama of the opera, despite (or
maybe because of) his disillusionment with the phenomenal world, still
posits an ultimate resolution, an ultimate goal: death. He
celebrates death, and so at the end of the opera Isolde finally
achieves harmonic resolution while singing about, not union with God
or her fellow human beings as we might see in Beethoven, but
non-existence, an escape from the "burden" of consciousness, death.
This is, as I said earlier, the reverse of Beethoven's Romanticism,
and effectively the end of Romantic optimism.
This is of course why Nietzsche, for example, focuses so much
attention on Wagner. We might argue that it was merely because they
knew each other, and if Nietzsche had happened to meet and befriend
Verdi as a young man, he would have written about Verdi instead of
Wagner. But what that doesn't take into account is that Nietzsche
recognized in Wagner that which is most dangerous in Western
Civilization: a disillusionment with the world and a tendency to deny
life based upon an inevitable dissatisfaction with the transcendental
"absolutes" and objectives provided to us as succor. Wagner is the
logical outcome of Religion, of Romanticism, of placing value not on
ourselves and those things which are "real". For someone like Wagner
(or Schopenhauer), we can never *achieve* any of those things that
we've been told since childhood are "important" and "valuable", and
therefore the world is a vile place, a place to be denied, and life
itself nothing more than an exercise in despair. For Wagner, the
issue is simply: I cannot transcend this world and the suffering
inherent in existence; everything that I've been told might one day
allow me to escape this world/suffering (Love, Sex, Religion, Truth,
Beauty, etc., etc.) is a lie, and so therefore the only *real* escape,
and the only thing which we can honestly believe we will ever achieve,
is death.
Nietzsche of course reverses this, and says that it's the formulation
of transcendental objectives in the first place that inevitably lead
to the sort of sickness and decadence embodied by Wagner and
Schopenhauer, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that
for Nietzsche, Wagner is the latest resurgence of a disease that has
been afflicting Western Civilization since Socrates said on his
deathbed, "to live - that means to be sick a long time": the disease
of decadence.
So, again, I would assert that the myth of Romanticism (that the
individual, freed from the fetters of civilization and the
institutions of culture can achieve the sort of transcendence that
previous generations longed for but were denied simply because of
their being bound so tightly to a Church, or a social group) ended as
did the myth of the Enlightenment, or the myth of any other age: in
the realization that there *is* no such thing as transcendence, be
that transcendence communal or personal, and that the only way to
truly "escape" this world is to die. This is what Wagner declaims in
Tristan (as of course did many others before him, and much more
eloquently than he, but he was certainly the first in the world of
music), and it is this which ends Romanticism in music (and I might
argue that it finally killed Romanticism in other arts as well;
although by the 1860s Romanticism was of course already pretty much
dead everywhere else, it seems as though Tristan finally hammered the
last nail into the coffin) and to which all subsequent composers
responded (in one way or another - even if it was to ignore Wagner).
Finally, in regard to the whole Wagner question, Nietzsche, acting as
physician and psychologist, asks us, *why* do we want to escape this
world? Isn't that what causes the disease in the first place? As far
as I know, Nietzsche was the first person to ask this question as
coherently and forcefully as he did (and certainly the first to offer
his response to that question), and it is this question, at least imo,
that ushers in modernity. Wagner, having provoked the question, is
therefore not only the end of an era, but of singular importance not
only in the world of music but in the world of ideas.
Hmm, sorry for rambling on. I just re-read Twilight of the Idols for
a paper I've been writing, and so I've got Nietzsche on the brain.
;-)
-Billy
Larry Rinkel
> Hmm, sorry for rambling on. I just re-read Twilight of the Idols for
> a paper I've been writing, and so I've got Nietzsche on the brain.
> ;-)
>
> -Billy
>
Not at all. Brilliant piece, Bill.
Simon Roberts
>
[snip]
>Hmm, sorry for rambling on.
More such "rambling" would not be entirely unwelcome....
Simon
Sonarrat Citalis
> And now that we're one big, happy family again:
>
> Sonarrat: "This is still highly expressive music based on conventional
> harmonic ideas."
>
> That may well be, but that doesn't make it Romantic.
I can only respond by saying that to me, it does. It's not just
because it's "listenable" music rather than "unlistenable" - at times
I've just sat down and listened to the Schönberg Suite Op. 25 over and
over and over. Dissonance doesn't bother me any longer - the key thing
for me is feel.
To put it more clearly, I believe a "rhapsodic" mode of expression is
-the- hallmark of Romanticism. It is not merely one of several
factors, but the one that overrides everything else. And, yes, that
means that, by my reckoning, there are hints of Romanticism in a great
deal of works which are not in the Romantic tradition. At all levels,
this is a kind of egotism, a belief that "my words" are important,
that this idea I have created is beautiful and deserves some time to
strut its stuff in the spotlight.
I believe that is Romanticism, and popular or not, it's a personal
conception that should not be challenged, because it is personal. I
have my own interpretation of the history of music and I imagine
everyone else does as well. If Janácek doesn't strike you as
Romantic, his output will still strike me as precisely that, and we'll
both be right.
By the way, "harmonic ideas" have been tampered with as long as there
has been music to print. I quote Mencken: "Every editor needs a pimp
for a big brother so he has someone to look up to."
-Sonarrat.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<ba09eh$5o5$2...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
:> : But I wouldn't call him a "late Romantic"
:> Actually, I'm not sure that anyone [who knows what he is talking about]
:> would call any of the composers listed "late Romantic."
:> "Post-Romantic" is more like it.
: For the last time, STOP BELITTLING ME.
It seems to me that you have two choices:
(1) Become mature enough to realize that when you say something stupid,
it is very likely that someone will point out the stupidity.
(2) Stop saying stupid things.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: To put it more clearly, I believe a "rhapsodic" mode of expression is
: -the- hallmark of Romanticism. It is not merely one of several
: factors, but the one that overrides everything else. And, yes, that
: means that, by my reckoning, there are hints of Romanticism in a great
: deal of works which are not in the Romantic tradition. At all levels,
: this is a kind of egotism, a belief that "my words" are important,
: that this idea I have created is beautiful and deserves some time to
: strut its stuff in the spotlight.
But, you see, not everyone appreciates your egotism. And, in fact, there
is a direction in Romanticism that can be traced at least to Beethoven that
is the opposite of "rhapsodic" expression (whatever that is).
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Lena
Yes, brilliant, as long as writing isn't considered to be synonymous
with having something to say about music...
That's not meant to offend; rather, I want to say that writing things
that extrapolate heavily from the music - i.e. mythologize composers,
styles, works - is actually not a *totally* harmless pastime (even
as a consciously meant-to-amuse exercise in the most enduring
stylistical school of them all, Sophomoricism... :) ).
The myths are misleading, and ultimately seem to serve to obscure the
music for a lot of listeners. In general, the reception of many major
composers (especially Bach, Beethoven, Mozart etc.) has been far too
colored by myth-making, and less easily Romanticizable peers have been
unnecessarily overlooked. (The composers who voluntarily engaged in a
whole lot of half-cooked philosophizing themselves are perhaps another
matter.)
About the original post: stylistically, Beethoven was a Classical
composer, not a Romantic one. However one defines musical Romanticism
(not necessarily easy), claiming it begins with a piece as firmly
planted in Classical forms as Beethoven's 9th makes little sense.
(Smuggling in a chorus is unfortunately not enough to usher in
Romanticism.) So Beethoven was not responsible for Romanticism in any
form, musical or non-musical, and Wagner was not the end of
stylistically Romantic music.
What's left after that - a whole lot of interesting extrapolation
whose relationship to music is minimal - is entertainingly half-soaked
in a glass of absinthe. :)
(I like reading Bloom's posts - though I slightly prefer their
postmodern forms :) ).
Lena
Sonarrat Citalis
> In article <3dde371a.03051...@posting.google.com>, Sonarrat Citalis <sona...@postmark.net> wrote:
> : <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<ba09eh$5o5$2...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
>
> :> : But I wouldn't call him a "late Romantic"
>
> :> Actually, I'm not sure that anyone [who knows what he is talking about]
> :> would call any of the composers listed "late Romantic."
> :> "Post-Romantic" is more like it.
>
> : For the last time, STOP BELITTLING ME.
>
> It seems to me that you have two choices:
>
> (1) Become mature enough to realize that when you say something
> stupid, it is very likely that someone will point out the stupidity.
>
> (2) Stop saying stupid things.
In fact, it would seem to me that I have a third option as well:
(3) Ignore the troll.
Thank you for being so forthright, and in the process confirming your
utter inability to carry out intelligent discourse without resorting
to cowardly debasement and churlish self-aggrandizement. I believe I
can now safely snub you from here on out.
-Sonarrat.
Lena
>> news:799ccv8n8k7ebhet9...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > Hmm, sorry for rambling on. I just re-read Twilight of the Idols for
>> > a paper I've been writing, and so I've got Nietzsche on the brain.
>> > ;-)
I hope you don't take what I said as any kind of discouragement. Your
post was very well written, I enjoyed reading it, thought it was both
amusing and nicely argued, and the portions about Nietzsche and Wagner
may be very relevant (well, at least to Nietzsche :):) ).
And I really do admire people who write "with an absinthe glass in one
hand"... (Which is a metaphor, perhaps, for not always being
excessively reasonable and adhering only to factual points.)
Just wanted to point out that it's not quite fair to "borrow"
composers to stand for ideological or philosophical points they never
addressed explicitly. Eventually the gratuitous "message" can obscure the
music.
I'm afraid something like this has very much happened to Beethoven's 9th,
which people seem unable to treat as just music (which is both simpler
and more complex IMO than any extramusical message). I think the
piece loses all its considerable potency by having become, entirely
unnecessarily, a symbol.
But please disregard me :) and keep posting whatever you wish to post.
Lena
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: (3) Ignore the troll.
Alas, you appear not to know what a troll is.
: Thank you for being so forthright, and in the process confirming your
: utter inability to carry out intelligent discourse without resorting
: to cowardly debasement and churlish self-aggrandizement. I believe I
: can now safely snub you from here on out.
I am bleeding internally.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Johannes Roehl
> Just wanted to point out that it's not quite fair to "borrow"
> composers to stand for ideological or philosophical points they never
> addressed explicitly. Eventually the gratuitous "message" can obscure the
> music.
>
> I'm afraid something like this has very much happened to Beethoven's 9th,
> which people seem unable to treat as just music (which is both simpler
> and more complex IMO than any extramusical message). I think the
> piece loses all its considerable potency by having become, entirely
> unnecessarily, a symbol.
I fully agree (and enjoyed reading the posts as well, even
if don't agree with them)
Similar things have happend to many works of Wagner as well,
as Bloom's posting shows
(I do not see how one can call Tristan 'as bleak as it gets'
or something, when the Liebestod is among
the most ecstatic endings in music).
I don't remember exactly, if it is Tristan or the Ring, but
one of them is frequently interpreted with Schopenhauer in
mind, and Wagner actually read Shopenhauer only *after* most
of the piece had been planned/sketched/composed.
And even if the composer did have a philosophical or
ideological message in mind, the work will hopefully
transcend it. :-)
Johannes
--
"The final arbitrator in philosophy is not how we think but
what we do."
(Ian Hacking)
William Quentin (Bloom)
>I hope you don't take what I said as any kind of discouragement. Your
>post was very well written, I enjoyed reading it, thought it was both
>amusing and nicely argued, and the portions about Nietzsche and Wagner
>may be very relevant (well, at least to Nietzsche :):) ).
>
I agree that it was probably more relevant to Nietzsche than anything
else. Furthermore, let me say that I'm fully aware that my describing
Wagner as the "last Romantic" is rather silly. The main problem is
the term "Romantic". What does it mean? Depending upon how one
defines the term, one could make all sorts of arguments as to when
"Romanticism" in music ended. I didn't really define it, however, and
so you can therefore pretty much dismiss everything I wrote. Oh well,
it was mostly for my own amusement, anyway. ;-)
>And I really do admire people who write "with an absinthe glass in one
>hand"... (Which is a metaphor, perhaps, for not always being
>excessively reasonable and adhering only to factual points.)
>
>Just wanted to point out that it's not quite fair to "borrow"
>composers to stand for ideological or philosophical points they never
>addressed explicitly. Eventually the gratuitous "message" can obscure the
>music.
>
Wagner, however, *did* explicitly address the philosophical and
ideological points I was writing about. He wrote Tristan und Isolde
under the conscious influence of Schopenhauer. In numerous letters
and essays he enumerated his specific goals in the opera -- the
primary goal being to instantiate Schopenhauerian metaphysics in
dramatic/operatic form. More so than with any of his other operas,
imo, Tristan needs to be dealt with not only on the musical level, but
also on the level of the libretto (not to mention Wagner's own
exegeses of the opera). It is, after all, Wagner's fullest
realization of the Gesamtkunstwerk. It is much more than music, and
to try to deal with it as only music is irresponsible criticism, imo.
Indeed, it seems to me that to try to deal with any opera as pure
music is a failure to account for a large set of "facts".
That's not to say that my analysis of the opera was at all adequate.
I'm incapable of a sustained analysis of the musical techniques Wagner
uses, and so I have to necessarily restrict my discussion to the
libretto, mixed with, at best, a novice's understanding of musical
theory. I freely admit that. ;-)
Let me also add that I think most opera criticism is severely lacking
for just this reason. Critics who are well-schooled in both musical
theory and literary theory are rare birds, and so most opera criticism
ends up analyzing the score to the exclusion of the libretto, or the
libretto to the exclusion of the score (there are of course exceptions
to this; for example, someone like Joseph Kerman).
>I'm afraid something like this has very much happened to Beethoven's 9th,
>which people seem unable to treat as just music (which is both simpler
>and more complex IMO than any extramusical message). I think the
>piece loses all its considerable potency by having become, entirely
>unnecessarily, a symbol.
>
That's the thing: Beethoven's Ninth (at least the last movement) is
more than just music, and to try to treat it as "just music", imo,
robs it of much of its potency. Beethoven's choice to set Schiller's
poem has to mean something, and what Schiller's poem says is, I think,
fair game for the sort of extramusical analyses you seem to be wary
of. While I'm not at all qualified to analyze the finale of the Ninth
on its musical merits alone, at the very least I'd like to think I can
talk about the relationship between tonality and the optimism of
Schiller's poem. I'd also like to think I can even come to some
conclusions about that relationship, as "extramusical" as those
conclusions might be. And I'd like to think my doing so is something
a bit more than absinthe-induced twaddling. ;-)
>But please disregard me :) and keep posting whatever you wish to post.
>
>Lena
Your posts are always interesting and edifying (especially when you
write about the more technical aspects of music which I myself am
incapable of writing about), so I certainly don't plan to disregard
you. And don't worry -- I'll keep posting what I wish. ;-)
-Billy
William Quentin (Bloom)
<johanne...@physik.uni-giessen.de> wrote:
>I fully agree (and enjoyed reading the posts as well, even
>if don't agree with them)
>Similar things have happend to many works of Wagner as well,
>as Bloom's posting shows
>(I do not see how one can call Tristan 'as bleak as it gets'
>or something, when the Liebestod is among
>the most ecstatic endings in music).
I would urge you to think about what the cause of Isolde's ecstasy at
the end of the opera is (I don't dispute at all that it is ecstatic).
I would aver that it is her death, and her being freed from
consciousness, i.e., suffering. As she says, it would be "supreme
bliss" to sink into unconsciousness. This is the dark side of
Romanticism, with Death being put forth as a method (the *only*
method) of transcendence (after all, all the other ways to transcend
the world -- Love, Sex, Truth, Religion, etc. -- have been shown not
to work). As Nietzsche asks, isn't this sick? If we actually buy
into what Wagner is preaching here, where does it lead us? One
response to your assertion that the ending of Tristan is ecstatic is
that you've succumbed to Wagner and his particular brand of poison.
Certainly that's what Nietzsche would say. (Btw, I love Tristan und
Isolde -- but that doesn't mean that I don't see the sense in
Nietzsche's arguments, who, btw, had a love/hate relationship with the
opera.) ;-)
>I don't remember exactly, if it is Tristan or the Ring, but
>one of them is frequently interpreted with Schopenhauer in
>mind, and Wagner actually read Shopenhauer only *after* most
>of the piece had been planned/sketched/composed.
You're thinking of the libretto to the Ring. Wagner wrote it before
he read Schopenhauer, although I might add that after reading
Schopenhauer he contemplated making some changes to Bruennhilde's
speech/song at the end of Goetterdaemmerung to make it align more with
Schopenhauerian philosophy. He eventually cut those additions out
from the final version.
It is well documented that Wagner read Schopenhauer before he composed
either the music or the libretto to Tristan. In fact, he himself
wrote many times as to the influence of Schopenhauer's philosophy on
what he was trying to do in Tristan.
>And even if the composer did have a philosophical or
>ideological message in mind, the work will hopefully
>transcend it. :-)
>
Well, now you're talking about transcendence, which started all of my
ranting in the first place. ;-) Suffice it to say, that's a hope I
don't share with you. I find it enriches my enjoyment of a work of
art when I am aware of the philosophical/ideological inclinations of
the author, and can determine the ways in which those inclinations
helped fashion the work in question. Furthermore, I think it quite
impossible to "transcend" anything, let alone our ideological
foundations. ;-)
-Billy
Bob Lombard
>[to Lena]
>Your posts are always interesting and edifying (especially when you
>write about the more technical aspects of music which I myself am
>incapable of writing about), so I certainly don't plan to disregard
>you. And don't worry -- I'll keep posting what I wish. ;-)
>
>-Billy
Good call, Billy. Post what you wish; maybe don't hang out with people
you're shitting on. Or do that - I'm not your keeper.
bl
William Quentin (Bloom)
???
I don't understand this. Did I say something to upset you? And who
exactly have I been "sh---ing" on?
-Billy
Bob Lombard
<wqm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't understand this. Did I say something to upset you? And who
>exactly have I been "sh---ing" on?
>
One more time - not your keeper. Stay close to home, you'll be OK.
bl
Larry Rinkel
> On Sun, 18 May 2003 18:23:53 +0200, Johannes Roehl
> <johanne...@physik.uni-giessen.de> wrote:
>
As she says, it would be "supreme
> bliss" to sink into unconsciousness. This is the dark side of
> Romanticism, with Death being put forth as a method (the *only*
Darkling I listen; and, for many a time
I have been half in love with easeful Death,
Call'd him soft names in many a mused rhyme,
To take into the air my quiet breath;
Now more than ever seems it rich to die,
To cease upon the midnight with no pain,
While thou art pouring forth thy soul abroad
In such an ecstasy!
Keats (1819), of course, does not die (well, not from writing poetry, and
not for another two years), but rather has no chocie but dissociate himself
from the rapturous experience of hearing the song of the nightingale
(Forlorn! the very word is like a bell / To toll me back from thee to my
sole self!). At the end of the Ode, he questions whether he actually
experienced a vision of transcendence or simply had a daydream, and whether,
having lost the sense of momentary transcendence, he has returned to
reality, or to an existence that is less real than his vision. (Was it a
vision, or a waking dream? / Fled is that music:--Do I wake or sleep?)
William Quentin (Bloom)
Umm... okay. Is it your intention to be cryptic?
-Billy
William Quentin (Bloom)
When I read a *real* Romantic poet, it makes me painfully aware of
just how far Wagner was from his "Gesamtkunstwerk" (not to mention how
far behind the times he was). I mean, without the music, who would
want to sit down and read Wagner's libretti? ;-)
Although, I do think he got closer than most. But it does seem that
poetic/literary genius and musical genius are mutually exclusive,
making the "total work of art" another one of those unattainable
ideals.
-Billy
Lena
Thanks for your interesting remarks on Wagner!
> >And even if the composer did have a philosophical or
> >ideological message in mind, the work will hopefully
> >transcend it. :-)
> >
>
> Well, now you're talking about transcendence, which started all of my
> ranting in the first place. ;-)
I think he meant it as a reference to just that... :)
> Suffice it to say, that's a hope I
> don't share with you. I find it enriches my enjoyment of a work of
> art when I am aware of the philosophical/ideological inclinations of
> the author, and can determine the ways in which those inclinations
> helped fashion the work in question. Furthermore, I think it quite
> impossible to "transcend" anything, let alone our ideological
> foundations. ;-)
Music is also experienced directly, without mediation by language.
There are people who react very viscerally to musical phenomena and
for whom this powerful immediacy is not compatible with a lot of
simultaneous thinking. -- I wonder if I should refer you to Nietszche
at this point. :):)
(Of course, people who react this way may well be making a statement
about something like "temporary transcendence"... :) )
Composers, like listeners, differ in their desired level of
explicitness in programmatic and ideological ideas. Of the ones in
your post, Wagner is close to one pole in this, Beethoven is near the
other (refused to give out hints or programs - outside what's clearly
in the score). So you're on firmer footing with Wagner, but what you
write on Beethoven is pretty off-base...
[From elsewhere:]
>Tristan needs to be dealt with not only on the musical level, but
>also on the level of the libretto (not to mention Wagner's own
>exegeses of the opera). It is, after all, Wagner's fullest
>realization of the Gesamtkunstwerk. It is much more than music, and
>to try to deal with it as only music is irresponsible criticism, imo.
Omitting discussing something is certainly no more "irresponsible" as
criticism than adding something that's not there... Though no
disagreement really on Wagner.
But one practical problem with Gesamt-anything is that the literary
parts may date a lot faster than the music, in which case individual
listeners are IMO entirely entitled to enjoy the thing selectively.
Similarly, if you must add meanings not intended by a composer to
enjoy a work, go right ahead. But it should be clear that it's you
who should take credit for the enhancements, not the composer.
>Let me also add that I think most opera criticism is severely lacking
>for just this reason. Critics who are well-schooled in both musical
>theory and literary theory are rare birds, and so most opera
criticism
>ends up analyzing the score to the exclusion of the libretto, or the
>libretto to the exclusion of the score (there are of course
exceptions
>to this; for example, someone like Joseph Kerman).
Maybe. However, if the composers' views are to be respected, you
might want to really treat them with a more individually appropriate
level of extramusical consideration. (It's not only critics who are
unschooled in literary theory, many composers are too. Even opera
composers can be shockingly illiterate. :) )
Lena
Lena
Obscurantist! :)
Lena
Lena
> On 18 May 2003 07:02:20 -0700, len...@yahoo.com (Lena) wrote:
>
> >I'm afraid something like this has very much happened to Beethoven's 9th,
> >which people seem unable to treat as just music (which is both simpler
> >and more complex IMO than any extramusical message). I think the
> >piece loses all its considerable potency by having become, entirely
> >unnecessarily, a symbol.
> >
>
> That's the thing: Beethoven's Ninth (at least the last movement) is
> more than just music, and to try to treat it as "just music", imo,
> robs it of much of its potency. Beethoven's choice to set Schiller's
> poem has to mean something,
Of course it does. But it can't mean what you say. I'll give a slightly
more conservative version of what it might mean some other time.
> and what Schiller's poem says is, I think,
> fair game for the sort of extramusical analyses you seem to be wary
> of.
But there's really nothing much in that poem. By all means, analyze it... :)
> While I'm not at all qualified to analyze the finale of the Ninth
> on its musical merits alone, at the very least I'd like to think I can
> talk about the relationship between tonality and the optimism of
> Schiller's poem. I'd also like to think I can even come to some
> conclusions about that relationship, as "extramusical" as those
> conclusions might be.
About that...
There is no relationship between tonality and optimism, at least not
for a tonal composer. Tonal music is capable of expressing a large
range of emotions from despair to happiness (and also a large number
of more sensory, not exactly emotional qualities), so for a tonal
composer to associate tonality with optimism would be musically kind
of unsophisticated...! :)
Lena
Scott Kurtz
appropriate. Unfortunately, I'm not at all sure about the lasting value of
some of his later textual concoctions, however valid and beautiful the music
accompanying them may well be.news:2sjhcvs8o4re3cvu7...@4ax.com...
William Quentin (Bloom)
>There is no relationship between tonality and optimism, at least not
>for a tonal composer. Tonal music is capable of expressing a large
>range of emotions from despair to happiness (and also a large number
>of more sensory, not exactly emotional qualities), so for a tonal
>composer to associate tonality with optimism would be musically kind
>of unsophisticated...! :)
>
>Lena
Well, of course you're right. Tonality doesn't automatically mean
optimism, that's obvious. The only point I was trying to make about
Beethoven's Ninth is that there does indeed seem to be a connection
between the simplicity of the tune of the Ode to Joy and the lyrics of
Schiller's poem - I mean, that's a given, isn't it? Didn't Beethoven
himself say that he wanted to write a tune that a "common man" might
hum to himself while sitting in a bar? Couple that "universal" tune
with a poem about the Brotherhood of man under God, and, well, I think
it's safe to say that Beethoven's Ninth is an "optimistic" statement,
not to mention a Romantic statement. Don't get me wrong, I'm not
saying that it's necessarily Romantic in terms of its musical
structure (I'll take your word on it that it's more Classical than
Romantic), but in terms of the ideas it conveys, yes, it's Romantic.
And Tristan is the exact opposite. Rather than union, Tristan is all
about dissolution. And how does Wagner convey that dissolution?
Well, for one through the libretto and the action of the drama, but
also through the attenuation of tonality. Unlike the Ninth, hummable
tunes in Tristan und Isolde are hard to come by. As I said earlier,
from Beethoven's Ninth to Tristan und Isolde, we seem to be going from
one extreme to the other -- from light Romanticism to dark
Romanticism. But maybe that's just the absinthe talking. ;-)
-Bloom
William Quentin (Bloom)
>
>Similarly, if you must add meanings not intended by a composer to
>enjoy a work, go right ahead. But it should be clear that it's you
>who should take credit for the enhancements, not the composer.
>
I don't see where I added any meanings not intended by Beethoven. I
mean, I basically limited my observations to what is said in
Schiller's poem. Basically the entirety of what I said about the
Ninth can be summed up by saying that it posits a universal
connectedness between all men due to the loving Fatherhood of God. As
far as I know, that's a fairly doctrinal view of the Ninth, and
furthermore, that's exactly what Schiller's poem says. I then used
that rather cursory exegesis of Beethoven's Ninth to go on to make my
larger points about Wagner and the ultimate ends of Romanticism (which
were my real concerns in my original posts). Where did I "add
meanings"? It seems to me that I used the "facts" of the symphony,
and nothing more. Or would you prefer that I just ignore Schiller's
poem, or pretend that it was only so many "da da da's"?
-Billy
Larry Rinkel
Many years ago Deryck Cooke (of Mahler Tenth fame) published a book, The
Language of Music, in which he attempted to associate various interval
patterns in tonal music with various emotions. For instance, a rising major
scale (Handel's The Trumpet Shall Sound, the Gloria in LvB's Missa Solemnis)
is "an outgoing, active, assertive emotion of joy." Flat six of a scale
resolving down to scale five is associated with anguish or pain ("Wehe" in
the Ring, etc.). There's more to it, including complete analyses of Mozart's
G minor and Vaughan Williams's Fourth Symphonies, and undoubtedly the
argument has its share of holes (such as its "seek and ye shall find"
tendency, and the predominance of vocal - i.e., with text - examples). But
it's an intriguing if simplistic approach to discussing how tonal music
communicates emotion.
LR -
(who finds no loss of hummable things in Tristan, but then he has been known
to sing Wozzeck in the shower)
Lena
> Language of Music, in which he attempted to associate various interval
> patterns in tonal music with various emotions. For instance, a rising major
> scale (Handel's The Trumpet Shall Sound, the Gloria in LvB's Missa Solemnis)
> is "an outgoing, active, assertive emotion of joy." Flat six of a scale
> resolving down to scale five is associated with anguish or pain ("Wehe" in
> the Ring, etc.). There's more to it, including complete analyses of Mozart's
> G minor and Vaughan Williams's Fourth Symphonies, and undoubtedly the
> argument has its share of holes (such as its "seek and ye shall find"
> tendency, and the predominance of vocal - i.e., with text - examples). But
> it's an intriguing if simplistic approach to discussing how tonal music
> communicates emotion.
There's some more current research relating similar (and other) compositional
features and evoked emotion (though there are days I'm not sure this is worth
researching :) ).
I absolutely buy a lot of this; some of it has to do with speech patterns,
some with just the inherent tension properties of the scale. E.g. almost any
step of a semi-tone away from a stable note sounds kind of lost and
forlorn.
The beginning melody of Schubert's D959/ii is utterly relentless in
exploiting this last thing... it consists almost of nothing else!
Btw, Juslin and Sloboda, eds.: "Music and Emotion" is a collection of articles
on various aspects of the title. (Including performance.)
> LR -
> (who finds no loss of hummable things in Tristan [and something about
humming Wozzeck in the shower]
But do you hum the helicopter quartet with aviator glasses on?
Lena
Bob Lombard
>But do you hum the helicopter quartet with aviator glasses on?
>
I'm guessing goggles and a leather helmet.
bl
Lena
Uh, I think we should declare a truce pretty soon... :) My fingers
can't handle this sort of thing, and my absinthe bottle is empty!
The last salvos from me... but there are a lot of them. :)
>I don't see where I added any meanings not intended by Beethoven. I
>mean, I basically limited my observations to what is said in
>Schiller's poem. Basically the entirety of what I said about the
>Ninth can be summed up by saying that it posits a universal
>connectedness between all men due to the loving Fatherhood of God.
But, the problem is, the 9th can't reasonably be summed up this way.
(Not even that awful poem can... :) )
>As far as I know, that's a fairly doctrinal view of the Ninth, and
Yes, it's a very common view of the "message" of the 9th, but I find
it implausible. This is because the overwhelming musical emphasis in
the 9th is, very simply, on "Freude" ("joy, gladness, happiness,
enjoyment" etc.) and associated ideas.
Actually, Beethoven *avoids* opportunities to put a lot of stress on
the brotherhood aspect. I'll try to indicate why. (I apologize for
all the detail, but it seems you really don't believe me without
this...)
First, if he had really wanted to make a statement on brotherhood, or
union, or some such thing, he would presumably have chosen lyrics
which don't obscure this point by a lot of spurious talk about "joy."
Second, nearly all sentiments about brotherhood etc. are carried
musically, not by the explicit "Alle menschen werden Bru"der", but by
the much more diffuse, personal "Seid umschlungen" (which makes its
appearance only after about 8 minutes of straight "Freude" and which
can be taken to mean several things).
Further, the musical shading of the Seid umschlungen portion is of an
ambiguous sort of devotion, with no emphasis on a brotherly Utopia
under god. Note that there is very little stress on separate lyrics
in this segment - the segment's musical function is to be a unified,
if brief, "slow movement within a movement". Here Beethoven seems
driven almost entirely by musical considerations, not by
considerations of text. (Some extramusical things also support this
view; the combination of the devotional and the celebratory seems
lifted from the plans for another symphony not involving An die Freude
at all (at least that I've seen mentioned).)
The following double fugue which combines Freude and Seid umschlungen
is similarly rather indeterminate as far as "meaning" goes. Although
here you do have brief stops on lyrics like "ganzen Welt", "Bru"der",
there is no serious culmination on any such thing. The movement then
ends on even more straight Freude.
This lack of a large musical stress on "Alle Menschen werden Bru"der"
and the consistent presence of a huge stress on Freude really should
say something. There's no way it can be an accident. Beethoven was
very good at finetuning music to bring out minute shadings of exact
words and phrases and to put a big culmination where he wanted it
(Fidelio finale, Missa Solemnis). But there really is no such emphasi
on brotherhood or on a more vague "union" here. So musically,
it's extremely doubtful that this piece is in any large way about that
particular point.
In a decision possibly also relevant to your transcending arguments,
Beethoven seems in general to avoid full-blown ecstasy and very big
culminations here in favor of a somewhat lighter, in the end almost
frivolous, idea of "joy." In the 9th, Beethoven did not write
anything like the long, arguably quite ecstatic Et Vitam Venturi fugue
which ends the Missa Solemnis Credo; the 9th fugue is altogether a
more bouncy, "unculminating" one.
I don't doubt that in this symphony the "deep" movements (iii) or the
"difficult" ones (i and ii) are intentionally contrasted with the
finale's happiness, whether the latter is more serene or frothy. In
the recitative intro to the Freude theme Beethoven explicitly asks for
more "pleasant" and "happier" sounds than the ones heard before. These
are his own words; and presumably this is close to what the "meaning"
of the movement is, if any can be assigned to a piece of music that
always proceeds according to musical considerations.
Anyway, mainly cheerful is what you then get (to the point where the
famous tenor solo seems to me to be quite intentionally comedic).
> and furthermore, that's exactly what Schiller's poem says.
[that "it posits a universal connectedness between all men due to the
loving Fatherhood of God."]
I don't think it does - even in Schiller, brotherhood is conditional.
("Alle Menschen werden Bru"der *wo dein sanfter Flu"gel weilt*" - dein
refers to Freude.) Besides, the poem says a whole lot of other things
in addition, not having to do with brotherhood at all.
Anyway, really not recommended reading. :)
> I then used
>that rather cursory exegesis of Beethoven's Ninth to go on to make my
>larger points about Wagner and the ultimate ends of Romanticism
>(which were my real concerns in my original posts).
I understand that Romanticism and Wagner were your real concerns, and
that's fine. (I already mentioned that your views on Wagner were very
interesting.)
However, I have been saying this: several things in your argument have
problems in them - those are the parts about where you place the
beginning/end of musical Romanticism, and the parts that relate to the
meaning of Beethoven's 9th finale (which you may know less well than
Wagner). Which means that you probably should avoid using those things
to make larger points...
I can see why you think the way you do about the 9th. A lot of people
do. But there's really a large component of "received wisdom" in this
view. Or perhaps it's just the idea that there must be some sort of a
big message in a piece like this. If you really want a message,
you'll probably find one.
The only real reason I've given this topic more words than I should
have is that I find the spurious mythology that grows around works and
composers pretty harmful and obnoxious. (Many people may even hate
the 9th (or Wagner!) *because* of the mythology, and it certainly affects
performances - most are unbearable bloated, frankly.)
(And it's certainly not only Beethoven who suffers from this...)
> Where did I "add meanings"?
Btw, "adding meanings" was just a quip, not meant to be taken very
seriously...
Otherwise, see above. (I could I suppose do this in more detail if
necessary, though I rather suspect people would be happier if I shut
up for a month or so.
(I'm getting rather sick of talking about Beethoven... :) )
> It seems to me that I used the "facts" of the symphony,
>and nothing more.
Well, one problem with your method with the 9th is that it seems to
consist of taking 16 bars from Beethoven and one dot from Schiller,
juggling those a bit to your purposes (albeit exactly the same way
many people do), and then ignoring everything else... :):)
(I'm not really serious, of course, but you do only consider the
Freude theme, which is a small part of the finale.)
> Or would you prefer that I just ignore Schiller's
>poem, or pretend that it was only so many "da da da's"?
No, but if you want to use "Beethoven's intentions in the 9th" to
present an idea or argument, it would be good to try to check out what
Beethoven actually says and does. (This does mean you have to discuss
the music, and more of it than the Freude theme alone - because it's
the primary "evidence.")
Lena
Lena
> Well, of course you're right. Tonality doesn't automatically mean
> optimism, that's obvious. The only point I was trying to make about
> Beethoven's Ninth is that there does indeed seem to be a connection
> between the simplicity of the tune of the Ode to Joy and the lyrics of
> Schiller's poem - I mean, that's a given, isn't it?
Yes, sure. (It's also true that happiness or joy is generally
expressed with tonally stable melodies, which is what you must have
meant? Also serenity with rhythmic regularity, excitement with
irregularity...)
>, but in terms of the ideas it conveys, yes, [the 9th is] Romantic.
With this, I do kind of think you're confusing the music with its
typical Romantic interpretation. -- The Romantic spin on the 9th is
Romantic, certainly... :)
I do agree that the original theme expresses simplicity and serenity
(though its mutations or use elsewhere in the finale do not), and I'm
also sure this form of "joy" is in direct, intentional opposition to
the "depths" and "unpleasantness" heard before.
I tried to outline elsewhere why, if it really was Beethoven's idea to
predominantlyly convey the thought that this finale is about brotherhood
of mankind under god, he did a somewhat shoddy job.
I think his main intentions had to do with compositional matters.
IMO the overwhelming "meaning" of the finale is in "Freude." With a lesser
emphasis on "seid umsclungen, diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt" ideas (expansive
happiness, wishes for peace, harmony, whatever). And I don't think
any of this is particularly complicated or Romantic.
Btw - there are also other reasons for the simplicity and memorability
of the Freude theme. The theme unifies the finale: the remaining
important themes ("froh froh" - the comical version of Freude - "seid
umschlungen", even bits driving the orchestral interlude) take off
from a basic pattern in the Freude theme or from the melodic skeleton
of the theme. So the simplicity of the theme may have been prompted
by a couple of purely musical considerations also. (An easily
remembered theme makes sense as a source of unifying material.)
And my complaint about the finale is that he repeats the simple form of it
one or two times too often.
>And Tristan is the exact opposite. Rather than union, Tristan is all
>about dissolution. And how does Wagner convey that dissolution?
>Well, for one through the libretto and the action of the drama, but
>also through the attenuation of tonality.
Well, of course Tristan is chromatic. And sure that conveys less
stability than something like the Freude theme. (Well, these
certainly aren't things worth arguing about...! :) ) Dissolving I'll
leave to you...
> As I said earlier, from Beethoven's Ninth to Tristan und Isolde, we
>seem to be going from one extreme to the other -- from light
>Romanticism to dark Romanticism.
And as I said, this is where I disagree. I really don't think you
can't make this overarching statement on the Beethoven end of it.
And besides, musically, you're taking 16 bars from the 9th finale.
Then you contrast that with all of Tristan. -- I dunno, Bloom! :):)
>But maybe that's just the absinthe talking. ;-)
I just had several glasses for breakfast, and it's only 3 pm.
So what recordings of Tristan do you like? (I'm quite serious.)
Lena
Lena
[on Beethoven's 9th, on which I never want to say another word]
> The movement then ends on even more straight Freude.
Well, I should correct myself. Not quite straight! :)
Lena
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in news:gfkncvc9puf83t006...@4ax.com:
> On 21 May 2003 12:11:35 -0700, len...@yahoo.com (Lena) wrote:
>
>> But do you hum the helicopter quartet with aviator glasses on?
>>
> I'm guessing goggles and a leather helmet.
Be sure to take with you a box of lucifers.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
RMCR's most pointless, dumb and laughable chowderhead: Mark Coy.
Johannes Roehl
> And Tristan is the exact opposite. Rather than union, Tristan is all
> about dissolution. And how does Wagner convey that dissolution?
I do not have time now, and another reply to one of your
postings from last week will hopefully follow next week,
when I will have more time, but I do not think Tristan is
about dissolution at all!
It is above all about the longing, transient bliss (entering
the realm of night and love in the 2nd act), sorrow and
final union (unnion in death, but certainly not a
Schopenhauerian longing for Unbeing or Nirwana) of two
lovers.
The only really 'dissolved' music there is IMO the beginning
of act three, describing Tristan's feverish dreams, longing
and desperation, and that ends with the diatonic 'cheerful
tune' of the shepherd!
BTW 'dark' Romanticism is in a way already there with some
Schubert songs, parts of Freischutz, and certainly with
Berlioz and Schumann, about 25 years or more before Tristan.
I do not deny that the chromaticism etc. of Tristan is far
more advanced, but obsession with death etc. is there long
before that.
William Quentin (Bloom)
>So what recordings of Tristan do you like? (I'm quite serious.)
>
>Lena
Well, I have two recordings, and they are the only ones I've ever
heard: Boehm and Furtwaengler. I like them both a lot, and tend to
listen to them on a rotating basis.
-Billy
Larry Rinkel
"Lena" <len...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b33de45.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > LR -
> > (who finds no loss of hummable things in Tristan [and something about
> humming Wozzeck in the shower]
>
> But do you hum the helicopter quartet with aviator glasses on?
>
> Lena
Not in the shower.
William Quentin (Bloom)
>
>Uh, I think we should declare a truce pretty soon... :) My fingers
>can't handle this sort of thing, and my absinthe bottle is empty!
>
I agree with that. I've had about all the wormwood I can take. ;-)
>The last salvos from me... but there are a lot of them. :)
>
--snip lots of convincing argumentation--
Let me just say that I'm entirely convinced by your argument. Yes, I
submit. You have bested me!
Anyway, you're entirely right to say that my discussion of the Ninth
was cursory and very narrow. Taking a narrow view of something makes
it very easy to contort it to one's views, and I readily admit that
that was what I was doing. I do apologize. ;-)
Also, I have to admit that I *was* relying on accepted wisdom when I
went off about Beethoven's Ninth. Rather than seriously critique it
or think about it, I merely made use of a ready-at-hand exegesis that
neatly fit into my larger argument.
But, if one *were* to accept my ignorant ravings about Beethoven,
wouldn't it just fit beautifully into what I had to say about Wagner?
That kind of symmetry is to die for! Oh well, as always, the
cognoscenti have spoiled my fun. ;-)
-Billy
Lena
> Let me just say that I'm entirely convinced by your argument.
OK, I'll take this - even with its possible whiffs of minor
insincerity :) - before you change your mind.
> But, if one *were* to accept my ignorant ravings about Beethoven,
> wouldn't it just fit beautifully into what I had to say about Wagner?
Admirably!
> That kind of symmetry is to die for!
Yes, and it's far more interesting than any refutations. (Even
seriously.) So I think the upshot of all this is that you really
should write a lot more of these things. They're great to read (and I
at least am too exhausted to object to a thing).
(Besides, anyone capable of using the word "exegesis" repeatedly must
be highly OK! :) )
Lena
Lena
I'm rotating the only one I have (Bernstein). I'd actually like to
have an ideally decadent recording; don't know if this one qualifies.
The other version of Liebestod I have - Horowitz playing a Liszt piano
transcription - is not decadent at all, but it is funny. No one could
possibly concentrate on dying of love while all that clanking is going
on.
Lena
Simon Roberts
says...
>
>"William Quentin (Bloom)" <wqm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<f6pncvs5ccl9r2lh9...@4ax.com>...
>> On 21 May 2003 12:50:47 -0700, len...@yahoo.com (Lena) wrote:
>>
>> >So what recordings of Tristan do you like? (I'm quite serious.)
>> >
>> >Lena
>>
>> Well, I have two recordings, and they are the only ones I've ever
>> heard: Boehm and Furtwaengler. I like them both a lot, and tend to
>> listen to them on a rotating basis.
>
>I'm rotating the only one I have (Bernstein). I'd actually like to
>have an ideally decadent recording; don't know if this one qualifies.
It's probably the slowest ever recorded, if that counts at all.... I only wish
he had different singers for T & I.
Simon
Lena
[recordings of Tristan ]
> >I'm rotating the only one I have (Bernstein). I'd actually like to
> >have an ideally decadent recording; don't know if this one qualifies.
>
> It's probably the slowest ever recorded, if that counts at all....
Is a slow Liebestod good or bad...?
I have a feeling I'm about overdue to check the archives for recommendations
for another version.
Lena
Lena
Pardon tedious revisiting, but I think this gave an entirely wrong
impression:
> And I really do admire people who write "with an absinthe glass in one
> hand"... (Which is a metaphor, perhaps, for not always being
> excessively reasonable and adhering only to factual points.)
I meant - absinthe was a "metaphor" for writing imaginative things. (Any old
pedant comme moi can make an array of tiny cubical facts, i.e. "adhere only to
factual points" - without saying much anything...)
- The End of That -
Lena
gggg...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 11:49:42 GMT, "Larry Rinkel"
> <LRi...@optunderline.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Of the composers you mention, Janacek is probably the most interesting to
> >me, but I wouldn't necessarily call him a late Romantic. Rachmaninoff is a
> >late Romantic. Janacek's style is far grittier and less sentimental. And I
> >wouldn't use an animated video to gauge the popularity of his operas, as
> >Jenufa and Katya Kabanova are every bit as widely performed as Vixen, in my
> >experience.
> >
>
> I really like Janacek as well, and find his music very interesting. I
> just recently heard his Slavonic Mass for the first time, and it is
> fantastic. As far as his operas, I've only heard Vixen (which is one
> of my favorite operas), but I hope to hear some more of them soon.
>
> I also agree with Larry that calling Janacek a Romantic is a bit
> troublesome. To be honest, I have a hard time calling anyone after
> Wagner a Romantic. For me Wagner was the apex of Romanticism (for
> both good and ill - mostly ill), and everyone after him was in some
> way reacting to him, and was therefore "post-Romantic" or
> "post-Wagnerian". I tend to think of this in terms of Tristan und
> Isolde, which for me is the ultimate and logical conclusion of the
> Romantic ethos, and the polar opposite of Beethoven's Ninth symphony
> (which I would classify as the starting-point of Romanticism -- not
> chronologically, but ideologically).
>
> Basically, Beethoven's Ninth posits the Romantic belief in the
> attainability of Ideas, Truth, Beauty, and all that other stuff.
> That's why the Ode to Joy is so effective. It's such a simple tune,
> and we all know it. Schiller's poem, trite as some of us may find it,
> is a statement of the potency of human beings and their ability to
> achieve their goals. The important thing to note, however, is that
> what Beethoven and Schiller set up is a constant reaching for
> transcendence. The Ninth tells us we can achieve it, but forty years
> later Wagner would tell us otherwise.
>
> Wagner of course talks about the same things Beethoven did (Truth,
> Beauty, Love, Transcendence), but now we see the dark underbelly of
> the Romantic dream. Rather than the hope of Beethoven, we see in
> Tristan utter despair. We have within us these transcendental
> longings, for personal agency, for Love, for Truth, but these are
> forever out of our reach. This is what Isolde's Liebestod is all
> about. For Wagner, we can never reach a joyous conclusion of harmony
> and unity. That hope is dead forty years after Beethoven. Rather,
> Wagner, still in thrall to these transcendental (read: unobtainable)
> longings...
- Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time.
Camus