Impressionism and Expressionism
Bradford Kellogg
The thread about Impressionism had me wondering... Impressionism was a movement
in the arts around the late 19th to early 20th centuries, which emphasized the
artist's subjective response to external experience, and Expressionism, which was
happening at the same time, emphasized the artist's subjective response to internal
experience. While composers such as Debussy have been called Impressionist, I
have also seen in writings references to Expressionistic music, identifying
works like Wozzeck, which is indeed heavy on the Freudian sauce.
Of course I had to try to think of other examples. The point seems not that the
music be atonal, but neither can it be post-romantic. Scriabin comes to mind,
particularly the Poem of Ecstacy, and a couple of his piano sonatas. I wish I
could recall the music used in the film "The Beast with Five Fingers", which
told the story of a man played by Peter Lorre who descended into madness while
the disembodied hand of a deceased one-handed pianist played the piano. If it
were written for the film, it would certainly be in that category.
---
Have an ice day... BK
Brian Newhouse
"The thread about Impressionism had me wondering... Impressionism was a movement
"in the arts around the late 19th to early 20th centuries, which emphasized the
"artist's subjective response to external experience, and Expressionism,
which was
"happening at the same time, emphasized the artist's subjective response
to internal
"experience. While composers such as Debussy have been called Impressionist, I
"have also seen in writings references to Expressionistic music, identifying
"works like Wozzeck, which is indeed heavy on the Freudian sauce.
"
In the case of Expressionism, a lot has to do with historical context.
Schoenberg was in fact connected with Kandinsky and the "Blue Rider"
circle in the years just before the First World War. And Buechner's
*Woyzeck* was in fact a great inspiration to the Expressionist
playwrights. Roger Lustig, if he still lurks here, can certainly tell us
more.
In that respect the notion of musical Impressionism is far more
problematic. Debussy's artistic associations seem to have been Symbolist
and/or esoteric/proto-New Age rather than (Post-)Impressionist. (Think
Mallarme on the one hand, Maeterlinck on the other.) The association of
Debussy with Impressionism proper may have been started by critics hostile
to both on the grounds of "shapelessness" (at least by comparison with
Gounod or Bougereau).
[snip]
--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@newton.crisp.net
Sara Freeman
In <6frsf1$2...@steadfast.teradyne.com> kel...@atb.teradyne.com
(Bradford Kellogg) writes:
>
>The thread about Impressionism had me wondering... Impressionism was a
movement
>in the arts around the late 19th to early 20th centuries, which
emphasized the
>artist's subjective response to external experience, and
Expressionism, which was
>happening at the same time, emphasized the artist's subjective
response to internal
>experience. While composers such as Debussy have been called
Impressionist, I
>have also seen in writings references to Expressionistic music,
identifying
>works like Wozzeck, which is indeed heavy on the Freudian sauce.
>
not that the
>music be atonal, but neither can it be post-romantic. Scriabin comes
to mind,
>particularly the Poem of Ecstacy, and a couple of his piano sonatas.
I wish I
>could recall the music used in the film "The Beast with Five Fingers",
which
>told the story of a man played by Peter Lorre who descended into
madness while
>the disembodied hand of a deceased one-handed pianist played the
piano. If it
>were written for the film, it would certainly be in that category.
>
>---
>
>Have an ice day... BK
>
>
by Lenny the B. is automatically Expressionism.
--
"If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?" - Nick Humphries
Keith Edgerley
Bradford Kellogg wrote:
>
> The thread about Impressionism had me wondering... Impressionism was a movement
> in the arts around the late 19th to early 20th centuries, which emphasized the
> artist's subjective response to external experience, and Expressionism, which was
> happening at the same time, emphasized the artist's subjective response to internal
> experience. While composers such as Debussy have been called Impressionist, I
> have also seen in writings references to Expressionistic music, identifying
> works like Wozzeck, which is indeed heavy on the Freudian sauce.
>
> Of course I had to try to think of other examples. The point seems not that the
> music be atonal, but neither can it be post-romantic. Scriabin comes to mind,
> particularly the Poem of Ecstacy, and a couple of his piano sonatas. I wish I
> could recall the music used in the film "The Beast with Five Fingers", which
> told the story of a man played by Peter Lorre who descended into madness while
> the disembodied hand of a deceased one-handed pianist played the piano. If it
> were written for the film, it would certainly be in that category.
>
> ---
>
> Have an ice day... BK
one-handed pianist in the film "The Beast with five Fingers" was a
transcription of the Bach d-minor chaconne.
Keith Edgerley
piper
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 02:38:04 GMT, newh...@mail.crisp.net (Brian
Newhouse) wrote:
[snip]
>In that respect the notion of musical Impressionism is far more
>problematic. Debussy's artistic associations seem to have been Symbolist
>and/or esoteric/proto-New Age rather than (Post-)Impressionist. (Think
>Mallarme on the one hand, Maeterlinck on the other.) The association of
>Debussy with Impressionism proper may have been started by critics hostile
>to both on the grounds of "shapelessness" (at least by comparison with
>Gounod or Bougereau).
>[snip]
What complicates this further is that Schoenberg was also associated
with Symbolism, at least to some extent. Pierrot Lunaire was written
to a Symbolist poem. And various others, including Boulez in our time,
have continued to be influenced by Mallarme.
Michael
Bradford Kellogg
>In the case of Expressionism, a lot has to do with historical context.
>Schoenberg was in fact connected with Kandinsky and the "Blue Rider"
>circle in the years just before the First World War. And Buechner's
>*Woyzeck* was in fact a great inspiration to the Expressionist
>playwrights. Roger Lustig, if he still lurks here, can certainly tell us
>more.
Since you pointed out the spelling of the play as Woyzeck, I recall that
for some reason the spelling got changed for the opera to Wozzeck, but I don't
recall what that reason was. Berg's other opera, Lulu, also has an intensely
Expressionistic air to it, although to me it seems more of a detached abstraction,
as if a sort of Impressionism formed in darkness, as opposed to the typically
well lit view of Impressionism.
I also have the sense that Impressionism is derived from turn of the century
French culture, while Expressionism is more associated with turn of the century
German culture. I think of names such as Freud, Jung, Kafka, Hesse, all writers
in the German language engaged in the inner experience. There seems to have
been an imperative in Germany that had a powerful effect on intellectuals and
artists, perhaps in anticipation of the collective madness that was to befall
the country.
>In that respect the notion of musical Impressionism is far more
>problematic. Debussy's artistic associations seem to have been Symbolist
>and/or esoteric/proto-New Age rather than (Post-)Impressionist. (Think
>Mallarme on the one hand, Maeterlinck on the other.) The association of
>Debussy with Impressionism proper may have been started by critics hostile
>to both on the grounds of "shapelessness" (at least by comparison with
>Gounod or Bougereau).
This is probably a much better label, if one needs labels. Debussy took
source material directly from the Symbolists, (the M's as noted above) not
from the Impressionists. Indeed Debussy rejected the Impressionist label, but
seemed to embrace the Symbolists (Maeterlinck's threatened but unexecuted
physical assault on Debussy notwithstanding).
Bradford Kellogg
In article 2...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com, fre...@ix.netcom.com(Sara Freeman) writes:
>>
>Impressionism is low-key. Expressionism is high-key. Anything conducted
>by Lenny the B. is automatically Expressionism.
Expressionism does tend to be out there, but I would prefer to call Lenny's
conducting histrionic.
Brian Newhouse
In article <6fuge2$7...@steadfast.teradyne.com>, kel...@atb.teradyne.com wrote:
[snip to save screen space--it's my posting, I can snip if I want to]
"
"Since you pointed out the spelling of the play as Woyzeck, I recall that
"for some reason the spelling got changed for the opera to Wozzeck, but I don't
"recall what that reason was...
By the time the *Woyzeck* fragments were finally published in 1875,
Buechner's manuscripts, already difficult to decipher, had become faded
almost to illegibility. The editor misread "Woyzeck" as "Wozzeck", a
reading that remained in force until the manuscripts were re-examined in
1920, by which time Berg was already well underway with his opera.
"
[snip again]
"
"This is probably a much better label, if one needs labels. Debussy took
"source material directly from the Symbolists, (the M's as noted above) not
"from the Impressionists. Indeed Debussy rejected the Impressionist label, but
"seemed to embrace the Symbolists (Maeterlinck's threatened but unexecuted
"physical assault on Debussy notwithstanding).
"
Which assault, if I understand rightly, came about only because Debussy
was not about to let Maeterlinck's mistress Georgette Leblanc create the
role of Melisande in _his_ opera.
--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@newton.crisp.net
William Smithers
>
[SNIP]
While composers such as Debussy have been called Impressionist, I
>have also seen in writings references to Expressionistic music, identifying
>works like Wozzeck, which is indeed heavy on the Freudian sauce.
>
==========================================================================
Schoenberg's "Pierre lunaire," for "declamation and five instrumentalists,"
composed in 1912 at the suggestion of the composer's actress friend Albertine
Zehme -- and performed by her in its first presentation -- is, I believe,
usually regarded as a prime example of Expressionist musical composition.
Berg's opera "Lulu" is based on the so-called "Lulu plays" -- "Earth Spirit,"
"Pandora's Box," and "Death and the Devil" -- of the the great German pre- (or
early) Expressionist playwrite Frank Wedekind.
"Lulu," wrote translator Carl Richard Mueller, "is the eternal womanly that
draws us downward."
If you need convincing, see Louise Brooks in G.W. Pabst's silent film,
"Pandora's Box."
-- Bill Smithers
==========================================================================
Iian Neill
Bradford Kellogg wrote:
> The thread about Impressionism had me wondering... Impressionism was a
> movement
> in the arts around the late 19th to early 20th centuries, which
> emphasized the
> artist's subjective response to external experience, and
> Expressionism, which was
> happening at the same time, emphasized the artist's subjective
> response to internal
> experience. While composers such as Debussy have been called
> Impressionist, I
> have also seen in writings references to Expressionistic music,
> identifying
> works like Wozzeck, which is indeed heavy on the Freudian sauce.
I must admit that I wonder whether there could ever be truly
'impressionistic' music. The Impressionist movement in the visual arts
was concerned with an alternative method of representation, one which
had less emphasis on form and draftsmanship than it did on colour and
movement. In the hands of academically trained artists such as Degas and
Manet, Impressionism was often a valid art form that avoided the worst
excesses of its followers.
However, I wonder whether one can just transplant this artistic
movement over to music. I mean, the very term 'Classical' was coined to
describe such art as was being produced by Antonio Canova and J.L.
David, who modelled their forms after that of the ancient Greeks and
Romans - and the Graeco-Roman period is formally addressed as the
Classical period.
I must say, I do not hear any similarity between the music Mozart and
that of the ancient Greek airs that have survived into our times. Their
style was of a rather mysterious quality, monodic and its melodies were
more Eastern than Viennese. Therefore, in every accurate sense of the
term, the 'Classical' label is a misnomer when applied to Mozart, Haydn,
Salieri, etc. It is only applied to them because they were composing at
the same time Canova, David and other Neo-classicicists were sculpting
and painting.
Perhaps this also applies to so-called Impressionist music. I mean,
how can music be at all Impressionist - that is, an alternative form of
representationalism - if it isn't even representational in the first
place (if we discount trivial examples of composers imitating here and
there sounds in nature - most of the great composers regarded that as
merely ornamentation, if they even used it at all).
Instrumental music is already 'abstract', or 'pure'. It doesn't
represent anything visual - it cannot, for it is sound. To describe the
music of Debussy then, perhaps we ought to invent a new category?
Unfortunately, I am in no position to do so .... so I will leave it up
to the experts.
Adieu,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
Joe
After reading the 10 or so posts it is good to see some more discussion on the labels
of Impressionist, Expressionist and so forth.
I reiterate that in the sphere of music, I feel that the term impressionist is more to
do with orchestration than actual composition. It has been pointed out that the
Maeterlink play Pelleas et Melisande is symbolist. Debussy's opera based on this play
is heavy with atmosphere, nuance and intimation. In comparison Sibelius incidnetal
music is as luxurious and atmospheric. The difference beeing those found in each
composers musical language. No one has applied the term Impressionist to Sibelius.
I do note however that the music pieces used in the discussions all deal with some form
of literature, which have labeled and accepted with these labels.
Still, is Kahka know more by his name or by being included in a group called
expressionists? Is Debussy more famous for being Debussy or another impressionist?
JOE
Bradford Kellogg wrote:
> The thread about Impressionism had me wondering... Impressionism was a movement
> in the arts around the late 19th to early 20th centuries, which emphasized the
> artist's subjective response to external experience, and Expressionism, which was
> happening at the same time, emphasized the artist's subjective response to internal
> experience. While composers such as Debussy have been called Impressionist, I
> have also seen in writings references to Expressionistic music, identifying
> works like Wozzeck, which is indeed heavy on the Freudian sauce.
>
> Of course I had to try to think of other examples. The point seems not that the
> music be atonal, but neither can it be post-romantic. Scriabin comes to mind,
> particularly the Poem of Ecstacy, and a couple of his piano sonatas. I wish I
> could recall the music used in the film "The Beast with Five Fingers", which
> told the story of a man played by Peter Lorre who descended into madness while
> the disembodied hand of a deceased one-handed pianist played the piano. If it
> were written for the film, it would certainly be in that category.
>
aldelicious
Iian Neill wrote:
I mean, the very term 'Classical' was coined to
> describe such art as was being produced by Antonio Canova and J.L.
> David, who modelled their forms after that of the ancient Greeks and
> Romans - and the Graeco-Roman period is formally addressed as the
> Classical period.
> I must say, I do not hear any similarity between the music Mozart and
> that of the ancient Greek airs that have survived into our times. Their
> style was of a rather mysterious quality, monodic and its melodies were
> more Eastern than Viennese. Therefore, in every accurate sense of the
> term, the 'Classical' label is a misnomer when applied to Mozart, Haydn,
> Salieri, etc. It is only applied to them because they were composing at
> the same time Canova, David and other Neo-classicicists were sculpting
> and painting.
"classical period" music isnt referring to ancient greek and roman
music, but rather their artwork. the composers in the classical era
embodied simplicity, balanced phrases, perfection, etc. as did the
ancients. there is definitely a relationship.
> Instrumental music is already 'abstract', or 'pure'. It doesn't
>represent anything visual - it cannot, for it is sound.
music may not physically depict something, as you cant see it.(duh!)
but there seems to be a relationship between the styles of artists and
composers (and writers) living at the same time. For example, monet was
obsessed with light, much the same way debussy was with sound and
timbre. schoenberg's pierrot lunaire and maybe munch's "the scream"
embody expressionism. (correct me if i'm wrong)
i still think impressionism is the best way yet to define the style in
works like l'apres midi d'un faune, pelleas et melisande, daphnis and
chloe, and works in this style.
of course, why must we always be so obsessed with fitting everything
into one category? ;)
aes
Steve Forrest
In article <35237AE3...@student.uq.edu.au>,
Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> [snip]
> I must say, I do not hear any similarity between the music Mozart and
>that of the ancient Greek airs that have survived into our times. Their
>style was of a rather mysterious quality, monodic and its melodies were
>more Eastern than Viennese. Therefore, in every accurate sense of the
>term, the 'Classical' label is a misnomer when applied to Mozart, Haydn,
>Salieri, etc.
Well, I wouldn't worry so much that the same word has different meanings
in different contexts. Language is an evolving thing, and we expand the
meaning of words through metaphor and analogy in order to acheive our
expressive purposes. For example, in music we speak of intrumental
or tone 'color'. This is a standard usage, but obviously we don't
mean 'color' in the visual sense.
> Perhaps this also applies to so-called Impressionist music. I mean,
>how can music be at all Impressionist - that is, an alternative form of
>representationalism - if it isn't even representational in the first
>place
I think you partly answered your own question in your first paragraph
by describing Impressionist painting as having "less emphasis on form and
draftsmanship than it did on colour and movement." If we consider the
relation between Imp. art and Imp. music to be analogy rather than
identity, then we can describe Imp. music as having less emphasis on
form than on color. Since its just an analogy, only some features
are highlighted as being similar while others are ignored.
>To describe the
>music of Debussy then, perhaps we ought to invent a new category?
Debussy is so unique we could just call his music Debussian.
-Steve
Iian Neill
> >In that respect the notion of musical Impressionism is far more
> >problematic. Debussy's artistic associations seem to have been
> Symbolist
> >and/or esoteric/proto-New Age rather than (Post-)Impressionist.
> (Think
> >Mallarme on the one hand, Maeterlinck on the other.) The association
> of
> >Debussy with Impressionism proper may have been started by critics
> hostile
> >to both on the grounds of "shapelessness" (at least by comparison
> with
> >Gounod or Bougereau).
>
> What complicates this further is that Schoenberg was also associated
> with Symbolism, at least to some extent. Pierrot Lunaire was written
> to a Symbolist poem. And various others, including Boulez in our time,
>
> have continued to be influenced by Mallarme.
The complication is further complicated when one considers who the
Symbolist artists actually were, and what they were creating. We have
Gustave Moreau, whose arabesque-like ornate works harkened to a
mysterious re-interpretation of Greek myths and legends; we have Arnold
Bocklin, who possessed a Classical painter's technique, but directed it
towards Symbolistic subjects; (brief note here - many of you will
probably know that Rachmaninov composed his "Isle of the Dead" after the
painting of the same name by Bocklin - does this therefore make
Rachmaninov a Symbolist?) Odilon Redon was another prominent Symbolist -
by this stage, though, the technical tradition has decayed somewhat, and
Redon has a very poor mastery of the essentials of draftsmanship - but
his subjects are Symbolist in spirit.
So ... perhaps we are left in a quandary. I think this quandary will
ALWAYS exist when we try and match up artistic movements with composers
of the corresponding periods in history - sometimes they just don't fit
that well.
I find it rather ironic - the art historians who invent names for major
periods in history are quite prolific in their invention. Yet
musicologists seem to shy away from inventing appropriate titles for
various composers. Instead of coming up with a suitable label for the
musical style produced by Haydn, Mozart & Beethoven, they instead call
it 'Classical' because it was composed at the same time as Canova and
David were creating their Neo-classicist art-works.
I know this has been brought up before, and one response was that the
music of Mozart bears resemblance to that of the ancient Greeks & Romans
(which is what the word 'classical' in its historical sense actually
means). Well, if you take it this way, then plenty of other things can
also be 'Classical'. But the fact of the matter is that Mozart, Haydn &
Co., had no interest, per se, in reviving the musical forms of an
antique culture (whose music was mainly unknown, in any case).
So ... we are left with musicologists who just pillage their labels
from the Visual Arts. Well, I think it isn't entirely appropriate. It
was said that Mozart's music reflected the balance and order of the
ancient Greeks - well so did the art and music of the Renaissance, but
we don't go around saying that Mozart was a Renaissance composer! And
how many composers have you seen that are labelled 'Rococo'? Rococo was
an artistic movement from roughly the 1680's to the 1780's (give or take
a decade depending on geographical location) - and this is the period in
which J.S. Bach is contained. Should we therefore call Bach a 'Rococo'
musician? Of course not! His music bears no resemblance whatsoever to
those sensuous miniatures produced by Clodion, or the sculpture of
Etienne-Maurice Falconet. We don't call Bach a Rococo composer (nor his
contemporaries), so why should we label the Viennese composers as
Classical? - it seems to me that any effort to do so is inspired either
by a superficial similarity to the ancient Greek culture, or out the
inertia of habit. The last I have more sympathy with. :-)
Now, please excuse me for that rather long diversion. I will return to
the question at hand. All I ask of people is that we perhaps take the
time to re-evaluate those labels that are so haphazardly applied to
History. Chopin is classed as a Romantic, even though he hotly denied
and abhorred any association with Liszt & Berlioz in a compositional
context.
So what do we do? Do we re-write the history books and re-label all the
major periods? Of course not - that is entirely impractical. But I think
that we could at least attach a caveat now and then, so that people do
not take the labels too literally. Not that it does GREAT damage, but
any incorrect impression will inevitable breed future mistakes.
Sincerely,
Iian Neill.
Jose Oscar Marques
On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 21:56:22 +1000 Iian Neill
<s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in article
<3524CE65...@student.uq.edu.au>:
Quite interesting posting with many good observations. I'll just add
some comments.
>The complication is further complicated when one considers who the
>we have Arnold
>Bocklin, who possessed a Classical painter's technique, but directed it
>towards Symbolistic subjects; (brief note here - many of you will
>probably know that Rachmaninov composed his "Isle of the Dead" after the
>painting of the same name by Bocklin - does this therefore make
>Rachmaninov a Symbolist?)
And what about Strauss as a Symbolist too? Hoffmanstahl's "Die Frau
ohne Schatten" is in many aspects a Symbolist work although (mixed up
with many crude elements of Naturalism).
>musicologists seem to shy away from inventing appropriate titles for
>various composers. Instead of coming up with a suitable label for the
>musical style produced by Haydn, Mozart & Beethoven, they instead call
>it 'Classical' because it was composed at the same time as Canova and
>David were creating their Neo-classicist art-works.
> I know this has been brought up before, and one response was that the
>music of Mozart bears resemblance to that of the ancient Greeks & Romans
>(which is what the word 'classical' in its historical sense actually
>means).
That's a funny thing to say because, as you observe below, nobody knows
for sure how Greek and Roman music actually sounded like. We can suppose
it was very close to oriental music and would be VERY different in all
aspects from the "classical" style of 18th century Vienna!
>But the fact of the matter is that Mozart, Haydn &
>Co., had no interest, per se, in reviving the musical forms of an
>antique culture (whose music was mainly unknown, in any case).
Historically, the attempt to revive the music of Antiquity happened much
earlier, with the beginnings of opera some few years before 1600.
Needless to say, they had a completely wrong idea of what such music
was.
So, is our early Baroque the "true" (Neo-) Classicism in music?!!
>Chopin is classed as a Romantic, even though he hotly denied
>and abhorred any association with Liszt & Berlioz in a compositional
>context.
I'd prefer that we leave the Romantic label for Chopin, Schumann and
some others and choose another name for Liszt, Wagner, etc. Romanticism
in the second half of the 19th century is certainly a crazy notion,
which only exists in music...
>So what do we do? Do we re-write the history books and re-label all the
>major periods? Of course not - that is entirely impractical. But I think
>that we could at least attach a caveat now and then, so that people do
>not take the labels too literally. Not that it does GREAT damage, but
>any incorrect impression will inevitable breed future mistakes.
I agree that we can't change any of this anymore, but a bit more of
historical perspective, in the lines you followed, will be very useful
indeed.
--
Jose Oscar Marques
(to reply by e-mail remove the "X" from my address)
Bradford Kellogg CONTRACTOR
In article 01049822...@t1-48.crisp.net, newh...@mail.crisp.net (Brian Newhouse) writes:
>"
>"This is probably a much better label, if one needs labels. Debussy took
>"source material directly from the Symbolists, (the M's as noted above) not
>"from the Impressionists. Indeed Debussy rejected the Impressionist label, but
>"seemed to embrace the Symbolists (Maeterlinck's threatened but unexecuted
>"physical assault on Debussy notwithstanding).
>"
>Which assault, if I understand rightly, came about only because Debussy
>was not about to let Maeterlinck's mistress Georgette Leblanc create the
>role of Melisande in _his_ opera.
Right you are. Debussy insisted that Mary Garden, the beautiful Scottish soprano,
create the role. Maeterlinck, who was a large and imposing man, stormed in on
Debussy to thrash the composer with his cane, and evidently while Maeterlinck
stood there in a threatening posture, Debussy remained in his chair, unwilling
to rise, and whimpering. Maeterlinck, disgusted, turned and left.
Constantin Marcou
Iian Neill wrote:
> > >In that respect the notion of musical Impressionism is far more
> > >problematic. Debussy's artistic associations seem to have been
> > Symbolist
> > >and/or esoteric/proto-New Age rather than (Post-)Impressionist.
> > (Think
> > >Mallarme on the one hand, Maeterlinck on the other.) The association
> > of
> > >Debussy with Impressionism proper may have been started by critics
> > hostile
> > >to both on the grounds of "shapelessness" (at least by comparison
> > with
> > >Gounod or Bougereau).
> > >[snip]
> >
> > What complicates this further is that Schoenberg was also associated
> > with Symbolism, at least to some extent. Pierrot Lunaire was written
> > to a Symbolist poem. And various others, including Boulez in our time,
> >
> > have continued to be influenced by Mallarme.
>
> The complication is further complicated when one considers who the
> Symbolist artists actually were, and what they were creating.
This is most fascinating. Would anyone care to educate lazybones here as to
what, exactly, is "symbolist" painting and what its tenets/goals/distinctive
hallmarks are? I've read some art books in my time, but don't recall
reading any discussion of "symbolism." Mr. Neill's post tantalizes with a
mention of "what they were creating" -- without actually describing it. Was
Fuseli a symbolist? How about Caspar David Friedrich? How about Blake?
What is it that marks a work of art as "symbolist"? (This is an honest
question -- not trying to be smart! Although I really ought to head to the
library -- but indulge me here, please.)
> We have
> Gustave Moreau, whose arabesque-like ornate works harkened to a
> mysterious re-interpretation of Greek myths and legends; we have Arnold
> Bocklin, who possessed a Classical painter's technique, but directed it
> towards Symbolistic subjects; (brief note here - many of you will
> probably know that Rachmaninov composed his "Isle of the Dead" after the
> painting of the same name by Bocklin - does this therefore make
> Rachmaninov a Symbolist?) Odilon Redon was another prominent Symbolist -
> by this stage, though, the technical tradition has decayed somewhat, and
> Redon has a very poor mastery of the essentials of draftsmanship - but
> his subjects are Symbolist in spirit.
[snip]
> I find it rather ironic - the art historians who invent names for major
> periods in history are quite prolific in their invention. Yet
> musicologists seem to shy away from inventing appropriate titles for
> various composers. Instead of coming up with a suitable label for the
> musical style produced by Haydn, Mozart & Beethoven, they instead call
> it 'Classical' because it was composed at the same time as Canova and
> David were creating their Neo-classicist art-works.
I don't call it "classical"for those reasons. I call it "classical" because
I perceive it as striving for a harmonious balance between the emphasis on
form that seems to distinguish baroque music, on the one hand, and the
excesses in self-expression and self-indulgence that characterizes much
romantic music on the other hand. This attempt at moderation and balance
is what I consider to be the "classical" ideal, and why the period is termed
axccordingly. Canova, Ingres and David have nothing to do with it -- nor do
the ancient Greeks, except insofar as they established the ideal of
moderation in all things. Am I very far off base?
>
[snip]
> Now, please excuse me for that rather long diversion. I will return to
> the question at hand. All I ask of people is that we perhaps take the
> time to re-evaluate those labels that are so haphazardly applied to
> History. Chopin is classed as a Romantic, even though he hotly denied
> and abhorred any association with Liszt & Berlioz in a compositional
> context.
Yes, but his music certainly emphasizes expression of emotions over
adherence to academic forms -- which are almost entirely dispensed with.
Almost everything we revere of Chopin's is entitled "Fantaisie" or
"Nocturne" or "Impromptu" etc. Nothing of his is a "Sonata in four
movements, with themes, developments, recapitulations and conclusions in
strict academic form."
>
>
> So what do we do? Do we re-write the history books and re-label all the
> major periods? Of course not - that is entirely impractical. But I think
> that we could at least attach a caveat now and then, so that people do
> not take the labels too literally.
Very reasonable.
--
Best regards,
Con
*****************************************************************
"Mozart is too easy for beginners and too difficult for artists."
- Artur Schnabel
*****************************************************************
Please remove * from address to reply.
Bradford Kellogg
In article 21...@owlnet.rice.edu, aldelicious <al...@owlnet.rice.edu> () writes:
>
>music may not physically depict something, as you cant see it.(duh!)
>but there seems to be a relationship between the styles of artists and
>composers (and writers) living at the same time. For example, monet was
>obsessed with light, much the same way debussy was with sound and
>timbre.
Monet's use of light flirted with surrealism at times. His fascination
with the interaction between light and water I think has some parallels
in Debussy, in La Mer and perhaps Clair de Lune, although these are both
set in the night. Although Clair de Lune refers only to the light of
the moon, I would like to take some interpretive license and see the
light of the moon reflecting on still water.
schoenberg's pierrot lunaire and maybe munch's "the scream"
>embody expressionism. (correct me if i'm wrong)
>i still think impressionism is the best way yet to define the style in
>works like l'apres midi d'un faune, pelleas et melisande, daphnis and
>chloe, and works in this style.
> of course, why must we always be so obsessed with fitting everything
>into one category? ;)
But if you don't neatly fit everything into an existing category, this
can lead to confusion of the issues and unhealthy discussions. It was
better under Stalin, at least then a man knew where he stood. Ha!
piper
On 3 Apr 1998 18:08:11 GMT, kel...@atb.teradyne.com (Bradford
Kellogg) wrote:
>In article 21...@owlnet.rice.edu, aldelicious <al...@owlnet.rice.edu> () writes:
>>
>>music may not physically depict something, as you cant see it.(duh!)
>>but there seems to be a relationship between the styles of artists and
>>composers (and writers) living at the same time. For example, monet was
>>obsessed with light, much the same way debussy was with sound and
>>timbre.
>
>Monet's use of light flirted with surrealism at times.
[snip]
Except that it predated Surrealism by several decades, didn't it? I
don't think it's very instructive to compared works of art with other
works or styles that did not exist at the time they were created,
unless note is taken of the fact that we are doing that.
Fair point?
Regards,
Michael
Bradford Kellogg CONTRACTOR
In article 6...@steadfast.teradyne.com, kel...@atb.teradyne.com (Bradford Kellogg)
blathered:
>
>Monet's use of light flirted with surrealism at times. His fascination
>with the interaction between light and water I think has some parallels
>in Debussy, in La Mer and perhaps Clair de Lune, although these are both
>set in the night.
Once again, I must correct my own posting. Both set in the night? In La Mer,
one part is called From Dawn to Midday on the Sea or something like that.
Perhaps this results from my introduction to La Mer having the Three Nocturnes
on the flip side, and I would often play them one after the other. Or maybe
I'm just losing my marbles. Or both.
>Although Clair de Lune refers only to the light of
>the moon, I would like to take some interpretive license and see the
>light of the moon reflecting on still water.
I still like that imagery, though.
Bradford Kellogg
In article 2F69...@earthlink.net, Constantin Marcou <conm...@earthlink.net> () writes:
>
>
>Iian Neill wrote:
>>
>> The complication is further complicated when one considers who the
>> Symbolist artists actually were, and what they were creating.
>
>This is most fascinating. Would anyone care to educate lazybones here as to
>what, exactly, is "symbolist" painting and what its tenets/goals/distinctive
>hallmarks are? I've read some art books in my time, but don't recall
>reading any discussion of "symbolism." Mr. Neill's post tantalizes with a
>mention of "what they were creating" -- without actually describing it. Was
>Fuseli a symbolist? How about Caspar David Friedrich? How about Blake?
>What is it that marks a work of art as "symbolist"? (This is an honest
>question -- not trying to be smart! Although I really ought to head to the
>library -- but indulge me here, please.)
It certainly is possible for the motivated pundit to talk for hours on this
topic, but a very simple, general definition could be that "Symbolist"
painting was that done by mostly French artists of the late 19th century
who expressed themselves indirectly through symbols. This is clearly quite
different from Impressionism, which seems to be devoid of any expression
through symbols. Picasso's blue period has been described as symbolist,
where he portrays idealized visions of indigent people, in some examples
afflicted with blindess, symbolizing inner vision. This mini analysis is
paraphrased from the pundits, but having seen "The Early Years" myself,
I agree with it.
Bradford Kellogg
In article 675...@news.interport.net, pi...@interport.net (piper) writes:
>On 3 Apr 1998 18:08:11 GMT, kel...@atb.teradyne.com (Bradford
>Kellogg) wrote:
>
>>In article 21...@owlnet.rice.edu, aldelicious <al...@owlnet.rice.edu> () writes:
>>>
>>>music may not physically depict something, as you cant see it.(duh!)
>>>but there seems to be a relationship between the styles of artists and
>>>composers (and writers) living at the same time. For example, monet was
>>>obsessed with light, much the same way debussy was with sound and
>>>timbre.
>>
>
>Except that it predated Surrealism by several decades, didn't it? I
>don't think it's very instructive to compared works of art with other
>works or styles that did not exist at the time they were created,
>unless note is taken of the fact that we are doing that.
>
>Fair point?
The arts (at least the arts we are talking about here) have never been
developed in a vacuum. There are connections and overlaps. Each generation
of artists inherits something from the previous generation. What I meant
by "flirted with" was pushing the boundaries to a point where the next logical
step for some artists is to carry it across the boundary. Artists of Monet's
generation (including the early Expressionsts) made surrealism possible, as
Scriabin (among others) made atonality possible, as Beethoven et al made full
blown romanticism possible. In this sense, I think it's very instructive.
It seems, however, my sense of this did not leap out from my use of brevity.
Oh well.
Bradford Kellogg CONTRACTOR
(Steve Forrest) writes:
>I'm not sure what you mean by 'universally understood.' While dance
>(in the general sense) may be universal in human culture, I wouldn't
>say that, for example, European classical ballet is universally
>understood. There are elements and conventions of dance that are
>used in ballet, an understanding of which make that art form
>intelligible. Similarly, language is a human universal, but no particular
>language is understood without a knowledge of its elements and
>conventions. I might agree, though, that some level of understanding
>of ballet is possible without special knowledge of its conventions,
>while understanding of a language would seem to _require_ a knowledge
>of linguistic conventions.
> So, I realize that language and music are different. But they
>both involve conventions that relate to intelligibilty. I'm suggesting
>that the lack of understanding of 'contemporary' music has to do, at least
>in part, with the lack of understanding of the new and unfamiliar
>conventions.
By "universally understood", I mean only that most anyone can recognize most
any attempt at art, and having identified it as such, is able to immdediately
decide if it floats their boat. Certainly, knowing more about all the
circumstances surrounding a particular work of art, including the inspirations
and techniques of the artist, might make it more interesting and meaningful,
but you might like it with no knowledge of it other than what is immediately
available to your senses. It is possible to judge, for yourself, the value
of a work of art to you, as pure art, in a blind test.
Music, I think, does not have any absolute requirement that the first time
listener be prepared for it in any way. The fact that it may employ a stylistic
approach that is unfamiliar should not be a gating factor if you accept the
premise that one of the purposes of art is to play the iconoclast. Many people
do not accept this, of course.
>>The point is not understanding in a rational sense, but in
>>an empirical sense.
>When I listen to a new style or genre of music, I usually don't
>'get it' right away. I have to listen repeatedly, letting it sink in,
>so to speak. When I persist in exposing myself to unfamiliar music,
>I usually end up 'getting it' and at the same time enjoying it
>(even when I didn't enjoy it initially). It might help if I read
>about the music (gain a rational understanding), but the experience
>of 'getting it' seems to come more directly from the listening.
>Is this what you mean by 'empirical understanding'?
Yes, but the pure experience of listening to new music might appeal to you
right away, the very first time. New music has trends, of course, but composers
can do whatever they want, and not all of them want only to confound you.
There are some fascinating things going on, and the composers of today have
some remarkable ideas.
>(Not to push the language analogy too far, but... This is similar
>to how children naturally learn language. They don't study it
>systematically to gain a rational understanding of it; rather
>by being exposed to it, they absorb it, and 'get it' without really
>knowing why.)
>>Remember that song from the 60's, Wooden Ships? The
>>first line is "If you smile at me, I will understand, 'cause that is
>>something everybody everywhere does in the same language". Perhaps the
>>smile from a toothless mouth displeases us, but it is a smile all the same.
>Smiling and recognizing a smile might be more like instinct, while
>music and language are both products of human culture.
You're missing my point there - human expression is universal. The way we
express ourselves can vary considerably, and it may or may not have the
intended effect.
Steve Forrest
In article <6gbmjr$f...@steadfast.teradyne.com>,
Bradford Kellogg CONTRACTOR <kel...@atb.teradyne.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I wrote:
>>When I listen to a new style or genre of music, I usually don't
>>'get it' right away. I have to listen repeatedly, letting it sink in,
>>so to speak. When I persist in exposing myself to unfamiliar music,
>>I usually end up 'getting it' and at the same time enjoying it
>>(even when I didn't enjoy it initially). It might help if I read
>>about the music (gain a rational understanding), but the experience
>>of 'getting it' seems to come more directly from the listening.
>>Is this what you mean by 'empirical understanding'?
>
>Yes, but the pure experience of listening to new music might appeal to you
>right away, the very first time.
Oh, yes, and that has in fact happened to me. I was just sharing the
fact that in my own experience that doesn't usually happen. And
unfortunately for me, this limits my appreciation of contemporary music.
(I wonder if others have this experience, or if I'm just musically
slow-witted.)
>New music has trends, of course, but composers
>can do whatever they want, and not all of them want only to confound you.
>There are some fascinating things going on, and the composers of today have
>some remarkable ideas.
Yes, of course. PLease don't think I'm in the 'anti-contemporary' camp.
I'm not trying to blame composers for writing music that is too far out;
I acknowledge my own limitations in appreciating it. However, I do maintain
my original point about the alleged 'uncommunicative' quality of some
modern music: that the composer has some responsibility for making
the music speak to his/her audience.
I was hoping to shed some light on the issue of audiences
finding new music uncommunicative by revealing my own difficulties.
Of course, if my experience is idiosyncratic, it doesn't help explain
anything.
[snips]
>You're missing my point there - human expression is universal. The way we
>express ourselves can vary considerably, and it may or may not have the
>intended effect.
Thank you for the clarification. (Ironic that you had to mention
the failure of intended effect, no?) :)
-Steve
Bradford Kellogg
In article 1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu, sfor...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Forrest) writes:
>In article <6gbmjr$f...@steadfast.teradyne.com>,
>Bradford Kellogg CONTRACTOR <kel...@atb.teradyne.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, but the pure experience of listening to new music might appeal to you
>>right away, the very first time.
>
>Oh, yes, and that has in fact happened to me. I was just sharing the
>fact that in my own experience that doesn't usually happen. And
>unfortunately for me, this limits my appreciation of contemporary music.
>(I wonder if others have this experience, or if I'm just musically
>slow-witted.)
Many others have this experience. When Maurice Ravel attended a performance
of Schoenberg's music with Alma Mahler, he listened politely, then remarked
to her (paraphrased): "That was not written, that came from a laboratory!"
I think it's safe to say it is not a matter of being musically slow-witted.
>>New music has trends, of course, but composers
>>can do whatever they want, and not all of them want only to confound you.
>>There are some fascinating things going on, and the composers of today have
>>some remarkable ideas.
>
>Yes, of course. PLease don't think I'm in the 'anti-contemporary' camp.
>I'm not trying to blame composers for writing music that is too far out;
>I acknowledge my own limitations in appreciating it. However, I do maintain
>my original point about the alleged 'uncommunicative' quality of some
>modern music: that the composer has some responsibility for making
>the music speak to his/her audience.
No matter what the composer does, the music speaks. What you get out of it
is up to you. But I am not saying that you should necessarily get anything
out of it. This is why I don't like the spoken word analogy. If I want to
tell you that it's raining outside and I say "The heavens commiserate and
attend us with their grief", you may not immediately understand me, and my
purpose might fail. In this case, it is my responsibility to speak coherently.
If, on the other hand, I write a piece of music for five pianos called
"Nebulous Forms", my only responsibility is to write it such that the players
are able to play it as I intend it to sound. Depending on how I write it,
you might like it, or you might not. What I want you to get out of it is
whatever you get out of it, something I can't really predict.
>
>Thank you for the clarification. (Ironic that you had to mention
>the failure of intended effect, no?) :)
Ironic and apropos.
Eric Schissel
Bradford Kellogg (kel...@atb.teradyne.com) wrote:
>Many others have this experience. When Maurice Ravel attended a performance
>of Schoenberg's music with Alma Mahler, he listened politely, then remarked
>to her (paraphrased): "That was not written, that came from a laboratory!"
>I think it's safe to say it is not a matter of being musically slow-witted.
You omit that the work was his 1st chamber symphony, one of his most
Romantic, approachable, and popular works.
Years later Ravel heard Pierrot Lunaire and had the opposite opinion, that
it was quite fine indeed. This in part perhaps because Pierrot is rather
closer to Ravel's own music - marginally - than the symphony.
The details tell a different story than the one you wanted to tell, I
think, since it was not tonality/atonality that Ravel was commenting on,
but rather the contrapuntal Romantic/Classicism (yeep!) of the symphony
vs. the very fantasaical world of Pierrot Lunaire...
-Eric Schissel
--
schi...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/schissel ICQ#7279016
standard disclaimer
Steve Forrest
In article <6gdq9n$q...@steadfast.teradyne.com>,
Bradford Kellogg <kel...@atb.teradyne.com> wrote:
>
>No matter what the composer does, the music speaks. What you get out of it
>is up to you. But I am not saying that you should necessarily get anything
>out of it. This is why I don't like the spoken word analogy. If I want to
>tell you that it's raining outside and I say "The heavens commiserate and
>attend us with their grief", you may not immediately understand me, and my
>purpose might fail. In this case, it is my responsibility to speak coherently.
>If, on the other hand, I write a piece of music for five pianos called
>"Nebulous Forms", my only responsibility is to write it such that the players
>are able to play it as I intend it to sound. Depending on how I write it,
>you might like it, or you might not. What I want you to get out of it is
>whatever you get out of it, something I can't really predict.
Yes, the language analogy breaks down. I brought it up originally
because someone used the word 'uncommunicative' with regard to music,
and I wondered what that might have in common with uncommunicative
language. In reality, I don't even know what music is supposed to
communicate (if anything).
-Steve
Bradford Kellogg
In article 0...@news2.lightlink.com, schi...@adore.lightlink.com (Eric Schissel) writes:
>Bradford Kellogg (kel...@atb.teradyne.com) wrote:
>>Many others have this experience. When Maurice Ravel attended a performance
>>of Schoenberg's music with Alma Mahler, he listened politely, then remarked
>>to her (paraphrased): "That was not written, that came from a laboratory!"
>>I think it's safe to say it is not a matter of being musically slow-witted.
>
>You omit that the work was his 1st chamber symphony, one of his most
>Romantic, approachable, and popular works.
>Years later Ravel heard Pierrot Lunaire and had the opposite opinion, that
>it was quite fine indeed. This in part perhaps because Pierrot is rather
>closer to Ravel's own music - marginally - than the symphony.
>
>The details tell a different story than the one you wanted to tell, I
>think, since it was not tonality/atonality that Ravel was commenting on,
>but rather the contrapuntal Romantic/Classicism (yeep!) of the symphony
>vs. the very fantasaical world of Pierrot Lunaire...
Thanks for providing some more information on this. But it makes the point
I intended, interestingly, which is not tonal vs. atonal, but the fact that
any new music, if it does not conform to the expectations or desires of a
listener, even a listener with a remarkably keen musical insight, it might
fail to please that listener. I avoided talking specifically about tonality
for this reason.