That's an interesting conversational tidbit, but unfortunately - having heard Lutoslawski - I'm not sure he had any ideas that anyone in this dimension can understand. (Does anyone know how to transfer fingernails being scraped across a blackboard into MIDI? A fingernail controller probably. Get one to do Lutoslawski properly with VSL, please.) Though I'm sure on a higher dimensional plane that I will never ever get to, being an ordinary human, Lutoslawski's ideas are absolutely FASCINATING (probably to the advanced Krell civilization which vaporized in one night after a million years of shining sanity).

William -- not sure if you've heard Lutoslawski, not the composer whose music I'd describe as you did -- but anyway, if it's not in your frame of reference, maybe you'd not find it provocative or even interesting. He was a good thinker about music, more than most, so came to mind with regard to this discussion. Forgive the quote, then!

getting further off-topic, it occurs to me to wonder how far we are away from some of the composers of the past ... how many 'degrees of relationship', knowing someone who knew someone? I knew Lutoslawski, when he was a famous composer and I a student; wonder if he knew anyone who knew Wagner? Can anybody claim two or three degrees away from Debussy? Brahms? Surely Richard Strauss can't be too far away from us. Beethoven?

Well I wasn't serious about that anyway. But another example of what you're talking about is Schoenberg being a friend of Mahler, which is quite a huge range of music history in two people. Or the people who knew Richard Strauss late in his very long life.

The man I studied conducting with Fritz Zweig was a close personal of almost anyone of importance you can think of: Shoenberg, Stravinsky, Strauss, Hindimith, Puccini, Korngold, Walter, Furtwangler, Klemperer, Zell and on and on. Can you imagine hearing personal references to Stravinsky or Hindimith? (Which I did.)

Dave Connor

Is this OT OK? or should this thread keep going here?

@William said:

Well I wasn't serious about that anyway. But another example of what you're talking about is Schoenberg being a friend of Mahler, which is quite a huge range of music history in two people.

I wouldn´t say so. Schönberg, and especially the later Schönberg, is a deeply romantic composer. Though not a monstrous one...

Mathis,

What do you mean by "not a monstrous one?

Just curious.

Dave

Ask Bill... [[;)]]

Just one of Mathis's colorful descriptions.

I would say Schoenberg started out MONSTROUSLY Romantic (i.e. the Gurrelieder), however he became far more of a modernist later on. Of course you can say that about Mahler, whose 9th and 10th symphonies are beyond just about any other modernism in every aspect you can discuss. Mahler was quite similar to Beethoven - he was a giant who stood astride two eras, and helped to usher in the new.

I agree entirely. Particularly about Mahler striding two eras as Beethoven did. I also agree that Schoenberg had a Romantic quality (supercharged emotionalism) in all his music, beginning or end.

DC

Well, pianistically I'm two frames of reference away from Leschetizky, then Liszt, then Czerny/Beethoven etc.
It is actually something I find remarkable how the musical 'schools' thrive and propagate, and that the teachings/styles/methods acrue in this way.

As to the question, what is music? It is the human essence in sound.
You can quote me on that. [[;)]]

I'm one frame away from Leschetizky apparently as Fritz Zweig studied with him. Zweig studied composition with Schoenberg and conducting with Walter and Furtwangler. In his later years he became the last surviving student of Schoenberg's who had studied with him in Europe. If your German is good you can read his correspondance with Schoenberg. Just do a search on Fritz Zweig.

Dave Connor

My command of German is limited, but I can piece things together when reading it.
Did a brief search - quite a remarkable career that Zweig had. With all that first hand experience, studying with him must have been infinitely illuminating. I'll certainly look up that correspondence when time allows. I'd been wanting to practice my German, and here's a good excuse. [[;)]]

Getting back to the topic a bit, I'd say that performance is the rendering of the musical idea. The musical idea has an existence as a score (a detailed set of instructions), but is only concretized in a way intelligible to the audience when those instructions are put into action - performance.
Interpretation ultimately can only go so far - no matter how distorted, it is still a rendering of the musical idea as predicated by the score.

In terms of creation, the musical idea may not necessarily begin with something musical at all (as in notes or sounds) but rather a need to express 'something', that something frequently being inexpressible in any other way besides the music resulting from it. Hence composer frustration when the musical material has not come out as desired, leaving that initial 'idea' either not expressed, partially expressed, or incorrectly expressed and thus making its rendering through performance (the act of making the musical idea 'physical' - or physically perceptible) impossible. The Babblefish effect? [:D]

Very well made point which would be hard to disagree with.

Learning from Zweig was a revelation indeed.

Dave Connor

@jc5 said:

As to the question, what is music? It is the human essence in sound. You can quote me on that. [[;)]]

The rules (the cliches) at a certain moment are based on the surrounding culture. The details in a piece are just accidents of a creative mind.

@lgrohn said:

The rules (the cliches) at a certain moment are based on the surrounding culture. The details in a piece are just accidents of a creative mind.

Here's a long-standing opinion about that point of view, hopefully not expressed too crudely: that is a masturbatory fantasy about what art should be! And it's wrong, too, two times wrong. (opinion, opinion, opinion)

@jc5 said:

As to the question, what is music? It is the human essence in sound. You can quote me on that. [[;)]]

The rules (the cliches) at a certain moment are based on the surrounding culture. The details in a piece are just accidents of a creative mind.


Great art is able to transcend the realities of its' surroundings at the time of creation, and enter the 'eternal', remaining valid in different times and realities. Things that are bound and gagged to their time and place had/have no real value to begin with.

And, regardless of the above, if indeed the rules/cliches were purely of the moment and surrounding culture, then surely the details of a piece informed by such would not be accidents but deliberate products of that environment?

Igrohn,

I agree that accidents (unanticipated or unintended results) are a vital part of any creative process. Details (the deliberate fine control of elements) would seem to me not to fall into the categorie of accidents. But this may be a semantic or language translation. Would you clarify?

Gugliel,

Would you clarify your post as well. I didn't understand at all as you seemed to refer to some extant statement.

Thanks folks,

Dave Connor

@dpcon said:

I agree that accidents (unanticipated or unintended results) are a vital part of any creative process. Details (the deliberate fine control of elements) would seem to me not to fall into the categorie of accidents. But this may be a semantic or language translation. Would you clarify?

Thanks for asking. My formulation was a bit obscure. Iteration is an important part of creativity. The first accidental details may change due to iteration or auditive feedback (when speaking about music)

There is a strange parallel with that above and with what I am doing with my software: generating music (midi files) from pictures in a few seconds. We don't know much about how the creativity comes to life in our brains. There is not too much difference when "the creativity" comes out from the pictures I use for music generations.

I agree we humans don't know much about a whole lot of things including the creative process. My theory about music is that creating it is really a process of discovery. Meaning that there is so much creativity already built in to the world we live in (I refer to God) that one almost can't miss. Consider that the overtone series can be found in any piece of string or gut that only need be pulled than plucked (Pythagoras) and you realize that music can be found everywhere.

Dave Connor

dpcon, my statement was in reference to lgrohn's formula for art: imo, doubly wrong, that 'rules' are not particularly tied to one's moment in time and culture (saying this while remembering those who come looking for 'the hollywood sound' ... oh well), and that 'creativity' is the result of happy accident tied to who it is who is doing the accidenting.

still not clear, i know -- but it's tied also to something someone said here, not long ago, hermitage59 perhaps: that at least part of art (and creativity) is being able to de-personalize the music one writes, make it applicable for anyone not just yourself (and thus the reference to onanism) and to be able to throw them away if not right for the music's necessity.

the opposite to this is lgrohn's apparent point of view (sorry if I mis-interpret you, lgrohn, not trying to do it): the accident of MY computer and MY graphics exercises and the program I wrote to turn graphics into music are all precious sparks of vitality and should be preserved and respected as art.

am well aware this isn't too clear -- may return and edit it better. The pithy bon mot works better than explanations!