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!

@dpcon said:

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.

Pythagoras had a bad ear and he was bad in physics. The first overtone of any string is a litle bit more that double of the primary note in Hertzs...

Igrohn,

And the overtone series of a string, say that found on a violin or piano?

You did not take my meaning to be that of principles? That is, the principle of overtones found in nature and Pythagoran principles? (was not referring to the man's ear canals.)

This is clearer now I hope?

Dave Connor

Gugliel,

Thanks for clarification. I understand. It seems I am being currently misunderstood so we must all persevere.

Dave

I've followed this with much interest, and i note several references to accidents in music.
How do those 'accidents' occur?
By experimentation. How do we experiment?
By stepping outside what we already know.

So i'm not agreed with the principle of accidents, and the resulting (or not) continuation of a new path of 'creativity' based on a standalone coincidence, unconnected to anything else.

It's my opinion that accidents don't actually occur, rather a new creative 'node' or 'notion' comes to life as the result of an opening of the creative synapses to 'allow' a stream of new thought/emotion to come to life. Every note, chord, percussive sound, impact, hum, etc. has the potential to take many new paths in new directions outside of our current known experience. We know when stuff doesn't work, and as Gugliemo referred to, my view of the importance of objectivity holds true. But it's also the case that my view is tempered by my notion of what is acceptable or not. e.g. I prefer Wagner to Schnietke. Why? Because Wagner 'fits' my life/creation/analytical/emotion/experience model better. It doesn't mean i question the validity of Schnetke, merely make a personal preference, according to what i 'accept' under the very general title, Music.
Nor does experience (or not) take away from the musical potential. I think it's important to separate the creative 'notion' encapsulated by BOTH thought and emotion, and the practical means to bring that notion to life.
Consider the young composer who can hear a complete symphony with unfettered clarity in his thought/emotion centre. What prevents him from 'transmitting' that complete notion into reality is not only a lack of practical compositional and orchestration experience as we understand it, but quite possibly the limitations of the instruments themselves. Sound, timbre, reflection of change of tone by dynamic may separately or collectively detract from that 'pure' symphonic picture he sees and feels.
So the discussion of separating the composer and performer is already one stage on from the real question, (in my opinion) instead the real question should be:

'What is the notion in the composer's thought/emotion centre?'

We hear an extrapolation of that performed by ourselves and /or others, but by necessity, it is already a 'tainted' version of the pure reality created in the first place.

Regards to you all, and thanks William for starting such an interesting discussion!

Alex.

I find myself once again agreeing with Dave Connor.
Music can be found everywhere.
The act of breathing or the faint percussive tone of a heartbeat affects our notion of rhythm and sound, so if the most basic and fundamental of human mechanical processes is at the foundation of our perception of 'what is music', then anything is possible, and indeed, likely.

Regards,

Alex.

The perception of what is music can be considered a step further.
I like Wagner's complete approach, although he was by no means the only one, of a complete, emotive, aural, visual creation, each component an interal part of the whole. Now, practically, it's a little more difficult for us, as composers on paper, or digitally, to explore this complete creation each and every time we come to life as composers. But the practical means doesn't detract from the creation taking place, only limits how fully we can express that creation. There are those here who have experience in film and the creation of images, but even then, they are limited by the means to bring the pure notion to life.
And that's ok.
Because the one thing reality sometimes inhibits is imagination, and i'm sure many of you have had the frustrating experience of trying to bring a complete creation to life, only to be forced to accept a lesser version based on limited ability and resources.
And i'm fairly confident Wagner and other composers felt this frustration too.
It's a matter of logistics that give us the possibility of falling short of the goal,
a, Our own lack of knowledge or experience,
b, A lack of facility, e.g. limited computer functionality, etc.

But the notion, remains pure. we know what we think/feel, and we can hear/see/feel the whole experience unhindered by anything but our own imagination, so it's not the already complete notion that's limiting, but the means of getting it out of our imagination, and into a format of some sort or other.
The really special, wonderful, enjoyable thing about imagination is the constant state of change, and the resulting everchanging fluidilty of our personal ongoing creations.

Regards to you all,

Alex.