Continuation of issues arising from most forgotten thread...

Mark, thanks again for your vey kind response.

By all means, I can agree that certain big or large-scale works, like the ones you mentioned in your post, have a vision in them. My only reservation might be whether this vision simply contributed to the final outcome (the final product) rather than it is in it. (A score is a very specific thing. However, in the recreation, the performance, the vision comes to the fore again. So, I guess we may be both right).

I see you're pretty much interested in the compositional process. I don't see this process as completely formulaic, or only as such. There are composers who adopt different working methods. However, I sincerely believe that their compositions have become great, because they always had the scope of what the work has to be about, at least as a framework or outline. How they filled the "gaps" and how they completed the composition is not of such an importance. The result, the outcome counts! We work with this, we rely on this, we perform this and we listen to this.

Again, thanks for your kind post.

Parla

SOME COMMENTS FROM CHRIS FOR MARK AND PARLA

Hi Mark!  Well done for moving this thread to a new dedicated site.  We should have done it long ago! And it is good to see greater understanding between you.  It can only be good for the discussion.  I hope you won’t find that anything I write here to disruptive of this harmony. I’ve been away from the computer for a couple of days but thinking has continued unabated.

Mark, I am still thinking about your Debussy L-apres midi post and have been listening to a lot of Debussy as a result.  An interesting but difficult subject! When I have something to say (soon I hope) I’ll post it.  I wonder whether it might be a good idea to repost your original as the beginning of a another new thread.  There is even now so much in this thread that it may have got lost.  Just an idea.

Ideas and criticism have been flowing so fast that it is difficult to know how best to comment sometimes, but I thought I’d pick on a couple of what seem to me to be basic points raised by you Mark and you Parla, and see if I can add anything useful.

First though, a possibly banal but I think not trivial point. Music is written (score or no score) in the ‘language of music.’  In trying to explain anything about it we are obliged to translate the language of music into verbal language. That is not a trivial exercise and I believe some tolerance is required when sometimes it is just the ‘translation’ that is inadequate, whoever is writing it. We can only try our best!

Two short, sharp paragraphs, one from Parla and one from Mark gave me pause for thought.

PARLA: My position has been as follows: There is the artistic/technical/musical value of the work, based on the score (the actually written music by the composer) and the emotional value, as created by the impact on the public (audience, listeners, etc.). The two of them create the overall value of it.

In this vein, I don't "discount the audience reaction to the work". It has its role in the popularity or the emotional value of it. So, the "impact of the audience" is not totally irrelevant. However, it cannot affect the artistic (pure musical) value of it.

Later he adds: [the impact on the audience] contributes to the popularity of the work instead of its musical (technical) value. The Eine kleine Nachtmusik has immense impact on audiences all over the world, all over the ages, while the Piano Quartet in g minor has a minimal to no impact to the audiences, almost everywhere and in the ages (even in Mozart's time). So [is] die kleine is a much greater work than the Piano Quartet? 

That the score represents the artistic/technical/musical value of the work seems straightforward.  Usually it is all we have.

More difficult is the next “the emotional value, as created by the impact on the public (audience, listeners, etc.).” (and on into the later post quoted above).

The problem here lies in the apparent inevitability of the ‘emotional’ impact leading to the obviously silly conclusion that the most popular work is the greatest.

But I don’t think it’s necessary to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater.’ If ‘emotional response’ is completely ‘subjective’ then Parla’s conclusion about Eine kleine Nachtmusik (and unfortunately well beyond - a journey that only the most avid ‘subjectivist’ would follow to its end) is inevitable. This should at least give us pause for thought.

Is there any sense in the notion of a work that satisfies every artistic/technical/musical value but has no emotional impact whatsoever.?  Doubtful, I think. I would argue that an emotional impact is written into a successful score.  How might this be? A composer has to have an awareness of what in his music will have an emotional impact on a listener. He can exploit this because musical attributes that have emotional effects are part of the rules of music. Particular chords, progressions, harmonies have to some extent a predictable emotional effect.

And that leads to the rules!

MARK: Parla - those two comments of yours are from posts 13 and 14 on page 37. I think you are contradicting yourself somewhat.

You are saying that greatness does not lie in the mere formulaic application of rules, yet on countless occasions you have told us that great music follows the rules of composition. Great composers master said rules of form, harmony, orchestration etc...

Recently you have extended that to include the admission that great music follows rules, but includes moments of creative originality or inspiration - as in the Schubert song.

I don’t see a contradiction here.  Of course there are rules of composition, and great composers master them, stretch them to the limit in a way lesser composers cannot, interpret the rules in a way no one has considered before, and occasionally because of their mastery of the rules they can break the rules (the exception that tests the rule).  Rather more frequently they break not the rules but break with convention. Mark, we talked about Mozart and the rules, but I would argue that Mozart rarely broke the rules but often broke with convention (like in the early introduction of the piano in K271 that you mentioned). Another example of the brilliant use of the rules is the introduction of the subject of the most famous variation in Rachmaninov’s Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini, which seems so daring but is in fact a simple inversion of the first part of the theme. Bach used the same device  countless times in his fugue subjects, writing subjects that were interesting enough but which suddenly became more striking on their inversion.

In short, I would argue that we can, in principle, rationally reconstruct be close examination of a score not only the artistic/technical/musical value of a work but also the basis for its emotional impact. To achieve this does require an informed listener. Why this should be controversial beats me!  We all start off uninformed.  Everyone interested enough to read or participate in this forum has become informed to a greater or lesser degree.  Those who have devoted time and effort to studying music are likely to be even better informed, all the time increasing their chances of understanding the basis for their subjective enjoyment of the music.  And what applies in general applies too in particular. Each time we hear a piece of music for the first time we start with a purely subjective, uninformed judgement until after repeated hearing and perhaps investigation of the score, our opinion becomes less subjective and more rational. (But being informed musically, and being able to express that in verbal or written language are two different things).

Finally, to the role of performance.

One or two contributors have argued that introducing performance to the mix is an irrelevance, a distraction and at the start of this debate (who could have imagined it would continue for so long) I too did not give much thought to performance. Over the period of this discussion I have come to think that this is one of the biggest if not the biggest single mistake in the debate.

Except for those few lucky souls who can ‘hear’ a work (a performance of a work?) from reading the score all the rest of us know music from hearing it in performance, live or recorded (and in some cases from playing or singing it ourselves). Many conductors for example argue that their objective is to trying to recreate what the composer has written.  Anyone who has heard Beethoven’s 9th conducted by Furtwängler, Toscanini, Klemperer, Walter, Abbado, Harnoncourt, Brüggen and Norrington we may pause to wonder what this means. Here, surely, is where ‘subjective’ comes to the fore with a vengeance.  I am now suggesting (as an hypothesis) that the strong subjective part of experiencing a work is derived from the character of the performance rather than from the work itself.  And while stirring I would go further.  It is often written something to the effect that a particular performance only partly succeeded in revealing the essence of the work being performed.  That happens often enough indeed in mediocre performances, but a great performance (while also not revealing all) adds something subjective, personal to the interpreter, something Furtwänglerian, Toscaninian, Klempererian, etc.  What I’m suggesting is that the greatness of the work as perceived by the listener is an additive, or even more than additive compound of the work and the performance, and the subjective part is predominantly to be found in the latter. I think we’ve all had occasion to notice how much greater a work can seem in a fine performance and vice versa.

Just my thoughts over the last few days!

Best wishes to you both!

Chris

PS: As for what makes a piece of music popular...... well... that’s another story!!

Well, I tried. Every so often I take the time to try to decipher what you're saying, Parla, and address your points directly and logically. I always regret it. A total waste of time. Your post above contains all the ducking and diving, contradictions, non-sequitors and general gobbledygook that are your trademarks. And you still haven't answered any of my direct questions. Again, a long-standing tactic. When you're cornered, you go deaf.

We've got a fine weekend here and the last thing I want to do is waste time going point by point through your post.

And Chris, if you can't see the contradictions in Parla's posts then you're on your own.

What a lot of silly words in an effort to suggest that any value found in music can be anything other than completely subjective!

"If emotional response is completely subjective..."  IF!   IF?   Of course it's completely subjective.  It's based on emotions!  That's why it's called an emotional response.

Not a single word from you or Parla, in the thousands you have now written on this subject, not a single word gives any evidence for the existence of value that is other than subjective.

Waffle on.  Neither of you is convincing anyone.  Other than of the foolishness of your respective positions, of course.

Vic.

Many thanks, Chris. You took me out of the trouble to reply to a very long post of Vic in the "old" thread, since I'm traveling tomorrow and my time is quite limited. 

I can almost fully second your summary. I may have to ask for some minor clarifications, but, in total, your summary is to the letter and the spirit correct.

By the way, if you check the aforesaid definitions from Chambers on line (in my post above), they can make our understanding even easier. See the definitions of "objective" and "Music" and there we are.

Thanks again,

Parla

Vic, it's too late here and I'm traveling tomorrow.

I just want to mention, if I'm allowed, that you get too serious, almost obsessive, on this matter and, eventually, I start finding you entertaining.

There are quite a few clues in my posts as well as the ones of Chris, along with the unanswered questions, that could help you wonder..., but, anyway, it's you Vic. We can't change that.

By the way, I don't judge Music and, definitely, I don't judge people, but you do, constantly, at least whenever you refer to me or Chris. Think it over.

Best wishes.

Parla 

Judging people is very important. You wouldn't want any old fool being part of the panel that placed music in order of importance. You do really have to judge the judges, they won't complain about being judged anyway as they are judges themselves. Far too many people don't even know what time of day it is to allow them to judge something as important as music. Right, I'm off for breakfast.