The essence of music

[Mandryka]

I agree.

The very essence of music for me is the creative process. I think music at it's core needs to be stripped of anything superfluous and this would mean excluding anything that is descriptive or takes its cues from books or paintings. I suppose JS Bach's keyboaed music or cello suites would be a prine example. You could also cite the Chopin Preludes and i reallly like the idea of something that ia supposed to capturethe essence exploring all 24 keys. Both the Bach and Shostokovich P & Fs would also be excellent candidates

In jazz i suppose you would have to choose a Chsrlie Parker solo or something by Bud Powell.

Beacause improvisation or spontaniety is the kernal of what makes up alot of the greatest achievements in music, i am wondering if this woukd exclude Serialism or any other music created by a system ?

Didn't Chopin say that the preludes somehow related to Hamlet?

[smittims]

At any rate Chopin's Preludes are famous for their etxra-musical connotations. And maybe the only reason we might think of Bach's preludes and fugues as free from pictorial or other extra-musical associations could be simply that he didn't tell anyone what they were! Rachmaninov didn't publish or disclose publically any extra-musical references in his preludes but we know from Benno Moiseiwitsch's conversations with him that he did think of a definite picture every time he composed.

To imagine music 'stripped of anything ...descriptive or taking its cue from books or paintings' seems to me to forget that creativity is a subconscious process. There are many instances of composers writing an overtly 'abstract' work ad realising only afterwards that it did refer to specific things or people.

[Sir Velo]

I would say it only excludes them because you have chosen to take improvisation and spontaneity as part of the essence of music. I wouldn't do that. I think of music as primarily cerebral, others (not me) might think of emotion as being a key to creation.

I think there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy!

[french frank]

I think there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy!

Yes, Shakespeare made that general comment too (not directed at me personally). Do you have any comment relative to this discussion?

[french frank]

To imagine music 'stripped of anything ...descriptive or taking its cue from books or paintings' seems to me to forget that creativity is a subconscious process. .

Yes. I would say music can represent what the composer sought to achieve, pictorially, emotionally, associatively or in whatever way they choose. And also the attentive (and inattentive) listener is similarly free to enjoy or imagine the music in the way that suits them. The possibilities seem to be so wide-ranging that no one is in a position to lay down the law on it, other than in matters of known fact. I would say music contains more than is dreamt of in any one individual's philosophy and EM Forster was saying much the same in describing reactions to Beethoven's Fifth:

"All sorts and conditions are satisfied by it. Whether you are like Mrs. Munt, and tap surreptitiously when the tunes come--of course, not so as to disturb the others--; or like Helen, who can see heroes and shipwrecks in the music's flood; or like Margaret, who can only see the music; or like Tibby, who is profoundly versed in counterpoint, and holds the full score open on his knee... "

Who has the correct reaction? And what is essential to music in general?

[Ian Thumwood]

The Lego block analogy for me is precisely what the essence of music is . The components are stacked together until they produce something architectural. Paul Bley is the obvious example for me.

Oddily enough, Paul Bley did state in an interview that music is meaningless without an emotional connection.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Yes. I would say music can represent what the composer sought to achieve, pictorially, emotionally, associatively or in whatever way they choose. And also the attentive (and inattentive) listener is similarly free to enjoy or imagine the music in the way that suits them. The possibilities seem to be so wide-ranging that no one is in a position to lay down the law on it, other than in matters of known fact. I would say music contains more than is dreamt of in any one individual's philosophy and EM Forster was saying much the same in describing reactions to Beethoven's Fifth:

"All sorts and conditions are satisfied by it. Whether you are like Mrs. Munt, and tap surreptitiously when the tunes come--of course, not so as to disturb the others--; or like Helen, who can see heroes and shipwrecks in the music's flood; or like Margaret, who can only see the music; or like Tibby, who is profoundly versed in counterpoint, and holds the full score open on his knee... "

Who has the correct reaction? And what is essential to music in general?

One clue : the people playing it or conducting aren’t thinking of shipwrecks but they will have spent hours pretty much doing what Tibby did and practising to the point where the notes on the page seem to flow seamlessly from their fingers almost without the brain having to “think” the action. The real greats like Ogdon and Horowitz could pretty much even skip the prep and sight read it.
The essence of music is in performance. If a piece of music is worth listening to its worth the listener putting in some effort of their own.

[smittims]

Several people have said that, for them at any rate, music has to be an expression of emotion. I suspect they intend this as a slight against music they feel is academic or intellectual rather than 'heart-on-sleeve' . Yet Schoenberg denied (scornfully on one occasion) that his twelve-tone method was a 'system' and recent analyses of his music have linked it specifiaclly to 'emotional' events in his life. And Webern, once thought to be the most abstract of compsoers, told a friend that several of his works were the direct reaction to his Mother's death, and it is known that Nature was a major inspiration for him.

[french frank]

It seems very limiting to consider music as being about 'what the composer intended'. Study the score, read what the composer said about his composition: that is all ye need to know,

But is that the all-important criterion or just what it says on the tin - what the composer intended? Expand ad libitum. If I listen to music I've chosen, I don't want to tap my feet, jig about or dance to it, whatever the composeri intended: I just want to listen to abstract sounds. What thoughts are conjured up by my own knowledge (or lack of) and experiences are what makes each hearing unique and enriching. That said, I do like following scores while listening.