Musical Structure

[Serial_Apologist]

Maybe. I know next to nothing about Jung.

Most if not all children have an inner capacity for learning to speak, picking up whatever rules are said to pertain regarding grammar, syntax etc. Presumably the same applies to music, even though it is not "dualistic" in the way most languages function by dividing phenomena into categories, subjects from objects, things from actions and so on. The composer can endeavour to "engage" the listener in the enrichments of soundworlds, possibly point attention to the wider world of sound as a source of connectedness, helping counterbalance the alienation-reinforcing aspects of culture as we know it. It is so much more profitable if all being in competition for what the Joneses can have makes us distrustful of our motives and each other, and liable to keep looking to "higher authorities" as being society's standard-bearers. It strikes me that one particular cultural means of reinforcing alientation consists in imputing intrinsically superior values to certain ways of thinking and organising musical form over others. My guess is that "we" the commonfolk do this all the time, using "taste" justification as a cover for habit, which then becomes a substitute for change or willing acceptance of change of any kind - not, I would hasten to qualify, change just for its own sake, e.g. as a cover for fashion. How different ways of thinking musically emerge as they do in accordance with the peculiarities of given social and historical contexts - a subject deserving of much greater attention than the way our thinking is presently shaped - is then obscured and de-relativised. What then seals the division is the amount of emotional investment we place in the "rightness" of this over that way of musicking, which can then conveniently fit in with niche marketing tactics and strategies, as happens all the time.

[vinteuil]

It strikes me that one particular cultural means of reinforcing alienation consists in imputing intrinsically superior values to certain ways of thinking and organising musical form over others.

My guess is that "we" the commonfolk do this all the time, using "taste" justification as a cover for habit, which then becomes a substitute for change or willing acceptance of change of any kind - not, I would hasten to qualify, change just for its own sake, e.g. as a cover for fashion.

.

.

... but I think it is right to "impute intrinsically superior values to certain ways of thinking and organising musical forms over others".

I have ceased to be a relativist : I do think that certain ways of thinking etc are preferable to others.

[Richard Barrett]

... but I think it is right to "impute intrinsically superior values to certain ways of thinking and organising musical forms over others".

But "superior" is surely a dodgy kind of word to use without first defining what you mean by it in a particular context.

I find myself drawn towards musical forms which involve many dimensions of organisation in terms of both diversity and symmetry, which is one way of looking at the world; but I also find myself drawn towards musical forms which seem to be governed by randomness and unpredictability, which of course is another way of looking at the world. I could say the same thing about other seeming diametrical oppositions, for example evolutionary (developmental) forms as against static or cyclical ones. I suppose I find myself most drawn to musical forms which exhibit all of these tendencies, perhaps simultaneously and/or dependent on listening to one aspect rather than another. What I look for most in a musical structure is something that expands my idea of what a musical structure can be, which imparts a sense of wonder that can even continue and deepen on more extended acquaintance. Not all music can do this. But I don’t think I’d want to use the word “superior” to describe the music that does.

[vinteuil]

... musical forms which involve many dimensions of organisation in terms of both diversity and symmetry, ... musical forms which seem to be governed by randomness and unpredictability... evolutionary (developmental) forms as against static or cyclical ones. I suppose I find myself most drawn to musical forms which exhibit all of these tendencies, perhaps simultaneously and/or dependent on listening to one aspect rather than another. What I look for most in a musical structure is something that expands my idea of what a musical structure can be, which imparts a sense of wonder that can even continue and deepen on more extended acquaintance. Not all music can do this..

... "superior" may of course be a dodgy word. But I think the kind of approaches indicated here are 'superior' to what I find in the productions of, say, Einaudi, Whitacre, Karl Jenkins, and others...

[aeolium]

..

... but I think it is right to "impute intrinsically superior values to certain ways of thinking and organising musical forms over others".

I have ceased to be a relativist : I do think that certain ways of thinking etc are preferable to others.

Well, I am a relativist when it comes to music. If one considers the futility of comparing, for instance, the Eroica symphony with Peruvian Huayno dance music - even more, the absurdity of suggesting that one cultural form is "intrinsically superior" to the other - it ought to be questionable whether there is any value in comparing any musical work, for you immediately have to ask whether the cultural context, the audience, the work's purpose, etc are the same. And given the possible vastly different reactions even to a single musical work by its many different audiences since its creation, I'd suggest that just as there are no rules that artists must follow, there are no rules that listeners have to follow either - there may be as many different ways of listening as there are listeners.

Those who like to "impute intrinsically superior values to certain ways of thinking and organising musical forms over others" might also reflect that their knowledge of huge areas of music across many different cultures and periods is likely to be vanishingly small - as is the case for all of us.

[vinteuil]

Those who like to "impute intrinsically superior values to certain ways of thinking and organising musical forms over others" might also reflect that their knowledge of huge areas of music across many different cultures and periods is likely to be vanishingly small - as is the case for all of us.

... I would not wish to make any comparisons across / between different cultures.

But within our western classical music tradition it seems to me not difficult to claim that there is a greater continuing depth and meaning and source of wonder to be found in the work of Bach as compared to Boccherini - and I like Boccherini a lot. There is just 'more' in the one than the other.




.

[Serial_Apologist]

... I would not wish to make any comparisons across / between different cultures.

But within our western classical music tradition it seems to me not difficult to claim that there is a greater continuing depth and meaning and source of wonder to be found in the work of Bach as compared to Boccherini - and I like Boccherini a lot. There is just 'more' in the one than the other.




.

I think this has more to do with assessing the quality of work by different composers, rather than seeing qualities as intrinsic to forms per se. How the language is spoken or written rather than the language itself, to draw an analogy.

[vinteuil]

I think this has more to do with assessing the quality of work by different composers, rather than seeing qualities as intrinsic to forms per se. How the language is spoken or written rather than the language itself, to draw an analogy.

... thank you for the clarification; I think I have been mis-reading your #31.

But are you saying that by privileging certain kinds of Bourdieusian cultural capital the powers-that-be in the hierarchy - " imputing intrinsically superior values to certain ways of thinking and organising musical form over others" - really have an effect in re-inforcing alienation among the 'common folk', - making "us distrustful of our motives and each other, and liable to keep looking to "higher authorities" as being society's standard-bearers"?

I don't see that those who enjoy rock, pop, rap, grime, garage and other such 'non-privileged' art-forms are liable to look up to the "higher authorities" - "society's standard bearers" may indeed haunt Glyndebourne and the crush-bar at the Royal Opera House, but I don't think their cultural tastes impinge on your 'common folk'.

[Hornspieler]

Yes - for students training themselves/being trained to think Musically in ways that they're unfamiliar with, setting "structural boundaries" can be a good exercise. Trouble is when they continue to think that this way of thinking is what they "should" be doing - they remain bad students throughout their careers (rewarded with a Doctorate and a single 10-minute Proms commission in their early twenties then forgotten about thereafter, appointed to a University/Conservatory post and passing on their bad ideas to hapless future generations of composers).

Absolutely right, Ferney!

..and I have met many of them - as "Heads of Music" (BBC), Arts Council executives, County Music Advisors and in the safety of University Professorships.

Sir Thomas Beecham described them as "Musical Eunuchs" (Know all about the theory, but unable to perform)

HS

[Richard Barrett]

Sir Thomas Beecham described them as "Musical Eunuchs" (Know all about the theory, but unable to perform)

Pardon me while I split my sides laughing. It would indeed be very nice if people in positions of influence within various musical institutions had more radical and open-minded views of musical possibility than the middle-of-the-road attitudes that normally hold sway, as fg implies, but I very much doubt whether that's what you (or Beecham) had in mind!

[Alison]

Do you take composition students, Richard?

[teamsaint]

I'm genuinely amazed that when there is such a wealth of different, interesting and powerful ways to think about music ( and other arts/literature ) available to us, that we need to be stuck in areas like hierarchical thinking.
In any case, the genuinely great mind throws far more at us than we ( I) can cope with at any one moment, thus which helps to open up more interesting ways to approach their work.


On the subject of the privileged classes..... they always follow the money............

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1335880/Public-school-singers-pop-charts-60-acts-privately-educated.html

[Richard Barrett]

Do you take composition students, Richard?

I'm at the Royal Conservatoire in The Hague for five (consecutive) days every month where most of my work consists of individual sessions with (mostly postgraduate) students of that institution and Leiden University. Occasionally I have one or two private students as well but at the moment I don't really have time, which in a way is a shame but you can't do everything...

I'm genuinely amazed that when there is such a wealth of different, interesting and powerful ways to think about music (and other arts/literature) available to us, that we need to be stuck in areas like hierarchical thinking.

I would say that the persistence of hierarchical thinking in music is a symptom of the persistence of hierarchical thinking more generally.

On the subject of the privileged classes...

That situation is of course even more extreme (and increasingly so) in my end of the music world, and in the acting profession too, as is often remarked, and no doubt elsewhere.

[french frank]

I'm genuinely amazed that when there is such a wealth of different, interesting and powerful ways to think about music ( and other arts/literature ) available to us, that we need to be stuck in areas like hierarchical thinking.

I don't see it as amazing. In something like the branches of the arts, don't most people seek out and pursue what gives them most pleasure? Those who take some kind of 'pleasure' - or rewarding intellectual stimulus - will pursue the 'wealth of different, interesting and powerful ways to think about music'. My hunch would be that across the whole range of music, most people seek the most generally 'rewarding' (to them) apects of music.

I was thinking about other forms of art. If one takes painting, for example, structure, or composition, has to be thought out at the start because from the artist's point of view nothing evolves or changes though it may refine. When finished, the whole is immediately graspable. I wonder what contemporary novelists do, and which writers one would be thinking of.

[Richard Barrett]

If one takes painting, for example, structure, or composition, has to be thought out at the start because from the artist's point of view nothing evolves or changes

I really don't understand this reasoning at all. Nothing has to be thought out at the start. Same with literature. There are as many ways of (dis)organising the creation process as there are artists.