Music which doesn't grab you!

[Lat-Literal]

All very interesting.

Music was the manipulation of my emotions or bringing unspoken emotions out via common identification.

I'm not sure which but it seems to be time based.

Mainly under 40s - I completely agree now with the outlook of french frank but music has changed.

[Richard Barrett]

Is there an implication that 'intensely' does suggest emotional involvement whereas 'intensively' doesn't?

All I know is that if I'm sufficiently intens(iv)ely involved in something in (for want of a better word) intellectual terms, the distinction between this involvement and an emotional one seems not to have much relevance.

[french frank]

You write of your distrust of the notion of composers "manipulating" your emotions (or trying to do so)

To be accurate I said 'resent' not 'distrust'/'mistrust'

but is that really any different in principle from composers "manipulating" your intellectual response mechanisms and their workings, either alongside or separately from such emotional "manipulation"?

Completely different. In the case of emotions, if they, to be obvious, make me feel sad, most obviously here in opera (Puccini), I'm being manipulated because the action is a fiction and my emotions are unreal. Why should I feel sad about an opera singer dying when I know they are only pretending? Where there is no narrative I'm not sure that I do identify the 'correct' emotion: I remember commenting on a Brahms chamber work (clarinet quintet?) which I thought was gay and light-hearted at one point but I was descended upon by everyone else agreeing that it was gloomy-tragic …

But I don't feel that the composer is making me think anything: I'm just noticing form or repeated rhythms or how variations resemble and differ from each other and from the theme. Even if I'm mistaken, that's my fault not manipulation by the composer.

[french frank]

the distinction between this involvement and an emotional one seems not to have much relevance.

Well, it wouldn't, would it, if you feel both emotionally and intellectually involved? In that case, why separate them, or try to distinguish between them? But does that rule out the possibility of feeling intellectually engaged, but not emotionally?

[ahinton]

Well, it wouldn't, would it, if you feel both emotionally and intellectually involved? In that case, why separate them, or try to distinguish between them? But does that rule out the possibility of feeling intellectually engaged, but not emotionally?

It doesn't rule out that possibility per se but that still doesn't of itself mean that the two are somehow inherently incompatible or mutually exclusive.

That said, I think that there's an important distinction to be made between attempted manipulation and attempted engagement; I for one don't specifically and wilfully seek to manipulate anyone's emotions or intellect as such but I do at the very least hope to engage both even if I fail to do so.

[Richard Barrett]

does that rule out the possibility of feeling intellectually engaged, but not emotionally?

What I'm saying, I think, is that "engaged" is an emotional state as much as anything else.

[french frank]

What I'm saying, I think, is that "engaged" is an emotional state as much as anything else.

Then I withdraw 'engaged' and return to your 'involved'. Though I think it depends on what it is that is found 'engaging' or 'involving', or which interests. If the aspects of a theme and variations which 'intellectually engage' the listener are provoking an emotional state, then clearly I need a different term from 'emotion'. But I can't think of one offhand. There is intention behind intellectual activity which is absent from emotion.

[Richard Barrett]

There is intention behind intellectual activity which is absent from emotion.

I'm not sure what that means. To perceive some particular "intellectual activity" as having a compelling quality, with which one is drawn to engage, to become involved, whichever word you prefer, is to feel desire, and the engagement/involvement itself is associated with some feeling of fulfilment, both desire and fulfilment being emotions in the exact sense of William James's idea of their being the mind's perception of physiological states induced by some stimulus or other.

[french frank]

I'm not sure what that means. To perceive some particular "intellectual activity" as having a compelling quality, with which one is drawn to engage, to become involved, whichever word you prefer, is to feel desire, and the engagement/involvement itself is associated with some feeling of fulfilment, both desire and fulfilment being emotions in the exact sense of William James's idea of their being the mind's perception of physiological states induced by some stimulus or other.

Perhaps, then, 'emotions' (for my purposes in considering music and the individual response to it) is better replaced by 'passions'. I don't feel that 'desire' and fulfilment', whether emotions or not, are what I was intending to convey. And not compulsion but volition (action controlled by the will and therefore 'intended', as opposed to 'desire' which stems from instinct). What are the emotions that music arouses?

[Richard Barrett]

Perhaps, then, 'emotions' (for my purposes in considering music and the individual response to it) is better replaced by 'passions'. I don't feel that 'desire' and fulfilment', whether emotions or not, are what I was intending to convey. And not compulsion but volition (action controlled by the will and therefore 'intended', as opposed to 'desire' which stems from instinct).

I think these are all what one might call "nice" distinctions. What's wrong with saying that you experience a desire which is fulfilled by a musical experience? Or would you say "a volition to take part in the engaging but in no way enjoyable or fulfilling activity of listening"?

[french frank]

I think these are all what one might call "nice" distinctions. What's wrong with saying that you experience a desire which is fulfilled by a musical experience? Or would you say "a volition to take part in the engaging but in no way enjoyable or fulfilling activity of listening"?

Where's the sticky-out tongue emoticon when you need it?

Or would you say "a volition to take part in the engaging but in no way enjoyable or fulfilling activity of listening"?

I'd pretty much go along with that, though I'd need to investigate the possibilities of the word 'enjoyable' here to see if it was allowable (I'd bet that most of what I choose to do of my own volition wouldn't be considered enjoyable by anyone else …)

[Richard Barrett]

(I'd bet that most of what I choose to do of my own volition wouldn't be considered enjoyable by anyone else …)

That is something we have in common at least.

[Dave2002]

As I started this thread I thought it was about time I returned to it. There have been some very interesting comments.

I wrote that I would explain what triggered my initial thoughts, and now is the time to do so. I bought the 2 CD set (very cheaply) of Pizzetti Piano Music.played by Giancarlo Simonacci - Brilliant Classics. It was CD 1 which prompted me to write, though I have since listened to CD 2 twice, and have now returned to CD 1. My impression hasn't changed much - though it's not actually unpleasant - maybe if I keep trying it'll show some merits. CD 2 was slightly better.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the set claims to have the complete piano works of this composer, whereas a selection (very small) of pieces might have been more effective. However, that could then raise other questions. If one heard two or three works by a composer which enticed one into listening further then perhaps in the case of some composers that would not be rewarding. The assumption that there might be hidden "gems" may not always be the correct one to take, but without trying one can never know.

I will admit that track 7 on CD 1 - Le Danze - is somewhat more involving than the pieces up to that track.

[Richard Barrett]

If one heard two or three works by a composer which enticed one into listening further then perhaps in the case of some composers that would not be rewarding.

That has happened to me quite frequently. I had such an experience with Strauss's operas, back in the days when some of them didn't even have "modern" recordings, and assiduously acquired recordings of all fifteen, coming eventually to the conclusion that there were only two complete ones and bits and pieces of maybe three others that were worth staying with. In some cases it's hard to imagine why he even bothered, except he probably couldn't think of any other way to spend his time - or is there anyone in the world who thinks say Die schweigsame Frau is up there with his best work?

[P. G. Tipps]

Anything which includes the human voice especially with incomprehensible lyrics. Most choral music bores me to death. And don't mention that awful folk music (Aran sweaters 'n' all) that was so prevalent in the Sixties.

Plenty of trumpets and trombones for me, ideally accompanied by horns, tubas and percussion. A huge symphony orchestra is my ideal. The louder the sound the better as far as I'm concerned.

In my younger days I used to love most jazz, both traditional and modern, but really haven't listened to any of that for decades now ... I've simply moved on to what I consider to be much more meaningful and ultimately satisfying stuff, I guess.