Brian Eno: Music For Airport

In the last years of his life, Bach dedicated himself to a more rational and abstract musical creation; "Musical Offering", "The Art of Fugue" and "Goldberg Variations", besides constituting the summation of Bachian art... I associated this abstraction with the discourse of absolute music.

But what do you say in this regard?

Scale, all correct. But I am trying to rephrase to better insert it into the historical discussion.

The concept of "absolute music" is a ROMANTIC concept. The Romantics (writers, poets, and philosophers, not musicians) developed a series of aesthetics of the ineffable, of theories for which the only language of the absolute is music. A consequence of this aesthetic of music as the supreme language is the denigration of every musical form that 1) involves the use of the voice or, more precisely, a linguistic text 2) involves the use of music in a functional role 3) is, in a certain sense, the musical setting of a text or a situation. Absolute music, therefore, is instrumental music without functional ties that communicates, if possible, musical (non-referential) meanings.

Functional music, as Scalaquaranta said, is that which "serves" something or serves as a background to something. And functional music includes dance music, liturgical and sacred music, and film/stage music. In Romanticism, the number of sacred compositions decreases drastically, also because it is taken for granted that all music is sacred. But it is worth emphasizing again how the concept of absolute music was developed mainly by Romantic theorists, not so much by composers. Although in words almost everyone spoke ill of opera and no one had "religious" commissions, in reality many Romantics wrote operas and just as many wrote sacred compositions. Not to mention, then, the various choral, Lied-style, didactic compositions, etc., etc.

The situation regarding referential music, then, truly gives an idea of the distance between theory and practice. Hanslick was the great proponent of the idea that music should communicate only musical meanings. That is, it's not beautiful when Vivaldi makes the violins trill as if they were finches, but it is beautiful when Brahms communicates nothing precise, only "musical beauty." In Hanslick's trash can, practically all symphonic poems, many overtures, and many characteristic pieces based on texts, paintings, or scenes should be thrown. Absolute music takes pure chamber forms (the quartet, which is practically the only 19th-century chamber form) and classical orchestral forms (symphony and concerto) as models. There is room for other things, but very little else...

for sildermann:

since I do not know the Bach works you cited well enough, I do not feel capable of expressing myself clearly regarding them.

as you will have understood, sometimes I struggle a bit with music history. aside from this, however, I seem to remember some

useful information to tip the scales one way or the other.

the Goldberg Variations, I believe, were composed to distract a certain Mr. Goldberg from an atrocious toothache.

naturally, we all know that this composition constitutes one of the summits of counterpoint.

what makes me reflect, however, is that when Bach composed the Goldberg Variations, he did not have as a premise

the writing of a great contrapuntal work that would serve as an example for future generations.... quite simply, Bach wrote like this, it was his style (not even that original, if you will: Bach was 'only' - which is no small thing - more talented than the others) and he set out

to write a good piece for listening. in light of these facts, to the question "are the Goldberg Variations functional music?", I answer 'yes' but with the benefit of the doubt.

regarding 'The Art of Fugue'.... the intent of the good 'Gianni' was precisely to create a

colossal work that would highlight his great contrapuntal mastery (it seems to me that he never specified the instrumentation, precisely to highlight the musical lines). in fact, I will tell you... there are those who say (and I agree with this) that "The Art of Fugue" is rather "music to be read" than "music to be heard".

and so to the question "is The Art of Fugue functional music?", I always answer "yes" but with a little less doubt.

while "l'offerta musicale" is a piece I only know by having heard it mentioned.

so I have no elements that can help me formulate my own opinion.

I will partially respond to A Silberman.

The definition of absolute music is not appropriate; it is anachronistic regarding Bach. As I was saying, it is a definition coined by the Romantics and can only be suitable for compositions from that period. In reality, it is also possible that some nineteenth-century theorist, perhaps Hanslick himself, might use Bach as an example. However, Musical Offering, the Goldberg Variations, and The Art of Fugue come from a musical system in which the concept of absolute music could hardly be fully applied. Certainly, however, they are speculative compositions. I do not know if this term is used in literature, or if others are coined, but those cycles of compositions are true reflections on music, on counterpoint. They are so profound that they resemble philosophical texts more than poems, which, metaphorically, is what makes them truly far from the "absolute" compositions praised by the Romantics

Valchiria wrote:

At the current state, waiting for a train at the station, for example, turns out to be a nightmare: continuous advertisements on rotation; waiting for an hour, you happen to hear the same spot eight times—a madness that, in my opinion, tends to make people aggressive!

There is someone who went through 30 hours of labor with Ennia's music playing in the background... which theoretically, according to them, is supposed to relax you. After a few hours, if I had possessed the CD, I would have certainly smashed it!!!

thallo wrote:

anyone who, after saying "I don't like it," adds "it's poor" is simply frustrated, rude, and condescending

I am not the one who brought up the issue of taste. Objectively, it is musically poor and lacking. It might be conceptually interesting (since you are clinging to his technical manual) but the music in this piece is not.

It's a shame that there are those who manage to be conceptually interesting and at the same time musically interesting as well. If one of the two is missing, perhaps this great musician is not ...

Therefore, I am not the frustrated one here, I don't seem rude, nor condescending ... perhaps you like it so much that you plug your ears. Many have written to you, it is a deadly bore ... ergo, this piece is a failure for a musician, an experiment, probably not worthy of being called a musical piece.

It doesn't entertain people in an airport, it only pisses them off (when they feel like it) and they can't wait to file a complaint in case there is a plane delay

Maybe Bryan Eno was just terrified of flying...

Dino, Chopin, before writing absurdities, read, inform yourselves, study. You are talking about one of the most influential albums of the last 40 years and you say it's terrible? I am telling you this with respect, but you are as ignorant and presumptuous as few others

Some years ago now, Giunti published "Futuri Impensabili".

A diary kept by Eno for one year.

For those who want to delve deeper into his aesthetics, it could be an interesting read. And fun.

This is for all the admirers, but also for all those who would fall asleep in the waiting room to his music, risking missing their flight.

Valdon wrote:

Dino, Chopin, before writing absurdities, read, inform yourselves, study. You are talking about one of the most influential albums of the last 40 years and you say it's pathetic? I truly tell you this with respect, but you are as ignorant and presumptuous as few others

Aside from the fact that to enjoy an opera one doesn't necessarily have to understand (and therefore study) the mechanism, I believe I have studied enough. Aside from the fact that in the last 40 years there have been equally influential aesthetics (because that is what matters, not the single track), my opinion on this track does not change... can we even compare the hours one might eventually spend listening to this track versus Feldmann?

In the '70s/'80s there was plenty of other stuff and much better than this track... and even within minimalism itself...

...I forgot Valdon, I didn't just write that it's pathetic... I wrote other posts in the topic, which might be nice to read and eventually contest with arguments, before saying that I am ignorant... perhaps it is just a matter of being able or not to go beyond this piece...

... but who would listen to it anymore....?

Well, I apologize for my ignorance, you are right. What I would like to tell you is that when judging an album we should try to be influenced as little as possible by our personal tastes; we should almost depersonalize ourselves. To some it may seem boring, but it is practically the first ambient album in history and today the world is full of ambient music, so it is an extremely influential album

http://www.ondarock.it/pietremiliari/eno_music.htm

Valdon wrote:

To some it may seem boring, but it is practically the first ambient album in history and today the world is full of ambient music, so it is an extremely influential album

Exactly, an experiment... as I was saying a few posts up.... what's the problem? Even Verdi has experimental works and masterpieces in his catalog...

By the way, what are Brian Eno's musical masterpieces?

My life in the bush of ghosts (great album) with David Byrne

Eno's masterpiece is indeed Music for Airports.

Valdon wrote:

Eno's masterpiece is indeed Music for Airports.

You see, that is exactly the point... it is a "CONCEPTUAL" masterpiece; it may have opened up a new aesthetic... but not a musical one... to the point that, on average, one gets bored. I have never heard a boring musical masterpiece.

How many times have you listened to ALL of it in your life?

Valdon wrote:

Eno's masterpiece is indeed Music for Airports.

You see, that's exactly the point... it is a "CONCEPTUAL" masterpiece; it may have opened up a new aesthetic... but not a musical one... to the point that, on average, one gets bored. I have never heard a boring musical masterpiece.

How many times have you listened to ALL of it in your life?

I understand your point of view, which is different from mine. I apologize to you again for earlier and I say goodbye