Clichés: Beethoven, music and philosophy

From my point of view, I answer with an absolute no!

No, because the quality of music must be judged exclusively from the standpoint of its purity.

Whether the composer in question intentionally or not tried to attach extra-musical values to it can, depending on one's point of view, give that work added value or not, but certainly not take it away.

Your thought is that Beethoven wanted to give a philosophical meaning to his music - a very complex and long discussion - proving himself to be a poor philosopher. A thought that is at least as legitimate as that of those who - and I can assure you there are many - believe the opposite.

Far from me is the attempt to convince you of the contrary, if only because your idea seems to be very deeply rooted in you and, wanting to procrastinate this discussion, would surely lead to the classic nothingness.

I admit that this message made me think of an "unfortunate" event from my first year of university.

I was studying philosophy, before my musicological turn (...). In a delirious course dedicated to the feminism of Antigone, a colleague of mine dared to confess to me that he did not love Leopardi because, in his opinion, his philosophy was clumsy and incomparable to that of other philosophers. Out of instinct, and disdainfully, I replied that Leopardi was not a philosopher; he was a serious person, a poet.

There.

Beethoven was a serious person, a composer, not an idiot like many philosophers...

Coming to terms with my resentment toward the arrogance of philosophers, convinced they are the only ones capable of thinking, I say that our approach to philosophy is adapted to those who were "professional" philosophers. Beethoven was not a professional philosopher, but that does not mean he did not have the right to have opinions, even profound and articulated ones, on the facts of the world and of life. His ideas take on deep meaning precisely at the moment one understands that they are NOT those of a philosopher, but those of a composer, and as such, they were expressed through a medium far removed from philosophical argumentation.

This argument is adaptable to all great composer-philosophers. Bach says nothing new in the theological realm, but he conveys the values of Lutheran Pietism through the musical medium, enriching them, making them penetrate more deeply, turning them into art rather than doctrine.

Claudio, I could say that I agree with you! I do agree with you, however, except for one "small" detail.

The "idiots" - if that is indeed how we want to define them - are cross-cutting. Whoever writes, regardless of what, whoever makes music - regardless of genre - whoever does anything, in short, creates thought. In creating thought, one can be "idiotic" more or less or not, but here the discussion becomes very long and complex and, therefore, let's leave it where it is.

Of course, the philosopher is the holder of thought par excellence and thus, more easily, can also say idiocies... but certainly they are not the only one in this!

To put it very kindly... it is all Beethoven's "fault" if one wonders whether a musical work has a meaning or not. And if it does... what meaning.

it is the fault of that symphony composed for "the memory of a great man" to which many—musicologists, musicians, poets, philosophers—have attributed 'meaning'.

But then it is not Beethoven's fault: the fault lies with those who insist on hearing 'something else', beyond the notes, in that music as in many others that came after.

In short: when someone says that music is incapable of signifying anything, I agree.

But if a musical work does not want to signify anything, it is also certain that many of us, in many works—not all—insist on hearing 'something else'... although ineffable.

I am glad it was Thallo and not I who wrote "conveys values": I think so too but, in this way, I stay in the "rearview mirror," taking at most responsibility for my 'like this'.

but ultimately Salomon, I would say no to you. The Eroica, the Fifth, the Ninth are wonderful. Especially if I shoot myself in the head and stop thinking so many things that others have thought about and others that I myself have thought.

If in many of Beethoven's works there is... 'universal ethics'. It is we who think so: he did not do it on purpose.

And even if every now and then a little thought in that direction crossed his mind, when he was working, 'the musician' was alone.

'the philosopher' was waiting outside.

@Daniele, that "idiot" slip escaped me. The fact remains that I consider it an idiocy to assign philosophers the monopoly... of sophia. In this sense, I was contrasting the "serious" composer with the "idiot" philosopher, namely a composer who does not limit themselves to writing notes but suggests knowledge (all terms intentionally vague, Luca...) as opposed to some philosophers who only speak among themselves, without paying attention to the world (to art, for example).

@Luca

the discussion on musical meaning cyclically returns :-) you know and we all know that it is a labyrinth with no exit. But I wanted to make another argument in favor of composer-philosophers who try to put something more than just notes... it is true that aesthetic logics dominate composition. Or that, in a certain sense, they are the raison d'être of music. I am very tied to this idea; I am always convinced that a composition MUST be beautiful. But, if Beethoven was also a philosopher (whatever that may mean), then he was also one when he was composing. From here, it is up to us to understand 1) if 2) in what way 3) and to what extent Beethoven's music can "communicate" philosophical messages.

What I feel I can affirm is that by writing music, composers try to "say something." Things very different from one composer to another, expressed in very different ways. Furthermore, those who listen to music receive messages, sought out voluntarily or received almost unconsciously. The communicative impulse is present in all arts, although there is no aseptic, pure, traceable, and describable message. They are values, as I was saying before, or suggestions, evocations, images, metaphors. Our ability to decipher them is strictly linked to our knowledge and our emotional closeness to that language. The complexity of these messages is incomparable to the complexity of philosophical statements, or linguistic ones in general. They are heterogeneous; one cannot say whether they are simpler or more complex. This, at least, is my idea. It is possible, however, to affirm that music generates knowledge, generates reflections, problematizes themes, and provides solutions. Music DOES philosophy, according to logical and alogical modes.

Perhaps I am being too hasty, but to me Allevi's issue seems "decontextualized"... one can say whatever they want, but in the end, it is the music that tells how things truly are.

Whoever gives a musical opinion while biasing it with a philosophical evaluation is not doing their job thoroughly... it's not as if Beethoven's notes become different just because he cites them in his diary... much less does their result change

Gerardo wrote:

Perhaps I will be hasty (...)

in effect, I understood very little. To be more sincere, I understood nothing

I've had a read through the topic, let's just say that Gerardo's post perhaps goes hand in hand with....

Salomon wrote:

The fact that because of this myth Beethoven appears as a poor philosopher almost seems to impoverish his music.

If I understood Gerardo's message, the issue is "if Beethoven SPEAKS of philosophy then he speaks ill of it, just as much as Allevi who when he SPEAKS of music seems like a genius and then you listen to his compositions and you are left speechless".

If that's how it is, then I almost agree. Almost. My comments take for granted that the Beethovenian philosophical message must be found IN THE NOTES, not in words. Furthermore, since language is our universal interpreter (and is above all the language of philosophy), we ourselves, when we speak of music and musical meanings, use words.

And here comes the famous discourse on "contextualization", the one dear to Daniele. Beethoven writes in a period when there is a desire for meaning and values. Music SERVED a purpose. To the question "what does this composition mean?", Couperin might have answered "nothing" or "I don't understand the question". Beethoven would have smiled and launched into a long-winded lecture! But let us remember that neither Couperin's vagueness nor Beethoven's long-windedness truly explains, or fully explains, what their music means.

thallo wrote:

If I understood Gerardo's message, the issue is "if Beethoven SPEAKS of philosophy then he speaks poorly of it, just as much as Allevi who when he SPEAKS of music seems like a genius and then you listen to his compositions and you are dismayed".

If that's how it is, then I almost agree. Almost. My comments take for granted that the Beethovenian philosophical message must be found IN THE NOTES, not in words. Furthermore, since language is our universal interpreter (and is above all the language of philosophy), we ourselves, when we speak of music and musical meanings, use words.

And here comes the famous discourse on "contextualization," the one dear to Daniele. Beethoven writes in a period when there is a desire for meaning and values. Music SERVED a purpose. To the question "what does this composition mean?" perhaps Couperin would have answered "nothing" or "I don't understand the question". Beethoven would have smiled and launched into a long-winded lecture! But let us remember that neither Couperin's vagueness nor Beethoven's long-windedness truly explains, or explains to the fullest extent, what their music means.

But! what can I tell you Claudio? If we analyze things that are actually proven, we discover that the only testimonies of a Beethoven describing the meaning of his music are linked to the usual Schindler. That in itself says a lot! The most famous is the one concerning the first movement of the Fifth and fate knocking at the door. In his letters, the will to describe something never transpires directly or indirectly - Armando, correct me if I am wrong - and in the conversation notebooks, politics are often discussed and it is quite clear which side Beethoven is on, but there is never any allusion to music and its meaning. Of course Fidelio, Egmont, the finale of the Ninth... being entrusted also to words, have their own precise message. But compositions made of only played music have no direct references. In reality, thinking about it carefully, it was the various scholars after Beethoven who delighted themselves in finding hidden meanings in that music. And in the end, it is we and those who preceded us who continue to search for hidden truths in that music.

Luca, I know you are now muttering while reading me, saying: but you didn't think this way! It's true, I didn't think this way, but life after all is made of changes of opinion; if not, you know how boring it would be!"

just finished shuddering . . .

on the "recondite meanings" and the "hidden truths," you know I agree, Daniele.

However, I feel like pointing out one thing (not that you don't already know how I feel). I strongly agree with Thallo on the fact that any potential meanings lie in the notes and not in the words. Then again, between us, without words we wouldn't be able to exchange our experiences (what we have perceived) in listening to this or that work. What seems to me is that a composer always writes something so that it is "beautiful" (not necessarily 'graceful' but 'beautiful') and not to directly and intentionally instill meanings into it. Then, someone finds meanings in a work and someone else finds different ones (and here comes the discussion about the work of art as a relationship: what was being done with Thallo in the other topic).

furthermore, just as I am skeptical toward a composer who "strives" to instill meanings into their own work, I am also skeptical toward those who strive to hear meanings everywhere, at any cost, in any work. I find it much more honest—on my part, as a listener—to simply say "I like it," "I don't like it." Or "I don't understand anything about it." Then, after years of listening, a meaning might even emerge. Without me having strived to look for it.

And so, I will take courage and talk about it with someone (you, for example), well knowing that to some, quite rightly, it may seem like a delusion.

To talk about music (about potential meanings), one must take into account the risk of being delusional (and regarding the risks/benefits of this 'delirium of music,' I have written, as far as I am concerned, in the post 'how can we talk about music?')

@LucaCavaliere

Just you wait, we will return to meaning by abandoning significance, precisely like a spoken language made of symbols, conventions, meanings, and signifiers

Speaking of

What seems to me is that a composer always writes something so that it is "beautiful" (not necessarily "graceful" but "beautiful") and not to directly and intentionally instill meanings in you.

How do you fit aesthetics into this discussion?

Some free questions:

"Always" and "beautiful" for the composer or for everyone?

How do you frame absolute music within this discussion?

…and conceptual music?

@Frank

[in inverted rhyme]

i had never heard conceptual music mentioned before. If you want to tell me something (you or others), I thank you...

the discussion, as far as I am concerned, is precisely about absolute music.

I also feel 'program music' as being 'absolute': even a piece conceived to follow a 'program', I think it was then necessarily created following 'absolutely musical' logics (logics that vary from composer to composer). Even when the notes are born as a "garment" for an already established text (poetic, theatrical, liturgical), the music should not illustrate it but rather 'relive' its meaning on an absolutely musical plane.... it is also the case, in my way of feeling, of those soundtracks that do not support the scene by "commenting on it" point by point, but by reliving it on another level (musical, precisely)... it is the case - very happily - of Leonore III which, in its musical absoluteness, arrives at "burning" the drama it should follow (to the point that, although very happy, it was better to replace it with something more manageable).

"Always" and "beautiful" for those who compose. Then many will like it and many others will not. Amen.

If someone creates something (a symphony as well as an interior lamp) already thinking that it must please as many people as possible, and only eventually also themselves, then one falls from 'wanting to please' (a good thing) to 'wanting to cater to' (a thing which, in my opinion, is not commendable).

I did not think I was 'inserting aesthetics' into this discussion. It seems to me that - even at a glance - this discussion was already 'aesthetics'.

On returning to the sense by abandoning the meaning... yes: a good thing! (but what were we thinking!?... Madmen! Obsessed with 'meaning'!)

LucaCavaliere wrote:

What seems to me is that a composer always writes something so that it may be "beautiful" (not necessarily 'graceful' but 'beautiful') and not to directly and intentionally instill meanings in you.

If you start from "a composer," we are in the field of the indeterminate ("a," indefinite article. Since meaning was being discussed )... even though the consideration implies aesthetics, in reality one is eventually talking about AN aesthetic.

The aesthetic sense (and not the meaning) can be very different between 2 composers, so the relationship is 1 to 1 and not 1 to many, to put it another way.

In effect, I don't know what this part has to do with aesthetics:

LucaCavaliere wrote:

If someone creates something (a symphony as well as an interior lamp) already thinking that it must please as many people as possible, and only eventually also themselves, then one falls from 'wanting to be pleasing' (a good thing) to 'wanting to please/cater to' (a thing which, in my opinion, is not commendable).

¡Hola Frank!...

I would feel like protesting: "No! I was here first: I wanted to know what conceptual music is"

Anyway, here are the clarifications.

I wrote "a" composer precisely because I wanted to be indeterminate. Precisely because what I was asserting in that sentence you quoted, in my view, applies to every composer.

Then you write "even if the implied consideration [implied (?)] aesthetics, in reality one eventually speaks of ONE aesthetics. The aesthetic sense (and not the meaning) can be very different between 2 composers, so the ratio is 1 to 1 and not 1 to many, to put it another way".

What I mean is that you are asserting that every composer has their own aesthetics. If I understood correctly, I agree. But the ratio is always 1/many. Where '1' stands for 'a composition', and the 'many' are all those who want to listen to it (since one can listen to 'a composition' and not 'the composer').

Regarding what aesthetics has to do with my sentence that you quoted, it seems obvious to me.

But in any case: aesthetics deals with beauty / beauty evokes pleasure / I was trying to distinguish 'wanting to be pleasing' from 'wanting to please'... Therefore, aesthetics is relevant.

Now, however, please (when you can) tell me what conceptual music is?

And then – I didn't dare but... you encouraged me – explain to me also what Verdi's wife's relationship with her husband had to do with the topic in 'At the end of the concert'? (even if it slipped into reasoning regarding 'inspiration' & 'elaboration'). I am asking you "here" but, if you want, answer me in that topic.

Aesthetics is not concerned with beauty, at most with how one wants to appear... incidentally, in music, not everyone seeks beauty.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

what is conceptual music?

Music that is based on procedures that are not properly musical but related to a certain conceptuality, practically from Webern onwards in the '900. Mathematics, Stochastics, Architecture, etc.

I was reading this regarding Verdi's wife

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppina_Strepponi

But in which topic is it mentioned? I can't find it

Xenakis wrote:

Aesthetics is not concerned with beauty, at most with how one wants to appear... incidentally, in music, not everyone seeks beauty.

. . . and how one wants to appear? . . .

Anyway, in the aesthetic field, I meant to use the term 'beautiful' in a m o d e r a t e l y d i l a t e d sense . . .

and thus everything an artist intends to seek for their own aesthetics is included.

Ah! I forgot: thanks for the 'conceptual music'