Expression of Emotions

"A third 'hypothesis' is missing: usually music arrives where words are not enough, but it is equally true that words are needed at the moment when those who make music feel that the latter is not quite sufficient and something more (it seems paradoxical) direct is necessary, yet it is not perceived as a 'better' means of communication.

Schumann used to write thoughts in addition to composing music and, beyond this, he played a fundamental "role" in the magazine he founded.

Personally, writing music comes more naturally and immediately to me, but in recent years "I have discovered" that I am more resolute and (paradoxically) that I have a personal "style" when writing (even if I have to adapt them to make them more immediate) short texts, using a language that is at the same time ironic, sarcastic, but always metaphorical.

I used to write on a weekly basis for a website dealing with home design, but in every text accompanied by an image, except for one or two cases out of about 50, I never named the object I was talking about, but instead used metaphors and unexpected connections.

All this also for a second reason, and here I reconnect to your questions: also to tackle some of my states of mind from a different point of view, but also discomforts etc., in a sense exploiting what could seem like an oniric description of a context or an object, while simultaneously performing a sort of self-therapy by putting together the real and the unreal, concretizing everything into a complete and functional thought, like a coded message intended for others but encoded for oneself.

Words, as you know, can be powerful, and in some cases they can even replace music, because in certain cases they are (become) necessary."

given that I don't know anything about composition (I only took the standard harmony course)

in my opinion, it depends on the interlocutor to whom you want to convey your feelings......

and on the intensity of those feelings.................

simple and immediate feelings to communicate (such as anger, for example) to an interlocutor who you know is not musically communicative, I would be inclined to use words.
if I want to "go deeper" and express intense and complex feelings, I turn to music (as someone who doesn't compose, I use empathy....I interpret pieces written by others).....

anyway, music is a much more complex language compared to words.....to structure itself, it needs reflection, and I don't think that the great composers were always purely instinctive and that their works were born with the same immediacy that one can have in speaking....

therefore music and language are two different forms of communication....for different contents....

and using words because they are more immediate and easier for those around us to understand does not mean not being composers....

sometimes, as Piccinesco used to say, both are necessary...music and words...

In my opinion, it's because we normally express ourselves with words ... so in particularly emotional moments, it is obvious to resort to the most "immediate" medium. I don't think genius has anything to do with it, also because it would be the thing furthest from feelings

The fact that the composition does not "package itself" at the moment the emotion is consumed also contributes greatly. It is not a problem of language but of "time." In what sense?

I start writing this morning and finish it tomorrow evening... you can't rely on emotions. And it would even be a bit schizophrenic if it chased mood swings. In fact, feelings or persistent conditions probably have an impact, such as a period of serious illness where that emotional state lasts longer than a 10-minute fit of anger.

It is also true that Mozart composed a quartet in a few hours, so this relationship could be more direct in him... but nowadays, setting aside the spontaneity of performance and improvisation, pieces are very constructed, so this relationship (piece/emotion) is very diluted over time.

I find Nancy's intervention very interesting and measured. Personally, I experience music as if it were a friend with whom to dialogue openly and without filters about my deepest and most intimate emotions (a sort of shock therapy in difficult moments and likewise a friend with whom to rejoice in the gifts of life). I use verbal language more often with the sole purpose of expressing concepts, sometimes dictated by the fluctuating states of mind. It is clear that the purposes are different...

Piccinesco wrote:

On 9/10/2015 at 4:02 AM, Piccinesco said:

"A third "hypothesis" is missing: usually music arrives where words are not enough, but it is equally true that words are needed at the moment when those who make music feel that the latter is not equally sufficient and something more (it seems paradoxical) direct is necessary, but which is not perceived as a "better" means of communication.

Schumann used to write thoughts in addition to composing music and, beyond this, he played a fundamental "role" in the magazine he founded.

Personally, writing music comes more naturally and immediately to me, but in recent years "I have discovered" that I am more resolute and (paradoxically) that I have a personal "style" when writing (even if I have to adapt them to make them more immediate) short texts, using a language that is at the same time ironic, sarcastic, but always metaphorical.

I wrote on a weekly basis for a website dealing with home design, but in every text accompanied by an image, except for one or two cases out of about 50, I never named the object I was talking about, but instead used metaphors and unexpected connections.

This was all also for a second reason, and here I reconnect to your questions: also to tackle some of my states of mind from a different point of view, but also discomforts etc., in a sense exploiting what could seem like an oniric description of a context or an object, while simultaneously performing a sort of self-therapy by putting together the real and the unreal, concretizing everything into a complete and functional thought, like a coded message intended for others but encoded for oneself.

Words, as you know, can be powerful, and in some cases they can even replace music, because in certain cases they are (become) necessary.

I would just like to delve deeper into the point you raised about Schumann. It is true: he wrote a lot in terms of diaries, thoughts, letters. His unconventional way of writing music leads to merging poetry (or stories, if we prefer) into music. Take, for example, Kinderszenen op. 15, where the sweetness of the first piece then moves to an intimate dream before arriving at the last piece where The Poet Speaks (Der Dichter spricht) and all the pieces are dominated by the same initial theme (obviously varied). This composition, despite the title, is anything but simple; the poetic interpretation must explode from the piano.

If we want to add further emphasis, the theme of the 'childhood innocence' (fanciullino), so dear to the Romantics, is persistently present in Schumann's life.

Let us also consider that Schumann dedicated ample space to literature, which he punctually brought to the piano. Kreisleriana op. 16 and Papillons op. 2 are the most important pieces on this theme, before arriving at Novelletten op. 21.

The piano was his self, and through music, he wanted to express his own poetry.

I believe that our brain expresses itself more directly and quickly with what it knows and interacts with best every day. It is logical that a musician like Mozart could, in his own way, "think in music," given that it had been his daily bread since birth. If you couldn't speak and had only been taught to play, you would spend much more time "saying" or externalizing emotions at the piano, since your brain would have no other reservoir to draw from... apart from spontaneously biological screams, that is.

I think an artist should not worry about the preferential channel of expression that comes to life in a given expressive moment. Let's just speak of "different channels"; in this way: music, painting, literature etc. etc. are just multiple fields with their own different grammars and conventions. In the end, I am firmly convinced that what an artist must say or tell will always come out in any field or channel they take up; I think of Picasso and his poems, sculptures, paintings, set designs... many different forms of art for the same usual result, and like him, other artists followed.

In the past, a cousin of mine who is a painter told me she had a strange period in which every scene she saw appeared to her as sound; everything that happened, in practice, she felt the need to translate into sound rather than image; moments? Different fields and directions that our brain processes? Who can say. It remains a mystery, but I don't think it is a concern for anyone.

> What is your first form of "emotional expression"?

I think that if you ask musicians ... they will answer music

Someone who does not know music would not be able to rely on this medium... probably on others more congenial to them.

... Beat someone up? uhm uhm, just kidding.

Every person is a world unto themselves... I don't think there is a rule

I find writing very useful, moods are clearer with words and by writing they are deposited externally, both positive thoughts and other negative ones. Playing is good, now I am composing and I feel much better.