Musical phenomenology lesson

Beautiful, very beautiful.

I followed it all with passion.

Celibidache is my favorite conductor. Great man, great soul, great sensitivity and immense humanity...

I had already seen this video on YouTube. Very passionate!

I share the importance of this video and also others that the Maestro recorded. My teacher, Armando Badolato, his pupil, used to tell me many anecdotes about Maestro Celibidache and his educational ideas regarding Music during the seventies. He too, the illustrious Pupil, had learned to manage time not only by taking into account the perceptive consciousness of the listener. In his role as my teacher of solfeggio and harmony, naturally, he could only demand the "maintenance" of the basic tempo and rigor in maintaining it. However, he often went as far as to emphasize the musical context with many examples at the piano. There, back then, he emphasized the importance of the flexibility of time itself outside of the mandatory "metronomes" that can make the musical idea sterile and inexpressive. All naturally governed by good taste and the character of the piece. Regarding the acoustic conditions that Celibidache touches upon here, He, the Pupil, immediately transmitted to me the concept of "musical breath," often underlining its indispensability, both in an orchestra and in the musical production of a single instrument. Those voids and overlaps that Celibidache speaks of are the eternal damnation of musicians. In instruments such as the piano, which is equipped with a resonance pedal, these themselves become objects of great attention. What Celibidache calls the correlation of energy between sounds originates the phrasing and thus the clarity and intelligibility of the musical idea. This, as he well says, takes into account the amplitude of the listening space and the acoustic reverberation time. Slowing down or accelerating the tempo here means being aware of the breaths without altering the tempo within the phrase. In concert, this "breathing" is associated with gesture, with the visual, and accompanies the listener's "consciousness" to justify the small "intended" void to create clarity. In a recording studio, it is appropriate to tighten and/or pedal such breaths so as to preserve the clear separation of phrases and dynamics (for example when moving from an f to a p) without interrupting the continuity of the sound during listening.

I wouldn't want to trivialize an absolutely complex discussion, but how do you position yourself regarding considerations on avant-garde music?

"when avant-garde composers begin to manufacture sensations... they make an impression on us, there is no doubt, but what do they forget?

That to make music, one must use those qualities of the musician to correlate [sound] elements, not as [mere] perception, but from a musical point of view", which "means relating them to a center called mother tonality and from that center moving away and approaching according to certain criteria" which are also musical.

Therefore he concludes: "it is not true that avant-garde music does not affect the human race, but it is not music; it is a phenomenon that reflects the dynamism (or lack of dynamism) of our time".

Is it legitimate to maintain, with the Maestro, that the laws of music have an objective and absolute foundation and, if one denies this, do we not risk reducing everything to a relativism (aesthetic, cultural, individual, this being absolute) that prevents the establishment of any objective knowledge of the musical phenomenon?

Whereas, if one affirms it, would it not be incorrect to stop calling "music" the artistic use of sounds that nevertheless does not follow such laws?

I believe that everything must be traced back to the composer's intentions in having to communicate certain sensations. In the video, Celibidache speaks of the relationships between sounds, treating them from a point of view that is, I would say, more psychoacoustic than purely acoustic and then musical.

I understand your point of view well... Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are practically saying that if we accept the objectivities Celibidache speaks of, music should become a standard, whereas if these laws are not accepted, there should be more freedom. If I have understood correctly what you wrote, the argument seems to me to be truly reduced to its essence. There are things we have discovered, certain cornerstones, in both science and music, but nothing prevents us from continuing to experiment and research. In music, unlike in science, we deal with a domain called the perceptive. This domain is mostly unexplored... The laws that govern it are known, but the interpretation of these objective stimuli by the 'person' becomes subjective. For this reason, in my opinion, the possibility of expressing oneself subjectively is always ensured, seeking to communicate a 'musical idea' that may elicit different ideological opinions from person to person, which nonetheless does not conflict with the laws of psychoacoustic science (I would also like to clarify that these laws are based on statistical data and are not absolutely true, or at least within certain margins: I could give you several examples). In the visual arts, to draw a parallel, there are those who trace warm colors to joy and cold colors to darkness. If we take as an example "The Scream by Munch" [sic]—in this painting, warm colors are used for the sky (which is tinged blood-red, however) and cold colors for the street. The anguish is represented by the wavy lines produced by the scream that shakes the entire environment but not the street, painted in dark colors, as this represents man's guiding line. Some choices would seem to deviate from certain cornerstones, but the author still managed to communicate his intentions...

No, I did not mean this.

I did not mean to ask myself if the mechanisms of the musical phenomenon impose constraints on freedom of expression (if not those imposed by music itself).

It seems to me that Celibidache distinguishes, precisely, between the "music" phenomenon and everything that, while creating impressions and sensations, is not music.

From what I have understood, what distinguishes the musical phenomenon is the close correlation between sonic elements which, thanks to human consciousness (of both the performer and the listener), and in an ineffable way inexplicable by the intellect, determines a movement, creates a discourse through the continuous alternation between tension and relaxation, between everything and nothing.

His examples, it seems to me, presuppose a tonal horizon, where the movement from a tonic to the fifth degree creates tension and vice versa, where a dissonant chord creates tension and a consonant one creates relaxation; therefore, he says, it would be contrary to musical logic not to respect these rules.

I would be "a musical idiot" (the Maestro's words) if I were to conclude a beautiful Mozartian phrasing by gaudily emphasizing the final note.

Even the discussion on acoustics (how much the choice of tempo depends on the place where one plays) and the final invective against recording (which would have killed sound and music) are based precisely on the necessity of being consistent with the objective and universal characteristics of the musical phenomenon.

As for "musique concrète," Celibidache gives the example of a horror film where sound effects succeed in creating a sensation of unease and fear (perhaps better than any tonal music could), but he says very clearly that such a sonic "phenomenon," for him, is not music. This is simply because in "musique concrète" there is a lack of any purely musical point of reference (which in the tonal system is essentially given by the tonic key), so sonic events cannot correlate with each other according to a musical logic, but rather, if anything, according to extramusical references.

So the discussion concerns the relationship between sonic events: apart from rhythm, what is it that creates relationship, movement, tension, and relaxation in avant-garde music, or concrete music, or whatever one wants to call it?

Is a purely conceptual, abstract criterion sufficient—such as the repetition of sounds according to mathematical series, for example—for one to be able to speak of music?

A fair parallelism, rather than with Munch's scream, I believe could be made with Fontana's slashed canvases, where the artist was no longer content to be a "painter", he also wanted a third dimension, precisely, extra-pictorial.

Sorry, I forgot to thank Simone for the very interesting response, just like Pianoexpert's post.

Since I am as ignorant as I am curious, and this video has really planted a seed of doubt in my mind, it would also be interesting to hear the reflections of some experts or enthusiasts of avant-garde genres, perhaps even Frank himself.

I am not a fan of Celibidache, partly because Celibidache's [approach] has become a kind of cult based on tradition, stolen videos, confided opinions, etc... If there is one thing Celibidache did, it was often to prove himself right and others wrong. His theories on musical phenomenology applied to music interpretation strangely lead to the conclusion that the only serious repertoire is that conducted by the maestro. And we are talking about the classical and romantic tonal symphonic repertoire

thallo wrote:

And we are talking about the classical and romantic tonal symphonic repertoire

I write this with a heavy heart, but in fact, it is the only music that survives.

Tiger wrote:

I write it with a heavy heart, but in fact, it is the only music that survives.

And poor Bach? ... and poor Monteverdi? (in fact, Monteverdi is to blame for not being sufficiently "tonal"!)

From their point of view, dynamics are a fundamental element; the fact that organ and harpsichord lack them is a disadvantage to them.

Waiting for Frank, who seems to me to have, in fact, already explicitly said what he thinks:

Frank wrote:

The Master reveals some important considerations on music; every musician should take them into account and treasure them!

more ignorant than Pesta, I continue to think that it is useless; from this opposition, tonality/atonality, nothing will come of it, at least not for... a WHI'LE

My advice is therefore to listen to the music that one believes is best, because it is useless to seek answers in others if not in ourselves.

Often when ontology is involved (what is music? what is art? what is happiness? ...) one starts from grandiose premises and quickly slides into trivialities. Let's take Celibidache's premises as good (I can't watch the video so I am relying on your comments) and conclude that some things (the classical and romantic repertoire) are Music, and other things (contemporary, ethnic, ancient, rock, electronic...) are not music. My question is: so what? Do you believe that those who dedicate themselves to contemporary "non-music", ethnic, ancient, rock, electronic, etc. etc. will stop being interested in it for this reason?

From my point of view, the most interesting and useful part is that which relates to the questions it poses. Everyone can find their own answers, but above all, their answers are linked to a specific aesthetic clearly identified by Thallo. The point is that I do not want to reason about the "consequences" of this aesthetic (which has already run its course without causing damage), but about how this aesthetic approaches the tonal repertoire and how the pillars of this aesthetic can enrich a musician.

The tension-based discourse is a fact in much of great and good music; for Celibidache, music is that Classical/Romantic kind... okay. But in my opinion, the argument also holds in other contexts.

Reading this part of my topic, Thallo is already thinking about proposing Gesualdo to me.

What I mean is that absolutes never exist in art, but even though a great performer may make a clean slate of everything that does not fall within a century of music, some considerations (as I was saying at the beginning) remain important questions for performers who may encounter a Romantic repertoire in their lives (I repeat, let's focus on the questions and not just on Sergiu's answers) but also for those post-Romantic composers. One who succeeds very well is Brian Ferneyhough... just to throw a flash at Pestatasti; when I write, even though I am abundantly outside of tonality, I care about the tension-based discourse, one of the engines of listening.

I'm a bit busy, but I wanted to throw out a few ideas here and there; I can say that the issue is complex and can be explored in a more targeted way.

RedScharlach wrote:

My question is: so what? Do you think those who dedicate themselves to contemporary "non-music", ethnic, ancient, rock, electronic, etc. etc. will stop being interested in it for this reason?

That is exactly what I am saying; Celibidache has given his answers, are they absolutes? Okay, peace and amen. But in fact, there are questions to which everyone must find answers. And not on the issue of: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?", to which no one will ever be able to answer, but on the approach to some pillars of musical discourse, made for example also of tension and relaxation. The fact that in tonality Tonic is opposed to Dominant does not exclude that in musique concrète the instruments are different. From a certain point of view, grammar in a certain context was taken for granted, so when Mozart wrote, as is right, he didn't even think about it.

From a compositional point of view, there is also the issue of clichés and "the like."

I have been tempted many times to intervene on this topic, but so far I have abstained for a long series of reasons, foremost among them the fact that these discussions almost always turn into ideological derbies, and lastly the fact that finding the time to write a few words for pleasure is almost prohibitive for me during this period.

I will therefore try to be concise, so that whoever wants to can easily and voluntarily misunderstand me without running the risk of being refuted. Those who instead want to use these remarks to test their own convictions and perhaps expand their horizons will certainly be welcome.

After all, under the sun there is almost nothing left that hasn't already been said. And this was also true before the second barbarian invasions.

So, in no particular order:

-as likable as good Celibidache may be, to understand what it means when talking about phenomenology regarding music, one must at least first read this:

“Christian von Ehrenfels, Über Gestaltqualitäten, 1890”

Not because it is pure gold, but because it is one of the first starting points (as is Meinong, but it is longer) for the subject.

-regarding recordings, one should ask Glenn Gould what he thinks….

-regarding the music “that Celibidache does not like”: one thing is correct, music is music; it is not physics, geometry, or mathematics. The monumental work of apparent exploitation of said sciences for the development of music unfortunately often turns out to be a work of (involuntary) enslavement. Once this is discovered, the musical soul can only feel debased and in some way disillusioned. And this is told to you by someone who, despite everything, earns their bread with the former, and not the latter.

-tonality is primarily a most powerful tool in the hands of those who create music, an enormous facilitation whose development has allowed for the creation of monuments during the classical centuries. Its power, however, does not lie in being the only possible description, but in being one of the few based on primarily musical concepts, where the acoustic “justification,” though coherent, could even be merely accidental.

-the expression of emotions, as well as tension-release discourse, is not exclusive to tonality...

-simple perception is not sufficient to constitute a phenomenological object (and in this sense Celibidache rightly refers back to phenomenology): sound is not music, not even (much less) when it is contextualized for us or when we are explained that it was produced by the rotation of some matrix or from some granular concretion of a sinusoid…

-even the rotation of a matrix can be the inspiration for great music...

-that music lives only through tension and release: Celibidache says that many of his colleagues would not be able to say where the climax of a Beethoven symphony is (as if there must necessarily be only one); perhaps that is not true, but it certainly holds for the majority of the lay audience that listens, yet music speaks also and above all to them…. for me, it is a rather naive conviction, related to the affection for the dogma that there exists an asemantic narrative music (a contradiction in terms); certainly, one can always interpret it in this way as well…

-the primary purpose of those who write music should not be to respect certain academic dictates, but to ensure that their notes convey their message as best as possible. The fact that respecting certain habits contributes to the success of the transmission is a very complex fact. The fact that external factors contribute to and determine this success is an irritating fact. But unavoidable.

-if music is only liked after one has understood the generative process that led it to be so, then that music is not liked, or rather it is liked illusionarily, because in a transposed way. Music can be explained and understood in many ways, but its aesthetic content can only be explained musically (that is, through musical concepts).

-habit is man's greatest ally and his greatest enemy.

-these and others remain, however, only descriptive categories, i.e., shared parameters upon which analyses and evaluations of musical objects are based—parameters whose historicization can induce one to believe that they are immutable characteristics of the object itself.

Open content (youtube)

The premise is that I generally suffer from a sort of 'otherism' towards those who speak of grand systems in music. I find Celibidache somewhat unpleasant, but I have a single serious reason for my dislike: the famous and long-standing issue regarding women in music and Abbie Connant (those who want to, can go look up news about it). Although I am always critical of the terms used by Bianca, so, basically, I agree with her in the attempt to put things back in their place: Celibidache was not a philosopher but an orchestral conductor. Often conductors, like chefs or politicians, speak of themselves while pretending to speak of something else. That is to say, I believe it is right to prepend a very loud "in my opinion" to every statement by Celibidache.

Bianca wrote:

-regarding the music "that Celibidache does not like": one thing is correct, music is music; it is not physics, geometry, or mathematics. The monumental work of apparent exploitation of the aforementioned sciences for the development of music unfortunately often turns out to be a work of (involuntary) enslavement. Having discovered this, the musical soul can only feel debased and in some way disillusioned. And this is being told to you by a person who, despite everything, earns their bread with the former, and not with the latter.

I don't fully understand what you mean and I would be curious to know what you intend by "musical soul"

-tonality is primarily a very powerful tool in the hands of those who create music, an enormous facilitation whose development allowed for the creation of monuments during the classical centuries. Its power, however, does not lie in being the only possible description, but in being one of the few based on primarily musical concepts, where the acoustic "justification," although coherent, might even be merely accidental

Here too I am not sure I have understood what you mean, but, if I understood correctly, you are saying that the reasons underlying tonal rules are musical, based on taste and musical rendering, and not acoustic in a scientific sense, therefore physical. And here I totally agree with you. I recall how physically there are many elements, such as the dissonance of the seventh's fourth, the consonance of the minor chord, the tensile role of the second inversion of the tonic, and others, which are completely unjustifiable with the pseudo-physico-acoustic explanations that have been fed to us for decades

-the expression of emotions, as well as the tensile discourse, is not an exclusive of tonality...

Words to live by

-if music is only liked after one has understood the generative process that led it to be such, then that music is not liked, or rather it is liked illusionarily, because in a transposed way. Music can be explained and understood in many ways, but its aesthetic content can only be explained musically (that is, through musical concepts).

I disagree, and in you, the composer speaks, not the scholar. In many of the things you have said, it would be honest to add an "in my music, I believe that...". Celibidache's error, which is partly the error I think you also make, is that of generalizing tastes and convictions. As was said above, when the discourse becomes general, it almost always becomes banal and erroneous.

thallo wrote:

I don't fully understand what you mean and I would be curious to know what you intend by musical soul

Simply the ability to think about and process music.

thallo wrote:

Here too I am not sure I understood what you mean, but, if I understood correctly,...

exactly

thallo wrote:

I don't agree and even in you the composer speaks, not the scholar

No, no, I am not talking about my music…

Duly noted that absolutism is far from my thoughts, as is relativism, which upon closer inspection is another face of absolutism; it is true that it is always appropriate to start from the particular. However, one eventually arrives at generalization.

Nevertheless, my statement in that form is neither one nor the other, but rather an emphasis.

What I wanted to emphasize is that musical pleasure cannot, or rather should not, be artificially generated, or rather it could also be, provided that one understands and remains aware of the difference. And this is a speculative reasoning, not an empathetic statement. Again, here brevity can lead to misunderstandings: I wouldn't want someone (I am not referring to you Thallo) to think that I am saying that science, consciousness, and their derivatives are not necessary and that intuition or instinct is enough. I think that the appreciation of a musical object (understood in a phenomenological sense) by a subject depends heavily on the extension of the world (I should use the term model, but it wouldn't be understood) that this is able to make emerge within the subject themselves. And thus such a "mechanism" certainly also depends on knowing what its generative process or schema is, but only indirectly. Instead, the purely musical component is preponderant, which depends on the subject as an individual immersed in a historical-cultural context, even (and especially) if profane.

I'll give a trivial example: if I eat a cake and I like it, my pleasure is almost independent of knowing how this cake was made, but it depends heavily on my senses, partly specific to me, and partly derived from a culture (and in this case also from evolution). If I then discover that how it was made does not please me (perhaps there are harmful substances that I had not recognized, because it was impossible or because I am profane), my overall evaluation may change, but not that specific pleasure of mine, which comes from my taste. Perhaps next time I will pay more attention; it will take a few particular cases and then I will be able to generalize to my new taste. The example can be extended and even reversed. In fact, I can be induced to taste foods only because someone has convinced me they are good (and how often that happens) or made by a great chef… etcetera etcetera…

Paraphrasing, "music is a biscuit..."