Musical phenomenology lesson

Agreed on everything except for two things.

Bianca wrote:

-tonality is primarily a very 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," although coherent, could even be merely accidental

Tonality, understood as a "primarily musical concept," explains only one part of the structuring of musical discourse. When one wants to explain the rest (form, rhythm), one resorts to extramusical paradigms such as grammar (parenthesis, phrase, period), logic (motive), narrative (development). And this has been the case since the 18th century (moreover, the reference to grammar can be found as far back as antiquity). Therefore, be careful not to focus only on tonality while excluding the rest: even (indeed especially) in the classical-romantic repertoire.

Bianca wrote:

-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).

Why bring pleasure into it? Pleasure has nothing to do with phenomenology, nor directly with aesthetic content.

RedScharlach wrote:

Agreement on everything except for two things.

Tonality, understood as a "primarily musical concept", explains only one part of the structuring of musical discourse. When one wants to explain the rest (form, rhythm), one resorts to extramusical paradigms such as grammar (parenthesis, phrase, period), logic (motive), narrative (development). And this has been the case since the 18th century (moreover, the reference to grammar can be found as far back as antiquity). So, be careful not to focus only on tonality while excluding the rest: even (indeed especially) in the classical-romantic repertoire.

Of course, but it's not that I meant the opposite; I said primarily, just that I wanted to emphasize the concept.

RedScharlach wrote:

Why bring pleasure into it? Pleasure has nothing to do with phenomenology, nor directly with aesthetic content.

agreed here too; I said "if music is pleasing", but not in a hedonistic sense... I am actually not among those who attribute important value to sensuality in music... The topic is also vast here and can include discussions regarding hedonism in aesthetics (interesting, for example, the relationship between values and feelings present in Kant, Scheler, ...), but that is not what I meant, even if I used the cake as an example....

I, on the other hand, completely agree with Bianca and I really like that comparison of hers with the biscuit and food in particular.

I mean, returning to Pestatasti's question - though I don't like calling people by these names! - let's continue this tired diatribe between tonality and atonality, generalizing, treating everything as one: on one side the so beautiful and right tonality, and on the other atonality as just noise or non-music.

And yet, there is a 'yet'. There are people who love many of the atonal composers. And this love is all the more sincere if it is, as in the case of Bianca's biscuit, born regardless of all technical data.

I absolutely love Luigi Nono - I know many of you don't like him - and I can't stand Maderna.

And this regardless of any technical data! For me, tonality and atonality no longer exist; there is music without borders with its composers: I like many of them and many others I do not!

It seems to me that you have misunderstood (my fault, obviously).

I did not intend to introduce any ideological derby between tonality and atonality (and it doesn't seem to me that this has emerged), but rather to ask questions regarding Celibidache's considerations, which are the subject of the topic after all.

Are these questions naive? If I had your culture and artistic sensitivity, would I not have asked them? It may be so; in fact, far from attacking genres, I was specifically asking for enlightenment which, moreover, seems to have partially emerged.

The level of reflection seemed absolutely adequate to me for a forum with free and anonymous registration. If that is not the case, let us say it openly, but let us not contest the legitimacy of the questions on an intellectual level.

If we then want to ask about credentials and lists of titles and exams...

Suggesting readings is the most beautiful and useful thing one can do; demanding knowledge of them before speaking is the most odious.

P.s. out of respect for the owners, administrators, and moderators of this site, I apologize above all for the controversies, which I do not like to receive and especially do not like to cause. I have always felt like a guest here, and I hope to have behaved with the politeness befitting a guest. At this point, however, despite the anonymity, I feel very embarrassed, so in addition to promising myself to avoid further interventions, I will perfectly understand if I am to be excluded.

I quickly reread the topic and I don't find such a polemical atmosphere; I just find a heterogeneity of views. Maybe I missed something?

Maderna obviously not Madera, I slipped an n!

Listen to me, you brute, if you are referring to me, it is I who apologize to you if I gave you the impression that it was the exact opposite of what my intentions are, also because, believe me well, I am the ignorant one here.

In reality, I tried for the umpteenth time to avoid the tonality/atonality opposition, starting primarily from what Maestro Celibidache said and then from the question you were asking, trying to steer the discussion ... beyond.

Did I not succeed? Did I do it poorly? It's probable, but I certainly didn't want to offend your sensitivity, let alone your intelligence, and therefore... I am sorry and I beg you to continue to intervene.

pestatasti wrote:

Suggesting readings is the most beautiful and useful thing one can do

In the past, I "stumbled" upon this pdf (just to stay on topic), happy reading

http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/539/1/quaranta_anna_tesi.pdf

Also, I am convinced that your questions were entirely legitimate, just as doubts about the assumptions from which Celibidache starts are legitimate. If I may add something, I would answer your questions with a concrete example.

pestatasti wrote:

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 however one wants to call it?

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

The possibilities of creating relationships outside of tonality have only one limit: the imagination of the composers.

To bring the discussion back to a concrete example, you could look at the topic on Baroque by Mauro Lanza (I am choosing this because it is the most recent topic we have addressed).

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/4058-barocco-mauro-lanza/

In particular, try to see what he says regarding Characters and Actions: from my point of view, perceiving a Character and an Action is not a more complex action than perceiving a tonic or a dominant. In fact, for those who have not studied music, it might even be easier.

pestatasti wrote:

It seems to me that you have misunderstood (my fault, obviously).

I did not intend to introduce any ideological derby between tonality and atonality...

I apologize, but this expression of mine was not directed at you, but was a general consideration regarding other discussions from the past (this time, for that matter, it doesn't seem to have gone even that badly...).

Moreover, I appreciate your underlying intention (at least from how I understand it from this and other recent discussions).

I hope you will continue to corroborate it in this forum.

Socrates, speaking of what is written, addressing Phaedrus, says: "[...] Overcome and offended beyond reason, it always needs its father to come to its aid, because on its own it can neither defend itself nor help itself"

Returning to Celibidache, I remember how the maestro never conducted operas in a staged form; it is said that this was because he could not incorporate the relationship between music and word into his aesthetics...

thallo wrote:

Returning to Celibidache, I remember how the maestro never conducted operas in a staged form; it is said that this was because he could not incorporate the relationship between music and word into his aesthetics...

Ahio!... I am afraid I have the same problem (my distance from musical theater...). I hope not. Or rather: I hope not until the end of my days.

I listened to the lecture. I completely agree when he says that "music is movement: the relationship between the consciousness of what listens and that which... moves the sound."

(Seven years ago, I also arrived at the same conclusion). However—I add—who is this one who "moves the sound"? The composer or the performer?

Both. Without too much fuss. Even when the composer is an occasional performer of themselves. Music is always a Ménage à trois: composer-performer-listener.

But this also applies to recorded music! Come on!... the recording of a piece corresponds to a published book: the consciousness of the composer and the performer is 'given' there in an immutable way, but very, very carefully considered, if you will permit me. However, the variable remains "that which listens": which today listens in one way, tomorrow in another, the day after... Just like returning to the same literary work after some time.

Ahhh... If only I had Leopardi here to recite 'L'Infinito' to me!... That would be it: that would be true music.

But let's not get carried away!

"}

Frank wrote:

I quickly reread the topic and I don't find such a polemical atmosphere; I just find a heterogeneity of views. Maybe I missed something?

I agree: I also find only a good heterogeneity of views.

enjoy watching

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Hello,

I take the liberty of joining this stimulating discussion. Given that I am biased because I consider Celibidache to be something more than a Conductor, Musician, Artist—something that perhaps I wouldn't even know how to define.

Given that the discussion on phenomenology transcends the language used (modal, tonal, atonal, etc.), I agree with some basic concepts such as:

- a climax, or maximum pole of tension to which one arrives by passing through other micro-vertices (the example of a mountain range profile)

- the close link between the hall and its conditions and the performance mode of a piece, which therefore makes a recording a dead thing

- the non-life of electronic sound

Personally, I believe there exists a sort of objectivity linked to physics (physics of sound, of the instrument, of the hall, etc.) that creates a sort of skeleton upon which we place flesh and skin derived from our uniqueness (not only as individuals, but as individuals in a precise moment, which is that of the performance act)

This skeleton covered with flesh and skin constitutes "truth."

I often give my students this example:

suppose you see a man filmed while climbing an ascent and then you see the same recording of another man; the first convinces you on an unconscious level, while the second leaves you somewhat perplexed; this depends on the fact that the first is real, while the second was recorded on flat ground and digitally transformed into an ascent. What is it that convinced you in the first? The truth, i.e., the effort. We can climb the same ascent at different speeds, with different postures, with different shoes and clothes, but we will always recognize the truth of the effort in other people we meet along that same ascent.

This is the difference between sounds placed side by side and the music he speaks of, in my opinion.

In any case, the same Celibidache in a more recent video, older and with more belly, admits to having had the fault, so to speak, of wanting to objectify truth in his past, claiming to have reached the conclusion that truth cannot be rationally defined but can be personally experienced, thus causing some somewhat dogmatic theses presented in the video in question to fall away.

I fully approve of the problem of general deafness. We are increasingly attentive to sound itself, but less and less to its inner life, to its oscillating, pulsing, flowing, stretching, and relaxing. Sometimes I find people for whom it seems that sound consists of notes, but sound is what passes between the notes. Perhaps if sound were seen as a traveler and notes as the stages of his journey, with different distances, climbs and descents, paved and unpaved paths, this deafness would become a little more obvious and therefore a little less... deaf.

These are just reflections, and I would like the term "truth" to be taken for what it tries to say, as it is limited in this context, and not for what it commonly means.

Have a good day, everyone.

Another video

Open content (youtube)