The musicology I wouldn't want

Hi Claudio!

First of all, thank you for reporting this material.

I have printed everything and I will need to reflect on it all. Upon a first and summary reading, I can say that I agree with Giammarino and not with you, although I grant you that it could certainly try to be less complicated. I am always of the opinion that there are musicologists and musicologists, just as there are workers and workers; the important thing is always not to generalize.

Anyway, as soon as I can, I will give my opinion on the matter, although I would have preferred this topic to be in the Beethoven forum, since it is primarily about him that is being discussed, directly or indirectly.

Thanks Thallo

but no, come...
should I be wary of all musicologists?

It takes time to read everything and form an idea. For now, I have only read 'What is Music?' (with difficulty).

Alas... a whole sentence in a language I don't know without the "grace" of the article's author translating it for me makes me lose the desire to open Google Translate to understand it even summarily (it is evident that, if I do not know that language, in this case French, I am not worthy of reading the article. Therefore, I feel like withdrawing. Bitterly).

I was, however, able to read your short response, which I feel I subscribe to entirely.

What is music?... for now, I think that 'music' is one of those words . . . b r o a d

Words that are prone to receiving multiple meanings and definitions.

Answering the question 'What is music?' is something that everyone (who cares) should make their own attempt at.

You will surely find the answer you deserve.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Anyway, as soon as I can, I will give my opinion on the matter, even though I would have preferred this topic to be in the Beethoven forum, since it is primarily about him, directly or indirectly.

In reality, he has only written one article on Beethoven. If you find his point of view interesting, you can use it as a starting point for another topic, I don't know. I am a bit pissed off with the guy because he wrote, in the reply to my comment, that musical philology is not musicology... that being said, excluding some specific phrases, I cannot say that I disagree with Giammarino. I just consider him tremendously boring and quite banal. And as his articles progressed, he continued relentlessly to write about the philosophy of music and not about music. Talking about classical style without defining classical style, placing it alongside a later philosophical theorization that does not explain but complicates, is an attitude that I do not like. It sounds very much like a musicologist, it's true, and very little like a music historian. But I am anxious to read what you think more specifically about his articles

I have put the matter of Giammarino to rest after reading his intervention in 'If La Scala sends Helmut Lachenmann to the Baggina'.

http://www.huffingtonpost.it/social/hp_blogger_Giovanni%20Giammarino/helmut-lachenmann-scala-milano_b_5372674_312879426.html?

In an attempt to defend Lachenmann, he starts from the following premise.

The point is essentially this: for modern art, the problem of poetics has prevailed over the problem of the work: the doing has become more important than the artifact, and form is enjoyed as an example of a way of forming.

Essentially, he makes Lachenmann out to be a sort of Cage who is long overdue, erroneously presupposing a common root at the foundation of modern art (as if modern art existed, as if Lachenmann's poetics coincided with Cage's!), and this is neither here nor there: in Lachenmann, on the contrary, compositional craftsmanship is the founding aspect, and what one must listen for in his music is not a philosophical premise, but a sound calculated maniacally, to the millimeter. In other words, Giammarino's premise is false.

even when he speaks of Kant and the classical style, he says an unprovable load of nonsense:

Every compositional style can be described as a representation of a specific idea of time according to mental archetypes or cognitive models that regulate the perception of the world as movement.

As formulated, this is an unprovable axiom that greatly misunderstands the idea of temporality: 1) one cannot speak of styles, one must have the courage to speak of works, otherwise we end up making middle-school diagrams; 2) one cannot speak so lightly of mental archetypes and cognitive models without saying what they are; 3) one cannot leave this vagueness in identifying a cause-and-effect link: does the archetype that says "time has a direction and a teleology" float in the air breathed by the composer? By the audience? Does it act on the writing or on the enjoyment? Is it a historicized datum, telling us how that composition was considered by contemporaries, or is it a datum derived from current criticism, which deduces a sort of "ideal listener"? 4) even more specifically regarding terminology, what do I mean by "representation"? How is it possible to represent according to a cognitive model? One should learn according to a cognitive model and represent according to an expressive model, and if we recognize a cognitive phase, then we must recognize the processing of an autonomous and different expressive phase. That is, to understand the phases in which this hypothetical classical style, which is the expressive model, developed, and to eventually recognize a PRECEDING perceptual model, especially in its formulation (I recall that Kant wrote his most important works between 1780 and 1790, when sonata form was already well-established).

... I conclude by saying something very childish ...

i have been the only one so far to comment on Giannino's articles, and I got a thinly veiled "fuck you" from him (when, during the discussion on Beethoven, he told me "greetings from Germany")...

what can I say... if someone comments on HuffPost telling him at the very least that nothing he writes can be understood, I would be pleased

thallo wrote:

Beware of musicologists

Finally we agree, Thallo. Musicology = Pornography. It is useless to treat music as something dead.

Practically one of the hobbies of musicology is the autopsy and vivisection of musical pieces, dividing them into a thousand little bits and speculating beyond belief, forgetting that music is an art that unfolds in time. I read an analysis of Bartók's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta that found all human knowledge through various mental gymnastics solely for the purpose of showing how tough the musicologist in question was. From my point of view, in a piece of that magnitude, anyone can find whatever they want.

I am of the opinion that it is always better to make music than to "talk about it" ....

In fact, rereading everything more carefully, I must revise my initial judgment given summarily. There are many things in Giammarino's vision that I do not agree with, while now I find some of the things you say, Claudio, to be more correct. However, what continues to distance my thinking from yours is this controversy of yours regarding the music/philosophy binomial. This issue, moreover, has always been very clear to me since our first discussions and, therefore, does not surprise me but rather confirms your way of thinking.

It's a pity - for me, naturally - that during this period I can only respond sporadically. But I hope to be able to construct a more articulated discussion soon.

thallo wrote:

even when he speaks of Kant and the classical style, he says an unprovable load of nonsense:

Every compositional style can be described as a representation of a specific idea of time according to mental archetypes or cognitive models that regulate the perception of the world as movement.

As formulated, this is an unprovable axiom that greatly misunderstands the idea of temporality: 1) one cannot speak of styles, one must have the courage to speak of works, otherwise we end up making middle-school diagrams; 2) one cannot speak so lightly of mental archetypes and cognitive models without saying what they are; 3) one cannot leave this vagueness in identifying a cause-and-effect link: does the archetype that says "time has a direction and a teleology" float in the air breathed by the composer? By the audience? Does it act on the writing or on the enjoyment? Is it a historicized datum, telling us how that composition was considered by contemporaries, or is it a datum derived from current criticism, which deduces a sort of "ideal listener"? 4) even more specifically regarding terminology, what do I mean by "representation"? How is it possible to represent according to a cognitive model? One should learn according to a cognitive model and represent according to an expressive model, and if we recognize a cognitive phase, then we must recognize the processing of an autonomous and different expressive phase. That is, to understand the phases in which this hypothetical classical style, which is the expressive model, developed, and to eventually recognize a PREVIOUS perceptual model, especially in its formulation (I recall that Kant wrote his most important works between 1780 and 1790, when sonata form was already well-established).

... I conclude by saying something very childish ...

i have been the only one so far to comment on Giannino's articles, and I got a poorly concealed "fuck you" from him (when, regarding the discussion on Beethoven, he told me "greetings from Germany")...

what can I say... if someone comments on HuffPost telling him that, at the very least, nothing he writes makes sense, I would be pleased

we'll see what happens then Claudio...!

me, as usual, justifying myself by talking about myself :-) I did a year of philosophy at university and I still consider myself a philosophy enthusiast. My problem, however, is considering philosophy as something not serious. That is, quite simply, I don't believe in it. I like being able to understand it, but at some point, I realized that philosophy gave me nothing more. For this reason too, I often find myself pitting philosophy against art. Even in responding to Talentuoso, for me the beauty of musicology begins when it tries to understand music and the world through music. Distrusting musicologists is always completely justified, precisely because it is to the music that our ear must be turned. Reasoning, analysis, and discussions are not self-sufficient; they are always and anyway marginal notes to a central art. Musicologists, in my opinion, must choose which side to take: the side of music or that of philosophy.

... that being said, I also criticize Giammarino's philosophical argumentation. I had the outrageous luck of having a logician as a philosophy professor in high school and personally, I have never been a metaphysics enthusiast. If it is said to me that sound is the feeling of being heard that forms within being-in-the-world, the maximum response I can give is a burp, a very resonant one. The philosophy of music should be the epistemology of music, in my opinion. In other words, less fluff and more knowledge.

Musicology=pornography seems like an exaggerated comparison to me.

And, if I may, it is somewhat disrespectful to the good intentions of many musicologists and many musicology students.

Even "Beware of musicologists," in itself, is an exaggeration. But placed at the end of Thallo's first post, it serves to effectively synthesize a very specific and targeted disappointment (which I share).

Precisely on this point, Thallo, allow me to "steal" from you a verification criterion for many absolute statements: a criterion you have used several times, and of which "the world has not understood Beethoven (Chopin, Berio) but has imitated him" is only the latest.

Beware of musicologists/ Beware of financial advisors/ Beware of lawyers/ Beware of mechanics/ Beware of dentists/ Beware of plumbers/ Beware of gardeners/ Beware of architects/ Beware of politicians…

Remaing understood, however, is that if I were in your place (in your post!), I too would have closed by writing "Beware of musicologists."

- - - - - - - -

That it may be true that it is better (always?) to make music than to talk about it… It is a bit of an axiom of folk wisdom.

Yes. Agreed. Or rather: quite agreed. However, this also applies somewhat to everything.

It is better to have sex than to talk about it

It is better to drink a good wine than to talk about it

It is better to do charity than to talk about it

Better to do than to speak…

But if with others, or with oneself, or by writing articles, one speaks—in our case, about musical works…

If one speaks (after having meditated) it is out of the desire to understand and know better that which one instinctively loves. An illusion?...

Perhaps so.

Let us criticize each other. But let us grant each other (everyone's) good faith.

So, if it is always better to do than to speak, I will delete myself from the forum to dedicate myself solely to the piano.

But no, come on!... Talking about music is a lovely little vice.

Dear Thallo, Writing to Giammarino that one cannot understand a damn thing of what he writes… I would do it. But it is not within my means. It is true that everything that can be said can be said simply. One only needs to read something by Mila, and one immediately sees what rigor+simplicity looks like (just to stick to musicologists).

But I cannot criticize a language that is deliberately elitist from the outside (from "below"… to be honest).

Philosophy is human thought and, from my point of view, to consider philosophy not serious is equivalent to saying that human thought is not serious. Philosophy is that of Socrates and Marx, but it is also that of the old farmer, of the Native American. You will tell me that I am confusing wisdom with philosophy, but I think that wisdom and philosophy are the same thing. But let's just drop this subject.

If I think about what Giammarino has written, I think that he addresses things that have already been widely discussed in the past: philosophers, musicologists, and others have done so. Far below all of that, I have also addressed them and developed them on my blog, and it is useless to re-propose things I have already said here.

I feel compelled to say - and I would like to say this to Giammarino - that as you, Claudio, rightly said, Kant's philosophy comes after the birth of the sonata form - actually, for the sonata form, I would speak more of Socrates but, I don't want to draw criticism here - and that Kant's philosophy was adopted only by Beethoven, who translated it into 'his' sonata form.

On the other hand, Giammarino's statement regarding posterity's refusal to recognize and grant legitimacy to Beethovenian utopia seemed interesting to me. Undoubtedly there was a Marxist philosopher, Ernst Bloch, who, in the last century, had the opportunity to found his own philosophical thought of utopia and hope starting precisely from Beethoven, from the blast of trumpets in Fidelio when the Governor arrives to save Florestan. However, as with many other things, I have already written about this case as well; I continue to think that a clear distinction must be made between the Romantic critiques of Beethoven and those of the post-Romantics. The former were part of a context of misunderstanding toward the composer from Bonn, the latter of a spasmodic search for liberation from him and his immense weight.

But finally, I would like to answer the question about what music is because, in my opinion, it is not at all a trivial or absurd question. And I do so because I have well in mind how Luciano Berio answered this question:

In 1965, right here in Cambridge, I met Roman Jakobson for the first time (...) he asked me point-blank, "Tell me Berio, what is music?" I was speechless for a moment and replied that music is everything we listen to with the intention of listening to music, and that everything can become music.

I have remained faithful - at least ideally, if not quite in practice - to this improvised answer. To be more precise, I would add that everything can become music on the condition that this totality can be musically conceptualized, analyzed, and translated on different levels. Such a conception and such a translation are only possible with the notion of music as Text: a multidimensional text in continuous evolution.

I strongly agree with Berio; I have always thought that the only possible definition of music was a kind of phenomenological-social tautology. Putting aside the issue regarding text, which in my opinion arises because Berio was very close to the philosophy of language and its modern upheavals, this definition is only possible if one speaks of music as a set of musical facts, not as a musical ideal. That is to say, one is not talking about 1) sound 2) cosmic harmony 3) music before music, i.e., music without performance. One is talking about musical pieces, and this is the approach of a thinker far from metaphysics and close to true musical practice.

Anyway, regarding Beethoven, I see that a discussion could really be opened. I am not the right person, but you could do it—you (Daniele).

On Kant and the classical style. In my critique of the article, I overlooked a possibility, namely that (without stating it clearly) Giammarino established an inverse causal vector: the classical style inspired Kant in his theorization. The issue would be very interesting if put in these terms. Among serious people, there would always be the need for proof or historical argumentation; in short, one would have to demonstrate that Kant knew the classical style, and unfortunately, chronicles say that Kant was not only musically ignorant but also very far from being a music enthusiast. It would also be very strange if someone had managed to provide a philosophical synthesis of a style that was not yet considered a coherent or congruent style, not even in the sonata form alone (which is not the only form of the classical style, on the contrary...). And it is thanks to the idea that there can be an archetype that Giammarino saves himself from any possible criticism of a historical nature. The archetype is intriguing, unfalsifiable, has no birth or death date, and can be found in notes, words, or covers. It is a very useful thing for adding an extra touch to musical analyses (we spoke about it regarding narrativity, which is made of narrative archetypes), but the more generic it becomes, the more 'fluffier' it becomes. The temporal archetype of the contemporaneity of permanence and becoming is so generic that it is adaptable to anything. And we could have said it better with more understandable words :-)

Dualism is a constant of philosophical thought, starting from Plato and Aristotle. In modern times, it was Descartes who brought it to the forefront, and from him Kant derived his philosophy.

In musical terms, the first forms of duality can already be found in the Baroque period: I am thinking of some sonatas by Domenico Scarlatti.

In Germany, however, the sonata form was born from the Enlightenment need to compare and contrast Teutonic civilization with that of ancient Greece. Hence the necessity of making music more complex, as during that period, with the galant style, it had reached a great simplification compared to the contrapuntal past.

Therefore, I find it very difficult—not to say that I rule it out absolutely—to think that there is any correlation between Kant's thought and the sonata form as it was born and developed with Haydn and Mozart.

I repeat: the discussion regarding Beethoven, who came after Kantian writing and whose head was filled with this writing—as well as much other ancient, classical, and contemporary writing—is different, considering it absolutely essential and necessary that a composer be aware of it. But on the other hand, it was Beethoven himself who enlightened us on all this in his conversation books and described this intention of his to us.

Ok, all that is fine, but that was 2 centuries ago.

Something more recent (discourse on philosophy and music), for example:

- Filidei and ?

- Bedrossian and ?

- Part and ?

- Bollani and ?

Etc.

Gerardo wrote:

Ok, it's all well and good, but that was 2 centuries ago.

Something more recent (discourse on philosophy and music), for example:

- Filidei and ?

- Bedrossian and ?

- Part and ?

- Bollani and ?

Etc.

I don't know, why don't you try telling us something! Just to get started!

That is exactly the point Daniele, are we sure that the relationship between Music and Philosophy is still valid?

With aesthetics yes, but with philosophy I wouldn't say so. But now don't talk to me about Allevi's text

What perplexes me is the idea of being able to do musicology in a serious way (that is, intending it as a science) in fifteen or twenty lines.

In fifteen or twenty lines, perhaps it is possible - although difficult - to do popularization, but there is not enough space to develop a scientific argument.

As far as the possibility of combining historiography with aesthetic judgment in relation to the themes treated by "ours", I recommend rereading Dahlhaus, and in particular Beethoven and His Time, Nineteenth-Century Music, and the essays in In Other Terms.

Gerardo wrote:

That is exactly the point Daniele, are we sure that the relationship between Music and Philosophy is still valid?

With aesthetics yes, but with philosophy I wouldn't say so. But now, please don't talk to me about Allevi's text.

Allevi? Which Allevi?

I have already said that for me Philosophy is human thought, or rather the quintessence of human thought. To maintain and be convinced of this is equivalent to thinking that all Arts and Sciences, precisely because they are the maximum emanation of human thought, cannot be disconnected from Philosophy, yesterday, today, as tomorrow.

From the post-Beethoven era onwards, many among the greatest philosophers have been interested in music, and they did so not marginally, but making it a protagonist part of their thought. It is still like this today, and these philosophers speak of pre-Beethovenian composers just as they do of post-Beethovenian composers. Just as an example: Eugenio Trias, considered the greatest living Spanish philosopher, in his book "Il canto delle sirene" published by Tropea, has provided a beautiful philosophical and musicological analysis of some of the greatest composers, ranging from Monteverdi to Cage, Boulez, Stockhausen, and Xenakis. Very beautiful and passionate.

RedScharlach wrote:

What perplexes me is the idea of being able to do musicology in a serious way (that is, intending it as a science) in fifteen or twenty lines.

In fifteen or twenty lines, perhaps it is possible—though difficult—to do popularization, but there is not enough space to develop a scientific argument.

As far as the possibility of combining historiography with aesthetic judgment in relation to the themes treated by "ours," I recommend rereading Dahlhaus, and in particular Beethoven and His Time, Nineteenth-Century Music, and the essays in In Other Terms.

If you are referring to Giammarino, I do not think his intention is to do musicology in a few lines.

Probably, to make himself known, he proposed to the hosting site that he be allowed to write about music. In this way, one can kill two birds with one stone: besides making himself known, he introduces to a site that was initially unaware of it some musical tidbits which, hopefully, may in some way pique the curiosity and interest of people who are not necessarily connected to music.