The use of the term "material" during analysis

I think it's fine, the important thing is to specify which material is being referred to. Obviously, a similar term brings to mind the idea that there is a material, i.e., that the composer takes an element and treats it in a particular way, on its own. If taken so broadly, it is a flexible concept adaptable to many things: a liturgical tenor is material, a color is material, a rhetorical figure is material. When we arrive at the great classical and romantic forms, then, by "material" we can mean motivic material, therefore the melodic, harmonic, rhythmic or expressive structures that underlie the "flow" of a composition

Maybe I'm wrong, but for me the term 'material' is highly appropriate in the case of musique concrète; the concept of material linked to 'sound' is more twentieth-century than nineteenth-century (or earlier), so I don't find it perfectly suitable.

In the sense that Thallo's argument holds up, but in my opinion, a term is being used that at the time was not associated with the musical field.

One could say "Melodic Material" and give a specific connotation to the term material, but in reality it seems to refer to a raw or semi-processed "product," whereas melody is already a "finished" product.

So why not call a certain passage, period, or melody by its own name?

I don't know, what do you all think?

As far as I know, the concept of material derives from Adorno's philosophy. It has historicist connotations: the state of the material, the relationship between the objectivity and subjectivity of the material, etc... it is an interpretive key that in Adorno applies to Stravinsky VS Schoenberg (where it was Schoenberg who had adequately interpreted the state of the material), as well as to Mahler, as well as to Beethoven...

Regarding the possibility of applying it TODAY to pre-Twentieth Century music: it is an anachronism. As such, it is acceptable, provided that we use it knowing that it is an anachronism.

In this regard, I point to Sara ZURLETTI, Il concetto di materiale musicale in Th. W. Adorno, Il Mulino, Bologna 2006. Reading it, I had the impression that the concept is so elusive and varied that in the end one does not clearly understand where it is heading.

Great intervention Red, only that I didn't quite grasp how the anachronism lies in using a "modern" term for a past repertoire. I might be wrong, but usually anachronism doesn't follow the perfectly opposite path?

RedScharlach wrote:

In this regard, I suggest Sara ZURLETTI, Il concetto di materiale musicale in Th. W. Adorno, Il Mulino, Bologna 2006. Reading it, I had the impression that the concept is so elusive and varied that in the end one doesn't quite understand where it is heading.

I wasn't aware of it, thanks for the suggestion. Do you think it's worth investing a few euros [in it]?

Frank wrote:

I didn't know it, thanks for the report. Do you think it's worth investing a few euros?

Well... I borrowed it from the library

To put it very simply, since Adorno is asystematic, any attempt to systematize one of his concepts leads almost inevitably to a series of dead ends. Evidently, Adorno was not interested in defining the concept of material in a unique way, and therefore this study must limit itself to recording its various connotations in different occurrences, without being able to reduce everything to a monolithic definition (which in itself would not have been acceptable to Adorno himself).

Thanks to everyone, you have certainly cleared up my ideas a bit... it had been contested during the exam by saying that it wasn't exactly an error, but they were alluding a bit to the point Natan was making.

Ultimately, I was talking about melodic material, so I was giving the specific details for the case

Zazza wrote:

Nice intervention Red, except I didn't quite grasp how the anachronism fits into using a "modern" term for a past repertoire. I might be wrong, but usually anachronism doesn't follow the perfectly opposite path?

Simply put, I mean that it is legitimate to apply the concept of material to Josquin or Beethoven or Mahler, but we know that they did not reason based on this concept. They didn't quite "conceive" of it.

A different case is that of post-WWII composers (particularly those from the Darmstadt area): they knew the Adornian concept of material. In fact, in the specific case of Donatoni, the idea of material derived from Adorno has been at the center of his important reflections (see in particular Q​uesto and Il sigaro di Armando).

ok Red