Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: "Michael Schaffer" <ms1000@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Dec 2005 13:20:54 -0800
Lena wrote:
> Michael Schaffer wrote:
> > Lena wrote:
> [...]
> > > So, although I can imagine someone deciding to write a work sounding
> > > like a Norwegian fisherman (not desirable, necessarily :) ), if
> > > someone really wants to make a claim for a specific speech dialect
> > > being the inspiration of a musical work in the classical canon, I'd
> > > need a bit more evidence...
> >
>
>
> > I don't know how specific it would have to be, but there are many
> > more general examples. The typical style found in many of
> > Sibelius' themes is definitely related to the speech melody of
> > Finnish,
>
> How definitely? :) I don't see any real resemblance between the
> musical constructs and Finnish (which Sibelius spoke poorly) or, for
> good measure, the language he actually spoke, Swedish. (And I
> don't find a connection between his themes to either language, whether
> I consider the grammar, or the pitch and rhythm of the sentences.)
>
> It's not that music can't borrow from speech at all, or there isn't a
> concept of rhetorics in music, but it gets so mutated and abstract
> (say, "question-answer" phrase pairs, recitatives) that if you put
> things in perspective, the composer's own language becomes a very
> secondary item, IMO.
>
> > and many German composers write themes which reflect the phrase
> > structure of German, which, as you probably know, is often very long
> > phrases with a lot of side clauses and inserts, kind of like the
> > sentence I am writing now, and there are a lot of examples for this
> > kind of theme, for instance the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 5th is a
> > very good example for a them which very obviously reflects the
> > typical "phrase melody" of the German language.
>
> Yes, Beethoven does write complex phrase structures (known obligingly
> as "sentences"), but again, I really doubt they have any deep
> connection with speech. (The terminology, and things like the "muss
> es sein?" business notwithstanding.) (Beethoven at least didn't seem
> to be inspired by his own letter writing, which is not all that
> complicated...)
Maybe Beethoven didn't see letter writing as an artistic expression and
didn't give it much attention?
> In the Beethoven symphony 5/ii example, I'm not sure if you mean the
> first 8 bars, but if you do, that's not actually a complex phrase
> construction. It's a short theme built out of a single subphrase with
> musical means very typical of the time (phrase extension, variation,
> and fragmentation). The theme also uses a rhythmic trick; it
> dislocates a pattern wrto to the barline in an unexpected way. Speech
> or writing generally doesn't have any of this accuracy (although
> writing as art can do similar things).
I didn't say music his music imitated speeach in exact ways. But the
connection with language of the tone and phrase structure of a lot of
his music is very obvious and striking. It doesn't really matter how a
theme is constructed, it's more the general "feel" and tone, the ups
and downs, the little inserted sidethoughts, etc. All that is very
obvious if you understand the language really well, it almost sounds as
if someone is speaking to you, but unfortunately, but simply mentioning
that, we will have another couple dozen posts accusing me of Aryan
superiority and stuff like that, so I would rather not go into that. It
is a very interesting subject, and it would be fun to figure out how
that actually works, but again, I am tired of all that misquoting and
all the attacks. Let's just say that layer is only accessible to those
who happen to know the language very well, and by knowing German, you
are automatically a racist, so that's all we will get from this
discussion.
> If you wish, I don't see why passages for either composer can't
> evoke speech rhythms, for you, but I hope you see that there is no
> necessary connection between the two - what you're offering is
> an interpretation. Sort of like someone who offers a program for
> abstract music.
>
> > That has nothing to do with "Superiority", BTW, it's just a fact,
> > although I can guarantee that some idiot will come back saying just
> > that within no time.
>
> Yes, but the insults part could be toned down on all fronts.
> (One could begin with the 'idiot'...)
>
> FWIW, I also don't think that what you say is quite on the fact level
> here.
>
> Lena
>
> PS. The way Beethoven usually sketches his themes is by a lengthy
> process involving the entire movement, not the theme alone. I'd
> conjecture that a composer who really wishes to use a speech rhythm
> directly might be more interested in a "transcription" of the whole
> idea at one go, rather than the careful incremental, hierarchical
> design done by Beethoven.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Lena
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Bob Harper
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- References:
- Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Derek Hollman
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Michael Schaffer
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Simon Roberts
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Michael Schaffer
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Richard Schultz
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Simon Roberts
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Simon Roberts
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Simon Roberts
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Bob Lombard
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Lena
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Lena
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Michael Schaffer
- Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- From: Lena
- Why do you like Mozart's music?
- Prev by Date: Re: Big Thanks To All for the Amazing Classical Information
- Next by Date: Re: Mravinsky Sibelius 3
- Previous by thread: Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- Next by thread: Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|