Re: What we listen for


Steve Latham wrote:
> "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1138470241.998804.277090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [snip]
> >
> > I don't know why you think my sentence implies that the evocation of
> > music is absolute. You used "music" and "evoke" 3 times as
> > subject/object pairs, no different than what I typed. I might disagree
> > somewhat that "what music resonates with" is entirely a choice.
>
> Sorry, based on prior experience I made an erroneous assumption that you may
> have been of the mindset that it's the music that evokes, not the listener.

Okay, I must admit that I have been frustrated about this topic in the
past here, and probably overly sensitive myself to the replies.

We seem to have some kind of philosophical disagreement here,
nonetheless. I don't know if you have ever read "Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintanence" in which the protagonist is a university
professor who's interested in discussing the experience of "quality"
(like a quality artwork) and whether that experience is inherent in the
artwork (objective) or purely a response of the student (subjective).
He goes on to explain why it sits precisely in-between. Neither
objective nor subjective. The idea is that our notion of dividing the
world into "the objective" and "the subjective", the very notion,
emerges from a sense of quality!

I would say (so obvious that I think you agree) that the evocation
happens when music meets listener. When the objective meets the
subjective. As such, the stimulus of the music evokes a response in the
listener, just as a bright light evokes squinting. But this is probably
obvious.

I think the question lurking behind all this, is: "Does it make any
sense at all to speak of what qualities are in the music, if every
listener forms his or her own impression?"

My answer is that, first of all, I believe that music resonates with
human experience. I don't think it sits on a plane separate or above
the rest of life. And humans, being of common genetic heritage, a lot
of times have the same experiences. So I am of the belief that it
*could happen* that a composer creates the music out of an experience
he's had, and the music evokes that same experience in the listener.

This is not quite the same thing as saying music has objective
qualties, because different people will still experience it
differently.

It's also not the same thing as saying that what music evokes is purely
a result of the listener's choice.

It's the Middle Way, in essence.


> Becuase that's a common offereing around here, I usually try to add a
> disclaimer if I talk about something like this (like, This music evokes this
> (not that it has to for everyone), etc.). - But then again my sentences are
> full or parenthetical asides too!!! Thanks for clarifying.
>
> [snip]
> >
> > KUSC (University of Souther California public radio) Jim Svjeda
> > describes Bolero as "erotic".. you know, the rhythmic movement building
> > to a sudden noisy shift of tonal center. I think the performance can
> > bring out such qualities, or impede them. (I imagine you will think
> > this statement somehow implies that we all agree on the qulaities of
> > the performance.)
>
>
> No, now you're jumping to conclusions. But turnabout is fair play. Now we're
> even - 1 erroneous assumption for each :-)
>
> I don't find it erotic.
> I do know it has been used that way (in "10"). I'm sure others have conjured
> up the image. But there are plenty of things that build and explode! I think
> the "erotic" association with Bolero has become so commonplace that it's
> taken as gospel. So I don't have a problem with differing interpretations,
> but I'm also not crazy about any one interpretation becoming THE
> interpretation (especially based on a movie, or some conductor's whim). I
> bet if they players (and conductor) found out that Ravel's original image
> was that of the factory, then they'd play it totally differently, and, many
> might argue, more accurately.

That's an interesting thought, that understanding the orignal image
would affect how it is performed. Acutally, I've always wondered this:

Let's say the composer didn't just write down the notes, but imagined
or played the music in a specific way, most of hwhic gets lost in
making the score. Let's call it the "original interpretation".

Performers can bring many different experiences to that score. So now
we have new interpretations.

How do these all relate to each other? If the performers interpret it
in a way completely at odds with the compser's "original" is that
somehow less authentic? What if we thought it was a better
interpretation?

What if we have two very different interpretations.. a question (a
philosophical, not-meant-to-be-answerable question) would be, is a
score ambiguous such that it contains the equal potential of two
different performances? I don't mean that question to be answered in a
flip way.. "of course any interpretation is valid".. but rather in a
very deep way as might be perceived by the original composer or a
person who knew the score intimately.

What if we could hear Bach's or Mozart's interpretations of their
music? Would they sit head-and-shoulders above anything else done
today? Or would Bach and Mozart themselves say, "Oh, what a wonderful
performance! You made it better than I imagined!" We have such stunning
performers today that I think this would be possible, like Gustave
Leonhardt playing Bach or Alicia De Larocha playing Mozart.

Mike



>
> But you're definitely right, the ability of people to bring out or impede
> such qualities can make a drastic difference on the musical outcome - in
> that way they can kind of "coerce" a listener.
>
> Steve

.

Relevant Pages

  • They are including more than tropical, down scared, beside other staffs.
    ... Other historical silly implementations will screen obnoxiously ... more than interpretations. ... Julie, still learning, functions almost extremely, as the listener ... undergos in their opposite. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho.moderated)
  • Re: To Get Or Not To Get?
    ... listener might not have. ... have been written about various interpretations. ... wants to believe that Bob is singing about his audiences and the music ... Only Bob knows. ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
  • Re: Emerson: Shostakovich String Qts
    ... Al Eisner wrote: ... to the quality of the playing ... Not much difference in the interpretations, though the sound quality ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)