Submitted by jsdubois015 on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 16:03
I mentioned in yesterday's post about the challenges that classical music presents to the mind of a listener. Harmony and counterpoint present immediate "problems" for the mind to work out. Form, on the other hand, presents long-range organizational issues that the mind has to comprehend. The intrinsic beauty of classical music thus lies in its complexity. It stands to reason, then, that this complexity can only be a result of classical music's intellectual nature.
Classical music is a dual intellectual/emotional pursuit. It's just as much music for the mind as it is music for the heart. It is true that music possess a unique quality among all the arts that it can bypass the mind and speak straight to our emotions. Yet, to deny the intellectual nature of music is to make it nothing more than the tantrums of a child who hasn't learned to control his emotions. Let me put it another way. A great work of art does not result from a mere emotional impetus. Beethoven didn't compose the Ninth Symphony because he had a good feeling. While an emotion may be the starting point for a piece of music, it is not the means by which it is created. Would anyone dare suggest that the technical command of harmony, or counterpoint, or form is the result of a feeling? Of course not, it's absurd. It takes years of intensive study to acquire a mastery of those skills. The application of those skills, meaning the transfer of the skill from mere practice to actual use in the creation of a work of art, requires the same mental effort and focus as the acquisition of it.
The point I wish to make is if we want to understand the inner workings of classical music, we must abandon the modern notion of art as a purely emotional medium. More importantly, if we wish to understand Mozart, Haydn or Beethoven we must approach their works on equal terms, meaning, by the same methods. We cannot impose today's view of art on their work. It's the most blatant and grotesque contradiction we could make. But what about the efforts of music theorists? I'll save that discussion for later...
Comments(You have to be logged in to leave a comment)
As a 15yo, commenting on this post 12 years after it was posted (that was irrelevant), I would just like to say that you have perfectly worded what I have been trying to understand all this time about classical music. The debate going on in my mind about how to go about appreciating a work - does it plainly sound nice? Or should I be looking at the score and identifying details here and there that were so smart to have used? SO THANK YOUUU :D
Music for the Heart...and the Mind
Submitted by jsdubois015 on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 16:03
I mentioned in yesterday's post about the challenges that classical music presents to the mind of a listener. Harmony and counterpoint present immediate "problems" for the mind to work out. Form, on the other hand, presents long-range organizational issues that the mind has to comprehend. The intrinsic beauty of classical music thus lies in its complexity. It stands to reason, then, that this complexity can only be a result of classical music's intellectual nature.
Classical music is a dual intellectual/emotional pursuit. It's just as much music for the mind as it is music for the heart. It is true that music possess a unique quality among all the arts that it can bypass the mind and speak straight to our emotions. Yet, to deny the intellectual nature of music is to make it nothing more than the tantrums of a child who hasn't learned to control his emotions. Let me put it another way. A great work of art does not result from a mere emotional impetus. Beethoven didn't compose the Ninth Symphony because he had a good feeling. While an emotion may be the starting point for a piece of music, it is not the means by which it is created. Would anyone dare suggest that the technical command of harmony, or counterpoint, or form is the result of a feeling? Of course not, it's absurd. It takes years of intensive study to acquire a mastery of those skills. The application of those skills, meaning the transfer of the skill from mere practice to actual use in the creation of a work of art, requires the same mental effort and focus as the acquisition of it.
The point I wish to make is if we want to understand the inner workings of classical music, we must abandon the modern notion of art as a purely emotional medium. More importantly, if we wish to understand Mozart, Haydn or Beethoven we must approach their works on equal terms, meaning, by the same methods. We cannot impose today's view of art on their work. It's the most blatant and grotesque contradiction we could make. But what about the efforts of music theorists? I'll save that discussion for later...
As a 15yo, commenting on this post 12 years after it was posted (that was irrelevant), I would just like to say that you have perfectly worded what I have been trying to understand all this time about classical music. The debate going on in my mind about how to go about appreciating a work - does it plainly sound nice? Or should I be looking at the score and identifying details here and there that were so smart to have used? SO THANK YOUUU :D