Freedom in Musical Form

[Sorrano]

In speaking of form, the bagatelles provide some interesting concepts. I've been learning the Woo 60. At first glance that appears to be a fairly free form.

[Ed C]

I would donate my left kidney to be at one of Beethoven's renowned hour-long "forgot-where-he-was" parlor improvisations.

I suppose the closest one can get is the 32 Variations WoO.80, the Fantasia in Gm Op.77 or the opening piano solo in the Choral Fantasia. Any others which sound very "improvisatory?"

But concerning musical freedom, consider that each theme or sequence in any form is free in its own microcosm (there's generally no rules on how to string 5 notes together) - but linked in a way which is dictated by a 'language' of form. The beauty of music in the classical period is that there is a perfect balance of expectation and surprise, resulting in a satisfying story with many plot twists before heading into the happy ending.

Now if you want to hear a piece of music which is closer to Andy Warhol's Empire, you listen to John Cage

[Ed C]

In speaking of form, the bagatelles provide some interesting concepts. I've been learning the Woo 60. At first glance that appears to be a fairly free form.

I have interrupted Bartok's "Cantata Profana" to refamiliarize myself with WoO.60. Immediate relief. I love Bartok, but he was just crushed by a bagatelle.

From a form perspective, that does seem pretty free...I love the chromatic bass line about halfway down the page. A little further down, that 16th-note scalar run repeated in different registers is so Beethovenian...sublime.

[The Dude]

Part of the problem is postings that are completely irrelevant to the topic! Back to Musical form please and surely the greatest freedom to the composer is Variation form of which Beethoven was a natural master - not surprisingly given his renowned ability at improvisation.

I have a "problem" with the Variation form. This has been the source of not a little soul-searching in the recent listening past. Often I am working when music is playing and, of all forms and genres, the Variation is the one most suited (for me) to this kind of background listening. Despite its inventiveness, the Variation form has a paradoxical 'predictability' which isn't compatible with my own tastes for the complete musical essay. Generally, the sections are shorter, more numerous and slightly more artificial than their symphonic or concerti counterparts. I enjoy both "Diabelli" and "Goldberg", as well as the "48" (despite, or because of, their brevity), but nothing can compete with the musical satisfaction of the development of themes and fugues within the complex structure of a larger work. Also, point taken about the improvisational nature of Variation Form: again, one of the problems. It's as if a 'free' form has been nailed down. I'm expressing this poorly, but my thoughts remain a work in progress...

[Sorrano]

I have a "problem" with the Variation form. This has been the source of not a little soul-searching in the recent listening past. Often I am working when music is playing and, of all forms and genres, the Variation is the one most suited (for me) to this kind of background listening. Despite its inventiveness, the Variation form has a paradoxical 'predictability' which isn't compatible with my own tastes for the complete musical essay. Generally, the sections are shorter, more numerous and slightly more artificial than their symphonic or concerti counterparts. I enjoy both "Diabelli" and "Goldberg", as well as the "48" (despite, or because of, their brevity), but nothing can compete with the musical satisfaction of the development of themes and fugues within the complex structure of a larger work. Also, point taken about the improvisational nature of Variation Form: again, one of the problems. It's as if a 'free' form has been nailed down. I'm expressing this poorly, but my thoughts remain a work in progress...

Do you differentiate between a free form set of variations as opposed to a more structured? For example, the final movement of the "Eroica" begins as a more structured, but at the end evolves into a freer form. I also refer to the more rhapsodical compositions of the 19th Century, as they are a somewhat loose form of variations.

[The Dude]

Yeah, good point. Regarding "Eroica", I hear what you say but to me this still conforms to the symphonic structure, despite Beethoven's innovations.

Freer forms in rhapsodic works? Not these specifically - I was thinking more of works created primarily as "Variations", such as "Diabelli". I love the variations as part of Beethoven's sonatas, but a work in toto as a "Variation" doesn't do it for me.

[Preston]

Nobody can answer these questions, because they are subjective interpretations.

That's unfortunately true. It relates to something I wrote in another thread about music being subjective. Basically, I wish that music was not subjective - for instance, what if we did understand Beethoven's 9th symphony to such a point that we knew exactly what it was he was thinking, feeling, writing, etc. I believe it is possible to reach a point (state of being and a state of feeling) so sublime and profound that one could achieve a perfect understanding of all emotion, feeling, etc. Though, it seems to almost be an impossibility - at least for humans - perhaps it is only for the divine beings, .

[Sorrano]

That's unfortunately true. It relates to something I wrote in another thread about music being subjective. Basically, I wish that music was not subjective - for instance, what if we did understand Beethoven's 9th symphony to such a point that we knew exactly what it was he was thinking, feeling, writing, etc. I believe it is possible to reach a point (state of being and a state of feeling) so sublime and profound that one could achieve a perfect understanding of all emotion, feeling, etc. Though, it seems to almost be an impossibility - at least for humans - perhaps it is only for the divine beings, .

However, if everything in music (any art, for that matter) were interpreted exactly the same way by each individual, then the loss of individuality in creation, performance, and listening would be lost and the whole point of music or art would become irrelevant. Just think, we wouldn't need to have forums like this in which we could disagree on so many points, yet each be correct in his or her own viewpoint.

[Sorrano]

Yeah, good point. Regarding "Eroica", I hear what you say but to me this still conforms to the symphonic structure, despite Beethoven's innovations.

Freer forms in rhapsodic works? Not these specifically - I was thinking more of works created primarily as "Variations", such as "Diabelli". I love the variations as part of Beethoven's sonatas, but a work in toto as a "Variation" doesn't do it for me.

There are also the passacaglias and chaconnes that we need to deal with in discussing variations, for example, the final movement of Brahm's 4th Symphony and the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th Symphony (to name a couple of more popular ones). Do you have similar experiences with these? Do they smack of theme and variation, or do you feel a different form?

[Quijote]

However, if everything in music (any art, for that matter) were interpreted exactly the same way by each individual, then the loss of individuality in creation, performance, and listening would be lost and the whole point of music or art would become irrelevant. Just think, we wouldn't need to have forums like this in which we could disagree on so many points, yet each be correct in his or her own viewpoint.

Preston and Sorrano : First, I do agree with Sorrano's post above in reply to Preston's "lament' (for want of a better word, and no sarcasm intended). On the other hand, whilst I'm not really sure what you're calling for Preston, I think I have an inkling : you want a certain certitude (alliteration entirely fortuitous) in the music you listen to. I think you have this in most popular musics, where meaning is carried by the lyrics.
What to do in so-called "abstract" music? Where will we find a consensus of objective meaning? Unless the composer stipulates precisely an extra-musical content for every work, we have no choice. And where would the composer start to stipulate? At what level? The motif (could be just a couple of notes); the phrase (could be only a few notes)? The section? The movement? The whole work?
The only consensus in terms of "objective understanding" I can imagine would be the strictly abstract formalist à la Schenker, that is to say, the idea that music is purely self-referential, and that its "meaning" derives from its organic structuring processess. I know that all the above sounds rather long-winded (sorry The Dude et al ...), but to put it simply : music means the notes for and in themselves, nothing more.
My posting is a question in response to Preston's post, and not a doctrinal position.

[Quijote]

And when I said "organic structuring processes" above, I forgot to add that these may be intended by the composer, or perceived and imagined by the listener him/herself.

[Sorrano]

You may consider, as well, that the composer may not even fully understand what has been composed.

[Preston]

Sorrano, I am pretty sure you understand what I am saying.

Philip, you have somewhat lost me. In fact, after reading your post I think our understandings of what great music is are different.

Though Philip, in short I am saying that sound produces feeling or emotion (which is something of a marvel in itself). I imagine a composer as Beethoven or Bach understood this. I believe that a composer as Beethoven was very in-tune with expressing his feelings, thoughts and emotions (and perhaps more, which I will write on later) through sound. So, when Beethoven wrote music he was expressing feeling and emotion - and in a very precise way I believe.

My point about subjectivity in music (at least great music) is that I wish it was not and that the feelings, thoughts, emotions, etc. the composer wrote could be understood in the most precise of ways.

That should make sense to you Philip? In short, great music of the masters - is filled with emotion, thought, feeling, etc. which derives from notes on a page.

[Preston]

You may consider, as well, that the composer may not even fully understand what has been composed.

I completely agree. To my mind, it depends on how musically understood the composer is and how in-tune with feeling they are. Such as a composer like Beethoven or Bach - I highly imagine they were very in-tune with what they wrote.

[Sorrano]

Be mindful, Preston, that whatever feelings and emotions that a composer may have intended in a composition will be much different experienced by each listener. Each of us has different backgrounds in music and perceives things from different points of view. Even listening to the same piece of music repeatedly may evoke, in time, new feelings and emotions that we had not had before. It is a hard thing to pin down the abstract.