On the nature of music.

[Quijote]

Deterioration, in our case has been enhanced by multiple medias, for example, usage of a famous passage in one of the symphonies to punctuate an advertisement. Obviously, this was not Beethoven's intention, nor that of any of his contemporaries, yet we have that culture that "borrows" fragments out of context for whatever purpose and dilutes any real meaning from our consciousness of that work.

(Sorry to ramble as I am at work and subject to distraction. But whether it is work from which I am distracted for from the distraction itself is another matter.)

I'm not sure deterioration is quite the term in the context you give, Sorrano, though I do see your point (a few bars of the 'Moonlight' to sell fancy chocolate and so on...); flagrant misuse I would call it! Keep on rambling, and I'll keep on waffling.

[Enrique]

Yes, painting and sculptures and so on will eventually over time deteriorate but as mentioned above, at least we have the possibility to preserve an 'image' digitally or even take castings of the original sculpture to preserve its original form.
Your question highlighted above is very interesting, and I would like to suggest that in fact there is a sort of 'deterioration' over time, though this 'deterioration' is of another order: original impact and 'meaning'. For example, I listen sometimes to the music of Pérotin; it has for me something so historically distant (which is true, relatively speaking of course) that I find it hard to engage with other than 'academically', even acousmatically, if you see what I mean; in other terms, it has ceased to "speak to me".
The same applies - albeit to a far lesser degree - with LvB 5 or the Eroica: I cannot possibly recreate as I listen to these symphonies the original impact that they surely had on B's contemporaries. Has not something been lost over the centuries since their first performances? I am further reminded of Warren Kirkendale's essay "New Roads to Old Ideas in Beethoven's Missa solemnis" that points out how we may have lost track of certain musical imagery used by B in this work. Adorno refers to it as an "alienated masterpiece". A sort of deterioration, then? Not a material one, clearly, but perhaps something equally important : a work's 'meaning'.

But this kind of deterioration is also present in the fine arts. For example classical greek sculpture if more distant from our sensibility than hellenistic sculpture. However, I can't help wondering this: people from other cultures have learned to love Western classical music. How did this happen? Take the Japanese for instance. Western music was as alien or removed from their experience as the music of the ancient Egyptians, if we had a means to reconstruct it, would be from us. For me this means that there is something in beauty that makes it atemporal. Because Beethoven and rock'n roll could be things from the remote past, completely forgotten by us, and imagine one day the Japanese or Chinese rediscover it. The result would be the same as when they discovered it a hundred years ago. No question about it. So time does not really matters. Of course the same consideration stands for the fine arts.

From another point of view, we like western music because we listen to it since our childhood. Our ears have been educated in the major-minor system. Otherwise, it would be unintelligible. In the same way, those inhabitants of the Far East who appreciate Western music, do so because they have become used to it. And if we listened to modal music since when we are born we would love Perotin.

However I think medieval music has been made obsolete by 18th and 19th century music. If we cannot engage with Perotin, or Desprez or Palestrina for that matter, it is because we know something better, more valuable. Music evolves. And evolution, during a certain lapse of time, is improvement. All these things I believe are true. But I do not know how to arrive at a conclusion starting from them. Let it be the job of somebody smarter of wiser than me.

[Peter]

However I think medieval music has been made obsolete by 18th and 19th century music. If we cannot engage with Perotin, or Desprez or Palestrina for that matter, it is because we know something better, more valuable. Music evolves. And evolution, during a certain lapse of time, is improvement. All these things I believe are true. But I do not know how to arrive at a conclusion starting from them. Let it be the job of somebody smarter of wiser than me.

No you can't argue that music pre 18th century was inferior, there was some very great music written. It was different and it is this difference that we have difficulty in engaging with - the problem is ours not the music's.

[Peter]

Yes, painting and sculptures and so on will eventually over time deteriorate but as mentioned above, at least we have the possibility to preserve an 'image' digitally or even take castings of the original sculpture to preserve its original form.
Your question highlighted above is very interesting, and I would like to suggest that in fact there is a sort of 'deterioration' over time, though this 'deterioration' is of another order: original impact and 'meaning'. For example, I listen sometimes to the music of Pérotin; it has for me something so historically distant (which is true, relatively speaking of course) that I find it hard to engage with other than 'academically', even acousmatically, if you see what I mean; in other terms, it has ceased to "speak to me".
The same applies - albeit to a far lesser degree - with LvB 5 or the Eroica: I cannot possibly recreate as I listen to these symphonies the original impact that they surely had on B's contemporaries. Has not something been lost over the centuries since their first performances? I am further reminded of Warren Kirkendale's essay "New Roads to Old Ideas in Beethoven's Missa solemnis" that points out how we may have lost track of certain musical imagery used by B in this work. Adorno refers to it as an "alienated masterpiece". A sort of deterioration, then? Not a material one, clearly, but perhaps something equally important : a work's 'meaning'.

I can just imagine Beethoven having a good old laugh at us - 'the works meaning? 'Use your ears' he would have answered. It's easy to use the Eroica as an example because of its revolutionary and Napoleonic associations or the Missa with religious symbolism, but was does the 2nd or the 4th symphony mean? I think this need for 'meaning' is a very 20th century requirement - often to justify a load of rubbish.

As to the original impact of a work, well that implies that after only one performance the effect is lessened, but we know that isn't always the case - often it takes many hearings to fully appreciate a piece. I'm reminded of Peter Warlock's words ". . . Music is neither old nor modern: it is either good or bad music, and the date at which it was written has no significance whatever. Dates and periods are of interest only to the student of musical history. . . . All old music was modern once, and much more of the music of yesterday already sounds more old-fashioned than works which were written three centuries ago. All good music, whatever its date, is ageless - as alive and significant today as it was when it was written . ."

[Enrique]

I think every civilization has known a golden age for literature, the fine arts, music and so on. I think human realizations follow a curve of improvement up to a certain point where they begin to decline. Take Greek theater. From humble origins up to the works of Sophocles and Euripides, there has certainly been improvement. Why have historians called classical to certain periods in the history of art? This is the definition of the word given by wiktionary:

1. Of or relating to the first class or rank, especially in literature or art.
5. Of or pertaining to the ancient Greeks and Romans, especially to Greek or Roman authors of the highest rank, or of the period when their best literature was produced; of or pertaining to places inhabited by the ancient Greeks and Romans, or rendered famous by their deeds.

"of the period when their best literature was produced". Hence, there was another period when Greek or Roman literature was not so good. Now, if this is true for literature, why is it so difficult to accept it is true for music too? When the ancient world collapsed and the barbarians broke in the ecumene, was not this a gigantic retrograde step in the general development of art and literature, which were already by this time poorly represented? Is it conceivable that in the lapse of a century literature could go back to the high standards set up by classical antiquity? I don't think so. So there must have been a period lasting several centuries during which the realizations of art and literature were below those standards. In my opinion, this period embraces Gregorian chant and the Notre Dame school.

[Peter]

I think every civilization has known a golden age for literature, the fine arts, music and so on. I think human realizations follow a curve of improvement up to a certain point where they begin to decline. Take Greek theater. From humble origins up to the works of Sophocles and Euripides, there has certainly been improvement. Why have historians called classical to certain periods in the history of art? This is the definition of the word given by wiktionary:


"of the period when their best literature was produced". Hence, there was another period when Greek or Roman literature was not so good. Now, if this is true for literature, why is it so difficult to accept it is true for music too? When the ancient world collapsed and the barbarians broke in the ecumene, was not this a gigantic retrograde step in the general development of art and literature, which were already by this time poorly represented? Is it conceivable that in the lapse of a century literature could go back to the high standards set up by classical antiquity? I don't think so. So there must have been a period lasting several centuries during which the realizations of art and literature were below those standards. In my opinion, this period embraces Gregorian chant and the Notre Dame school.

Yes I agree that there are high points in creativity such as 5th century BC Athens, The Renaissance etc.. However I don't agree about the Notre Dame school which is remembered precisely because it did stand out as a high point in the Middle ages. Regarding your argument about evolution, well there are difficulties here as well, for example is Beethoven 'superior' to Mozart, Bach or Handel? Are Wagner and Mahler 'superior' to Beethoven?

[Enrique]

Well, I was speaking about whole periods in the history of art or music. Both Bach and Wagner belong to the common practice period.

[Peter]

Well, I was speaking about whole periods in the history of art or music. Both Bach and Wagner belong to the common practice period.

Well yes in that wider context I'd agree with you, - no music in human history has surpassed that produced from the 16th century to the 20th. As to the late 20th century and the present, I think we are too close to be able to say - posterity is the greatest judge. My own view is that there has been a steady decline from the early 20th century on, I know others will disagree! This is generally the case historically.

[Enrique]

Well yes in that wider context I'd agree with you, - no music in human history has surpassed that produced from the 16th century to the 20th. As to the late 20th century and the present, I think we are too close to be able to say - posterity is the greatest judge. My own view is that there has been a steady decline from the early 20th century on, I know others will disagree! This is generally the case historically.

That is what I was saying when I spoke of a curve. There must necessarily be an ascending phase in the history of every art, because there is an ascending phase in the history of every civilization. I think the history of the life of individuals parallels, in a certain way, that of societies or, more properly, civilizations. After all, this parallel exists in biology, the first steps in the development of an individual resembling that of the species (the study of this parallelism I think has a name). So, in the same way that the first works composed by Beethoven were not of the same aesthetic value as those composed when he was forty, the first essays in the field of music cannot stand side by side with a Palestrina mass.

As to whether European civilization has already reached its highest point and is now declining, I wouldn't dare to say, but this has been the opinion of many scholars. For example, Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West. One thing can be said for sure. In the time of Beethoven and Mozart, there was a strong communication between composer and audience. Mozart premiered an opera, and the following day people in the street were whistling some tune from it. Nowadays the composer lives in a state of isolation, and we go to the concert hall to listen to music of people who have died a long time ago. I do not think this speaks well of contemporary music.

[Sorrano]

Well yes in that wider context I'd agree with you, - no music in human history has surpassed that produced from the 16th century to the 20th. As to the late 20th century and the present, I think we are too close to be able to say - posterity is the greatest judge. My own view is that there has been a steady decline from the early 20th century on, I know others will disagree! This is generally the case historically.

What criteria do you consider in determining a steady decline?

[Peter]

What criteria do you consider in determining a steady decline?

Enrique raised some pretty good points himself - the complete lack of public interest in music written today, except for a small minority is surely not a good sign that modern music is connecting with the public in a way that was the case in the past - today we listen primarily to the music of dead composers, whilst this was the complete opposite in Beethoven's time.

Historically it is quite clear that there are high periods of creativity and although we are too close to judge, I do feel that say in 200 years times, it will be apparent that a decline set in from the mid 20th century on. A personal view that I know many here won't share!

[Sorrano]

Enrique raised some pretty good points himself - the complete lack of public interest in music written today, except for a small minority is surely not a good sign that modern music is connecting with the public in a way that was the case in the past - today we listen primarily to the music of dead composers, whilst this was the complete opposite in Beethoven's time.

Historically it is quite clear that there are high periods of creativity and although we are too close to judge, I do feel that say in 200 years times, it will be apparent that a decline set in from the mid 20th century on. A personal view that I know many here won't share!

Something to keep in mind with that type of reasoning; there are more people today listening to music of living composers than the dead ones, but I am referring to all types of music. If you look in the CD/Audio stores or online you will see that popular music is far more popular than classical music. Does this mean, by that criteria, that it is greater music? If connecting to the masses is important then we have quite an extraordinary phenomena with the way that people respond to popular music in every imaginable form of media.

Personal tastes will differ, of course, but to judge something collectively there has to be an agreement on what makes quality in the object/art or whatever.

[Enrique]

Had not musica profana in the Middle Ages a much bigger audience than musica sacra? Then this lack a popularity of classical music is not a new phenomenon. I think it has always been that way. The easier and more trivial the music the more people that listen to it. So Sorrano's would not be a counterargument.

[Sorrano]

Had not musica profana in the Middle Ages a much bigger audience than musica sacra? Then this lack a popularity of classical music is not a new phenomenon. I think it has always been that way. The easier and more trivial the music the more people that listen to it. So Sorrano's would not be a counterargument.

Peter's point, "today we listen primarily to the music of dead composers, whilst this was the complete opposite in Beethoven's time." brought out this issue. It is not my argument that popularity defines greatness, but rather we cannot necessarily use it to do so. "We", if it means the general public, listen to the popular music far more than any type, and as you, Enrique, have pointed out, has been an ongoing trend (I wonder why the music is termed popular .) But the musica profana exists and is part of the whole picture, the culture that we are.

[Enrique]

But the musica profana exists and is part of the whole picture, the culture that we are.

Popular music has been insisting in the same old compositional formulas for over a century. The latest popular music hit is not essentially different from a Strauss' waltz. They both obey to the same set of compositional rules. I think present day popular music belongs to the department of teratology within the history of music and, as such, it cannot be taken into account.

On the other hand, I think Peter's point was not the popularity of a given type of music, but the connection between the composer and the public. Although both things are related they are different things. I think the latter concept is a qualitative one whereas the former is purely quantitative.