Thread: Watching Music

Here's what Stravinsky had to say (and we're not talking about opera here):

"I have always had a horror of listening to music with my eyes shut, with nothing for them to do. The sight of the gestures and movements of the various parts of the body producing the music is fundamentally necessary if it is to be grasped in all its fullness. All music created or composed demands some exteriorization for the perception of the listener. In other words, it must have an intermediary, an executant. That being an essential condition, without which music cannot wholly reach us, why wish to ignore it, or try to do so—why shut the eyes to this fact which is inherent in the very nature of musical art? Obviously one frequently prefers to turn away one’s eyes, or even close them, when the superfluity of the player’s gesticulations prevents the concentration of one’s faculties of hearing. But if the player’s movements are evoked solely by the exigencies of the music, and do not tend to make an impression on the listener by extramural devices, why not follow with the eye such movements as those of the drummer, the violinist or the trombonist, which facilitate one’s auditory perceptions? As a matter of fact, those who maintain that they only enjoy music to the full with their eyes shut do not hear better than when they have them open, but the absence of visual distractions enables them to abandon themselves to the reveries induced by the lullaby of its sounds, and that is really what they prefer to the music itself."

What do you think? Personally, I very much agree with Stravinsky. Although I can of course still reach the heights of ecstasy when just listening with the comfort of my earphones, I think music is rightfully seen as a physical act with a human mediator that needs to be seen.

It certainly adds an extra dimension. Thus CDs are rendered useless - well, not quite, but I certainly get much more from being able to see a piece performed (none more so than Stravinsky's!). Was his quote spoken/written in English or translated? If the latter he was more erudite than I am in my natural language!

Originally Posted by Crudblud

The closest we have to what I have in mind right now is probably Zappa's 200 Motels movie, where the music is very much intertwined in many different ways with the on screen action.

The music in this film is an element of the on screen action. It was recorded in real time during the shooting. Not a recommended procedure even by Zappa himself.

I have to confess that I've never purchased a classical DVD. I do want to try a couple, but I can never sit still in front of the screen to watch a whole piece. Most of my DVDs sit around and collect dust.

"I have always had a horror of listening to music with my eyes shut, with nothing for them to do. The sight of the gestures and movements of the various parts of the body producing the music is fundamentally necessary if it is to be grasped in all its fullness."

While I think there definitely is something to the visual aspect of music, I think this statement perhaps goes a little too far...I wonder what composers like Joaquin Rodrigo, Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder would have thought if someone suggested to them that they had never been able to grasp music in all its fullness?

How can the mind's eye see the beautiful images sparked by the music if your eyes are focused on saliva dripping out of trumpets and sweaty hands plucking strings? I prefer to listen to music in a dark room and pretend I'm floating in a sea of nothingness, awaiting for the music to paint it's own landscape in front of my eyes.

Originally Posted by EarthBoundRules

How can the mind's eye see the beautiful images sparked by the music if your eyes are focused on saliva dripping out of trumpets and sweaty hands plucking strings? I prefer to listen to music in a dark room and pretend I'm floating in a sea of nothingness, awaiting for the music to paint it's own landscape in front of my eyes.

Stravinsky's got you covered on that one: "As a matter of fact, those who maintain that they only enjoy music to the full with their eyes shut do not hear better than when they have them open, but the absence of visual distractions enables them to abandon themselves to the reveries induced by the lullaby of its sounds, and that is really what they prefer to the music itself."

Originally Posted by Meaghan

I like watching musicians and sometimes it adds to the experience of listening to music for me. But the assumption that people who close their eyes while listening to music just do so in order to "abandon themselves to the reveries induced by the lullaby of its sounds" comes across as a bit presumptuous and arrogant. When I close my eyes, I don't usually go off on programmatic daydreams or sink into drowsy passivity. When I close my eyes, it allows me to focus on more aspects of the music than I can keep straight in my mind when I'm also receiving visual stimuli. I often notice more that way.

This is what I do as well. I'm not a fan of imagining scenes that aren't implied by the music (not that I'm knocking other people who do it), but getting rid of the visual distraction can certainly hope concentration on aspects of form and style.

you only see, in videos, what the director wants you to see, so they're very limiting.

live is best, but it takes much time, money and effort.

dvds of operas can be very good, or to see artists we will never otherwise see.

i very much enjoy cds and rarely watch dvds unless it's to see the Klemperers, Kempffs, Furtwangler, etc.

This is the proper way of "watching" music:

[YT]v=KBmPNX-S7L0[/YT]