[Luchesi]

Back in 2016, we had a wonderful exchange of views on the nature of profundity in the arts. The whole objectivist/subjectivist thang was aired as part of the discussion, as was the linked Understanding versus Appreciating a work. These topics have a life of their own, but I enjoyed this thread very much and trust that others might also. Just my opinion. But just try the first page....

www.talkclassical.com/threads/what-is-profundity?

I've long had the notion that the greats of the 1700s and 1800s were so different from us today.

For JsB, what was profound in his view of reality? Probably his religion.
LvB? Probably his God concept along with his views of humans (politics, morals, human ignorance).
Schubert, Chopin, Catholicism?

But they couldn't know how they came to be alive, or their place in this big universe. We know better today (but we're kept humble because we don't have a complete theory of physics or cosmological origins).

I've never thought much about this wide chasm, because music is such a big subject for me by itself.

 

[Luchesi]

My Post #19 from the original thead.........

I'm not at all sure the the noun "profundity" can be applied to music, in an attempt to categorize it. It seems best to reserve the terms "profound, profundity" to truly illuminating, penetrating insights or discoveries that pierce through a jumble of seemingly isolated and discrete facts about reality and reveal to us an underlying deep truth that knits together many disparate facts into a unity. Examples would be the Theories (using the term as scientists use it) of Special and General Relativity, Evolution by Natural Selection, Plate Tectonics, and many recently verified discoveries in astronomy and cosmology. These are profound. There are areas of mathematics that are profound, and doubtless others will bring forth other examples. But Music? Art? We find ourselves back again in a forest of tautologies and of competing definitions and of opinions about who was great, what was great, or deep or profound. However, in cante flamenco for instance, where the song can be very jondo or grande, the measuring rod is simpler and generally accepted: to what extent does the performance, delivered within the recognized confines and accepted usages of the art form, move the listener, directly, emotionally, to empathetic sorrow, tears? Maybe not the same as the Eroica, but the criterion for profundity is clearly laid down here. In the more formal arts, such clarity of criteria is rarely found and often widely disputed.

Great compositions of music could be called profound (by me) because humans have used the physics all around them to express themselves, ascent up through their long history.

The greatest mystery is not
that we have been flung at random
among the profusion of the earth
and the galaxy of the stars,

but that in this prison,
we can fashion images of ourselves,
sufficiently powerful,
to deny our nothingness!

Andre Malraux

 

[Luchesi]

A very fine passage from Malraux! The American poet Robinson Jeffers (whose brother was an astronomer of repute) spent most of his life and work on the place of humankind in the universe. He thought that people spent far too much time on celebrating their special place and specialness, speaking at times of humanity's incestuous relationship with itself. He preached constantly of the need for humankind to turn outward instead and to learn to cherish the great outer world/universe all around them. He and Malraux would have had an interesting discussion.

Thanks. That chimes a chord with me, because I'd rather turn outward when doing music instead of puffing up my relationship with myself and others. And it's the opposite in science subjects, wherein I very much include myself (and others when feasible), and try to put myself into the phenomena, for the perspective (it's difficult to put this in words).

 

[Luchesi]

I would argue that a work such as Music For Strings, Percussion and Celeste by the atheist Bartok is as profound as the works of Bach or Beethoven. The number of such twentieth century for which I would say this is true is however less than for the period 1710-1826 .

Most muscians would agree I think, but it strikes me as unfair, since Bartok had the advanced artistic techniques in his toolbox (form, rhythm, harmony).

 

[Luchesi]

The premise that the greatness of works of Art must either be totally Objective or totally Subjective has always seemed to be one of those flakey philosophical arguments to me.

When you say totally objective, we can't be. But you don't have to be, if you're making a helpful point about a musician's world.

 

[Luchesi]

But doesn't the same argument apply to Beethoven : using the artistic techniques of Bach, Haydn and Mozart?
And ditto for Bach using those of Buxtehude etc.

Yes, there's a grand sweep of development to appreciate.

 

[Luchesi]

I just don't understand why the Bartok example "strikes you as unfair." How is it different from a work by Beethoven in this respect?

This is a favorite topic of mine. Look at the scores to see the fascinating advancements in rhythm and harmony, especially.

 

[Luchesi]

I don't think these are all different concepts, but "profound" is used so variously.

He was profound in a manner which surprised me.

The victory had a profound effect on the outcomes.

He had a profound impact on Mozart.

Name some profound thinkers.

There was profound sadness, because of all the lives lost.

In a profound way, our futures will be different now.

It is a profound thought and people say it's an irrefutable one.

Using the Latin makes an common word seem profound.

He was disappointed because in her eyes was profound sadness.

Kids come up with profound questions.

 

[Luchesi]

Scores of which: Beethoven or Bartok?
I own scores of both. Your comment could apply to either imho

Oh sorry. Compare a mature score from each composer. See what they came up with. The notes are all we have now.

 

[Luchesi]

What.
Does.
It.
Matter?

By the way, right now I'd give Bach the edge. That is, "love" vs "heard of".

Yes, for a few years young people immediately thought of Elvis Costello (married to Diana Krall). 'Funny that. It surprised me.

Bach - Jonathan Livingston Seagull

“Your conscience is the measure of the honesty of your selfishness.
Listen to it carefully.”
Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah

 

[Luchesi]

What is it exactly though? Let's face the inconvenient truth; in the end, it's all about popularity. Again, a certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread (something for us to think about):

"All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will.

In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity. After all, this system is basically what we call a canon, and it is the very purpose of a canon to be self-perpetuating. As I wrote about in another thread some years ago, it is difficult to imagine any canonical composer being removed from the cycle and losing their canonical status, and it's difficult to imagine any non-canonical composer being inserted into the cycle and acquiring canonical status. I don't think the canon was always closed, and I don't want to think it is now, but if I'm being honest with myself then I have to think realistically that it is."

Perhaps we could go back and correct the canon, with our modern knowledge and our modern resources.

 

[Luchesi]

We first hear fascinating tonalities in nursery songs and so it comes from very far back in our past. Children will sing a song over and over, because it becomes simple for them (accomplishment and reinforcing) and it’s something older kids and parents can do? IDK. Many folks I know never get past those sweet resolutions, because to them that's what the enjoyment is all about.
And these are fascinating people to me, very intelligent and well educated. My friend who was an engineer/physicist for Lockheed (back then) told me over and over that he was tone deaf and in church he couldn't tell one hymn from another, except for the words. I've always been struck by his account of that because he was so forthright and convinced. How would it be (to live like that)?

One of his extreme assertions;
Without music, life would be a mistake... I would only believe in a God who knew how to dance.
Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Luchesi]

I can't escape the feeling that too much of this discussion founders on how we define and use words. Geological activity, profound? Extra-human profound? "Profound: something well beyond our quotidian existence"? Are "vast forces" more "profound" than "minute forces" or "subtle forces"? What are the boundaries of our "quotidian existence," and how far beyond them do we have to go to reach the profound? You retract your previous description of a photograph as "profound" and say instead "the thoughts and feelings that it induces are of the profound." What does "OF the profound" mean? Are you saying that the objects of thought and feeling - the geological phenomena themselvers - are profound? How can objects in nature be profound? Do you mean, rather, that certain objects can or should inspire profound thoughts or feelings? That "deeply eroded inclines" are, or should be, objects of this kind? What if they don't inspire such thoughts and feelings? Are they still "profound"? Is anything necessarily, or always, profound? Isn't it rather...um...subjective? And if it is, how can you be so insistent on confining profundity to your favorite field of science?

I'm not quibbling or being fussy. I find your presentation at least ambiguous, and when we're exploring a concept with several possible meanings that creates great difficulties.

For me, the ‘most’ profound realization in science has been how extremely precise the per unit strength of Dark Energy has had to be, to allow our emergence here. There are huge ramifications. But off topic..

Anyway, for me, in music I want to appreciate HOW (specifically) the greats composed works with such effectively evoking notes (harmonies, rhythms, orchestrations etc.), for the prepared listener.

IMHO, any great creation in art should be ‘profound’ for every human, but the road is long and full of pitfalls.

I won’t re-post it here, off topic, but there is a profound consequence (maybe) for humans from the discovery of the protoplanet Theia (maybe) inside our happy little planet. Yes, it's aliens this time. Post #6 in Mantle Plumes in Talk Science.

 

[Luchesi]

I think hammeredklavier is concerned, and not unjustly so, that so much of our artistic hierarchies, so to speak, are founded on the received wisdom of what art others before us liked. I think he has a point to some extent, as there's no doubt that, at the very least, Mozart's popularity means he we will be heard by far more people than M. Haydn ever will. If they were heard equally would their popularity shift? Would it shift without the received wisdom of authorities about Mozart being better? These aren't easy questions to answer, and are worth asking. I don't think hammered is trying to suggest you are somehow wrong for liking Mozart, he's just trying to get people to realize that other composers may be just as deserving of our attention, even based on our own aesthetic values, but we overlook them for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of their music.

I tell myself, I don't care whose name is on the score or when hearing a work I can't identify, but we are swayed by the mention of the name of a minor composer, for example. It's the same in any subject in which we have past experiences (good and bad).
The problem for me with M. Haydn is few keyboard works for tracing his development. If I can't explore and apply, I don't have enough time for it. It's the same with many many modern works, for me.

 

[Luchesi]

Nope. What it means is that someone reacts to a piece of music positively or negatively. In essence they create their own "canon" of works/composers. Obviously they do not think all works are equal.

Of course, but why would any other listener care?

 

[Luchesi]

I am interested in people's passions/enthusiasms, about music, reading, cooking, fishing - it doesn't matter what the subject is, I am interested in hearing about someone's interests. It has been the basis for all my friendships and romantic involvements.

I am very interested when someone talks about the music they love, but am bored when someone tells me about a review they read, or a list of great composers, or that a specific work is considered great.

That's helpful thanks. You're interested in people's reactions and their likes and dislikes.

I'm interested in the objective reasons for specifically, case by case, how such expressiveness is achieved. It's somewhat similar.

 

[Luchesi]

"Deserve" or "earning" is a value statement and I kind of think statements like that just boil down to "this is popular but I think it's bad". I don't think it's possible to ask if a work "deserves" to be popular without bringing questions of aesthetic taste into it.

You're well-informed about music, fair minded and you seem to be an objective observer. Can you tell us what you've learned in here?

I've learned that CM listeners care very much about the aesthetic tastes (likes and dislikes) of others. It's somehow relevant in evaluations, but I'm not clear on why. Naturally we want to belong, we want to save time by hearing recommendations , we want to follow the trends perhaps.

I remember being surprised that I could predict weekly changes in the ranking of songs in the top 20 on the radio in the 60s and 70s. Of course I could have been fooling myself, but it was fun and seemed doable. So, in the aggregate, statistically, there's something to this popularity thing..

 

[Luchesi]

What always strikes me about your posts is how differently you seem to consume music than the way I do. I've never been one to dive into scores, get into theoretical analysis, or really try to figure out how a piece works, but it clearly gives you a lot of joy to do that.

I don't think that's unusual or a particularly stunning observation; in fact I think a lot of great art can be experienced from a variety of approaches like this.

It's just me. My career has been briefing chemists and physicists. No mentions of likes or dislikes.

And a piano teacher, tuner, part time. Children don't like this or that, endlessly.
Tuning customers like or don't like a stretched treble or rounder bass notes. Always something..
I get fed up, but I sublimate it or rationalize it away (it's still in my unconscious coloring everything, apparently).

I'd like to share the joy of analysis, but I've learned in here how difficult that is. And yet, in our talkbacks (explaining things) after our performances, we get a very good turnout.

 

[Luchesi]

Much as I like Beethoven's 5th, I sometimes 'sense' that I'm being beaten about the head with a rolled up newspaper. Was that part of his purpose? He succeeds brilliantly if it was, and if it wasn't, is that a failure on his part?

Yes, I can agree at times about LvB. He surely wanted his works to be impactful.
From what's been written, he was driven, he was put upon by the realities of the screwy culture, he was struggling to make a name and to get out the music that he knew was in him. The monumental task of getting it down on paper permanently (I mean to thank Woodduck for that phrase) revising and correcting the copy.

Abuse as a kid, head of the household, the unfairness, the patronage system, the general ignorance as he saw it.

He went overboard occasionally, especially for that time. But not mistakes for our time, IMO.

 

[Luchesi]

Music degrees, experience, age, etc - I think these can certainly give authority in certain specialized fields which go beyond general layman's knowledge, such as musicology/music history, music theory, and more scholarly forms of aesthetic theory. But aesthetic evaluation? The context of musical performance is that the music is performed for laymen. There may be some assumptions that the listeners be familiar with certain conventions about classical music, but given that music is performed for a general audience, I think it's entirely fine to evaluate it on that level.

Not to mention that credentials very frequently get called into question if someone with credentials says something that one happens to disagree with. See- the BBC composer poll

I'm on the fence about this issue of aesthetic evaluation (not the joy and value of music analysis). I mean, why did Beethoven strive to continue to create better and better (more significant, more complex, more enduring, a teachable sequence) sonatas and quartets and symphonies? Maybe it was just some deep instinct.. Or just making a living.
Haydn sonatas, symphonies etc., Schubert sonatas, Mozart symphonies and especially his piano concertos. They were wrong to strive/struggle/aspire for some more impressiveness, effectiveness and excellence. LvB could have remained in his Middle Period, I guess.
Or maybe they didn't succeed in getting better.. I only imagine it.

added;
I think it would have been easier to continue in his Middle Period. More income too, I suspect.