From: ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Grounds for criticism (was: Liverpool Oratorio)
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:03:53 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

>In article <1992Jul28.185351.28292@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>, ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes:

>> Well, that may be partially true, but then only with the proviso that
>> your view of what constitutes 'knowledge' of these things has nothing to
>> do with the English (or any other spoken) language. But I'm not at all
>> convinced that it wouldn't be possible to derive all of the salient messages
>> in Brahms' 1st Symphony from exposure to this work alone. It isn't
>> particularly formally complex, his orchestration is totally different from
>> Beethoven's, and my reactions to its harmonic progressions are very similar
>> to reactions to similar progressions in pre-classical music. 

Yet again you manage to get the wrong end of the stick, Mark. My English may
not always be perfect, but I find it a useful rule of thumb, when I encounter
ambiguity in other people's writing, to opt for the interpretation that seems
to make sense. Still, let's see if we can put you right:         :-)

>This is interesting, even ironic.  You say that Brahms's first
>can be understood in all of its "salient messages" on first
>exposure.

Not first exposure, no. Read the sentence again. I think Brahms is one of the
more difficult composers to 'get' on a first hearing, even *with* an under-
standing of musical form.

>  But then you cite as reasons for this a list of
>comparisons with prior works or general practice. 

Correct.

> All the things
>that you claim are irrelevant, you adduce as reasons why you
>think the piece is accessible without them!  

Indeed - the piece is accessible without those things which I consider
irrelevant. Where's the inconsistency there?

>You make the
>comparisons while claiming that they are unnecessary.  

Unnecessary for what, though? They're obviously necessary to support my
argument. How else can I make a case? They are not necessary for an
appreciation of the music, however.

>It would
>seem that your own musical context is important to your
>understanding of this work, whether or not you choose to speak
>of it in your critical appraisal.  But in what other way can
>you criticize it?

I make two comparisons. The first is with Beethoven's orchestration,
orchestration being a factor of crucial importance in determining how we
react to a piece of music. I point out that Brahms' orchestration is very
different from Beethoven's, in an effort to illustrate that I don't think
Brahms' was particularly influenced by Beethoven in this respect, and
consequently there is no reason why a listener need have heard a Beethoven
symphony to appreciate it. The other concerns harmonic progressions, also a very
important component of music which affects the listener. I make the comparison
with pre-classical music in order to lend weight to my view that the archetypes
governing our reactions to post-Beethoven compositions are much older than
Beethoven, or any pre-classical composer for that matter.

I also mention musical form. Obviously, a comparison of musical forms is
necessary for a musicologist charting the evolution of music, but an 
explicit understanding of form is *not* necessary for a listener to appreciate
it. After all, musical forms are arrived at because they provide a solid
structure for a composer to arrange ideas around; Brahms' first symphony may
be more complex than ordinary sonata form, but I still think it's sufficiently
uncomplicated to be grasped by any listener willing to make the effort.

My musical 'context' is important in my own criticism of music, but for
judging a post-Beethoven symphony or any other piece of music, I would
maintain that such a context is the result of archetypes very much more
deeply rooted than my knowledge of 19th C music.

I hope this helps.

Martin Watts.