Things done poorly, things done well
I was thinking. . .
While listening to some tunes the other night, I subjected myself to a fugue for two violins by Mozart. Typically, I will be the first to laud the structure, point-counterpoint, and, in general, the mathematical perfection of a piece of music written by Mozart. However, in this particular instance, I was struck by what a bad example of a fugue this piece is. The beauty of the fugue is the repetetion of the theme with variations superimposed on the original theme. It is a harmonious mathematical structure, but in its mathematic complexity it leaves the listener with an aneseptic feeling. That is to say that the piece leaves one with no feeling. I certainly think that it is superior mathematically to any other form of music, but inferior structurally to, say, the concerto. Because of this, I started wondering why there are no good fugues after Bach (at least that I am familiar with). Is it because the advances in instrumentation (the piano) led composers to explore other avenues of harmonic expression? Is it that advances in musical structure (i.e. the allegro-andante-allegro of the symphony or concerto or sonata) rendered the even-tempoed single movement fugues obsolete?
But then I thought, Mozart, Hyden, Paganini all have very good mathematic structure. Yes they have advanced beyond Bach in the form of music. But shortly after these composers we have a more romantic flare, where structure takes a back seat to "feelings". I will not deny that there are feelings in some of Bach's pieces, but on the whole it is lacking. Listening to Chopin's nocturnes or, worse, Rachmoninoff's 2nd symphony suggests that more modern music has too much feeling, so that the structure suffers. So I suppose the whole point is this: do things well. That which is done well is a composite. It is an admixture of mathematical harmony and structural brilliance. I think this applies to more than just music.
I had Gustin for music and I came out of that class thinking that good music will necessarily be the most mathematically structured. But how can you enjoy music when you're always analyzing it? I'm sure Gustin didn't intend that, but that's what happened.
Ironically, that's what I concluded about physics too. The Aristotelian logos approach is better than mathematical physics. But there is order in looking at the world in both ways, so why should the two be exclusive?
Argued by
Sean Schniederjan RKC |
1:22 PM
Read any post about math and physics that I've written. The two cannot be exclusive. Thusly, I deny your question.
To the first: the music is good because it admits of analysis. Faced with the expectation of the tonic in a familiar piece of music creates an anticipation that is releaved by hearing the correct note. Good composers put the correct note in the correct place, and that happens to be mathematical.
Argued by
beitiathustra |
6:43 PM
I wasn't asking that question.
So does the listener delight in the sound or the numbers or both if he knows about the numbers?
Argued by
Sean Schniederjan RKC |
8:31 PM
Does you really need to ask the question? The academic inquiry seems blinded by the fact itself.
I like Mozart because it sounds good. Period. Knowledge of "the numbers" would only heighten my understanding of the sounds nuance.
Yep. Sound is my final answer.
Argued by
Andrew Simone |
10:44 AM
OK, in a way its obvious... you don't have to do any mathematical analysis to enjoy good music.
but doesn't understanding it add more to the enjoyment, a fuller participation in the cosmic order?
Argued by
Sean Schniederjan RKC |
2:42 PM
Wow. This is more traffic than my blog has ever received.
But let's be honest. Music that sounds good is good. Music that has good math sounds good. Therefore, music that has good math is good. But the most important is the middle: it sounds good. End of story.
But also remember that music is one of the quadrivium, and thus a science. All science is mathematical. So if we want to understand music, we analize it. In fact, I think I'll write a new post about that...
Argued by
beitiathustra |
8:15 PM