Charlton is right that the emotional response to music is deeply
personal, although I can sometimes say why I think a piece of music
moves me, and I don't think that every piece that moves me does so for
the same reasons. What I find curious is the reaction of persons who
think that because I can talk about the technical aspects of music, I am
not capable of an emotional reaction because I have "intellectualized"
about it. What I always tell them is that thinking about music may
inhibit an emotional response for an inexperienced listener; but if one
continues to analyze music, one may find that the intellectualization
does not interfere with an emotional reaction, and may even enhance it.
There is an old Zen koan:
Before one studies Zen, a mountain is a mountain and a river is a river.
While one studies Zen, a mountain is not a mountain and a river is not a river.
But when one has attained enlightenment, a mountain is a mountain and a
river is a river.
I'd love to hear some views on why (as one respondent observed) some are
surprised about the prospect of "emotional reactions" in music, or in
the other arts, for that matter.
NB: I am sending this posting to ams-list and m-list because the
discussion seems to have migrated from the former to the latter (or so I think).
-- Vivian Ramalingam
<vivian@me.umn.edu>
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>
> At 05:32 PM 4/30/02, Theresa Muir wrote:
>
> >Well, simply from observation, I'd say that most people seem to do just
> >that. It's not inappropriate or unreasonable, however, to expect people
> >who feel called upon to do more than that--- i.e. musicologists, etc.--
> >to dig a bit deeper.
>
> This matches my experience. I work on music of the sixteenth century
> because it speaks to me on an emotional level -- I don't think that is is
> possible for there to be a bit of music more beautifully wrenching than the
> last phrase of Monteverdi's "Hor che'l ciel" -- but once I've acknowledged
> that emotional response, what more is there to say on that level? "I like
> it. It moves me." What then? Fortunately, however, as soon as I start
> talking about *how* and *why* that emotional response happens, I'm engaged
> in analysis. I started down this whole path because I wanted to understand
> exactly why the music worked like that. Eleven years ago, I would have
> been disgusted at myself for having spent eleven years in this study
> without having found that answer. Now, I think it's magical that I
> understand how the Monteverdi works, that I can account for every note in
> the piece, and that it still has such a visceral effect on me.
>
> (On the other hand, I remember talking with one of the freshmen I was
> teaching while I was working on an analysis paper on Schubert's great
> Sonata in B-flat. "What are you writing about it?" she asked. "How it
> makes you feel?" And that puzzled me, but only in retrospect. That sonata
> fascinates me on a technical level, and it delights me, but it doesn't hit
> me like a punch, as the last phrase of the Monteverdi does. Does that mean
> that the Schubert is a lesser work, or just subtler and more reserved? I
> don't know. I love them both, for different reasons.)
>
> So I suppose that my answer is that we (the implicative we, not the royal
> we) don't discuss the emotional impact of music because it is a deeply
> personal response, largely intractable to analysis and discussion. Also,
> most of us are in this field because we have a love for music, which often
> comes down to a strong emotional reaction to it one way or the other.
>
> Charlton
>
> Charlton Wilbur
> Holyoke, Massachusetts
> cwilbur@chromatico.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 30 2002 - 21:58:01 PDT