Intelectual Music

I've always found the deffinition for intelectual music kind of vauge, with no solid deffiniton. I think I saw a thread for this before on here, but I couldn't find it on the search.

So, what does intelectual music mean to you?

I think the best deffinition I've heard, is music that is composed so that every note has a pouropse, every single articulaton, and every single voicing, etc. as opposed to just writing a melody and putting some block chords or arpegios behind it with not much thought.

I just don't like the term for some reason though... I mainly think of music as emotinal.

Disclaimer: this is all my opinion, as the term "intellectual" is subjective in this context.

Intellectual music has a negative connotation. If music is "intellectual," that connotes a type of music that is appealing on an intellectual level RATHER than an aesthetic level. In other words, music written to for the purpose of appealing to the cerebral rather than the emotional/aesthetic. E.G. a lot of twelve tone music is purely intellectual, it's built solely to satisfy the rules that Schoenberg established regarding that type of writing.

It's also the reason I don't really like a lot of Bach's famous Contrapuncti, though to a much lesser extent.

On the other hand, just about all of Bach's fugues appeal to me aesthetically in addition to their obvious appeal to the intellect. Perhaps you could call it successful intellectual music, I don't know. :P

It's a gray issue, because some people do write music following strict rules that still manage to please the subjective senses. Phase music comes to mind. I guess the most successful intellectual music is the music that doesn't forget what its purpose is: to be listened to, not just thought about.

I think intellectual music is a very broad term (in that it encompasses a lot of genres and styles). My music, for example, has often been called intellectual. My definition of intellectual is music written with great though and that appeals to the cerebral. I put a great care into each and every note I write anymore - every note has to have a specific purpose in my structures/textures. That said, I do consider my own music to be emotional at the same time. And that's something has taken a great amount of time for me to cultivate. At times, I wonder if I succeed and at times, I know I do - but others, I could care less if it has that 'emotional' relevancy that is so popular in music these days. One thing, I state regularly.. is the only rules you have are your ears. If you can listen to your work and get enjoyment out of it, then that alone should be enough to tell you that you are doing it right.

Disclaimer: this is all my opinion, as the term "intellectual" is subjective in this context.

Intellectual music has a negative connotation. If music is "intellectual," that connotes a type of music that is appealing on an intellectual level RATHER than an aesthetic level. In other words, music written to for the purpose of appealing to the cerebral rather than the emotional/aesthetic. E.G. a lot of twelve tone music is purely intellectual, it's built solely to satisfy the rules that Schoenberg established regarding that type of writing.

It's also the reason I don't really like a lot of Bach's famous Contrapuncti, though to a much lesser extent.

On the other hand, just about all of Bach's fugues appeal to me aesthetically in addition to their obvious appeal to the intellect. Perhaps you could call it successful intellectual music, I don't know. :P

It's a gray issue, because some people do write music following strict rules that still manage to please the subjective senses. Phase music comes to mind. I guess the most successful intellectual music is the music that doesn't forget what its purpose is: to be listened to, not just thought about.

So following strict rules makes music intulectual? I don't think I understand why strict rules would make music intelectual.

You can follow strict rules, but it still can be a simple peice... But I geuss it is all in the terminolgy.

I think we can all agree that we should strive to use the terminology that has the most descriptive, and logical names though.

http://forum.youngcomposers.com/t25945/intelligence-in-melodies/page__p__346226__fromsearch__1entry346226

This is the tread you speak of I quess.

I'm still woundering about it, but I have a notion:

Maybe you can compare the building of musical sentences with sentences in language. I've tried to analies my musical sentences in terms of subject, predicate, verb etc. When I 'obey' these rules to the construction of musical sentences it seems to give a nice effect. It seems to be more 'correct'. Maybe you could say it sounds more intelligent.

I don't know if this is commen knowledge. Either way I think this has to do with intelligence in music.

So following strict rules makes music intulectual?

"music written to for the purpose of appealing to the cerebral rather than the emotional/aesthetic."

This is done through following strict rules. This is not to say following strict rules MAKES a piece intellectual, simply that intellectual pieces do it.

This is, of course, my definition of intellectual. :P Again, it's an ambiguous term.

Oh boy, here we go. Where to start?

What you're describing is the modernist approach to composing, where no single musical element (pitches, durations, dynamics, etc.) is any more significant than another and should therefore not be ordered in a functional setting like we would in, say, the common practice period. Essentially, you're calling Free-tone (or Atonal) music "intellectual" when it's simply a different style. No more or less intellect goes into writing Free-tone music than goes into writing a Sonata. There's plenty of intellectual demand for both.

I find this statement grossly uninformed. 12t music is aesthetically pleasing to many people, including the composers who still use the methods of modernist writing in their works even today. I recommend listening to more music from the 20th Century.

LAWL! As amusing as this is, I'd love to hear how we could possibly qualify music as "successful."

Okay, so we aren't "thinking" about music when we "listen" to it? This is an honest, open-ended question... I'm curious what people believe about this, whether we're actually "thinking" about the music we listen to and to what extent.

Yay, another semantic argument is brewing... though I definitely agree here that music can be written following a strict formula and still be simple. Actually, there are formulas for just about every style of music out there, including the "simple" kinds of pieces.

I don't think "structuring" music around language qualifies said music as "intellectual." Perhaps we rely on our intelligence when we compose music, but wouldn't that necessarily mean that every piece of music is "intellectual" since we rely on our intelligence to create music?

"music written to for the purpose of appealing to the cerebral rather than the emotional/aesthetic."

This is done through following strict rules. This is not to say following strict rules MAKES a piece intellectual, simply that intellectual pieces do it.

This is, of course, my definition of intellectual. :P Again, it's an ambiguous term.

But I personally think following rules makes something less intelligent. Well, it makes it less creative anyway... I personally think that following rules, and being intelligent are two completely un-related things, and my definition of intelligent music is basically the same as Jawoodroof’s

AntiA- Umm, I never said all elements were equally important, I simply said that each note, articulation, dynamic mark, etc. is there for a purpose. In other words, you put a lot of thought into each aspect of the piece. My music is far from what might be called atonal... Well I suppose that isn’t entirely true, I use a lot of aspects from atonal music for certain pieces, but my pieces are never strictly atonal.

I think it's all just dependent on how you enjoy your music or whatever music you listen to.

Say, I can appreciate Mahler's orchestration and harmony and so on, yet totally not like the music on a "go to concert and just listen" level. I suppose I can call that "intellectual" appreciation, but for example I do like a lot of pieces on more levels than that, so I know when things are missing for me.

It's true that many times something which for me started as "intellectual" appreciation later becomed emotional appeciation after hearing it enough times (it grew on me.) I think it's a super-vague notion at best but it's probably along the lines of what I mentioned.

AntiA- Umm, I never said all elements were equally important, I simply said that each note, articulation, dynamic mark, etc. is there for a purpose. In other words, you put a lot of thought into each aspect of the piece. My music is far from what might be called atonal... Well I suppose that isn’t entirely true, I use a lot of aspects from atonal music for certain pieces, but my pieces are never strictly atonal.

OIC, so how is this any different than the thought a composer puts into writing a sonata or a fugue? What distinguishes "intellectual" music from "other" music?

It's hard to discuss something when there is no established definition of terms.

"Okay, so we aren't "thinking" about music when we "listen" to it?"

Sure we are. Thinking about the music we listen to hightens our appreciation of it.

TO ME, when someone decides to create a piece of music or a musical phrase because of a technique like a 12-tone row, it is intellectual because the motivation to do it was not in order to create a certain aural experience but to execute a compositional formula. The beauty isn't primarily in the sound, it is in the creativity of the orginization of the notes themselves. It is contrived rather than created based on the sound. Phase music is contrived: it was an idea of something cool to DO.

Don't get me wrong, contrived music isn't necessarily a bad thing: a lot of music like that actually sounds really cool. I really like a lot of phase music ('cept the length of some of them), and Berg and Webern wrote some really neat operas. However, I personally do not find the sonic appeal of strictly serial music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVFWoNos8DM

TO ME, if you NEED the knowledge to appreciate the music, then it is intellectual music. You don't need to understand sonata form to appreciate Beethoven's Pathetique. You don't need to understand the workings of a fugue to appreciate Bach's Toccata and Fugue in Dm or "The Little" Fugue in Am: my mother doesn't know a lick about fugue structure, but she really likes the fugue in Am. Understanding the rules just makes the experience even more rewarding. :)

It's personal, guys. We're just sharing opinions, here. We're probably not all gonna agree.

OIC, so how is this any different than the thought a composer puts into writing a sonata or a fugue? What distinguishes "intellectual" music from "other" music?

Well, just like the distinction between art and commercial music, I believe the factors that distinguish intellectual from "other" music is hardly black and white...

TO ME, when someone decides to create a piece of music or a musical phrase because of a technique like a 12-tone row, it is intellectual because the motivation to do it was not in order to create a certain aural experience but to execute a compositional formula. The beauty isn't primarily in the sound, it is in the creativity of the orginization of the notes themselves. It is contrived rather than created based on the sound. Phase music is contrived: it was an idea of something cool to DO.

Don't get me wrong, contrived music isn't necessarily a bad thing: a lot of music like that actually sounds really cool. I really like a lot of phase music ('cept the length of some of them), and Berg and Webern wrote some really neat operas. However, I personally do not find the sonic appeal of strictly serial music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVFWoNos8DM

TO ME, if you NEED the knowledge to appreciate the music, then it is intellectual music. You don't need to understand sonata form to appreciate Beethoven's Pathetique. You don't need to understand the workings of a fugue to appreciate Bach's Toccata and Fugue in Dm or "The Little" Fugue in Am: my mother doesn't know a lick about fugue structure, but she really likes the fugue in Am. Understanding the rules just makes the experience even more rewarding. :)

It's personal, guys. We're just sharing opinions, here. We're probably not all gonna agree.

"TO ME, the intention of the composer was..."

"TO ME, other people NEED to understand the compositional processes behind the work to enjoy it. You can't enjoy it unless you know the form."

"This is just my opinion on what YOU need to do in order to appreciate this music. It's just my opinion on how YOU think. We're not going to agree on how YOU think."

No need to get riled up, I agree with you. My point is, IMO that is 'intellectual music.'

That is what this thread is about, not about whether or not serialism is worth appreciating. Simply using that as a personal example.

My point is, IMO it is beyond the scope of your opinion to decide how other people appreciate whatever type of music.

BUT, I do think that is a great example of what intellectual music is: a misconception. It is an insult which implies that music is limited to only one type of value, a type of value which no one, including people who write such "contrived music", finds to be sufficiently satisfying artistically. It seems vague because it's near meaningless, like the word "kitsch".

My point is, IMO it is beyond the scope of your opinion to decide how other people appreciate whatever type of music.

...since you make it a point to debate, allow me to respond.

TO ME, other people NEED to understand the compositional processes behind the work to enjoy it. You can't enjoy it unless you know the form

I thought that it was beyond the scope of a single person's opinion to decide how other people appreciate whatever type of music.

I apologize, I just utilized an ad hoc fallacy.

In any event, why are you saying that it's not my scope to "decide" (when did I decide?) how other people appreciate music, when you and I basically believe the same thing on how people learn to appreciate music?

BUT, I do think that is a great example of what intellectual music is: a misconception. It is an insult which implies that music is limited to only one type of value, a type of value which no one, including people who write such "contrived music", finds to be sufficiently satisfying artistically. It seems vague because it's near meaningless, like the word "kitsch".

You'll get no argument from me. If you'll recall, that was my stance from the beginning.

"Intellectual music has a negative connotation. If music is "intellectual," that connotes a type of music that is appealing on an intellectual level rather than an aesthetic level. In other words, music written to for the purpose of appealing to the cerebral rather than the emotional/aesthetic."

Seems nearly exactly what you just said.

Then I elaborated and expressed how I personally felt that pieces built on rows and serialism is an example of what one might call "Intellectual music." I see now that that was an improper example to utilize to illustrate my point, and I do very much apologize to you, AntiA and SSC for that. Did not intend to belittle music that others appreciate where I do not, will be more prudent in the future.

Then I elaborated and expressed how I personally felt that pieces built on rows and serialism is an example of what one might call "Intellectual music." I see now that that was an improper example to utilize to illustrate my point, and I do very much apologize to you, AntiA and SSC for that. Did not intend to belittle music that others appreciate where I do not, will be more prudent in the future.

No harm, no foul. I'm merely asking questions for clarification, so my interest is more in understanding what you're attempting to qualify as "intellectual music" in the discussion. Obviously, I think any generalized categorization like "intellectual" or "commercial" serves no purpose except to enable bigotry, in the worst case, and misinformation at best. What does it say about a piece of music to say it's "intellectual" or "commercial" when it often leads to commodifying the work rather than forming a higher level of understanding about it? And given the highly subjective nature of music and art, this seems like just another exercise in futility to me.

But that's just me, I guess.

I think you hit it right on the head. It boils down to one of those terms that one uses to belittle a general group. Perfect example: the 'definition' of a heretic or a cult is he who whatever church is talking decides they don't like, to the extent where they feel that applying a derogatory term is apt.

As a side-topic, being a brass player who plays "legit vs. commercial" gigs, in my experience there is no negative connotation with the word "commercial" to us performers. It simply clarifies in general what "kind" of music you are going to play at such and such a gig.

I guess it's different in the composing world? I notice that in the composition upload page the distinctive terms are "Art Music vs. Commercial Music." Never really understood that, it's all music. People pay to go see it, musicians are hired to play it.

"Maybe you can compare the building of musical sentences with sentences in language. I've tried to analyze my musical sentences in terms of subject, predicate, verb etc. When I 'obey' these rules to the construction of musical sentences it seems to give a nice effect. It seems to be more 'correct'. Maybe you could say it sounds more intelligent.

I don't know if this is common knowledge. Either way I think this has to do with intelligence in music." [seriously, proofreading and spellchecker are great tools. Please use them.]

I don't think "structuring" music around language qualifies said music as "intellectual." Perhaps we rely on our intelligence when we compose music, but wouldn't that necessarily mean that every piece of music is "intellectual" since we rely on our intelligence to create music?

Well, let's begin by saying that what I percieve as intelligent might sound dumb to you. I think their is no sence in trying to agree on a defenition, since, well, it's subjective. What may be a better contribution is to give examples to the OP what you think contributes to perception of intelligence in music. The OP can then deside whether or not that has value to him to. Maybe I should have formulated my statement about analyzing sentences a bit more 'subjective'.

As for the proofreading and spellchecking: Yep. I get these remaks in Dutch too and it has to do with a combination of laziness and a lack of spelling talent. I know it can be annoying to read me.

Well, let's begin by saying that what I percieve as intelligent might sound dumb to you. I think their is no sence in trying to agree on a definition, since, well, it's subjective. What may be a better contribution is to give examples to the OP what you think contributes to perception of intelligence in music. The OP can then deside whether or not that has value to him to. Maybe I should have formulated my statement about analyzing sentences a bit more 'subjective'.

I think what's lacking is a clear understanding of "intelligence" that we could then say, "This or that makes music 'intellectual' as opposed to being something 'other' than intellectual." Clearly, subjectivity is one obstacle, but the mere reduction of music into a category that almost -any- piece could theoretically apply to is even more problematic. Think about the implications of such a delineation between styles of music, where we might say George Crumb's music is "intellectual" and Lady Gaga's music isn't.

Even if we come to an agreement on what "intelligence" is, we still have to compare the degree to which intelligence plays a role in both the composition of the piece as well as the listening experience while agreeing on the comparison to get anywhere. What happens if, hypothetically, Lady Gaga's music turns out to be more intellectual than George Crumb? Objectively, this could never be determined anyway. I'm just saying that we can have a more reasonable discussion about music in terms of aesthetics than we can using "intelligence" as a context.

As for the proofreading and spellchecking: Yep. I get these remarks in Dutch too and it has to do with a combination of laziness and a lack of spelling talent. I know it can be annoying to read me.

I'd credit it more to laziness than a lack of talent. :P

I think what's lacking is a clear understanding of "intelligence" that we could then say, "This or that makes music 'intellectual' as opposed to being something 'other' than intellectual." Clearly, subjectivity is one obstacle, but the mere reduction of music into a category that almost -any- piece could theoretically apply to is even more problematic. Think about the implications of such a delineation between styles of music, where we might say George Crumb's music is "intellectual" and Lady Gaga's music isn't.

Even if we come to an agreement on what "intelligence" is, we still have to compare the degree to which intelligence plays a role in both the composition of the piece as well as the listening experience while agreeing on the comparison to get anywhere. What happens if, hypothetically, Lady Gaga's music turns out to be more intellectual than George Crumb? Objectively, this could never be determined anyway. I'm just saying that we can have a more reasonable discussion about music in terms of aesthetics than we can using "intelligence" as a context.

I'd credit it more to laziness than a lack of talent. :P

I think it is fruitless to try and find a undertsanding of intelligence in music all together. Their is no objective way of doing this, so we could formulate twenty different defenitions and they all be just as valid.

I think the only usefull way of dealing with intelligence in music is in a pragmatic way. What can we gain from it without having to be clear on what it means.

I spoke about analizing sentences and if I do this I find that my music sounds more intelligent. It may well be that it sounds stupid to the next. If someone made a post explaining what helps him construcing more intelligent music, I could try it and if it helped me too that would be interesting. Concerning the OP I think this thread isn't ment to list these things, but for me that's the only interesting way of talking about this subject.

And, yeah, a lack of talent is the excuss and the laziness is the problem. And a lifestyle.