What Is The Place Of Will And Direction In Music?

Some composer's music clearly betrays a strong willpower or is centered around willpower. The genius of such composers would be inconceivable without their powerful will. Examples are Beethoven and Brahms. Yet other great composers' music is not similarly centered around willpower. Examples are Bach and Handel. So what do you think is the role of willpower and direction/directedness in music and composition?

Eh? You're going to have to explain in more detail what you mean by 'willpower' and 'directedness' before we can respond to this.

Eh? You're going to have to explain in more detail what you mean by 'willpower' and 'directedness' before we can respond to this.

By 'willpower', I mean a composer knowing what they want and where they want to take the music, where they want to go, much like what I mean by 'directedness'. I also mean a certain expression of force in the music. You can refer to the last movement of Beethoven's op. 131 string quartet, or the opening of Brahms' 1st string quartet. For a definition of 'relaxed willpower' (which again entails a piece's being centered around willpower - as opposed to a composer's music being near-oblivious to willpower), you may take as reference the opening movement of Beethoven's op. 131 string quartet. For a piece of music unrelated to willpower (and directedness) whether positively or negatively, you may take as a reference many of the pieces of Debussy or Ravel, or any composer of the impressionist school. By the way, it could be that impressionism is the opposite of the kind of music that I am describing, the willpower-centered music. In fact, willpower does not have the time to ponder, let alone patiently and delicately express, its impressions in music. Rather, it forcefully expresses them without even thinking about the impression it might be leaving on the listener, at times even exuding a certain impatience. For it, it is above all the intellectual rigour and power of music that is important rather than the nuances of expression, especially those purely based on sound and its sensory impression.

I think I can see what you're getting at when you compare the 'impressionist' school with Brahms and Beethoven, but I don't think using terms such as 'willpower' are helpful in describing it. Beethoven and Brahms simply follow an aesthetic which places higher emphasis on elements such as functional harmony, counterpoint and motivic development, whereas the 'impressionist' school tend to emphasise non-functional and synthetic harmony, freer structures and colour/orchestration instead. I don't see how this necessarily constitutes a lack of willpower as you define it above. The fact that the surface style of Debussy seems more rhapsodic and that he avoids traditional structural plans doesn't mean he didn't 'know where he wanted to take the music' or that because it employs delicate orchestration it lacks 'a certain expression of force'.

In fact, willpower does not have the time to ponder, let alone patiently and delicately express, its impressions in music

I strongly disagree with this statement if you are using Beethoven and Brahms as examples of 'willpower'. Both of them wrote music that was as thoughtful and delicate in parts as it was forceful and driven in others. Conversely, there is plenty of assertive and even violent music amongst the impressionists' output. The most proficient composers are able to produce both with equal skill.

Rather, it forcefully expresses them without even thinking about the impression it might be leaving on the listener, at times even exuding a certain impatience. For it, it is above all the intellectual rigour and power of music that is important rather than the nuances of expression, especially those purely based on sound and its sensory impression.

This is mostly wishful thinking based on you own aesthetics. Some people might agree with this interpretation; others, including myself, won't.

For godssake another namby pamby thread based on an ill-formulated conception of one's aesthetics. Siwi thanks for being so diplomatic.

Mods, please close this thread as it is redundant and hopelessly vague.

I think I can see what you're getting at when you compare the 'impressionist' school with Brahms and Beethoven, but I don't think using terms such as 'willpower' are helpful in describing it. Beethoven and Brahms simply follow an aesthetic which places higher emphasis on elements such as functional harmony, counterpoint and motivic development, whereas the 'impressionist' school tend to emphasise non-functional and synthetic harmony, freer structures and colour/orchestration instead. I don't see how this necessarily constitutes a lack of willpower as you define it above. The fact that the surface style of Debussy seems more rhapsodic and that he avoids traditional structural plans doesn't mean he didn't 'know where he wanted to take the music' or that because it employs delicate orchestration it lacks 'a certain expression of force'.

I think it might better be described as a difference in attitude - both to music and to the audience of one's music.

No, this isn't getting locked.

If you don't like the thread, do not reply to it, do not bump it. (I didn't until I was forced to post this, urghh.)

Okay, but you know what this is going to turn into, right?

Only YOU can prevent forest fi--err, it turning into a flamewar. Please, let's behave like a moderately intelligent community we so hope to believe we are and NOT drag this into stupid trolling/flaming, OK?

Also note:

(3) If you cannot contribute to a discussion, do not post.

If the discussion is either too complex, or you think it's dumb, etc and you feel you need to post something but that something isn't an actual contribution, do not post it. (This includes "this is dumb guys stop discussing X" and general derailment posts.) Instead if you really want to post something, try to engage the discussion if only to give your viewpoint without having to attack anything.

From the discussion guidelines. It's not there just because it looks pretty, guys.

Some people are insulting the thread and me as its author. But in response to their rash judgements and insults, I would just like to ask them to think about this: most knowledge is usually the result of exploration and does not exist beforehand. In a discussion thread such as this one, exploring together we can arrive at a lot of new knowledge. Otherwise, rather than discussion our exchanges would simply degenerate or be reduced into the exchange of opinions and insults regardless of a common truth that awaits discovery by patient collective exploration!

Some people are insulting the thread and me as its author. But in response to their rash judgements and insults, I would just like to ask them to think about this: most knowledge is usually the result of exploration and does not exist beforehand. In a discussion thread such as this one, exploring together we can arrive at a lot of new knowledge. Otherwise, rather than discussion our exchanges would simply degenerate or be reduced into the exchange of opinions and insults regardless of a common truth that awaits discovery by patient collective exploration!

I agree. I do NOT support or approve of any kind of censorship (locking threads, etc) when the intent of the thread was legit. I do NOT think you're trolling, regardless of whatever my personal opinion of your posts may or may not be, therefore you are in your right to attempt to explore your points and discuss them in this forum and I'm here to make sure you can do just that without all the drama.

...and expect to get an intelligent response. Bach and Handel didn't "know what they want and where they want to take the music" is dripping with ignorance. Do you know who Bach was? Do you know why he's famous? He was the epitome of knowing what he wanted. Every single note he wrote was calculated in advance.

Well, I don't think he was claiming his opinion was absolute on it, since it's a rather weird way to view it. I've never thought of willpower the way he's saying it, I don't even know if I agree or disagree, it's too vague! He needs to explain it in much more detail first, I think.

Look, you can't say something like...

and expect to get an intelligent response. Bach and Handel didn't "know what they want and where they want to take the music" is dripping with ignorance. Do you know who Bach was? Do you know why he's famous? He was the epitome of knowing what he wanted. Every single note he wrote was calculated in advance.

Yeah, but that does not rule out his music NOT being ABOUT willpower. I never claimed such composers lacked willpower. I was just saying that their MUSIC was not concerned (or concerned excessively) with willpower or did not manifest/express willpower. Why do you judge me for every word I say. I am trying to express something here, something new and emerging even for me! Does it have to be clear before I even know what it is I am trying to get at?

By the way, thanks for the kinder response conductive to collective exploration for the generation of new knowledge.

Yeah, but that does not rule out his music NOT being ABOUT willpower. I never claimed such composers lacked willpower. I was just saying that their MUSIC was not concerned (or concerned excessively) with willpower or did not manifest/express willpower. Why do you judge me for every word I say. I am trying to express something here, something new and emerging even for me! Does it have to be clear before I even know what it is I am trying to get at?

Ok, I think what's happening is that you're equating the extremism tendencies of the romantic period to the baroque's seemingly "flat" by contrast tendencies and calling that difference a representation of willpower. I think it's not incorrect to note just how extreme in raw music parameters Beethoven is contrasting to even Mozart or any baroque composer, things like how loud it is or how violent harmony or dynamic can change.

But I think saying it is or isn't about willpower is sort of awkward because we really don't know if the composers thought about it that way themselves, maybe some did, certainly some romantic composers would do it as the idea of a piece being a "powerful" thing is a very romantic ideal.

I think

The thing is, taking your definition of willpower...

"By 'willpower', I mean a composer knowing what they want and where they want to take the music, where they want to go, much like what I mean by 'directedness'."

Bach's music WAS about that. That's what I'm saying, Bach was methodical and direct. It defines his music. You come across as ignorant.

And, if you don't want to be judged by your words, don't say them. That's a stupid thing to say as well.

"Just because I said something doesn't mean you should hold me to it! How dare you!"

I can be criticized at the level of thoughts as well, not aggressively at the level of individual disconnected words, or by apparent meaning without consideration of alternative explanations. I think you are far too aggressive for calm discussion.

This sentence of mine that you have been repeatedly criticizing, "By 'willpower', I mean a composer knowing what they want and where they want to take the music, where they want to go, much like what I mean by 'directedness'." does not have to mean that the composer did not actually know where their music was going!! You are too quick to jump to unwarranted conclusions and judgement! I had earlier talked about the sense of willpower FROM the music. So, this phrase talks about willpower INSOFAR as it is EXPRESSED within the music. For a composer whose music does not express such willpower, he might well still have willpower but not directly express it in his music. For him music is an object in which he does not enter with the expression of his will.

Sorry I don't know what to say in response to your statement! Oh dear me! Perhaps I shouldn't have posted a single line with profanity only to get it edited by SSC in this manner!

My words never insulted anyone, however.

I think you should rather concentrate on the discussion at hand. What's your response to my second paragraph?

My words never insulted anyone, however.

I think you should rather concentrate on the discussion at hand. What's your response to my second paragraph?

I've been trying to address what you said, but you're ignoring me. If you just want to pick a fight, that's not cool, come on. Also, some of the things you've said have been rather...difficult to intelligently defend judging from the other thread. Even so, just don't bother answering to trolls.

Well, I don't think he was claiming his opinion was absolute on it, since it's a rather weird way to view it. I've never thought of willpower the way he's saying it, I don't even know if I agree or disagree, it's too vague! He needs to explain it in much more detail first, I think.

To give a sense of what I mean, I should first talk about the context and that is my understanding of music. I think (when listening to a piece of music) we get all our knowledge or conception of the composer from his music. Some composers reveal more of themselves through their music, others less. Naturally romantic composers revealed more, and did so often intentionally. What I am saying is that some composers' music expresses their willpower. Willpower is a part of the person. Other composers do not reveal as much of themselves through their music, and so they may not express their willpower in their music.

To speculate, I would say that some composers have a clearer distinction between themselves and the music they compose (in this category I would include Bach and Handel, the Baroque and to some extent the Classical composers). Other composers have a less distinct division between themselves and the music they compose. They, as it were, express themselves in the music they compose. In this category would naturally be the Romantic composers. Within this subcategory of composers - the self-expressers in music - some reveal a strong will or forcefulness, in many of their compositions. My opening post therefore sought to find out the role of such revealed willpower or forcefulness (or directedness as I called it) in music. I wanted to find out the role because some of the pieces revealing such forcefulness and willpower are some of the greatest ever written (in my opinion). Could the fact of their revealing willpower/forcefulness be the cause of their sensed greatness? I have in mind pieces like the Beethoven opp. 95, 131 and 133, as well as Brahms' Op. 51 No. 1.

To give a sense of what I mean, I should first talk about the context and that is my understanding of music. I think (when listening to a piece of music) we get all our knowledge or conception of the composer from his music. Some composers reveal more of themselves through their music, others less. Naturally romantic composers revealed more, and did so often intentionally. What I am saying is that some composers' music expresses their willpower. Willpower is a part of the person. Other composers do not reveal as much of themselves through their music, and so they may not express their willpower in their music.

To speculate, I would say that some composers have a clearer distinction between themselves and the music they compose (in this category I would include Bach and Handel, the Baroque and to some extent the Classical composers). Other composers have a less distinct division between themselves and the music they compose. They, as it were, express themselves in the music they compose. In this category would naturally be the Romantic composers. Within this subcategory of composers - the self-expressers in music - some reveal a strong will or forcefulness, in many of their compositions.

Hm. I think that it's hard to judge, since aesthetics have changed so much between epochs that maybe to you it seems like they're not showing much, but at the time they were very radical. Think JS Bach's B minor mass for example, or his organ pieces which are rather wild (G minor prelude and fugue, for example.) I guess we can still speculate about it, but the truth is historically someone like CPE Bach was extremely radical, yet in contrast to Beethoven or Liszt he seems extremely tame, though it's hard to argue CPE Bach's music (other than being hugely influential) was not a result of his personality and composition questions, his music reflected a LOT of his character, I'd say.

Simply put - you are not your music. It is an extremely fallacious and dangerous thought which has lead some fine leaders such as the Nazi's to deem Mendelssohn "degenerate" art, the former USSR deem many composers betrayers of the party who deserve the camps, or Peter Phillips who supported the Catholic Church in England by writing music for its liturgy at a particularly bad time and was imprisoned. The mistake made was when leaders saw these composers' musics as somehow representing an "object" against their state rather than a complex person who may or may not share the state's ideology.

However, although one is not their music, one cannot separate the impact various parts of their lives have upon what they produce. It is just a slippery matter of what compartments of their lives may have had influence upon their composition. Broadly, where you live, how you are raised, what you do and whom you spend most of your time with, all influence the act of composition. As to your "willpower" , a more palatable intellectual position is what role their music composrs thought it had in society. For Mahler, each of his symphonies were his own personal sagas in sound - and an exploration of the orchestra's timbral possibilities - plus he had at his disposal a top flight orchestra to conduct. Wagner's music was in part an expression of his nationlistic pride and also a more altrustic motive to develop a classical music better connected to German mythology and history. Bach wrote a majority of his works for the church to serve a very specific function and to understand the motivation of his works requires a good solid knowledge of Lutheranism. Beethoven was incredibly influenced by the philosophy of the French Revolution --- but also was very much a working musician - he wrote for the crowd in part - albeit a wealthy crowd who supported his explorations. For these examples I skim only the very surface.

If this is what you mean it is not viable to compare one composer to the other, rather the arena to look is a history of aesthetics. But again a composer is not a music filled spirit who comes down from heaven or hell or whatever netherworld to dispense his aural beautitudes. No, a composer is a human being who happens to enjoy writing music. He or she enjoys it more if they are paid for it. Once you realize that, you may see how vacuous you opening thread reads.

Possibly, you need to look at the aesthetics of music in one specific area - what has been considered the predominant function of music through a particular epoch? I raise this as your division between the Baroque/Classical composers and the Romantics does point to a manifestqation of a change in aesthetics due to a transformation of what society considered the main functions of music - a transformation one can point to starting as early as the late 16th century.