Dear Syd,
I had better take some of your points in order...
There is not - and never has been - such a thing as "absolute music". There is only "relative music" - i.e. music produced by somebody, at some time, for some purpose, under some constraint. No valid analysis of music will mean anything unless embodied within it is an understanding and recognition of the person, the time, the purpose and the constraint.
We regret to say that the Member is mistaken.
You are going to have to do rather better than this if you expect to offer a convincing analysis of Shostakovich 8 (or anything else). Merely
decreeing that another person is
WRONG is not acceptable without substantial qualification.
If we turn first to Percy Scholes' Dictionary we find indeed an entry under that head. There is such a thing as "Absolute Music" he tells us; it is "instrumental music which exists simply as such, i.e. not 'Programme Music' (q.v.)." We are quite worried though by his use of the word "instrumental" there.
There is no need to be worried about his use of the term "instrumental" - to him instrumental music meant (as he said!) 'not "programme music"'. His caveat "simply as such" makes instrumental works like Berlioz's
Symphonie fantastique works that must fall through the net. If (to him) a piece has words, it has a "programme"; if it doesn't, then it doesn't. I leave it to readers to judge for themselves how far they wish to believe the ramblings of Scholes.
Now there is also, as we would expect, an entry in Grove's Dictionary; but we definitely do not advise Members to refer to it. It is a long entry but it is appallingly bad wrong and biassed in every possible way. Its author is one Roger Scruton.
It is somewhat tasteless, Syd, to discourage readers from reading available and relevant materials merely because you yourself do not like them. Again, this is not a good start for someone who envisages the possibility of convincing us about your forthcoming analysis of a Shostakovich symphony. Roger Scruton is (in my view) a far more informed writer than ever Percy Scholes was!
No,let us turn to a far more authoritative and dependable writer. The admirable English critic and theorist Sydney Grew (our namesake) writes as follows:
"All the permanent art of the world is the art that goes on moulding and fashioning men to its own likeness, so that the art is more vital a hundred years later than it is in the year of its production, and still more vital two hundred years later. Pure art operates on us in the way of nature, helping us to grow according to our kind. It never dies, and it never becomes old-fashioned. The religion, philosophy, or particular idealism from which it rose may pass, yet the art remains, exactly as literature still lives in a language that is dead.
"The art which pleases or depresses according to our temporary mood in the end decays, because it has not the power to create a living, self-developing mood in us. Since Liszt's music belongs to this kind of art, one can say that it will not form part of the permanent possessions of humanity."
Thus our great Sydney Grew. Does he not here excellently refute the Member's suggestions?
Does he? If so, how? And in any case, is he correct? The statement that "art never becomes old-fashioned" is as absurd as it is inaccurate. Was he never acquainted with the terms "ars antiqua", "ars vetus" and "ars nova" (applied to music of the 13th and 14th centuries
by musical writers of that age)? Was he unaware of the raging battles between Artusi and Monteverdi, and the resulting terms "stile antico" and "stile moderno"; or even Monteverdi's own terms "prima prattica" and "seconda prattica"? Evidently not. I can find nothing in your extract from Sydney Grew ("the real") that has any bearing whatsoever upon musical analysis, in terms either of purpose or method.
(Members will know of course that it was Liszt who introduced the term "Programme Music" in contradistinction to "Absolute".)
Of course we know this! But this also betrays the basis upon which later writers limited their view of "absolute" as an adjective for music. I am assuming that your forthcoming analysis of Shostakovich is not intending to take him to task because his 8th Symphony, while being an "instrumental" work, projects other connotations and possible sub-strata? If so, I suggest you will be wasting your time.
We would only append here a reminder that true Art must also display 1) the necessity of its subject; 2) the necessity of its production or existence; 3) a self-contained and organic structure in which each part and aspect refers to and requires the other parts, and in some way, indeed in as many ways as possible, contributes to the heightening of the effect of the whole; and 4) the exclusion as far as possible of everything incidental, i.e. not contributing to that heightening.
You have here made four "pronouncements" which what you call "true Art" must obey. Are they your own, or are they somebody else's? If they are your own, you should without delay tell us upon what authority they are based. If they are someone else's, you should provide a proper acknowledgement.
The Greeks already knew all that; let us try to live up to their example! Judged against this high and absolute standard the man Shortacowitch as we shall shortly have occasion to point out fell in his efforts very very short indeed.
The Greeks knew a lot about acoustics, metrics and intonation. They knew nothing whatsoever about your modern ideas of "true art", "absolute music" and "taste" - and they didn't need to. They were far too sophisticated to be bothered with such trivia.
Baz
