I insist on a distinction between music of emotional depth, which can be genuinely moving, and that which is merely sentimental, producing instantaneous manipulative effects in the manner of a Hollywood music. But the two things often get conflated.
I don't disagree with you, Ian - but how would you distinguish one from the other? Are there recognisable traits, memetic cliches, and so forth? Isn't it rather true that music composed with the cynical intention of manipulating the emotions of the listener actually uses the same forms and devices as music of genuine depth... but over-eggs the pudding with them? So really its more a matter of taste and discretion on the composer's part?
Well, I think it has something to do with the individuality, distinctiveness and complexity of the emotion presented. Manipulative or sentimental music tends to work with a few stock categories and devices; finer music turns these into something unique? I find it easier to sense one than articulate how it comes about - but maybe that's because it's an immensely difficult thing to do, and something for which composers spend many years developing the ability?
One day I'll come round to Tchaikovsky: certainly what I've heard of recent performances, especially from Russia, where as one conductor (I forget who) said, 'there's no need to add sugar to honey'. I can appreciate that there is a lot of depth to that work, just perhaps that can get flattened out in rather sentimental performances?
Is Hollywood necessarily wrong? When composed as background music for a film, isn't it almost "legitimate" to go for the jugular, and underscore the emotional effect the Director hopes to achieve in any particular scene?
Well, in film the music is of course just one of various elements, as you say. Anything is 'legitimate', of course, but some of the most striking results can be produced when the music does something more than just amplify what's implicit elsewhere, but rather adds some wider perspective (same true of other aspects, the cinematography, lighting, various aspects of the acting, etc. - would you say something of the same applies in opera/theatre?). I don't tend to respond so well to things that try to 'spell out' exactly what emotion one is meant to feel, just in case it was remotely ambiguous.
How would you assess Korngold's film music in this regard... successful, or cynical? If it had been more understated, would it have been better/truer? You or I may not necessarily admire or praise it, but "schlock" is a recognised genre which has very serious underlying intentions - do we have the right to impose our own judgements on its o.t.t. values outside the historical context?
I don't really know Korngold's film music well enough to have a worthwhile opinion. From what I have heard of his other work, I find it hard to imagine that it would be nothing more than mere 'schlock', even if it employs some aspects of that 'genre'? I don't see the issue really being one of something being 'understated' so much as three-dimensional.
I would prefer to steer away from discussions of specific communities of people, but surely isn't it the case that the "British emotional reserve" is a longstanding matter, and not a C20th phenomenon? For example, Handel found that his opera audiences deserted him after a while - yet the self-same people were most delighted to return once the emotional challenge had been suffused with some faux-religiosity, plots from the Holy Bible, and a lot of choral fugues.
Absolutely, yes. I was reading in Rosen's book
The Frontiers of Meaning some quotes from Charles Lamb, from the 18202, about a German canon - Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, for which he said 'I stagger under the weight of harmony, reeling to and fro at my wit's end'. Rosen points out that the reason Handel was omitted from the group was that Lamb considered him to be an English composer - but was he thought of that way during his lifetime?
Off the point, I remember someone suggesting that British music took an awfully long time to get over the overriding influence of Handel, especially his introducing them to the oratorio. This wasn't in any sense a criticism of Handel (this person was a huge fan), just a feeling that it took over a century before British composers could escape simply producing second-rate imitations. I don't know much British music from that period - any thoughts as to whether this seems a fair characterisation (perhaps in a different thread)?
