Comments on: Styles of Composition – Music

By: Styles of Composition - Writing « An Unquiet Mind

Styles of Composition - Writing « An Unquiet Mind — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:23:51 +0000

[...] Expanding the horizons of this analysis leads us to the application of this principle to music…(contd.) [...]

By: Rambodoc

Rambodoc — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:44:24 +0000

Mahendra,
I read it a couple of times when I was a student. Long time no read. I do remember how she thought music and literature were avenues for subjectivists to lay in their pitch and claim that everything is subjective.
I also seem to recall that she prescribed some norms of some sort (really vague here) that laid down criteria for objectivising the musical or artistic experience.

By: mahendrap

mahendrap — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:45:29 +0000

Thanks, Ramana! No need for disclaimers – if there were, I’d have to put one up on the entire blog itself!

The sub-style of perceptual writing you describe is indeed employed by many writers for humor and satire. Jerome K. Jerome, P. G. Wodehouse, and a Maharashtrian popular humorist P. L. Deshpande – are classical examples.

Regarding music, let me remind that this essay-post does not deal with the content of Romantic Manifesto, it only describes the style of composition employed by Rand. But since you’ve delved in it, let me respond. It is a bit surprising when you say you haven’t clearly identified with Rand’s concepts – since what you write is exactly what she writes! To quote “Until …., no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music.” She also describes how different people appraise the same piece of music differently. She goes on further to offer a hypotheses regarding how one’s sense of life contributes to this unique appraisal.

There’s nothing wrong in what you’ve said, it sounds perfectly right to me!

By: Rambodoc

Rambodoc — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 05:33:20 +0000

As far as music is concerned, I never very clearly identified with Rand’s concepts in The Romantic Manifesto. After all you may say in terms of what music is all about, it is still a matter of fact that no one, till date, has the same take on any one piece of music. It boils down to the technicalities: beat, rhythm, melody, etc…
When it comes to conceptualising and interpreting music, each person (I talk only of the experts and musicologists) does so in disparate ways. I don’t think there is an answer as to philosophical interpretation of music yet. Only a sense of life that one may derive from it. I can easily cry (don’t tell anyone, though) if left alone with Rachmaninov’s music, especially the first two symphonies. I do emotionally react to Beethoven’s Fifth. If a critic says it leaves him cold, I just can’t agree.
Correct me if I am wrong here, as I am talking once again about things that are above my level.

By: Rambodoc

Rambodoc — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 05:24:09 +0000

Brilliant post, mate!
How easily you synthesise the literary and musical experiences conceptually!
Disclaimer (where it is surely obvious and unnecessary): I am not a writer, nor have any formal learning or training about what I am talking about.
There is a sub-style of perceptual writing that undermines its essential understanding of the writer. Let me say that in English: a writer may write very easy prose and be apparently very trivial about it, but may actually be very deeply perceptive AND conceptual about it. For example, look at PG Wodehouse: much as he writes with facility, he has an amazing depth of perception of people and situations, which his writing style belies. When I write my usual crap, I tell myself that I underscore my deep understanding of psychology, philosophy, philandering and philately….oops, I think my literary slip is showing!