CLASSICAL Archives

Moderated Classical Music List

CLASSICAL@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Tobin <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 9 May 2002 21:53:16 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
Denis Fodor:

>I think subjectively that Jim Tobin makes a great deal of sense
>objectively.  As I get him, he tends to believe rather more that there
>is such a thing as objective judgement in music, and that subjective
>judgement is less important.

Well I did use these terms "objective" and "subjective" in spite of myself,
perhaps in self-mockery at the end, but actually the main thrust of my
remarks were meant to try to eliminate the use of these terms as much as
possible, because I don't think they really lead to greater understanding
of the nature or value of music.  The folks discussing the pros, cons,
relevance or irrelevance of rules of composition (within this same thread)
are talking within the framework of what is often called "objectivism," as
for instance

Robert Clements, who says:

>I've always thought that you can talk objectively about technically
>bad music (in the sense that it fails to achieve aesthetic effects
>due to technical incompetance - not in the sense of RVW's anecdote
>about parallel sevenths); but beyond a certain point, you can't talk
>objectively about good music.

What you can do is push the limits of understanding about why we admire,
get excited by, or otherwise respond strongly to certain pieces of music.
I once attended an open rehearsal of Benjamin Zander conducting the Boston
Philharmonic in the Schubert Great C Major Symphony, which I referred
to in my previous post.  In two hours Zander did not get past the second
movement, and he spent several minutes, talking mostly for the benefit
of the audience, on a particular passage in the development of the first
movement.  Those minutes were revelatory because Zander showed what
Schubert was doing in that passage in contrast to what he had been doing
prior to this development.  By demonstrating the subtle but startling
transformation of the theme--and this was about seventeen years ago so
I do not recall the specifics--he showed me why I have always been able
to listen to that work with excitement.  Someone else's reference to
Schubert's rhythms added to my understanding of why I react the way I
do to that work.

Jim Tobin

ATOM RSS1 RSS2