John Smyth wrote:

>Playing with these associations to make some sort of extra-musical
>statement is what makes listening to the Romantics and Early Contemporaries
>such a meaningful and potent experience for me.

John has brought up the interesting issue of associations.  Do we need to
make them in order to enjoy music? Do the associations need to be of real
life matters or could they be of the fantasy variety?

John has well set out his basis for preference of Romantic to Early
Contemporary classical music.  As it happens, I tend to make more
associations with Baroque and Classical/Early Romantic music than with
Romantic and Early Contemporary.  Most of the associations are not "real
life" but just what enters my mind while listening to a work.  When I
listen to works of say, Liszt or Tchaikovsky, no associations are
forthcoming while the Art of the Fugue provides me with a plethora of them.

>Maybe modern music will slowly lend itself to new associations, though as
>I write this I wonder:  If earlier music was borne out of the rhythms of
>body movement and speech patterns and inflexion, can Modern music, which
>eschews everything inherently "human," (no scarcasm here), ever be
>associative? If one wants it to be?

John is losing me here.  I don't see any reason why associations connected
with modern music would be more difficult to make in the abstract; strange
notes, rhythms, and musical content can call forth strange associations.
I suppose it would depend on the individual listener.  All I can say with
some assurance is that my "associations" are least with those musical eras
where John feels them the most.

Can music be enjoyed without any associations?  Sure.  That just involves a
listening experience based purely on what the music is providing you.  But,
the existence of associations is a condition which generally enhances the
musical experience.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]