Michael Cooper wrote:

>I do not think that emotion is extra-musical.  You do not need to read a
>critical analysis of Tchaikovsky's Sixth to hear the gloom and despair in
>the last movement.  Different people might describe the emotion conveyed in
>different terms, and most people will hear it while not necessarily feeling
>it, but I find it hard to argue that it is not, to use a most generic term,
>"very sad."

Well I guess you can call me an exception to the rule.  I find the last
movement to be one of intense beauty.  I don't hear gloom or despair.

>Apologize for the long post.  Let the invective flow...

Some invective...

It seems to me that there are some who use the notion of perceived
emotional content, or lack thereof, as a criteria for the evaluation of
a piece of music.

There are many levels of listening.  One is on an emotional level,
another addresses music on its own terms, yet another places music in the
background.  It would seem that if one listens on an emotional level, then
the quality is a question of the emotional content.  If one listens to
music on its own terms...this notion being expressed very well in Copland's
writings...then quality can be a very different question.  Likewise,
frequent changes of amplitude and gesture may negatively affect a listener
who is passive and uses music for background.

I often wonder about it in psychological terms.  Perhaps one of the
psychologists on the list might like to offer a perspective.  Does anyone
see any similarity between an individual's level of differentiation and
their level of listening?

Karl