Re: MD SQ-SQ tension in Mozart's Symphony No38

From: Matt poot (
Date: Fri Feb 13 2004 - 22:15:05 GMT

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD Attention all forum posters"

    Hello all,

    I don't think a conceptual analysis of Mozart's music (or art in general)
    does much to enhance the aesthetic experience which, in the end, is the
    purpose of creating music in the first place. I agree with Wordsworth who

    Our meddling intellect
    Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things
    We murder to dissect.

    There are certain things, like reality itself, that intellect cannot
    explain. But we understand it anyway.


    -=*POOT*=-Now, I couldn't agree with you more Platt.

    Mark said:. I felt this example was significant purely on the grounds of
    exceptional coherence in and across value levels. Platt indicated that
    analysis may be harmful to our experience of
    beauty, but neither Platt not I have the ability to experience music
    notation as
    one purely versed in it. Some people, so i have observed, get a massive
    kick out of the abstract side of music. Who am i to argue with them? These
    people operate on a level i do not have access to.

    -=*POOT*=- Yesterday, I was speaking to a friend about one of his
    assignments, which was to analyze the form of various musical pieces by
    etc., etc., . He ended up asking me the question, "Did Beethoven write his
    music to be 'ABACABCA', or is it just some coincidence , or something we
    made up?". Well, having taken courses at the Royal Conservatory of Music,
    up to a level of Gr. 5 Analysis, I still coudn't really say. When I was
    taking these courses of such purely analytical thought, they bored me to
    death! Somehow, my theory teachers were always excited about the subject,
    how, I can and most likely never will understand. I have a similar feeling
    pertaining to other purely abstract parts of mathematics. I really just
    don't care! I'd much rather listen to it, for what it is...

    Dan Said: > Also, once something is heard or listened to it no longer is
    dynamic but
    static. Where/How do you classify it then?

    -=*POOT*=- Well its a tricky subject, but I don't think that music loses
    its dynamic aspect after you've listened to it. We may lose interest in it,
    because we know it so well, but does this mean it has become static? I
    think that music is always dynamic, because it has an infinite number of
    facets , which we notice at different times of our lives, young/old or when
    were drunk or stoned, happy, sad, infinitum. For example,
    when I was listening to Dark Side of the Moon(LP, oh yeah), by Pink Floyd
    one day, I noticed something, a very minor detail. Still, this is after
    having listened to it sooo many times. Not only that, at varying times, I
    have felt....almost one with the music, but yet in different moods.

    Is it like a lottery? You know they will pick from certain set numbers
    always, yet its always different.

    I guess that I would then define it as being dynamic, but leave it at that.


    MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 13 2004 - 22:22:38 GMT