Content and Form in Music
October 10, 2008 · Posted in Assignments
Why have I sent you to hear John Adams and Dvorak in the same week?
What do these composers have in comment?
What did the events have in commen?
How do they relate to our topic?
Comments
-
Cultural Map
"The Original Topography of Manhattan Island from the Battery to 155th Street" From Report on the Social Statistics of Cities, Compiled by George E. Waring, Jr., United States. Census Office, Part I, 1886. (Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas-Austin)
We were sent to hear John Adams and Dvorak in the same week in order to see how different music can be used to convey similar emotions and have an impacting effect on the audience. I’m honestly not all that good at interpreting the style we heard during these events but I’d say these two composers, just like any other composer I suppose, use what they produce to tell a story. This sounds like a somewhat easy task but we heard at the John Adams lecture that it really isn’t so simple. In order to be able to do this, he said you need a storyline that can be easily divided such as the Nixon visit to China which was easily split into three parts for the show. Through their art composers make the audience aware of something by using various dynamics to produce feeling. This idea was made clear by Dvorak in his use of complex sound changes to create a dynamic feeling of a sad yet hopeful tune. In regards to the topic form and content, it is clear that these two work together invariably. The form of music, meaning the changes in volume, speed, pitch, e.t.c. create a specific content. Depending upon what each composer is trying to achieve through their music, they’ll use different forms to produce the best possible piece of art.
John Adams and Dvorak are both composers of music, which is why we heard them in the same week. John Adams composes opera, and Dvorak also composes a form of music. These composers and events have things in common. The music they compose evokes emotions and responses from the audience; their music also conveys a message or depicts a story. The events we attended this week relate to the topic, form and content. The two composers used different forms of music; one used singing (opera) and the other used instruments (the Philharmonic). Both of these forms of music, however, produced a story or mood, which is the content of the music. The form and the content were different for each of the composers, but they were present in both.
We could have just attended a Philharmonic concert or an opera; instead I dragged you to hear the artist/creator talk about his creation. Think of the format of the events we attended. Why did I want you to understand the role of the artist/creator? The first event looked at minimalist music the other at Romantic music. Is the form of great importance? What about the content? What roll do these works play in our lives? Why are they so prominently displayed in our culture?
The personal, emotional content is only one component in the communication between an audience and the artist.
I was unable to attend the Philharmonic Concert so I’ll just write about the John Adams interview. Let me start by saying that I have heard John Adams’ music before in a place I never expected. I play the computer game “Civilization 4″ and in it there are various ages. The score of John Adams’ “Nixon in China” Opera is the music for the modern age. This is because Adams is writing opera in an extremely modern form. Thus form plays a major role in defining Adams. But content is even more important. Adams spoke of his work as if it were a movement in the world of opera that he is trying to inspire: The American Opera Tradition. Thus his content is American experiences. This is even more important to him than his unique style of music. The form and content work together to create Adams’ unique work and as for why we went to an interview with him? I honestly wouldn’t know anything about the content if not for the interview and in many ways that would have made the form meaningless to me.
I think it was very interesting to see both John Adams and some of his work and Dvorak in the same week. Both composers do not create classical pieces and they differentiate from what can be seen as the norm for their respective genres. I believe we went to see these two events because we learned about the works through the composers and their own words. John Adams even spoke directly to us. Both events were extremely personal, we were getting a rare chance to see inside of a composers thought process and views of his own pieces. Both composers’ works are heavily influenced by the society in which they live, being their main inspiration, whether it be the famous Manhattan project for Adams or the culture of the African Americans for Dvorak. I personally feel that the form of the two composers’ music was extremely different, only the socially relevant content and perhaps emotional content was similar. But the composers did both also try to convey human emotions and feelings through there music and i feel that, was a tying factor between the two.
I was not able to attend the John Adams lecture. I read the interview that was posted online but I still did not really get a sense of his music, except that it is different from music from many other artists. However, I did attend the Dvorak symphony. Before the orchestra played the actual symphony, there was a lecture on Dvorak and what influenced him to write the symphony. That allowed us as the audience to see what inspired a great composer to write beautiful music, as well as his feelings and thoughts about it, almost as if he had been addressing us himself. I know John Adams is an opera composer and that he gave a lecture himself to the audience. Their forms are both music performances. While one was a modern opera, the other was a less modern symphony. The symphony was written about Native Americans and I feel do not play a very big roll in our lives today. However, an opera about “Nixon In China” would speak to anyone who was alive during Nixon’s presidency.
We were sent to hear both John Adams and Dvorak in the same week in order to have a sense of two different styles of music. The John Adams lecture was in the style of opera and the Philharmonic was classical styled music conveyed through instruments. Even though the forms of these two types of music seem rather old fashioned, the content involve modern issues. Through the philharmonic and the opera, we were able to feel what the piece was trying to get across to the audience. As well as getting a feel of the mood of the piece, the content or history behind the music was something else that became evident to the listener through the speakers at the shows. I feel that the form of the music is not that important just as long as it is appealing to the audience at hand. The content on the other hand is more important in the sense that it may be more important to some more than others. A symphony on the Native Americans is not as important as the “Nixon in China” piece where something of relevance to people was explained through singing. Form conveys the mood while content conveys the basis of the whole piece and makes the piece relatable.
At first, it’s pretty difficult to make a connection between the two composers. Yes, of course they are both composers. But, Dvorak was more about composing music rooted in “native” America. His indigenous work and Native American influence can be contrasted with the more socially relevant work of John Adams. Anyway, both of the events gave us an inside look at the composers and tried to get into their heads to explain why they composed the work they did. Personally, I enjoyed the multimedia narration/lecture at the Philharmonic rather than the slightly boring interview. Still, both were significant because we were able to understand the background of the pieces and their work in general. More importantly, by attending both in the same week, we are able to make a vague connection between them. By listening to the background of both composers, I’ve come to realize that the content and influence of the pieces don’t play as major a role as I initially thought. Dvorak composed music that almost no one can directly relate to, while Adams composed operas that are politically and socially relevant. Yet, both are still wildly popular and have an impact on our lives. Why? It’s a bit difficult to express the reasons why. But, basically it’s HOW they compose this work. It’s sort of like a special formula that only the composer knows. Though we don’t really know this “formula”, we’ve learned that there is a special combination of content (however significant or relevant it may be) and vivid music that is able to express entirely this content.
I think we went to hear John Adams and Dvorak in the same week because we have just moved into a new topic, music. Both of these composers have chosen music (and in Adams’ case, the sung word) to communicate ideas to the listener, or possibly evoke an emotion. Although Adams is a minimalist composer and Dvorak a Romantic composer, both utilized the styles of their times much like vernacular language to communicate what they wanted to the listener. Although they used different musical styles, each composer shared a trait that bridges the many years between them. One of the biggest things I took away from the Adams’ lecture was his ideas on what subjects qualify for a good contemporary opera, or any opera for that matter. As an example, he pointed out Nixon in China, and how the entire three-act opera was based on Nixon’s three days spent visiting the People’s Republic of China. His own opera, Doctor Atomic, is just as specific. The idea of having an good but extremely specific theme also manifested itself in Dvorak’s music; the musical motif that comprised the piece’s theme was short and memorable, and was threaded throughout the entire piece, making itself present in all three movements. In this regard, the composers had much in common. The events themselves were common in that they, although drastically different in terms of style, served the purpose of communicating the composer’s message; in Adams’ case, the purpose was to stir up memories of the Manhattan Project and communicate the emotional turmoil it brought to Robert Oppenheimer, and in Dvorak’s case the purpose was to stir up strong feelings (as indicated by the dynamic power of the first and third movements) of hopeful melancholy. (I am aware that the first and last movements of a “classical” piece are often powerful, with the middle being slower, but in this case I think the structure was important in highlighting the central motif in different contexts) All of this related to our topic in that it showed actual style (in this case, style was dictated by time period) does not matter when it comes to art, and that in the end, it is all about the composer’s central message, be it the emotional journey/narrative of Robert Oppenheimer or a melancholy Dvorak motif.
In response to Professor Weinroth’s second set of questions, I think it was important for us to understand the role of the creator of music. Listening to John Adams, for example, helped show the audience why and how he chose the subject of his opera, in this case, Nixon’s visit to China. It is a deliberate and thoughtful process, requiring more work than I ever could have imagined. I think this helped me to appreciate this dimension of art, which is musical composition, more than I had previously. I don’t believe, however, that the form of music, whether it be opera, symphony, or even rap, is of great importance; what matters to me personally is the content of the music, the message that it is trying to send to its listeners. Every musical piece has a theme that the composer is conveying. Although the way in which this theme is delivered (form) has certain effects, overall I believe that the content is of much greater importance.
I wasn’t able to go to the Philharmonic Concert, but I think I learned enough from John Adams to still answer the question. I had heard a few pieces by John Adams before I saw him at the 92nd st. Y, and my first impressions were bad, but I was still quite eager to see him, to at least understand where he was coming from as an artist. I never liked minimalism in music. I can understand the theory behind it, but if I listen to it for long periods of time, it gives me a headache. I am sure that with study I could better understand why minimalist composers chose to construct pieces in such a displeasing way, but I don’t think it would affect my general dislike of it. Like Cliff, my first taste of John Adams was from ‘Civilization 4’, where the game designers set the modern section to pieces of his opera “Nixon in China”. Though I wasn’t enchanted by the music, I found the choice of music fascinating (the repetitive simple music really conveyed the power of the era) and idea of setting a historical event like Nixon’s trip to China, or Oppenheimer’s work on the Manhattan Project to music really appealed to me. For that reason I was very exited to see him speak about some of his work, though I was rather disappointed with the actual product. Though his ideas for artistic projects were really very compelling, and his use of poetry spoke to me, I found the execution of his ideas in an opera to be very disappointing. The ideas of American tragedy were lost to me behind a needlessly obtuse operatic format, and the beauty of the poetry that I had connected with seconds before when it was read aloud, was lost in repetition, over acting, and music.
I never liked opera, I never liked minimalist music, I walked into that interview with no great love for John Adams, or his previous work, And yet I came to see Adams with very high hopes and left even more disappointed than before. I do not claim to speak for everyone, but I believe I had witnessed an example of the defeat of content by form. I saw within the two operas elements of a truly great work of art, but I could not connect with the final product due to its style and execution. But such a massive disconnect between myself and the composers intentions leaves me more than anything, confused. I am not sure whether I should be disappointed in Adams, or myself.
One of the most important aspects of art, in my opinion at least, is the work and effort that goes into creating it. This is why I sometimes question contemporary art since I wonder how much thought and work was really put into creating the piece. This is because the piece is often created very simply and easily and is purely symbolic rather than aesthetic as well.
Composing a piece of music, on the other hand, especially one as complex as an opera or a symphony, requires an immense amount of creative thought, planning, and rehearsal to execute successfully. In addition, not any composer can gain the respect of such great audiences such as the ones John Adams and Dvorak receive for their work. This is why i think it is important to talk to composers and listen to them speak of their creation rather than just listening to the final product. As i previously mentioned with the dance performance we saw, i don’t think you can fully appreciate a piece without talking to the people who worked on it and really seeing the effort put into it. For the same reason I am glad to have heard John Adams speak of his work because just watching his opera would not have had the same effect as watching it after listening to how he came up with the idea of it and how it was put together.
At first I didn’t think that both John Adams and Dvorak were seen in the same week for any specific reason and that they just happened to be schedules at those times. But the fact that both related to music helps to better assess the performances. If we would have been watching a dance show, a musical performance, and a painter’s gallery all the same week, the connection between the various types of art wouldn’t be as strong. And if we would of had a three week span between the two composers, it would have been harder to compare the performances and the artist’s works.
I must be honest though and say that I really enjoyed the philharmonic concert since i had never had the chance of seeing one and I finally understood the power of watching such a great symphony being played live. I wasn’t too enthusiastic about the John Adams lecture, however, because even though it was interesting to hear the source of his ideas and about his life and his work, the talk became very long and repetitive. I think that if i had a better background on the events and issues which his operas were based on, I would have enjoyed his lecture more. He seems like an extremely interesting and intelligent man, and his works are extremely original and different than others which I have heard about in the past. I would definitely like to hear more about him in the future when I am more prepared.
I unfortunately missed the John Adams lecture. From what I can tell from reading about John Adams and other students’ reactions, it is obvious why these two events were scheduled to coincide with form and content. The two are musical performances, both rooted in a classic form but able to portray very different content at the same time.
What I really want to discuss was the interesting use of form in the Dvorak concert. Yes, listening to the music one may have been able to discern the content and meaning of the music. But, having the lead-in to the concert explaining the form, explaining how Dvorak used certain forms to discuss his content of Native Americans and African Americans and what he saw as America was fascinating. Additionally, having the music played side-by-side to excepts from The Song of Hiawatha made the comparison between two different forms with the same content all the more clear and fascinating.
To me it seems that both of these composers sought to capture the sociological shift that was occurring in their respective time periods by infusing their works with contemporary content. However it is important to note that they delivered it in differing formats of music (which would consequently draw appeal from different types of audiences). Either way both of these composers wrote pieces that emphasized the embarking upon a new era in the time lines of certain regions (a fact which is made clear by Dvorak’s title “New World Symphony”). For example, Adams wrote “ Nixon in China” after living through the cold war when china was a major super power and an ideological opponent yet it seems that Adams is trying to humanize the Chinese by displaying their suffering and the similar human natures that that can be seen in the characters actions. As for Dvorak, I disagree with the contention that his piece was modeled off of Native American and African American music styles as it seems to have an entirely different instrumentation and structure to it (not to mention its purpose is solely aesthetic rather than being utilitarian such as African American and Native American music did. The evidence presented to argue that it has such influences is based upon Dvorak’s own claims and the loose connection via the use of the pentatonic scale (which is a very widely used scale anyway). Even Leonard Bernstein contends that the piece draws off of primarily European influences. However there s a considerable mix of European influences and it could be argued that the piece was meant to represent the multi-ethnic make-up of the United States during that time period.
I was unable to attend the philharmonic concert (which i believe was the Dvorak event), however, I did attend the John Adams lecture. I was very intrigued by what Mr. Adams had to say. It is always interesting to get the creator’s perspective on his own work or even the field in general. It provides the receiver with a sense of what is at the core of what they are seeing or hearing. In this case it is music. I believe music, unlike some visual art, isn’t really open to the receiver’s interpretation. There is definitely a set meaning, goal, intention, etc. So for a creator of a piece of music to talk about it it gives us as the receivers a direct sense of what that meaning, goal, or intention is. If i listened to John Adams’s music before listening to his interview, i probably would have been perplexed and rather uninterested. However, after seeing his interview, i found myself looking for some of his music so i could make the connection between his work and what he was saying on stage. That is what hearing the creator speak can do for you, especially if you’ve never had interest in that music before; it can spark your interest and make you take the work a little more seriously and listen to it a little more analytically. I enjoyed the John Adams lecture very much.
I was unable to attend the Philharmonic Concert so I’ll just write about the John Adams interview. Let me start by saying that I have heard John Adams’ music before in a place I never expected. I play the computer game “Civilization 4″ and in it there are various ages. The score of John Adams’ “Nixon in China” Opera is the music for the modern age. This is because Adams is writing opera in an extremely modern form. Thus form plays a major role in defining Adams. But content is even more important. Adams spoke of his work as if it were a movement in the world of opera that he is trying to inspire: The American Opera Tradition. Thus his content is American experiences. This is even more important to him than his unique style of music. The form and content work together to create Adams’ unique work and as for why we went to an interview with him? I honestly wouldn’t know anything about the content if not for the interview and in many ways that would have made the form meaningless to me.
needed to repost
Apparently my first post didn’t go up so I am reposting my response.
To me it seems that both of these composers sought to capture the sociological shift that was occurring in their respective time periods by infusing their works with contemporary content. However it is important to note that they delivered it in differing formats of music (which would consequently draw appeal from different types of audiences). Either way both of these composers wrote pieces that emphasized the embarking upon a new era in the time lines of certain regions (a fact which is made clear by Dvorak’s title “New World Symphony”). For example, Adams wrote “ Nixon in China” after living through the cold war when china was a major super power and an ideological opponent yet it seems that Adams is trying to humanize the Chinese by displaying their suffering and the similar human natures that that can be seen in the characters actions. As for Dvorak, I disagree with the contention that his piece was modeled off of Native American and African American music styles as it seems to have an entirely different instrumentation and structure to it (not to mention its purpose is solely aesthetic rather than being utilitarian such as African American and Native American music did. The evidence presented to argue that it has such influences is based upon Dvorak’s own claims and the loose connection via the use of the pentatonic scale (which is a very widely used scale anyway). Even Leonard Bernstein contends that the piece draws off of primarily European influences. However there s a considerable mix of European influences and it could be argued that the piece was meant to represent the multi-ethnic make-up of the United States during that time period.
John Adams is a pioneer of American Opera and Dvorak a pioneer of The American classical school of music. That is what they have in common, but while Dvorak embraced the common music of America in his form, the negro spirituals, Adams does not embrace music that can resonate with the common American. His minimalist form does little to evoke the feelings and emotions that Dvorak’s New World Symphony evokes in listeners.
At the philharmonic, we were shown paintings of the Hudson River School of artists to correspond to the movements of the symphony, but even without that visual component, and the historical background Alec Baldwin narrated, the music still speaks for itself. While listening you can almost imagine those paintings of great American landscapes yourself. You can still feel the essence of the Native American legend that the music was imposed on during the first segment of the concert.
The symphony speaks to listeners for itself, proving that without proper form, content is lost. New World Symphony needs no elaborate explanation of it’s content to be appreciated, whereas John Adams’ and other minimalist composers’ music does. Effective art will stand alone, it’s content should not have to be spoon-fed to people for them to understand or appreciate it.