In Rich Atkinson’s criticism blog entitled “Finding Concrete Meaning in Absolute Music: Why?”, he discusses how some people are never content with just listening to a piece of music.  Many people want an explanation and want to believe that there is a driving force or emotion behind the music, even when that is not the case.

When dealing with absolute music, there is no meaning.  There is no specific program that the music is based off of.  It is solely music for music’s sake.  It is nonrepresentational of any one thing.  It’s purpose is for the listeners to take from the piece whatever they desire.  It is open ended and entirely subjective.  And this is where the problem lies for most people.  People are lazy by nature.  People like to be told what they are listening to and what they should be listening for.  People want to believe in something solid and concrete.  When things, in this case music, are left open for interpretation, it doesn’t sit well with listeners.

Another reason that absolute music is difficult for people to understand is because it is a relativly new concept.  Since the birth of music, there has always been a reason for it.  Whether it be for celebratory purposes or religious worship, music had a distinct purpose.  To go from music having purpose for hundreds and hundreds of years to then telling listeners that it can be whatever you want it to be is quite a shock to them.  Although I disagree with their desire to have meaning behind the music, I do sympathize with their closed minds and understand where they are coming from.

One piece of music he refers to is Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 6.  He says that this is a piece which can be considered highly emotional for the composer, but that that is not always the case.  When listening to the piece, one can certainly hear the emotion and the precision.  It starts off slow, as if he is reflecting on something, then builds to a brief outburst of brass and strings before returning back to slow strings.  It is a beautiful piece and makes me understand why people like to know that there is a reason behind the music.

However, in contrast to that, he refers to another piece, Carl Nielsen’s Symphony No. 1.  This is an entirely absolute music piece, but I would never know that.  It is composed lavishly and is extremely decadent.  Half way through, his use of strings, percussion, and brass give off a swirling sensation as if he were on a wild ride that slows down as all instruments fade and leave only strings, but picks back up again with more brass.  Just because Nielsen doesn’t provide a program for the piece doesn’t make it any less valuable or less credible than other works that do provide programs.  It is certainly one of the best compositions that I have heard and I believe it fairs right up their with Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 6.

No matter what, everyone is going to have their opinion, especially when it comes to music.  All we can really do is speak our piece, but not be close minded.  People should listen to and consider other people’s opinions before discarding them.  I believe we’ve come a long way as a society and an appreciation for absolute music should be much more common now than it was in the late 1800s.

Criticism

http://richatkinson.blogspot.com/2008/02/finding-concrete-meaning-in-absolute.html

Tchaikovksy’s Symphony No. 6

Nielsen’s Symphony No. 1