|
|
Post by ironguts on Apr 20, 2007 11:00:25 GMT 10
Found this at wikipedia about Sentimentalism, (1) An overindulgence in emotion, especially the conscious effort to induce emotion in order to enjoy it.
mmm, maybe that is the term I should be using.
You know the definitions in the Macquarie are varied enough for us all to be on a similar track.
- fanciful, unpractical, quixotic
- dominated by the ideas, spirit, or sentiment prevailing in romance
- displaying or expressing love, emotion, strong affection
- imaginary fictitious or fabulous
- pertaining to the style of 18th - 19th Cent Lit/art/music characterized by freedom of treatment, subordination of form to matter, imagination, experimentation with form.
God, a few really suit me, am I a romantic??
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 20, 2007 15:13:47 GMT 10
Hear hear, great debate on this thread! - I'm really enjoying it too.
I think sentimentalism is always yuck in music, but romance can be kickarse. Hows that for insight!
Guts - on your comments about 'bop' and 'free' players, I'm sure you were just saving time but these are dangerous generalisations for the scope of players out there. Bottom line is anyone who has the blinkers on about which Jazz is the 'right' way to play will always benefit from more study.
|
|
|
|
Post by vickibonet on Apr 20, 2007 16:11:14 GMT 10
Isn't Captain just referring to that incarnation of Miles' band - comparing them with the classic Coltrane Quartet? I think he was...but actually what I was referring to, was the quality of their individual sounds on the instrument - Miles certainly had that extremely "lonely" tone back in the fifties - and Wayne developed his own thing certainly from hearing Coltrane and then in the context of his own music and the 5tet from the mid 60's but do you think Trane was ever widely recognized for having that same 'soul' in his sound the way those guys were?Not until later on I think... I have heard Coltrane referred to as cold, spiritual, abstract,possessed,clinical etc, and yet as I think Captain points out, his playing,especially on ballads and that Hartman record is intensely soulful without being sentimental. I think sentimentality is a projection of the listener but having said that what is wrong with it in the first place? |
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Apr 20, 2007 16:30:42 GMT 10
Hey Gator, I think our discussion needs to be done over a few bottles of whatever for some hours. I'm sure we're coming from similar places it just comes down to terminology. I do find the subject very interesting and think it's a wroth wile one for us to think about. Bodgey, Of course it will come down to being subjective, but it's easy then never to discuss anything because it's all fucking subjective. I recon healthy discussion like this is not about the end result of good/bad or right/wrong, it's about the exploration of an idea. I don't disagree with Gator, I'm just trying to work out this romantic vibe, tis fun to get peoples ideas and see your own change. I've had plenty of students go " I'm not into that, so I don't practice it" , to me thats lame. As artists we should check it all out and get an insight into things properly before we start forming too many rigid opinions. The classic jazz thing is to be into Free or into Bebop. There are plenty of Bebop players that would benefit greatly ( yes in my view, it's subjective) from exploring Free playing, and vice versa too. Thats right...and students can be the most rigid and myopic of all musicians - I understand a bit of purism?(is that a word?), but its usually defensive. Interestingly some of the better ones have a hard core set of influences with good enough ears to appreciate anything thats good...buthaving said that, in reference to another thread, having decided to teach to make a living, one can really burn out.., Im up for some R&R.. Guts - Name the time, place, and I'll apply for turps leave... |
|
|
|
Post by bodgey on Apr 21, 2007 14:12:34 GMT 10
This thread is booting for sure, I'm loving it!
Guts - you're right, saying it's all subjective is a cop out.
I think the terminology change helps - sentimentalism as compared to romanticism. I also like the ideas bandied around about heroism and romanticism - wayne, miles, trane etc are our heroes (well, maybe not all of ours), and we tend to have a romantic view of their lives - but I don't think it's related to the music that much. Maybe it's related to their lives in that they have 'lived' the music - i.e. been uncompromising. There's something very romantic about that notion.
I don't hear Coltrane playing 'my one and only love' as being 'romantic' - just passionate. Maybe he was a romantic, but I don't think so, insofar as I can tell from just listening to his music. But then, maybe that's bullshit - maybe someone who plays lots of soppy saxophone ballads with a vomit-inducing 'romantic touch' is a cold hearted bastard. I'm sure there are examples of both sides of that fence.
sentimentalism is an interesting one. all these words that different languages have that no one ever seems to be able to translate well (i.e. saudade, sehnsucht etc). I guess i'm rambling here (no, really bodge?), but the idea of sentimentalism stirs up the word 'longing' in my mind - much more satisfying than romanticism, because it implies there's some tension there. but then again, going by the definition above that Guts provided, maybe I should re think.
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Apr 21, 2007 17:14:43 GMT 10
The great contemporary composer John Adams wrote a wonderful orchestral piece called "Naive and Sentimental Music". It was brilliantly polemical titling on his part as he proudly described his music in terms that were complete anathema to the modern art movement (both in classical music and jazz) where the right thing for art to be doing - especially post-WW2 - was being tough, edgy and cynical. Or at least world-weary.
Adams pointed out that the word "sentimental" has only quite recently come to mean tacky. It used to mean filled with human feeling, a pretty good call for an artist. Similarly with "naive". It has a patronisingly pejorative tone now. It used to mean "without pretension", not a bad thing at times. Modernism has a lot to answer for and art can be enriched by the taking down of some of its received wisdoms (without necessarily rejecting its very real fruits).
The Italian composer who recently died Gian Carlo Menotti despaired thus about the artistic times he lived in: “To say of a piece that it is harsh, dry, acid and unrelenting is to praise it. While to call it sweet and graceful is to damn it". He found that odd. I think it is odd.
To me there is room in art to welcome the sentimental as there is room in life for the sentimental. We quite readily recognise how cold-hearted it would be to reject all sentimental gestures in life, but not always so easily in our aesthetic stances. All of us are moved regularly by the sentimental in our personal lives. My wife cut carefully and lovingly around the body figures in a photo of my daughter when she was six sitting on my knee with her arm around my shoulder. She then superimposed the figures over cut-out pictures of flowers so that Dad and daughter looked like they were floating in an enchanted forest. She then framed it and presented it to me. Everything about it was sentimental in the extreme. And I love it.
From the personal to the artistic: much music I love is sentimental. Schumann, Chopin, Ravel of course but also some of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart who are not thought of as "romantic" but still managed to include it with everything else they do. Bartok can be sentimental. So can Prokoviev. And Schoenberg. The entire so-called Great American Song Book is sentimental and I consider it one of the major treasures of twentieth century music, to rival any collection of art songs of any time. When Coltrane plays "My One and Only Love" and Johnny Hartmann sings it the song is of course elevated greatly from its pop origins. But to me that elevation has the effect of making it EVEN MORE sentimental along with everything else it does. The song expresses an incredibly sentimental idea - the deep wells of unflinchingly steadfast devotion and adoration found in long-term romantic love - and when Coltrane and Johnny do it I feel that the sentimental core of the song is even more strongly brought to the fore, along with the more powerful intellectual and spiritual content they bring to it. One doesn't cancel out the other. They don't improve the song by taking out the sentiment - they do so by ultimately making it even more sentimental and in a more lasting and multi-dimensional way.
|
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Apr 21, 2007 17:26:37 GMT 10
Well said Mark.
Further on your comments regarding sentimentality, I believe there's nothing at all wrong with music that is perceived as sentimental or romantic (in it's non-musical definition), as long as it is genuine. The thing I find cheesy is the manipulation of these - making something appear falsely appear to be these things. Romantic or sentimental without genuine emotion is about as cynical as you can get, yet many punters fall for it (how else can you explain Kenny G?).
|
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Apr 21, 2007 17:54:50 GMT 10
Yes, in all of this discussion, most of us would still find the word 'sentiment' still has some deeper meaning beyond what is essentially emotionally contrived..or "schmaltz"(if that is the correct spelling)...
|
|
|
|
Post by freddy on Apr 22, 2007 10:31:34 GMT 10
[/quote] I think sentimentality is a projection of the listener but having said that what is wrong with it in the first place?[/quote]
It's manipulative, that's what's wrong with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddy on Apr 22, 2007 10:42:20 GMT 10
Well said Mark. Further on your comments regarding sentimentality, I believe there's nothing at all wrong with music that is perceived as sentimental or romantic (in it's non-musical definition), as long as it is genuine. The thing I find cheesy is the manipulation of these - making something appear falsely appear to be these things. Romantic or sentimental without genuine emotion is about as cynical as you can get, yet many punters fall for it (how else can you explain Kenny G?). You're trying to have your cake and eat it. The point about sentimentality is that it is never about genuine emotions but about inducing a response that is overly emotional. The best example is in Hollywood films that have a veneer of realism but with a narrative that has the hero overcome great odds (pain, rejection, misunderstanding etc. etc. ) in order to succeed. The mainstream American audience - whose taste governs the way these concoctions are constructed - sighs and goes home believing that all is right with the world because it's possible for anyone to make it. |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Apr 22, 2007 10:51:47 GMT 10
Sentiment and romance then, when evident in music, may not be a problem. It comes to intent, extremely subjective, shit.
Sentimentalism and Romanticism then may be the over indulgence of these and may be seen to problem for some, me being one. I certainly wouldn't want art devoid of these, ie cold, I guess, but the level again,,,subjective.
Mark, good rave, reminds me of a song - Ego, is not a dirty word -
|
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Apr 22, 2007 11:39:01 GMT 10
Well said Mark. Further on your comments regarding sentimentality, I believe there's nothing at all wrong with music that is perceived as sentimental or romantic (in it's non-musical definition), as long as it is genuine. The thing I find cheesy is the manipulation of these - making something appear falsely appear to be these things. Romantic or sentimental without genuine emotion is about as cynical as you can get, yet many punters fall for it (how else can you explain Kenny G?). You're trying to have your cake and eat it. The point about sentimentality is that it is never about genuine emotions but about inducing a response that is overly emotional. The best example is in Hollywood films that have a veneer of realism but with a narrative that has the hero overcome great odds (pain, rejection, misunderstanding etc. etc. ) in order to succeed. The mainstream American audience - whose taste governs the way these concoctions are constructed - sighs and goes home believing that all is right with the world because it's possible for anyone to make it. Not at all. My comment was a continuation of this from Mark... "Adams pointed out that the word "sentimental" has only quite recently come to mean tacky. It used to mean filled with human feeling, a pretty good call for an artist. Similarly with "naive". It has a patronisingly pejorative tone now. It used to mean "without pretension", not a bad thing at times. Modernism has a lot to answer for and art can be enriched by the taking down of some of its received wisdoms (without necessarily rejecting its very real fruits)." ... and if you read the rest of my post you'd see we agree regarding the manipulative use of sentimentalism. |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on Apr 22, 2007 12:17:04 GMT 10
It's manipulative, that's what's wrong with it. I expect to be manipulated by art. When a great artist manipulates me it's the spiritual equivalent of a great lover manipulating my body. Bring it on please. If a mediocre artist manipulates, like an analogous mediocre lover, well, it's less than extraordinary but still better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick. But - if my lover is not interested in manipulating me, or sanctimoniously finds the whole idea of manipulation unsavoury then frankly I'm not interested. Art SHOULD be manipulative. And I suggest all successful art is. Art that doesn't try to manipulate is just LISTLESS, like so much contemporary so-called art. To paraphrase Woody Allen on sex. Is manipulation dirty? Only if it's done right. |
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Apr 22, 2007 12:42:09 GMT 10
Then we need to settle on what we consider manipulative! Can we have grades of manipulation? A manipulyzer that rates things from heart-felt manipulation to cynical manipulation? A good point Mark. I'm really talking about cynical, money-making manipulation. Using something that could be art as a money making machine. I know this will probably start a whole new round of discussion on the merits of making a buck.
As Hamish Stuart once said to me "if only they'd use their powers for good instead of evil."
|
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Apr 22, 2007 13:25:07 GMT 10
Manipulation now, fuck the dictionary is getting a work out this month. I'm not so convinced I want to be manipulated by Art. Sure, there needs to be a degree of it in Art, in relation to music the manipulation of harmony, rhythm, form etc but for what purpose or end. Is it the aim of an artist to manipulate or the wish of the viewer to be manipulated that decides on the level.
Personally I like to be stimulated by Art either emotionally, spiritually or intellectually. This may occur through various means of manipulation on a technical level, but the more aware of the intention of the manipulation the less effect it may have. Kenny G for eg has a very low form of emotional manipulation through the most obvious of means, needless to say I don't fall for that. Trane at the other end, has the most subtle ( strange word for him ) and also complex and intelligent ways of 'manipulating' his playing to achieve his means. I never feel manipulated by him at all, only inspired.
The one association of manipulation for me that I have a problem with is deviousness. As you say Mark, a great lover with permission is wonderful, Kenny G is a rapist.
|
|
