The more I thought about it, the more it made sense; I started thinking of all the different ways I could structure it, all the different ways I could transition from one phrase to the next (musical phrases, that is - it actually is the technical term for it) using the techniques I learned from Speech and Debate. I thought of the Gettysburg address, and how beautifully Lincoln flows from one paragraph to the next, stating one idea, and then restating it in such a way that it transitions to the next idea, ad infinitum. Example:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to DEDICATE a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. Etc
I did that with a speech once, it was really cool, and it turned out really well. That same exact principle applies to music.
Also in the course of these musings came the realization of why I could never really understand Mozart and Bach's music: they weren't writing Abraham Lincoln speeches, where each idea flows into the next, there is no explicit thesis, and no "Point 1, Point 2, Point 3," That's how Chopin wrote music, that's how Grieg wrote music; that's what I kept expecting, and trying to find, but that's not how they wrote. Bach and Mozart wrote essays, where there is a very clear and defined thesis (or theme/exposition) and there are explicit "point 1, 2, and, 3, conclusion"s that don't have to flow seamlessly into each other (or variations, recapitulations, etc). But, either way, there's still a "centrality" to all the musical ideas in both cases.
Then, thought I, "Holy cow! these principles transfer so smoothly back and forth between music composition, and speech composition. I wonder how far I can take this? What about the principles of style, do they apply to writing music, too? How do I create a metaphor (note: I am using metaphor here in a broad sense encompassing metaphor, simile, analogy, etc) with music? Well, what is metaphor? A metaphor in speaking is usually relating one idea or thing to another, to help your audience understand the first thing better, and giving the first thing all the attributes of the second . (i.e. If I say a lady is slobbering mad, I'm implying that she's very mad, in a way that makes her look quite idiotic, disgusting and insensible, and it's easier to understand than the explanation of the metaphor I just gave.)
In my limited, expansive knowledge of music theory, a musical metaphor would probably be where you take a phrase, or a theme, and put it with another them, or another variation of the theme - in a sense all a word is is a metaphor for an idea, a concept, and experience, a thing, etc; and all music is is a metaphor for feelings, emotions, and ideas that aren't expressible through words.
And of course,the musings didn't stop there. Next I wondered, what about the visual arts, like painting, and sculpting? They're very different; speaking and music both deal almost explicitly with sounds which must be experienced over time - music is composed solely of tone, volume, and rhythm/timing. But in arts like painting and sculpting the art is experienced almost instantly, and time has very little, if anything at all, to do with the overall effect of the painting on the viewer. Are Metaphors still possible in these arts? Yes, they are inextricably essential. In painting the figures, or shapes, the basic geometry of the subject is the idea, and the way the subject is position, decorated, expressed, the colors used, the background given, the lighting, the detail or lack thereof are all explaining the idea in greater depth, and relating it to other ideas. (the following are all just random pictures I got from google...)
In this picture the background colors, and the way their painted are metaphorical movement, as is the way she's positioned. The blurriness is relating it to an almost dreamlike state, metaphorically, she's not in the world.
In this one God is reaching down to Adam. First of all, how is that not symbolic/metaphorical? His hair is white, His robe is scarlet, He has little babies flying around Him - those are all metaphors; they are connecting a color, an attitude, a position, ideas to God to help us understand better the God the artist is portraying.
Yeah, this one I'm not sure is necessarily metaphorical, but it does have other elements of style also found in speaking, i.e. allusion (the baby thing at the bottom. I don't know what its alluding to, though; those are usually very culturally based - mythos and all that. Allusion is used in music, too; a lot of composers drew heavily from the popular folk music of the time.)
This one's self explanatory. (So cute!)
The conclusion? Principles of art are universal - whether you're painting a picture, composing a song, sculpting a man, or writing a speech, they're just applied in different ways and with different techniques - and I believe they are not just facts, but truths, principles, possibly laws of nature.
btw, don't you love how I used the different colors to illustrate how the Gettysburg address flowed and overlapped like the colors of the rainbow? :D I know, pretty clever, right? :P
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to DEDICATE a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. Etc
I did that with a speech once, it was really cool, and it turned out really well. That same exact principle applies to music.
Also in the course of these musings came the realization of why I could never really understand Mozart and Bach's music: they weren't writing Abraham Lincoln speeches, where each idea flows into the next, there is no explicit thesis, and no "Point 1, Point 2, Point 3," That's how Chopin wrote music, that's how Grieg wrote music; that's what I kept expecting, and trying to find, but that's not how they wrote. Bach and Mozart wrote essays, where there is a very clear and defined thesis (or theme/exposition) and there are explicit "point 1, 2, and, 3, conclusion"s that don't have to flow seamlessly into each other (or variations, recapitulations, etc). But, either way, there's still a "centrality" to all the musical ideas in both cases.
Then, thought I, "Holy cow! these principles transfer so smoothly back and forth between music composition, and speech composition. I wonder how far I can take this? What about the principles of style, do they apply to writing music, too? How do I create a metaphor (note: I am using metaphor here in a broad sense encompassing metaphor, simile, analogy, etc) with music? Well, what is metaphor? A metaphor in speaking is usually relating one idea or thing to another, to help your audience understand the first thing better, and giving the first thing all the attributes of the second . (i.e. If I say a lady is slobbering mad, I'm implying that she's very mad, in a way that makes her look quite idiotic, disgusting and insensible, and it's easier to understand than the explanation of the metaphor I just gave.)
In my limited, expansive knowledge of music theory, a musical metaphor would probably be where you take a phrase, or a theme, and put it with another them, or another variation of the theme - in a sense all a word is is a metaphor for an idea, a concept, and experience, a thing, etc; and all music is is a metaphor for feelings, emotions, and ideas that aren't expressible through words.
And of course,the musings didn't stop there. Next I wondered, what about the visual arts, like painting, and sculpting? They're very different; speaking and music both deal almost explicitly with sounds which must be experienced over time - music is composed solely of tone, volume, and rhythm/timing. But in arts like painting and sculpting the art is experienced almost instantly, and time has very little, if anything at all, to do with the overall effect of the painting on the viewer. Are Metaphors still possible in these arts? Yes, they are inextricably essential. In painting the figures, or shapes, the basic geometry of the subject is the idea, and the way the subject is position, decorated, expressed, the colors used, the background given, the lighting, the detail or lack thereof are all explaining the idea in greater depth, and relating it to other ideas. (the following are all just random pictures I got from google...)
In this picture the background colors, and the way their painted are metaphorical movement, as is the way she's positioned. The blurriness is relating it to an almost dreamlike state, metaphorically, she's not in the world.
In this one God is reaching down to Adam. First of all, how is that not symbolic/metaphorical? His hair is white, His robe is scarlet, He has little babies flying around Him - those are all metaphors; they are connecting a color, an attitude, a position, ideas to God to help us understand better the God the artist is portraying.
Yeah, this one I'm not sure is necessarily metaphorical, but it does have other elements of style also found in speaking, i.e. allusion (the baby thing at the bottom. I don't know what its alluding to, though; those are usually very culturally based - mythos and all that. Allusion is used in music, too; a lot of composers drew heavily from the popular folk music of the time.)
This one's self explanatory. (So cute!)
The conclusion? Principles of art are universal - whether you're painting a picture, composing a song, sculpting a man, or writing a speech, they're just applied in different ways and with different techniques - and I believe they are not just facts, but truths, principles, possibly laws of nature.
btw, don't you love how I used the different colors to illustrate how the Gettysburg address flowed and overlapped like the colors of the rainbow? :D I know, pretty clever, right? :P
