These debates exist because composers were and are terrible at writing about the true meaning, or lack of any meaning, of own originial works. Academia has no standards or push towards requiring this basic skillset, either. Ask a living composer, "What does this system mean, or that system, or the entire movement?" and they will have either nothing to say in terms of music theory terms, or will assign a bunch of nutty non-musical metaphors to explain. Then the audience takes ownership of the work and assigns completely incorrect meanings to the music which they cling to because of interpreted "feelings about the music" which are incorrect. Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" is a perfect example of this: while its meaning is about an abuser in a destructive relationship, audiences choose to play the song at weddings, religious events, graduations, political rallies, and so on, completely and willfully misinterpreting the work; while the artist refused to pen concrete statements on the true meaning. The situation is worse for orchestral music which is instrumental and not assigned meaning by lyrics. Composers take the lazy and unskilled way out of explaining their own art by providing the excuse, "I leave it up to the listener to interpret this," and are rewarded by Academia for doing so. Meanwhile Academia is populated by professional students who need to invent essay ideas for their masters' thesis or Ph D, with the more elaborate or exaggerated the interpretation, the better their reward, leading to a canon of misinformed hyperbole about works of art.

To Aristotle all forms of art were types of imitations.

I attended a performance by the Atlantic Symphony Orchestra in Nova Scotia where the principal cellist's A string broke in the middle of Beethoven's 7th. It was such fun to see him not bat an eye and just keep playing along like nothing happened, occasionally looking over to one of his colleagues and trying hard not to bust out laughing. A really good rendering of a GREAT piece, with a side dish of comedy.

2:48 this idea is nothing knew. Perhaps the way she putted cause schock on the reader. In any course of aesthetics we learned that the autonomous artwork made only for the categories of taste is a concept we got after Kant and Hume. Hegel points on the symbolic era of art, and he highlighted the levels of absolute in the artwork . Bach sounds for us as absolute , but his paradigm the functional artwork. It is confusing because his subject was many times without any doubt , indeed, the absolute , like in in the Clavierubung III . The same distinction is very clear stated by Dahlhaus and probably Hanslick as well. It is one of the introductory ideas of musical aesthetics and the foundation of the classical style. In my opinion her thought pattern is very far away from philosophy.

I think the fundamental question is what is the purpose or goal of music theory. A lot of your and Dr. Gjerdigen’s critique presumes that the purpose of music theory is to enable musicians to produce music. But do we study grammar or linguistics in order to learn to speak? No one bumps into a friend, wants to say something, and thinks, “I need a subject and a predicate. Do I want to include adjectives? Gotta make sure my word order is correct. That’s an adverb, have to remember to add ‘-ly’ etc.” That said, I agree that what practicing musicians want/need is instruction in how it is/was actually done.

They wouldn't learn it in G major?! I'd have thought F&f-C-G-D&d-A&a-E&e, at least. No mention of using a capo to root other keys, but not to play in all common keys seems odd, especially those with chords rooted on open strings E-A-D-G.

Well, now wait a minute. You make an interesting argument, certainly, but didn't Beethoven arrange his at least some of his symphonies -- the 2nd in particular, I'm thinking of -- for such ensembles as a piano trio? The 2nd Viennese school each arranged -- with great success, by the way -- Strauss waltzes and sold the scores for what I understand to be quite handsome sums.

10:15 ‚I‘m gonna try and keep quiet as much as possible‘ - maybe a little harder would benefit your program.

This incredible musician and wonderful person changed my life and perspective as a musician: He took me in his improvisation class although I was not a student of the Schola Cantorum (but of the "modern" Music Academy next door) and taught me how to overcome my shyness at improvising on stage. When I first met him, I was improvising behind hidden doors and when nobody was listening, feeling nearly ashamed of anyone realising I was "wasting practicing time" (as I had been told since childhood). Ruedi showed me not only how to practice improvisation but he gave me the confidence and taught me how to put together improvisation concerts and develop my musical identity on stage and as a pedagogue. I cannot describe in words how much that has helped me as a musician and how much I admire Rudolf Lutz. An experience with him - be it in a concert or in a seminar/workshop is truly unforgettable. Thank you Nikhil for bringing Lutz to your show!!

Nikhil, considering scholasticism: how about the scientific method, which is completely missing in music? For example: Have you ever seen a peer reviewed, published study of the effectiveness of scale practice? I have been looking for some time now and have not found this. The primary mandate from any instructor, especially piano, is "practice scales every day", the most basic and prominent direction, yet without any citation. I have asked on various multimedia music lesson platforms and the answers given do not meet scholarly standards. On tonebase the primary citation given was a subjective study of music students' opinions about their scale practice, how it made them "feel"! Compare this situation to the legitimacy of even a junior high school gym instructor assigning students to do pushups; the gym instructor can easily cite evidence of the effectiveness of the assigned exercise because it is part of kinesiology as a legitimate discipline. Whereas old gym exercises from just a few decades ago, like jumping jacks, are no longer given to students because the lack of effectiveness has been proven, and the science in physical exercise continues to improve through the Scientific Method. Piano instruction has a long history of assigning drills, some of which are harmful, even permanently, and some which are simply demanding a waste of time on the students' part with little result. Scales in particular are used as a metric of musicality in auditions and placement exams, similar to the SAT's in the U.S. which actually have been debunked as biased, and some colleges no longer require SAT scores for admissions. Now, here is the clincher: musicians do not seem to care about this lack of evidence regarding scales at all. It as if the Renaissance (that movement in history which defined Science and defined proveability) has completely skipped over every music department in the world, allowing the music departments to make up any superstition about musicianship they damn well please. This is especially ironic considering it would only take a single piano instructor a year or two to prove or disprove the effectiveness of scale practice (or any other type of practice exercise under scrutiny) by separating their students into cohorts and doing a very basic control group study. In partimento when the old masters said "know your scale", they actually likely meant R.O. anyway; not the major scale or any other diatonic scale. Anyway, I have searched journals and not found a concrete answer to this, or many other questions in music, so I am still looking, and perhaos you have some comment on this in a future episode.

In romanticism you find the fullfilment of the concept of musical artwork born in the classicism. This finally aligned music to some iconic principles of greek aesthetics, that guided already the ancient tragedy. There is no historiographic method to capture the past from the perspective of the past. So i would not assume that there is something too bad there. This is like judging that the mother of your neighbor is bad for your neighbor , based on mails written by others , without being in the whole relationship or asking the members of the actual fact. In this sense we see a lot of traditional continuity in romanticism as well, that has only been broken IN Weberns speech Neue Musik. And this remained true only for him and the followers of THIS speech. When you hear the Le Sacree du Printemps you see against Stravinsky realigning music with the tradition. But it is not the tradition that many WANT. We always want ONLY OUR TRADITION, no? …

Joke - An American graduate from Julliard was the first American to perform at La Scala. After his first aria, the audience were shouting "Encore!" "Encore!" After five encores, the American singer said to the audience, "Thank you so much for your reception. But I must rest my voice." The audience shouted back, "You'll sing it until you sing it right!"

It is not clear for me the relationship between scholasticism and being casual at operas here?

How valuable interactions like this are for our musical culture, knowledge and performance! Thank you so much to the both of you, we need more videos like this. I can relate to so many instances that John Salmon was retelling and I agree with everything he said on historical interpretation and academic judgment thereof. Best thing we can do is to encourage as many piano players as possible to improvise and to connect it to their repertoire practice and perception, only good things can emerge from that.

One minute in and already Schopenhauer has been so badly misrepresented that I can't be bothered to watch the rest.

The difference between 'will' and 'representation' stems from Kant's obsession about the 'Ding an sich' and misses the point that it is all a holistic continuum. Human senses are not an obstacle to get to know the 'Ding' but in contrary, the connection with it, the bridge to reality, as the connection itself (the senses) are also part of the continuum. So, Schopenhauer's distinction as for music is a nonsensical one.

The mobile app won't even let me read the full title of the video, no matter what I do. What does it say in total?

For Hegel the instrumental music is inferior to the sung music, that reflects the self-consciousness of the geist 👻. Beethoven composed the most iconic sung apotheosis of history, despite being not a talented lied composer like Carl Löwe . In this sense, considering Hegels view, Schopenhauer would necessarily have to praise the instrumental music. This means, Rossini means too much representation for Schopenhauer no? I ask my self how she tracks what these guys heard mostly , this is forensic research of their letters and of the concerts at very least

Great episode to accompany your recent community post.

Good heavens!! Lydia Goehr! Haven't seen you in a long time!!

An interview with Leo Treitler would be amazing but his 93 years old.

Dear Nikil, at 43:00 you mention a textbook about history of philosoohy from a scolastic perspective: can I ask you author and title please? Thanks

Hey Nikhil, love your content. I am wondering when you might upload your new episodes on Spotify? I tend to like to go on walks outdoor and listen to your stuff or when I am driving to work. I of course watch the episodes on my computer too at a later date. All the best.

Really interesting, thank you.

Why is the beginning sounding like Peterson's one?

What a nice surprise. I read her book a long time ago on my search for understanding why improvisation stopped being an important part of music making in classical music. This also led me to discover the Partimento t tradition through the works of Gjerdingen and Sanguinetti. Nice to know that you read the book, thank you for making this episode.

Dear Nikil thank you very much. With your channel and your work you inspire and influence positively so many people! And thanks to all your generous guests.

How do you know to start on the “la” and not the “mi”?

Composer Oreste Ravanello (August 25, 1871 in Venice - July 2, 1938 in Padua) composed this wonderful hymn regarding the secret St. Cecilia told to her husband St. Valerian: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jYHIqqF-hcuFjJofeature=shared

Especially in this modern age where we mostly consume music in a recorded state, it is really easy to forget that music used to be a 'practice'. It was something you 'do', in an community, not something to be displayed and to be admired for its own sake. Like a chef might have a conceptual idea of his 'work', his signature dish, but the recipe on paper is not the thing itself, it is merely a guide for the real thing, which is the practice of cooking and serving food through teamwork with a group of cooks and waiters. You could use that recipe and create a microwavable supermarket version of that signature dish, with all the same ingredients and cooking techniques, and you can sit there and admire the 'genius' of the food combination, the cooking techniques, the presentation, but it would never be the same. It is the entire experience of going to a restaurant, where a team of cooks is working at their best, under the direction of a master chef, everything perfectly crafted and executed to give you a pleasurable eating experience, connected to the local community, knowing that you are in that moment where they all worked together in perfect harmony to provide you something good. Similarly, you can sit in your home and admire a recording of Bach for its genius musical craftsmanship, but it is not the same experience that Bach intended. You had to be there, in that church, in touch with the community, connected to the culture of church music of that time, to really experience what Bach had in mind.

Great subject, great talk, great episode! <3

What an episode!

I've been an Opera Hooligan. Lydia has given my life meaning.

gjerdingen stays based

Gonna see Peter in two weeks! So excited!

One 6-note scale, two positions - starting on C or starting on G. They overlap, and the overlap is pentatonic. The notes that don’t overlap are B and F, so you need two positions to be able to play/sing those. Really clever for Baroque music, but wouldn’t work for Jazz.

A conversation with amusical genius

Once mathematics were used for composition. It made awful music. Too many 4ths and fifths. Consonancia was not popular with the mathematical proportions. When Consonance was needed it changed music completely. This is Dr Rotem's glorious age of beautiful music.

Venice was the centre of it all.

de Duitsers spreken over ahc in plaats van abc. De Duitsers noemen de bes de b. Dit stamt uit de grote Duitse kloostertijd, van Fulda, Mainz, SanctGallen. de tijd van het parallele kwinten zingen. Natuurlijk was de si met de fa des duivels, en toen was het in vooral deze Duitse kloostertijd begonnen om niet meer de si in de bas te zingen, maar deze zo te verlagen dat de heilige kwint hersteld wordt. Dit was het begin van de Ars Antiqua.

de spieren van de hand zijn bijzonder: ze zijn zowel over de knokkels als langs de knokkels gebonden met de spieren van de onderarm. Daarom is het zijn eigen antagonist, en heeft het spiergeheugen vat op de hele fijne vingerbeweging, en heeft een eigen daadintelligentie.

wat een leuke vraag! voor mij, als pianist, is dit een ervaring geweest om bij een vriend thuis, midden in de nacht, de beginselen van het biljart te leren: trekken en stoten. Dit was een eyeopener voor mij: het "geheim" van het timbre van de pianoaanslag!

zou dat zowat de tijd zijn dat de zigeuners naar Europa kwamen, en hier de zingaron, de cembalo gebracht hebben - de ”hakkebord", waar later het orgelklavier aan toegevoegd is: het begin van de clavicembalo en de piano?

Thanks, as always, for your receptivity to feedback and leads Nikhil. Your show makes my world better!

The same problem exists in jazz: the lack of awareness of what one is doing. Contemporary jazz pianists should understand that all their eccentric chords are nothing more than variations of those derived from the rule of the octave. They should understand that the so-called “chord tensions” in jazz are not additional notes, but rather replace the vanilla notes, expanding sonic possibilities while remaining within an established logic that can only produce beauty. Greetings from Italy 🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹

I get it now, just seeing that op. 9 no. 2 has a MM of quarter note=132 while Chopin marks the piece with the italian tempo word andante. 132 is not a MM for an andante, it's a MM for a presto, some of the runs in the piece if played in that tempo would be unplayable, Plus, if you followed the MM for this piece, it loses its tranquil nature.

I don't see a conflict between allowing for improvisation on occasion, and insistence on also playing all the written notes.