Response 10/31

Nietzsche believes that good music does not depress you, but makes you a happier person. Unlike Wagner's music it does not condone wrongdoings or play on darker human desires and drama. 'Good music' for example in reference to Plato's Republic is music that is refined and can make even the toughest person 'break' and does not cause unrest. He believes after listening to Bizet's music that music should be smooth not like French or German music, but like that of the Africans because the seas surrounding the continent are calm and smooth, while the bodies of water surrounding Europe are rough and cold. While Wagner may have much success by playing up this drama he is not the only 'redeemer' because Bizet proves to be a better musician because he is a good listener as well.

10/31/11

I found it some what tough to decipher these sections in detail, but it seems that Nietzche thinks that "good" music is a mixture of what one wants to here and what one doesn't want to hear or is not used to hearing. It allows a greater appreciation for the emotions in music. If one emotion is evoked too much, one gets used to it's power as an emotion, making it lose it's purpose. While there is a happiness in music, it is good to have a sense of temporality or uncertainty. A sense of Melancholy. This should make one appreciate the happiness even more.

Response 10/31

Nietzsche makes many comments about the music of Bizet which could help describe his definition of "good music". The first quote I found was this: "This music seems perfect to me. It approaches lightly, supplely, politely. It is pleasant, it does not sweat." p.157. This comment is mostly in contrast to what he says about Wagner's music, and how the music "sweats". I think what Nietzsche means is that the music does not work too hard, it just is.

The next: "It seems to me I experience its genesis... And oddly, deep down I don't think of it, or don't know how much I think about it." pgs 157-158. I think what he is saying here is that the music is easy to get lost in, and to experience, and that this is what makes it good music. Good music does not make him THINK about it, but EXPERIENCE it.

The last quote: "Whatever is good makes me fertile," p. 158. I think what Nietzsche means by this quote is that he can get something out of good music. He can learn from good music, and it can help him grow as a person.

10-31-11

It seems that Nietzsche does not bring up any technical aspects that make music good. Instead, he mentions that music makes a person better and "redeems" us. "Has it been noticed that music liberates the spirit?" (158). Good music should also treat the listener as if they have the same intelligence as the musician. Nietzsche also states several times that these things are the opposite of what Wagner does with the exception of redemption whereas he proposes '...Wagner is not the only "redeemer."'(158)

Response to Prompt 10-31-11

From what understood of his comments, Nietzsche definition of good music is definitely nothing Wagner does. Good music must speak to you, and in doing so, it makes you a better person because of it. He even makes it seem like, if the music is good, you become a better listener because of it.
"Every time I heard Carmen I seemed to myself more of a philosopher, a better philosopher" is a quotation from section one, that seems to resonate, from Nietzsche's point of view, that good music speaks to you and makes you a better person because of it.

Response to 10/31/11 Prompt

I found the following to say quite a bit about what Nietzsche considers his favorite music:

“This music seems perfect to me. It approaches lightly, supplely, politely. It is pleasant, it does not sweat. ‘What is good is light. What is divine moves on tender feet’: first principle of my aesthetics. This music is evil, subtly fatalistic: at the same time it remains popular— its subtlety belongs to a race, not to an individual. It is rich. It is precise. It builds, organizes, finishes; thus it constitutes the opposite of the polyp in music, ‘the infinite melody.’ Have more painful tragic accidents ever been heard on the stage? How are they achieved? Without grimaces. Without counterfeit. Without the lie of the great style.”

What I’m not so sure about, however, is if he is referring to Wagner when he says, “This music is evil… not to an individual.” I ask because I do see the possibility of Nietzsche considering a movement of music like Bizet’s as redemption from Wagner (and as we know, redemption is something we don’t want).

At the end of section 2, Nietzsche illustrates how Bizet understands the tragedy of love while Wagner merely operates as though he does, and mocks the emotions of love in an artificial way. As if this isn’t enough, Wagner uses his disorganization to mislead his audience. In my opinion, Nietzsche likely hates Wagner for another reason: since Nietzsche understands music, the tragedy of Wagner’s compositions comes out in this disorganization by mixing the melancholic emotions and leaving the listener (Nietzsche) able to find neither a footing in the piece nor the origins. But because Bizet speaks to both the Apollonian and Dionysian, he is a greater composer.

If Wagner’s “infinite melody” (which is so despised by Nietzsche) could be considered the inspiration for cinematic music, would it be unfair to attribute, by Nietzsche’s line of reasoning anyhow, general popular music to a composer like Georges Bizet? We do have artists such as the Beatles and Pink Floyd who were known for anthologies of medleys, and films such as Good Night and Good Luck and The Wall (ironically) in which music is either the centerpiece or at least distinguished from the plot, but wouldn’t that just be a byproduct of this movement? That is to say that the redemption of the pure Dionysian from the pure Apollonian would cause a combination (what Nietzsche wants), but that from these combinations would spawn genres of art in which music would be either the dominance of a whole or the trivial part of a whole?

10-31-2011

Nietzsche says that music is regulated. It has form. It is not neverending and must have resolve. Wagner's work consisted of a lot of rising, floating melodies that had no resolve and no real ending. Nietzsche believes in a beginning, a climax, and an end.

10-31-2011

Nietzsche believes that music should be "pure". It should not be never ending and dry and boring. It should have meaning. Music has a beginning, a climax, and an end. Wagner's music was not like this. It had no meaning, it had no beginning, middle, or end.

Response for 10-31-11

For Nietzsche, "good music" seems to be very different from the heavy German and Italian operas. He mentions how the music is "light," "rich," and "precise." It has a beginning, a climax, and an end, unlike the "infinite melody" of Wagner. Another aspect of good music is that it makes one feel like a better person, a better musician and listener, in a completely unconscious manner. While listening to "good music," a person doesn't notice the effect the music has on them until it is over with and they are done listening. Bizet's music is very different from the currently popular music in Western Europe. Nietzsche describes it as "African" and "Moorish." I think that he's implying that the music is very pure, very much in-tune with the true emotions and the reasons behind those emotions. He mentions how good music is allowed to "redeem," even though that has been a common thread through Wagner's operas. Good music relates directly back to nature, unlike the "actors" and "theatrics" of Wagner's opera.

response for 10/31

to me, i thought it meant something with measure and something put together that doesn't sound dissonant.. and doesn't intend to be something more than it really is. something that is pleasant, that has structure, that has a beginning and a definitive end.

response to 10/31

From Nietzsche’s comments regarding Bizet, Nietzsche’s general definition of what he considers good music appears to be music that is the polar opposite of Wagner’s music. He says about Bizet’s Carmen “it approaches lightly, supplely, politely. It is pleasant, it does not sweat. ‘What is good is light; whatever is divine moves on tender feet’ [. . .]. It builds, organizes, finishes” (157). This explanation of Carmen is totally opposite of how he explained Wagner’s music – music that sweats, chaotic, overdramatic, and theatrical with no apparent structure.

In Levitin’s book, This is Your Brain on Music, Levitin confirms my theory when he writes “connections to the artist or what the artist stands for can thus be part of our musical preferences” (244-245). Levitin also states he can not listen to Wagner’s music because of the person Wagner is thought to be. “Due to his pernicious anti-Semitism, the sheer vulgarity of his mind [. . .] and his music’s association of the Nazi regime, some people don’t feel safe listening to his music. Wagner has always disturbed me profoundly, and not just his music, but also the idea of listening to it” (243). So my personal belief that Nietzsche’s negative opinion of Wagner is also projected to his negative feelings of Wagner’s music has been confirmed by Levitin’s writings.

Prompt for 10-31 - Happy Halloween!

Nietzsche describes his love for Bizet in the first-person (this is in the first two sections of The Case of Wagner). Can you extract from his comments a general definition of what good music is?

10/26

Nietzsche says that Wagner is not a musician, but an actor and a liar. He thinks that Wagner is not being true to the music, because his dramas aren't about the music itself, but are about ideas. Nietzsche also seems to not like these ideas. He accuses Wagner of being a tyrant, and corrupting the youth, etc. It seems as if Nietzsche believes Wagner to be a "sell out". That Wagner realized what people wanted to see and what would make him rich and famous, and started writing his operas with that in mind.

post!

The ultra-nationalist approach Wagner takes with his composition and approach to meaning/message within his works was what ultimately lead Nietszche astray from Wagner. Incorporating the dying themes of old musics, Wagner's approach to cultural revitalization was out-dated and, by focusing on ultra-nationalism, culture was lost and replaced with desire for power and prominence as THE culture.

Response to 10/26/11 Prompt

In the preface, Nietzsche names Wagner as "one of his sicknesses." He also says that "the philosopher has no love for morals. Neither does he love pretty words." Yet he goes on to indulge in these morals and these pretty words to explain the loathing of his former friend and confidant. (Perhaps he is trying to be ironic as he does in "Beyond Good and Evil" when he forewarns us about his perception of women and love and proceeds to rant on them). As we discussed in class, Wagner's final opera, Parsifal, is likely the final straw for Nietzsche. In this opera, Wagner gives in and perhaps even invests in the Christian religion; at the very least, he is intending to use it to promote the idea of a unified Germany. This runs opposite to what Nietzsche believes; Nietzsche believes that though unified culture is something to strive for, the unification of a nation is a step toward the investment of a collective rather than the investment of the perceptive individual.

Kind of a thought to self: doesn't Wagner fulfill Nietzsche's prophecy? Doesn't he birth the tragedy of Germany in a sense?

Response 10/26/11

Nietzsche's sudden distaste for Wagner's work came about through both Nietzsche's observations of his operas, as well as through his observations of Wagner personally. Nietzsche believed that Wagner's work in music was focused on a dying theme, and that Wagner was too headstrong to see that. He believed that Wagner's music, as well as ideals within his music, were straying too far from his original intentions. On top of this, Nietzsche held distaste for Wagner's drifting towards German Nationalism and antisemitism. As the years past, the two drifted in to completely different view points on the world as well as on music.

10,26,11

The reason Nietzsche turns against Wagner in his later writings are because the reasons for his admiration were no longer there. In Nietzsche’s earlier writings, he had the same ideals as Wagner. They both wanted to transform music which was exactly what Wagner’s opera was doing that the time. Wagner invented his own type of opera that was different from that of Italian number opera. As the years went on, Wagner wanted to appeal to the majority of Germans. This desire caused his opera to change into something over dramatic (in Nietzsche’s eyes) that he no longer agreed with. This caused Nietzsche to lose envy for Wagner’s work but rather, to his claim, made him physically sick. I also believe that the transformation in Wagner’s opera was partly due to a rise in German Nationalism.

10-26-2011

In The Case of Wagner, Nietzsche has gone against Wagner because he sees the bad side to him. Before, I think he was just amazed by his work and star struck. It's almost as if he didn't want to see that Wagner was, in a way, a big jerk. After he analyzed Wagner's pieces, he claimed that they sickened the body and didn't bring anything but bad health. He continues to call it brilliant, but also too elaborate. His music shook the listeners and gave them shudders.
Nietzsche respected Wagner to the end, but he didn't want to be associated with him anymore.

10/26/2011

Nietzche definitely admires Wagner's early ways of approaching music and theater, for Wagner was able to accurately describe emotions in music and write such deep and elaborate opera's. But as Nietzche develops his own approach to thinking about music, he began to disagree with Wagner and how he had an accurate formula for depicting any emotion. Wagner began to use this in his rise with German Nationalism. It didn't seem real to Nietzche. The Apolinian side of art in which Wagner preferred, had less meaning due to it's lack of creativity. Though the formulas that Wagner were great and successful, it became predictable meaning the moments in which one would feel the emotion would be less strong. In a sense, Wagner's music began to stray away from what Dionysian art styles he did acknowledge or use.

Response 10/26

Nietzsche turns against Wagner because their ideas went on vastly different directions. At first they were drawn to each other because they both wanted to same things. Both composer and philosopher wanted a change from the music at the time. Nietzsche thought Wagner was revolutionary, he was amazed by how forward he was and how he took control of the music and made it into what he wanted it to be. Especially in creating his own type of structure. Something artists of the time were not open to doing.

However, late Nietzsche soon grew tired of Wagner's arrogant ways and saw that instead of wanting to revolutionize music he now strived to win the praise of the Germans. Instead of worrying about giving the music substance he focused on playing up the drama. Nietzsche, abhorred this and decided to break away from Wagner completely.

10/26

Nietzsche doesn't like Wagner's music because it's different, Wager is going along with the times and along with the change in Germany and Nietzsche doesn't want anything to do with it, he thinks that Wager's music makes him sick and that everyone is following Wagner's type of music.

response 26-October-2011

It would seem as though Nietzsche falls away from Wagner because of Wagner's move towards German Nationalism, a move that is not for a cultural movement in the way that Nietzsche is hoping for. Instead it appears as though Wagner is looking a making a society of Germans that care more about going to the Opera rather than listening to, and appreciating, the opera. For Nietzsche this is against what he believes. 


Furthermore, what may have been the absolute breaking point is that Wagner began to appeal to the masses of Germany, which Nietzsche was opposed to. Now the Apollonian music that was once great for Nietzsche is no longer there, instead it has changed to please the masses. 


Other reasons include: [the way that Wagner presented his opera, in such a theatrical manner that it overthrew the other arts, i.e. music, involved with the production; the seductive manner in which the actor/ress' would present their part(s) etc.].

10/26

In the beginning Nietzsche loves and admires Wagner for his ability to capture human emotion so deeply.
This starts to change however, as Nietzsche progressively ages he starts to see Wagner's views through his music. This could be just from their personal differences in ideals as Nietzsche writes, "I am far from looking on guilelessly while this decadent corrupts our health - and music as well. Is Wagner a human being at all? Isn't he rather a sickness? He makes sick whatever he touches - he has made music sick."(164) Isn't possible that from such hatred of a human being, the music that they composed is hated also? Granted when Wagner was played in class I had to hold puke back because of how it made me feel, as the text feels like it's just personal attacks on Wagner and not specifically Wagner music. Here and there he will make jabs at the music but the true blows are at Wagner as a person himself.

Response to 10-26

I believe Nietzche admired Wagner's earlier works because he believed that he was bringing back the Dionysian into music--Nietzche believed music had become too structured, Apollinian, and Wagner's new modern works would change that.

However, as Nietzche got older, his opinion of Wagner changed. Nietzche and Wagner were no longer friends; so much of his criticism seems personal. Nietzche did not like Wagner's anti-Semitic and Christian views-his music of redemption. He also severely criticizes Wagner's pandering to the German masses-Wagner appeals "to mere Germans" (169). Nietzche makes his dislike of Germany obvious in both writings.

In both later writings, Nietzche seems obsessive about his resentment towards Wagner-angry with himself for ever liking him and his music. I think Nietzche believes Wagner sold out to appeal to the German masses. Nietzche writes that Wagner's music is "sick", "decadent," it has no style or substance, just overdone effects and histrionic, and basically just a bunch of chaos that has no structure-the body can not even dance or move to Wagner's music. He accuses Wagner of not being a musician, but a theatrical actor (173).

As shown in class, Wagner's music really does not have a distinct beat and it is kind of chaotic-but I kind of like Wagner's music-I have played the Die Meistersinger Overture and found it fun to play-all the different chaotic parts coming together-and it does have a great effect on both the musicians and listeners. I guess I am one of those that Nietzche would refer to as being taken in by Wagner.

response for 10/26/11

The ideas seem to have voids in them that Nietzche doesn't really feel to agree about it. Regarding the music, since it's beginning to change.. because the culture and the times have begun to change also, so doesn't the music. 

Response for 10-26-11

Nietzsche's three demands at the end of "The Case of Wagner" easily sum up some of the reasons why he has turned against Wagner. The first, "that the theater should not lord it over the arts," is a reference to the manner that Wagner conducted his opera. In the evolution of Wagnerian opera, the beauty and art of the music was replaced by the acting and gestures of the story as the main focal point, which Nietzsche disagreed with. Nietzsche believed that music was infinitely more important than the "theatrics" of a story. The second demand was "That the actor should not seduce those who are authentic." Nietzsche believed that once Wagner had an idea or a theme for his opera, he would get "stuck"in the same pattern for his others. Not only was that an issue, but also, because this theme or central idea of a story was repeated, it became superficial or cliched. In the case of Wagnerian opera, the acting and theatrics would disguise the fact that the stories were similar, but the emotions that they evoke would be the same. The final demand was probably the most important: "That music should not become an art of lying." Nietzsche praised Wagner for being able to invoke specific emotions and responses from his audience with his operas. However, the manner in which Wagner was able to do this was less than desirable, in Nietzsche's opinion. He believes that Wagner's music is too "decadent," with too much instant gratification. Everything is considered to be "excellent," when, in fact, there was no taste or talent to any of Wagner's works.

Response: 10/26/11

Nietzche praised Wagner in his earlier works for his ability to depict every mood with the most "profoundest depth of human happiness, and, as it were, out of its drained goblet, where the bitterest and most repulsive drops...evilly run together with the sweetest" (663, Portable Nietzsche).

But where he begins to stray from his admiration is through his own analysis of the body and will. He began to believe that it willed for orderly "perfection". He claimed that Wagner's music only sickens the body, "heart", and "entrails". He then essentially continues to critique Wagner's music as brilliant, but too consistently elaborate. He charges him with requiring every composition to "shake the listener to his very intestines" to be considered "effective" (667, PN).

Finally, Nietzsche writes of when he "said farewell to Wagner in [his] heart." (675) He says it was when Wagner departed not only to Germany, but into anti-Semitism. Nietzsche then over-dramatically tells of Wagner's "sinking" into Christianity. He says this was "indeed high time to say farewell" (676).

The end of the chapter about the Greeks and the use of the word "Baubo" was a bit unclear. He seems to have a good laugh about it, and i'm sure if I understood the context of the Greek references it would be more entertaining. He seems to appreciate the Greek lifestyle and their arts, especially in contrast to the intellectually exhausting arts created by Wagner.

Response 10/26

In the Case of Wagner, I think Nietzche doesn't really go against Wagner so much as try to stay neutral. He states that a philosopher has no love for moralists. This looks like more of a psychosocial learning experience, hes been taught that philosophers don't base things upon morals, they base them upon ideas. It's almost as if Wagner had one idea, and could prove it, but not nearly as much as Nietzche wanted. Although he goes against Wagner in this, at the same time he is just saying that there are cracks in his idea, not that he is wrong, so to speak.

Prompt for 10-26

Nietzsche loves Wagner's music in his first book, The Birth of Tragedy, but turns against it in his later writings, Nietzsche Contra Wagner and The Case of Wagner. Why is that? What complaints does Nietzsche bring against Wagner in his later writings?

Response to 10/19/11 Prompt

When Nietzsche distinguishes the concept from music, he makes it clear that while representation is used to measure reality, the will, Dionysian, music, is used to dictate its direction. The issue I have with this is that it seems like music is all he can use to make this follow. What about other Dionysian arts? Now that he has separated concept and music (presumably concept from Dionysian as a whole) does this means he wants us to understand the Apollonian as the intangible and Dionysian as the concrete?

I actually do not find this to sway my understanding of music one way or another. I believe that like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche is being swayed by his preference and his genre, and is assuming that only he knows the philosophy behind art. I can agree that the tangible is not the only important aspect of life, but I believe that if the intangible, the tragedy, is so important to understand, it should not necessarily be prioritized over the tangible. I believe Nietzsche's strive to blend the Apollonian and Dionysian has been lost to his stress of the Dionysian.

response 10/19

I find Neitzsche's distinction between the Apollinian and the Dionysian helpful at least when thinking about Schopenhauer's idea of music. Schopenhauer's idea of will and representation was a little difficult to understand, and I feel like Neitzsche made it easier to understand by bringing in the ideas of Apollinian and Dionysian arts. I think I mostly agree with Neitzche at some level, that music affects us in ways that other arts don't, and it makes sense that it should be put on the abstract side with feelings and such, instead of actual things concrete things like the Apollinian. It gets a little confusing, though, that epic poems, for instance, should be put on the Apollinian side, when they are put to music. And so although the general idea might be helpful, there are certain things about what Neitzche is saying that I think just complicates matters more.

10/19/2011

I found the distinction Nietzsche made between the two very useful. In a way it has helped me realize that there should be both structure and non-structure in music, for without one, the other would mean less (if anything at all). And going even more musically in depth between the distinction of the two, I have realized that there should also be a good mixture of consonance and dissonance, or resolving melodic lines along with non-resolving melodic lines.

Without the Dionysian, more abstract, personal, and more emotional side of music or art, there would be no meaning or emotion behind any of the structure of the Apollinian side of music, leaving empty or even formulated words and melodies. But without the structure and concreteness of Apollinian art, there would be no structure and ultimately no manifestation of the emotions or thoughts and abstracts of the Dionysian art. Without a structure to follow it would be impossible to learn and grasp the emotions that exist.

Response for 10-19-11

The contrast Nietzsche makes between Apollonian and Dionysian concepts doesn't exactly help me when thinking about music. It does help me to understand the ideas the Schopenhauer was talking about a bit better, because it feels like Nietzsche's idea that a person needs both the organization of the Apollonian and the chaos of the Dionysian to make music is simply an attempt to compromise Schopenhauer's "Representation vs. Will" view of the world.

Response: 10/19/11

Nietzsche has simply drawn another line in the middle of needlessly categorized concepts. Musically, I find this distinction contradictory in places and nonsensical. Much of music seems characteristic of Apollinian nature, while Nietzsche writes that music cannot be Apollinian. The concrete, controlled, and static traits of the Apollinian idea could represent the limits and boundaries we have created for musical composition throughout the ages. Dionysian traits may then be a depiction of music that transcends this comfortable foundation in favor of chaos, unpredictability, and ascendance. However, music is strictly categorized alongside non-teleological poetry as "Dionysian" by him while the Apollinian category contains visual art and "epic poetry".

Nietzsche's entire concept seems to essentially simplify to the balance of nature between chaos and control, tragedy and miracle, death and life, and perhaps through a personal musical lens: dissonance and resolution. This is the way I see this concept while remaining musical as well as sensible. His own distinction is not helpful musically from my perspective, though it has provided thought for personal adaptation and connections that are helpful to our own understanding.

I found Nietzche's distinction to be helpful in someways but not in other. I really like his philosophy in the aspect of needing both the emotional and organized pieces of idea in order to create a complete work. While I appreciated this, I cannot understand how he can put poetry into both categories. I do agree though, that you cannot leave out emotion. But you cannot have just emotion either. I like to think of it as controlled emotion. Only with this can you have a successful work. It still puzzles me though, some of distinctions he made between Apollinina and Dionysian seem silly to me, like the division of poetry.

10-19-2011

Nieztszche's distinction between Appolinian and Dionysian didn't help me to understand music any better. Yes, it got my brain thinking aobut the topic, but it didn't expand any of the knowledge that I already had. In fact, it was rather confusing. I don't really know why he chose to use Apollo as a key guard, other than him being the god of music. I understand why Dionysis was used to describe the "intoxicating" side, but using Apollo for music was just too general.
Most of the music I listen to is Dionysian. It's easy to get lost in a song and its words. I listen to the lyrics, but I try not to think about the story behind it. Maybe the artist was going through a breakup, or another band member was. I like the complexity of the songs without having to interpret what they mean.

Response 10/19/2011

I found Nietzsche's distinctions between Apollonian and Dionysian very useful. With Plato and Schopenhauer, the opinions were very strict and very apposing. With the two distinctions which Nietzsche presents, it gives a very good balance. It seems to me to be more reasonable that music is both "organized" and "chaotic" rather than one or the other.

Response 10-19-11

I don't believe that Nietzche's distinction between the Apollinian and the Dionysian helped me in particular when it comes to thinking about music. For me, it just gave me something extra to think about. I think that for me when it comes to music I classify it into two categories 'fun' music and music for contemplation. When I just want some mindless music that I can singalong to it reflects more of the Dionysian musical classification. While the music that I usually listen to when I really want to think or have something that appeals to my emotions is the Apollinian form of musical classification.

9/19

I don't think that his description helps my view on music any because its partly what ive been thinking, just not as deep into thought as him. I like the separation between visual art and music but other than that its not really any help i dont think.

Response 9-19

I don't know if I find it helpful. It does make me think and try to distinguish music between his distinction. Though after class like Hunter said I don't exactly agree with Nietzsche. I don't feel I agree with it much like Hunter has said also, I'll use a Folk band though Right Away, Great Captain. A sequence of 3 disk tells a story of a man out away from his wife and as the songs progress emotions change and so forth making me feel that it is Apollinian in a way yet also Dionysian because a lot of the vocals that coincide with the music is very chaotic.

response for 19-September-2011

The difference between Apollonian music and Dionysian music does make me think differently about music, at least while I am listening. The way that Dionysian music is described, similar to Schopenhauer, as evoking emotion, is interesting. I do agree that when one hears Dionysian music, one is compelled to dance, and in dancing gains a new "symbolic" power that was, before, restrained. Whereas, with Apollonian music everything is structured and is based on tones, such that one is not encouraged to dance. 
Now having a better understanding of Nietzsche, I can properly understand the type of music that I am hearing and understand why people dance with some music and not others.

response to 10/19

Though I find Nietzsche kind of confusing and hard to understand, I do think that his theory distinguishing between the Apollinian and Dionysian has got me thinking more when listening to music.

Both he and Schopenhauer have a similar idea that music, (the Dionysian), reflect the will-those raw impulses, emotions, and desires. Before taking this class, I knew that music could have an emotional effect, but I never really thought about why. I know that when I listen to music now, I consciously think of how it is making me feel at the time and now say to myself, "so this is what they mean when the emotions I'm feeling reflect my will."

I also know that when looking at a piece of art or sculpture or read a poem (Apollinian), I don't have the same strong raw emotions – I guess this is because I have to consciously visually look at it, interpret what it represents (representation), and then come to my own perceived conclusion. Music is more of an instinctive response – it goes directly to the soul. Like Nietzsche says, most humans instinctively move and instinctively feel the music – they have to consciously stop the movement if at a formal concert. So I guess I could say that even though I don't understand it all, Nietzsche has been helpful in helping me think about music and why it affects me the way it does.

Response to 10/19

Honestly i think that my view of music has been so conditioned into me that nothing can change how i look at it. Learning about this didn't make me listen to it anymore than i would have before, but that's not to say that i didn't listen to the music and the sound not just the lyrics before. When a person learns something like this it sometimes give them the idea to start listening but for me it just didn't change at all.

response for 10/19

Well, personally, when I was thinking about it after class, I didn't quite agree with it.  To be honest, music is lyrical poetry, but it has control and tangible ideas. It can also be the will.. and the representation of said will and world.  Sure, music isn't considered a physical object, but to me, it really is.  When I listen to a cd, I consider it to be a symbol, or relic.. or even a statue of what the band is trying to portray.  Some bands I listen to actually have stories and myths behind the songs that they create.  For instance, Coheed and Cambria is an actual story that goes in order of a sequence as the records do-- they are telling a story like Star Wars, but is known as the Amory Wars-- so I feel that music is Apollinian and Dionysian.. because of that. 

Prompt for 10-19

Do you find Nietzsche's distinction between the Apollinian and the Dionysian helpful to you in your thinking about music? If so, in what ways? If not, why not?

Response to 10/17/11 Prompt

Nietzsche says that Apollonian is the “image world of dreams” while Dionysian is the “intoxicated reality” (S. 2, Pg. 38). What he molds out of this is a state in which the human artist would fall into; he calls it “oneness with the inmost ground of the world… revealed to him in a symbolical dream image” (S. 2, Pg. 38)

What Nietzsche is trying to do, here, is make the point that one cannot exist without another. In philosophy, we always come back to that age old comparison of “pleasure cannot be fathomed without the experience of pain”; Nietzsche is essentially saying the same thing, but about art, emotions, and to an extent, existence.

In the Translator’s Introduction, Kaufmann states that “Nietzsche himself celebrates Greek Tragedy as a superior alternative to Schopenhauer’s ‘Buddhistic negation of the will’” (Page 11). I interpreted this as pretty much saying that while Schopenhauer is asking us to reject the will of this world because the domination of pain over pleasure is unbearable, Nietzsche is asking us to embrace it because the complementariness of happy/sad (i.e. Apollonian/Dionysian) is what defines the world.

Response: 10/17/11

Nietzsche writes in a peculiar manner that leaves the reader simply guessing at the meta-themes of his arguments.

I believe I comprehended a few ideas from his writing: Apollinian art is that which is experienced by means of the retinas, while Dionysian art is that which is experienced aurally. The one clear thing he does is emphasize the contrasting nature of the two forms of art.

10/17/2011

Apollinian art to be a style of art that seems to focus on dream imagery. The images from dreams one sees is a subconscious mixture of the things people dwell on most and is representative of subconscious thoughts or ideas that one has that is put into a physical example (images), this applies to even just dreams in general as well. Dionysian, in comparison with Apollinian, is more of an abstract or, in a sense, more unpredictable, focusing on abstracts such as music. Music's emotions are never solid or correct, or incorrect for that matter: everyone hears a piece of music differently. One person may think a song is happy, while another person focusing on a different aspect of the same piece says that it is said. This makes Dionysian art very "mold-able" to what a person wants to hear or feel, compared to a specific image from one's dreams, which though may also have differing opinions when it comes to it's meaning or mood for outsiders.

10/17/2011

Dionysian is s form of abstract art. It can be molded and shaped, as apposed to Apollionian art. Apollionian art is based more centrally around dreams and images, therefore it is a much more visual form of art.

10-17-11

Apollinian tends to work more with a type of a visual art with a physical form. He tend to do arts such as, creating such as sculptures or a painting a picture.Whereas,  Dionysian deals with audible art such as music. There is a difference between the two because Apollinian is visual art and Dionysian creates art that you hear. Also they are different because Nietzche seemed to compare Dionysian art to being intoxicated, and Apollinion art  to be more proper and intellectual.

10-17-2011

The Apollionian's art is more visual and is influenced more by dreams than anything else. Dreams are visual reflections of what we think most about, so this is understandable. It would be easier to create a piece of art that is influenced by your dreams, because dreams are some of the most vivid pictures we see. Dionysian art was influenced by abstract things such as music and can be bent and molded. Apollionian art is much more structured and solid.

10-17-11

I had an extremely hard time deciphering what Nietzsche was trying to convey. I did, however, pick up on his distinction of Apollinian and the Dionysian art to be that of form. Apollinian is visual art with a physical form, such as a sculpture or a painting, whereas, Dionysian is audible art such as music. This is a common distinction in the philosophy of music that we have read previously.

10-12-11

What is the proper relation, according to Hanslick, between music and emotion?


    

     Hanslick believes in his own biasness; he believes that the proper relation between music and emotion is that music can bring fourth different emotions from different people. Music itself doesn’t contain an emotion. The emotion interrupted from each individual may be different even if the music is the same for everyone. Hanslick believes that music is a tonally moving form. For example Hanslick indicates that 

" We follow sweeping lines, here dipping gently, there boldly soaring, approaching and separating, corresponding curves large and small, seeming incommensurable yet always well connected together, to every part a  counterpart, a collection of small details but yet a whole." (29)


   Hanslick also indicates that ideas can be represented by the means of music but not occur as feeling. However feelings do not portray to representing music.

10/17

Nietzsche's writing is very confusing but he did say that Apollinian is the art of sculpture and Dionysian is art of music. so the only real difference between the two is that apollinian is visual art and dionysian is art that you hear

Response to October 17 Prompt

As Hunter stated, I have no clue and I'm confused when I was reading Nietzsche's work.

Response to 10/16/11

The Apollionian’s art, which was visual, is more influenced by dreams and such. Which is understandable because dreams are pretty much visual aspects of our psyche. While the Dionysian art was influenced by more abstract things like music which can be bent while sculptures which the Apollianian pretty much is, is far more structured.

Reponse for 10/17

It's basically just the differences in visual and audio art forms. Other than that it just confused me, but i did understand the general idea.

Response for 10/17

What contrast is Nietzsche trying to draw between the Apollinian and the Dionysian art principles?

Nietzche claims that Apollinian art is visual art, whereas Dionysian art is musical art. He seems to say that dreams are important as an inspiration to Apollinian art, or, at least that is what I got out of what he was saying. Then he compared Dionysian art to being intoxicated. "As its power increases, the subjective fades into complete forgetfulness of self”. I guess how I interpreted the reading was that visual art was like dreams because in a dream you are put in a new situation that is not reality, and so art can make you think and imagine a new situation, sort of like a dream can. Music is like being intoxicated because one can lose himself/herself in it, and in the emotions that it can bring out of a person. Apollinion art principles seemed to be more proper and intellectual (and about dreams...?), whereas Dionysian art principles seem to be all about raw desire and feeling.

response for 10/17

I couldn't really tell what he was saying.. and it honestly confused me. He kept writing the same things over and over again.. 

response to 10-17

The Apollinian deals in dreams – the illusion and image of the ideal god or hero. The Apollinian art principle is represented by sculpture (the art of creating an ideal image). The Dionysian deals in impulses, emotions, or as Nietzsche puts it, intoxication (33) – the singing, dancing, drinking, lusting impulses of humans (immorality). The Dionysian art principle is represented by music (music goes directly to the soul instigating these impulses).

These two art principles are obviously in direct contrast to each other and, for the most part, run parallel to each other (the moral superhuman hero vs. the immoral impulsive barbarian). However, when they put these two principles together (Greek heros, such as Odysseus or Oedipus have Dionysian impulses, such as drinking, or incest), the Greek tragedy is made.

I think I have translated what Nietzsche is trying to say correctly. However, I found his writing to be confusing and long winded, repeating himself constantly. Nietzsche even criticizes himself in a forward he wrote many years later, saying the same thing.

Prompt for 10-17

What contrast is Nietzsche trying to draw between the Apollinian and the Dionysian art principles?

Response to 10-12-11

Hanslick believes that the proper relation between music and emotion is that music should not represent emotion. He thought that music was plagued with too much of how people felt instead of looking for the true essence of the music itself. Because when we try to impose our own feelings on the music we lose what the piece was truly about: the sound and the instruments themselves.

Response to 10/12

I think Hanslick is forgetting how internal music really is for us as humans. We have almost an instinct to have music in our lives, even as cavemen we had music. Tapping your foot is a sign of an emotion, and even that is considered music to some people. From a psychological point of view, we have been conditioned into thinking what "is and isn't" music. Music isn't tied DIRECTLY to the emotions but it definitely has a part in it.

Response to 10/12/11 Prompt

Unlike Kant, Hanslick wants to approach aesthetics as a “condition of a science [in that] it should aim to give us objective laws” (Page 51). This means that the interpretation of music will have a true definition to all listeners (objectivism). He also says on page 51 that “structure is the basis even of the “feeling” content that we demand from music”.

“No more than every bit of red in an historical painting means joy or every bit of white means innocence will every bit of A-flat major in a symphony arouse an ecstatic mood or every bit of B minor a misanthropic one or every triad satisfaction or every seventh despair” (Page 51). Hanslick is essentially stating that though music can have expression, it is from within ourselves that the emotion manifests; music is simply a conduit for the listener.

Though he tries to separate aesthetics as a whole from subjectivism, what Higgins is pointing out is that Hanslick has essentially made them inseparable. I agree with Higgins because as a music listener myself, I can think of many progressions of music that are designed to spark happiness, that only draw melancholy out of me personally. (i.e. “Doo Wah Diddy” (G major) by Manfred Mann, “I Walk the Line” (E major) by Johnny Cash, “Two Princes” (D major) by Spin Doctors, “You Get What You Give” (A major) by the New Radicals, etc.)

Response: 10/12/11

Hanslick believes that music should not directly connect to emotions, but connect to the technical aspect of the direct effects music has on our brain. We recognize characteristics of chords whether or not we know and understand their technical uses and functions. Hanslick writes that this universal understanding is what enables our appreciation of absolute music opposed to programmatic music.

In a way, I think Hanslick means to say that programmatic music is far too unnatural to analyze and is simply against our nature. However, I don't understand how he can deny the direct emotional connection that music has on us.

10-12-2011

Hanslick states that the connection between music and emotions is linked directly to the technical aspects of music. He also stated that only musical experts, such as composers and performers, can truly feel emotions. Hanslick says that just stating your feelings without having any musical knowledge is not expressing true emotion. Without understanding emotion's true counterpart, you can't truly understand emotion.

Response for 10-12-11

It seems to me that Hanslick looks at the connection between music and emotion in two parts. The first part is a purely visceral connection, whereas the second is more intellectual. At the bottom of page 54, there is a quote that stuck out to me: "It is not because it is dance music that it lifts the foot; rather, it is because it lifts the foot that it is dance music." This implies that humans react somewhat unconsciously or instinctively to music, regardless of their knowledge of music theory. Later on, when he talks about music theory and composition, Hanslick essentially says that a person can only understand and appreciate their emotional reactions to music if they equally understand and appreciate music theory.

10-12-11

Acorrding to Hanslick, the connection between music and emotion is strongly connected to the technical aspect of music (i.e. tone or pitch). Hanslick also believes that only musical experts can understand the emotions truly. This is sort of like the idea that Plato and Schopenhauer have about the genius or only a certain type of person being able to comprehend or understand the greater meaning. To Hanslick, just stating your feelings without musical knowledge they would not be truly understanding the meaning.

10/12

Hanslick is saying that music is different from art, that there has been a great argument about music and expressing emotion, but then goes to say that they both have a certain almost definition to them. He said that the composer is the one to represent the emotion. He also mentioned that the tones would just be the material in that situation. So in my opinion he does not think that music expresses feeling at all or that hes not sure about it.

October 12, 2011

I felt that Hanslick was as we have discussed putting a wet-blanket over what Schopenhauer said about the arts and music. I felt he was saying that there truly is no representation of will and that music doesn't trigger any exact emotion from the will which conflicts with Schopenhauer. The true connection between the human's will and music was about the structural composition of music how I saw of Hanslick. After reading Hanslick trying to basically state that Schopenhauer and a few other philosophers were wrong, I felt more inclined that I in many ways agreed with what Schopenhauer was saying, but when I was in the depths of Schopenhauer's thoughts themselves I was like yeah.. whatever.