Easter ramblings on emotion

SOME RAMBLING THOUGHTS ABOUT MUSIC AND RELIGIOSITY

I am not a religious person – rationally I can't bring myself to believe. But I strongly feel religious impulses and quite understand religious emotions.

I say this because it is important to understand the statements I am about to make: I'll be talking of the religious emotions and experiences, not belief.

My wife wanted us to listen to a Passion on Friday – I call it Friday of the Passion. So we listened to two passions. The first were the Seven Words Jesus Christ spoke at the Cross, by Heinrich Schütz, sung by the Dresdener Kreutzchor under Rudolf Mauersberger.

This is a well known piece in old music circles. It is not very approachable, because of its extremely austere and almost ecstatic religiosity. I personally find it one of the most poignant bits of western music. The bare facts are given, all full of symbolism that you must make out for yourself. The music hints at the emotions present. But you cannot really compare it to Bach: it is a strongly Lutheran version, an introvert's vision of the Passion. There are other, more modern, versions. But they all seem to skim the text and not really get to its religious core. They are easier to listen to, but, in emotional terms, very subdued: the music is more flowing, perhaps, but nothing really happens; whereas with Mauersberger every utterance has a profound meaning.

The other Passion we listened to was Bach's Johannes Passion. I picked a version I knew my wife would like (she is not a musician, but her tastes are quite well defined even if she doesn't really know it consciously). So I chose the Karl Richter Passion. In spite of Evelyn Lear's soprano part being too 'artificial' and not religious at all and Hermann Prey's Jesus being too muscular for the part, it has the very strong Münchener Bach-Chor, Hertha Töpper and, first and foremost, the unique Ernst Haefliger as the Evangelist.

Now I have said elsewhere the role of the Evangelist is the most important for a Passion: he can inject all the emotion he chooses into the narrative. I never heard a better Evangelist than Haefliger: every word and phrase is meaningful and tragic. Superlative, really.

Last, Richter was a very highly strung man, educated in the strong German Christian tradition. So we can expect a very intense Passion. He showed us how to reach the almost unbearable limit of emotion in the St. Matthew (again very much thanks for Haefliger).

So we listened to the Passion. My wife liked it – she was very impressed when it ended. And, as a matter of fact, so was I.

So I commented that there was more religiosity in the former days. I claimed that today's versions were not inferior, just different. So, in order to show her this I inserted the first records of the Jahannes-Passion by Gardiner.

The first choir went all right. But as soon as the narrative begins (Anthony Rolffe-Johnson is the Evangelist) I could hardy believe it. Fast, musical and bustling with energy. But where was the spiritual content? The part where the Evangelist tells us that Peter 'weinete bitterlich' (wept bitterly) was almost prudish – as if they were ashamed of all the display of emotion. Also when the Evangelist says that the Jews chose Barrabas to be set free instead of Christ, he exclaims, most poignantly: 'Barrabas aber wird ein Mörder' (but Barrabas was a murderer – N.B.: this is usually translated as he was a 'robber', but the German plain means 'murderer'), Rolffe-Johnson says this as if in bewilderment and disgust. Haefliger, accompanied by the full organ (as it historically should be done), just cries it aloud, terrified – in pure horror. Even by beloved Nancy Argenta – what a marvellous voice! – couldn't make me change my mind: compared to Richter's, Gardiner's version is really nothing in terms of religious emotion.

So, today, I sat and compared some bits when quite alone. There is no doubt in my mind. The sheer tragedy of Richter's version – which, I think, is inherent to the Passion – is nowhere to be found in Gardiner's.

It so happens that a few days ago I bought the cantata 'Ich habe genung' (BWV 82) sung by Hans Hotter. It did it because of the Vier Ernste Gsesänge by Brahms, and because I loved Hotter's voice when he sang Wagner.

I was extremely surprised to find that his was a far better version than all the 'musicologically informed' versions. Not only is his singing flawless but chiefly he manages to convey a stronger dose of emotion. For instance, the aria 'Schlummert ein, ihr matten Augen' (slumber now, ye tired eyes) is so moving that I again I was reminded of why I loved it so much; the bit where he says: 'Die Abschied is gemacht, Welt, Gutte Nacht' (I have taken leave; Wold, good night) is miraculous.

WHERE IS THIS LEADING?

Well, the point is this. Gardiner's interpretations are very good: almost everybody likes them and find emotions there; whereas people seem to find Richter overdone. The same with Hans Hotter.

So are we denying Bach of its spiritual and emotional content? I believe we are. Richter, Walcha, Marie Claire Alain, Gustav Leonhardt are from another generation. They were alive during WWII. They sensed the world and life as tragic, complex and anguishing. God was the relief to such torture. Nowadays we seem to find life a very matter of fact thing, not even a very difficult one.

Truth is, strong emotions are 'off'. You have only to deal with young people: when they are depressed they feel guilty, and try to put up a nice face.

So the question is: are we pampered spoilt babies born in rich countries and oblivious of the darker sides of human nature and of the torture of finding a meaning for life?

To me it certainly seems so.

Please discuss.

 

RDS wrote - 'I am not a religious person – rationally I can't bring myself to believe. But I strongly feel religious impulses and quite understand religious emotions'

Yes I feel the same as you. I think there will always be this internal conflict between our rational side and a desire for and belief in the unknown and unknowable. Even though our churches are less full each year there is still a strong religious ethic deeply set in most people's lives.

In many ways I experience and see religion through the works of the Western art tradition mostly prior to the Enlightenment. It's as if the likes of Bach, Titian, Donatello, the unknown builders and architects of the Gothic and countless others have provided us 21st century inhabitants with a doorway into a world so completely different from our own.

If i understtood your final point correctly, it is that we are less outwardly emotional than in the recent past, and that is why the cooler less emotional interpretations are currently in vogue?

My limited understanding is that the less outwardly emotional performances are a reaction to the treatment of baroque music in the Romantic style prevalent until the last 30 years or so. In Bach's time would'nt attitudes and behaviour been more akin to what we now mistakenly call 'Victorian values' ie respect for authority, the Church, 'stiff upper lip' etc and controlled display of emotion, whereas the Romantic period cultivated the notion of the tortured artist, human rights and challenging authority.
So although Bach's works have much emotion written into them perhaps they don't need Romantic performance methods to bring it out.

I see your point about an easy life. Few of us have to struggle to live, perhaps that's why adventure sports are so popular. What does disturb me is the wash of pseudo emotion that sweeps the country when a celebrity dies. Not to deny the tragic death of Princess Diana, but the public outpourings of grief I think left many people feeling very uneasy.

What a contrast all this is to the discussions going on elswhere about £1000 cables and whether they make the mid bass more transparent or whatever!

 

Sid:

Thank you for the very interesting reply. I agree with you: enlightenment did impose severe restrictions on religious beliefs and I, too, seek solace in the works of art made before it.

Concerning musical matters, I agree that there was a reaction against too much romanticism. But the early 'baroqueux' - Leonhardt, who has a very strong Calvinistic faith, and Harnoncourt, who is anything but a 'cool' person - were deeply engaged in terms of emotion. For instance, in spite of all its shortcomings, Harnoncourt's first Matthauspassion was extremely emotional even if emotion was very differently conveyed (when compared to Richter, for instance).

So I really feel that the current trend of emotional shallowness is a reflection of our own unemotional lives.

If I might put it into a word, an extremely un-pc one, I think the sense of the Sublime has left us.

Post-modernity is all about that: nothing is serious, we are just enjoying double and triple senses - polysemy as literary persons call it - and saying there is not an univocal meaning to things.

Problem is: I know that, but I like to be not a spectator of other people's emotions but an actor as well: I want to actually feel and get into the emotions. We may know rationally that there is no sense and no God; but our emotions are built in a different way, and we always seek precisely these kind of emotions - what is now called strong emotions.

Music - and Art, generally - were the best vehicles for that. Now we are downplaying even that. So what is left? Crash (I mean the movie -- driving very fast cars to the limit and dicing with death)? Unsafe sex? Dangerous love connections?

I think western world is slowly castrating itself. We believe in nothing, feel nothing, crave for nothing. Most people get bored and make very trivial things a case of great importance, as you pointed out (the cables).

Am I being too un-pc?

 

RDS,
You've entered very deep water; be carefull! Many non-religious persons (like me) were drowned here...
I'd like to point out to one specific point: religion is about dealing with fear of death, consolation, generally speaking. These are things, that rationalism and scepticism have nothing to do with. The Bach's cantata " Ich habe genug" (one of my favorites) is a very good example for it. Charming tunes are followed by the striking statement: "Ich freue mich auf meinen Tod!" How can one be glad to die? Here we are touching something really supernatural: no fear, no horror, just enlightment in pure spiritual sense of word. This is the field, where religion beats rationalism. And we, non-believers, can share this wonderfull feeling thanks to amazing Bach's music.
For me, the Richter/Fisher-Dieskau performance of this cantata stays unsurpassed. As you noted, both of them are WWII survivers, and it really matters. They were close to the last boundary, they have a presentiment what's it all about... They have paid the price.

 

An interesting discussion you've started here, RdS! In response, I pulled out the Gardiner St. John and listened all the way through. I confess that I don't find Rolfe-Johnson's Evangelist in any way lacking. It was never overtly "religious" but when drama was needed, it wasn't lacking.But then, I tend to be a bit against the heavy overwrought expressions of emotion that were typical in earlier versions (I haven't heard the version you mentioned, probably because I don't particularly care for Karl Richter's versions).

You use an interesting word, perhaps unintentionally - "religiosity". To me, as a Christian believer (and for whom the words of the Passions and cantatas actually mean something beyond aesthetics). it means an assumed pretence at religious feeling, rather than the real thing. I suspect that that's what you don't mean, but ask yourself - are you really accepting an artistic substitute for the real thing? Of course, we don't actually know how emotion was conveyed in the Thomanerkirche in the early 18th. century - I suspect that there wasn't much evident emotion - for one thing, there wouldn't have been the time as there was less than a werek between the preparation of a cantata and its performance.

For me, the glory of Bach is in the music itself, not in how it's sung. You mentioned BWV82 "Ich habe genug" - my first hearing of the aria "Schlummert ein, die matten Augen" had me on the verge of tears, even though the performance was an OK one and I then hadn't the faintest idea what the words meant! Its emotion came through the language barrier, across more than 200 years to someone in an entirely different culture. This, to me, represents the greatness of Bach.

 

Livemusic:

Welcome to ZeroGain.

Yes, I know this is a dangerous subject, and perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up. I think I personally reached a safe position - I think! - but I agree it is a very dangerous subject.

Regarding religion, I would say it is more than dealing with fear. Well, at bottom, perhaps you are right, but worshiping a God is not only about that. The mystical tradition (Meister Elkhart, or the Indian mystical tradition) is also much more than that.

I agree with you about the beauty of being happy to go and meet our savior. There is another, quite moving, cantata with the same meaning: Actus tragicus, BWV 106 (again Richter and Haefliger dominate the discography IMO).

It is a completely different Weltanschauung from ours. But I actually think I understand it. I will deal with this in my answer to Tones.

 

Tones:

Yes, I didn't mean 'religiosity' in that way. I am using the word in exactly the other way: being religious. How should I call it?

You said: 'but ask yourself - are you really accepting an artistic substitute for the real thing?'

I confess I had never thought of it that way. In a way, I suppose I am. But then, when I listen to the Passion, or to polyphony, I think I actually am religious - I suspend all rationality, and just enter into the world of religion.

The point is I think I can manage to be rather schizophrenic about it. In fact, all my religious friends) and family) think I am religious but don't acknowledge it. My wife, who knows me better than that, says that I spend my life searching for God and refusing it.

But I wrote extensively on that point to myself: I know where I stand. I feel the Sacred, yes, and perhaps more than most of my extremely religious friends (I acquired them when I married my wife, who is intensely religious but not exactly a Christian). Yet I think that is only the result of emotions and the way our brain works - actually I wrote a book about it. My position is partially coincident with Ludwig Feuerbach's, but rather different in many aspects.

About Bach's greatness, I agree with you: only a completely incompetent musician can spoil it. And you are right; there would have been no time to rehearse it the way Richter does. But then this also applies to Gardiner. And, of course, to Beethoven, too: the orchestras of his time didn't rehearse more than once or twice: you just had to keep the tempo.

So I am talking of musical restitution: I want to find out what is in a score; if the conductor can bring it out, I feel he has done a good job. In the case of Bach's religious works (the Passions and some cantatas at least, the Mass being quite another matter), I think bringing out the strong religious feelings is necessary.

Now, of course, I think we don't quite view religious feelings in the same way. I understand the way you see it (as far as I can fathom it from your posts - I'm not saying I can).

Nevertheless, I do stick to what I said earlier. I think western countries are dying a slow but sure emotional death. If one doesn't cultivate the more complex emotions one becomes barren inside. And, nowadays, as emotion is avoided, we tend to live a barren life. Now Christians are different - as you say, you have the real thing. But for others, unless one cultivates and develops complex emotions the world is just a simple, easy, thing. One worries about cars, cables, girlfriends or boyfriends.

I know it from my students. They often come to me for advice on their personal problems. They are usually so simple, so trivial, even if quite upsetting to them. I often feel like telling them to go listen to a Bach Passion and watching a Caravaggio or Zurbaran painting.

So, even if this post is quite involved and disorganized, this is the meaning I want to convey: the West is becoming shallower and shallower. Great art, profound emotions, finding transcendence is the way to fight it.

 

Hmmm, what word would I use? "Religiosity" in English has a slightly negative connotation (nothing nearly as strong as "hypocrisy", but tending down that road). There really isn't one word, or at least one of which I can think. "Spirituality" gets near the mark, but perhaps is a little too much in the opposite direction - as the English expression has it, too heavenly-minded to be of any earthly use! I suppose I'd have to retreat to something relatively innocuous such as "deeply-felt rendering". Given the nature of the text, I think that says it all.

Looking back on what I wrote, I think I got it badly wrong, in that most of these singers and players are not the slightest bit religious. I have the Gardiner DVD of Bach cantatas and in the accompanying documentary on the Cantata pilgrimage of 2000, some of Gardiner's singers and players are conscious of the spiritual dimensions of the work, but can't accept it as relevant to their lives. A young viola player holds forth on the spirituality of Bach's work, and then says, "Pity I can't really accept that myself" - and then you see him in the middle of the orchestra as they sing and play their hearts out in a spine-tingling rendering of the final chorale of the New Year's cantata BWV190, the final chorale of the pilgrimage, and see Gardiner look up at the figure of Christ behind the altar and almost seem to say "Thank You".

What I'm saying is that, since most of these people are NOT themselves religious, they have to affect it. In one of the most celebrated examples, the contralto part in the very first performance of "Messiah" in Dublin was sung by the actress Susanne Cibber. Actresses had a less-than-wholesome image in those days and Mrs. Cibber was no Janet Baker, but she sang "He was despisèd" with such feeling that a clergyman shouted out, "Woman, thy sins are forgiven thee!"

And, I thought to myself, if the singer was really a believer in God, would it really make any difference? I think that it wouldn't and that artifice has therefore an essential part to play. The important things are the words and music themselves - they completely overshadow the performers, and in the case of Bach, their message gets through.

On one thing we can certainly agree - the west is most definitely becoming steadily and depressingly shallower.

Best regards,

P.S. Afterthought: I have always considered that music is the art form that most nearly approaches the divine. I can't help wondering whether the "Hallelujah" chorus or the great "Hosanna" from the B Minor mass echoes around the halls of heaven. As both are, in some ways, quite divine creations, I could believe it. Perhaps we have been privileged to hear a little bit of heaven on earth.

 

I don't think I agree with you. By 'believing in God', I don't mean necessarily being a christian. I only say that people are less turned to the Sublime (I cannot bring myself to talk about 'deeply felt rendering': it doesn't seem to me to capture the intensity of deeply feeling the Sublime; but then I may be quite wrong).

I'll give an example. A long time ago, a friend of mine wanted to introduce to me his new girlfriend - he had a very agitated life before, a tempestuous relation with his first wife).

We arranged to meet at a church, when they were playing the b minor Mass (Herreweghe). We did just that. The musicianship of Herreweghe being as it was is was interesting and very beautiful, but not terribly exciting. Nevertheless, it was quite an experience: we sat very near to the conductor, and could hear everything.

We got out and the new girl said: 'I'm hungry; let's go to a bar'. I was very disappointed, and, of course, did not go. I was tto affected by the music.

Now why is this example important? Because most orchestra musicians I know have the same attitude. But conductors cannot have this kind of attitude. I speak for myself. When I play really deep music - well, almost any music that I like -, I need a few moments to 'get off the mood'. If I really manage to play the way I like it, the emotion may last for a long time. The obverse is true, too: if I play badly, I may have a bad day.

So you are right: a violinist, a violist may feel the music or not. It is up to the conductor to make him play the way he - the conductor - wishes. He has to translate what he feels into concrete instructions: a slight silence after the quaver, make the second semiquaver slightly rushed, dwell on the first note of that phrase and release the rest slightly more piano. And so on.

All the clownery that goes on when conductor seem to conduct is nothing, really: all the work was done before that, and he has just to make the musicians repeat what they have done before.

And, another thing: can you fake emotion (let's assume one is referring to solo playing)? One can. But usually that is detectable. The best musicians feel what they mean to convey. But one cannot be too emotional - otherwise the music will sound crazy: you are just palying to yourself.

And that is an extremely difficult task: you actually have to *downplay* your emotions, in order to be in complete control of what the others are recieving. In that sense - see, for instance, the magnificent novel 'Tonio Kröger', by Thomas Mann - an interpreter is always *antecipating* what the listener will feel.

So he must be in touch with the audience. And that is, finally, my main point.

The musicians of yesterday assumed that their listeners were open to the sense of the Sublime. Today's musicians do not seem to assume the same.

An intense player may be called corny; or even obscene (I've seen it happen).

So that is where we come to agree: today's people are too pampered and live completely shallow lives.

 

RDS,
Musiciant shell not necessarily be a christian, to share "religious" attitude to the music, of course not. There is one, may be curious example of this. Our local symphonic orchestra (really good one)employs two ortodoxal jews. It's a bit funny to see them sitting in the middle of orchestra, wearing those black scullcaps and beards together with evening coats. One of them is exceptional cellist, leader of cellos group. Nothig prevents them from making very good and profundous performance of vestern music, including sacred Bach's cantatas. I personally prefer by a lagre margin, this kind of person to the indifferent "craftmans", which may be surprisingly often found among average misiciants.
To me "religiosity" is indeed an indication of ability to rise above the plain routine, to share deep emotional feeling about sublime.
On the other hand, as a religious person belongs to the certain kind of religion, he should share some sort of totalitarian mentality; but it is another story, let's leave it for a while...

 

Livemucic:

I quite agree: I know several professional musicians who belong to an orchestra or a choir that are honestly thrilled by the music they play. On the other hand, there are many 'I couldn't care less as far as I get paid' ones.

But we agree totally. Regarding music, I always felt that She (because music is a she) has the ability to bring people together without words.

This means without categories and oppositions which our brain forces us to take. You can actually be one with another person with music. In that sense, I sometimes wonder if the best religious service is not a musical happening, claimed to worship God. Any God.

Of course living is Israel you certainly face very strong religious opinions. Therefore I understand your claim that defending one particular God is tantamount with totalitarianism.

In Europe, what is left of religion takes an ecumenical form: that is, one tends to believe that all particular gods are expressions of the same God (or of none). Of course this poses great problems when on faces really different religions - for instance, those of New Guinea, where the Christian missionaries imposed Christianity upon unwilling subjects; they meant well, that's not the point - the point is, how ecumenical can one really be.

But over here, in the west, people believe absolutely nothing except the satisfaction of their appetites and (often artificial and capitalistic created) needs.

I both fear and respect very strong believers - I'm sure you will understand that. They live more intensely and have a very clear sense of life. Whereas a non believer must face nothingness. As you said previous, it is very hard to bear.

 

So many points, RdS, for which I have so few answers! I agree with you, and I didn't equate "believing in God" with "being a Christian". That's my particular pespective, but it isn't everyone's. Our friend livemusic here, for example, is still waiting for the Messiah, but his views (and those of a Hundu, Buddhist or Moslem in this context) are equally valid to mine.

And I think he has hit a really important point - the ability of a musician to rise above the reach the sublime. Perhaps this feeling is a necessary part of the equipment of any musician, the ability to go beyond the mere notes written on a page and reach the very essence of what it's all about. After all, a musician, a real musician, recreates a piece of music each time it is played, and imbues it with a life beyond the page, what you would term reaching the sublime.

Is this "faked" emotion? In some cases, yes, but in the case of real musicianship, no. And in this sense the perceptions of the listeners play (or should play) no part - the musician is, or should be, in his or her own creative world, recreating great music - whether the audience appreciates it or not should be irrelevant. Anyone who plays purely to please the audience is not a real musician anyway. I guess this is why some Lizst piano stuff and Paganini violin stuff has never scaled the heights, because it was written purely to showcase the technical virtuosity of the soloist. On the other hand, Bach's organ works had real depth to them, no matter how virtuoso they were.

 

It looks like a consensus has been reached with many of the areas discussed. I think the terms we are using now, particularly the concept of the 'sublime' has a resonance with all those who see music as a central and essential aspect of their life on this earth, and perhaps thereafter. The slight problem I had with the term 'emotion' was that its everday usage has been corrupted into something fairly shallow with the open and hysterical displays often seen in the media and some of the more extreme aspects of the touchy-feely culture. It's pretty obvious that is not required in performance, rather a deep feeling for the music by the performer that can be transmitted to the listener. In the end the greatness of the music conveyed with sensitivity and appropriate emotion is the best chance we have of experiencing the sublime.

And I think I may have been fortunate to almost have experienced that listening last night. Firstly Mahler 2 Symph. 'Resurrection' that took me some time to come down from cloud nine. Then Haydn syph. 41 and 48, then Bach cantata 82, mentioned earlier in this thread, and finally the last six preludes and fugues of Book 1 of the WTC. And of course the subject matter of the Mahler and Cantata 82 is very similar - happy to leave this life and experience perfect rest and perfect peace after the tumult and chaos of life.

As a slight aside has anyone read Anthont Storr's book 'Music and the Mind', or know anything about the philosophy of Schopenhauer. From my recollection and very limited understanding they make the case that music is probably the most fundamental communication media programmed into human kind at the deepest level, and earlier than that of speech.

If anyone can express these ideas in an easily understandable form, I for one would be most appreciative!

Keep up the good work everyone!

Sid