Intelectual Music

I've always found the deffinition for intelectual music kind of vauge, with no solid deffiniton. I think I saw a thread for this before on here, but I couldn't find it on the search.

So, what does intelectual music mean to you?

I think the best deffinition I've heard, is music that is composed so that every note has a pouropse, every single articulaton, and every single voicing, etc. as opposed to just writing a melody and putting some block chords or arpegios behind it with not much thought.

I just don't like the term for some reason though... I mainly think of music as emotinal.

Disclaimer: this is all my opinion, as the term "intellectual" is subjective in this context.

Intellectual music has a negative connotation. If music is "intellectual," that connotes a type of music that is appealing on an intellectual level RATHER than an aesthetic level. In other words, music written to for the purpose of appealing to the cerebral rather than the emotional/aesthetic. E.G. a lot of twelve tone music is purely intellectual, it's built solely to satisfy the rules that Schoenberg established regarding that type of writing.

It's also the reason I don't really like a lot of Bach's famous Contrapuncti, though to a much lesser extent.

On the other hand, just about all of Bach's fugues appeal to me aesthetically in addition to their obvious appeal to the intellect. Perhaps you could call it successful intellectual music, I don't know.
It's a gray issue, because some people do write music following strict rules that still manage to please the subjective senses. Phase music comes to mind. I guess the most successful intellectual music is the music that doesn't forget what its purpose is: to be listened to, not just thought about.

I think intellectual music is a very broad term (in that it encompasses a lot of genres and styles). My music, for example, has often been called intellectual. My definition of intellectual is music written with great though and that appeals to the cerebral. I put a great care into each and every note I write anymore - every note has to have a specific purpose in my structures/textures. That said, I do consider my own music to be emotional at the same time. And that's something has taken a great amount of time for me to cultivate. At times, I wonder if I succeed and at times, I know I do - but others, I could care less if it has that 'emotional' relevancy that is so popular in music these days. One thing, I state regularly.. is the only rules you have are your ears. If you can listen to your work and get enjoyment out of it, then that alone should be enough to tell you that you are doing it right.

Peter_W., on 28 July 2010 - 11:38 AM, said:

So following strict rules makes music intulectual? I don't think I understand why strict rules would make music intelectual.

You can follow strict rules, but it still can be a simple peice... But I geuss it is all in the terminolgy.

I think we can all agree that we should strive to use the terminology that has the most descriptive, and logical names though.

http://forum.youngco..._1

This is the tread you speak of I quess.

I'm still woundering about it, but I have a notion:

Maybe you can compare the building of musical sentences with sentences in language. I've tried to analies my musical sentences in terms of subject, predicate, verb etc. When I 'obey' these rules to the construction of musical sentences it seems to give a nice effect. It seems to be more 'correct'. Maybe you could say it sounds more intelligent.

I don't know if this is commen knowledge. Either way I think this has to do with intelligence in music.

keys&guitar, on 28 July 2010 - 11:56 AM, said:

"music written to for the purpose of appealing to the cerebral rather than the emotional/aesthetic."

This is done through following strict rules. This is not to say following strict rules MAKES a piece intellectual, simply that intellectual pieces do it.

This is, of course, my definition of intellectual. Again, it's an ambiguous term.

Oh boy, here we go. Where to start?

[indent]"I think the best definition I've heard, is music that is composed so that every note has a purpose, every single articulation, and every single voicing, etc. as opposed to just writing a melody and putting some block chords or arpeggios behind it with not much thought." [Please take more time proofreading your material. There were plenty of errors to correct in this single sentence.]
[/indent]
What you're describing is the modernist approach to composing, where no single musical element (pitches, durations, dynamics, etc.) is any more significant than another and should therefore not be ordered in a functional setting like we would in, say, the common practice period. Essentially, you're calling Free-tone (or Atonal) music "intellectual" when it's simply a different style. No more or less intellect goes into writing Free-tone music than goes into writing a Sonata. There's plenty of intellectual demand for both.

[indent]"E.G. a lot of twelve tone music is purely intellectual, it's built solely to satisfy the rules that Schoenberg established regarding that type of writing."
[/indent]
I find this statement grossly uninformed. 12t music is aesthetically pleasing to many people, including the composers who still use the methods of modernist writing in their works even today. I recommend listening to more music from the 20th Century.

[indent]"Perhaps you could call it successful intellectual music, I don't know. "
[/indent]
LAWL! As amusing as this is, I'd love to hear how we could possibly qualify music as "successful."

[indent]"I guess the most successful intellectual music is the music that doesn't forget what its purpose is: to be listened to, not just thought about."
[/indent]
Okay, so we aren't "thinking" about music when we "listen" to it? This is an honest, open-ended question... I'm curious what people believe about this, whether we're actually "thinking" about the music we listen to and to what extent.

[indent]"You can follow strict rules, but it still can be a simple piece... But I guess it is all in the terminology."
[/indent]
Yay, another semantic argument is brewing... though I definitely agree here that music can be written following a strict formula and still be simple. Actually, there are formulas for just about every style of music out there, including the "simple" kinds of pieces.

[indent]"Maybe you can compare the building of musical sentences with sentences in language. I've tried to analyze my musical sentences in terms of subject, predicate, verb etc. When I 'obey' these rules to the construction of musical sentences it seems to give a nice effect. It seems to be more 'correct'. Maybe you could say it sounds more intelligent.

I don't know if this is common knowledge. Either way I think this has to do with intelligence in music." [Seriously, proofreading and spellchecker are great tools. Please use them.]

[/indent]I don't think "structuring" music around language qualifies said music as "intellectual." Perhaps we rely on our intelligence when we compose music, but wouldn't that necessarily mean that every piece of music is "intellectual" since we rely on our intelligence to create music?

Peter_W., on 28 July 2010 - 12:54 PM, said:

But I personally think following rules makes something less intelligent. Well, it makes it less creative anyway... I personally think that following rules, and being intelligent are two completely un-related things, and my definition of intelligent music is basically the same as Jawoodroof’s

AntiA- Umm, I never said all elements were equally important, I simply said that each note, articulation, dynamic mark, etc. is there for a purpose. In other words, you put a lot of thought into each aspect of the piece. My music is far from what might be called atonal... Well I suppose that isn’t entirely true, I use a lot of aspects from atonal music for certain pieces, but my pieces are never strictly atonal.

I think it's all just dependent on how you enjoy your music or whatever music you listen to.

Say, I can appreciate Mahler's orchestration and harmony and so on, yet totally not like the music on a "go to concert and just listen" level. I suppose I can call that "intellectual" appreciation, but for example I do like a lot of pieces on more levels than that, so I know when things are missing for me.

It's true that many times something which for me started as "intellectual" appreciation later becomed emotional appeciation after hearing it enough times (it grew on me.) I think it's a super-vague notion at best but it's probably along the lines of what I mentioned.

keys&guitar, on 28 July 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

OIC, so how is this any different than the thought a composer puts into writing a sonata or a fugue? What distinguishes "intellectual" music from "other" music?