Ruminations on Lumpy Gravy, or Some Thoughts on Titles, or Maybe Something Else More Long-Winded...8/5/2015 For this week’s post I want to talk about something that has been on mind a lot over the last couple of years - titles. Composers, and all artists for that matter, spend a lot of time laboring over the titles of their works. I would say they also spend as much time arguing with each other about “good” and “bad” titles, but that's just an observation from personal experience. But it is this argument that I want to talk about here, specifically the idea of “bad” titles. I think this is a subject that should be discussed more frequently, mostly because of the heated arguments I’ve seen - and in some cases been a part of - wherein one party considers a title absolutely awful whereas the other party might love that same title. I’ll try to keep this a brief discussion of my own feelings on titles, what they mean, and what might constitute labeling a title as either good or bad.
I think before we can even talk about the difference in criteria for a good or bad title we first have to think about what the actual function of a title is. It might be more useful to first think about the function of titles in other art forms. For instance, what is the function of the title of a book or film? The main function in those mediums is to get the reader's/viewer's attention while simultaneously giving some kind of clue as to what will be unfolded in the book or movie - plot, characters, setting, or something else entirely. For these art forms a title is incredibly important. It not only has to immediately grab the reader’s or viewer’s attention but also has to give a glimpse into the work without giving too much away or being too vague. Creating an effective title for a book or film is really an art in itself. I would argue the same goes for visual arts (painting, sculpture, digital video, etc.). Even in the case of abstract art, the title can give the viewer insight to the mind of the artist or process employed in creating the piece and also help provide context for the work that might not necessarily be immediately visible. But what about music? Music is a different animal than the arts presented above, mostly because it is essentially just abstract sound. Music, regardless of it's complexity and beauty, is just vibration of air molecules. Books contain words and language, which we have ascribed meaning to. As long as one speaks the language of the book they can make sense out of what is inside. Films contain moving images and dialogue, which again create an immediate connection for the viewer to make sense out of what they are seeing. Visual arts, even the most abstract, can have some kind of meaning and context given to them even from a simple association of a well-crafted title. Sound, though, has no inherent meaning, until we give it meaning. We can attribute certain characteristics to sounds - consonant, dissonant, rich, abrasive, high, low, loud, soft - but these terms don’t describe anything other than acoustical properties of the sound. The only situation in which music can really start to take on meaning beyond acoustical properties is when there is an accompanying text. This is still problematic because if one were to remove the text and replace it with gibberish the music itself would not change. By that I mean that the “meaning” and characteristics of the sounds would be no different, but the extra-musical association with those sounds would take on a completely different meaning, or take on no meaning at all! So, again, what is the function of a title in music? Well, first, a title is simply a way of naming a piece of music, making it easy to reference whether that is for programming purposes, cataloging, etc. Giving a piece a title is really just a means of identifying it. But that seems like a gross oversimplification of this topic, so let's dig a little deeper. I think it’s good to think about the historical use of titles. Looking back to the Medieval and Renaissance periods, a large portion of the recorded catalog of music is vocal music - both sacred and secular - in which titles were often derived from the text used. Moving into the Baroque period instrumental music, cantatas and staged operas became more common. The titles for operas and cantatas typically came from the libretto used, so there is still the text association. Instrumental music often served some sort of function, whether it was for dance, court functions or other rituals. The titles for these instrumental works were often derived from the style or form of the piece (sarabande, gigue, suite, sonata, etc.). That isn’t to say this was always the case. Some instrumental works did have programmatic subtitles, such as Vivaldi’s “Four Seasons” concerto. Still, many titles were a reflection of the form and/or function of the piece. This practice can been found throughout Classical period rep, but more pieces with poetic or descriptive subtitles (Hammerklavier, Jupiter symphony, “Surprise” symphony, and others) start popping up in addition to the more general form/function and opus number titles. In the interest of time we’ll skip through the Romantic period in which many pieces, specifically instrumental works, were titled with programmatic and evocative titles that gave the listener little or no insight to the form or function of a piece. Going into the 20th century this approach to descriptive/programmatic titles became more common practice, to the point that I would say it’s far more common to see pieces with a “programmatic” title than with a title such as symphony, sonata, cantata, etc. So, why has Western music moved in this direction, and what does it mean for the function of a title in 21st century music? I would say that one explanation for moving away from form-descriptive titles is that many works, specifically experimental compositions, no longer follow those more traditional forms. That isn’t to say that composers are not still using more traditional forms, it just seems like a less common practice in the 21st century, and uses of "symphonic form" or sonata form is often a deformation of the traditional formal trajectory. However, some composers, and I’m thinking specifically about mid-century atonal composers, used what seem like programmatic titles but they actually describe the structure or form of the piece in some way. These titles are like a middle ground between the two methods of titling a work (programmatic and form/function). Think about Boulez’s Structures, which is a piece focused on the large-scale and small-scale structural framework of the piece. Stockhausen’s Kreuzspiel (cross-play) describes the registral interaction of the instruments. Lutoslawski’s Chain I and Chain II reference the composer’s use of what he called chain form. This is really just a slightly more poetic approach to form/function titles. But lets get back to the programmatic titles, which are really at the heart of what I'm talking about with the "good" vs. "bad" dichotomy. Why do composers choose more evocative titles? Sometimes the title of a composition is a reference to some kind of external element. Maybe the title references a piece of visual art, architecture, a book or short story, maybe a line from a poem. This explains where the title comes from, and in some way should give the listener clues as to how it relates to the music. The connections may be difficult to hear on the surface, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist in some form. The use of these “programmatic” titles can help provide the listener with some kind of mental image the composer intends to evoke with the sounds he or she creates. Maybe the piece was inspired by a work of visual art and the creation of the music mimics the structure of art work in some way. Maybe the behavior of two instruments references the interaction of two characters in a book. Still, though, when dealing with music - and at this point I will only be referring to instrumental music with no aid of text - we are dealing with abstract sound with no actual meaning beyond the acoustical properties of vibrating air molecules. I hate to keep coming back to that, but I think it’s a good point to keep in mind. In a way, a programmatic title can provide some level of insight to the piece for the listener, but when the title doesn’t reference a clearly audible element of the music what is the point? Could that title be replaced with something else equally poetic and evocative, but with a different mental image attached to it? I don’t think there is a clear-cut answer to this question, but I do think it is a question any composer should think about if they intend for their title to give the listener some kind of context or insight to the music. All of this brings me to the final topic of “good” titles and “bad” titles (took me long enough, I know...). Personally, I don’t think that bad titles exist, and I think arguing over the idea of a good or bad title is kind of silly. I think some titles can be more memorable than others. Some titles are more descriptive of the form, which is fine. Some titles are very programmatic in nature, which is also fine especially if the title DOES evoke the mental images or emotional reaction the composer intends. But ultimately, music (and all art for that matter) is a product of the artist and he or she should feel comfortable giving their work whatever title they see fit. I know that sound overly Cageian and is kind of a cop-out answer, but I feel there is a lot of truth to that sentiment. One example in defense of my position is Frank Zappa and the often ridiculous titles he used for his music. Frank Zappa is arguably one of the most prominent American composers/musicians of the late 20th century, and was a composer who made a mark in rock, blues, fusion, experimental music and orchestral concert music (I mean come on, Boulez conducted some of his music). He also used titles like “Lumpy Gravy,” “Black Napkins,” “It Must be a Camel,” “G-Spot Tornado,” “Toads of the Short Forest,” and one of my personal favorites “Prelude to the Afternoon of a Sexually Aroused Gas Mask.” It’s also worth mentioning that all of these titles are for instrumental works. Keep in mind that humor and zany lyrics were a staple of Zappa’s music, so it makes sense his titles would just as ridiculous. But I don’t think that makes the point of his strange titles any less valid. While I don’t think the titles often add anything to music itself, they also don’t take anything away. I'm sure you would never hear someone say "man I love that song, but if only Frank hadn't titled 'Camarillo Brillo...'". And you would be hard-pressed to argue that these titles don’t instantly grab your attention and aren’t delightfully memorable. I guess my point here is that, as the artist, your title should be whatever you want it to be. I'm going to go into a bit of a tangential argument, but I’ve had conversations with musicians who maintain that a piece should never rely on the theory and/or process used to create it, and the final product, the music itself, should be the primary criteria for evaluating a piece. I’m inclined to agree with that. However, if someone is willing to disregard theory and process as evaluating criteria then the title of a piece should be the absolute LEAST of our worries when evaluating a piece. Ultimately, a “good” or “bad” title is completely subjective, and it’s a waste of everyone’s time to talk about the merits of a “good” title. I think it's more important to think about creating a memorable or appropriate title. After sitting through a long concert I might not remember a piece titled "Sonata no. 4 for oboe and piano" but I would definitely remember a piece with the title "Fembot in a Wet T-Shirt" (yes, that is another Zappa title). That went on a lot longer than I had planned, but it turned out I had more to say on the topic than I thought. For an added bonus, in case you’re curious, I included a list of some of my favorite titles below. What are some of your favorite titles, and why do you like them? Until next time! Aaron Cassidy i, purples, spat blood, laugh of beautiful lips Pierre Boulez Pli Selon Pli (Fold Over Fold/Fold Upon Fold) Natasha Barrett Racing Through, Racing Unseen Luciano Berio Eindrucke (Impressions) Joseph Schwantner and the mountains rising nowhere George Crumb Ancient Voices of Children John Adams On the Transmigration of Souls Morgan Krauss Pallid Tongues Chris Chandler Deep in Liquid Indigo Frank Zappa The Girl in the Magnesium Dress Elainie Lillios Dreams in the Desert Morgan Krauss Pallid Tongues Mikel Kuehn ...lilac shrieks and scarlet bellowings Brian Ferneyhough Schatten aus Wasser und Stein (Shadows Made of Water and Stone). Fausto Romitelli Professor Bad Trip
1 Comment
1/23/2025 01:04:30 am
Nice Blog! Keep posting and upgrading our knowledge. Vocal acapellas are isolated vocal tracks, free from instrumentals, often used in music production, remixes, and DJ sets. These tracks showcase pure vocal performances, highlighting emotion and technique. Available in various genres, they can be sourced from professional libraries, royalty-free platforms, or by recording original vocals. Acapellas are ideal for creativity, offering producers flexibility to craft unique melodies, beats, and harmonies, transforming simple vocals into captivating musical pieces.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
The "Direct Sound" Page is dedicated to general blog posts and discussions. Various topics are covered here.
Full Directory of Articles |