There other day I was thinking about humility vs. what may or may not be considered narcissism in the musical community, but I actually think that empathy as it relates to the musical community is a much more interesting subject. A few months ago I wrote a post about mirror-touch synesthesia. I believe that people who study music develop some synesthetic skills, even if they are not organically "wired" to have synesthesia. I tell my students that musicians develop ears that see and eyes that hear. I also tell them that through practice their sense of touch becomes connected in all sorts of ways to their sense of hearing and seeing. I notice that when people play together a certain degree of empathy pours out of its mysterious lamp, and as people become less and less occupied with what their partners in musical "crime" think of them, the total degree of musical empathy increases.
I wonder if musical empathy is something organic or something that is learned. There are musicians who have excellent coordination of eyes, ears, hands, and arms, but they have difficulty connecting emotionally to others while playing. I am one of those people who always follows and always connects to the people I am playing with, often compensating for another person's lack of ability (or willingness) to connect. I believe that if I try hard enough, I can break down the psychological walls that separate me from my musical partners, and we can make music together. There are also people with whom I don't need to try to connect. We simply connect, even if we are playing together for the first time.
There are people who believe the emotional nature of music, particularly listening to live performances of music, helps people become more empathetic. I think that a faster track towards truly developing empathy comes from active participation in musical activities and consciously practicing the art of connection. I would even venture to say that participating in musical activities (singing together, playing chamber music, and playing and singing in larger groups) teaches people to become better citizens because making the collective experience worthwhile depends on cooperation. It is always necessary in larger non-elite ensembles to find common ground between people with a wide range of musical ability and experience. Learning how to do this in musical situations makes a great example for working together with others in non-musical situations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Dear Elaine,
People who argue for the worth and value of classical music in terms moralistic, character-building, or utilitarian need to have their kneecaps broken (figuratively speaking, of course).
Any argument for the worth or value of classical music along any of those lines is not only imbecile but destructively wrongheaded and entirely in error. There’s zero moral anything involved with one’s listening preference for classical music or the popular sort, nor will listening to classical music make of one a better person and citizen, and listening to popular music, a reprobate. And arguments along utilitarian lines miss the point altogether and cannot help but obscure the issue in an almost impenetrable cloud of irrelevance.
I didn't say anything in this post about the worth and value of classical music here, Anonymous!
According to the brain research I have read and continue to read, musical perception seems to best mimic and map emotional perception/response. The choice of the word empathy then makes fine sense. Another anonymous comment critiques what one of my mus-ed professors used to say about the supposed connection that "the Johnny who blows a horn won't blow a safe" that the connection was at best tenuous. Certainly all totalitarian states have had their parade music and such, and the aggressive pop music of today seems to stress a very few basic themes.
On the thought of musical cooperation affecting other domains of life, while my observation is more anecdote than standard sampling beloved of the pollsters, I think it more often factual that my classical and jazz and church music friends all are exemplary as a group than others in our world. Is it because uplifting, intellectually entertaining music affects other mental domains, or that the tendency for people of greater societal responsibility also tend towards classical sorts of music as well as other art forms is the thing. I can't say, but the Western canon of music in which I happily include the light pops sorts of repertoire seems to be a lovely repository of values, musical and more than musical.
I have a bone to pick with figuratively-speaking-kneecaps-broken Mister Anonymous. "No" is not in itself an argued refutation, merely a no. I found little in the comment to further a dialogue or learn something new.
But as to "reprobates" in this world today, it is true that Islamic fundamentalists are banning all forms of music, and it is true that much of the modern trendy pop repertoire supports some vile lyric sentiments under the excuse of "art." It seems also true that amateur and semi-professional string quartets and church choirs and
other forms of "classical" music are seemingly more moral in their general life when compared to those who would destroy musical instruments. So there is an argument well worth making, and it has to do with more than "zero."
Best wishes for your blog and musical pursuits.
Another Anonymous
According to the brain research I have read and continue to read, musical perception seems to best mimic and map emotional perception/response. The choice of the word empathy then makes fine sense. Another anonymous comment critiques what one of my mus-ed professors used to say about the supposed connection that "the Johnny who blows a horn won't blow a safe" that the connection was at best tenuous. Certainly all totalitarian states have had their parade music and such, and the aggressive pop music of today seems to stress a very few basic themes.
On the thought of musical cooperation affecting other domains of life, while my observation is more anecdote than standard sampling beloved of the pollsters, I think it more often factual that my classical and jazz and church music friends all are exemplary as a group than others in our world. Is it because uplifting, intellectually entertaining music affects other mental domains, or that the tendency for people of greater societal responsibility also tend towards classical sorts of music as well as other art forms is the thing. I can't say, but the Western canon of music in which I happily include the light pops sorts of repertoire seems to be a lovely repository of values, musical and more than musical.
I have a bone to pick with figuratively-speaking-kneecaps-broken Mister Anonymous. "No" is not in itself an argued refutation, merely a no. I found little in the comment to further a dialogue or learn something new.
But as to "reprobates" in this world today, it is true that Islamic fundamentalists are banning all forms of music, and it is true that much of the modern trendy pop repertoire supports some vile lyric sentiments under the excuse of "art." It seems also true that amateur and semi-professional string quartets and church choirs and
other forms of "classical" music are seemingly more moral in their general life when compared to those who would destroy musical instruments. So there is an argument well worth making, and it has to do with more than "zero."
Best wishes for your blog and musical pursuits.
Another Anonymous
Sorry for posting twice. The "I'm not a robot" thingy proved itself a bit robotic, which is an irony for a program asking a human to prove one's self. Ah, technology is sometimes not quite....
What you wrote was worth reading twice, Anonymous 2!
I agree with you wholly, Elaine. It occurs to me that where lack of empathy, where lack of willingness to even strive for a degree of it, may be most common and disastrous is in performances of concertos. And this rather harks back to the question of Narcissism. I think Karajan was a Narcissist, and utter lack of interest in achieving empathy with soloists dogged nigh on all his concerto performances, e.g., with Lipatti, especially notorious, with Richter-Haaser in the Brahms 2nd., with Weissenberg in the Rachmaninov 2nd. One finds it again in the concert performances of Brahms 1st., where Solomon, the most collegial of artists, had to do battle with Maazel and Cantelli. Those two performances stand in stark contrast with his concert performance of the same concerto with the BPO and Jochum. With Karajan, Cantelli and Maazel there arose the same problem: they wanted the concerto performed their way. God above, Karajan even played the piano part of the Schumann to Lipatti to show him how it should be done! Thank heavens, the master of the first take has been found and issued, but Heifetz insisted that his recording of a Beethoven sonata with Moisewitsch (that great pianist's only recording of chamber music) be redone because the violin was not sufficiently to the fore. There is more than vanity here -- there is a total lack of empathy and possibly Naricissim, which I did rather suspect we would find mostly among conductors.
I was also thinking of Heifetz and Karajan as examples of musical narcissists. I would also add Stern to the list.
Dear friends, I would caution against the word narcissism as applied to normally functional and functioning individuals.
Narcissism in my dictionaries is defined as some exceptional self-interest or admiration in one's physicality and perhaps involving sexual contemplation of one's self. The Greek myth suggests becoming essentially so self-absorbed as to not further function in life, and the DSM's sometimes changing definitions of symptoms goes far beyond what has been said about an egotistical conductor or fiddler. While a von Karajan was noted for trying to enforce his musical will on another's reading, the same phenomenon occurs in academia with musicians of far lesser accomplishments.
I heard two concerts by the same orchestra and same conductor -- both world famous, by I shan't mention names -- and once the Beethoven symphony was brilliantly led and played, and once it was a rather embarrassing event (connected to a union dispute with the company).
Empathy is a fine word to discuss conductors and performers, but perhaps narcissism is too extreme. Lack of empathy is a fine description for a conductor who controls too firmly and quixotically.
An anecdote: I worked with a conductor in Europe who insisted on some things in a rehearsal in his room with a pianist. When we got onstage he stopped a rehearsal to ask what was wrong, and I quietly mentioned I was doing what he had requested earlier in the day. His quiet response: "I was wrong." A von Karajan or a Bernstein was sometimes wrong. But then again Heifetz was encouraged to leave one university for another because the more egotistical musicologists on the faculty made problems for him. Over a table and a rug in a practice room. Those same faculty members let the Schoenberg archives wander off. Some musicologists lack empathy; those did, I opine. Sometimes we all do. But to repeatedly lead or solo with an orchestra or appear in multiple recitals is the absolute opposite of losing one's self into one's own reflection and become less or even non-functional.
Here's a tip from someone who's been around awhile. I've been wrong sometimes, and many of those with whom I have worked have been wrong. Some have lacked empathy, or only responded to stiffer will in return. But none were narcissists. This is a problem with the language today, I think. We get bombarded with pop psychology, and it might be well to say that even pop can be wrong.
Anonymous, you might like to look at Elaine's earlier post on Naricissism and humility. The nature of Narcissism is discussed there, on the basis of its psychiatric definition, and the discussion somewhat lays the ground for this post and discussion. The two are related, as Elaine's opening words suggest.
Dear Mr. Amos, your response misses my point. I suggest that narcissist is too strong a word to use to describe musicians, even the ones mentioned above.
Some definitions:
Merriam-Webster
1 : EGOISM, EGOCENTRISM
2 : love of or sexual desire for one's own body
Collins
1. an exceptional interest in or admiration for oneself, esp. one's physical appearance.
2. sexual satisfaction derived from contemplation of one's own physical or mental endowments.
Dictionary.com
1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
Synonyms: self-centeredness, smugness, egocentrism.
2. Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.
That musicians might be egotistical and even over-bearing at times is true. It is true for the greatest and the least of musicians, as well. But the flavor of the word by dictionary definitions suggests something far beyond the egotistical. As with the Greek myth and the DSM symptomology, narcissism is a profoundly strong diagnosis and narrative.
When musical assumptions presume to diagnose an individual as a narcissist, or merely misapply the word, then we all become arm chair psychologists and critics of some extremely strong-willed but talented and productive people. I've worked around the world with some of these, but refrain from describing them as narcissists. Jackasses, maybe. Narcissists, not at all.
If the notion that people with strong opinions equate to narcissism, then all creative artists with opinions are narcissists, and then word dilutes to having no meaning while at the same time the dialogue about such productive musicians tiptoes in the direction of sniping. It has been a favorite game of mine when confronted with someone in a musical endeavor to counter any claim with "show me." Or sing a little bit of what you mean. Many seeming strong-willed wither. That a von Karajan might play his interpretation of a concerto to a soloist suggests a simple fact. He could. Does that give reason to diagnose him as narcissist? I prefer not to do so.
I think you need a better dictionary, Anon!
Webster's Third has "1a: EGOTISM, EGOCENTRISM b: overvaluation of one's own attributes or achievements or of those of one's group" before any of the autoerotic definitions.
Perhaps we all need better dictionaries, but when egocentrism becomes an acceptable attribute with which to play critic to legendary artists (I think back to your article about eschewing your earlier critic's stance about performers and recordings) then every performer with whom I have worked and I myself are to be painted with the same adjective brush. Which musician is not somewhat egocentric? What blog, for that matter, then is not egocentric? Who measures the "overvaluing" of another musician's achievements? And is not then the measuring and the assignment of judgment by the use of the adjective itself not narcissistic? Self-centered? Is not then the act of composing not a self-centered act? The crucial questions reveal non-musical assumptions. Who judges the other with the use of the word narcissist?
I have to respond with a resounding "hmmmm."
I don't miss your point, Anonymous. To begin with, some people are Narcissists, musicians are people, therefore, there is very good chance that some musicians are Narcissists. You seem to suggest that musicians are exempt from Naricissism, and I find that a touch boggling.Secondly, we are speaking past one another and at odds. We obviously disagree re whether there are musicians who are/were Narcissists, but this stems in large part from the fact that you are using dictionary definitions, which customarily focus on demotic, everyday, and thus often loose definitions. Thus we see it deemed synonymous with egotism, self-centredness, even smugness. On the other hand, as I wrote in response to Elaine's earlier post on Narcissism, a comment in which I suggested that she had really been writing about vanity, Narcissism is properly speaking a psychiatric condition, and in a second comment on the earlier post, I summed up the diagnostic criteria listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, aka the Psychiatrist's Bible. I'll not repeat that. There are, of course, musicians who are vain, egocentric, self-obsessed. But I'd be mighty surprised if a profession that, like acting, may involve a person being what Milton calls "...the cynosure of all neighbouring eyes", perhaps attract adulation, perhaps involve a public display of absolute control of 100 or so other people, does not attract some Narcissists. However, I will iterate that the last of the DSM's criteria is lack of empathy, also a main criterion of sociopathy, and that most of all makes it a far cry from common vanity and egocentrism. I don't need a better dictionary. I'm not using one -- I'm using the DSM. That hefty tome alone allows us to distinguish among vanity, egotism, etc, on the one hand, and Narcissism on the other. Your last comment shows a complete confusion of them.
Dear Mr. Amos,
With thanks to this blog for allowing a dialogue, I do not confuse the terms which cluster around issues of egotistical stances and clinical narcissism. Rather, I underline them. In this agree with your point. Who judges? Given the wiggly nature of words and misunderstandings rooted in language (and less so in music itself), judging becomes often name calling rather than discourse.
I do not suggest that mental illness is not found among musicians. Famous cases abound, and I have performed works by those who ultimately had to be committed. Ivor Gurney comes immediately to mind, though not as regards narcissism. Mental illness is an interesting sideline surrounding the greater Western canon of musical work. Indeed mental illness is found, but actual DSM-defined cases of clinical narcissism are not among the instances of which I am aware. Perhaps you would care to cite a case history to further the discussion?
I am fine with using demotic definitions, hieratic definitions or any other upon which we might agree and which will assist in closing in the boundaries of a discussion. That is a matter of agreement as to which words and what their meanings are intended to be are clarified.
Ms. Fine's opening words were "about humility vs. what may or may not be considered narcissism in the musical community, but I actually think that empathy as it relates to the musical community is a much more interesting subject." In this too I agree. As we have seen, throwing about the term narcissism within the context of music and musicians has not served as well as might have been expected.
But as you cite the DSM, would you care to cite a composer or performer who might be "diagnosed" within the terms of this discussion as clinically "narcissistic?"
Additionally, I agree that empathy as an attribute of musicality is a most interesting subject. Perhaps less laden with issues of definitions and their varying pointers in too many directions.
Best wishes to all.
Anonymous,
With regard to a composer or performer "who might be 'diagnosed' " as clinically Narcissistic, I'm certainly not going to mention any living ones!! I suspect that neither Elaine nor I could afford the possible consequences. (--: Of those now gone who "might" be so diagnosed, I mentioned a few earlier. I cannot go beyond "might be", for we move here into the realm of posthumous diagnosis, always a tricky business, which is why I wrote earlier that "I think" the examples mentioned might have been. I could, I suppose, more firmly pin down one or even two, but you will surely appreciate that I'd need an awful lot of sources and time to do that. I'll only say that had, I time and resources for such research, I think off-hand that I might well focus on any of four: Karajan, Bernstein, Reiner, and Scherchen.
Having worked with Bernstein, I would check him off your list of possible individuals to be so diagnosed. Having worked with some who have worked with Karajan, I think this too is not a real option. Were these men vain? Yes, I think that can be opined. Clinically narcissistic? That's a different arena in which to debate.
As to posthumous diagnoses, that tricky business you mention, the notion of proving a generalized lack of empathy, already a loosely defined notion, as well as other socio-pathological symptoms would prove difficult indeed. Your comment of 3/6/15 10:06 AM pointing more to evidence of "vanity" rather than narcissism suggests also the musicological challenges in such post mortems. Perhaps a little like finding some speck of Mozart's DNA in that lime pit?
This conversation about the term narcissism as found in several dictionary sources as well as the DSM shows how difficult a subject becomes the notion of going too far into "diagnoses" especially when considering how much musical criticism comes down to "I like" and "I don't like." When ego -- Ego sum -- comes to the fore for us mortals, the "I" plays a large part in the equation. There is not only the "patient" to consider, but the "identifier of the patient," in terms of those who would decide which is to be seen as a patient for analysis in perhaps Freudian or other "DSM" terms.
My point has been that in general narcissism seems a blunt word to speak towards vanity, for all composers, performers and even critics evidence some to be sure. Moreover, given the notion of "lack of empathy," one finds that some of the names mentioned throughout this thread may well have shown "lack of empathy" to some and "empathy" to others. While artists have sometimes heated differences of musical opinion, the same artists find kindred spirits in others. Else there would be no recordings of concerti when all is said and done. Nor would there be very different and even wildly quixotic readings of the same works. Yet one finds both collaborative recordings by very vain individuals, suggesting that common ground is found with some but not other artists. This seems the musical world as I have experienced it around the world and over many decades.
The assertion of DSM-defined narcissism of now deceased musicians seems like the avenue down which a researcher might well travel, and you are correct in saying "am awful lot of resources and time" would be involved. I for one am having too much fun making music with my friends and colleagues, even the ones with whom I sometimes disagree most strongly. Such seems often the nature of collaboration as I have seen it. When we all agree about all readings of everything, what sort of challenge shall we face? Everything would be to our liking, and then probably we too would be staring into the pool with the original Narcissus. One recalls that it was the character Nemesis which lured Narcissus to that very terminal drowning pool out of which the hunter, no longer a hunter, died.
The names mentioned above all recorded and performed and collaborated, sometimes with ease and sometimes with rancor. Is this not the human condition, just carried over into our work as musicians. Scratch a fiddle or tinkle a key, and someone will tell you just how awful it was, and the inverse seems to be easy for us playing the role of critic to assign the awful to another's musical play.
Best wishes for an interesting ecchange.
Post a Comment