Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Spirtual pieces...

Then, perhaps, he should have said so.

- "Deep River" is a spiritual.
- The fifth movement of Berlioz' "Symphonie fantastique" and Gluck's "Dance of the Blessed Spirits" are "spiritual" because they deal with spiritual beings (ghosts, witches, etc.).
- Maybe "The Entertainer" is spiritual to some because it lifts their spirits.

and

"The Concert Spirituel was one of the first public concert series in existence. The concerts began in Paris in 1725 and ended in 1790[...]The series was founded to provide entertainment during the Easter fortnight and on religious holidays when the other spectacles (the Paris Opera, Comédie-Française, and Comédie-Italienne) were closed. The programs featured a mixture of sacred choral works and virtuosic instrumental pieces."


So ...?

If you think it's a waste of time to post here, why do it?

Who said it was a waste of time?

Or perhaps just look at my examples if you want a feel for what I mean.

Well, "So...?" seems to imply that you think it's a rather pointless topic. Though it may be pointless, this is a forum. We're here to talk about whatever comes to mind. It doesn't have to be dense subject matter.

Sorry...I hate to butt in, but "seems to imply"? I don't know what his/her (sorry...your name *seems* clear but I shouldn't wish to assume.. ) intent with the "so" was, but, um...I'd hate to see someone anywhere from mortally offended to mildly affronted (yourself included...I mean, if s/he *did* mean as you say {which, I'm afraid to say, I'm not sure *was* the message}...well, then perhaps there might have been more tactful ways of putting it, but isn't it important to appreciate what others consider a "waste of time" and respect that? Maybe I'm wrong, but, um...we can't *all* be on board with *everything* and perhaps BruceD simply felt that his/her own opinion wasn't being represented enough and felt a tad chastised by your previous communications {as I'm sure both of you may have felt}...I mean, um, he came in to try and clarify "spiritual" which isn't truly, in and of itself, a bad thing {for people like Mark C}...and I don't mean to have a go at you But...I don't know, it's hardly my place but I just feel it'd be *so* easy for everyone to get along all the time...fool's hope, I know )...
And BruceD...pretty much the same to you...but the other way aroun...you know Oh...and vagueness such as "so" breeds vague interpretation; people may fill in the blanks incorrectly if you're unclear...it's very...spiritual...
Sorry for sticking my oar in
Xxx

Hey, you want to mention the end of the the Fantasy but not the Lento Sostenuto middle section?

Stick your oar wherever you like; it's a free forum.

The "So?" after some (facetious) examples, was an invitation to the OP to articulate his definition of "spiritual"; his examples don't clarify in any way to me what he means by the word.

A dialogue, discussion or even answers to the question don't seem to have any meaning when the term of reference is vague and possibly interpreted differently by many.

You're talking about requiring a reference point...but with abstract nouns and emotions it's quite difficult...see, there's nothing we can *point* to when we make the sound "spiritual"...um...that's why we have to settle on vague awareness of what's meant...I mean, what's sadness *precisely*? Distilling away all possible definitions to exclude anger, other negative emotions...the necessity to *define* or be lost to confusion isn't strictly true...I mean, um, spiritual; relating to the spirit in some way...so, not physical or mental but this other...stuffness that fills in the invisible cracks...frankly I think anyone'd have a hard time depicting such a notion...but does it *really* matter if we're talking about different things, as long as we're in the right area? The conversation isn't meaningless, I don't think; we just all get a different interpretation...a bit like music...please, um, I'd love some counter-positions to think on. I agree that the first post was a *tad* brief, but such is the way of the internet and, progressively, the world, unfortunately; it's not really anyone's fault...I don't think.
X

I, on the other hand, am used to trying to answer questions without being clear what they are but it's better when they are.


Sadness, while complex, is a lot clearer than "spiritual."

P.S. Too many dots.

...I agree...

Cool!
How about the "too many dots" part?

BTW, I do too many dots too....

But without my dots I'm...pointless...

Don't you think there's a reason why I used "spiritual" rather than "sad"? If I meant sad, I would have said "sad".

So what if "spiritual" is vague.. it means whatever you take it to mean I guess. (even if it's complex sadness)

You misunderstood -- we didn't at all mean you might have said sad instead of spiritual. We were just talking about some words.


Maybe you're right, because heck, it looks like we do sort of know what you were asking about.

Whoops, my bad. I retract. I guess I should have read FSO's post first. It's just sort of difficult to read FSO's posts. (no offense)

Sorry Joel, um, sadness was an example; I don't think anyone in the world considers spirituality and sadness to be congruent. Also, I agree with your lattermost point; I'm not truly a fan of clinicism (clinicalness doesn't give the accurate *feeling*, which I hold to be more important than accuracy) as it goes.
Xx
Edit: Sodding...intercepting...grr No offence taken Joel; I know my manner is a tad opaque.

Chopin Polonaise Fantasie and Beethoven 111 have always been the most spiritual pieces to me..

I find a lot of Debussy spiritual too.

If you want spiritual, try 'spiritual minimalism', as exemplified by Arvo Pärt: Fratres for example, or for piano, Für Alina.