My wife reminded me today of a Pete and Dud sketch about Debussy's
La mer: 'You can just see her pouring the milk in her tea.' 'Just so!'*
I guess at one level that sketch is a piss-take of how the wrong-headed process of visualising music can actually get in the way of enjoying the music itself. Certainly I seem to recall one of my A-level teachers citing that sketch when I was studying music, suggesting that
any visualising of the music was suspect. All too often, it's suggested that a superior way to listen to music is
not to let the music stimulate one's imagination, or even simply convey some emotional landscape.
But then what was Holst up to if not to express emotional landscapes or temperaments in each of his
Planets. And I'm sure Elgar, even in his supposedly 'abstract' works like the First Symphony and the Cello Concerto, was intending to communicate something more than simply well-crafted musical structures.
What does it matter, some people might ask. Well, consider the 'jokes' in Shakespeare's plays; take an average guy from the street today and plonk him in front of one of those plays, and he would probably no more understand the jokes than Pete and Dud understand
La mer - yet no one would deny that one would get more out of Shakespeare if one understood what references he was making, and could 'get' his jokes. Similarly, one can get so much more out of Elgar if you know the music of Mendelssohn (who himself said how music can speak more exactly than words about certain emotional states), Wagner and Richard Strauss. Or more about Mozart's symphonies by knowing his operas, his religious works (as well as Haydn's) and so on.
Well, that's something to think on anyway. I might expand on all this later.
*I'm quoting from memory, so cannot vouch for absolute accuracy here!