What is the 'composer's intention?'

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

This seems to be a debate that pops up here and there and everywhere. What is the composer expressing? Can a composer 'communicate' with their music? And even on a more technical level: does something like Historically Informed Performance practice accurately provide the intended sound and musical interpretation that the composer had in his/her mind?

But I do wonder about how we got to our conclusions on these things, and how we have become to hold such beliefs that some do about what we think a Composer's Intention is.

I think that it comes down to these things for me:

As a music student, I spend less time imagining what a piece communicates to me, in favour of thinking about how a piece of music is put together and then interpreted for performance (which ultimately evokes various things in various people). But I do think about what techniques and traits different composers have in their compositions and how they use these to express pure sound as an art form.

As a music listener, I love to enjoy music for music's sake without thinking about what a piece 'communicates.' I love to just go with the flow really.

[Madiel]

As a music student, you are learning how to do things.

At some point, you may ask yourself why you are doing them.

[Madiel]

Belated thought: the degree to which people care about such things varies with personality anyway. Some of us spend a lot of time thinking about things, some of us are more interested in just going ahead and doing things.

[Monsieur Croche]

As a music student, you are learning how to do things.

At some point, you may ask yourself why you are doing them.

I am tossing this quote into the ring for what it is worth.

"Music is not philosophy." ~ Akira Ifukube.

(bless his soul. And thank you, Chronochromie, for the composer's name I could not remember: - )

My music student years long behind me, some modest composing done, I'd say during those student years, the thereafter, and ongoing -- that whenever I sit down to compose and am at work on a piece, the direct application of effort to determine how to make the piece work to the best of my ability leaves no luxury of time for cerebral indulgences other than thinking of how to make the piece work. On a note-to-note basis, then, the only real or worthwhile question in the middle of the making is "what am I doing?"

If artists ask the question, "Why am I doing this?" the question is usually answered unhesitatingly and to complete satisfaction with, "Because I must." I do think the youngest who will later find themselves committed to the full nine yards of 'being an artist' also sense that same "because I must," long before they are able to articulate it.

I would place just about any other answer to "why you are doing it" in an area near to exclusively reserved for those who listen only, who then are instead asking, "Why did the composer do it?" I.e. it is pretty much the armchair observer who has any luxury of time to think the question of much significance or who has time to muse over such a thing.

My intention when composing, fundamentally any composer's intention, is "to make the piece work."

[Gurn Blanston]

I can not remember the name of the Japanese composer who uttered this (bless his soul, though: - ), but am tossing what he said into the ring for what it is worth.

"Music is not philosophy."

I would place just about any other answer to "why you are doing it" in an area near to exclusively reserved for those who listen only, who then are instead asking, "Why did the composer do it?" I.e. it is pretty much the armchair observer who has any luxury of time to think the question of much significance or who has time to muse over such a thing.

My intention when composing, fundamentally any composer's intention, is "to make the piece work."

Actually, I believe that it is not just the listener, but the performer who must also ask that question, even if it is only to gain a satisfactory perspective on the performance requirements. I can't think it is possible for a pianist, for example, to come to some place or another and not have to stop and ask himself "why did the composer do this? what was he wanting me to recreate here?" Otherwise, it is just rote note playing.

[Monsieur Croche]

Actually, I believe that it is not just the listener, but the performer who must also ask that question, even if it is only to gain a satisfactory perspective on the performance requirements. I can't think it is possible for a pianist, for example, to come to some place or another and not have to stop and ask himself "why did the composer do this? what was he wanting me to recreate here?" Otherwise, it is just rote note playing.

Indeed, I omitted the performer for the sake of brevity, which is something, even being new to GMG, I'm certain I am already not known for.

Both the performer of a set score or the composer of same must have a clear point of view about the piece. "Why did the composer do this?" is I think way too often romanticized to the hilt, while from a musician's standpoint that is very much about the particular architecture of any piece, which must be understood to render it with any clarity.
---[I'll add 'emotion,' to that, while I must include that to many musicians all the fol-de-rol talk or writings thereon are 'for someone else,' i.e. musicians tend to have a much more direct line to 'whatever the music says,' straight up from the score, without need of extramusical explanations, and both composer and musician rely upon the given that "music is expressive," has a tremendous power to evoke emotion in the listener.]

With so many fine and /or numerous 'definitive' performances already done, and so many of those recorded, a performer must not only have a clear point of view of whatever they are playing; that point of view should not be like the dozens of other valid clear points of view already on record. Something at least slightly unique in comparison to the other known performances must be present. If you have absolutely nothing in the way of some kind of fresh view of the piece to deliver, why bother?

The composer, in whatever of the style of their time, or in any of myriad of styles of our own time, must also have something of a clear point of view which is also somewhat unique. Without that, we get music which sounds like it could have been written by any number of people -- too derivative or too directly imitative [again comes the question, "why bother?"] -- i.e. without its distinct "musical personality."

[Madiel]

Agree, Gurn, though I do think it's also true that people can over-analyse things to the point where they can't see the wood for the trees. As a performer you've got to do a certain amount of thinking to grasp the structure of the thing - you can't bring home that a later part of the music is referencing/quoting an earlier part if you've no idea of that yourself. At the same time, I see some analyses of pieces that chop the music up into such tiny parts that I would think it would hinder a performance, causing the performer to try and give each and every note extreme significance.

Same with listening. Too much thinking about each and every single moment can actually ruin the effect of the whole part.

But some music is totally philosophy.

[Chronochromie]

I can not remember the name of the Japanese composer who uttered this (bless his soul, though: - ), but am tossing what he said into the ring for what it is worth.

"Music is not philosophy."

Akira Ifukube.

[Madiel]

I would place just about any other answer to "why you are doing it" in an area near to exclusively reserved for those who listen only, who then are instead asking, "Why did the composer do it?" I.e. it is pretty much the armchair observer who has any luxury of time to think the question of much significance or who has time to muse over such a thing.

Do you apply this to other things, though?

Your reference to "luxury of time" struck me, because a recurring refrain one will hear in any work/management course is that people and organisations need to make the time to stop and think once in a while about what they're doing, how it's going, whether they're on the right course, how they can improve.

I wouldn't be inclined to think of the arts as any different. Sure, there's a very romantic notion of artists simply being driven to do what they do, but the world is full of people who declare their great passion for something but produce crap results. I think top-grade artists do spend at least some time thinking about how to do it better, to ask what did and didn't work. And to do that you have to know what it was you were trying to achieve in the first place. You can't assess whether you're meeting a goal unless you know what the goal is. And yes, there's a short-term goal to make each individual composed piece work, but does that preclude longer-term goals? I don't think it does, any more than my short-term goal in my own work of making each piece of writing work precludes longer-term goals.

To put it another way, I think it's part and parcel of stylistic development. I think it's particularly interesting that many composers went back and revised some of their early pieces, trying to fix them. Some did this a lot more than others of course.

And in pop music, the artists that interest me the most are the ones that change their style, try to achieve different things with each album.

[Mirror Image]

If we don't question things from time to time, then, ultimately, what are we doing listening to music and then I think of this Debussy quote "Art is the most beautiful deception of all. And although people try to incorporate the everyday events of life in it, we must hope that it will remain a deception lest it become a utilitarian thing, sad as a factory."

[Monsieur Croche]

But some music is totally philosophy.

I agree with the above if it is taken as an analogous statement only.
Otherwise... Bzzzz. Wrong! 

OF COURSE, a musical discourse, having tremendous power to evoke, can leave a listener with a very strong and real feeling that 'something deep and philosophical' has been touched upon, while what was heard was 'just notes.'

Such is the power of 'just notes,' if written by a composer who can write in such a way to evoke the impression of a philosophical question or truth in the listener. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Webern, Ives, Stravinsky, to name but a very few, have that power. Depending upon the listener, the names and pieces so designated as "philosophy" will vary as to whose music, which pieces have such a power.

But... a composer is a philosopher when the composer moves their pen away from manuscript paper to a blank sheet and then writes things philosophical.

[Madiel]

I'm sometimes tempted to ask some people whether they think music is an art, or a craft. This conversation is reminding me of that.

But one has to wrestle with the supposed distinction between the two, first.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

As a music student, you are learning how to do things.

At some point, you may ask yourself why you are doing them.

So far, I really really love being able to learn and share what I've learnt in a way which affects different people in hugely different ways. For me, after the process of composing and perfoming one of my compositions is done, it is extremely satisfying to hear opinions of the work because I can never tell what they feel from it. Last year I had my Sinfonia Concertante performed in the Melbourne Recital Centre, after which I found out about various opinions of those who liked it in totally different ways and those who said things like 'some parts were too dissonant for me' amongst other things.

The kind of response one recieves from the hard work of studying, composing, perfoming pays off in ways which are always unexpected, but always gives me encouragement to continue to expand my knowledge and share it with the world in a way where people can find what they like/dislike for themselves, without me trying to tell them or communicate it to them.

So far, this is why I do what I do, but it may change down the track. What do you think it may change to?

[Madiel]

So far, I really really love being able to learn and share what I've learnt in a way which affects different people in hugely different ways. For me, after the process of composing and perfoming one of my compositions is done, it is extremely satisfying to hear opinions of the work because I can never tell what they feel from it. Last year I had my Sinfonia Concertante performed in the Melbourne Recital Centre, after which I found out about various opinions of those who liked it in totally different ways and those who said things like 'some parts were too dissonant for me' amongst other things.

The kind of response one recieves from the hard work of studying, composing, perfoming pays off in ways which are always unexpected, but always gives me encouragement to continue to expand my knowledge and share it with the world in a way where people can find what they like/dislike for themselves, without me trying to tell them or communicate it to them.

I get that. I really do.

But at some point if you want to make a living from music, you're going to care about the response. You're going to want at least SOME people to like your work, a lot. Enough to pay for it.

This is not to say that you ought to be running around trying to chase favourable responses. That would be a bad idea, because you're never going to please everybody and people will give you wildly different, contradictory and flat out wrong ideas about how to make your work good.

But you do need to develop your internal sense about these things, and maybe have a select few people to give you opinions, people you trust. People who basically love your work and yet who won't just gush imprecisely about how wonderful it is no matter what you do.

If you're a student, this is actually what your teachers are trying to develop in you as much as anything else. To be successful on your own, after there's no teacher around to supervise and guide you, you have to have that sense of judgement that enables you to self-correct your course. And that whole notion of a course implies that you know where you're trying to navigate.

To my mind, you do need to 'navigate' in some way to be successful. If you don't have any kind of thing you're aiming for, then success is just down to dumb luck and crucially it can't be replicated.

Just my 50 cents.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I get that. I really do.

But at some point if you want to make a living from music, you're going to care about the response. You're going to want at least SOME people to like your work, a lot. Enough to pay for it.

This is not to say that you ought to be running around trying to chase favourable responses. That would be a bad idea, because you're never going to please everybody and people will give you wildly different, contradictory and flat out wrong ideas about how to make your work good.

But you do need to develop your internal sense about these things, and maybe have a select few people to give you opinions, people you trust. People who basically love your work and yet who won't just gush imprecisely about how wonderful it is no matter what you do.

If you're a student, this is actually what your teachers are trying to develop in you as much as anything else. To be successful on your own, after there's no teacher around to supervise and guide you, you have to have that sense of judgement that enables you to self-correct your course. And that whole notion of a course implies that you know where you're trying to navigate.

To my mind, you do need to 'navigate' in some way to be successful. If you don't have any kind of thing you're aiming for, then success is just down to dumb luck and crucially it can't be replicated.

Just my 50 cents.

[deleted stuff]

Eh...I realise that I would rather not talk about my life story really.

In short: what I do is learn, create, perform, work....and it's always good when the money comes my way.

[Madiel]

Sounds good. Best of luck!

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Sounds good. Best of luck!

Thank you!

[Monsieur Croche]

Do you apply this to other things, though?

Your reference to "luxury of time" struck me, because a recurring refrain one will hear in any work/management course is that people and organisations need to make the time to stop and think once in a while about what they're doing, how it's going, whether they're on the right course, how they can improve. You can't assess whether you're meeting a goal unless you know what the goal is. And yes, there's a short-term goal to make each individual composed piece work, but does that preclude longer-term goals? I don't think it does, any more than my short-term goal in my own work of making each piece of writing work precludes longer-term goals.

I think it's part and parcel of stylistic development. I think it's particularly interesting that many composers went back and revised some of their early pieces, trying to fix them.

In pop music, the artists that interest me the most are the ones that change their style, try to achieve different things with each album.

I think a lot of the particulars you named above are well valid.

Some individuals, without any such work/management program volume or guide the likes of which you mention, are naturally predisposed to do whatever they apply themselves to to a high degree of excellence. This is the sort who can not stand to do any less than very well even a minor job which has nothing to do with their career; that for them is a constant even if no one will ever know who did that minor job.

For people with this disposition, "Good Enough," is anathema.

I have yet to see a workplace or business [excepting the very small ones made up of but a handful of people] filled with employees all of the disposition that no matter what they do, it is never good enough... from this was spawned "the work/management program Bibles." Too, the larger the company, the greater the inefficiency, ergo, waste. Attentiveness to efficiency is paramount to larger business because waste is inevitable due to the nature of its structure.

Once in the business workplace, the long term goal of that manual has everything to do within the bailiwick of those kinds of business structures reliant upon many employees, and so directly addresses both efficiency and growth; the manual is needed because so many of that business' employees are not anywhere near as driven or the type of self-starter and self-manager that an artist must be in order to keep themselves afloat.
---Some of the general premises of business remain the same for anyone who works, but the wherewithal needed to do independent networking to find musicians to perform your work, to be hired you as a performer, or get a full or part-time teaching post and all the rest have artists basically working first, if not permanently, as free-lance agents. I don't think many artists working on their own have articulated for themselves the chapter and verse as found in business manuals, or need a thick many-paged volume "guide to keep the company efficient and growing," though.

Any professional artists I know [musicians and other] are innately compelled to at least attempt to make each thing they are presently making the very best thing they have done up to that moment; even if they are satisfied with the work when done, it takes but a nano-second before they reflexively regard the work analytically, immediately noticing its every fault and weakness [those, btw, faults and weaknesses often are not detected by anyone else, including the canniest of critics.] This mode of hypervigilant self-critiquing is often enough active while working and perhaps then gets only mildly suspended, i.e. if you don't think the thing has any merit, you are likely not to write the next note, the next page, or complete the piece.
---I think most artists are perfectionists [the ones I know are, every one of them.] The only downside of perfectionism is learning to know when a piece is done, or when revision won't improve a thing further... and move on to the next work. It is to be hoped that is learned before one is done with schooling and formal training. To have to learn it once in the swim of working professionally would just not do.

For many who became professional musicians and started in their very early years and then continued in an unbroken sequence through upper levels of conservatory training, it is possible when young they had no long term plan, while the course of action taken is /was a long term goal realized -- all that before they have first hung up their shingle to do professional business. Conscious or not of their long term goal, most if not all of the needed habits and knowing how to work are already in place when they begin as young professionals. [I patently reject the pop buzz maxim that 10,000 applied hours study and practice in a skill = "Expert." As a measure for what needs to be put in before one is an expert 'classical' musician, 'classical' composer, 'fine arts' painter, author or 'literature', it falls drastically short of the actual requirement.]

Most composers [anyway, the ones not happy to repeat their last success] have an innate and compelling drive to do better in each new work, and that has to do with the development of style you mentioned. They will explore a vein 'further' until they are satisfied they have eliminated what they think of as weaknesses in their prior works, investigate another vein with its own inherent problems to solve, or develop refinements, a distillation akin to efficiency or streamlining so the music is that much clearer and to the point, with nothing extraneous in it.

If there is a long-term goal for a musician whose career has begun it is always yet vaguely to be better at it from one point to the next. It is well known in the trade, for those at the very 'top' as for all others, perfection is unattainable, and that doing any sort of music is the opposite of a dead-end job.

Their is very real competition as to the general standards of what is expected in the arts. I think for many an artist, their only real 'competition' is themselves up against excellence, and that is never-ending. Try and find one business office with all its employees 'in that place' without some whip-cracking and overseeing on the part of the owners and upper management, lol.

[Monsieur Croche]

I'm sometimes tempted to ask some people whether they think music is an art, or a craft. This conversation is reminding me of that.

But one has to wrestle with the supposed distinction between the two, first.

Part one of that is dead simple:
---Craft precedes art: craft is involved in making art.
["The craft" is a term a number of artist friends toss about, and they are talking about "the art," as it were.]

Part two:
---"Is it craft or is it art?" Yeah...  the line is ever moveable, but how far in either direction is a matter of endless and forever irresolvable debate.

[Karl Henning]

As with "entertainment or art?"—substantial overlap.

On the original query, I think I can claim the following:

1. I intend to write.
2. If I am to perform what I write, I intend to have fun in the performing.

I also use (2.) as a guide where other performers entirely are involved.