What is the 'composer's intention?'

[some guy]

Only the composer can fully know his or her intentions, and even then....

If a composer tries to explain the intentions of a piece of music with words, then already we're in trouble. Maybe not a lot of trouble, but still. If something, an idea, an impression, an argument, can be expressed in words, the words it should be. There are other things, though, and for some of those other things only pigments will do, for some other things only sounds will do, for other other things only granite will do. And so forth.

Kinda makes you question the whole "things" thing and the whole "express" thing as well, eh? It does me, anyway. Think about that situation: there is a thing to be expressed. Composer expresses that thing in music. But that's not how things happen at all, is it? What happens is that a composer puts some sounds together. They sound good. She puts some more sounds together. Even better. She keeps doing that until she stops. The end. Anything about that situation that can be called "meaning"--and I have serious reservations about that, but never mind--has been created by the piece; it did not exist until the piece was made. And then, voila, we've got ourselves a meaning. Not a meaning that already existed, though, as the whole "express" idea indicates.

Everyone and their mother believes, or says they believe, that music starts where words leave off. But in reality, allmost everyone does not actually believe that. Almost everyone really believes that language can express anything, even the meanings of music. Hence these online conversations, for one. Hence program notes and criticism and PhD dissertations. I believe something else. I believe that mixing pigments together creates meaning, that causing sounds to occur creates meaning, that chipping away at marble or granite creates meaning.

That is, I believe that meaning is what happens when something is done and not that meaning is "out there" and that various means of expression--words, pigments, notes, glass--can more or less "capture" that meaning. "What does it mean?" almost always implies "What has been captured?" I don't think that the arts capture. I think that they make.

[starrynight]

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.

No doubt.

Though while people are listening to music they are concentrating on simply experiencing it most of the time, unless maybe it's boring and they start thinking 'why the hell did the composer think this was worth publishing?'

The reason why music is composed and listened to I think is communication.  Music can take us away from the rather nasty, superficial and egotistical nature of everyday life onto a more abstract neutral ground where you can feel in touch with others feelings and thoughts.

[Karl Henning]

Only the composer can fully know his or her intentions, and even then....

Oh, I know better than to claim that I know my full intentions . . . .

[Karl Henning]

I don't even intend to know my full intentions.

[North Star]

I don't even intend to know my full intentions.

Are you sure?  0:)

[prémont]

I don't even intend to know my full intentions.

This is how I suspected. I suppose composers generally - or at least often - do what they do, because they have something in their mind, and because it must get out. Whether someone will understand it or even become touched by it, is probably of secondary importance.

[North Star]

Yeah, composing-by-numbers will rarely lead to good results.

[Karl Henning]

Are you sure?  0:)

No, I cannot be sure.

This is how I suspected. I suppose composers generally - or at least often - do what they do, because they have something in their mind, and because it must get out. Whether someone will understand it or even become touched by it, is probably of secondary importance.

Well, I suppose I do want listeners to be touched.  But I trust the process.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

Only the composer can fully know his or her intentions, and even then....

I think often of VW's 4th, about which he claimed, "I don't know if I like it, but it's what I meant." - an interesting example of a completed work fulfilling what the artist felt he needed to say, even if (apparently) it failed to gain its creator's wholehearted emotional connection or indeed, approval. 

[prémont]

No, I cannot be sure.

Well, I suppose I do want listeners to be touched.  But I trust the process.

One theoretical question:

Would it interfere with your composing process, if you knew in advance, that you listeners would not be touched.

I do not think so.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

But would it interfere with you composing process, if you knew in advance, that you listeners would not be touched.
I do not think so.

Touching listeners (by which I understand you to mean to "move them") is but one aspect of the spectrum of responses an artist might hope to achieve.  To shock them (a favorite of modern painting, plastic and installation arts) is another. Satie famously experimented with boring his audience.  And there are many artists who seek a reaction, any reaction (preferable in their eyes to no response whatsoever).

[Mirror Image]

The composer's intention isn't really relevant to how we hear the music. It's fun to read about the inspirations behind the music, sure, I'm not questioning this, but I find that whatever the composer meant doesn't really translate to our own listening experience. That's my two measly cents.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

The composer's intention isn't really relevant to how we hear the music. It's fun to read about the inspirations behind the music, sure, I'm not questioning this, but I find that whatever the composer meant doesn't really translate to our own listening experience. That's my two measly cents.

John, I agree not entirely relevant to our own listening experience.  But it is part of the complex of intentions, influences, inferences that go into creating the music, appreciation of which is in turn conditioned by our own intellect, tastes and emotional state. 

[Mirror Image]

John, I agree not entirely relevant to our own listening experience.  But it is part of the complex of intentions, influences, inferences that go into creating the music, appreciation of which is in turn conditioned by our own intellect, tastes and emotional state.

Like I said, it's fun to read about the inspirations behind a piece of music, but these fly out the window when it actually comes to listening to the music. These are my thoughts pretty much in a nutshell.

[prémont]

Touching listeners (by which I understand you to mean to "move them") is but one aspect of the spectrum of responses an artist might hope to achieve.  To shock them (a favorite of modern painting, plastic and installation arts) is another. Satie famously experimented with boring his audience.  And there are many artists who seek a reaction, any reaction (preferable in their eyes to no response whatsoever).

I mean touching in the broadest sense = to provoke reactions in them.

[prémont]

Like I said, it's fun to read about the inspirations behind a piece of music, but these fly out the window when it actually comes to listening to the music. These are my thoughts pretty much in a nutshell.

I agree with this. The composers "specific" intentions haven´t got but a marginal influence upon my listening experience.
Well, Bach's passions and sacred cantatas may be an exception from this rule.

[Mirror Image]

I agree with this. The composers "specific" intentions haven´t got but a marginal influence upon my listening experience.
Well, Bach's passions and sacred cantatas may be an exception from this rule.

Well if it's a vocal work, then the texts will help give a better overall picture of the music and its' alleged intent, but music is such an abstract thing that, even if I read the texts, understood their intent, etc., I would still somehow inject my own thoughts and feelings into the music, but, also, the reaction to the music is something we can't control and have really no idea how to formulate into words properly, but this doesn't stop us from trying, does it?

[prémont]

..... also, the reaction to the music is something we can't control and have really no idea how to formulate into words properly, but this doesn't stop us from trying, does it?

Very true.

[Karl Henning]

Touching listeners (by which I understand you to mean to "move them") is but one aspect of the spectrum of responses an artist might hope to achieve.

Yes.

[Florestan]

I believe that mixing pigments together creates meaning, that causing sounds to occur creates meaning, that chipping away at marble or granite creates meaning.

Michelangelo disagrees:

I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.

Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it.

Van Gogh disagrees:

I dream my painting and I paint my dream.

At present I absolutely want to paint a starry sky. It often seems to me that night is still more richly coloured than the day; having hues of the most intense violets, blues and greens. If only you pay attention to it you will see that certain stars are lemon-yellow, others pink or a green, blue and forget-me-not brilliance.

Mahler disagrees:

What is best in music is not to be found in the notes.

Don't bother looking at the view - I have already composed it.