What is the 'composer's intention?'

[Karl Henning]

INTENT?

G. F. Handel ~ No, di voi non vo' fidarmi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzKnyA3qxUc
from the first half...
~ Messiah, Unto us a child is born
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFBIJgkj_-g
from the second half... ca. 04:00 into the above no, di voi non vo' fidarmi
~ Messiah, All we like sheep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmeyG5LlFWU

Intent!

A great instance of Does this music "mean" exclusively what this extra-musical context suggests?

The attachment of meaning.

I love (poco) Sfz's comparison of his take on a given piece, and Simpson taking it for the soundtrack to a Stephen King screenplay.

If I use my punctuation ? &$%@ right, I might be mistaken !!!! for snypsss . . . .

[Monsieur Croche]

A great instance of Does this music "mean" exclusively what this extra-musical context suggests?

The attachment of meaning.

I love (poco) Sfz's comparison of his take on a given piece, and Simpson taking it for the soundtrack to a Stephen King screenplay.

If I use my punctuation ? &$%@ right, I might be mistaken !!!! for snypsss . . . .

Your ever so aptly put, "The attachment of meaning," reminds me of:

"Do you have any spare change?"
"Yeah, this dollar just happened to have a dime taped on it."

"Got an extra cigarette?"
"Yeah, one was strapped to the outside of this pack."

Attached, indeed 

[(poco) Sforzando]

If I use my punctuation ? &$%@ right, I might be mistaken !!!! for snypsss . . . .

But that's only your intention.

[Mirror Image]

But for God´s sake, John, it is exactly because of the composer´s intentions that the work exists in the first place. In some cases they are completely unknowable, in some cases they are obvious, in some other cases they are even specifically left as an exercise to the listener. To disregard them altogether as unimportant and irrelevant strikes me as being indeed dismissive to the composer: "Look, buddy, I don´t know what you tried to do and frankly I don´t give a shit about it. All I care is that I have something to listen to. Just keep them coming and be quiet!"

The logical extreme of this position is that CDs should be released not only without any liner notes (granted, in many cases they are horrible, but that´s another story), but without any reference whatsoever to the composer and performer(s), even without any title and artcover.

Andrei, a composer cannot dictate what will be my reaction to a work nor can they expect me to pick up on some emotion here or there that they explicitly detailed. I pull from a work whatever I happen to pull from it within that moment of listening. What will happen on the next listen I can't say, but it shouldn't surprise you or anyone else that a position, such as mine, should be upheld. As I mentioned before, I enjoy reading about what a composer has written about their own work or even what they indeed intended, but composers are the last people that should be telling any listener how they should be listening to a work.

[Florestan]

Prior to the Romantic period, that is Beethoven's time, music was indeed often written to order and on deadline, and served purposes that were religious, social, or educational rather than being means of self-expression. Bach was expected to churn out cantatas on a weekly basis and Haydn had to prepare his trios and quartets that served as little more than background music for the soirées of his prince. "The music" at Esterhazy was on a level with the food and the carriages, and Haydn took his board at the servants' table.

I am very well aware of that. That is the reason why I say that the advent of Romanticism liberated music and musicians from their debasing servitude and changed music´s status from a business-oriented craft to a free art . 

The fact that we in a post-Romantic age still take delight in this music for its own sake should not obscure the fact that it was not primarily intended (that word again!) as art for art's sake.

Of course it shouldn´t. The HIP-est way to experience Haydn is hearing the music during dinner, chatting and flirting , a glass of champagne in hand. 

[Karl Henning]

I am very well aware of that. That is the reason why I say that the advent of Romanticism liberated music and musicians from their debasing servitude and changed music´s status from a business-oriented craft to a free art . 

The dawn of Spotify, you mean? 

[James]

, but composers are the last people that should be telling any listener how they should be listening to a work.

Yea .. but I'm sure, since in a lot of cases they have spend the time doing it and putting it all out there, that they would greatly appreciate a listener be focused, attentive and sensitive to what they are hearing/listening-to at the very least. Nothing more really.

[North Star]

The dawn of Spotify, you mean? 

Hah!..

[Florestan]

Just about every piece of classical music you listen to was commissioned:
Written as part of a longer contractual obligation as composer in residence [Bach Cantatas, one a week, for quite a while]
Written by the composer with anticipation of remuneration via an exclusive subscription concert [Mozart piano concerti.]
Even the exception of the allegedly 'mysterious reason' Mozart composed his last three symphonies without their having first been commissioned is not a mystery. He was ill. He composed them to have them ready in advance if someone commissioned a symphony, or again, anticipating that they might be performed in paid subscription concerts.

If not commissioned, pieces were composed to directly sell to a publisher who then sells multiple copies to an amateur market [Beethoven piano sonatas and string quartets, ka-ching, ka-ching.

That is all true and all right. What I object to is James´ claim that in most cases making money out of it is/was the only reason for composing a work.

Sometimes, intent starts with a commission, a promised fee, and a deadline to deliver.

No argument from me whatsoever on this point.

[Mirror Image]

Yea .. but I'm sure, since in a lot of cases they have spend the time doing it and putting it all out there, that they would greatly appreciate a listener be focused, attentive and sensitive to what they are hearing/listening-to at the very least. Nothing more really.

If I envision a landscape whenever the composer specifically said they envisioned a cathedral in this or that passage, then this is what I'm talking about. You cannot help what kind of reaction, imagery, emotion, etc. you get from a work and a composer's own thoughts aren't my own, so there will always be this kind of disconnect from the composer to the listener.

[Florestan]

The dawn of Spotify, you mean? 

In my book, Spotify doesn´t quite qualify as Romantic. 

[Florestan]

If I envision a landscape whenever the composer specifically said they envisioned a cathedral in this or that passage, then this is what I'm talking about. You cannot help what kind of reaction, imagery, emotion, etc. you get from a work and a composer's own thoughts aren't my own, so there will always be this kind of disconnect from the composer to the listener.

Fair enough.

Look, I don´t claim that there is, or should be, an exact, mathematically precise and unmistakable correspondence between the composer´s intentions (if any) and the reactions of the listeners. That would be the top of madness. All I say is that in some cases the composer made his intentions quite, or crystal, clear. Of course one is free to disregard them, but let´s at least have the modesty to admit that maybe (just maybe) in such cases the composer is the best qualified person in the world to talk about his work. That is all.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Absolutely agreed. I have nothing to add except giving you a high five!

Thank you, John. Didn't want to let your high five pass unnoticed.

[Karl Henning]

Fair enough.

Look, I don´t claim that there is, or should be, an exact, mathematically precise and unmistakable correspondence between the composer´s intentions (if any) and the reactions of the listeners. That would be the top of madness. All I say is that in some cases the composer made his intentions quite, or crystal, clear. Of course one is free to disregard them, but let´s at least have the modesty to admit that maybe (just maybe) in such cases the composer is the best qualified person in the world to talk about his work. That is all.

Hear, hear.
— a composer

[(poco) Sforzando]

I am very well aware of that. That is the reason why I say that the advent of Romanticism liberated music and musicians from their debasing servitude and changed music´s status from a business-oriented craft to a free art .

Not altogether. Stravinsky lived from commissions, and was as much a money-grubber as any composer you can imagine. Carter wrote on commission too, as did Britten, Barber, no doubt others.

[Karl Henning]

As so often in life, much depends on what one means by freedom.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Fair enough.

Look, I don´t claim that there is, or should be, an exact, mathematically precise and unmistakable correspondence between the composer´s intentions (if any) and the reactions of the listeners. That would be the top of madness. All I say is that in some cases the composer made his intentions quite, or crystal, clear. Of course one is free to disregard them, but let´s at least have the modesty to admit that maybe (just maybe) in such cases the composer is the best qualified person in the world to talk about his work. That is all.

Yes and no. During the act of composing, a composer may or may not be consciously aware of all kinds of connections and associations that may or may not be discovered by others. And (literature providing equally interesting cases) may I remind you of my example from Brecht several pages ago. To spare you the effort, let me dig it up: "The classic case is Bertolt Brecht's play Mother Courage, with its ironically named heroine. Audiences from the start took her as a sympathetic, courageous figure; Brecht insisted that he intended her to be viewed instead as a cowardly opportunist - and there is ample evidence for that in the play. Yet even though he revised the play to bring out more what he 'intended,' those dang audiences continued to view her sympathetically."

[Florestan]

Not altogether. Stravinsky lived from commissions, and was as much a money-grubber as any composer you can imagine. Carter wrote on commission too, as did Britten, Barber, no doubt others.

Well, old habits die hard. One cannot get rid of centuries of servitude in just 100 years. 

(Too bad emoticons cannot be bolded, italicized and underlined...)

[Florestan]

Yes and no. During the act of composing, a composer may or may not be consciously aware of all kinds of connections and associations that may or may not be discovered by others. And (literature providing equally interesting cases) may I remind you of my example from Brecht several pages ago. To spare you the effort, let me dig it up: "The classic case is Bertolt Brecht's play Mother Courage, with its ironically named heroine. Audiences from the start took her as a sympathetic, courageous figure; Brecht insisted that he intended her to be viewed instead as a cowardly opportunist - and there is ample evidence for that in the play. Yet even though he revised the play to bring out more what he 'intended,' those dang audiences continued to view her sympathetically."

Fair enough. But if there is ample evidence for that in the play then the audiences are clearly mistaken, don´t you think? And if there is ample evidence for that in the play then it´s not even a case of the author failing miserably to convey his intentions --- they are in the plain sight of everybody. (I haven´t seen or read the play so I cannot offer my own opinion).

[Karl Henning]

Fair enough. But if there is ample evidence for that in the play then the audiences are clearly mistaken, don´t you think? And if there is ample evidence for that in the play then it´s not even a case of the author failing miserably to convey his intentions --- they are in the plain sight of everybody. (I haven´t seen or read the play so I cannot offer my own opinion).

Could possibly have been poor execution on the part of the playwright.