What is the 'composer's intention?'

[bigshot]

Any performance of music where the composer and performer are separate people involves a synthesis of the intention of the composer and the intention of the performer. Ideally, both bring something to the performance. Both are equally important. They both should have unique and personal ideas to communicate through the music.

[Madiel]

It's not as simple as putting notes together to "sound good". For starters, what defines what is "good"? Often it depends on the particular effect the composer is trying to achieve.

If The Rite of Spring was supposed to be an enjoyable singalong tune then Stravinsky failed spectacularly. But no one believes Stravinsky was trying to create a singalong tune. And I doubt anyone believes he just whacked notes together. He may well have experimented a lot of times before getting what he wanted, but the whole process of going "yes, THAT is the effect that I want" requires intent. You simply can't say that unless you have an idea of what you want the music to sound like.

[Monsieur Croche]

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.

"I do not think so." -- pretty much the right answer as far as I know and think, lol.

Can you imagine an occasion where a composer did know for certain, while composing, that the listeners would be touched?

From the kernel of the idea to working on the piece through to its completion, I don't think anyone could be wholly certain that 'the listeners would not be touched.'

A lot of composers, from the moment they pick up the pen to begin a piece and while working through until the work is completed, are completely aware that what they are writing is not for everybody.

Knowing that, most composers, then and now, hope only to reach some percent of the three percent of the population who do listen to classical music. If the piece does reach / 'touch' a small percent of that crowd, that is basis enough to consider a work 'a success.'

I think many a consumer would be both surprised and at least a titch miffed if they knew exactly how much a composer, while they are writing anything, is not thinking about "the audience" -- at all.

From a German composer, early to mid 20th century, writing to his nephew:
"I've finished my numberth symphony. I hope they like it, because it is how I can write."

I've forgotten the name of that composer, while the text quoted could be from a work of fiction yet be no less true to the situation.

[Monsieur Croche]

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.

Kinda makes you question the whole "things" thing and the whole "express" thing as well, eh?

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.

^That, the whole post.
For those who think there can be 'clear intent' which can be clearly defined or stated in words from artists who work in non-verbal media, for those who think they can and want to know 'what that intent is,' or 'what a piece means,' I strongly recommend reading some guy's full post.

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

I'm "using' your statement to hammer home a pet I think every listener who loves music should adopt and keep in their home, feed, and play with as one does a pet -- meeting the animal on their own terms and loving and accepting the pet as an animal.

Composers are people, not very unlike other people. They compose because... ahem, they were so attracted / compelled to the medium that they went that far to dedicate years of their time to learning the craft in order to be able to compose. Their attraction to the medium is deep, and was / is both intellectual and 'other.'

A composer:
Trusts the medium, its inherent quality of "expressiveness," regardless of what or how he writes
Trusts [must trust, no choice] the performers, who are also people not unlike other people, who are practiced virtuosi, well versed and also keenly cognizant of the expressiveness of the medium, who are 'musical,' to realize the work the composer has written.

All quests for Composer Intent, The Meaning Of The Work [or behind the work, lol], etc. does make for highly engaging discussion; the discussion, de facto, based only on and around various subjective hypothesis, with nothing anywhere near concrete in sight. This is the realm of a sort of arts/intellectual salon discussion cum parlor game... engaging, entertaining, but without much real meaning.
---Its most negative potential is to create a [bloodless] train wreck, a derailment taking the vehicle about as far away from the tracks it runs on as is possible, aborting the journey for which one has purchased a ticket, signed up. I.e. they are distractions and detractors that keep the full force of the work at arms length.

Very few people I know would get their cat declawed or have the vocal cords of their dog cut to eliminate the animal's bark. It seems to me that a lot of alleged music lovers are going about doing exactly that when it comes to these attempts at defining the intent and meaning of a composer or piece which has so profoundly attracted them and moved them.
---"Lets declaw it and take away its bark. Okay. Now I'm comfortable and not worried about the upholstery of the cushioned chair I sit in when the animal is in the house = when I listen to...."

[Monsieur Croche]

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.

Well, if you hear or read about all that extramusical fol-de-rol, then, yeah.

Otherwise, you're left with 'the sound the piece makes' and nothing else, and that is 'the work' as close to it as it gets.

The ancillary extramusical bits are the barnacles that slow down the ship.

[Madiel]

The ancillary extramusical bits are the barnacles that only slow down the ship.

No.

We are back to you insisting that extramusical bits are always bad. That's simply not true. Sometimes they are helpful, sometimes they enhance the experience.

I find it helpful, to take an example from my listening today, to know that the last movement of Beethoven's op.11 is a set of variations on a tune that was very current at the time that he wrote it. The early listeners to the piece would have known this, would have recognised the tune. Insisting that extramusical bits are bad is insisting that it's a detriment to know this and that I would be better off just listening to Beethoven's notes.

Which is a bit of a problem given that the original audience would have known about the origin of the tune, and it's us a couple of hundred years later that are lacking that extramusical knowledge.

[Monsieur Croche]

No.

We are back to you insisting that extramusical bits are always bad. That's simply not true. Sometimes they are helpful, sometimes they enhance the experience.

I find it helpful, to take an example from my listening today, to know that the last movement of Beethoven's op.11 is a set of variations on a tune that was very current at the time that he wrote it. The early listeners to the piece would have known this, would have recognised the tune. Insisting that extramusical bits are bad is insisting that it's a detriment to know this and that I would be better off just listening to Beethoven's notes.

Which is a bit of a problem given that the original audience would have known about the origin of the tune, and it's us a couple of hundred years later that are lacking that extramusical knowledge.

You call it helpful: the fact it was a well-known popular tune of the day was for those contemporaries who knew the tune and then heard the piece for the first time [and first time only] an 'a-hah' moment of recognition. There may have been an additional dash of humor, pathos, irony, etc. if he considered the lyrics as something to which he was at also referring. Most composers will choose a tune, as he did in those variations, solely for its musical potential to nicely bend to making variations on it.

For us, hundreds of years later, there is no 'a-hah' factor because we do not recognize the tune when first hearing the work. There is also no musical 'a-hah' moment via learning of it and then knowing it was a popular tune of the day, because for those today, learning of it -- vs. its being already familiar -- is a mere intellectual footnote. Any 'a-hah' of discovering and learning about it is also a mere intellectual 'a-hah,' but not at all integral to either enjoyment or 'understanding' of the piece.

I wonder why any piece like that needs, or should need, any "help" for the listener at all. [The fact is, it doesn't; not knowing it was a popular tune of the day did not in any way make the work inaccessible to you, and did not diminish your enjoyment of it as music one iota.]

Some listeners like "help," think they need it, or actuallly need it. It seems for some, when a piece is titled sonata, or theme and variations, whatever music is there is simply not enough.

Extramusical information is helpful only for some; for others, it neither helps or changes a thing about what they get from the music.

Beethoven was a composer who was fairly confident his music would be played years after his death. I seriously doubt that with such a prospectus in mind if he planned on later generations finding it at all necessary to know anything about a popular tune of his day, let alone its lyrics, upon which he made a series of variations.

If Beethoven's music, with all its brilliance, strengths and force, needs extramusical "enhancements," or "help," via knowing of some slight and extramusical anecdotal stories, then God help all lesser composers.

[Mirror Image]

"A lockdown it will be."

[(poco) Sforzando]

For us, hundreds of years later, there is no 'a-hah' factor because we do not recognize the tune when first hearing the work. There is also no 'a-hah' moment via learning of it and then knowing it was a popular tune of the day, because for those today, learning of it -- vs. its being already familiar -- is a mere intellectual footnote. Any 'a-hah' of discovering and learning about it is also a mere intellectual 'a-hah,' ancillary and not integral to enjoyment of the piece.

I wonder why any piece like that needs, or should need, any "help" for the listener at all. [The fact is, it doesn't; not knowing it was a popular tune of the day did not in any way make the work inaccessible to you, and did not diminish your enjoyment of it as music one iota.]

Some listeners like "help," think they need it, or actually need it. It seems for some, when a piece is titled sonata, or theme and variations, whatever music is there is simply not enough.

Extramusical information is helpful only for some; for others, it neither helps or changes a thing about what they get from the music.

Beethoven was a composer who was fairly confident his music would be played years after his death. I seriously doubt that with such a prospectus in mind if he planned on later generations finding it at all necessary to know anything about a popular tune of his day, let alone its lyrics, upon which he made a series of variations.

If Beethoven's music, with all its brilliance, strengths and force, needs extramusical "enhancements," or "help," via knowing of some slight and extramusical anecdotal stories, then God help all lesser composers.

Well, harrumph. Consider this discussion by pianist and scholar William Kinderman of the scherzo to the A-flat sonata, op. 110:

As others have observed, Beethoven alludes to two popular songs, Unsa Kaetz haed Katzln ghabt ("Our cat has had kittens") and Ich bin luederlich, du bist luederlich ("I'm a slob, you're a slob') in the main section of this movement. . . . .  The word "luederlich" refers to a bedraggled or slovenly individual not fit for polite society. Beethoven was once taken for such around this time when, miserably clothed and having lost his way in Wiener Neustadt, he was seen peering in at the windows of the houses, whereupon the police were summoned. When arrested, he protested, "I am Beethoven," to which the policeman replied, "Well, why not? You're a bum. Beethoven doesn't look like that." ("Warum nit gar? A Lump sind Sie, so sieht der Beethoven nit aus.")

There's a lot to stay about this issue of intention (and I'm only responding to this immediate past post, although not however to the picture of Yoda), but are you going to tell me that such "extramusical information neither helps nor changes a thing about what [some may] get from the music"? Knowing the anecdote and the popular songs quoted, can you honestly say your perception of the music has emerged unaltered? Wouldn't it be more accurate in fact to say that once you know this story, the anecdote provides quite a different sense of the music and of the typically raucous Beethovenian humor contained therein?

[Madiel]

Monsieur Croche, I didn't say anything about "needing". Much of your argument is directed at a notion that I didn't put forward.

Saying that knowing something more enhances my enjoyment is not the same as saying that I was unable to enjoy the piece without it. My problem is with your insistence of the reverse, that anything extramusical is bad. There is a huge difference between saying that extramusical stuff is not necessary to enjoying the music, and saying that it is outright bad. And the latter seems to be the direction you keep pushing.

There is a middle ground between "extramusical is necessary" and "extramusical is a hindrance", and it's where in fact most people live. It's certainly where I live. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm advocating the exact opposite.

[Monsieur Croche]

Well, harrumph. Consider this discussion by pianist and scholar William Kinderman of the scherzo to the A-flat sonata, op. 110:

There's a lot to stay about this issue of intention (and I'm only responding to this immediate past post, although not however to the picture of Yoda), but are you going to tell me that such "extramusical information neither helps nor changes a thing about what [some may] get from the music"? Knowing the anecdote and the popular songs quoted, can you honestly say your perception of the music has emerged unaltered? Wouldn't it be more accurate in fact to say that once you know this story, the anecdote provides quite a different sense of the music and of the typically raucous Beethovenian humor contained therein?

Harrrrumph. [Let's roll the R, because we are, after all, talking about art, lol. I love "harumph." Contextually, I've heard it as a genuine sound made by a petty autocrat whose opinion has been controverted. But, when the written word for that sound is used, like here, I just find it deliciously funny.]

A-yep. For some, that humor you mention in Beethoven's music is blazingly obvious "just from the notes." I would even wager those who 'get it just from the notes' would not experience the piece any differently after learning of the references... i.e. it would only make for a chuckle of confirmation of what was already perceived and understood, it wouldn't make me / have made me laugh any harder when I had listened to a 'funny' Beethoven piece without knowing the particulars.

Sorry to disappoint. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Harrrrumph, [let's roll the R's, because we are, after all, talking about art, lol.]

A-yep. For some, that humor you mention in Beethoven's music is blazingly obvious "just from the notes." I would even wager those who 'get it just from the notes' would not experience the piece any differently after learning of the references... i.e. it would only confirm what was already perceived and understood.

Sorry to disappoint. 

I don't care if you disappoint, but you're being much too rigid and formulaic. What are the terms of your wager? Orfeo, what sayest thou?

[Madiel]

Orfeo, what sayest thou?

I say that I've spent enough of my time lately talking to fundamentalists, and that if they won't budge there's a limit to how much effort should be spent arguing with them.

I also say you can't get humour literally "just from the notes", and in fact Monsieur Croche is now arguing against his own previous position about how people draw meaning from music despite there being no inherent communication in it. But pointing this out will be ultimately fruitless.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Beethoven was a composer who was fairly confident his music would be played years after his death. I seriously doubt that with such a prospectus in mind if he planned on later generations finding it at all necessary to know anything about a popular tune of his day, let alone its lyrics, upon which he made a series of variations.

Writing for posterity is another, complex issue. But the fact that Beethoven included known popular tunes in his music (as did Bach on occasion, in the final Quodlibet of the Goldberg Variations) is unmistakable. Taking your argument to its conclusion, why would Beethoven include these tunes at all if he feared that knowledge of these songs would be lost? Or for that matter, how would he have known that these popular songs would have been forgotten? Whether or not a composer writes in hopes of posterity, he also writes for his immediate audience.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I say that I've spent enough of my time lately talking to fundamentalists, and that if they won't budge there's a limit to how much effort should be spent arguing with them.

I also say you can't get humour literally "just from the notes", and in fact Monsieur Croche is now arguing against his own previous position about how people draw meaning from music despite there being no inherent communication in it. But pointing this out will be ultimately fruitless.

High-five, Orfeo.

[Monsieur Croche]

I don't care if you disappoint, but you're being much too rigid and formulaic. What are the terms of your wager? Orfeo, what sayest thou?

I think you mean unyielding to an argument you would like less questioned, lol.

If Beethoven believed his music would be played long after his death, with his saying about one piece and its being generally accepted, "I can wait fifty years," when he was at an age where he did not have fifty years to go -- I think it safe to at least come up with the deduction that if he did not include a textual note to what was quoted as being referenced in a piece that he planned on the piece being very much able to stand on its own, in a later time, without its current known popular contextual references.

If one is not able to sense and know the intense and earthy humor present in many a Beethoven score, or in part here and there even in his more 'serious' pieces, as imbued in the score alone without these incidental external bits, then please avail yourself of whatever aids and abets the fuller understanding. Know they are anecdotal, incidental, extramusical, extraneous, but let them prompt you to hear more of the nature of 'what the score itself is -- it is to be hoped that after one or two times with, that later auditions will be without bringing the album filled with those clippings to the listening room.

You know, whatever works for you and whatever it takes.

You can "Bet" your last Livre, Thaler, and pfennig, that if Luigi had thought the score needed those things known in order to be understood as music, he would have made a note of the extramusical and made sure it was on the frontispiece of the score.

Just sayin'

On betting / gambling:
"I can not understand risking the necessary for the superfluous." ~ Alexei Ivanovich, in Dostoyevskey's The Gambler.

[Mirror Image]

Wake me when it's over...

[(poco) Sforzando]

Wake me when it's over...

Thank you for your valuable insights. As usual, we are all bowled over by your intellectual curiosity and scintillating comments.

[Monsieur Croche]

Writing for posterity is another, complex issue. But the fact that Beethoven included known popular tunes in his music (as did Bach on occasion, in the final Quodlibet of the Goldberg Variations) is unmistakable. Taking your argument to its conclusion, why would Beethoven include these tunes at all if he feared that knowledge of these songs would be lost? Or for that matter, how would he have known that these popular songs would have been forgotten? Whether or not a composer writes in hopes of posterity, he also writes for his immediate audience.

I'm certain that if they thought about it at all, those composers would not think or hope to think that the popular references would still be known even one generation later. For all contemporaries concerned, maker and audience, a bit of 'a-hah,' and a bit of fun.

For later generations? References lost, the music better stand on its own [that requirement, I think we can all agree, fully met by those composers] That 'a-hah' factor was only good in the now of back then, and I think this was known and accepted by the composers who used those contemporary ditties, i.e. they had a nice slight effect, their being recognized by the listener was not integral to the quality of the piece in which the composer used them.

[Mirror Image]

Thank you for your valuable insights. As usual, we are all bowled over by your intellectual curiosity and scintillating comments.

I just find it rather useless for all parties involved to continue to argue a point that neither is willing to accept hence why I'm yawning like crazy right now. You're better off with a brick wall.

P.S. I already added to this thread a page or two ago.