What is the 'composer's intention?'

[Florestan]

I have to admit that I find it faintly amusing to read stuff about how we can't know composer's intentions, interspersed with quotes from composers.

Hah! 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Probably because "understanding" is an innate need, at least in some people?

Aye. But why does such "understanding" need to be couched in the form of understanding "intentions"?

And I must stop here for now. Have to be out the door in a half hour.

[Florestan]

Good morning to you, too, Florestan. (It is 7:30 in the morning here in New York.) Isn't it rather marvelous that I can sit here in my Long Island home and joust with people from Romania, Australia, Boston, and (ahem) even Georgia without even buying a plane ticket or showing my passport?

´Morning, sir! Indeed it is.

[Karl Henning]

I have to admit that I find it faintly amusing to read stuff about how we can't know composer's intentions, interspersed with quotes from composers.

It's early in the day yet, and I may be misreading . . . the idea I took away is, unless the artist has told us (and we trust the report), if the artist is dead, we have no firm knowledge.

Heck, if the artist is alive, we may have no firm knowledge.

So . . . why do we need to know?

[Florestan]

Aye. But why does such "understanding" need to be couched in the form of understanding "intentions"?

Schopenhauer argued that it´s how our mind works, it cannot operate outside, or without, time, space and causality, and he was probably right.

[Florestan]

why do we need to know?

Why do we need to know why we need to know? 

If music is its own justification, then why cannot the need to know have the same status?

The eye--it cannot choose but see;
We cannot bid the ear mind be still;
Our bodies minds feel inquire, wher'er they be,
Against or with our will.

[Karl Henning]

I'm not questioning its validity.  I am finding the internal inquiry of interest.

[Florestan]

I'm not questioning its validity.  I am finding the internal inquiry of interest.

Trying to know the intentions has no guaranteed positive outcome but there are lots of interesting things one can discover and learn in the process. The journey itself is worth more than the destination, which might never be reached anyway. 

EDIT: I mean, music is supposed to be about emotions, feelings, moods and states of mind --- but a little thinking can´t hurt either. Or can it?

[Karl Henning]

Trying to know the intentions has no guaranteed positive outcome but there are lots of interesting things one can discover and learn in the process. The journey itself is worth more than the destination, which might never be reached anyway. 

EDIT: I mean, music is supposed to be about emotions, feelings, moods and states of mind --- but a little thinking can´t hurt either. Or can it?

I think I intend largely to agree with this.  Or is it tend to agree? . . .

[Jo498]

I had listened to Beethoven's op.110 for more than 15 years when I first heard about the two popular songs (in one of Andras Schiff's lectures offered by the Guardian website). I am still not sure what to make of it. I never found that movement particularly humorous or funny, rather gruff, maybe almost angry.

For me, there are some allusions that were quite obviously intended by the composer to be heard and they add some new aspect for the listener, compared to the one who is unaware. This can be extra-musical meaning, but sometimes only highlighting aspects that are "already there".

But allusive does not mean transparently obvious. Schumann quoted the "Nimm sie hin denn, diese Lieder" from the last song of Beethoven's Ferne Geliebte so many times that sometimes it seems to become like a personal tag, without any explicit reference to his love for Clara (or whatever). It seems to serve different functions. E.g. in the finale of the 2nd symphony (a piece I do not find very convincing) the quotation "takes over" in the middle of the movement, like a deus ex machina forcing a happy ending or so. In other pieces (I think the fantasy, also the second piano trio) it is more of a dreamy allusion within slow movements that have the general character of a reverie, like a musician falling into some half-remembered tune while improvising.

I don't know exactly what Schumann meant with all his quotations and allusions (as I have never read anything by Jean Paul, I'll probably miss quite a bit of their possible meanings anyway). But I am pretty sure he usually meant *something* (again, not necessarily something that could be simply put in words or would be immediately grasped by mere identification of the quoted melody). So someone who has never heard "An die ferne Geliebte" and does not recognize the quotation (and does not know about its significance for Schumann) might still realize that something strange is going on in that finale with a new melody suddenly taking over. But without recognizing this and other allusions and quotations one might also miss aspects or a whole dimension of Schumann's works that were quite important for the composer. After all, his (humourous) idea of the "Davidsbündler" plays with some kind of secret society that would be characterized precisely by getting such clues and "secret messages" because its members would all be musically alert and educated.

[Florestan]

Excellent post, Jo.

I don't know exactly what Schumann meant with all his quotations and allusions (as I have never read anything by Jean Paul, I'll probably miss quite a bit of their possible meanings anyway). But I am pretty sure he usually meant *something* (again, not necessarily something that could be simply put in words or would be immediately grasped by mere identification of the quoted melody). So someone who has never heard "An die ferne Geliebte" and does not recognize the quotation (and does not know about its significance for Schumann) might still realize that something strange is going on in that finale with a new melody suddenly taking over. But without recognizing this and other allusions and quotations one might also miss aspects or a whole dimension of Schumann's works that were quite important for the composer. After all, his (humourous) idea of the "Davidsbündler" plays with some kind of secret society that would be characterized precisely by getting such clues and "secret messages" because its members would all be musically alert and educated.

Exactly.

[Florestan]

some consider the extramusical to be a huge distraction from the music. Far from helping to understand, it guarantees, practically, that the music will not be understood.

In other words, the biographical, philosophical and / or literary/pictural background of Mahler´s symphonies, or of Strauss´s Eine Alpensymphonie, or of Schumann´s Kreisleriana, or of Tchaikovsky´s Manfred, or of Liszt´s Hunnenschlacht, or of Rachamninoff´s Isle of the Dead is a huge distraction from the music. Far from helping to understand, it practically guarantees that the music will not be understood.

Do you / does anyone really believe that?

[Madiel]

It's early in the day yet, and I may be misreading . . . the idea I took away is, unless the artist has told us (and we trust the report), if the artist is dead, we have no firm knowledge.

Heck, if the artist is alive, we may have no firm knowledge.

So . . . why do we need to know?

Need?

Well, one could ask whether we "need" to know lots of things. I definitely didn't say need here. The better question to me is why do we like to know?

As I've already illustrated, sometimes it's helpful, or interesting, or provides more context. And music does exist in context (unless you pick it up and deposit it in an entirely different culture). I'm a great believer in general that context tends to enhance things. It certainly enhances our understanding of things, whether it's of music or language or history or law or the Bible.

I certainly don't go scurrying around constantly looking for detailed information about a composer's intentions. But I do like reading information about pieces - about when they were written**, the environment in which they were written, and other bits of context. And usually something about what the composer was up to is included.

I like knowing that Haydn wrote one of his sets of string quartets for performance in London. I like someone pointing out that those quartets all start with loud, attention-getting gestures. I'm sure I could listen to them without knowing that, but it's interesting and it explains something about the music. Something I could hear anyway, but now I know a factor as to why that feature is there.

I like knowing that one of Dvorak's quartets was a commission where he was specifically asked to include material of a Slavic character. Again, it explains something about the music, something I could hear anyway, but understanding part of why it is the way it is, and why it's more full of eastern-European-sounding music than some of Dvorak's other works, is different from just knowing that's the way it sounds.

I like knowing that Mozart wrote a truckload of piano concertos at one point of his career because he needed pieces for himself to play. I like knowing that Beethoven wrote a group of cello/piano works for a particular cellist, and that Brahms wrote a group of clarinet works because he was inspired by a particular clarinettist. I like knowing that many of Holmboe's works were the results of requests by particular musicians, rather than the result of him just staring at the trees and deciding that he was into flutes or recorders or guitars this year.

I like knowing that Dvorak followed the plots of literary tales very closely for his late symphonic poems, to the point where some people felt it was detrimental to the musical structure. I like knowing people were surprised he even did symphonic poems. I like knowing the story behind The Sorcerer's Apprentice or The Isle of the Dead because it only adds to the vividness of the music. I like knowing that Ravel had the poems for Gaspard de la nuit printed, and that the subtitle of the suite specifically mentions the inspiration of the poems, and lord knows there are passages at the end of 'Ondine' and 'Scarbo' that make far more sense if you know the poems. I like knowing that Debussy put the title of each piano prelude at the end because he didn't want them to influence people so much.

All of this stuff informs and enlightens, and while none of it is necessary I've been arguing against the proposition that this information, this context, is somehow a problem. I can't see how any of that could be a problem.

** Including at what point of a career they were written, something we simply take for granted in many cases because we have opus numbers and catalogue numbers that tell us. And I don't think people generally run away shrieking "no! I must know whether it's an early work or a late one!"

[Hilltroll73(Ukko)]

After I've listened to the music a few times, the composer's intention(s) are not unwelcome. Probably won't be useful, could be entertaining.

[Karl Henning]

Need?

I know. Why do I need to listen to music?  I was not putting words in anyone's mouth;  I was thinking of past inquiries of my own (and, sure, generalizing them with the first-person plural pronoun).

Most interesting post, thanks.  And as someone who enjoys reading the historical and biographical context of a good deal of music, yes, I find it of interest, and no, of itself it is nothing like a problem.

[Florestan]

As I've already illustrated, sometimes it's helpful, or interesting, or provides more context. And music does exist in context (unless you pick it up and deposit it in an entirely different culture). I'm a great believer in general that context tends to enhance things. It certainly enhances our understanding of things, whether it's of music or language or history or law or the Bible.

I certainly don't go scurrying around constantly looking for detailed information about a composer's intentions. But I do like reading information about pieces - about when they were written**, the environment in which they were written, and other bits of context. And usually something about what the composer was up to is included.

I like knowing that Haydn wrote one of his sets of string quartets for performance in London. I like someone pointing out that those quartets all start with loud, attention-getting gestures. I'm sure I could listen to them without knowing that, but it's interesting and it explains something about the music. Something I could hear anyway, but now I know a factor as to why that feature is there.

I like knowing that one of Dvorak's quartets was a commission where he was specifically asked to include material of a Slavic character. Again, it explains something about the music, something I could hear anyway, but understanding part of why it is the way it is, and why it's more full of eastern-European-sounding music than some of Dvorak's other works, is different from just knowing that's the way it sounds.

I like knowing that Mozart wrote a truckload of piano concertos at one point of his career because he needed pieces for himself to play. I like knowing that Beethoven wrote a group of cello/piano works for a particular cellist, and that Brahms wrote a group of clarinet works because he was inspired by a particular clarinettist. I like knowing that many of Holmboe's works were the results of requests by particular musicians, rather than the result of him just staring at the trees and deciding that he was into flutes or recorders or guitars this year.

I like knowing that Dvorak followed the plots of literary tales very closely for his late symphonic poems, to the point where some people felt it was detrimental to the musical structure. I like knowing people were surprised he even did symphonic poems. I like knowing the story behind The Sorcerer's Apprentice or The Isle of the Dead because it only adds to the vividness of the music. I like knowing that Ravel had the poems for Gaspard de la nuit printed, and that the subtitle of the suite specifically mentions the inspiration of the poems, and lord knows there are passages at the end of 'Ondine' and 'Scarbo' that make far more sense if you know the poems. I like knowing that Debussy put the title of each piano prelude at the end because he didn't want them to influence people so much.

All of this stuff informs and enlightens, and while none of it is necessary I've been arguing against the proposition that this information, this context, is somehow a problem. I can't see how any of that could be a problem.

** Including at what point of a career they were written, something we simply take for granted in many cases because we have opus numbers and catalogue numbers that tell us. And I don't think people generally run away shrieking "no! I must know whether it's an early work or a late one!"

[North Star]

Need?

Well, one could ask whether we "need" to know lots of things. I definitely didn't say need here. The better question to me is why do we like to know?

I would like to know whether needing to know is necessarily any different from liking to know something. The first of course implies a greater degree of need, but they're still quite interchangeable. If you were in the middle of a deep lake, I bet you would like to know how to swim.

Most interesting post, thanks.  And as someone who enjoys reading the historical and biographical context of a good deal of music, yes, I find it of interest, and no, of itself it is nothing like a problem.

+1

And it's also nice to know that Beethoven's Razumovsky quartets were commissioned by the  Count Razumovsky, Russian ambassador in Vienna, and that the first two use a Russian theme (and the third has some Russian characteristics as well). Or that Beethoven's piano sonata op. 27 no. 2's first movement is based on the Commendatore's death scene in Don Giovanni. Not that the music isn't enjoyable without knowing these things.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

... 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.

some guy describes - and very well - one approach to making art, one that ranges from the artist having in mind something vague to an approach that is more or less aleatory and in which meaning is uncovered in the result rather than in the artist's primum mobile.  Other artists (or even that same artist working on a different project) may have something definite in mind (eg: Michelangelo's angel envisioned in the marble).  Oftentimes, I think esp. in music, it may well be a mixture of those "procedures."  The possibility that the artist merely wanted to create something [this is also encompassed in some guy's description], wanted to work with the materials available, is also very real and should be contemplated.  All of these different creative approaches are part of what makes art so compelling a topic and certainly well worth discussing, as we've seen in this thread.

Those who view their listening experience as separate, personal and inviolate - commendable, even noble in intent - have both my admiration and sympathy, for such a thing cannot exist in this world, esp. for those on this forum (please note:  I am encouraging no one to leave).  GMG is a vast warehouse of fact and opinion on composers, performers and performances that no one can visit w/o in some way being influenced as to composers' intentions (and performers' - music is by no means an immutable art form).  One's own preconceptions and prejudices will make darn sure that his or her listening experiences are not as unbiased as one could wish. Better, imo, to go to a concert armed with the best available information - even differing points of view - or seek same out after a performance, than to be at the mercy of something else, often worse, that inescapable opinionated self. 

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

Seconded!

[Brahmsian]

Or that Beethoven's piano sonata op. 27 no. 2's first movement is based on the Commendatore's death scene in Don Giovanni. Not that the music isn't enjoyable without knowing these things.

Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor, Op. 27/2 "Moonlight" "Commendatore Sonata"