What is the 'composer's intention?'

[Mirror Image]

Actually there was a time when my position was the exact mirror image of our Debussyan friend's. With experience and maturity my position has evolved into something different. You might say I've become less rigid, more nuanced in my thinking. I'm not necessarily interested in changing Croche's mind, but rather in influencing other, more open-minded observers. And though I don't have time at the moment to develop my position in what will no doubt will be for you excruciating/soporific detail, it may surprise you that I too support the idea "that it doesn't matter what the composer intended."

(Briefly: intention precedes action. What Beethoven intended died with him and is buried with his corpse in a Vienna cemetery. All we can know is what Beethoven achieved, and proceed from there. And that of course includes introducing folk songs he knew his audience would recognize into his works. Literature provides even more striking examples. Our friend Alberich has been arguing with me over what he thinks Shakespeare "wanted us to feel" - i.e., his intentions - and I've been saying that we have no way of knowing these intentions and that however we respond is how we respond. 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.)

And yet many of us continue to proceed as if intention were knowable, and somehow matters. The interesting question is: Why should that be the case?

That's the short version, for your benefit.

Thanks for this Sforzando. I also want to apologize to you, orfeo, Monsieur Croche, and everyone else. I shouldn't have acted like a jerk. Carry on, gentlemen!

[zamyrabyrd]

...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.

There is also the allusion to "Ave Maria" at the end of "Widmung". "Carnaval" of course is chock full of references, some more overt or hidden. He also had cross references from other works in particular, "Papillons". It is the kind of fun in music making that Bernstein pointed out in the compositions of Charles Ives. I wonder if he was influenced by Schumann.

[zamyrabyrd]

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

"Music is not philosophy." ~ Akira Ifukube.

It isn't?

[starrynight]

Either it is inherent in the music itself, in which case music can and does (explicitly, for that matter) represent non-musical things; or it stems from cultural conventions and conditioning, in which case 200 years later after the work´s premiere the audience (who lives in completely different cultural conventions and conditioning) does indeed need explanation and program notes in order to fully grasp why a particular sequence of notes is humorous.

Cultural conventions don't always need program notes, we can still relate to some things even many years later.  Conventions can be within the music itself and not relate to things completely extraneous.  Listening to plenty of a style of some music will soon get you used to it's conventions.  We aren't listening to things completely outside what I'd guess is most people's general cultural background here.

But talking about it like it's some either/or situation of completely needing contextual information to enjoy something, or finding any of that completely useless is just setting up the usual duelling antagonism here which isn't much to do with the music but is more to do with the people here.

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.

This is the point, you could hear this anyway.  You're just taking it to extremes.  The more you listen to a style of music the more you'll understand.

Again, not taking it to extremes because I find that pointless, some cultural context could be interesting with some pieces.  But then you also have to trust who is giving you that context in some later period.  Though even a performance of music is putting it into our modern context anyway, because no musician can transport themselves back into some earlier period.  I know I'm being inconvenient and complicating things rather than getting into the opposing sides argument.  But isn't it more fun letting your thoughts wander and bounce off others and see where they end up than just setting up some opposing positions? 

[Florestan]

I know I'm being inconvenient and complicating things

By all means, feel free to do so. There´s always room for more inconvenience and complication. 

[Jo498]

Maybe I should add that I think Schumann is a rather extreme case. I think that many "program note style" information about biographical and other background is often trivial, sometimes misleading and almost all music should be first and foremost appreciated as music not as expressing some program, composer's emotions or state of mind etc. and I am not fond of the idea of "program music" in general nor of many famous pieces in that genre.

But allusions like Schumann's work in a more subtle way. And I cannot deny that there is some evidence that Beethoven (who later was both claimed by the faction of "absolute music" and by the friends of program music) connected some works (not only the Pastoral symphony and Les Adieux) with poetic programs. (Although I am not convinced that "Our cat had kittens" etc. is significant for op.110...)

[North Star]

(Although I am not convinced that "Our cat had kittens" etc. is significant for op.110...)

Es muß sein!

[Karl Henning]

Maybe I should add that I think Schumann is a rather extreme case.

He was a Romantic, and one of the more nervous among his peers, too.

I'm not saying I wish Schumann to be at all otherwise than he is.  I do find myself preferring his 'abstract' works (the pf quintet, the vn sonatas, e.g.) . . . and there must be reasons 

[zamyrabyrd]

...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.

Wanting to check that out (How could I miss it all these years as a pianist?), I am sitting here with the score of Don Giovanni where the father is dying after the sword fight dramatized by the orchestra in D minor. OK, there are quiet triplets in the middle strings in the dominant of F minor but not really establishing any stable harmony as appropriate to the action. Other than that, I don't see any Op. 27 No. 2 in this scene at all. The end trails off with descending chromatic notes in the interval of a fourth, also nothing "Moonlight" about it.

ZB

[zamyrabyrd]

...Although I am not convinced that "Our cat had kittens" etc. is significant for op.110...

Neither am I about the Katz. However, since the 2nd movement is a Scherzo and the theme of the drinking song is quoted more at length, I do believe that "Ich bin lüderlich, du bist lüderlich" (I am dissolute, you are dissolute) is with intent. 

[Jo498]

The problem is that since I have heard "Unser Katz hat Kätzerln ghobt" etc. I can hardly avoid the association when I listen to the piece. I have to pull myself together not to sing along...

[Karl Henning]

The problem is that since I have heard "Unser Katz hat Kätzerln ghobt" etc. I can hardly avoid the association when I listen to the piece. I have to pull myself together not to sing along...

Some people who got to know the piece from Fantasia cannot hear Le sacre without visualizing dinosaurs.  Just sayin'.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Maybe I should add that I think Schumann is a rather extreme case. I think that many "program note style" information about biographical and other background is often trivial, sometimes misleading and almost all music should be first and foremost appreciated as music not as expressing some program, composer's emotions or state of mind etc. and I am not fond of the idea of "program music" in general nor of many famous pieces in that genre.

But allusions like Schumann's work in a more subtle way. And I cannot deny that there is some evidence that Beethoven (who later was both claimed by the faction of "absolute music" and by the friends of program music) connected some works (not only the Pastoral symphony and Les Adieux) with poetic programs. (Although I am not convinced that "Our cat had kittens" etc. is significant for op.110...)

+1 about Schumann.

About Beethoven...I remember reading somewhere about someone who was soooo convinced about the 'moonlight sonata' accurately representing 'moonlight' that they were in a bit of a shock when they found out that there was a completely different background to the composition entirely! As you say, sometimes things can be very misleading.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Some people who got to know the piece from Fantasia cannot hear Le sacre without visualizing dinosaurs.  Just sayin'.

For me it's not the dinosaurs, it's the hippos and elephants in tutus for the Dance of the Hours segment. And "hello mudda, hello fadda" in the background.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Quality musicians spend a lot of time practicing, learning, composing, playing, evolving .. in order to be the best that they can be, and if in a band situation, also be a real band that gels as one - each part is equal, playing together. They understand that music is for people at the end of the day and they would love it to shine through to as many people as possible. The music that is, not ideas of genius or innovation - which aren't primary. Connecting is a big desire. And instrumental music, is whatever the listener wants it to be about. The listener's imagination can run wild, and find things that are relevant to their own personal experiences. So it is personal from listener to listener, you don't want every listener to come to the same conclusions.

I think you and I are seeing eye to eye on something this time.

[Madiel]

The more you listen to a style of music the more you'll understand.

Yes. Which is exactly why I said that music doesn't exist without props unless you drop it into another culture. People don't generally come to a piece of music without a frame of reference, of other music they already know.

[Madiel]

Maybe I should add that I think Schumann is a rather extreme case. I think that many "program note style" information about biographical and other background is often trivial, sometimes misleading and almost all music should be first and foremost appreciated as music not as expressing some program, composer's emotions or state of mind etc. and I am not fond of the idea of "program music" in general nor of many famous pieces in that genre.

But allusions like Schumann's work in a more subtle way. And I cannot deny that there is some evidence that Beethoven (who later was both claimed by the faction of "absolute music" and by the friends of program music) connected some works (not only the Pastoral symphony and Les Adieux) with poetic programs. (Although I am not convinced that "Our cat had kittens" etc. is significant for op.110...)

No argument with any of this. I definitely think that composers varied wildly in their approaches, and that trying to take any one composer as 'proof' of something would be a mistake unless you're trying to prove the sheer variety of approaches.

Which is one of the things about this series of conversations I've found so damned odd. It's basically a replay of the culture wars of the second half of the 2nd century, where devotees of Liszt and devotees of Brahms (more than the actual men themselves) had raging debates about whether music must express extramusical things or ought not express extramusical things. The fact is the music of both camps has survived and is listened to.

PS And when it comes to program/liner notes, some of them are terrible. You know people are off on flights of fancy when they draw the exact opposite conclusions for a piece from the same biographical information.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Whenever I've listened to Liszt I haven't been able to find out anything Liszt supposedly expresses apart from music itself....am I missing something in the actual sounds? Is there something that certain chords or harmonies or textures clearly represent that I am meant to be hearing?

[amw]

(Although I am not convinced that "Our cat had kittens" etc. is significant for op.110...)

I think he was just having a bit of fun, composers do that sometimes

[Madiel]

Whenever I've listened to Liszt I haven't been able to find out anything Liszt supposedly expresses apart from music itself....am I missing something in the actual sounds? Is there something that certain chords or harmonies or textures clearly represent that I am meant to be hearing?

You don't think Mazeppa contains galloping? You don't think the Fountains of the Villa d'Este sound even vaguely watery?

You don't find the Héroïde funèbre at all funereal?

Frankly I wouldn't treat Liszt as a terribly great example of "program music" despite his role in pushing forward the genre, but that's possibly because I don't find Liszt a very rewarding composer in general. Nevertheless, there are some examples where I don't find it difficult to perceive a connection.

And something like a funeral march... honestly, is there where we are getting to? Does anyone seriously deny that Beethoven or Chopin composed funeral marches? Does any actually listen to that music and say "no, I just hear actual sounds that are just the same as in"... some piece with a joyous or happy title?

It's not just notes, it's evoking a mood. I honestly don't understand what people are getting out of music if they can't perceive a difference between a happy dance and a funeral march. If you can't hear anything water-related in a piano piece with a water-themed title, there are a vast line of composers who have failed utterly in firing your imagination.