What is the 'composer's intention?'

[James]

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?

Which is fine. Seems like your focus is more on the musical plane, which a good thing. It is a deeper way of listening, the average listener doesn't put the focus there. Perhaps when you listen to Liszt no matter who's performing it, all you hear just sounds like notes and nothing more, he doesn't move you in any way - he doesn't speak to you.

[James]

... or perhaps that musical plane you're hearing with Liszt is good enough for you and you dig it. Your stimulation may be more cerebral/abstract.

[Karl Henning]

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

The ones who don't seem to have had their sense of humor surgically removed.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Which is fine. Seems like your focus is more on the musical plane, which a good thing. It is a deeper way of listening, the average listener doesn't put the focus there. Perhaps when you listen to Liszt no matter who's performing it, all you hear just sounds like notes and nothing more, he doesn't move you in any way - he doesn't speak to you.

Yes I suppose it's more on the 'musical plane' than anything else. Music evokes emotions within me, and things that move me are rooted in rhythm, timbre, texture and harmony.....trying to describe music as 'watery' or 'galloping' is, for me, like diverting my attention away from the actual composition and the sounds that I love. I could really be listening attentively to the interlocking counterpoint, the harmonic movement and rate of its change and stuff like that and be moved by those elements.

I recently listened to Bach's BWV 25, and not knowing anything about its history or background or what the words mean, I found it especially enjoyable in the first movement to hear the changes of instrumentation, the development of small motifs, the harmony and things like that. Every time a phrase of the chorale melody was added to the texture it created an effect which I certainly, immensely enjoyed but can't describe in words. I don't even want to describe it in words really, because then it loses its evocative power for me.

[Madiel]

I recently listened to Bach's BWV 25, and not knowing anything about its history or background or what the words mean, I found it especially enjoyable in the first movement to hear the changes of instrumentation, the development of small motifs, the harmony and things like that. Every time a phrase of the chorale melody was added to the texture it created an effect which I certainly, immensely enjoyed but can't describe in words. I don't even want to describe it in words really, because then it loses its evocative power for me.

It's not an either/or proposition as far as I'm concerned. Bach quite clearly intended people to know what the words mean, but knowing what the words mean doesn't prevent me from noticing the changes of instrumentation or the development of motifs.

I'm fairly sure I've mentioned on this forum at some point my early experiences with Shostakovich's 13th symphony. First time through, very little clue as to the words, only a general synopsis. Yes, okay, dark and dramatic, especially that spot in the 1st movement where the music explodes.

Second time through, reading the words (Russian transliteration alongside English translation)... get to the passage about Anne Frank... the music explodes, and it's like I'm being hit by a bloody thunderbolt.

There are cases where it doesn't matter all that much whether you know anything beyond the music. There are cases where you are absolutely missing out on the full effect if you don't know anything beyond the music, and cases where there is a set text are assuredly among them. What's the actual point of setting a text otherwise?

I'm sure some aspects of BWV 25 would be just as effective if the words were replaced with Johann's shopping list, but the words are nevertheless part of the package that Bach expected people to experience.

[James]

Yes I suppose it's more on the 'musical plane' than anything else. Music evokes emotions within me, and things that move me are rooted in rhythm, timbre, texture and harmony.....trying to describe music as 'watery' or 'galloping' is, for me, like diverting my attention away from the actual composition and the sounds that I love. I could really be listening attentively to the interlocking counterpoint, the harmonic movement and rate of its change and stuff like that and be moved by those elements.

I recently listened to Bach's BWV 25, and not knowing anything about its history or background or what the words mean, I found it especially enjoyable in the first movement to hear the changes of instrumentation, the development of small motifs, the harmony and things like that. Every time a phrase of the chorale melody was added to the texture it created an effect which I certainly, immensely enjoyed but can't describe in words. I don't even want to describe it in words really, because then it loses its evocative power for me.

I get ya .. and how the performer or group execute the music is another huge factor too. Then you have recording or live venue features which can enhance or detract from the whole thing.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I get ya .. and how the performer or group execute the music is another huge factor too. Then you have recording or live venue features which can enhance or detract from the whole thing.

Yes...it's all these sonic possibilities which add an extra layer of interest/enjoyment on my part. Music sung with words, however, often influences interpretative choices on the part of the performer rather than how I like to hear a piece, and this is a different thing altogether for me.

[James]

but the words are nevertheless part of the package that Bach expected people to experience.

Indeed. The words do have meaning, and how they are set musically, and more importantly performed (with commitment, talent and feel) is what shines through, really effecting people emotionally I think. And no knowledge of music can really tell us why people are emotionally affected by music. It just exists.

[Monsieur Croche]

The ones who don't seem to have had their sense of humor surgically removed.

... reminds me of the ones who do seem to have had their sense of humor surgically removed.

~ ahhh, ye olde Humor Frontal Lobotomy ~

[You know all the tools it used to require for a lobotomy were a hammer and a long but not very wide-ended chisel? I mean, if you have enough pluck and a few bucks, you could run down to your local Home Depot, pick up the tools, and save that friend of yours who needs this operation a ton of money.]

I don't think those who have undergone the procedure are exclusively but a handful of composers, though... 

[Madiel]

Music sung with words, however, often influences interpretative choices on the part of the performer rather than how I like to hear a piece, and this is a different thing altogether for me.

This sounds a lot like you're saying "the words mean something to the performers, but not to me".

What makes you different from the performers?

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

This sounds a lot like you're saying "the words mean something to the performers, but not to me".

What makes you different from the performers?

I'm sure you already know this, it's pretty much common sense to all musicians......Interpreting a piece of music comes down to using dynamics, articulation and balance in such a way as to provide a stimulus for whoever is listening to the music. The words might be about something frightening, so the musicians might determine for themselves what interpretive devices can evoke a sense of this in the way they express the notes on the page. They might highlight certain dissonances, they might use a wider dynamic range, they might perform it faster or slower, it all just depends on their point of view. Nothing is fixed in stone when it comes to interpretation.

As a listener, I listen to the sounds these musicians make and I go with the flow. I listen to all parts of the music, every sound attentively. Sometimes if I'm particularly curious about a timbre or texture or harmony or whatever, I might even pinpoint where in the score the thing I especially like occurs so I know how it's done in terms of what the composer did and/or how the musicians interpreted it.

Perhaps you and I listen to music very differently and that's okay. That's wonderful in fact because it means that music itself can do so many different things when listened to by different people. It constantly affirms in me the universal nature of music; not that it is understood by everybody, but that everybody can come to their own conclusion about any piece of music.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'm sure you already know this, it's pretty much common sense to all musicians......Interpreting a piece of music comes down to using dynamics, articulation and balance in such a way as to provide a stimulus for whoever is listening to the music. The words might be about something frightening, so the musicians might determine for themselves what interpretive devices can evoke a sense of this in the way they express the notes on the page. They might highlight certain dissonances, they might use a wider dynamic range, they might perform it faster or slower, it all just depends on their point of view. Nothing is fixed in stone when it comes to interpretation.

As a listener, I listen to the sounds these musicians make and I go with the flow. I listen to all parts of the music, every sound attentively. Sometimes if I'm particularly curious about a timbre or texture or harmony or whatever, I might even pinpoint where in the score the thing I especially like occurs so I know how it's done in terms of what the composer did and/or how the musicians interpreted it.

Perhaps you and I listen to music very differently and that's okay. That's wonderful in fact because it means that music itself can do so many different things when listened to by different people. It constantly affirms in me the universal nature of music; not that it is understood by everybody, but that everybody can come to their own conclusion about any piece of music.

You're sounding like a politician refusing to answer the question.

[Madiel]

I'm sure you already know this, it's pretty much common sense to all musicians......Interpreting a piece of music comes down to using dynamics, articulation and balance in such a way as to provide a stimulus for whoever is listening to the music. The words might be about something frightening, so the musicians might determine for themselves what interpretive devices can evoke a sense of this in the way they express the notes on the page. They might highlight certain dissonances, they might use a wider dynamic range, they might perform it faster or slower, it all just depends on their point of view. Nothing is fixed in stone when it comes to interpretation.

As a listener, I listen to the sounds these musicians make and I go with the flow. I listen to all parts of the music, every sound attentively. Sometimes if I'm particularly curious about a timbre or texture or harmony or whatever, I might even pinpoint where in the score the thing I especially like occurs so I know how it's done in terms of what the composer did and/or how the musicians interpreted it.

Perhaps you and I listen to music very differently and that's okay. That's wonderful in fact because it means that music itself can do so many different things when listened to by different people. It constantly affirms in me the universal nature of music; not that it is understood by everybody, but that everybody can come to their own conclusion about any piece of music.

Yeah... Honestly, I get a "seeing the trees, not the wood" vibe from this. And from some of your other posts as well.

And if you're perfectly happy examining trees, then go for it. But all your talk of timbre, texture, harmony really does come across to me as if you are so interested in the composer's tools that you are likely to not give a lot of attention to what they are building with those tools. The equivalent of admiring the detailed stonework on a cathedral but being disinterested in the soaring edifice.

Obviously, as a student of music those tools are important. My chief concern for you is that once you have all those tools... how are you going to decide what to build with them?

I dunno. Maybe you're the kind of person who doesn't actually need a goal or motivation. Maybe your goals and motivations will be external, purely driven by someone asking you for a piece within certain performance parameters.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

You're sounding like a politician refusing to answer the question.

I see that you've noticed I took a different angle in my response to Orfeo than directly addressing the question. This was because Orfeo and I approach music in very different ways. I listen to music for the enjoyment of utter sound. I love to hear a piece from start to end where I feel like I've been taken somewhere that I cannot describe. I also find interesting what tools a composer uses to compose, and these things simply quench my thirst for knowledge.

Orfeo asks me lots of questions, sometimes making me question myself and how beneficial it actually is to listen to music and learn about music in the way I do....but of course, the questions I am often asked already imply that there is a different philosophy in each of our minds. Because I can't experience music the way Orfeo does and because we barely know anything about each other, I don't make assumptions.

[James]

Words don't really matter to him (especially foreign ones?) .. he's more interested what is done with them musically. He has a very valid perspective. For lots of people, they could care less about the actual words, they mostly remember and hum the melody.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yes...it's all these sonic possibilities which add an extra layer of interest/enjoyment on my part. Music sung with words, however, often influences interpretative choices on the part of the performer rather than how I like to hear a piece, and this is a different thing altogether for me.

Well, you claim to be a composer, and I see some signs of talent. But would you never consider setting a vocal piece? Bear in mind that to many composers of opera or sacred music, the texts they set are an essential part of the compositional dynamic. One can look at composers as disparate as Verdi, Puccini, Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy, Berlioz, Berg, and Wagner to see that the librettos they chose were deeply meaningful to them for their stories and characters, and audiences at these operas often respond in kind. I suppose you can take an approach such as Bruckner did to Wagner, where he claimed he hadn't the slightest idea what happened in Tristan und Isolde, but then you're left with the problem of not being able to account for the libretto in the first place.

It's like saying Le Nozze di Figaro has its home key as D major, and the second act finale concludes in the remote key of E flat, without considering that the opera is a comedy about the relations between the Count and Countess, Susanna and Figaro, Cherubino and all the others. Similarly, Berg's own sense of Wozzeck was that "However thorough one's knowledge of the opera's musical forms, from the curtain's rise until its final fall no one in the audience should think of the various Fugues, Inventions, Suite and Sonata Movements, Variations, and Passacaglias. Everyone should be filled only with the idea of the opera, an idea that far transcends the individual fate of Wozzeck."

[James]

For the record .. i'm in ComposerOfAvantGarde's camp .. can't be bothered with lyrics, text, libretti. I mainly just listen to the music, as I would instrumental music. Even watching most opera bores me to tears, and is overlong. Ditto old masses and the like. For me .. most opera is an absolute waste of time, and I'm searching for the meaty bits.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Yeah... Honestly, I get a "seeing the trees, not the wood" vibe from this. And from some of your other posts as well.

And if you're perfectly happy examining trees, then go for it. But all your talk of timbre, texture, harmony really does come across to me as if you are so interested in the composer's tools that you are likely to not give a lot of attention to what they are building with those tools. The equivalent of admiring the detailed stonework on a cathedral but being disinterested in the soaring edifice.

Obviously, as a student of music those tools are important. My chief concern for you is that once you have all those tools... how are you going to decide what to build with them?

I dunno. Maybe you're the kind of person who doesn't actually need a goal or motivation. Maybe your goals and motivations will be external, purely driven by someone asking you for a piece within certain performance parameters.

Learning about the tools of composition is something I find interesting and is very useful knowledge for me, but it's pretty useless when enjoying music for music's sake.

My motivations to compose usually come from either or both of these two things: a particular sound or timbre I have in my mind or a collection of notes/rhythms that I come up with. One piece of music I wrote (called 'Please Do Not Feed The Fish') came initially from an idea I had of a canonic arpeggio focussing on the resonance of the open strings of two guitars. I was simply asked to write a piece for a classical guitar duo, I had an idea of that sound, more ideas came, I worked at developing my ideas and putting them down on paper in an order which seemed right to me, and voilà! A new composition. I whacked a title on top (I saw a sign in a park that said Please Do Not Feed The Fish, so I thought that would be good enough) and the piece was performed a number of times, recorded, published and broadcast a few times.

Honestly, I have no idea what happens when I compose, I can't describe it really. It's like I have found stray ideas wandering into my mind and I use my background knowledge of composition to create something new out of it. Works every time.

[(poco) Sforzando]

For the record .. i'm in ComposerOfAvantGarde's camp .. can't be bothered with lyrics, text, libretti. I mainly just listen to the music, as I would instrumental music. Even watching most opera bores me to tears, and is overlong. Ditto old masses and the like. For me .. most opera is an absolute waste of time, and I'm searching for the meaty bits.

Well, what we like is what we like. You probably would prefer those old Opera Without Words recordings where just excerpts were performed without voices. Hopefully COAG is not so set in his ways as to accept a few challenges to his way of thinking.

[James]

Well, what we like is what we like. You probably would prefer those old Opera Without Words recordings where just excerpts were performed without voices. Hopefully COAG is not so set in his ways as to accept a few challenges to his way of thinking.

No .. I love the voices, I just don't give a shit what they are saying.