What is the 'composer's intention?'

[(poco) Sforzando]

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

Good thing then it's usually in a foreign language.

[Madiel]

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)

Something I would never, ever do. I would never bother with a descriptive title of that nature if hadn't formed part of the conception of the piece.

And I'm the one who's supposedly fond of extramusical stuff...

The 90 seconds on iTunes sounds nice, by the way.

[James]

Good thing then it's usually in a foreign language.

Yea .. well, that's a big part of it.

Don't get me wrong though, there is quite a bit of vocal oriented art music that really moves me AND I marvel at it's musical/performance aspects, from most eras.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

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."

When I compose a piece of music where I set words to music, I often think about what sounds I can imagine accompanying the text. In the little song I wrote called The Sand Timer (I've uploaded an old version of midi instruments and real voices here https://soundcloud.com/composerofavantgarde/the-sand-timer but I'll see what I can do about recording a live performance in February) I used the imagery of the poem to make loose connections to a soundworld of my own imagining. Words such as 'Darkness' in my mind connote very low sustained notes, 'falling' relates to descending contour, even something like 'the sand timer' itself helped me to decide upon the use of the harpsichord and guitar. The interlocking and gradually descending arpeggios at the start remind me of the grains of sand as they fall. It's really just my own imagination as inspired by the words.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Something I would never, ever do. I would never bother with a descriptive title of that nature if hadn't formed part of the conception of the piece.

And I'm the one who's supposedly fond of extramusical stuff...

The 90 seconds on iTunes sounds nice, by the way.

Thanks for listening.

My reason for titling it in such a way was simply because I know that there are people (musicians and listeners alike) who are fond of the extramusical stuff and who would make the effort to connect the title to the sounds.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Something I would never, ever do. I would never bother with a descriptive title of that nature if hadn't formed part of the conception of the piece.

And yet Debussy supposedly decided on his titles only after writing the pieces, and Satie was fond of whacking titles on top of his pieces that had nothing to do with the music. Still, in Debussy's case the titles generally seem to fit, while in Satie's they just sound like whack jobs.

[(poco) Sforzando]

When I compose a piece of music where I set words to music, I often think about what sounds I can imagine accompanying the text. In the little song I wrote called The Sand Timer (I've uploaded an old version of midi instruments and real voices here https://soundcloud.com/composerofavantgarde/the-sand-timer but I'll see what I can do about recording a live performance in February) I used the imagery of the poem to make loose connections to a soundworld of my own imagining. Words such as 'Darkness' in my mind connote very low sustained notes, 'falling' relates to descending contour, even something like 'the sand timer' itself helped me to decide upon the use of the harpsichord and guitar. The interlocking and gradually descending arpeggios at the start remind me of the grains of sand as they fall. It's really just my own imagination as inspired by the words.

I can't really say much about your song because I don't find the words intelligible from the recording. But even with art songs, just as with operas, composers have often been drawn to the genre because of their deep response to the poetry. This is certainly true of Britten, whose cycles on poets like Donne, Blake, Hardy, and others form a kind of mini-anthology of English literature. What I'm hearing from you is a sense of setting words bit-by-bit, but not of creating an overall conception of the text similar to the way Schubert, Schumann, Wolf, or Mahler would. Think of Schumann's "Ich grolle nicht" from the Dichterliebe, for example: Schumann is not just looking to set individual words, but to create a kind of mini-drama in which the self-deceiving speaker, unlucky in love, pretends to a kind of stoicism to shield himself from hurt, and pretends that the girl who has rejected him is the one who is actually suffering. That's the sort of thing that creates a great art song.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I can't really say much about your song because I don't find the words intelligible from the recording. But even with art songs, just as with operas, composers have often been drawn to the genre because of their deep response to the poetry. This is certainly true of Britten, whose cycles on poets like Donne, Blake, Hardy, and others form a kind of mini-anthology of English literature. What I'm hearing from you is a sense of setting words bit-by-bit, but not of creating an overall conception of the text similar to the way Schubert, Schumann, Wolf, or Mahler would. Think of Schumann's "Ich grolle nicht" from the Dichterliebe, for example: Schumann is not just looking to set individual words, but to create a kind of mini-drama in which the self-deceiving speaker, unlucky in love, pretends to a kind of stoicism to shield himself from hurt, and pretends that the girl who has rejected him is the one who is actually suffering. That's the sort of thing that creates a great art song.

Yes, the song I wrote is still just an exercise for me as I haven't studied much art song. I will be sure to learn a bit more about the songs you mention, thank you very much for the advice.

[Madiel]

And yet Debussy supposedly decided on his titles only after writing the pieces, and Satie was fond of whacking titles on top of his pieces that had nothing to do with the music. Still, in Debussy's case the titles generally seem to fit, while in Satie's they just sound like whack jobs.

Oh, I know other people would do it. I just find it stupid if it has nothing to do with the music. And no, I'm not a fan of Satie.

There've been many examples provided on this thread of cases where the title clearly was part of the composer's method to convey/evoke something. To me, providing a title when it has nothing to do with your ideas about the music is at best pointless and at worst cynical and displaying a contempt for listeners.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Oh, I know other people would do it. I just find it stupid if it has nothing to do with the music. And no, I'm not a fan of Satie.

There've been many examples provided on this thread of cases where the title clearly was part of the composer's method to convey/evoke something. To me, providing a title when it has nothing to do with your ideas about the music is at best pointless and at worst cynical and displaying a contempt for listeners.

Has there ever been an example of a title which actually displays a contempt for listeners?

[Madiel]

My reason for titling it in such a way was simply because I know that there are people (musicians and listeners alike) who are fond of the extramusical stuff and who would make the effort to connect the title to the sounds.

Yeah, and this... this is what I have a problem with. Because it seems very much as if you are enjoying misleading people. Ha! If I put fish in the title, there'll be people who will try to relate the music to fish.

Seriously, why would you want to make people think about fish? If it's all about appreciating the music in and of itself, if that's what is of value to you, why would you deliberately aim to throw some of your audience off track by setting them on a path to somewhere that you didn't actually want them to go?

Do you enjoy looking down on people who make such connections? Are you thinking "look at those fools, they think this piece has something do with fish"?  Yeah, but they think that because of something YOU did.

It's one thing for people to come up with their own imagery and associations for a piece of music. It's quite another for a composer to choose to steer people in a certain direction. Doing so when you care is fine, but doing so if you don't care is manipulative and deceptive in my view.

[Madiel]

Has there ever been an example of a title which actually displays a contempt for listeners?

The decision to provide a title. Not the title itself.

[amw]

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.

Sorry to jump in, but as a sort of composer myself, I find that words and music interfere with each other when I'm listening—I think the same part of my brain processes both, so they compete, and if I can understand the words they take over from the music. When listening to songs I'll generally read the text afterwards, and I've never been able to enjoy songs in English. (I find that the best songs convey meaning even without the words. Don't know how else to explain it, but I think you can grasp the entire emotional trajectory of eg Dichterliebe or Winterreise, with less specificity but more of... whatever the word is for when a work of fiction makes you feel that the world of the story is much wider and more real than is actually shown onscreen/on the page. Of course there's also probably bias on my part in selecting which ones are the "best" songs. Lmao)

I wonder if there are any composers who didn't write any vocal music, or at least a minimal amount of it. I can't think of any offhand. (Even I've put some work into a Requiem, although that text is so formalised already as to be virtually meaningless....)

[Madiel]

ComposerofAvantGarde, let me clear about one thing regarding "random titles".

I get that music with a distinctive title does better in the world. I'd more or less assumed that was your purpose - that you take the view it's better to have a title because it makes it more likely the piece will be successful.

But the explanation you've given gives me a different impression - that you know what people will do in their minds with that title, that they will make the futile effort to give the title meaning.

And that's the difference, for me, between a title being a bit pointless and a title being misleading. Your decision processes, your motivation is what makes the difference.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Yeah, and this... this is what I have a problem with. Because it seems very much as if you are enjoying misleading people. Ha! If I put fish in the title, there'll be people who will try to relate the music to fish.

Seriously, why would you want to make people think about fish? If it's all about appreciating the music in and of itself, if that's what is of value to you, why would you deliberately aim to throw some of your audience off track by setting them on a path to somewhere that you didn't actually want them to go?

Do you enjoy looking down on people who make such connections? Are you thinking "look at those fools, they think this piece has something do with fish"?  Yeah, but they think that because of something YOU did.

It's one thing for people to come up with their own imagery and associations for a piece of music. It's quite another for a composer to choose to steer people in a certain direction. Doing so when you care is fine, but doing so if you don't care is manipulative and deceptive in my view.

Despite your negative assumptions of me, I will see if you will understand something....

I don't wish for any of my compositions to be 'all about appreciating the music in and of itself' simply because that's how I listen to music. What I love most about music is when people make connection to music that I could never have thought of myself. Even in this case, I never would have thought I would receive a response such as yours, so even though you are blasting negative assumptions about me at me it is still a rewarding and enlightening experience. The duo who performed my composition used the title as a kind of expression marking for their interpretation, this is something which is incredibly useful to many musicians and it payed off in this case.

In terms of an audience's response to the piece and its title, any response from 'I don't hear what the title has to do with the music' to some kind of detailed story about fish in a pond is a legitimate response, even no response is fine. Even an outright attack on the composer of it is a legitimate response that proves to me what effect words can have when put beside pure music.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

ComposerofAvantGarde, let me clear about one thing regarding "random titles".

I get that music with a distinctive title does better in the world. I'd more or less assumed that was your purpose - that you take the view it's better to have a title because it makes it more likely the piece will be successful.

But the explanation you've given gives me a different impression - that you know what people will do in their minds with that title, that they will make the futile effort to give the title meaning.

And that's the difference, for me, between a title being a bit pointless and a title being misleading. Your decision processes, your motivation is what makes the difference.

I don't think it's futile, I think it's shining a new light on the music, it encourages the imagination in ways I can't even imagine and I find that inspiring above all else.

[Madiel]

I don't think it's futile, I think it's shining a new light on the music, it encourages the imagination in ways I can't even imagine and I find that inspiring above all else.

...why isn't your music enough on its own to encourage the imagination?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Has there ever been an example of a title which actually displays a contempt for listeners?

Satie: "Three Pieces in the Form of a Pear."

[(poco) Sforzando]

And no, I'm not a fan of Satie.

Mon non plus.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I wonder if there are any composers who didn't write any vocal music, or at least a minimal amount of it. I can't think of any offhand.

Chopin.