What is the 'composer's intention?'

[Karl Henning]

Arguably, we then entertain chicken-or-the-egg speculation ....

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Ha, indeed! However I do believe it would differ from piece to piece, composer to composer, listener to listener.

[Madiel]

Sometimes the notes come first, and the intention clarifies afterwards.

And people most definitely have been known to start speaking before they've figured out where the train of thought is heading.

[Mirror Image]

Maybe no one was listening.

Zing! But so true.

[Monsieur Croche]

I brought the listener into the equation pages ago.

Pardon me. Of course it is by nature a two way street. I must have been out of the room on a bathroom break. 

[Mirror Image]

Pardon me. Of course it is by nature a two way street. I must have been out of the room on a bathroom break. 

[Monsieur Croche]

Sometimes the notes come first, and the intention clarifies afterwards.

Funny, innit... that is about as antithetical as it gets compared to intention, speech, or written speech.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Funny, innit... that is about as antithetical as it gets compared to intention, speech, or written speech.

I believe what Karl and Jessop mean is that intentions shift and evolve during the course of writing a piece, often changing as a result of putting down some notes and seeing them suggest new and unanticipated directions. Here musical composition is no different from producing a written work.

[Monsieur Croche]

I believe what Karl and Jessop mean is that intentions shift and evolve during the course of writing a piece, often changing as a result of putting down some notes and seeing them suggest new and unanticipated directions. Here musical composition is no different from producing a written work.

Sometimes the notes come first, and the intention clarifies afterwards.

I wholly agree. Perhaps it is the more genius [and formalist] type who has a very clear idea and in a very straight line directly realizes it, while even from those greats generally called 'genius,' we have surviving sketches and drafts showing that once started they too often had to work their way through.

I do think for many others the idea is first at best nebulous, the setting down to work upon and realize it then becomes initial steps in better clarifying 'what it is.' Within that working context what comes out can seem, even to the maker, a bit accidental [where it is really from their subconscious.] Once in front of them, seen and known, those essays further help them direct the shape and content.

Rautavarra, as well as numbers of other artists, believe that whatever they make. the work itself is an entity, i.e. it is a preexisting thing not yet known to the public which the composer then realizes. This is within the realm of mysticism, i.e. 'artist as oracle / mere vessel,' etc. The process of idea and these uncertain and 'accidental' steps in first working upon it making clearer what that idea is and 'how it should be' has this in the area of the ineffable when it comes to questions about intent and/or 'where it comes from.'

[Madiel]

Yes, but your mistake is in thinking this is somehow antithetical to speech or the written word. It isn't. Ideas expressed in language don't spring fully formed into the world, either. When people do speak off the cuff they often ramble all over the place, and don't express their thoughts clearly.  Off the cuff speech isn't at all crafted like an essay, in exactly the same way that vague doodling on a piano isn't crafted like a finished composition.

In the forum, it's one reason we have an 'Edit' button.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I believe what Karl and Jessop mean is that intentions shift and evolve during the course of writing a piece, often changing as a result of putting down some notes and seeing them suggest new and unanticipated directions. Here musical composition is no different from producing a written work.

Quite true, but also at the very beginning of a composition, and perhaps even up until the very end, all intentions that a composer has mey very well just be entirely about the organisation of sounds themselves. A few pieces I've written I've come up with my own little programmatic storyline (very private stuff, I won't share them here) years after the last note was written on paper. Some other pieces may have been simply inspired by something like artworks by Bridget Riley and Victor Vasarely, but the translation from image to sound is something I come up with purely in my own mind with the final product (the complete composition) being an arrangement of pitches and rhythms and dynamics for various instruments.

'Pitches and rhythms and dynamics' for various instruments (or things that can produce sound) can exist in a world where there are no sentient beings to make sense of it, but it's the sentient beings that are the ones who ultimately classify it as 'music' and respond, react, come up with extramusical elements and so on. It's us humans who are truly the magicians when it comes to sound, the organisations of such sounds, what we intend to do with them and how we intend to present them.

[some guy]

How very odd that the response to suggestions for how to begin to think about something differently is to call it a nec plus ultra. I guess that's what you call a preemptive strike, eh?

Anyway, it's clear that the idea that music is a language is not going to just go away. Music and language do share certain characteristics, or at least seem to do so. The thing about language is that it's our primary means of communication. We use it to talk about everything, love, sticks, neighborhoods, chess, politics, painting, language. The latter can become quite an enjoyable pastime. If you're into that kind of thing.

And anything that communicates or appears to communicate is going to very naturally seem like language, which is our principal mode of communicating or appearing to communicate. So what more sensible than to use language metaphors to describe things that are not language. And what more natural than to forget that those metaphors are metaphors and start using them as if they were literal. That happens all the time.

That's all pretty innocent. But there's a dark side to the music as language or music as communication model--look at where it most often comes up. Exactly, in conversations about new music. And what is the conclusion? That new music doesn't communicate, or doesn't communicate as well, or is not interested in communicating. That the latter might be a positive thing is very difficult to argue, especially if the prevailing assumption is that the main purpose of creating music is to communicate something.

The second most frequent come upping is in conversations about emotion, I'd say, where since music makes one feel emotions, it must be like language, which also makes one feel emotions. And here that arguments that music is not a language seem to be attacking the very foundation of emotional reality. Well, they do nothing of the sort, but whaddayagonnado? As for the purpose of music is to cause those emotions, well, since humans are emotional beings, almost anything will elicit an emotional response, kittens, rainbows, murder victims, rocks, meadows, arguments, and so forth.

We should really have spent some time at the beginning of this thread thinking about "intention," should we not?

[Madiel]

That new music doesn't communicate, or doesn't communicate as well, or is not interested in communicating. That the latter might be a positive thing is very difficult to argue, especially if the prevailing assumption is that the main purpose of creating music is to communicate something.

Well, the purpose of music is a whole thread in itself, and I would say different music has different purposes. But I freely confess to wondering why I, as a listener, should bother with music that is not interested in communicating (or rather, was composed by someone who is not interested in communicating).

It's not a difficult thing to argue merely because of "prevailing assumptions", it's a difficult thing to argue because it is difficult to see what value such music is going to have to anyone other than the composer. No doubt the composer gets satisfaction out of the exercise, but the other several billion people on the planet might say, somewhat selfishly, that it's actually their satisfaction that is going to make the music last.

I think previously I referred to the idea of such music as "intellectual wankery". I stand by that remark. People are free to compose purely for their own desire to do so, but then is there any need to have it performed? If the composer has no interest in having the music engage with anyone else, the score can be filed in the drawer once it is finished.

Indeed, there's at least an argument that writing a score is unnecessary. I've written or half-written over 100 songs in my head, and I can play many of them in my brain fairly easily. For my own purposes, producing a score or even a chord chart is an unnecessary and difficult chore. The only reason I've ever wrestled with that task is so that other people can hear the music that's already in my head.

In other words, perhaps the purpose of music isn't communicating, but I would argue the purpose of writing it down is.

[knight66]

I understand that attitude and I know there have been some composers who one feels are deliberately alienating the listner. But art is often larger/deeper/wider than what the artist consciously puts into their work. Someone who is seemingly writing just for himself or herself may inadvertantly be speaking to quite an audience.

The composer can only convey their intent by notation; how that is conveyed and what people pull out of it are very different stories. If that was not so, we could all live with one performance of each piece.

Mike

[Madiel]

One could, of course, just as easily propose writing stories or composing speeches purely for one's own purposes. Without any intention of communicating. For the sheer love of crafting beautiful phrases.

There is nothing special about music in that respect.

[ritter]

One could, of course, just as easily propose writing stories or composing speeches purely for one's own purposes. Without any intention of communicating. For the sheer love of crafting beautiful phrases.

There is nothing special about music in that respect.

Yep...or about painting, or sculpture, or poetry, or architeture...I really don't see why music is more "communicative" or more of a "language" than any of the other fine arts...

[Madiel]

I really don't see why music is more "communicative" or more of a "language" than any of the other fine arts...

It is nearer to language than some in that it is time-based, and sound-based. The idea of a sequence is something that music shares with language, and is the reason why terms like "phrase" get employed in music.

[ritter]

It is nearer to language than some in that it is time-based, and sound-based. The idea of a sequence is something that music shares with language, and is the reason why terms like "phrase" get employed in music.

Well, the term "colour" is used as well in music, and that does not mean that music is nearer to painting, either.

More and more, I get the impression that when people want the composer "to say" something through music, it's acually that they want him  to have said what they want to hear. The composer writes a piece, and IMHO that's all he has to say. How we, the audience, enjoy it, interpret it, or whatever, is entirely up to us. And God knows there's pleanty of composers whose music "tells us" (probably differently to each one of us) things that are miles away, and infinitely more palatable, than what they actually said in speach (or writing). 

[some guy]

But I freely confess to wondering why I, as a listener, should bother with music that is not interested in communicating (or rather, was composed by someone who is not interested in communicating).

Ah. Maybe a question would be in order, here. How do you know? If you use this as a criterion for bothering or not, and the "this" is unknown, or unknowable, then you're in a bit quandry here, no?

In any case, for the sake of argument, let's say that you do know, somehow, that a composer is not interested in communicating. Why then did that composer write music? Why did that composer get it performed? Why did a record company record it or a concert organization program it so that you even have a choice of bothering or not? Perhaps there are other reasons besides "communicating" for making music.

It's not a difficult thing to argue merely because of "prevailing assumptions", it's a difficult thing to argue because it is difficult to see what value such music is going to have to anyone other than the composer.

Well, if it gets recorded, commercially, which is probably the only way it will be available for you to decide whether to bother or not, then at the very least it is easy to see that some people--business people, some of them--have found it easy to see what value such music has.

No doubt the composer gets satisfaction out of the exercise, but the other several billion people on the planet might say, somewhat selfishly, that it's actually their satisfaction that is going to make the music last.

Somewhat?

Anyway, it doesn't take all several billion of them to make any music last, only a few thousand, maybe even only a few hundred. How many Cindy Lauper fans were there? Or Paula Abdul fans? And has that music lasted? I wonder, anyway, if you yourself even believe what you just said, or if you just said it in the heat of argument. Customer satisfaction is what makes music last? I wonder.

I think previously I referred to the idea of such music as "intellectual wankery". I stand by that remark.

I'm sure you do.

People are free to compose purely for their own desire to do so, but then is there any need to have it performed? If the composer has no interest in having the music engage with anyone else, the score can be filed in the drawer once it is finished.

Interest in having the music engage with someone else is something every composer always wants, Mike's comment notwithstanding. (No one has ever set out to deliberately alienate "the listener"--for one, "the listener" is a chimera, for two, every composer has listeners. Maybe you or you or you aren't in the group of listeners for any given piece or any given composer, but your individual absence from a group does not mean that the group does not exist. I'm not in the group for Shakira's music. Can I at all seriously say that Shakira is deliberately alienating me? Shakira doesn't even know me!)

The only reason I've ever wrestled with that task is so that other people can hear the music that's already in my head.

Yes, humans are social animals.

In other words, perhaps the purpose of music isn't communicating, but I would argue the purpose of writing it down is.

The reason for composing is to make interesting sounds and combinations of sounds. Given how humans are constituted (social animals, for example), if a sound or a combination of sounds is interesting to one person, odds are that it will be interesting to other persons. Stands to reason.

I don't write novels in order to make contact with other people. Going to bars is way more efficient. But while I'm writing, and once one of those things is done, I do bug a few people to read the things. Some people I don't even have to bug. But most of the people who would end up reading them, if that ever happens, are going to be people I don't know and whom I will never meet. So if my purpose was to make contact with them in a way that I would benefit, socially, then that purpose would be a big fail, eh? Royalties are certainly beneficial, but that hardly counts, does it?, not for this conversation.

No, my purpose is to put words together in interesting combinations. And odds are, if those combinations seem interesting to me, they'll seem interesting to other people. Some of those people are people I know, but most of them, eventually, will not be. But, odds are, I will keep on doing it. (If you go to Paralelni Polis around 20h on 4 May, you can hear some of those words, too, plus some really smashing music. Because one of my novels has been turned into an opera by someone who thought those words were interesting.)

[jochanaan]

To my mind, Aaron Copland said it best:

"The whole problem can be stated quite simply by asking, 'Is there a meaning to music?' My answer would be, 'Yes.' And 'Can you state in so many words what the meaning is?' My answer to that would be, 'No.'"