Is music defined by the intentional or the actual ?

[m1469]

So, is it what is actually happening or what we are intending to have happen ? 

If it is defined as what is possible, then that would suggest some kind of absolute music.  Does that exist ?  If it is defined by what is happening at the fingertips of the performer, or within the inwardness of the listener, then how is there any single experience that is "better" than another ?   


Possible :  All of the right notes and so on in all of the right places. 

Actual :  The performer's potential in that moment.


Which defines the music ?




m1469

[gorbee natcase]

In one respect it must be both, But the reason we practice is to make the intentional the actual. When you are working hard on something your concentration is battling with your pleasure of the music, as you get better pleasure begins to win the battle untill the performer proberbly gets the biggest rush over that of the listener. But I suppose it is all the state of the mind at any given time. It could even be a science. As music conveys so much I think this question is much more difficult to answer

[whynot]

You've asked several questions here, but I'm going to pick the one I think I understand and go with that!  I'm a practical sort, and I can't always participate in the philosophical discussions, although I love to read them.

How is there any single experience that is better than another?  Well, there just is. 

I took a writing class once in which the class was supposed to get together and define art.  And not only define it, but do so in one or two sentences.  I mean, one  of the great questions of the ages, wrestled over by the greatest minds who ever lived, and our little class, most of whom had never even seen a well-done painting, was supposed to solve it.  Well, it turned into a discussion, then a debate, and eventually a war, and the teacher called off the assignment because things got so ugly.  To spill into another question, no, I don't think there's absolute music.  I mean, there's music, and there's whatever people do with it, taking into account about a million variables.  To whatever degree they are informed about it, care about it, physical skills, mood o' day, quality and type of instrument, personal opinion, level of bravado or lack thereof... But to ask how there can be any single experience that is better than another sort of implies that there really isn't.  And yet there certainly are some performances and experiences that are better than others.  If you take a 19-year-old who is gifted but, of course, young, have her perform a musical work of great depth, like some big Bach or something that she can technically accomplish, then flash forward thirty years and, assuming she's kept playing and growing and is having an interesting life, have her perform it again, you will probably have something better.  Maybe profoundly better.  I mean, if there is no "better" to attain to, why are we all working so hard?  If it doesn't matter what we actually sound like, just what we intend or want to sound like, and the listener is just having his own inward experience anyway, why should I practice?  Well, actually I don't, haha, but I SHOULD, and why is that?  Because if I do, I will have a better experience for myself and give a better experience to the listener. 

Am I missing the point of the question?  Because usually I see many sides to an issue, but I really don't on this.  Which may mean that I totally don't get it.  Anyway, cheers.


   

[prometheus]

Music is the organisation of sound in terms of melody, rhythm and harmony. That's all.

Things like intention and interpretation are irrelevant in the definition of music.

[m1469]

I mean, if there is no "better" to attain to, why are we all working so hard? 

Am I missing the point of the question?  Because usually I see many sides to an issue, but I really don't on this.  Which may mean that I totally don't get it.

This is kind of my point, although it is very likely that I cannot explain it in a way that will actually make sense.  But, is it that "better" which we strive to attain, that actually defines the music ?  That's just it, if it is not, or if there is no standard and it is just whatever comes out (what I have called "actual"), then what are we all working so hard for ?  It seems to me that we are working to better demonstrate (and grow in) our intentions.  We are striving to have the intended and the actual meet.   

Just to be clear, I am by no means arguing that there is NOT any single experience that can be perceived of as "better" than another.  I would just like to know what, exactly, makes it that way.

I am not trying to be philosophical for the sake of philosophy, I am asking an honest question.  And actually, I don't even think of this as a "philosophical" question, it just seems like something worth being clear on.  I am simply striving to be better and to understand.

So, with Bach, how can somebody "miss the point" (I am not trying to quote you, but that is a common thought about young musicians, that they miss the point of the music) if the very definition of the music itself is not in it's intention ?  The young person did not accomplish what was intended by the music.  Is it that very intention within the music then, which defines it ?

If that is so, it seems like there is absolute music.  And I am not so sure about that either, so it just seems unclear to me.

Yes, I am asking a lot of questions.  It's one way that I learn.


m1469

[berrt]

Yes, I am asking a lot of questions.  It's one way that I learn.

m1469

m1469, i have not the slightest idea what the questions in yours latest threads are about -
but then, im a beginner/hobby-player/not-native-english-speaker (worst of all worlds?  )
So dont answer this posting ill follow the discussion open-mouthed....

bye Berrt

[prometheus]

If someone misses the point then this person fails to process the music in the way needed to 'get it'. If you listen to Bach and your 'ear' isn't used to looking for the ways music is organised in Bach then the person will miss the organisation and thus the point. Listening music isn't easy.

[whynot]

I don't think you're being TOO philosophical, I'm just not tracking one-hundred-percent.  I very much appreciate the depth of your questions, I hope I didn't come across as being critical of that aspect!    

About the Bach example, I wouldn't say the young musician missed the point of the music.  I would just expect her capacities to become greater over time:  what she finds in the music, what she brings to it etc.  Just like we (hopefully) do with other things as we get older.  I'm afraid I don't understand the definition-related question, so I will pass on that but watch this thread with interest.  Cheers!
  

[rimv2]

So, is it what is actually happening or what we are intending to have happen ? 

If it is defined as what is possible, then that would suggest some kind of absolute music.  Does that exist ?  If it is defined by what is happening at the fingertips of the performer, or within the inwardness of the listener, then how is there any single experience that is "better" than another ?   


Possible :  All of the right notes and so on in all of the right places. 

Actual :  The performer's potential in that moment.


Which defines the music ?




m1469

Music is defined by what we hear. A pianist can play as clear as day but lose audiences attention with little emphasis on the things that makes an audience go crazy. A pianist can also miss twenty notes while having bad pedalling and move still move the audience.

What we hear is the actual. A performer can attempt to make serveral small crescendos and dimuendos over a passage marked poco a poco crescendo, but if the performers fails to make these dynamic changes heared, the audience will hear the actual but not understand the performers intent.

Now, given that music is defined by what we hear and what we hear is the actual ah believe it safe to say, at this moment, music is defined by the actual.

Ironically, unless ah misinterpreted what you was askin

[alzado]

What if your PERCEPTION of the intentional differs from the actual?  I mean, suppose you know the music from elsewhere, and you percieve that the actual notation is poorly done.

When playing some popular piano music, such as arrangements of "Stardust" or other long-enduring popular favorites, I sometimes am disappointed at the arranger's notation for a particular measure.  So I just take a sharp pencil and change it. 

For this type of music, one is not playing the composer's original score.  Some of this was composed for voice and orchestra, not solo piano.  So one is really just  playing an arrangement produced by anonymous staffers at Warner Bros., or whatever the particular music-publishing house.  So "handsome is as handsome does."

When I play such marked-up pieces for my teacher, sometimes she nods in agreement.  Sometimes she frowns and shakes her head.   One nice thing about pencil markings, they can easily be erased or changed.  I believe in my amateur way I do learn something from this -- usually from my teacher's reactions and advice.

I would not presume to "mark up" classical piano music, since normally the score reflects the intention of the composer.  As it was set down by his or her pen.

There are some exceptions -- such as what Rimsky-Korsikoff did to poor Moussorgsky's work.  But even that has been emended in modern, scholarly editions.

Did I really understand your question? 

Your posts are very interesting --  carry on!

[m1469]

Okay, I have been thinking more on this... and a new thought regarding this finally popped into my head (and maybe it is a little clearer (but maybe not)). 

(I have a feeling that questions like this are annoying for some people, sorry about that, I can't really help it (they give an underlying focus to my study))

Here are more questions along these lines :


Where does the "complete" music (or musical piece) live ?  In the intentional or actual ?

(what makes it complete ?)

If in the actual, and a whole phrase or page, or even just one note is missed, was the performance of the piece complete ?

It seems to me that the answer would be "no".  Yet, somewhere the concept of the complete piece still exists.  Where is that ?

And is it possible to actualize it ?




m1469