Musical message and meaning -- is it meant to vary ?

[m19834]

I am not sure if my title of this thread is entirely approprtiate, but I am wondering something at least in relation to it, and with regard to how a performer interprets a piece and then chooses to perform it.

Okay, in short, I composed a little prelude that had some sort of particular musical meaning (to me), and upon listening back to my recording of it (the one that I posted here) I heard of course some things that I would wish to do differently, but one, single note in particular where I feel an emphasis should have been differently placed. As I thought about that, I realized that this imparticular thng bothers me because I feel that the different accentuation/inflection/emphasis would actually change the meaning of the music, in at least that part. I then imagined "what if several places had the wrong inflection ?" and thought it would be an entirely different piece. What if a piece finds it's way into the hands of a person who has *no* concept of its meaning, or worse doesn't care and would prefer to use it rather however they please ?  I thought about the importance of and responsibility of a performer truly seeking to find a meaning that is true to the piece ... aside from personalities that don't wish to bother or so, it seems that one of the big mysteries in interpreting another's work is that it seems impossible to know *for sure* what the author was thinking EXACTLY.

Despite that though, even if you have several dedicated interpreters who are performing the same work, it will still come out differently from one to another ... and that's a good thing to many a listener. I once had a teacher with whom I would have lengthy listening sessions over the phone (me listening to him), and I can't quite recall what was being discussed, but I did ask a question (like, what's the point when there are so many others already ?) to which he said "yes, but what if you are the only one who gives the TRUE interpretation of a piece ?"

So, I'm wondering, I guess firstly, is there a true interpretation (as a composer, it seems there must be some kind of true intention in writing a particular piece) ?  And secondly, is that true interpretation perhaps intrinsically NOT static as only one particular way (as in, is the signature of a "quality" composition one in which the meaning can change ? -- I have heard that said before) ?  Thirdly, if it's not static, when does a true interpretation change in inflection and in detail enough to formally cross the line into being untrue ?

Well, I am learning and perhaps these questions are premature, but ...    

[gyzzzmo]

I think the 'true' interpretation is that one of the composer, since he/she wrote something with something in mind, and wrote it that way.
Doesnt mean its a nicer interpretation though.

There also seem to be composers though who dont really have to have something in mind, so they dont count :p

Gyzzz

[guendola]

I think the "true" interpretation is in the music, with some bandwidth. You can't be exactly angry or exactly sad. But - as you said - there might be wrong notes, accents or else in the composition, which make it impossible to get an idea that is ismilar to the one of the composer.

I also think that there is a wide-spread misconception about "meaning of music". Even pieces like "sunken cathedral" don't describe a scene in the way a movie or a picture does. Instead, they describe emotions or moods of the composer which are related to the title. A good funeral march will present the audience a "funeral mood" and if it has been written for a specific person, it will reflect what the composer knows about the deceded. However, you can't tell by the music if that dead person was a musician or a lawyer. It might be possible to guess that he was a hero, emperor or coward though.

[pola_lazar]

For me the idea of composer is not possible to catch in 100 per cent.
Its like to have thoughts like somebody else. it is not possible. We just can be more or less near the idea.
It is true that being composer gives a lot of stress because people can put up side down your composition.That's why we say they are good musicians and bad one.
But now..
I am pianist who is quite intuitive ofcourse on a teoretical bases -like remember about style when the piece was composed try to understand times of composer - but still can we understand the times of Beethoven so far away and so stranger for us..We even cannot understand the live today..(river subject)...
However what I would like to say that the piece sounds the most real in a hands of composer. Because only he knows what exactly he wants to say or what he feels playing it.

When we look on the contemporary paiting and see red quadrtat on the white triangle,at first look we read exactly that (partition), then after it still means just quadrat and triangle.
When we add philosofy to that (musical interpretation) we get amazing but SUBJECTIVE vision.

The score is a big space for a lot of emotions (even one kind of).
For example even if You would write in text what emotions You want to put inside the piece for example NOSTALGY of something lost, one will thing about emigration and loss of the nationality of his family, of places that he loves and so on and the other will thing about loss of his bicycle.
Its a bit exageration ofcourse but I hope You understand what I mean.
So ..as far as the VISION - interpretaion is LOGIC than the composision will be apreciated.
If somebody will be near composers emotions than fantastic but only composer can juge it.
Beethoven will not tell me anymore if I am write or complitly I am lost..
I think is very important to choose the pieces which are near to our emotions.
But first we have to analyse our emotions!
And again starts work! But that is for other discussion ...
Some ideas from A.Cortot...
He was a good "philosof" about interprataion too

Best regards
Pola Lazar
 

[furtwaengler]

The link to Karli's prelude is here:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35735.0

I think it is the interchange there between K and Ted that started this discussion. I hope I can contribute, comment on both Ted and Karli's thoughts on this thread, but I don't know if I'll get there. It seems like I have to think really hard to work my position out (if I have one) and communicate it. I don't know if I'll have time to do this in the next couple weeks. It amazes me how people are able to instantly put together such thoughtful, meaningful communications in a matter of seconds...it's not a talent I have.

Stay alive, thread...stay alive!

[pianowolfi]

Musical message and meaning -- is it meant to vary ?

I think yes.

The sense of a musical message is not comparable to a "precise" conceptual message like an equation in Math or a precise conceptual definition of an object.
A musical message, may it contain programmatical hints like "Sunken cathedral" or not, seems to me rather like a vehicle which puts the listener (and also the interpreter of course, and also the composer himself) into a certain state of mind, state of being, state of emotion. Or should I better say state of motion?
Perhaps a bit like a cable car that carries you up onto a mountain, or perhaps rather like a mountain guide: having been led up there (by guide or cable car) you will see things you have never seen before and you will have many different feelings, many different ideas, maybe millions of very individual thoughts...

[furtwaengler]

And to Pianowolfi's excellent response...

Musical expression can be easily limited by the boundaries of attaching certain meaning. Do understanding the circumstances surrounding the composition of say, Honegger's 3rd Symphony expose people to a greater understanding of the piece? Probably, but can keeping it in that world also limit its (even intended) expressive capabilities? Most definitely.

Another thing to explore would be how musical progression and advancement shapes the understanding of what's before it. Bruckner's symphonies have expanded the way I view Haydn's sonatas...Webern's compositions have shone new light on Mahler's symphonies. These may seem bizarre, but it is something to think about. 

[ahinton]

I hate to seem as though I am throwing cold water on all of this, but my musical experiences in general and those as a composer in particular have long since persuaded me that, all too often, the moment one starts throwing words at such issues, the whole thing begins to fall apart; the fact that old cliché that writing about music is like dancing about architecture is as tired as it has been for quite some time does not detract from the fact that, in many cases, every word about the subject (especially in a context like the present one) risks assuming the rôle of a mine awaiting explosion. I have indeed said on more than one occasion that, had it been possible to express something by means of words, I would never have had to write a piece "about" it; now that is not, of course, to suggest that all manner of experiences may not motivate one's mind to create expressions that end up assuming a musical garb, but as far as I am concerned, the best thing that a composer can do is write what he/she feels impelled to write and then shut up and let the performers carry it to the recipients rather than try to "explain" its whys and wherefores. In so saying, I am not seeking to lend to the processes of musical creation some kind of aura of mystification - merely to advocate the opportunity for the end results to be allowed to speak for itself.

Best,

Alistair

[m19834]

but as far as I am concerned, the best thing that a composer can do is write what he/she feels impelled to write and then shut up and let the performers carry it to the recipients rather than try to "explain" its whys and wherefores. In so saying, I am not seeking to lend to the processes of musical creation some kind of aura of mystification - merely to advocate the opportunity for the end results to be allowed to speak for itself.

Best,

Alistair

Thank you for your post, Alistair, and I do not disagree with you, but part of my "point" in this topic, at least as it seems to relate to your post, is that you must either not care then how your performers decide to relay the message OR you employ performers whom you are very much trusting to care about what they are doing and are going to do their job.

So, why would you choose to employ one performer (let's say a 47 year old, experienced musician) over another (let's say a 15 year old hotshot who cares mostly about how fast s/he can play rather than anything else) ?  Or, are you suggesting that a work could and should stand so much alone, that music itself can be so entirely clear within a single work, that a performer --whether a 15 year old hotshot or a 47 year old, experienced musician-- would have no other option than to do the piece justice ?      

[furtwaengler]

Sometimes if a composer wants something to be communicated, it is communicated despite lousy efforts by a performer. Maybe it's something to do with perception and a difference in familiarity and relationship to a piece. The audience has never heard it, but the composer spent much time, energy, thought and emotion in the creative process - that's a difference in relationship. Then it's not alive and breathing until you have a realized performance, and the composer may not have access to good performers, or performers of new music often times may not have adequate time to prepare...but this is a risk composers take in hopes a glimpse of their intention may come out in a public reading or a performance. It may be a nightmare to the composer, but a thrilling experience to the listeners who actually may have received the inspiration and intent of a piece despite the composer's reservations and disappointment.

I've been on both sides. A reading on short rehearsal or a performance out of my control can be dreadful first and then enlightening later listening to responses. I remember being a listener at the premiere of a friends piece, and being utterly bowled over by the music, and indeed spellbound by the performance. It was later after I'd grasped the score myself that I listened to the recording of that premiere and was amazed at what a mess it was, mistakes of notes, dynamics, phrasing, structure abounding...the performer had received the score a week and a half before the performance. Though a relationship with the score changed my original perspective of the performance, I was more amazed that this premiere communicated to me with power exactly what I'd learned the piece to be communicating after both studying the score and working with the composer. This is a positive learning experience and vote of confidence producing some faith in the process.

[m19834]

I don't disagree.  However, nothing so far convinces me that there is a reason to pardon myself as a performer from giving my job everything I've got and, at the least, taking in a work deeply.  Also, nothing convinces me so far that, as a composer, I would prefer to send my manuscripts into the world in the form of folding them into paper airplanes and then throwing them off a cliff, into a town of jerks (okay, in general, throwing them off a cliff in the form of paper airplanes actually sounds pretty cool ... haha (especially since I love making paper airplanes  ) and maybe throwing them into a town of jerks would be an interesting experiment ... haha  ) vs. privately sending my manuscript to a kindred spirit whose playing I deeply respect and appreciate.

[furtwaengler]

Nobody's trying to lower you standard. And I don't think this is why you started the thread. Sorry for getting offtrack. 

(But paper airplanes ARE cool, and music has to be folded just right to soar to the appropriate contemplations...or something like that.) 

[m19834]

Well, my point is that there is still something about some music that requires more than a thoughtless readthrough, and I believe that the fact that there are varying degrees of justice which can be served to a piece indicates there being some "message" within it that requires a certain standard of playing.  If there were not anything to communicate or if there were no message, there would be no need for a standard at all.

Wolfi, I keep meaning to respond to you but I just haven't yet !

(I like making "Pluto" planes, as I grew up calling them. They glide pretty amazingly well !). 

[furtwaengler]

I guess I should mention that the pianist in the premiere I was referring to is not a 15 year old hot shot, but a 52 year old thoughtful and accomplished professional who thoroughly understands the language of music...he simply didn't have the time before the premiere which was set to get technically comfortable. Can knowing a message lift us past technical limitations (within reason)?

Oh well...that's only a clarification. Get to Wolfi's...it's a great post.

(I like the short stubby planes which look like they can't fly, but when caught by the right wind will float upwards forever.)

[timothy42b]

Sometimes if a composer wants something to be communicated, it is communicated despite lousy efforts by a performer.

I suggest that when a composer or author writes something worthwhile, it is because it is inherently good.  I mean good in the sense that it somehow conforms to universal principles of how stimuli affect the human nervous system.  And I say somehow, because these principles are not explicit.  We don't know what they are, so to some extent it is an accident when they also conform closely to the composer's intent.

Thus the composer can write something intrinsicallly good, that produces an audience response, without having intended that specific response. 

And a performer can interpret the piece in a different manner, that may not meet the composer's intent, but may convey some universal principles even better than the composer's conception. 

I recall English classes where we were required to analyze works for underlying themes.  Someone would always object that we didn't know if that's what the author intended.  But that's not really relevant - that particular novel became timeless because those underlying themes spoke to us, even if the author had no clue what we has doing. 

[pianowolfi]

Wolfi, I keep meaning to respond to you but I just haven't yet !

(I like making "Pluto" planes, as I grew up calling them. They glide pretty amazingly well !).  

I am definitely a fan of paper planes too And actually it would be an interesting experiment to spread a composition that way. Or with a little balloon. And just see what will happen.

[m19834]

I am definitely a fan of paper planes too And actually it would be an interesting experiment to spread a composition that way. Or with a little balloon. And just see what will happen.

Most likely, I would probably be arrested for littering ...   ... and some huge part of a glacier would melt off into a warmer-than-usual-sea, as I would have significantly increased global warming with my carelessness.  Polar bears will have less ice to live on :-, and I will live in a small prison cell, in extreme guilt over my reckless actions for the rest of my days  .  There will also always be a huge hand, manifested out of nowhere, with a huge index finger pointing down, right at me ...  

[pianowolfi]

Most likely, I would probably be arrested for littering ...   ... and some huge part of a glacier would melt off into a warmer-than-usual-sea, as I would have significantly increased global warming with my carelessness.  Polar bears will have less ice to live on , and I will live in a small prison cell, in extreme guilt over my reckless actions for the rest of my days  .  There will also always be a huge hand, manifested out of nowhere, with a huge index finger pointing down, right at me ...  

Oh my gosh, heaven forbid 

You could easily prove that the substance of that composition would easily outweigh all these effects.

[m19834]

You could easily prove that the substance of that composition would easily outweigh all these effects.

Only if there remained a person on the outside, whom believed there were in fact a substance to it, cared enough to ponder what that is, and worked enough to show the world through their own practice and demonstration of it ...  .  They would be my kind of lawyer .

[pianowolfi]

Somehow I feel another melody coming

[m19834]

Somehow I feel another melody coming

Yes, I think you are right .  You are the magical Wolfi !!

Musical message and meaning -- is it meant to vary ?

I think yes.

The sense of a musical message is not comparable to a "precise" conceptual message like an equation in Math or a precise conceptual definition of an object.
A musical message, may it contain programmatical hints like "Sunken cathedral" or not, seems to me rather like a vehicle which puts the listener (and also the interpreter of course, and also the composer himself) into a certain state of mind, state of being, state of emotion. Or should I better say state of motion?
Perhaps a bit like a cable car that carries you up onto a mountain, or perhaps rather like a mountain guide: having been led up there (by guide or cable car) you will see things you have never seen before and you will have many different feelings, many different ideas, maybe millions of very individual thoughts...

I know it's taken me a little while to respond, but it's only because I have been thinking about this a bit.  I 'get' what you are talking about, but then I feel like I still have my experiences, some of which really seem pretty definite in some ways.  I mean, what if it's not about a feeling, necessarily, or a landscape, exactly ... what if there is just nothing else that can communicate it THAT particular thing ... haha ... I'm starting to slide into the realm of not knowing how to talk about it  .

[guendola]

I wonder if flying paper planes made out of meaningful compositions have more momentum

But seriously, I think a serious musician should expected to do his best to understand the music he plays and "commute the message". But from a composers point of view, I would also recommend some doubt on the commutability of the message. If three musicians get it right and one gets it wrong, the last one is bad, no doubt. But if you can't find any good musician who understands your music, it is most probably not their fault. If your understanding of the music is too personal, nobody else might be able to understand it. Do you have an audience to find out?

But as long as you know the musician, you can tell him what is wrong...