Purpose of biographies for the pianists

[faa2010]

What is the purpose of learning the life of a composer and/or pianist?

Does that inspires you to play a piece he or she wrote?

Is this to get the right feelings and emotions to play a piece?

Is there another purpose?

[m1469]

A few months ago or so, I had this thought that anything worth reading about, as though it would affect our understanding of the music we are playing, should -by definition- be already (evident) within the music itself.  And that, if it wasn't, then reading about it wouldn't add anything of value to interpretation and would, in fact, be a form of adding something to it that doesn't belong there in the first place.  

That's probably true in a priori reasoning and can be used as an excuse to not read up on a composer, which is not my intent at all.  I do think though that reading about composers should go further than just they themselves, and ideally we are reading about and understanding something about the world at the time and how a composer fits (or doesn't fit) in with that world around him.  And I don't just mean studying visual and other performing arts!  I mean, gaining a sense of philosophical beliefs, educational beliefs, religious beliefs, political practices, scientific understandings ... to give you a living -not merely museumish- impression and spark an imagination that is based on some of the lifely impressions the composer himself very well may have been experiencing in his (yes, pretty much his) day.  But, then that meets with our own soul ...

[j_menz]

Is there another purpose?

A surprising number of their lives make for a ripping good yarn. They were rarely the dull worthies their reputations might suggest. You may find it less onerous a task than you seem to anticipate.

[Bob]

To interprete the piece correctly/better.  It might not be emotions in the piece -- The thinking during their lifetime could have been to treat music like math or more abstractly and not focus on emotions.

To know where the piece came from, music history, etc. 

It's different when you know Mozart wrote operas and you can hear that in a piano sonata.

[bustthewave]

A few months ago or so, I had this thought that anything worth reading about, as though it would affect our understanding of the music we are playing, should -by definition- be already (evident) within the music itself.  And that, if it wasn't, then reading about it wouldn't add anything of value to interpretation and would, in fact, be a form of adding something to it that doesn't belong there in the first place.  

That's probably true in a priori reasoning and can be used as an excuse to not read up on a composer, which is not my intent at all.  I do think though that reading about composers should go further than just they themselves, and ideally we are reading about and understanding something about the world at the time and how a composer fits (or doesn't fit) in with that world around him.  And I don't just mean studying visual and other performing arts!  I mean, gaining a sense of philosophical beliefs, educational beliefs, religious beliefs, political practices, scientific understandings ... to give you a living -not merely museumish- impression and spark an imagination that is based on some of the lifely impressions the composer himself very well may have been experiencing in his (yes, pretty much his) day.  But, then that meets with our own soul ...

I'm not sure I agree with this (respectfully of course ).

It sounds good in theory, and certainly a composer's goal should be to compose a piece that is as self evident as possible. But a composer can only do this for the audience of his day, not for audiences of the past, or audiences of the future, because perception of music, pitch, and sound, radically changes over time in cultures.

If Bach were to listen to a modern Jazz song, it's certain that he would find it incredibly distasteful, not only because of his perceived unnatural dissonances with jazz scales and chords, but also because we don't even use Bach's pitches. Bach used pure tones, not modern equal temperament. This has dramatic effects on music.

Just like when we listen to Bach, the psychological effects of his pieces, while still apply to a lesser degree, are much less effective today. We don't "hear" the same sense of tension and resolution that his audience heard, thus his pieces are far less moving for a modern audience (which is by no means a discredit to him).

But also in understanding a composer's mind frame at the time of writing a piece, and their general philosophy of composing, their music becomes an absolute reflection of their life in ways that are simply not self evident, and in ways that are more powerful.

For instance, Chopin's prelude no. 15. We take for granted that the song titled "Raindrop." When you apply that imagery to the song, it's powerful and in some ways moving. Every note becomes a reflection of "rain." But an understanding of Chopin's life, beliefs, and philosophies, shows that the song is not about rain at all. Chopin firmly believed that music shouldn't be tied to imagery, and he never named the prelude "raindrop." It was coined by Hans von Bülow, another romantic composer. Further understanding of Chopin's life shows some evidence that rain could have very well been an influence, but to focus on the song as a reflection of "rain," misses the depth, sadness, and beauty that is the song as a whole. Understanding who Chopin is as a composer, allows us then to understand this song in much greater splendor, which allows us also to interpret the song in greater splendor.

I think an analogy would be trying to understand religious texts like the Bible. If you read the first passage of Genesis using only a modern english translation; you certainly would gain a basic understanding of the text as presented. But what you wouldn't understand, is the intention behind the text, the use of complicated and beautiful Hebrew poetic devices, an understanding of the purpose of the passage, or an understanding of what this concept of God meant to the jewish people in relation to the World they lived in. It just simply isn't self evident within the text. I think the same can be said of music.

[m1469]

But also in understanding a composer's mind frame at the time of writing a piece, and their general philosophy of composing, their music becomes an absolute reflection of their life in ways that are simply not self evident, and in ways that are more powerful.

For instance, Chopin's prelude no. 15. We take for granted that the song titled "Raindrop." When you apply that imagery to the song, it's powerful and in some ways moving. Every note becomes a reflection of "rain." But an understanding of Chopin's life, beliefs, and philosophies, shows that the song is not about rain at all. Chopin firmly believed that music shouldn't be tied to imagery, and he never named the prelude "raindrop." It was coined by Hans von Bülow, another romantic composer. Further understanding of Chopin's life shows some evidence that rain could have very well been an influence, but to focus on the song as a reflection of "rain," misses the depth, sadness, and beauty that is the song as a whole. Understanding who Chopin is as a composer, allows us then to understand this song in much greater splendor, which allows us also to interpret the song in greater splendor.

This is more along the lines of the basic level that I believe music IS as a starting point, even if the composer him/herself doesn't think of it in that way.  What I mean is, right now I am writing  a post about a subject in response to you, in response to the thread topic, for example.  However, is that all that's truly motivating me to do so?  Absolutely not.  In fact, my motivation is 'about' everything I have ever been, everything I am, and everything I will ever be, even right now, even within this post, even within these words.  Even if only on a subconscious level, my impressions about life, my current, relative level of being are what give me something to say and cause me to do so.  And what amount of human digging into the strangeness of my human life would really matter, actually, when somebody could just choose to listen right here and now?  

At the same time, I don't disagree with you.  I also happen to agree with what I wrote in my first post, but in a way that isn't stagnate or one dimensional.  What I think is that it's true, but that fact encourages me to dig into another realm of knowledge in order to more fully understand the truth.  The fact that I can see the truth in it is the starting point of investigation for me, and even though what you say is also true -that we must investigate to in fact find that meaning- I think that we end up with seeing the self-evidence within the music, of the composer's life - but after investigation, it's now with knowledge and understanding.

I do see the importance of delving more deeply into 'context,' and like the Bible, while there is that scholarly context, there is also a spirit that can even trump whether there is that scholarly understanding or not, and give something needed to somebody.  Would context help a person gain inspiration?  Perhaps.  But at the same time, I don't personally believe the Bible (as the example) is meant for certain person or type of person, in the human context, but is actually more readily accessible, on a spiritual level, than that.  Music is also spiritual to me, and accessible on this level, however, some individuals, in the relative experience, express varying degrees of spirituality in everything they do.  Well, even very spiritual-seeming people express varying levels of spirituality at differing times!  

What I do think is important is to not lose oneself completely searching for meaning in human context, because there is something more present than that.  Even if context may stop some -or many- people from understanding the intention, it doesn't mean the intention was not there and capable of reaching the right heart.