# Preconceptions in art



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

When I was a seminary student, we were taught that our preconceptions inevitably dictate how we interpret the Bible. I've heard this also applies to music. 

As an aside, from "Death of the Author", the intent of the artist is no longer relevant once his/her art work is produced, and the relevance becomes all on the audience/reader/listener. 

I've seen different reactions between artists to different interpretations to a piece than originally intended, some accepting and encouraging, others hostile. 

Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

In other words, do you personally take a hard stand in a certain view, or, are more accepting? There is no right or wrong answer.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

I am more accepting (unless an issue has to do with moral grounds; then it is undeniably my stance) .


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> Where do you draw the line?


Depending on my own interest , taste and judgement.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Pugg said:


> Depending on my own interest , taste and judgement.


How would you define your judgement being based on?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> How would you define your judgement being based on?


Listening, reading and thinking.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Pugg said:


> Listening, reading and thinking.


Ok, I think you mean from your own experience.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Ok, I think you mean from your own experience.


Indeed, did I misunderstood your question?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Pugg said:


> Indeed, did I misunderstood your question?


Not necessarily. Some base their interpretation on what they think the composer was going through, but some just approach from their own views and experience, without too much regard how it was intended. No right or wrong way, just different


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Not necessarily. Some base their interpretation on what they think the composer was going through, but some just approach from their own views and experience, without too much regard how it was intended. No right or wrong way, just different


I always keep that in mind, but seeing so much different opinions on the same composers and works( on this site) I like to know how it from the horses mouth, so to speak.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

An interesting example that is often told is “Morning Mood” from Peer Gynt, when new classical listeners are asked what picture they see when they hear this piece they nearly always say “early morning in a wooded glen or forest when in fact it is the Desert. Just saying :tiphat:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I think the performer and listener both have key roles, but I don't go to the "death of the author" extreme and eliminate the author from consideration. The author's intent has to have a permanent relevance because it provides some sort of framework on which subsequent interpretations can hang - not every interpretation will hang comfortably. I like Cage's idea - referred to by me elsewhere recently - that the performer and listener "complete" the work of the author.

If someone seems to misinterpret a work - which is to say, to deviate too far from what _I_ percieve to be the author's intent - they might still produce something impressive. My only issue with them would be whether they insist on billing their work as the "real thing".


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

I have a contradictory attitude toward composers' intentions. I care a lot about fidelity to the exact markings on the score (tempo, dynamics, articulation). However, I enjoy many non-HIP performances on instruments that obviously go against the composer's intention, such as Bach played on the piano. It's weird - I'm a stickler for following performance directions, but I'll cheerfully accept (and even love) recordings on modern instruments. Such is the inconsistency of my aesthetic beliefs!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> When I was a seminary student, we were taught that our preconceptions inevitably dictate how we interpret the Bible. I've heard this also applies to music.
> 
> As an aside, from "Death of the Author", the intent of the artist is no longer relevant once his/her art work is produced, and the relevance becomes all on the audience/reader/listener.
> 
> ...


I draw the line at heartfelt communication.

I love unaccompanied Bach on violin in HIP inspired performances but non-HIP Nathan Milstein puts all the HIP'sters that I've heard to shame because he gets to the heart of the matter with the most powerful and heartfelt performances of this music I have ever heard.

Great musicianship will always trump superficial stylistic integrity.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Is this about interpretation of the music by its performer(s) or the extramusical intent of the composer?
Makes quite a difference for where I draw the line.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

DeepR said:


> Is this about interpretation of the music by its performer(s) or the extramusical intent of the composer?
> Makes quite a difference for where I draw the line.


You give an interesting perspective. Makes me think about how composers practically write their wills through their music. Their compositions are their souls .


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

I wouldn't give much for any of Barthes' long-winded theories. (They're all houses of cards, in my opinion.) I can't see how one could ever speak of a work of Art in isolation from its author and his/hers sociocultural, political and historical context. Doesn't it help one as a listener of, say, "Eroica" to be aware of Beethoven's feelings towards Napoleon? We're all indoctrinated, as it were, in a particular form of life, which gives rise to a particular set of rules (and values), which in turn causes a particular use of language. This use of language, then, determines how we perceive, interpret and give expression to the world, and how we, more specifically, use the word "Truth" in our language.

Now, I'd like to illustrate my point by way of a fictional-anachronistic dialogue:

The Old Master: "This is the Truth!" (Dogmatic use.)
The Modernist: "This is _my_ Truth!" (Relative use.)
The Postmodernist: "This is a stain. You may see whatever Truth you want!" (Nihilistic use.)
The Metamodernist (Present): "From _this_ point of view, _this_ is the Truth, but from another point of view, _that_ may be the Truth!" (Oscillatory use.)

The latter insists on the very movement itself, the oscillation, as the determining factor in making value judgements. It is thus utterly meaningless to speak of a "real" or "objective" reality, since it depends on one's particular point of view, or, as Einstein would have it, on one's _observational frame of reference_.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> our preconceptions inevitably dictate how we interpret the Bible. I've heard this also applies to music.


in fact it doesn't.

music is a *skill*, and its measured by *quality* of the work produced.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> As an aside, from "Death of the Author", the intent of the artist is no longer relevant once his/her art work is produced, and the relevance becomes all on the audience/reader/listener.
> 
> Where do you draw the line?


Depends on what you mean by intention. If the composer writes Adagio and you play Allegro, you are wrong. The author intended a slow movement. Obvious departures from the composer's explicitly indicated directions are wrong. Doesn't matter how long the composer's remains have been rotting. If one plays the movements of a symphony in a different order than that explicitly authorized by the composer, one errs.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

There seems to be two discussions here. One concerning how a performer interprets the intentions of the composer and the other, how we as listeners interpret (?) what we are hearing.

In the first case, I've nothing to add to what Edwardbast said above.

In the second case, as far as I'm concerned, as a listener, the composer's intentions are fairly irrelevant. Music, at least instrumental music, is a purely abstract art and one's response to it is deeply personal. I may hear it one way, you may hear it another and the composer may hear it differently to both of us. Once the music enters my brain I own it, simple as that.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Actually, we don't know if Bach would have disproved his works being played on the piano. I don't see why any composer would not encourage and actively involve themselves in the latest developements of instrument and music. Today's composers do that with electronic music.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Do people actually visualize things when they hear music? I find that... forced/creation of the mind.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Herrenvolk said:


> Actually, we don't know if Bach would have disproved his works being played on the piano. I don't see why any composer would not encourage and actively involve themselves in the latest developements of instrument and music. Today's composers do that with electronic music.


In his later years, Bach was a sales agent for Silbermann's pianos. Some sales documents survive. Obviously he didn't object to the instrument once it was developed sufficiently to gain his approval.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

KenOC said:


> In his later years, Bach was a sales agent for Silbermann's pianos. Some sales documents survive. Obviously he didn't object to the instrument once it was developed sufficiently to gain his approval.


Or he hated it and took the money anyway


----------

