# Thoughts on Program Music



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

I was at a premiere the other night, and before the orchestra played the piece, the composer came out, explained the two works, gave the audience a very particular image and setting, a picture, really, that he was evoking in the music.

Then the piece starts, and unfortunately, I could focus on nothing but the comments and program notes -- that is, all I cared about was waiting for that Triangle that signifies the night stars, or the Timpani that represents conflict and battle, or the Oboe solo for the meandering smoke emanating from a nomad's desert camp, etc. etc.

I found it obnoxious. And this was the first time I was readily aware of the drawbacks of program music and its (potential) dictating how we listen or appreciate a given piece of music.

So, *what does everyone think of program music?* Is it too common today?

*Do you have any intense feelings about the art form?* Do you even _believe_ in program music? Or is all music, regardless of the intent, _absolute_ in its emotional capacities?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I agree that it doesn't make for an appealing introduction to a piece. I would likely have found myself waiting for the aural cues, too, and missed the best part of the performance in the process. I have nothing against program music per se, but I rarely bother much with the program  I recently purchased a few ballets and I think that is program music, too, since the dancers act out the story. I read the titles to the sections and sometimes, when I listen, I think that this must be that part, etc., but I don't spend much time following along in the synopsis. It's (usually) just music to me, so I guess I approach it all as absolute music first and foremost. With ballet music (or opera), there is a point to having a program. With a tone poem... well, I guess it is the subject that inspired the composer, so it has a point, too, even if I don't necessarily spend lot of time on it. So, in conclusion, sure, I believe in program music... even if I don't always consume it that way.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Not necessarily a huge fan of highly detailed programs in general, but with Richard Strauss' Apline Symphny it works rather well.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I generally feel the same way about program music. I usually end up listening to it the same way I would listen to absolute music anyway.

I don't know how common program music per se is today. I know many composers today like to use specific names for their pieces rather than generic symphony, cello concerto etc.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A general indication of what inspired a piece is fine with me, if the composer feels we should know that. Beethoven's "Pastoral" Symphony is a good example. "Pleasant feelings upon arrival in the country" or "gathering of country folk" gives us a sufficient orientation, and then we can just sit back, enjoy the music, and form our own impressions. More detailed programs could be distracting rather than helpful; after all, the music is the main attraction, and we want to be able to keep our attention on it.

There's always a question of how seriously we can take programs. I tend to assume, if the notes are offered by the composer, that he isn't just pulling my leg and that I should pay attention to them. But I'm always free not to, or to feel that the ideas expressed fail to do justice to my experience of the work. Sometimes the program might suggest more than the music can deliver; in other cases we may find the music richer and more interesting than the program suggests.

Some of my favorite works are programmatic - Rachmaninoff's _Isle of the Dead_ and Sibelius's _Tapiola_ are two - but even knowing what interesting extra-musical images inspired them, I just hear them as music, and they are powerful as such. That's the acid test of a piece, programmatic or not.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I have mixed feelings regarding programmatic music. I think that it's wonderful to have notes about pieces written by the composer himself or herself but it should be not be the final statement on the work itself.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I do like to have some background on the piece, so I always read the liner notes. Even if it's not program music, literally depicting a scene or action, I still think you should develop a way of knowing the 'agenda' of the music. What is the composer trying to accomplish? Why does this music sound this way? How should I approach this music? Should I let go of my biases and expectations, and consider the music's agenda to be valid? Especially with modern music.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

If there is no program I usually make one myself. I even do that when there is a program and it seldom coincides. Oh well.

I don't have issues with knowing the program first. I often read annotations or liner notes anyway about what to expect musically. I can wait to hear the musical landmarks and still hear what is going on at any moment assuming I can stay awake (a whole different problem).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I do like to have some background on the piece, so I always read the liner notes. Even if it's not program music, literally depicting a scene or action, I still think you should develop a way of knowing the 'agenda' of the music. What is the composer trying to accomplish? Why does this music sound this way? How should I approach this music? Should I let go of my biases and expectations, and consider the music's agenda to be valid? Especially with modern music.


I tend to agree with you, but would offer the caution with respect to modern music (and modern art in general) that "explanations" of their work on the part of creative artists have become almost _de rigueur_ since the mid-20th century, and that this compulsion to say something "meaningful" can be more annoying and confusing than helpful. I've seen program notes accompanying recordings that virtually left me catatonic before I even got around to the music. A lot of this verbiage occupies a strange area somewhere between program, as traditionally understood, and technical explanation, arising from an apparent belief that the music's components must be "translated" for us like words in a foreign language. And then there are the long quasi-philosophical dissertations that presume to conduct us into arcane realms of transcendental meanings not accessible to normal consciousness, or into the artist's private world of symbols or subconscious motivations or biographical crises...

If I open a CD and see too many pages of fine print, or any sort of diagrams or equations or evil-looking alchemical symbols, I'll skim it quickly and decide whether "listen first and read later (if ever)" might not be the best approach. Usually - just because I'm a verbal person - I'll be suckered into reading it, and will then have no one to blame but myself.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm not a fan of program music. I always get lost. Music is easier to listen to when it speaks its own language.


----------



## Saintbert (Mar 12, 2015)

Usually I find a simple title can tell you all you want to know. Think of string quartets like Janácek's "Intimate Letters" or Sibelius' "Voces Intimae." There's a story in there already (and I guess it's telling that those two titles came to my mind). Even in cases where I know there's a specific storyline indicated, as in say Schoenberg's "Transfigured Night", I'd rather just take the title and let my mind run off with it.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I think some of it is risible (e.g., Richard Strauss). The music itself might be fine, but I think it's silly to try to be literal. "Here's where they fight the sheep." Ugh.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> I think some of it is risible (e.g., Richard Strauss). The music itself might be fine, but I think it's silly to try to be literal. "Here's where they fight the sheep." Ugh.


Ah yes, the sheep.

Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-h humbug.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Saintbert said:


> Usually I find a simple title can tell you all you want to know. Think of string quartets like Janácek's "Intimate Letters" or Sibelius' "Voces Intimae." There's a story in there already (and I guess it's telling that those two titles came to my mind). Even in cases where I know there's a specific storyline indicated, as in say Schoenberg's "Transfigured Night", I'd rather just take the title and let my mind run off with it.


Ya I think titles are good in some cases, as long as they come from the composer. I like the names Ravel gives his pieces sometimes (Sad Birds comes to mind).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> Ya I think titles are good in some cases, as long as they come from the composer.


Aw c'mon now. Haydn has the best nicknames -- the Razor, the Frog, the Hen, and on and on. I don't think any of them came from the composer!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The only program music I enjoy as program music is the Richard Strauss Symphonia Domestica-especially the sex scene in the bedroom before the crying baby destroys the mood.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> "Here's where they fight the sheep."


Made me laugh aloud.

Even funnier if this is a real piece, which I obviously am not aware of.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

hpowders said:


> The only program music I enjoy as program music is the Richard Strauss Symphonia Domestica-especially the sex scene in the bedroom before the crying baby destroys the mood.


You must have the R-rated version of that album because my copy seems to be sanitized.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Avey said:


> Made me laugh aloud.
> 
> Even funnier if this is a real piece, which I obviously am not aware of.


Strauss' Don Quixote



Albert7 said:


> You must have the R-rated version of that album because my copy seems to be sanitized.


You don't have the sex scene in your Symphonia Domestica?


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Wow, never read up on the context, closely at least.

And exactly, this is my point (and your point)! Like, why should this (sheeps!) be a focal point? If I were a first-time listener in 1897 reading these program notes, I would be like, what the hell is this? This is great sound, but where is the damn (pseudo) sheep army? When does that scene happen in the _*program*_? So frustrating.

Very much ruins the music, in my mind.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

violadude said:


> I like the names Ravel gives his pieces sometimes (Sad Birds comes to mind).


_All the time._

*TZIGANE*.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

hpowders said:


> The only program music I enjoy as program music is the Richard Strauss Symphonia Domestica-especially the sex scene in the bedroom before the crying baby destroys the mood.


When I wrote my post about frustration with program music, I was thinking of that piece. At the beginning, he introduces the husband and wife, which I get, then the baby pops up somewhere, and that's where I get lost. Then I'm still trying to figure out the part where the people are saying how sweet the baby is, and it may be I'm actually hearing the couple doing the wild thing. It's so frustrating.

Erik Satie had the right idea in Sports et Divertissements. His program music comes with a running commentary under the music and a picture of what he's depicting on the left-hand side of the page. At least in that set of pieces, I always know when they're playing tennis.


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

I prefer to just listen to the music. It doesn't make a difference to me weather or not the music is programmatic.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Avey said:


> Wow, never read up on the context, closely at least.
> 
> And exactly, this is my point (and your point)! Like, why should this (sheeps!) be a focal point? If I were a first-time listener in 1897 reading these program notes, I would be like, what the hell is this? This is great sound, but where is the damn (pseudo) sheep army? When does that scene happen in the _*program*_? So frustrating.
> 
> Very much ruins the music, in my mind.


Oh Avey, you are so wrong! It is perfectly obvious where the sheep are and I doubt anyone could miss it. It is hilarious. Of course, I've always thought having to listen to the whole piece was slow torture, but those sheep get me every time. And if you look at the score you find that the joke extends to the visual. One actually sees a fence made by the string parts and then little note clusters in the horns that look like sheep grazing, with lots of little whole rests taking the parts of grass and fodder.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I have nothing against program music but I prefer not to have the program shoved in my face. I prefer hearing a work without preface, and if in the course of listening I find myself thinking both "I like this music" and "this thing has to be programmatic," then I'll gladly go into the extramusical details. Thereafter I will usually play along and happily listen with the program in mind in future hearings. In general the programs I like are understated and suggestive rather than literal and detailed. The short verse accompanying Sibelius's Tapiola (Hi Woodduck  ) is perfect in my book.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Some of my favorite works are programmatic - Rachmaninoff's _Isle of the Dead_ ...


Well the beauty of that extraordinary Rachmaninov piece is that the program should in essence only be Bocklin's painting, i.e. visual.

I was lucky enough to visit the MET in New York a few months ago, and as I was wandering through a gallery, I was startled when I came across Bocklin's painting.









I wasn't even aware that it was held in that musuem.

And all of a sudden, that brooding, haunting sound-world began to run through my head ... I couldn't help but think how perfectly the music and painting complimented each other.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Skilmarilion said:


> Well the beauty of that extraordinary Rachmaninov piece is that the program should in essence only be Bocklin's painting, i.e. visual.
> 
> I was lucky enough to visit the MET in New York a few months ago, and as I was wandering through a gallery, I was startled when I came across Bocklin's painting.
> 
> ...


An interesting fact about the work is that Rachmaninoff had been inspired by a black and white reproduction of the painting. Apparently when he did eventually see the original he said he preferred it without color. More somber, I presume.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> Strauss' Don Quixote
> 
> You don't have the sex scene in your Symphonia Domestica?


Nope, no parental advisory sticker on my edition of the piece. :\


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

I was thinking, while reading some of these posts, that the line between "program" and "absolute" music is not very clear. For instance, would one say Beethoven's Ninth is absolute music? How about Ives' Second Symphony? 

Maybe the terms are not clearly defined at all. Maybe those composers that provide explicit programs and intent are only being transparent about the purpose of the music. Maybe they are fooling me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Avey said:


> I was thinking, while reading some of these posts, that the line between "program" and "absolute" music is not very clear. For instance, would one say Beethoven's Ninth is absolute music? How about Ives' Second Symphony?
> 
> Maybe the terms are not clearly defined at all. Maybe those composers that provide explicit programs and intent are only being transparent about the purpose of the music. Maybe they are fooling me.


I suppose it depends on whether we want to confine the term "program music" to music which has an explicit program and not just some vaguely allusive title. That might make sense, since an awful lot of music has evocative or descriptive titles but is very hard to hear as illustrating those titles in any meaningful way. Debussy's "Footprints in the Snow" has a quiet, slow tread and a mysterious quality that might be "suggestive" of its title, while his "L'Isle joyeuse," though it might be construed as joyous, isn't in the least suggestive of an island. If we investigate further we learn that the title refers to Cythera, the island on which Aphrodite first stepped when she emerged from the seafoam. But, even knowing that, it's doubtful whether the title "explains" anything about the piece, or the piece really "illustrates" anything implied by the title beyond a general mood. Are these pieces "program music"? Maybe, but given that any significant program has to be supplied by the listener, and Debussy obviously saw no reason to restrict our perception of his music by being more explicit, I don't think it matters much how we categorize them. For myself, I find Debussy's discreet approach very satisfying: it's an approach that nudges our sensibilities gently while refusing to interfere with our perception of music obeying its own laws.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> A general indication of what inspired a piece is fine with me, if the composer feels we should know that. Beethoven's "Pastoral" Symphony is a good example. "Pleasant feelings upon arrival in the country" or "gathering of country folk" gives us a sufficient orientation, and then we can just sit back, enjoy the music, and form our own impressions. More detailed programs could be distracting rather than helpful; after all, the music is the main attraction, and we want to be able to keep our attention on it.
> 
> There's always a question of how seriously we can take programs. I tend to assume, if the notes are offered by the composer, that he isn't just pulling my leg and that I should pay attention to them. But I'm always free not to, or to feel that the ideas expressed fail to do justice to my experience of the work. Sometimes the program might suggest more than the music can deliver; in other cases we may find the music richer and more interesting than the program suggests.
> 
> Some of my favorite works are programmatic - Rachmaninoff's _Isle of the Dead_ and Sibelius's _Tapiola_ are two - but even knowing what interesting extra-musical images inspired them, I just hear them as music, and they are powerful as such. That's the acid test of a piece, programmatic or not.


What about Satie? He isn't just pulling your leg, he is tackling you with his titles


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

For me, it is all program music if it's been made by a human being (it refers to _something_). But like others, I don't need a detailed explanation. Opera is different, of course.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Triplets said:


> What about Satie? He isn't just pulling your leg, he is tackling you with his titles


I would be afraid of what would happen to my brain if I worked too hard at visualizing a piece in the shape of a pear.

Music is music, and fruit is fruit.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I would be afraid of what would happen to my brain if I worked too hard at visualizing a piece in the shape of a pear.
> 
> Music is music, and fruit is fruit.


Could be worse. We could be talking about Satie's "Desiccated embryos."

I'm fond of his title "Sonatine Bureaucratique," a mangling of a Clemente sonatine familiar to many young piano students.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

i don't think i care for it much. i enjoy the ambiguity of connotation-less names as well, like "music for x" etc.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Dim7 said:


> Not necessarily a huge fan of highly detailed programs in general, but with Richard Strauss' *Apline Symphny* it works rather well.


Somme epc spellng here.....


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Some may enjoy Ives' thoughts on the matter of programs, presented in "Essays before a Sonata":

http://www.amazon.com/Essays-Before...9&sr=8-2&keywords=ives+essays+before+a+sonata (available free online or as a Kindle download)

He basically admits that (auto- and) biographical interpretation and program-writing is all subjective--right before giving some unprecedentedly long "programs" for the Concord Sonata. Interesting at any rate for the wonderfully complex tone and the insights into Ive's infectious character that it provides.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> this compulsion to say something "meaningful" can be more annoying and confusing than helpful.


The thing is, you have to stop trying to listen to 'program' music as if it were 'absolute'.

If an artist wishes to direct me to engage with her product in a particular way, what's the problem? For me, it's part of the piece. Artistic intent belongs to the artist, not the consumer. The consumer should make what they will of the package and judge it on its merits in total.

I'm reminded of those who say that LvB's 9th is great, especially if you leave out the choral bit.


----------

