# How much the composers can (must) say about their works?



## jonatan (May 6, 2016)

How much the composers can (must) say about their works?

From the one side - music is beyond words and expresses notions, ideas and emotions that can not be expressed in words in short space. From my concert experience I can say that there are composers which don't give any annotations about their works and they even want no to publish their biography.

From the other side - I am reading article (in the music magazine of my country) by one woman who teaches composition in high school (5th-12th grade) and she say that she always ask her students questions like - what is your aim composing your work, what is the reason of using one technique of other, what do you want to express, what emotions are expressed by your work, do you like what you have composed and so on, so on?

So - can composers, performers and listeners speak about music and what the music expresses?

I am always fascinated by the annotations that artists and architects give to their works - those short literary pieces are full of ideas and philosophy.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

There's a distinction between what a teacher might try to elicit, and what the audience needs to know.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

MarkW said:


> There's a distinction between what a teacher might try to elicit, and what the audience needs to know.


The first and right answer.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion (Nov 27, 2016)

Among certain composers today, (usually the ones who seem to have little of musical value to say), there is a tendency to write program notes which resemble something from The Postmodernism Generator:

"Given Derrida's injunction that narrativity is intrinsically dead, I seek to critique neodialectic cultural theory through the prism of 0-4-7 harmonicity (in accordance with Fortean pitch-class theory), in order to deconstruct the patriarchal hegemony of materialist acoustics, thereby liberating the listener through the use of textual desituationism."

But then there was the late Gérard Grisey who stated that "We are musicians and our model is sound not literature, sound not mathematics, sound not theatre, visual arts, quantum physics, geology, astrology or acupuncture". And Harrison Birtwistle, who is famously reticent about his music.

That said, I do think that an intelligently and lucidly written program note can be helpful to an audience in explaining what a work is about. A few basic pointers to the structure and (strictly musical) aims of a piece can go a long way. Likewise, the extra-musical inspirations or associations of the piece may be of interest, although I doubt it's necessary to say much about the emotional qualities of the music: that's an area where I tend to think it should speak for itself.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Retrograde Inversion said:


> Among certain composers today, (usually the ones who seem to have little of musical value to say), there is a tendency to write program notes which resemble something from The Postmodernism Generator:
> 
> "Given Derrida's injunction that narrativity is intrinsically dead, I seek to critique neodialectic cultural theory through the prism of 0-4-7 harmonicity (in accordance with Fortean pitch-class theory), in order to deconstruct the patriarchal hegemony of materialist acoustics, thereby liberating the listener through the use of textual desituationism."
> ......


Well, that's very easy for you to say! But it means Foucault to me.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion (Nov 27, 2016)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Well, that's very easy for you to say! But it means Foucault to me.


Funny, I guess that's a pretty old joke, but I've never heard it before! :lol:


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

It depends on the composer. Some composers wrote extensively about their music, and some didn't. 

Wagner comes to mind as a prolific example of the former. Brahms is an example of the latter.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> It depends on the composer. Some composers wrote extensively about their music, and some didn't.
> 
> Wagner comes to mind as a prolific example of the former. Brahms is an example of the latter.


All Brahms needed to comment on his music was a book of matches and flammable liquid. Thankfully, he ran out of both!


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Retrograde Inversion said:


> Funny, I guess that's a pretty old joke, but I've never heard it before! :lol:


I confess that I used that joke at a very serious academic conference, shortly before I retired. The sequence of events was not coincidental.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Speaking of Brahms being so critical of his own music:

He sent Clara Schumann the first three movements of his newly composed First String Sextet and told her, rather than sending it back to him, she should simply burn it. Can you imagine?


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

If the music is sincerely good, then more words by the composer can't lessen it. But if the music is sincerely bad, no amount of words from the composer can brighten it.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

regenmusic said:


> If the music is sincerely good, then more words by the composer can't lessen it. But if the music is sincerely bad, no amount of words from the composer can brighten it.


Amen to this ...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

There's a discussion on another forum about Bartok where someone posted to share that, after listening to some quartets played by the Emerson Quartet, he felt the music was cold, not very expressive from an emotional point of view. 

Now I'm pretty sure that this is the opposite of what Bartok intended, that he wanted the music to be very expressive rather in the manner of Schoenberg in fact. At least that's the impression I get from Judit Frigyesi's book on Bartok. If it's true that the Emerson's performance is cold (and it may not be), they're playing it badly. Wrongly. 

My point is that the composer needs to say something about what he intends by the music in order to help the performers know how to play it. 

You have similar things in early music, things that Monteverdi said about what he was doing in Combattimento, and that Frescobaldi said about his intentions in the the capriccii, which are indispensable for reading the score.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Retrograde Inversion said:


> Among certain composers today, (usually the ones who seem to have little of musical value to say), there is a tendency to write program notes which resemble something from The Postmodernism Generator:
> 
> "Given Derrida's injunction that narrativity is intrinsically dead, I seek to critique neodialectic cultural theory through the prism of 0-4-7 harmonicity (in accordance with Fortean pitch-class theory), in order to deconstruct the patriarchal hegemony of materialist acoustics, thereby liberating the listener through the use of textual desituationism."
> 
> ...


Haha! Would you give permission to mention this text in my composition classes? i just loved it


----------



## Retrograde Inversion (Nov 27, 2016)

cimirro said:


> Haha! Would you give permission to mention this text in my composition classes? i just loved it


Go for it! (Do I get royalties?)

I'm still waiting for someone to point out my little 0-4-7 joke, though...


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

regenmusic said:


> If the music is sincerely good, then more words by the composer can't lessen it. But if the music is sincerely bad, no amount of words from the composer can brighten it.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Beautiful music would echo and resonate with the listeners. Music an express emotions more than words. No matter what /how the composer describe the piece, each listener should have their own interpretation angle to it. The highest form of art is an exclamation not an explanation.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Retrograde Inversion said:


> Go for it! (Do I get royalties?)


I'm afraid I only can pay in beer :cheers:


----------



## Sobers (Jan 1, 2017)

I am a listener first then whatever... so the first time I would like to listen a new composer/ new composition without any 'words' added... maybe for few more times... then maybe from 4th or 5th time I would like to listen to the history or anecdotes if any. Of course I would like to know what the composer wanted to say specifically or in what manner he wanted to communicate. 
Surely we will fail to understand what the composer wanted to say in the first time so we will need the 'words' later but I don't want to deprive my ears from that excitement of hearing something for the first time without any 'guidance'.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sobers said:


> I am a listener first then whatever... so the first time I would like to listen a new composer/ new composition without any 'words' added... maybe for few more times... then maybe from 4th or 5th time I would like to listen to the history or anecdotes if any. Of course I would like to know what the composer wanted to say specifically or in what manner he wanted to communicate.
> Surely we will fail to understand what the composer wanted to say in the first time so we will need the 'words' later but I don't want to deprive my ears from that excitement of hearing something for the first time without any 'guidance'.


Absolutely noting wrong with this approach.


----------

