# Interpreting compositions



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

I have a question for people with real talent for analyzing compositions - intertpretations of them. How can I explain? We can read someone's analysis of a piece by, say, Mozart. The writer will tell us the flute and violin are having a ball disrupting the orchestra while the sedate orchestra tries to bring them to order. Or, Beethoven's piece makes brings us the sounds of rippling water from the river as ladies float along with laughter.

Now, my question. When someone's compositions are analyzed and reported this way, is it the reporter who figured it out? Or has the composer first told people what he was intending to picture in his composition? 

I ask because I, myself, never hear these things until someone tells me I should. Then I hear them easily. So, who originates these interpretations? As I ask I am remembering the story of someone asking J R R Tolkien what he meant when he wrote about the Hobbits. He said "I didn't mean anything. I was just having fun." Then there is Claude Debussy's quote (which I copied from Graaf's post): "There is no theory. You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law>"

Did the composer first tell us what to listen for? Or, do musicians have the talent to hear these things without being told they are there?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Sometimes composers point things out, but much of the time not. If it's a descriptive piece in some way then it might be expected that it will have details which relate to it's theme.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

starry said:


> Sometimes composers point things out, but much of the time not. If it's a descriptive piece in some way then it might be expected that it will have details which relate to it's theme.


So, you are saying that talented musicians can identify the theme of a composition and pick out details that we untalented never hear until they are pointed out to us? What a gift that is! :tiphat:

Thank you.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Well you don't have to be a musician you can be an experienced listener.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

starry said:


> Well you don't have to be a musician you can be an experienced listener.


And have sharp hearing, know your instruments, etc.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well like Starry said its a mixture. extra-musical associations only exist because the composer wants them to be there. You cant discover a boat on a river by analysing the chord progressions, but you can read the composers notes about the piece and try and identify which musical aspects show this.

Debussy saying 'there is no theory, pleasure is the law', gives us a clue as to how to interpret the music. Another composer may say, there is only theory. So an analysis of these two composers would occur differently.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Oh Good Grief!

Program music has, by definition, language related 'meaning' - the composer provided it. Non-program, purely instrumental music has emotional meaning (or in some cases organizational meaning - e.g. some 'modern' music) - but any rationalizations are subjective. Your 'interpretation' is as valid as anybody's. If all you get from the music is music, that is neither a deficiency nor a crime.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Well like Starry said its a mixture. extra-musical associations only exist because the composer wants them to be there. You cant discover a boat on a river by analysing the chord progressions, but you can read the composers notes about the piece and try and identify which musical aspects show this.
> 
> Debussy saying 'there is no theory, pleasure is the law', gives us a clue as to how to interpret the music. Another composer may say, there is only theory. So an analysis of these two composers would occur differently.


Do you ever have a composer come back and say "that isn't what I meant"? Everything I am asking here stems from what I know happens in literature but literature is so much easier to interpret even if what I make of it isn't what some else makes of it. We can put our own lives into literature. Music, on the other hand, needs more talent, more skills, more education.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Meaning in music is even more ambiguous and crucially it depends on an interpreter to bring it alive and they may give it a slant different to how the composer may have seen it originally. There is room for more than one interpretation of a work of art as well.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Sure but that probably happened with programmatic music, but then there isnt much of a distinction between that and literature.

Absolute music is different. I dont think a composer could say 'that isnt what I meant'. First of all, everyone hears sounds in different ways, if the composer didnt mean for something to sound a certain way well then he shouldnt have written it that way or perhaps been clearer. 

When we analyse we just want to discover why things sound the way they do.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

starry said:


> Meaning in music is even more ambiguous and crucially it depends on an intrepreter to bring it alive and they may give it a slant different to how the composer may have seen it originally. There is room for more than one interpretation of a work of art as well.


Good to know that, starry. Thank you. Come to think of it (and I just realized this), last week I listened to (the original??) of Tchaikovsky's "1812 Festival Overture". Believe it or not, I'd never heard that. What we hear is so different. I came away with a totally different interpretation than I imagine Tchaikovsky intended. There was nothing of the battle there, no celebration, not even the loudness he is supposed to have intended.

I'd better stop there.


----------



## blomster (Feb 2, 2011)

Surely there're cases where the composer disagrees with an interpretation, just like Stravinsky criticized Karajan's recording of The Rite of Spring, saying that it's 'too polished'.

By the way, I think that our interpretation to music draws from our experience. I wonder how one who lives in the desert and has never seen the sea would feel when he hears Debussy's La Mer, surely he can't relate it to something like the wave as there is no such thing in his experience.

But on the other hand there can be no absolute in the interpretation part as art is simply not something absolute, imagination plays a large part in it. Like if you see 'cresc.' or 'rit.' on the score, there's no strict instruction on how louder or how slower the performer should play, or something like 'cantabile' is even vaguer in his absolute meaning. Without imagination what you hear is only sound, it's our imagination to fill up the rest to complete the whole perception of a piece of music.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

blomster said:


> But on the other hand there can be no absolute in the interpretation part as art is simply not something absolute, imagination plays a large part in it. Like if you see 'cresc.' or 'rit.' on the score, there's no strict instruction on how louder or how slower the performer should play, or something like 'cantabile' is even vaguer in his absolute meaning. Without imagination what you hear is only sound, it's our imagination to fill up the rest to complete the whole perception of a piece of music.


You make a good point with the Sacre. I dont think Karajan is to blame though. Like you mention that many instructions written in the score are vague, inexact and leave things open to the interpreter. If Karajan's performance followed each instruction within the limits of acceptability then his interpretation can be considered valid. Stravinsky perhaps should have made it clearer what he wanted. If we find that Karajans performance strayed away from Stravinsky's instructions at all, then he was justified in criticising the interpretation.

It all boils down to - was the score followed?

If the answer is yes but the composer still doesnt agree then his instructions were not clear enough.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Analysis and interpretation are completely separate things.

Everyone can take a Bach chorale and write out the chords. Everyone's analysis will be the same.
However, when asked how the music makes them feel, or what they thought the composer was trying to convey, I would hope their answers would be different.

The problem arises when certain interpretations get standardized. Fate knocking on the door in Beethoven's 5th, a ray of sunshine in Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto, raindrops in Chopin's "Raindrop" Prelude. Who came up with these interpretation? Probably not the composers. It's my opinion that we should stay away from such interpretations and let our own subjective minds think for themselves.

Program music is a different kettle of fish. I will always think of skeletons in the last minutes of Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, an Ox in Mussorgsky's Bidlo, various weather conditions in Vivaldi's Seasons. Somehow these images are burned into the music as they were the preliminary inspiration for the composer. That's the case for me anyway.


----------



## blomster (Feb 2, 2011)

You simply point out the key, analysis and interpretation are completely different things.

I think that analysis can only work out the harmonic progression and musical form, which are only some elements of music as a whole. It can't give one an idea of, say, the timbre of sound, which the chemistry can only be revealed when the music is actually played.

I think somehow the standardized interpretations are the result of a commonly-shared experience, which there's a part where most people's experience overlaps. Like to use Debussy's La Mer again, one can find it difficult to relate it to, say, something like Ranz des Vaches. The direction of our imagination is somehow still confined by our senses.

But I agree that we should break some standardized interpreations as our experience may not be only from our daily life, but from the general comments, i.e. we feel so as we are told by the others. In such cases we should free ourselves away from them and work out our own interpretation, our own feelings towards the music.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Interesting that music analysis is mostly all about pitch. This is a possible reason why people have an animosity against contemporary music. My reasoning is that in a lot of contemporary music, pitch is a secondary parameter and texture is a primary parameter. Pitch just doesn't have the importance it once had for 1000 years.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I don't know if you can read music, but if you can this can be a great help in understanding classical works. If you can't,it's not very difficul tto learn how, and there are some excellent books which can teach you how to which you can google.
Once you learn how to and gain more experience listening and following, you should be able to read scores. This can be very illuminating. Start with the simpler works first, and 
you'll be able to graduate to the more complex ones.
Scores are easily obtainable throgh the internet or at some music stores.
Dover scores are an excellent and economic way of getting them. Also,some public libraries have collections of sheet music. Check yours.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

superhorn said:


> I don't know if you can read music, but if you can this can be a great help in understanding classical works. If you can't,it's not very difficul tto learn how, and there are some excellent books which can teach you how to which you can google.
> Once you learn how to and gain more experience listening and following, you should be able to read scores. This can be very illuminating. Start with the simpler works first, and
> you'll be able to graduate to the more complex ones.
> Scores are easily obtainable throgh the internet or at some music stores.
> Dover scores are an excellent and economic way of getting them. Also,some public libraries have collections of sheet music. Check yours.


I can read music, yes. One of the few things I can do successsfully - read the score. That is an interesting concept - follow the score as it plays. It sounds like fun. Thank you.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

As a person who writes fiction, a thing I dream of is a reader finding things in my text that I didn't mean to put there. 

I imagine some composers could feel the same way. 

I think what an artist really wants is close attention. If you listen attentively to the music, the composer (I think) shouldn't really complain if you get something out of it he wasn't aware of putting in.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

I dont think composers intended to be precise with what they wanted to convey in certain music. i mean thats implying that every piece of work has a novel and higher meaning (when alot of times it doesnt or cant be explained by words, it was just written the way the author felt like writing it)

though there are some symphonies and works that do reflect certain images or themes that they want to convey, dvoraks 9 makes me think of the new world (america and its latin/indian culture) even though some passages in it dont sound very native-ish, you generally get a feeling of discovery and a taste of their music.
i feel that generally any sort of work that has a title embedded to it (like "the new world" or "the four seasons") generally requires further reading on the compositions intentions so as to make sense of the music more.

while dvoraks 9 makes sense to me as the new world symphony - vivaldi's four seasons do not make me think of the seasons at all (well maybe autumn conveys it best) but winter and summer dont really sound like winter or summer to me, even though the composer wrote them in a way to convene those seasons.


so it really is a matter of scrutiny and subject for debate. what one interpretes as a thunderstorm might just seem like a traditional dance movement in a piece. 

and so i find it difficult to believe that every composition can be (or was created) on a set number of themes and ideas with them being mimicked in the music - some sonatas have no real distinction to them, some chamber music is like this as well - obscure and ambiguous, might be pleasant, but there probably isnt any deep meaning in it. Usually said listener finds meaning in it by his own perception.

and so to the original question:
yes and no, some pieces might be special, and the composer may leave a said description about the piece and what its trying to convey, other times no comment would be there, suggesting that its just something that was created because "it sounded cool, so i went along with it" nothing wrong with that notion of thought, you cant explain it in words, but you can feel it, so the message generally gets across.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> I dont think composers intended to be precise with what they wanted to convey in certain music. i mean thats implying that every piece of work has a novel and higher meaning (when alot of times it doesnt or cant be explained by words, it was just written the way the author felt like writing it)
> 
> though there are some symphonies and works that do reflect certain images or themes that they want to convey, dvoraks 9 makes me think of the new world (america and its latin/indian culture) even though some passages in it dont sound very native-ish, you generally get a feeling of discovery and a taste of their music.
> i feel that generally any sort of work that has a title embedded to it (like "the new world" or "the four seasons") generally requires further reading on the compositions intentions so as to make sense of the music more.
> ...


Like Absolute Music? I understand that. But, there is also much good in knowing what to listen for. That is, if we know what the composer intended to portray, it does help an untrained ear to know this. I get much more out of a piece when I've read a bit of its background. Even if it is only someone else's interpretation, it still adds to the listening experience. At least that is true for me.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

I came upon a quotation of Monet and thought of this thread.

"Everyone discusses my art and pretends to understand, as if it were necessary to understand, when it is simply necessary to love." (Claude Monet)


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Hazel said:


> I came upon a quotation of Monet and thought of this thread.
> 
> "Everyone discusses my art and pretends to understand, as if it were necessary to understand, when it is simply necessary to love." (Claude Monet)


I suppose thats similar to the Debussy quote. Both were 'impressionists' and it would defnitely be valid within their aesthetics


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hazel said:


> I came upon a quotation of Monet and thought of this thread.
> 
> "Everyone discusses my art and pretends to understand, as if it were necessary to understand, when it is simply necessary to love." (Claude Monet)


That is exactly my sentiment regarding the Impressionist painters. If one replaces "understand" with _comprehend_, and "love" with _feel_, it becomes my sentiment regarding 'absolute' music.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

If the composer intended the piece to have programmatic or some extramusical meaning, then we should interpret it that way, and understand the music as conveying the emotions and feelings behind the actions or pictures it describes. These pieces are typically either operas, songs, or tone poems.

If it's intended to be "absolute music," then we can interpret the piece as having no definite object of reference. Thus, people are much more likely to interpret it based on their own life experiences, or (if you want to be academic) the composer's life experiences.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> If the composer intended the piece to have programmatic or some extramusical meaning, then we should interpret it that way, and understand the music as conveying the emotions and feelings behind the actions or pictures it describes.


We should? I disagree, both as a matter of principle and because of experience. My interpretation of a 'programmed' music I often prefer to that programmed. The composer/programmer may (or may not) have some authority over the performers; he has none over the listeners.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> As a person who writes fiction, a thing I dream of is a reader finding things in my text that I didn't mean to put there.
> 
> I imagine some composers could feel the same way.
> 
> I think what an artist really wants is close attention. If you listen attentively to the music, the composer (I think) shouldn't really complain if you get something out of it he wasn't aware of putting in.


One of the important distinctions to draw is that music takes a longer route to get to listeners than it does literature to get to a reader. Essentially, by disregarding detailed things like editing, the process would be:

Composer's Score -> Conductor's Interpretation -> Listener
Author's Text -> Reader

Most people can read, but hardly anybody can control an orchestra at whim, and little more have the necessary instrumental skill!

Because of this, finding a good account of the original composition is so much more important, because a mediocre version can conceal so many of the experiences that you may get from a better performance.

On both counts though, while it is really gratifying when the audience interprets something legitimate that was never intended, if that audience is a critic, other people can get repeatedly beaten over the head with their idea until critical perception is assumed to be composer intention. So it's always important to rely on one's own musical experiences ahead of anyone else's.


----------

