Meaning or Beauty?

What is more important in a composition, meaning or beauty?

I would say meaning...at least, if by "meaning," you mean "soul." I think some composers (*coughJohnWilliamscough*) too often write music that they know will sell because of its beauty, but lacks any sort of true passion or soul behind it. It's like feeding someone nothing but chocolate icing...yeah, it tastes great, but there's nothing solid to support it, and you're just doing it to be popular and/or make money.

Beauty holds no importance to me. The intent behind the music is much more interesting...

I would say meaning...at least, if by "meaning," you mean "soul." I think some composers (*coughJohnWilliamscough*) too often write music that they know will sell because of its beauty, but lacks any sort of true passion or soul behind it. It's like feeding someone nothing but chocolate icing...yeah, it tastes great, but there's nothing solid to support it, and you're just doing it to be popular and/or make money.

I think some listeners (*coughPianoManGidley*) have the pretense of "knowing" what is behind the intention of a composer.

I'm sorry, just how much of Williams' non-filmscore work do you know?

Do you know any of his concerti?

His first violin concerto is a wonderful, profound work.

If your opinion is based entirely on his pops pieces (music for special circumstances

Actually, by assuming you KNOW the intent of a composer, and by judging whether it has depth or simply beauty, you are setting yourself up as the arbitre of what is good and what is not.

That is a most dangerous and slippery slope to tread.

Actually, by assuming you KNOW the intent of a composer, and by judging whether it has depth or simply beauty, you are setting yourself up as the arbitre of what is good and what is not.

That is a most dangerous and slippery slope to tread.

Indeed. But isn't it most dangerous to stop having opinions, albeit non-informed ones? Judging is...somewhat inherent in human beings. :blush:

Anyway, one can NEVER know the intent of an artist. Most often, even the artist himself/herself cannot discern his own intentions. :o

For my ears, John Williams is a very decent composer. Heart-wrenching at times. But, most of the time, too cheesily-hollywoodish (sic) for my taste. I agree that he has to make a living through his music, but, by now, he should (??) have been (financially) able to promote his other, more artistic endeavors. :D

as I said, has ANYONE heard his violin concerto (the first one)?

or the Flute concerto?

or any of his other concertante works? none, and I repeat absolutely NONE of which can be categorized as "cheesy hollywoodian" music except by the most vindictive mind.

as I said, has ANYONE heard his violin concerto (the first one)?

or the Flute concerto?

Perhaps you would be surprised to know that, in Greece, I am not able to find anything other than his film music (awful, commercially centered distribution). And I have heard (and bought) enough of this film music so as to NOT want to find other works of his.

But, why be not-flexible? The end is listening to good music, the means is an open mind. Can we get a preview somehow? I'd be willing to give it a listen. But I wouldn't spend any money blindly in him.

Where is JohnGalt when one needs him?

I think that one can find meaning within Beauty and Beauty within Meaning.

or any of his other concertante works?

Yes, actually.... a sort of concerto for cello.

Not hollywoodish in the slightest degree.

But then I like a lot of his Hollywood stuff to begin with.

His non-film stuff does seem to be more personal;

I think "beauty" is subjective. One of my favorite quotes ("What the eye arranges is what is beautiful") applies here. You can't judge someone else's perception of beauty, so this argument is not really that sensical.

If a composer doesn't write something without meaning it, then it's a wasted effort, artistically at least.

Meaning? hmmm...

I could never tell the meaning behind any works by BBML (Bach Beethoven Mozart Listz etc) really. Ok, some things are rather obvious to an extend (the moonlight is... sad), but other than that ok.

when you have, however, the composer with you at your side, things turn immesnly more interesting! From the performer side of things. And depending on what the composer decides to pass on to the audience, through the program note, it can also get more interesting to the audience as well.

Is music, "only" music then?

Nikolas,

if you study the music of the great composers, you will find that there is immense meaning to their music. Especially the ones you listed. Finding the meaning doesn't always come from knowing the music, but rather knowing the person who wrote it. The great masters didn't really intend to portray one single thing in their music but many things. They didn't intend to express very specific things either. (There are exceptions, of course, tone-poems etc.) They all knew that in order for their music to reach the most people, they had to boil all the meaning of their music down to a basic human experience. Bach could have written music to express the loss of a first wife, but not everybody knows what it is like to loose a first wife. Even then, he eliminates half the genders. But, loss is something the vast majority of people know.

When you play, try to put a movie in your head that fits the music you are playing and really be expressive when you play. When trying to find meaning in music, you have to turn away from the printed page. (Most recordings I've heard are devoid of meaning, therefore it is not easy to find meaning in the music because the performers are not giving us any meaning. How long would an actor last if he/she read a script like they were reading a manual for the set up of a TV sound system. Not long at all. Not even 5 minutes. Why on earth do we think as musicians, that we can play without meaning and still be considered good?)

Reading about the lives of the great composers is the best way to have, "the composer with you at your side." The closer you can get to the horses' mouth, the better. For example, Anton Schindler wrote a book called, "Beethoven as I knew him" This is a great book because Schindler was Beethoven's right hand man for the later part of B's life. There is great insight into the life and man Beethoven without speculation. Check it out. (Dover sells it very cheap.)

There are also many books that contain the letters of Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin etc. These are INSANE as gateways into the composers personality.

Cheers.

Leo,

Music is an abstract art (excecpt when lyrcis are there).

One coudl assume that a song is about his dead father, but indeed be a song about prison...

One can never assume the "true meaning" (if there is any) behind the music of a person unless you can ask him. OF course there are letters from composers, etc, I have some from Mozart, where he usually talks about his music as something given (since he was a genious anyway), and nothing special. Something that he's happy about ("I wrote a new symphony today and I'm thrilled, father!") and so on...

Take for example my own works in this forum. How on earth can you guess if I have some meaning underneath them, unless you ask me straight away? Only by listening the music. Can you understand if I was sad because my father died, or sad because I couldn't cum at night, or sad because Bush won the elections, or whatever else sad? Or maybe I was not even sad but some other feeling, like getting ready for something, or whatever?

Leo, can you give me an example for a well known track? (Ok, Fur elise is writen for someone called Elise, and probasbly Wolfgang was horny about her... something else).

I mean the 5th Symphony (Beethoven), it's called "the faith" and so on, and blah blah, but still I can't seem to find some other "menaing" behind it.

The pastorale of course, was... pastorale, ok...

PS. I'm not doubting there is immense meaning (depedns on how you define menaing of course, but I don't mean meaning like a true and clear message, but more like... soul as someone else said). What ?I doubt is the ability to trace it ourselves, without great research as mere listeners... and I have studies the great classics extensively!

When you play, try to put a movie in your head that fits the music you are playing and really be expressive when you play. When trying to find meaning in music, you have to turn away from the printed page. (Most recordings I've heard are devoid of meaning, therefore it is not easy to find meaning in the music because the performers are not giving us any meaning. How long would an actor last if he/she read a script like they were reading a manual for the set up of a TV sound system. Not long at all. Not even 5 minutes. Why on earth do we think as musicians, that we can play without meaning and still be considered good?)

Music is (and should be) more than just semantics, more than just human experientialism, more than just sterile acoustics. A movie in your head when playing? :P Why be one-dimensional when you can be everywhere-everything-everyone? Movies (and vision), conventions and semantics are so overrated and boredom-inducing specific...:o

Music is not as abstract as you may think. Play Chopin's funeral march for anybody...they know exactly what the piece is. There isn't much arguement there. (That's an easy one though.) And, on the same token, some music with words can be very abstract. Just because words are present doesn't imply that they have any meaning.

In my opinion, Fur Elise, (Beethoven, not Mozart) depicts the stages of grief. You have calm, disbelief (or happy remembrances in the F major section), rage, and finally, acceptance. If played in this manner, you have a very moving piece of music that almost everybody can relate to. If played just as someone typing, you have an idiotic ditty.

The Intermezzo Op. 118 of Brahms, another powerful piece. To me, this is a piece about forgivness. Tough forgivness. For me to play this with that in mind, I see the movie of a man returning to his wife after a major fight and though she isn't sure about letting him back into her life, she does. During this scene, they talk about difficult issues relating to the split but in the end, decide to continue on knowing that what has happened will always be there in the past but willing to move on.

I want to clarify what I wrote before about the great composers not meaning something specific. They wanted to suggest the feeling of something. The 'why' of being sad isn't important, it is the feeling of 'sad' that is important. This is why I said that the great composers boil down the experiences to the most basic of human feeling.

Even regrading the Pastorale symphony, Beethoven writes, "The music is not a representation of specific rural objects, but rather of the feelings and emotions aroused inone by the sight of such objects. Anyone who has thought about music and about the nature of the remotions that it is supposed to express will redily understand that a painting such as this is far from being in poor taste, and in no way violates the function of music." (Found on page 156 of "Beethoven as I Knew Him" by A. Schindler.)

If, as a composer, you are trying to create a mood and the mood isn't achieved, you need to start again. (Legend has it that Beethoven sketched the first measure of the 5th symphony over a hundred times before he got it right.)

My composition teacher told me very early that I should never go about writing music without intention. He also said that it is not the job of the audience to understand my music. Rather, it is my job to make the meaning of the music so clear, they can't help but understand it. In my concerts, people have laughed, cried, and thought. They also come back to hear me play when they can because they know they will hear meaningful music. (Both in my own writing and in the writing of others. I never perform music that I don't yet understand the meaning of. Learning the notes is only the first half of learning a piece.)

If you haven't meaning in your music, you haven't anything to show for yourself. Composition is the art of communication with or without words. But regardless, if the music is written well and performed well, anybody, no matter what language they speak, will be able to understand the 'meaning' of a piece.

Music is (and should be) more than just semantics, more than just human experientialism, more than just sterile acoustics. A movie in your head when playing? :P Why be one-dimensional when you can be everywhere-everything-everyone? Movies (and vision), conventions and semantics are so overrated and boredom-inducing specific...:o

I've found that using this visual helps students to play with more expression. I also encourage them to sense all the same things that the people in their 'movie' are sensing. (Smells, touch, breeze, sights sounds etc.)

I have never found this to lead to boring performance.

"Meaning" in music remains always a subjective interpretation.

Unless a work carries a specific and clearly stated programmatic intent, there is nothing to search for of "meaning" other than the beauty of the music.

Any images you yourself add to your hearing of a piece are of your own creation, and are thus illusions, since they do not come from the composer in the first place.

A great performer can find the beauty inherant in a musical phrase wihout the need for the artifice of "movies" playing in their head. The beauty of music requires no "meaning". It is complete in and of itself.

Music is not as abstract as you may think. Play Chopin's funeral march for anybody...they know exactly what the piece is. There isn't much arguement there. (That's an easy one though.) And, on the same token, some music with words can be very abstract. Just because words are present doesn't imply that they have any meaning.

So music is not too abstract, but some is very abstract?

Anyway - you play Chopin's funeral march for Me, and I'll likely find it a very uplifting and positive piece (I can't say that I've heard it). I have a penchant for dark and disturbing music, finding it to be especially interesting.

In my opinion, [beethovens] Fur Elise depicts the stages of grief; The Intermezzo Op. 118 of Brahms...to me, this is a piece about forgivness. Tough forgivness.

I think you read far too much into the music. There's no way for a composer to impose his intentions on a listener; rather they must extract emotions from them. Whether the emotions brough forth are those intended or expected is beyond their control.

...as a composer, you are trying to create a mood and the mood isn't achieved, you need to start again.

...

My composition teacher told me very early that I should never go about writing music without intention. He also said that it is not the job of the audience to understand my music. Rather, it is my job to make the meaning of the music so clear, they can't help but understand it. In my concerts, people have laughed, cried, and thought.

Laughed, cried and though - all likely during the same piece. Different reactions from different people with different experiences.

I'd never presume to try and force a feeling of melancholy or happiness on a listener. All I try and impart is a sense of energy - positive or negative is for the listener to decide, and I don't really care which.

...they know they will hear meaningful music. (Both in my own writing and in the writing of others. I never perform music that I don't yet understand the meaning of. Learning the notes is only the first half of learning a piece.)

How do you presume to understand the meaning of music composed by persons who've been dead for 400 years? What if you're wrong? Does this result in an inauthentic and invalid performance? Is someone who performs Beethoven's Ninth while interpreting it as symbolizing rape incorrect in their personal interpretation? who can tell me not to feel happy when I hear a funeral march? I am obviously flawed in my interpretation...won't someone please set me straight!? What if a composer's own feelings change towards a piece of music? Something intended to be happy now hold feelings of contempt and hatred...should I feel happy or sad? Who will tell me?!

Read Susan McClary for some idea of what happens when we try and read too deeply into someone elses work...

...maybe I'll start doing that in reviews on here. "Did you know, you have a chord at m47 that symblizes homosexuality...and the rhythm at the beginning means that you don't believe in Jesus." Could be fun.

HOLY frig...this ended up considerably longer than I intended; and I see that QCC basically just said what I'm saying, only he's much more concise...

oops. :o

LOL Robin... sorry to ruin your punch.

Oh, BTW, what IS that "homosexual chord"? I'd love to apply it to my music! :o

The beauty of music requires no "meaning". It is complete in and of itself.

If the beauty of music requires no meaning, what are you left with? MEANINGLESS MUSIC!!! What, then, is the point? Music with no meaning has no more place in the concert hall or education than meaningless literature has in a library or schools.

If I assemble a list of words that cannot be made into a sentence that makes sense but it sounds good to say, that isn't art. It doesn't reach the soul. Art that doesn't reach the soul is not worth doing.

Just think about our lives if we did nothing with meaning but what we did felt good to do. Don't you think that would get tiresome really quick? When it gets tiresome, the beauty of the feeling is lost. We get away from whatever it was that we were doing and find something else to fulfil our temporary needs, get sick of that and move on. Thus leading meaningless and empty lives.

Isn't this why we don't end up in really long term relationships with people who are fun to hang around with but can't have a 'meaningful' conversation with? We don't miss the ones we enjoyed hanging out with nearly as much as we miss the ones we were able to connect with.

Connections cannot be made without meaning.

If the beauty of music requires no meaning, what are you left with? MEANINGLESS MUSIC!!! What, then, is the point?

No one is saying that. You need to find the meaning - impose your own emotions and experiences on a piece, and extract something that is meaningful to YOU. That's the point. I don't care if people get MY emotions...I want them to find theirs!

LOL Robin... sorry to ruin your punch.

Oh, BTW, what IS that "homosexual chord"? I'd love to apply it to my music! :w00t:

No problem - you're much more eloquent than I...and re: 'the gay chord', I'll re-read McClary and my class notes and try and find it. I think it was a Minor triad, with a #1 or something....

Robin,

Audiences laughed, cried and thought. Yes, they are all experiences that could occur during different times in one piece. However, they were all consistant. Nobody was crying when others were laughing. The same pieces have brought on the same results on different audiences in different states. Hard to believe that was an accident.

Yes. If you attempt to perform Beethoven's 9th with the rape intention, that shows that you are a poor judge of intent. You will fail. Beethoven didn't write the music to sound like a rape. If that is what you want, try

If you attempt to perform Beethoven's 9th with the rape intention, that shows that you are a poor judge of intent. You will fail. Beethoven didn't write the music to sound like a rape.

I'm sure he didn't - but what right do you have to tell me how I interpret something. (understand, this particular 'rape' scenario is NOT my own invention - read some McClary)

Also, you're missing my point here. I am not ignoring the existence of 'meaning' in music, but I feel it should be the listener's interpretation that's more important. Once it leaves the composer's pen, or the conductors baton, or the violinists bow it's free game for how we can interpret it. What I get out of a piece (whether it agrees with the composer's intent or not) is inherently the 'correct' interpretation; it's mine. I don't care what the composer intended; it's of no consequence to me.

Would you be upset and a failure were I to hear a piece you composed, intending for me to be overwhelmed with sadness, however I derive great joy and happiness from it? You can't make everyone feel the same thing.

The written score is like a map of the city. A mere representation but not the real thing.

No, a score is more like a Rorschach inkblot, or a Jackson Pollock painting. The music is presented as the composer intended, but must be absorbed and interpreted on an individual basis. Some people see (hear) the same thing, while others see it completely different.

If you are happy getting different responses from the same music at the same time...good for you. The fact that different people are reacting different ways to the same piece tells me that the music is confused.

Trust me, people are reacting differently to your music whether you like it or not. As for me, I consider it a resounding success to have one person love it, another hate it. One person cry, another laugh, another to walk out halfway though, and one to ask to buy the score.

...