Meaning or Beauty?

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

I will make this short and to the point. Why can you not have both?

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

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.

Communication: YES!

intentions: YES!

meaning: what are you talking about? Cause I feel that we are misunderstanding each other here.

You won't get a fixed meaning from any kind of music (the child leaves, the child goes there, the child gets eaten by the wolf! etc). Even Prokofievs work! Take out the title and the narator, and come back to me to tell me that anyone who doesn't have those 2 elements can make out the story! No way!

Take the threnody over the victims of Hiroshima! Take out the title and say to someone that it is the whales as they mate! Why wouldn't he believe it?

Great music needs to have a meaning, an intention, etc. But not to project smoe kind of movie, this is absurd really, sorry! Even symphonic poem, without the title, are destroyed really...

But music should not be meaningless or bare music. There are tons of bare music, which can be... sucessful up to a point, but other than that there is a deep meaning in the works of all my loved composers (to large a list). Just can't say that there is a fixed meaning there. Or that the composers failed (!) becasue I don't understand the meaning. I mean, Mozart failed, because I could tell what he was talking about? But he wasn't talking about anything specific! A symphony he wrote, don't you think? :w00t:

Either way nice thread!

PS. Oh boy! Mozart? fur elise? Oh boy! SOrry for that!

Take the threnody over the victims of Hiroshima! Take out the title and say to someone that it is the whales as they mate! Why wouldn't he believe it?

and if ANYONE here thinks that they can truly understand the meaning of Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima, then they are lying through their teeth... the title was added MUCH later, once the composition was completed. The "meaning" was never imbued into the work at its conception.

Beauty and meaning are nothing in music compared to craft, cohesiveness and intelligence.

I agree with the scary fellow.

Beauty and meaning are nothing in music compared to craft, cohesiveness and intelligence.

BUT, a perfectly crafted, intelligent and cohesive piece is beautiful in and of itself, no? Any composer who's mastered the craft is not likely to compose something devoid of emotion...are they?

robin,

you wouldn't believe how much craft and too much technique can gently caress up a piece in the end... :-/ Sorry for the terms but it's just how a feel sometimes...

Not to mention that passing over emotions is not what everyone aims at with their music... :)

you wouldn't believe how much craft and too much technique can gently caress up a piece in the end...

Too true...

you wouldn't believe how much craft and too much technique can gently caress up a piece in the end... :-/ Sorry for the terms but it's just how a feel sometimes...

You couldn't have used more precise words.

Haha, that sounds so very cheesy, though it might be true on some level, as generalizations tend to be. Personally however, I refuse to seriously answer this question.

robin,

you wouldn't believe how much craft and too much technique can gently caress up a piece in the end... :-/ Sorry for the terms but it's just how a feel sometimes...

Not to mention that passing over emotions is not what everyone aims at with their music... :)

let's just be sure that people undertand that this does NOT refer to not learning craft and techniques, etc...

it means that music that is over-thought can be drained of its qualities... it doesn't mean that just because you can't APPLY the techniques and craft your music is automatically better, or even any good.

Too many people bring up the argument about not wanting to learn the craft and technique so that their music doesn't "lose its spontaneity". The only thing I can say to that is "horse pucky". If you are having trouble with spontaneity, it has nothing to do with having learned all the techniques and craft.. it has to do with over-thinking your music.

Also, WHILE learning the craft and skills necessary, you WILL have trouble applying everything you learn, and yes, it WILL hold back your spontaneity... but ONLY while you are learning the craft! Once the material is learned and assimilated, your own natural creativity comes into play. The difference is that NOW you have the material to bring it out more than before.

something about techiques then:

All thecniques [should apply to what one hears in the end.

A simple example: counterpoint is a craft, a techinque if you will. Whatever done in counterpoint has a reasonable hearing point in the music. doubling, motifs, etc. They all apply to the music direct.

Same with 12 tone music (for example, which btw, I find it rather outdated), is the same. The idea was to create the lacking of a tonal center. This can bve accomplished by some techniques.

Somehow, for me, serialism stretches the limits. When you apply total serialsm to all elements of the music then it somehow becomes detached. Boulez has written works were the series applied to

a. the pitches

b. the octaves

c. the duration of notes

d. the dynamics

e. the articulations

Now, in my opinion, this is stretching it too far. Sure it has a result, but how controlled can it be if all ellements are controlled by a series? not much I say. simply because given the series and the 5 "map", a computer would end up atthe exact same result! (exxagerating just a bit but you get the point, right?)

Same with performance. I guy/gal who plays amazingly difficult pieces and fast and furious parts, is not necessarily better performer than someone playing op. 118 Brahms intermezzo (No.2 I think? If so, I've played it and it's amazing indeed)

Neither. Music should just be, and let the listener make his or her own judgement. I mean, compare boring dissonant music trying to make some point on politics or human nature to a lavish, emotional musical selection like Ravel's piano concerto in G. But then again, that makes me think of what do you call beauty or meaning? Meaning can mean beauty or vice versa.

Neither. Music should just be, and let the listener make his or her own judgement.

but, then, what is the creative input of the composer?

If (s)he doesn't care for beauty, or meaning, then what is (s)he writting music for?

(devils' advocate here, ok?)

If (s)he doesn't care for beauty, or meaning, then what is (s)he writting music for?

As for the main topic, I find it nothing short of ridiculous how frequently I see music, written work and visual art over-interpreted to an astounding degree. I should be specific though; I feel that, as Robin has been saying, the appreciation of meaning in music and any other art is the responsibility of the audience. The composer will often have a meaning that they are conveying through the piece, but that meaning is only truly clear to them - and not even that is certain. Sure, the funeral march will have a clear meaning to anyone these days...but that has nothing to do with the meaning of the music, that's just the result of cultural conditioning skewing the interpretation of the piece so that it has a fixed, biased meaning. If the title had been different and its use over time less focussed, it would be a much more open piece in terms of interpretation - regardless of the composer's original intent.

One of the things that bothers me the most about some of my classes, most notably english, is that we are repeatedly taught about many "subliminal" meanings in the works of "the great" writers such as Shakespeare. To me this is absurd; who are we to impose a fixed meaning for interpretation on this man's work? From a strictly pragmatic point of view, if Shakespeare had intentionally woven as many subplots, subliminal messages and hidden meanings into his work, it would have taken his entire life to work any of it out. Shakespeare is just an arbitrary example here, but the point is that I find it stupid to over-analyze something and then promote it as fact when it is, in fact, nothing more than a single interpretation of the work.

With respect to music, this is like saying that the Moonlight Sonata is inherently a sad piece. I think that the most severe injustice being done to any composer of the past is the fixation of a single supposed "meaning" onto their piece. As long as people are free to interpret, the piece remains a work of art; open to be experienced interactively. If I had the Moonlight Sonata played at my wedding and a friend had it played at his mother's funeral, chances are good that I would find it very happy and nostalgic while he would find it sad and melancholy. Does that mean one of us is wrong? Is one of our bodies incorrectly responding to the given stimuli? Does it get a time-out?

Personally, I can't answer the question of why I write music. Most of the time, I don't know what I'm truly writing for. Disregarding my incidental music where the meaning and reason are given to me, I don't know why I write music. It doesn't make me any happier to write a piece of music than it does to go for a nice walk in the forest, I don't flatter myself with the assumption that I have anything to say musically that hasn't been said before. Sure, sometimes I do and then I'll gladly add my contribution to the global musical palette, but that's not the driving force behind my writing.

I used to think that I wrote music because it was the best way for me to express myself to others. Over time, recently, I've realized that this is not actually true. If I want to express myself to others, the best possible way for me to do it is still with words, because what I say with words is much less open to interpretation than what I "say" with music. A piece of music will tickle everyone's senses in a different way based on their past experiences, cultures, beliefs, biases, breakfasts - everything. Music is so ridiculously open to interpretation that considering it an effective means of communicating a set message is a little sad.

When combined with other stimuli; the title, the images on the TV while the music plays, the environment you're playing it in...then you can narrow things down and be more precise with your communication. A title can immediately suggest a mood; a sombre movie scene immediately explains the sadness in the music and gives it more poignant relevance and meaning; a sunny day with the birds chirping and wind blowing lazily through the trees makes an Irish jig sound all the more uplifting and peaceful. Comparatively, that same jig played during a movie scene of a tavern brawl (consider Pirates of the Caribbean 2) will give a completely different role to the music.

Nowadays, I cannot say exactly why I write music. I do know, however, that one of the greatest thrills I ever experience as a composer is in conversing with my audience and listening to their interpretations of my pieces. As a composer of incidental music, my job is specifically to be as precise as possible with the moods and meanings I convey in my work, so I find it essential and fascinating to study peoples' individual responses and the reasons for them in order to help me improve. When I have one person tell me that a cue makes them think of a lounging afternoon on a tropical beach and the next tells me that same cue makes them imagine a day in the life of a happy-go-lucky little monkey, I am thrilled to listen to the full story and learn about my own music from those interpretations.

Is that the reason I compose though? I don't know, I honestly can't say. What matters to me is not that I have force-fed my audience a specific meaning through my music - what matters most to me, what brings me fulfillment as a composer, is the knowledge that I have succeeded in giving my audience the opportunity to experience a mood or meaning of their own through my work - that I've given them a vessel which can facilitate that for them.

I'll leave you with an example of a piece of music (a fragment of a piece of music, to be specific) which I consider to be simply gorgeous. It's not overly complex and it's not particularly innovative, but for me it's an indescribably beautiful thing to listen to. This can bring me close to tears; simply as a result of my interpretation of it. The most interesting thing is that it seems to be a subconscious interpretation or understanding of it, since I couldn't actually describe to you specifically WHAT mood this piece evokes in me that's so powerful. Regardless, allow yourselves to experience this clip as well and then compare your feelings to what I've tried to describe mine as. That will prove my point well enough for me. :)

Stone Language Edit - eSnips, share anything

Thanks for reading all of that. :)

You call this big?

HA! (will read now and answer shortly :))

I can certainly answer why I write music:

1. I get paid to do it (yes when you have a family you get to even think that. Maybe prostituting your art, but not for me really! I don't buy that!)

2. Because I have something to get out of my chest!

3. Because I need to communicate a message/mood/feeling/something. Because I want to say something to someone (audience), without this being exactly specific...

4. Because I'm really creative and need to put this energy to use, otherwise I'll end up a rabbit family with 12 kids or something...

I can also most certainly answer;

1) I use music as a means of directing my creative energy.

2) I feel that sometimes the music I write will be meaningful to people. Not the meaning I gave initially, but just meaningful.

3) It keeps my brain working and it is a great distraction from work / everyday life.

4) I derive great pleasure from doing so.

5) You get to meet very creative people, and not just in music.

6) It is truly infinite and dynamic, so, you can never conquer it.

but, then, what is the creative input of the composer?

If (s)he doesn't care for beauty, or meaning, then what is (s)he writting music for?

(devils' advocate here, ok?)

I don't know, and neither does anyone else. What matters is how you perceive the music because one piece can express different meanings/feelings to everybody. I dunno, I think I'm beginning to just ramble on. XD

I don't know, and neither does anyone else. What matters is how you perceive the music because one piece can express different meanings/feelings to everybody. I dunno, I think I'm beginning to just ramble on. XD

Three sentences and you're rambling?! GOD ...what was I doing then?

Three sentences and you're rambling?! GOD ...what was I doing then?

I meant that I felt like I was beginning to enter a loop just for the sake of rejecting what everyone else was saying. I'm arrogant like that...:horrified:

...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.

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

Several pages later... and I'm still laughing :horrified:

I meant that I felt like I was beginning to enter a loop just for the sake of rejecting what everyone else was saying. I'm arrogant like that...:horrified:

This is not arrogance. This is 'not having read the rest of the thread messages'. Because a lot of people assert the same opinion you do. :D

Several pages later... and I'm still laughing :horrified:

Glad you liked that... :D

Several pages later... and I'm still laughing :horrified:

Man, this is not laughing matter! Everybody's waiting for Robin to reveal this chord! :D