Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
I think you make the assumption that just being able to identify with the emotion makes it possible to recreate it. This is where study and experience come in handy.
This is not my claim. I was telling you what people were trying to claim here when stating that music is all about communication of emotion. You are exactly right here. I have said the exact same thing in this very thread. We agree. People earlier said that the older pianist is the better one because of the larger emotional palette available. I said that's not necessarily the case and that I didn't think it was all that important for somebody to possess a terribly large emotional palette to generate an interpretation as authentic as somebody with much greater emotional experience. Older pianists are sometimes perceived as better simply because of their greater pianistic experience (and not necessarily emotional experience). This was my argument. People didn't want to buy it.
Btw, I took careful pains to mention clearly that lets assume pianistic ability (and experience) were the same for argument's sake. Its unfortunate that you chose to ignore it.
Originally Posted by NeilOS
And this "better interpretation" very likely will come from a more experienced performer," who is more likely able to figure out what the composer's intentions are. We don't know precisely the intentions of the composers of yore beyond the general: "amabile," "innigikeit," "dolce." If we see "allegro" or "andante" in Mozart, for example, what does that tell us? Only something about tempo. We have to read between the lines as we play the notes, which we do based on our own study (experience) and intuition.
You state initially that the better interpreters are the ones who can figure out composer intentions. Then you go on to say that composer intentions are lost to us forever. Aren't these contradictory again? (Btw, I agree with the latter). As far as the former goes, the better interpreter is the one who creates a more interesting sound out of the piece (as there is simply no way for us to tell if he's the one who figured out composer intentions better because of your second claim that directly contradicts this). Bozhanov in the recently concluded Chopin competition generated some very interesting interpretations because the sound he generated was very interesting, different from other interpretations. It is not because I felt more melancholy listening to him or whatever. The emphasis is on difference, and the quality of the sound being interesting in a statistical sense (simply because these are relationships that probably haven't been heard too often in the past because this person has been original about how he interprets the piece. Not that this person was the one who figured out how Chopin intended it to be played). It was because he was the one who kept me focused on the music for longer. My brain simply found it fun to keep track. Now, as a result, could I have felt more emotional? Maybe, maybe not. That's secondary. Primary is the fact that the sound had to be interesting and different (unique) for it be perceived as an "outstanding" interpretation. Why do you think Glenn Gould was hailed as such a great Bach interpreter? Its because nobody had heard anything like it before he arrived on the scene. Its all in the statistics. Its not because when Glenn Gould played, people could see that the music served to glorify the lord as Bach had intended and they didn't see that as much when other pianists played Bach.
Most of what you say in your post is stuff I've said before in this thread, except for the "better interpretation = figuring out composer intentions better" part. That was just something I said in my last post as a statement that needs to hold if people were to be consistent with their claim that music acts primarily to communicate emotion (which I've disagreed with all along).
Your post also contains my response to Pogo. Op 101, I don't know what the marking is.. I will have to look up the score. However, most markings are of tempo, some markings direct us to play animatedly, etc. I don't see too many markings that ask us to play with terror or fear, or jealousy or hatred, or love or lust or whatever. Joy, sadness? Maybe. I do see many markings for a couple of these very basic emotions. Do tempo markings, and dynamic markings FAR exceed emotional descriptors? So does music serve to communicate emotions? (I'm asking the question in relation with score markings only because Pogo wanted to present evidence based on Op 101). Think again.
Originally Posted by NeilOS
We do know that these composers were open to "interpretation." Beethoven, in particular, played his own music quite differently on different occasions. So, even though "authentic" expressions of emotion in music are possible at a young age (mimicry and intuition), study and experience can also make a difference.
I've said as much multiple times in this thread. However, we probably disagree on what type of experience is of importance here. I would say pianistic and musical experience primarily. Others want to say emotional experience primarily. I assume you want to say the latter too, in which case we disagree at that point.
I didn't see this post for some reason. Briefly: No, emotional experience is not of primary importance in the interpretation of music. My interest in this post was the suggestion that the primary aim of music (composers' primary aims) was about statistics, putting together "interesting" combinations of notes. It isn't. The aim of the composer and his interpreter is to express something, to make his/her audience feel something.
The composer's intentions are not lost to us. They are indicated to us in the notes they've left us (that was the rest of my statement that you didn't include in your quote). They are handed down, as you know, in written form, oral tradition and more recently in recordings. You give scholarship short shrift here. The study of the score itself tells us what the composer intended, much more than "descriptors." It is in fact possible to be moved by reading a score away from the instrument.
LIszt: "Btw, I took careful pains to mention clearly that lets assume pianistic ability (and experience) were the same for argument's sake. Its unfortunate that you chose to ignore it."
Really? Really? Do you think your argument is a reasonable one? Comparing Mozart and Chopin to their likely interpreters?
Comparing Mozart and Chopin to their likely interpreters?
You quote out of context yet again. There was never an issue of musical comparison. The issue was of emotional comparison. I can't imagine a 14 year old Chopin to have been much more emotionally mature than a 14 year old (say highly accomplished) pianist today. The comparison was strictly on emotional grounds. If you want to say that Mozart and Chopin were somehow emotionally much more "superior" to all other 14 year olds (when they were themselves 14), I guess we disagree clearly there.
The comparison was with the intention of pointing out that a 14 year old is probably most likely to interpret a 14 year old's composition IF communication of emotion was the primary objective here (which I don't believe, so I don't believe the first part of the claim but to be consistent, this would have to hold as people of the same age are more congruent to each other emotionally than are an 80 year old and a 12 year old. All the emotional experience of the 80 year old is a hindrance in this context (again if communication of emotion is your claim as the primary goal of all of music), for example, if the 12 year old's composition is supposed to reflect a lack of emotional experience! Of lust.. of whatever it is that a 12 year old feels. Do you have something to say about this other than "really? really?" ?
Comparing Mozart and Chopin to their likely interpreters?
You quote out of context yet again. There was never an issue of musical comparison. The issue was of emotional comparison. I can't imagine a 14 year old Chopin to have been much more emotionally mature than a 14 year old (say highly accomplished) pianist today. The comparison was strictly on emotional grounds. If you want to say that Mozart and Chopin were somehow emotionally much more "superior" to all other 14 year olds (when they were themselves 14), I guess we disagree clearly there.
The comparison was with the intention of pointing out that a 14 year old is probably most likely to interpret a 14 year old's composition IF communication of emotion was the primary objective here (which I don't believe, so I don't believe the first part of the claim but to be consistent, this would have to hold as people of the same age are more congruent to each other emotionally than are an 80 year old and a 12 year old. All the emotional experience of the 80 year old is a hindrance in this context (again if communication of emotion is your claim as the primary goal of all of music), for example, if the 12 year old's composition is supposed to reflect a lack of emotional experience! Of lust.. of whatever it is that a 12 year old feels. Do you have something to say about this other than "really? really?" ?
No, "really, really" covers it. Look at the music for your proof.
Comparing Mozart and Chopin to their likely interpreters?
You quote out of context yet again. There was never an issue of musical comparison. The issue was of emotional comparison. I can't imagine a 14 year old Chopin to have been much more emotionally mature than a 14 year old (say highly accomplished) pianist today. The comparison was strictly on emotional grounds. If you want to say that Mozart and Chopin were somehow emotionally much more "superior" to all other 14 year olds (when they were themselves 14), I guess we disagree clearly there.
The comparison was with the intention of pointing out that a 14 year old is probably most likely to interpret a 14 year old's composition IF communication of emotion was the primary objective here (which I don't believe, so I don't believe the first part of the claim but to be consistent, this would have to hold as people of the same age are more congruent to each other emotionally than are an 80 year old and a 12 year old. All the emotional experience of the 80 year old is a hindrance in this context (again if communication of emotion is your claim as the primary goal of all of music), for example, if the 12 year old's composition is supposed to reflect a lack of emotional experience! Of lust.. of whatever it is that a 12 year old feels. Do you have something to say about this other than "really? really?" ?
No, "really, really" covers it. Look at the music for your proof.
Fine, if it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is probably the most absurd statement I've heard in this thread so far. Here we are trying to figure out what the purpose is of music with regard to how people conceive of it, and how people perceive it and you're asking me to "look at the music for your proof". Like I said earlier, I don't come to PW expecting the highest scientific or logical standards but there are very basic standards that I do expect from people here.
You have refused to acknowledge the context in which I made that comparison. If your purpose is to construct strawmen, please do so by all means. We have nothing more to discuss.
Comparing Mozart and Chopin to their likely interpreters?
You quote out of context yet again. There was never an issue of musical comparison. The issue was of emotional comparison. I can't imagine a 14 year old Chopin to have been much more emotionally mature than a 14 year old (say highly accomplished) pianist today. The comparison was strictly on emotional grounds. If you want to say that Mozart and Chopin were somehow emotionally much more "superior" to all other 14 year olds (when they were themselves 14), I guess we disagree clearly there.
The comparison was with the intention of pointing out that a 14 year old is probably most likely to interpret a 14 year old's composition IF communication of emotion was the primary objective here (which I don't believe, so I don't believe the first part of the claim but to be consistent, this would have to hold as people of the same age are more congruent to each other emotionally than are an 80 year old and a 12 year old. All the emotional experience of the 80 year old is a hindrance in this context (again if communication of emotion is your claim as the primary goal of all of music), for example, if the 12 year old's composition is supposed to reflect a lack of emotional experience! Of lust.. of whatever it is that a 12 year old feels. Do you have something to say about this other than "really? really?" ?
No, "really, really" covers it. Look at the music for your proof.
Fine, if it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is probably the most absurd statement I've heard in this thread so far. Here we are trying to figure out what the purpose is of music with regard to how people conceive of it, and how people perceive it and you're asking me to "look at the music for your proof". Like I said earlier, I don't come to PW expecting the highest scientific or logical standards but there are very basic standards that I do expect from people here.
You have refused to acknowledge the context in which I made that comparison. If your purpose is to construct strawmen, please do so by all means. We have nothing more to discuss.
And I answered your concerns, but you didn't want to hear it. Do look at the music for clues to emotional maturity of the composer. (Mozart for example, age 14-17 wrote 2 operas, a set of string quartets and 2 symphonies that are still in the standard repertoire, among other works. This tells me that Mozart's musical maturity was most likely more developed than his likely interpreters. That's why I thought your comparison was unreasonable.) It's all there in the music. Everything is there, including answers to your original posit having to do with the primary purpose of music. And yes, I've contributed all I have to contribute, which I've done sincerely, despite your inclination to parse. No need to respond to this.
The aim of the composer and his interpreter is to express something, to make his/her audience feel something.
I agree with this 100% (we're not talking about contemporary music though). As long as no one think it's [censored], I'm good.
A blanket generalization _and_ a dismissal of the entire corpus of contemporary music, all in one sentence. Impressive
I think it's completely unhelpful to generalize about the 'aim' of composers. Throughout history one of the aims of nearly all composers has been to get paid. For many, composing is an exercise in craftsmanship -- we don't usually ask a luthier what emotion he or she is trying to express when building a fine violin. Some people just compose for the sheer joy of creation. Some compose because the believe it is a way to praise God -- perhaps surprisingly, this remains a motive for many contemporary composers. Some do it because they can't not do it, for reasons that they can't articulate.
To say that aim of composition is to 'express something' is hugely simplistic.
I don't know if there's anybody left who still wants to have a balanced, serious discussion about this issue. I'm finding it somewhat difficult to pick out the reasoned posts from the outpourings of bilious drivel.
Perhaps, as liszt85 says, it's not going to be possible to have a serious discussion with any scientific rigour on a piano forum. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if it's possible to have a serious discussion of any non-trivial issue on these forums. It certainly looks like any topic that has the potential to be even slightly contentious rapidly becomes overwhelmed with ad-hominem attacks, rudeness, straw men, and general stupidness.
So we re bascically telling composers why they should write music. Music doesn t need a purpose in my opinion. It doesn t need to be justified, it s there to be enjoyed, and i dont think anyone should tell anyone else what to expect or feel from music. That s why sometimes i see discussions like this as a cul de sac. I will not to proseltize Messiaen unto people who have tried him and discarded him. It's fair enough.
The aim of the composer and his interpreter is to express something, to make his/her audience feel something.
I agree with this 100% (we're not talking about contemporary music though). As long as no one think it's [censored], I'm good.
A blanket generalization _and_ a dismissal of the entire corpus of contemporary music, all in one sentence. Impressive
Thanks.
Quote
I think it's completely unhelpful to generalize about the 'aim' of composers. Throughout history one of the aims of nearly all composers has been to get paid. For many, composing is an exercise in craftsmanship -- we don't usually ask a luthier what emotion he or she is trying to express when building a fine violin. Some people just compose for the sheer joy of creation. Some compose because the believe it is a way to praise God -- perhaps surprisingly, this remains a motive for many contemporary composers. Some do it because they can't not do it, for reasons that they can't articulate.
Suit yourself. Why is it unhelpful? The whole thread has been about life experiences, personality and emotion in music. Isn't it interesting to discuss why composers write?
Do you really think Beethoven only wrote to get paid? Sure, they had to make a living. Do you really think I only play just because I get paid? That's not a primary reason at all. Sometimes (I'm not saying you, because I don't know you) people who don't do music professionaly don't understand that we don't do it for the money, I thought that was obvious! A lot of people can't understand that we actually enjoy what we do for a living - and it's not to blame anybody, there are numerous people who hate their jobs and think it's just what it is.
Quote
To say that aim of composition is to 'express something' is hugely simplistic.
In a nutshell, that's what it is. Do you disagree with it? I understand that there are people who compose for the sake of composing, but that's not the sole purpose of music, creating for the sake of it. I mean, I'm in disbelief a little bit if someone doesn't think composition is to express something - how do you play then? Do you express nothing? I'd be curious to hear you, it would be a good experiment.
Listen to this and tell me what you think:
Does it really not make you feel anything, do you think Richter felt nothing, or Beethoven felt nothing while composing it? Absurd.
Last edited by Pogorelich.; 07/08/1111:09 AM.
"The eyes can mislead, the smile can lie, but the shoes always tell the truth."
