Sax on the Web Forum banner

Composers and their "Intentions"

17K views 57 replies 32 participants last post by  Fernando Carranza 
#1 ·
This has been mulling around in my head and I thought I'd pose this question to the forum.

What is the obligation of the performer to conform to the composer's "intentions" for a work? For a performer, how much liberty with a piece is too much? Or, at what point does one cross the line between interpreting a piece and changing it?
My prof. and I had a talk about this in my lesson this week and he said something like, "I paid for it, I can do what ever I want with it."
Opinions?
 
#2 ·
My opinion is that is a quite disturbing outlook. If we don't respect the score, then what do we have? Some colleagues and I were just discussing this with respect to a recording of Berio's IXb that completely disregarded much of the composer's quite detailed instructions, most notably sempre senza vibrato. If the performer can't respect a clear instruction in a work that is highly organized on multiple levels, then they have no business performing the piece, in my view. There are expressive parameters that very with each piece, but there are parameters nonetheless.

The same is true with jazz, as it too relies on formal shapes and structures for coherence.

A point of view that considers only what the performer 'feels' and not what the composer intended is merely an extension of the worst self-indulgent tendencies in society.
 
#9 ·
My opinion is that is a quite disturbing outlook. If we don't respect the score, then what do we have? Some colleagues and I were just discussing this with respect to a recording of Berio's IXb that completely disregarded much of the composer's quite detailed instructions, most notably sempre senza vibrato
I had a discussion once with Arno Bornkamp on the lessons he had with Berio on Sequenza IXb, Berio told Arno that he had written senza vib because he hated bad vibrato. He told Arno however that he liked his vibrato and if he wished he could use it. However, as he is probably the only man around with that approvale I think we should stick with senza.
 
#3 ·
My prof. and I had a talk about this in my lesson this week and he said something like, "I paid for it, I can do what ever I want with it."
Opinions?
That's a pretty glib answer and a bit arrogant. Using that rationale, you could then play the Ibert with Guardala lazer mpc at mm=90 and feel justified. Or play it as is with the "proper" equipment, but with inappropriate articulations.

IMO your first familiarity with a composition would be to replicate exactly what the composer intended, to the best of the information you have. That means not just looking at the music, but studying about the composer, him/herself as well as the genre if you're not intimate with it. Regardless of the art form, my inclination is always to immerse yourself in something you might intend to take liberties with (or depart from) later on, so you know what you are departing from.

Now, having said that, and I meant what I wrote, if one has a good sense of musicianship and understanding of what they are doing, I have little problem when they take liberties.

As a composer, I have had some very interesting and satisfying reactions to various interpretations of things I've written. If it's abstract music, when excellent musicians put their insight into what I've written, many times it does not come out exactly as I envisioned it when I wrote it, but it's very interesting nevertheless. I find this exciting.

p.s. (Jim and I were writing at the same time, it seems.) IMO in the case of some composers who are very specific with their directions, there is no excuse whatsoever to ignore them.
 
#4 ·
This has been mulling around in my head and I thought I'd pose this question to the forum.

What is the obligation of the performer to conform to the composer's "intentions" for a work? For a performer, how much liberty with a piece is too much? Or, at what point does one cross the line between interpreting a piece and changing it?
My prof. and I had a talk about this in my lesson this week and he said something like, "I paid for it, I can do what ever I want with it."
Opinions?
My opinion is that is a quite disturbing outlook. If we don't respect the score, then what do we have? Some colleagues and I were just discussing this with respect to a recording of Berio's IXb that completely disregarded much of the composer's quite detailed instructions, most notably sempre senza vibrato. If the performer can't respect a clear instruction in a work that is highly organized on multiple levels, then they have no business performing the piece, in my view. There are expressive parameters that very with each piece, but there are parameters nonetheless.

The same is true with jazz, as it too relies on formal shapes and structures for coherence.

A point of view that considers only what the performer 'feels' and not what the composer intended is merely an extension of the worst self-indulgent tendencies in society.
Right on.

Composers know what they're going for. It's our job as performers to bring that message to life through our performance.
 
#5 ·
I know several composers that went to synths just so performers wouldn't F*** up their pieces.
 
#6 ·
When you offer one of your compositions to the world, you should hope for people interpreting it, modifying it and getting inspiration from it. A composition is brought to life by the musician(s) who play(s) it. Expecting every last detailed instructions or intentions to be fully respected or even understood would be denying human nature.
 
#7 ·
Having worked with several composers on both newly written works and also works performed several times by other performers I've found that composers vary in their expectations. Some do want the performer to rely on their instincts and musicality while others are very specific at Prof. Drake said about the Berio Sequenza.

I know that other instruments that have a much longer history--piano, violin, cello, flute, etc. whose great works like the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto, Poulenc Flute Sonata, Beethoven Piano Sonatas, etc. tend to perform the pieces tempos and phrasing that is not too radically different. At least this is true when we're talking about the "great" performers like Itztak Perlman on violin, Jean Pierre Rampal on Flute and Richard Goode on piano. They've taken the composer's indications (even the "dead" ones!) and pulled something special out of the music, but not "recreated" it.

I believe in respecting the composer's intention, unless I know for a fact they want me to do my own "creating" when performing the piece either from talking with them directly or from indications in the score. Remember, we NEED composers to write for us and respect their creative ideas!

Dale Wolford
 
#8 ·
This has been mulling around in my head and I thought I'd pose this question to the forum.

What is the obligation of the performer to conform to the composer's "intentions" for a work? For a performer, how much liberty with a piece is too much? Or, at what point does one cross the line between interpreting a piece and changing it?
My prof. and I had a talk about this in my lesson this week and he said something like, "I paid for it, I can do what ever I want with it."
Opinions?
My opinion is that is a quite disturbing outlook. If we don't respect the score, then what do we have? Some colleagues and I were just discussing this with respect to a recording of Berio's IXb that completely disregarded much of the composer's quite detailed instructions, most notably sempre senza vibrato. If the performer can't respect a clear instruction in a work that is highly organized on multiple levels, then they have no business performing the piece, in my view. There are expressive parameters that very with each piece, but there are parameters nonetheless.

The same is true with jazz, as it too relies on formal shapes and structures for coherence.

A point of view that considers only what the performer 'feels' and not what the composer intended is merely an extension of the worst self-indulgent tendencies in society.
Agreed.

I'm going to throw something else in on this...I think it really depends on the composer as to how close you stay to his/her "intentions". If you're playing a piece by John Cage, for example, I think it matters less (since you're playing music that is aleatoric anyway) than if you're playing Boulez (where the structure of the music is paramount.)

And another thing on this subject...I have a CD of West Side Story with Jose Carreras and Kiri Te Kanawa as Tony and Maria. It's not very good stylistically, but Bernstein himself is conducting it. He cast it himself because he wanted it to be accepted as opera. But it just doesn't sound right, and the movie version is usually accepted as being more definitive. So at what point do we disregard "what the composer wants" and play to a mythical "spirit of the piece"?

I'm just throwing these things out there because I'm curious about everyone's philosophy...
 
#10 ·
I have sometimes been pleasantly surprised by interpretations of my music which have been different to what I envisaged (why didn't I think of that?) but more often it is a case of "Why can't they do it the way I said?".

I think the bottom line is that if you look at different idioms/styles, you find that they have different parameters for the amount and nature of "performer input". For example, the original scores of much baroque music contain little if anything in the way of dynamic or articulation markings. Decisions about these are left to the performer, but it is assumed that the performer is educated about the manner in which these things are done in that particular style of music. This involves learning a performance tradition, either by conscious study or immersion.

As you progress forward through the "classical" tradition through the classical and romantic periods and then into the first part of the 20th century (I'm generalising here, there will be exceptions) composers take increasingly more control over the minutae of musical performances. That doesn't mean that there is no scope for interpretation, it's just that the parameters for it are narrower.

Then, in the 20th century we have a number of traditions that are again giving the performer much more liberal scope for interpretation.

SHORT ANSWER:

It's about the style. Play in accordance with it.
 
#16 ·
Perfect is the enemy of good.

If a composer writes for an instrument that practically does not exist (your F 'nino example, or C bass, for example), either he can grit his teeth and let it get played on another instrument, or he can have the horns built. Where do you think Wagner tubas came from?

As a performer, the proper instrument should be left to your discretion (within reason). If a piece is in Bb, don't tell me to play it on an A clarinet because it's "sweeter sounding". I can see a point in complaining if I played it on eefer or C clarinet, they don't sound the same as a Bb/A, but a properly built Bb/A pair should sound nearly indistinguishable except for where the break lies. Similarly, if F 'ninos aren't available, and someone makes do with a normal Eb 'nino, that's just the breaks.
 
#12 ·
I tend to agree with your professor. Although, I'm sure he wouldn't have meant that he could do WHATEVER he wanted with it. He was just trying to make a point.

If I were a composer, I'd be flattered by others interpretations of my pieces. Interpretation doesn't include "change". Anyway, I think you'd know as a player when and if you crossed the line.
 
#13 ·
+1 for Drakesaxprof and Gary's posts. I would only add that you have to make this evaluation for each composer or piece you work on. In the case of Berio, you should pretty much play the ink. In other cases, you have to use your common sense. Sometimes, composers just don't know what they're doing (SOMETIMES). Good composers will trust a performer's musicianship.
 
#17 ·
The way I've been looking at it:
The performer's goal is to make the most musical performance possible. If a performer finds that the ink is getting in the way of this, why not change it? Regarding the Berio example, does the performers use of vibrato make their interpretation "not valid?" When I consider this, I ask myself one question: "Does it work?" The only way to answer this is to look at it from the audiences perspective. An audience member is not following along with a score as you are performing, they're just along for the ride. So if you change something, and it works, and the audience likes it, what's the problem?
 
#18 ·
It depends.

Different composers make different demands on performers - some give latitude, some do not.

Performers, in the main, perform pieces of music that they were not clever enough to think up themselves. They should give respect to those who are (or were) that clever.
 
#20 ·
I'm a little old school.
The composer wrote the music the way THEY wanted it to be performed.
I do my utmost to respect every guide given in the piece. ie dynamics, articulation, tempo, phrasing....
I'm sure that the composer was aware that there would be differences in how the piece would be interpreted depending on the player. Everyone will add a few personal, subtle embellishments.
The music is not from my mind, heart, or soul. It's from theirs, and deserves to be respected and played as closly to the composers original intent as possible.
 
#21 ·
There are no absolutes, and music is no exception. The event of the performance itself has a great deal to do with the interpretation and how close or distant the adherence to the composer’s markings should be. Your audience and its expectations should help drive such a decision. And only an amateur would care little about the expectation and enjoyment of the audience.

My very personal philosophy comes from vocal music – only once you can sing a song absolutely true to the notes and make it emotional, interesting, and compelling should you embellish. Likewise, only once you can perform the music absolutely true to a composer’s markings and make it emotional, interesting, and compelling should your interpretation stray. You will likely find you can't do so very far without diminishing it.

That being said, the great thing about dead composers is that they don’t care how you play their pieces.
 
#24 ·
And only an amateur would care little about the expectation and enjoyment of the audience.
Are you a professional, Sarastro? I am and when I play a "classical" solo, my focus is on making the most musical performance I can, and let the chips fall where they may. I want the listeners to respond to my performance and I don't ignore them or act aloof on the stage, but 100% of my focus is on the quality of the performance. I am playing for the music, the composer and for myself. The "expectation and enjoyment of the audience" is not a factor at that point.
 
#22 ·
I was one of the "colleagues" drakesaxprof mentioned in his posting, and I find this to be a fascinating topic OP. Also, I am happy to say that this is my first post to SOTW! I believe I fall in line with drakesaxprof and stefank on this one.

As a teacher and performer, I believe that I have a responsibility to adhere to the composers' intentions, whether implicit or explicit. This is not to say, of course, that there is no room for individual expression. How should a forte sound in Glazunov versus the forte in Berio? When the composer writes dynamic changes is he or she just wanting a shift in dynamics, or also a shift in color, intensity, etc. How do we express this with vibrato variation, air manipulation or otherwise? I guess what I am getting at is there is a depth to creating an individual interpretation without changing the composer's intentions for the piece, or even sections of the piece.

I do feel strongly that we should leave the rewriting or editing of music up to the composer, or, at the very least, collaboration with the composer and seeking their guidance, permission, etc. If the composer is not available for consultation, we probably shouldn't take that self-indulgent liberty.
 
#23 ·
It's always interesting to think about composers intent and performers realization. As saxophonists, we play a lot of music that wasn't intended for our instrument; so composers intent is already altered. As a composer, I like to write for and work with the performers, we can settle on notes and markings and develop a clear sense of where the piece is going. As a performer, I like to be in contact with the composer. I was involved recently with a world premiere of Halim El-Dahb's work for saxophone and Derabucca. His involvement in the preparation and performance and his comments on the recording made the project very enjoyable, even as I struggled with some of the performance demands. I fall to the idea of "gain complete control of the ink" and then you have enough command of the music to question individual parts(notes, markings etc.) of the composers creation.
 
#25 ·
Several years ago I was listening to a Bay area NPR station and they announced that they were airing a recording of Ravel conducting his Bolero that had been "restored" from the original master by a company that was affiliated with Industrial Light and Magic. They said that they had tried to duplicate the original buy real instruments digitally in order to be able to restore the sound from the original master recording and actually duplicating the timbre, etc. using the modern sound samples and that in some instances, using the score, had to synthesize the sound that had been obliterated by scratches, pops, and such to eliminate the "static" noises. In other words, they attempted to replicate live sound by enhancing the original technology and eliminating the vestiges of wear and tear.

The resulting recording was amazing in more ways than one. It was indeed a very modern sounding recording, but more interesting was the tempo that the piece was conducted by Ravel himself. It was substantially faster than I had ever heard before. This made me wonder whether the recording that was "enhanced" was true to the tempo of the original (I would think so since the turntable speeds, etc. were verifiable), or possibly whether Ravel took liberties with his own work, or has the piece just subsequently been altered to because of its somewhat universal reputation as a "romantic" work? I had been taught that the Bolero was actually an educational work to introduce listeners to the various orchestral instruments, and if that's the case, I would guess it would "server" the composers' purpose regardless of tempo.

While I'd say that a composer has the right to alter or modify his own work during performance, I would still lean toward the viewpoint of Gary and drakesaxprof. This is, after all a "classical" thread. If it ain't being played the way the composer envisioned it, it moves away from being classical and into the vein of becoming "pop". Once the work "jumps the shark" I would think it becomes "Variations of a Theme by..." To remain classical I think every attempt should be made to play the work as the composer wrote it based upon the best training the musicians (and conductor) can muster to read the score. Not to do so would be like slapping a Mercedes medallion on the front of my Mustang and calling it a Mercedes.
 
#29 ·
I didn't say I made my living as a classical saxophonist. I said I made my sole source of living performing music. I play clarinets, saxophones, flute, oboe, and sing (all styles on all instruments). I'll be performing a principal role in an opera in three weeks as a bass vocalist. I was a session player/singer for 15 years while also playing in orchestras, acts, big bands, rock bands, jazz bands, and pit orchestras. I've retired to a place well away from L.A., so many of those opportunities no longer exist, but I probably play and sing more solos than ever before.

When I play or sing solos, while I am interested in making the best music I can within 'reasonable' composer parameters, the audience make up, the venue, and the event are all important just as my own feelings and interpretations are. It's not just about doing my thing and screw everyone else if they don't like it.
 
#30 ·
I didn't say I made my living as a classical saxophonist. I said I made my sole source of living performing music. I play clarinets, saxophones, flute, oboe, and sing (all styles on all instruments). I'll be performing a principal role in an opera in three weeks as a bass vocalist. I was a session player/singer for 15 years while also playing in orchestras, acts, big bands, rock bands, jazz bands, and pit orchestras. I've retired to a place well away from L.A., so many of those opportunities no longer exist, but I probably play and sing more solos than ever before.

When I play or sing solos, while I am interested in making the best music I can within 'reasonable' composer parameters, the audience make up, the venue, and the event are all important just as my own feelings and interpretations are. It's not just about doing my thing and screw everyone else if they don't like it.
Well, I guess that explains the handle 'Sarastro'.:)

I was wondering about that.
 
#33 ·
Having a foot in both camps, so to speak, as both a composer and a saxophonist, I will add that the printed music is NOT the music, but merely a storage medium. The musician WILL add his interpretation of the notation from storage medium to live performance, and NO amount of detail on the part of the composer can completely control the interpretation of the musician(s). Because music is an attempted live reproduction of music stored as notation, it will be subject to the vagaries of individual interpretation (or lack thereof).
Music is the most important of all art forms because it is temporal (must be freshly re-created live in real time), is slightly different in every performance (the impact of temporal), and is non-visual (more difficult to recall than visual arts, even temporal ones like drama and dance). These aspects cause music to bear repeated exposure better than any other art form. The arts communicate emotion, and music builds sensitivity to emotion faster and better than any other art form due to these temporal and non-visual aspects.
Much as we can fault the performers who take latitudes with their interpretations, music requires input from the performers who freshly re-create the music to make it live. I don't like it butchered, either, especially if I composed it. But the temporal aspect of music makes it undeniable: the performer makes the music each time it is performed, for good or bad, better or worse.
 
#34 ·
Having a foot in both camps, so to speak, as both a composer and a saxophonist, I will add that the printed music is NOT the music, but merely a storage medium. The musician WILL add his interpretation of the notation from storage medium to live performance, and NO amount of detail on the part of the composer can completely control the interpretation of the musician(s). Because music is an attempted live reproduction of music stored as notation, it will be subject to the vagaries of individual interpretation (or lack thereof).
Music is the most important of all art forms because it is temporal (must be freshly re-created live in real time), is slightly different in every performance (the impact of temporal), and is non-visual (more difficult to recall than visual arts, even temporal ones like drama and dance). These aspects cause music to bear repeated exposure better than any other art form. The arts communicate emotion, and music builds sensitivity to emotion faster and better than any other art form due to these temporal and non-visual aspects.
Much as we can fault the performers who take latitudes with their interpretations, music requires input from the performers who freshly re-create the music to make it live. I don't like it butchered, either, especially if I composed it. But the temporal aspect of music makes it undeniable: the performer makes the music each time it is performed, for good or bad, better or worse.
In literary studies, this line of argument would be considered almost inescapably true.

For example, I doubt many directors of Shakespeare would consider their job as performing Shakespeare's "intentions" accurately, mostly because these intentions are fundamentally unknowable. We even have a very durable old concept called the "intentional fallacy," which holds that it is wrong to believe that the "meaning" of a work is limited to the author's meanings or intentions. Generally, this has less to do with ephemerality, as above, than with some arguments about the nature of language, metaphorical or otherwise.

That said, with Shakespearen drama, there is a similar issue insofar as different directors feel different levels of commitment to the actual words of the plays, with some more willing to cut/add/alter than others. Interestingly, there is virtually no history of successful stagings of Shakespeare plays in toto: cuts are always made, and this rule would presumably include stagings overseen by Shakespeare himself!

One thing I'm wondering is about the actual provenance of the scores: in Shakespeare, the plays are part of an elaborate, and often very dubiously creative, editorial process, and so can only very imperfectly "store" Shakespeare's words in the sense used above. Is this also true with a lot of classical music? I guess it must be easier to know exactly what note Beethoven wanted than what word Shakespeare used?

Rory
 
#35 ·
What is acceptable in one art form is not necessarily acceptable in another. It is true that in the theater they do all sorts of cuts and changes, but I don't think that can carry over to classical music. A classical work is more like a painting. You can't cut the background of the Mona Lisa, or crop it, and have it still be the Mona Lisa. You then have a Warhol, not a da Vinci.
 
#37 ·
A classical work is more like a painting.
Interesting. That would be pretty much exactly the opposite of what Sax Magic said, i.e. the idea that the score is a set of instructions about how to reproduce the work, but not the thing an sich. Clearly a painting--or any other example of the plastic arts--is not like that at all.

It is, however, interesting to note how the phenomenon of me looking at a renaissance painting in a modern gallery would presumably reproduce very little of the painter's original intentions. As hard as I try, I can hardly see the Mona Lisa the way Davinci intended me to?

Or, try this one: imagine there is a super strength copy machine, one that is able to create an exact reproduction of the Geurnica, right down to the molecular level. Would this copy store/perform Picasso's intentions? I'm not sure, but I think most people would instinctively say no.



I think the term authenticity is much more productive here--it certainly seems more load bearing, conceptually, than intentions. It may be that we can argue (well you guys can at least:)) about whether a given performance measures up to our sense of authenticity much more effectively than we can measure a correspondence or truth to intentions?

R.
 
#38 ·
A musical score is a set of instructions on how to reproduce a piece of music. I agree that we, as performers, should try to reproduce it in a faithful, authentic manner, with respect and understanding to the artist that constructed that instruction set.

Everyone is going to experience the 'intention' differently, just as when you look at a painting at one time, then look at another. Has the painting changed? Yes, could be--the lighting could change, it could have been moved to another place, and this could affect the way that the painting is experienced. However, the greatest change is to the person's experience or interpretation of the artwork.

A performing artist, in much the same way, could point out something in a performance that was formerly hidden, or is a realization that the performer had while studying the piece.
 
#39 ·
I think a lot of this comes down to artistic fashion, no? There's no rule that says the composer's intention is any more important than, say, what the audience might want to hear. But the "intention" model leaves less room for travesties. "But it's what I feeeel the piece means to meeee" etc. Probably a good thing.
 
#41 ·
That's a major part of it - performance fashions change, and people are often more reponsive to a modern take on things, probably because the voice(s) they are hearing are more familiar to them, and they are comfortable with that - so much so that when I listen to my recording (1926) of Elgar conducting Enigma Variations some features sound somewhat quaint and old fashioned, eg the (to modern ears) exaggerated portamenti in the strings.

That's just over eighty years, it's as authentic as it gets, but even at that comparably young vintage it contains features that may be considered "wierdness" by an "average" modern audience. I admit that for "listenability" (there's a horrible word) I will reach for my not quite so old Bernstein version.

So what is probably happening is that performers (probably unconsciously in most cases) are making modern "translations" of these works (or perhaps more accurately "speaking in a modern dialect") for ease of communication. This raises an interesting point. Are the composer's intentions made more or less clear by modernising language? To use a literary example, if I'm trying to read Chaucer, the answer is clear, as my knowledge of Middle English is not good, and while I may gain an over all sense of the meaning of the original text, I am far better off with a good modern translation if I want to better understand Chaucer's intentions, even if I then must use the "filter" of a third person (the translator).

The question is probably not answerable with a simple yes or no, it's probably more of a case of "how much is still within the bounds of good taste".

In the end everything (whether it be a work or (and this is quite distinct) a performance of a work) exists within a particular cultural context. Late Victorian style performances of Handel oratorios would seem to have been regarded as an abomination for many years now, but would "authentic" performances have been acceptable (or even possible) then? More to the point, are "authentic" performances of historic pieces possible now? Even if we can recreate the sounds of antiquity, we cannot recreate the audiences (or more particularly their understanding of what they heard in their particular cultural context) so we will not undertand in the manner of the audience the composer was writing for.

The above is a bit of a mess, but I hope it raises some valid points. I don't think it answers any questions!
 
#40 ·
I wonder how many of those original composers took liberties with other pieces in the process of composing their own "original" piece?

I think once you can play it true as intended, then you're allowed to add more of yourself in there, and I think you must do that in order not to sound stiff.

The degree of separation from the original piece at that point is subjective, sometimes another interpretation just may sound better, and why shouldn't that be allowed? It's music, that's what it's all about.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top