From: Adam Basanta (aba36@sfu.ca)
Date: Fri May 06 2011 - 21:45:48 EDT
Richard Wentk brings up some good points which i agree with (esp regarding the historical context around this subject, as well as the "show dont tell" approach) but I feel that this discussion is getting one sided so I'll come to the defence of program notes.
1) regarding the "listeners must get it" discussion: Maybe instead of framing this as a very semantic "get it" we can think of it as allowing a point of access into the work. ie. not to tell listeners WHAT to hear but rather suggest a way, aspect, or orientation which could be helpful in their listening experience, to suggest clues as to HOW to listen to the work.
The listener is allowed to ignore this information (though it definitely will colour their experience in some way), or a composer can refuse to provide them if s/he feels they are of no use.
But it is in this regard that the Landy and Weale study (already mentioned in this discussion) suggests that a good program note / title can help listener accessibility. I can personally attest to titles/program notes making my listening experience more rewarding.
2) regarding references in titles:
>"[titles]...which claim to question or challenge something, or reference something else, seem to me to be the signature of a composer who >doesn't believe in their own medium, and is using another medium and culture references thereto to prop up their work."
unless I am misunderstanding you there, this sounds like an argument for music-as-autonmous-object. suffice to say, not all agree with this, myself included. of course references can be taken to extremes: i dont particularly like visual art works which rely on this aspect too heavily, as I always feel that it ends up as inner-circle jokes. however, there is enough room for all of us to create the art/music that we want and enjoy without claiming one style/approach as superior to the next.
3) regarding Richard Dobson's larger point on the "ideal situation": it seems that the situation in which "symphony", "concerto", "sonata", "fugue" etc can provide "a broad sense of what to expect" depends on a narrower range of musical conceptions, style, instrumentation/media etc. So the more variety we have in aesthetic, conceptual and material approaches - and i think we can say there has been an increase in these regards (?) - the less effective these terms become (thus the need for either more terms or more explanation).
So in this sense, I would not consider the former situation as ideal. Maybe it is ideally suited for signification between term (ie. "fugue") and audience expectation?
bottom line is,
we've all read bad program notes; we've probably all written bad program notes at some point.
but that is no reason to throw the idea of program notes completely under the bus.
i dont think there is any point to saying we cant write music anymore just because i heard a bad piece last night (i didn't. it was a good piece!)
to good program notes!
Adam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wentk" <richard@wentk.com>
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 7:29:30 PM
Subject: Re: the explanation question
On 6 May 2011, at 18:13, Richard Dobson wrote:
> Dear CECers, here is a summer thought and some questions:
>
> In days of yore, a composer (at least within the Western Art tradition) never needed to write a programme note to explain their piece - the title said it all. So if it was called a symphony, everyone knew in a broad sense what to expect, and how to listen to it. Ditto overture, concerto, motet, cantata, prelude, variations on, quartet, sonata, fugue; even nocturne and fantasia. Probably the only significant exceptions were oratorio and opera, because some sort of story was involved.
There was no need for program notes because the important elements supporting the experience - which were *never* a technical explanation of the music - were provided by the context.
If it was a symphony, everyone knew in a broad sense that it was going to last quite a long time. If it was an overture, there would (probably) be someone singing afterwards and you could turn up half way through - especially if it was important for you to be noticed by other people of quality.
This seems facetious, but most listeners weren't really all that interested in the music. Performances were social events that included other activities - politics, flirting and romantic intrigue (etc), religious services, dancing, social displays of status, and so on.
This is still true today, of course.
Except in academic music, which seems alone in persisting in the delusion that people have always gone to concerts to listen - and *only* to listen.
Quietly.
> Composers today appear to have no such luxury (this is of course not a problem confined to e/a music, but seems espcially pertinent to it). Titles are a free-for-all, and the associated programme note (= explanation) is essential, otherwise it is in the lap of the gods what the listener gets from it.
>
> So, here is the first question - what titles are available today (and politically correct/acceptable) that achieve the same clarity as those of the previous age?
Single
Remix
12" single
Album
MP3
FLAC
> What is, for example, the e/a equivalent of "Sinfonia Concertante" - a title which tells you just about all you need to know, apart perhaps from how many soloists may be involved.
There isn't one. Once musical social traditions ossified towards the end of the late Victorian era and became Immensely Serious and Utterly Improving - rather than social - it became very important (for who knows what reason) to make sure that audiences understood that titles and descriptions weren't just names, they were purveyors of occult knowledge that would transform one's experience of a piece from bemused enjoyment (or lack of same) to quasi-religious life-transforming insight.
Where previously Symphony Number X in Key Y was just an identifier (has anyone who isn't a trained musician or performer ever cared what key something is in?), suddenly these trivial words became weighted with a profundity and significance they never truly possessed.
Result -> audiences who are told in hushed tones that something is in Key Y now wonder why this is important, and feel baffled because they don't know.
Fast forward (digitally) to the early 21st century, and the tradition is now fossilised. It has become very important to tell the audience what one is doing, because what one is doing is aping the traditions of classical music, and if one follows the conventions, audiences are more likely to be persuaded that one's musical business is also Very Important.
So it's a bit of a meaningless social game.
My suspicion is that it may have grown out of Enlightenment notions of culture as an inherently improving experience - which gradually took over from pre-Englightenment notions of religion as an inherently improving experience.
> The second question is - does anyone mind that the textual explanation (presumably necessarily read before audition) is so important?
I do. At best it's questionably relevant. But the very worst examples are silly, pointless, pretentious, annoying, lazy, and distracting.
I'm entirely happy to read detailed notes about the creation and realisation of music once it has proven that it can stand alone as music. One of the standard computer music texts has a discussion by Michael McNabb which explains how he created his Dreamsong piece - complete with code, diagrams, and pages of supplementary detail. (I think it may have been the text of his PhD dissertation.)
This is fascinating stuff and makes the listening far more enjoyable - in the same way that reading an interview with a pop or rock composer can be fascinating.
But titles with the standard academic word salad made up of the following cliches:
wo!rds w(i)th spurious [punct]uation or ba/ed puns
something Greek
any out of place common practice reference (etude, fugue, sonata...)
.,..and which claim to question or challenge something, or reference something else, seem to me to be the signature of a composer who doesn't believe in their own medium, and is using another medium and culture references thereto to prop up their work.
This may not be the composer's fault. The tradition of heavy-handed program notes seems to have wedged itself into this particular cultural niche. But that doesn't mean it's welcome, or helpful.
The worst examples don't give the impression of elucidation, but of *self-justification*. And "show, don't tell" remains useful advice.
As a partial aside, folk, rock, pop and even some classical performers incorporate "program notes" in the performance. Stories, relevant jokes, and background details are interspersed with the music. It's arguable whether it makes it easier to "get" the performer's point, but it can make the occasion more enjoyable.
It requires considerable skill and confidence to do well, and is valid and important performance technique in its own right - more so than typing up and printing out a few hundred words.
> Or would it be rather nice to get back to the stage where the title was all the listener needed to prepare themselves, and "get" what the composer was doing?
This does seem to be how most of the rest of the world does it - with few ill effects that I can see.
I would ask whether audiences are supposed to "get" what composers do at all.
Doesn't "get" include various things such as:
Technical flourishes and details ("I made this four hour piece by tracing the pitch and volume of 1024 sine waves manually")
Original creative intention
Making of/story of
Instrumentation
Form
...Etc?
I don't want to make music that listeners "get." I want to make music that completely captivates their attention while they're listening to it, and which they can experience again and again with satisfaction, curiosity and pleasure.
Understanding might be considered the booby prize.
Richard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 07 2011 - 05:24:22 EDT