Lecture 1, Question 2: Technical Aspects of Composition

[Jill_Curtis Institute]

Consider the performer's relationship to the technical aspects of composition.

Technical Aspects of Composition

To what extent should the technical aspects of composition – structure, use of harmony and counterpoint – be of concern to the performer? To the listener? What about the history behind the composition? Is context always useful, or can it become distracting?

[c15arb]

My answer is totally biased cause i have studied music composition. I think that is important to understand the structure (for phrasing to start with ), harmony is important and build structural points of reference and counterpoint share the same aspects . It´s possible to perform without using all the former aspects , i guess. It´s possible to speak a language phonetically. It´s a mix of intuition and knowledge ,that´s good for performance .

The listener can or cannot know the aspects ,is not absolutely a must but can make the listening experience more enjoyable.

The story behind the composition can help sometimes but can deceive too , sometimes even the composers after a few years don´t remember the story behind the composition . 

The context is interesting as long the music is listened to and appreciated for its own merits.

[dng8888]

I was learnt that Beethoven has failed in handed in his counterpoint assignment given by Haydn. He has to ask someone help and found out by Haydn later.

I tried to explain that it is unimportant, given my respect of the man's music.

[samanth...@gmail.com]

Yes I think so, but how much should the performer emphasize what s/he knows about the structure of the piece to alert the audience to the changes that they would probably otherwise note subconciously, or have all the clues been put in by beethoven already?

After listening to Mr Biss' lecture I took another look at the only first movement I can play, op49#1. Before the second theme there are two bridging bars which hint at what is to come. Should there, perhaps, be a teensy bit of rubato at the start of the second theme? When the theme returns in the recapitulation, there's a slightly dramatic broken chord and I can't stop myself playing a rall there. My teacher scolds me, but is that wrong?

However, when the tonic is reached at the end of the second theme, there is an emphasis written on the G so perhaps we should assume that Beethoven would have written in any bells and whistles to alert the listener. The development for example, starts with some startling bass trills, in case you fell asleep in the repeat of the exposition. :)

[sa888t]

samanth - I'd say that if you feel the rall. put in an 'almost a rall.'. Since the markings on a score don't provide a full spectrum of variation the most a composer can do is mark the spots where (eg) the full rall. is needed and leave the more subtle spots up to the performer. Performers use a full range of dynamics (for example) not just the static dynamics of the available 'p', 'mp', 'mf', etc...

[Jacob Clark]

I think that understanding the pieces I am performing is crucial to communicating them well; and it seems to me that part of genuine understanding is having knowledge of form and structure. Also, knowing the history behind specific works and why certain composers wrote the way they did really broadens my interpretations and challenges all of my modern presuppositions about how music should sound and feel. I love learning about music history because it informs the way I approach a piece. It places me in another's situation and culture, which transforms my playing. That being said, would I play Rachmaninoff with the same spirit that I would play Phillip Glass? No, that would be betrayal to both of them. I can see why some musicians feel differently about this, but I personally believe that a composer's intent is crucial. Having dabbled in composition myself, I would hate for someone to take my works out of context and abuse them. Use them as inspiration for new works? Absolutely. But butcher them by misinterpretation? Not if you can help it. 

[lostarchi...@gmail.com]

I think that context is more crucial to the player than the listener. Especially in pieces with less dynamic specificity, the player needs to understand what he is playing to get the most out of it, and put his utmost into it. By contrast, a listener doesn't have to know anything at all about music to react as Beethoven intended to Fur Elise, or the Moonlight Sonata (picking two that the non-musician is most likely to have heard)

Likewise context can be most distracting to the listener who has the least to do when it comes to music. The listener absorbs and reacts to the music, while a little context can enhance that, it can also lead to an 'inchworm and marigolds' situation where the listener is so wrapped up in the back story and technical bits that they are no longer experiencing the effect of the music. Musicians can do this as well, but the act of producing the music tends to help with focus on the effect.

[Emma Moreno]

Definitely the structures, use of harmony and counterpoint concerns the performer.  It is a way to understand the work.  To me, the history behind the composition and the context in which it was composed certainly is useful.  Cannot be distracting , it enhances the beauty of the work, being music, literature, art, etc.

[cch...@gmail.com]

I agree mostly with lostarchi's points above.

Personally, I like to read the history of a composition before and during the performance. But maybe that is bad to multi-task like that. I do believe that is a distraction.

I feel like music is the most universal art b/c I feel we respond to it emotionally first and intellectually afterward. In order to have a strong emotional response, all we need to do is really listen and pay attention. I like to know both about the context of the composition and the bio of the composer. I feel they give some insight into the moods of the music. But maybe it doesn't hurt to do that sort of analysis after you hear the music. Or maybe it helps to listen to the same music multiple times in order to appreciate the historical context.

When you understand the technical aspects of composition, it helps you as a listener to relate to the music at deeper levels. I wonder if knowledge of composition helps the performer to develop more insightful interpretations of the composition. I'm not sure b/c my composition knowledge is limited. You don't want technical understanding to interfere with the emotional expressiveness of music.

At some art museums, they don't put a placard with the details of an artwork next to it. The curator wants to give the viewer the freedom to make their own observations about the artwork.

[t...@zenwarrior.com]

I am quite startled by previous responses.....how can you embrace the flow of the piece without having a sense of the sense of it's underlying structure? I am the one whose eyes brighten, rather than glaze over, when there is discussion of the tonic and dominant, et. al........each layer of that onion, as I analyze another song for it's structure, I am more struck by how the whole things fits together and affects the emotions.........

[judyca...@live.co.uk]

I think that strictly speaking, rubato is not used in classical style. Rubato was introduced in the Romantic era of music (eg Chopin, Liszt) - so should be avoided in eg Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart. However, there is a lot of discussion and debate about what constitutes authenticity in music, so therefore, if you feel the need, put in a rubato for your own satisfaction - it's nice to bring in your own touches.

Judy

[harry.k...@gmail.com]

To me it's only helpful when it's a discussion of music for music's sake. By that I mean I'd rather not engage in discussions that are mere, as it were, ivory-tower intellectualisations that have no relevance to the real world. What exactly this means in practice, though, I've never been sure. There are obviously certain contextual points that would enhance musical enjoyment for some people but not others. Some people would appreciate the angsty, tumultuous nature of Beethoven's works more, for example, knowing he composed them while struggling with hearing loss. Others, though, simply see the music that's in front of them and nothing else. I happen to be one of those people. I'm not sure if it's a good way of approaching music, but I never cared so much about who composed something or why. Beautiful music remains beautiful regardless of where it came from. The tumult in Beethoven's works would be (or "should" be?) apparent to everyone who listens to them. Knowing the state of his hearing when he wrote them shouldn't change that.

Mr Biss's lectures on Sonata form really made me think, though. I've always been aware of the ABA sonata structure, and appreciated how it suggests the story of a journey. But never having studied music theory I never looked at it from the lens of tonic-dominant-tonic. I've always loved the Haydn Sonata in C - but I loved it because it was clean, beautiful, exciting. I loved the B-section too, but only because it paired so well with the A-section. The sense of mystery and intrigue was a great contrast. Never once while listening to or playing sonatas had I considered that in the B-section that I was "supposed" to feel an urge to return to the home key - if anything, I thought the sudden insertion of the staccato after it's end a rather abrupt way to continue from the earlier lavish chords!

Then again, this may all just be rhetoric on my part - mystery and intrigue may just have been my way of feeling that urge! But as a performer, I suppose I must recognise that others may feel it. Perhaps looking at the music in this different way may teach me something else about it.

[rikitra...@gmail.com]

The performer must find harmonic sonority but at the same time stay original. Repetition helps to create harmony through the mere exposure effect, even to the extent of classical conditioning. Using orthodox structures in music is important for saving resonant combinations of notes eg, tonic and dominant. The understanding of the listener is important because the breadth and depth of their perception is dependent on their declarative knowledge on the medium of a composer.
The history can also be important if the artist is trying to express a specific theme, if the purpose of a song is inherently abstract then it is better for the listener to be oblivious of the history.
Context, likewise with history will create a new lense for the audience, they may make connections which can either embelish or adulterate themes proposed by the composer.

[Jay Williams]

I am also a composer.  But as a now aspiring amateur pianist, I find harmony and counterpoint as critical to interpretation as vocabulary and grammar are to linguistic interpretation.

Consider the High School choir singing their Latin Mass with perfect diction, but oblivious to the meaning of the words.  Can you help but miss some important clues?  Of course not.  

Musical languages are no different.  How to phrase, when to pause or emphasize, are absolutely dependent on the musical phrases and harmonic "punctuation."  Some seem to understand this language inherently while others learn by studying theory.  However, even those of the former category benefit from music theory studies.

[Amber A]

Just like grammar and punctuation for a writer should not hide one's voice, a musical artist shouldn't get too bogged down in composition perfection. Instead, use 'set' structures to one's advantage, blending it with ones voice, to evoke an even greater voice.

[Greg Fieler]

For the performer I think it is of critical importance - especially if the goal is to faithfully reproduce the music as the composer intended.  On the other hand, sometimes it's interesting and informative to twist things and perform pieces in ways the composer would not have imagined.  

Similarly for the listener understanding the syntax of the music most certainly contributes to appreciating what the music means.  But, again, there is another way to look at this.  Even without the most basic understanding of music a listener can be moved emotionally by the structure, harmony and counterpoint.  It doesn't take much understanding of music 'feel' the difference between diatonic and atonal (think Schoenberg) music.

I think understanding music in it's historic (and cultural) context is quite useful.  As musicians and composers there is so much to learn from this context.  Please forgive me though, I have to add that it's also interesting to listen to music without knowing the context - sometimes then being quite compelled to find out, sometimes not needing to know.  One of the things that I really struggle with is the need to define periods and genres - to some extent I suppose we must but when the lines are blurred and we resist the urge to classify we may actually open ourselves to something broader.

[Alex Barham]

I think some technical aspects of composition is important for a performer. To me, a performer's main responsibility is to interpret the piece of music and try best to highlight the musical feeling of the piece as they see fit. I don't see any value in trying to get into the composer's mind and try to figure out the real intent of the piece. I compose myself and have had performers bring out something in the music that I had no idea was even there. A classic example of this is Cole Porter's "What Is This Thing Called Love". I believe the original intention was as a ballad but it is often performed as a fast tempo, I've performed it as a Samba and it works very well. 

With regard to the aspects the performer should know, I think the performer should be aware of the basic structure of the piece, i.e. they need to use some performance techniques to highlight the sections. If they are playing a contrapuntal piece, they would need to be aware of which line is supposed to be in the foreground and which line is background material. Beyond this, I think the main effort should go into interpretation and playing the piece as expressively as possible. 

As for the audience, I think it is unrealistic to expect a listener to know anything about the piece they are listening to. It might be of interest to know the story or core musical idea, i.e. it is helpful to know Le Mer was supposed to evoke the experience of the Ocean. But in the end, it is the listener who takes the music at face value and decides whether or not they enjoyed their listening experience. 

[johnm...@gmail.com]

Becoming familiar with the structure and other technical aspects of a musical work aids memory for learning and performance. Half of a listener's experience of music is what he or she brings to it. It is a psychological projection informed by personal experience and familiarity with a style of music and a particular work within that style. Knowledge of musical form provides an aural roadmap by which one can pace oneself and provide temporal context.

[made...@gmail.com]

I can reply to this question in the quality of an audience, even though I have been pasionated about music my entire life, I will not say that I consider myself to be an expert on the matter because there is always more things to learn about it and many aproaches, however, as a listener my opinion is the following:

It is always helfull to know the tecnical aspects of the music when we ar lisening to it, if we watch a movie and we know facts like: who is the director, where are the locations, is this story based on a famous book, etc, we are going to be able to understand aspects, jokes, dialogs, settings, way better than any ither expectator, even thiugh that doesn't mean that the rest of the audience didn't understand but they have in fact missed some parte of it.

Now, as far as the performers goes, I've heard the music of musicians that have never studied music and don't quite understand musical notation, but they are able to perform and feel as if hey were graduates from music school, in my opinion this cases are as rare as the people who teach themselfs how to write and read and they create incrdible literature work, but for us mortals the study path is most likely to be the best one to follow.

[mario....@iest.edu.mx]

Knowledge is like a seasoning for art. A garnish with which the dish will taste more exquisite. Knowing both the historical context as a little (or a lot) of music theory always benefits the result of both the interpretation and appreciation.
--

------------------------------
* Por favor considera el medio ambiente antes de imprimir este correo
*
------------------------------
Este Correo Electrónico (CE) contiene información privada y confidencial,
sólo está dirigida al destinatario del mismo. La información puede ser
privilegiada. Está prohibido que cualquier persona distinta al destinatario
copie o distribuya este CE. Si usted no es el destinatario, por favor
notifique esto de inmediato y destruya el CE, lo mismo que todas las copias
que existan de éste. Ningún miembro del Instituto de Estudios Superiores de
Tamaulipas A.C. (IEST) será responsable de los errores u omisiones en el
contenido o transmisión de este CE. *Cualquier opinión contenida en este CE
es responsabilidad única y exclusiva del autor del mismo.*

[hartma...@gmail.com]

Ok, my answer will sound like that of the "wise guy".
But it is my real conviction that all technical aspects are important to get a chance (just the chance, there is no guarantee) to perform a piece of music with a convincing performance.
Sometimes, it is not the technical aspect, if you have a good story. I had a story for Schubert DV946 #3, that was completely refused by a teacher of the Bruckner conservatory in Linz, who could be considere a friend. He told me that I am completely wrong, but if the story works for me, it is ok.
30 years later, I told the story to a pianist and he said it would be a good "story".

(If somebody is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP7s2_IqnJk (the piece) the story in short: Death knocks at the door, there is some urgency, the Enter-command has to be repeated three times, than the person argues that he his still so much work ahead of him and shows an example of joy at the end of part A. Part A stops abruptly. In Part B, the person indulges in his memories that are a little bit idealized and there are bars, which could be interpreted as the memory of a love, (happy or unhappy does not matter). At the End of Part B, Death makes himself heard again. The same scenario repeats (as of the musical form) but then Part A is not stopped as at the first time but moves to a striving coda, that takes the person up to heaven (or to hell) whatever you prefer :)
So in this case, it is not so much the musical structure but harmonies and rhythms that support "my" story.
Any comments?

[kitty...@gmail.com]

I think you have to stick to a structure. There's no harm in pulling it around a bit, within reason, but if there wasn't structure you'd really, really notice it.

A bit of context's always useful, but just enough to guide the listener through the music; you don't want it to be distracting.

[doris...@hotmail.com]

In one of the essays in his Politics, Aristotle discusses music as one of the essential subjects of a proper education. He insists that music is not just useful as entertainment or an aide to reflection, but that it has its own substance and can therefore be known and understood. Unlike other arts which others can do for you (such as cooking or medicine), and in which you can be the beneficiary, being only a listener to music misses the main purpose, what music is. Only the performer really gets the music. Aristotle's music was nothing like our music today, or the classical music of the 19th century -- and because we have no records or manuscripts in which it was written, we cannot know how it sounded. But Aristotle's ideas, I think, are viable and certainly worth considering.

[hartma...@gmail.com]

@ Doris
I have not read Aristoteles in that regard, but I would agree to a great extent, especially that only the performer gets the message. Or let's say he gets the message that he understands and which is meant for him. Thank you for referring to Aristoteles.

[xxoxt]

For me, the most useful aspect of performing is the "count". In the ONE I want to know where I am--in the harmony, in the history, and personally, introspectively, I feel we can NEVER study too much or know too much about a composition or composer.

But, I also know that art and listeners have their limitations in what they can accept into their life without an inordinate amount of fear or bitterness or even worse. Some absolutely cling to what the music means TO THEM without ever wishing to know any historical or harmonic context and this is fine, and to a certain degree, even the lesser of the evils because it shows that music has a high priority in their lives. So I don't condemn amateurs who don't want to know, but only indicate that it is impossible for a professional not to do their best research.

[mehmet...@gmail.com]

I would think it would be important for a performer to understand the bricks and mortar of his trade.
The listener is generally only interested in the finished house, not how it's put together - but it would help the listener in terms of appreciating the technical merits of the music.
The more you know and understand about the composition (especially from a performer's perspective), the more one would appreciate it - my opinion only.

[mireil...@gmail.com]

I am not classically trained in music theory, but have only ever had some training in violin, and a family history of pianists. It is necessary to understand sonata form, its technical aspects etc, this knowledge, particularly when mixed with an inherent or intuitional experience/appreciation for music, actually enriches the listeners approach and understanding. It's for this very reason that I am undertaking this course.

[Vivien Naomi Lee]

I think it depends a lot on the intentions of the performer and/or the listener.
If it is meant to be a daring remake or interpretation of the piece, I think more allowance can be given to expression. But I suppose the technical aspects of the composition shouldn't change much, because I guess the piece would usually be written in a certain way where an emphasis on notes or dynamics other than what the composer had intended would not sound as complete and well-balanced.

If the intention of the performer or the listener is to have the piece done as closely as possible to what it would have been in the past, then I suppose the emphasis on the technical aspects would rank much higher.

Context and history would be interesting but would only present itself strongly in the piece if both performer and listener were equally aware and appreciative of it.

[lke...@gmail.com]

Interpretation begins with analyzing structure, harmony and counterpoint. Understanding helps the pianist find the inner song and rhetoric of a piece -- where it's ultimately going, which voice and interactions to bring forward, when to breath, when to move forward, when to fall back.

Equally important is historical context. Classical compositions are rooted in old traditions of vocal music. Technological improvements to the piano enabled and spurred the evolution of compositional language throughout the Classical period.

Politics and economics surely help the interpreter as well. Beethoven lived in a time of intense changes, encompassing the excitement and hope of the Enlightenment and the collapse of old Europe. It would be wrong and distracting to expect contemporary music to literally track historical developments; after all, sometimes a tune is just a tune. But a curious and sympathetic interpreter will want deeper knowledge, and perhaps Mr Biss will explain in later sessions how it helps him. (Sorry, I'm way behind in my listening.)

Without such understanding, the pianist is no better than a typist.

[soniaandree]

I always approached music like a foreign language (I am not English originally) - the technical aspects of composition would be like grammar, essential in building the base of the music, whereas composing a melody is akin to creation, like poetry.  To be fluent, you have to know the bases really well to then be able to play with conventions.  Each parts of a sonata, like a novel, if you will, has a beginning, a middle part and a conclusion.  The listener, with regards to his own history and context, will give the piece *meaning*.  Maybe I am clutching at straws here, because I give music a certain phenomenological interpretation, but somehow, I think we are all products of our time and experience.  The music may not change, but our perception does; the composer's original meaning is lost to modern audiences, unless there are some specific indications on manuscripts. This is why there isn't any true or false interpretation of music, because every one of us is different.

[Hans Hartmann]

@ lkenner,

I basically agree with your opinion. But it evokes some feelings in me. First of all, to be a typist is not so bad. I learned to type when I was an exchange student in the USA at the age of 16. I consider my course that taught me to type with looking with all ten fingers one of those educations that increased my productivity when I later worked in IT. Long before click and touch one had to type a lot of code and being able to do so quickly and with as few as possible errors helped a lot.

But we are talking about Beethoven, counterpoint, harmony, structure. I did not study that. Well I did, but it was not what I was considering my musical education.

My musical education was: (at the age between 6 and 17)

playing Beethoven symphonies and string quartetts together with my father (four hands versions)

walking with my parents every weekend from Kahlenberg downhill. This needs explanation: Kahlenberg is a hill in the Vienna forests located in the district where I live. Some people say that Beethoven had lived there in almost every other house. There were always troubles with the neighbours. Not because he making very loud music, but rather because he washing himself extensively and the water spilled to the flats underneath.

Every tenth walk the topic of conversation between my father and me was some musical topic. And Beethoven was among one of the major themes. Actually, I was a litte bit condescending when people were doing big laudatios about Beethoven. "There is nobody greater than Beethoven!" Actually, today at the age of 64 years I tolerate more of those statements but I still consider superlatives as a childish way of arguing about composers. But I got a lot information from our talks. When I am listening to Jonathan's lectures, everything that is concerning general topics about Beethoven is known to me from the early childhood. When we walked through the "Eroika Gasse", my father told the story about Napoleon from the very beginning until the revocation of the dedication to a hero.

My father had studied music and sometimes he was talking about counterpoint and harmonies. But actually, it was more interesting to discuss those topics in relationship to later composers. He explained to me how very strange sounding combinations could be traced to very simple harmonic origins and so on.

Why do I write this, you will ask? Well, basically I just want to make the point that you don't have to "study" counterpoint and structure or harmony. Sometimes, you will get it for free. And at the age of 10, 14 or 16 years (when I played Beethoven at student's recitals) I remember not caring to much about the theoretical stuff. Nowadays, I do. But access to the inner values of music can be achieved in different ways. You can access them playfully, you don't have to study. If you want to study than the novel Dr. Faustus by Thomas Mann will render intersting points. He claims that some beauty of a music can only be detected if you look at the musical score. While I would not argue against that, it does in my eyes not have anything to do with the sensual acceptance of music itself. Music can be enjoyed by the ears, by the soul, be the heart. If you play yourself you must use your intellect as well,

But should not be there some innocence to music as well? Some people say, that you can play Mozart only if you are very young or very old. Maybe that is the greatness of Beethoven that you can play it at any age. Or you can not.I failed with Hammerklavier last movement already seven times to master it. And I will try it many other times until I might master it. Studying the counterpoint of the fugue will not help me. Something else proves to be an obstacle. But I will see :)

Many regards from Vienna

P.S. It is the place where you can breathe Beethoven and Schubert and can select between at least three recitals every day:) 

[alo...@gmail.com]

The performer should almost always be aware of these technical aspects and should be aware of how to convey as many of these aspects of the music to the listener as possible. The performer should be aware of how the audience might interpret the music (that is to say, it is different to perform for the general public in a park than in a rehearsal room full of music professors).

Context is generally useful; however, music of various periods always seems to be re-interpreted in a more modern context. For example, much of Bach's music, written for harpsichord, is now played on piano, which leads to differences in how the music can be interpreted and performed.

[Sascha R]

It´s all about articulation and the flow of the music, similar to reaing or listening to some kind of poem or story, only it is without words.

Underlying a programme might give of course a hint, which however could as well be misleading and counterproductive to the imaginative freedom and musical attention of the listener as well as the emotional impulse of the musician.

[docco...@gmail.com]

I feel that the listener can enjoy the music so much better when understanding the structure of the composition and also the history of the composition. For example although I always enjoyed Beethoven's 6 th symphony I enjoyed it so much better when I understood the background of the music (e.g. the storm, the peace after the storm etc.) or the 5th's tension in the 2nd movement followed by the return to the peaceful theme

[artieg...@gmail.com]

I am primarily a singer. I used the piano to accompany me. I would say that the technical aspects of a composition are very important to the performer in order for the performer to interpret the music correctly and not just play notes on the page. If I was singing a song, I want to get the feel of what the composer is trying to covey so that I can own the song and project into the song the right feeling of that particular composition. Instrumentally, I would want to do the same thing. I believe that this add "color" to the composition, spices it up and gives it the feel that composer is looking for.

[Caterina Musmeci]

Credo che tutti gli elementi citati nella domanda concorrano o dovrebbero concorrere nell'interesse dell'esecutore così come dell'ascoltatore. Da quando ho avuto la fortuna di poter studiare il pianoforte e di incontrare, nel corso dei miei studi, la polifonia mi sono formata l'opinione che essa costituisca non una forma compositiva (non solo, almeno!), ma un modo di pensare la musica, di approcciarsi alla musica e per certi versi anche alla vita. Non c'è una strada più giusta delle altre o più importante delle altre: tutte concorrono parimenti, come nelle "voci" di una Fuga di Bach.

[pat.l...@gmail.com]

I love Amber's description. It is like punctuation. I think context is good for both the player of the music and the listener. I've heard these pieces before and after knowing this information. For me, it has really just enhanced my performance of and appreciation for the music. Still, there were times when I thought, "wow, that is brilliant how he is able to toy with my emotions with those progressions." A little of that mystery was gone after understanding the sonata form. Still, most of it is just, "wow, there is brilliance, emotion and character in spite of these constraints of structure."

[shelton...@gmail.com]

Although I wish for a simple emotional connection with music, I have to acknowledge that theory and history add richness to music listening and playing. I think that as we grow older, we demand more layers to our listening, while at the same time having a romantic notion that our first listening experiences were purer, simpler and stronger. This may be partially true, but without knowledge of theory and history, it would be difficult to access the well spring of information about established composers. It is perhaps better to deal with the changes that age requires from us, an opening mind to many perspectives to inform our listening experience.

Overall, I think that people taking the course are quite aware and willing to study both theory and history; otherwise, why would they be here?


I am not saying that your first impressions of a piece, your first listening session, without any information is not valuable.
I think that we know instinctively that Beethoven was an innovator and a rule breaker when we first listen to his music, but for most of us, it isn't exactly clear why. This course is really helping to explain in more analytical terms why Beethoven sounds so different from his predecessors. Without the proper theory and historical framework, there would be no way to articulate it.

As the lectures are progressing they are establishing how Beethoven is an evolutionary link in a process of moving away from the formula of always resolving music from dominant to tonic in sonata form. This formula can be too placid, and too easy at times.

Furthermore, Mr.Biss argues that Beethoven spends more and more time experimenting with surprising keys, dynamic changes to the rythm, and the use of silence.

All these things he argues, eventually lead to greater systemic changes in music composition.

To the performer, an understanding of technical aspects composition can be very useful, because it lets them have an overall understanding of the piece they are playing. I think knowledge of theory is equally valuable to listeners. To my mind, this is important for performers because it makes it easier to see the overall form of many pieces of music, to easily identify the parts, and to find easier ways of internalizing the structure. The same goes for the close listener, who wants to internalize the music in a more meaningful way.

I agree with Mr.Biss' argument that by studying the form we also are studying an emotional map of the music.

[pericl...@gmail.com]

In both instances I think the more you know about the work the more pleasure, anguish, etc you will get. As a performer it is very important an analysis not only of the music but of the technical problems you will be dealing with.

[evanmwwi...@gmail.com]

I think that from a composer's standpoint, understanding what one is writing, why it sounds good, and know ways in which it sounds better is essential to being as good a composer as one can be.

However, I believe that the listener should not rely nor should the need a knowledge of structure in order to determine whether or not something sounds good. Knowing counterpoint and form are essential to knowing why it is that something sounds the way it does, but it does not take this knowledge to find a piece of music beautiful.

[Karla Orea]

As a performer I think it's very important to be concerned about harmony and counterpoint because taking on account these elements help us for a better understanding of the composition, it's helpful for a better approaching about piano technic if we have problems in some sections.

Since I took this course in its first emission I learned from Mr. Biss lectures to be aware about the history of the composition. I put in practice to search about what I am playing, what's the historical frame of a i.e. sonata, and that has helped a lot. I think my study has improved very much.

What about the listener? I am not sure about this, but I think it is not necessary the listener has to be concerned about these topics, because the performer is the bridge between the composer and he or she. Although, I am thinking about those listeners who love music and understand something about it. Good discussion point!

[ashrafm...@gmail.com]

Listeners do not enjoy music for their technical aspects alone. Yet an intuitive relationship during listening is inevitable. Else, the composition may be jarring and lose the emotional or psychological connection with the music. Similarly, context is important though the listener must not be overwhelmed by it. Music is an emotional experience. The technique is the framework that makes it possible.

[evelyn...@gmail.com]

If the performer knows the structure, the harmony and counterpoint, the performer would be able to understand the intricacy of the composition , enjoy the left turn, the right turn and the different sceneries (as represented by the different keys ), and knowing all these, be able to present the music better as well as be able to memorize the song better.
to the listener, I imagine knowing all this will also help to enjoy the music better if the listener has acute hearing skills.

[yaj...@gmail.com]

They are all critical, to both listener and performer, providing a structural framework (foundation).

Nevertheless, though constraining, they should not prohibit innovation.

[maragi...@gmail.com]

Knowledge of technical aspects has a great role in giving a composer the freedom of following his deepest feelings and inspiration. No music if there is not a deep understanding of technical aspects of composition. The listener can get from the music something, whatever is his knoledge of technical aspects of composition. Each listener has its own sensibility even without specific knowledge. History and context can help in understanding, but sometimes can give too many things and put music in a sort of background.

[evelyn...@gmail.com]

To me, everything that has to do with the circumstances that led to the composition,(i.e. the invasion of Poland by Russia that led to the Revolutionary Etude), the circumstances of the composition itself that led to the testimony of faith (i.e. the acceptance of deafness by Beethoven that led to his later compositions including the powerful Symphony number nine)), and the understanding and the mastery of technique needed to play the piece, the varying background of the different themes, the choice and changes of keys, the particular chords used, are like the different materials used by painters, sculptors, writers and all other artists,to create their arts are very important They help the performer to unlock the story behind the composition and tell the story convincingly to the audience. That touch, that timing, that articulation, that dynamic variations, that different treatments of the different themes and the variations of the themes,no matter how small the change might be, bringing out hidden voice, the back and forth duets between the left and the right hand or the different registers of the notes, even different pedaling, might just be what makes the audience understand the message of the story. Just my two cents worth.

[Glenda Caceres]

I think that the artist have to follow a structure so his work can have a sense. also it's important the harmony because it's the basis of the piece and as once I was taught, it's the language the musicians comunicate with. I think that your piece have to express your own feelings and emotions more than telling a history behind it, and those feelings could mix up with the listeners feelings, creating a whole an more realistic touching piece.

[anthon...@gmail.com]

The technical aspects should be of great importance. As you mentioned in the lecture knowing the backdrop of a work will greatly influence how you play the piece, how it touches you, and how it's is conveyed to the listener.
I think the listener can know as much as they want about the technical aspects of a composition, but also not of grave importance. I think it can be incredible gratifying to come in with little to no knowledge of the work and be swept through the emotions of the music itself.
The history of a piece I believe is a great basis for the mood a listener puts themselves in. Like taking yourself back in time to the period it was written or , emotionally connecting yourself to the war it was written during. This type of mood setting can put you directly in the middle of the work and you can feel as if you're apart of the piece itself.
I believe context is incredibly useful, however I feel to some people it can be a bit distracting if you're thinking too much it can be hard to enjoy the music.

[timothy....@gmail.com]

Understanding technical aspects of a composition has been and will be very enhancing for my enjoyment of music as a listener. As a performer, I would think this understanding would be very important for a fully realized performance of a piece. The composer's musical and emotional intent is largely expressed through his/her choice and management of technical aspects of his work.
Like much else in life, head and heart need to be both present in music. Too much emphasis on technical stuff can distract and obscure the deeper expressions of a composition.

[jova...@gmail.com]

I think that the structure of the music is extremely important to the performers. They have to hear each chord/harmony in order to play as a unit. To know if their voice coincides exactly with the other voices. To feel the emotion of the group, especially in a small ensemble. To feel the dynamics, the tempo, the counterpoint, everything. It's not just a bunch of soloists.

As for the history, I think any performer would be schooled enough to be familiar with the history of the composition, or would be curious enough to find out. This knowledge certainly wouldn't distract them during performance, but it could give them a better appreciation of the various musical periods during which the repertoire was composed. Beautiful music was created in each period, and studying the history of music expands one's sensitivity to each period.

[madja...@gmail.com]

I'm not a performer myself, so I can just guess that structure is of extreme importance for the performer. On the other hand, when it comes to the history behind a piece, it is certainly important for making an emotional connection with the piece. However, it is a good exercise to first perform (or listen to) a piece with no previous knowledge of the history and build one's own interpretation, one's own story.

[evelyn...@gmail.com]

To what extent should the technical aspects of composition – structure--
Depends on how the performer interpret this: Change of dynamics, change of color, bringing out change of keys or interesting modulations, change of touch etc.

use of harmony - with Beethoven, again, how does the accompaniment enhance the melody and the harmony, use and change of registers, modulation (smooth or sudden), resolution of dissonances, all related to change of dynamics, change of touches, change of technic

and counterpoint – be of concern to the performer? -To the performer all of the above are ways that the performer can tell the story as Beethoven conceived it. Does the composition sound like many instruments answering each other or supporting each other like in a symphony, or does the composition consist of clear melody vs accompaniment only, coupled with sudden dynamic change, accented sounds, vs. calm, smooth sounds

To the listener- If the listener is actively engaged, all of the above when used as tools of telling a story, should make the composition very interesting, and should feel that the performer is bringing him on a journey of various sceneries.

What about the history behind the composition? -History when related to the time that Beethoven wrote the composition is important.Was Beethoven feeling the rise of nationalism, the effect of war, the inability of win the lady he loved, etc. bring about the fury against the war enveloping Europe, the acceptance of fate, gave rise to the choice of harmony, the key, the mode, the accompaniment, and the driving or smooth rhythm, etc. When the performer understands them and conveys them in his performance, I imagine that the listener will be more engaged, more involved and therefore will get more out of the composition.

Is context always useful, or can it become distracting?- depends on how the performer interprets the music. Does the performer use all his skills/ his technic, his knowledge to create the sounds that would convey the concept that he "Inhales" from the music.

[Thienan Nguyen]

Our mind works off of structure. It helps us make sense of the world. Technical aspects of music are paramount for the composer to understand. In utilizing that knowledge to write music, they can play off of the audience response to it. They can elicit specific emotions based on various technical aspects and then break from those technical aspects to elicit other specific emotions. In my opinion the listener would benefit from an understanding of technical aspects but their experience can be just as powerful without it.

However, the context of a composition is much more important in my mind. The context gives the listener clues to the composer and the person behind the work. It allows the listener to understand more intimately the many reasons and feelings behind the music. I find it hard to see where it might be distracting.

[twisted....@gmail.com]

I think context is important for both performers and listeners, but for slightly different reasons. A performer needs the technical aspects in order to play a piece and perhaps historical background to play it well or understand what the composer was trying to do with a piece. For listeners, I think historical context is extremely important, if for no other reason than to convey the importance of a work. Without historical context (and a bit of theory) a listener might not understand, for instance,why Mozart or Beethoven were so special and influential.

[Marcos Juarez]

As an amateur pianist, with some knowledge of playing Beethoven's piano sonatas, I'd say "it depends".

Understanding the underlying structure, to me at least, feels like it's good for filling in a few gaps, and helps appreciate the music SO much more, but doesn't really help with the immediate task of performing the piece.  I ran into this multiple times when playing Bach fugues.  Trying to understand the underlying counterpoint and harmonic structure of the fugue was SO revealing and incredible, but didn't really help me play the piece any better.  It did increase my musical appreciation of the pieces by orders of magnitude, though.  

Now, Bach might be a bad example, because his fugues are so complex and intricate, whereas Beethoven's music feels almost "easy and light" in comparison.  Beethoven's sonatas, and his music in general, feel easier to comprehend and truly appreciate as a listener, whereas Bach's complex pieces, while still beautiful, feel like they're working against themselves almost.  You must listen to Bach's music over and over to finally understand, and enjoy and appreciate, how the voices flow through time.  It demands so much more of the listener, but when you finally understand them, it feels like you have "leveled-up" in music appreciation.

Personally, the history and context behind the composition is always interesting, both as a listener and a performer. I've read several composer biographies, and find that it only helps me appreciate and understand better the historical context and era in which these beautiful pieces were written.

[Hans Hartmann]

Dear Marcos,

I appreciate your comment with great respect, especially when you refer to Bach. However, I had to smile when you consider Beethoven's music "almost easy and light" in comparison. While it does not mean so much, when I say that I failed already 7 times when trying to practice the fuge of the Hammerklavier-sonata, - that might be owed to my own incapabilities - I can quote Jonathan Bliss who stated that the sonata opus 109 he has played for 17 years and still is not completely at easy with it. And this is a sonata which is considered by several pianists as an exceptional one, just to name Andras Schiff or Paul Badura-Skoda as some of them. I don't know about your age. Personally, being 65 by now I could claim that Beethoven's music becomes more and more intricate and deep (as opposed to "easy") the longer you study it.

Regards

[evelyn...@gmail.com]

How can one composition evoke the image of traffic jam in one listener and blooming flowers and growing bushes in spring in another listener? that happened in my sophomore year with the latter image closer to the tile of the composition: genesis. Being familiar with the sound of asian string instruments, my imagination took over and guessed it correctly. On the other hand my class mates was completely off.
I Imagine similar situation with two listeners, one of whom is familiar with the sound of Beethoven music and another who is not. thus the first movement of moon light sonata may sound like a lullaby to one or a quiet stream in another. Neither is correct but what they get out of it, which is that it is about continuous calming sound with just one stressful moment, may just be as good as the description of calm moonlit night interrupted by rolling angry clouds. Only Beethoven knows the truth.
As for the performer, when one views music notation as a letter from the composer to the performer and listener, and if the performer truly solves the mysterious codes, such as the seven crescendo to subito piano in the theme and variation, the many dissonant chords that resolve so nicely,, and yet with seemingly no rushing accompaniment, or rushing scales up or down, one can form an opinion one way or the other. Whether it is correct or not, matters so much as the performer "gets" it and is able to bring the listener along the musical journey. ONly the composer knows what the composition is about.

[shapesmo...@gmail.com]

I do believe there is a spectrum on which one end is a communion with the composer, an active engagement wherein intention, lexicon, syntax and choices are an integral part, and at the other end of the spectrum is an extreme passivity where music is the background for other activity; the soundtrack for texting on the phone.
The performer has an obligation to a large amount of activity, of course, and the more informed he/she is of the tools (technical, sociological, historical) of the composer, the deeper the understanding of the intention beyond the notes themselves.
As to the audience, the concert hall can be a good metric of how much engagement is necessary for enjoyment. I see the faces of people who obviously know the music intimately, nod at the interpretation and express surprise or approval (or disapproval) of interpretations... and those who find their time best spent catching up on their sleep or their texting or real time phone screen sporting events. Only they can say how much they enjoyed it. Ha ha.
I suppose in this disparate and diverse world, the very nature of music is in flux. But that's another discussion completely. I love deepening my communion with a composer's world. I'm really loving this class, by the way!

[quince...@gmail.com]

Technical aspects are ideally mastered before the performer can interpret the emotional depths of the music. Historical factors are of academic interest and make for good conversation, but with apologies to Shakespeare, "The music's the thing." Music the quality of Beethoven's sonatas speaks for itself.
The surest way to the heart of it is repeated listening and then studying it as a performer. The musical and spiritual rewards are supreme.

[littleh...@gmail.com]

Jacob, a penetrating insight in my view. I an only beginning my exploration of music analysis but I note my wife's (a very experienced pianist and educator) frustration with her students who glaze over at any mention of the culture at the time of the composer, or anything relating to the form of the pieces. To my mind playing music across various eras without taking into account the history leads to bland and uninspiring performance, where all pieces tend to be played the same way.

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 7:23:30 AM UTC+11, Jacob Clark wrote:
> I think that understanding the pieces I am performing is crucial to communicating them well; and it seems to me that part of genuine understanding is having knowledge of form and structure. Also, knowing the history behind specific works and why certain composers wrote the way they did really broadens my interpretations and challenges all of my modern presuppositions about how music should sound and feel. I love learning about music history because it informs the way I approach a piece. It places me in another's situation and culture, which transforms my playing. That being said, would I play Rachmaninoff with the same spirit that I would play Phillip Glass? No, that would be betrayal to both of them. I can see why some musicians feel differently about this, but I personally believe that a composer's intent is crucial. Having dabbled in composition myself, I would hate for someone to take my works out of context and abuse them. Use them as inspiration for new works? Absolutely. But butcher them by misinterpretation? Not if you can help it. 

[Anthony Lopez]

Hans, I'm a casual classical music fan, so I am not familiar with this piece. I gave it a listen and really enjoyed your performance. Hearing your story prior to listening to it gave it some context and surely added to the listening experience. And I'm also not sure whether he went to heaven or hell, there is some sense of joy/happiness in the final moments, so at first I think heaven, but I also sense a bit of mischievous, so maybe hell? This pondering alone is quite enjoyable and wouldn't have been possible without hearing the story up front, at least for me. Thank you for sharing, you are an amazing pianist.

[Luis Samuel Gracida Aceves]

For the performer I think it's of outmost importance. Take the note F for example. By itself it means nothing but a certain frequency. Now put that F in the key of Bb. Aha! Now it is the 5th degree scale, a really active note that like you said, wants to go home. Suddenly it has a meaning. Same thing with structure and harmony as a whole. Knowing those things and bringing that awareness into performance DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. No matter what anyone says. My guitar teacher is adamant on this an with good reason. One can hear immediately the difference between someone just playing some notes and someone not playing notes, but the music. And it is necessary to be aware of this things to play the music. 

Now, to the listener I think it is still really important, albeit not crucial. Music is a universal language after all, accesible to all. Can you imagine if everybody had to know that if you're playing something in minor the lower 6th degree has a particular angst to it in order to realize the depth and veracity of the statement? That is not to say that some extra information doesn't enrich the listening experience. Knowing what you're listening to can definitely bring a whole new awareness to the music. Now the history of the composition in particular can be both useful and distracting. It can limit what the music can be but can also liberate it.

[rebeccal...@gmail.com]

Structure is important but there must be some personality to it. you should practice being structural and then graduate to experimental.

[hartman...@gmail.com]

Speaking from the viewpoint of a jazz improvisor, the technical aspects are important; however, when performing, the music takes over and you just play; the music plays you, is the cliche.

[discoverne...@gmail.com]

I think it is essential for performers to "understand" the music. that can either be by analysis or by intuition. These days we are blessed (?) by many ways to get to know music, and indeed thrive on the inner force of intuition and experience. For a listener (myself) it is a nice to know, but I never started to appreciate music better after learning more about it. The click of understanding is most important for me, once that it is there it is just joy to find out more about a work.

[Kimberly Powell]

I think most musical artists would agree that the performer's primary job is to bring a composer's intent, in the form of a musical score to life and that is already mysterious and strange enough. One must know all one can know in terms of technical craft, musical principles and much beyond. Cellist Steven Isserlis talks about sitting for long periods with a new score at the piano, studying, listening and playing. As Beethoven himself said "Don't only practice your art, force your way into its secrets." I think too that Beethoven was revolutionizing the composer's relationship to the listener. He wanted more, he wrote music that demanded active participation in the musical experience. Certainly music, heard and comprehended, transcends verbal analysis, technical thought, historical, cultural, experiential context and even written record but we can deepen our experience of it with our commitment to learn more about it and the performer is always the first to listen.

[kristinoh...@gmail.com]

I think context can be useful in understanding the theme and tonal changes of a piece. To "hear" a sunset or the changing of the season requires us to momentarily change our paradigm.

[Nancy Schleier]

Understanding the era and the influences surrounding a composer, such as harmony, counterpoint and even the model of instrument used, can be vitally useful to the performer. for example, understanding that Bach probably wrote for a harpsichord in many of his non-organ works might change how the performer plays certain passages. Realizing how the composers wrote can add to the overall analysis and performance of a piece. I have found that understanding these things are less important for a listener. Understanding the history behind a piece can change what the piece is conveying. For example, Mozart's piano sonata K. 457 shows a clear juxtaposition in the first movement in the first theme, moving from heavy octaves to lighter chords and trills. When the performer realizes that the sonata was published just three years before the death of his father, we can assume that the tension in the piece likely arose from the relationship between himself and his father. While context is often useful there are some circumstances where it might not be so. 

[bpis...@gmail.com]

To what extent should the technical aspects of composition – structure, use of harmony and counterpoint – be of concern to the performer? To the listener? What about the history behind the composition? Is context always useful, or can it become distracting?

If a performer not aware about the technical aspects of composition approaches a peice, then he/she will most likely suffer quite a great deal while trying to comprehend how the peice is best well performed, as opposed to having more clarity about the technical composition related aspects which might shed more light on the era in which that music peice was composed, and in what context was it expected to be performed for an audience. The listener, likewise can be helped a great deal if he/she was more oriented to the technical aspects of the peice. Then eventually the listener and performer could develop a sense of pattern for similar pieces of music and could easily recognise say a contra point in the next peice they approach whether to listen to or play. Which might result in being able to appreciate the beauty of the composition even more, for example in being able to distinguish the different voices in a fugue once they are mixed all together.

[Dan Cicala]

One example I always think of whenever this topic comes up is a tiny little three-note section toward the end of Glenn Gould's interpretation of the second movement of Beethoven's "Pathetique" sonata.  I don't love the interpretation overall (it has Gould's trademark up-tempo style with the theme played a bit staccato, betraying the cantabile feeling Beethoven intended), but as a virtuoso of playing Bach's fugues, he clearly voices great this moment of counterpoint among the four voices at around the 3:50 mark that I never previously heard and certainly never found for myself on the keyboard.  Very few solo players can find the unique characters of each of the four voices and make them sing distinctly like Gould can.  This is such a minor example as to seem silly, but I think how close you have to zoom in just demonstrates the subtlety of the color that's added by this technical understanding.

Almost any player can intuit where the drama of a piece lies, but relying solely on your intuition makes for overly sentimental and somewhat superficial interpretations.  I believe there is extreme value in studying a piece to come to a deeper understanding of what drives a piece in order to uncover elements that the ears and fingers don't naturally pick up.  Not that an interpretation must solely rely on a technical understanding or a historical interpretation or any of those things, but when the theory betrays intuition, considering why this is can be where a player really makes their own mark on a piece.

[cm.h...@ntlworld.com]

I think you can play more accurately if you take the time to work out what is happening in the music - what chords are being used at which point. If I am struggling with getting something right, taking the music away from the piano and working out what the chord progressions are really helps. When I try to memorise music - I am extremely bad at memorising music and suspect that I am too old to get much better - I cannot do it without understanding the musical structure.

[spalevi...@gmail.com]

I think that music, and all art as well, is contextual, because it is composed and exists by the humans who are contextual creations, influenced on a daily basis by the place, time, people, circumstances etc.
But I would like to ask Mr. Biss what is his opinion on A. Schnabel's attitude towards the nature of music that is presented in his book My Life and Music in the chapter titled Reflections on Music? He is saying that all attempts to associate works of art to private life or the philosophy of their creators, a favorite pastime of biographers, seem to me both meaningless and dangerous. The creator's attitude outside of his music is without significance for the music itself...

And I am a little bit confused, if there is a story or narrative in music work, why formalists are denying that statement, claiming that music is just a form and can be defined by itself?

Thank you.

Stevan

[hannah....@gmail.com]

I believe studying the technical aspect of a composition has always helped me effectively accomplish the emotions and the character of a piece. The understanding of a piece allows me to feel more confident in what should be predominate or what should be more hidden and in the overall presentation.
The technical aspects to a piece also help the listener understand what he is hearing. I do not believe that a listener has to understand every detail of what he is hearing in order to enjoy a piece, but it adds to the interest if he knows how it is constructed. It also adds respect for the piece to know the inner workings of the composition.
As I have learned from experience, program histories have always benefited my performance. However, I do not think that this can be made as a blanket statement. As a young performer, I often treated great composers as these musical masterminds that had no emotions, nor struggles, and only wrote music as a profession. But now, as an adult musician, Program histories remind me that these composers are only human such as myself. They had strong points in character, and vices just as myself. To look at their works as a part of them (including those strengths and vices) makes the music come alive for me, and makes the music more achievable.

[peterbur...@gmail.com]

When infants learn their mother tongue they don't learn grammar. They just listen, listen, listen, immersing themselves in the language; then repeat and try things for themselves. But when we learn a language it's more artificial and I think this is similar with music. It seems to me that if we were able to just immerse ourselves totally in music all day every day with people around us as a means of understanding and communicating with them there'd be no need for the technical understanding. It would be innate. But as we don't do that, we are learning a second or third language and need to understand it's technical aspects to some degree in order to make sense.

[Alan Mallows]

This is a very deep question and here I am studying structure history and context in order to learn to compose myself. So there is one answer: Yes.

However the three aspects structure, historical influence and context were what was developing through the work of these composers, so in fact, the composers were taking these aspects into account, but modifying them when they felt it necessary to do so to achieve a result they wanted. Or, to put it another way, the three aspects were being changed and broadened by the compositions of the time, exactly as what has happened ever since.

[avihu...@gmail.com]

All of the factors mentioned above are of paramount importance. In some compositions a particular factor will be more important than the other but there is not question that all are important and if a performer neglects to pay attention to these, he or she or they are making a grave mistake. If the listener does not recognise these aspects, then he or she will miss a great deal of the potential pleasure from listening to the piece.

Examples:

Structure: missing the structure of a Beethoven composition is like going into a building not noticing the structure of the building. Beethoven the great architect, is completely missed. For the performer it will be a sin (!!). For the listener it will be an unfortunate missed opportunity.

Harmony and counterpoint: horizontal and vertical: Bach and on the other hand the Romantic composers. One should be conscientious about what one is playing and conveying. Counterpoint is linked to structure and to harmony. Harmony is linked to the melody and the 'tone'.

The history behind the composition and the context: depending on the composition but most pieces will have a background that would add to the dept of understanding of the piece if known to the performer and to the listener. But it is never distracting (or at least should not be thought of as distracting, in my opinion).  For example: Ravel's La Valse (whether for two pianos or for orchestra); Mozart's The Magic Flute. These are obvious. In other pieces the context may be hidden, such as in some of Schummann's compositions, which included messages to friends, or Sibelius' 4th symphony. But all compositions have a background and the performer must dig and learn about it; the listener would better read about it too, so the he or she can enjoy it better (or perhaps even be more critical of the piece, which is also OK at times).

Apologies for the length response. Not trying to bore anyone.

[80...@apps.eggs.school.nz]

Knowledge of technical aspects is important to both listener and performer without a doubt. But I'd say that it's actually more important to the listener than the performer.

I've been playing the piano since I was very young. Maybe it was because of my teachers, who were all never part of any formal institution, that I never learned much theory. What I did learn was soon forgotten. Only now, over ten years of playing, have I made an effort to understand the structure and composition of the music I've claimed to love.

Even so, I've been able to play quite well. Not understanding technical aspects, I find, hasn't limited my performance nearly as much as a few days without practice, but it's a completely different matter as a listener.

Understanding the technical aspects of the music I listen to opens up a whole new world of interpretation. I used to sit and listen to music, close my eyes, and see something like a movie play out in front of me. Or I would enjoy the emotions that passed through me. Or I would predict how the music might go next. But whatever happened, I was often at a loss in the sonata. "Swimming," as Johnathon called it. After a piece, I would reflect on how nice it was, but rarely be able to describe why. Pieces came and went, forgotten. There was a certain homogeneity to classical music. I felt the emotions, saw the images and little else. They blurred together because I couldn't appreciate the nuances and all the painstaking detailing that the composer had done.

But these new understandings have changed things a bit. Everything I understood only intuitively, only vaguely, has come to light. I can point out themes now, sections, harmonies and modulations. I can recall music so much easier and pinpoint what I liked about it. I can look at the way the composer treats a musical idea and pass judgement on it. I am so much more involved in music because there's so much more I can choose to focus on. In listening to it in different ways, I kind of recreate it. Music is nice during the moment, but I think it becomes much more powerful when it stays with you. That's something else technical understanding gives you. A way for music to stay. A way to think about the composer and go, "Wow, that was a stroke of genius."

And it helps you go further too. It's not enough to know that you like something. You've got to know why you like it so that you can find more of it. And maybe so that you can compose it yourself.

[littleh...@gmail.com]

I'm in a similar situation, having learned for years without technical study. Now I find the technical study is like adding the skeleton, tendons and sinews to the composition so it stands as a complete entity. As I also have some aspirations to teach when I retire from full time work, the technical knowledge is a must but I find I am enjoying that - even scales, arpeggios etc. Can I say there can be joy in the 'mechanical' aspects of these? I'm also doing another Coursera- How to Write Like Mozart- It's pretty advanced actually but you see just how much background structure goes into composition. (https://www.coursera.org/learn/classical-composition/home/welcome). My wife who is PhD level in piano says the Mozart Coursera is like 1st-2nd year University study so I don't feel too bad I can't do the quizzes and exercises straight off but I like the presentation and the content....

[Alan Mallows]

All of this is so interesting and enjoyable. I have found that since studying composition, I now hear the musical architecture in what I listen to, and I also find composition far easier to achieve. That's all good, but a few other things have occurred:

I now see sonata form in physical architecture, stage plays and other things. 

I still thoroughly enjoy listening to certain classical music, but I still cannot explain what it is I enjoy about it. I just like it. 

I found that my composing was very compromised by how it was rendered back to me by my computer, so I went off on a tangent and studied desktop audio, and now I can achieve a similar level of delight by listening to my own compositions, to what I would by listening to Bach or Vivaldi.

I remain mystified by how music thrills us, but I think that this is a good thing and my future compositions will perhaps take me a little further along the road to understanding. I'm in no hurry.

[twisteds...@gmail.com]

Technical knowledge can help sharpen the overall conception of a piece. It is like having a map of landmarks, instead of a map with lots of detail but no labels and no representation of meta or intermediate structure. Technical knowledge aids pattern recognition and memory, and it can help reveal intrarelationships between different elements of a piece.

[jxris...@gmail.com]

Knowledge of the technical aspects of composition are definitely useful to a performer because it gives him greater understanding of the music.  Same applies to the listener.  The more of the technical aspects one understands, the greater one’s appreciation.  I suppose there’s always the danger that someone with a little knowledge might dismisses the entire classical period as I-V-I.  But that’s absurd.  Same applies to context.  It’s all important, and useful.  I see no harm in it.

[rucke...@hotmail.com]

The performer or conductor must take into account structure, harmony, and counterpoint in interpreting the composition. These three technical aspects seem essential to a listener who tries to understand the music and mine it for its full emotional impact. While aesthetic appreciation seems ultimately subjective, it can benefit from education in structure, harmony, counterpoint, history, and context. Context does not distract me; however, my ability to detect structure, counterpoint, and especially harmony is deficient, partly because at my advanced age I find it difficult to memorize all the themes and their permuatations as the performance proceeds.

[Shirley C]

I was a piano student during my school years but there was no offering of the History of Music at that time, and technology was not what it is today so I had no easy way of doing my own research.  However, I always wished that I could have had more information about the composers, the background and purpose/message of the pieces  that I had to learn.  I felt that this knowledge would have somehow helped me to be able to better interpret, play with deeper expression, and also enjoy the compositions more.  Even as a listener of classical music I have many times felt this desire to know more so I could enjoy more.  Interesting to me though, as I listen to opera, of which I do not understand a single word, I experience a deeply moving connection to the music, more particularly those pieces that I am really familiar with.  Sometimes I am moved to tears, even though I don't know what I am crying about.  Because of these experiences with classical music and how it moves me, I am of the opinion that more knowledge can only add to the satisfaction of either listener or performer.  It should be enabling.  However, as a listener or as a performer, it is always essential that the music "speaks" to me and sometimes my emotional response depends on how my own life is at the time because its message becomes personal....it is just for me.

[didan...@gmail.com]

I believe that the more you know the better you can understand the purpose of a piece of music. For the performer i believe it is essential to know as much as possible about bothe the technical aspects and the context of the piece. This way he or she is closer to the way of thinking of the composer and can be more faithful the compsoer's intention, even though sometimes (and I would even saty most of the times) there are many different intepretations of the same music piece and it is my belief that this enriches it in a certain way.

The listener maybe is the one which has more liberty regarding what he or she knows or doesn't know about everything that is behinf the sound result. Again I believe that the more you know the better you can appreciate a piece of music, even though it doesn't mean that you have to know it all or anything to actually enjoy it.

There are many cases in which a history about the meaning of a piece or a representation has been popularized even though it was not concieved by the composer him- or herself. Could this be considered a distration? I guess it can, although for me it is one of the possible representations of that expression of sound. The composer creates that piece with an intention, but it might be recieved with a different one, and of course the interpreter (who is the bridge between the compsoer and the listener) plays a primordial part in it. For me that is part of the magic of music.

[Chris Gordon]

Structure, harmony, and counterpoint are all of great concern to a performer because understanding each allows one to learn a piece faster, and thus perform it better. To the listener, assuming there is choice in the matter, should choose to understand these three elements of a composition so that they can appreciate more what it is they are hearing, and why. Listening to a symphony without the knowledge that the music playing has been structure into a symphony can become quite fatiguing. Understanding harmony gives the listener a much higher appreciation of what has been created. Understanding counterpoint equally gives the listener an edge to understanding and appreciation of the music. History of a composition can become useful and yet a terrible distraction at the same time. For example, I used to love music by a certain composer until I discovered the context of his writing and who he sympathized with. I could never again enjoy is magnificent work after learning about his life. The history was useful, but awfully distracting. 

[kevin...@gmail.com]

I am not a performer of classical music, but i learn/play pieces for my own enjoyment. I'm not sure of everything a performer would need to find the key that unlocks a personal interpretation of a piece. I would be surprised if the performer ever knew in advance.  To that end, i would imagine learning as much as you can about a piece would be helpful until you find your connection to the piece and then know what information can be kept or discarded. It's hard to say what you need when you don't know what your looking for.

It's hard to say what the audience needs. Classical music frequently requires a long attention span, which is not something our modern age really values or develops. Fortunately, classical music also has the tools to develop this attention span because the score is immutable. 

[Wei Ping Wee]

From the point of view of a composing musician, technical aspects of a composition is vital to the performer for an informed performance. 

Also, the following background information is always handy to know:

-history of the composition

-the person composed for

-where it was composed

-during which point of the composer's life was it written (life experiences and event do influence the writing)

-what was the intent of the piece (if that is ever possible to find out)

Of course, one can argue that there be many other factors just as important but, as a pianist, I often find such information at times, distracting in my interpretation of a piece I am learning. I suppose it is a case of 'too many cooks spoil the broth' scenario. But I cannot deny that knowing is the 'source of light' in a search of understanding. 

The trick, in my point of view, is the balance of knowing and employing the knowledge gained in performing. Easy to say, but difficult to execute. I have always found myself in the struggle between both knowing and keeping a level head on not being too caught up in the know. It is a road I partake learning every new piece of work but nevertheless, an essential path that has benefited me throughout my years as a student, undergrad, postgrad, and now as a teacher. 

As a listener, I do not think that it is absolutely necessary to know everything about a piece of work before listening. While being informed helps in 'understanding' the music, it also poses a threat of creating a tunnel vision in the listeners' expectation. Expecting something(s) to happen may not free the listener to engage in active listening. Therefore, may become a stumbling block in truly appreciating the music presented. 

Music is a universal language. For example, I may not understand how the music of a certain tribe/culture is, for a lack of better word, 'formed'. But that does not stop me from appreciating the music nor does it stop me from loving it, so to speak. 

However, this is only my own opinion and it what that shapes my own music experience. 

[Julia Pombo]

I think that harmony and counterpoint is very important to a piece, without it the music would sound duller and not as fulfilling both to the audience and the composer. It is like the structure that these elements give this piece that allows the composer to be creative.I think that the context of a musical piece is always important. The more we know about a composer and the composer's life, the more we can enjoy and empathize with the music. The history of the time that the piece was written gives us insight into what dilemas or problems of the time that would influence the composer's work. 

[robertg...@gmail.com]

Well, as it had been mentioned, it is always a mixture of both. Objectivity and subjectivity can both co-exist and this is evident in music, both as a performer and composer. Context, or as we can say it as a external elements of the music, could be very interesting and even trivial. There are many mysteries about the music that we so often perform today. These ideas can confirm what our analytical mind had been analysing. Being too focused on these formal elements (structure, harmony, and counterpoint) makes our music a mere mathematical equation and may fail us to shine the divine light that the music posses to our own life. I am a piano student and since long time ago (that was perhaps when I was working early on Beethoven's G Major Sonata Op. 49 No. 2) I am always curious about the history of the composition or even the symbolic or programmatic ideas that lies behind, between, and under the notes written. Technical aspects (the formal elements) gave us the way to demystify the larger context of music and life, but it will never be enough to contain it. 

[amaco...@gmail.com]

Knowing the fundamental rules of harmony, structure, and other aspects of composition rules, help both performer and listener understand a piece of instrumental music, that is completely devoid of texts. As performers, we need to learn not just to read, but also to understand the meaning behind the notation in order to deliver a convincing performance that reflects the true content of the music. In order to do this, we must, as much as we can, analyse the musical content and details and to know any relevant historical contexts. 

As for the listener, the more he or she knows about the piece, whether it is harmonic language or historical contexts, the more engaging and meaningful the listening experience be. 

[esalcedo...@gmail.com]

I think that both: intuition and formal analysis are great tools to better experience music as listeners. Music appreciation nourish from both aspects. There are not, at all, districting neither complementary thouhg

[John Kairis]

A multifaceted series of questions! I believe the technical aspects of composition should be of concern to the performer because they help inform how to the performer dramatically interprets the music. The structure informs the story the music tells, and awareness of this structure helps the performer to more clearly articulate the tale in their performance. Music theory can aid a listener in understanding the story taking place. Listening to music of a genre or style entirely foreign can be a jarring experience for a listener. But I believe that given enough time and attention devoted to a particular style of music, a listener can pick up on the structure and begin to intuitively grasp the narrative, perhaps anticipating changes, and becoming surprised at unconventional moves within the bounds of a style.

History can also help inform the listener, but I don't think it's necessary for enjoying any piece of music. It can be distracting from how the listener chooses to interpret the music, like a review of a record that mentions so much of the artist's life that it clouds the listener's personal interpretation and relationship with the music. On the other hand, it can expand the listener's range of interpretation, given they may be willing to accept multiple ways of listening. 

[MI YOUNG YOO]

I think the technical aspects of composition could be of concern to both of the composers and the listeners. However, for me, not majoring in music, it is very difficult to understand the technical aspects of each work. Honestly, I have some difficulties even in figuring out what the first theme of Sonata is and where the second theme begins. However,  the history behind the composition is very helpful (in case of me) in understanding the work.

[Alexis Glikman]

A person can certainly appreciate a particular piece of music without having much or even any technical knowledge. But having that knowledge can add to the enjoyment and excitement of that music. On the other hand, too much analysis and thinking could also interfere with the aesthetic or “raw” appreciation of the music. 

[Holly Anderson]

I think technical aspects of composition are of vital concern to a performer. As a performer myself, understanding the technicality of music allows a reinvention of the details of the emotion of a piece; I strongly agree when Mr Biss when he argued that 'to study musical structure is to create a map of the emotional content of a piece of music'.

I also argue that understanding the socio-political context is essential to understanding the music from an analytical perspective but, in some instances, I believe there should be a rawness for the listener, in at least their first time of listening, to not be tainted with any reasoning that the composer would have written the piece so that the listener can simply experience the music itself.

On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 3:24:46 PM UTC Jill_Curtis Institute wrote:

Consider the performer's relationship to the technical aspects of composition.

Technical Aspects of Composition

To what extent should the technical aspects of composition – structure, use of harmony and counterpoint – be of concern to the performer? To the listener? What about the history behind the composition? Is context always useful, or can it become distracting?

[Sara Sacoto]

For me, as a composer, I have come from both worlds, from one of not knowing anything when performing or listening to different music, and also from diving deeply into the topics, techniques, and history behind the music I choose. Both worlds are important.

For a listener, the first one, the unknown,  is essential: the ignorance of what a work could mean brings curiosity, an interplay with the music, like curious kids who have never seen or heard something like this before. It is natural to be amazed and moved by music without necessarily knowing the background behind it.

However, the other world appears when someone knows exactly what they are hearing. Is this a Classical period piece? Is it Mozart or Beethoven? Is that a sonata or a rondo? Is this an authentic cadence? etc. That involves a more critical way of thinking, grasping the insights of the piece, surpassing the superficial limits of what we hear at first instance. The listener becomes a detective, understanding a deeper context and value of the piece. Now, the listener not only interacts with the richness of sound but also with the composer, the context, and the development and logic behind the music. It’s a second-level listening, which requires knowledge and understanding.

In my opinion, both types of listening are necessary, the emotional and the analytical, since they lead to two completely different experiences.

Adding finally to what has been said, for the performer, this duality also exists. They are both creating and embodying these two experiences: those who simply read the music sheet without understanding the background, the context, or the techniques used, and those who dive into the context of the piece to deliver a more accurate and intentional interpretation. Music from different periods, composers, and forms requires different approaches and focuses, and therefore should sound different.

The performer is free to control their instrument as they please; however, a well-informed musician can honor the composer’s will and vision, understand the piece itself, and therefore transmit it with greater accuracy and awareness. Both the emotional and raw parts, as well as the more analytical and critical thinking, are necessary for a performance that is both emotional and faithful to the work.

If anyone is interested, there are great books about music semiotics that discuss similar ideas,  how we listen to music, and how we grasp the information it gives us. My recommendations would be the one by Nattiez and the one by Tarasti.

[Daniel]

I believe all of these aspects should be of high importance to the performer as if they aren't sure of the actual history behind the piece and its intentions - Musically, Harmonically and Metaphorically - the piece wont ever have as much effect or true emotional recapitulation of the composers initial purpose as the piece is meant to have.