Kar  Ming asks:

>My query is: Are we suppose to know what the composer's intention are in
>works like "A Soldier's Tale" (Stravinsky) or "L'Enfant" (Ravel), i.e., to
>intepret the works in a similar story line as the composer?
>
>Furthermore, can we or should we guess what the works are all about without
>knowing initially what the composers intended?

I don't see how you can do anything else.  Both Stravinsky and Ravel are
dead, after all.  Furthermore, if they told you what their intentions were,
how do you know they were telling the truth or that they even knew what
they intended?

A work of art can sustain many meanings.  That's one way it keeps its hold
on us.  Your "interpretation" of Beethoven's fifth symphony may differ from
mine.  That's not a limitation, but a blessing.

>It's different for opera because you have the lyrics but what about
>ballets? Do we need to get the background info before listening to any
>of the composers' works?

Background can't hurt, but it's not enough.  You need to find out what your
own reactions to the piece are and why you react that way.  That seems to
me primary.  Furthermore, there are many "abstract" compositions, including
ballets, that have no story.  Whacha gonna do?

Steve Schwartz