David Runnion writes:

>I will still say that by looking at music on the page I can draw emotional,
>musical meaning from the music, and understand what the composer wanted to
>communicate, as well or better than by listening, even if I don't know how
>many dancers there are.

This thread has gone in a number of different directions.  I may be
repeating a point or two here.  Understanding what the composer wanted to
communicate implies, of course, that the composer understood what he wanted
to communicate.  This surely cannot always be the case.  Bruckner referred
to his eighth symphony as a "mystery".  As we are comparing music to
language, I feel it appropriate to move to a short discussion of
literature.

In literature there are endless examples, that may better illustrate
this point.  Shakespeare's Hamlet is often referred to as his first
complete character, simply because he is so complex one cannot get a proper
handle on what specifically motivates him.  In trying to understand Hamlet
one has to make a few decisions for continuity's sake, otherwise the play
can turn into a series of random shots.  Did Hamlet suspect Claudius from
the getgo? What is Hamlet's relationship to his mother? Does Hamlet suspect
his mother of the crime as well? Is he sane and just pretending to be
loopy? The beauty of the play is that we are not given any black and white
answers to these questions and must insert our own understanding of these
predicatments as we read the play.  When we see the play, of course, we are
seeing one man's answers to many of these questions.  Did Shakespeare have
his own answers? Probably.  Did Bruckner really believe his eighth symphony
to be a mystery to him, its creator? You tell me.  Certainly, though, one
can argue that things created may not be entirely understood by those who
create them, that the process itself has enough mysterious, open-ended
moments to defy a clear-cut understanding of the final result.

Thomas Heilman
[log in to unmask]