Notes to the Listener: to Tell or not to Tell

Today's class discussion really got the gears turning for me, and I hope we have the opportunity to further it this week.  Should program notes be given to an audience (or even a single listener) to direct their listening?  While the question came in specific reference to what might be termed less-accessible music, I think there are broad applications to this question.

For my own benefit, and perhaps yours as well, Gentle Reader, I will briefly recapitulate (no pun intended) some of the points various persons made in class.  As far as I can tell, the discussion boils down the criteria.  The answer to the above question depends on:

1. The number of hearings available to the listener(s).  (Do people become comfortable with something as they become accustomed it, or does familiarity breed contempt?)

2. The demographic of the listener(s), id est their musical education, exposure to and interest in new music, et cetera.

3. The purpose of the venue.  (Is the audience there to be active listeners or passive listener?)

If there are others I've missed, please comment below.  I think, however, that of the number of perspectives expressed, I have distilled the parameters fairly accurately.

There are some additional ones I wish to raise.  Some of these were briefly alluded to during our discourse, but I think they deserve some more attention.  The answer to the above question may also depend upon:

4. Whether or not the music is programmatic (and in this I include music with text, and music with titles that refer to something beyond themselves).

5. The degree of accessibility.  (This would naturally depend upon point 2 above, but one can firstly run it through the roughest of sieves: is it tonal* or not, and to what degree?)

Under point 4, music with a text already has more for the listener to grasp than absolute music.  The same is true of a piece called Kilimanjaro versus a piece called Symphony No. 4 or Sonata, Op. 36 No. 1.  In tandem with point 5 one could create a continuum, in which an atonal work with an abstract title merits explanation much more than a tonal work with a programatic title.

Under point 5, we understand that common practice music (roughly 1600-1900) is going to need less structural explanation for the listener to appreciate than something written before or after that era.  Brahms's Intermezzo in A major Op. 118 No. 2 has a title that has very little meaning (in the artistic sense), but the music makes sense on a first hearing.  This cannot be said of a large body of music written in the last 100 years or so.  Some explanation may be necessary to give the audience something to take hold of and carry them through the piece.

I am dwelling on the issue of structural understanding because, as a theorist, I firmly believe (as I hope we all do) that understanding musical structure facilitates the communication/reception of musical meaning.  If a listener does not understand how to listen for pitch cells, then atonal works will tend to be meaningless.  One derives meaning from language via comprehension of syntax and grammar; likewise one derives meaning from music via comprehension of formal, rhythmic, and pitch organization.  By no means does this mandate that all concert-going audiences be thoroughly steeped in music theory (oh, what a dream that would be).  But generally, people can intuitively discern the logic of tonal music, whereas that is not always (perhaps even often) the case with non-tonal organization.

Of course, this discussion leads inevitably to the question of meaning, and by extension, the purpose art in general, and music in particular.  That is another intensely interesting topic, but one I will lay to rest at present.

*Nota bene.  The word tonal is a loaded word.  Here I do not mean the word to indicate music that involves "tones," which would be pointless, since the very nature of music is to involve tones of some sort.  No, here I mean, music that is organized by the major/minor key system and functional harmony.