jwg@lanierrnd.UUCP (Joe Guthridge) (12/10/84)
Greetings, fellow old-composer admirers. Let's start some discussion.
1) Who makes "music" - the composer or the performer? When we refer to
a piece of music, are we referring to a. the composition on paper,
b. the way the composition is usually heard, or c. a particular
performance of a piece of music?
2) When a performer approaches a piece, should he try to reproduce exactly
what he thinks the composer "intended" (what his mind's ear heard)?
This is the vogue, but it has not always been. If you accept that,
then how do you justify, e.g., Bach on a modern piano? Glenn Gould
must have had some approach in his last Goldberg Variations recording
because his rendition is *very* pianistic.
3) There seem to be two kinds of audience members. Some are forgiving of
technical errors in performance, and others are only moved when a piece
is first technically perfect, and second interestingly interpreted.
It seems to me that the former kind of member enjoys more performances.
Is one approach more enlightened than another?
Let me be concrete. Last week I atttended a concert that included
a Bach violin concerto played by none other than Henryk Szeryng (sp?).
In front of me sat a lady whose whole purpose in being there seemed to
be to shake her head emphatically every time Szeryng overbowed or
otherwise missed a note. Believe me, there weren't many, but she
didn't miss one. Obviously she knew the piece well. After it was
over, under cover of the applause, I strangled her to death. Was I
justified? :-)
In thinking about this (if anyone cares to), realize what it means
for modern symphony orchestras. If I can buy a fine recording of
a piece for less than the price of two tickets, a recording made
from multiple takes and with every wrong note and miscue editted
away, played by the best artists in the world, and with a review
already written so I know I'm not making a mistake, why should I
attend a live performance? I can think of a few reasons.
4) Program notes. Which kind do you prefer:
a) "The lyrical second movement gives way to a lively scherzo in
duple rhythm dominated by thrusting syncopation and flitting
semiquavers."
b) "Beethoven was in agony over the realization that he was going
deaf, and in fact had just written a suicide note which he
never sent, as he sat down to write out the second movement."
c) "Mozart always composed in his head, and in fact many pieces
were not fully written out at performance time."
d) "The first movement is in sonata-allegro form, with the second
theme actually just a diminution of the first."
e) "The length of the movements is: I-3:20 II-7:40 III-4:19."
My preferences:
a) No shit. I'm here to hear it myself, not to read about how it sounds.
b) While it's interesting to know what immediate pressures bore on
the composer, music also expresses ideas that have less to do
with the temporal than the ideological.
c) Neat! ("Amadeus" fans, unite! :-)
d) Helps me listen to the piece.
e) I may be flamed about this, but I want to know about how long the
music lasts. It helps me in listening for form.
Comments? Criticisms?
--
Joe Guthridge
..!akgua!lanierrnd!jwggam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (12/12/84)
> = Joe Guthridge ..!akgua!lanierrnd!jwg > 1) Who makes "music" - the composer or the performer? When we refer to > a piece of music, are we referring to a. the composition on paper, > b. the way the composition is usually heard, or c. a particular > performance of a piece of music? All of the above, depending on context. Clearly (isn't it?) the composition on paper is the origin of the objective definition of music (def. 5 in Webster's New World Dict.). B) is derived (interpreted) from a). c) is also derived (interpreted) from a), but is a special case. And I feel that both the performer and the composer make music. For those of us who can't read music (like me), I would have no other way of hearing and enjoying it. > 2) When a performer approaches a piece, should he try to reproduce exactly > what he thinks the composer "intended" (what his mind's ear heard)? > This is the vogue, but it has not always been. If you accept that, > then how do you justify, e.g., Bach on a modern piano? Glenn Gould > must have had some approach in his last Goldberg Variations recording > because his rendition is *very* pianistic. "... what he things the composer 'intended'"? Nice try. The performer does what THEY think is right, and it is the audience -- better, the individual listener -- who decides if it is "right" (for them) or not. > 3) There seem to be two kinds of audience members. Some are forgiving of > technical errors in performance, and others are only moved when a piece > is first technically perfect, and second interestingly interpreted. > It seems to me that the former kind of member enjoys more performances. > Is one approach more enlightened than another? The former is suffering from excess intellectual activity and probably enjoys nothing. > Let me be concrete. Last week I atttended a concert that included > a Bach violin concerto played by none other than Henryk Szeryng (sp?). > In front of me sat a lady whose whole purpose in being there seemed to > be to shake her head emphatically every time Szeryng overbowed or > otherwise missed a note. Believe me, there weren't many, but she > didn't miss one. Obviously she knew the piece well. After it was > over, under cover of the applause, I strangled her to death. Was I > justified? :-) Completely. It was a mercy killing. > In thinking about this (if anyone cares to), realize what it means > for modern symphony orchestras. If I can buy a fine recording of > a piece for less than the price of two tickets, a recording made > from multiple takes and with every wrong note and miscue editted > away, played by the best artists in the world, and with a review > already written so I know I'm not making a mistake, why should I > attend a live performance? I can think of a few reasons. And I can guess what those reasons are, too! I'd be bored silly listening to the same, disgustingly perfect performance over and over again. Also, I like to WATCH the orchestra and the conductor, perform the music, which provides an excitement or greater feeling for the music. > 4) Program notes. Which kind do you prefer: > a) "The lyrical second movement gives way to a lively scherzo in > duple rhythm dominated by thrusting syncopation and flitting > semiquavers." > b) "Beethoven was in agony over the realization that he was going > deaf, and in fact had just written a suicide note which he > never sent, as he sat down to write out the second movement." > c) "Mozart always composed in his head, and in fact many pieces > were not fully written out at performance time." > d) "The first movement is in sonata-allegro form, with the second > theme actually just a diminution of the first." > e) "The length of the movements is: I-3:20 II-7:40 III-4:19." > > My preferences: > a) No shit. I'm here to hear it myself, not to read about how it sounds. I agree. > b) While it's interesting to know what immediate pressures bore on > the composer, music also expresses ideas that have less to do > with the temporal than the ideological. I have trouble with this statement (I had to look up 'temporal' and 'ideological'). The contemporary events surrounding the composition of a piece of music are very important to me, since I feel this gives me some insight into the composer's self-expression. Of course, I can listen to the music first and read this "temporal" description later, only to realize: "Yes, the despair is evident" -- in this case (is this 7th symphony?), the temporal description is a footnote and the music speaks for itself. > c) Neat! ("Amadeus" fans, unite! :-) "Golly, that Mozart is incredible!" > d) Helps me listen to the piece. My musical vocabulary is limited but I am always interested in learning more, in particular the relationships between themes. > e) I may be flamed about this, but I want to know about how long the > music lasts. It helps me in listening for form. I agree. I feel that music is making a statement of some form, and it would be nice to know if the statement is a short story or a novel. > Comments? Criticisms? > -- *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam 37 22'50" N / 121 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ]
dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne E. Perry) (12/12/84)
[no bells here, only the onion rings] Whence comes the music: the composer, the performer, or the performance? All three. The performance, even if flawed, is the primary place to find out if music has been perpetuated. But it is not the only place. As some composers hear the composition in their head before they write it down, some people have the ability to auralize a composition as well. How well the music is portrayed depends upon both the composer and the performer. The most important aspect of the performer's contribution is the amount of life he/she can infuse into the piece. However, no amount of life can make a bad composition into music (though a poor performer and performance can certainly turn a marvelous piece of music into dreck). Obviously a necessary component in the bringing to life is technical ability - but even here, there are tradeoffs: Dietriech Fischer-Dieskau's voice is certainly not what it used to be (and even then it nay not have been the best there was), but that does not stop him from turning out marvelous performances because of superb musicianship and interpretation. Original instrument performances are useful to provide insight into how the piece was originally conceived - something that is all to often lost these days. This approach may even bring out aspects of the music that were never noticed before (cf the concert of Hogwood's group vs the Lincoln Center Chamber orchestra). Further, original style performances (eg, the presence of ornamentation, etc) also provide this kind of insight. This biggest problem with both of these approaches is the capturing of the original style of performance with only the written word to go on in the majority of the cases (though there are some realized cases of cadenzas and ornamentation that survive). However, the original instrument/style is not the only way to make a piece of music live. Some of the huge orchestra approaches to small orchestra pieces turn out stunning and satisfying performances. In a word (so to speak), there are several ways to skin a cat (but probably none of them will be musically satisfying). Listen well - Dewayne
greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (12/13/84)
>> 1) Who makes "music" - the composer or the performer? I would say that music is the phenomenon which occurs in sound and time when performers produce sounds, according to the dictates of the composer. Therefore, in my mind, the score itself is not the music but merely the instruction book needed to "build" the music. In fact, there need be no score at all, so long as there is a means of communication between composer and performer, who can be the same person. 2) When a performer approaches a piece, should he try to reproduce exactly what he thinks the composer "intended" (what his mind's ear heard)? The only time that the performer can be absolutely sure he is realizing the composer's intentions is when he either is the composer or has the opportunity to work directly with the composer. In the situation where the composer's instructions are annotated in a score and there is a considerable time gap between composition and performance, I feel that the only way for a peformer to approach a work is to attempt to glean the basic expressive intent of the work from the score, and then use his own taste, experience, knowledge of the style of the particular period, and a bit of ESP (or, perhaps, instinct) to realize that intent. This means that it varies from case to case. In the case of Debussy, where the scores are very heavily annotated with strict and specific instructions, it means following those instructions as exactly as possible. In the case of Monteverdi, the score is a rough outline requiring a good deal to be added in performance. This is even true of later works of Haydn, Mozart, and some of Beethoven which, though far more "complete" in score, still leave clear indications that cadenzas are to be added where only a rest is indicated in the score. In this case, to merely observe the "letter" of the score (the rest itself) and proceed with no interpolation is to actually violate the composer's intentions. Even in the case where the score is heavily marked with tempo, timbre and dynamic instructions, an effective realization of the work requires the ability to inflect and enliven the rhythmic structure of the work as written, beyond what can be written down in a score. I strongly feel that the performer has to ultimately follow his own dictates and inner promptings, rather than trying to satisfy an external (i.e., critics). I do think it is possible to effectively communicate the basic expressive content of a work in sounds which are different from those the composer had in mind at the time of the composition. Therefore, it is not as inconsistent as it may seem on the surface when I say that I like Glenn Gould's performances of the Bach "Goldberg Variations" but am repelled by Stokowski's orchestral transcriptions of Bach works. In the case of Glenn Gould, I find that he maintains the essential character and expressiveness of the work, using the sonorities of the modern piano as a medium of this expression. In the case of the Stokowski transcriptions, the sonorities chosen, as well as the dynamic and tempo exaggerations used, introduce an inflated quality and sensuality that I find foreign to the original works. >> 3) There seem to be two kinds of audience members. Some are forgiving of >> technical errors in performance, and others are only moved when a piece >> is first technically perfect, and second interestingly interpreted. >> It seems to me that the former kind of member enjoys more performances. >> Is one approach more enlightened than another? To me, the important thing is the realization of the shape, structure and sound of the music. If there are passing errors in technique, but the "message" remains unimpaired, I will like the performance. If the technical errors are of such a magnitude that they impede the expression, I won't like the performance. Different people have different tolerance levels for flaws in the actual sound of an instrument or voice. If a violinist produces a strident, ear-lacerating tone I'm going to have trouble enjoying the performance no matter what rhythmic and emotional qualities might be there. The converse is also true. If a singer has a voice of extraordinary beauty but consistently distorts the shape of phrases and fails to articulate the text, I'll be shaking my head like the old lady mentioned, because the effect it has on me is real and physically painful. Generally, I find general errors in judgement such as an incorrect tempo or inability to properly shape phrases more objectionable than wrong or missed notes. Where the technical flaw really does harm is in case, as often happens in opera, where several pages of music build gradually to, say, a climactic point whose effect depends on a high B-flat. If the singer cracks the B-flat, the entire effect of the passage will be undone. I would make a comparison between performance and the publishing of poetry. A good performance is like a good edition of a poetry collection, where the words are correctly spelled, the punctuation is according to the poet's choice, the print is clear and readable and the indentation and separation of paragraphs are done as the poet wanted. A poor performance has the same effect as when one tries to read a poem in an edition where the print is unclear or blurred, and the spelling and punctuation are haphazard, sometimes giving a completely false impression of the original writing. In any case, the argument for live vs. recording is not merely one of mistakes vs. technical "perfection". The fact remains that, even if one were to purchase the state of the art in current audio equipment, there is an impact to the sheer sonority of a live performance that no recording can capture. Anyone who heard Birgit Nilsson in her prime let fly on the two high C's in the 2nd act of "Tristan und Isolde" knows that her recordings of the work, even on the best of modern equipment, are pallid ghosts compared with the "live" performance. Likewise, a San Francisco concert in the early 70's, with the Chicago Symphony performing the Mahler 5th under Solti displayed a power and depth of sound that their London recording, excellent as it is, just hints at. There is also the situation, exemplified by many of even the finest performers around, who are simply unable to give of their best without the presence of an audience. The fact that their recordings do not have wrong notes does not compensate for the fact that these recordings specifically fail to reproduce the intensity, enlivening, and excitement that is an essential part of the performer's musical persona. >> 4) Program notes. Which kind do you prefer: Frankly, I almost never read program notes before I listen to a work. Likewise, I prefer not to read the "introduction" until after I've read a literary work. It isn't that I never need a guide to point out things I might otherwise miss, but rather that I find that the dangers of adopting someone else's preconceptions of a work, knowledgeable as they may be, are too great. There are cases where the events in a composer's life had a direct correlation with his music, but there are as many cases where there is a distinct break between the composer's artistic and personal lives. In these cases, a knowledge of the events surrounding the composition of a work can lead to reading into it things that aren't there, and can cloud perception of what is really there. Artists, like most people, have thoughts, feelings, and internal struggles or joys that they never write in a diary and never express verbally to anyone else, but which may find an outlet in their art. There are also many artists who specifically shy away from an attempt to put into words the art that they exercise by instinct who, when pressed for a description of their artistic process by press or friends, provide a facile response which suits what the others want to hear rather than providing an honest insight into those processes which, in many cases, they are incapable of verbalizing articulately anyway. Therefore, if we read something about how Mozart composed we are really reading either (1) Something he wrote in a diary (2) Something he told someone else (3) Someone else's supposition any of which may, or may not, actually be true. - Greg Paley