Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanierrnd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!lanierrnd!jwg
From: jwg@lanierrnd.UUCP (Joe Guthridge)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Define: music, correct music, interesting music, program notes
Message-ID: <47@lanierrnd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 13:15:22 EST
Article-I.D.: lanierrn.47
Posted: Mon Dec 10 13:15:22 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 04:33:30 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Lanier Business Products, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia
Lines: 64

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!jwg