Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!gam From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) Newsgroups: net.music.classical Subject: Re: Define: music, correct music, interesting music, program notes Message-ID: <723@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 01:35:07 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.723 Posted: Wed Dec 12 01:35:07 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 06:23:20 EST References: <47@lanierrnd.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 118 > = 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. ]