Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site olivej.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!ios!oliveb!olivej!greg
From: greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Re: Define: music, correct music, interesting music, program notes
Message-ID: <254@olivej.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 13:35:27 EST
Article-I.D.: olivej.254
Posted: Thu Dec 13 13:35:27 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Dec-84 03:17:10 EST
Organization: Olivetti ATC, Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 176



>> 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