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. ]