Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-helos!malik From: malik@helos.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) Newsgroups: net.music.classical Subject: discussion Message-ID: <249@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 14:02:19 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.249 Posted: Thu Dec 13 14:02:19 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Dec-84 01:46:51 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 57 >Greetings, fellow old-composer admirers. Let's start some discussion. I admire many old composers; for example, John Cage is 72. >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? The composer, Charles Wuorinen once said 'The thing I like best about music is the fact that it doesn't exist'. I think what he was trying to say is that the 'piece' is neither the performance nor the score. It's more conceptual. The score is a symbolic representation. The performance, a sonic representation. If music were sound, we'd have to say that Beethoven's 5th Symphony ceases to exist between performances. And 'pops' into being, here and there around the world like little blinking xmas-tree lights. >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? Depends on how many and what kind of mistakes they make. An occasional flub here and there is ok. However, missing an entrance or screwing up an especially important passage can be distracting. > 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. I suspect I'm in the minority, but I much prefer the 'perfect' recording to the live performance. I want to hear the piece not the performer. Live performances often make me want to buy the record, a record never makes me want to hear a live performance. >4) Program notes. Which kind do you prefer: I prefer no-nonsense facts about the structure of the piece. I agree with Joe ("It helps me listen"). Extra-musical facts can enhance your understanding of the composer's intent, especially if that intent was programmatic or emotional. But things like 'after a plaintive oboe solo, the horns join in in boisterous contrast, followed by a sinister violin cadenza...' are worthless! It's like going to see the Mona Lisa and the gallery brouchure says 'There's this woman sitting there and in the background there is some landscape...'. Ridiculous. - Karl