dedalus78

An excerpt from a book I am reading at the moment, 'Musicking' by Christopher Small:

'A score, of course, is not a musical work. It is not even the representation of it. It is a set of coded instructions that, when properly carried out, will enable performers not only to make sounds in a specific combination, called a musical work, but also to repeat that combination as many times as they desire. Players and listeners learn to recognize that combination and to give it a name, which may be Symphony no. 5 in C minor or 'Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini' or 'Scheherezade', but the fact that this title appears on the cover of the score does not mean that the musical work resides in its pages. We find there only a set of instructions for performing.

'Nor does the identity of the musical work lie in the sounds of which it is made. Individually, sounds are only sounds; their aural characteristics of timbre, pitch, intensity, duration, and attack and decay may allow us to attribute certain meanings to them, but nothing like the complex meanings that are carried out by even the simplest combination of sounds that we call a melody. Until they are placed into a relationship with one another, they do not yield even a melody, let alone a whole musical work, whose identity lies in the relationships that exist between the sounds.'

This, to me, could lead to very interesting description of the task of the interpreter: to identify, and bring into being, the relationships between the individual sounds we are playing. That is where resides musical meaning.

thoughts?

TW

Dave

..

ecarroll

TW,

To complicate the matter further, Albert Camus (the great French philospher -- his "doctrine of the absurd" assumes that it is impossible to make rational sense of one's experience) asks "Where does music exist? Does it exist in notation on a page? No, because notation doesn't make a sound. Does it exist then in a performance? No, because each performance is different". He then goes on to speculate that "music might only exist in the memory of the listener".

In my mind the relationship between composer and performer is a vital but tenuous one. The music is born in the imagination of the composer and then transferred, by means of insufficient and evolving musical notation, before being passes along to the performer. Our job as the latter is to attempt to return to the source and "get inside" the composer's head to speculate what (s)he literally had in mind. Music study is sleuthing of the highest order!

This is a difficult task as we know that many rhythms can't be accurately notated (think swing 8th notes). Many didn't even bother: Bach simply wrote "Ouverture" in the French spelling when he wanted his musicians to play unequal 8th notes (the style of Lully) instead of the square (Overture). Handel and others expected their musicians to know the steps of the various dances they were writing (Courante, Gigue, Hornpipe, etc.), and trusted them to accent accordingly. And so on. Color and intensity can't be notated. Dynamics only scratch the surface of the latter.

The thumbprint of composers such as Wagner, R. Strauss, Mahler, and Bruckner couldn't be more different in spite of living in the Germanic speaking world at approximately the same time and utilizing similar notation.

What can we, as performers, do? That's easy(ish): we can seek out living composers, as you've done, for illumination. We can collaborate with new composers (collaborative works are far more satisfying as our relationship to the piece at hand is more intimate), and we can investigate multiple works penned (since the did!) by composers of the past to become more acquainted with their individual style. We can also enjoy great dinner table conversations with other performers to glean their thoughts, seek out musicians who have had one-on-one experiences with composers (Stevens' Stravinsky stories are fabulous, Markus' of his father, and even I have a few about Birtwistle, Lenny, etc.) and learn from conductors and teachers who have had long associations with composers (we've discussed Nagano's association with Dutilleux and Messiaen in another thread). Sadly Bruno Walter is no longer with us (!)

Great topic.

TMers?

Best,
EC

ilikethetrumpet

The issue of aesthetics is so interesting to me intellectually that it occasionally (and may eventually, unfortunately) subsume my trumpet playing. I really enjoyed the post about Stockhausen because he concieves of the work as so so so much more than dots and dashes: it is the entirety of the listening and performing experience! And you get the sense that he wouldnt mind if his works were never performed after his death, if only they are performed with integrity and truth and power today.

Here's a more complicated issue: if composer's tempo markings are always to be trusted (and nobody here is saying that is absolute) what do we make of the composer-as-performer violating his or her own rules? I'm thinking of Stravinsky, the ultimate in "do as I say" notation (and you know what? he knew what he was doing). But when Stravinsky conducts works more than once, he starts to change his mind... tempos are different, dynamics are different; and yet, the same general point gets across.

I personally find a slight distinction between rental works or manuscript copies, although this is silly, and commercially published works. I feel that sometimes composers want it both ways: they want your money and to control the performance, but I feel that buying the score (just as a director buys the rights to play by david mamet and prepares to utterly change its subtext--because in theater, you very rarely see reproductive performances) means that you lay claim to the work in a sense, that the composer has given his idea up to be reshaped by others. Now, someone like Stockhausen is clearly not in it for the money. my digression has digressed.

ilikethetrumpet

Oh, I remembered how I was going to finish up! The musicologist Richard Taruskin (who has made a career out of pinpricking historically authentic performers) recalls seeing a string chamber coaching led by Elliot Carter. Carter's works are full of super-elaborate mathematical formulations and MIT-style metric modulations. And the performers ask Carter what he wants there. Carter looked at the score as any performer would, just kind of stammering, presenting alot of ideas, and then finally saying, "for heavens sake, stop thinking so much! Just feel it, and you'll be fine!" It doesn't work for everything, but it's probably good advice all around.

ecarroll

Ilike,

The above broke me up. Thank you. It happens alot in this forum (!)

Re Stravinsky, two points come instantly to mind: 1) Stravinsky's interpretations of his own music were greatly influenced by Robert Kraft in his later years. 2) Notation--and, in particular, tempo markings--can't take into account the conditions of a particular performance (acoustic, clairity of the band, etc.)

I remember playing offstage trumpet years ago in a performance of Berlioz' Requiem (Atlanta Symphony/Robert Kraft) at Carnegie Hall and thinking what an absolute piece of dreck this piece was. I played it with another group (first trumpet this time) two weeks later at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine (the world's largest Gothic Cathedral for those of you keeping score) and my opinion completely changed. This grand work, concieved for performance in Notre Dame, made total sense in a wet acoustic. Tempi were slower as well in consideration of the delay.

Gabrieli Canzoni sound silly on a concert stage and marvelous in a large, San Marcolike, space. Fortunately metronome markings weren't even a glimmer in Giovanni's eye.

Ah, the life we lead!

Best,
Sherlock

mahaberio

This really is a great topic. I think that music is unique in art forms it that it requires so many people to create the work in whatever state it appears in. I'll try to explain what I mean by that as I know it sounds a little confusing. Take the Camus quote that Ed brought up. The music (the "art") can not exist in the score because it doesn't make a sound. The performer takes the score or the "instructions" (I like Small's idea of this), and tries to translate that into a work of art for the listener. This neccessitates a third party. For me, the listener is essential to the creation of the work as everyone will hear the same music differently. I feel my mind is fleeting and I'm being rather unclear in my thoughts. Allow me a break and I will return when I have the proper words to express my thoughts.

noonan

I read 'Musicking' a few years back and enjoyed it. Small suggests thinking of music as a verb is less of an abstraction than what we currently have. Small speaks of reification as the thing you end up with when the word used to refer to a concept(music, love) takes on a life of it's own as ends up a master and the original concept referred to is secondary. As Kant says, "The thing in itself is no thing." Mahaberio- as for the audiences role in all this, you might enjoy reading Nattiez. He was or is on faculty at Mcgill I think. I could be wrong- Ed can steer you in the right direction.

my 2c,
Carl

tpter1

Very interesting topic. Just wanted to pass along that this came up during music theory today. Our discussion was inspired by a quote in the hs physics room about music not being merely the notes written on the page. It's kind of neat when things line up like that.

Our collective reaction was that music does not happen unless it is interacted with. A stack of papers with notation on it is just that; meaningless paper until someone comes along and either reads it silently to one's self or renders it on their instrument of choice.

__________________
-Glenn
"Roses have thorns; shining waters mud. Clouds and eclipses stain the moon and the sun; and history reeks of the wrongs we have done. After today, after today, consider me gone."- Sting

robertwhite

I think we have to give the composer the edge, though, in establishing who is "primary" in the relationship. If anyone wants an example of how a performer/advocate/interpreter can have undue effects on how one's works are perceived, take a long hard look at Stravinsky and Craft's relationship or Janacek and Max Brod's.

In "classical" music, we nearly always have a text. I think it works pretty well for transmitting a piece. Not to discount the role of the performer - but I don't think they are equal.