Comments on: Disparate Thoughts

By: Steve Layton

Steve Layton — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:58:51 +0000

Does being a musicologist give you a license to screw with scores like this?

That’s a case of trying to restore the composer’s original intention, never a bad thing in my book. If the Giotto was “atmospherically” grimy & had a fig leaf painted over the private parts for the last 300 years, even if it was well-known & loved like that we’d still like to restore it to what Giotto wanted us to see.

By: Adam Baratz

Adam Baratz — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:27:54 +0000

Steve: I was only referring to performance practices that allow for certain liberties. My counterexample was only meant to say that there are situations where you can not only change notes, but add notes. Ornamentation is an interpretive choice. I’m not saying you can mix-and-match performance practices. You still have a responsibility to the text.

As a related aside, I’d toss out the example of critical editions. They change pitches based on manuscripts and other sources. Does being a musicologist give you a license to screw with scores like this? Charles Rosen has an interesting section in “The Frontiers of Meaning” where he talks about some warhouse pieces which he thinks are played all the time with “wrong” notes (based on his own scholarship). He makes the case for the “right” ones, but also makes the point that they’d sound “wrong” in performance because we’re not used to them.

By: Steve Layton

Steve Layton — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:46:42 +0000

Adam wrote: There are lots of little ways of not taking the score literally…

Sure, but only insofar as the composer envisioned for that particular score, right? There’s no automatic carte blanche for the performer. You wouldn’t use the practice of Nono to approach Handel; should it be any more O.K. to bring the practice of Handel to Nono? And there’s the case of Cage, where some of the most “indeterminate” scores require absolutely meticulous score-following, no fudging allowed.

…I think the general tendency has been for all â€œparametersâ€ to become equally specific, not just one or two.

It still seems strange that pitch is the only thing generally held completely sacrosant. Performers can nudge all kinds of details regarding timings, dynamics and articulations, but can never change a line C# G E to C# G# E just because it sounds better to them or is part of their “interpretation”.

By: lawrencedillon

lawrencedillon — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:50:51 +0000

True enough. And interesting that it was used more to establish what “Allegro” meant than to indicate duration.

Which reminds me, and I wonder if anyone can confirm or deny this: I was told once that Schoenberg at one point tried timing his pieces, then setting the metronome to reflect the speed they would have to be played in order to last the right length. Makes an amusing story, anyway.

By: Samuel Vriezen

Samuel Vriezen — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:01:41 +0000

The MM-system is minute-based, though.

By: lawrencedillon

lawrencedillon — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:41:24 +0000

I think the concept of precise timings is tied to the development of recording technology. I don’t know of any composers discussing their music in terms of minutes and seconds before the 20th-century. With our listening habits these days, often one of the first things we know about a piece is its exact duration.

By: Adam Baratz

Adam Baratz — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:27:23 +0000

When playing binary forms from the Baroque through Classical periods, isn’t the proper performance practice to provide some variation for the second go round? Even if you don’t throw in some ornaments, you’ll probably vary the tone color to give a slightly different character. There are lots of little ways of not taking the score literally. I think the general tendency has been for all “parameters” to become equally specific, not just one or two.

By: Samuel Vriezen

Samuel Vriezen — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:26:00 +0000

Part of the idea that you can interpret the tempo might be that in classical music, we have grown *so* familiar with the repertoire, that it seemingly allows for highly increased extravaganza in what is ususally termed interpretation.

Lawrence – I agree of course with your last statement; I just think it’s most useful if the piece gets to the listener the first time – I think everybody will agree that they’d much rather hear somebody go “Man, that was FANTASTIC! When can I hear it again?” than “Well, I don’t know… perhaps if I heard it a couple more times…”

By: Mary Jane Leach

Mary Jane Leach — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:11:00 +0000

Pitch and time….
They’re both relative. I can be a real stickler about precise tempo. If I get the right tempo, it can be like hang gliding, the notes (plane) just soar along. However, that time marking may only work in the situation I’ve been working in. Each room treats sound differently and weather conditions affect that room from day to day. I once did a piece on an organ in Cologne, where at one point I’d play a minor second and wait for the notes to start beating – it could take anywhere from 5-15 seconds, depending on the weather – and that was just one space with variable atmospheric conditions. So to insist on precise time markings can be counterproductive to the resultant sound you want. I feel there has to be some flexibility. And that doesn’t really even get into interpretation, the note to note variables. And, although we tune mostly to A440, it’s still not universal, but as long as everyone plays in tune (proportionally), it works, and we accept it. Same with tempo. And remember the difference between “In C” and through composed pieces – it’s much more understandable to have variable lengths with the former.

By: Evan Johnson

Evan Johnson — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:34:16 +0000

But when weâ€™re talking about time, that gets into interpretation.

Is this not only because precise durations are not as readily reproducible as precise pitches (“precise” being a perceptually context-defined term)? Doesn’t making tempo into a matter of interpretation, full stop, simply make a bug into a feature, in terms of human perception?

And if so, is that a good enough reason?