Classical music and musicians

Post Reply New Topic

Apologies in advance for another long post !

it certainly is. But what I was trying to say is that the word "ecstasy" is often used today in a more mundane sense ... people say, for example, that they are "ecstatic" over something quite trivial, when perhaps they mean they are excited, or delighted. I do not mean to belittle such experiences, because excitement and delight are valid an wonderful emotions, but to me, the concept of ecstasy implies something deeper. Also, "ecstasy' can be both a profound and calm emotion. It is perhaps one of the reasons we are moved to create great art of any kind.

Gould himself wrote " The purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline, but rather the gradual lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity." I think he expressed this beautifully. It does not exclude the experience of "exuberant joy " ; it adds to it, giving a wider and deeper interpretation.

And re the "authentic performance' debate, you wrote:



Thank you.... I think my acceptance of the variety of 'modern' performances (as opposed to the concept that only'authentic' performances are acceptable) is based on the idea that we do now live in an age when good, technically advanced recording is possible (early recording techniques left a lot to be desired!) But we have had this for far less than a century ... and music has been produced by human society for thousands of years.

Today we take it for granted that we can have music anywhere and at any time we deel like it. We can carry it round with us. It blares out of our cars and our houses , it surrounds us in shopping malls; we feed it direct into our ears through tiny electronic devices, it is played in workplaces. We seem to have come to believe that it is not only "normal" to do this ( i personally would dispute the idea that ubiquitous, neverending music is a Good Thing!!) but it seems many people have come to imagine the have a right to it. They inflict their music at high volume on anyone that happens to be around, completely overlooking the fact that not only do people have different tastes in the music they prefer, but that many people would like to experience peace and quiet in their lives (Think of all the disputes between neighbours that are triggered by noise, usually excessively loud music)

But if you think about it, this is not really the "natural' state of human experience. For thousands of years, before the advent of radio and recording in the twentieth century, people mostly heard music only if they themselves made it, or if people around them made it ( what we would call folk music, etc)

Even with the developement of what we now (loosely) call "classical" music, most people would only hear it if they were lucky enough to live somewhere it was available ( public concerts played by professional musicians are a comparitively late development), and if they were rich enough to buy tickets; or if they were in a social class where people around them studied music as part of their education. They might also heard 'serious' music played in church.

The point is that in those days, access to music would have been restricted. You couldnt just turn it on when you felt like it.

This meant that you would be unlikely to hear lots of versions of the same compositions, played by different interpreters. MOst people would never hear a piece played so often that they could tell if a particular version stuck closely to the composer's intentions or not? Therefore - it seems to me that in those days, there was a valid argument for sticking as closely as possible to the composer's own intentions, as these of course are the basis and starting point for any performer, and the listener should appreciate them before maybe hearing other interpretations.

But today ....why, there are hundreds of recordings of the same works, by many different performers. We can pick and choose at will. Everyone has different ideas about music, so what would be the point of every player performing a piece in roughly the same manner as everyone else, which they would if they adhered closely to the manner they believe the composer would have played it?

We are used, say, to the idea that actors "interpret" the works of a playwright. No two 'Hamlets" for example are alike; not should they be. We wouldnt think much of an actor who simply copied another. They all speak Shakespeare's words, but they interpret it according to their own emotions and beliefs.

So, why do some people think it is wrong to do the same with musical works? It does not insult or belittle the composer. It acknowledges he has created something personal, and marvellous, but then it goes on to add to it, to interpret in a different way that maybe shows new depths and values. Surely all art can be a dialogue, a co-operation beween creator and interpreter ....and audience?

Authentic performances, on authentic instruments , are obviously a necessity. (I love them...for me, they transcend time itself. I am hearing something born in the mind of a man dead for hundreds of years) BUT ....they are not the only way to hear such works. If I was a composer, I think I would love musicians to find something in my works that perhaps I had not seen myself!

Music is a living art ... it can both honour its roots AND grow into the future.

Well said



I am well aquainted with this scenario! I live across from the parking lot of a park. In the summer months large numbers of rotten young adults from the not so good part of town hang out there to smoke pot, act rowdy and blast Rap music. It is very rude and disruptive to the peace of the neighborhood.

Re: Period performance

I think it is ridgid and elitist of those who insist that performance of old works should be presented "authenticaly" on period (or reproductions of) period instruments exclusivly. Although, like you, I enjoy those performances and recognise the merit of such an idea.

One thing I hope you can clarify for me, since I have no musical training or knowledge of it's technical aspects, is... Can we even know if we are accuratly reproducing what a work sounded like 200 or 300+ years ago? Even if period instruments are being played, and little or no revisions have been made to the score, or maybe educated modifications or treatments are employed. (Remember I am ignorant in such matters.) To what degree can it really be known that we are hearing it in exactly the same way as it was when it was written? Note I used the word "hearing". This leads me to think that maybe the whole "authentic performance" school is basically flawed because we can not "HEAR" it in the same way people back then did since we are influenced by all that has come since. I find it difficult to beleive that most listeners, unless they are highly educated in music of the period, could ignor this influence. That is why I say there is a degree of elitism at work here.

What do you think?

Regards,
Rich

I think it is a bit "rigid" to insist on any one type of performance, but I do not necessarily think this is "elitist" although it certainly seems rather intolerant of differing tastes. Music is there for anyone to listen to, if they so choose; you can have amateurs and beginners with their own definite ideas about how it should be played, as well as professionals, musicologists and other people with a deep understanding of the subject! And composers presumably hope their work will be heard by as wide an audience as possible; they do not compose just for the musically educated. Plenty of people are born with an instinctive feeling for music, even if they do not go on to study the subject in depth.


You make a very good point here, and I guess it is one of the reasons that I too query the "historically informed performance" ideas. However, I regret I am neither a professional musician, nor a musicologist and have no deep musical education - so perhaps I am not really the right person to try to answer this!! I guess that we do have a fair idea how earlier forms of instruments sounded ( in some cases we possess actual examples of these; in other cases, where the original instruments are too fragile to play, we have accurate reproductions). I have heard recordings made using these types of instrument; to my ear, they often sound softer, more intimate that the modern versions which have been developed over years to sound their best in huge concert halls, with good accoustics. Earlier music was often played in smaller rooms or halls (hence "chamber music") so did not require such great power. The accoustics of a room of course also contributes to the experience of the listener, but this is not a subject I can say much about. But think of the difference hearing, say , a piece played in a modern concert hall and the same thing played perhaps in a gothic athedral!
But as to how we know exactly what the intention was of a composer who is long dead (and died before recording was possible, so he could not even leave examples of himdelf playing his oen works!) i do not know. Musical notation itself is really rather imprecise - i guess this is partly why music is an art, not an exact science! We have not evolved a way of writing music down that is so precise that every performer would play identically (if he followed the rules) , and would reproduce exactly what the composer had in mind. Sure, we can indicate the notes, their time values, the keysignatures, time signatures etc ... but how fast is fast? how loud is loud? How quickly should you begin to accelerate or slow down, exactly what do instructions like "cantabile" mean? (OK, it literally means "in singing style", but how exactly do you interpret this on a piano?) You could multiply these examples without end, but I hope you see what I am trying to say. I guess that tradition, and descriptions of music dating from the time of its origin, and comparisons with different works may suggest how pieces were originally played; but I do not know how we can ever be sure what the composer intended ... or even if it would have worried him if the performers did not play exactly in accordance with his ideas!
Perhaps there is someone else on WronPlanet who knows more about this subject, and could explain it better?

Glenn

I really enjoy classical and jazz. I am also into progressive rock, which is very classical/jazz oriented. I like Italian and Swedish prog rock (probably the most classical and jazzy of all other types).

I've always been partial to his Hodie. (I get tired of performing Haendel's Messiah every Christmas.)

2005...that's an old post lol. I love classical music! It plays a really big part in my life, even though I'm not a musician or really even very musically talented. I just really enjoy listening to it, it helps me to relax and I find it very enjoyable.

I agree with most of your sentiments regarding performance practice of ancient music. I would prefer the term historically informed practice, rather than historically authentic practice, as we don't know what composer actually intended.

Now this is a good necro thread!

I agree with everything in the OP, except I bounce around with "favorites". Bach, Beethoven, and Handel are up there. And I love counterpoint!

The teaching of music should be approached the same way as teaching students how to read a language.Why? First, what is language? Language Is a set of symbols arranged in a specific manner to convey a cohesive thought. What is music? Music Is a set of symbols arranged in a specific manner to convey a cohesive thought.--Dr. H. Eugene Hulbert

Anyone can learn to do anything at any age AS LONG AS IT IS PUT INTO TERMS THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND!--Dr. H. Eugene Hulbert

(My note, in the IT industry, this is the KISS principle--Keep It Simple, Stupid.)

Just a note about reviving ancient threads - especially of this extreme age, with the last post being made over 8 years ago before it got exhumed.

Many of the people who contributed to old threads no longer visit WP so there's little to be gained by responding to their posts.
For example, Glenn last visited WP on Wed Dec 27, 2006 and Nunsman on Mon Jan 31, 2005. (this information is available from their profiles)

So... don't expect a quick reply...

I like classical music. And Glenn Gould is one of my favorites. See my signature, that's about him. You should all watch Glenn Gould's Toronto (1979) such a fascinating documentary which tells more about this artist than the city.
Anyways, I like Dumka and slavic classical music in general.