Blog 6
Slonimsky - "Urtext"
The sass is strong with this one; right from the onset, Slonimsky gives his opinion on the idea of "Urtext" while subsequently defining it. He finds it very difficult to consider a literary or musical work to be completely authentic. Revisions are made to some pieces in order to best fit the intent of the composer. It is easily debatable whether or not those editorial marks are appropriate. He references the case of Charles Ives (p. 494), in which Ives claimed "the wrong notes are right." Regardless of acclaim, everyone is susceptible to human error. Mistakes happen, and by nature we aim to fix and learn from them. In regards to editing works, we would only know if the mistakes were intentional by hearing from the composer himself/herself. If the composer is now dead, then we will never truly know whether or not editing their works is appropriate.
Grove - Early Music
Many people naturally have a yearning for the past. An example would be courses in history on a local, national, and global scale. We have adopted the term "historians" to describe people who uncover and study information dating back to previous eras. Again, we as a species want to improve our quality of life, so we search for previous mistakes and ensure that we do not repeat those same mistakes. Generally speaking, we also look to practices that worked well in the past and intend to continue them (as long as they benefit us). This process has occurred throughout various stages of music history: the 1800s saw the revival of Bach's music, there was a revival of Baroque music the early 1900s, and the post-WWII era saw the creation of records and playback devices (Oxford Music Online).
When thinking about music schools in the United States (chosen because its relatable), we are learning and practicing the music of composers who died hundreds of years ago. Something specific about said music resonated well in our ears, so much that we want to either recreate or modify that sound. For example, I love Beethoven's Fifth Symphony in C Minor. When I found out that I was going to perform that piece in undergrad, I was incredibly excited. Sure, the trumpet parts are not that interesting or demanding, but the piece has such a power to it that I enjoyed every second of that performance. That piece was written over two-hundred years ago. Long-story-short, we try to emulate features of music composition and performance in music school. We do not strictly focus on contemporary music. Again, we yearn for the past.
Taruskin - "The Spin Doctors of Early Music"
Another individual who discusses the difficulty of being "authentic," Taruskin argues that it is not possible to perform music from the past exactly as it was intended. He provides the music of Mozart as an example; while people can perform the notes on the page, they do not add in the "extra notes" and nuances that Mozart performed. Meanwhile, they claim that it is historically accurate, and, depending on the credentials of the person critiquing or playing it, people accept it as fact. While this is very possible, what does that imply for musicologists and students? If Taruskin's claims are true, it is possible that we could be learning performance and historical snippets wrong for years onward. Is it even worth fretting over at this point?
Allan - "Composer's Intent? Get Over It."
Allan seems to have answered the previous question; according to him, composers, performers, and listeners should not worry about authenticity. Allan's claim is that people should aim to find a purpose and personal connection with the music. Rather than asking oneself, "Is this music being played as [specific composer] would have wanted?", he wants people to ask, "How and why does this piece make me react as such?" He specifically references Taruskin's article and claims that it changed people's perception of listening to music. I recall watching the Albany Symphony perform the Fourth Movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 4 in F Minor, and I was struck by the power and passion in the music. I was there with another member of the studio I was in, and we talked about the performance with our studio professor the next day. My colleague said that he did not enjoy the performance because "it didn't sound like a Tchaik. piece." He went on to explain, but I honestly don't remember what he said about it, mostly because I was thinking to myself how much I had enjoyed the performance at the time. In this case, I share Allan's and Taruskin's opinion with the music. I do not focus on the "authenticity" of a piece while hearing it; I enjoy the music and think about how it emotionally impacts me.
The sass is strong with this one; right from the onset, Slonimsky gives his opinion on the idea of "Urtext" while subsequently defining it. He finds it very difficult to consider a literary or musical work to be completely authentic. Revisions are made to some pieces in order to best fit the intent of the composer. It is easily debatable whether or not those editorial marks are appropriate. He references the case of Charles Ives (p. 494), in which Ives claimed "the wrong notes are right." Regardless of acclaim, everyone is susceptible to human error. Mistakes happen, and by nature we aim to fix and learn from them. In regards to editing works, we would only know if the mistakes were intentional by hearing from the composer himself/herself. If the composer is now dead, then we will never truly know whether or not editing their works is appropriate.
Grove - Early Music
Many people naturally have a yearning for the past. An example would be courses in history on a local, national, and global scale. We have adopted the term "historians" to describe people who uncover and study information dating back to previous eras. Again, we as a species want to improve our quality of life, so we search for previous mistakes and ensure that we do not repeat those same mistakes. Generally speaking, we also look to practices that worked well in the past and intend to continue them (as long as they benefit us). This process has occurred throughout various stages of music history: the 1800s saw the revival of Bach's music, there was a revival of Baroque music the early 1900s, and the post-WWII era saw the creation of records and playback devices (Oxford Music Online).
When thinking about music schools in the United States (chosen because its relatable), we are learning and practicing the music of composers who died hundreds of years ago. Something specific about said music resonated well in our ears, so much that we want to either recreate or modify that sound. For example, I love Beethoven's Fifth Symphony in C Minor. When I found out that I was going to perform that piece in undergrad, I was incredibly excited. Sure, the trumpet parts are not that interesting or demanding, but the piece has such a power to it that I enjoyed every second of that performance. That piece was written over two-hundred years ago. Long-story-short, we try to emulate features of music composition and performance in music school. We do not strictly focus on contemporary music. Again, we yearn for the past.
Taruskin - "The Spin Doctors of Early Music"
Another individual who discusses the difficulty of being "authentic," Taruskin argues that it is not possible to perform music from the past exactly as it was intended. He provides the music of Mozart as an example; while people can perform the notes on the page, they do not add in the "extra notes" and nuances that Mozart performed. Meanwhile, they claim that it is historically accurate, and, depending on the credentials of the person critiquing or playing it, people accept it as fact. While this is very possible, what does that imply for musicologists and students? If Taruskin's claims are true, it is possible that we could be learning performance and historical snippets wrong for years onward. Is it even worth fretting over at this point?
Allan - "Composer's Intent? Get Over It."
Allan seems to have answered the previous question; according to him, composers, performers, and listeners should not worry about authenticity. Allan's claim is that people should aim to find a purpose and personal connection with the music. Rather than asking oneself, "Is this music being played as [specific composer] would have wanted?", he wants people to ask, "How and why does this piece make me react as such?" He specifically references Taruskin's article and claims that it changed people's perception of listening to music. I recall watching the Albany Symphony perform the Fourth Movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 4 in F Minor, and I was struck by the power and passion in the music. I was there with another member of the studio I was in, and we talked about the performance with our studio professor the next day. My colleague said that he did not enjoy the performance because "it didn't sound like a Tchaik. piece." He went on to explain, but I honestly don't remember what he said about it, mostly because I was thinking to myself how much I had enjoyed the performance at the time. In this case, I share Allan's and Taruskin's opinion with the music. I do not focus on the "authenticity" of a piece while hearing it; I enjoy the music and think about how it emotionally impacts me.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
Your analysis of the topic of music authenticity was astute: the most important thing about music-the true purpose of music: it is emotionally impactful. It may be important (and certainly fascinating) to know that the musical presentations of current day are different from the original or authentic versions, ultimately that is not what is of paramount importance.
Taruskin’s contention that the no one can play the “extra notes” of Mozart is of less concern to me, because no two live performances are truly alike. Which is sort of the point of live performances!