Harpsichords and Navel Gazing

[prémont]

Yes, the score can be the composers "definitive" expression of his or her idea, but no matter how precise the notation there are nuances of performance that there is no notation for.

Thanks, this is precisely my point.

[Madiel]

When I write "definitive" I see the matter from the composer's point of view, if he thinks the score expresses his thoughts in the best possible way and has no intention of changing it afterwards. Regarding interpretations, however, we shall never experience the "definitive" version, but this is another question.

Best possible way is also a different question from the one we were dealing with. I suggest you go back and read what Florestan said about Busoni. Because you've ended up claiming that precisely YOUR point is the very one from Busoni that you started off disagreeing with. We could have saved a lot of time here.

[prémont]

Best possible way is also a different question from the one we were dealing with. I suggest you go back and read what Florestan said about Busoni. Because you've ended up claiming that precisely YOUR point is the very one from Busoni that you started off disagreeing with. We could have saved a lot of time here.

You still got me wrong, and this may actually be a semantic problem.

When the composer is satisfied with his score even if the shortcomings of our notational system prevents an ultra-precise notation of his thoughts, one may well - as I did - say that the score in his view is perfect and can't be further perfected, and there is no point in making changes in it. So from his point of view it's not the score per se which is imperfect but the notational system.

From the musician's view, on the other hand, every score is imperfect because it carries many different interpretatory options. If the composer is alive he may guide the performer, but concerning dead composers we are at a loss.

[Madiel]

I agree with all of this except one word, which just demonstrates that you misunderstood the original point, and don't understand what the word perfect actually means.

Perfect and best possible ARE NOT SYNONYMS. You're now trying to justify your use of the word, and your interpretation of other people's use of the word. No, one may NOT well say, as you did, that the score is perfect.

Okay? It's not that I misunderstood you. It's that you misunderstood others. You misunderstood me, and Florestan, and Busoni. You are now making the exact same point that we are all making, except you're doing it with a misapplication of the word "perfect" to mean "best".

[prémont]

Perfect and best possible ARE NOT SYNONYMS

They may be and this is where we disagree and why I called our disagreement a semantic problem. Your definition of "perfect" is too narrow, because it may mean:

As good as possible.

This is precisely what I mean when I say that the composer has reached the point where he can't further perfect his score (see my post above).

https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/perfect

[DavidW]

I am not an audiophile. I listen either through my laptop or through a FiiO portable player, in both cases using low-end earbuds --- thus FLAC or mp3 it's all the same to me. I'm sure that in a blind test I couldn't differentiate between them.

You know I always imagined you sitting with a glass of wine next to a turntable.  Little did I know that this pic was more like it!

[Madiel]

They may be and this is where we disagree and why I called our disagreement a semantic problem. Your definition of "perfect" is too narrow, because it may mean:

As good as possible.

This is precisely what I mean when I say that the composer has reached the point where he can't further perfect his score (see my post above).

https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/perfect

And yet I'm pretty darn sure you knew precisely what Busoni and Florestan were saying, and which definition of "perfect" we were using, when you chose to disagree.

Now I feel I need to explain to you how dictionaries work, but I'm not sure it's worth the time. They record usage. Including imprecise usage.

Best possible in a notational system with shortcomings that prevent precision means not perfect. I mean, it's in your own statement. You seem to think that WHY it's not perfect makes a difference, and I've no idea why. We weren't casting aspersions on composers to begin with, but on that notational system.

Busoni astutely remarked that the score itself is already a transcription of what the composer imagined, and it may be more or less accurate but never perfect.

That isn't a criticism of the composer, it's a criticism of the score.

And you agree that the notational system isn't perfect. Yes. That was the entire point. Thinking that a score can be perfect using a system that is not perfect requires you to shift meanings of "perfect" within a single sentence!

[prémont]

And you agree that the notational system isn't perfect. Yes. That was the entire point. Thinking that a score can be perfect using a system that is not perfect requires you to shift meanings of "perfect" within a single sentence!

I give up. You seem to maintain that "perfect" (in English) only can mean "ideal". My point is that "perfect" also can mean something which can't be bettered or is as good as possible. This is my last word in this discussion.

[Florestan]

You know I always imagined you sitting with a glass of wine next to a turntable.

Next to a laptop is more like it. 

Little did I know that this pic was more like it!

Not quite. I use the portable player late at night, in bed. 

[Madiel]

I give up. You seem to maintain that "perfect" (in English) only can mean "ideal". My point is that "perfect" also can mean something which can't be bettered or is as good as possible. This is my last word in this discussion.

This isn't about what the word means in general. It's about what Busoni and Florestan and I meant. How you could possibly read Busoni as asserting that composers always get it wrong is a mystery to me. He was saying no such thing. Nor would such a reading make sense from Florestan in context.

Everything after that is nothing more than you trying to justify your irrational dispute, which turns out not to be a dispute at all because you in fact agree that notation is imperfect. Given that, it's unfortunate you started the discussion in the first place!

[prémont]

This isn't about what the word means in general. It's about what Busoni and Florestan and I meant.

There is a funny contrast between the rigor with which you expect me to perceive what you write exactly as you meant it, and your modest willingness to understand what I meant.

[Atriod]

I also found that harpsichords don't sound as harsh in live music even when I was young (in college).  Their recorded sound used to bother me on solo works, but now that age has blunted my ability to hear treble it is not a problem!

Presbycusis, what you're describing, isn't the only form of hearing loss. There can also be certain types of hearing loss where frequencies cause aggravation, I've discussed this with my ENT surgery colleagues after I noticed when I would play harpsichord or alto sax at hifi open houses with people in the ~50-55 or older age ranges, it was common for them to say things like it's aggravating their hearing or it "sounds annoying" and when asked to expand, their answers brought it back to their hearing. 

I have to imagine this is some reason that harpsichord causes such polarizing opinions. I've always been ultra careful with my hearing. Even riding the NYC subway you wouldn't believe how loud it registers on an SPL meter in certain sections so I used foam earplugs inserted very deep. Or Etymotic ER20 earplugs at concerts. Even paying attention to baggage handlers at the airport nearly all of them insert their earplugs in just superficially which is doing nothing.

[Madiel]

There is a funny contrast between the rigor with which you expect me to perceive what you write exactly as you meant it, and your modest willingness to understand what I meant.

Why do you think understanding requires agreement? I understand just fine. Several times you've said that I don't understand when I do, but think what you're saying is nonsense.

Not least because you still haven't acknowledged that you actually agreed with Busoni all along.

[DavidW]

Presbycusis, what you're describing, isn't the only form of hearing loss. There can also be certain types of hearing loss where frequencies cause aggravation, I've discussed this with my ENT surgery colleagues after I noticed when I would play harpsichord or alto sax at hifi open houses with people in the ~50-55 or older age ranges, it was common for them to say things like it's aggravating their hearing or it "sounds annoying" and when asked to expand, their answers brought it back to their hearing. 

That is interesting, I never knew that.  Something to look forward to I guess.

[prémont]

There can also be certain types of hearing loss where frequencies cause aggravation, I've discussed this with my ENT surgery colleagues after I noticed when I would play harpsichord or alto sax at hifi open houses with people in the ~50-55 or older age ranges, it was common for them to say things like it's aggravating their hearing or it "sounds annoying" and when asked to expand, their answers brought it back to their hearing. 

I suppose you are talking about recruitment?

[prémont]

That is interesting, I never knew that.  Something to look forward to I guess.

During the last couple of years I am beginning to get annoyed by the 4' stop - or rather the 8'+ 4' stop combination of very metallic sounding harpsichords, usuallly revival instruments. The only thing one can do is to turn the volume a little bit down.

[prémont]

Several times you've said that I don't understand when I do, but think what you're saying is nonsense.

Well, if you don't understand me you can always draw the "nonsense-card".

Certainly a fair argument.

Congratulations!

For the record I shall add that I didn't use the word "perfect" to begin with in this discussion. It was you who brought this word in. I used the word "definitive" and this is not quite the same.

[Madiel]

Well, if you don't understand me you can always draw the "nonsense-card".

Certainly a fair argument.

Congratulations!

For the record I shall add that I didn't use the word "perfect" to begin with in this discussion. It was you who brought this word in. I used the word "definitive" and this is not quite the same.

It was Busoni/Florestan who brought the word in. It was you who said they were wrong.

I'm done here.