Bach on the piano

[Florestan]

Because in a lot of Cage's music there are many more things left to the performers' discretion.  Each performer's creativity is more engaged. The music with time brackets for example.

And yet pianists perform Ravel much more than Cage and no two recordings of Scarbo sound the same. How come?

[Mandryka]

And yet pianists perform Ravel much more than Cage and no two recordings of Scarbo sound the same. How come?

Because they are either not following Ravel's suggestions in the score, or the score underdetermines what they are doing, like Cage's score underdetermines performance. But you can do it comme scritto with a Cage number piece and exert much more creativity in many more areas than you can with Ravel. Have a look at the nature of time brackets -- it must be in wiki somewhere -- and see if you agree.

Other examples where performers are more like creative artists than in, for example, Ravel or Schumann, but in different ways, would be Projection 1 by Morton Feldman, and the Codex series by Richard Barrett. And if you want to go back in time, there is the unmeasured music from French baroque.  Generally the wish to close the gap between performer and artist has been a major aspect of recent music.

[Florestan]

Because they are either not following Ravel's suggestions in the score

And why do they do that? Because they are artists themselves and do just what to them seems the right thing to do artistically. They are not slavish, uncreative and unthinking executants of written commands, and if some composers wanted exactly that to be the case then they were awfully ignorant about the nature of music. I'm sorry, I can't think of any milder way to put it.

But interestingly enough, you used the term "suggestions". A suggestion is just that, a suggestion. It's not compulsory (or is it?) and it can be ignored (or can't it?)

Plus. There are recordings of composers playing their own music in which they depart from their own written indications. What do you make of that?

[Mandryka]

And why do they do that? Because they are artists themselves and do just what to them seems the right thing to do artistically. They are not slavish, uncreative and unthinking executants of written commands, and if some composers wanted exactly that to be the case then they were awfully ignorant about the nature of music. I'm sorry, I can't think of any milder way to put it.

But interestingly enough, you used the term "suggestions". A suggestion is just that, a suggestion. It's not compulsory (or is it?) and it can be ignored (or can't it?)

Plus. There are recordings of composers playing their own music in which they depart from their own written indications. What do you make of that?

I'm not saying that pianists who play Ravel are not artists. At the risk of repeating myself the idea I was putting on the table was that these things are a matter of degree.  A performer of Ravel is less an artist than a performer of Cage, because there's less scope for creativity.  It is quite simply impossible to play a Cage number piece as a craftsman, you just have to let your creative juices flow. A midi performance of Two2 is just unfeasible.

[Florestan]

the idea I was putting on the table was that these things are a matter of degree.  A performer of Ravel is less an artist than a performer of Cage

And my idea is that you are wrong.  Regardless whose music s/he performs, any performer is an artist, period.

[Mandryka]

period.

What, not even a teeny weeny little bit of a craftsman, a sliver of craftsmanship? That seems a rather extreme view.

[Handelian]

What, not even a teeny weeny little bit of a craftsman, a sliver of craftsmanship? That seems a rather extreme view.

A composer is a craftsman too if you consider the craftsmanship that goes into producing a piece of music. The artistry lies in the originality and beauty of the product. The artistry of the performer lies in reproducing the original to its best. They are both artists - just different. I'm listening to Helen Hunt Lieberson singing Handel at the moment. Don't try to convince me she wasn't a great artist because it won't wash! 

[SurprisedByBeauty]

What, not even a teeny weeny little bit of a craftsman, a sliver of craftsmanship? That seems a rather extreme view.

I find a lot more craftsmanship in the interpreters of contemporary music than that of the old warhorses. True, I'm talking largely about conductors... but it also applies to some degree to instrumentalists.
I remember the days that whenever M.A.Hamelin played something that wasn't either insanely difficult or older than 70 years, he was accused of "having the chops but not the musical sense" or something of the sort. A tired point but not without merit, early on. (I think he's since become a wonderful interpreter of, say, Haydn or Schubert.) So I agree with Florestan: There really isn't a difference. There's artistry and craftsmanship to be found in someone doing aleatory music as much or little as in someone playing the French Suites or Hammerklavier Sonata.

[Handelian]

I find a lot more craftsmanship in the interpreters of contemporary music than that of the old warhorses. True, I'm talking largely about conductors... but it also applies to some degree to instrumentalists.
I remember the days that whenever M.A.Hamelin played something that wasn't either insanely difficult or older than 70 years, he was accused of "having the chops but not the musical sense" or something of the sort. A tired point but not without merit, early on. (I think he's since become a wonderful interpreter of, say, Haydn or Schubert.) So I agree with Florestan: There really isn't a difference. There's artistry and craftsmanship to be found in someone doing aleatory music as much or little as in someone playing the French Suites or Hammerklavier Sonata.

As much contemporary music sounds to me unpleasant and often unlistenable, I wonder about the craftsmanship involved in performing it anyway.

[Mandryka]

I find a lot more craftsmanship in the interpreters of contemporary music than that of the old warhorses. True, I'm talking largely about conductors... but it also applies to some degree to instrumentalists.
I remember the days that whenever M.A.Hamelin played something that wasn't either insanely difficult or older than 70 years, he was accused of "having the chops but not the musical sense" or something of the sort. A tired point but not without merit, early on. (I think he's since become a wonderful interpreter of, say, Haydn or Schubert.) So I agree with Florestan: There really isn't a difference. There's artistry and craftsmanship to be found in someone doing aleatory music as much or little as in someone playing the French Suites or Hammerklavier Sonata.

Well, can we agree this: where you have have people trying to make music out of a piece of Cage's with time brackets,  or Stockhausen's Aufwärts or Cardew's The Great Learning, there's more creativity involved than if they were playing a score by Ferneyhough or Ravel or Schumann? (I know next to nothing about Ravel and Schumann by the way, but somehow I've picked up that they put a lot of detail in their scores. If that's wrong, just substitute someone else.)

I think there's a link between creativity and artistry, but that'll be the next stage of the argument.

[Mandryka]

The artistry of the performer lies in reproducing the original to its best.

Can you spell this out for me? I'm probably being stupid but the more I think about it the more I realise I don't understand what's being said here.

[Handelian]

Can you spell this out for me? I'm probably being stupid but the more I think about it the more I realise I don't understand what's being said here.

Sorry I thought it was obvious. The artistry of the performer lies in interpreting the wishes of the composer to the best possible effect.

[Mandryka]

Sorry I thought it was obvious. The artistry of the performer lies in interpreting the wishes of the composer to the best possible effect.

Thanks, I think I understand. This: the composer expresses directions which determine, though not entirely, the actions the performer ought to take. The performer has a certain amount wiggle room, and his artistry consists in how he uses it. He's a good artists if he makes the best possible effect (let's not go too deeply into that one just yet. One step at a time I think )

If that's right, the more the wiggle room, the more the potential for artistry. Yes?

[aukhawk]

Plus. There are recordings of composers playing their own music in which they depart from their own written indications. What do you make of that?

Where there is creativity in abundance it can easily topple over into anarchy.  Some such people are simply incapable of repeating themselves.

[prémont]

Where there is creativity in abundance it can easily topple over into anarchy.  Some such people are simply incapable of repeating themselves.

Fortunately only very few musicians are able to maintain a consistently invariable interpretation of a musical work. Each work must be recreated anew, each time it is performed. 

[Handelian]

Where there is creativity in abundance it can easily topple over into anarchy.  Some such people are simply incapable of repeating themselves.

As Stravinsky once said, "The score is just the beginning!"

[Mandryka]

Fortunately only very few musicians are able to maintain a consistently invariable interpretation of a musical work. Each work must be recreated anew, each time it is performed.

But in mainstream classical music I bet it doesn't happen much. I have a collection of Sviatoslav Richter bootleg recordings and the performances are really consistent. And he is, by reputation at least, one of the better musicians. That's why classical music is so rarely fresh sounding, it's so often more like a ritual.

We once talked about this before, there was a quotation by Colin Carr that I found. He is probably an exception.

[Mandryka]

Here

"I have played these pieces for decades; there is no music with which I am more familiar. It may sound like a cliché but every time I come back to them they are different. The other day I played them in London for a recording. At the end of the session we decided it would be worth playing the C minor suite through again and the Allemande was 35 seconds faster than the previous time. Nothing had been discussed and I had not listened to the previous one and made an adjustment. It was a spontaneous thing for better or worse; at the moment it felt better. But imagine that, a movement of four to five minutes being 35 seconds faster. I was delighted. If I have the misfortune to have to listen to performances from long ago I don't recognize myself. The challenge always is to prepare everything meticulously and then to be a thoroughly clean vessel through which the music can flow, as it needs to at that moment, not knowing how it will emerge. Always paradox!" Colin Carr

[Handelian]

But in mainstream classical music I bet it doesn't happen much. I have a collection of Sviatoslav Richter bootleg recordings and the performances are really consistent. And he is, by reputation at least, one of the better musicians. That's why classical music is so rarely fresh sounding, it's so often more like a ritual.

We once talked about this before, there was a quotation by Colin Carr that I found. He is probably an exception.

You are speaking personally here. You are saying that classical music is rarely fresh sounding to you. I can listen to the same performances over and over and still get fresh things out of them. It is the genius of the composers you are missing.

[Mandryka]

You are speaking personally here. You are saying that classical music is rarely fresh sounding to you. I can listen to the same performances over and over and still get fresh things out of them. It is the genius of the composers you are missing.

In fact I was thinking of concerts really when I wrote that, all the dud recitals and operas I've been to!