For years I have recognized a psychological conflict between GMG and how I see my classical music collection. I am in a phase of trying to find a way to remove this conflict. It's one reason why I am not very active on this board.
I want to enjoy my classical music collection. It's not the largest collection in the world, in fact it is pretty modest compared to the collections of many members on this board. My collection isn't perfect either. Half of it probably is considered mediocre or even bad in quality. However, it represent MY journey exploring the wonders of classical music. I have fond memories of buying my first CD of J. S. Bach (Violin Concertos by Capella Istropolitana on Naxos). To me that CD was extremely exciting as a Bach newbie no matter how mediocre or bad it is compared to the competition. Years later I bought another performance of Bach's Violin Concertos: The Academy of Ancient Music/Andrew Manze/Rachel Podger.
Reading GMG makes me constantly feel I am lacking tons to substantive material. I don't have anything from these composers and I don't have these performances. I should be happy with what I have, not worry so much about what I am lacking.
My sudden interest in Boccherini demonstrates this effect. I should be enjoying my tiny collection of 4 CDs by Boccherini. Instead I think about all the works by Boccherini I don't have. This is absurd! As if I had to own every single performance ever released in order to enjoy any performance!
So, I have been trying to learn some austerity and psychical enlightment. It's not easy. Now I started to drool over the 37 CD boxset of Boccherini on Brilliant Classics. That box is VERY cheap. What worries me is the fact that buying such bargains may keep me from finding enlightment. I feel a big conflict inside myself. Materialism doesn't mean certain happiness.
What helps me is to take a CD off the shelf to my hands I say to myself: "this is a decent/good disc of good music and I f**cking OWN the CD! So put it in your CD-player and enjoy it!" Concentrating on my music collection means come to GMG less often and I read/write fewer messages.
Board like GMG are great when one needs help/advice about performances/works/composers. Reading it in order to find out about the huge defects of your collection is a stupid way to spend your time, isn't it? A want thousands of CDs but I need none more, seriously.
Always, always buy what you enjoy or think that you will enjoy and then be sure to listen to it and share your thoughts here.
Nothing wrong with staying clear of larger box sets if you believe they will impede your enjoyment. Look at George and his purchase of "gold" cds. He could have easily swept up numerous large sets for what he pays for these, but these are the pressings he enjoys. He is like a collector of fine French wines, but he actually drinks them. ;D Then there are others here that can snag hundreds of classical cds a year and glean just as much enjoyment out of them. Both parties are doing it right. As for myself, I have been mostly buying retro-cocktail type lps or soundtracks that some folks cannot give away. Right now I just rather spend my money on these because that is what I want to listen to. Each one I buy I enjoy.
Scenes like this break my heart:
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1797334_809049615800816_2050668525897196415_n.jpg?oh=42bcc4a9d62db308ddf9d4e08a7fbcec&oe=54FA8A54)
Quote from: Bogey on December 24, 2014, 04:59:44 AM
Always, always buy what you enjoy or think that you will enjoy and then be sure to listen to it and share your thoughts here.
Excellent advice! Also, never ever pay any attention to those who patronize you for buying or not buying something. You are you and they are they --- each with one's own personality, taste and interest, therefore, to each one's own. This is not to say that you should disregard anyone else's opinion or advice. GMG is full of knowledgeable people, ready to impart their knowledge --- but the final decision is always yours.
Quote
Scenes like this break my heart:
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1797334_809049615800816_2050668525897196415_n.jpg?oh=42bcc4a9d62db308ddf9d4e08a7fbcec&oe=54FA8A54)
That's a shame, nay, a crime! ;D
Quote from: Florestan on December 24, 2014, 05:15:15 AM
Excellent advice! Also, never ever pay any attention to those who patronize you for buying or not buying something. You are you and they are they --- each with one's own personality, taste and interest, therefore, to each one's own. This is not to say that you should disregard anyone else's opinion or advice. GMG is full of knowledgeable people, ready to impart their knowledge --- but the final decision is always yours.
Andrei is giving you pearls here,
Poju.
I hope nobody is deliberately making you feel like you need more, need to buy more, or need to "fix" your record collection. However, there is also a natural (and enjoyable!) effect of GMG, which is that you get to see the crazy amount of wonderful music that exists, and the even crazier amount of wonderful recordings.
When that gets to be a problem - like when I'm listening to something different from everybody else, or when my budget prevents me from buying other recordings - I just treat the forum as a learning experience. Take mental notes: that exists. People like that.
This year has been interesting for me because I have not bought a single classical CD since January, except a few souvenirs on my trip to Paris and 2-3 "super duper cheap bargains". Now, after 11 months, I don't feel that crazy desire to go buy every album everybody mentions. But I do have a clear, focused, specific wish list for 2015 purchases, and it's only going to cost me a couple hundred dollars to get everything that I saw on GMG this year that I want to listen to.
Boards like these are most useful when you find a few people who have the same taste as you, or similar taste, and learn new things from them. But there are a few hundred of us, and we all like different things. I bet any given day, we listen to 200+ composers between us. That is amazing. But you have to protect yourself from the idea that that is a pressure, or a burden, or a challenge. It's only a learning opportunity. Do what you want. :)
No one should ever feel that they have to own something just because someone makes a suggestion. I buy recordings because I want them not because I need them. There's a difference. Perhaps my scenario is much different than most of the members here: I'm not married, I have no girlfriend, I live with my parents, and I don't smoke/drink, so this is where some of my money goes. This is my leisure, but, at the end of the day, a person should be happy to have any kind of collection at all. Cherish your recordings and the memories the music has brought you. That is something no one can buy.
Maybe looking at it differently would help too. All the discs you bought are made by professionals who are among the best in what they do. Most of them think they have something new to say about a piece or something that wasn't quite covered by someone else. So every disc you listen to is a unique take on a given piece. SO really, the issue is not whether one is better than another (it is really rare to find recordings that are simply so deficient that they take away), but which interpretation you prefer.
I was once at a concert with a group of friends (bach double concerto) performed by young professionals. One violinist was clearly better technically, but I felt her performance a bit cold and passionless. The other player was not quite as good, but just made the piece come alive. After the performance, we talked about the playing and when I said that I preferred the second performer, my friend (a cello player) ripped into me. In the end, I held my ground, but it can be difficult do explain what we hear to others (and what we like to hear as well). It is especially hard when you cannot articulate it well either, which can be a challenge (meaning identifying what exactly you liked or disliked and why you liked or disliked it). But even that is not necessary - it is enough to know you liked it.
When things get to voices, they become even more personal. There are many Callas recordings that are considered the 'best' by virtually everyone. Her voice drives me nuts. I don't know why others can't hear what I hear, but they don't (or can ignore it). Should I abandon opera, because most of the world will think me crazy for not liking her voice? Why should I when there are many other voices to hear?!
As a suggestion, I would say join a round of the blind listenings to hear a piece performed different ways (and you don't even have to post your results if you so choose). I think you will see, if you read any of those threads, that there is no concensus as to the best way to play the piece (and supposed classics are sometimes unceremoniously bounced in the early rounds). But hearing it for yourself (and the liberation of picking the one you like most) can be helpful to your own appeciation.
Awesome responses from everyone! Thanks! I read them carefully.
I am aware that there is not pressure to do what others say. It's all my own weakness to take things that way and that's why I need to learn to get rid of that weakness. The new year 2015 is ahead of us. It's time to have some kind of plans for year 2015.
I feel like collecting/exploring
Liszt further. Same with
Boccherini. Some time ago I bought 9 CPO CDs of baroque music from jpc.de and I have listened to only one of these discs so far meaning I have a lot of listening pleasure ahead of me. No need to buy anything in the near future. Not buying anything for a while helps focusing on my collection and getting on the right track.
Quote from: Bogey on December 24, 2014, 04:59:44 AM(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1797334_809049615800816_2050668525897196415_n.jpg?oh=42bcc4a9d62db308ddf9d4e08a7fbcec&oe=54FA8A54)
Hobo vinyl collector?
Quote from: 71 dB on December 24, 2014, 01:12:46 PM
Awesome responses from everyone! Thanks! I read them carefully.
I am aware that there is not pressure to do what others say. It's all my own weakness to take things that way and that's why I need to learn to get rid of that weakness. The new year 2015 is ahead of us. It's time to have some kind of plans for year 2015.
I feel like collecting/exploring Liszt further. Same with Boccherini. Some time ago I bought 9 CPO CDs of baroque music from jpc.de and I have listened to only one of these discs so far meaning I have a lot of listening pleasure ahead of me. No need to buy anything in the near future. Not buying anything for a while helps focusing on my collection and getting on the right track.
Hobo vinyl collector?
I never really cared about hearing multiple performances unless it is a work I am very fond of. Even so, I haven't heard more than a handful of performances of, say, Bartok's
Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta or Debussy's
Jeux.
I also feel a pressure to keep up, but I can't complain. I've discovered composers that I would never have thought about listening to last year. This is where Spotify comes in!
As for 'collecting', I'd suspect that most people on GMG think it is silly for me to collect scores when we have IMSLP (and other, more questionably legal sources for post-1923 works), but I could make the same argument about YouTube/Spotify versus owning physical CDs.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 24, 2014, 03:41:42 AM
A want thousands of CDs but I need none more, seriously.
This perfectly describes my situation ;D
Quote from: Artem on December 24, 2014, 04:32:37 PM
This perfectly describes my situation ;D
I think it describes the situation of all of us. ;D
I haven't bought any CDs (classical nor non-classical) since November ninth.
Quote from: EigenUser on December 24, 2014, 01:48:50 PM
I never really cared about hearing multiple performances unless it is a work I am very fond of. Even so, I haven't heard more than a handful of performances of, say, Bartok's Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta or Debussy's Jeux.
I also feel a pressure to keep up, but I can't complain. I've discovered composers that I would never have thought about listening to last year. This is where Spotify comes in!
As for 'collecting', I'd suspect that most people on GMG think it is silly for me to collect scores when we have IMSLP (and other, more questionably legal sources for post-1923 works), but I could make the same argument about YouTube/Spotify versus owning physical CDs.
I've never been one to rely completely on internet streaming sources as I personally would rather have a good collection and a good stereo system than anything else. I do use sites like NML and Spotify to sample recordings that I'm interested in buying, but that's it. I've always preferred owning something tangible.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 25, 2014, 06:50:36 AM
I've never been one to rely completely on internet streaming sources as I personally would rather have a good collection and a good stereo system than anything else. I do use sites like NML and Spotify to sample recordings that I'm interested in buying, but that's it. I've always preferred owning something tangible.
Then do just like I do: extract the sound from Youtube and rip it to CD. ;D
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 24, 2014, 07:00:15 AM
Maybe looking at it differently would help too. All the discs you bought are made by professionals who are among the best in what they do. Most of them think they have something new to say about a piece or something that wasn't quite covered by someone else. So every disc you listen to is a unique take on a given piece. SO really, the issue is not whether one is better than another (it is really rare to find recordings that are simply so deficient that they take away), but which interpretation you prefer.
I was once at a concert with a group of friends (bach double concerto) performed by young professionals. One violinist was clearly better technically, but I felt her performance a bit cold and passionless. The other player was not quite as good, but just made the piece come alive. After the performance, we talked about the playing and when I said that I preferred the second performer, my friend (a cello player) ripped into me. In the end, I held my ground, but it can be difficult do explain what we hear to others (and what we like to hear as well). It is especially hard when you cannot articulate it well either, which can be a challenge (meaning identifying what exactly you liked or disliked and why you liked or disliked it). But even that is not necessary - it is enough to know you liked it.
When things get to voices, they become even more personal. There are many Callas recordings that are considered the 'best' by virtually everyone. Her voice drives me nuts. I don't know why others can't hear what I hear, but they don't (or can ignore it). Should I abandon opera, because most of the world will think me crazy for not liking her voice? Why should I when there are many other voices to hear?!
As a suggestion, I would say join a round of the blind listenings to hear a piece performed different ways (and you don't even have to post your results if you so choose). I think you will see, if you read any of those threads, that there is no concensus as to the best way to play the piece (and supposed classics are sometimes unceremoniously bounced in the early rounds). But hearing it for yourself (and the liberation of picking the one you like most) can be helpful to your own appeciation.
I understand what you mean about the second performer, and I often prefer less technically assured performances if done with real committment. I don't think we're alone here. John feels the same for sure.
I think the idea of owning a classical music collection is so old fashioned, like makng your own clothes or something. I still own some recordings - the ones I can't get from spotify basically. I really think it's better in every important way to pay their subscription and use them to find new music. If things change, if the price goes way too high, I'll revise my ideas.
Anyway, as far as needing to know lots of different performances, well obviously it's pretty low on Mazlow's hierarchy, but that goes without saying. You don't need it like food and stuff. You need it because you're curious, intellectually curious. It's like all these different performers, or most of them, have different ideas about how the music should go. And that's quite an interesting thing to explore, what they do with the music and why, if you're turned on by that type of thing.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 25, 2014, 08:03:57 AM
I think the idea of owning a classical music collection is so old fashioned, like makng your own clothes or something. I still own some recordings - the ones I can't get from spotify basically.
I hate the way Spotify's various contracts can force them to stop featuring recordings so abruptly. They went through such mishegas with Lucinda Williams, I've not used them again except in the most dire emergency (a music emergency is low in Maslow's ranking, I know, but music is what we're here to talk about).
Quote from: Ken B on December 25, 2014, 07:15:07 AM
I understand what you mean about the second performer, and I often prefer less technically assured performances if done with real committment. I don't think we're alone here. John feels the same for sure.
Yes, if the performers are emotional and the performance is a committed one, then this bypasses the technical side of things except for audio quality of course. This is something I'm a bit of a stickler about.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 25, 2014, 08:03:57 AM
I think the idea of owning a classical music collection is so old fashioned.
I want to be old fashioned. I don't even use a smartphone. My cellphone is a 46 euros Nokia 225. ;D
I'd never build my music library on streaming services, let someone else thousands of miles away manage MY music. No way. I want physical copies on my bookshelf!
Quote from: 71 dB on December 25, 2014, 09:55:04 AM
I want to be old fashioned. I don't even use a smartphone. My cellphone is a 46 euros Nokia 225. ;D
I'd never build my music library on streaming services, let someone else thousands of miles away manage MY music. No way. I want physical copies on my bookshelf!
Yes. Completely. I utterly hate how 'dependency' has become something of the norm. Buy music, depend on a paid for 'service' to give you it. Buy a book, depend on a paid for 'service' to give you it. You never own it physically. It is always somewhere you have to go and get it somehow, not in your home for you to hold and behold, it always comes with advertising on a screen from a remote place, even if it IS 'downloaded' on a device which you don't own either.
QuoteI want to be old fashioned.
Old fashioned means taking ownership and management of what one spends money on...not being old fashioned means owning nothing, depending to be provided with nothing, and paying for that 'privilege'. I am most certainly with you on this 71dB.
In the great majority of cases, music isn't really the sort of thing that it makes sense to own (Like film and books.) You hear it once, twice -- but then there really is no need to hear it again. You know what he does, there we are, you've experienced that, you've become aware of a new possibility, now on to the next one. There may be some recordings which are deeper than that, which you get something out of revisiting many many times. But it's a really small proportion. That's one reason, but not the only reason, why owning a large library of music is not a good idea, at least given the accessibility of music rental through pay by the month streaming. There they are, sitting on your shelf, neither use nor ornament, gathering dust. And if you do want to find one, they hide!
Let me be clear what I'm saying. Having access to lots of music is good. Owning it these days is a bit silly.
Quote from: Scots John on December 25, 2014, 10:12:58 AMI am most certainly with you on this 71dB.
Good to know. 8)
Quote from: Mandryka on December 25, 2014, 11:03:34 AMLet me be clear what I'm saying. Having access to lots of music is good. Owning it these days is a bit silly.
You made yourself clear, but I don't care if you think it's silly. ::)
Quote from: Mandryka on December 25, 2014, 11:03:34 AM
In the great majority of cases, music isn't really the sort of thing that it makes sense to own (Like film and books.) You hear it once, twice -- but then there really is no need to hear it again.
Few things have made me say "I couldn't agree less" more emphatically than this assertion. I agree with you on movies, as I only watch 95% of them one time, but music? No, that's the opposite. I'm sure I've listened to some recordings more than a thousand times (Mahler, Linda Ronstadt, Beethoven, the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Miles Davis), on some combination of LP, cassette, CD, and my current preference, lossless files from my downloaded CDs (which I am
not getting rid of).
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 24, 2014, 07:00:15 AM
When things get to voices, they become even more personal. There are many Callas recordings that are considered the 'best' by virtually everyone. Her voice drives me nuts. I don't know why others can't hear what I hear, but they don't (or can ignore it).
I agree completely about Callas. I don't like her voice at all. Nasal and throaty (is that a word?). She may have played the roles very well on stage, but her voice gets on my nerves.
I have never bought into the Spotify model. I like to have the physical medium available. I do rip my CDs and on one of my systems I play music from the harddisc on my server, but I have noticed that when I do this my mode of listening changes. I am not so focused and have a tendency to jump around and not listen to whole works. The easy availability of tracks makes it so easy to change to something else if your attention wanders. When I play CDs I always finish a work completely before I switch to something else - the medium makes me focus more on what I am hearing, and "forces" me to play something through. This makes me listen to things I would not listen to if I was streaming from the net. And so actually broadens my horizon, because I listen to a work that I don't like at first, but which gets the chance to grow on me during the performance. And so maybe I get back to that work on a later date, something I would never do if I was streaming it, because my first impression ("I don't like it") would stay with me, instead of "I dodn't like it at first, but it grew on me. I'll definitely try it again at a later date".
Anyway - that's my personal opinion. My only problem with owning CDs is that they take up so much space, space I don't really have available any more :(
Quote from: otare on December 25, 2014, 11:31:01 PM
I agree completely about Callas. I don't like her voice at all. Nasal and throaty (is that a word?). She may have played the roles very well on stage, but her voice gets on my nerves.
I like Callas' voice, but she lived 50 years too early. Most of her recordings are monophonic I believe and contain a lot of hiss and distortion. That gets on MY nerves. Opera singing with strong harmonic distortion is one of the most annoying thing I now. :(
By the 50s the recording quality was actually very good. Just listen to the Mercury recordings from 1958 or thereabout. Hiss and distortion is the least problem (to me) of recordings from this period.
Quote from: otare on December 26, 2014, 02:12:12 AM
By the 50s the recording quality was actually very good. Just listen to the Mercury recordings from 1958 or thereabout. Hiss and distortion is the least problem (to me) of recordings from this period.
Yeah, perhaps the last recordings are "tolerable", but I think everytime I hear Callas' singing somewhere I am horrified by the sound quality. I don't listen to recordings pre 70's often for the sound quality reason. Chamber music isn't affected as badly as larger orchestral works and operas imho.
Analogue recordings from the 60's are very good sounding. Probably better than recordings from the 70's and 80's in my ears. Personal prefs though - YMMV. Some of the best sounding recordings I have heard are from the 50's. I even have a recording made live in Dresden Semperoper in October 1944 that sounds as good as many recordings made today!
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.qobuz.com%2Fimages%2Fcovers%2F53%2F48%2F0881488704853_600.jpg&f=1)
If you limit yourself to recordings made after 1970 you are missing many great recordings.
Quote from: Jay F on December 25, 2014, 11:32:26 AM
Few things have made me say "I couldn't agree less" more emphatically than this assertion. I agree with you on movies, as I only watch 95% of them one time, but music? No, that's the opposite. I'm sure I've listened to some recordings more than a thousand times (Mahler, Linda Ronstadt, Beethoven, the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Miles Davis), on some combination of LP, cassette, CD, and my current preference, lossless files from my downloaded CDs (which I am not getting rid of).
Yes I'm sure I've listened to Mahler and Beethoven many times, and I expect I will continue to do so. But my point was about particular performances, not about pieces of music - the particular rather than the universal.
I think that a pretty small percentage of performances repay multiple repeated listening. Only the deepest do - deep either because they do something with the music which it's not easy to understand, or deep because they express strange and disturbing ideas and feelings.
An example of the former may be Sofronitsky's first Chopin Barcarolle recording (I'm imagining the look of Scherzian's face as he reads that.) An example of second may be Casals playing the intro to the 6th cello suite (Bach)
To do either of those things takes a remarkable performer, a visionary. And there aren't many.
The others may all do things that are worth hearing - surprising ideas about tempo or voicing or articulation. But once you've heard what they do, and you've grokked the consequences, why bother to hear it again? You already know it, understand it.
It would be interesting to go through all my classical music and to see which cds have had 3 or more listens. I have a decent library (others here blow mine away), and I understand time is a factor when they get to be large.
Almost, if not all, my soundtracks all have hit +3 marks and some are probably approaching +100 for listens.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 26, 2014, 05:31:30 AM
I think that a pretty small percentage of performances repay multiple repeated listening.
On the contrary, I feel that every recorded performance deserves multiple listening. There are so many recordings where my opinion of the performance rose greatly with repeated listening; if I had given up after one or two hearings, I would have been making poor decisions.
Quote from: Sammy on December 26, 2014, 07:50:54 AM
On the contrary, I feel that every recorded performance deserves multiple listening. There are so many recordings where my opinion of the performance rose greatly with repeated listening; if I had given up after one or two hearings, I would have been making poor decisions.
This is completely according with my opinion. The number of recordings, which prove more rewarding with repeated listening, is with the current standard of recordings very great.
Quote from: (: premont :) on December 26, 2014, 08:18:23 AM
This is completely according with my opinion. The number of recordings, which prove more rewarding with repeated listening, is with the current standard of recordings very great.
I think this is more true of earlier music, and in contemporary music, where you still have a major rôle being played by scholar/performers, who have thought about the style, the meaning, and are trying to put that across in the performance. In 18th and 19th century music, and early 20th century, where you basically have a stronger presence of hacks and entertainers, less so.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 26, 2014, 08:30:31 AM
I think this is more true of earlier music, and in contemporary music, where you still have a major rôle being played by scholar/performers, who have thought about the style, the meaning, and are trying to put that across in the performance. In 18th and 19th century music, and early 20th century, where you basically have a stronger presence of hacks and entertainers, less so.
Generally I agree with this, even if I think there are some exceptions to your 18th-19th century statement - e.g. Beethovens string quartets and piano sonatas, particularly the later ones.
I find the more I listen, the more I hear. When I first started getting interested in classical music, I had a very narrow view of what an "acceptable" performance was. If anything strayed outside of that, I dismissed it out of hand. As I got a couple of decades of listening and thought under my belt and got some experience, my tastes broadened and I was able to discern things that I never even considered in my ignorant days. The straying from the beaten path became something I actively looked for to find fresh interpretations.
Now, I find a huge range of great performances from the present and past... too many to absorb all of them. The general level of quality and taste in classical music performance is quite high, and it always has been. The only cardinal sin I see in performance today is the pursuit of acceptability in interpretation. That results in a lot of conservative, bland and predictable performances. It's ironic that what I used to value is now what I see as the problem.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 26, 2014, 05:31:30 AM
The others may all do things that are worth hearing - surprising ideas about tempo or voicing or articulation. But once you've heard what they do, and you've grokked the consequences, why bother to hear it again? You already know it, understand it.
None of this is true for me.
One other thing... I think what opened my mind to the things in music I had been missing and got me to consider the possibilities of interpretation was opera. There's a myriad of different ways of approaching just about any opera, and none of them are "correct". Each approach reveals a different facet of the drama or music. When I realized that through opera, I applied it to pure music. That's when chamber and solo music suddenly came alive for me. All that time, I had been focusing on the composer and work and wanting to find a performer who faded into the background. Now I see performer, work and composer as all being equal things. The three work together to bring the music to life.
There are so many great performers (and even more mediocre listeners!)
Quote from: Mandryka on December 26, 2014, 05:31:30 AM
The others may all do things that are worth hearing - surprising ideas about tempo or voicing or articulation. But once you've heard what they do, and you've grokked the consequences, why bother to hear it again? You already know it, understand it.
Wow, that really sounds weird to me. You appear to be saying that a performance you understand is not worth bothering with anymore. So, let's assume that I understand Tureck's performances of Bach's WTC. Let's just dump Tureck and move on - that's nuts.
IMO a good performance can never be completely understood.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 26, 2014, 11:36:06 AM
IMO a good performance can never be completely understood.
This is interesting. Can you say some more?
Once a concert's finished, it's finished. Except in your memory. I very much like that way of experiencing music, it keeps it alive and fresh somehow. Of course, some recorded performances are so rich that I feel the need to go back to them.
One place where I've had to listen many many times is in music that's new to me, or in performance styles I find really challenging. I wouldn't like to count how many times I listened to Ensemble Organum doing the Machault Mass before I saw past the initial feeling of it being something too brutal. Now it's to some extent formed my tastes and expectations - at least my familiarity with it has helped me to undersand better what other performances are doing, to locate other performances in the reception history. Now that I know it better. I have it more in memory, I feel the need to hear it less often. I'm more excited by discovering what other groups are doing with the same music.
Some of Harnoncourt's stuff is also like this - the second B minor mass for example. Still exporing that one - the Bach mass is more difficult that the Machault I think.
I had a similar experience with Ferneyhough's Quartet - there I could see straight away somehow that this was a major major piece of music, but it's so rich and strange that I must have listened to the Arditti recording many many times now, and each time it's like a new experience, maybe slightly more comfortable than before.
Another case is Gould doing the 4th partita. You know, I used to play and play that piece so often, the way he plays the sarabande is somehow etched on my consciousness. I play it rarely now - but it informes my perceptions of what others do with the same music.
I think a lot depends on what you use music for. For me I can see it's becoming a more intellectual than sensual thing.
Quote from: otare on December 26, 2014, 03:54:32 AM
Analogue recordings from the 60's are very good sounding. Probably better than recordings from the 70's and 80's in my ears. Personal prefs though - YMMV. Some of the best sounding recordings I have heard are from the 50's. I even have a recording made live in Dresden Semperoper in October 1944 that sounds as good as many recordings made today!
We are talking about technical sound quality. Things like distortion, frequency response, noise etc.
Elgar's
The Dream of Gerontius by Barbirolli. Recorded in December 1964. Are you telling me it sounds better (sound quality wise) than recordings from 70's and 80's? I don't agree. My experience is that the older the recording is the more likely it contains loud background noise, harmonic distortion and spectral colourization. Monophonic recordings are plain dull to my ears.
Analog recording reached it's apex in the 70's. Then they switched to digital. 80's was when they learned to do digital recordings, but digital technology was in it's infancy. During the 90's they perfected their craft. Recordings of today are constantly of very high quality apart from spatial distortion when listening with headphones but that issue is solved using crossfeed.
Quote from: otare on December 26, 2014, 03:54:32 AMIf you limit yourself to recordings made after 1970 you are missing many great recordings.
Limit? There are so many recordings done AFTER years 2000 I could never collect/listen to then all. I don't feel limited at all.
I have a some recordings made before 1970 (mostly Elgar). Technically the sound quality of more recent recordings is superior.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 26, 2014, 11:52:33 AM
This is interesting. Can you say some more?
With every listen, something new is revealed in the music. Sometimes very subtle but still new to your ears.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 26, 2014, 12:16:13 PM
Once a concert's finished, it's finished. Except in your memory. I very much like that way of experiencing music, it keeps it alive and fresh somehow. Of course, some recorded performances are so rich that I feel the need to go back to them.
One place where I've had to listen many many times is in music that's new to me, or in performance styles I find really challenging. I wouldn't like to count how many times I listened to Ensemble Organum doing the Machault Mass before I saw past the initial feeling of it being something too brutal. Now it's to some extent formed my tastes and expectations - at least my familiarity with it has helped me to undersand better what other performances are doing, to locate other performances in the reception history. Now that I know it better. I have it more in memory, I feel the need to hear it less often. I'm more excited by discovering what other groups are doing with the same music.
Some of Harnoncourt's stuff is also like this - the second B minor mass for example. Still exporing that one - the Bach mass is more difficult that the Machault I think.
I had a similar experience with Ferneyhough's Quartet - there I could see straight away somehow that this was a major major piece of music, but it's so rich and strange that I must have listened to the Arditti recording many many times now, and each time it's like a new experience, maybe slightly more comfortable than before.
Another case is Gould doing the 4th partita. You know, I used to play and play that piece so often, the way he plays the sarabande is somehow etched on my consciousness. I play it rarely now - but it informes my perceptions of what others do with the same music.
I think a lot depends on what you use music for. For me I can see it's becoming a more intellectual than sensual thing.
I really don't understand your thinking. When you go to a concert of Barenboim playing Beethoven, are you going to hear Beethoven or Barenboim (or insert player name of interest)? I go to hear Beethoven. Same with a disc - I play the disc because I want to hear the music again (for the most part), not because I want to think about how a particular performer plays the piece. So your comment, "But once you've heard what they do, and you've grokked the consequences, why bother to hear it again? You already know it, understand it." seems very strange to me.
I listen to it again because I want to hear the work again - because I like the music. It can be fun (and educational) to listen to other interpretations, but I don't need to. In fact, I think listening to multiple interpretations in and of itself does not add a whole lot (though voices may be a bit different). Once you've heard a piece, the different interpretations are rarely so radical that it changes your conception of the piece (as long you have a half way decent one to start with).
Reading all the posts in this thread makes it pretty clear that we all approach classical music with unique perspectives and for different reasons. Personally I listen with more of an emotional component although intellectually it is inspiring to consider the origin, perception and reason for a given composition. The spectrum of performers and their contributions simply adds to the multifaceted auditory realm we so frequently wander through. It is a lifelong fascinating musical journey - each piece a reflection of the human mind echoing through time and space - for each of us to absorb and process in our own way. I do not see a conflict, but rather a timeless musical invocation for all of us to heed and honor as an integral part of our lives.
Quote from: Moonfish on December 26, 2014, 07:44:39 PM
I do not see a conflict, but rather a timeless musical invocation for all of us to heed and honor as an integral part of our lives.
Thank you for these wise words. It is something worth to think about.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 26, 2014, 04:43:32 PM
I really don't understand your thinking. When you go to a concert of Barenboim playing Beethoven, are you going to hear Beethoven or Barenboim (or insert player name of interest)? I go to hear Beethoven. Same with a disc - I play the disc because I want to hear the music again (for the most part), not because I want to think about how a particular performer plays the piece. So your comment, "But once you've heard what they do, and you've grokked the consequences, why bother to hear it again? You already know it, understand it." seems very strange to me.
I listen to it again because I want to hear the work again - because I like the music. It can be fun (and educational) to listen to other interpretations, but I don't need to. In fact, I think listening to multiple interpretations in and of itself does not add a whole lot (though voices may be a bit different). Once you've heard a piece, the different interpretations are rarely so radical that it changes your conception of the piece (as long you have a half way decent one to start with).
You can never hear Beethoven's music, because the composition doesn't determine sounds etc.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 26, 2014, 03:27:11 PM
With every listen, something new is revealed in the music. Sometimes very subtle but still new to your ears.
.
But things are more complex than I understand at the moment. When you listen to a recording it's not just the lifeless determined finite photograph (CD) of an event (performance) that's in the mix - you, the listener, are in the mix too. And this is what makes the recording endlessly revealing I suppose - it's what the listener brings to the event. It's like the hermeneutic ciricle.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 26, 2014, 10:46:01 PM
You can never hear Beethoven's music, because the composition doesn't determine sounds etc.
Beethoven must have imagined how his music sounds when it is played while composing. The sounds are at least loosely determined:
"violin-like sound here, flute-like sound there etc." In my opinion music exists only as sounds. The bits on a CD are information, not music. Only when the CD is played and sounds emerge from the loudspeakers/headphones the information becames music. Same with scores. Notes on paper are not music. They are information* coded as notes. When an orchestra plays the score the information becames music. This is what I think and will always think no matter what others say.
*This information can be and often is considered art, but that doesn't make it music any more than the Mona Lisa painting.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 26, 2014, 10:46:01 PM
You can never hear Beethoven's music, because the composition doesn't determine sounds etc.
I knew it! It was Bach all along!
Quote from: 71 dB on December 27, 2014, 02:06:30 AM
Beethoven must have imagined how his music sounds when it is played while composing. The sounds are at least loosely determined: "violin-like sound here, flute-like sound there etc." In my opinion music exists only as sounds. The bits on a CD are information, not music. Only when the CD is played and sounds emerge from the loudspeakers/headphones the information becames music. Same with scores. Notes on paper are not music. They are information* coded as notes. When an orchestra plays the score the information becames music. This is what I think and will always think no matter what others say.
*This information can be and often is considered art, but that doesn't make it music any more than the Mona Lisa painting.
In general agreement, but I would propose a slight modification: it becomes music when someone actually listens to it.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 27, 2014, 02:06:30 AM
Beethoven must have imagined how his music sounds when it is played while composing. The sounds are at least loosely determined: "violin-like sound here, flute-like sound there etc." In my opinion music exists only as sounds. The bits on a CD are information, not music. Only when the CD is played and sounds emerge from the loudspeakers/headphones the information becames music. Same with scores. Notes on paper are not music. They are information* coded as notes. When an orchestra plays the score the information becames music. This is what I think and will always think no matter what others say.
*This information can be and often is considered art, but that doesn't make it music any more than the Mona Lisa painting.
Hmm, that puts reading a book in a new perspective. Ha ha! So reading a book is different compared to reading music per your definition? The notes on paper, the cd, the cassette tape or an instrument being played all seem to be the different states of the same music in my mind.
It is very interesting how this thread turns so philosophical and has diverted so drastically from the content in
the primary post.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 27, 2014, 08:46:36 AM
In general agreement, but I would propose a slight modification: it becomes music when someone actually listens to it.
I always knew it was me all along at the centre of it all!
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 27, 2014, 08:46:36 AM
In general agreement, but I would propose a slight modification: it becomes music when someone actually listens to it.
And your post only exists if someone reads it? 0:)
Quote from: Moonfish on December 27, 2014, 09:07:52 AM
And your post only exists if someone reads it? 0:)
And if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? 0:) 0:)
(You should have known where this was going to go :D)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 24, 2014, 07:00:15 AM
In the end, I held my ground, but it can be difficult do explain what we hear to others (and what we like to hear as well). It is especially hard when you cannot articulate it well either, which can be a challenge (meaning identifying what exactly you liked or disliked and why you liked or disliked it). But even that is not necessary - it is enough to know you liked it.
The internet gets criticised a lot but I think it can help develop a greater ability to articulate and debate with the more sustained discussion you can get.
As for gaps I think everybody has them, people just prioritize things differently and it should be easy enough for people to accept that.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 26, 2014, 01:19:57 PM
We are talking about technical sound quality. Things like distortion, frequency response, noise etc. Elgar's The Dream of Gerontius by Barbirolli. Recorded in December 1964. Are you telling me it sounds better (sound quality wise) than recordings from 70's and 80's? I don't agree. My experience is that the older the recording is the more likely it contains loud background noise, harmonic distortion and spectral colourization. Monophonic recordings are plain dull to my ears.
The best sounding recording I have ever heard was recorded in 1954... Fiedler's Gaetie Parisienne on Living Stereo. It sounds better than many recordings that were made much later. I've also heard mono recordings that were strikingly lifelike and dimensional. It's more a matter of the miking and mixing than it is the recording format.
That said, I am using speakers with a 5.1 system and pretty sophisticated DSPs to play these recordings back. A good surround system will make anything sound better than just two channels in headphones.
Quote from: Mandryka on December 26, 2014, 11:23:57 PMBut things are more complex than I understand at the moment. When you listen to a recording it's not just the lifeless determined finite photograph (CD) of an event (performance) that's in the mix - you, the listener, are in the mix too. And this is what makes the recording endlessly revealing I suppose - it's what the listener brings to the event. It's like the hermeneutic ciricle.
That's exactly it. The exciting thing about different interpretations aren't the things that are the same, it's the differences between them. Imagine if you have always lived in the same place. You look at a photo of your house, and you recognize it. And you look at a photo of the Taj Mahal and it is just a photo of a weird building. If you travel and see the world, that abstract photo can mean more to you. It can represent a time and place and feel. Music is sort of like that. With less experience, you hear tunes and rhythms... but as your experience grows, the music grows too. If it is a particularly good performance, it can be like a diamond, revealing a different facet and a different angle on the music every time you listen to it.
When I first started getting interested in classical music, I wanted one good modern recording of each work. "Who needs two different Eroica symphonies?" That was a fine approach for where I was on my journey back then. The whole repertoire was new to me. But when I got to a certain point, I started perceiving a new layer in music I was already very familiar with. That layer was the personality of the performer. It got so it wasn't just piano music playing, it was RUBINSTEIN big as life. And that Eroica symphony by Toscanini was like no other Eroica I had ever heard. That was the point where I stopped focusing on the age or format of the recording and started focusing on what a particular performer brought to the composition.
That isn't something that reveals itself right away though. It takes a lot of time and thought to get to that point. I imagine some people never get there because they don't have the time to invest, or because the music is always pretty wallpaper to them, not ideas with a vitality and life of their own.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 27, 2014, 08:46:36 AM
In general agreement, but I would propose a slight modification: it becomes music when someone actually listens to it.
Not necessarily. Ives' music existed and was possessed of genius long before any one listened to it. By the time people listened to it, his composing career had been over for decades.
Quote from: bigshot on December 27, 2014, 12:40:11 PM
The best sounding recording I have ever heard was recorded in 1954... Fiedler's Gaetie Parisienne on Living Stereo. It sounds better than many recordings that were made much later. I've also heard mono recordings that were strikingly lifelike and dimensional. It's more a matter of the miking and mixing than it is the recording format.
This? Unfortunately the programming seems uninteresting to me. Not into Offenbach nor Rossini at all.
[asin]B0006PV5VW[/asin]
How do you define "best sounding"? Pleases your ears the most? Has lowest distortion? Lowest noise floor? Mono sound can be good, but I have yet to hear one that I can call lifelike or dimensional. Mono recordings also tend to suffer from high noise floor, poor frequency respond and distortion as they are old.
In fact I am developping as a hobby "better" mono sound I call "vivid mono". It has to do with how mono sound is downmixed from stereo sound. Normal stereo to mono mixing destroys differential information of stereo sound. Vivid mono tries to code it along. Vivid mono could be somewhat beneficial in cellphone ringtones as they are monophonic, but usually stereophonic sounds originally.
Microphone placement and mixing are very important, but there is no reason why old recordings should do this better than newer ones.
Quote from: bigshot on December 27, 2014, 12:40:11 PMThat said, I am using speakers with a 5.1 system and pretty sophisticated DSPs to play these recordings back. A good surround system will make anything sound better than just two channels in headphones.
How do you play mono on 5.1 system?
Headphones can produce phenomenal sound if you use proper crossfeeding. Of course, 5.1 system can give stunning results too.
"Best sounding" to me means most lifelike - most like the sound you hear in a concert hall. It has not to do with distortion as such. Vinyl buffs say that vinyl sounds better than CDs. That is not because there is less distortion, but that the distortion introduced by the equipment is more pleasing to the ear. The same is true for tube amps - the distort more, but the distortion is more agreeable to the ear.
And of course there are reasons why they could spend more time with microphone placement in old recordings. They didn't have the equipment to "fix" mistakes in the mixing stage. They had to get things right from the beginning. And the cost of this was not necessarily prohibiting. As far as I have read, in the Mercury recordings they actually hired an orchestra and a hall, and the orchestra played the piece while the engineers worked with the microphone placement until they were satisfied. When the recordings were done it all went directly to tape without a mixing board at all. Something you could never do today.
But this is getting very OT.
Just don't grab.
Quote from: otare on December 27, 2014, 11:49:12 PM
"Best sounding" to me means most lifelike - most like the sound you hear in a concert hall.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote from: otare on December 27, 2014, 11:49:12 PMIt has not to do with distortion as such. Vinyl buffs say that vinyl sounds better than CDs. That is not because there is less distortion, but that the distortion introduced by the equipment is more pleasing to the ear. The same is true for tube amps - the distort more, but the distortion is more agreeable to the ear.
One needs to use the correct terms: Vinyls may sound better to a person (with certain preferences), but techically CD is superior, because it introduces hardly any changes to the original recorded sound. The distortion of vinyl and tube amps is not present in a concert hall, so we can conclude that CD gives better changes of "lifelike" sound than vinyl / tube amp regardless of how "good" it sound.
As an acoustic engineer I often tell people that good sound quality means the beauty and ugliness , warmth and coldness of the sound is presented precisely and equally. Tube amps can't produce totally distortion-free sounds, so the timbral "space" of tube amps is smaller than that of a distortion-free (meaning the distortion is so small nobody can hear it) amp.
Quote from: otare on December 27, 2014, 11:49:12 PMAnd of course there are reasons why they could spend more time with microphone placement in old recordings.
This is not obvious to me. It's not time spend, but craftmanship.
Let's compare two recordings of
Elgar's The Dream of Gerontius. The Barbirolli (1964) I mention earlier and Elder (2008).
Okay, it might be recording engineer spend more time with Barbirolli. However Barbirolli contains hiss, slight distortion and spectral colourization (I think it's the microphones). Elder is just very pure. The problems of Barbirolli makes it LESS lifelike compared to Elder. This is a technical comparison, the artistic quality of these performances is another issue.
Quote from: otare on December 27, 2014, 11:49:12 PMThey didn't have the equipment to "fix" mistakes in the mixing stage. They had to get things right from the beginning. And the cost of this was not necessarily prohibiting. As far as I have read, in the Mercury recordings they actually hired an orchestra and a hall, and the orchestra played the piece while the engineers worked with the microphone placement until they were satisfied. When the recordings were done it all went directly to tape without a mixing board at all. Something you could never do today.
Well, if you can fix mistakes, then you can make mistakes, can't you? In reality it isn't easy at all to correct such mistakes. What the engineer learned in the past is knowledge available for engineer today. Microphones have developped as well and it is easier today to get a good result than back in the 50's.
I just wonder. Do you really find all recordings after 1970 crap?
No, I don't. There are lots of good recordings made after 1970. And there are lots of bad recordings made before 1970. I just don't make sweeping generalizations, like not buying recordings pre-1970 because they are all bad. I have no problems in believing that the Barbirolli Gerontius recording from 1964 does not have good sound.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 27, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
This? Unfortunately the programming seems uninteresting to me. Not into Offenbach nor Rossini at all.
[asin]B0006PV5VW[/asin]
How do you define "best sounding"? Pleases your ears the most? Has lowest distortion? Lowest noise floor? Mono sound can be good, but I have yet to hear one that I can call lifelike or dimensional. Mono recordings also tend to suffer from high noise floor, poor frequency respond and distortion as they are old.
In fact I am developping as a hobby "better" mono sound I call "vivid mono". It has to do with how mono sound is downmixed from stereo sound. Normal stereo to mono mixing destroys differential information of stereo sound. Vivid mono tries to code it along. Vivid mono could be somewhat beneficial in cellphone ringtones as they are monophonic, but usually stereophonic sounds originally.
Microphone placement and mixing are very important, but there is no reason why old recordings should do this better than newer ones.
How do you play mono on 5.1 system?
Headphones can produce phenomenal sound if you use proper crossfeeding. Of course, 5.1 system can give stunning results too.
dB71,
I don't understand why crossfeed would matter in mono. Isn't it the same signal everywhere?
Quote from: Ken B on December 28, 2014, 05:51:27 AM
dB71,
I don't understand why crossfeed would matter in mono. Isn't it the same signal everywhere?
Yes, crossfeed is
meaningless with mono. Crossfeed is used to remove spatial distortion. Mono sound and some rare stereophonic recordings don't contain spatial distortion (mono sound doesn't contain spatial left-right information at all), so there is no reason to use crossfeed with them. I mean crossfeed of 2 or more channels. Properly crossfed stereo or downmixed multichannel recordings can sound spectacular with headphones because the acoustics of the listening room doesn't deteriorate the sound quality.
Likewise, using a 5.1 speaker system for mono sound is a bad idea. All you get is a badly comb-filtered sound. In a hometheatre setup the "correct" way to play mono sound is to use center speaker (+subwoofer) only. In many cases people have an "inferior" center speaker and playing the mono sound using left and right speakers may give better result despite of the comb-filter effects. Center speaker is the most important speaker in a multichannel setup, something people don't realise. Three
identical front speakers is recommended.
Stereo recordings may (or may not) sound good decoded into multichannel form. It depends on how the recording was made, what kind of spatial information it contains encoded into 2 channels. There are various algoritms of stereo to multichannel encoding available in AV amps (Dolby Pro Logic, DTS Neo:6, NAD's EARS etc.). One algorithm may work best for certain recording but perhaps not for the next. Playing stereo sound always on stereo pair of speakers is always the save way, nothing goes wrong.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 28, 2014, 07:24:28 AM
Yes, crossfeed is meaningless with mono. Crossfeed is used to remove spatial distortion. Mono sound and some rare stereophonic recordings don't contain spatial distortion (mono sound doesn't contain spatial left-right information at all), so there is no reason to use crossfeed with them. I mean crossfeed of 2 or more channels. Properly crossfed stereo or downmixed multichannel recordings can sound spectacular with headphones because the acoustics of the listening room doesn't deteriorate the sound quality.
Likewise, using a 5.1 speaker system for mono sound is a bad idea. All you get is a badly comb-filtered sound. In a hometheatre setup the "correct" way to play mono sound is to use center speaker (+subwoofer) only. In many cases people have an "inferior" center speaker and playing the mono sound using left and right speakers may give better result despite of the comb-filter effects. Center speaker is the most important speaker in a multichannel setup, something people don't realise. Three identical front speakers is recommended.
Stereo recordings may (or may not) sound good decoded into multichannel form. It depends on how the recording was made, what kind of spatial information it contains encoded into 2 channels. There are various algoritms of stereo to multichannel encoding available in AV amps (Dolby Pro Logic, DTS Neo:6, NAD's EARS etc.). One algorithm may work best for certain recording but perhaps not for the next. Playing stereo sound always on stereo pair of speakers is always the save way, nothing goes wrong.
Thanks.
Yes, I only use two speakers and two channels.
Quote from: bigshot on December 27, 2014, 12:56:39 PM
Not necessarily. Ives' music existed and was possessed of genius long before any one listened to it. By the time people listened to it, his composing career had been over for decades.
Schubert as well!
Quote from: Moonfish on December 27, 2014, 08:58:19 AM
Hmm, that puts reading a book in a new perspective. Ha ha! So reading a book is different compared to reading music per your definition?
Of course it is! Unless one has perfect pitch, reading a score gives one no clue whatsoever about the music itself.
Quote from: Florestan on December 28, 2014, 08:18:41 AM
Of course it is! Unless one has perfect pitch, reading a score gives one no clue whatsoever about the music itself.
I disagree with reading a score by itself gives no clue about the music itself. If you know how to read a score and have some background with music theory (more of analyzing the score), it would be optimal to have the score while the music is playing. But just analyzing the score without music can give you information about the music itself. The form/structure of the piece (or movement),the basics of the piece (Time signature/instrumentation/key signatures)...
Quote from: 71 dB on December 27, 2014, 02:06:30 AM
Beethoven must have imagined how his music sounds when it is played while composing. The sounds are at least loosely determined: "violin-like sound here, flute-like sound there etc." In my opinion music exists only as sounds. The bits on a CD are information, not music. Only when the CD is played and sounds emerge from the loudspeakers/headphones the information becames music. Same with scores. Notes on paper are not music. They are information* coded as notes. When an orchestra plays the score the information becames music. This is what I think and will always think no matter what others say.
*This information can be and often is considered art, but that doesn't make it music any more than the Mona Lisa painting.
I disagree with the notion that music has to be heard/played in order for it to 'become' music (whatever that means). I think it is important to distinguish the 'information' (as you would put it) part of the piece and the performance part of the piece. For me the music itself is in the score. The music does NOT have to be audible. All the important information is already inside the score (assuming it is all written out and not aleatoric/chance music) if you know how to read it.
Quote from: PaulR on December 28, 2014, 09:09:57 AM
I disagree with reading a score by itself gives no clue about the music itself. If you know how to read a score and have some background with music theory
And what if you don´t?
Quote from: Florestan on December 28, 2014, 09:33:07 AM
And what if you don´t?
Then you simply don't know how to find the information. That doesn't mean it is not there and reading a score by itself can't tell you anything.s
Quote from: PaulR on December 28, 2014, 09:37:02 AM
Then you simply don't know how to find the information. That doesn't mean it is not there and reading a score by itself can't tell you anything.s
Yes, but it´s very different from reading a book, which was my original point. Reading Cervantes´
Don Quijote and reading the score of Strauss´
Don Quijote are two quite different things.
Quote from: Florestan on December 28, 2014, 09:53:32 AM
Yes, but it´s very different from reading a book, which was my original point. Reading Cervantes´ Don Quijote and reading the score of Strauss´ Don Quijote are two quite different things.
No arguments there.
Quote from: PaulR on December 28, 2014, 09:25:33 AM
I disagree with the notion that music has to be heard/played in order for it to 'become' music (whatever that means). I think it is important to distinguish the 'information' (as you would put it) part of the piece and the performance part of the piece. For me the music itself is in the score. The music does NOT have to be audible. All the important information is already inside the score (assuming it is all written out and not aleatoric/chance music) if you know how to read it.
How are you deciding what information is important and what isn't?
Which scores are all written out?
Quote from: PaulR on December 28, 2014, 09:25:33 AM
I disagree with the notion that music has to be heard/played in order for it to 'become' music (whatever that means). I think it is important to distinguish the 'information' (as you would put it) part of the piece and the performance part of the piece. For me the music itself is in the score. The music does NOT have to be audible. All the important information is already inside the score (assuming it is all written out and not aleatoric/chance music) if you know how to read it.
You're entitled to disagree of course. What about improvisation? Does jazz music exist to you? You don't find jazz scores. Most of computer music has no scores in the traditional sense: The music is "programmed" and nobody is that interested of the programming. So, I'd say your definition of "music" works only for music such as classical music that uses scores. My definition works for any music as long as it is played as sounds.
"Information" does not have a frequency, neither has it intensity/amplitude nor duration. I refuse to accept anything as music that is not physical sound. A recipe might have all information for the cake, but it is neither identical to the activity of preparing and baking the cake nor to the cake itself. As can be easily tested by tasting the cookbook page with the recipe printed on it...
But this is not really the topic of this thread...
Quote from: 71 dB on December 28, 2014, 09:58:57 AM
You're entitled to disagree of course. What about improvisation? Does jazz music exist to you? You don't find jazz scores. Most of computer music has no scores in the traditional sense: The music is "programmed" and nobody is that interested of the programming. So, I'd say your definition of "music" works only for music such as classical music that uses scores. My definition works for any music as long as it is played as sounds.
Seeing how this is a predominately classical music forum (And even in your original post/title it mentions classical music), yes, I am talking about classical music. And no, I never stated that I believe Jazz music does not exist. I am, by no means, an expert in Jazz, but there are still "score-like" things like the "real book." Obviously, they aren't going as extensive as a classical score, but (to my knowledge, not a jazz musician) they still have information like what chord and configuration is expected to sound.
But I never stated that music HAS to have a score. I might have not fully articulated my point, improvisation is music, free improv or improvisation within a specific set of guidelines/expectation (like figured bass, cadenza's in concertos that aren't fully written out.) My point was more of when there WAS a score, rather than when there wasn't.
Here are some scores
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Cage-etudes-australes-8.gif)
(http://www.spiralcage.com/improvMeeting/pics/TreatisePage183.jpg)
(http://www.woodbrass.com/images/woodbrass/FUZ5982-1.JPG)
(http://fred-thomas.co.uk/assets//Nicky-Design1.jpg)
(http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/wmss/medieval/jpegs/don/b/1500/03101488.jpg)
Quote from: PaulR on December 28, 2014, 10:16:58 AM
Seeing how this is a predominately classical music forum (And even in your original post/title it mentions classical music), yes, I am talking about classical music.
Since I use the same definition for music in case of classical music and in case of all other music, this limitation to classical music makes no diffence.
To me a score of classical music is a VERY important tool of storing the information of music in order to have music sooner or later. If scores were music, scripts would be movies. Well, they aren't and that's why music is played and movies are filmed.
Quote from: PaulR on December 28, 2014, 10:16:58 AMAnd no, I never stated that I believe Jazz music does not exist. I am, by no means, an expert in Jazz, but there are still "score-like" things like the "real book." Obviously, they aren't going as extensive as a classical score, but (to my knowledge, not a jazz musician) they still have information like what chord and configuration is expected to sound.
Certain kind of jazz might have written scores, but so called "real jazz" (Parker, Coltrane etc.) is improvised stuff. It only uses existing compositions (melodies) as the starting point for improvisation. I am, by no means, an expert in Jazz either, but that's how I have understood it.
The point is, there is tons of music out there without scores.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 27, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
This? Unfortunately the programming seems uninteresting to me. Not into Offenbach nor Rossini at all.
That's your loss, I'm afraid. It's one of my all time favorite albums. Pure joy from beginning to end.
I define "good sound" as sounding like I am in the room where the music is being played. Headphones don't even get close to that. When I put on this Fiedler album, I can sit on the couch and close my eyes and "see" the placement of every instrument in the orchestra. It's as if I am in the best seat in the Boston symphony hall at a live concert. Nothing to impede the realism... a full range and balanced frequency response, no audible distortion, tight and accurate dynamics, precise placement of the musicians in space on stage in front of me, and a hall ambience around me that keeps the sound focused up front on the stage, but doesn't sound dead to the rear.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 28, 2014, 07:24:28 AMLikewise, using a 5.1 speaker system for mono sound is a bad idea.
That is absolutely wrong, and I can tell you that from experience. DSPs are the best thing since sliced toast for older recordings. I have a DSP that perfectly rechannels stereo to 5.1, and several other ones that were created by measuring the acoustics of several concert halls famous for their sound. Here is a gold plated example... Toscanini is infamous for being recorded poorly. Many of his records were recorded at NBC in a studio that was much too small for the sound of a symphony orchestra to open up in. On top of that, the engineering often had harsh equalization. The most recent box set of Toscanini corrected the EQ problems perfectly and elminated any distortion at climaxes, but it didn't do anything at all for the constricted space the recording was made in. It still sounded like a constricted, acoustically dead room.
So I took the mono Toscanini recording and ran it through the DSP that is based on the Vienna Sofiensaal. It totally opened up the sound and gave it space to live in. There was no left to right spread since it was a mono recording, but the ambience around the music was in 5.1. Often in concert halls, the sound of the band merges anyway, especially if the violins are seated on both sides. This sounds exactly like a live performance with that sort of arrangement. I would never listen to a Toscanini recording without running it through a DSP again.
The difference that my stereo to 5.1 DSP makes for standard two channel recordings is just as dramatic, defining the front soundstage, doubling the size of the soundstage, and creating a live hall ambience in the rear that makes the room sound much larger. I play everything that isn't native 5.1 through that DSP. The improvement isn't at all subtle. You have to hear it to believe it.
Glenn Gould once described Stokowski's genius as being due to his relationship to the score. He said that Stoki used the score the same way that a film director uses a written story. The individual performance rises or falls based on the conductor's personal commitment to the music. I read a quote by Bernstein that was similar, he said that a written score is just a plan for a performance. It isn't music until it is performed.
A score is not music. It is a way of representing instructions to players. It thus describes an abstract entity really. A philosophy prof ofmine said a piece of music, Beethoven's 5th say, is a type of which performances are instatiations. This seemsclose enough for government work at least.
Quote from: Ken B on December 28, 2014, 05:43:05 PM
A score is not music. It is a way of representing instructions to players. It thus describes an abstract entity really. A philosophy prof ofmine said a piece of music, Beethoven's 5th say, is a type of which performances are instatiations. This seemsclose enough for government work at least.
What about a book, e.g. Dickens' "Bleak House"? Isn't the physical book as well as the act of reading it silently or aloud both aspects of literature?
Quote from: Moonfish on December 28, 2014, 06:15:45 PM
What about a book, e.g. Dickens' "Bleak House"? Isn't the physical book as well as the act of reading it silently or aloud both aspects of literature?
Of course. So if you can read a score, and thus understand the instructions, then that is an aspect of the music too.As is the composer's conception, before the score was written, in most cases at least. I don't want to debate Stockhausen or if La Mer was written by chickens scratching.
Would reading the script for a play or movie silently to yourself be the same as seeing the play or movie? Nope. Same with music.
Quote from: bigshot on December 28, 2014, 09:04:53 PM
Would reading the script for a play or movie silently to yourself be the same as seeing the play or movie? Nope. Same with music.
But with the movie Les Miz it would be better.
Quote from: bigshot on December 28, 2014, 09:04:53 PM
Would reading the script for a play or movie silently to yourself be the same as seeing the play or movie? Nope. Same with music.
It works for Woody Allen's movies!! :D :D
Quote from: bigshot on December 28, 2014, 12:48:04 PM
That's your loss, I'm afraid. It's one of my all time favorite albums. Pure joy from beginning to end.
You are right, it's my loss. If I get interested of Offenbach I will check it out.
However, it's kind of arrogant to give the impression that everyone
has to have that particular CD. My classical music collection consists of about 1000 CDs. The collection is skewed toward newer recordings. Many of the composers I am interested of have been recorded only recently. Find me a recording from 50's or 60's containing music from Schieferdecker! If you are happy with your own collection, that's great, but let other people be happy with their collection.
Quote from: bigshot on December 28, 2014, 12:48:04 PMI define "good sound" as sounding like I am in the room where the music is being played. Headphones don't even get close to that. When I put on this Fiedler album, I can sit on the couch and close my eyes and "see" the placement of every instrument in the orchestra. It's as if I am in the best seat in the Boston symphony hall at a live concert. Nothing to impede the realism... a full range and balanced frequency response, no audible distortion, tight and accurate dynamics, precise placement of the musicians in space on stage in front of me, and a hall ambience around me that keeps the sound focused up front on the stage, but doesn't sound dead to the rear.
Headphones don't get even close to "that" without crossfeed, spatial distortion makes sure of that. After nearly 3 years of listening to music with headphones crossfed I can assure you the result can be stunning, if proper crossfeed is used and the recording is done well. Yes, with loudspeakers you likely to get more "space"around yourself, but the acoustics of your listening room deteriotes sound quality. With headphones (crossfed) you get less space (unless the recording is binaural in wich case you get VERY convincing space), but no listening room acoustics deterioting sound quality. So, there is room for both ways to listen to music.
With headphones without crossfeed spatial distortion scrambles the sound image. With proper crossfeed spatial distortion goes away and the sound image becomes very clear.
Does the Fiedler CD contain a description of how it is recorded? If it really is that fantastic, it would be interested to know how they did it. I may not be interested of Offenbach, but I am interested of acoustic engineering. Unfortunately this album can't be found in Spotify.
Quote from: bigshot on December 28, 2014, 01:04:48 PM
That is absolutely wrong, and I can tell you that from experience. DSPs are the best thing since sliced toast for older recordings. I have a DSP that perfectly rechannels stereo to 5.1,
Stereo to 5.1. It's completely different than mono to 5.1. Why? Because stereo sound contains "hidden" information coded into two channels using two "bits" in the form of
in phase = "0" and
out of phase = "1". You can do something with this information and that's what stereo to multichannel algorithms do. If you are lucky, the result it good. If you feed in mono sound, these algorithms are "powerless".
Quote from: bigshot on December 28, 2014, 01:04:48 PMand several other ones that were created by measuring the acoustics of several concert halls famous for their sound. Here is a gold plated example... Toscanini is infamous for being recorded poorly. Many of his records were recorded at NBC in a studio that was much too small for the sound of a symphony orchestra to open up in. On top of that, the engineering often had harsh equalization. The most recent box set of Toscanini corrected the EQ problems perfectly and elminated any distortion at climaxes, but it didn't do anything at all for the constricted space the recording was made in. It still sounded like a constricted, acoustically dead room.
So they averaged severel halls into one "average hall". The DSP convolutes the impulse responses of this "average hall" with the music signal. I am sure they made the "average hall" symmetric. It means the impulse responce for channel L is identical to the impulse response of channel R. Same with the rear channels Lr and Rr. So, if you feed in mono sound, you get identical sound from L and R (same with Lr and Rr). You get some decorrelation, but much less than with stereo sound.
Quote from: bigshot on December 28, 2014, 01:04:48 PMSo I took the mono Toscanini recording and ran it through the DSP that is based on the Vienna Sofiensaal. It totally opened up the sound and gave it space to live in. There was no left to right spread since it was a mono recording, but the ambience around the music was in 5.1. Often in concert halls, the sound of the band merges anyway, especially if the violins are seated on both sides. This sounds exactly like a live performance with that sort of arrangement. I would never listen to a Toscanini recording without running it through a DSP again.
I'm glad if you find the sound great, but what you are doing is not technically "correct". It is more of an coinsidence it sounds good. This is not impossible. I have noticed stereo to multichannel algoritms typically give good results with reverberant recordings (church music). With dry recordings (chamber music) the result is not very natural.
Quote from: bigshot on December 28, 2014, 01:04:48 PMThe difference that my stereo to 5.1 DSP makes for standard two channel recordings is just as dramatic, defining the front soundstage, doubling the size of the soundstage, and creating a live hall ambience in the rear that makes the room sound much larger. I play everything that isn't native 5.1 through that DSP. The improvement isn't at all subtle. You have to hear it to believe it.
So ambience of sound is important to you. 5.1 setups can "replace" some of the wrong ambience created by the acoustics of your listening room with an ambience closer to that of the concert hall the recording was made. It's a very harsh approximation, but cheats our ears quite a lot.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 29, 2014, 02:19:28 AMDoes the Fiedler CD contain a description of how it is recorded? If it really is that fantastic, it would be interested to know how they did it. I may not be interested of Offenbach, but I am interested of acoustic engineering. Unfortunately this album can't be found in Spotify.
I think it was the second commercial stereo recording made in 1954 when hifi records were still new. They recorded it live to three track with a left right and center microphone on the orchestra. Fiedler controlled the dynamics. There was little or no changing of levels after the recording started. For LP, they down mixed the center channel into the stereo mix, but the SACD maintains the three discrete channels. RCA had been recording in Symphony Hall Boston for many years and had totally figured out its acoustics. They knew exactly where to put the mikes. Mike placement is everything.
By the way, my stereo to 5.1 DSP doesn't use out of phase information. The way it works is to take the sound common to both mains (in phase) and channel that to the center, then it splits off the sub 80Hz to the sub channel. In the rear it adds a slight delay synthesizing a hall ambience. The effect is that the front soundstage is enlarged without altering the stereo information at all, and the rears keep the room live. It works well with mono too, because it makes the entire front wall one big speaker instead of having the sound come from a single speaker, or a pair 8 feet across. The center channel prevents any fall out in the center, so your spread can be double the width.
I think you are thinking of phase effects VSTs. That is a completely different kind of thing. This DSP enlarges the scale of the soundstage by rechannelling the sound to the various front speakers without monkeying with the stereo information in the soundstage. Scale is something most home systems don't even deal with. But if you sit 10 feet away from a set of stereo mains that are 8 feet apart, you are hearing a much smaller soundstage than if you add a center and double that width. The enlarged scale brings it closer to a real human scale, as if the people were on a stage in front of you. The rear ambience opens up the size of the room, so the scale of the room itself is larger too.
DSPs have gotten VERY sophisticated in the past five years or so. I used to have an old Sony amp that had really crude DSPs ambiences built into it- mushy and muddled. But when I got a new Yamaha AV receiver a couple of years ago, it was totally different- generic hall ambiences. Yamaha is different. They actually went to specific halls and measured the acoustics and recreated the effect on sound. There are dozens of them with different sizes, shapes and reflectivity. Amazing use of 5.1.
DSPs are where audio technology is advancing the most right now. The trick is the positioning of the multiple speakers and designing DSPs that use that to create sound fields. I have a few multichannel SACDs that are uncanny in their ability to precisely place sound. There is an Elton John album where you can hear the guitarist walk to the center of the room as he is playing his solo. The sound starts at the front wall and moves slowly to a point directly in front of your listening position. An amazing thing. It would be very easy to rechannel a lot of stereo recordings to place the vocals in the room like that since vocals are usually mixed as true mono in the exact center of a stereo mix. With the introduction of Dolby Atmos, we won't be constrained by a flat plane of sound in front of us any more. Atmos will add the up/down to the left/right and front/back to create a fully dimensional sound field.
It's a whole new world beyond just two channels. Multichannel is as huge a leap over stereo as stereo was over mono. And it will even make old stereo and mono recordings sound a lot better. The old concept of "purity" of the original way the recording was made will probably be maintained as a supplemental track, but like it already is for movies, the rechannelled/remixed surround track will be the primary thing people listen to. Getting people to dedicate the space in their home to a 5.1 system is a bit of a leap, and there will need to be a shift away from ping pong surround as it is in movies, but once a critical mass of homes gets a good surround system, I think we are going to see a shift in the music business to multichannel mixes.
Quote from: bigshot on December 29, 2014, 11:12:59 AM
By the way, my stereo to 5.1 DSP doesn't use out of phase information. The way it works is to take the sound common to both mains (in phase) and channel that to the center, then it splits off the sub 80Hz to the sub channel. In the rear it adds a slight delay synthesizing a hall ambience. The effect is that the front soundstage is enlarged without altering the stereo information at all, and the rears keep the room live. It works well with mono too, because it makes the entire front wall one big speaker instead of having the sound come from a single speaker, or a pair 8 feet across. The center channel prevents any fall out in the center, so your spread can be double the width.
If you do that the sound get too forwarded and narrow, of course. So, they increase the channel separation of Left and Right channel. Out of phase information is used for rear channel...
Hah, almost buying but not quite! Holst I mean. Boccherini fever seems to go away. Trying to buy as little as possible.
Just watched Spielberg's Lincoln on Blu-ray. Mozart's KV 174 plays a bit in the movie.
I listened to it form the Brilliant 170 CD box. It's issued from BIS and sounds very good.
The point? I'm going to listen to that box more.
Euro currency has gotten weak. Buying from UK sellers is more expensive. One more reason not to buy so much.
Quote from: EigenUser on December 24, 2014, 01:48:50 PM
...As for 'collecting', I'd suspect that most people on GMG think it is silly for me to collect scores when we have IMSLP (and other, more questionably legal sources for post-1923 works), but I could make the same argument about YouTube/Spotify versus owning physical CDs.
Scores rule! I love reading scores. I remember reading about a particular Haitink performance (with the Chicago Symphony, as I recall) in which, in addition to his usual bows and gestures to the orchestra and other performers, the Maestro held up the score to acknowledge its primacy. 8)
Quote from: 71 dB on January 07, 2015, 04:32:45 PM
Boccherini fever seems to go away. Trying to buy as little as possible.
That's my policy on
Boccherini, and I enjoy a 100% success rate 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on January 09, 2015, 04:20:30 AM
That's my policy on Boccherini, and I enjoy a 100% success rate 8)
Really Karl? You have never bought anything by Boccherini?
I find it hard to come up with policies that are meaningful. Only afterwards, years later do I know what was meaningful and what wasn't.
When I told my father a week or so ago I'm considering the 39 CD Boccherini box, he commented saying
"Boxerini". ;D
Quote from: Mandryka on December 26, 2014, 11:23:57 PM
.
But things are more complex than I understand at the moment. When you listen to a recording it's not just the lifeless determined finite photograph (CD) of an event (performance) that's in the mix - you, the listener, are in the mix too. And this is what makes the recording endlessly revealing I suppose - it's what the listener brings to the event. It's like the hermeneutic ciricle.
And maybe when we feel we know and feel everything we can about something it might lose interest. So it's a matter of knowing and feeling enough about something that it can be enjoyed but not so much that it's used up.
I think RCA's 'Living Stereo' and Mercury's 'Living Presence' were just two brandings of the same technology (3 spaced mics, 3 tracks). Mercury sometimes used 35mm magnetic film as the record medium, and this gave a technical edge in terms of S/N ratio and frequency range., but the essential technique of mic placement was much the same. (These days, in a similar scenario, the same engineers would work for both labels - back then everyone had their in-house engineers and producers but I doubt if there were any secrets between them.)
To return to the original post -
Quote from: 71 dB on December 24, 2014, 03:41:42 AM
... This is absurd! As if I had to own every single performance ever released in order to enjoy any performance!
I largely agree with this sentiment. But if the musuc is a piece which particularly interests me, I may well have three recordings, representing two extremes of interpretation, and the middle ground. I do believe that more than that is beyond unnecessary, and if I come across another version which I like, then I would try to harden my heart and discard one of the existing three. (In my case, discarding simply means 'move to another place' as I'm not actually very good at throwing away, or selling things.)
When you can encounter, for example, a variation of over 2:1 in tempo alone, between two interpreters** - let alone similar degrees of variation in dynamics and phrasing - then what starts out as a single piece of music (the score) does take on multiple existences by the time it reaches the listener. In this case (if you like the music) then owning two recordings is more than justified.
*** Bach Cello Suite 6, Allemande - Kniazev takes over twice as long as Gaillard, to play the same notes.
Tempo giusto anyone?
*** Mahler Synphony 7, Nachtmusik I - Klemperer takes 22:08 to conduct the same music that Boulez disposes of in 13:56 - I very much enjoy both versions.
Quote from: aukhawk on January 10, 2015, 03:44:02 AM
If the music is a piece which particularly interests me, I may well have three recordings, representing two extremes of interpretation, and the middle ground. I do believe that more than that is beyond unnecessary, and if I come across another version which I like, then I would try to harden my heart and discard one of the existing three. (In my case, discarding simply means 'move to another place' as I'm not actually very good at throwing away, or selling things.)
When you can encounter, for example, a variation of over 2:1 in tempo alone, between two interpreters** - let alone similar degrees of variation in dynamics and phrasing - then what starts out as a single piece of music (the score) does take on multiple existences by the time it reaches the listener. In this case (if you like the music) then owning two recordings is more than justified.
*** Bach Cello Suite 6, Allemande - Kniazev takes over twice as long as Gaillard, to play the same notes. Tempo giusto anyone?
*** Mahler Synphony 7, Nachtmusik I - Klemperer takes 22:08 to conduct the same music that Boulez disposes of in 13:56 - I very much enjoy both versions.
I somewhat agree with your collecting strategy. I too want to have three definite recordings of a work I really like, one classic stereo, one modern digital and one historical mono version. Of course, I must actually like all three and not to have them just for sake of having them. Nowadays, with the proliferation of all the box sets it would be quite difficult not to have more then three recordings of a particular work if one was a serious collector/music lover, but that's OK. The more the merrier.
One collecting strategy I would rather focus on is trying to limit having duplicates of the same recording as much as possible. This can be both challenging and fun at the same time, and the huge amount of choices we have today makes building a collection in this way somewhat possible. I try to avoid the "everything he/she/they ever did" mega boxes because many of the recordings I like can be found in numerous other smaller sets, not to mention the cost and that they tend to not fit on my shelves. I prefer smaller sets that are more focused by genre, period, or record label of a particular musician(s), conductor, composer etc. The 50+CD style box sets such as the Living Stereo or Mercury boxes are about as large as I will go, and they fit on my shelves!
Quote from: Ken B on December 28, 2014, 05:43:05 PM
A score is not music.
"A score is not music." This is simply not true. Even in common speech, we talk of "buying the music" or "looking at the music" to describe scores, and with good reason. The common performance-centric cliché that a score is only a set of "instructions" or a "blueprint to performers" is similarly reductive and insufficient. A score is many things, but above all it is the end product of a composer's labors, and scores can be used in many ways besides being the raw material for performances. When music history, theory, or analysis is taught, for example, these disciplines are all score-based. Same thing as when we ask if Beethoven was Classical or Romantic, or what the difference is between a passacaglia and a chaconne, or how composers influence each other, or the relations between music and other arts or music and the social or political issues of its time. The primacy of scores is all the more important in that no musical tradition is as score-based as Western classical music; much of the Western musical language depends on the uniquely sophisticated methods of notation the West developed to enable such essential elements as counterpoint, harmony, orchestration, and modulation. You can't separate a Bach fugue or Beethoven sonata-form movement from the fact that it was written down in a score; if you even try to imagine such music within the more oral traditions of China, India, or Africa, you'll see immediately it's just not possible.
Elsewhere someone here mentions a quote by Bernstein saying "that a written score is just a plan for a performance." I don't recognize the quote, but the irony is that such an attitude is completely subverted by Bernstein's own practice as a music educator, as shown through his Young Person's Concerts and other musical writings. Bernstein's talents as an educator are always acknowleged, but what is not sufficiently recognized is how the basis of his instruction was to make the so-called "technical" aspects of music - harmony, counterpoint, style, form, genre - easily understood by the layman, essential to an educated listener's musical understanding, and in fact the only aspects of music worth teaching. Read the introduction to his The Joy of Music for the fullest development of this position, and then see how all his lectures bear it out - such as the famous lecture on Beethoven's sketches for the opening movement of the Fifth Symphony, or the analyses of motific development in Tchaikovsky's Pathetique and the Brahms Fourth. Every one of these lectures is score-based, and every one negates the narrow and facile attitude that scores are nothing more than instructions for performers — a tired cliché that misrepresents Western music more completely than any statement I can think of.
Quote from: Ken B on December 28, 2014, 05:43:05 PM
A score is not music.
Contrary to Sforzando I agree with this statement.
Music is more than the score, music is sound which use the notated musical elements in the score as a starting point, either in the shape of a musician´s interpretation of the score, or in the shape of the sound you imagine in your mind, when you read the score, and in your mind hear your own interpretation of the score.
And of course the score can be used for analysis of the musical elements which are represented in the score.
It is that simple.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 10, 2015, 05:57:53 PM
"A score is not music." This is simply not true. Even in common speech, we talk of "buying the music" or "looking at the music" to describe scores, and with good reason. The common performance-centric cliché that a score is only a set of "instructions" or a "blueprint to performers" is similarly reductive and insufficient. A score is many things, but above all it is the end product of a composer's labors, and scores can be used in many ways besides being the raw material for performances. When music history, theory, or analysis is taught, for example, these disciplines are all score-based. Same thing as when we ask if Beethoven was Classical or Romantic, or what the difference is between a passacaglia and a chaconne, or how composers influence each other, or the relations between music and other arts or music and the social or political issues of its time. The primacy of scores is all the more important in that no musical tradition is as score-based as Western classical music; much of the Western musical language depends on the uniquely sophisticated methods of notation the West developed to enable such essential elements as counterpoint, harmony, orchestration, and modulation. You can't separate a Bach fugue or Beethoven sonata-form movement from the fact that it was written down in a score; if you even try to imagine such music within the more oral traditions of China, India, or Africa, you'll see immediately it's just not possible.
Elsewhere someone here mentions a quote by Bernstein saying "that a written score is just a plan for a performance." I don't recognize the quote, but the irony is that such an attitude is completely subverted by Bernstein's own practice as a music educator, as shown through his Young Person's Concerts and other musical writings. Bernstein's talents as an educator are always acknowleged, but what is not sufficiently recognized is how the basis of his instruction was to make the so-called "technical" aspects of music - harmony, counterpoint, style, form, genre - easily understood by the layman, essential to an educated listener's musical understanding, and in fact the only aspects of music worth teaching. Read the introduction to his The Joy of Music for the fullest development of this position, and then see how all his lectures bear it out - such as the famous lecture on Beethoven's sketches for the opening movement of the Fifth Symphony, or the analyses of motific development in Tchaikovsky's Pathetique and the Brahms Fourth. Every one of these lectures is score-based, and every one negates the narrow and facile attitude that scores are nothing more than instructions for performers — a tired cliché that misrepresents Western music more completely than any statement I can think of.
I, too, disagree with Ken here (strongly, in fact), but I don't think that it is necessarily a matter-of-fact thing. For me, it is more of a personal philosophy that I wouldn't expect all people to agree about.
That being said, +1 for your post, which pretty much sums up how I feel. I was going to reply when I saw Ken's statement a few weeks ago, but I was too lazy to argue (my argument wouldn't have been that he was
wrong -- it would have been that it isn't all-or-nothing).
Quote from: 71 dB on December 29, 2014, 02:19:28 AM
Find me a recording from 50's or 60's containing music from Schieferdecker!
This LP from the 1960es contains an organ prelude by Schieferdecker:
http://www.amazon.com/JORGEN-ERNST-HANSEN-MASTERWORKS-record/dp/B00Q7CWUGC/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1420981557&sr=8-14&keywords=jorgen+ernst+hansen
Quote from: EigenUser on January 11, 2015, 04:07:54 AM
I, too, disagree with Ken here (strongly, in fact), but I don't think that it is necessarily a matter-of-fact thing. For me, it is more of a personal philosophy that I wouldn't expect all people to agree about.
So it might be interesting to hear, as a basis for discussion?
Quote from: (: premont :) on January 11, 2015, 03:58:26 AM
It is that simple.
No, it's not, and if you don't at least acknowledge the problem with your position you're missing my argument entirely. Charles Rosen points to "a difficulty that has irritated philosophers of aesthetics and their readers for a long time. Is the work of music to be identified as the written score or its performance? Is a symphony of Beethoven the printed score or the sound in the concert hall when it is played?" Of course in one fundamental sense music is sound; I'm not so stupid as to deny that. But prior to about 120 years ago when recording was invented, the only way to preserve music was via notation, and only the West developed a system of notation sophisticated enough to have preserved a body of work that formed a history and a tradition.
We know for example that ancient Greek tragedies were not just recited but sung, but since the Greeks had no method for notating their music we have no idea what that music sounded like. Likewise we have no idea what classical Indian music sounded like 500 years ago; it could have resembled today's examples or been radically different. But even today there is no such thing as a score for an Indian raga; ragas are improvised according to certain broad conventions, but methods of playing are handed down orally or via demonstration, and the player has no printed texts to work from that might be considered "instructions" or "blueprints" in the way a Western performer might work from a score.
The situation in the West is unique, and all based on the essentiality of scores. Starting with plainchant, musical notes could be written down, and the system of notation developed with increasing sophistication through the next 10 centuries (though paradoxically, the more complex notation became, the more interpretive choices players could be allowed). But because notation – scores – existed, a body of texts was preserved that formed a heritage of music in the West comparable to its literature and visual arts. Everything we think of as Western music depends on this fact. Unlike the small ensembles of Indian classical music, for example, where each player (sitar or sarod, tabla, tambura), knows his distinct role, only notation allows Western chamber groups and orchestras to have developed into coordinated ensembles, sometimes quite large, where each player uses a notated part that is only one element of a greater whole. Similar points can be made concerning Western harmony, counterpoint, and the most common musical forms.
Scores also allow the preservation and discovery of historical traditions, totally independent of whether the music is being performed or not. One of Mozart's most important experiences was discovering the motets of Bach in score (and not from any performance); thanks to his study of Bach, Mozart's later style grew to encompass such wonders as the fugato in the finale of the Jupiter symphony and the chorale for the two armed men in The Magic Flute. Other examples can be offered where composers learned from composers strictly from scores: Wagner, for instance, transcribed the Beethoven Ninth for piano at a time when he could not have heard a performance; and Stravinsky's late style depended greatly on his discovery (largely thanks to Robert Craft) of Webern, whose music was hardly ever played at that time.
Thanks also to EigenUser for his support.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2015, 04:43:49 AM
But because notation – scores – existed, a body of texts was preserved that formed a heritage of music in the West comparable to its literature and visual arts.
When I read The Wasteland the whole poem is there for me in the text. Same for when I look at Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. There's nothing which corresponds to the under-determination of
what it sounds like by the score.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2015, 04:43:49 AM
No, it's not, and if you don't at least acknowledge the problem with your position you're missing my argument entirely. Charles Rosen points to "a difficulty that has irritated philosophers of aesthetics and their readers for a long time. Is the work of music to be identified as the written score or its performance? Is a symphony of Beethoven the printed score or the sound in the concert hall when it is played?" Of course in one fundamental sense music is sound; I'm not so stupid as to deny that. But prior to about 120 years ago when recording was invented, the only way to preserve music was via notation, and only the West developed a system of notation sophisticated enough to have preserved a body of work that formed a history and a tradition.
But you are missing my point (too??). My argument is, that it is only part of the music, which the western culture has been able to preserve by means of the scores. The rest of the music, which implies the musical elements of the interpretation - or the performing tradition, has been lost concerning the time anterior to sound recordings. When I try to play the eight Estampies Royales from the Manuscript du Roy, I know that the score, I hold in my hands, is the product of a musicologist and accordingly represents some kind of interpretation of the original score, which I am not able to interprete myself. Next comes the problem of interpretation of the musicologist´s score. Instrumentation? Pitch? Tempo? Accentuation? Agogics? Accompanying percusssion? Nobody really knows. The situation is not quite as bad in the case of a Mozart sonata, because the score contains more of the elements of the music, but in principle the score is an incomplete representation of the music in question. So the score is not music as such, but it represents important parts of the music.
Quote from: Mandryka on January 11, 2015, 05:22:42 AM
When I read The Wasteland the whole poem is there for me in the text. Same for when I look at Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. There's nothing which corresponds to the under-determination of what it sounds like by the score.
But you probably interprete the poems in your mind, while you are reading them. Like when reading a score. Try to let a computer read the poems, this might be somewhat different.
Quote from: Mandryka on January 11, 2015, 05:22:42 AM
When I read The Wasteland the whole poem is there for me in the text. Same for when I look at Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. There's nothing which corresponds to the under-determination of what it sounds like by the score.
Correspondences among the arts are not exact. An interpreter may not be needed for a work of literature, film, or painting (though a good commentary can help). A musical score, to be realized as sound, requires a performer. But a musical score is not only a document that must be realized in performance; it can have other implications and uses besides performance.
Quote from: (: premont :) on January 11, 2015, 05:23:04 AM
But you are missing my point (too??). My argument is, that it is only part of the music, which the western culture has been able to preserve by means of the scores.
Up to here, no disagreement. And no real disagreement with the rest of your post either, which brings up important points concerning the problems of performance practice - the inevitable inexactness and limitations of notation as a guide to performance, particularly of older works. All entirely valid! But where we differ is that you seem to view scores only in terms of being written documents to be fulfilled by performance, where I would argue that they have served other important roles in the development of Western musical history, and that all of the forms and styles that emerged in the West could only have happened through the medium of notation that does not apply to any non-Western music.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2015, 06:16:59 AM
.... I would argue that they have served other important roles in the development of Western musical history, and that all of the forms and styles that emerged in the West could only have happened through the medium of notation that does not apply to any non-Western music.
Now you are more clear, and there is no disagreement on my part either.
So we agree, that the western music-culture have benefited from the fact, that scores lend themselves to distribution and detailled analysis of the part of the music, they represent, in a way which sounding music alone doesn´t.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 24, 2014, 07:00:15 AM
Maybe looking at it differently would help too. All the discs you bought are made by professionals who are among the best in what they do. Most of them think they have something new to say about a piece or something that wasn't quite covered by someone else. So every disc you listen to is a unique take on a given piece. SO really, the issue is not whether one is better than another (it is really rare to find recordings that are simply so deficient that they take away), but which interpretation you prefer.
I was once at a concert with a group of friends (bach double concerto) performed by young professionals. One violinist was clearly better technically, but I felt her performance a bit cold and passionless. The other player was not quite as good, but just made the piece come alive. After the performance, we talked about the playing and when I said that I preferred the second performer, my friend (a cello player) ripped into me. In the end, I held my ground, but it can be difficult do explain what we hear to others (and what we like to hear as well). It is especially hard when you cannot articulate it well either, which can be a challenge (meaning identifying what exactly you liked or disliked and why you liked or disliked it). But even that is not necessary - it is enough to know you liked it.
When things get to voices, they become even more personal. There are many Callas recordings that are considered the 'best' by virtually everyone. Her voice drives me nuts. I don't know why others can't hear what I hear, but they don't (or can ignore it). Should I abandon opera, because most of the world will think me crazy for not liking her voice? Why should I when there are many other voices to hear?!
As a suggestion, I would say join a round of the blind listenings to hear a piece performed different ways (and you don't even have to post your results if you so choose). I think you will see, if you read any of those threads, that there is no concensus as to the best way to play the piece (and supposed classics are sometimes unceremoniously bounced in the early rounds). But hearing it for yourself (and the liberation of picking the one you like most) can be helpful to your own appeciation.
I clearly understand what you are saying. Perhaps that is what draws people to the likes of Cortot, who was not a technically brilliant or polished pianist by any means. But there is something about his playing that draws just draws you in.
As far as your comments on singers, I also agree. While I don't despise Callas, she's not one of my favorites. But keep in mind there is more to her then just her voice, there is the charisma and on stage persona as well, and those things she had in abundance. There are singers I adore who are highly underrated and little known, and there are those who to me sound spectacularly mediocre much of the time that are put on a pedestal and drooled over by the masses and critics alike.
So far I haven't bought any CDs this year. My collection keeps me busy and in fact I have been listening to
The Prodigy a lot lately. Also, I haven't been much on this board. The conflict between my collection and GMG is gone for now. The conflict may seem strong time to time, but it is nevertheless artificial and between my own ears.
Quote from: (: premont :) on January 11, 2015, 04:10:33 AM
This LP from the 1960es contains an organ prelude by Schieferdecker:
http://www.amazon.com/JORGEN-ERNST-HANSEN-MASTERWORKS-record/dp/B00Q7CWUGC/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1420981557&sr=8-14&keywords=jorgen+ernst+hansen
Hah, well done! I assumed nobody has recorded Schieferdecker before 1980, but you always have these organ masterworks recordings containing the most obscure composers. :)
One more word (and I hope I'm not restarting a debate!) concerning whether scores are in fact music. As I said earlier, I love reading scores--but when I read, I am always "hearing it in my head," that is, imagining how it would actually sound if played. Yes, scores can be things of beauty in themselves, and their existence is crucial to our sense of musical history. But I agree with those who say that they are not, in fact, music, merely instructions for the making of music.
Some have compared scores to blueprints. I find that a good analogy. My knowledge of architecture is limited, but I understand that a blueprint can be (and is usually required to be by law) meticulously detailed, sometimes down to how many nails, screws and other builders' supplies will be required. It can also be a thing of beauty in itself, and can even give us knowledge of buildings that might have been built but weren't. Yet a blueprint is not a building. (Perhaps there is an architect on GMG who can tell us whether a blueprint is called "architecture"?)
In the same way, the manuscript for a play is not the play as performed, although it is often called such and folks speak of "reading a play" in two senses: first, simply scanning the manuscript and imagining how it would sound if performed; second, actually reading the thing aloud (whether with one reader or several). I would even say that a written story or novel is not the true story, merely a recording of a story as its author imagined it. This is not just my own view. Author Gene Wolfe writes that "the true story is a thing that grows between the teller and the hearer." (That quote may not be verbatim; I'm remembering without access to the printed book in which it occurs.)
So, a score is not music (in my view; I know some here hold otherwise and I respect their arguments). I hasten to add, though, that since we have such detailed records of how Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and other great musicians performed their music, our highest aim as makers of music should be to realize their written instructions, enlightened by our own knowledge and insights.
Then, too, a score may be graphic art, value added to its musical worth.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 21, 2015, 09:31:17 AM
Then, too, a score may be graphic art, value added to its musical worth.
Or a substitute therefor.
Quote from: jochanaan on January 21, 2015, 09:06:02 AM
So, a score is not music.
Mahler never lived to hear Das Lied von der Erde; he only produced its score. By your definition, he did not write a work of music.
And yes, I think it is accepted that architecture exists in cases where a building was not built (either because of expense, impracticality, etc.) Daniel Liebeskind's original design for the new WTC in NY was widely admired, but was rejected and a simpler, less radical building constructed in its place. Does that mean Liebeskind did not produce a work of architecture?
I fear that all these analogies of the score to blueprints, instructions, and the like miss the most essential roles that notated scores have served in the development of Western musical culture. But I have argued these points at length above. (Whether the term "blueprint" is even an acceptable analogy for the printed documents a musical performer uses seems to me debatable as well. After all, there's no law requiring a score to mandate every detail like each nail or screw, and performers may resent being considered recipients of instructions, some going so far as to consider themselves creative collaborators. The symbiosis between performer and score seems to me of a different order than that of a builder following an architectural diagram.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 21, 2015, 02:36:16 PM
Mahler never lived to hear Das Lied von der Erde; he only produced its score. By your definition, he did not write a work of music.
And yes, I think it is accepted that architecture exists in cases where a building was not built (either because of expense, impracticality, etc.) Daniel Liebeskind's original design for the new WTC in NY was widely admired, but was rejected and a simpler, less radical building constructed in its place. Does that mean Liebeskind did not produce a work of architecture?
I fear that all these analogies of the score to blueprints, instructions, and the like miss the most essential roles that notated scores have served in the development of Western musical culture. But I have argued these points at length above. (Whether the term "blueprint" is even an acceptable analogy for the printed documents a musical performer uses seems to me debatable as well. After all, there's no law requiring a score to mandate every detail like each nail or screw, and performers may resent being considered recipients of instructions, some going so far as to consider themselves creative collaborators. The symbiosis between performer and score seems to me of a different order than that of a builder following an architectural diagram.)
Not what Jochanaan said at all. Unless you want to argue that Mahler imagined the score as an image. No, Mahler imagined the music, and wrote the score to show others how they might hear or imagine it too.
Is a recipe a cake? You seem to argue it is.
Quote from: Ken B on January 21, 2015, 03:46:23 PM
Not what Jochanaan said at all. Unless you want to argue that Mahler imagined the score as an image. No, Mahler imagined the music, and wrote the score to show others how they might hear or imagine it too.
Is a recipe a cake? You seem to argue it is.
Jochananan: "But I agree with those who say that they are not, in fact, music, merely instructions for the making of music."
Note that "merely." But I'll let Jochanaan speak for himself if he cares to.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 21, 2015, 02:36:16 PM
Mahler never lived to hear Das Lied von der Erde; he only produced its score. By your definition, he did not write a work of music.
That's true, and I don't hesitate to admit it. We speak carelessly of "writing music," but technically, what you say is exactly right.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 21, 2015, 02:36:16 PM
And yes, I think it is accepted that architecture exists in cases where a building was not built (either because of expense, impracticality, etc.) Daniel Liebeskind's original design for the new WTC in NY was widely admired, but was rejected and a simpler, less radical building constructed in its place. Does that mean Liebeskind did not produce a work of architecture?
I'll let the architects answer that one. :)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 21, 2015, 02:36:16 PM
...(Whether the term "blueprint" is even an acceptable analogy for the printed documents a musical performer uses seems to me debatable as well. After all, there's no law requiring a score to mandate every detail like each nail or screw, and performers may resent being considered recipients of instructions, some going so far as to consider themselves creative collaborators. The symbiosis between performer and score seems to me of a different order than that of a builder following an architectural diagram.)
From what I know about contractors, they tend to improvise almost as much as Louis Armstrong. :o :laugh:
Quote from: jochanaan on January 21, 2015, 04:46:01 PM
That's true, and I don't hesitate to admit it. We speak carelessly of "writing music," but technically, what you say is exactly right.
And so to the gentleman who insisted: "Not what Jochanaan said at all," I will reply with Jochanaan's confirmation, "exactly what Jochanaan said." And exactly what I disagree with.
But tell me: if Mahler was not "writing music," then just what the hell was he doing?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2015, 04:43:49 AM
We know for example that ancient Greek tragedies were not just recited but sung...
Assuming you don't refer to prosody, this is partly true; the chorus parts were sung (and most probably also choreographed); parts of the spoken parts were also sung (although chanted might be a more appropriate term), mainly when referring/responding to the chorus.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2015, 04:43:49 AM
...but since the Greeks had no method for notating their music...
This is false. Ancient Greek music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_system_of_ancient_Greece) was notated, parts of notated songs actually surviving to this day. It was a system based on the Greek alphabet with the later addition of neumes.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2015, 04:43:49 AM
Starting with plainchant, musical notes could be written down, and the system of notation developed with increasing sophistication through the next 10 centuries
Plainchant notation did not appear in a vacuum. It came from and evolved parallel with the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) neumatic system, itself an evolution of systems used in antiquity.
Quote from: Wanderer on January 21, 2015, 11:38:43 PM
Assuming you don't refer to prosody, this is partly true; the chorus parts were sung (and most probably also choreographed); parts of the spoken parts were also sung (although chanted might be a more appropriate term), mainly when referring/responding to the chorus.
This is false. Ancient Greek music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_system_of_ancient_Greece) was notated, parts of notated songs actually surviving to this day. It was a system based on the Greek alphabet with the later addition of neumes.
Plainchant notation did not appear in a vacuum. It came from and evolved parallel with the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) neumatic system, itself an evolution of systems used in antiquity.
I'm happy to concede these points; however, they're more like little "gotchas" than any serious rebuttal of my position.
Quote from: Ken B on January 21, 2015, 03:46:23 PM
.... Mahler imagined the music, and wrote the score to show others how they might hear or imagine it too.
But the music Mahler imagined may be quite different from the music you hear in your mind, when you read the score.
So two - or more - different pieces of music may arise from the same score.
A composer's opinion:
"Music on paper is nothing! It does not exist! Notes are strange hieroglyphics, notated musical thoughts that have been created in the human brain, Music does not exist until the moment the musician makes those mystical signs come alive and turn into sound. As soon as the sound stops, the music no longer exists - it reverts to strange hieroglyphics, To silence!" --Einar Englund
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 22, 2015, 07:03:44 AM
A composer's opinion:
"Music on paper is nothing! It does not exist! Notes are strange hieroglyphics, notated musical thoughts that have been created in the human brain, Music does not exist until the moment the musician makes those mystical signs come alive and turn into sound. As soon as the sound stops, the music no longer exists - it reverts to strange hieroglyphics, To silence!" --Einar Englund
So what? That's all very poetic, but can this composer honestly say he learned nothing from studying scores? Can any composer? What say you, Mr. Henning? I remind you of Mozart's excited discovery of the music of Bach from those stange hieroglyphics, or young Elliott Carter's purchase of the sheet music to the Schoenberg Suite op. 25 in Vienna at a time when this music was never performed. Scores are the composer's source material, his archive for learning. Once again, I quote Charles Rosen as pointing to "a difficulty that has irritated philosophers of aesthetics and their readers for a long time. Is the work of music to be identified as the written score or its performance? Is a symphony of Beethoven the printed score or the sound in the concert hall when it is played?"
I say that unless this difficulty is acknowledged, any answer to this question is inadequate.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2015, 07:20:12 AM
Once again, I quote Charles Rosen as pointing to "a difficulty that has irritated philosophers of aesthetics and their readers for a long time. Is the work of music to be identified as the written score or its performance? Is a symphony of Beethoven the printed score or the sound in the concert hall when it is played?"
Why should it be either one, or the other? It´s both. :)
Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2015, 07:25:13 AM
Why should it be either one, or the other? It´s both. :)
I was just thinking that this discussion had an element of the chicken and the egg.
Is the score to 4'33'' music??
Quote from: (: premont :) on January 22, 2015, 06:54:04 AM
So two - or more - different pieces of music may arise from the same score.
Sorry, but I don't buy this at all. At least not this particular example. Whether I open the score of DLvdE, or read an analysis, or buy a CD, or go to a concert, I am certain to encounter the same sequence of notes and rhythms, in more or less similar tempos and balances, with the same orchestration (unless I hear something like the Schoenberg chamber version), etc. But fundamentally DLvdE has remained the same work of music.
A more interesting and problematic example would arise with something like Stockhausen's Piano Piece XI, whose score consists of a large sheet where the pianist is instructed to play various fragments in arbitrary sequences and no two performances of the piece could ever sound alike, down to differences in overall timings.
Or conceive an idea I had during my composing days: a woodwind-brass octet arranged around a set of eight timpani, like the head of a giant octopus. A score of 8 times 8 pages, which the performers would read from computer monitors on a rotating platform. A random generator controlling which pages they'd see, in which order, and when the piece starts and stops. I named the piece Octopoda, and the result was a completely aleatoric structure in which the least significant element of any live performance — the page turner — in effect becomes the most important. I'd love to have you guys listen to it, except that once I came up with this wonderful framework, I had no idea what notes to write. That's because I usually plan what comes before and after each section in a piece, and since this piece would be random, every section could potentially have 63 befores and 63 afters.
Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2015, 07:25:13 AM
Why should it be either one, or the other? It´s both. :)
Yes, but that's been my point all along. It's others who are claiming the score is "merely" a set of instructions, a position with which I emphatically disagree.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2015, 07:38:52 AM
Sorry, but I don't buy this at all. At least not this particular example. Whether I open the score of DLvdE, or read an analysis, or buy a CD, or go to a concert, I am certain to encounter that same sequence of notes and rhythms, in more or less similar tempos and balances, with the same orchestration (unless I hear something like the Schoenberg chamber version), etc. But fundamentally DLvdE has remained the same work of music.
Agreed, the Mahler example is not that good, because the score is
relatively unequivocal. But you do not need to go far back into musical history, before musicologists and musicians disagree about the execution of important points in the score.
Quote from: (: premont :) on January 22, 2015, 07:48:10 AM
Agreed, the Mahler example is not that good, because the score is relatively unequivocal. But you do not need to go far back into musical history, before musicologists and musicians disagree about important points in the score.
Yes, and I could buttress your statement with additional evidence (such as multiple versions of a work like Don Giovanni or the B major Brahms trio, or the ornamentation applied to Baroque opera arias or keyboard pieces). But the Mahler was
your example.
ETA: Sorry, it was originally my example. But you picked up on it.
Quote from: (: premont :) on January 22, 2015, 07:51:44 AM
Why should it be music?
Well, that piece poses a unique problem in aesthetics, a piece of music that consists of nothing but timed silence. But that problem applies both to the score and any "realization" or performance.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2015, 07:52:55 AM
Yes, and I could buttress your statement with additional evidence (such as multiple versions of a work like Don Giovanni or the B major Brahms trio, or the ornamentation applied to Baroque opera arias or keyboard pieces). But the Mahler was your example.
You were the first one to mention Mahler (post 119 in this thread).
Actually, what difference does it make whether the score itself is really music, or it isn´t?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 21, 2015, 04:51:39 PM
And so to the gentleman who insisted: "Not what Jochanaan said at all," I will reply with Jochanaan's confirmation, "exactly what Jochanaan said." And exactly what I disagree with.
But tell me: if Mahler was not "writing music," then just what the hell was he doing?
Writing instructions for making music.
Quote from: (: premont :) on January 22, 2015, 06:54:04 AM
But the music Mahler imagined may be quite different from the music you hear in your mind, when you read the score.
So two - or more - different pieces of music may arise from the same score.
Yes. Leonard Bernstein's performances of Mahler are very different from Bernard Haitink's (to name two examples at "extreme poles" on a continuum); thus they are, in a sense, two different musics both arising from the same score. That's why folks who know both Bernstein and Haitink can recognize recordings of music they've made without being told.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2015, 07:20:12 AM
So what? That's all very poetic, but can this composer honestly say he learned nothing from studying scores? Can any composer? What say you, Mr. Henning? I remind you of Mozart's excited discovery of the music of Bach from those stange hieroglyphics, or young Elliott Carter's purchase of the sheet music to the Schoenberg Suite op. 25 in Vienna at a time when this music was never performed. Scores are the composer's source material, his archive for learning. Once again, I quote Charles Rosen as pointing to "a difficulty that has irritated philosophers of aesthetics and their readers for a long time. Is the work of music to be identified as the written score or its performance? Is a symphony of Beethoven the printed score or the sound in the concert hall when it is played?"
I say that unless this difficulty is acknowledged, any answer to this question is inadequate.
Of course we musicians learn much from looking at scores. But what Mozart and Carter in the above examples were doing, like the rest of us, was "hearing the music in their heads;" that is, they were imagining performances that would take place were they ever to have the musicians and sufficient time to rehearse so that they could direct the making of music from the instructions Bach and Schoenberg left. (And of course Mozart, like all other musicians of his day, would not have hesitated to insert some additions of his own to what Bach wrote. It wasn't until the 20th century that you had performers playing music exactly as the score directed without adding any notes.)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 22, 2015, 07:29:07 AM
I was just thinking that this discussion had an element of the chicken and the egg.
In this case, we know pretty much when the "egg" of written music developed, which was long after the "chicken" of musical performance. :)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2015, 07:55:26 AM
Well, that piece poses a unique problem in aesthetics, a piece of music that consists of nothing but timed silence. But that problem applies both to the score and any "realization" or performance.
The score consists of musical symbols, which you can find in most scores, but when realized, no sound is produced, which can be attributed to these symbols. So the problem applies first and foremost to the realization of the score. The score by itself is unremarcable, until you begin to imagine its content in your mind.
Quote from: (: premont :) on January 22, 2015, 07:57:16 AM
You were the first one to mention Mahler (post 119 in this thread).
Please see my modified entry, posted before this response.
Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2015, 07:58:56 AM
Actually, what difference does it make whether the score itself is really music, or it isn´t?
In one sense, it's only semantics. But in another sense, it's like the difference between mere orthodoxy and a personal encounter with God. Not everyone can read scores, and thus whatever "music" is contained in them is not accessible to everyone; yet everyone who is there can respond to an orchestra playing music based on a printed reproduction of Beethoven's Symphony #5 (to use an example nearly all of us know).
Quote from: (: premont :) on January 22, 2015, 08:08:34 AM
The score consists of musical symbols, which you can find in most scores, but when realized, no sound is produced, which can be attributed to these symbols. So the problem applies first and foremost to the realization of the score. The score by itself is unremarcable, until you begin to imagine its content in your mind.
That's true of any score.
I recall discussing this with one of my philosophy profs, who was also a classical nut. He made a convincing case that a piece of music, the example we discussed was Beethoven's 5th, is a type. A type is an abstract entity that can have particular instances or instantiations. As such it's the common notion behind the score, the performance, the heard-in-your-head. Each is a different instantiation of the type. We agree I think that the score of La Mer and a performance of La Mer are about the same piece of music but that the score of La Mer and a performance of Bolero are about different pieces. The type is a nice notion for capturing these similarities and differences. It also fits nicely when Karl improvises a bit on the clarinet, and the computer produces a score and an mp3; or when Karl fiddles with notation and the computer produces an mp3 and sounds (plays the notes).
Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2015, 07:58:56 AM
Actually, what difference does it make whether the score itself is really music, or it isn´t?
I just want to stress, that the performers contribution in music is much greater, than people usually realize.
Quote from: jochanaan on January 22, 2015, 08:10:55 AM
In one sense, it's only semantics. But in another sense, it's like the difference between mere orthodoxy and a personal encounter with God. Not everyone can read scores, and thus whatever "music" is contained in them is not accessible to everyone; yet everyone who is there can respond to an orchestra playing music based on a printed reproduction of Beethoven's Symphony #5 (to use an example nearly all of us know).That's true of any score.
I like this analogy. :)
Quote from: (: premont :) on January 22, 2015, 08:14:59 AM
I just want to stress, that the performers contribution in music is much greater, than people usually realize.
Well, since no two performances of a work are the same, not even two by the same performer, I don´t see how it can pass unacknowledged, or be flatly denied.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2015, 07:20:12 AM
So what? That's all very poetic, but can this composer honestly say he learned nothing from studying scores? Can any composer? What say you, Mr. Henning? I remind you of Mozart's excited discovery of the music of Bach from those stange hieroglyphics, or young Elliott Carter's purchase of the sheet music to the Schoenberg Suite op. 25 in Vienna at a time when this music was never performed. Scores are the composer's source material, his archive for learning. Once again, I quote Charles Rosen as pointing to “a difficulty that has irritated philosophers of aesthetics and their readers for a long time. Is the work of music to be identified as the written score or its performance? Is a symphony of Beethoven the printed score or the sound in the concert hall when it is played?”
I say that unless this difficulty is acknowledged, any answer to this question is inadequate.
I certainly have learnt a great deal from music which I have read in score, before (if ever) hearing it actually performed.
But would a person who's always been deaf be able to learn to read music? I can get the taste of a food in my mouth if I think of it, but thinking is not eating..
Quote from: North Star on January 22, 2015, 09:46:24 AM
But would a person who's always been deaf be able to learn to read music?
To read, as in to be able to tell a B flat from a D or to know that allegro is faster than adagio or to point out that in this measure there is a horn solo over a timpani roll, certainly. To hear the music, though, no way. Absolutely impossible. A person born deaf cannot even have the notion of sound.
Quote
I can get the taste of a food in my mouth if I think of it, but thinking is not eating..
You can only get the taste of that food which you´ve already tasted. Think of a food you have never tasted before: what taste do you get in your mouth?
Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2015, 10:35:41 AM
To read, as in to be able to tell a B flat from a D or to know that allegro is faster than adagio or to point out that in this measure there is a horn solo over a timpani roll, certainly. To hear the music, though, no way. Absolutely impossible. A person born deaf cannot even have the notion of sound.
You can only get the taste of that food which you´ve already tasted. Think of a food you have never tasted before: what taste do you get in your mouth?
Precisely.
Quote from: Moonfish on January 22, 2015, 11:09:12 AM
I thought everything tasted like chicken?
No - everything tastes like fish,
especially chicken. 0:)
Quote from: Moonfish on January 22, 2015, 11:09:12 AM
I thought everything tasted like chicken?
One more proof you have no taste for diversity. ;D >:D :P
Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2015, 11:20:25 AM
One more proof you have no taste for diversity. ;D >:D :P
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4e7iYkY10c4/UMYsLlj567I/AAAAAAAAABw/40a_iKGRkCY/s1600/eat-more-chicken.jpg)
Quote from: North Star on January 22, 2015, 11:14:55 AM
No - everything tastes like fish, especially chicken. 0:)
:D
Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2015, 07:58:56 AM
Actually, what difference does it make whether the score itself is really music, or it isn´t?
A great deal. I refer you to my previous posts.
Quote from: jochanaan on January 22, 2015, 07:59:55 AM
But what Mozart and Carter in the above examples were doing, like the rest of us, was "hearing the music in their heads;" that is, they were imagining performances that would take place were they ever to have the musicians and sufficient time to rehearse so that they could direct the making of music from the instructions Bach and Schoenberg left.
I'll let some of your other comments pass, but here I think you're dead wrong. Now it is true, I'm finding on further research, that when Mozart visited the Baron van Swieten, he heard some of Bach performed. But the account continues:
Quote"He was informed that this school, where Sebastian Bach had once been cantor, possessed a complete collection of his motets, which were preserved as if they were a saint's relics. 'That is right, that is fine,' he exclaimed. 'Let me see them' There was, however, no complete score of these songs. He therefore took the separate parts, and then, what a pleasure it was for the quiet observer to see how eagerly Mozart sat down, the parts all around him, held in both hands, on his knees, on the nearest chairs. Forgetting everything else, he did not stand up again until he had looked through all the music of Sebastian Bach. He asked for copies...."
Copies, note. Not rehearsal time for performances. Nothing about instructions. What Mozart wanted to do was to absorb Bach's style as a model for future composition. And there are plenty of examples where Mozart's style was greatly influenced by his discovery of Bach.
Quote from: jochanaan on January 22, 2015, 08:10:55 AM
In one sense, it's only semantics. But in another sense, it's like the difference between mere orthodoxy and a personal encounter with God. Not everyone can read scores, and thus whatever "music" is contained in them is not accessible to everyone; yet everyone who is there can respond to an orchestra playing music based on a printed reproduction of Beethoven's Symphony #5 (to use an example nearly all of us know).That's true of any score.
I don't see what God has to do with it, but once again, those of you on the other side keep thinking of music solely as something to be realized in performance. Of course that is one essential element of music, yet scores have other significances to composers and to music history besides performance.
Not everyone can read scores, of course, and not everyone can read all scores equally well. I am better at reading rhythms in my head than pitches, especially of difficult modern works. I can read the treble, alto, tenor, and bass clefs fluently, but not the soprano clef Bach used in his choral works. I can't easily read plainchant notation, lute tablature, or figured bass. Yet I don't discount any of these notations as music just because I personally can't read them.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2015, 01:59:15 PM
I'll let some of your other comments pass, but here I think you're dead wrong. Now it is true, I'm finding on further research, that when Mozart visited the Baron van Swieten, he heard some of Bach performed. But the account continues:
Copies, note. Not rehearsal time for performances. Nothing about instructions. What Mozart wanted to do was to absorb Bach's style as a model for future composition. And there are plenty of examples where Mozart's style was greatly influenced by his discovery of Bach.
Interesting but it is flat wrong to say "nothing about instructions" when the point at issue is whether the scores he asked for
are instructions. That's just begging the question.
Quote from: Ken B on January 22, 2015, 02:46:50 PM
Interesting but it is flat wrong to say "nothing about instructions" when the point at issue is whether the scores he asked for are instructions. That's just begging the question.
Not at all. There is no indication that Mozart was interested in future performance of Bach's work; what is certain - from examples like the finale of the Jupiter Symphony and much else - that Mozart learned a great deal from the example of Bach and absorbed Bach into his own style. That is what matters.
I find this whole "instructions" metaphor unconvincing in any case. It reduces composition to the level of writing software manuals. I can just imagine Beethoven, working on the Diabellis or Missa Solemnis, pumping his fists in the air and saying, "I wrote five pages of instuctions today! I'll write seven pages of instructions tomorrow!"
Anyway, I give up. If you guys want to think scores aren't music and are nothing more than cookbooks or schematic diagrams, be my guest. Perhaps someone else will take up the argument.
Quote from: Ken B on January 22, 2015, 02:46:50 PM
Interesting but it is flat wrong to say "nothing about instructions" when the point at issue is whether the scores he asked for are instructions. That's just begging the question.
>:D
[asin] 1906142246[/asin]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2015, 03:21:48 PM
Not at all. There is no indication that Mozart was interested in future performance of Bach's work; what is certain - from examples like the finale of the Jupiter Symphony and much else - that Mozart learned a great deal from the example of Bach and absorbed Bach into his own style. That is what matters.
I find this whole "instructions" metaphor unconvincing in any case. It reduces composition to the level of writing software manuals. I can just imagine Beethoven, working on the Diabellis or Missa Solemnis, pumping his fists in the air and saying, "I wrote five pages of instuctions today! I'll write seven pages of instructions tomorrow!"
Anyway, I give up. If you guys want to think scores aren't music and are nothing more than cookbooks or schematic diagrams, be my guest. Perhaps someone else will take up the argument.
i know you find it unconvincing. My point is not that you should be convinced but that the argument you gave was circular. And you clearly completely missed the point in my post about types.
Quote from: Ken B on January 22, 2015, 03:26:37 PM
i know you find it unconvincing. My point is not that you should be convinced but that the argument you gave was circular. And you clearly completely missed the point in my post about types.
I didn't miss it, I just didn't respond - just as you did not respond to any of my lengthier posts from yesterday or the day before on the subject, or for I know even read them.
Quote from: James on January 22, 2015, 04:19:36 PM
Just my 2 cents ..
A score delivers music composed in written form. It communicates music. Technically, realistically .. it's music.
Western Art Music is a written tradition, not an oral or folk tradition. It is a vast literature.
Thank you.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2015, 03:31:56 PM
I didn't miss it, I just didn't respond - just as you did not respond to any of my lengthier posts from yesterday or the day before on the subject, or for I know even read them.
No. You said I denied a score is music, when I argued something different.
Quote from: Ken B on January 22, 2015, 05:08:42 PM
No. You said I denied a score is music, when I argued something different.
« Reply #85 on: December 28, 2014, 06:43:05 PM »
Quote from Ken B:
"A score is not music. It is a way of representing instructions to players."
I give up. Must've been a different Ken B.
Quote from: James on January 22, 2015, 04:19:36 PM
Just my 2 cents ..
A score delivers music composed in written form. It communicates music. Technically, realistically .. it's music.
Western Art Music is a written tradition, not an oral or folk tradition. It is a vast literature.
I like this perspective.
Especially before recording technology, many things were only "heard" by reading the score. For instance, when Bruckner showed Wagner his 3rd symphony, obviously Wagner was able to claim that he preferred it over the 2nd symphony (or was it the 4th... I forget what the alternative was). Thus, it clearly communicated music as Wagner could see that he especially liked the 3rd's opening trumpet theme.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2015, 01:49:05 PM
A great deal. I refer you to my previous posts.
I have read your previous posts. I have read the posts of your opponents too. You are right in pointing out that a score is much more than a set of instructions and you are also right that the music is already there. They are right in pointing out that music is a performing art and that most people experience it as music only when performed. I don´t see anything mutually exclusive here.
Quote from: Florestan on January 23, 2015, 12:21:55 AM
I have read your previous posts. I have read the posts of your opponents too. You are right in pointing out that a score is much more than a set of instructions and you are also right that the music is already there. They are right in pointing out that music is a performing art and that most people experience it as music only when performed. I don´t see anything mutually exclusive here.
Which is what I was getting at with the type.
Quote from: EigenUser on January 23, 2015, 12:16:12 AM
I like this perspective.
Actually, I find "A score delivers music composed in written form. It communicates music." either a pathetic fallacy, or profoundly mistaken. Does a book "communicate," or does the author? And (to build upon a point others have been making), the person reading the score (or the book) takes such information as is encoded in the document, and the music (or the story) in his mind is a creative amalgam of his experience and the information from the document.
The score does not "deliver music." I've cited
Lutosławski before: if everything about the piece could be described in words (or, etched into a score), we should have no need of music.
A lot of discussion over what was really a poetic metaphor. Someone said it wasn't music until it is played. I really don't think that was meant as a deep ontological statement. I suspect it just meant that the most important part, the really valuable part is the performance. We are acting like jesuitical hairsplitters (NOTE TO Florestan: 'jesuitical hairsplitter' is not meant as praise >:D :P :laugh:)
Quote from: Ken B on January 23, 2015, 05:31:18 AM
A lot of discussion over what was really a poetic metaphor.
Oh, aye, indeed.
Quote from: Ken B on January 23, 2015, 05:31:18 AM
Someone said it wasn't music until it is played.
Well, as a composer, there is a practical sense in which I believe this entirely.
Why did I write it, if not so that it be played and that people hear it?
Quote from: Ken B on January 23, 2015, 05:31:18 AM
A lot of discussion over what was really a poetic metaphor. Someone said it wasn't music until it is played. I really don't think that was meant as a deep ontological statement. I suspect it just meant that the most important part, the really valuable part is the performance. We are acting like jesuitical hairsplitters (NOTE TO Florestan: 'jesuitical hairsplitter' is not meant as praise >:D :P :laugh:)
No, we're talking about a legitimate issue and not just splitting hairs. You seem to want to have things both ways: first you bring up your professor's quasi-Platonic theory of types (talk about an "ontological statement"), and then when someone has the temerity to suggest there's more to scores than the idea that "
the most important part, the really valuable part is the performance," you're ready to call the entire issue trivial.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 23, 2015, 06:46:07 AM
No, we're talking about a legitimate issue and not just splitting hairs. You seem to want to have things both ways: first you bring up your professor's quasi-Platonic theory of types (talk about an "ontological statement"), and then when someone has the temerity to suggest there's more to scores than the idea that "the most important part, the really valuable part is the performance," you're ready to call the entire issue trivial.
Again you miss the point. Let me repeat it.
I think the original comment that we are discussing was just a fancy way of expressing the opinion "
the most important part, the really valuable part is the performance,". I neither endorsed nor disavowed that opinion. I merely identified it. FWIW I endorse it.
But if you want hair splitting ... Let's talk dance for a second, as choreography can be "scored" too.
E R Tufte worked out a notation for choreography. Is one of his "scores" dance? It seems to me it is
in the same sense that a music score is music. Are we agreed?if music scores are music then dance scores are dance in the same sense, whatever sense is meant.
So that raises an issue. What if the notation is defective? What if it cannot describe all the effects or elements or actions the dancer/choreographer desires? Is it still
just as much the piece as a performance? I think not. No written system of choreography before Tufte's was remotely adequate (I do not claim his is, only that it is better.) Would Balanchine's partial directions, the best his notation of the time could do, count as dance in the same way Balanchine actually dancing would?
Imagine watching a dance and transcribing it using Tufte's notation and any of the older systems. Tufte's would have more detail. So the "scores" would differ. In important ways Tufte's would have *more* information. Would these describe the same dance? If so, what is that extra information? If not, then how was the first "score" the same as the performed dance?
But frankly I'm bored with hairsplitting. A fortiori (there it is again!) I am bored with hairsplitting about hairsplitting.
Quote from: James on January 23, 2015, 08:15:35 AM
Within this written tradition (that has existed for centuries) .. there is no performance without the composer's written music in place first.
Paging Dave Brubeck! Your copy of
A Musical Offering is on fire.
QuoteWithin this written tradition (that has existed for centuries) .. there is no performance without the composer's written music in place first.
Tautology
du jour . . . .
And untrue: witness Das musikalisches Opfer.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 23, 2015, 09:21:41 AM
And untrue: witness Das musikalisches Opfer.
Scroll back to comment 179 ...
*inserts great minds comment here*
Quote from: Ken B on January 23, 2015, 08:29:46 AM
Again you miss the point. Let me repeat it.
I think the original comment that we are discussing was just a fancy way of expressing the opinion "the most important part, the really valuable part is the performance,". I neither endorsed nor disavowed that opinion. I merely identified it. FWIW I endorse it.
But if you want hair splitting ... Let's talk dance for a second, as choreography can be "scored" too.
E R Tufte worked out a notation for choreography. Is one of his "scores" dance? It seems to me it is in the same sense that a music score is music. Are we agreed?if music scores are music then dance scores are dance in the same sense, whatever sense is meant.
So that raises an issue. What if the notation is defective? What if it cannot describe all the effects or elements or actions the dancer/choreographer desires? Is it still just as much the piece as a performance? I think not. No written system of choreography before Tufte's was remotely adequate (I do not claim his is, only that it is better.) Would Balanchine's partial directions, the best his notation of the time could do, count as dance in the same way Balanchine actually dancing would?
Imagine watching a dance and transcribing it using Tufte's notation and any of the older systems. Tufte's would have more detail. So the "scores" would differ. In important ways Tufte's would have *more* information. Would these describe the same dance? If so, what is that extra information? If not, then how was the first "score" the same as the performed dance?
But frankly I'm bored with hairsplitting. A fortiori (there it is again!) I am bored with hairsplitting about hairsplitting.
Whatever you say, Ken. Again you have missed my points, but since you are the ultimate authority on all things, I bow down to your wisdom.
Quote from: Ken B on January 23, 2015, 05:31:18 AM
We are acting like jesuitical hairsplitters (NOTE TO Florestan: 'jesuitical hairsplitter' is not meant as praise >:D :P :laugh:)
You are indeed hairsplitting. Whether it is Jesuitical or not, I wouldn´t know. Lots of Jesuits were scientists and lots of scientists were Jesuits. Is science hairsplitting? Not to mention that in the moral realm (which is the original hairsplitting field of the Jesuits) a thinner or a thicker hair can make the difference between life and death... :D
On topic. Why do composer create music? For other composers to marvel at, and study, their music? For all those who can read scores to read them? For the audience at large to hear it performed? None of the above. all of the above, part of the above? Talk about hairsplitting. ;D
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture"...
Quote from: James on January 23, 2015, 11:30:24 AM
Sometimes I just shudder at the level of stupidity on this forum.
Under the "G" number 4.
And again, he shuddered with self-knowledge . . . .
Quote from: James on January 23, 2015, 11:30:24 AM
Sometimes I just shudder at the level of stupidity on this forum.
No wonder you've been here eight years and have 8600 posts to your credit.
Quote from: Ken B on January 23, 2015, 11:34:15 AM
Under the "G" number 4.
Honestly, I don't have the slightest idea what that means. ;D
Quote from: James on January 23, 2015, 12:28:03 PM
Like this means anything when we look at the bigger picture ..
That´s exactly the answer the unrepentant Communists offer when questioned about the Gulag.
(I know it is a false analogy and I beg pardon for using it, but I cannot help myself... )
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 23, 2015, 12:02:20 PM
Honestly, I don't have the slightest idea what that means. ;D
Time for
Karl to post the bingo sheet! Then all will become clear.
Quote from: James on January 23, 2015, 01:26:00 PM
And how does that Bach composition up-end the fact that western art music (for centuries now) is a written musical tradition, or that Bach himself was one of it's greatest & most-valuable writers.
I guess the idea is that because Bach improvised the 3- and 6-part Ricercares at the court of Freddy the Great, those pieces existed prior to notation. (Though how the same applies to the 10 canons or the trio sonata escapes me. I betcha even Bach had to work out the canon per augmentationem, contrario motu on paper.)
Never mind that unless Bach wrote the ricercares down in score later, they would have been lost to the world forever. Or that Webern could have never orchestrated the 6-part.
Maybe this tangent should be elsewhere? After all, this was not the conflict that db had in mind...
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 23, 2015, 11:20:51 AM
Whatever you say, Ken. ...I bow down to your wisdom.
This
is the wisest policy poco, but you look like a natural born recidivist to me, and I expect in a week or so you'll be back to thinking for yourself.
;)
Quote from: Ken B on January 23, 2015, 04:44:26 PM
This is the wisest policy poco, but you look like a natural born recidivist to me, and I expect in a week or so you'll be back to thinking for yourself.
;)
My only dispute is the time frame, which you have overestimated by at least six days and 23.999 hours.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 23, 2015, 03:41:32 PM
Maybe this tangent should be elsewhere? After all, this was not the conflict that db had in mind...
I know, but that's what makes the discussion so endearing.