Composers' ideas about how their music should sound. (philosophy)

[Madiel]

Some of the most recent remarks are merely a statement about the inaccuracy of the methods of recording available to composers and playwrights.

If Shakespeare had a video recorder as the means of passing on his plays, would you then start saying that how the actors sounded and moved about the stage WERE part of the play?

The same for composers. Composers now in fact have access to means of recording the actual sounds. This is the primary means by which other forms of music besides classical are now conveyed. And it's been used by classical composers, too, in areas such as electronic music.

I can't see that what is "the music" or "the composition" should be affected by the medium available to the composer for communicating their ideas.

[Karl Henning]

Some of the most recent remarks are merely a statement about the inaccuracy of the methods of recording available to composers and playwrights.

If Shakespeare had a video recorder as the means of passing on his plays, would you then start saying that how the actors sounded and moved about the stage WERE part of the play?

I call this a good point.

[Madiel]

I'm grateful, Karl, for how often you like my points. 

[Karl Henning]

Keep up the good work!

[Florestan]

I can't see that what is "the music" or "the composition" should be affected by the medium available to the composer for communicating their ideas.

That´s a good point, pertinent also in the HIP vs non-HIP debate. 

[Karl Henning]

Indeed.

[Mandryka]

Some of the most recent remarks are merely a statement about the inaccuracy of the methods of recording available to composers and playwrights.

If Shakespeare had a video recorder as the means of passing on his plays, would you then start saying that how the actors sounded and moved about the stage WERE part of the play?

The same for composers. Composers now in fact have access to means of recording the actual sounds. This is the primary means by which other forms of music besides classical are now conveyed. And it's been used by classical composers, too, in areas such as electronic music.

I can't see that what is "the music" or "the composition" should be affected by the medium available to the composer for communicating their ideas.

When Shakespeare published Lear, he knew that performers would take the play and perform it in ways which differed from his own. What Lear looks and feels like isn't part of what Shakespeare created when he published the work. Its look and feel is not determined by what Shakespeare made.

For the same reason, I would say that Messiaen's recording of his Méditiations sur le mystère de la sainte Trinité, or George Flynn's recordsing of Trinity, are not part of the works which they created on composing the music. When Messiaen and Flynn published their music, they knew that performers would make it sound different to them. What it sonds like is not part of the music they created when they published the work.

In both those cases the composer's performance is probably not the best way to perform the music in fact.

[Karl Henning]

Shakespeare did not publish Lear (or any of his own plays in his own day).

[Mandryka]

Shakespeare did not publish Lear (or any of his own plays in his own day).

Ah. That knocks my argument over then.

Or maybe just replace Shakespeare and Lear with someone who did publish. That would work, wouldn't it?

There you go. Argument remains strong.

[Karl Henning]

Oh, it was just an historical footnote;  doesn't materially affect your point, as you observe.

[Madiel]

When Shakespeare published Lear, he knew that performers would take the play and perform it in ways which differed from his own. What Lear looks and feels like isn't part of what Shakespeare created when he published the work. Its look and feel is not determined by what Shakespeare made.

For the same reason, I would say that Messiaen's recording of his Méditiations sur le mystère de la sainte Trinité, or George Flynn's recordsing of Trinity, are not part of the works which they created on composing the music. When Messiaen and Flynn published their music, they knew that performers would make it sound different to them. What it sonds like is not part of the music they created when they published the work.

In both those cases the composer's performance is probably not the best way to perform the music in fact.

That's what they knew. What about what they wanted?

Again, you're falling back on an argument that is "this is how the technology was". What I'm trying to get at is the philosophy of it, which isn't limited by the technology of the day.

I believe it was Shostakovich who wrote a piece for a brass instrument (trumpet or trombone, I forget which) and commented to a friend that the instrument at the time couldn't really quite play what he had written. He hoped that one day the instrument would develop further. You're presenting an argument that ignores the possibility that maybe Shakespeare hoped for something different to what he had.

I'm not saying he did or he didn't. I'm saying that we're talking about works of the creative imagination, and that we should at least be aware that the state of technology at a given time shapes and dictates and limits what the creative imagination can in practice produce.

[North Star]

These artists wrote their work to be performed in order to make a living out of it. They certainly aimed to make it performable by the musicians / actors they had in their disposal.

[Israfel the Black]

I think this kind of thinking is common in all arts, that the earlier writers/composers weren't so interested in those things that have changed since their time, like pronunciation, instruments, performance practice.

Hmm. This doesn't strike me as very likely. It's important to remember that Shakespeare had his own production company and even wrote characters for specific actors in mind. Performance has always been very important in the arts, particularly in a time before recordings where a single live performance could potentially make or a break a career in terms of economic prospects.

My only point was that it's reasonable to think that Shakespeare perhaps would not have placed as much emphasis on sound as say a composer, since, well, sound is the primary concern of the composer. For the playwright, the primary concern is the drama, of which sound may (or may not) be a key factor. Likewise, for the composer, drama may or may not be a factor of the music. The composer's main business is sound, or music, but not drama per se. Shakespeare was very interested in performance, though. He had an vested interest in it, to be sure, and was very much engaged in the process (and was an actor himself).

But the fact is that they wrote their art for the performers of their day, and the works should be interpreted in the light of this. Distorting the music by playing it on modern instruments, or pronouncing Shakespeare as if it was contemporary English changes the work, and shows different facets of it, ones the artist might not have approved, and most certainly didn't imagine. None of this is bad, as long as we remember that the artists' intentions were different.

Yes, indeed. Absolutely! Precisely my point.

[North Star]

Hmm. This doesn't strike me as very likely. It's important to remember that Shakespeare had his own production company and even wrote characters for specific actors in mind. Performance has always been very important in the arts, particularly in a time before recordings where a single live performance could potentially make or a break a career in terms of economic prospects.

My only point was that it's reasonable to think that Shakespeare perhaps would not have placed as much emphasis on sound as say a composer, since, well, sound is the primary concern of the composer. For the playwright, the primary concern is the drama, of which sound may (or may not) be a key factor. Likewise, for the composer, drama may or may not be a factor of the music. The composer's main business is sound, or music, but not drama per se. Shakespeare was very interested in performance, though. He had an invested interest in it, to be sure, and was very much engaged in the process (and was an actor himself).

Yes, indeed. Absolutely! Precisely my point.

The language and all its details were a concern, too! Contemporary pronunciation of Shakespeare makes it lose a good deal of rhymes and puns.

[Israfel the Black]

Right!

[Israfel the Black]

When Shakespeare published Lear, he knew that performers would take the play and perform it in ways which differed from his own.

Perhaps, but this doesn't imply he didn't have his own impression and preference for how it should go.

What Lear looks and feels like isn't part of what Shakespeare created when he published the work. Its look and feel is not determined by what Shakespeare made.

Again (see above), this seems highly unlikely given that Shakespeare wrote the part for a particular actor in mind, namely Richard Burbage. Shakespeare's understanding of the character was likely one of an old fragile man played by an aging actor, which stands in contrast to certain modern adaptations of the character that have depicted him as more stately in appearance and stature. As an actor himself, Shakespeare was no doubt very concerned about these things, but only to the extent that it bore on the dramatics, of course.

In both those cases the composer's performance is probably not the best way to perform the music in fact.

I'm not sure how this is helpful.  A composer may attempt to record their music, but that doesn't mean they are great performers. This is why many composers prefer better performers to conduct and play their music. Still, a composer's performance might give us some insights into their vision, even if they aren't the most capable performers of their own music.

[Israfel the Black]

These artists wrote their work to be performed in order to make a living out of it. They certainly aimed to make it performable by the musicians / actors they had in their disposal.

+1

[Madiel]

These artists wrote their work to be performed in order to make a living out of it. They certainly aimed to make it performable by the musicians / actors they had in their disposal.

Yes. I hope you're not suggesting I was saying otherwise. I was talking about the method of recording the work. Not the purpose of it.

[jochanaan]

...Performance has always been very important in the arts...

In the case of drama, dance and music, performance IS the art.  The written scores or plays are merely instructions for performance, no more the actual "art" than an architect's blueprint is the building.  But unlike buildings, dramatic and musical performances are created in an instant (although they are often rehearsed extensively) and live on only in memory, changing with every new performance.  Even recordings are at best documents of performances, considerably more detailed than the written scores but still not the performance itself.  (I know this is a radical view, but I speak as a performer myself.)

Shakespeare's plays (for example) are considerably lacking in performance indications by modern standards; at most you have "They fight" or "They kiss" or "Exeunt" or similar instructions.  Compare that to, for example, the plays of George Bernard Shaw, which often begin with several pages of scenic and staging directions.  Does this mean that Shakespeare expected less of his actors and crew?  I doubt it; he must have been a consummate performer and director. -- I'm perhaps analogizing from what I know of music, but I think the situation was very similar.  We know that, for example, the Baroque composers wrote few dynamic markings in their music not because their performers couldn't do such dynamics, but because such things were usually left up to performers' judgment.  Yet if J.S. Bach was leading you, you had better play with plenty of dynamics or he might just tear off his wig and throw it at you!  (I'm not making this up; he actually did that once. )

What I mean is that the early composers most definitely had ideas about how their performances should sound; but they left many essential performance indications for the performance itself.  And from things I've read, there's reason to think that most of them really didn't want anyone else doing their plays or music, as long as they were alive--and they had no concept of "writing for the ages."  I suppose that not even Beethoven, with his foresight and probity, could visualize how his music has become part of our world musical heritage. In his day, and in Shakespeare's, there wasn't any such thing.  That's why, in early music, there are so few indications about how the music was actually to be played.

[Israfel the Black]

In the case of drama, dance and music, performance IS the art. The written scores or plays are merely instructions for performance, no more the actual "art" than an architect's blueprint is the building. But unlike buildings, dramatic and musical performances are created in an instant (although they are often rehearsed extensively) and live on only in memory, changing with every new performance.  Even recordings are at best documents of performances, considerably more detailed than the written scores but still not the performance itself.  (I know this is a radical view, but I speak as a performer myself.)

I touched on this here in another thread recently, but I consider plays to be works of art in their own right. A play unperformed is still literature that can be rich with poetry, drama, and comedy. The question becomes more complicated in the case of musical scores, but I tend to think the same applies here. Generally speaking, though, I agree that performance is of paramount importance.

Shakespeare's plays (for example) are considerably lacking in performance indications by modern standards; at most you have "They fight" or "They kiss" or "Exeunt" or similar instructions.  Compare that to, for example, the plays of George Bernard Shaw, which often begin with several pages of scenic and staging directions.  Does this mean that Shakespeare expected less of his actors and crew?  I doubt it; he must have been a consummate performer and director. -- I'm perhaps analogizing from what I know of music, but I think the situation was very similar.  We know that, for example, the Baroque composers wrote few dynamic markings in their music not because their performers couldn't do such dynamics, but because such things were usually left up to performers' judgment.  Yet if J.S. Bach was leading you, you had better play with plenty of dynamics or he might just tear off his wig and throw it at you!  (I'm not making this up; he actually did that once. )

In Shakespeare's case, my impression is that a lot of it was due to practical reasons. He and his own troupe went around staging productions of his plays. Shakespeare's conception of theater was one that was stripped stripped down and emphasized language because, in part, resources at the time were limited, which meant that he relied more on the power of language to stage the drama. He wasn't a stickler for literalism and realism. (You can even argue that Shakespeare satirizes such literal conceptions of theater in A Midsummer Night's Dream). For instance, female parts were played by young boys, players often or even mostly wore contemporary clothing rather than authentic costumes, and there was often very little in the way of props. The point is that Shakespeare didn't rely on extra-literary details, even if they could sometimes add some flare or novelty to a production. All he needed was language, and that's why he was a master of the English language. As for stage directions, it was all in the text. As Hamlet says, "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action." This is why you could say that, in a way, Shakespeare wrote music with words by using verse and iambic pattern. This was a man who's main concern was with the beauty of language.

What I mean is that the early composers most definitely had ideas about how their performances should sound; but they left many essential performance indications for the performance itself.  And from things I've read, there's reason to think that most of them really didn't want anyone else doing their plays or music, as long as they were alive--and they had no concept of "writing for the ages."  I suppose that not even Beethoven, with his foresight and probity, could visualize how his music has become part of our world musical heritage. In his day, and in Shakespeare's, there wasn't any such thing.  That's why, in early music, there are so few indications about how the music was actually to be played.

Beethoven seems to me as someone who was very aware of the possibility of perennial genius and a legacy of greatness. Shakespeare also wasn't likely ignorant of the great literary tradition of which he was a part. They both were standing on the shoulders of geniuses, whether it be Bach and Mozart or Euripides and Aeschylus.