GMG and classical music collection - the conflict

[aukhawk]

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 -

... 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.

[Chris L.]

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!

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

[prémont]

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.

[EigenUser]

"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).

[prémont]

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

[prémont]

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?

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

[Mandryka]

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.

[prémont]

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.

[prémont]

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.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

[prémont]

.... 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.

[Chris L.]

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.

[71 dB]

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.

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. 

[jochanaan]

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.

[Karl Henning]

Then, too, a score may be graphic art, value added to its musical worth.

[Ken B]

Then, too, a score may be graphic art, value added to its musical worth.

Or a substitute therefor.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.)