On 5 Mar 2003 at 0:47, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote: > What I meant is that we are free to play, let's say the rubato, in one way > when we are happy and in another way when we are sad. In one way when we are > young and in another way when we are mature. In one way at time of war and > in another way at a celebration. In your Midi scenario this element of > expression is lacking. With MIDI, one creates a sound 'sculpture' which is > made out of material which does not weather. It does not bend. It does not > tear. It does not grow. It doesn't change appearance in the morning sunshine > of Spring, nor does it throw a different shadow in the Winter. It is not > fragile. It doesn't need to be looked after, cared for, and cherished. It > doesn't need to be lived with. It is perfection. It needs no human to keep > it alive.
This actually gets to the heart of the issue, especially because you use the term "sound sculpture." It clearly implies that the piece of music is an object, a thing, with one set of finite characteristics that can be observed from multiple perspectives but whose innate attributes cannot be changed. The history of music has mostly been about music being something that is *not* an object, but a process, a collaboration between composers, performers and listeners. That means that the piece of music itself is multivalent, with many possible readings, both in minute details (e.g., a little vibrato at the end of this long note, a slight lift after the cadence) and in major aspects (taking the "Allegro" at q=100 vs. q=200, making the piano sections nearly inaudible and the loud sections as loud as possible, playing the staccato notes as short as possible or simply slightly detached). I don't for a minute mean to say that all interpretations, all readings are equally viable. There can be misreadings (we'll leave actual mistakes aside, wrong rhythms, wrong notes, wrong dynamics, wrong articulations, wrong balance), i.e., interpretations that really mitigate against the musical content of the work of music, understood within its proper context and with the appropriate due given to the composer's intentions. But Dennis's argument seems to be that, for his music, at least, there really is only one correct reading, and all others are mis- readings, and that for lots of other music, there are only a small number of appropriate readings, and any performance with even a single wrong note is to be discarded, no matter the quality of the musical expression overall. Such a principle would mean the discarding of any flawed art object, such as the Venus di Milo, and since the attack a few years ago, The Pieta. Since Dennis's esthetic treats the work of music is an object, a sound sculpture, with no ambiguities about what is right and wrong in its interpretation and even Horowitz's blazing performances with wrong notes must be discarded, then we must also discard the real sculptures that have flaws, by the same logic. Yet, we find a great deal that is beautiful in some of these incomplete and damaged sculptures, and, likewise, much that is moving and beautiful can be found in imperfect human performances of music. However, I do not mean to argue that I would in any way prohibit Dennis from preferring that his own music be performed with mechanical assistance. Nor would I refuse to listen just because no human performers were involved. Good music is good music, however it is realized. Any particular performance is not 100% of the content of the music, even if it's electronic music that is always exactly the same each time it is played, because the listener is never the same. Hear a piece once and have one experience. Hear it again and have an entirely different one. Maybe Dennis, like Babbitt in his churlish moods, also needs more reliable audiences, too. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
