This issue seems to be one I have quite a few feelings and opinions on, and
the following thoughts are prompted:
[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:]
>>... composers are
>>wise to insist on detailed notation rather than leave judgments in the
>>hands of players they don't already know well and trust implicitly.
I am not involved enough in the active world of performers to know how far
performers generally can be counted on to follow the notation as closely as they
reasonably can. But there is one area in piano music, at least, where I would
not trust an unknown performer's judgement - and that is in the use of the
sustaining pedal. Works such as Chopin Nocturnes or Etudes, or Debussy or
Rachmaninov Preludes, or Scriabin Sonatas strike me as more than averagely among
piano works depending on the pedalling being done just right to give the right
feel to the music.
In such music, I have heard so many widely varying ways of pedalling, some
of them wildly unsuitable in my opinion (including some by world-famous
pianists), that I have long ago come to the conclusion that you cannot make even
the most basic assumptions about how pedalling will be done in piano music if it
is not clearly notated, no matter how obvious it may seem. Thus I would always
put in fairly precise pedalling marks, unless I really felt willing in a
particular instance to allow this wide variety of sometimes unpredictable
approaches. My assumption, on this pedalling issue at least, is that if you
don't specify it, you could end up with almost anything. I would almost always
specify it, because pedalling is one of the aspects I am fussier about.
This is not to deny that the pedalling may have to be changed in individual
cases, depending on the instrument, the acoustics of the performing venue, and
the like - but it at least increases the chances of getting something like the
effects I had in mind.
[John Howell:]
>Dennis, you are indeed arguing for "strict adherence to the printed
>socre." The problem is that musical notation never has, does not
>today, and never will give the performer absolutely all the
>information needed for a performance. There are always assumptions,
>often never even thought about. That's called "style."
To me, this sounds like arguing that because *total* precision will never
be attained, it is useless to even try for a reasonable degree of precision. I
never took Dennis to be arguing for total precision, so as to allow for no
variation whatsoever; but it seems possible from his postings that he wants
*more* precision than some other composers do, and more than what some
performers are able or willing to give.
John, you make the quest for any precision sound hopeless, because it can
never be achieved in totality. But it might be that many composers who tend to
be precise only *want* so much precision, but no more.
I would think composers would do well to keep seeking precision until they
reach one of two points: they cannot achieve any more precision; or they have
achieved as much as they want - whichever comes first.
>Music always
>has been and always will be a collaboration between composer and
>performer (often with an arranger standing between the two, and with
>a large ensemble always with a conductor standing between them). The
>responsibility is shared.
While this is undoubtedly true, it would seem to me that the balance has
changed from one historical period to another, and perhaps from one composer to
another, according to how inclined the composer is to precise specification of
the effects in his music. If the composer is inclined to take a rather larger
portion of that decision-making, I would tend to see that as his or her right,
as the creator of the music. Conscientious performers would surely be making an
attempt to actualize the performer's intentions to a reasonable extent,
especially if they are clearly and precisely notated. I don't really see this
point by John as an argument against the position Dennis was taking.
And I do think the balance has been shifting more towards the composer in
the last century or so, perhaps even two centuries. I see nothing wrong with
that - that's just the way it goes. Performers who feel constricted by that may
be people to whom that music doesn't speak all that eloquently, and they will
seek music by other, more congenial composers, who perhaps allow them the
freedom they wish.
Perhaps the trend will shift away from this greater prescriptiveness by
composer in the future, and music will become freer from performers' point of
view, and by common understanding between composers and performers, the latter
will play a bigger role in determining the music, such as by improvising,
extensive use of embellishment, and the like. If composers go along with that,
that's okay; although if, in the midst of that trend, a particular composer
didn't feel comfortable with that approach and wanted to specify more details, I
would hope that would be honoured by performers if the composer notated what he
wanted clearly - whatever the trend surrounding the composer happens to be.
I have to admit (if it wasn't already obvious) that I lean more towards the
composer deciding how the music comes out than the performer, although I'm not
extreme, and don't believe I am inclined this way any more than many
19th-century composers, and far less than some 20th-century composers.
I spoke favourably just before about "self-expression" being a valid and
even important motivation for composing (at least for myself - I don't attempt
to tell other composers what should motivate them). I suppose it is obvious
that a leaning towards "self-expression" will not sit easily with the
characteristic in earlier music of specifying less and allowing performers more
leeway. Thus it fits in well with my desire for rather more notational
precision, not rather less.
>It's fine to be prescriptive, if that is your mindset, and to say "I
>want everything that's on the page and nothing that isn't on the
>page," but music isn't one damn note after another. Music must
>communicate, must have soul, and must touch the heart and mind of the
>listener, and markings on a page cannot do that.
I don't see how this is mutually contradictory to what Dennis was saying
(which, in different words, is similar to what I've said recently and on
previous occasions).
It seems to me that some of the debate here is arising from what I would
see as a false assumption: that you have an all-or-nothing situation where
*either* you have total precision of notation, and performers are obliged to
follow it absolutely, in robotic fashion; *or* you have notation serving as a
very rough guide, and performers must be allowed, even encouraged, to take
freedoms with the music, and freely use the conventions of their era to
embellish or modify the music - whereas I would see these as two opposite
extremes of a continuous spectrum, and composers would, by natural temperament,
fall into different positions on this spectrum. But those who tend more towards
one end seem to be denying the validity of the other end, or even the
possibility of it existing, and seem to be a touch suspicious of the middle,
too. (If many people occupy the middle - it seems a very divisive topic, on the
whole.)
I get the feeling Dennis is rather towards the more precise end of this
spectrum, and I probably am myself - but this is by no means to say that the
music is to be robotic and without feeling or soul - and it is not to say that
music is mere notes (although, on a simplistic level, that *is* what music is -
but notes can be played in subtly different ways).
If music is far more than just the notes, the notes have to be right,
though, as a starting point, before you can even begin to get to the essence
that lies beyond the notes. They are necessary but not sufficient - to
summarize it concisely.
(There is one peculiar exception to this I have encountered which I mention
for interest; but, because it is highly exceptional, I don't think it spoils my
argument overall. The exception is Sorabji's extraordinary and massive "Opus
Clavicembalisticum", which is a solo piano work so thickly textured (written on
3, 4, and even 5 staves) and so full of hundreds of notes in its dense
figuration and counterpoint, and so chromatic in its harmony, that notes almost
behave like invisible atoms, and are merely the substance out of which larger
features are made, those being what you notice; and you really wouldn't know if
some of the notes were wrong, and maybe it doesn't matter a lot as long as the
larger structures keep their integrity. The score is cluttered with misprints
and ambiguities that I believe could never be definitively sorted out, anyway.
You don't notice notes much in such music, and the overall sweep of the music
seems to be what counts. On that level, it works, although my reaction to this
music is highly ambiguous. It's fascinating, but in a different world from most
music. However, in more normal situations I would think of notes in music not
as individually unnoticeable atoms, but as fairly basic components, individually
perceptible, and each of which must be right. Therefore I think Dennis's
request that his notes be honoured is entirely reasonable, if they are
physically playable as written, and not obviously misjudged.)
>One difference between today and previous centuries is that the old
>guys weren't composing for publication, for glory, or for
>"self-expression." They were composing for next week's concert, for
>the week after's church service, for the Duke's garden party, or for
>themselves and their own students. And yes, they were ALWAYS writing
>for singers and players whom they already knew well and trusted implicitly.
>...
>When you write for publication, you lose the right
>to pick and choose your performers, and you face the reality of
>having your music played by fallible human beings whom you do NOT
>know and trust implicitly.
But mightn't they at least be competent, if not familiar to the composer?
Surely most performers would not even attempt to publicly perform or record a
piece if they didn't have a reasonable command of the music, and perhaps the
general style it is in. I don't see how this affects the issue under
discussion - that is, the role of notation and how precise it should be, and how
far it is reasonable for composers to require performers to follow it.
I actually see writing for a particular performer and making use of special
abilities they have which are not general as a potential limitation. You may,
for personal reasons, want to write a piece for some performer, and feel it to
be an honour. But consider this: if it is extremely customized to their
abilities and talents, it may be not so easily performable, or not so effective
in performance, when performed by many other performers. The person for whom it
was written is going to retire one day, even die - or they may, after several
performances, move on to other things and leave the piece behind. To tie a
piece too closely to a particular performer's abilities may be to limit its
independent career in a longer-term sense.
I'm not suggesting this shouldn't be done, because there are no doubt
benefits in the form of a dedicated proponent of the piece (for a time, at
least), effective and idiomatic performances, and the like. I'm just making the
point that all the points are not necessarily in favour of writing for a
particular performer - there are negatives, too, and plusses in favour of NOT so
closely linking a piece to one performer. John seemed to be speaking of writing
for particular performers as unconditionally better than not doing so.
Regards,
Michael Edwards.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
