This debate over musicality fascinates me. It begs me to ask the question, "Why do we perform music and why do we strive to perform well?" Do I play simply to gratify myself and prove to myself how good I am? If this were the case, I would love to believe that I have an innate ability in me that makes me a "true" musician and separates me from the chaff. However, I play for the edification of others, for the entertainment of audiences, and for the stimulation of the learned, through the communication of musical ideas. For this to be effective, I believe that some type of connection within the ensemble and between the ensemble and the audience is necessary. This connection edifies both the players and the listeners. However, if you have a tyrant for a conductor who alienates the players, this breaks that connection. Even if it is for the sake of a musically perfect performance, if that connection is broken, then the audience is no better off than if they had stayed at home and listened to a perfectly executed recording. The conductors described by Prof. Pizka seem to defeat this purpose of making music. Music is one of the most powerful forces among people because it can evoke strong emotions. And emotions are best dealt with when shared among people through personal connection. So is the price of severed connections worth paying? It does not seem to me that a stuffy and distant performance gratifies anyone.
Speaking of tyrannous conductors, a conductor who chooses whom he will associate with based on a person's musical ability seems to me to be very shallow, missing out on the better things of life. Someone who makes musical perfection the purpose of his life is wasting his life indeed. People and relationships are more important than music, and sacrificing relationships for the sake of musical excellence seems ridiculous to me. Music, as I understand it, should create connections, not sever them. Also, I doubt if there is such a thing as musical perfection. Tastes and interpretations of music change from person to person and culture to culture. Music a thousand years ago is different than music today, and music a thousand years from now will be different than our music today. As the flame of civilization is passed to different cultures, music, and the notions of what is good music and bad music, will change with it. Even "Mozartian" technique will be lost to history someday and be replaced with techniques deemed better by another culture. It is for this reason that the notion of musicality being some innate ability that you are either born with or born without does not seem rational to me. People are products of their biology (DNA) and their environment (culture). The fact that musical tastes change from generation to generation and from culture to culture, demonstrates that there is no "musicality gene" that determines whether or not a person can "feel" music. Our sense and understanding of music, like our understanding of words, and symbols, and language, is determined by culture and how we are raised. That some people are grammatically impaired does not mean that they lack the ability to use words, or understand words, or formulate ideas. Even people who grow up with one language can learn and understand a different language if saturated in that culture long enough. Likewise, that some have a better understanding of music than others does not mean that it is impossible for the latter to learn it or appreciate it as fully as the former. And even if musicality was an innate ability possessed by some and not others, that ability to "feel" the music internally exists independent of one's ability to perform music externally. Therefore, how can anyone claim that anyone else lacks the ability? If the feeling is inside a person, what criteria could be used to test someone for the ability? If, through a person's performance, they seem to lack the musical ability, perhaps it has simply not been developed enough to become manifest. Musical growth is a life-long process, after all. Regarding conductors who never acknowledge exceptional soloists, or thank good performers, I ask, "What is the point?" Why not encourage someone, why not be kind, why not give praise where it is due? There is far too little encouragement in the world. What is wrong with being polite, what is wrong with being gratified? Is not gratification the reason we make music, whether it be for ourselves or for others? Regarding truth, I would like to re-emphasize Steve's point, "Honesty and kindness aren't mutually exclusive character traits." You can speak the truth tactfully, without being harsh, and without sacrificing any part of that truth. If you always speak harshly, people will stop listening to you. And if no one listens, then what is the point in speaking? I personally hate the confines of political correctness, but that does not mean nothing should be spoken with tact. I would much prefer to speak tactfully and be heard, than to speak harshly and be ignored. I would much prefer to speak tactfully and have someone hear me out, than to speak harshly and have someone cut me off. I don't see anything wrong with being sensitive to others so long as truth is not sacrificed. As a disclaimer, and for my protection, I believe that this horn list should be an open forum where ideas about music and making music, especially as relates to the horn, can be discussed freely, among teachers, students, and peers, in a "safe" environment. Also, this response is not meant to be a sermon; I'm just throwing out my ideas on topics that have come up in this debate because I would like to know what others think of them. I do not mean for any of my comments here to offend anyone, or degrade anyone, and I would appreciate it if others would refrain from assaulting my personal character and integrity because their views may differ from mine. Respectfully submitted, Marty Redmond, WA _______________________________________________ post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe or set options at http://music.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
