Klarinet Archive - Posting 000159.txt from 1994/01

From: Jay Heiser <jayh@-----.COM>
Subj: Re: Performance practice (help me out, I'm skeptical)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 12:25:41 -0500

-->
-->That's not surprising. Last night I played a Sousa concert and
-->half of the difficulty in the performance was a lack of understanding
-->about how his marches were played. And Sousa is a contemporary
Did you feel that the music was inappropriately played, or that it
was difficult to create ensemble because the players differed on
interpretation/understanding?

-->But to say we don't know what they did in 1760 - 1800 simply
-->bespeaks a lack of knowledge of the thousands of articles,
..............
-->during the era of their composition?". We don't "know" but
-->we have a damn good idea for maybe 70% of it, and less than
-->damn good ideas for the remaining 30%.
-->
This is one of the things I was looking for -- an estimate of
how much we think we know. I would expect it to be very difficult
to truly understand the tonal qualities of unrecorded music. Linguists
also attempt to understand historic pronunciation, but they can
never be sure if they've succeeded.

-->Clarinet players may not spend much time reading this stuff
-->or studying it or even knowing that it exists, but that is not
-->because it is not there. And since I too am a clarinet
-->player, it should not be taken as an insult to the community
-->for me to suggest that we are ignorant about most issues of
-->performance because we don't think it is very important. Instead
-->we focus on beauty of playing, skill of execution, etc. These
-->things are considered more useful than historically consistent
-->interpretations of music. To which I have to respond that that is
-->the fastest road to hell. And our technically accurate but
What's the goal here? What is the purpose of a musical
performance? What is art? At first glance, perhaps a silly
question, but an effective answer is actually quite useful.

I don't want to get lost in this whole structuralist argument,
but still, isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?

Its important to study Latin, and it provides a great deal of
meaning & understanding, but don't most people read Cicero in
their native tongue? For art to invoke a reaction, it takes
advantage of conventions. If scholars cannot agree on what the
conventions are, how many laypeople can appreciate the artwork?

-->historically absurd performances of Mozart's music confirms that.
-->I recognize that many will not agree that our performance of
-->Mozart's music is inadequate, but that is exactly what this topic
-->is attempting to address. Getting to that point will be half the fun!

-->I'm all for being true to one's own feelings. But when those
-->feeling suggest putting a hoopskirt on the Venus di Milo because
-->"that's the way I feel, and historical anacronisms be damned"
-->I get concerned that ignorance and arrogance are getting in the
-->way of our playing intelligently.
Anachronism is relative. 1000 years from now, a hoop skirt might
look pretty good on Venus.

-->
-->One final point: Charles, in his note, made a particularly
-->interesting comment. He said "part of our art and the
-->refinement thereof is trying to get closer to the spirit of
-->what the composer wrote [more than] trying to abide by the
-->letter of the law." I'm for that 100% Charles. What did I
-->say that made you think I thought otherwise?

The intentions of the composer are just one of an infinite
number of interpretations. Perhaps the most significant in
that it would theoretically be the one that most people could
agree upon, but not the only one nor the one evoking the most
artistic response.

I believe that everyone deserves the opportunity to hear the
original (as closely reproduced as possible), but I'm not
convinced that it is the most appropriate goal for every
performance. What am I missing here?

======================================
I knew it would thaw