Klarinet Archive - Posting 000262.txt from 1996/04

From: "Scott D. Morrow" <SDM@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: Dan and Michelangelo-WARNING:DIATRIBE!
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:28:38 -0400

>Dan made an interesting comparison of representing music authentically to
>representing artwork authentically:
>
>>But when you get it, it is just not right. For one thing, it is
>>nude and you don't want to offend anyone. So you have a pair of
>>shorts made from denim and, with a lot of work, get them sewn
>>right on David. A scotch plaid tie is added next because it is
>>very saucy. And stuck in David's hand (the one holding the sling)
>>is an umbrella in your favorite color: puce.
>

Dan's little analogy comparing interpreting a composer's wishes to
altering Michelangelo's David was very interesting, but I feel it is
flawed: a statue or painting or book or movie is a fixed, complete medium;
it is, in itself, a finished product. I would have to agree more with Nate
on his treating a musical composition (which only exists fully in its
EXECUTION) the same as one would treat a play (which, also, only exists
when realized by a group effort.). A musical composition or a script are
blueprints for creating a sculpture out of many small parts to create
something that is temporal. In fact, I think that is what makes this form
of art so fascinating: unlike a painting, MUSICAL AND THEATRICAL
PERFORMANCES CAN CHANGE! If the purpose of a musical composition was to
fix it into a permanent product, then the advent of recordings should have
put an end to performers playing the same pieces over and over: I mean,
once the piece is recorded, WE'VE GOT IT! Do artists keep painting Van
Gogh's "The Starry Night" (except for advertising purposes!)?
Possible naivete here, but here goes: I think it is a plus for a
performer to have some knowledge of a piece and its period, etc., but ISN'T
THAT REALLY THE CONDUCTOR'S JOB? I have long been under the impression
that the interpretation of an orchestral piece was up to the conductor,
just as the interpretation of a theatrical piece was up to the director!
Yes, the performers may bring their own experiences and interpretations to
a project, but it is the director's show!
As far as interpretation and latitude is concerned, I will go
further out on the "what the composer would've liked" limb: given that
composition/theatre is inherently a temporal medium, wouldn't a composer's
wish be that the piece is kept alive? No, I'm not talking about excessive
alterations (Rap Amadeus!), but reasonable latitude (changes in
articulation, instrumentation, yes, even tempi!), can actually breathe life
into a composition and ensure it's survival (I know: I'm mixing enough
metaphors, so I won't go into Darwinism!). Back to theatre, there have
been productions of Shakespeare and Sophocles that have been "modernized"
("Antigone" was reset in London in the 1950's, I think). Would Sophocles
have been appalled? The play was kept alive for another whole generation
that might not, frankly, have been interested in watching a play about
ancient Greeks! But, as with a musical composition, the interpretation
does not change the message!
We ARE interpreters. But we are interpreters of ideas, not absolutes!

-Scott

Scott D. Morrow
Department of Biochemistry
School of Hygiene and Public Health
Johns Hopkins University
(410)-955-3631

SDM@-----.edu

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org