Klarinet Archive - Posting 000056.txt from 1999/03

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: [kl] Some remarks on composer Mark Gustavson's interesting comments
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 02:42:00 -0500

Mark Gustavson suggests that "it is a crime to add to someone
else's creation and ignorance is not an excuse." He insists on
solid documentation and the word of mouth from an "expert" (his
quotation marks, not mine) meaning, I think,that anyone who might
suggest that they have some modest competence in this thorny and
very difficult arena, is not going to be accepted by Mark. He
gives me the impression that he would view such opinions as
fundamentally worthless. His right.

I can't be critical of Mark. He is stating what he believes as a
20th century composer who was probably very heavily influenced into
the position he takes by his teachers who were from an earlier
generation, a generation that voiced this view as if it were
Sinitic; i.e., it was so true and so obvious to them that it assumed
the form of a statement that did not require proof, only assertion.

"When I write music, I don't expect anyone to make any
alterations to it."

And he, as a contemporary person, has every right to this
expectation. It won't happen, of course, but he thinks it will.
What stands in between him and his expectation is music notation.
It is sufficiently imperfect that anything he writes, no matter how
precise he describes his wishes, is subject to interpretation by
the performer. And so alterations to his wishes begin with the
first note played by the first performer.

But I think Mark would not disagree that this kind of deviation
from his expectations is a natural consequence of performing. That
is not what he is talking about. He is speaking about changing
notes and, in his view that goes too far.

But Mark speaks with almost no understanding of what the
expectations were of an 18th century composer whose music would be
performed by 18th century players, and both of them made
assumptions about the music of that epoch that Mark would not
tolerate if it were applied to his music. But the fact is that
each age has a set of performance standards that apply to the music
of that age, and I think it is very parochial of Mark to presume
that the set of standards he applies to his music must, of
necessity, apply to all eras of music.

The music of the 18th century was built under the assumption that
the performer would make changes of the very type that Mark finds
anathematic were they to be applied to his music.

Take the case of the prosadic appogiatura. When a vocal phrase
ended in two identical tonic notes, each of which required a
syllable, it was absolutely assumed by the composer that the
performer would ignore the written pitch of the first note and sing
it a tone higher. And it was absolutely assumed by the performer
that he or she was expected to do this. To not do it would produce
what was called "a blunt ending," a grave error in style.

Mark, you want proof? Examine books on 18th century singing and
find one that references the subject of prosadic appogiature.
Paradoxically, you will find little mention of the subject,
amazingly, but those that do state that the matter was so common,
so ubiquitous, so well known, so very essential to the singing
philosophy, that it was not even necessary to describe it.

You really must also read Mozart's letters to his sister.
She would write to him about a passage in a piano work and ask "if
there wasn't something unfinished about it" and he
would write back saying how right she was and that he would write
something out for her to give her ideas. And the next thing one
sees is a written out improvisation to provide ideas for the
performer. Mozart didn't need them. He did it naturally. It was
part and parcel of the 18th century performance practices, and it
is very unreasonable of you to suggest that the things that were
done to music of that period were "crimes" simply because you don't
tolerate those things to your own music.

The practice of soloist alteration of melodic lines began to change
in Beethoven's day, but it did not go completely out of fashion
until after Schubert. Sorry but these are facts and you need to
study the subject a great deal more than I believe you have done,
before you are at a point where you can make viable statements
about how THOSE practices differed in major ways from YOUR
practices.

One final point. You ask a question about what the "true intent
behind desiring authenticity of a reality one has no experience
of." Even the way you asked the question shows your state of
mind about and your antagonism to this issue. You don't ask for
the "intent behind ..." but for the "true intent behind..." as if
those who do this thing are being deliberately deceitful. They say
to you "we do this for the beauty of the music" but what they
really mean is "we do this for our own aggrandizement." How is it
possible to discuss this with you on a rational basis when you come
to the problem with such a distorted perspective of both the
honesty and the musical integrity of those who do the things that
you don't think are right. Is it possible, just possible, that we
who march to a different drummer might have a different insight?
Not better, just different.

Music is a very passionate experience. It is hard to keeps one's
objectivity when performing it. But we wouldn't play it if it were
not so emotional. That does not mean, however, that there is only
one way to do it. Each musical era has its own set of performance
practices and I earnestly hope that you will look at what these
practices were for music of the 18th century and not be so
insistent that what you cannot see is, therefore, not useful.

It demonstrates an intolerance towards another point of view that,
in my opinion at least, is not desirable for a composer. A creator
should have a more broad acceptance of views that differ from
his/hers.

>From a practical point of view, I think you should get the
recording of Robert Levin playing K. 488 with Christopher Hogwood,
and then sit down with a good score of the work and examine what he
has done. I don't insist that you like what you hear. It may
infuriate you. But you really must know a great deal more about
it, and this suggestion will allow you to move in that direction.
Then, when you have done that, take someone else's recording of the
same work and study that. See how you come out of the rabbit hole.

=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org