Klarinet Archive - Posting 000090.txt from 1999/03

From: Mark Gustavson <mgustav@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Some remarks on composer Mark Gustavson's interesting comments
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:57:12 -0500

Doing historical research and using that knowledge to update scores of their
inaccuracies is one thing. But to think that one can perform an authentic
performance or to do as they would have--even though you are totally out of
the flow of the performance practice of late 18th c. Vienna--a performance
practice which never ended or died it evolved organically and mutated into
another performance practice and into yet another performance practice etc.
to where we are now. Our current practice includes that practice as part of
its history. But there are no direct common bonds between now and then only
a continuous flow of change. Yet for some reason there are those who want
to go against nature and find the authentic way as if the old way is
better. Just as I am sometimes unhappy about some aspects of the current
performance practice of my music I am sure Mozart wasn't always crazy about
the performance practice of his time.

Mr. Leeson if you want to inquire about my musical education, teachers and
my approach to composing, just ask , DON'T GUESS which you seem to want to
do in performance. My attack on this thread is based on the impossibility
and absurdity of wanting authenticism and an attack on those who believe it
should change the current practice. As far as my homework assignment, I have
done some reading on this subject and I lived in Amsterdam for a year on a
Fulbright where plenty more of this goes on than here and I went to Columbia
University and knew scholars who did research in this area. But it is all
historical and one cannot simply think we are doing music wrong because one
discovers how it was done then or buy an old clarinet and perform on it and
even think for a moment that this is more correct.
I agree with you that there are different ways of performing a piece or
period but I think your attitude suggests that your way should change what
is happen now when in fact it had its time.

Mark Gustavson

"Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu" wrote:

> 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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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