Klarinet Archive - Posting 000529.txt from 2001/05

From: Bilwright@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: Re: [kl] Bloody and other words.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:27:04 -0400

<><> Tony Wakefield wrote:
Sorry this [anecdote] is not clarinet

....but it *does* illustrate a dilemma of classical music, Tony.

Until now, I didn't understand the expression's derivation. Now
that I do --- even if the derivation given here is urban myth --- you
will never hear it from my lips or keyboard again.
But doesn't the same question arise in music? The original
performance standards are forgotten (or impossible to create on modern
instruments) and yet musicians continue to play the music because it
sounds good -- even though not played according to the composer's intent
--- just as the expression that we've been discussing serves a purpose
even though the speaker may be unaware of how it came to be.
I had a similar experience a couple of years ago when my daughter
came home with a word that I couldn't stomach because I knew its
derivation. Yet no other adult in my family (including three married
daughters) had any inkling. Even my wife asked me, "What's your
problem? 'xxxx' means stupid, what's wrong with that?"
Was my youngest daughter cursing, given that four other married
adults were unaware of the original intent?

How do you apply this to historical accuracy when playing music?
What do 'wrong' and 'right' mean when the maestro knows the true
history, but everyone else likes the sound of what they are hearing?
When does the maestro's power to insist on accuracy and composer's
intent become wrong?

Cheers,
Bill

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