Klarinet Archive - Posting 000333.txt from 2005/02

From: ormo2ndtoby@-----.net (Ormondtoby Montoya)
Subj: RE: [kl] composer's intentions
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:49:55 -0500

Dan, I want to explain, and then defend, a thought process that is
different from the discussion into which we normally fall.

My thesis is simply that you are trying to encompass too much territory
with a single rule of behavior.

First, to eliminate confusion about what I meant, you wrote:

> I'm not sure that the issue is how well or how
> badly the artist did it, though I think you
> meant "the creator."

No, I specifically meant "artist" in the sense of anyone who performs or
otherwise delivers to the public a piece of art --- music, sculpture,
painting, literature, drama, photograph, film or whatever. I was *not*
referring to the intent or opinion of a work's original creator.

> I see it as a question of intellectual property
> rights. The text of a Shakespearean play is
> not casually alterable.

It's easy to fall into apples-vs-oranges confusion. All of them cannot
be covered with a single rule of behavior.

One level of "intellectual property" is copyright law. Some works of
art are protected by copyright, others aren't. Thus I would not be
liable for damages for performing or publishing a Bach sonata unless it
can be shown that I have copied something from a specific copyrighted
edition of the sonata.

Another level of "intellectual property" is a matters of ethics, in the
sense of damaging other people's intellectual rights in some way that is
not punishable by codified law. An example would be to purposefully
misbehave during a performance --- perhaps because you're angry that you
didn't get first chair, or perhaps because you feel that a passage which
is marked 'ppp' sounds better when the clarinet plays 'fff', and thereby
you damage everyone else's concept of a good performance. There are
penalties for such behavior, of course. Probably you don't get invited
to play with the orchestra again. Perhaps the audience boo's or walks
out. But you don't get prosecuted in a court of law.

A third level of "intellectual property" relates to "respect". Eddie
Daniels and Five Seasons is a good example. Five Seasons has not
violated a copyright. Eddie's recording has not damaged people who
want to present Four Seasons in another way. However you may argue
that Vivaldi deserves more respect than this and that you have violated
his 'due' as a great composer. You have insulted him.

A fourth variation of "intellectual rights" is truth in advertising.
If you advertise that you're going to perform or publish Mozart's K.622,
then you should actually do so. There are plenty of gray issues here,
such as modern instruments vs. period instruments, lost autographs, and
so forth. Rhapsody in F is another example of a gray area. The
public has come to expect a certain tempo, even though Gershwin
conducted it himself at some other tempo. So if you feel that you know
what the public expects, is it "honest" to present it some other way
without warning them?

Again, you cannot cover all of these variations of "intellectual
property" with a single rule of behavior such as "Always obey the
original composer's intent to the best of your ability".

But in my opinion --- which I hope I'm presenting with friendly language
--- there's something more fundamental, more deep than "intellectual
property" where art is concerned. In my opinion, it is insulting for
the creator of a work of art to claim that his way is the *only* way.
If it was, applause would take on a completely different (and
diminished) meaning.

I am not saying that any particular composer had this "My way is the
only way" attitude (although history books tell us that some did). And
with the great composers such as Mozart, it usually turns out that the
composer's way pleases more people than any modification thereof, which
is why we still remember them today. And no matter which variation of
"intellectual property" you are considering at the moment, knowing what
the artwork's creator intended, and what his culture was when he lived,
and so forth, are all necessary. Subterfuge is almost always 'wrong'
in one sense of the word or another.

But you also wrote:

> It is, in effect, a presumption that we know
> more about how to present a creator's
> conception that the creator did. That may be
> true but we have no way to conclude on it.

No, in many situations, this is ***not*** the presumption !!

Why not? Because --- similar to when we discuss which ligature or reed
or brand of clarinet is "best" --- we are dealing with differences
between individuals and situations and goals. No single rule covers
them all.

This --- again, I hope I am presenting my opinion in a friendly manner
--- is exactly where some of your statements attempt to cover too much
territory with a single rule of behavior.

It is unquestionably necessary and valuable to research what was
written, how the composer lived, the customs of his day, and so forth.
But it is not evil to go beyond what he did and to do something of your
own (unless you are employing some sort of subterfuge or stealing a
copyright).

Respectfully but firmly, and thank you for reading this,

Ormond

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Mon Feb 21 - still 63 donations short of the goal. Nothing |
| in life is free - including 5 servers and bandwidth. A reed |
| costs a couple of bucks - what is the list worth? |
| https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org