 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-02-27 21:29
Over the past few months, on her suggestion, I've been talking to an Oxford postgraduate student about the relationship between composer, text and performer, with particular relevance to solo clarinet pieces. (The subject will probably form part of her thesis.)
Naturally, the recent exchange of posts with Eric Seddon and others here about Kell's attitude to the Stravinsky pieces came up. But the conversation has also been concerned with another solo clarinet piece: namely the Goehr Paraphrase on Monteverdi's 'Il Combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda'.
I heard the first performance of this piece in Edinburgh in 1969. It was given by Alan Hacker, the performer for whom Sandy wrote it. I was totally entranced with the experience, and with his playing, and quite quickly wanted to play it myself. But it's a tricky number, and I had to work quite hard at it. Still, since my first outing, I've played it quite a lot.
I was asked to give a class on it at the Royal Academy of Music a few years ago, because it was a set piece for some exam or competition, and during the discussion it appeared that everyone wanted to hear A RECORDING.
Well, I investigated. I found that Alan had recorded it as a part of his disc, 'Hymn to the Sun'; but when I listened, it seemed that he had been so free with the text that it really wasn't much use to a student looking to begin afresh for themselves, starting with what was written.
And unfortunately, none of the subsequent recordings has been that much better either, in that regard. The best I've heard is Roger Heaton's effort on his disc 'Hymnos' -- but I would say that even that recording ignores several significant aspects of the music as written.
In addition, there's what I regard as a disgraceful version on Eddie Brunner's disc 'Music for Solo Clarinet' for Naxos. Mark you, in his defence, anyone working for Naxos labours under a great disadvantage. If you have a performance-perfect version of something that you can produce immediately in the studio, then you can get away with it. Otherwise, they're just interested in their marketing, and making the maximum amount of money for the minimum outlay. I can imagine that Eddie had to record an immense amount of difficult music, for a paltry fee, in an incredibly short time.
Anyhow, the long and the short of it is that my Oxford student and I decided to make a private recording that did justice (according to me) to what I think of as a great piece. We used a hall associated with an Oxford college, and took a couple of hours or so to cover the work. The edited version (probably a bit compromised in sound quality by the transition to the Soundcloud format) is here:
http://snd.sc/XuTSPE
Now, I should say that I'm not putting this recording up for evaluation by members of the BBoard. (I can make my own judgements, thank you very much.)
Nor am I intending to promote my career.
Rather, I'm putting it up as a statement of my own position with regard to performance. If you're interested, I invite you to look at the score, and compare what I did with what others have done.
Or, you could just enjoy the piece.
I say that, if there's an 'Aural Poetic' associated with it -- actually, I think there is -- then well and good; but if there is, it starts from what Sandy wrote, rather than from ME.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-02-27 23:25
Tony,
With all respect, where can one find a "score" for the composition?
It is a bit difficult to assess an apt "Aural Poetic" without a source code, much as one could find it confusing to dissect Eric Seddon's thoughts without Stravinsky's music and explicit instructions at hand...
But giving C.P.R. to Eric's thoughts are not my battle.... I'll not attempt to dissect Eric's thoughts on the "Aural Poetic" regarding Stravinsky as he is more than capable; as much as I disagree.
And I cannot offer my own valid interpretation of an "Aural Poetic" that encompasses Goehr/Monteverdi without 'some' printed music.
Perhaps my ears are deficient; that is my own row to hoe... I do propose starting from the score, both as a classical and jazz musician, though I am likely a minority on that front.
Yet, without a score, it is difficult to approach music with a truly analytical eye beyond a generic harmonic analysis... at least for me.
-Jason
Post Edited (2013-02-27 23:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2013-02-28 02:10
You can borrow it from the International Clarinet Society Research Library.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2013-02-28 07:53
Jason, I have the dots and can email them to you should you wish. Thanks Tony, I look forward to listening with the score.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-02-28 15:48
>> Jason, I have the dots and can email them to you should you wish.>>
No, the piece is copyright. It's published by Schott, is easily available and is not expensive:
http://www.schott-music.com/shop/show,40998.html
Probably Gary van Cott would carry it if asked. I wasn't intending by my post to promote the piece; but if it's not known -- say, in the US -- I don't mind it seeming that I AM promoting it. I think it's a valuable contribution to the repertoire for solo clarinet.
Tony
Post Edited (2013-02-28 22:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-01 01:00
Since I've been referenced regarding my observations regarding Reginald Kell's interpretation of the Stravinsky Pieces, a few words:
My article wasn't written with academic or BBoard controversy in mind, and therefore doesn't delve deeply into what is central to my experience of Kell (and nearly all music, for that matter): a mode of experiencing, interpreting, and analyzing music which I refer to as "Aural Poetics."
Because my blog is dedicated to Jazz Clarinet specifically, I won't be contributing an in-depth discussion of the overarching concerns necessary to explain my concept of Aural Poetics any time soon. But in lieu of that, and for clarity's sake at least, I would hasten to add that Aural Poetics is a much farther reaching concept than the relationship between composer, text, and performer (and it does not necessarily "start" with either the composer or the performer). This much, perhaps, might help any interested parties avoid unnecessary controversy.
Eric
[edited 3/13/13--my blog is still getting a lot of traffic for the Kell post, but I'm no longer interested in the discussion, or the problems some folks have with other folks' interpretations of performances of classical music]
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-03-13 13:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-02 06:12
>> ...I might not be able to contribute an in-depth discussion of the overarching concerns necessary to explain my concept of Aural Poetics any time soon. But in lieu of that, and for clarity's sake at least, I would hasten to add that Aural Poetics is a much farther reaching concept than the relationship between composer, text, and performer (and it does not necessarily "start" with either the composer or the performer).>>
In my view it's important to see that any plausible way of looking at what performers at their best do must be rather mysterious. I certainly would not want to reduce a player's role to that of 'reproducing the text'.
I have outlined in the past how I think performers may hold themselves to some degree of 'responsible behaviour towards texts' without throwing away their essential freedom; I'll try a bit later to have another shot at that -- when I've finished listening to the participants in a Chamber Music Competition doing their best to succeed in this balancing act themselves:-)
It's surely an important issue. I perhaps hijacked Eric's term 'Aural Poetic' for my own purposes -- we need SOME place to lodge the mystery, after all -- but I hope he finds the time to explain his own use of the term.
By the way, the file on SoundCloud was originally one that had a small amount of audio processing to change its dynamic level. I decided that that made it sound unnatural, so I've replaced it with the original unprocessed version.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-02 13:43
"I perhaps hijacked Eric's term 'Aural Poetic' for my own purposes -- we need SOME place to lodge the mystery, after all -- but I hope he finds the time to explain his own use of the term."
I know a Tar Baby when I see one, Tony.
You'll have to find someone else for that.
I've been developing my understanding of Aural Poetics for over two decades now, and when I've published on anything related to the subject, it's usually been in journals having to do with music history. If I write more on the subject, my opinions would likely be presented in similar places. However fun or useful internet forums like this might be in many other ways, I haven't found them a particularly good place to present serious original research.
Anyhow, Aural Poetics is a rather huge topic, and not one I'm likely to tackle at this point without serious commitment to time and publication. For me there are many other concerns right now, not least of which is dedication to jazz. Wynton Marsalis has repeatedly said that classical and jazz trumpet are too difficult for him to do both. He's not being modest: it really is true. And if that's too tough for the likes of him, I feel there's no shame in pointing out it's too difficult for the likes of me.
Good luck in your endeavors, sir. For what it's worth, I thought your playing on the Goehr was truly fantastic in many ways (and as I have neither professional need nor personal desire to flatter you, you may take this as an honest compliment).
All the best,
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-05 21:42
Eric Seddon wrote:
>> ...when I've published on anything related to the subject, it's usually been in journals having to do with music history.>>
Can you give references?
>> I know a Tar Baby when I see one, Tony. You'll have to find someone else for that. >>
I don't know why you say that my post was a 'Tar Baby'. If you use a term that you think justifies your stance only when explained, surely it's not unreasonable to ask that you explain it?
And, I resent that you think someone else would do. I'm committed to the truth of the issue, not to attacking some someone just for the sake of attacking them.
Still, thank you for recognising that I can play a piece of music.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-06 20:50
>> Sure looks like a Tar Baby to me. I'll trust my own judgement on that one. Take care, Tony.>>
See, I don't like this. You seem to me to be making me out to be a nasty person. You once said that I was 'unreasonably' dismissive of someone, and I read this as a continuation of that evaluation.
In my performing world, and in my teaching world, I find that players and students don't understand the value of constraint, and the freedom that constraint gives you. Much of my work, as I see it, consists in having others see both that value and that freedom.
So, when you come out as a CELEBRANT of freedom FROM constraint, I have to find out what exactly are the positive aspects you're promoting.
I don't THINK your position is tenable...but, what do I know, until you tell me what it is?
Anyhow, I think you should 'take care', too.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-06 21:40
>>I call 'em as I see 'em.>>
Yes, you do.
>> You won't be getting any further sport from me, Tony.>>
Good.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-03-07 20:05
On a purely pragmatic note:
If anyone in the States is interested in obtaining the score, Schott Music is the only source; just follow the link Tony posted above.
The cost, including shipping, is quite reasonable: $26 with a 15-30 day est. wait, or $33 with a 5-15 day delay.
I don't know if the composition is known in some circles over here, but I never ran across it. I'd say it is worth the investigation, even if one doesn't "like", or understand, the notes on first listening.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2013-03-07 20:26
Sorry guys, I have major respect for both of you as players......... but referring back to the original post, which composer do you mean? Monteverdi or Goehr?
Call me a boring old git but I prefer Monteverdi, who probably would have rolled over in his grave at the thought of a clarinet playing this. There is no denying the skill required to play the Goehr, but the pure simplicity of the Monteverdi is just as demanding in its own way.
In response to the comments re the Stravinksy Three Pieces, for years I have adored playing them but not necessarily adored listening to others playing them. There is a real drive and momentum for the player but I am not sure this translates fully to the listener? My thoughts could equally be applied to some of the jazz repertoire........ the joy of playing may not always be equalled by listening unless you are a player?
Even then you might still prefer to play them?
Tony is this what you allude to in your quest for the relationship between the composer, text and performer?
Post Edited (2013-03-08 04:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2013-03-07 20:55
Quote:
I don't know if the composition is known in some circles over here, but I never ran across it. I'd say it is worth the investigation, even if one doesn't "like", or understand, the notes on first listening.
I think that Goehr is not well known here in the US. Perhaps his father- the distinguished conductor, Walter Goehr- is known through various recordings, but I have not heard Alexander Goehr programmed much.
I think the only piece I have heard in concert is the ...a musical offering (JSB, 1985) at a new music festival devoted to British music. Maybe he is played more often in Europe?
At any rate, thanks Tony for bringing this composition to our attention!
Post Edited (2013-03-07 21:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2013-03-07 21:05
Quote:
Call me a boring old git but I prefer Monteverdi, who probably would have rolled over in his grave at the thought of a clarinet playing this. If of course he could have been alive when it was invented....... which obviously he wasn't, the recitatives would have been interesting in terms of articulation and I can readily see the clarinet giving voice to the aria parts. There is no denying the skill required to play the Goehr, but the pure simplicity of the Monteverdi is just as demanding in its own way.
Not sure if I should respond to this, but what the heck...
What exactly in Monteverdi's Il Combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda, or in the 8th book of madrigals in general, would lead you to characterize the music as "pure simplicity?"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2013-03-07 21:48
In that the glorious result defies the labour and complexity of the construction. It feels natural and unpretentious. ;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-03-07 22:08
Paula S wrote:
> In that the glorious result defies the labour and complexity of
> the construction.
Curiously enough, I find that to be present in Goehr's composition (as well as Monteverdi), though to be fully honest I do not have Goehr's notes in front of me; still awaiting the score.
> It feels natural and unpretentious. ;-)
I'm not quite sure how to interpret that. "Modern" clarinet compositions may initially have some pretense about them, but viable examples lose that off-putting quality (that some may experience) when fully digested.
I guess, equally, other concurrent works may not be acceptable when dissected.... the "Ivory Tower" syndrome may foster delusions of ability in some composers. I am of no stature to say when it occurs.
At any rate, and this has little to do with Tony's recording as I see his primary motivation at the moment --Goehr's text as realized by him-- if we want to find connections between Goehr and Monteverdi, the Madrigal itself is easily found.
http://imslp.org/wiki/Madrigals,_Book_8,_SV_146%E2%80%93167_%28Monteverdi,_Claudio%29
And perhaps the source text of Monteverdi may have some influence on what a performer may do with Goehr's work; but I have no ability to give any thoughts on that.
Perhaps Tony may...
-Jason
Post Edited (2013-03-07 22:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2013-03-08 02:22
Quote:
And perhaps the source text of Monteverdi may have some influence on what a performer may do with Goehr's work; but I have no ability to give any thoughts on that.
I assume that the Monteverdi does exert some degree of influence upon the performer of the Goehr. If I were performing the Paraphrase, I would certainly start with the Monteverdi- that is why I brought him into the discussion.
"Pure simplicity" is not how I would characterize Monteverdi's music, and I initially read Paula's description as a sort of presentist bias.
As an aside: I wonder how a misunderstanding of Monteverdi would manifest itself in a performance of the Goehr (if at all)?
Anyways, that's why I asked for clarification- and I agree with Paula that the expression and sense of affect in the Monteverdi does transcend the compositional technique.
Post Edited (2013-03-08 02:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2013-03-08 07:26
The aural poetic is a slippery fish, but certainly the concept of poetry being more than visual or written words is familar. It may be 'better' listened to than read. Of course it is far more complex in that reading and listening may occur simulatanously and other sensations and processes impact on how we experience or interpret it. Also the inclusion of devices to illicit this effect may be consciously incorporated by the poet or may be integral to the general approach. As listeners are we approaching this in reverse by hearing first and possibly then referring back to the text? Does this exclude non-musicians or those who do not read music from the full experience of the piece? Even if we can read the score should we need to do this in order to appreciate the piece? For performers they would need to refer to the score, except in the rare case of someone talented enough to play this by ear? If someone could play this by ear then they would have to listen first to someone elses interpretation.
How closely the performer conforms to the composers original concept then could impact on the listener/performer. Also does Goehr's interpretation of Monteverdi attempt to recreate the original spirit or be radically different?
The recitative like attacks certainly appear to relate but again does one need to know this in order to fully appreciate the piece or does it stand up alone? Obviously time and progress march on and things change and evolve but I ask myself do I like this piece? I was not initially drawn to it for its acoustic interest but am actually more drawn to it now as it raises many questions in my mind. Perhaps someone can help me towards finding some answers?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-09 17:07
Just a few thoughts about some of what has been written.
There is obviously a quite general problem about listening to any composed music. That is: you are usually in a much less knowledgeable state about how the music came to exist than the composer, and usually than the performer.
If a work is 'good' -- let's leave that undefined, but it probably has to do with there being many related things going on in it on different levels -- then, repeated listenings will tend to have you appreciate its qualities to a greater extent. You go progressively from hearing 'the noise it makes' to hearing 'what it is', and also how the parts of 'what it is' go together.
Again, if the work is 'good', then performances that reflect the composer's notation will in general tend to progress in this way better than performances that don't. There were REASONS -- perhaps unconscious prompts followed by the composer, including the whole painstakingly acquired apparatus of his compositional style -- why the piece was written in the way it was, and even why it IS what we call 'a piece'.
The other, and overridingly important side of that, though, is that the performer is the necessary medium through which all this happens.
Performance is central to the whole musical endeavour. The history of this sort of music begins with the great player/improvisers like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, who quite often wrote down and polished the best of what they improvised, and thereby enabled other dedicated performers to play it too.
But the performers can do that only if they recreate something like the world behind the composer's text. As I like to put it, the text is something like a MAP of the world behind the composer's text; and like any map, it fails to capture the aliveness that is the most important part of the world. ("The map is not the territory.")
And for the 'alive' performance to be 'something like the world behind the composer's text', it's best for the performer NOT TO CHANGE THE MAP, unless there are very good reasons for doing so.
All this, of course, relies on the notion that the composer is SOME GOOD at what he does. Otherwise we can just play ANYTHING -- and of course, if we are some good at playing, that might turn out to be worthwhile.
My point in all of this, therefore, is that, though Alan Hacker was very good at what he did when he gave the first performance, and then recorded it, he would have been BETTER -- and the performance of Sandy's piece would have been better -- if he had chosen to have MORE OF THE GOEHR in what he did.
With regard to the relationship of the Goehr to the Monteverdi, I think that the audience on the night of the first performance was in the best situation to appreciate it. Both pieces when performed well are 'Communications' -- which for me is a better way of putting it than saying that they constitute 'Aural Poetics' -- and therefore they each presuppose an audience.
In this case the two audiences were one; so that THAT audience brought to Sandy's piece a notion of the story; a notion of the emotional aspects involved; the fact that there are three singers (two protagonists and a narrator); and a couple of bits of musical technique.
AND, they were subject to the shock of seeing the 'Tancredi e Clorinda' poem presented in two radically differing ways.
(But we can prepare ourselves too:-)
By the way, much of all of this is laid out in more detail at:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=337846&t=337777
...if anyone's interested. Especially, follow the link to Bateson's article.
Tony
Post Edited (2013-03-09 18:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-03-09 23:16
Tony,
I read what you are speaking of, or at least in my own intellect presume that I do so.... But is the difference between "Communications" and "Aural Poetics" one of origin, intent, argument or semantics? Or of deep consequence at the end of it all?
-If semantics are the motivating factor, then I have little to say beyond 'I respectfully refuse to define your and Eric's, terminology.'
The origin/intent behind other author's words are best left defined by those authors themselves... I won't adopt hubris and do so or either for yourself, nor Eric. You each have they mental fortitude to do so quite well if desired.
-If a dispute/argument between the validity of "Communications" and "Aural Poetics" is meant be born out, then I don't see that I as my right to undertake. The terminology devised by others loses its meaning and depth when an 'outside' party assumes over-stepping ego and decides to determine what another "means" by their words.
As for an uiltimate/deep consequence at the end of this all, not having studied/ performed Goehr in depth; nor dissected Monteverdi's 'Il Combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda', I cannot see how if can offer thoughts of true worth on that front.
-Jason
Post Edited (2013-03-10 04:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-03-10 05:11
This whole discussion loses me. Way back Tony says " If music has an aural poetic"? Well certainly it does....music is meant to be performed... Is he suggesting that we actually just look at the written page and imagine the potential results(like reading poetry to yourself) or that we do an exhaustive analytical investigation of the compositional techniques and the life of the composer and stop there feeling satisfied with experiencing the music?(not having listened to a performance)
Are we just looking here at where the actual composition exists? on the page or in a performance? This sounds like pretty good stuff for a philosophic discussion but not good stuff for practical application.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-03-10 05:35
In addition Tony has referred to my posts as 'foolish'. In my defence I must say one has to actually experience the aural poetics of my posts to fully appreciate them. Upon request I will telephone any clarinet BB member and recite one of my posts.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-10 14:57
As I pointed out earlier:
"It's important to see that any plausible way of looking at what performers at their best do must be rather mysterious. I certainly would not want to reduce a player's role to that of 'reproducing the text'....I perhaps hijacked Eric's term 'Aural Poetic' for my own purposes -- we need SOME place to lodge the mystery, after all -- but I hope he finds the time to explain his own use of the term."
So, I don't know what Eric means by 'Aural Poetic'. But I imagine it is his counterpart of my own use of the capitalised word, 'Communication', following the work of Gregory Bateson. I used Eric's term to try to draw him out, and get him to see that it was reasonable to complain about what Kell did in the Stravinsky, yet still include appreciation of the mystery of performance.
The point about the word 'communication' is that it does double duty by being a term for a PROCESS involving at least two people, and a term for the something that is transmitted in that process.
Also, when you think about it, the seeming simplicity of the word covers a great complexity. Bateson defined the something that is transmitted in communication as: 'a difference that makes a difference', and that second bit, namely, the words 'that makes a difference', is where the complexity can be seen to lie.
Here's something I once wrote elsewhere about Bateson's ideas:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bateson makes a clear distinction between the world of communication and the world of things. A 'thing' CAN be a communication - but it requires a context. Indeed, in a context, 'nothing' can be a communication. (Bateson's example was the tax return that you DON'T make!) You can see fairly easily that the crucial thing about communication is that it involves the transmission of 'difference'. This difference is the difference between what is transmitted and what might have been transmitted. If only one thing can be transmitted, then communication cannot take place. And a difference is not a 'thing', but an 'idea'. It does not require substance, force or energy. (Think of the non-existent tax-return, which is a communication, in the context of the world of tax law and tax officials.)
On the other hand, you only need two things (which can be 'nothing' and 'something'), and a suitable context at the receiving end, to be able to communicate words, pictures and music. This is the basis of modern telecommunication. It offers what you may well think to be an impoverished model of we normally think of as communication.
But Bateson pointed out two further things about human communication as we normally understand it, and for me, these observations move his analysis into an area appropriate for the generation of some of the 'right questions' for our purposes.
The first observation is that we customarily communicate on several levels at once. For example, our tone of voice and body gestures may send additional messages about what we are saying. Usually this has the effect of clarifying the message, but it MAY negate it. Bateson was the inventor of the term 'double-bind', his name for a characteristic element of family pathology. A double-bind occurs when contradictory messages are sent to the person in the double-bind, together with a dismissal as 'crazy' of any attempt to comment on the contradiction. The situation occurs most commonly between parents and children. It is possible to detect forms of this pathology in which the prohibition on discussion is milder and implicit in many human relationships, and I think it would be a good idea if it were more generally recognised.
When we have a multi-level message that involves a particularly subtle relationship between its component parts, we may well describe the result as ARTISTIC. There is a particularly powerful essay in "Steps" which comes as close as I know to describing the processes involved in the performance of music or dance, without in any way de-mystifying or trivialising the magic spell cast by a masterly performance:
http://tinyurl.com/3xvo8q9
The power of the essay is drawn from Bateson's second observation, which is the central idea I want to throw into relief in this post.
Bateson's second observation is that the path traversed by what he calls "the news of difference" in the world of communication is in general a CLOSED one. For him, our crucial mistake in life is to treat such a path as open, with a beginning and an end, which turns it into something like a manipulation. By speaking of the path as open, we perpetuate a tendency to ask 'wrong' questions, and block the asking of 'right' ones. We mix up the world of communication and the world of things.
What does this mean?
Bateson at one point uses the example of a man cutting down a tree with an axe. He subjects it to analysis 'in the world of communication'. He gives us a view of a simple series of events from an unusual standpoint. This standpoint will prove to be a very suggestive one for more complex events. Bateson says, in part:
"Each stroke of the axe is modified or corrected, according to the shape of the cut face of the tree left by the previous stroke. This self-corrective (i.e. mental) process is brought about by a total system, tree-eyes-brain-muscles-stroke-axe-tree; and it is this total system that has the characteristics of immanent mind.
"More correctly, we should spell the matter out as: (differences in tree)-(differences in retina)-(differences in brain)-(differences in muscles)-(differences in movement of axe)-(differences in tree), etc. What is transmitted around the circuit is transforms of differences. And, as noted above, a difference that makes a difference is an IDEA or unit of information.
"But that is NOT how the average Occidental sees the event-sequence of tree-felling. He says, "*I* cut down the tree" and he even believes there is a delimited agent, the 'self' which performed a delimited 'purposive' action upon a delimited object.
"It is all very well to say that "Billiard ball A hit billiard ball B and sent it into the pocket"; and it would perhaps be all right (if we could do it) to give a complete hard-science account of the events all around the circuit containing the man and the tree. But popular parlance includes 'mind' in its utterance by invoking the personal pronoun, and then achieves a mixture of mentalism and physicalism by restricting mind within the man and reifying the tree. Finally the mind itself becomes reified by the notion that, since the "self" acted upon the axe which acted upon the tree, the "self" must also be a "thing." The parallelism of syntax between "*I* hit the billiard ball" and "The ball hit another ball" is totally misleading.
"If you ask anybody about the localization and boundaries of the self, these confusions are immediately displayed. Or consider a blind man with a stick. Where does the blind man's self begin? At the tip of the stick? At the handle of the stick? Or at some point halfway up the stick? These questions are nonsense, because the stick is a pathway along which differences are transmitted under transformation, so that to draw a delimiting line ACROSS this pathway is to cut off a part of the systemic circuit which determines the blind man's locomotion."
In this example Bateson does not say anything about the part of the circuit within the brain. Elsewhere, though, he points out that it is impossible for us to be conscious of everything. (A television set cannot depict *everything* on its screen, including its inner workings.) Therefore, the part of the circuit '(differences in retina)-(differences in brain)-(differences in muscles)' will typically pass into, and out of, the subconscious. There are important consequences for artistic performance, which mostly has powerful sub-conscious components; we shall return to this later.
Throughout his work, Bateson goes out of his way to make it clear that the systemic, communicational view of the world stands as an alternative to the Newtonian view of the world. We live in BOTH worlds. Elsewhere, he says, in part:
"It is necessary first to insist that in the world of communication the only relevant entities or "realities" are messages, including in this term parts of messages, relations between messages, significant gaps in messages, and so on. The PERCEPTION of an event or object or relation is real. It is a neurophysiological message. But the event itself or the object itself cannot enter this world and is, therefore, irrelevant, and to that extent, unreal. Conversely, a message has no reality or relevance, qua message, in the Newtonian world: it there is reduced to sound waves or printer's ink.
"By the same token, the "contexts" and "contexts of contexts" upon which I am insisting are only real or relevant insofar as they are communicationally effective, i.e., function as messages or modifiers of messages.
"The difference between the Newtonian world and the world of communication is simply this: that the Newtonian world ascribes reality to objects and achieves its simplicity by excluding the context of the context - excluding indeed all metarelationships..... In contrast, the theorist of communication insists upon examining the metarelationships while achieving simplicity by excluding all objects.
"(In) this world of communication....relevance or reality must be denied not only to the sound of the tree that falls unheard in the forest but also to this chair that I can see and on which I am sitting. My perception of the chair is communicationally real, and that on which I sit is, for me, only an idea, a message in which I put my trust......
"In this world, indeed, I, as a material object, have no relevance and, in this sense, no reality. "I", however, exist in the communicational world as an essential element in the syntax of my experience and in the experience of others, and the communications of others may damage my identity, even to the point of breaking up the organisation of my experience."
This might seem rather mystical, but in truth it is just more than usually explicit.
---------------------------------------------------
Roughly speaking, then, people play music well when they are working in the world of communication and relationship, and not very well when they are working in the world of things, objects, NOTES etc. However, those things, objects and notes don't have to be ALTERED to be dealt with in the world of communication.
Kell alters them; but he didn't NEED TO. That he thought he did is his defect.
Tony
Post Edited (2013-03-10 15:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-10 20:17
“So, I don't know what Eric means by 'Aural Poetic'.”
No, you don’t.
“ I used Eric's term to try to draw him out, (…)”
Precisely: you were baiting me. That’s why I called this a Tar Baby. I seriously doubt you were ever interested in my theories, but, as you point out, your goal was always to:
“(…) get him to see that it was reasonable to complain about what Kell did in the Stravinsky, yet still include appreciation of the mystery of performance.”
If that’s all you were concerned with, consider the point granted. Of course that's a reasonable position. As it stands, I think most thoughtful undergrads could reason to this on their own without having to endure your baiting, mocking, and condescending rhetoric, Tony. I certainly would have agreed to it immediately, had you bothered to just come out and say it.
Reasonable discourse can’t happen when one party reserves the right to bait, rant, insult, and then demand that others ‘justify’ their positions on command. Such behavior is absolutely juvenile, in my opinion, and I simply won’t take part in it.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-10 20:41
Well, I'm sorry that an interaction that had seemed to be so productive previously had to founder over Kell's silly little aberration. Despite what you say, I would have been interested to know about your theories.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-10 20:45
Had you been sincerely interested in my thoughts, you could have emailed me privately, as I have emailed you at times. Or you could have asked respectfully.
Instead, you decided to bait and insult me and my ideas in a public forum. Perhaps you'll see why your protestations of honest interest lack credibility to me now.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-10 21:11
The truth is, I have an agenda here. There are enough silly, thoughtless performances and ill-considered 'self-expressions' in the world for me to find myself firmly on the other side -- that is, on the opposite side to Kell.
This may not be the arena for it; but it's where there is an audience, and even sometimes an understanding one.
In my own work I find that the whole Early Music movement is losing touch with the revelatory attitudes to performances of classical music that people like Leonhardt, Bruggen, Kuijken et al brought to it. We seemed at last to be understanding the style that allowed the music to speak, and to be developing our expression within an appropriate framework.
NOW, though, we have A NEW EXPRESSIVITY to contend with, and Johnny-come-lately young conductors engaging on what they call 'a voyage of discovery' with these trendy old instruments, God help us.
In all this, something like Kell's Stravinsky is a thorn in my side. I admire much of what Kell does as a clarinet player, but I cannot admire this. That you -- and as I said, PARTICULARLY you -- propose a system of thought that purports to justify it engages, but also enrages me.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2013-03-10 21:37
As Jason suggests, I think maybe that 'aural poetics' may have different meanings from one context to another and I feel some aspects may be lost in translation across disciplines? Tony, I would be interested to know the definition your postgrad student adopts? In respect of a thesis, the question or hypothesis must hang on this concept and would need to be defined in the 'introduction' or 'background' section.
The Monteverdi and Goehr's take on it still intrigues me. Also the sensory dimensions of the original work must surely go beyond the text and the musical compostion. I have tried to look into the background and all sources state that it is a madrigal but others go further and suggest that it may be regarded as as a mini-opera. In which case there must be other visual dimensions such as acting and staging? Is there a physicality to the performance of Goehr's piece which cannot be appreciated from a recording?
From your reference to an earlier link, the experience you share regarding the costumes and swords made me apppreciate that there are more physical and visual elements that must contribute to the overall experience. Again this may be substantially altered when written for a single intrument performed by an individual or soloist?
Without the additional visual aspects or participation of other players, does Goehr feel compelled to make the piece 'more than' would normally be expected from a solo performance? Hence the use of devices etc...... to capture the esscence of the drama of the original piece? On a basic level or literal level, could this translate to advanced performance techniques.? I am not experienced in these but for example are you 'growling' in some places to show the vigour and fierceness of the action? The 'harshness' of the recitative in the original also seems to add to the overall meaning or communication?
Is Goehr trying to compensate for the diminished physical representation by employing 'devices' to heighten the sensory experience? I think if Geohr was trying to make the piece radically different, he would not call it a paraphrase? My understanding of a paraphrase is to quote another in ones own words. To be successful one needs to capture the overall spirit of the work. Occasionally I feel one may trascend this by explaining in a way that makes the original author's/composers's message more understandable to the audience?
I am not sure there are any 'correct answers' to this thread and think that that individual differences may result from the inherent pluralism of the concept of the 'aural poetic'? It has made me think and ask myself and others rather a lot of questions, so it can't be all that bad can it? ;-)
Post Edited (2013-03-10 21:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-10 22:15
“In all this, something like Kell's Stravinsky is a thorn in my side. I admire much of what Kell does as a clarinet player, but I cannot admire this. That you -- and as I said, PARTICULARLY you -- propose a system of thought that purports to justify it engages, but also enrages me.”
Tony,
That rage prevents you from meaningful discourse with someone like me.
Your agenda is your own business. By all means, go and fight whatever crusades you want to. But leave me out of it.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-03-11 04:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-10 22:17
Actually, you might have not got on with Kell either. He was quite abrasive:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-10 23:05
I think you're beginning to reveal yourself more than you think, chum.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2013-03-11 00:07
Perhaps a duel at dawn with unsheathed reed cutters is the answer to closing this thread.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2013-03-11 08:19
Norman, methinks Goehr's 'aural poetic' may have morphed into Grrrrrrrrrrrs 'cyber dramatic'? ;-)
Post Edited (2013-03-11 08:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2013-03-11 12:13
Tony Pay said:
"Actually, you might have not got on with Kell either. He was quite abrasive:-)".
It would be very illuminating to understand more of Kell's personality, especially from those who had the experience of meeting him.
Perhaps this could be a topic for another post.
To me it's interesting how a performers personality influences the playing style.
Chris.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-03-11 16:38
> To me it's interesting how a performers personality influences
> the playing style.
>
> Chris.
Why does that matter?
"It's trouble that makes the monkey chew on hot peppers."
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2013-03-12 07:54
Buster,
I suppose it really shouldn't matter in terms of the highest forms of artistry. Which i would describe as; giving a performance that completely satisfies the needs of the piece and the composers intensions.
However, the vast majority of us seem to fall a bit short. The 'abrasive' personality of Kell might go some way to explaining his individual phrasing, sound etc... In the same way that an artist such as Drucker seems to play the clarinet with a bronx accent.
I am interested in;Kell, Marcellus, Brymer, Cahuzac and others, not just as players but as people.
Some on this BB have had the fortunate experience of knowing many of the legends of the past.
Anyway It's something I would find interesting to hear about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-15 19:01
Eric Seddon wrote, in his edited post #6 in this thread:
>> ...my blog is still getting a lot of traffic for the Kell post, but I'm no longer interested in the discussion, or the problems some folks have with other folks' interpretations of performances of classical music. >>
In fact, for some time -- and actually, still now -- if you put 'kell stravinsky pieces' into Google, the first link is to Eric's contentless (as far as we know) encomium of Kell's silly recording.
I never saw any of the discussion that he mentions, and so, clearly, had no part in it.
However, the link is no longer live.
Other links that appear in this search are:
http://test.woodwind.org/oboe/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=231092&t=231092
...which contains the erroneous claim by Ken Shaw that Stravinsky loved Kell's performance. (In fact, what Stravinsky liked was a performance dating from many years before in London, not this recording.)
Another link that I'd forgotten was:
http://test.woodwind.org/oboe/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=211937&t=211937
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2013-03-15 20:26
Tony, you've not been on the Bollinger again have you? Now that is the 'oral poetic' :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-03-16 08:34
Tony has written so much here.....I'm back at square one.....The one idea that hits home for me is found in this quote..." A series of performances by the same group of performers may differ, one from another; but they don't differ because the performers are TRYING to make them different. They differ because things that are truly alive always behave somewhat unpredictably"
I've got a bit more of Mr Pay's articles to read.....it's slow going and I might get through them in ten years.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2013-03-18 02:24
Arnold quoted "........They differ because things that are truly alive always behave somewhat unpredictably"''
This is about the only thing I can truly understand amongst all of this dialogue.
It reminds me of a dog I once owned...............one time then he'd stick up his left hind leg to pee..............and, blow me down..................the next time he'd stick up his right hind leg.........talk about being unpredictable!
If that is not proof of the above statement........nothing is!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-03-18 22:40
Maybe he was predictable. Did he always alternate?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
