 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2001-05-25 14:41
Jim,
I'm not a "purist" in a dogmatic sense that I don't accept anything that is
not done according to the score. It depends on what intentions you have.
Classical music in it's purest form IS a reproducing art form. Having said
that, music is a free enterprise, feel free to do whatever you like with it,
as long as it doesn't interfere with publishing laws.
But when you start to manipulate with music with the intention to be
performed before an audience, you have to ask yourself a few moral
questions, like: Does this contribute anything to this music? For what
purpose am I doing this? Is it for the music or only for me to get attention? Am I doing it for commercial or artistic reasons? Am I trying to find the easy way out?
Any of these reasons are fine, as long as you are honest to yourself and to
the audience. Any great artist has been thinking these things thru 3 and 4
times to give away something that he can stand up for and feel proudly about. It's up to others (audience, critics and general public opinion) to decide if the performance will pass or not.
As for Stokowski, I'm personally not a very great fan of his versions of Bach and not Schoenbergs either. In Schoenbergs case I don't mind so much since they were for him mainly an experiment to learn orchestration, but in Stokowski's case meant to be performed. At the time there was very little known about baroque interpretation and nobody cared. He wanted to present Bach in a very romantic context in "today's" environment and his purposes at the time were OK I guess. From what we know today however, I think something like that would be executed.
As for Carlos "Swiched on Bach", this is also a time document. "See what we can do with a synthesizer". Commersal but OK I guess. I was very impressed at the time.
Händel's Messiah used to be performed in massive productions with hundreds of people involved, as well as chamber size productions in the 18th century so I have no problems with that.
IMHO these examples don't contribute anything to the music itself. (besides Händel that is) Nothing of this is better than the original. Of cause people shuld feel free to experiment even with the great masters but not out of laziness, speculation or poorness.
Every artist has to take responsibility for what he present on stage. We set standards today for future generations.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-05-25 17:32
This could be another interesting thread. Our modern society put a lot of emphasis on "creativity", namely on the creation of something totally new. We tend to celebrate the "creators" more than any other groups of people, this in all walk of life. What is new is always better than what is already there. This future, newness orientation has been great for all of us since it is propelling our society forward (yes, yes, I know, some old things used to be better, etc. But nobody really believes this anyway...).
In this context, classical musicians are challenged. Opportunities for true creativity are limited, except for composers. Newness is often very incremental and quite subtle (at any rate, lost on the majority of the audience). What classical performers are asked to develop is "artistry:" a comprehensive mastery of a language, its tradition, its techniques, its history. Essentially, we are asked (most of time) to reproduce with perfect "artistry" more than to create. We resemble performers of the 20 or so Chinese operas who are measured by the precision of their work, and the respect of traditions more than anyting else. We classical musicians are an accomplished bunch, but not a creative ones. What saves us is the incredible timeless value of the music we reproduce. What we serve carries the day.
But there is place for all. Taking old master pieces and trying new slants on them is as valid as creating a new pop songs. It does not take anything away from the originals (who are well served by countless musicians anyway). Many of these experiments are abismal failures (like many classical compositions which died early for the benefit of mankind). But every now end then, something new comes out that has a lasting value. Just to get this one is worth all the rest.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-05-25 17:58
But the real issue is as follows: What should come first in the development of young people: creativity, or artistry. Several generation ago, artistry was the norm. But people went overboard and forgot to develop creativity. We ended up with generations of perfect artists (perfect workers in general) with nothing new ever coming out. People were extremely reliable and hard working, but boring like hell and frozen in time. A very small elite was moving things forward with the mass struggling the best they could, if at all. At any rate, nobody but a few expected to have an influence on things.Life (at least at the local level) tended to be fairly quiet (altough constrained and oppressed) between explosions of mass anger every now and then.
Then, we switched young people's education to creativity first (about 30 years ago). Nowadays, we celebrate even in very young people all form of "self-expressions." They are told that all of them (irrespective of potentialities and contribution) have an fundamental right ot create, to change things, and be rewarded for it. Many take this route and do. We leave them without the skills to express anything that is not basic and superficial. We do not convey the mental discipline and work habits needed to go far in anything. This is true in music, literature, science, etc. People expect to spend their whole live "self-expressing" themself but do not know how. The work place, (including the musical work place) places huge emphasis on technical skills (the generic term for "artistry"). Many people succeed in school and fail at work because they have not learn to operate with any form of precision, accuracy and control. But they want to be heard, to speak their mind, to be counted.
The results is that, as before, only a small elite is actually moving things forward (those with creativity AND skills). The mass are left behing struggling as they can, but angry this time because they were told that they could change things. This is why today's societies are so angry. Actually, it is not society that is angry. It is countless individuals for very personal reasons. Anger is now personal. It is the anger of people who believe they were cheated. Materialistically, life has never been that good, but we are angry anyway because we were supposed to be allowed to create and the system does not care. Angst!
I know quite a few classical musicians. I also know many other professionals. In general, classical musicians are not happy. Those who do not work feel shafted. Those who do feel constrained. The life of a classical musician is a hard one.
We need to find a new balance: People with strong skills also developped to think and create. This is hard. But this is also necessary. Creativity and artistry, old and new, vision and skills. That's the accomplished human of the new millenium.
In music that means cross-over between all forms of music, with a perfect mastery of one medium, a full knowledge of its context, and great ideas to push it forward. And work, work, work!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim
Date: 2001-05-26 03:49
Alphie,
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate the dialog.
Mario,
I suspect your second post takes my thoughts on this a bit farther. Thanks.
Jim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
