# The Best Comment On Music



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Richard Taruskin loves music's semantic indeterminacy, its capacity for meaning different things to different people. This indeterminacy suggests that listeners *will always* have as much to say about music's _"meaning"_ as any composer, writer or performer. The greatest villains in Taruskin's books are those who seek to restrict interpretation, stifle the imagination, or coerce listeners into a single way of hearing.

---Paul Mitchinson


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Richard Taruskin loves music's semantic indeterminacy, its capacity for meaning different things to different people. This indeterminacy suggests that listeners *will always* have as much to say about music's _"meaning"_ as any composer, writer or performer. The greatest villains in Taruskin's books are those who seek to restrict interpretation, stifle the imagination, or coerce listeners into a single way of hearing.
> 
> ---Paul Mitchinson


I think it might possibly be a good idea to look at what the composer said his piece of music meant.
If he said nothing go right ahead and imagine !
Semantic inteterminacy---Ha!


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

moody said:


> I think it might possibly be a good idea to look at what the composer said his piece of music meant.


(Then again, Taruskin specializes in the music of a composer who was notoriously dishonest and inconsistent about what his music meant...)


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

moody said:


> I think it might possibly be a good idea to look at what the composer said his piece of music meant.
> If he said nothing go right ahead and imagine !
> Semantic inteterminacy---Ha!


I personally don't think it matters what the composer says. 
The composer is not the thought police. They can say what they want. You might empathise, you may well disagree. Other things will ultimately come into play. Such as Hamlet cigars for Bach. Old spice for Carmina Burana. 
Once a piece is released to the world, the composer relinquishes _*all*_ control. 
I fully agree with OP. Semantic indeterminacy.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Originally Posted by moody
"I think it might possibly be a good idea to look at what the composer said his piece of music meant.
If he said nothing go right ahead and imagine !
Semantic inteterminacy---Ha!"



MagneticGhost said:


> I personally don't think it matters what the composer says.
> The composer is not the thought police. They can say what they want. You might empathise, you may well disagree. Other things will ultimately come into play. Such as Hamlet cigars for Bach. Old spice for Carmina Burana.
> Once a piece is released to the world, the composer relinquishes _*all*_ control.
> I fully agree with OP. Semantic indeterminacy.


If the composer has the gall to tell the world what his music 'means', and you give a fig for his volunteered assistance, it could be useful to listen to the music with his story in mind... *after* listening to it unassisted.

My experience has been that if the music does nothing for me 'unaided', the composer's story has about a 50-50 chance of saving the recording from the dustbin. Well, maybe more like 30-70?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Music like any performance art can be expressed in a different way by different performers, but I don't think the audience necessarily respond in a completely different way to each other if they have a similar amount of knowledge of the style heard.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Richard Taruskin loves music's semantic indeterminacy, its capacity for meaning different things to different people. This indeterminacy suggests that listeners *will always* have as much to say about music's _"meaning"_ as any composer, writer or performer. The greatest villains in Taruskin's books are those who seek to restrict interpretation, stifle the imagination, or coerce listeners into a single way of hearing.
> 
> ---Paul Mitchinson


ERGO; every tone-poem as named by the composer, any work with a literal reference in its title, is restricted by its maker 

I too, prefer the 'blank canvas' of a more generic title, by way of form, or "music for 18 musicians" or "piano and string quartet."

... and so much for all those egregious monikers slap-imposed upon the Chopin Etudes and Preludes!

Without any title to color the listener's perceptions, music is as wide open to personal interpretation as a Rorschach Blot is to its viewers.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

"Man! If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know." -Louis Armstrong

"A painter paints his pictures on canvas. Musicians paint their pictures on silence. We provide the music. You provide the silence." -Leopold Stokowski


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

In every art form, the listener/viewer/consumer has to bring his or her culture, context, and experience to bear on the piece. The experience of music (or any art) resides entirely in this interpretation by the listener. It wouldn't mean anything if you couldn't count on the listener to possess a sufficient awareness of context to interpret it.

So yes, it's entirely up to the listener to make what he or she will of a piece of music. The composer is really makes just a skeleton that is fleshed out and brought alive by the listeners within their own minds. If there's any similarity in feeling or interpretation in regards to a piece of music, it's because we often share similar understandings of the context in which the music was created.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

But isn't the composer more dependant on the performer? People tend to forget the performer and just talk about the composer and the listener.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Re: Liszt, Les Preludes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_pr%C3%A9ludes

There are dozens of histories like that of the LIszt. Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique premiered without a program, failed, was revised (I don't know how much) and then re-launched and presented in the concert program. "the Story" and its movements given re-named subtexts. No one knows what Berlioz had in mind when initially composing it.

All the Debussy Preludes present the title of each, otherwise simply numbered, at the end, after the double bar. It is not known whether the notion of the title tripped the composer's imagination, or whether he decided -- part way through or upon completion -- what associative quality he perceived about the music he had written which triggered arriving at a title.

Many composers just flat out lie, or say something they may believe at the time it is said, about "the meaning of such and so a piece." The interview, the demanding question, often are pressure enough to "make something up" as to the meaning of an absolute piece of music.

Without a literal title or literal program to color a listener's perceptions, music is as open to an individual's perception as a Rorschach blot is to its viewers.

Beethoven did name certain pieces, but the sonatas "Moonlight" - an assigned name given by an editor, "Pathetique," suggested by Beethoven's publisher when Beethoven presented it to that publisher: Beethoven said, "Sure, O.K." LOL.

Don't get me started on those egregious names arbitrarily slapped / imposed upon the Chopin Etudes and Preludes.... abomination.

*[[ADD: Early music education (for whatever age the beginner is) often tells the student "Music tells a story." This is almost always taken literally, vs. the analogy it really is. This presentation of "story" is a handy analogy to invite the listener in, while avoiding the much more complex and sophisticated notions of FORM. The mistaken perceptions, i.e. that "all music tells a story," are carried forward by many so first introduced. END ADD]]*


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

starry said:


> But isn't the composer more dependant on the performer? People tend to forget the performer and just talk about the composer and the listener.


Though obviously the performer is essential, I think _listening_ is where music really happens. (And composers and performers are listeners too.)


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Re: Liszt, Les Preludes
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_pr%C3%A9ludes
> 
> There are dozens of histories like that of the LIszt. Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique premiered without a program, failed, was revised (I don't know how much) and then re-launched with program stated, movements re-named, ans presented in the concert program. No one knows what Berlioz had in mind when initially composing it.
> ...


In theory, I do like the idea music that stands on its own and doesn't need a name, but names do often make it easier for me to identify certain pieces. ("Was that Op. 20...? Or wait, was it 22? Can't remember. I can hum it though.")


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

apricissimus said:


> Though obviously the performer is essential, I think _listening_ is where music really happens. (And composers and performers are listeners too.)


The performer studies the score, the same score the composer wrote. Most listeners are dependant on the faith that the performer is interpreting the score in a sympathetic way.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

"My music is not modern, it is merely badly played", Arnold Schoenberg.


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

For every sympathetic interpretation of a masterwork, there is an equally good re-imagining that is akin to looking at a painting from a different perspective. I'm thinking of Bach's cello suites as performed by Casals: using the written music as a starting point, he completely transformed them through his insights. As far as meaning goes, Leonard Bernstein seemed to do a nice job.

Young People's Concert Transcript - What Does Music Mean?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Yeh though re-imaginings are like recreations, the performer/arranger is a composer themselves in those circumstances and so it perhaps has to be judged on that basis rather than simply as being an expression of the original. Most performers though are simply trying to express the spirit of the original and aren't so capable of completely changing the musical intent. And there are some performers who think they are capable of changing the original but just sound bad.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I most favor what Stravinsky said about comments on music;

*"The best comment on a piece of music is another piece of music."*

... which leaves words out of it altogether


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm not a fan of many Stravinsky comments. The best comment on music might be no comment and listening a lot instead, if seeking to understand music. If just seeking to have fun on a forum talking about music is fine.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> I'm not a fan of many Stravinsky comments. The best comment on music might be no comment and listening a lot instead, if seeking to understand music. If just seeking to have fun on a forum talking about music is fine.


You've just affirmed the Stravinsky quote: notes are better than words.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

MagneticGhost said:


> I personally don't think it matters what the composer says.
> The composer is not the thought police. They can say what they want. You might empathise, you may well disagree. Other things will ultimately come into play. Such as Hamlet cigars for Bach. Old spice for Carmina Burana.
> Once a piece is released to the world, the composer relinquishes _*all*_ control.
> I fully agree with OP. Semantic indeterminacy.


No such rather silly things enter my mind at any point.
If Mendelssohn says that his overture is about Fingal's Cave I believe him and that's the way it sounds---what do you think it's about ?


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

moody said:


> No such rather silly things enter my mind at any point.
> If Mendelssohn says that his overture is about Fingal's Cave I believe him and that's the way it sounds---what do you think it's about ?


I've never been to Fingal's cave so I'd have difficulty imagining it.
It always reminds me of the first time I played it as an impressionable teenager and my desk partner sang to the opening refrain.....'It's so bloomin' boring, it's so bloomin' boring, It's so bloomin' boring etc etc. 
So it reminds me of that time in my life. 
I've never listened to it and thought of a cave.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> You've just affirmed the Stravinsky quote: notes are better than words.


But he said a reply to a work, suggesting you can reply to a work. Also the implication (it sounds to me) is that only another composer can relate to a work, which sounds like typical Stravinsky egotism.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

PetrB said:


> ERGO; every tone-poem as named by the composer, any work with a literal reference in its title, is restricted by its maker
> 
> I too, prefer the 'blank canvas' of a more generic title, by way of form, or "music for 18 musicians" or "piano and string quartet."
> 
> ...


Perhaps we are at cross purposes,as far as I know Chopin did not say that this etude means this and that etude means that. But Tchaikovsky said that one of his overtures was about Romeo and Juliet and I cannot say that I think it's about rowing down the river. I'm beginning to wonder if I've wandered into some Alice In Wonderland world here.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

moody said:


> I'm beginning to wonder if I've wandered into some Alice In Wonderland world here.


That's a worrisome suggestion, the forum rules don't say anything at all about whether or not it's allowed to beat a member who sneezes, pepper or no! :O


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

MagneticGhost said:


> I've never been to Fingal's cave so I'd have difficulty imagining it.
> It always reminds me of the first time I played it as an impressionable teenager and my desk partner sang to the opening refrain.....'It's so bloomin' boring, it's so bloomin' boring, It's so bloomin' boring etc etc.
> So it reminds me of that time in my life.
> I've never listened to it and thought of a cave.


Fingal's Cave is a sea cave on the island of Staffa in the Lower Hebrides,Scotland.
Mendelssohn visited it and wrote the overture "The Hebrides" also known as "Fingals Cave".I can hardly imagine a piece of music that does a better job of portraying its subject matter more successfully.
I note that in the still open thread regarding music reflecting the sea it was chosen.
I think this a pointless conversation and I withdraw because if there are people who don't know what this music is about the I really can't be bothered.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> Perhaps we are at cross purposes,as far as I know Chopin did not say that this etude means this and that etude means that. But Tchaikovsky said that one of his overtures was about Romeo and Juliet and I cannot say that I think it's about rowing down the river. I'm beginning to wonder if I've wandered into some Alice In Wonderland world here.


You're right. It is a quagmire. Look at my post about LIszt Les Preludes and Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique -- the only tangible thing in the face of the evidence is either the whole "program" was slapped on after the fact of composition (the Liszt) or may or may not have been on the composers mind and in his intent when composing (the Berlioz.)

Chopin had no truck with either the verbal sentiments or the literal associations rampant in his own time. Said so, Put his pen where his mouth was on naming pieces only by form.

Tchaikovsky, documented, and lustily in love with a voice student while he was teaching at conservatory, said student killed himself over the turmoil he felt (likely to do with the same-sex aspect and all its stigmas at the time). So Romeo and Juliet it is, and a gasp-inducing overt expression of sexual energy and longing is clearly apparent to any listener -- a first time ever milestone in musical literature (o.k. one should include Wagner's Tristan und Isolde), and quite shocking in its time.

Mendelssohn did visit the Hebrides, and also, documented, was taken with the landscape, meeting of land and sea there, and wrote _not an impression_, but a piece _he felt evoked his feelings in response to that landscape._ That still leaves us with its not being about much of anything concrete, but whatever Mendelssohn thought he was evoking with that piece, and it must be taken into account that the man writing it was no longer standing by the seaside of the northernmost part of the English Channel 

Documentation, concrete, can confirm intent: a literal meaning to a bunch of notes? Very much a crap shoot, even straight from the composers inner ear, and whatever they wrote in words or said about it.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

moody said:


> Fingal's Cave is a sea cave on the island of Staffa in the Lower Hebrides,Scotland.
> Mendelssohn visited it and wrote the overture "The Hebrides" also known as "Fingals Cave".I can hardly imagine a piece of music that does a better job of portraying its subject matter more successfully.
> I note that in the still open thread regarding music reflecting the sea it was chosen.
> I think this a pointless conversation and I withdraw because if there are people who don't know what this music is about the I really can't be bothered.


I was joking. I forget how easily things can be misconstrued. I am fully aware of where and what Fingal's cave is about. Amidst the silliness my point still stands.
It's quite easy to hear the music without knowing the title. 
It's quite easy for life experiences and memories of what you were doing when you listened to a piece of music to colour your subsequent interpretations.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Richard Taruskin loves music's semantic indeterminacy, its capacity for meaning different things to different people. This indeterminacy suggests that listeners *will always* have as much to say about music's _"meaning"_ as any composer, writer or performer. The greatest villains in Taruskin's books are those who seek to restrict interpretation, stifle the imagination, or coerce listeners into a single way of hearing.
> 
> ---Paul Mitchinson


This is a very easy thing to say (directed at Taruskin, or rather the characterisation of him, not the OP) and such sentiments seem to be trotted out so often that they become practically meaningless. It also seems that 'the greatest villains' are usually the people who have actually made the greatest contributions to us being able to consider and talk about music.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

We live in an era of solipsism, where each member of the audience thinks they are the creator, revelling in their own interpretation what they hear. The problem is, stupid thoughts don't seem stupid to stupid people.

Try and be a composer or performer responsible for communicating ideas, not just receiving them! There's the trick!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Perhaps music is as the French are fond of saying about wine: "Wine is something you use to wash down meat; the rest is imagination."


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

bigshot said:


> The problem is, stupid thoughts don't seem stupid to stupid people.


Or my theory, those who consider themselves normal as most think like them (certainly those they know) naturally think that because others think like them they must be right, even if very many (even most people) can actually be very shallow in their judgement. And I'm not just talking about art unfortunately, it's a lazy sheep-like mentality that affects most people.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

moody said:


> Fingal's Cave is a sea cave on the island of Staffa in the Lower Hebrides,Scotland.
> Mendelssohn visited it and wrote the overture "The Hebrides" also known as "Fingals Cave".I can hardly imagine a piece of music that does a better job of portraying its subject matter more successfully.
> I note that in the still open thread regarding music reflecting the sea it was chosen.
> I think this a pointless conversation and I withdraw because if there are people who don't know what this music is about the I really can't be bothered.


Fingal's Cave - easy for a Baby Boomer to connect the scenery with the music, as on black & white 1950s TV, when they didn't have enough stuff to fill the airwaves, a short extract showing breakers crashing on to rocks was regularly broadcast. So I knew this music from the age of eight onwards & would find it impossible *not* to link it with the sea. 

Stupid people imagining stupid things: a) Don't knock it, if it puts rumps on seats & leads to more classical concerts & a half-decent living for classical musicians.
b) Look, we're all stupid sometimes; but my experience is that most people have a sprightly imagination, and they should ride their palamino every day to keep it in trim.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't mind stupid people on art, there's always enough people who make the effort and understand things there to compensate. It's more in other everyday matters that it can be dangerous.

It would be nice to go to Fingal's Cave sometime, but I'd be surprised if it made me like the music any more than I already do. Good music can stand up on its own merit without that.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Someone asked Claude Monet: 
"Why Water Lilies?"
"I chose water lilies, but it could have been anything."

Camille Rodin was often approached at a show of his work and asked, "What is the meaning of this piece?" Rodin would ask the person who had asked the question what they thought. As they put forth what they thought, Rodin listened, looked pensive, stroked his long beard, left a pause when the person had finished speaking, and routinely then said, "I think you might be right."

So much for the most literal of titles attached to music. Title or not, the listener is on their own. If they are the sort who is more comfortable thinking beforehand they "Know what a piece of music is about," they will stick to the given title, and let it direct or affect their imagination. Others don't feel the need and don't miss, or pay little or no attention, to titles like "Fingel's Cave" or the poem as tacked on attached to Liszt's "Les Preludes."


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Perhaps music is as the French are fond of saying about wine: "Wine is something you use to wash down meat; the rest is imagination."


Never said by anyone who has tasted a Château Angélus or an Echézeaux, Mr Ken !!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

starry said:


> But isn't the composer more dependant on the performer? People tend to forget the performer and just talk about the composer and the listener.


The performer is not as important as the composer. If the performer is only somebody who plays the compositions of others, they are simply a playback machine that would have nothing to work with if not for composers. If they play their own music, then they are the composer in that case, and are thus fulfilling both roles.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> The performer is not as important as the composer. If the performer is only somebody who plays the compositions of others, they are simply a playback machine that would have nothing to work with if not for composers. If they play their own music, then they are the composer in that case, and are thus fulfilling both roles.


I get it, and agree, but am appalled you have not credited the performer more, or rather to make it clear to those who may think of performers as mere replicant automatons -- there is a hell of a lot of music and musicality in the best of performers, and composers rely, expect, and write for performers assuming all that is present.

Otherwise, a player piano, or the contemporary electronic midi version playback would be considered an equal to fine live performers, and it ain't nowhere near -- yet, anyway 

*[[ADD: We write first "for our self," next for the performers, lastly for the audience, yes?]]*


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> The performer is not as important as the composer. If the performer is only somebody who plays the compositions of others, they are simply a playback machine that would have nothing to work with if not for composers. If they play their own music, then they are the composer in that case, and are thus fulfilling both roles.


That is a modern conception. That wasn't the way people thought in the 30s. Back then the interpreter was as important as the composer. The performer is the one that brings the music to life. Without them, it's just chicken scratches on paper- ideas without substance. Great conductors like Stokowski, and great singers like Caruso and great intrumentalists like Heifetz brought a great deal of themselves and their own conception of the work to the table. They were a LONG way from being a playback machine.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I get it, and agree, but am appalled you have not credited the performer more, or rather to make it clear to those who may think of performers as mere replicant automatons -- there is a hell of a lot of music and musicality in the best of performers, and composers rely, expect, and write for performers assuming all that is present.
> 
> Otherwise, a player piano, or the contemporary electronic midi version playback would be considered an equal to fine live performers, and it ain't nowhere near -- yet, anyway
> 
> *[[ADD: We write first "for our self," next for the performers, lastly for the audience, yes?]]*


That was kinda mean, and an oversimplification (I refer to my post, sorry that wasn't clear). I love good performers, and I am a performer myself. I appreciate very much the work of performers. I have had the opportunity to work with some good ones (and some not so good ones). However, my main point is that the performer's job is to bring to life the ideas of the composer (at least in the case of classical performers).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> That was kinda mean, and an oversimplification (I refer to my post, sorry that wasn't clear). I love good performers, and I am a performer myself. I appreciate very much the work of performers. I have had the opportunity to work with some good ones (and some not so good ones). However, my main point is that the performer's job is to bring to life the ideas of the composer (at least in the case of classical performers).


Yup, performers serve the score.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Yup, performers serve the score.


But what if they don't? Does that mean they've failed, or just done something different?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> But what if they don't? Does that mean they've failed, or just done something different?


Do you mean they've willfully done something directly contrary to the score, such as playing a pianissimo passage as forte, or do you mean that they've changed the phrasing slightly to fit their own interpretation? There's a lot more room for interpretation in "following the score precisely" than most people seem to realize.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't think scores should be sacrosanct, especially in the era of recordings where there should be more alternatives, not less. It's interesting that the most dedicated adherents to "serving the score" are HIP performers where the score doesn't have much more than a general tempo marking.

I like orchestral transcriptions of piano works, and I don't mind Liszt's opera piano reductions either. I think Gould prompting Bernstein to go on stage before the Beethoven piano concerto to say the tempos are going to be different than they are marked is fun. It all depends on if it works or not.

Performances should involve experimentation and risk taking. That's what makes them exciting.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

apricissimus said:


> But what if they don't? Does that mean they've failed, or just done something different?


If they do something _very _different then I think it makes them like a co-composer, and you have to judge it in a different way. That's something like a rearrangement of a piece, or re-imagining.

Most performances though are a playing of the score but through the technical and interpretive abilities of the performer. They will differ somewhat from each other but they still have to serve the music, though there is often room for this to be done in different ways. The performer is important here though as they can really get between the composer and the listener by disregarding style. tempi, structure and making the piece sound like it just doesn't hang together or have much honest feeling.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> But what if they don't? Does that mean they've failed, or just done something different?


In doing something too different they have failed the score, including in the areas of note accuracy, tempo, articulation, phrasing, i.e. any one or a number of musical aspects flubbed or ignored due to 'interpretation.'


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

starry said:


> The performer is important here though as they can really get between the composer and the listener by disregarding style. tempi, structure and making the piece sound like it just doesn't hang together or have much honest feeling.


Or disregard those things to get inside the piece and invest it with new structure and honest meaning.

It all depends on whether it works or not.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

It's rather similar to acting, all the great actors bring something different to Richard 111 although they are using the same script.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

If they change the script though and add their own words through their part it would create some controversy. There could be a problem if the music is changed and yet you still say it's still a performance of a piece by composer x when really it ends up being a new composition.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

starry said:


> If they change the script though and add their own words through their part it would create some controversy. There could be a problem if the music is changed and yet you still say it's still a performance of a piece by composer x when really it ends up being a new composition.


This did not happen much and even Stokowski who is often blamed for such things was usually sensible in what he did
The reason was when they took into account what the composer had tried to attain but could not with the instruments of the time.
That is where the HIP (?) thing goes wrong in later music because I would most certainly like 
hearing it performed with modern technology and leave HIP to the sowing machine merchants. (Oh,dear how absolutely ignorant !).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Stokowski also knew inside out what the Philadelphia Orchestra was capable of. I think he was tailoring a bit here and there to suit them too.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

I've wanted to say this for a long time and this seems as good a time and place as any: I loathe lecture concerts.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Oh dear - I'm going to my first ever on Saturday. Hope I don't instantly agree with you!


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

In academia they're a necessary evil (I suppose, for Doctoral Candidates in performance) - I don't mind someone announcing the skinny on a work, 'the name of the work, who wrote it and when they wrote it and we hope you enjoy it', esp when there are no programs or they've run out and the house is packed. But, when some long-winded 'theme' oriented conductor gets in front of a mic and starts blathering on about 'what you're going to hear, and that the death/sex motive will be announced first in the hurdy gurdy I'm hard pressed not to race for the exit. Hope you have a good time and won't be prejudiced by my very negative position. It's just my opinion.  I meant 



Ingenue said:


> Oh dear - I'm going to my first ever on Saturday. Hope I don't instantly agree with you!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

NightHawk said:


> I've wanted to say this for a long time and this seems as good a time and place as any: I loathe lecture concerts.


Well I'll be...in that case I will give you no more !


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ingenue said:


> Oh dear - I'm going to my first ever on Saturday. Hope I don't instantly agree with you!


Well just make sure you listen and make notes!


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

What are these lecture concerts? Am I correct when I deduce that they are concerts preceded by a long introduction that are interpreted by one side as an overbearing, unduly intellectual and dull summary and by the other as interesting background information that helps in the understanding and enjoyment of a piece?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> This did not happen much and even Stokowski who is often blamed for such things was usually sensible in what he did
> The reason was when they took into account what the composer had tried to attain but could not with the instruments of the time.
> That is where the HIP (?) thing goes wrong in later music because I would most certainly like
> hearing it performed with modern technology and leave HIP to the sowing machine merchants. (Oh,dear how absolutely ignorant !).


Sewing, lol. I find most of those arrangements far overblown, and downright "cheesy." All bets and critiques are off when arranging something for Organ, though, since it was / is "the first synthesizer."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Cheyenne said:


> What are these lecture concerts? Am I correct when I deduce that they are concerts preceded by a long introduction that are interpreted by one side as an overbearing, unduly intellectual and dull summary and by the other as interesting background information that helps in the understanding and enjoyment of a piece?


You've got it in one -- or the two halves, or...
they seem massively condescending (Expert speaks to lay people "in terms they can understand,") lol They might predispose you to think something other of the work to be heard than if you "just listened" without any previous wind-up.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Well, I would kill to go back in time and attend one of Bernstein's Young People's Concerts. Even though the program was for kids, I wouldn't feel condescended to at all. I like hearing people who really know their stuff talk about music.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Sewing, lol. I find most of those arrangements far overblown, and downright "cheesy." All bets and critiques are off when arranging something for Organ, though, since it was / is "the first synthesizer."


I'll be happy to call Tomita's arrangements of classical music to be the height of cheeze.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I'll be happy to call Tomita's arrangements of classical music to be the height of cheeze.


I had thought to mention them, and Walter / Wendy Carlos' "Switched on Bach" as both rather remarkable (and labor intensive at the time they were done) Tranlisteration / re-'orchestrations.' And yes, something very 'pops' about them as well. They are, though, quite honestly and sincerely what they are without pretense -- earning each a badge of merit in itself. I suppose the Tomita could readily be called _processed_ cheese -- a cleverness first attracts, and pales rather quickly. There is what I call a Japanese aesthetic which seems ro adore pretty and fluffy-sounding tones with a soft center, and hot pastel colors 

I may as well mention my liking for Brian Eno's "deconstructed" _Three Variations on the Canon in D_, even more so in the acoustic + electronic re-orchestration by Gavin Bryars (as near a literal transliteration, and super well done.) These, at least, the composer re-working them_ made his own._


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Tomita in particular is DREADFUL!

Every bar is skewed down or up an octave and voiced in an entirely different sort of outer space sound. Ignorant.

Walter Carlos at least followed the basic idea of the orchestration. But I still think his best album was "Switched on Santa".

Brian Eno is a very lazy musician. That's the sort of random noodlings I listened to as a teenager, before I realize that there was MUCH better music to spend my time with.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Eno is overrated for me, Before and After Science has some listenable tracks but I can find his music dull.

Tomita can sound weak in his classical arrangements (though he didn't just do albums of that, even if that's what he is famous for), but now and again some interesting invention can come through in it as well I think.

Walter (later Wendy) Carlos did some good things. Of the earlier classical arrangement albums I actually prefer _The Well-Tempered Synthesizer_. Not as famous but I think that shows if you want to find a lot of stuff you actually have to get away from simply what is more famous and do work and explore an area fully yourself, that takes a lot of time and effort.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Tomita in particular is DREADFUL!


I'll take that as an ill-tempered opinion rather than a fact. Just try to pry my Tomita collection from my cold dead hands! :lol: I still play his version of Night on Bald Mountain on Hallowe'en...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Tomita in particular is DREADFUL!
> 
> Every bar is skewed down or up an octave and voiced in an entirely different sort of outer space sound. Ignorant.
> 
> ...


Even the lazy can stumble upon a success now and then. The 'bad' photographer who needs to take 100 shots of a subject is likely to come up with one or two decent ones out of the batch....


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I'll take that as an ill-tempered opinion rather than a fact. Just try to pry my Tomita collection from my cold dead hands! :lol: I still play his version of Night on Bald Mountain on Hallowe'en...


Ahhhh.... Devil music to scare the daylights out of all the child trick or treaters at your door -- I bet they are THRILLED


----------

