# Does technical perfection matter?



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I spent a couple of hours today listening to the last three Brahms symphonies conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler in live performances from the 1940s. They were extraordinary performances, plumbing depths of passion, anger, and terror most conductors seem to skate over. But what I want to mention here is the orchestral playing, which was tremendously alert and expressive but often exhibited a less than perfect ensemble. In fact, when Furtwangler turned up the heat (which he could do as few others can) the ensemble could get downright scrappy. But what struck me was how little it mattered; in fact, I even felt that the musicians' desperate efforts to keep up with his wildness and fury added a dimension to the experience and made the music all the more powerful for the impression it gave of human frailty in the face of such gigantic forces of emotion.

In many years of listening to performers from the dawn of recording to the present, I have often noted that "standards" of technical perfection in musical performance have, in general, risen, but that expression and meaningfulness have not. And I've sometimes actually felt that well-drilled precision can both aid and detract from - can perhaps sometimes inhibit - free expression. I like to feel that a performer is so involved in making music say something that accidental instances of technical imperfection are nothing more than touching reminders that the spirit can transcend the frailties of the flesh.

I wonder what others think and feel about this.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Very good question, I think the proof is in the pudding, Furtwangler's performances are the perfect example of technical precision not mattering as much as the other indispensable intangibles that go into it. However, I don't think that a conductor must sacrifice technical precision in order to achieve a passionate, emotional and expressive performance... C. Kleiber's recordings are proof of this in my experience, there is an amazing clarity and technical precision in C. Kleiber's recordings, no matter which orchestra he was at the helm of. I still find them to be among the most passionate and emotional recordings out there. Another example is Karajan's 1960's Beethoven, Karajan is notorious for his precision and technical perfection but his Beethoven is full of expression, emotion, terror when it's needed and beauty when it's needed.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I spent a couple of hours today listening to the last three Brahms symphonies conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler in live performances from the 1940s. They were extraordinary performances, plumbing depths of passion, anger, and terror most conductors seem to skate over. But what I want to mention here is the orchestral playing, which was tremendously alert and expressive but often exhibited a less than perfect ensemble. In fact, when Furtwangler turned up the heat (which he could do as few others can) the ensemble could get downright scrappy. But what struck me was how little it mattered; in fact, I even felt that the musicians' desperate efforts to keep up with his wildness and fury added a dimension to the experience and made the music all the more powerful for the impression it gave of human frailty in the face of such gigantic forces of emotion.
> 
> In many years of listening to performers from the dawn of recording to the present, I have often noted that "standards" of technical perfection in musical performance have, in general, risen, *but that expression and meaningfulness have not. *And I've sometimes actually felt that well-drilled precision can both aid and detract from - can perhaps sometimes inhibit - free expression. I like to feel that a performer is so involved in making music say something that accidental *instances of technical imperfection are nothing more than touching reminders that the spirit can transcend the frailties of the flesh*.
> 
> I wonder what others think and feel about this.


Beautifully said.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It doesn't matter in a live performance at a concert hall, but for a recording to be listened to many times, technical slips are annoying. From repeated listening, you always know where the slips occur and you brace yourself a few bars before with "_here it comes!"_.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I spent a couple of hours today listening to the last three Brahms symphonies conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler in live performances from the 1940s. They were extraordinary performances, plumbing depths of passion, anger, and terror most conductors seem to skate over. But what I want to mention here is the orchestral playing, which was tremendously alert and expressive but often exhibited a less than perfect ensemble. In fact, when Furtwangler turned up the heat (which he could do as few others can) the ensemble could get downright scrappy. But what struck me was how little it mattered; in fact, I even felt that the musicians' desperate efforts to keep up with his wildness and fury added a dimension to the experience and made the music all the more powerful for the impression it gave of human frailty in the face of such gigantic forces of emotion.
> 
> In many years of listening to performers from the dawn of recording to the present, I have often noted that "standards" of technical perfection in musical performance have, in general, risen, but that expression and meaningfulness have not. And I've sometimes actually felt that well-drilled precision can both aid and detract from - can perhaps sometimes inhibit - free expression. I like to feel that a performer is so involved in making music say something that accidental instances of technical imperfection are nothing more than touching reminders that the spirit can transcend the frailties of the flesh.
> 
> I wonder what others think and feel about this.


Perfection versus expression.

Speaking for myself, aesthetic matters of this kind are not of a binary type to begin with; that is to say, they are not: either-or, this-or-that, black-or-white, and right-or-wrong--- things. Its impossible for me to choose one performance over another simply by judging along the lines of the criteria of "streamlined performance without passion" or "passionate performance, but imperfectly executed."

What matters with me is the final product; hopefully with a healthy mix of both.

Karajan and Sutherland-- artists whom I love-- don't always have the most impassioned expressivity, I feel, but their final product is pure butter-- which I love.

Stokowski can take a third-rate ensemble and make them into an absolutely first-rate, second-rate ensemble-- due to the richness of the expression he conjurs up.

Then on a higher plane, early Callas has technical perfection suffused with unrivaled expressivity-- the Artist of All Ages, so to speak; which for me is the _ne plus ultra _of artistic achievement.

And then, even in the late fifties and early sixties, without her possessing the benefit of a steamlined high-end-- her psychological grasp of character and voice inflections continue to be of such a subtle and profound nature, that I tend to overlook this handicap, apparent as it is.

So there you have it.

I guess what I'm blonde-spressivity trying to say is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; and that for me, its _Gestalt _theory all the way. I try to see all of the virtues that work together to make up a wonderful performance.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

It helps. But for me I don't tend to seek out big virtuoso names, in fact I came to love Hamelin in spite of his virtuoso reputation which scared me away from him. Even though I love his music I don't particularly like all of his repertoire either, I just don't find things like Liszt's Paganini or Grande etudes entertaining.

It's okay though, I absolutely love Alkan's music and that must sound like quite the contradiction. A lot of his music is just the same as the Paganini etudes for me, but he produced a lot of music and there is much of it that I have found thematically and musically interesting like his *Impromptu on Luther's A Mighty Fortress Is Our God*.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Virtuosity has always been valued in music, sometimes even at the total expense of expression. All of us appreciate that "Hey, how'd he do that???" moment. Part of the fun.

Not just virtuosity in performing, but in composing as well. Listen to the opening of Beethoven's Ghost Trio. "Hey, how'd he do that?"

Here's John Adams driving in California's Central Valley, thinking about the fugue from the Hammerklavier: "And it goes, piling up these dizzying ascents and descents of manic semiquavers, chains of buzzing trills and thumping, pounding motives, all charging forth, some chopped into fragments and spewed forth, upside down or backwards, making a glorious cacophony. And it is cacophony, albeit tonal. Is this 'polyphonic objectivity' as opposed to 'harmonic subjectivity?'

As a huge semi emblazoned with 'Sacramento Meat Packers, Inc.' zooms past me in the far left lane I think to myself that Beethoven in this fugue is saying 'you wanna talk about technique? OK, here’s technique. Don’t ****** with me, wimpface.' Indeed, sir."


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Perfection is in the hole of the behinder. It's really just a place were you can't imagine better with your current understanding, but that doesn't mean someone else can't... so, what's ~perfect~ for you won't be for someone else. And how much weight this perfection is given also comes from the behinder; henceforth, only you know.

It's not everything to me... but just enough to turn me off if one is too sloppy, and just enough to impress me if one is spot-on.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Since I don't play _every_ instrument--or _any_ instrument--I don't think I would be able to recognize true perfection in performance. I think there will always be someone better. Maybe ultimate perfection is only in the ear of the listener? Does it change every decade or so? Is it culturally defined?


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

In general, not. But it depends. The flubbed notes in Richter's live recording of Pictures at an Exhibition don't detract from the thrilling virtuosity he brought to the Sophia concert. Mackerrras' first recording of Janacek's Sinfonia with a London pickup ensemble (probably recorded late at night after other engagements by players unfamiliar with the music), is absolutely hair-raising in part because of the players' terror.

On the other hand, Michael Steinberg has written that the double bass solo that opens the slow movement of the Mahler First, must have sounded "just awful" at the turn of the century -- and that would have been part of what Mahler had in mind. Thus contemporary bass playing standards that can make it sound beautiful do his intentions an injustice.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I spent a couple of hours today listening to the last three Brahms symphonies conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler in live performances from the 1940s. They were extraordinary performances, plumbing depths of passion, anger, and terror most conductors seem to skate over. But what I want to mention here is the orchestral playing, which was tremendously alert and expressive but often exhibited a less than perfect ensemble. In fact, when Furtwangler turned up the heat (which he could do as few others can) the ensemble could get downright scrappy. But what struck me was how little it mattered; in fact, I even felt that the musicians' desperate efforts to keep up with his wildness and fury added a dimension to the experience and made the music all the more powerful for the impression it gave of human frailty in the face of such gigantic forces of emotion.
> 
> In many years of listening to performers from the dawn of recording to the present, I have often noted that "standards" of technical perfection in musical performance have, in general, risen, but that expression and meaningfulness have not. And I've sometimes actually felt that well-drilled precision can both aid and detract from - can perhaps sometimes inhibit - free expression. I like to feel that a performer is so involved in making music say something that accidental instances of technical imperfection are nothing more than touching reminders that the spirit can transcend the frailties of the flesh.
> 
> I wonder what others think and feel about this.


This reminds me of something Ferneyhough once said in an interview. He said that being perfect doesn't matter, but that the struggle to play his music perfectly does, because that struggle can transform in some deep way the performers - and the transformation, the alchemy, will be communicated to the listeners.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I spent a couple of hours today listening to the last three Brahms symphonies conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler in live performances from the 1940s. They were extraordinary performances, plumbing depths of passion, anger, and terror most conductors seem to skate over. But what I want to mention here is the orchestral playing, which was tremendously alert and expressive but often exhibited a less than perfect ensemble. In fact, when Furtwangler turned up the heat (which he could do as few others can) the ensemble could get downright scrappy. But what struck me was how little it mattered; in fact, I even felt that the musicians' desperate efforts to keep up with his wildness and fury added a dimension to the experience and made the music all the more powerful for the impression it gave of human frailty in the face of such gigantic forces of emotion.
> 
> In many years of listening to performers from the dawn of recording to the present, I have often noted that "standards" of technical perfection in musical performance have, in general, risen, but that expression and meaningfulness have not. And I've sometimes actually felt that well-drilled precision can both aid and detract from - can perhaps sometimes inhibit - free expression. I like to feel that a performer is so involved in making music say something that accidental instances of technical imperfection are nothing more than touching reminders that the spirit can transcend the frailties of the flesh.
> 
> I wonder what others think and feel about this.


The Furtwangler recordings, and all older recordings, are what McLuhan called a "hot" medium, which demands that the listener "fill in" the missing information with his imagination, and become more actively involved in the listening process.

Higher resolution recordings, and HDTV are "cool" mediums, which have so much information in them that they demand very little from the viewer/listener, and results in a more passive experience.

Reading is hot, HDTV is cold. Radio programs are hot, movies are colder.

I think part of the reason you feel as you do is because you are more involved with these early recordings, and you derive more satisfaction from them. I feel the same way about old blues recordings from 78 RPM records.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> The Furtwangler recordings, and all older recordings, are what McLuhan called a "hot" medium, which demands that the listener "fill in" the missing information with his imagination, and become more actively involved in the listening process.


Very interesting! I would have never thought of applying McLuhan theories of cold/hot mediums (and everything in between since it's a gradient not a rigid dichotomy of hot and cold). I agree with your assessment of filling in the blanks with older recordings like Furtwangler, Toscanini, etc.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Technical perfection really includes consummate musicianship.

In this thread, the OP is more addressing accurate execution of notes and rhythm / timing, and somewhat separating the musicality, making of it a bit of a polarized issue.

I do have some sympathy with the point of the OP, in the premise that "all the right notes in the right order and ensemble precision," of itself, is simply not enough to qualify as good music making.

What has happened, and 'we' are all to blame, has happened _because of recordings, and our listening expectations as built upon those recordings being 100% note and timing accurate._

In reality, many a performing musician and conductor would agree with "The audience has the right to expect 95% accuracy, and no more -- i.e. soloists or ensemble, even the greatest virtuosi are human 

But, since the advent of recordings and listener expectations, that same expectation of 100% accuracy is now also very much expected in live performances, and now several generations of performers, in their training and in performance, have raised the ante, often coming in on 100% accuracy, or damned near, and consistently. There is a bit of truth that the technical level of many a graduate conservatory student has exceeded some of the more famed performers of the past.

Along with that accuracy, we hear some of the younger generation who have not yet come up with the remainder of what to me qualifies as full musicianship, and some of those seem to have a greater preoccupation with that accuracy than with their music making.

It is a wildly off-the-mark notion, though, to think that total accuracy means a sacrifice of musicality.

The topic reminds me of another post, a complaint, it seemed, about the current generation and musicians lacking 'musical personality.' That too, seemed to mistake mere idiosyncrasy as 'true musical personality,' and it too, was missing some very critical parts to make a whole. To repeat -- technical accuracy in the shop is just technical accuracy, and just as an apprentice carpenter can have their techniques completely in command, that does not make a master artisan.

If I had to make a choice between mechanical accuracy without any of the other requisite elements which make up 'musicality,' I will of course opt for musicality... but being confronted with that either or, from the professionals who are playing for us, that choice rarely comes up.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GGluek said:


> On the other hand, Michael Steinberg has written that the double bass solo that opens the slow movement of the Mahler First, must have sounded "just awful" at the turn of the century -- and that would have been part of what Mahler had in mind. Thus contemporary bass playing standards that can make it sound beautiful do his intentions an injustice.


Richard Strauss lived long enough to hear those fast chromatic passages he wrote rendered with 100% accuracy, and was actually a bit disappointed. When composed, just like the Mahler double-bass story above, Strauss expected the players to be struggling with those same passages, and he commented, "When I wrote it, it was more as a gesture."

This is that split between what is written, what is conventional in the way of technical means when it was written, and the composer calculatedly giving the performer a part which is half-psychological in what the composer expected out of that performer. A generation later, and that calculated psychological reaction, and the player's reaction in rendering the same score, is gone, accuracy in its place 

Elliott Carter said, somewhere in the 1970's, that conservatory students were now performing his piano and 'cello sonata with more accuracy, and fluency -- i.e. more musically -- than the professionals who first performed it in 1948, when the piece was new.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> The Furtwangler recordings, and all older recordings, are what McLuhan called a "hot" medium, which demands that the listener "fill in" the missing information with his imagination, and become more actively involved in the listening process.
> 
> Higher resolution recordings, and HDTV are "cool" mediums, which have so much information in them that they demand very little from the viewer/listener, and results in a more passive experience.
> 
> ...


That's a provocative observation. I have to ask myself whether similar imperfections in a more recent, higher fidelity recording would be more annoying to me - whether, perhaps, I would be less "forgiving" (if indeed that's what I'm being) because my participation as a listener would be less intense. I'm really not sure of the answer. It does seems likely that those imperfections would be magnified by better sound; I would hear more accurately just how innacurate a detail of execution was, and that clarity could make it more bothersome. I do suspect the phenomenon you describe exists. I just can't apply the idea easily to the case I cited.

Another factor that can determine one's tolerance for imprecision (and I'm not really talking about major flubs here, i.e. outright wrong notes or other howlers, which would derail any listener's concentration) could be one's knowledge of the performer and his intentions or approach. Furtwangler was known to "improvise" on the podium, to "rehearse the work, not the performance," because he valued the spark of inspiration which made every performance a unique event. The musicians who played for him knew that he expected from them, and had the ability to elicit from them, a powerful, almost hypnotic attention which could potentially lead to a kind of shared revelation in performance. No two of his performances were quite alike, which is clearly what he believed musical recreation must entail; and because of this element of unpredictability, it seems almost inevitable that there would be moments in which the players' efforts to follow his inspiration would result in technical imprecision, however slight. I have to think that he fully expected this and regarded it as irrelevant, as did I while listening.

I want to cite one more example illustrating the possibility that precision may sometimes have to be sacrificed to expression. Decades ago I acquired a recording of Caruso and an unknown pianist performing the famous song "Mattinata" by Leoncavallo. Every tenor on earth sings ths at some time or other; this recording was made sometime around 1905. What stood out to me (besides Caruso's phenomenal voice) was the attitude of these performers toward rhythm. It seemed at times that every other measure brought a change of tempo! The singer was putting across the text with clarity and fervor, adjusting the speed according to the shape of the phrases and how they meshed with the meaning of the words, and the pianist, listening closely, was attempting to follow him while still maintaining the basic waltz rhythm of the song. I had heard (and sung) this song many times, and was intimately acquainted with the concept of rubato, but I knew that I was hearing a manner of performance unlike anything modern musicians would even contemplate. How could people possibly do it like that? Why, they aren't even together in measure thirteen! I think we have to presume that Caruso and his accompanist were performing in a generally accepted style for that time - the very time, by the way, when the song was composed, for those concerned with historically informed performance practices - and that our modern expectation that everyone be "together" at all times would have struck them as an impossible limitation on musical expression. A musician today who attempted to create such a performance would probably be, quite simply, unable to do it without tripping over his own mental feet - and even if he could manage it, he would probably be roundly criticized or simply unappreciated.

None of what I've said should be construed as a rejection of technical or musical precision per se. But I do question the modern fetishization of it, and offer the perhaps radical (for our era) suggestion that the performing artist's's quest for meaning may, at times, legitimately entail setting it aside as a necessary means to the end in view.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I want to cite one more example illustrating the possibility that precision may sometimes have to be sacrificed to expression. Decades ago I acquired a recording of Caruso and an unknown pianist performing the famous song "Mattinata" by Leoncavallo. Every tenor on earth sings ths at some time or other; this recording was made sometime around 1905. What stood out to me (besides Caruso's phenomenal voice) was the attitude of these performers toward rhythm. It seemed at times that every other measure brought a change of tempo!


One of the earliest full Mahler recordings is a Fourth Symphony from Mengelberg and the Concertgebouw. It is an *extremely* subjective take on the work in every bar that nonetheless should be heard (although I know you're no Mahlerian, so perhaps not by yourself) because the conductor worked with the composer on the interpretation some twenty years earlier.

Bruno Walter, despite his great friendship with Mahler and their congenial working relationship as fellow conductors, never had quite the same kind of temperament and personality as a conductor as Mahler. Reports from friends claimed that the best Mahler conductor after Mahler was Webern, but unfortunately we have no extant recordings of him conducting Mahler's works.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Yep, what PetrB said. Execution issues can be excused in small quantities but, really, I'd love to hear everything in glowing technical perfection down to the absolute nth degree. And I'm yet to hear it for so many things - eg maybe one day the opening of Don Juan will sound like it's written (and it will still be an exhilirating whoosh) - it's getting closer all the time

I think any perceived trade-off between technical perfection and musicality is over-mysticising music. You learn to play the notes and add in interpretation, get it secure and then go out there and play the snot out of it. There's less playing it safe these days because players are more secure

Technical perfection is playing the right notes and that is pitch, sound production, length, intensity, attack etc etc and being integrated into a musical phrase and texture to support the intention of the music. So, some of these older recordings might have great musicianship but wouldn't they be even better if everyone sounded good rather than wrong notes, scratchy out of tune high strings and muddy mid register winds and players falling off notes and all that other stuff?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

dgee said:


> Yep, what PetrB said. Execution issues can be excused in small quantities but, really, I'd love to hear everything in glowing technical perfection down to the absolute nth degree. And I'm yet to hear it for so many things - eg maybe one day the opening of Don Juan will sound like it's written (and it will still be an exhilirating whoosh) - it's getting closer all the time
> 
> I think any perceived trade-off between technical perfection and musicality is over-mysticising music. You learn to play the notes and add in interpretation, get it secure and then go out there and play the snot out of it. There's less playing it safe these days because players are more secure
> 
> Technical perfection is playing the right notes and that is pitch, sound production, length, intensity, attack etc etc and being integrated into a musical phrase and texture to support the intention of the music. So, some of these older recordings might have great musicianship but wouldn't they be even better if everyone sounded good rather than wrong notes, scratchy out of tune high strings and muddy mid register winds and players falling off notes and all that other stuff?


Points taken! :lol:

I do wonder, though, during what period prior to ours you feel musicians were more likely to "play it safe." Artur Schnabel and Alfred Cortot were far from the sort of technical supermen filing out of conservatories these days, but I can't think of two pianists whose pursuit of artistic strength was less inhibited by the desire for safety.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> One of the earliest full Mahler recordings is a Fourth Symphony from Mengelberg and the Concertgebouw. It is an *extremely* subjective take on the work in every bar that nonetheless should be heard (although I know you're no Mahlerian, so perhaps not by yourself) because the conductor worked with the composer on the interpretation some twenty years earlier.
> 
> Bruno Walter, despite his great friendship with Mahler and their congenial working relationship as fellow conductors, never had quite the same kind of temperament and personality as a conductor as Mahler. Reports from friends claimed that the best Mahler conductor after Mahler was Webern, but unfortunately we have no extant recordings of him conducting Mahler's works.


I'm aware of that recording but have never heard it. Thanks for reminding me of it.

I would love to have heard Mahler conduct - and for that matter Wagner, who is generally regarded as the "founder" of the "subjective school" of conducting, in which tempo and rhythm are regarded more as flexible tools of expression than as a more or less rigid frame into which everything is precisely fit. I know some Mengelberg recordings and have found him fascinating. He did a recording of Beethoven's "Pastoral" Symphony where, in the 2nd movement "scene by the brook," he actually has the melody playing in a slower tempo than the accompanying figuration, starting just slightly before the beat and ending slightly after it, in order to give both "melos" (to use Wagner's term) and accompaniment their full character. I could hardly believe my ears the first time I heard it! Of course Furtwangler belongs to this "subjective school" as well.

Personally, I think a rhythmic freedom and a feeling of improvisation we now rarely hear was generally expected in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and there's plenty of evidence of that from the beginning of the recording age. I also think that that kind of freedom may preclude clinical accuracy at times. Technical accuracy was certainly striven for then as now (Mengelberg being an example), but occasional imprecision? I doubt that ears not yet trained by the ubiquity of recorded music gave it much consideration.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I'm aware of that recording but have never heard it. Thanks for reminding me of it.
> 
> I would love to have heard Mahler conduct - and for that matter Wagner, who is generally regarded as the "founder" of the "subjective school" of conducting, in which tempo and rhythm are regarded more as flexible tools of expression than as a more or less rigid frame into which everything is precisely fit. I know some Mengelberg recordings and have found him fascinating. He did a recording of Beethoven's "Pastoral" Symphony where, in the 2nd movement "scene by the brook," he actually has the melody playing in a slower tempo than the accompanying figuration, starting just slightly before the beat and ending slightly after it, in order to give both "melos" (to use Wagner's term) and accompaniment their full character. I could hardly believe my ears the first time I heard it! Of course Furtwangler belongs to this "subjective school" as well.
> 
> Personally, I think a rhythmic freedom and a feeling of improvisation we now rarely hear was generally expected in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and there's plenty of evidence of that from the beginning of the recording age. I also think that that kind of freedom may preclude clinical accuracy at times. Technical accuracy was certainly striven for then as now (Mengelberg being an example), but occasional imprecision? I doubt that ears not yet trained by the ubiquity of recorded music gave it much consideration.


Mahler was himself renowned for the precision of his beat, but also controversial for the "extremes" of tempos that he favored. Conducting as we know it was still in its infancy (as it really only began as such in the 19th century), and despite the clarity of Mahler's textures and the way his interpretations brought out new elements in the scores of Wagner and Beethoven, some (partially out of anti-semitic inclinations) were disturbed by his new way with the classics.

One thing is for sure. We wouldn't consider Mahler a "safe", "dependable" conductor today; he would be a firebrand who did things against expectation, just because he felt that's what served the music.

To get back to the initial question, I feel that technical precision in terms of playing the notes with perfect rhythmic accuracy and intonation is fine insofar as it serves the music, but that a performance cannot by any means get by, no matter what the repertoire, with only accuracy and no expression.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Mahler was himself renowned for the precision of his beat, but also controversial for the "extremes" of tempos that he favored. Conducting as we know it was still in its infancy (as it really only began as such in the 19th century), and despite the clarity of Mahler's textures and the way his interpretations brought out new elements in the scores of Wagner and Beethoven, some (partially out of anti-semitic inclinations) were disturbed by his new way with the classics.
> 
> One thing is for sure. We wouldn't consider Mahler a "safe", "dependable" conductor today; he would be a firebrand who did things against expectation, just because he felt that's what served the music.
> 
> To get back to the initial question, I feel that technical precision in terms of playing the notes with perfect rhythmic accuracy and intonation is fine insofar as it serves the music, but that a performance cannot by any means get by, no matter what the repertoire, with only accuracy and no expression.


I've been wanting to know what type of conductor he was, I was actually going to ask you about that! I'm glad you brought it up here, when you say, "_controversial for the "extremes" of tempos that he favored_", do you mean for both slow and fast tempos alike? The allegro molto's would be extremely fast and the adagio's would be extremely slow?

I'm borderline obsessed with a desire to know how the composer-conductors of the 19th century conducted, it's something I actually stay up at night thinking about, haha. I would give an arm and leg to have heard how Mahler, Wagner, Berlioz, Beethoven, etc. conducted. I'd love to hear Mahler and Wagner's interpretation of Beethoven's 9th, I've read that Wagner conducted it numerous times.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I've been wanting to know what type of conductor he was, I was actually going to ask you about that! I'm glad you brought it up here, when you say, "_controversial for the "extremes" of tempos that he favored_", do you mean for both slow and fast tempos alike? The allegro molto's would be extremely fast and the adagio's would be extremely slow?


Not necessarily, though occasionally. It seems that it was just as often that he would go against the grain in choosing a more lively tempo for a slower movement, or going a bit more stately for a fast movement, regardless of what tradition said should be done. Unfortunately, no recordings survive, and all that we have to go on are reminiscences from those who heard him conduct. It was regularly reported that hearing Mahler conduct a performance would be a revelatory experience, no matter what the repertoire.

We do have some timings from a rehearsal of his own Fifth Symphony, though, which indicate that the tempos he favored for his own works would be considered on the faster side today, especially the Adagietto, which was _under eight minutes_!

As for Beethoven's Ninth, we do have Mahler's retouchings to the orchestration, but no great conductor has recorded that version, so I'd imagine that one would get a better impression of Mahler's interpretation by hearing others rather than hearing a lesser conductor do Mahler's version of the score. The composers Mahler cherished most were Beethoven, Wagner, and Mozart.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Not necessarily, though occasionally. It seems that it was just as often that he would go against the grain in choosing a more lively tempo for a slower movement, or going a bit more stately for a fast movement, regardless of what tradition said should be done. Unfortunately, no recordings survive, and all that we have to go on are reminiscences from those who heard him conduct. It was regularly reported that hearing Mahler conduct a performance would be a revelatory experience, no matter what the repertoire.
> 
> We do have some timings from a rehearsal of his own Fifth Symphony, though, which indicate that the tempos he favored for his own works would be considered on the faster side today, especially the Adagietto, which was _under eight minutes_!
> 
> As for Beethoven's Ninth, we do have Mahler's retouchings to the orchestration, but no great conductor has recorded that version, so I'd imagine that one would get a better impression of Mahler's interpretation by hearing others rather than hearing a lesser conductor do Mahler's version of the score. The composers Mahler cherished most were Beethoven, Wagner, and Mozart.


This is really great information. Thank you for that, it pretty much made my night. I _told _ you I was borderline obsessed, haha. Strangely enough, even before I started listening to Classical I always had a fascination with people born in the 19th century. Just a weird quirk, I guess.

Also, under eight minutes. And I thought Abbado's 5th Adagietto was fast at just over nine minutes.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Points taken! :lol:
> 
> I do wonder, though, during what period prior to ours you feel musicians were more likely to "play it safe." Artur Schnabel and Alfred Cortot were far from the sort of technical supermen filing out of conservatories these days, but I can't think of two pianists whose pursuit of artistic strength was less inhibited by the desire for safety.


Indeed - I was probably a little careless with "playing it safe". It's probably not even relevant to the discussion of what has happened to playing over time - I can't actually recall my train of thought!

Maybe I could add that the hair-raising effect of being on the edge of one's capability is less likely to occur now in standard repertoire works (Rite of Spring - say - is fairly standard and most decent bands will put it together fairly comfortably) but - as Mandryka's Ferneyhough quote points out - can be found readily in the performance of contemporary works, where I often find it exhilirating


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Technical perfection really includes consummate musicianship.
> 
> In this thread, the OP is more addressing accurate execution of notes and rhythm / timing, and somewhat separating the musicality, making of it a bit of a polarized issue.
> 
> ...


And what of musical techniques that don't have to do with hitting the right notes at the right time? What of convincing bel canto, pizzicato, legato, and other such effects? I would argue that in a lot of ways musicality actually demonstrates the other, more important types of technical proficiency and we've been preoccupied with the simplest type of technique. There are many musicians who can play note perfect. There are just a few in the world who can make recordings like Gieseking, Yudina, Sofronitsky, Richter, Cutner, Perahia, Oistrakh, Heifetz and other such names who it seems have played music on their own level, practically in their own dimension in my mind, compared to what you see in competitions and recitals at universities.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Technical precision vs expression is a false dichotomy. As one piano teacher told me once: to be 'expressive' is also part of being precise; being a good musician is a 'full pack'.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

If perfection refers to flawlessly playing back the music as it is written in the score, it is still quite subjective, since many elements of the musical notation are subjective. Tempo markings (unless metronomized) and dynamics are very subjective, staccato and legato too. The amout of pedal in piano playing. Ritardando, accellerando, yes, but how much exactly? How does the crescendo go? Linear or exponential?

There can be no perfection there, because all these choices are matters of taste, not of right or wrong in the binary logic that is the basis for objective perfection.

Also, consider the choice of instrument (i.e. a Chopin-time Pleyel or modern Yamaha?) and its particular sound. As far as recordings are concerned: the acoustics of the hall and the amount of reverb, the mic placement and mixing.

The only measurable perfection is one of: playing the correct notes at the correct time with the correct duration. Everything else is subjective.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

If they expect me to pay 25-50 euros for a concert then I can expect them not to make stupid mistakes that can easily be resolved by more rehearsals


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

Piwikiwi said:


> If they expect me to pay 25-50 euros for a concert then I can expect them not to make stupid mistakes that can easily be resolved by more rehearsals


Good point. And it sounds strange that small mistakes, uneven, unsynced playing can make the music better in *any* sense


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I've been wanting to know what type of conductor he was, I was actually going to ask you about that! I'm glad you brought it up here, when you say, "_controversial for the "extremes" of tempos that he favored_", do you mean for both slow and fast tempos alike? The allegro molto's would be extremely fast and the adagio's would be extremely slow?
> 
> I'm borderline obsessed with a desire to know how the composer-conductors of the 19th century conducted, it's something I actually stay up at night thinking about, haha. I would give an arm and leg to have heard how Mahler, Wagner, Berlioz, Beethoven, etc. conducted. I'd love to hear Mahler and Wagner's interpretation of Beethoven's 9th, I've read that Wagner conducted it numerous times.


You have to love someone who attributes his insomnia to a reason like that. :tiphat:

Have you ever read Wagner's essay "On Conducting"? You can get it for practically nothing on Amazon. It isn't like having a recording of Wagner conducting, but his explanations of the conductor's art are pretty detailed and give a vivid notion of his artistic presuppositions. As far as recordings of 19th-century musicians are concerned, we have relatively few examples of conducting because an orchestra couldn't be recorded well until the advent of electrical recording. But we can hear violinists like Sarasate and Ysaye, as well as numerous pianists and singers, who are sometimes elderly and technically "over the hill" but still convey quite vividly concepts of musical performance prevalent before the turn of the 20th century.

So, while you're sitting up nights, put some shellacs on the Victrola. Just be sure to keep a good supply of cactus needles on hand.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You have to love someone who attributes his insomnia to a reason like that. :tiphat:
> 
> Have you ever read Wagner's essay "On Conducting"? You can get it for practically nothing on Amazon. It isn't like having a recording of Wagner conducting, but his explanations of the conductor's art are pretty detailed and give a vivid notion of his artistic presuppositions. As far as recordings of 19th-century musicians are concerned, we have relatively few examples of conducting because an orchestra couldn't be recorded well until the advent of electrical recording. But we can hear violinists like Sarasate and Ysaye, as well as numerous pianists and singers, who are sometimes elderly and technically "over the hill" but still convey quite vividly concepts of musical performance prevalent before the turn of the 20th century.
> 
> So, while you're sitting up nights, put some shellacs on the Victrola. Just be sure to keep a good supply of cactus needles on hand.


Haha! Yeah, I also stay up at night wondering about the possibility of other life in the universe, are there other universes (which currently science is pointing to yes, there are), why is there something instead of nothing and all those other existential questions that I'm sure don't afflict normal and sane people. :lol:

Thanks for the Wagner suggestion, I'll definitely have to check it out!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You have to love someone who attributes his insomnia to a reason like that. :tiphat:
> 
> Have you ever read Wagner's essay "On Conducting"? You can get it for practically nothing on Amazon. It isn't like having a recording of Wagner conducting, but his explanations of the conductor's art are pretty detailed and give a vivid notion of his artistic presuppositions. As far as recordings of 19th-century musicians are concerned, we have relatively few examples of conducting because an orchestra couldn't be recorded well until the advent of electrical recording. But we can hear violinists like Sarasate and Ysaye, as well as numerous pianists and singers, who are sometimes elderly and technically "over the hill" but still convey quite vividly concepts of musical performance prevalent before the turn of the 20th century.
> 
> So, while you're sitting up nights, put some shellacs on the Victrola. Just be sure to keep a good supply of cactus needles on hand.


I saw an interview somewhere on You Tube with Semyon Bychkov. He was talking about his performance of _Lohengrin_ and in passing made mention of Strauss' conducting of _Parsifal_, which many criticized as being too fast in tempo. Strauss allegedly responded to his critics, pointing out that he was a teenage boy who saw Wagner in the pit at Bayreuth conducting _Parsifal_; and that Wagner's tempos were no slower than his own.

What . . . would . . . Knappy. . . think. . . of. . . _that_?

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I saw an interview somewhere on You Tube with Semyon Bychkov. He was talking about his performance of _Lohengrin_ and in passing made mention of Strauss' conducting of _Parsifal_, which many criticized as being too fast in tempo. Strauss allegedly responded to his critics, pointing out that he was a teenage boy who saw Wagner in the pit at Bayreuth conducting Parsifal; and that Wagner's tempos were no slower than his own.
> 
> What . . . would . . . Knappy. . . think. . . of. . . _that_?
> 
> Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


Knappy might come back with the observation that at the final performance of _Parsifal_ in August of 1882 Wagner took the baton from Levi and conducted the final scene at tempos which taxed the breath of the singers. We also have timings for Wagner's conducting of the Prelude to Act I coming in at 13' and 14'30," the latter of which is slower than Knappertsbusch on his slowest (1951) recording.

Most interesting is not that Strauss's memory was colored by his predilections - he was known as an "objective" conductor, in contrast with the more "subjective" Wagner-Mahler sort - but that Wagner's own conception of his music's proper tempo was so flexible. This should give pause to anyone looking for the "correct" tempo of anything, or anyone obsessed with Beethoven's (or anyone else's) metronome.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Knappy might come back with the observation that at the final performance of _Parsifal_ in August of 1882 Wagner took the baton from Levi and conducted the final scene at tempos which taxed the breath of the singers. We also have timings for Wagner's conducting of the Prelude to Act I coming in at 13' and 14'30," the latter of which is slower than Knappertsbusch on his slowest (1951) recording.
> 
> Most interesting is not that that Strauss's memory was colored by his predilections - he was known as an "objective" conductor, in contrast with the more "subjective" Wagner-Mahler sort - but that Wagner's own conception of his music's proper tempo was so flexible. This should give pause to anyone looking for the "correct" tempo of anything, or anyone obsessed with Beethoven's (or anyone else's) metronome.


Oh I know.

I knew that you'd have an informed and hammering response, whether pro- or contra--- which would run circles around my own.

But yeah, I don't think there is any Alpha-and-Omega interpretation of anything either.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> This is really great information. Thank you for that, it pretty much made my night. I _told _ you I was borderline obsessed, haha. Strangely enough, even before I started listening to Classical I always had a fascination with people born in the 19th century. Just a weird quirk, I guess.
> 
> Also, under eight minutes. And I thought Abbado's 5th Adagietto was fast at just over nine minutes.


I'm hesitant to judge how well a tempo works simply by looking at the movement timing, especially in works with as many tempo changes as Mahler's, but with the Adagietto, I find that I prefer timings around 10 minutes (whether a little over or under), and that if it goes too much slower it drags. That said, Tennstedt took slower tempos than most, and I don't ever find his Mahler draggy.

We _do_ have recordings of many of the singers Mahler worked with at the Vienna Court Opera and later at the Met: Selma Kurz, Leo Slezak, and so forth. This gives us a good idea of the type of voice he preferred, which leaned towards the dramatic over the bel canto.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

One thing about atonal compositions-many folks who aren't into it- couldn't tell whether there are technical imperfections or not.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hpowders said:


> One thing about atonal compositions-many folks who aren't into it- couldn't tell whether there are technical imperfections or not.


"The latest annoyance, but colossal, was Tannhaeuser. I believe that I could write tomorrow something similar, inspired by my cat walking down the keyboard of the piano." - Parisian critic in 1861


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> "The latest annoyance, but colossal, was Tannhaeuser. I believe that I could write tomorrow something similar, inspired by my cat walking down the keyboard of the piano." - Parisian critic in 1861


Haha! I laughed out loud at that one. 19th century criticism of now legendary works are hilarious for their exaggeration, they certainly paint a vivid picture, though, that's for sure!

- Carl Maria von Weber proclaiming Beethoven to be "_fit for the madhouse_" after hearing the ending of the 1st mvt of Beethoven's 7th symphony (From Wikipedia, "the movement finishes with a long coda, which starts similarly as the development section. The coda contains a famous twenty-bar passage consisting of a two-bar motif repeated ten times to the background a four octave deep Pedal point of an E.")

- Beecham on Beethoven's 7th, "_What can you do with it? It's like a lot of yaks jumping about._"

- Even Berlioz who worshipped Beethoven said this about a certain passage in the Eroica symphony, "However you look at it, if that was really what Beethoven wanted, and if there is any truth in the anecdotes which circulate on the subject, it must be admitted that this *whim is an absurdity.*"


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> "The latest annoyance, but colossal, was Tannhaeuser. I believe that I could write tomorrow something similar, inspired by my cat walking down the keyboard of the piano." - Parisian critic in 1861


Yes, but you (he) didnt. And thats the point


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Haha! Yeah, I also stay up at night wondering about the possibility of other life in the universe, are there other universes (which currently science is pointing to yes, there are), why is there something instead of nothing and all those other existential questions that I'm sure don't afflict normal and sane people. :lol:
> 
> Thanks for the Wagner suggestion, I'll definitely have to check it out!


Didn't you get the memo, DiesIrae? The only sane people are on TC.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

stevens said:


> Yes, but you (he) didnt. And thats the point


Hmm? You're saying Wagner's music isn't the exact same thing (at least to the average music lover and the sensitive public) as random notes? You must be one of those elitist snobs who can't see the emperor's new clothes for what they really are!

Tis a joke, okay? That's the point.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Of course, if we're talking about human musicians, then perfection is impossible -- even if it could be somehow defined! 

If more than one interpretation is possible, then the argument towards "technical perfection" is off the board since the matter of how long to hold the note, how loud to play it, how this and how that become subjective matters of the passions, which is what music really is all about anyhow. You want perfection, listen to a metronome. 

But even the metronome will eventually begin to wear and will lose its exactness (if it really even ever had exactness to begin with!). 

Perhaps the composer can create perfection with his score, and one can read the score for perfection. But as soon as the human musician steps in, forget perfection and listen instead for responsible satisfying interpretation. Such involves no blatant errors, mistakes, miscues and a minimum of more subtle errors, mistakes, miscues. 

Hey, if we're listening for perfection in the first place, we're missing the point of the music. 

If we listen to the music and hear a performance responsibly satisfying interpretively, then we don't even think about the technical aspects. Of course, having "chops" is good for a musician, especially for taking on more challenging pieces, but forget perfection. 

(I've heard tale that God's Creation is perfect; but when I look round at this world, I see something that could use a bit of adjustment towards a more responsibly satisfying experience. And some folks are worried about perfection in music? Alas ... alas....)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> That's a provocative observation. I have to ask myself whether similar imperfections in a more recent, higher fidelity recording would be more annoying to me - whether, perhaps, I would be less "forgiving" (if indeed that's what I'm being) because my participation as a listener would be less intense. I'm really not sure of the answer. It does seems likely that those imperfections would be magnified by better sound; I would hear more accurately just how innacurate a detail of execution was, and that clarity could make it more bothersome. I do suspect the phenomenon you describe exists. I just can't apply the idea easily to the case I cited.


In a way, one must penetrate through the noise to reach the "Platonic essence, the true meaning" of the music. It's like hearing a new Beatles song late at night on a distant AM radio in a car...the original essence does come through, quite strongly, and imprints its exact form and nuance into your mind.

And I suspect that, as new Beatles remasterings have proven to me, these "essences" do not go away; they are imprinted in my mind indelibly, their originating archetypal reality made even stronger in the presence of the same "codex" in high-rez sound.

Perhaps with Furtwangler, we are witnessing an "essence of being," a state of history during and after WWII that was quite unique. Life was quite different, then; people died of routine infections, and there were no interstate highways, MacDonald's, television, or computers.

Old opera recordings are like that, as any opera buff will tell you. Human voices convey "being" as well as sound; we are listening to the person, as well as the music


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, if we're talking about human musicians, then perfection is impossible -- even if it could be somehow defined! If more than one interpretation is possible, then the argument towards "technical perfection" is off the board since the matter of how long to hold the note, how loud to play it, how this and how that become subjective matters of the passions, which is what music really is all about anyhow. You want perfection, listen to a metronome. But even the metronome will eventually begin to wear and will lose its exactness (if it really even ever had exactness to begin with!). Perhaps the composer can create perfection with his score, and one can read the score for perfection. But as soon as the human musician steps in, forget perfection and listen instead for responsible satisfying interpretation. Such involves no blatant errors, mistakes, miscues and a minimum of more subtle errors, mistakes, miscues. Hey, if we're listening for perfection in the first place, we're missing the point of the music. If we listen to the music and hear a performance responsibly satisfying interpretively, then we don't even think about the technical aspects. Of course, having "chops" is good for a musician, especially for taking on more challenging pieces, but forget perfection. (I've heard tale that God's Creation is perfect; but when I look round at this world, I see something that could use a bit of adjustment towards a more responsibly satisfying experience. And some folks are worried about perfection in music? Alas ... alas....)


I like your points but this wall of text is hurting my brain. Maybe try breaking it up into paragraphs in the future? Not trying to be harsh, it just makes it really hard if you're dyslexic and you already have to reread lines a lot. Took me forever to read this post.

As for perfection in music, I personally think it's irrelevant to the goal. Music is about expressing something, and I emphasize "some"thing over "the" thing. Looking for perfection in music is like looking for a mathematical sequence in ethics, the two don't even relate (of course utilitarianism relates math to ethics a little bit, don't jump down my throat guys, hahahaha).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> In a way, one must penetrate through the noise to reach the "Platonic essence, the true meaning" of the music. It's like hearing a new Beatles song late at night on a distant AM radio in a car...the original essence does come through, quite strongly, and imprints its exact form and nuance into your mind.
> 
> And I suspect that, as new Beatles remasterings have proven to me, these "essences" do not go away; they are imprinted in my mind indelibly, their originating archetypal reality made even stronger in the presence of the same "codex" in high-rez sound.
> 
> ...


What strikes me in what you've said here is the affirmation of music's ability to convey, suggest, or elicit (I'm not taking epistemological sides here!) multiple layers of meaning, regardless of the impediments of poor sound fidelity or imperfect execution. "Platonic essence," "true meaning," "originating archetypal reality," "essence of being," "state of history," "the person as well as the music"... Quoting all these end to end this way may draw down the wrath or ridicule of the "pure music" contingent, but every performing musician and most people drawn to music as an art know that there are realities which all these words are meant to express - realities which are, I think, essential to keep in mind when considering all the elements that make up a musical performance, both its execution and our reception of it.

Furtwangler was preeminently a musician devoted to honoring the truth that music can mean something - can mean, and even ought to mean, a great deal. And, as DiesIraeXIV said, the proof is in the pudding. It is absolutely impossible to speak meaningfully about this man's performances without going far beyond purely musical terminology and into the no man's - or every man's? - land of the philosophical and the spiritual. It's no accident that it was his particular take on Brahms that prompted my initial musings: Brahms, the "classical" Romantic, held up by partisans of his day as the antithesis and corrective to those corruptors of the "pure" art of music, Liszt and Wagner, those devils who were trying to say, with their sprawling "tone poems" and their endless literary babble that what music is "about" is more important than what it "is"!

That controversy has died down as a cultural phenomenon. But I think an artist like Furtwangler reminds us that it is still capable of generating questions. For here is the music of Herr Doktor J. Brahms, with its deliberately crafted sonatas and passacaglias, being made to evoke emotions, to suggest meanings, that we hardly suspected were there - and we are convinced by this wizard of the baton that they really _are_ there, that we have been missing something all these years, that these carefully balanced edifices erected by the portly old professor of classicism are as filled with wild passion, unfulfilled yearning, stark terror and violent strife as any tone poem on Dante or music drama on Keltic legend.

This may seem far afield from my initial post. But I offer it to establish a philosophical position - a view of music, a Romantic one no doubt - from which my inquiry arose. It may be that the question of the importance of technical accuracy in the performance of music doesn't need asking most of the time; in most performances, perhaps, near-perfect accuracy is critically important because the average performance is routine and unimaginative, and without truly impressive execution would have little to offer and little to justify it. Perhaps it's only performances which attain unusually powerful levels of expressiveness, of meaning, which can transcend shortcomings of execution and render us either unaware of them or indifferent to them - or can even, as I experienced them in listening to Furtwangler's Brahms, cause us to perceive them as a touching symbol of music's extremest aspirations and of a musician's assault on the mountain whose summit can never be reached.

I realize this wasn't a specific response to you, millionrainbows. I apologize. Periodic fits of Furtwangleritis will do this to me. There is no cure; I've even tried tincture of Toscanini and it has no effect whatever.

:tiphat:


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> I like your points but this wall of text is hurting my brain. Maybe try breaking it up into paragraphs in the future? Not trying to be harsh, it just makes it really hard if you're dyslexic and you already have to reread lines a lot. Took me forever to read this post.
> 
> As for perfection in music, I personally think it's irrelevant to the goal. Music is about expressing something, and I emphasize "some"thing over "the" thing. Looking for perfection in music is like looking for a mathematical sequence in ethics, the two don't even relate (of course utilitarianism relates math to ethics a little bit, don't jump down my throat guys, hahahaha).


Will do ... just for you.


----------

