# Score vs. Performance



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

What's more important to you, and why? Music can be made without scores, after all. That's the way it started out, as sound.

Isn't a score just a set of instructions used to control large groups?
A good performer, on the other hand, is the one who really breathes life into a score, and gives it meaning, power, identity, force, and poetry.

Are you one of those people who thinks the score is like "the gospel," which should be strictly adhered to in search of an "ideal" Platonic version?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I can't read music but am not sure that any score is a blueprint in engineering. So performance is what we get - what makes the music fly or remain earthbound. Of course, if the piece in a poor one then no performance can save it.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Hope you're not trying to _score_ too many points with this post. It sounds like one of those which will invite confrontations!

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what a piece of music is. Is it the score? Or the performance (the sounded reality) only? Or are both of these "music" but in different senses of the term?

"Isn't a score just a set of instructions used to control large groups?" No, that's a Constitution. And even that doesn't work all of the time, apparently.

The score _is _a set of instructions on how to realize a sound-art-piece. It's kind of like the blueprint for a finished work of architecture. There is art in the blueprint as well as in the final product. The blueprint isn't the final product, but it can create numerous "offspring", just as a score can create many performances/interpretations.

Interestingly, the score is rather definite (though it may call for aleatory effects) while the performance taken from the score depends upon decisions/changes. The exact same printed score will produce many varied sound performances.

I don't know where group control comes in here, unless you are an usher at, say, the opening performance of Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ and you need to do something to regain order in the concert hall. Unfortunately, the score provides you no help there.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm trying to see if I can detect any particular bias in the OP.

Hmmm . . . yeah, OK.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> What's more important to you, and why? Music can be made without scores, after all. That's the way it started out, as sound.
> 
> Isn't a score just a set of instructions used to control large groups?
> *A good performer, on the other hand, is the one who really breathes life into a score, and gives it meaning, power, identity, force, and poetry.
> ...


Yes a performer will do that, but let's not forget the actual composer to which all of those verbs and adjectives apply even more so.
For me the traditional score is a point of departure for a journey, one that has the directions, but not the exact route. Ideally, the performer(s) arrive at the same destination as the composer.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Are you one of those people who thinks the score is like "the gospel," which should be strictly adhered to in search of an "ideal" Platonic version?


Don't they both go together? When I hear a classical piece (as opposed to jazz or rock), I come with certain expectations. Classical can be a complex language, sometimes requiring sustained attention and above-average skill, so some degree of familiarity makes the listening experience greater. When a skilled conductor/performer takes the familiar and makes it unique, that is where the art is. When they take the score cavalierly, it doesn't matter how in tune/skillfully played the music is, the performance can fall flat. (For example, my experience in hearing Maximilian Cobra shows how someone can execute Beethoven with an orchestra playing together and in tune, but the tempi are so exaggerated that the experience is diminished).

Although I have wondered if a string quartet or pianist began playing random notes in the style of Anton Webern and attributed it to Webern, how many would pick up on it.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

One could say that a score is like a blueprint of a proposed structure....that structure actualized through performance or construction, as the case may be...
Tho, perhaps the score is more like the script of a play, or theatrical production...it tells us what notes, what pitches are to be performed in time, relative to one another...
Tho the script is exact, its delivery is very much up to the performer...obviously, the actor does not read the script in a straight monotone delivery, it would be lifeless and deadly...same with the musical score - the composer may present guidelines to the performer - tempo indications: Allegro, Adagio, Andante, etc, etc..and expressive directions as well - maestoso, con brio, dolce, cantabile, feroce, etc....performers will generate their own concepts of these directions put forth by the composer...


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

What Heck148 said is correct. And to add to it: the score is "the gospel". It's the performer's obligation to respect the composer's work as far as is possible. They should not re-orchestrate, re-harmonize, make cuts. But when it comes to things like tempo, that's where some musical sense and intelligence comes in. I don't care at all what the HIP crowd thinks, those Beethoven tempo markings just cannot be right. Following a score in a slave-like manner is antimusical and I think most composers would agree. Musical notation is far from perfect and a "strictly adhered to" isn't possible. That's why different recordings are so different even using the same music. Even the so-called purist conductor's recordings sound different.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The relative importance of score versus performance to the final effect of a work depends on the nature of the music and the performing traditions that apply to it. The score is a set of instructions, but those may be either very general or specific down to subtle details. Bach just gave us the notes. Mahler gave us detailed instructions for phrasing and dynamics. No generalizations apply to music as a whole.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Mahler gave us detailed instructions for phrasing and dynamics.


Yeah, Mahler doesn't leave anyone guessing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I think it's interesting that even composers don't necessarily have an ideal perfomance in mind. Sibelius complimented performances of his music as different as those of Karajan, Beecham and Ormandy. Copland, in a recording of his own rehearsal of _Appalachian Spring_, says amusedly to the violins after they play an unwritten but commonly used glissando, "I don't know where that came from," but his recording keeps the effect. Composers are generally performers on some instrument, so they're perfectly familiar with the role of interpretation, and most are probably happy when performers care enough to bring some individuality to performances of their music.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

The score is a map with several sets of simultaneous instructions for many players to create a cohesive product.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Most are probably happy when performers care enough to bring some individuality to performances of their music.


I think most are happy if anyone performs their music at all.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Manxfeeder said:


> Yeah, Mahler doesn't leave anyone guessing.


And yet there are so many questions and different approaches. Four easy examples:

1) The 3rd symphony, 4th movement. That infamous English horn part was played one way for so long, then along comes some idiot who thought it should be played glissando. Clearly wrong. Mahler knew a glissando and he indicated it clearly when he wanted it. But now the part has become ugly as more and more conductors and players play it gliss. rather than "drawn up".
2) The opening of the 7th. Some versions (Solti, Barenboim eg) play measured notes in the strings. Others play a real tremolo, including Klemperer who was there at the first performance. But check the score: could Solti be right?
3) Symphony 1, 3rd movement. Now there is conjecture that Mahler didn't want a single solo bass, no, he wanted the whole section. This confusion thanks to the Gustav Mahler Gesellschaft.
4) Symphony 6. Besides the unending and pointless arguments about Andante-Scherzo or Scherzo-Andante, the tempo at the vey opening is all over the place, from the very quick to the agonizingly slow.

Even dynamics really aren't that clear. He orchestrated in a way that tried to bring out the important material so that some idiot conductor couldn't mess up, but they still do.

Nope, Mahler, despite the numerous comments in the scores, still leaves us guessing.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Seems to me the composer is charged (and knows he is charged) with creating a sound event, and the score presents instructions for others who aren't him/her to create it. There is often a lot of baggage involving contemporaneous performing practice/tradition that the composer takes into account when he's notating his concept, and sometimes our misapplication or lack of knowledge of these assumed practices cause performances to go off the rails, but we can't always know that. The composer does the best job he can, and then throws up his hands.

I read music badly, but know the principles of notation and can follow a score sort-of if I know the music well and am listening, or know it well enough to play it in my head. The advantage I've found is that sometimes the score makes things I am hearing (or think I am hearing) make sense, and sometimes I actually see things that I'm not hearing, or am mishearing.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Heck148 said:


> One could say that a score is like a blueprint of a proposed structure....that structure actualized through performance or construction, as the case may be...
> Tho, perhaps the score is more like the script of a play, or theatrical production...it tells us what notes, what pitches are to be performed in time, relative to one another...
> Tho the script is exact, its delivery is very much up to the performer...obviously, the actor does not read the script in a straight monotone delivery, it would be lifeless and deadly...same with the musical score - the composer may present guidelines to the performer - tempo indications: Allegro, Adagio, Andante, etc, etc..and expressive directions as well - maestoso, con brio, dolce, cantabile, feroce, etc....performers will generate their own concepts of these directions put forth by the composer...


I really like Heck148's contributions. 90% of time his experiences coincide with my own.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

To be honest, if a performer doesn't obey the score but is still convincing musically, I see no problem with obviously going against the intent of the composer. The resulting music should be the end goal; all other concerns, including respecting the wishes of the composer, should be secondary.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BachIsBest said:


> To be honest, if a performer doesn't obey the score but is still convincing musically, I see no problem with obviously goingagainst the intent of the composer. The resulting music should be the end goal; all other concerns, including respecting the wishes of the composer, should be secondary.


If the composer is living, he might want to talk to you about that attitude.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

My favorite work was composed with choir but is famously performed without it. I don't like the choir.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Heck148 said:


> One could say that a score is like a blueprint of a proposed structure....that structure actualized through performance or construction, as the case may be...
> *Tho, perhaps the score is more like the script of a play, or theatrical production...it tells us what notes, what pitches are to be performed in time, relative to one another...*
> Tho the script is exact, its delivery is very much up to the performer...obviously, the actor does not read the script in a straight monotone delivery, it would be lifeless and deadly...same with the musical score - the composer may present guidelines to the performer - tempo indications: Allegro, Adagio, Andante, etc, etc..and expressive directions as well - maestoso, con brio, dolce, cantabile, feroce, etc....performers will generate their own concepts of these directions put forth by the composer...


I equate the score to a building blueprint more than to the script of a play. I could amend that if I considered the play only to be spoken, such as a radio play or closet drama. That considers the aural aspect of the play, and a musical score produces an aural result. The script of a play includes as well a visual component for full realization. And this additional element lends to greater possibility of variation. Of course, one could point out that a building is a visual realization, but it is more like a musical realization since it is a single element off the original blueprint (blueprint to building) just as the musical work is a single element off the score (score to music). In the music, the performer equates, one might suppose, to the construction workers, but I remain somewhat uncomfortable with that analogy, one to which I've never before given thought prior to this post.

An intriguing OP, here.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

BachIsBest said:


> To be honest, if a performer doesn't obey the score but is still convincing musically, I see no problem with obviously going against the intent of the composer. The resulting music should be the end goal; all other concerns, including respecting the wishes of the composer, should be secondary.


I have requested a warrant to stop you performing any music BachIsBest. Expect a knock on the door from the CIA... (Composers Intentions Agency). The penalty for such outrage against the score will be severe, you will have to listen to Bach's 48 scored for 3 accordians and a Scottish bagpipe with all pieces transcribed to B flat major...even the minor key ones....

Every composer will attest that revelation is to be had when they hear a score played live for the first time, that is after they get over the "oh crap, what on earth was I thinking" stage. What a good musician naturally gives to a part that is suitably written is one of the great joys for a composer. There is always hidden expressive potential in a line or interpretation that can be missed or not even thought of by a composer who will be grateful and delighted when it is instinctively felt by good players. The composer can then pretend it's what they meant...


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

............................................


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> I can't read music but am not sure that any score is a blueprint in engineering. So performance is what we get - what makes the music fly or remain earthbound. Of course, if the piece in a poor one then no performance can save it.


That's what they thought about the Goldbergs, until Glenn Gould breathed new like into them, getting away from that Wanda Landowska approach.



larold said:


> _What's more important to you, and why? Music can be made without scores, after all. That's the way it started out, as sound._
> 
> Maybe you can list your top 10 pieces of classical music written without a score and tell us what you like about them.


Ha ha. No, I was speaking much more generally. Much folk, 'ethnic', and popular music is not scored, and is transmitted by ear. This kind of music is a performer's music, where there is no 'composer' behind the curtain, or if there is, is not the prime consideration (as in a Sinatra recording). Jazz is a continuation of this to a large degree, where we are more interested in what the improvisor does with the music rather than the architecture.

In jazz, we are more concerned with who the performers are, and what they are doing. When John Coltrane plays "My Favorite Things," we are more interested in what he does with the music, rather than the song itself, which is a 'scaffolding' for the improvisations. I think it's important to realize that music was, and still can be created without scores, in this performing tradition, and that in this approach to music, it's performers that bring the human element to the experience in a direct, living way, and concrete, defined musical ideas of one composer take a back seat.

The score contains 'human elements' too, but these are recorded and must be translated and interpreted. The composer may already be dead, so these human elements must be translated into 'living, human' terms, so there is always the chance that this will not be successful.

Since classical music is not about improvisation, i.e. the "musical ideas" of the performers, then it is concerned with the ideas or the composer only. So this is a different conception of a what a performer is; he becomes merely a vehicle for the ideas.

So, in that the score represents "musical idea," it is ultimately more important than any interpretation, since the individual power of the performer has been effectively eliminated.

In orchestral classical music, we are listening to the ideas of one composer, and perhaps an interpretation of a conductor, as a 'collective effort of performance.' Most orchestral instruments are not really designed for solo use anyway, and ideally are part of a collective sound, an hierarchy. 
When we do hear a soloist, we are closer to hearing whatever the individual performer can bring. So, ultimately, classical music is about the musical ideas of a composer. The individual performer has been subsumed into the context of a larger hierarchy.

Really, my idea of starting this thread was to illuminate this "collective vs. individual" aspect of classical music compared to other genres, because I think "performance" and "score" represent these two poles.


----------



## rice (Mar 23, 2017)

Do you have the same view towards orchestral and solo works?
I'm under the impression that, from little modification to total transcription are welcomed for solo works (if they are good of course), but some people get upset by a conductor altering an orchestral piece.

Is it a respect thing that the composers' consent is necessary, or the authority of the person making the changes matters a lot?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BachIsBest said:


> To be honest, if a performer doesn't obey the score but is still convincing musically, I see no problem with obviously going against the intent of the composer. The resulting music should be the end goal; all other concerns, including respecting the wishes of the composer, should be secondary.


But the "resulting music" consists of the _musical ideas_ of the composer (basic rhythm and pitches). These can't be changed. A cadenza, maybe, but that's all.

I think when you say "all other concerns, including respecting the wishes of the composer, should be secondary," this is more applicable to early music (like Bach, Mozart) without a lot of expressive markings. I think Glenn Gould's Mozart Piano Sonatas are a good example of what you're getting at. The audacity! And remember Leonard Bernstein's famous disclaimer on the recording of the Brahms with Gould.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

Here's a comment by pianist John Browning that I find enlightening. It's from a 1995 interview with former WNIB-Chicago host Bruce Duffie. The whole interview is at http://www.bruceduffie.com/browning.html



> BD: Are you the boss or is the composer the boss?
> JB: I always remember Samuel Barber because he said, "I never expect the artist who's playing my music to say, 'How do you want it.' What I'm interested in is what my music does with the artist. It's the catalyst. There is no one way." He was a close friend of Horowitz, who taught him a great deal about the piano. Ideally each one respects the composers. Obviously the composers' work has to be the most important, but the artist is the voice, the messenger, and it has to come out right through the messenger and with the messenger's conviction or it won't work. A good composer should think about the hall; he should write for the hall, for the artist, for the public. He shouldn't write as if it's just something to be handed down like a written manuscript, because it doesn't come alive. It'll only come alive at the hands of the recreative artist. The hard thing in the performance, the hardest thing in interpretation, is to get to the point where you feel you understand the composer and you feel you can also be yourself. Then you aren't being slavish to the composers. It's not good enough to just assume that Schubert wrote forte here. You have to ask, "WHY did he write forte?" If you know that, then you will be much freer in what kind of forte you do. There is a point where you feel you are intimate enough with the composer that you have a pretty good idea of what the composer wants, but at the same time you'll allow for the fact that maybe the composer goes through phases. You go through the three autographs of Chopin and there are many changes.
> BD: You have to figure out which one you want to play?
> JB: Yes.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

I like the Individual touch. But not 2 much!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> Nope, Mahler, despite the numerous comments in the scores, still leaves us guessing.


Well, then I stand corrected. :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

rice said:


> Do you have the same view towards orchestral and solo works?
> I'm under the impression that, from little modification to total transcription are welcomed for solo works (if they are good of course), but some people get upset by a conductor altering an orchestral piece.
> 
> Is it a respect thing that the composers' consent is necessary, or the authority of the person making the changes matters a lot?


I think there is some attitude going on. Mahler's Tenth, even though the ideas are the same in his last draft, is not accepted by some diehards as being authentic enough. Even the change of order in that other 'Blumlein' symphony (or whatever it was) is not accepted.

HIP interpretations are rejected by many, accepted exclusively by others. This Brahms set might cause consternation among many:

 

And this version of the Violin Sonatas is surely 'heresy' to many:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I think there is some attitude going on. Mahler's Tenth, even though the ideas are the same in his last draft, is not accepted by some diehards as being authentic enough. Even the change of order in that other 'Blumlein' symphony (or whatever it was) is not accepted.
> 
> HIP interpretations are rejected by many, accepted exclusively by others. This Brahms set might cause consternation among many:


Rice was asking whether a conductor's prerogative as interpreter extended to changing the notes. An HIP approach to Brahms wouldn't do that, but in other respects that Zehetmair set of the symphonies is definitely not the Brahms we grew up with. Performance is what brings music to life, but it can kill it too. I listened to the first half of the 4th on that set and I'm about ready to write an obituary for the piece. Who knew Brahms was anorexic? Furtwangler or Walter would eat this dude for lunch, and old Johannes would bring the wine.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Rice was asking whether a conductor's prerogative as interpreter extended to changing the notes. An HIP approach to Brahms wouldn't do that, but in other respects that Zehetmair set of the symphonies is definitely not the Brahms we grew up with. Performance is what brings music to life, but it can kill it too. I listened to the first half of the 4th on that set and I'm about ready to write an obituary for the piece. Who knew Brahms was anorexic? Furtwangler or Walter would eat this dude for lunch, and old Johannes would bring the wine.


I'll bring the cigars.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Rice was asking whether a conductor's prerogative as interpreter extended to changing the notes.


No, he didn't specify that; you assumed that. He made a continuum of _"from little modification to total transcription" _and in reference to orchestral works said _"some people get upset by a conductor *altering* an orchestral piece."

_Now suddenly the discussion is being steered in the direction of value judgements, which I think are more concerned with the idea of "tradition=good/innovation=bad" than in analyzing differences between scores and performances, and their respective natures,

So I'll bring it back on-topic: a rejection of Zehetmair vs. Walter or Furtwangler shows how much "idea" (score) and "performance" are melded together by tradition (in traditional thinking).

In these traditional classical terms, the performer never even had a chance. In the traditional classical genre, the performer is not a free thinker; his role is exposed as being a cog in the machine, to a much, much greater extent than is seen in, say, Indian classical music or jazz.

Also, this is a variation on the same old recycle of the "argument against things new" by traditionalists who dislike 'modern' classical music.

Thus, it's much easier for a solo performer like Glenn Gould to commit 'heresy' in solo piano works by Mozart than it is in a Brahms concerto with Leonard Bernstein, without Bernstein having to issue an apology.




> Performance is what brings music to life, but it can kill it too.



Are Brahms' ideas _that _delicate, _that_ dependent on interpretation? This seems to be an argument _against_ the score, weakening its power as a "Platonic repository" of musical ideas, and also an assertion that weakens performance, saying that "performance is nothing without tradition."

Thus, what are we left with? A fragile combination of forces which can fall apart at any moment, unless it remains traditional and static, an even more fragile and rigid system than I had imagined. 
Thus, _tradition _is what unifies and overrides any considerations of score and performance, or their natures, strengths, weaknesses, qualities, or importance. Little differentiation or variation is wanted, or needed.
This produces a product (classical music) which is tied to tradition, with the composer in second place. The composer in this sense is just a "conveyor of tradition." The classical composer is not acting independently, but is promoting a collective brand of music.

_







Originally Posted by *Zhdanov* 
it's not a matter of interpretation, for there's nothing to interpret in Der Ring that states things clearly.

there's no room left to do guessing about it.

_




> That's what religious fundamentalists say about their scriptures, and what totalitarian dictators say about themselves.





> Neither life nor art is that simple, thank goodness.




What happened to this approach? I guess it only applies to certain things.


----------



## rice (Mar 23, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Rice was asking whether a conductor's prerogative as interpreter extended to changing the notes. An HIP approach to Brahms wouldn't do that, but in other respects that Zehetmair set of the symphonies is definitely not the Brahms we grew up with. Performance is what brings music to life, but it can kill it too. I listened to the first half of the 4th on that set and I'm about ready to write an obituary for the piece. Who knew Brahms was anorexic? Furtwangler or Walter would eat this dude for lunch, and old Johannes would bring the wine.





millionrainbows said:


> No, he didn't specify that; you assumed that. He made a continuum of _"from little modification to total transcription" _and in reference to orchestral works said _"some people get upset by a conductor *altering* an orchestral piece."
> _


_

Sorry. I think my reply drifted away from the issue raised in this thread._


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> No, he didn't specify that; you assumed that. He made a continuum of _"from little modification to total transcription" _and in reference to orchestral works said _"some people get upset by a conductor *altering* an orchestral piece."_


_

Rice said "altering an orchestral piece." That obviously means changing the score, not interpreting it. Scores are ALWAYS interpreted. That isn't even up for discussion.




Now suddenly the discussion is being steered in the direction of value judgements, which I think are more concerned with the idea of "tradition=good/innovation=bad" than in analyzing differences between scores and performances, and their respective natures,

Click to expand...

Beg pardon...?




So I'll bring it back on-topic: a rejection of Zehetmair vs. Walter or Furtwangler shows how much "idea" (score) and "performance" are melded together by tradition (in traditional thinking).

Click to expand...

It shows no such thing. It shows that interpreters can misunderstand the music they play, or just be inferior musicians.




In these traditional classical terms, the performer never even had a chance. In the traditional classical genre, the performer is not a free thinker; his role is exposed as being a cog in the machine, to a much, much greater extent than is seen in, say, Indian classical music or jazz.

Click to expand...

A cog in the machine, just because he's expected to play the notes the composer wrote? That's really all the "traditional classical genre" normally requires, you know. How terribly oppressive. Really, how can a "traditional" pianist stand having some hidebound pedant like Beethoven inhibit his primal desire to slap the piano with a two-by-four? It's enough to give a poor musician PTSD or make him impotent.




Also, this is a variation on the same old recycle of the "argument against things new" by traditionalists who dislike 'modern' classical music.

Click to expand...

Horesepucky.




Thus, it's much easier for a solo performer like Glenn Gould to commit 'heresy' in solo piano works by Mozart than it is in a Brahms concerto with Leonard Bernstein, without Bernstein having to issue an apology.

Click to expand...

Well, OF COURSE it's easier to do something gonzo if there's no one else involved to tell you you're an idiot. It's why some people prefer not to be married. Bernstein didn't want Gould's eccentricities attributed to him in the next morning's review. Who can blame him?




Are Brahms' ideas that delicate, that dependent on interpretation? This seems to be an argument against the score, weakening its power as a "Platonic repository" of musical ideas, and also an assertion that weakens performance, saying that "performance is nothing without tradition."

Click to expand...

Brahms' ideas are very strong, but still highly dependent on interpretation. Does this seem mysterious to you? Have you ever performed a great piece of music, been faced with the complex challenge of it, and understood how much can go wrong, how much sensitivity and thought is required to make it go right, and how much latitude is possible within the boundaries of rightness?




Thus, what are we left with? A fragile combination of forces which can fall apart at any moment, unless it remains traditional and static, an even more fragile and rigid system than I had imagined. 
Thus, tradition is what unifies and overrides any considerations of score and performance, or their natures, strengths, weaknesses, qualities, or importance. Little differentiation or variation is wanted, or needed.
This produces a product (classical music) which is tied to tradition, with the composer in second place. The composer in this sense is just a "conveyor of tradition." The classical composer is not acting independently, but is promoting a collective brand of music.

Click to expand...

This is an odd concept of "tradition." I'm unaware of any way in which the practice of writing music down on paper "overrides any considerations of score and performance." Is there something nefarious about composers composing and performers performing what composers compose?_


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> No, he didn't specify that; you assumed that. He made a continuum of _"from little modification to total transcription" _and in reference to orchestral works said _"some people get upset by a conductor *altering* an orchestral piece."
> 
> _Now suddenly the discussion is being steered in the direction of value judgements, which I think are more concerned with the idea of "tradition=good/innovation=bad" than in analyzing differences between scores and performances, and their respective natures,
> 
> ...


I'm not following your arguments. There seem to be multiple claims. Is it that tradition increasingly binds performers as we move from earlier to modern music? That solo performers have more interpretive leeway than orchestral conductors and musicians? Sorry if I'm being dense, but please let get my bearings in terms of early music performance practices with which I am familiar.

The use of ornamentation in Baroque music is extensive, and performers were expected to add their own trills, mordents, grace notes, and so forth. Moreover, the harpsichord and viola da gamba continuo parts were barely written out at all, and neither were many cadenzas. This leads to very noticeable differences among performances of the same piece. This is probably too well known to require examples, but I'll just mention a well-known piece, Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 5, and note the very different harpsichord continuo and cadenza performances by Leonhardt, Koopman, Pinnock, and Egarr that I know.

Is the argument that over time, after the Baroque, performers have become increasingly shackled by tradition or by the composers' scores? I fear you will think I'm being disorderly if I cite Cage's 4'33, but here we have a modern score that allows great leeway by the performers, in fact demands it, and we see other such examples in post-modern compositions like a string quartet by Lutosławski that was recently under discussion in another thread. Are there particular traditional strictures in the performance of Romantic music, as you seem to me to indicate via your citation of a HIP performance of a Brahms symphony?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> It shows no such thing. It shows that interpreters can misunderstand the music they play, or just be inferior musicians.


Zehetmair is claiming to follow the composer's ideas about how to play the music, ideas he didn't put in the score but which were nevertheless recorded and indeed published. I'm sure that there is some interpretation involved in Zehetmair, but much less so than in an uninformed performance. Zehetmair is on rails, more or less. Furtwangler and Walter were guided by their own judgements and analysis and not by Brahms's supplementary performance notes . They are much less constrained, they are freer to be creative.

I'm not a great Brahmsian so I haven't thought about the merits of Furtwangler and Walter over Zehetmair. But I wouldn't be surprised if musically Zehetmair is less satisfying for this reason: I think you're more likely to come up with a better performance if you are guided by your own ideas -- because being free to be creative you will probably be more involved, less mechanical.

I should make it clear that I haven't seen the manual that Zehetmair used as the basis for the performances, Walter Blume's _Brahms und die Meininger Tradition._


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Simplicissimus said:


> I'm not following your arguments. There seem to be multiple claims. Is it that tradition increasingly binds performers as we move from earlier to modern music? That solo performers have more interpretive leeway than orchestral conductors and musicians? Sorry if I'm being dense, but please let get my bearings in terms of early music performance practices with which I am familiar.


Yes to both, but these are generalizations which I'm sure have some ****** in them which could be used to dispute them.



> The use of ornamentation in Baroque music is extensive, and performers were expected to add their own trills, mordents, grace notes, and so forth. Moreover, the harpsichord and viola da gamba continuo parts were barely written out at all, and neither were many cadenzas. This leads to very noticeable differences among performances of the same piece. This is probably too well known to require examples, but I'll just mention a well-known piece, Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 5, and note the very different harpsichord continuo and cadenza performances by Leonhardt, Koopman, Pinnock, and Egarr that I know.


Yes, that's a marvelous bit of leeway given to performers, isn't it? I like the way Glenn Gould handles it. Also, I highly respect Anthony Newman.



> Is the argument that over time, after the Baroque, performers have become increasingly shackled by tradition or by the composers' scores?


No, I wasn't trying to make that argument. I was responding to and characterizing what Woodduck said, which for my purposes is off-topic. He has a way of doing that. 
I'm not making value judgements like he is, I'm exploring the differences and the nature of 'score and performance.' If you want to argue those other value judgements and points, and you like cigars, reply to Gray Bean and Woodduck.

I'm more interested in performers as creators, and how this is treated differently in genres where the creative element is left to performers, rather than being separated by a 'composer' with a 'score.'



> I fear you will think I'm being disorderly if I cite Cage's 4'33, but here we have a modern score that allows great leeway by the performers, in fact demands it, and we see other such examples in post-modern compositions like a string quartet by Lutosławski that was recently under discussion in another thread.


Well, okay, you and Woodduck can discuss John Cage and Lutoslawski.



> Are there particular traditional strictures in the performance of Romantic music, as you seem to me to indicate via your citation of a HIP performance of a Brahms symphony?


I'm no expert, but there could be strictures in Romantic music. Why do you ask?
Or is the individual performer stressed more? 
From the negative reaction of Woodduck, his reply seems to indicate that Zehetmair's interpretation is 'bad' for some reason, perhaps this. Why don't you ask Woodduck? He and "Gray Bean" seem to be quite sure about this.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Zehetmair is claiming to follow the composer's ideas about how to play the music, ideas he didn't put in the score but which were nevertheless recorded and indeed published. I'm sure that there is some interpretation involved in Zehetmair, but as far as I understand it, much less so than in an uninformed performance. Zehetmair is on rails, more or less. As far as I know Furtwangler and Walter were guided by their own judgements and analysis and not by Brahms's supplementary performance notes . They are much less constrained, at least as far as I understand it, freer to be creative.


Then in that sense Zehetmair is being more faithful to the composer's intentions, and according to what Woodduck said, he _should _like it, theoretically. If so, this manual would seem to turn his "tradition" argument on its ear.



> I'm not a great Brahmsian so I haven't thought about the merits of Furtwangler and Walter over Zehetmair. But I wouldn't be surprised if musically Zehetmair is less satisfying for this reason: I think you're more likely to come up with a better performance if you are guided by your own ideas -- because being free to be creative you will probably be more involved, less mechanical.


That turns out to be a value judgement, doesn't it? I'm not concerned about that. "Creativity" on the performer's part doesn't affect the basic musical ideas of the score, since in classical standards he is given little leeway (as compared to more performer-based genres); it only brings an additional dimension of humanity to what can't be scored.



> I should make it clear that I haven't seen the manual that Zehetmair used as the basis for the performances, Walter Blume's _Brahms und die Meininger Tradition._


Nor I, nor did I realize it was the composer's job to guide interpretation in a written set of instructions.

Since Furtwangler and Walter came much before, it can be argued that they established a 'performance tradition.'
In light of this, Zehetmair's use of Brahms' performance manual is a _break_ from tradition. 
At least, that's the reason I bought the recording, in hopes of hearing a different approach. And the Woodduck/Gray Bean faction's reply doesn't seem to characterize Zehetmair as a 'traditionalist,' but simply as 'something bad.'


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Zehetmair is claiming to follow the composer's ideas about how to play the music, ideas he didn't put in the score but which were nevertheless recorded and indeed published. I'm sure that there is some interpretation involved in Zehetmair, but much less so than in an uninformed performance. Zehetmair is on rails, more or less. *Furtwangler and Walter were guided by their own judgements and analysis and not by Brahms's supplementary performance notes . They are much less constrained, they are freer to be creative. *
> 
> I'm not a great Brahmsian so I haven't thought about the merits of Furtwangler and Walter over Zehetmair. But *I wouldn't be surprised if musically Zehetmair is less satisfying for this reason: I think you're more likely to come up with a better performance if you are guided by your own ideas -- because being free to be creative you will probably be more involved, less mechanical.*
> 
> I should make it clear that I haven't seen the manual that Zehetmair used as the basis for the performances, Walter Blume's _Brahms und die Meininger Tradition._


I agree with this wholeheartedly. Scholarship is fine, but the personal encounter between music and performer is what makes music live. To attempt to recapture the sound of music in an era we can't visit either in the flesh or through recordings is to enter a mine field of deductions, guesses and suppositions. We can try to make certain elements of a performance conform to descriptions in documents contemporary with the music, but if doing so preempts that vital personal encounter, we're defeating the purpose of making music in the first place.

_Pace_ millionrainbows, I didn't think holding up an example of an apparent attempt at "authenticity" (which he himself cited as possibly a cause of consternation for some) was off-topic at all, if the topic is accurately stated in the the OP, where he writes:_ 'A good performer, on the other hand, is the one who really breathes life into a score, and gives it meaning, power, identity, force, and poetry. Are you one of those people who thinks the score is like "the gospel," which should be strictly adhered to in search of an "ideal" Platonic version?'_ Later, in response to me, he says, _'a rejection of Zehetmair vs. Walter or Furtwangler shows how much "idea" (score) and "performance" are melded together by tradition (in traditional thinking).'_ HIP practitioners may or may not think of themselves as pursuing a platonic ideal, but to the extent that they're conforming their practices to concepts set forth in manuals from another era rather than surrendering to their own musical intuitions and impulses, it's they, not the Walters and Furtwanglers, who are slaves to tradition - and not even their own tradition, but a tradition that died long ago and which they imagine they can understand and revive. The "traditionalists" are not necessarily the people MR thinks they are.

Is the Brahms 4th a big, passionate piece of late Romantic music, noble and shadowed by tragedy, or is it a precious, demure exercise in faux-classicism best served by an anemic band of vibratoless strings? I'm sure the latter isn't what Zehetmair thinks he's creating in an attempt to find the "true" Brahms, but from what I heard that's more or less what he delivers. Give me musicians who stay out of the library at least long enough to grapple directly with what the composer has written down and so form their own idea of the work.

It might be relevant to point out that the Romantic era - the century of Brahms and Wagner - placed a high value on the individuality and imagination performers could bring to musical performance, and conductors did make changes to scores. The spirit meant more than the letter, which makes HIP approaches to Romantic repertoire potentially quite ironic.


----------



## TMHeimer (Dec 19, 2019)

Manxfeeder said:


> Yeah, Mahler doesn't leave anyone guessing.


Yes. And Mozart among many others does. So you've got:

-- the score that may have detailed dynamics and articulations-- or not-- or these things added by the arranger.
--the conductor (or performer/performers if a solo or conductorless group). Tempos, other directions.
--interpretations by the performers, which can vary widely (for example in Impressionism) or not so much.
--music without scores or parts (popular songs, jazz, etc.).

It is what it is.
What was the question again.....?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Since Furtwangler and Walter came much before, it can be argued that they established a 'performance tradition.'


I think that the way Brahms symphonies were played in the 20th century was pretty diverse, think Toscanini, Furtwangler, Mengelberg, Giulini, Barborolli, Kempe, Scherchen, Kleiber, Szell - everyone with an orchestra had a go! . . . _Prima facie _not a lot in common! I'm not sure you're right to say that there's a tradition, or indeed many traditions. You'd have to do the work . .


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> I think that the way Brahms symphonies were played in the 20th century was pretty diverse, think Toscanini, Furtwangler, Mengelberg, Giulini, Barborolli, Kempe, Scherchen, Kleiber, Szell - everyone with an orchestra had a go! . . . _Prima facie _not a lot in common! I'm not sure you're right to say that there's a tradition, or indeed many traditions. You'd have to do the work . .


After that little side-track, and back on topic, I'm speaking much more generally, and outside the purview of classical music. Much folk, 'ethnic', and popular music is not scored, and is transmitted by ear. This kind of music is a performer's music, where there is no 'composer' behind the curtain, or if there is, is not the prime consideration.
I think it's important to realize that music was, and still can be created without scores, in this performing tradition, and that in this approach to music, it's performers that bring the human element to the experience in a direct, living way, and concrete, defined musical ideas of one composer take a back seat.

Since classical music is not about improvisation, i.e. the "musical ideas" of the performers, then it is concerned with the ideas or the composer only. So this is a different conception of a what a performer is; he becomes merely a vehicle for the ideas. 
In that the score represents "musical idea," it is ultimately more important than any interpretation or performance, since the individual essential creative power of the performer has been effectively eliminated. 
Classical and orchestral works are part of a collective sound, an hierarchy. Ultimately, classical music is about the musical ideas of a composer. The individual performer has been subsumed into the context of a larger hierarchy. 
The idea of starting this thread was to illuminate this "collective vs. individual" aspect of classical music compared to other genres, because "performance" and "score" represent these two poles.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

TMHeimer said:


> Yes. And Mozart among many others does. So you've got:
> 
> -- the score that may have detailed dynamics and articulations-- or not-- or these things added by the arranger.
> --the conductor (or performer/performers if a solo or conductorless group). Tempos, other directions.
> ...


Yes, popular songs and jazz are "scoreless," but that does not clarify the concept of "performance-based music," which needs to be understood in a positive light, not aa "lacking" a score.

Score-based music separates the _essential creative process_ (the composer's) from performers (as is encouraged by performance-based music) is the . Or maybe you don't feel like that's worthy of discussion?

What I mean by the_ essential creative process_ is the creation of melodies, rhythms, variations, improvisations.

This is what separates Terry Riley from the other minimalists Glass and Reich. Riley gives performances in which he improvises. This connects him to jazz and 'scoreless' music. 
This is supplemented by composed works like *In C,* and scored string quartets for Kronos, and his scored piano pieces and studies.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> So, in that the score represents "musical idea," it is ultimately more important than any interpretation, since the individual power of the performer has been effectively eliminated. Orchestral works are part of a collective sound, an hierarchy. Ultimately, classical music is about the musical ideas of a composer. The individual performer has been subsumed into the context of a larger hierarchy. My idea of starting this thread was to illuminate this "collective vs. individual" aspect of classical music compared to other genres, because I think "performance" and "score" represent these two poles.


All these points very much interest me. What I'd like to know is this: how much are they also true in improvisation? People who practise free improvisation in groups -- are they also _in fact_ subjecting themselves to some sort of hierarchy?

What I'm getting at is this: are there are ethical elements to improvisation -- I think there are ethical elements at play whenever people get together to do anything IMO.

(Do you think there would be enough interest here to make it worth starting a free improvisation listening group? Probably not.)



millionrainbows said:


> Since classical music is not about improvisation,


That's may not be true. Of course, Scelsi improvised at the piano and paid someone (I forget his name now) to notate it. But even in more mainstream classical music there are examples. French Baroque unmeasured preludes are arguably based on improvisations, and so is (arguably) Bach's Chromatic fantasy BWV 903 and Mozarts's Fantasy K 475. There's loads of music like this, especially baroque.


----------



## accmacmusic (May 9, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> That's may not be true. Of course, Scelsi improvised at the piano and paid someone (I forget his name now) to notate it. But even in more mainstream classical music there are examples. French Baroque unmeasured preludes are arguably based on improvisations, and so is (arguably) Bach's Chromatic fantasy BWV 903 and Mozarts's Fantasy K 475. There's loads of music like this, especially baroque.


Indeed I _believe_ that a sizeable portion of Scarlatti's sonatas were in fact improptus. And there is that famous anecdote of the Scarlatti/Händel improvisation battle (or Beethoven vs. I-forgot-his-name).

I suppose progressively improvisation was valued less and less, though.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> All these points very much interest me. What I'd like to know is this: how much are they also true in improvisation? People who practise free improvisation in groups -- are they also _in fact_ subjecting themselves to some sort of hierarchy?


Yes, in jazz, such as the scaffolding of a chord progression, the order of solos, who is the leader on the session, listening and responding to other player's ideas.



> What I'm getting at is this: are there are ethical elements to improvisation -- I think there are ethical elements at play whenever people get together to do anything IMO. (Do you think there would be enough interest here to make it worth starting a free improvisation listening group? Probably not.)


I just go over to the jazz thread when I do that, unless you mean improvisation in a 'classical' context. Nah, I doubt it.



> That's may not be true. Of course, Scelsi improvised and paid someone (I forget his name now) to notate it. But even in more mainstream classical music there are examples. French Baroque unmeasured preludes are arguably based on improvisations, and so is (arguably) Bach's Chromatic fantasy BWV 903 and Mozarts's Fantasy K 475. There's loads of music like this, especially baroque.


Once it's scored, it's not an improvisation. But if it's based in improvisation, it's the performer's job to make it _sound_ like an improvisation. For me, I think this includes a lot of Debussy's piano music, Scriabin preludes, Chopin, and Rachmaninoff. I think this was all mostly based on their improvisations and noodling. You notice they are all piano players? Schoenberg's piano music is not like that.

The fantasy or fantasia forms are based on improvised-sounding ideas. Preludes, too.

Frank Zappa had Steve Vai transcribe his guitar solos, then recycled then material into scored music.

I think a lot of listeners in the classical genre are unaware of the role improvisation plays in their music, and how musical ideas start as "play" which is then written down.

Of course, orchestral music involves large numbers of players, so scores become a necessity.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I don't think it's possible to say in general that either the score or performer is more important in classical music. There is always a collaboration between composer and performer. You can see a gradual evolution toward more control by the composer over time, with exact instrumentation becoming specified, figured bass giving way to written-out parts, and dynamic and tempo markings becoming more frequent and more precise. In Mozart's time soloists were still expected to improvise on the written score, but that expectation eventually disappeared. Even so, performance remained an act of collaboration and I don't think it makes sense to say that the performer was less important than the composer.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Of course, orchestral music involves large numbers of players, so scores become a necessity.


We should look at something like Cage's piano concerto. It's not a piece I know well yet, but I think Cage was trying to circumvent this very problem. There was a video of Philip Thomas rehearsing it somewhere online but I just can't find it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I don't think it's possible to say in general that either the score or performer is more important in classical music.


Probably not, if you're just looking at the net result.

My point was that essential musical ideas (pitch, rhythm, phrases) are reserved for the score. If performers mess with that, they are changing the score.

But, net results, yes, neither the score or performer is more important in classical music.



> Even so, performance remained an act of collaboration and I don't think it makes sense to say that the performer was less important than the composer.


Yes, probably not for the purposes of a classical music forum such as this.

But, I'm always thinking outside of that box.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's a website, or rather a doctorate in the form of a website, on notations for improvisation. I have only just found it myself, and I'm excited by finding it, so I thought I'd share it.

http://www.tactilepaths.net/introduction/

I just think that the idea that composers might compose an improvisation is fabulous! Today I've been enjoying Stockhausen's _Aufwärts _from _Aus den Sieben Tagen_, which I just found on youtube






Here's the score



> Play a vibration in the rhythm of your smallest particles
> Play a vibration in the rhythm of the universe
> Play all the rhythms that you can
> distinguish today between
> ...


DavidM would say that that performance on youtube isn't classical music, but as far as I can see there's absolutely no reason in principal why there shouldn't be a realisation which is classical in his sense (tonal, melodious)


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

As a key to my enjoyment it can be either: interpretation (performance) or the music itself (score) and/or particular changes to the music.

It was always difficult for me to sit through Mahler's 9th symphony ... until I heard the Boulez recording where he goes through the finale in just over 21 minutes (compared to 27 minutes for the famous Karajan.) I never willingly made it all the way through even a 25-minute finale but Boulez's says everything the others say.

Also I never liked Bach's Goldberg variations on a keyboard. Too long, too many repeats for me. I also am not a champion of keyboard music. However -- I found one done by four woodwinds which I enjoy far more with no repeats that's over in 32 minutes. 

I also enjoy Stokowski's American Symphony Tchaikovsky 4th that critics mostly hate, in part because of tempo changes not indicated in the score and bringing in the trombones 8 measures before Tchaikovsky says to at the start.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

larold said:


> It was always difficult for me to sit through Mahler's 9th symphony ... until I heard the Boulez recording where he goes through the finale in just over 21 minutes (compared to 27 minutes for the famous Karajan.) I never willingly made it all the way through even a 25-minute finale but Boulez's says everything the others say.


Have you listened to Bruno Walter's first recording? The final movement comes in at less than 20 minutes.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Here's a website, or rather a doctorate in the form of a website, on notations for improvisation. I have only just found it myself, and I'm excited by finding it, so I thought I'd share it...I just think that the idea that composers might compose an improvisation is fabulous! Today I've been enjoying Stockhausen's _Aufwärts _from _Aus den Sieben Tagen_, which I just found on youtube...DavidM would say that that performance on youtube isn't classical music, but as far as I can see there's absolutely no reason in principal why there shouldn't be a realisation which is classical in his sense (tonal, melodious)


DavidM has not posted on this thread as far as I can see, so I don't know to what you're referring.

The instructions from Stockhausen seem incomplete; they are so vague and 'poetic' that I don't see how they could produce a performance that was tonal, melodious, or any quality for that matter.

I suspect that whatever score exists was made for Stockhausen's own ensemble, which already had established some performance features according to his instructions. I guess he would expect the next ensemble to refer to a recording to get a general idea. Unless there are some parts of the score we are not being shown.

A description of the score states that it uses 'standard notation:'

Composed by Karlheinz Stockhausen (1928-2007). With Standard notation. Universal Edition #UE014790. Published by Universal Edition (PR.UE014790).

Item Number: PR.UE014790

So obviously, something is missing.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

No, that's the whole thing. Stockhausen wrote a bunch like that, as did others at the time including your boy John Cage. I thought you were hip to that scene, million!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> No, that's the whole thing. Stockhausen wrote _a bunch like that_, _as did others_ at the time including _your boy John Cage._ _I thought you were hip to that scene, million!_


This is a condescending generalization. I already know where you stand on things from your replies on the Music Theory forum.

Universal Edition describes it as being in "standard notation" and is charging is $23.95 for it. I understand it to be a "text piece," which was a new phase for Stockhausen. It's misleading to call this a "score" unless this is made explicit.

In light of this, this Stockhausen work is a very inappropriate example of what I am calling musical improvisation, meaning improvisation using the conventional parameters of music: scales, tonalities, phrases, etc. Using this Stockhausen example is almost a subtle mockery of improvisation, and at least, it is ill-thought-out.

This Stockhausen work is too specialized to be a good example of what I am calling 'musical improvisation' for the purposes of this discussion. This is an example of Stockhausen's world, not jazz or conventional performance music using conventional scales and tonalities. Why must such an extremely radical, disparate example be given to illustrate and defend 'musical improvisation?' I apologize to all skeptics on the other side of this issue for such clumsy handling of this point.

Musical improvisation is a skill not to be taken lightly, despite what any classical score-advocates think. Scored music is not the only paradigm for music, nor the greatest.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Universal Edition describes it as being in "standard notation" and charging is $23.95 for it.
> 
> Sorry, you'll have to produce visual evidence for this condescending generalization of yours. I doubt that you've ever even seen it. Yuk, such a coarse interaction.
> 
> ...


Of course it's not. No one here has said it was. There are no "score-worshippers" here, outside your imagination. No one is mocking the concept of improvisation, and no one who knows or cares about music at all ever would. What a bizarre assertion.

Here's a book excerpt about this series of Stockhausen pieces: https://books.google.com/books?id=w...bration in the rhythm of the universe&f=false


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Hi. I'm just trolling now.

*Cadenzas*.

Improv or not? Some are written out note for note, while others just have an empty bar with a fermata and the word "cadenza".


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

pianozach said:


> Hi. I'm just trolling now.
> 
> *Cadenzas*.
> 
> Improv or not? Some are written out note for note, while others just have an empty bar with a fermata and the word "cadenza".


If it's *not *written out, it's improvised. This is what I mean by "improvisation."


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Is Stokowski only a polish translation of Stockhausen???:lol:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Cadenzas are interesting because they have no predefined form - composers don’t normally say that the cadenza has to be a fugue or a set of variations or anything like that - but they are constrained by needing to somehow fit with what comes before and after. Really interesting area to explore.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

By coincidence I've been listening to this, Codex 1 by Richard Barrett, which is an improvisation, though I'm not sure how free it is. It's exceptional I think






In truth I've not heard the one on YouTube, I've been listening to one on CD . I guess it could be totally different from the one I like! I don't know I haven't heard it.


----------

