Blog #6 (Slonimsky, Grovemusic, Taruskin, Kozinn)
It seems that all of these readings, the Early Music movement, and the idea of an Urtext revolve around the thought that music can be distilled to a perfect quintessence. I disagree. And it seems that Slonimsky, Kozinn, and Taruskin disagree too.
Slonimsky describes the urtext as “magical” right out of the gates and I think that is an excellent descriptor for the kind of paradox it represents. There is no perfect edition of a score, each one is aiming towards something different, and the performer must do with it what he thinks best. I think Slonimsky also gives a good description of what can go wrong when editors are too literal, or too overzealous. There is a continuum, and you must be aware of where on it you lie.
The Early Music article from Oxford I found rather hard to follow given all the names, places, dates listed but it does give a sense of the history to the Early Music Movement. It seems that there has always been a mix of opinions, as I’m sure there are now. Some folks who want to say that there is a one true best way, and other folks who want to experiment. There is a great example about Mendelssohn wanting to use some older music as a basis for a new creation. I think that’s great. I will say though, that without a more literal version of the same work as a basis for comparison, Mendelssohn’s new arrangement would have less value. The old and the new make each other better.
I found Taruskin’s final few paragraphs to be most engaging. The way he praises pop music for retaining creativity and derides classical training as sucking the life out of musicians. If ever there were a call for changing music education this seems like it. We have all this great music out there but we’re not allowed to play with it? We simply have to be machines and re-create it in the perfect image of...something? I also thought his argument about having to be a “curator” in the classical world because that is allowed and respected, but to be “modern” would be a death sentence is interesting. It speaks to the same problem I just described. The creative aspect of classical music has been pushed away and pushed away leaving us with some sort of skeleton of what it could be.
In the Kozinn article talks about how composers’ views on their own works can change over time. One even saying he’s “not a purist.” So, as the title of the piece implies, we need to just get over what the composer’s intent was and just try to make music. I would argue that there is no “best” interpretation of a work, it’s just about preference. I think it’s Kozin who makes that argument as well. It’s perfectly reasonable to prefer a more historically informed performance, and it’s also fine to like something totally new made out of something old.
Hi Isaac, I really appreciate your comment that there can be no perfect score, because it depends on the goal or intended purpose. In other words, we can't meet everyone's needs at once. A scholar and a performer are looking to fulfill different criteria.
ReplyDeleteYour idea about comparison between old and new versions is also a great point. Most people have an easier time saying what they do and don't like about a recording or a performance when they have something to compare it to. I personally enjoy concerts more when I know the music well because I can appreciate what is unique (or not) about the performance.
Talking about the best way to play a piece, I think we can go back to what you said about the editions of scores. As you say, there is no magic edition, and no perfect interpretation. We can never have a version that meets everyone's ideals. That's where the creativity and artistry come in. I don't know that we need to throw out teaching classical music in favor of pop, but perhaps reframe the way we think about teaching and performing classical. It may be that incorporating some pop and applying some of those ideas could be a way to start thinking about classical music differently.