What Are You Listening To Now?

[Peter]

And "symbols" are what (musical) notation is all about, right? A corollary : we speak about "works", but talking about music, how can we say such "works" exist? In performance, naturally, but in score form? What are the ontological conditions that allow for a temporal art form to be referred to as a "work"? A question (a trick one) for Chris : did Bach write "works"? Careful, now ...

If it exists in performance, then it has to exist beforehand in order for that performance to happen. Cogito ergo sum.

I'm pleased the Triple concerto sent you up into the clouds, but perhaps it's time to come down to earth?

[Michael]

If it exists in performance, then it has to exist beforehand in order for that performance to happen. Cogito ergo sum.

I hate to bring down the lofty tone of this thread, but have you heard the one about Descartes in the pub?
Well, Rene was having a binge in his local and when he tried to stand, he found his head was spinning. The barman asked him if he would have another drink, and Descartes said: "I think not" - and vanished.

[Hofrat]

Michael;

Very clever!! I will try to remember that one.

[Chris]

I think it is time to call Chris's bluff.

You got me. I was lying the whole time in order to, um...yeah, I guess that wouldn't really make any sense now, would it?

You find that his playing suits the Classical style very well. Very well, we accept your subjective comment. What would the "modern technique" be (compared to any earlier technique)? Would that be a question of bow (Tourte or otherwise), fingering (is there any definitive treatise on such a subject?), or informed historical approach (what approach?).

He is clearly using a modern violin, and he is playing it in the way we play the violin now. Continuous vibrato, and so forth. Compare it with any period instrument performance; you can't fail to notice the difference.

You employ the adjective "cute" and the compound clause "false drama". What on earth do these terms mean? Or are you simply repeating what you have read in the CD sleeve notes? Finally, I fail to see what "getting it right" means : are you referring to Goodman's "total compliance to the score" (an idealist position, if ever there was one)?

"Cute" means an exaggerated sense of the quaintness of the Classical style compared to the Romantic. "False drama" is the opposite - injecting it with the heaviness and scope of later concertos. The Mozart concertos are not the Tchaikovsky concerto. I have no idea what the liner notes say.

Phillip, seriously, you need to relax a little. This thread is just for mentioning what we are currently listening to with perhaps a few brief comments. It is not meant for extensive criticism of the works themselves nor of our opinions of them.

[Quijote]

You got me. I was lying the whole time in order to, um...yeah, I guess that wouldn't really make any sense now, would it?

He is clearly using a modern violin, and he is playing it in the way we play the violin now. Continuous vibrato, and so forth. Compare it with any period instrument performance; you can't fail to notice the difference.

"Cute" means an exaggerated sense of the quaintness of the Classical style compared to the Romantic. "False drama" is the opposite - injecting it with the heaviness and scope of later concertos. The Mozart concertos are not the Tchaikovsky concerto. I have no idea what the liner notes say.

Phillip, seriously, you need to relax a little. This thread is just for mentioning what we are currently listening to with perhaps a few brief comments. It is not meant for extensive criticism of the works themselves nor of our opinions of them.

Playing without continuous vibrato does not necessarily make it "period performance", of course (there's a lot more to HIP than that, as you very well know). As to "a modern violin", some writers consider the modern violin to date from circa 1800, around the time Beethoven published his Op. 18 set. So perhaps the only "modern" thing about Grumiaux's violin is the addition of a chin rest (introduced in 1820 according to the literature). I think what you want to say about his playing (apart from continuous vibrato - a shame, really) has more to do with articulation and phrasing.

Your use of "cute" is new to me, but one often uses adjectives subjectively, so point taken. "False drama" : you mean "romantic", then, I suppose.

Very well, I will relax a little, then, as you suggest.

[Quijote]

Peter wrote :

"If it exists in performance, then it has to exist beforehand in order for that performance to happen. Cogito ergo sum."

Cogito ergo sum? Do you not mean quod erat demonstrandum ?

Anyway, many would agree with your point above, as to argue otherwise strikes us as counter-intuitive. Nevertheless, the question is far from being so clear cut philosophically speaking (involving nominalist and platonist theories of musical works). It is curious, though, that we tend to accept the term "a musical work" without really considering what that means. Would one talk about jazz in terms of "works"? Do people consider a song by the Beatles (say, Norwegian Blue) to be a "work"? Or a song by the punk band The Sex Pistols? How this ties in with Beethoven may baffle you. In fact, the whole concept of "the musical work" began to crystallise around the time of Beethoven (not that he instigated these notions), and this I find fascinating.

I'm pleased the Triple concerto sent you up into the clouds, but perhaps it's time to come down to earth?

Oh alright, if you insist. But it was nice up there.

[Quijote]

If it exists in performance, then it has to exist beforehand in order for that performance to happen. Cogito ergo sum.

Actually, Peter raises a very good point, on reflection. Would you consider John Cage's 4'33" to be a "work" or not?

Or take any of Cage's "graphic score" compositions, where the players are handed a sheet with some graphics, or squiggles on it. The "work" (whatever your opinion of it) certainly "exists" in performance; there is also a "score", but not in the usual sense of the word. The question therefore is : is a "work" only a work if it is replicable? To what extent is any work 100% replicable? Is any score by Beethoven 100% replicable? Are there not elements missing that no score can ever hope to capture in notation?

[Sorrano]

Actually, Peter raises a very good point, on reflection. Would you consider John Cage's 4'33" to be a "work" or not?

Or take any of Cage's "graphic score" compositions, where the players are handed a sheet with some graphics, or squiggles on it. The "work" (whatever your opinion of it) certainly "exists" in performance; there is also a "score", but not in the usual sense of the word. The question therefore is : is a "work" only a work if it is replicable? To what extent is any work 100% replicable? Is any score by Beethoven 100% replicable? Are there not elements missing that no score can ever hope to capture in notation?

You could add Ligeti's Adventures and New Adventures to the Cage "work" (?) as well. Perhaps you'll find that there are many variances of opinion, in this forum, as to what regards a musical composition or work. As for myself, it's a difficult matter to resolve. On one hand, as a composer, I view the issue much more liberally than I might as a listener. But since when has accessibility defined the scope of a musical work or composition? Some questions cannot be resolved.

[Michael]

Do people consider a song by the Beatles (say, Norwegian Blue) to be a "work"?

.

I was thinking on much the same lines while reading this thread. One could argue that Beethoven's Ninth doesn't really exist because there is no definitive performance, but the Beatles' work is actually preserved on vinyl or CD and every time you hear it, it will be the same.
By the way, Philip, the Beatle song is "Norwegian Wood". The "Norwegian Blue" is the famous dead parrot of Monty Python fame. Lovely plumage!

[Quijote]

You could add Ligeti's Adventures and New Adventures to the Cage "work" (?) as well. Perhaps you'll find that there are many variances of opinion, in this forum, as to what regards a musical composition or work. As for myself, it's a difficult matter to resolve. On one hand, as a composer, I view the issue much more liberally than I might as a listener. But since when has accessibility defined the scope of a musical work or composition? Some questions cannot be resolved.

I wasn't clear enough, I'm afraid. I was speaking about "works" in an ontological sense, not aesthetically. We speak about "works" of literature - they exist only in written form (though this can be debated in cultures with a more oral tradition); we speak about "works" in the sense of painting and sculptures etc. Their ontological status is clear, they exist physically in space and time. As to "musical works", they exist only temporally, and are therefore ephemeral. How then can we justifiably (logically, philosophically) refer to them as works? How can we say that Beethoven's Op.132 "exists" as a "work"? Where does it exist? If, as most people say, this or that is a "work" by Beethoven, why do we not say the same about jazz, for example? How do we define what a "work" is? (Again, I'm not talking about whether or not one considers Cage to be "musical", whether or not it is "accessible".)

[Quijote]

I was thinking on much the same lines while reading this thread. One could argue that Beethoven's Ninth doesn't really exist because there is no definitive performance, but the Beatles' work is actually preserved on vinyl or CD and every time you hear it, it will be the same.
By the way, Philip, the Beatle song is "Norwegian Wood". The "Norwegian Blue" is the famous dead parrot of Monty Python fame. Lovely plumage!

A good point. But is there only one definitive version of "Norwegian Wood"? It does exist in score form, as far as I know. This means we could form a band and play the same "work". And what about electroacoustic "works" which are also immutable (on tape, fixed for all time)? I think that a "definitive version" is not the issue here. As I tried to ask above, the interesting question is ontological : what constitutes a "musical work". And again, at the risk of labouring the point, I'm not talking about aesthetic value.

[Chris]

So perhaps the only "modern" thing about Grumiaux's violin is the addition of a chin rest (introduced in 1820 according to the literature).

And some differences in the length and angle of the neck, as well as a heavier bass bar. Also the strings.

[Peter]

I wasn't clear enough, I'm afraid. I was speaking about "works" in an ontological sense, not aesthetically. We speak about "works" of literature - they exist only in written form (though this can be debated in cultures with a more oral tradition); we speak about "works" in the sense of painting and sculptures etc. Their ontological status is clear, they exist physically in space and time. As to "musical works", they exist only temporally, and are therefore ephemeral. How then can we justifiably (logically, philosophically) refer to them as works? How can we say that Beethoven's Op.132 "exists" as a "work"? Where does it exist? If, as most people say, this or that is a "work" by Beethoven, why do we not say the same about jazz, for example? How do we define what a "work" is? (Again, I'm not talking about whether or not one considers Cage to be "musical", whether or not it is "accessible".)

I disagree, if a book exists then so does a musical score - a musician can read and hear the sounds in exactly the same way one reads a play. No performers are needed for either to 'exist', only to present an interpretation and it is that that doesn't exist for an audience until the moment of performance. However even the interpretation exists in the mind of the musician or actor before the performance is realised. You could go one further and say it even 'exists' before the composer writes it down - so has it always existed?

This is an interesting topic and it deserves its own thread, but it'll be hard keeping it relevant to Beethoven and classical music!

[Peter]

Tchaikovsky's 3rd symphony which has some wonderful moments - I particularly like the lilting 2nd movement and the finale, especially its brilliant coda.

[Quijote]

I disagree, if a book exists then so does a musical score - a musician can read and hear the sounds in exactly the same way one reads a play. No performers are needed for either to 'exist', only to present an interpretation and it is that that doesn't exist for an audience until the moment of performance. However even the interpretation exists in the mind of the musician or actor before the performance is realised. You could go one further and say it even 'exists' before the composer writes it down - so has it always existed?

This is an interesting topic and it deserves its own thread, but it'll be hard keeping it relevant to Beethoven and classical music!

I in turn disagree (paragraph 1 above in Peter's quote). A book exists as a "work" because it does not necessitate a public reading to be called "a reading" (or a "performance"). The play exists for the same reasons. However, a musician (or other musically literate person) "reading through the score" in his/her inner ear does not constitute a performance, given that the score "demands" its realization through the specified instrument(s). If one were able to "realize" musical "works" only through "inner ear readings" this would remove the point of instrumentation, or even of having live performances in general. Whereas "words" are equally "symbolic" of meaning, in as much as there is a semiotic relationship between "symbol" [word] and "signification" (Cf Saussure), the relationship between notated (musical)symbol and its realization is much less evident.

It is a good point, though, that you raise : can we indeed say the "work" exists before the composer writes it down? Platonists go even further : that the "work" exists even before the composer has conceived the "work". Nominalists (such as Goodman mentioned above) claim that a "work" of music can only exist if 100% replicable from the score. This is difficult to sustain, given Cage's approach to composition, not to mention jazz and other less-notated musical genres.

Your contention that this topic will be difficult to relate to Beethoven is misguided, Peter : the notion of the "work concept" (Cf Lydia Goehr, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works) seems to have crystallized exactly around the time of Beethoven (around 1800), and so is extremely pertinent.