What constitutes a 'work'?

[Peter]

Continuing on from Philip's interesting arguments a new thread devoted to the topic!

In your last post Philip you cite Cage (why does it always come back to Cage?!! ) and say that each time a piece of his is 'performed' it will be different. Yes but this is of course true of any piece of music. This is also true of a play because different performers and directors and audiences will all have a different experience. Am I correct in assuming that you are suggesting that a piece doesn't 'exist' until it is performed? If so I disagree because something has to exist first in order to provoke all those different interpretations and experiences. What exists is a conception by a composer/author/painter and this produces different effects not only on different people but also on ourselves in each different circumstance we encounter the 'work'.
Beethoven's Eroica for example must exist otherwise I couldn't imagine it in my mind, we couldn't write about it, discuss it, analyse it etc .. performance is not necessary for this, but the 'work' must pre-exist for performance to take place.

[Quijote]

Continuing on from Philip's interesting arguments a new thread devoted to the topic!

In your last post Philip you cite Cage (why does it always come back to Cage?!! ) and say that each time a piece of his is 'performed' it will be different. Yes but this is of course true of any piece of music. This is also true of a play because different performers and directors and audiences will all have a different experience. Am I correct in assuming that you are suggesting that a piece doesn't 'exist' until it is performed? If so I disagree because something has to exist first in order to provoke all those different interpretations and experiences. What exists is a conception by a composer/author/painter and this produces different effects not only on different people but also on ourselves in each different circumstance we encounter the 'work'.
Beethoven's Eroica for example must exist otherwise I couldn't imagine it in my mind, we couldn't write about it, discuss it, analyse it etc .. performance is not necessary for this, but the 'work' must pre-exist for performance to take place.

If I cite Cage it is because he is vitally important to this debate, and a seminal figure in the “history” of music.

It is true of course that no performance is ever the same, but this is not the point I was trying to make in my counter-example. You said before that a “work” must exist if you have the score and can follow it in your inner ear, that the “work” exists prior to performance. This is not the case though with the graphic score works of Cage, where the “score” consists of squiggles or other symbols on the page : you cannot possibly “hear” in your inner ear what Cage intends (nor did Cage, by the way). Each time these graphic score works are performed the results are completely unpredictable. However, and this is part of my point, we still continue to talk of these Cage “productions” as “works” in the same way as we talk about the “works” of Beethoven.

Further, each time we play, say, a quartet by Beethoven it too will not be identical, but to a much lesser extent than the Cage example mentioned above. But we also happily refer to the quartet as a “work” by Beethoven. So what then are the “identity conditions” in play here? One commentator (Nelson Goodman) posits the theory that any deviation whatsoever from the score constitutes a false realization of that work, that for a “work” to be called a “work” it must have total 100% compliance to the score. Of course, this strikes us as counter-intuitive (unsustainable, even, in the Cage example), but the question remains valid : what are the factors that lead us to identify a “work” as a “work”?

You say that the Eroica must exist. Very well, but where does it exist? The notes in the score are there on the page, but notes are notes; they are not the music.

I know that this thread will strike many as counter-intuitive, but I feel that in looking more closely at our terminology we will begin to see that there is an ideology in play; and I do not use the term “ideology” in any sinister sense. Of course, most of us see “musical works” as a composer’s personal expression, and this is certainly how the music of Beethoven is perceived. We do not claim, further, that “musical works” are like solid objects, chairs, paintings or whatever. We perceive “musical works” as the end product of creative activity, that they are symbolically represented in scores and hence continue to exist after the composer has died. But critically speaking, this is not so straightforward.

For example, if all the copies of the score of the Eroica (to take Peter’s example above) were to be destroyed, does the symphony in consequence cease to exist? Can a “work” be said to truly exist apart from its performance and score? Can a “work” as temporally ephemeral as music be said to be in any way “autonomous”. Certain theorists consider this to be a fallacy.

Contrary to painting, literature and so on, what kind of existence can musical works have, given that they are (i) created, (ii) performed many times and in many different places, (iii) not fully written down in terms of notation, and yet (iv) have “identity conditions” reliant on their performance and score?

This then serves as my introduction to the thread that Peter has kindly launched.

[PDG]

If all records of any musical composition were to be destroyed, then I believe that the composition still exists. It has been composed, end of matter. In this regard, music - especially great music - is eternal.

I also believe for this reason it is different from other art forms. Musical works have movements for a reason, ie. they move. Ever changing, ever challenging. You cannot say this about a painting or a sculpture. And a play is just words on a page; but unlike musical notes on their page, the spoken word can be interpreted only in either black or white. Otherwise, ludicrous over-acting usually ensues!

The musical interpreter, however, must by default stick to the notes in front of him/her, while 'over-acting' opportunities remain severely limited (thank God).

I don't understand why John Cage must inevitably be mentioned when discussing these things.

[Quijote]

If all records of any musical composition were to be destroyed, then I believe that the composition still exists. It has been composed, end of matter. In this regard, music - especially great music - is eternal.

I also believe for this reason it is different from other art forms. Musical works have movements for a reason, ie. they move. Ever changing, ever challenging. You cannot say this about a painting or a sculpture. And a play is just words on a page; but unlike musical notes on their page, the spoken word can be interpreted only in either black or white. Otherwise, ludicrous over-acting usually ensues!

The musical interpreter, however, must by default stick to the notes in front of him/her, while 'over-acting' opportunities remain severely limited (thank God).

I don't understand why John Cage must inevitably be mentioned when discussing these things.

OK, PDG, a question : imagine we destroy all records of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis (all the CDs, vinyl records, cassettes, scores, manuscripts, everything); in 50 years can you say that the work (Op. 123) will still "exist"? If so, you are a Platonist (this is not an insult).

About "movement" : we speak about "rhythm" and "movement" in painting and in sculpture, so I can't agree with you here. I also disagree that words on a page are only black and white, no more than the notes on the score are black and white. They are only "symbols" are hence open and subject to a very wide margin of interpretation. Don't forget, PDG, that there is a direct equivalent of "over-acting" (or "hamming") in music too - have you never seen (heard) it? I have !

John Cage is important, but let's not focus on any value judgements about his music. We are here to focus on what it means to say a "work of music" (not what we think "music" is or should be; this is a different argument).

[Sorrano]

Why not consider real issues instead of imaginary scenarios? Bach composed many canatas that no longer exist or are lost. They were performed; the notes were composed. Do they cease to be works because we no longer have them? Explain that to Bach.

[Peter]

OK, PDG, a question : imagine we destroy all records of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis (all the CDs, vinyl records, cassettes, scores, manuscripts, everything); in 50 years can you say that the work (Op. 123) will still "exist"? If so, you are a Platonist (this is not an insult).

Yes they still exist - there are musicians capable of writing down the notes from memory. I forget who said it but a famous conductor claimed that if all the scores and recordings of Beethoven were lost he could write out the concertos and symphonies note for note. Also don't forget most concert pianists play from memory not a score. Most of us can also imagine pieces of music without reference to a score! If I ask you to think of the opening bars of the Eroica I'm sure you have no problem in instantly recalling the sounds - but from where if you claim they do not exist unless we are in the presence of an orchestra?

[Peter]

Contrary to painting, literature and so on, what kind of existence can musical works have, given that they are (i) created, (ii) performed many times and in many different places, (iii) not fully written down in terms of notation, and yet (iv) have “identity conditions” reliant on their performance and score?

This then serves as my introduction to the thread that Peter has kindly launched.

How is this different to Shakespeare which also relies on different performances in different places? And what about painting when most people look at reproductions or restorations?

[PDG]

OK, PDG, a question : imagine we destroy all records of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis (all the CDs, vinyl records, cassettes, scores, manuscripts, everything); in 50 years can you say that the work (Op. 123) will still "exist"? If so, you are a Platonist (this is not an insult).

About "movement" : we speak about "rhythm" and "movement" in painting and in sculpture, so I can't agree with you here. I also disagree that words on a page are only black and white, no more than the notes on the score are black and white. They are only "symbols" are hence open and subject to a very wide margin of interpretation. Don't forget, PDG, that there is a direct equivalent of "over-acting" (or "hamming") in music too - have you never seen (heard) it? I have !

Well, Philip, I already answered your question: "Yes". Your scenario is so extreme that I could also suggest the slightly less extreme hypothesis that in the same 50-year period, it will be scientifically possible to recover sounds and noises from thin air, made those same 50 years ago (reverberations go on and on, well beyond the capabilities of the human ear). So if that happened, then your view would mean that we would be finding works that existed, then never existed, and then finally existed again. I don't think so. All scientific mumbo jumbo, of course, but nevertheless.....I am happy to be called a Platonist.

I don't think there is a direct comparison between individual words written down to be spoken in acting, and musical notation. We can all speak from birth, and so how to pronounce or inflect requires no real mental decision. Musical application, on the other hand, requires training, practice and discipline, and so we adhere more to the instructions in front of us. Or at least we do if we want to be taken seriously!

[Quijote]

Why not consider real issues instead of imaginary scenarios? Bach composed many canatas that no longer exist or are lost. They were performed; the notes were composed. Do they cease to be works because we no longer have them? Explain that to Bach.

A good point, which I would like to return to later. However, I am not convinced that Bach wrote what we today call "works". Another point I am trying to develop here is that the notion of a piece of music embodying the "work concept" ('music as an autonomus object') only began to crystallize around the end of the 18th century; it is not at all clear if Bach and his contemporaries had this notion as part of their cultural baggage.

[Quijote]

And before I address Peter's and PDG's comments above, I would like to return to a point that Michael made before, concerning the Beatles' song "Norwegian Wood" (henceforth, NW). If I read him correctly, he is implying that the "work" (NW) only exists as a "work" when on the original album released by the Beatles, that is to say, performed by them. But this piece exists in score form and can be performed by other bands. Why then does Michael consider "NW" only to be a "work by the Beatles" if only performed by the Beatles? Is it a question of authenticity? If so, why do we continue to talk about "works" by Benjamin Britten (as just one example) that exist on (vinyl / CD) that have been played / conducted by Britten, and by others? If we were to invent a time machine and return to record B's first (or any) performance of his Op. 1, would we accept to call any other performance of Op. 1 by someone else a "work by Beethoven"?

As a corollary, why do we not speak about jazz as "works"? Do you see the point I'm trying to clarify?

OK, another example : this time, the so-called "Beethoven's Tenth", the first movement of which has been "reconstructed" from Beethoven sketches by Dr Barry Cooper. Is this a "work"?

[Quijote]

How is this different to Shakespeare which also relies on different performances in different places? And what about painting when most people look at reproductions or restorations?

Another good point. But the Shakespeare "work" is "fully notated", unlike musical scores. The painting (and we may add sculpture) example you give is beside the point : whether or not in reproduction, the "work" exists physically; we know we are looking at a 'photo' of something that physically exists. Its ontological status is clear. I stress again, music's ontological status is not so straightforward.

[Quijote]

I don't think there is a direct comparison between individual words written down to be spoken in acting, and musical notation. We can all speak from birth, and so how to pronounce or inflect requires no real mental decision. Musical application, on the other hand, requires training, practice and discipline, and so we adhere more to the instructions in front of us. Or at least we do if we want to be taken seriously!

We can all speak from birth? I think not. I'm sure we can all "utter" from birth, but utterance and speech are not the same at all. Speech too, requires training (often intuitive, to a point), practice and so on.

Musical notation : very well, but to what extent do we have "leeway" in these "instructions"? I remind you that certain nominalist theorists (e.g. Goodman, mentioned above) maintain that a "work" of music is only a "work" if 100% totally compliant to the score. Can this really be realized, or indeed is it desirable?

[PDG]

We can all speak from birth? I think not. I'm sure we can all "utter" from birth, but utterance and speech are not the same at all. Speech too, requires training (often intuitive, to a point), practice and so on.

Musical notation : very well, but to what extent do we have "leeway" in these "instructions"? I remind you that certain nominalist theorists (e.g. Goodman, mentioned above) maintain that a "work" of music is only a "work" if 100% totally compliant to the score. Can this really be realized, or indeed is it desirable?

You may be getting bogged down in semantics, Phil.
We can all create oral sounds from birth - this requires no training. Speech requires no training, only mimickery. Judging by the current sorry state of the English language as expressed by the so-called 'modern youth', I'd say we are in meltdown...

[Quijote]

You may be getting bogged down in semantics, Phil.
We can all create oral sounds from birth - this requires no training. Speech requires no training, only mimickery. Judging by the current sorry state of the English language as expressed by the so-called 'modern youth', I'd say we are in meltdown...

PDG, my dear onion, I never get bogged down in semantics. Having said that, semantic obfuscation does get me down.

Speech requires no training? Another time, PDG, or else people will accuse me of being pedantic.

The current sorry state of the English language and 'modern youth' ? I can't possibly comment, having been "out of the loop" for too long now. What I can say is that the current state of the French language leaves much to be desired too.

[PDG]

PDG, my dear onion, I never get bogged down in semantics. Having said that, semantic obfuscation does get me down.

Touche (with an accent thingy on the 'e')...