What constitutes a 'work'?

[Quijote]

In general, Beethoven designated the opus number when he published a work. That does not mean that Beethoven did not consider a work worthy for publication if he did not give it an opus number. Had Beethoven lived longer, he may have released works that have been designated as "W.o.O." ("Werk ohne Opuszahlen" = "Works without opus number"). So, do not use the opus number as a criterion for what constitutes a work.

Hofrat is right, the use of "Opus" is not necessarily a criterion for what constitutes "a work". At issue here is the "work concept" that began to crystallize around the end of the 18th century. It is for this reason that I tantalizingly asked Chris (elsewhere on this forum) if Bach wrote "works". I think he didn't, at least not from his point of view, for when we today speak of "musical works" we are adopting (as received opinion, to an extent) a Romantic ideology.

Let me try to clarify (and you must forgive me in advance for the gross simplifications and generalizations that follow, unless you prefer a 90-page paper on the topic) :

Let us say, then, that prior to the early 19th century most musicians (and composers) were in the employ of either the Church or the aristocracy. The music they wrote was to an extent "ephermeral", that is to say written for specific moments (church ritual, cantatas for the religious calendar, name-days, and so on) or "functions", if you will. The concept of a lasting "work" was alien to this ethos; music was something played on a specific occasion and then to be forgotten. In this context, the idea of a lasting "work" would have been incomprehensible.

However, there was a philosophical "shift" in aesthetic perception in the mid to late 18th century that asked for music to be considered as a "fine art" (to be treated as the plastic arts), or in other words to become "objectified". It is precisely this 'objectification' of music that resulted in the genesis of music composed to be considered as "works", i.e. 'objects' that would last beyond the life of their creators (composers), 'solidified' in score form (in a sort of virtual "museum") that would be replicated (performed) for ever.

What is interesting is that Beethoven arrived on the scene at this moment in history, for as we know from the literature, there was an on-going debate between "light" (for which we should read 'popular' and 'easy') and "serious" music, concepts that had only recently been voiced.

[Quijote]

For this debate can I also recommend the book I mentioned to Preston elsewhere on this forum, namely : Nicholas Cook, Music, A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2000.

It's not expensive, and well worth reading for its (very) challenging ideas.

Preston : have you read it yet?

[Hofrat]

With regard to theatre plays, of course voice nuances, level and so on are not notated. This is so because there is no universally accepted notation to render such issues realizable. The only "ur-text" is the "text" itself. I am not suggesting that one cannot "play" (interpretatively-creatively) with the text, but the "work" (Shakespeare play) is in the text, whereas, in my view, the Beethoven "work" is only virtually in the text (the "score"), and only fully realized when performed.

The Da Vinci example you refer to : a good point. Indeed, the work changes over time due to colour degradation and so on, but was this "intended" by the artist? The images underneath we can see today via x-ray technology : are these integral to the work? May we draw a parallel : perhaps we can x-ray the manuscripts of certain Beethoven sketches and "read" earlier manifestations of the "work". What then, is the "work"?

Urtext: Original text, meaning an edition of a score giving, or proposing to give, the composer's intentions without later editorial additions.

Philip, I do hope that you are not using "urtext" as criterion for "work." I find that the definition of urtext too restraining. There are vast amounts of musical works in which there is no urtext, or manuscript for that matter.

[Hofrat]

For this debate can I also recommend the book I mentioned to Preston elsewhere on this forum, namely : Nicholas Cook, Music, A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2000.

It's not expensive, and well worth reading for its (very) challenging ideas.

Preston : have you read it yet?

Philip;

Is that the same Nicholas Cook who realized Beethoven's piano concerto movement in D-major from 1815 (Hess 15)?

[Peter]

With regard to theatre plays, of course voice nuances, level and so on are not notated. This is so because there is no universally accepted notation to render such issues realizable. The only "ur-text" is the "text" itself. I am not suggesting that one cannot "play" (interpretatively-creatively) with the text, but the "work" (Shakespeare play) is in the text, whereas, in my view, the Beethoven "work" is only virtually in the text (the "score"), and only fully realized when performed.

I don't get your point - what is the difference between a written play or a musical score as both require performance in order to be fully realised?

[Quijote]

Philip;

Is that the same Nicholas Cook who realized Beethoven's piano concerto movement in D-major from 1815 (Hess 15)?

Yes, he realized a performing version.

[Quijote]

Urtext: Original text, meaning an edition of a score giving, or proposing to give, the composer's intentions without later editorial additions.

Philip, I do hope that you are not using "urtext" as criterion for "work." I find that the definition of urtext too restraining. There are vast amounts of musical works in which there is no urtext, or manuscript for that matter.

Hofrat : You are quite right, it is misleading of me to use "urtext" as a criterion for "work". As you point out, there are "works" for which there is no "urtext", Cage being one example, jazz, another.

[Quijote]

I don't get your point - what is the difference between a written play or a musical score as both require performance in order to be fully realised?

I haven't been very clear, my apologies. I tend to consider theatre "works" as poetry or novels, that is to say, something that can be "read". It is surely true that one does not need "to perform" a novel or a poem - they exist in their texts solely. Agreed, a "play" is only fully realized when "played" [acted out], but still, the relation between "written word" (the text) and its "comprehension / reception" is much more immediate than a musical score. However, "readng" a musical score is not of the same order, in my view. When I read a written text (poem, novel, play), I do so "in real time", if I can so term it. When I "read" a score it it not quite the same (and such a level of musical literacy is not something that is shared by non-musicians). A written text is "linear" - one word follows another, there is no "polyphony" in a Shakespeare play. On the other hand, let us take a score of a symphony or even of a piano sonata : their parts exist simultaneouly, but can I really hear them in real time? And whereas when I read a written text there is no doubt I can "read" efficiently the symbols on the page, can I be so sure with a score?

[Hofrat]

Anyone can read a book, poem, or drama, whether finished or unfinished. Anyone can look at and understand a painting or sculpture, whether finished or unfinished.

But music is different. For the great majority who cannot read a music score, music needs an "intermediary" in order to be heard and understood. That "intermediary" is the performance itself.

[Sorrano]

Anyone can read a book, poem, or drama, whether finished or unfinished. Anyone can look at and understand a painting or sculpture, whether finished or unfinished.

But music is different. For the great majority who cannot read a music score, music needs an "intermediary" in order to be heard and understood. That "intermediary" is the performance itself.

And often with that, the "intermediary" is realized by another entity, be it a single performer or an ensemble (or even electronic components designed to represent the performance). I think this is a very good point you make, Hofrat!

[Peter]

Anyone can read a book, poem, or drama, whether finished or unfinished. Anyone can look at and understand a painting or sculpture, whether finished or unfinished.

But music is different. For the great majority who cannot read a music score, music needs an "intermediary" in order to be heard and understood. That "intermediary" is the performance itself.

What about dyslexics or those who can't read?

[Peter]

I haven't been very clear, my apologies. I tend to consider theatre "works" as poetry or novels, that is to say, something that can be "read". It is surely true that one does not need "to perform" a novel or a poem - they exist in their texts solely. Agreed, a "play" is only fully realized when "played" [acted out], but still, the relation between "written word" (the text) and its "comprehension / reception" is much more immediate than a musical score. However, "readng" a musical score is not of the same order, in my view. When I read a written text (poem, novel, play), I do so "in real time", if I can so term it. When I "read" a score it it not quite the same (and such a level of musical literacy is not something that is shared by non-musicians). A written text is "linear" - one word follows another, there is no "polyphony" in a Shakespeare play. On the other hand, let us take a score of a symphony or even of a piano sonata : their parts exist simultaneouly, but can I really hear them in real time? And whereas when I read a written text there is no doubt I can "read" efficiently the symbols on the page, can I be so sure with a score?

I still can't agree about a play where many things can also go on at the same time - different actions combined with words, whether it be a battle at Agincourt or a storm at sea. Performance is as necessary as in a musical 'work' for true realisation.

[Hofrat]

Peter;

You are dwelling on the fringe cases. A Shakespeare sonnet will not be understood by a person who does not understand English. A blind person will not be able to appreciate a painting. One of my nephews, born deaf, does not understand why his father and I love going to CD shops.

[Hofrat]

I can not recall a play that I have seen where many things go on at the same time. If so, it is a very short interjection. When two people talk at the same time, we can not understand both speakers. It is a lot of noise. However, have those two people sing at the same time, if written and performed properly, and you have music.

[Peter]

Peter;

You are dwelling on the fringe cases. A Shakespeare sonnet will not be understood by a person who does not understand English. A blind person will not be able to appreciate a painting. One of my nephews, born deaf, does not understand why his father and I love going to CD shops.

Good point Hofrat - however this also underpins my point! What then exists in literature as a 'work' which needs to be translated into different languages with inevitable loss of the original conception?