What constitutes a 'work'?

[Hofrat]

Peter;

Well, literature may need translation, and everyone knows that there are good and bad translations. The point is this: A German reading Goethe or an Englishman reading Shakespeare do not need an intermediate medium to understand and enjoy what they are reading.

You will have to explain "original conception." Does that mean "how the composer envisioned the work." I have seen many music manuscripts, but I never saw any reference to "original conception" on the score (with the exception of the example below). And there may be a clash between "original conception" which is set and performance practices which are dynamic. For example in 1830, Berlioz writes on the manuscript of his Fantastic Symphony: "I demand an authentic alto trombone!" Well, there were no alto trombones to be found in France at that time (and for the next 100 years). Berlioz' "original conception" had to be set aside.

[Peter]

Peter;

Well, literature may need translation, and everyone knows that there are good and bad translations. The point is this: A German reading Goethe or an Englishman reading Shakespeare do not need an intermediate medium to understand and enjoy what they are reading.

You will have to explain "original conception." Does that mean "how the composer envisioned the work." I have seen many music manuscripts, but I never saw any reference to "original conception" on the score (with the exception of the example below). And there may be a clash between "original conception" which is set and performance practices which are dynamic. For example in 1830, Berlioz writes on the manuscript of his Fantastic Symphony: "I demand an authentic alto trombone!" Well, there were no alto trombones to be found in France at that time (and for the next 100 years). Berlioz' "original conception" had to be set aside.

Yes but this thread is about what defines a work with the implication from Philip that a musical composition cannot be called a work (whatever that is supposed to be!) and I'm not clear whether you agree with this or not? Now are you saying that one of the criteria for a 'work' is having no need for an intermediary? This isn't always necessary with music as a soloist can perform alone.

My comments regarding original conception were in regard to literature not music with the obvious need for translations and I'm not aware of any author writing 'original conception' on the autograph either!

[Hofrat]

Peter;

Let us return to basics. I opened my dictionary and looked up the word "work." Amongst the many entries for that word, the following is closest to our needs:

"Something produced by the exercise of creative talent or the expenditure of creative effort: artistic production."

Shakespeare's sonnets and plays are WORKS.
Titian's paintings are WORKS.
Beethoven's symphonies are WORKS. So are his little musical jokes.
Cooper's completion of Beethoven's 10th symphony sketches is a WORK.

It does not matter whether another medium is needed to understand them or appreciate them. All of the above are WORKS because they are all produced by creative talent and effort.

I hope I was clear!

[Sorrano]

So, with Hofrat's definition in mind (and I do agree) is Cage's 4'33" a work?

[Quijote]

Peter;

Let us return to basics. I opened my dictionary and looked up the word "work." Amongst the many entries for that word, the following is closest to our needs:

"Something produced by the exercise of creative talent or the expenditure of creative effort: artistic production."

Shakespeare's sonnets and plays are WORKS.
Titian's paintings are WORKS.
Beethoven's symphonies are WORKS. So are his little musical jokes.
Cooper's completion of Beethoven's 10th symphony sketches is a WORK.

It does not matter whether another medium is needed to understand them or appreciate them. All of the above are WORKS because they are all produced by creative talent and effort.

I hope I was clear!

Thank you for the "return to basics", Hofrat. Your dictionary definition is no doubt correct. But it still does not clarify (for me) what it means to talk about a musical "work". In effect, it is an intriguing philosophical question - where does the (musical) "work" exist : in the score or in performance, or somewhere midway between? Can we draw a parallel to architecture ? Is the "work" solely embodied in the drawings or blueprints, or does it only really exist in solid form (the building itself)?

To continue the architectural metaphor, imagine that Le Corbusier drew up blueprints for a never-realized construction. Would we still be able to talk of a "work of architecture"?

Or to use a musical example, is a never-realized (i.e. actually performed) score still a "work" or not? I imagine there must be many unperformed manuscripts collecting dust in long-forgotten archives somewhere; do these "works" exist, even though they have never been heard? If so, where does it "exist"? Does "music" exist in its "symbols", or in its "performance"?

But as I alluded to elsewhere, there is also a historical element at play : the concept of the "work principle" (as applied to music) only seems to have crystallized around the early 1800s (perhaps a few decades earlier), and goes hand-in-hand with a shift in the philosophy of aesthetics that sought to perceive music as "an object" in plastic terms, something that would be created and last forever. I believe that music before Kant (or thereabouts) was never conceived in such terms (as "works" in the plastic or visual arts sense). Music (or certainly instrumental music, i.e. without a text) prior to Kant (and indeed dating from antiquity, as Plato has manifestly reported) was always considered an inferior "art" - ephemeral, an accompaniment to ritual, drinking and so on. It had no "autonomous" status, as painting and sculpture did. That Beethoven wrote "works" (consciously so) and Bach (probably) not is a key issue here. I think we only talk about the "works" of Bach from our latter standpoint - essentially a Romantic-inspired ideology. Which is why the HIP movement is sometimes criticized for being based on false premises, even though I greatly enjoy listening to so-called "period performances".

[Quijote]

So, with Hofrat's definition in mind (and I do agree) is Cage's 4'33" a work?

Superb question, Sorrano. Cage's 4'33" gives the lie to the whole debate, doesn't it? As a "work" it has no score, only "performance instructions"; it will never be the same (although the differences will be perceived as negligible, if non-existant); it is totally aleatoric (in its environmental sense, necessarily so). And yet it is termed a "work" in the sense that Cage "composed" it. The paradox is also that it is a "work" that requires non-performance for its performance. Or rather, that it requires the "performance" of non-intentional sounding objects, which is a fancy way of saying the audience, birds, planes, cars and other miscellaneous sonic events that happen to occur.

[Sorrano]

"Something produced by the exercise of creative talent or the expenditure of creative effort: artistic production."

That says a lot. And while pondering that it occurred to me that the realization of a musical composition or a blueprint or a play is simply the manifestation of that artistic production; it is not the work itself. The work consists of set of instructions, be it musical, or whatever. Since a musical composition can only resound in our ears for a short duration (during realization) and then is gone this experience can only be a manifestation or interpretation of that set of instructions. As long as the instructions exist, then there is a work that can be manifested according to the interpretations of the instructions and it remains thus, a work. The Cage example, then, would be a work as it exists as a set of instructions, "...produced by the exercise of creative talent or the expenditure of creative effort: artistic production."

Thank you for clarifying that for me, Hofrat.

[Quijote]

And ballet (and other dance forms)? Apart from the music that may (or may not) accompany it, can we talk about ballet as "work"? I'm not sure of my facts here, but I believe the actual steps or moves to be made can be notated in some manner or other. Would professional ballet dancers be able to "read" the "work" in their head without actually performing the moves?

[Hofrat]

So, with Hofrat's definition in mind (and I do agree) is Cage's 4'33" a work?

I went to an exhibition of modern art. The first item was a blue wall with a red dot in the middle. The second item was a yellow wall with a green dot in the middle. And on and on I walked by different colored walls with a dot in the middle. I asked myself: "Is that art? Is that creative?" I guess there are degrees of creativity.

Sorry, but I have no opinion on Cage?

[Peter]

Peter;

Let us return to basics. I opened my dictionary and looked up the word "work." Amongst the many entries for that word, the following is closest to our needs:

"Something produced by the exercise of creative talent or the expenditure of creative effort: artistic production."

Shakespeare's sonnets and plays are WORKS.
Titian's paintings are WORKS.
Beethoven's symphonies are WORKS. So are his little musical jokes.
Cooper's completion of Beethoven's 10th symphony sketches is a WORK.

It does not matter whether another medium is needed to understand them or appreciate them. All of the above are WORKS because they are all produced by creative talent and effort.

I hope I was clear!

Yes I agree with you but we seemed to disagree on the ways of making the point that we agree!

[Peter]

Or to use a musical example, is a never-realized (i.e. actually performed) score still a "work" or not? I imagine there must be many unperformed manuscripts collecting dust in long-forgotten archives somewhere; do these "works" exist, even though they have never been heard?

Doesn't this apply to lost paintings and literature as well?

[Hofrat]

And ballet (and other dance forms)? Apart from the music that may (or may not) accompany it, can we talk about ballet as "work"? I'm not sure of my facts here, but I believe the actual steps or moves to be made can be notated in some manner or other. Would professional ballet dancers be able to "read" the "work" in their head without actually performing the moves?

Of course a ballet is a work!! It is three works in one. You have the story which is a literature work. You have the choreography which is an art work. And you have the music which is a work. How can a ballet not be a work?

[Hofrat]

I just opened my Koechel catalog and my Deutsche catalog, which everyone knows are listings of WORKS by Mozart and Schubert respectively. Both catalogs are full of fragments and works that were lost.

Lost paintings, literature, and music are works because they are creative efforts that were unfortunately lost.

[Quijote]

Of course a ballet is a work!! It is three works in one. You have the story which is a literature work. You have the choreography which is an art work. And you have the music which is a work. How can a ballet not be a work?

Well, there are dance forms (avant-garde) that are pure movement, with no music or text (story). But I suppose that is not strictly ballet. Still, are they "works" from the Romantic-ideological viewpoint I alluded to above? Are they notated, and therefore "replicable"? Or are they simply "improvised"? Do we refer to improvised jazz as "works"? Are "works" (of all genres / art forms) only to be found embedded in some sort of notational system?

[Peter]

Are "works" (of all genres / art forms) only to be found embedded in some sort of notational system?

What about sculpture?