Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Conversations from Rehearsal
"Pianists are crazy; I don't know how they do all that stuff they do. They changed the way I thought about music. My first roommate was one, and he'd be like, 'I'm gonna go drink some wine, take a bubble bath, and play some scales.' I was like, 'WTF?' And then I went to his recital. You know what I did when I got home? I drank some wine, took a bubble bath, and played some scales."
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Advocating for the Composer
For my Medieval and Renaissance Music History class we're keeping a listening journal for the various pieces we're studying. Following is an excerpt regarding the song in the below video.
How might a performer approach interpreting this piece? Sure, we have scholarly research in the field, but there is still the problem that there are no aural records from that time, and the written records are ambiguous at best. The two versions we listened to as a class seemed so different from each other, and yet the performers were interpreting the same 'score.' On searching Youtube I even found a New Age rendition of this song.
Which one is the most faithful? This is such a hard question, especially for a conductor (I've heard the profession described as the "composer's advocate"). Musical meaning--or however we might term this concept--is an instantaneous creation between the performer and the audience. Just like in conversation, books, or any other kind of communication, lasting impressions (or deeper connections, if you will) are fortified by understanding, which is enhanced by many things (intelligence, familiarity, passion/interest, background knowledge, and more). So we might argue that informed performance practice makes a more faithful performance, meaning our New Age friends are doing some kind of disservice to our Comtessa de Dia. But this is only more meaningful if the audience is on the same level of understanding.
So, what if the audience is so unfamiliar with what is going on that they do not understand (as is common in both performances of medieval and contemporary music)? Is that a faithful service to the composer? Or better yet, not only is this composer long dead, but this culture has evolved into something so far removed that it could also be thought of as dead. In this sense it might be more faithful for there to be a strong connection between the performer and audience--after all, the theme of this song is absolutely contemporary and therefore relevant--meaning that in the right setting the New Age version is a more faithful service to the music, because the connection between the audience and the performer is faithful to the intention of the music (with music from this era it is so difficult to determine intention with absolute certainty). This is a topic that bothers me restlessly as I prepare to embark on a career which focuses on bridging the gap between notes on a page and meaningful performance, especially in a post-canonic era. No longer does the concert stage occupy a central part of the public life. How do we remain faithful not just to our composers, but also to our audiences?
How much more true is this when we think about teaching in a primary or secondary school! Our audiences there are so young, so full of curiosity, and so full of the post-canonic culture.
How might a performer approach interpreting this piece? Sure, we have scholarly research in the field, but there is still the problem that there are no aural records from that time, and the written records are ambiguous at best. The two versions we listened to as a class seemed so different from each other, and yet the performers were interpreting the same 'score.' On searching Youtube I even found a New Age rendition of this song.
Which one is the most faithful? This is such a hard question, especially for a conductor (I've heard the profession described as the "composer's advocate"). Musical meaning--or however we might term this concept--is an instantaneous creation between the performer and the audience. Just like in conversation, books, or any other kind of communication, lasting impressions (or deeper connections, if you will) are fortified by understanding, which is enhanced by many things (intelligence, familiarity, passion/interest, background knowledge, and more). So we might argue that informed performance practice makes a more faithful performance, meaning our New Age friends are doing some kind of disservice to our Comtessa de Dia. But this is only more meaningful if the audience is on the same level of understanding.
So, what if the audience is so unfamiliar with what is going on that they do not understand (as is common in both performances of medieval and contemporary music)? Is that a faithful service to the composer? Or better yet, not only is this composer long dead, but this culture has evolved into something so far removed that it could also be thought of as dead. In this sense it might be more faithful for there to be a strong connection between the performer and audience--after all, the theme of this song is absolutely contemporary and therefore relevant--meaning that in the right setting the New Age version is a more faithful service to the music, because the connection between the audience and the performer is faithful to the intention of the music (with music from this era it is so difficult to determine intention with absolute certainty). This is a topic that bothers me restlessly as I prepare to embark on a career which focuses on bridging the gap between notes on a page and meaningful performance, especially in a post-canonic era. No longer does the concert stage occupy a central part of the public life. How do we remain faithful not just to our composers, but also to our audiences?
How much more true is this when we think about teaching in a primary or secondary school! Our audiences there are so young, so full of curiosity, and so full of the post-canonic culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)