Originally posted by MrGongGong
View Post
ROH 'William Tell'
Collapse
X
-
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I am not a number, I am a free man.
-
-
Originally posted by teamsaint View PostI'm sure, ( well hopeful anyway) there would be plenty of discussion on this board on the point (s) that you mention, if you would open the debate, and perhaps, as a professional well versed in such matters, offer a few pointers to fruitful areas for discussion.
I'm fascinated by this and it is at the heart of how we think about music
but I usually sit on the side while my academic ('real' ones not Ruperts chums ) talk about it with extensive references .... (i'll see if I can dig a few things out)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View Post
I'm fascinated by this and it is at the heart of how we think about music
but I usually sit on the side while my academic ('real' ones not Ruperts chums ) talk about it with extensive references .... (i'll see if I can dig a few things out)
referencing , though..................I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I am not a number, I am a free man.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by teamsaint View PostYou can wing it,if anybody can, F'sure.......
but not in a room full of pedantic linguists
This
I paid to see Guillueme Tell
Is a starting point for interesting discussion IMV
Those of us who create music are frequently asked to say things about it months (sometimes years) before it even exists.
How does one describe something which is essentially 'non-linguistic' in a way that will encourage people to come and experience it?
Are the folks who PAID to see Kanye West at Glastonbury equally entitled to complain about the £?
and so on ....Last edited by MrGongGong; 05-07-15, 10:45.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Giacomo View PostYour use of "fossilised" is emotive. ... desecration.
seeing the original.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post'Desecration' isn't emotive?
Originally posted by Flosshilde View PostTo suggest that something has been desecrated is to suggest that it's a holy relic, that nobody is allowed to touch it.
Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post'What does 'original' mean in this context?
Comment
-
-
Richard Tarleton
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostHow many 'wrong' notes do I have to play for a piece to loose it's identity?
If you perform a work and play a lot (as in, a *lot*) of wrong notes as if you were the worse for drink, it may still be recognisable. But it would be a BAD performance.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostI hope there would be none, Gongers, but - an interesting analogy.
If you perform a work and play a lot (as in, a *lot*) of wrong notes as if you were the worse for drink, it may still be recognisable. But it would be a BAD performance.
But (and this is exactly the sort of thing that those who make "sound based" as opposed to "note based" musics have to grapple with) what exactly is it that gives "THE WORK" it's identity?
The rhythm, the notes, something else?
If it is the combination, how are the various elements balanced?
and
What role does "nostalgia" play?
If I have a brush and the head wears out ..... etc etc
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostIndeed
But (and this is exactly the sort of thing that those who make "sound based" as opposed to "note based" musics have to grapple with) what exactly is it that gives "THE WORK" it's identity?
The rhythm, the notes, something else?
If it is the combination, how are the various elements balanced?
and
What role does "nostalgia" play?
If I have a brush and the head wears out ..... etc etc
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View Postwhat exactly is it that gives "THE WORK" it's identity?
However, there were two points which the ROH management made to justify the current production which were at best questionable, at worst plain wrong.
1. They said that there was justification in the libretto. There wasn't. The 'violence' which outraged the villagers was the solders forcing them to dance. (An alternative reference, possibly, to rape mentioned by LHC indicated exactly the 'classical' convention for representing a violent act: Leuthold appears with a blood-stained axe and explains what he has done - we don't see the act. Did this production show Leuthold hacking the malefactor to death?
2. Kasper Holten stated that Rossinini 'had chosen' the themes of war and oppression and he 'wanted to make a statement'. Most unlikely on the evidence. Rossini in 1829 was not the Verdi of the Risorgimento. A struggle for independence, as aeolium argued, is not 'war' as we understand it (especially in Bosnia) and what evidence is there that Rossini wanted to 'make a statement' rather than tell the tale of a Swiss hero, courage, and romantic and parental love?
Michieletto was the one who wanted to 'make the statement'. I wouldn't say that isn't allowable: but pretending that that was anything to do with what Rossini intended is dishonest. In my opinion.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
Comment