Discoveries.

[Sir Velo]

... ah well, some of us like the music; some like devilish gargoyles screaming into the void of a vast-sounding apocalyptic acoustic...

"It never seems to occur to people that a man might just want to write a piece of music." I forget which musical non-entity said that.

[Pabmusic]

"It never seems to occur to people that a man might just want to write a piece of music." I forget which musical non-entity said that.

Vaughan Williams, in response to many questions about the 'meaning' of the Sixth Symphony. Was he the musical nonentity you had in mind?

[Sir Velo]

Vaughan Williams, in response to many questions about the 'meaning' of the Sixth Symphony. Was he the musical nonentity you had in mind?

I was attempting irony (and clearly failing): the "winkeye" was the clue.

[Pabmusic]

I was attempting irony (and clearly failing): the "winkeye" was the clue.

Sorry. I'm very unreceptive to irony - entirely down to me, of course.

[Sir Velo]

Sorry. I'm very unreceptive to irony - entirely down to me, of course.

Get yourself a cup of coffee - that'll help; or shall I put flags up when being ironic?

The point I was making was a riposte to the rather flowery language expressed earlier in the thread that the best music always has an extra-musical dimension. I assumed everyone would recognise the VW quote, hence the obviously OTT reference to a "non-entity". It should be clear that I am agreeing with the VW quote, and Vinteuil's earlier mock horror exclamation.

[Pabmusic]

Get yourself a cup of coffee - that'll help; or shall I put flags up when being ironic?

The point I was making was a riposte to the rather flowery language expressed earlier in the thread that the best music always has an extra-musical dimension. I assumed everyone would recognise the VW quote, hence the obviously OTT reference to a "non-entity". It should be clear that I am agreeing with the VW quote, and Vinteuil's earlier mock horror exclamation.

I see. No - don't put up flags; I'll get it sometimes. I agree entirely with your sentiments, by the way.

[jayne lee wilson]

Get yourself a cup of coffee - that'll help; or shall I put flags up when being ironic?

The point I was making was a riposte to the rather flowery language expressed earlier in the thread that the best music always has an extra-musical dimension. I assumed everyone would recognise the VW quote, hence the obviously OTT reference to a "non-entity". It should be clear that I am agreeing with the VW quote, and Vinteuil's earlier mock horror exclamation.

I do wonder what could be "flowery" about spooky cathedrals and screaming gargoyles evoked by hearing a Dante Symphony... as for saying that "the best music always has an extramusical dimension" that's certainly not what I think - nor, I suspect, Mahler; his point (msg.29) surely was that simply following the score's instructions won't get you far in many works; you need emotion, empathy, imagination ( if not in a "Dante Symphony" where on earth...?) and often a sense of the visual.

As for Vaughn Williams, I never took his comment about the 6th Symphony seriously - can you honestly listen to that warlike, apocalyptic, extreme sequence of movements and say "how lovely to hear music qua music"...?

[jayne lee wilson]

I do wonder what could be "flowery" about spooky cathedrals and screaming gargoyles evoked by hearing a Dante Symphony... as for saying that "the best music always has an extramusical dimension" that's certainly not what I think - nor, I suspect, Mahler; his point (msg.29) surely was that simply following the score's instructions won't get you far in many works; you need emotion, empathy, imagination ( if not in a "Dante Symphony" where on earth...?) and often a sense of the visual.

As for Vaughn Williams, I never took his comment about the 6th Symphony seriously - can you honestly listen to that warlike, apocalyptic, extreme sequence of movements and say "how lovely to hear music qua music"...?

...or take Haydn Symphonies. No.82, The Bear: first movement. "A kind of Orlando Furioso who is made even wilder by every attempt to placate him, until he finally collapses in exhaustion. Hero or Clown?"
No.83, The Hen: finale."The finale is a hunt, all energetic and jolly, but the shots are real, the prey takes flight, and at bars 85-87 some listeners will make out the sound of a wounded beast."

These are from Harnoncourt's own Working Notes on Haydn's Paris Symphonies (in the dhm set). You don't need them; you could bring bears and hens back in; but they're a wonderfully apt extramusical response - from a performer whose performances are made the more vivid by such inner life.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

These are from Harnoncourt's own Working Notes on Haydn's Paris Symphonies (in the dhm set). You don't need them; you could bring bears and hens back in; but they're a wonderfully apt extramusical response - from a performer whose performances are made the more vivid by such inner life.

Well - perhaps "a performer whose performances are made the more vivid for many listeners by such 'inner' life". Equally assertable is that such interpretations onto the "working notes" that Haydn actually wrote is what makes these performances annoying and distracting for at least one other listener - Kuijken, for example, gets so much more out of these scores by paying such close attention to "just" the notes for such a listener.

[jayne lee wilson]

Well - perhaps "a performer whose performances are made the more vivid for many listeners by such 'inner' life". Equally assertable is that such interpretations onto the "working notes" that Haydn actually wrote is what makes these performances annoying and distracting for at least one other listener - Kuijken, for example, gets so much more out of these scores by paying such close attention to "just" the notes for such a listener.

But those sketched-in programs helped Harnoncourt perform the music, any listener can hear what he means (and should find a smile while listening...) and arguably won't have a huge effect on his shaping and shading of the notes themselves. Note that in this 2005 CMV set NH takes EVERY repeat, some fidelity there, and they certainly renew this listener's response.

The trouble with Kuijken - as evinced by his latest release of Die Tageszeiten - is that the beauty of the playing compels attention, even as the literalness and lack of more personalised expression frustrates your response. I did comment on it somewhere, New Releases, I think (ignored as usual...). Still in two minds!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But those sketched-in programs helped Harnoncourt perform the music,

any listener can hear what he means

(and should find a smile while listening...)

Now here you move from an admirably enthusiastic "You must hear this" to a less than admirably bossy "You must hear this this way!"

and arguably won't have a huge effect on his shaping and shading of the notes themselves. Note that in this 2005 CMV set NH takes EVERY repeat, some fidelity there, and they certainly renew this listener's response.

This seems to contradict your earlier suggestion that these "sketched-in programs" are the important bits (those that aren't found in the notes) that give these particular performances an "inner life" that makes them "the more vivid". I agree with what you appear to be saying here: the notes (and my listening to them) are not served by my having to think about Bambi - still less having to work out why Bambi's mum gets shot twice!

The trouble with Kuijken

You mean, your "trouble with Kuijken"

is that the beauty of the playing compels attention, even as the literalness and lack of more personalised expression frustrates your response.

I would prefer it if you'd said "one's response" both because this is not my response at all - and because I feel it is more mathematically accurate.

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, I guess my articles are supposed to imply possessives, sorry. Pressed for time these days. My original much-unread review of Kuiken's 6/7/8 was fair, I thought.

Similar thing for "should find a smile"... a suggestion, or invitation, rather than a command...

Really I was only giving an example of a great musician who finds extramusical associations both pleasurable and helpful. Which is why I said you don't need them, or could find others... No obligation to buy!

I would certainly like to hear more about what a "more mathematically accurate " response to music is. Is this not just another metaphor?

As for Bambi... I evaded the trauma on a first viewing; I convinced my 8-year old self that Bambi's mum was off in the forest somewhere!
But in Haydn 83, Bambi's mum gets shot twice because it's a symphony, not a film or a book. And because it might not be Bambi, or any animal, tomorrow. You can observe all repeats AND let your imagination fly...

But I'm getting too far from my original point re. Mahler.
"The most important part of the music is not in the notes"... no, it's in those who perform them and listen to them.
A score is a set of instructions; is it ever enough to just follow them?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I would certainly like to hear more about what a "more mathematically accurate " response to music is. Is this not just another metaphor?

Neither: just a cheap pun on the suggested "one's response". Apologies.

But in Haydn 83, Bambi's mum gets shot twice because it's a symphony, not a film or a book. And because it might not be Bambi, or any animal, tomorrow. You can observe all repeats AND let your imagination fly...

Well, this is rather my point - Harnoncourt's "sketched-in programmes" may well have fired his imagination and guided his conducting, but, by including them in the CD notes, he makes them public and puts what I feel to be unnecessary and sentimental images in the public domain. There may well be CD buyers who take these images as Haydn's and require them from other performances - and find these other performances wanting when the images don't appear. It's Haydn's imagination that Kuijken "lets fly" - and that is infinitely more absorbing than Harnoncourt's.

"The most important part of the music is not in the notes"... no, it's in those who perform them and listen to them.

But what do they perform/listen to?

A score is a set of instructions; is it ever enough to just follow them?

"Just"?! Have you tried "just" playing the notes of the Hammerklavier?! The only way to get an imaginative performance of a Mahler Symphony is to read the score, and get as much of what's in it from the orchestral players as the acoustic and the players' strengths and limitations allow. Imagination is hearing what the notes look like - then it's up to the listener: a sequence of two-bar phrases foreshortened into one and then half-bar fragments, or the impending onslaught of a raid by Cossack bandits. A shift from major to minor facilitating a modulation to a remotely related key, or the Sun disappearing behind a cloud only to re-emerge revealing shadows in diffeent parts of the landscape. The Music is and can only be "in" "the notes" - as Mahler realized when he excised the "Titan" programme from his First Symphony. If the notes aren't there, if the Tempi aren't observed, if the dynamics are ignored - it isn't the work that it claims on the Programme. It might be a valid, exciting Musical event, but if it ain't what the composer wrote it ain't the work; it's an "arrangement" or "transcription" (or even "edition").

[jayne lee wilson]

RE. your last paragraph (forgive me or my Mac for never mastering selective quotes...!) - what then distinguishes "great conducting" - or pianism, etc., from dullness, mediocrity or worse? Most performances these days tend to play all the notes, and fairly accurately. Ehrling's and Goodman's Berwald Symphonies are both well-recorded and accurately played; but Ehrling's are audibly, palpably more "expressive" (warmer, richer, more vividly emotional); this isn't all in my head, or just MY ears is it? Seems to me that comparative listening (interpretations on record) is all about that personal input from performers which is more than "just following" the score's instructions, however challenging that might be. It's the difference between Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky and Karajan's...

All those HIPS controversies - size of band, choruses 4 to a part or one-to-a-part - these all involve creative choices which then shape the notes that are played and sung. On a basic level that's more than just following them.

If you rule out performances that don't strictly observe tempi and dynamics as written, you might not have many left...
And I think you're a bit hard on that DHM Haydn Paris set - I think most listeners will enjoy NH's Notes and not be led by them.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

RE. your last paragraph (forgive me or my Mac for never mastering selective quotes...!) - what then distinguishes "great conducting" - or pianism, etc., from dullness, mediocrity or worse?

The listener. As we see every week on the Building a Library Threads, one person's ideal performance/recording is another's "worst ever" and a third's "'salright, but nothing to get excited about." Krivine's breath-taking readings of the Beethoven Symphonies (which miraculously reveal the joy of these scores in ways that nobody else would seem to have believed possible - and still presents their incendiary, earth-changing power) are an endless source of wonder and revelation to me. Every detail of the scores galvinized into fresh new life, making the planets dance rejoicing in the name of Beethoven. But not if you're Thropplenoggin or Highland Dougie, who really don't like them and much prefer Hogwood's - that I find plod along unremarkably.

I was minded, after my last post, of how dull I find Pinnock's Haydn - and yet there's nothing I can point to in the scores that I can say "Look! He doesn't do that!" And Pinnock's Haydn is many other people's ideal in the works. And there may well be some Berwald experts who prefer Goodman to Ehrling (presumably Goodman, for one!) - the point is that if neither Goodman nor Ehrling deviate from the score, your ears and head are as valid as theirs.

That's my point: to reproduce a score accurately isn't a simple matter - there is no "just" involved. It demands the deepest intelligence and imagination and belief in the work And it will never be the same twice. What need anyone else imposing their inferior ideas onto them? Haydn studied figured bass for years: by the time he wrote the "Paris" Symphonies, he knew what rallentando and accelerando and sforzando meant. When he wanted these effects he wrote them in the scores. If he didn't write them in (in these of all works) it's because the Music doesn't need them. There's plenty enough detail to realize without "improving" them.

But you're quite right that to suggest that it's a different matter with pre-Classical Music: there conventions which the composers took for granted have been forgotten and have to be re-discovered, re-thought and regenerated.

And, in response to your enthusiasm for Harnoncourt, I shall endeavour over the next week to listen to them again to see if they impress me more in the light of that enthusiasm. I see from my notes that I've played the Kuijken set eleven times - I'm in danger of coming to think of those performances as the works themselves.