Musical questions and answers thread

[teamsaint]

Many thanks.

Something for you to practice over the weekend , Pulcers. Don't block your pharynx for too long though is my advice.

[Pulcinella]

Something for you to practice over the weekend , Pulcers. Don't block your pharynx for too long though is my advice.

It's the tenors not first basses, ts!
But, as you might have spotted in a comment elsewhere, we first basses have to reach the F sharp above middle C quite often and sometimes with a leap rather than a run up the scale.
The runs were OK last night, and there's a few weeks to go yet to get the jumps better.


Local Guildhall orchestra playing The Rite in York Barbican tomorrow night.
I shall keep my eyes out for the pavillons en l'air!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I could have sworn that I had seen the instruction en clair associated with the horns in The Rite of Spring, but a quick skim through the score didn't reveal it.

I think you've misread "Horns eclair", Pulcie (= muted with a chocolate cream pastry).

[teamsaint]

I think you've misread "Horns eclair", Pulcie (= muted with a chocolate cream pastry).

You'd need a lot of puff to play like that.

[Pulcinella]

You'd need a lot of puff to play like that.

The sort that a choux-choux train would produce?

[Pabmusic]

...It is indeed pavillons en l'air (or "bells up" in horn players' slang, I guess) and appears for the first time in the bar before fig 46 on p.41 in the Ritual of abduction movement.

And, I am reliably informed, not appreciated by horn-players, either, since it's awkward and interferes with the usual embouchure.

It's 'Schalltrichter auf' in German - Mahler certainly uses it, Strauss too..

Btw - 'bells up' doesn't mean 'held upside-down'. The horn is held at about 45 degrees from the body.

I found this advice:

"You also need to be careful about seating positions. You don’t want to bump into the player on your right as you raise the bell, and you don't want to be playing directly into someone's face. This can be a particular problem for amateur groups performing in relatively cramped spaces in old churches ...

[The horn should be] horizontal (no higher than that), hand still in the bell.

The bells-up position is also treated as a license to produce a raucous tone with maximum brassiness. if the truth be told, 90% or more of the sound effect can be achieved without raising the bell. But is it marvellously dramatic to watch!"

[doversoul1]

Is there an equivalent in classical music performance to literary criticism? If there is, where is a good place for a complete beginner to start (reading)?

Can a musical performance be interpreted by listeners in the way a literary work is by readers? Or can interpretation in music always/only mean that of the work and by performers? By interpretation, I mean more than ‘this is how it sounds to me’ but the listener’s response based on critical theories. Or at least on some rational bases. Or are those many excellent reviews we hear on (or use to hear ) Record Review based on the accumulation of the reviewers' specialist studies (this does sound rather obvious)? Come to that, what exactly does it mean to interpret music, by listeners, that is? I do apologise for this appallingly ignorant question.


This is wiki’s definition of literary criticism.

Literary criticism (or literary studies) is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature. Modern literary criticism is often influenced by literary theory, which is the philosophical discussion of literature's goals and methods. Though the two activities are closely related, literary critics are not always, and have not always been, theorists.

Whether or not literary criticism should be considered a separate field of inquiry from literary theory, or conversely from book reviewing, is a matter of some controversy. For example, the Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism[1] draws no distinction between literary theory and literary criticism, and almost always uses the terms together to describe the same concept. Some critics consider literary criticism a practical application of literary theory, because criticism always deals directly with particular literary works, while theory may be more general or abstract.

[Joseph K]

The musical equivalent of literary theory for me would be musical analysis, though I doubt that this holds the same relationship you mention with criticism (in the case of music). I also am not sure about applying this to discussion of musical performance as distinct from a composition 'itself'. Otherwise I would have suggested something about musical semiotics and off the top of my head, books by Nattiez.

[teamsaint]

Is there an equivalent in classical music performance to literary criticism? If there is, where is a good place for a complete beginner to start (reading)?

Can a musical performance be interpreted by listeners in the way a literary work is by readers? Or can interpretation in music always/only mean that of the work and by performers? By interpretation, I mean more than ‘this is how it sounds to me’ but the listener’s response based on critical theories. Or at least on some rational bases.

This is wiki’s definition of literary criticism.

Literary criticism (or literary studies) is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature. Modern literary criticism is often influenced by literary theory, which is the philosophical discussion of literature's goals and methods. Though the two activities are closely related, literary critics are not always, and have not always been, theorists.

Whether or not literary criticism should be considered a separate field of inquiry from literary theory, or conversely from book reviewing, is a matter of some controversy. For example, the Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism[1] draws no distinction between literary theory and literary criticism, and almost always uses the terms together to describe the same concept. Some critics consider literary criticism a practical application of literary theory, because criticism always deals directly with particular literary works, while theory may be more general or abstract.

Good question.
One thing worth mentioning is that a study of literary critical theory can help give really valuable insights that can apply outside of the strictly literary.

If anybody is interested in a beginners guide to literary theory, Peter Barry’s book is absolutely invaluable.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beginning-theory-third-introduction-Beginnings/dp/0719079276/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Beginning+theory&qid=1565472330&s=gateway&sr=8-2

[teamsaint]

I’m probably way off here, not least because my study of literary theory is slim and long ago, but I tend to think of most musical writing ( reviews etc) that I encounter as being closely related in style to Cambridge close reading, rather than attempting to use more theoretical techniques to interpret the music, or musical event.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Is there an equivalent in classical music performance to literary criticism? If there is, where is a good place for a complete beginner to start (reading)?

Can a musical performance be interpreted by listeners in the way a literary work is by readers? Or can interpretation in music always/only mean that of the work and by performers? By interpretation, I mean more than ‘this is how it sounds to me’ but the listener’s response based on critical theories. Or at least on some rational bases. Or are those many excellent reviews we hear on (or use to hear ) Record Review based on the accumulation of the reviewers' specialist studies (this does sound rather obvious)? Come to that, what exactly does it mean to interpret music, by listeners, that is? I do apologise for this appallingly ignorant question.


This is wiki’s definition of literary criticism.

Literary criticism (or literary studies) is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature. Modern literary criticism is often influenced by literary theory, which is the philosophical discussion of literature's goals and methods. Though the two activities are closely related, literary critics are not always, and have not always been, theorists.

Whether or not literary criticism should be considered a separate field of inquiry from literary theory, or conversely from book reviewing, is a matter of some controversy. For example, the Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism[1] draws no distinction between literary theory and literary criticism, and almost always uses the terms together to describe the same concept. Some critics consider literary criticism a practical application of literary theory, because criticism always deals directly with particular literary works, while theory may be more general or abstract.

Your timing is immaculate, dovers - published later this month:

https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/music/music-criticism/cambridge-history-music-criticism?format=HB

... though at that price, you might wish to wait until a local library gets a copy!

Already available - and somewhat cheaper - is the companion book on Music Theory:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-History-Western-Music-Theory/dp/0521686989

[doversoul1]

Thank you both for your swift responses. I am particularly puzzled by talks and writings about performances which is, unlike text or music itself (likely to be written down), impossible (so it seems to me) to pin down the point and say for instance ‘this phrase suggests such and such as analysed in [a theory or an article]’ etc..

[doversoul1]

Your timing is immaculate, dovers - published later this month:

https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/music/music-criticism/cambridge-history-music-criticism?format=HB

... though at that price, you might wish to wait until a local library gets a copy!

Already available - and somewhat cheaper - is the companion book on Music Theory:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-H.../dp/0521686989

Many thanks

Another ignorant question;
Do I understand that music theories go beyond music itself (composed works) to thinking about performance?

[MrGongGong]

Do I understand that music theories go beyond music itself (composed works) to thinking about performance?

I think you are probably after musicology rather than music theory

https://goldenpages.jpehs.co.uk/golden-pages/online-journals-for-musicians-musicologists-and-music-theorists/

a long list to wade through

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Do I understand that music theories go beyond music itself (composed works) to thinking about performance?

Some do - and there has been a growth in studies of how composers have utilised an audience's view of performers working in Live performance in the past ten years or so. (Most of them beginning by rapping previous analysts who have concentrated on the Musical text over the knuckles - naughty Schenker! Bad boy Riemann! Go and stand in the corner, Kerman! A pity that, in some I've read, the actual discussion of the performer's work has been limited to trivial comments about the audience watching a 'cellist bending forward on the instruments to reach the higher notes at a climax. I presume that there are better examples of this - but until I encounter them, I'm sticking in the Detention Class with the other miscreants.)

Are you looking for a History of performance practice, dovers? There's another companion volume to those Cambridge volumes I mentioned - though it is expensive:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-History-Musical-Performance/dp/0521896118