Screwed

[Old Grumpy]

Well, I see what you're saying* - but does a violin (or any instrument) sound "better" with a Mute attached than without? It's the context of the Music that makes it "right".

(* - I think it's "I don't like the Music written for Prepared Piano"? )

In a nutshell, yes!

[Dave2002]

Yes - as I said, "it depends on [the] work": if the composer has a definite idea of what the resulting sounds will be (as in the Sonatas and Interludes) then these have to be followed by performers if they wish to re-present the work {in accordance with the composer's wishes}. (Some of the exact positions on a piano that Cage supplies with the score don't work on all pianos, as Cage discovered to his surprise - in which case <ho-ho> the measurements have to be tweaked until the expected sound is achieved.)


Yes - as I said, it depends which work is being played. If the work is intended to offer a range of possibilities for performers, then all results have different validities.

Not all performers or audiences would agree - and maybe not all composers.

Where does Cage's 4′33″ fit in?

[vinteuil]

Where does Cage's 4′33″ fit in?

... I think

4′33″ for any instrument or combination of instruments (August 1952)

fits in somewhere between his

Music for Carillon No. 1, for carillon (10 July 1952)

and

Music for Piano 1, for piano (December 1952)


.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Not all performers or audiences would agree - and maybe not all composers.

"Would agree" with what?

Where does Cage's 4′33″ fit in?

With what?

[Dave2002]

"Would agree" with what?


With what?

Any philosophical relationship between composer, performers, audience and the music

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm not following you - "Not all performers or audiences would agree - and maybe not all composers" with "any philosophical relationship between composer, performers, audience, and the Music"?

And/or "Where does Cage's 4'33" fit in" with "any philosophical relationship between composer, performers, audience, and the Music"?

I don't understand what you're saying/asking.

[MrGongGong]

Any philosophical relationship between composer, performers, audience and the music

4:33" has a very clear set of relationships


There is

1: A score
2: A performance context
3: A Set of durations
4: A clear statement of who the "audience" are
5: A clear statement of what the sound of the music in the piece is

and so on and so on

[Dave2002]

4:33" has a very clear set of relationships


There is

1: A score
2: A performance context
3: A Set of durations
4: A clear statement of who the "audience" are
5: A clear statement of what the sound of the music in the piece is

and so on and so on

Indeed - I'm sure it does. Then there's Terry Riley's "In C" - which clearly has "random" elements. Not sure about the relationship (intended) with an audience. I guess my point from fhg is that once the piece is "out there" it doesn't fully "belong" to a composer, so "we" don't have to observe any declared intentions by the creator. We might choose to do so, for various reasons, but mostly there is no obligation to do so. Copyright law may attempt to impost some restrictions.

I'm not actually suggesting that we should all deliberately go out and deviate from what might be declared intentions of any composer, but I think the notion that we "have" to follow a composer's "intentions" is plain incorrect. There is no absolute arbiter of what we might, or might not do. We may prefer to get closer to the composer's intentions, but not everyone is going to do that, or want to do that.

[Richard Barrett]

composers are no respectors of hard-earned instruments of underpaid musicians.

Nonsense. Plus: if we're talking about being underpaid, performing musicians generally do considerably better than composers.

Would composers note this before considering “col legno”

The trouble is that in cases like those amateurs Mahler and Bartók it's a bit late to be telling them now!

As for preparing pianos, numerous concert halls I've worked in have a piano which is "allowed" to be prepared, but actually preparing pianos doesn't damage them unless it's done in a cack-handed way (as with many usages of pianos like carrying them up stairs).

Speaking of how composers and performers treat instruments, I heard an anecdote about a rather well known pianist of classical and contemporary music (whose name I won't mention because this story may not be true, although I believe it) who was in a recording studio to make a record of some music that used indeterminate notation. Roger the pianist (not his real name) (or maybe it is) asked the piano tuner whether it would be allowed for him to cut one of the bass strings with a garden shears as part of the performance. Certainly not, said the tuner, this is a valuable and indeed new instrument. During the sessions, Roger also decided to scrape a large knife along one of the low strings and accidentally gouged a groove out of the inside of the instrument's case. When the tuner came back the following day he was of course beside himself with rage, saying the piano was now completely ruined. So, says Roger, would it be OK now if I cut the string with my shears?

[Richard Barrett]

We may prefer to get closer to the composer's intentions, but not everyone is going to do that, or want to do that.

The composer's intentions are neither here nor there really, but if one wants to perform a piece of music there's a certain responsibility to assume that what's in the score is there for a musical reason, which one ought to respect; or else play something else, or compose one's own piece.

[MrGongGong]

Indeed - I'm sure it does. Then there's Terry Riley's "In C" - which clearly has "random" elements. Not sure about the relationship (intended) with an audience. I guess my point from fhg is that once the piece is "out there" it doesn't fully "belong" to a composer, so "we" don't have to observe any declared intentions by the creator. We might choose to do so, for various reasons, but mostly there is no obligation to do so. Copyright law may attempt to impost some restrictions.

I'm not actually suggesting that we should all deliberately go out and deviate from what might be declared intentions of any composer, but I think the notion that we "have" to follow a composer's "intentions" is plain incorrect. There is no absolute arbiter of what we might, or might not do. We may prefer to get closer to the composer's intentions, but not everyone is going to do that, or want to do that.

I think you probably need to read this

https://archive.org/stream/silencelecturesw1961cage/silencelecturesw1961cage_djvu.txt

Particularly this bit ......II. Indeterminacy I 35

[Serial_Apologist]

I think you probably need to read this

https://archive.org/stream/silencelecturesw1961cage/silencelecturesw1961cage_djvu.txt

Particularly this bit ......II. Indeterminacy I 35

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I guess my point from fhg is that once the piece is "out there" it doesn't fully "belong" to a composer, so "we" don't have to observe any declared intentions by the creator. We might choose to do so, for various reasons, but mostly there is no obligation to do so. Copyright law may attempt to impost some restrictions.

But I had said - and you quoted this with your own emboldenments - "if [performers] wish to re-present the work in accordance with the composer's wishes" then they have to follow the instructions that the composer has written in a score such as the Sonatas and Interludes. "If". How else can anyone claim that they are so "re-presenting the work in accordance with the composer's wishes"?

If performers feel that they do not wish to present a work in such a way, that is a different matter - if they believe (as Jorge Bolet, for example famously stated) that they "know" a work "better" than the composer (because they've performed it over more years than the composer worked on it) and that this "knowledge" entitles them to deviate from what's written - that is a different matter. (Although I would suggest that they should feel a moral obligation to inform the audience of this, preferrably well in advance of a performance.) But a performer who wishes to re-present a piece of Music for an audience in a way that respects what the composer's wishes - then they have no option but to follow as closely as possible what the composer has written, haven't they? How could it be so re-presented without such a (to use your vocabulary) obligation?

Cage wrote many pieces - for prepared piano and other instruments - in which there is tremendous flexibility in "notation" to open opportunities for the performer to realize new ways of Music-making and thinking about Music. He also wrote many pieces that are much more precisely notated (like the Sonatas and Interludes) - and works like 4'33" which radically reconsider aspects of Music and performance that lie outside of notation.

[Dave2002]

There are many performances where there are clear deviations from the scores. Does this indicate that the performers did that deliberately, or were they simply less competent?

At one level (standard) music notation is fairly precise - but there is still a great deal of possible variation, which interpreters exploit, and that is presumably why many listeners prefer some performers in some music than others.

Composers themselves also take the works of others and modify or "improve" upon them. Are they to be prevented from doing that?

Yes - I do on the whole prefer to listen to performances which attempt to get closer to what "someone" thought was close to the composer's intentions,but
often that is very much unknown, and sometimes very worthy performances are just plain dull. So I don't think there is any absolute requirement to attempt to second guess what a composer might have wanted, and to perform accordingly. The world won't cave in if performers do what they think is best. Sometimes a performer may discover or illuminate something different or new in a piece, and even the composer might admit that and approve.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Dave, please - put aside the idea of what people are and/or should be "permitted" to do; accept that I have said that they are free to "interpret" a score as best they think fit.

OK?

Right - now, imagine that there is an individual performer who wishes to give to an audience a performance of a work as close to how the composer imagined it might go. (No STOP - you're thinking about exceptions; I can see - just put those on one side for the next couple of minutes for the sake of illustration. Right?) Now - how is that performer going to achieve their dream vision EXCEPT by paying close attention to the score of the Music and working their utmost to re-present as many facets of that score as they can? For performers with that aesthetic motivation - and, yes, other aesthetic motivations are available, but for this particular type of performer - is there any way that they can achieve their dreams other than by reading what's written in the score, and re-producing that in their performance? Come on, you can say "No" - it won't diminish you, nor negate any of the other points you've made on this Thread. But to understand what I said in #15 - if the composer has a definite idea of what the resulting sounds will be (as in the Sonatas and Interludes) then these have to be followed by performers if they wish to re-present the work - this is the sort of performer I had in mind.

There are different types of performer; and there are works in which the composer doesn't have a "definite idea of what the resulting sounds will be" (and Cage wrote many of these) - but the Sonatas and Interludes, with their detailed prescriptions of what objects should be placed where on which piano string, and with precise rhythms and instructions about which key should be depressed when, aren't an example of this.