On musical authenticity

28 07 2010

Here’s a good article on classical music. There are a lot of interesting issues here, but I liked this in particular:

Over the course of the nineteenth century, the concept of a musical canon emerged and displaced the zeal for new music in concert programming. Yet the updating of scores continued. Gustav Mahler added new parts for horns, trombones, and other instruments when he conducted Beethoven’s symphonies. An influential edition of Beethoven’s piano sonatas by the pianist and conductor Hans von Bülow recommended that pianists substitute Liszt’s ending of the Hammerklavier Sonata for Beethoven’s own, “to give the closing measures the requisite brilliancy.”

Even in the canon-revering twentieth century, the teleologists remained cheeky. Arnold Schoenberg explained his reorchestration of Handel’s Concerti Grossi, op. 6, as remedying an “insufficiency with respect to thematic invention and development [that] could satisfy no sincere contemporary of ours.” At the start of a 1927 recording of Chopin’s Black Key Étude, the pianist Vladimir de Pachmann announces: “The left hand of this étude is entirely altered from Chopin: it’s better, modernized, more melodic, you know.” A contemporary listener, drawn to Beethoven, Handel, and Chopin precisely for what is unique in their voice and sensibility, can only marvel at the confidence with which earlier generations declared such music in need of improvement…

The naysayers pointed out that the context of musical performance has changed so radically from the pre-Romantic era that we cannot hope to re-create its original meaning. For most of European history, music belonged to social ritual, whether it accompanied worship, paid homage to a king, or provided background for a feast. A large concert hall filled with silent listeners, focused intently on an ensemble of well-fed professionals still in possession of most of their teeth, has no counterpart in early-music history. Early-music proponents, the detractors added, are highly selective in their use of historical evidence. No one today conducts the operas of Jean-Baptiste Lully, for example, by pounding a staff on the floor, as conductors did in the court of Louis XIV to try to keep time in an ensemble of less-than-perfectly trained musicians.

These paragraph echo Foucault’s idea of the modern birth of the author. We seem to be very obsessed with originality, plagiarism, and the right interpretation of the original author. It is interesting that people in the past saw art more as craftsmanship belonging to the common deposit of society.



3 responses

9 08 2010
Jeff Holston

Perhaps the irony is that the “original instrument” movement in it’s quest for “authentic period performance” has merely succeeded in coming up with it’s own “modern” way of playing and appreciating old music. Not that I mind, by the way, as I find these “modern” performances and recordings far more interesting than what preceded them. “Yeah, whatever” indeed!

28 07 2010

Now this post is authentically Arturo.

28 07 2010
The Western Confucian

I had enough of a postmodern formulation not to be “obsessed with originality, plagiarism, and the right interpretation of the original author,” but, for me, the highlight of the article was this: “The proponents of period performance heard and considered these sophisticated objections. Then something wonderful happened. They responded, in essence: ‘Yeah, whatever.'”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: