Thanks for an absorbing video. However, is music 'fleeting and time based' any more? Yes you have recordings (both audio and video), but my suggestion is that they are records of a moment in time that can be replayed and therefore recreated a potentially infinite number of times.. Hasn't the advent of the recording medium fundamentally changed the nature of music from fleeting to a lasting item. You state that a painting exists even when we don't look at it. Surely the same claim can be made of a performance that's been captured on one medium or another? This also brings up the question of interpretation in recordings. Some conductors claim that the ideal is to follow the composers exact intentions in the score (problematic as not all composers were that demanding - Stavinsky, yes, Delius and Sibelius less so), while others can impart new light, interpretations and understanding of works by their own interpretations. The example that comes to my first is Bernstein's reading of Shostakovitch 5 which transformed the ending from its usual 'interpretation of the inevitability of the power of the Russian state over the individual, to a restatement of the power of the human spirit over external circumstances. You can obviously think of many others. In the end, doesn't that make music into a 'work' that can both be recreated an infinite number of times rather than be a unique and transitory point in time, and have the potential for interpretation -viz 'Karajan's Beethoven 5 versus Rattle's' etc?
Thanks for your very thoughtful comment! In response, I would say that recorded music is still time-based, in that if the recording stops, there still isn't any actual 'music' present any more. The music vs painting comparison still applies, because when a recording (audio or video) is not literally in the middle of playing, there still isn't any music in the process of sounding. I may be able to replay the recording an endless number of times, but in between, there isn't any music to be heard (the soundwaves have ceased to exist, echoed into silence). The conductors and interpretations question certainly applies more to Goehr's work concept. The Stravinsky, Delius, Sibelius, Beethoven, Shostakovich examples are all from composers who arguably did intend to compose 'works', musical objects. Goehr's theory asks us to think outside the view of musical objects, especially on repertoire outside of this time-period (so, for instance, Handel's oratorios, or for much later examples, improvisation or aleatoric music). The fact that we can today choose to view 'Messiah' as a musical work to be interpreted and studied does not necessarily mean that it was always viewed as such an object. Thanks again for a brilliant comment!
Thanks for an absorbing video. However, is music 'fleeting and time based' any more? Yes you have recordings (both audio and video), but my suggestion is that they are records of a moment in time that can be replayed and therefore recreated a potentially infinite number of times.. Hasn't the advent of the recording medium fundamentally changed the nature of music from fleeting to a lasting item. You state that a painting exists even when we don't look at it. Surely the same claim can be made of a performance that's been captured on one medium or another? This also brings up the question of interpretation in recordings. Some conductors claim that the ideal is to follow the composers exact intentions in the score (problematic as not all composers were that demanding - Stavinsky, yes, Delius and Sibelius less so), while others can impart new light, interpretations and understanding of works by their own interpretations. The example that comes to my first is Bernstein's reading of Shostakovitch 5 which transformed the ending from its usual 'interpretation of the inevitability of the power of the Russian state over the individual, to a restatement of the power of the human spirit over external circumstances. You can obviously think of many others. In the end, doesn't that make music into a 'work' that can both be recreated an infinite number of times rather than be a unique and transitory point in time, and have the potential for interpretation -viz 'Karajan's Beethoven 5 versus Rattle's' etc?
Thanks for your very thoughtful comment! In response, I would say that recorded music is still time-based, in that if the recording stops, there still isn't any actual 'music' present any more. The music vs painting comparison still applies, because when a recording (audio or video) is not literally in the middle of playing, there still isn't any music in the process of sounding. I may be able to replay the recording an endless number of times, but in between, there isn't any music to be heard (the soundwaves have ceased to exist, echoed into silence). The conductors and interpretations question certainly applies more to Goehr's work concept. The Stravinsky, Delius, Sibelius, Beethoven, Shostakovich examples are all from composers who arguably did intend to compose 'works', musical objects. Goehr's theory asks us to think outside the view of musical objects, especially on repertoire outside of this time-period (so, for instance, Handel's oratorios, or for much later examples, improvisation or aleatoric music). The fact that we can today choose to view 'Messiah' as a musical work to be interpreted and studied does not necessarily mean that it was always viewed as such an object. Thanks again for a brilliant comment!