After a long lurk, I take a stab (below) at piecing together several
comments on this topic offered over the past month. [ The lurk was due to
completing the sketch-score of a new orchestra piece, 'Stillness', in which
I have attempted to marry the techniques of two composers who specialize in
staying-in-place, but do so quite differently: Frederick Delius and Morton
Feldman. An interesting project goal -- studies in restraint, balance, some
degree(s) of spareness -- especially since rhythm is so emphasized in my
music usually .]
I wrote initially of the subjective components that inform a listener's
response, especially in hearing a piece for the first time. Steve Bacher
is on the mark in saying something of the same:
>If one is aware of the elements of subjective evaluation, then one can
>apply them deliberately, free of the passion of the moment.... I believe
>[they] can be of use in deciding whether a work one hears for the first
>time will continue to be of worth over the long haul.
Don Satz also speaks of the un-pin-down-able non-scientificness of the
listener's response, pegged in each individual case to some personal filter
(comprised of a constellation of individually calibrated filters: for the
arresting sound, for the sublime lyric contour, for the surprising chord,
for unusual syntax, for lulling formal symmetry, etc., etc.):
>Take a piece of music which you've not heard much of. Play it whilst
>doing some other (no-mental) task, like preparing a meal. If you find
>yourself daydreaming that's bad. If you find yourself sitting down to
>listen that's good.
Felix Delbrueck specifies something at least part-solid that governs the
listener's repsonse:
>We are most likely to see those composers, and artists generally, as
>great or significant who work within an accepted tradition and succeed
>in transforming and renewing it. Simple novelty or originality isn't
>enough; the artist needs somehow to have addressed what came before him.
Here, I'd echo Mr. Delbrueck's caution about the difference between 'mere'
novelty and true creativity. In the words of philosopher D. N Perkins, a
'creative product' must satisfy the double criteria of being Unique AND of
High Quality. Being merely unique (or startlingly different) is not, in
and of itself, enough. Thus, Mr. Delbrueck's reminder that significant
work -- in order to be understood by hearers as 'significant' -- must be
able to be judged of 'high quality', that is, heard against the manners
of listening proposed and confirmed by the musics of past experience.
While Chris Bonds disagreed with much of what I originally wrote, we do
find some common ground in discussing the piece *as distinct from* the
performance:
>Your point, however, ... may be ... that there IS no single platonic
>ideal realization of this or any other piece. I have no quarrel with
>that. But some performances through their artistry reveal more (or at
>least appear to do so for me) about the piece than others. One of my
>professors said that Toscanini's performance of Light Cavalry (Suppe)
>fooled him into thinking it was great music.
Well, ... how can some aspect of a piece be 'revealed' if it is not
already intrinsically present within the score, even just as a suggestion?
(I'd like to hear Toscanini work the same magic on the Poet and Peasant
Overture, which I suffered through in piano transcription as a 12-year-old.
Lots of glorious banging, though.)
Finally: Much of what was written on this topic seems to concern the
Performer-Listener interchange. For those of us who are composers, a
more primal interchange needs to be negotiated *first*: Unless we are
intelligible to, and beloved by, our Performers, we stand no chance of
reaching the Listeners on fair terms. -- Maybe that's why I'm so willing
to grant the Listener great latitude in how respsones re-calibrate
dramatically in differing hearings. The Performer's persuasive powers
are a powerful, and key, pivot.
Judith Lang Zaimont
Professor of Composition
School of Music - University of Minnesota
WEBsite: http://www.joblink.org/jzaimont/
|
