Felix Delbrueck wrote:

>What we do as interpreters is more akin to a critic writing
>about the Mona Lisa: he is attempting to clarify the meaning behind the
>painter's brush strokes, we are trying to clarify the meaning behind the
>composer's notes.  Because we are communicating our critical message
>through sound, it is legitimate to rewrite details of a performance
>(scoring, dynamics, tempo etc) if we think this will make the music's
>meaning clearer than it would otherwise be - just as the critic of the
>Mona Lisa will draw attention to particular details in the painting.

I appreciate what you are getting at here, but I'm not sure if I
agree with your choice of analogies.  A problem which arises when making
comparisons between different spheres of art like this is that there is
not a one-to-one correlation between all the technical components involved
in each artistic form.  I s'pose that's why different forms of art
are...well, different.  Certainly there are conventions in each branch
that have corresponding ones in others: the use of color in painting is
translated to timbre (in a vague sense) in music, and onomatopoeia (sp?)
in poetry is virtually the same thing as it is in music.  But I don't know
if playing a piece of music is the same as criticising a painting.

To use a fairly pertinent example, the over-abundance of music critics
(especially bad ones) in our society has been lamented by many list
members.  But I don't think anyone would deny that music criticism is
invalid or useless.  Now, by utilizing the analogy above, what a music
critic does in essence is critique a critique.  If we go back to art, then
the analagous position of a music critic in the realm of art would be a
critic who critiques other critics!  I admit that these kinds of critics do
exist (all those people with art history degrees have to do *something*),
but I don't think that their position in society is of the same nature or
stature of the music critic's.

Perhaps that argument was a bit convoluted.  I suppose the central reason
I'm uneasy about the analogy is that I hold that the performance (or, more
generally, the production of sound) is integral to the idea of music as
an art form.  I don't agree with the idea that going to read a score for
yourself is an experience lower on the totem pole in basicness than going
to a performance.  I guess my point (which has been made many times by many
other people on this list) is that what's on the score alone is not quite
music.

"What is it then?" one might very well ask.  But that's a question for
another post!

>If you think a particular interpretation obscures some important facets of
>a work, you can listen to another - or even better, you can go back to the
>score and read it yourself - just as you can go and look at the Mona Lisa
>if all the art critics don't get you anywhere.

Hmm...well, I'll conclude with this: whereas listening to a performance
of a score without the score in hand will still give one a great deal of
emotional and intellectual pleasure, reading the thoughts of an art critic
on the Mona Lisa without viewing the Mona Lisa itself will not give one a
comparable artistic experience.  Does that make sense?

Danke schon for your time!

--everitt clark
[log in to unmask]