Steve Schwartz replies to me replying to him:
>>>In spite of what may have been attributed to me, I don't hold an
>>>anything-goes approach. Just because it's done doesn't mean it should
>>>be done. On the other hand, I can't tell whether it should be done
>>>until I hear it. All experiments do not succeed, but failure should
>>>not discourage experiment.
>>Like nitroglycerine in a blender, not all experiments should be done just
>>for the sake of doing them.
>Okay. But this is hyperbole for the sake of I don't know what. I can't
>think of a musical experiment that dangerous unless Monty Python could make
>a sketch of it.
>Incidentally, at this point, it's taking the repeats in the Jupiter that
>would constitute the experiment, since the "performing tradition" is at
>this point mainly on the side of not taking the repeat. Is taking the
>repeat nitroglycerine in a blender? Surely you wouldn't object to hearing
>someone conduct it that way.
The fact that I contradict your hyper-bull does not make me guilty of
hyperbole. What is dangerous is that we lose the "Jupiter" Symphony
as Mozart wrote it. The fact that the disregard of those repeats is far
more common than their observation leads to a routine destruction of a
great work of art. One might think that conductors would get a clue that
doing so is not justified on the grounds that some famous baton-wielding
predecessor did it before them, or, indeed, on any grounds at all, and
amounts to duplicating an oft-failed experiment, rather than recreating
the successful one.
Culver Chamber Music Series
Come see our web page: www.bigfoot.com/~CulverMusic