Ian Crisp <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>Are there any signs in the score that are not there for all to see?
Of course there are. But the repeat sign is not one of them.
>Where did I mention or even hint at "carte blanche" etc.? - I note that
>Jocelyn has not answered this.
I did, in the quote you included later in the post.
>I was trying to illustrate my strongly-held position that later performers
>inherit responsibilty for decisions that earlier composers can no longer
>make for themselves.
It is no longer necessary for the composers to make such decisions. They
were already made at the time of composition. It is the responsibility of
performers to abide by them, not to change the compositional decisions
of the music's originator.
>... I have never advocated tossing anything aside on a whim, and I do
>not recall Steve Schwartz or anyone else on "my" side of the argument
>suggesting that any score markings should be "tossed aside on a whim".
>I think I detect another straw man here.
It does arise and Steve Schwartz has pretty much advocated an anything-
goes-as-long-as-he likes-it approach and attempts to justify it by calling
it experimentation. No straw man here. The practice of completely
ignoring a composer's specific instructions is indeed whimsical-- at best.
Ian Crisp <[log in to unmask]> replies to David Runnion:
>The point I want to make, and which has been capably argued elsewhere,
>is that the presence of a sign (either kind) may be known beyond doubt,
>but the reason behind putting it there is not completely knowable if
>the composer cannot speak for himself because he's dead.
That does not mean that they should be ignored.
>To pick up an example from Deryk Barker, can we know for absolute total
>certainty that Mozart put all his repeats in for good musical/structural
>reasons, or is it just slightly possible that he may have put even just
>one repeat in against his musical judgement but just to make a piece last
>a bit longer because that was what the patron paying the bill for a bit
>of dance or background music wanted?
Without word from the composer, this is speculation, without basis for a
conclusion that the composer did this. The presence of the repeat sign,
however, is not speculation, and should be given the benefit of
>Even if 99.999+% of the time the result of that interpretation is "as
>written", there is still a chasm of logic between those who say "Play
>what's there, irrespective of everything" and those who prefer "Play
>what helps the piece to work best".
The composer is the one to decide what works best for his piece.
Culver Chamber Music Series
Come see our web page: www.bigfoot.com/~CulverMusic