Judith Zaimont wrote: >"Music is eminently a living medium -- it will change, even just >a bit, in the performance of every player. (So, for example, Fur >Elise, is not merely the sum total of three pages of Beethoven, but >the Gestalt of every rendition of this lovely piece, from the beginning >pianist who lives on the corner to Artur Rubinstein's fluid and lovely >version -- to its use as sinister background sound in the movie >"Rosemary's Baby", and beyond!).... This uncomfortably suggests (for me at least) that all these renditions and renderings are equally "good." I don't think so. The beginning pianists' versions may have the potential for becoming good at some point down the line, but with Rubinstein you are also hearing years and years of a master's preparation and thinking about music. That's gotta be worth more, no matter how humanitarian and noble one's thoughts are along the lines of "everybody has a right to play Beethoven." I admit I'm probably missing your point, however, which may be more 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. >Fundamentally, Art is both a lens and a mirror -- meaning that >although composers may wish to think of their works as distillations >of personal conceptions and idiosyncratic display of craft (the Lens), >what the listener grasps from any given performance is precisely >those aspects of the piece the listener is personally ready to take >in at the time (the Mirror). ... By extension one may say that no one can ever communicate ANYTHING to another in such a way that the other will understand it in exactly the same way its originator did. I think I have discovered a flaw in this argument. When you write about "bonding" with a composition what do you mean? I take it to mean that the music itself has no power to impose itself on a person, that that person must first be receptive (in the mood), something which implies no effort. It makes no sense to me to say "now I am going to work at being in the mood." But it does make some sense to say "I'm going to work at learning to get into this piece." Bonding isn't the same thing as understanding. I can bond with a Popsicle. That doesn't make it a work of art. Speaking of "inquisitiveness of the moment"--for me the important thing is not that I be inquisitive all the time, but that I be inquisitive when it counts. Which is when the opportunity to grow presents itself. If I'm not there, it's pointless to try to convince me of the value of a piece. You seem to suggest this isn't something we have control of. I know from experience that it's possible to go into inquisitive mode at will, particularly if there's the anticipation of a payoff. Don't get me wrong--I've done the things you describe. I've wanted pieces to be other than what they are. I've done it with The Prayer Cycle, which I mentioned in my previous post. I wanted him to do certain stuff and he didn't do it. So I'm faced with the challenge of trying to understand the work on its own terms. For me the process of doing that is very important, because I'm the sum total of my experiences, and the more experience I can bring under my personal process of understanding the more I understand what it is to be human. As much as I love reading stuff that I already agree with (or hearing music I already know I like), I do realize the only way to grow is to be challenged by what I DON'T understand. Chris Bonds