Len Fehskens replies to me replying to Jocelyn Wang:

>>>And name one composer whose reputation has been ruined by respecting his
>>>score.  I won't hold my breath waiting for the answer.
>>
>>Any composer, right?  OK, Andrew Lloyd Webber.
>
>So, am I to take as implicit in this remark that your (or someone else's)
>emendations would improve (or manifest more correctly) his reputation?
>Don't we (each as individuals) judge composers' merits by what they *have*
>written, rather than by what they *coul* (oe should) have written had they
>just had a better idea of what we wanted them to write?

In great part we do.  However, we also judge individual performances and
degrees of arrangement - to take a simple example, Bach harpsichord music
played on the piano.  I wouldn't justify the practice on the ludicrous
grounds that "Bach would have used the modern piano if he had had one" or
"Bach did not intend this music for the piano; therefore, the performance
stinks," but on the basis of the performance I've heard - not just was the
pianist a good pianist but did that performer teach me something about the
score and a lot of other things besides.

>Jocelyn and I have not been arguing that what a composer writes is sacred
>or perfect in any sense.  What we have been trying to say is that if you
>don't play what the composer wrote, fine, admit as much; just don't claim
>that you've done is better than what the composer wrote because you know
>better than the composer.

Again, it's a matter of degree.  Until Leonard Bernstein, no one, as far as
I know, recorded the Schumann symphonies in their original orchestration.
Yet, we still think of such editions as "mostly Schumann." Is Tureck's
performance of Bach not Bach? Of course it isn't, since it's often played
on the piano, but it seems to me an extremely scrupulous point.  Is there
any latitude you're willing to extend? Of course there is, because you have
to deal with music played by humans and written in a notational system
notoriously vague (no, not repeats, but more later).  It seems to me that
you always judge and compare results.  It's not simply "knowing better
than the composer." It's also not a matter of "composer is infallible
regarding his own work." It's also not trying to pass off ersatz goods
on the Unsuspecting Public - at least, not usually.  You compare results
and you say what works better for you and why.  I'd love to hear a WTC on
harpsichord as good as Tureck's 1950s performance on piano.  I haven't
heard it yet.  Does Tureck know better than Bach? It's an irrelevant
question.  Bach's infallibility is also irrelevant.  I have this
performance to compare with several harpsichord performances, including
Tureck's own, and I find this one the most satisfying by far.  As to
repeats, truth be told, if I don't notice a repeat not taken or if the
music bores me the first time around, I don't really care.  In that
performance, the failure to follow a repeat doesn't matter to me at all.
In others, it may matter a great deal.

>Yes, the one thing you *do* know better is what *you* like, but I have no
>expectation that any artist should do what I want unless I'm paying her/him
>to.

I'm certainly not dictating either.  I'm trying to describe a situation
where liberties have been taken by someone, not necessarily me, and I'm
faced with the decision whether those liberties have come off or might
even be an improvement of the original.  In other words, my primary focus
is on a realization, not the work, although surely the work enters into an
evaluation.  It seems to me to shirk my responsibilities as a listener to
dismiss a performance a priori, according to a principle that would allow
me to forget listening altogether.

I'm currently reading Conversations with Roger Sessions, edited by Andrea
Olmstead.  I came across the following passage:

   "For instance, in the fugato in [my] second quartet, I put the
   principal line *not* with the theme.  It depends on the piece.  Now,
   I wouldn't apply this to the last movement of the Hammerklavier
   Sonata.  I think there the theme really almost always has to be
   brought out, but I would say in performing a Bach fugue, the fugue
   subject is the last thing that needs to be brought out, because it's
   there and you don't miss it.

   "It's the music, of course, it's always the music that has to be
   brought out, but sometimes the way to do that is to emphasize the
   theme.  We've been studying the C-sharp minor quartet in my graduate
   course, and that's one thing I point out:  The theme *doesn't* need
   to be always hammered out.  I learned that many, many years ago.
   Once when I was playing the Kunst der Fuge for two pianos with a
   friend, there was a point where I had to come in with the theme and
   there was a beautiful line going on in the other piano.  The other
   pianist suddenly got very soft when that line should have been soaring
   up.  These markings are such a rough, makeshift way of indicating
   things, that I've pretty much given it up."

Notice that Sessions doesn't justify any of his beliefs by referring to
the composer's intent.  Whether Bach or Beethoven always wanted the fugal
subject primary is something we will never know.  Sessions feels the music
should go a certain way - he wants to realize the expectations the music
arouses in him and that these expectations aren't necessarily (in this
case, simply aren't) found in the score.  Granted, it's not as unambiguous
as a repeat, but the possibility exists that it could be.  Furthermore,
even if Bach or Beethoven had something else in mind and we knew it, should
we not try it Sessions's way? Are Bach or Beethoven diminished because they
may not always have thought of the better choice at every moment? It seems
a rather simple view of the composer.  I say, try it out.  Take it out for
a spin.  See how she flies.  For now, don't worry about the signature at
the bottom of the page.

Steve Schwartz