Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sat, 5 Aug 2000 07:37:55 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Pablo Massa wrote:
>a) The ability to read music is a tool, not a blessed or magical state of
>musical understanding.
>
>b) Being a tool, that ability only has meaning if you want to perform
>certain types of music, or if you want to study some technical issues of
>it.
For me, it depends on what you might define as a technical issue. If you
are reviewing a performance, I believe it is highly desirable to know the
score. Performance is interpretation and how a musician relates to the
printed score. As a reviewer, I am often frustrated having to review a new
work without the benefit of the score.
>c) No player or composer is better fitted to "understand" music just
>because of his condition.
But, I believe that they have the potential to relate to the music on
another level, in addition to what one derives solely from listening.
>d) No good music can be understood only by playing it. (That's stupid:
>is just like saying to a player that "music can be fully understood only
>by composing it")
I started composing to learn more about music. I loved listening so much
that I wanted to know more of the process of creation of music. While I
would not suggest that only composers understand music, they certainly
are likely to have a different perspective..."been there, done that."
Karl
|
|
|