Date: |
Sun, 3 Jan 1999 23:08:40 -0700 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
John Bell Young stated...
>So Leslie is again dead right when he says that motivic richness is lost
>when students (and some very famous professionals, too!) gloss over the
>pristine detail of the smaller sense units in favour of making some ersatz
>large statement that, as a matter of form and content, was neither intended
>or even implicitly composed.
So what? It makes sense that there is some dictation of phrasing in
the form, especially in the repertoire of the late 18th and early 19th
centuries, but why shouldn't the performer be allowed interpret the piece
as he or she sees fit? While it may be true that you cannot take the
identical approach with pieces in different periods, there are elements
of post-Classical performance that may fit (or even add) the performance.
Use hindsight to your advantage.
I'm all for historical integrity, if its relevant (like a teaching or
documenting situation or even history for the sake of history). But it
still baffles me today why people in the Western Classical tradition insist
on historical accuracy all the time and dismiss something that isn't.
These pieces will evolve in performance if you let them and frankly, I see
no harm in doing so.
Perhaps I read too much into the message, but it seems to be such a common
thread in all that is said in Western Classical circles. Am I out of line
here or is there some truth to this?
Craig Schlegelmilch
|
|
|