Charles Dalmas writes on this seemingly intangible subject:

>The most primitive music was unorganized sound.  The first step towards
>music as we know it was the invention of rhythm, and rhythm remains the
>most basic kernel of music today.  In fact, without rhythm, there can be no
>music, only sound (no matter how beautiful).  Rhythm (and beat or pulse)
>organizes the music in time (where each tone falls, and its duration--and
>where each silence falls, and its duration).

Doesn't rhythm imply repetition and isn't such a thing absent from much 20c
music?

>Shortly before the 10th century, singers in churches were faced with a
>collection of dots on a page with words assigned to them.  There was much
>guesswork and rote learning involved.  The staff and its highly organized
>collection of lines and spaces evolved from this until we got our present
>staff in about the middle 1300's (just before fellows like Dufay were
>writing).  This organized the music in space, as well, as performers were
>now informed of not only where the notes fell in time (the rhythm), but
>also of how many cycles per second to produce either with voice or with
>their instrument of choice (what note to play, basically).

A pedantic point here. I would not describe this as organisation in
space. Perhaps assignment of frequency would be a better phrase.

>To sum, there can be no music without rhythm, although there can be rhythm
>without music (a simple metronome will show you that).  Music is simply an
>organization of sounds in time and space.  True, this will sound antiseptic
>and bland, but it is up to the human performers to add the emotion and
>communication to the music (interpretation).

So according to this we have been way off  beam when we discussed,
for, example the emotion or not of Bach's music as the emotion comes from
the performers.  Better here to say the performers convey their
interpretation of the written music's emotional content.

>Now, to address some of the comments on the digest about this topic.
>Someone said that a note is not music, merely a component, and that person
>is right on the money, since the concept of a note is abstract; however, if
>you PLAY a note, it becomes music, since you are giving that note its place
>in time and space (you play a certain number of cycles per second, and you
>play it for a certain amount of time).  Also, if you have a "collection of
>notes", they will not be music unless they are in their proper space and
>time.

Sorry to be pedantic again, but according to this a composer does not
write music. It only becomes music when it is performed. Can this be
right?

>Please remember, that this is merely a definition of the concrete
>aspects of music.  The REAL music comes from the human component, the
>interpretation, the communication of emotions, and the human spirit which
>is so evident in the greatest of music.  So many times I have listened to
>recordings (especially of Asian artists) that are absolutely perfect in
>every way, but speak nothing.  They are barren wastes (much as someone
>described HvK in an earlier digest this week with the analogy of the huge
>edifice with no one living in it).  Of course, being the Black, Red, and
>Gold blooded being that I am, I think HvK is much more than that, but that
>is another thread (see, SOME Hvk enthusiasts can be objective!  *grin*)

This is interesting.  It sounds as though a performer can produce a
perfect technical performance and yet still utterly destroy a piece
of music.  I think you are partially right here.  But I also feel that
the role of the interpreter is often oversold on this list.  It is
understandable as we have many practicing musicians as members and they
do not want their craft undervalued.  But as a non-musician it seems to
me that the technical aspects of say playing a piano far outweigh the
difficulty of interpretation.  I'd guess that the score holds 95% of the
magic.  The other 5% being in the interpretation.  Though I expect others
will disagree.  One statement I have come across on this list and in a
music magazine that the "The genius of Mozart is not in the notes" is
frankly absurd.  The suggestion here is that the performer has almost the
role of a disciple in interpreting the gospel.

Your point about Asian artists needs some comment.  I am sure you do
not mean it too be racist but some might see it that way.  However
the situation is easily explained by the educational system of the far
east which focuses on attainment and conformity.  The latter not being
desireable for a creative artist.  However, the statement has been made
before and is in danger of being overstated.  On Naxos Hae-won Chang plays
some of the Haydn piano concertos in a performance that is panned in the
Penguin Guide as souless.  I, however, find it a personalised reading
though not to everyones taste.  So let's not create any unfair paradigms
here!

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]