Steve Schwartz <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>Len Fehskens replies to me:
>
>>>And, just so you don't think I've gone napping, your position does
>>>not agree with the composer's intent, but only with what he wrote.
>>
>>And what better guide to to the composer's intent do we have?
>
>Probably none.

There you go.  In these two words, you have shot down your entire case
about not knowing what the composer intended, only what he wrote.

>But you assume that the composer always writes what he or she intends.
>I myself always intend to write a masterpiece.

He DOES always write what he intends.  Whether the result is a masterpiece
remains to be seen.

>If you ask me how many I've actually written, I'd have to admit I don't
>know.

Tell you what, send one of them to me.  I'm not the only one who decides
what we play, but, if we like it enough, we'll try to program it.  And you
can believe we won't cut any repeats unless you consider them optional.
But, then, we won't know if what you wrote is what you intended, so that's
a conundrum.  Of course, we could email you and ask you, but, then, in
reading your reply, we won't know if you meant what you wrote there,
either, so it's a difficult position.

>Why worry about the composer's intent at all? What you have is *only* the
>score - not intent.

Which--AGAIN-- is a reflection of his intent.

>The notion of "complete faithfulness to the score" has the advantages of
>being easy to understand and apparently on the side of the downtrodden
>artist.

Which wouldn't be necessary if you and others like you would cease trodding
on him.

>However, a composer would have to be an idiot, a masochist, or master
>of a completely electronic medium to want complete faithfulness to what's
>written.  Every little nuance a performer puts in not already part of the
>score, every micro push and retard of tempo - everything that makes music
>alive, in short - goes against the doctrine of faithfulness if these
>expressive devices don't appear in the score.

Which is not something I have ever disputed, but it is not relevant to
repeats.

>On the other hand, every wrong note also deviates.  Some have said that
>the difference is unintentional.  Again, you don't know intent - in this
>case, the performer's.  It may be a deliberate alteration.  The only thing
>you have is the performance.  If you're going to judge a performance on
>the basis of what the performer intends, you run into the same problem as
>before.  But very few people, I suspect, do such a thing.  They judge on
>some other basis.  This, you may protest, is the reduction to an absurdity,
>and so it is.

Finally, we agree on something.

>However, if you believe that many other elements go into a fine
>performance, you still have to listen critically all the way through.

Many other indispensable elements go into a great performance.  However, if
any element that is indispensable has been dispensed, then the performance
by definition comes up short.

>I grant that not observing a repeat is a major alteration of form.
>It may very well sink a performance of a Beethoven or Mahler symphony -
>although I'd say that probably other horrendous things are going on as
>well - but I'm open to the possibility that it may not.  ...  In any
>case, I make up my mind once I've listened.

Sure, and maybe playing the notes in reverse order will also improve it.

You never know until you try.  Give me a break.

-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series
Come see our web page: www.bigfoot.com/~CulverMusic