Paul Silverthorne wrote:
>Karl Miller wrote:
>>Of course there is a very valid perspective of the notion of letting
>>the music speak for itself. ...
>Actually, no. Between dots on a page and a performance there is a
>musician or musicians, every time a musician plays a piece of music
>s/he interprets it, maybe in an extraordinarily original way or a very
>routinely conventional way, but the music cannot 'speak for itself'.
I believe it depends on how one applies the notion of the word "speak."
I believe the music can speak for itself. I can sit down with a score
and hear the piece in my head. True, I am interpreting the music to
some degree but, it "speaks to me."
Further, consider taking those notes and transcribing them to some
software like Sibelius. You can then take those notes and make a midi
file out of it and control, say, for example, a keyboard. A musician
need not be a part of that process other than copying the notation.
The expression, of having the music speak for itself can also be applied
to the notion of letting the music "speak" on its own terms, without
any literary or extra musical meaning. Many composers have expressed
frustration over the notion that people would almost prefer analysis
over listening to their music...not letting the music "speak for itself."
I believe that the expression "speaks for itself," can have many
applications and that there are performances which minimize the personal
involvement to the extent that it says little about the performer...hence
I think that a Kissen performance of Chopin is close to "letting the music
speak for itself" when compared to a de Pachmann performance.