LTMSFI, a flawed concept
Hat NYC 62
you who are music lovers rather than performers.
The performer's job is not to read the music on the page and play it. Rather,
it is to create an audible representation of what is on the page. These are not
necessarily the same thing, as any performer will tell you.
It seems to me (at least around this newsgroup), that LTMSFI is an overused
concept. I never hear it on the job. There isn't a piece I can recall playing
where certain adjustments were not made, even if they were just instinctual
changes regarding articulation or balance.
Stokowski and Mengelberg might be extreme examples of what this can lead to,
but I understand (most of the time) what they were trying to do. They were
trying to get the music off the stage, and most of the time, they succeded.
David Hattner, NYC
ESH Tooter
in actual performance. My hunch is that you are correct. Unfortunately, it is
too common in critical discussion of performances.
I really like your concept of, "trying to get the music off the stage."
Tooter
LaVirtuosa
>in actual performance.
That wuld be what some call a "chaste interpretation".
Valerie
Andy Evans
might take the concept seriously.....
=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
HenryFogel
>might take the concept seriously.....
>=== Andy Evans ===
Or why should we stage plays with actors? We can all read them and let the
plays speak for themselves, and eliminate all that bothersome dramatic
interpretation that people like Laurence Olivier interposes between the words
and the reader!
Henry Fogel
Alain Dagher
But Andy's analogy is incorrect. There is no one between the reader and the
writer in a novel. Stage plays and music require a third party, and that third
party therefore has a moral obligation to serve the artist as much as the
audience. LTMSFI is a cliche and a sign of laziness on the part of the critic,
but there are notions contained within LTMSFI that are not crazy, such as: that a
performance should be true to the style of the composer, or that a performance
should "sound" natural.
I never saw Olivier on the stage but on film I find him a terrible actor - at
least compared to a Cary Grant or an Alec Guiness, to stick with British actors.
And I find him bad precisely because he looks like he's acting.
cheers,
Alain
Alain Dagher
Andy Evans wrote:
> When I see threads on "let the book read itself" on literature newsgroups I
> might take the concept seriously.....
Then start now.
There have been mountains of criticism written on the topic of book
translations, which is the problem that comes closest to musical
interpretations. Nabokov's notes to Eugene Onegin as well as other writings,
and Kundera's "testaments betrayed" for example.
I remember once wanting to turn an English speaker on to my favourite Frence
20th century poets: Apollinaire, Eluard, Valery, and (surtout) Prevert and
being shocked when I read the available English translations. They were
completely untrue to the spirit of the originals, turning these 20th century
writers into something in between Dante Gabriel Rosetti and AE Housman. (I like
Housman but still it is a different esthetic).
Nabokov railed constantly at the complete misunderstanding of Russian
literature conveyed by most of the English translations.
The point is that the same concept applies to musical interpretation. (Kundera
is great here on the similarities between translating Kafka and interpreting
Janacek.)
That doesn't mean LTMSFI is a useful concept - it's lazy shorthand for lazy
critics. But there's something to the notion that interpretations can be more
or less faithful to the spirit of a piece.
Alain
Simon Roberts
"Alain Dagher" <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
news:3B053934...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca...
>But there's something to the notion that interpretations can be
more or less faithful to the spirit of a piece.
Fortunately we all agree what the spirit of any given piece
is....
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
> But Andy's analogy is incorrect. There is no one between the reader and the
> writer in a novel.
A translator?
> Stage plays and music require a third party, and that third
> party therefore has a moral obligation to serve the artist as much as the
> audience.
Why? Whence arises the moral obligation to the artist?
> LTMSFI is a cliche and a sign of laziness on the part of the critic,
> but there are notions contained within LTMSFI that are not crazy, such as:
that a
> performance should be true to the style of the composer, or that a
performance
> should "sound" natural.
Why should performers be true to the style of the composer? What if their
style is better?
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> I never saw Olivier on the stage but on film I find him a terrible actor -
at
> least compared to a Cary Grant or an Alec Guiness, to stick with British
actors.
> And I find him bad precisely because he looks like he's acting.
Because he looks like he's acting badly.
Matty
samir golescu
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Alain Dagher wrote:
> Andy Evans wrote:
>
> > When I see threads on "let the book read itself" on literature newsgroups
> > I might take the concept seriously.....
>
> Then start now.
>
> There have been mountains of criticism written on the topic of book
> translations, which is the problem that comes closest to musical
> interpretations.
With respect, I don't think so. For one (but importantissim) thing, a
translation translates an already fully existent artistic object into
another fully existent artistic object. The translator focuses on
faithfulness and completeness of his translation, with *very* limited
"embellishing" license. The musical interpreter brings into existence a
*virtual* artistic object. He has to say both the written and
the unwritten. Therefore, Mr Fogel's pet analogy with acting is closer to
the mark than the analogy with translation.
[...]
> Nabokov railed constantly at the complete misunderstanding of Russian
> literature conveyed by most of the English translations. [...]
Absolutely. It happens that one of my closest friends is the greatest
living Romanian translator. (Before you think this is from the Ken B Lane
self-flattering category, my friend translated in Romanian, incredibly
well, the complete Vergilius, the complete Kleist, the complete Psalms in
two different translation versions -- one following the Hebrew original,
the other the Greek Septuaginta manuscript, and now he is struggling with
a 15-plays Shakespeare selection. I many times discussed with him how is
it possible that he is able to recreate not only the spirit, but even
[some of] the unique Kleist or Shakespeare *sound* in Romanian. Knowledge
and intentional faithfulness to the original is one thing, having a
spiritual grasp of the *ensemble* of the given author's opera is
another... However, looking in some English versions of Aeneis, I was
disappointed myself....
> That doesn't mean LTMSFI is a useful concept - it's lazy shorthand for lazy
> critics. But there's something to the notion that interpretations can be more
> or less faithful to the spirit of a piece.
I agree with you, but the way one can say that has little to do with the
way one can say a translation is faithful to the original or not.
regards,
SG
Roland van Gaalen
>Alain wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Stage plays and music require a third party, and that third
> > party therefore has a moral obligation to serve the artist as much as
the
> > audience.
>
> Why? Whence arises the moral obligation to the artist?
> [...]
It's nonsense.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
E-mail: R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl (replace AT by @)
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
E-mail: R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl (replace AT by @)
Roland van Gaalen
But surely poetry is music, and we have Virgil's metronome marks!
If Virgil wrote his Aeneid in dactylic hexameter, why, do you think, did
Dryden use the iambic pentameter?
[This is intended as a rhetorical question to Samir and a non-rhetorical
question to Alain.]
Alain Dagher
Simon Roberts wrote:
Of course we don't, but that doesn't mean that the concept itself is
flawed. I agree with you, and furthermore would add that, not only is
the spirit of a work of art elusive but it is most elusive in the
greatest works. But that is why discussions of faithfulness in
interpretation are not only not pointless, but actually are at the core
of the job of a performing artist.
Alain
samir golescu
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> > I agree with you, but the way one can say that has little to do with
> > the way one can say a translation is faithful to the original or not.
>
> But surely poetry is music, and we have Virgil's metronome marks!
>
> If Virgil wrote his Aeneid in dactylic hexameter, why, do you think,
> did Dryden use the iambic pentameter?
>
>[This is intended as a rhetorical question to Samir and a non-rhetorical
> question to Alain.]
If by this you mean that good Dr Dagher is supposed to answer and I am
supposed to read, you've got a deal!
regards,
SG
Alain Dagher
Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> Alain wrote:
>
> > But Andy's analogy is incorrect. There is no one between the reader and the
> > writer in a novel.
>
> A translator?
See my other post.
> > Stage plays and music require a third party, and that third
> > party therefore has a moral obligation to serve the artist as much as the
> > audience.
>
> Why? Whence arises the moral obligation to the artist?
Actually, the obligation is more to the audience. Maybe it's not a "moral"
obligation, but there is an obligation.
The moral obligation only exists if the artist is still alive. Just ask Kundera
about how he felt when he read the original French translations of his novels.
> > LTMSFI is a cliche and a sign of laziness on the part of the critic,
> > but there are notions contained within LTMSFI that are not crazy, such as:
> that a
> > performance should be true to the style of the composer, or that a
> performance
> > should "sound" natural.
>
> Why should performers be true to the style of the composer? What if their
> style is better?
Then why not repaint the Sistine chapel for the new millenium.
Alain
samir golescu
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Alain Dagher wrote:
> > > [...] there are notions contained within LTMSFI that are not crazy,
> > > such as: that a performance should be true to the style of the
> > > composer, or that a performance should "sound" natural.
> > Why should performers be true to the style of the composer? What
> > if their style is better?
>
> Then why not repaint the Sistine chapel for the new millenium.
Because the latter IS an artistic object which does not need a
"mediator", a "concretizer", while the musical work is *virtual*
reality, a Sleeping Beauty waiting in the score for the Magic Kiss of
the interpreter to bring her to real life.
regards,
SG
Alain Dagher
samir golescu wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Alain Dagher wrote:
>
> > Andy Evans wrote:
> >
> > > When I see threads on "let the book read itself" on literature newsgroups
> > > I might take the concept seriously.....
> >
> > Then start now.
> >
> > There have been mountains of criticism written on the topic of book
> > translations, which is the problem that comes closest to musical
> > interpretations.
>
> With respect, I don't think so. For one (but importantissim) thing, a
> translation translates an already fully existent artistic object into
> another fully existent artistic object. The translator focuses on
> faithfulness and completeness of his translation,
Actually a lot of translators don't. Or didn't use to. Kundera first became
interested in this when he saw how unfaithful his French translators had been. The
title of the novel "Senilita" by Italo Svevo is translated as "A man grow older".
Unfaithful both to the words and their meaning.
The trend towards hyper-faithfulness in translation is I believe a recent one.
Nabokov's translation of Onegin, which has almost more footnotes than text, could
perhaps be thought to be the ultimate example of it.
> with *very* limited
> "embellishing" license. The musical interpreter brings into existence a
> *virtual* artistic object.
But it isn't a virtual object. It's a real object of which we only have a trace.
> He has to say both the written and
> the unwritten. Therefore, Mr Fogel's pet analogy with acting is closer to
> the mark than the analogy with translation.
Yes, it is certainly closer, as I've said many times here. In fact, in plays there
is even greater opportunity for interpretations that do damage to the writers'
intentions. The same words can be said in so many different ways.
Alain
Alain Dagher
Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> Matthew Silverstein wrote:
>
> >Alain wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > Stage plays and music require a third party, and that third
> > > party therefore has a moral obligation to serve the artist as much as
> the
> > > audience.
> >
> > Why? Whence arises the moral obligation to the artist?
> > [...]
>
> It's nonsense.
To go even further ... I would say that the position that "as long as the
results are good I'm happy with the interpretation" can only be described as
philistinism.
Alain
Alain Dagher
samir golescu wrote:
I don't understand the question.
Alain
samir golescu
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Alain Dagher wrote:
> > > There have been mountains of criticism written on the topic of book
> > > translations, which is the problem that comes closest to musical
> > > interpretations.
> > With respect, I don't think so. For one (but importantissim) thing,
> > a translation translates an already fully existent artistic object
> > into another fully existent artistic object. The translator focuses
> > on the faithfulness and completeness of his translation,
> Actually a lot of translators don't. Or didn't use to. Kundera first
> became interested in this when he saw how unfaithful his French
> translators had been. The title of the novel "Senilita" by Italo Svevo
> is translated as "A man grow older". Unfaithful both to the words and
> their meaning.
I agree--that is awful. The Romanian translator of Marquez's "One hundred
years of solitude" thought "A century of solitude" sounded better. It
didn't. Marquez was obviously intending the reader to feel the burden of
1, 2, 3.... all the way to 100 years of solitude. I could bring dozens of
other examples from the world literature but that's besides the point.
> > with *very* limited
> > "embellishing" license. The musical interpreter brings into existence
> > a *virtual* artistic object.
>
> But it isn't a virtual object. It's a real object of which we only
> have a trace.
No-no-no, not so easy. If it IS/WAS real, concrete, when was it so?
In the mind of the composer when he started improvising in search of an
idea? In the middle of the process? In the moment the last note was put on
paper? In the evening the composer performed it for the first time for his
lover (or not)? Twenty years later, when the old composer performed it
himself again, "the bloody warhorse", drunk, at a Virgin Ladies Charity
for Retired Pidgeons Evening?
I am afraid not. Even an enemy of the "licentious" interpreter like
Stravinsky (who strongly admired Mengelberg nevertheless) put
in writing the distinction between VIRTUAL music and MUSIC IN ACT.
A cathedral and its being repainted or not have nothing in common
with that.
regards,
SG
Alain Dagher
samir golescu wrote:
Well, that's not the main reason, but it brings up an interesting question.
First, what IS the work of art in music? Is it the score itself? Does the
artwork even exist?
Second, what you are saying is that, because composers had the bad luck of
working in a medium that, on account of the laws of nature, is impermanent,
their intentions are less clearly defined than those of painters, and thus
less worthy of being respected?
Alain
Alain Dagher
samir golescu wrote:
> I am afraid not. Even an enemy of the "licentious" interpreter like
> Stravinsky (who strongly admired Mengelberg nevertheless) put
> in writing the distinction between VIRTUAL music and MUSIC IN ACT.
> A cathedral and its being repainted or not have nothing in common
> with that.
I agree.
You know more about this than I do, but I would bet that Mengelberg and
Furtwangler both desired to serve the composer (and I think they do just that
- am new to Mengy, but Furty is one of my favourites).
Please don't assume that I am making a HIP vs. non-HIP argument here, or
referring to "textual" fidelity only.
The argument here isn't about which performing style is better, but whether or
not one should even consider the composer's artistic intentions in the first
place. The proof of the pudding is not ONLY in the eating.
Alain
Roland van Gaalen
>
>
> Roland van Gaalen wrote:
>
> > Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> >
> > >Alain wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Stage plays and music require a third party, and that third
> > > > party therefore has a moral obligation to serve the artist as much
as
> > the
> > > > audience.
> > >
> > > Why? Whence arises the moral obligation to the artist?
> > > [...]
> >
> > It's nonsense.
>
described as
> philistinism.
>
> Alain
And nobody wants to be called a Philistine, so you think you have proven
that your original statement is true?
If so, your logic is wrong -- the "To go even further" is unwarranted, and
your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum is unsound!
As for the position "as long as the results are good I'm happy with the
interpretation": that can mean anything, and doesn't necessarily imply
Philistinism in my book. Of course much depends what is meant by "good"
results, which may or may not imply some notion of historical accuracy.
Roland van Gaalen
copied) an essential part from the sentence quoted below.
Alain Dagher wrote
> [..]
> To go even further ... I would say that the position that "as long as the
> results are good I'm happy with the interpretation" can only be described
as
> philistinism.
> [...]
Alain Dagher
Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> Of course much depends what is meant by "good"
> results, which may or may not imply some notion of historical accuracy.
Why bring that into the discussion?
Alain
Roland van Gaalen
My fault -- I should have said: respect to the composer, or something that
you think is inconsistent with Philistinism.
David Wake
Does my saying "This performance is against the spirit of the piece"
mean anything more than that I strongly dislike the performance?
David
David Wake
>
> To go even further ... I would say that the position that "as long as the
> results are good I'm happy with the interpretation" can only be described as
> philistinism.
>
non-philistine) happy with an interpretation?
David
Roland van Gaalen
> [...]
> Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> > [...] Whence arises the moral obligation to the artist?
>
> Actually, the obligation is more to the audience. Maybe it's not a "moral"
> obligation, but there is an obligation.
>
> [...]
If, for a change, the entire audience turned out to be dead, I would suggest
that the issue is moot, too.
But I'm still alive, as opposed to JS Bach, who is not. Therefore,...
samir golescu
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
>> But I'm still alive,
Everything has to be proved in rmcr, remember....
>> as opposed to JS Bach, who is not.
regards,
SG
samir golescu
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Alain Dagher wrote:
> > > > >[...] there are notions contained within LTMSFI that are not crazy,
> > > > > such as: that a performance should be true to the style of the
> > > > > composer, or that a performance should "sound" natural.
> >
> > > > Why should performers be true to the style of the composer? What
> > > > if their style is better?
> > >
> > > Then why not repaint the Sistine chapel for the new millenium.
> >
> > Because the latter IS an artistic object which does not need a
> > "mediator", a "concretizer", while the musical work is *virtual*
> > reality, a Sleeping Beauty waiting in the score for the Magic Kiss
> > of the interpreter to bring her to real life.
>
> Well, that's not the main reason, but it brings up an interesting question.
> First, what IS the work of art in music? Is it the score itself? Does the
> artwork even exist?
Yes, in the moment when it is played. The merit is still 95% (say 90 or
85, I don't care) the composer's, of course, but the musical work of art
exists in the moment it is performed, period.
> Second, what you are saying is that, because composers had the bad luck of
> working in a medium that, on account of the laws of nature, is impermanent,
> their intentions are less clearly defined than those of painters, and thus
> less worthy of being respected?
No, Your Honor, what I am saying is that because of the nature of the
musical work, the existence of the predisposition of the musical opus to
offer a viable, vital experience when it is performed gains pre-eminence
in front of the abstract notion "the composer's intentions".
regards,
SG
Matthew Silverstein
> The argument here isn't about which performing style is better, but whether
or
> not one should even consider the composer's artistic intentions in the first
> place. The proof of the pudding is not ONLY in the eating.
I guess it depends on why you're interested in the pudding . . .
Matty
Simon Roberts
"Roland van Gaalen" <SeeSig...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:9e4086$vunr$1...@ID-78439.news.dfncis.de...
>
> If Virgil wrote his Aeneid in dactylic hexameter, why, do you
think, did
> Dryden use the iambic pentameter?
>
> [This is intended as a rhetorical question to Samir and a
non-rhetorical
> question to Alain.]
What if they ignore your intent and Samir answers and Alain
treats it as non-rhetorical?
Simon
Simon Roberts
>
>
> Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> > Fortunately we all agree what the spirit of any given piece
> > is....
>
> Of course we don't, but that doesn't mean that the concept
itself is
> flawed.
It rather depends how it's defined/used. If a translator or
interpreter has an obligation of some sort to be faithful to the
spirit of the work, then unless we agree what the spirit is, we
can't say in any useful way whether someone is faithful to it;
all we can do is say that he's (not) faithful to my understanding
of the spirit of the work, which (presumably) has much less force
as an objection. It's flawed because it implies some sort of
objectivity (or at least agreement) but in effect is little
different from the sort of subjective response you seem to be
trying to avoid. Of course, one could with rather more force
complain of a translation that it's unfaithful if you and the
translator agree on the spirit so that the disagreement's merely
about technique - whose translation better realizes that spirit -
but even then, you may both not agree about that.
I agree with you, and furthermore would add that, not only is
> the spirit of a work of art elusive but it is most elusive in
the
> greatest works. But that is why discussions of faithfulness in
> interpretation are not only not pointless,
Are they? Your complaints about bad translations of French
poetry are pointless?
Simon
Andy Evans
I find him bad precisely because he looks like he's acting."
How about pianists that "look like they're playing the piano"? I can think of a
few besides Liberace and Clayderman....
=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Andy Evans
that the score does not change but every composer's interpretation will be
different every time. If we consider the composer to be the absolute, then
clearly his 'intentions' change constantly (despite the score staying the
same). If we consider the score as the absolute, then no performance truly
interprets it perfectly. Either way it is hard to claim we have an absolute.
Simon Roberts
"David Wake" <dn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9nzoca9...@Turing.Stanford.EDU...
> Does my saying "This performance is against the spirit of the
piece"
> mean anything more than that I strongly dislike the
performance?
Not if that's all you mean. But I don't think that's what people
who use the phrase *mean,* for all that their assumptions in
making the statement may be questionable. Moreover, it could be
that someone who uses such language (don't we all, at least
casually/as shorthand, sometimes?) comes up with a notion of the
spirit of a piece early on in his experience of it and uses that
to determine whether he likes subsequent performances; in which
case it can't be said that when he uses the phrase merely as a
way of saying he doesn't like it. Indeed, he could even say that
it's against the spirit of the work *and* that he likes it anyway
(there are numerous performances of music which I think don't
represent the spirit of it as I understand it but which I like
anyway - Ugorski's Beethoven op. 111, Klemperer's Da Ponte
operas, etc.).
Simon
Simon Roberts
>
>
> Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> >
> > Why? Whence arises the moral obligation to the artist?
>
> Actually, the obligation is more to the audience. Maybe it's
not a "moral"
> obligation, but there is an obligation.
Maybe it's just a sign of respect (and of course the composers we
admire, at least qua composers, surely merit a hell of a lot of
respect, qua composers), which may be sufficient. Or maybe it
turns on the perhaps related idea that a piece of music isn't
some free-floating concept but is in an important way its
composer's; if so, to that extent any "improvement" is no such
thing at all but instead an amendment (or however you want to put
it). Both seem plausible explanations to me (though I'm not sure
to what extent I agree with them), and neither necessarily has
any especially limiting effect on what an interpreter does
because most of the time, as far as we can tell, most composers
don't seem to have had rigid views about how their music should
be performed. Of course, it would probably stop anyone from
changing chords and adding music, but who would dare do that
anyway? (The explanation, that no-one would dare change
Beethoven's chords because it would sound worse, is undermined by
the fact that we would probably say it sounds worse because it's
a change and not judge it independently (could we if we wanted
to?).)
>
> The moral obligation only exists if the artist is still alive.
Why? Because after he's dead you can "get away with it" or not
cause him offense? Does respect not survive death?
Simon
samir golescu
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Alain Dagher wrote:
> samir golescu wrote:
>
> > I am afraid not. Even an enemy of the "licentious" interpreter like
> > Stravinsky (who strongly admired Mengelberg nevertheless) put
> > in writing the distinction between VIRTUAL music and MUSIC IN ACT.
> > A cathedral and its being repainted or not have nothing in common
> > with that.
>
> I agree.
>
> You know more about this than I do, but I would bet that Mengelberg and
> Furtwangler both desired to serve the composer (and I think they do just
> that - am new to Mengy, but Furty is one of my favourites).
Yes, you are right to a point. However, Furtwangler repeatedly
distinguished in his writings between "fidelity to the score" (to the
composer, in a narrower sense) and "fidelity to the spirit" (closer to
what Germans used to call "the will of the work", having as premise the
fact that a work is greater and vaster than the consciousness
of the author himself). Nevertheless, we know today from one of
Furtwangler's close acquaintances (Carla H... I forget) that Furtwangler
used to deride repeatedly the idea that "the interpreter has to *serve*
the composer" and planned on writing an elaborated debunking of this
myth--he died shortly after (who knows, haunted by the wrath of the
composers's ghosts perhaps?(-:) Mengelberg used to say (quoted in Shore's
"Orchestra speaks") "Now we will make some *changements*" and
(in other sources, I'm paraphrasing from memory) that the composer
is around his piece sometimes only three months, until he writes it down,
while he, Mengelberg, is around that symphony for forty years, so he
knows better! Don't forget than Mahler's valedictory curse on the
conductors who will *not* make his music sound "better" (he knew from his
own experience as a conductor he changed things he himself wrote in the
score, because of the "empirical" feedback he was receiving in
performance).
> The argument here isn't about which performing style is better, but
> whether or not one should even consider the composer's artistic
> intentions in the first place.
Surprising to you, probably, I think that the composer's artistic
intentions should very much be taken into account. Everything: an
attentive study of the score to begin with, the composer's written
thoughts etc. In the end though the responsibility of how much
everything is observed with the intention of being "as close to literal
as possible" or not pertains to the interpreter. To [through] him is the
[composer's] glory, to him shall be the failure, his failure.
> The proof of the pudding is not ONLY in the eating.
This is a bit dense for me, but I will think it over(night).
yours,
SG
Tony Movshon
>
> Why? Because after he's dead you can "get away with it" or not
> cause him offense? Does respect not survive death?
We're drifting into utilitarianism again ...
--
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
Simon Roberts
"Tony Movshon" <mov...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:3B060232...@nyu.edu...
Marmite gives me more pleasure than Vegemite.
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
> Marmite gives me more pleasure than Vegemite.
Praise indeed . . .
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> Then why not repaint the Sistine chapel for the new millenium.
If I was confident that it could be improved, then I would be all for that . .
.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> Of course we don't, but that doesn't mean that the concept itself is
> flawed. I agree with you, and furthermore would add that, not only is
> the spirit of a work of art elusive but it is most elusive in the
> greatest works. But that is why discussions of faithfulness in
> interpretation are not only not pointless, but actually are at the core
> of the job of a performing artist.
That's interesting. In my mind, the "problem" with the great works is not that
their spirit is "most elusive," but rather that their spirit is so
multifaceted. There is no single, univocal spirit of any piece of music. Is
Beethoven 5/i majestic, terrifying, determined, abandoned? It is all of those
things, and no one performance can capture all of them.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> I agree--that is awful. The Romanian translator of Marquez's "One hundred
> years of solitude" thought "A century of solitude" sounded better. It
> didn't. Marquez was obviously intending the reader to feel the burden of
> 1, 2, 3.... all the way to 100 years of solitude. I could bring dozens of
> other examples from the world literature but that's besides the point.
But who knows how many *wonderful* turns of phrase are also due to the
translator? I remember reading *Crime and Punishment* and coming across a most
delicious sentence: "Roskolnikov's burning eyes were ready to incinerate him."
A few months later, I looked for the passage in a different translation and
found that it was quite different (and much less vivid). I was then told by a
scholar of Russian literature that the latter (less vivid) translation was
more faithful to the Russian. Did Dostoyevsky have some reason for writing it
his way? Perhaps he did, but I still feel that the translation was an
improvement.
The problem is not translators who take liberties with the original text, but
*bad* translators taking *bad* liberties with the text. (Similarly, the
problem is not performers straying from the dictates of the score, but *bad*
performers straying . . .)
Matty
A. Brain
wrote in message news:9e5eab$o06$3...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> But who knows how many *wonderful* turns of phrase are also due to the
> translator? I remember reading *Crime and Punishment* and coming across a
most
> delicious sentence: "Roskolnikov's burning eyes were ready to incinerate
him."
> A few months later, I looked for the passage in a different translation
and
> found that it was quite different (and much less vivid). I was then told
by a
> scholar of Russian literature that the latter (less vivid) translation was
> more faithful to the Russian. Did Dostoyevsky have some reason for writing
it
> his way? Perhaps he did, but I still feel that the translation was an
> improvement.
>
> The problem is not translators who take liberties with the original text,
but
> *bad* translators taking *bad* liberties with the text. (Similarly, the
> problem is not performers straying from the dictates of the score, but
*bad*
> performers straying . . .)
Somehow, I found *Crime and Punishment* to be dull, and that discouraged me
from reading more Dostoyevsky. Maybe it was the translation?
Anyway, as I remarked in another recent thread, if the artist's intentions
were to be followed
rigorously, Kafka's works would not be known today; they would have been
burned as he instructed.
And if those works that Brahms is known to have discarded were found, they
would be thrown back into the trash, never played, because he didn't want
them played.
More to the point, the analogy to translations seems to me to be vastly
different, but the analogy to
dramatic works in the same language seems to be pretty close. And it makes
sense too. It's always a fresh experience to see a new production of
Hamlet, Lear, or whatever...maybe even Iceman or Long Day's Journey.
(Is O'Neill perhaps the Mahler of modern drama?)
But how "different" are various performances of great music? There are
basic differences, for example, in older music, where the HIP controversy is
rather important. And from time to time, there are performances that are
perhaps way off-base. (How about a list of those?)
How many recordings of great works are so bad that the "spirit" of the music
is totally subverted or perverted?
The translation analogy reminds me of another controversy--the value of that
perpetual search for the ideal recording. Within reason, it makes sense to
investigate. But not at the expense of neglecting other music.
Since I will never learn Ancient Greek, or Russian, or even languages I have
studied and can get by with reasonably well, to the point that I can enjoy
the "original works" of Homer, Tolstoy, et al., does that mean that I should
spend considerable amounts of time reading all the different translations,
comparing and contrasting, etc.? That would be at the expense of ignoring
lots of other worthy literature.
And it surely would not make sense for anyone to decide, at some arbitrary
point, that the best literature is in English, Russian, Ancient Greek,
German, or whatever, and then devote a good part of his time to learning
that language. (Unless you can get paid for it)
Likewise, it seems impractical and wasteful to me to be forever exploring
and re-exploring a relatively small repertoire.
It's like that guy in Camus' *The Plague*, who is constantly revising and
re-revising the opening sentence of his novel. Or like the "single issue
conductor" Gilbert Kaplan, who "conducts" Mahler's Second Symphony.
Which is to say, with music itself as well as recordings, though there is
definitely no substitute for personal experience, which may involve
repetition, the best solution to the problem of limited time is to do some
amount of reasonable research and try to gain as much experience as possible
with live performances and recordings of what are considered to be the
masterpieces of the musical repertoire. And be open to suggestions of not
so well known "maybe" masterpieces.
Which I presume is part of the value of the classical recordings newsgroup.
But that means also that, tempting as they may be, you might consider
overlooking the posts about that favorite work (say, Mahler's 2nd) and read
those posts about some unknown neglected composer or work.
--
A. Brain
Remove "nospam" when replying via email
Simon Roberts
"A. Brain" <abr...@nospam.att.net> wrote in message
news:CJsN6.394$F4.1...@nnrp1.sbc.net...
>
> Somehow, I found *Crime and Punishment* to be dull, and that
discouraged me
> from reading more Dostoyevsky. Maybe it was the translation?
Maybe. Go to a well-stocked bookstore, pick their translations
off the shelf and read the first page; the differences are
remarkable, some vivid, others as though written by earnest
accountants.
>
> But how "different" are various performances of great music?
There are
> basic differences, for example, in older music, where the HIP
controversy is
> rather important. And from time to time, there are
performances that are
> perhaps way off-base. (How about a list of those?)
> How many recordings of great works are so bad that the "spirit"
of the music
> is totally subverted or perverted?
I'm not sure "bad" is the right word. But there are often such
enormous differences among performances that what is conveyed is
varies tremendously. Compare, for instance, Beethoven
Hammerklavier i as played by Gilels/DG and Gulda; Chopin Scherzo
1 Richter/Olympia vs Sofronitsky; Haydn 26/1 Dorati vs Kuijken
(or just about anyone else); Eroica i Klemperer stereo vs
Scherchen stereo; Mozart 466 Perahia vs Argerich (and so one
could continue almost indefinitely). All of these performances
have their partisans, but if either one of the pair can be said
to be faithful to *the* spirit of the piece in question, then
surely the other can't, unless "the spirit" is given a meaning
so broad as to be effectively useless.
>
> Likewise, it seems impractical and wasteful to me to be
forever exploring
> and re-exploring a relatively small repertoire.
> It's like that guy in Camus' *The Plague*, who is constantly
revising and
> re-revising the opening sentence of his novel. Or like the
"single issue
> conductor" Gilbert Kaplan, who "conducts" Mahler's Second
Symphony.
Why the quotation marks?
Simon
Paul Kintzele
me
> from reading more Dostoyevsky. Maybe it was the translation?
Try the Pevear/Volohonsky translation (their Brothers Karamazov is also
excellent).
By the way, Matty, which translation was that "incinerate" sentence from?
Paul
samir golescu
I am sorry, I cannot digest *that*. In Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator'
there is an absolutely brilliant scene in which the great works of art of
all times are seen "improved" (!) from "Tomanian" perspective. You can see
the famous Venus improved with an arm in a certain position, the statue of
the "Thinker" with left hand under the chin and right arm extended etc.
Ignore the political part -- the point is that a statue, a cathedral etc.,
*un*like a piece of paper that contains a virtual musical work, *are*
accomplished works of art, unimprovable! A work of art is not like an
athletic record that can always be improved upon. Then an artistic
organism has been accomplished from all points of view by its original
creator, there's nothing to be "improved" upon it. (Of course, exceptions
can be made in what regards time vicissitudes that arguably affected the
integrity of the "original" work of art. Still, the restoration work and
"how far a restorer can go" are subject of extremely serious restrictions.
One cannot paint an old statue in red because in one's opinion that
represents an improvement and in this I have to join Dr Dagher. That *is*
barbarism and destruction. An interpreter can concretize the virtual music
in a slightly or more-than-slightly different manner, though, because the
virtuality of the musical work, immaculatedly contained in the score, is
not definitively nor severely threatened by one single interpretation.
regards,
SG
REG
playing, but I'm not sure you're right at all (or perhaps not entirely
right)...in brief, because I am too eager to get outside for a while, I
think that it is fairly clear, at least insofar as the visual arts are
concerned, that our preoccupation with worshipping at the shrine or
unimproved art is a phase (even if it is a phase that I fully endorse) and
not a higher level of appreciation of art than the phases that have gone
before. I think there is ample evidence that our preoccupation with
historically accurate restoration is not necessarily shared by earlier eras,
and that in other times it was not sacrilege to improve or change a work of
art to bring it to a stage of relevance for the tehn-current time period.
One has difficultly, I think, considering these earlier approaches
philistinism (I know you are not saying that's the case) precisely because,
in the same time periods, much art which we continue to value today was
being created simultaneously. I suspect that a dissertation or two could be
written about what has sponsored the change in approach to purely
historical renovation, and I suspect that the factors are not all "good
ones".
ON ANOTHER NOTE, MR. G., and if I may, let me ask you whether or not there
is not some odd dichotomy between your desire to leave art in an unimproved,
or historically-accurate conserved form, and your dislike of HIP musical
performances. It seems to me (he said, trying to be a trouble maker with the
best will in the world), that if you believe in HIP art, you should believe
in HIP music, and that if you feel that (as I to some extent do) the
"message" of the music comes across without need for HIP accoutrements, or
even that the message of the music comes across best with a contemporary
type of orchestral sound, then you should not object to contemporized (a
Roumanian word) interpretations and reconstructions of art.
There are some very good fares now to Rome...and paint is really
cheap...want to join me??
:))))))
"samir golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.01051...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu...
Matthew Silverstein
> By the way, Matty, which translation was that "incinerate" sentence from?
Penguin Classics (I don't recall the translator). I found it anything but
dull.
Matty
samir golescu
On Sat, 19 May 2001, REG wrote:
> Samir - I hate to be serious on a beautiful day when I should be outside
> playing, but I'm not sure you're right at all (or perhaps not entirely
> right)...in brief, because I am too eager to get outside for a while, I
> think that it is fairly clear, at least insofar as the visual arts are
> concerned, that our preoccupation with worshipping at the shrine or
> unimproved art is a phase (even if it is a phase that I fully endorse) and
> not a higher level of appreciation of art than the phases that have gone
> before.
This might be -- but one can think only as one can think.
> ON ANOTHER NOTE, MR. G., and if I may, let me ask you whether or not there
> is not some odd dichotomy between your desire to leave art in an unimproved,
> or historically-accurate conserved form, and your dislike of HIP musical
> performances.
No -- it is not. It is in the nature of the performing arts to offer
always new versions of the virtual work, using at least some of the
"improvements" the future has offered (to offer something very simple,
nobody stages with candles, as opposed to electric light, a 16th century
play). "Improving" upon an accomplished, concrete, not virtual work of
art, irremediably destroys as much as (arguably) "improves".
regards,
SG
Alain Dagher
> "Alain Dagher" <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
> news:3B059227...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca...
> >
> >
> > Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> >
> > > Of course much depends what is meant by "good"
> > > results, which may or may not imply some notion of historical accuracy.
> >
> > Why bring that into the discussion?
>
> My fault -- I should have said: respect to the composer, or something that
> you think is inconsistent with Philistinism.
Please don't misunderstand my use of that word. What I meant is that art-works
are part of our culture. An attempt to take into consideration questions of
style and of the artists' intentions is not the same as imposing a
straight-jacket on performers. I support experimental and even outrageous
approaches in theory.
Alain
Alain Dagher
> Does my saying "This performance is against the spirit of the piece"
> mean anything more than that I strongly dislike the performance?
It depends whether you are an extreme solipsist or not. If you believe that
the only thing that exists in the world are your thoughts and feelings, than
those two statements are indeed equal. Otherwise, they are not the same
thing.
If an art historian says that, based on her research, ancient Greek statues
were painted with garish colours, that's not an expresion of taste is it?
Alain
Alain Dagher
Exactly.
Alain
Alain Dagher
> "Alain Dagher" <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
> news:3B058604...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca...
>
> >
> > The moral obligation only exists if the artist is still alive.
>
> Why? Because after he's dead you can "get away with it" or not
> cause him offense? Does respect not survive death?
Yes. But after the composer's death let's call it an obligation to the
culture. Of course, artists also have another obligation, which is to
innovate, and to speak with their own voice. That's the trick of playing
a Beethoven sonata or staging a Mozart opera in 2001.
Alain
Alain Dagher
> "Alain Dagher" <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
> news:3B058565...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca...
> >
> >
> > Simon Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > Fortunately we all agree what the spirit of any given piece
> > > is....
> >
> > Of course we don't, but that doesn't mean that the concept
> itself is
> > flawed.
>
> It rather depends how it's defined/used. If a translator or
> interpreter has an obligation of some sort to be faithful to the
> spirit of the work, then unless we agree what the spirit is, we
> can't say in any useful way whether someone is faithful to it;
> all we can do is say that he's (not) faithful to my understanding
> of the spirit of the work, which (presumably) has much less force
> as an objection. It's flawed because it implies some sort of
> objectivity (or at least agreement) but in effect is little
> different from the sort of subjective response you seem to be
> trying to avoid. Of course, one could with rather more force
> complain of a translation that it's unfaithful if you and the
> translator agree on the spirit so that the disagreement's merely
> about technique - whose translation better realizes that spirit -
> but even then, you may both not agree about that.
But do you agree that the "spirit of the work" exists, however elusive
it may be? And that trying to understand it and then convey it to the
audience is a very crucial part of the performer's or translator's job?
Yes, the performer attempting to grasp the piece may be like the coyote
chasing after the roadrunner, but we wouldn't watch him if he didn't
look like his heart was in it.
>
>
> I agree with you, and furthermore would add that, not only is
> > the spirit of a work of art elusive but it is most elusive in
> the
> > greatest works. But that is why discussions of faithfulness in
> > interpretation are not only not pointless,
>
> Are they? Your complaints about bad translations of French
> poetry are pointless?
You misread my statement: there was no double-negative there.
Whether my comments are pointless or not is a different issue. ;-)
cheers,
Alain
PS: You are aware of the milestone I am about to reach - the one where
issues of pointlessness suddenly acquire a sharp and unpleasant focus
...
Alain Dagher
> In the argument of score v. composer's intentions, then it's worth pointing out
> that the score does not change but every composer's interpretation will be
> different every time. If we consider the composer to be the absolute, then
> clearly his 'intentions' change constantly (despite the score staying the
> same). If we consider the score as the absolute, then no performance truly
> interprets it perfectly. Either way it is hard to claim we have an absolute.
Of course. That is what makes it interesting.
Alain
Alain Dagher
> Anyway, as I remarked in another recent thread, if the artist's intentions
> were to be followed
> rigorously, Kafka's works would not be known today; they would have been
> burned as he instructed.
Surely not burning his *unfinished* works is not a betrayal.
Alain
Alain Dagher
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Alain Dagher wrote:
>
> > samir golescu wrote:
> >
> > > I am afraid not. Even an enemy of the "licentious" interpreter like
> > > Stravinsky (who strongly admired Mengelberg nevertheless) put
> > > in writing the distinction between VIRTUAL music and MUSIC IN ACT.
> > > A cathedral and its being repainted or not have nothing in common
> > > with that.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > You know more about this than I do, but I would bet that Mengelberg and
> > Furtwangler both desired to serve the composer (and I think they do just
> > that - am new to Mengy, but Furty is one of my favourites).
>
> Yes, you are right to a point. However, Furtwangler repeatedly
> distinguished in his writings between "fidelity to the score" (to the
> composer, in a narrower sense) and "fidelity to the spirit" (closer to
> what Germans used to call "the will of the work", having as premise the
> fact that a work is greater and vaster than the consciousness
> of the author himself).
Well I have certianly been using the idea of fidelity to the spirit in this
thread. I wouldn't say that the that is outside the composer's consciousness
though. You are sounding like a deconstructionist here.
Alain
Alain Dagher
You're completely right of course. But what would you say of a situation where every
single interpretation of a piece of music was completely wrong (let's assume that is
possible). Then isn't that the equivalent of painting the statue red?
Alain
Alain Dagher
I disagree completely. Tell the translator to write his/her own novel. We need to
know what Dostoevsky wrote. It's part of our culture.
Alain
Alain Dagher
> Alain wrote:
>
> > Of course we don't, but that doesn't mean that the concept itself is
> > flawed. I agree with you, and furthermore would add that, not only is
> > the spirit of a work of art elusive but it is most elusive in the
> > greatest works. But that is why discussions of faithfulness in
> > interpretation are not only not pointless, but actually are at the core
> > of the job of a performing artist.
>
> That's interesting. In my mind, the "problem" with the great works is not that
> their spirit is "most elusive," but rather that their spirit is so
> multifaceted.
That's what I mean too.
> There is no single, univocal spirit of any piece of music. Is
> Beethoven 5/i majestic, terrifying, determined, abandoned? It is all of those
> things, and no one performance can capture all of them.
Agreed.
Alain
samir golescu
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Alain Dagher wrote:
(...)
> We need to know what Dostoevsky wrote. It's part of our culture.
In the translations matter, I agree completely with this. The translator
has to be faithful to the original, precise, and creative. In this order.
If the original work has any value to speak of, that is.
regards,
SG
Alain Dagher
> "I never saw Olivier on the stage but on film I find him a terrible actor. And
> I find him bad precisely because he looks like he's acting."
>
> How about pianists that "look like they're playing the piano"? I can think of a
> few besides Liberace and Clayderman....
Or "sound like they're playing the piano" ...
Alain
Simon Roberts
> But do you agree that the "spirit of the work" exists, however
elusive
> it may be?
It depends on what you mean by that. At times it seems as though
you're saying that a work has a spirit which exists independent
of any interpreter's (including, in the case of "finished" works
like novels and paintings) understanding of it. After all,
"elusive" implies that "it" is there and the problem is finding
it (and, presumably, knowing when you've found it). If that's
what you mean, then I don't think it exists. Rather,
interpreters/readers/listeners figure out for themselves based on
a variety of reasons and intuitions etc. what "the spirit" of the
work is and, if they want, argue about whether theirs is more
persuasive. This process isn't analogous to chasing elusive
prey.
And that trying to understand it and then convey it to the
> audience is a very crucial part of the performer's or
translator's job?
> Yes, the performer attempting to grasp the piece may be like
the coyote
> chasing after the roadrunner, but we wouldn't watch him if he
didn't
> look like his heart was in it.
>
I'm not sure I get this analogy. First, the only thing elusive
about the roadrunner is that he's quicker and smarter and luckier
than the coyote. There's no question about what the roadrunner
is; the coyote doesn't go chasing after a tumbleweed or a shadow
of a cloud in the belief that it's really the coyote. Second,
how do you know the coyote's "heart's in it"? Because he keeps
on slogging away? If that's all it takes, then perhaps you would
like to buy McCabe's set of Haydn piano sonatas....
> >
> >
> > I agree with you, and furthermore would add that, not only
is
> > > the spirit of a work of art elusive but it is most elusive
in
> > the
> > > greatest works. But that is why discussions of faithfulness
in
> > > interpretation are not only not pointless,
> >
> > Are they? Your complaints about bad translations of French
> > poetry are pointless?
>
> You misread my statement: there was no double-negative there.
>
Oops....
>
> Alain
>
> PS: You are aware of the milestone I am about to reach - the
one where
> issues of pointlessness suddenly acquire a sharp and unpleasant
focus
> ...
Having passed it myself three years ago, I have no sympathy
whatever. Go buy a red sportscar....
Simon
samir golescu
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Alain Dagher wrote:
I've always said that Gould's appearance was truly amazing. I could swear
he was alive!
(/;
Simon Roberts
> Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> > "Alain Dagher" <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3B058604...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca...
> >
> > >
> > > The moral obligation only exists if the artist is still
alive.
> >
> > Why? Because after he's dead you can "get away with it" or
not
> > cause him offense? Does respect not survive death?
>
> Yes. But after the composer's death let's call it an obligation
to the
> culture.
I would rather show respect to Beethoven. There's too much of
"the culture" (though perhaps I'm missing what you mean by that)
that I don't respect at all....
Of course, artists also have another obligation, which is to
> innovate, and to speak with their own voice. That's the trick
of playing
> a Beethoven sonata or staging a Mozart opera in 2001.
Well, if they really want to speak with their own voice, perhaps
they should try writing their own music!
Simon
samir golescu
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > Of course, artists also have another obligation, which is to
> > innovate, and to speak with their own voice. That's the trick
> > of playing a Beethoven sonata or staging a Mozart opera in 2001.
> Well, if they really want to speak with their own voice, perhaps
> they should try writing their own music!
....and let the composers' music speak for itself?....
Roland van Gaalen
This may seem reasonable with respect to fairly simple, unadorned prose, but
if you're talking about poetry, for instance, it's not that simple, I think.
Which is the point I was trying to make with my question about the Aeneid.
In his translation, the English poet John Dryden used a rather different
meter. Now, I suppose meter is not easily preserved in translations; then
again, neither is the use of rhyme, alliteration, consonance and assonance,
and imagery, not to mention connotations and the general level of formality.
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
E-mail: R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl (replace AT by @)
samir golescu
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> > (...)
> > > We need to know what Dostoevsky wrote. It's part of our culture.
> >
> > In the translations matter, I agree completely with this. The translator
> > has to be faithful to the original, precise, and creative. In this order.
> > If the original work has any value to speak of, that is.
>
> This may seem reasonable with respect to fairly simple, unadorned prose, but
> if you're talking about poetry, for instance, it's not that simple, I think.
> Which is the point I was trying to make with my question about the Aeneid.
> In his translation, the English poet John Dryden used a rather different
> meter. Now, I suppose meter is not easily preserved in translations; then
> again, neither is the use of rhyme, alliteration, consonance and assonance,
> and imagery, not to mention connotations and the general level of formality.
You are absolutely right, without a doubt. The problems in what regards
poetry translation are multiplied by.... a lot. Syntax is different from a
language to another, then, of course, one-syllable words in one language
can be translated in three-syllable words in a different language etc.
Absolute translation is therefore impossible. That is why attempting to go
as close to the original as possible is a sine qua non for the translator.
The translator at his best should attempt to recreate, as closely as
possible, the original language in the "language-hostess", I should
think.
Regarding your own example, I will say only that even famous translations
might be rightly criticizable, in some cases. E.g., we should deem as
unpardonable substituting hexameters with pentameters in Aeneis, not to
mention prose translations (yes, there are some!).
regards,
SG
Roland van Gaalen
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.010519...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
I disagree. First, I think prose translations are very useful for obtaining
a basic understanding of the story told or sentiments expressed in a poem;
second, any translation in the form of a more or less equivalent poem will
necessarily contain a variety of errors that you would have to call
"unpardonable." Moreover, I don't see how translating literary texts is
simpler than translating a score expressed in the language of musical
symbols into the language of sounds; to me it seems that the problems and
tradeoffs involved are very similar.
--
samir golescu
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> > The problems in what regards
> > poetry translation are multiplied by.... a lot. Syntax is different from a
> > language to another, then, of course, one-syllable words in one language
> > can be translated in three-syllable words in a different language etc.
> > Absolute translation is therefore impossible. That is why attempting to go
> > as close to the original as possible is a sine qua non for the translator.
> > The translator at his best should attempt to recreate, as closely as
> > possible, the original language in the "language-hostess", I should
> > think.
> >
> > Regarding your own example, I will say only that even famous translations
> > might be rightly criticizable, in some cases. E.g., we should deem as
> > unpardonable substituting hexameters with pentameters in Aeneis, not to
> > mention prose translations (yes, there are some!).
>
> I disagree. First, I think prose translations are very useful for obtaining
> a basic understanding of the story told or sentiments expressed in a poem;
I was talking about a high-quality translation, not about a Reader
Digest's version. The highest goal a translation can aim at is not
offering a "basic understanding of. . ."
> second, any translation in the form of a more or less equivalent poem will
> necessarily contain a variety of errors that you would have to call
> "unpardonable."
Not really. From the fact that there will be always be debatable points
about a translation, as identity with the original is not possible in the
strong sense, does not result that there will always be *errors* ina
translation.
> Moreover, I don't see how translating literary texts is
> simpler than translating a score expressed in the language of musical
> symbols into the language of sounds;
I have never ever said that -- that translating literary texts is simpler
etc.
> to me it seems that the problems and tradeoffs involved are very
> similar.
To me it seems not.
regards,
SG
David Wake
> David Wake wrote:
>
> > Does my saying "This performance is against the spirit of the piece"
> > mean anything more than that I strongly dislike the performance?
>
> It depends whether you are an extreme solipsist or not. If you believe that
> the only thing that exists in the world are your thoughts and feelings, than
> those two statements are indeed equal. Otherwise, they are not the same
> thing.
>
Could you give me some idea of what "the spirit of the piece" is, then?
>
> If an art historian says that, based on her research, ancient Greek statues
> were painted with garish colours, that's not an expresion of taste is it?
>
I don't see the relevance of this.
David
David Wake
> Matthew Silverstein wrote:
>
>> There is no single, univocal spirit of any piece of music. Is
>> Beethoven 5/i majestic, terrifying, determined, abandoned? It is
>> all of those things, and no one performance can capture all of
>> them.
>
> Agreed.
>
If you agree with that, then how can a performance of Beethoven 5/i be
faithful to its spirit?
David
Matthew Silverstein
> I disagree completely. Tell the translator to write his/her own novel. We
need to
> know what Dostoevsky wrote. It's part of our culture.
Tell the performer to compose his or her own symphony! How many times have we
heard that complaint.
Why do we "need" to know what Dostoevksy wrote? I agree that there are many
people that are interested in what he wrote, and for that reason it is
probably useful to have technical and accurate translations of his work. But I
did not read *Crime and Punishment* to find out exactly what Dostoevsky wrote.
I am not a scholar of Russian literature. I read it because I wanted to read a
great novel, and I think that--at least in this one instance--the translator
made it even more great.
If a translation is aimed at specialists, then it should undoubtedly be one
that attempts to translate as accurately as possible. But all translations
need not fill that role.
Matty
Simon Roberts
"Matthew Silverstein"
<matthew.s...@corpus-christi.oxford.ac.uk> wrote in
message news:9e6ogf$i0q$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
> If a translation is aimed at specialists, then it should
undoubtedly be one
> that attempts to translate as accurately as possible. But all
translations
> need not fill that role.
If you were to move "not" to before "all" I might agree....
Simon
samir golescu
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> Tell the performer to compose his or her own symphony! How many times have
> we heard that complaint.
But it is not the same! One goes in the concert hall to hear Beethoven's
Fifth, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Daniel Barenboim, all of them, even if
every spectator might have slightly different priorities. A reader buys a
novel, using a translation *because* of the language bareer.
I know I want to read what Dostoevsky wrote or as close as possible to
that.
> Why do we "need" to know what Dostoevksy wrote? I agree that there are many
> people that are interested in what he wrote, and for that reason it is
> probably useful to have technical and accurate translations of his work.
> I am not a scholar of Russian literature. I read it because I wanted to read a
> great novel, and I think that--at least in this one instance--the translator
> made it even more great.
Really? You found out, without knowing Russian, without having read the
original and studied in parallel the existing English translations,
comparing them between them and with the original, [you found out] that
the translator "made it more great".
You would need BY FAR more arguments than that you read a phrase some
friend told you it's slightly different in original as to construe a case
for that.
> If a translation is aimed at specialists, then it should undoubtedly be one
> that attempts to translate as accurately as possible.
In what regards the activity of translating, it is unfeasible to create a
(false IMO) contrast between accuracy and artisticity.
regards,
SG
Alain Dagher
The art historian could be saying that Greek sculptures actually were based on a
different esthetic than what we think without actually expressing an opinion on
which she prefers.
So if I say that a performance of the Marriage of Figaro is untrue to the
Mozartean spirit, although you might conclude that I didn't like the piece, I am
making an objective value judgement. The proof is that it can be debated. If I say
I don't like the intepretation, that is not debatable.
Alain
Alain Dagher
There are different degrees of infidelity.
Alain
Alain Dagher
> Alain wrote:
>
> > I disagree completely. Tell the translator to write his/her own novel. We
> need to
> > know what Dostoevsky wrote. It's part of our culture.
>
> Tell the performer to compose his or her own symphony! How many times have we
> heard that complaint.
First I agree completely with Samir's rebuttal.
Second, although the translation analogy is interesting, the essential difference
is that a piece of music was meant to be interpreted, whereas a novel was not
meant to be translated.
> Why do we "need" to know what Dostoevksy wrote?
I guess we don't.
> I agree that there are many
> people that are interested in what he wrote, and for that reason it is
> probably useful to have technical and accurate translations of his work. But I
> did not read *Crime and Punishment* to find out exactly what Dostoevsky wrote.
> I am not a scholar of Russian literature. I read it because I wanted to read a
> great novel, and I think that--at least in this one instance--the translator
> made it even more great.
>
> If a translation is aimed at specialists, then it should undoubtedly be one
> that attempts to translate as accurately as possible. But all translations
> need not fill that role.
Interestingly I noticed that some new books, rather than have a lengthy legal
disclimer on the first page, simply state "the moral rights of the author have
been asserted".
I'm not sure how much of your argument is theoretical in a sort of philosophical
sense. I certainly cannot prove to you that a translation that clearly violates
the spirit of the original (as those English translations of Prevert and Eluard
clearly do) is wrong. I also can't prove that we shouldn't repaint the Sistine
chapel, or that Ted Turner shouldn't colorize old movies. But I bet you agree with
me that those things are wrong.
Alain
David Wake
> David Wake wrote:
>
>> Alain Dagher <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> writes:
>>
>>> If an art historian says that, based on her research, ancient
>>> Greek statues were painted with garish colours, that's not an
>>> expresion of taste is it?
>>>
>> I don't see the relevance of this.
>
> The art historian could be saying that Greek sculptures actually
> were based on a different esthetic than what we think without
> actually expressing an opinion on which she prefers.
>
> So if I say that a performance of the Marriage of Figaro is untrue
> to the Mozartean spirit, although you might conclude that I didn't
> like the piece, I am making an objective value judgement. The proof
> is that it can be debated. If I say I don't like the intepretation,
> that is not debatable.
>
> Alain
>
Wouldn't a better parallel with the statues be this: suppose we
discovered that in Beethoven's time, horn parts were all played an
octave higher than we previously thought. This would be a similarly
"objective" discovery to that about the paint and the statues. But
what would it tell us about the "spirit of Beethoven's works"? Would
we revise all out ideas about what that spirit was, in the light of
the new, squeaky-sounding performances? I don't know.
David
Simon Roberts
"David Wake" <dn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9ng0e0l...@Turing.Stanford.EDU...
> Wouldn't a better parallel with the statues be this: suppose we
> discovered that in Beethoven's time, horn parts were all played
an
> octave higher than we previously thought. This would be a
similarly
> "objective" discovery to that about the paint and the statues.
But
> what would it tell us about the "spirit of Beethoven's works"?
Would
> we revise all out ideas about what that spirit was, in the
light of
> the new, squeaky-sounding performances? I don't know.
We might, at least a bit. In Haydn it certainly makes a
differences - compare performances of sym 48 where the horns play
an octave too low with performances where they don't. The
difference in "colour" certainly makes a different effect, which
might lead one to revise, even if only slightly, one's notion of
its spirit.
Simon
Simon Roberts
> The art historian could be saying that Greek sculptures
actually were based on a
> different esthetic than what we think without actually
expressing an opinion on
> which she prefers.
Right.
>
> So if I say that a performance of the Marriage of Figaro is
untrue to the
> Mozartean spirit, although you might conclude that I didn't
like the piece, I am
> making an objective value judgement.
Are you? If you're merely trying to do what your art historian
is doing, you're not making a value judgement but a historical
one. It makes sense to call that objective. It's not right,
though, to say that "this is different from Mozart's aesthetic
therefore the performance is bad" is "an objective value
judgement."
The proof is that it can be debated. If I say
> I don't like the intepretation, that is not debatable.
Well, the fact that you don't like it may not be debatable, but
whether it's a performance that should(n't) be liked certainly
is. So here we have an objective situation - you don't like it -
which is not debatable, and a non-objective situation - whether
anyone ought to like it - which is debatable. So I think you
need a different proof....
Simon
samir golescu
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Alain Dagher wrote:
> There are different degrees of infidelity.
This is a subject in which the French will always have something to teach
about.....
JTT
what? Anyway, I say LTMSFI is by definition not a flawed concept. The
concept that it is flawed is what is truly flawed. Sure, tastes vary, some
like Gould, some view him as Satan incarnate, but the notion of letting the
music flow naturally is one that has garnered a lot of fans over the years.
I like spice and inventiveness also. Another good 'concept'.
OK - back to the lurking....
James.
"samir golescu" <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.01051...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
>
> > > I agree with you, but the way one can say that has little to do with
> > > the way one can say a translation is faithful to the original or not.
> >
> > But surely poetry is music, and we have Virgil's metronome marks!
> >
> > If Virgil wrote his Aeneid in dactylic hexameter, why, do you think,
> > did Dryden use the iambic pentameter?
> >
> >[This is intended as a rhetorical question to Samir and a non-rhetorical
> > question to Alain.]
>
> If by this you mean that good Dr Dagher is supposed to answer and I am
> supposed to read, you've got a deal!
>
> regards,
> SG
>
Matthew Silverstein
> I am sorry, I cannot digest *that*. In Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator'
> there is an absolutely brilliant scene in which the great works of art of
> all times are seen "improved" (!) from "Tomanian" perspective. You can see
> the famous Venus improved with an arm in a certain position, the statue of
> the "Thinker" with left hand under the chin and right arm extended etc.
But of course the problem with these examples is that the works were not
really improved. Of course I would not recommend changes to the Sistine
ceiling, but only because I cannot imagine the ceiling somehow being made
better. If, however, I was convinced that it could be improved,
then--aesthetically, at least--I would be in favor of the change. There might
also be historical reasons to avoid the change.
> Ignore the political part -- the point is that a statue, a cathedral etc.,
> *un*like a piece of paper that contains a virtual musical work, *are*
> accomplished works of art, unimprovable!
Why is something that is an "accomplished work of art" therefore unimprovable?
Is Mozart's first piano concerto unimprovable? Is your idea that if it were
improved it would no longer be Mozart's first piano concerto? Perhaps you are
right, but that does not mean it cannot be improved *qua work of art*. It
means only that it cannot be improved *qua Mozart's first concerto*. Since,
however, I think Mozart's first concerto is pretty dull, I would not mind it
being "improved" into something better.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> It depends on what you mean by that. At times it seems as though
> you're saying that a work has a spirit which exists independent
> of any interpreter's (including, in the case of "finished" works
> like novels and paintings) understanding of it. After all,
> "elusive" implies that "it" is there and the problem is finding
> it (and, presumably, knowing when you've found it). If that's
> what you mean, then I don't think it exists. Rather,
> interpreters/readers/listeners figure out for themselves based on
> a variety of reasons and intuitions etc. what "the spirit" of the
> work is and, if they want, argue about whether theirs is more
> persuasive. This process isn't analogous to chasing elusive
> prey.
Well put.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> So if I say that a performance of the Marriage of Figaro is untrue to the
> Mozartean spirit, although you might conclude that I didn't like the piece,
I am
> making an objective value judgement. The proof is that it can be debated. If
I say
> I don't like the intepretation, that is not debatable.
It may be objective in form, but that does not count for much. I could say
that there is a gremlin in my radiator, a gremlin that disappears whenever you
go look for him. We could also argue about that, but we would be wasting our
time.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> If you were to move "not" to before "all" I might agree....
Consider it moved.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> Second, although the translation analogy is interesting, the essential
> difference is that a piece of music was meant to be interpreted,
>whereas a novel was not meant to be translated.
What? Says who? Novels written in English are not meant to be read by people
who do not speak English? I know many authors who write with the great hope
that their work will be translated!
> I'm not sure how much of your argument is theoretical in a sort of
> philosophical sense. I certainly cannot prove to you that a
> translation that clearly violates the spirit of the original (as those
> English translations of Prevert and Eluard clearly do) is wrong.
> I also can't prove that we shouldn't repaint the Sistine chapel,
> or that Ted Turner shouldn't colorize old movies. But I bet you
> agree with me that those things are wrong.
I don't know whether I think they are "wrong." I don't like colorized old
movies, and I suspect that I would not like a repainted Sistine chapel. But I
very much liked this (relatively) inaccurate translation of *Crime and
Punishment*.
Let me put the point this way. The view of translation that you and Samir are
propounding seems to me to be overly "romantic" and "idealized." Anyone who
has translated something from one language into another, radically different
language (English to, say, Mandarin) will know that the idea of being
perfectly faithful to the original is just as impossible as it is in music.
Samir claims that, in translation, the original novel is a finished unity.
But, as soon as you consider that work from the perspective of the language
into which it is to be translated, it is just as incomplete as a score is to a
musican ready to "translate" it into sound. If you want to translate a novel,
you *must* interpret it first, and your interpretation will color your
translation. And, along the way, you may decide that, in your translation, a
certain passage will work better with more vivid language, just as a conductor
may decide that a certain passage will work better with a horn replacing the
bassoon.
Whether the book was originally meant to be translated is irrelevant. There
may be music that was never meant to be performed (the Art of Fugue). The fact
of the matter, though, is that once you do decide to translate (or perform)
the piece in question, you must take considerations of the new medium into
account. Thus, I do not see any major difference between performance and
translation. If you "allow" a conductor to "improve" the orchestra of
Beethoven 5/i by replacing the bassoon with a horn in the transition to the
exposition's second theme, then I see no reason not to "allow" a translator to
"improve" a passage by utilizing some particularly vivid and effective
language.
The original work of literature--complete and autonomous though it may
be--*cannot* be brought unadulturated into a new medium, and a new language is
*certainly* a new medium. In other words, when considered from the perspective
of the new language, the original work is not complete and autonomous.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> But it is not the same! One goes in the concert hall to hear Beethoven's
> Fifth, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Daniel Barenboim, all of them, even if
> every spectator might have slightly different priorities. A reader buys a
> novel, using a translation *because* of the language bareer.
Not at all. I go to hear the Chicago Symphony Orchestra with Daniel Barenboim
because they are the only symphony in town playing, say, Beethoven 4 tonight!
If I drop by Blackwells Bookshop, I will find a dozen different translations
of *Crime and Punishment*. They are all in my language. That is, they are all
playing in my town. Thus, I can choose between them according to any number of
criteria. One such criterion might be fidelity to the original. Another might
be readability, beauty of prose, etc. Thus, if Barenboim is playing Beethoven
4 on one side of town and Masur is playing on the other side, I will choose
which performance to attend based on similar criteria. I do not see the
difference. When I choose one of ten different translations, I am choosing a
translator in much the same way that you choose a performer when you go to
hear Beethoven and Barenboim.
> Really? You found out, without knowing Russian, without having read the
> original and studied in parallel the existing English translations,
> comparing them between them and with the original, [you found out] that
> the translator "made it more great".
In the passage in question, yes. That is, a reliable scholar of Russian
informed me that the less vivid translation was the more accurate one. Thus,
in my mind, the less accurate translation was "greater" than the more
accuruate one: I enjoyed it more. Now, there may have been any number of other
passages where the translator strayed from the original with unfortunate
results. But suppose that there were not. He strayed just once, and in that
passage he "improved" on the original. Why is that so unfathomable? The vivid
version was: "Roskolnikov's burning eyes were reading to incinerate him." I
cannot recall the less vivid version, but it was notably . . . well . . .
less vivid.
> In what regards the activity of translating, it is unfeasible to create a
> (false IMO) contrast between accuracy and artisticity.
What if the book that is being translated is poorly written?
Matty
Roland van Gaalen
wrote in message news:9e888d$9u9$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> [...]
> But of course the problem with these examples is that the works were not
> really improved. Of course I would not recommend changes to the Sistine
> ceiling, but only because I cannot imagine the ceiling somehow being made
> better. If, however, I was convinced that it could be improved,
> then--aesthetically, at least--I would be in favor of the change. There
might
> also be historical reasons to avoid the change.
I suppose you mean that you cannot imagine how any permanent alteration of
Michelangelo's painting could ever be established in an objective, logically
compelling manner, and beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt, to
amount to an improvement in any conceivable or inconceivable sense and from
any conceivable or inconceivable point of view.
For all my practical purposes, however, the Sistine Chapel is unique, so I
dislike the analogy between changes to the decorations on its ceiling and
walls on the one hand, and a controversially broad or narrow interpretation
of a musical score or a literary text on the other, if only such
interpretations do no irreversible damage -- apart from wasting some time
and money, perhaps, or, admittedly at the very worst, ruining one's day, as
in the case of those HIP recordings.
Tony Movshon
Sophistry. If you follow this argument to its logical conclusion,
then you have to claim that a work of art has no conceptual standing
independent of the "mediator" (reader, translator, performer). If
that were so, how do you explain that many people have similar
responses to a work of art, despite different mediators? The
answer, of course, is that a work *must* have "a spirit which exists
independent of any interpreter's". If that were not so, all works of
art would be equivalent.
--
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
Frank Galvin
----------
In article <3B06B1C6...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca>, Alain Dagher
<al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Andy Evans wrote:
>
>> "I never saw Olivier on the stage but on film I find him a terrible
> actor. And
>> I find him bad precisely because he looks like he's acting."
[sorry, Alain, couldn't find A.E.'s original]
Andy:
Try _Fire over England_ [GB, 1937] not for the film as such, but
for Olivier and the rest of the terrific cast....
Best,
Frank
Alain Dagher
> "Alain Dagher" <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
> news:3B06B1A7...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca...
>
> > But do you agree that the "spirit of the work" exists, however
> elusive
> > it may be?
>
> It depends on what you mean by that. At times it seems as though
> you're saying that a work has a spirit which exists independent
> of any interpreter's (including, in the case of "finished" works
> like novels and paintings) understanding of it. After all,
> "elusive" implies that "it" is there and the problem is finding
> it (and, presumably, knowing when you've found it).
That's not what I meant. Maybe a word other than elusive would be
better.
The point is that, when one says an interpretation is true or untrue to
the "spirit of the work" one is not saying something meaningless. It's
not a meaningless concept.
I don't think I ever suggested that there was a single irrevocable
"meaning" to any piece of music. Quite on the contrary.
A perfectly accurate interpretation is no more possible than a perfect
translation.
>
> > PS: You are aware of the milestone I am about to reach - the
> one where
> > issues of pointlessness suddenly acquire a sharp and unpleasant
> focus
> > ...
>
> Having passed it myself three years ago, I have no sympathy
> whatever. Go buy a red sportscar....
I'm not turning 50!
Alain
Alain Dagher
> Alain wrote:
>
> > Second, although the translation analogy is interesting, the essential
> > difference is that a piece of music was meant to be interpreted,
> >whereas a novel was not meant to be translated.
>
> What? Says who? Novels written in English are not meant to be read by people
> who do not speak English? I know many authors who write with the great hope
> that their work will be translated!
I didn't say that novels written in English were meant not to be translated. A
piece of music can ONLY be interpreted. The composer writes with no other purpose
in mind.
Novelists write in one language and expect to be read in that language. They don't
choose their words with a view to the translation (usually - Beckett expected his
novels and plays to be translated by himself). They'd love to be translated I'm
sure, but the novel in its original language is the finished product.
> > I'm not sure how much of your argument is theoretical in a sort of
> > philosophical sense. I certainly cannot prove to you that a
> > translation that clearly violates the spirit of the original (as those
> > English translations of Prevert and Eluard clearly do) is wrong.
> > I also can't prove that we shouldn't repaint the Sistine chapel,
> > or that Ted Turner shouldn't colorize old movies. But I bet you
> > agree with me that those things are wrong.
>
> I don't know whether I think they are "wrong." I don't like colorized old
> movies, and I suspect that I would not like a repainted Sistine chapel.
What if 50.1% of people liked them? It's wrong to change works of art not because
the results tend to be worse, but because it means no one else will ever be seeing
the original. Similarly, if every English translation of Dostesvsky in your local
Blackwell's is completely untrue to his esthethics, than you and all the other
Oxonians will have been cheated out of something.
I understand that no translation is ever faithful.
This discussion has forced me to reread that great Kundera book, even though I
just got a big shipment from barnes and noble!
cheers,
Alain
Alain Dagher
> In the passage in question, yes. That is, a reliable scholar of Russian
> informed me that the less vivid translation was the more accurate one. Thus,
> in my mind, the less accurate translation was "greater" than the more
> accuruate one: I enjoyed it more. Now, there may have been any number of other
> passages where the translator strayed from the original with unfortunate
> results. But suppose that there were not. He strayed just once, and in that
> passage he "improved" on the original. Why is that so unfathomable? The vivid
> version was: "Roskolnikov's burning eyes were reading to incinerate him." I
> cannot recall the less vivid version, but it was notably . . . well . . .
> less vivid.
I'm sure the original was better. "Raskolnikov's burning eyes were reading to
incinerate him." is lousy.
Alain
Frank Galvin
In article <HpGN6.12602$v5.10...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com>, "JTT"
<jamest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No wonder you wanted me to lurk!! God does this go down twisted roads
> or what? Anyway, I say LTMSFI is by definition not a flawed concept
> [...].
> OK - back to the lurking....
> James.
You get back into that burrow right now and don't come out until
you've done some real penance...
Frank
[winkie-face implied, I think!]