tinkering Re: Schumann Symphonies
Gareth Morrell
In a previous article, rber...@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (Richard M. Berrong) says:
>May I offer a somewhat different view? The difference between paintings and
>music, as you mentioned in a subsequent post, is that to alter a painting
>requires changes on the original which would change it permanently, whereas
>if conductor X reorchestrates Schumann because he/she feels those symphonies
>need it, that reorchestration in no way alters the original version, which
>remains accessible.
>
>Since reorchestration does not damage the original, much less eliminate the
>possibility of returning to it, I am not altogether opposed to some tinkering
>with composer's orchestrations - as long as I can always go back and hear the
>original for comparison. Though I know it is unfashionable to say so, I
>prefer Rimsky-Korsakov's orchestration of "Boris Godunov" to Mussorgsky's
>original (yes, I know, heresy; you may now put your crucifixes down). Perhaps
>it is because writing an orchestral work involves more skills than painting
>a painting, and therefore more possibilities that a given artist, while he
>may have some of the necessary skills, might not have possessed them all. At
>any rate, I have no problem with others trying to improve upon certain
>aspects of dead composers' music, especially in cases where the original
>composer did not live long enough, or have the opportunity, to consider a
>given work in frequent performance, a consideration that might have led him
>to make changes himself.
>
>Richard Berrong
>
>
I can't say I go along with you all the way on this, but it's nice to see a
cogently argued reply that actually accords respect to an opposing view.
I don't think I would try to make improvements to Mozart's juvenilia, even
though he wouldn't have thought much of some of his early works. I think
the point of performing those pieces is to get a view of where Mozart was
at that point in his career, not where he was twenty years later. I think
a lot of people feel that we no longer need to apologise for Mussorgsky's
orchestrations either. I'm one of them, but I certainly don't deny that
Rimsky's re-writing of Boris (it goes much deeper than merely
re-orchestration) is a wondrous thing, but when I want to listen to Rimsky
I put on Scheherezade or Le Coq d'Or.
However the one part of this argument I can't compromise on is the notion
that Schumann's symphonies are badly orchestrated and need help. Dohnanyi
does the original Schumann and I can't say that it sounds weaker than the
old Szell re-orchestrations.
I'm out of this one - someone else must have the last word.
--
Gareth Morrell do...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
Gareth Morrell
In a previous article, ja...@max.cc.brandeis.edu () says:
>In article <2bcl8r$p...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> do...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gareth Morrell) writes:
>
>>Ask a few composers of your acquaintance whether they would welcome
>>conductors re-orchestrating their pieces a couple of hundred years from now.
>Oh no. Not again. Not again that "do you think the composer would like it".
>Who gives a shit. When I play or listen to music it's really the last thing
>I'm worried about.
I would love to get a few composers involved on this one - I have a feeling
composers deserve a more encouraging attitude. Thanks for your subtle and
enlightening argument!
>But I'd guess Gareth Morrell who's so quick to assume his profound arguments
>are not "comprehended" by mere mortals will have to work hard on this one.
No, what I was saying was certainly far from profound; that's why it
was so perplexing to be so completely misunderstood!
--
Gareth Morrell do...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
Mark Orton
>Renoir painting is a work of art. We exhibit paintings the way the artist
>painted them. We may not like the colors but we don't try to change them.
>In my opinion we should accord a composer the same respect that we give to
>a visual artist. Schumann's symphonies sound fine the way he wrote them.
>Some people may wish he had written them differently, but it seems arrogant
>of us to assume that we can improve on them.
>
>Of course painting is not exactly the same as music, but if you can't see
>the validity of the analogy I think the problem is not mine.
>
>Ask a few composers of your acquaintance whether they would welcome
>conductors re-orchestrating their pieces a couple of hundred years from now.
>Gareth Morrell do...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
The analogy is not valid. There is a fundamental difference between the
performing arts (e.g. music) and fine arts (e.g. painting).
A painting essentially goes through two stages of interpretation:
(1) The painter's interpretation of the subject
(3) The viewer's interpretation of the painting
(I've intentionally mis-numbered them. See below.)
A musical composition goes through three stages:
(1) The composer's interpretation of the subject
(2) The musician's interpretation of the composition
(3) The listener's interpretation of the performance
The analogy could be said to apply to stages 1 and 3. However,
stage 2 is missing in the case of fine arts. This is where the
analogy breaks down.
--
Mark C. Orton ma...@pulse.com
employed by, (but not speaking for) (703) 471-2900 x2466
Pulse Communications, Inc.
Gareth Morrell
In a previous article, ma...@software.pulse.com (Mark Orton) says:
>The analogy is not valid. There is a fundamental difference between the
>performing arts (e.g. music) and fine arts (e.g. painting).
>
>A painting essentially goes through two stages of interpretation:
> (1) The painter's interpretation of the subject
> (3) The viewer's interpretation of the painting
>
>(I've intentionally mis-numbered them. See below.)
>
>A musical composition goes through three stages:
> (1) The composer's interpretation of the subject
> (2) The musician's interpretation of the composition
> (3) The listener's interpretation of the performance
>
>The analogy could be said to apply to stages 1 and 3. However,
>stage 2 is missing in the case of fine arts. This is where the
>analogy breaks down.
Let's imagine that a group of art lovers go to a museum to look at a
well-known painting, perhaps a surrealist painting. They look at it, but
they don't understand it fully. The following week they retur, and instead
of looking they listen to a lecturer who interprets the painting for them.
These two situations would be analagous to listeners looking at the printed
score versus going to a live performance. The biggest difference between
viewing art and listening to music is that most people are better trained
to read visual images than to read musical scores. That doesn't mean that
there's no connection between the two processes. If you are skilled at
reading music you can hear a musical score in your head as you read it, but
someone else's interpretation might still be more enlightening.
Before closing this argument everyone please consider these points
1) I am fully aware that the analogy presented above does not work 100%,
but it does work up to a point.
2) Very few analogies are perfect, but, if one is prepared to be
imaginitive rather than pedantic, analogy is a useful tool for shedding
light on difficult arguments.
3) I didn't ignore the interpretation question out of stupidity (the
assumption of most of the flaming replies), I just excluded it because it
wasn't relevant to my argument.
4) I agree with Dick Berrong that it's fine to listen to a complete
re-working of something like Rimsky's version of "Boris Godunov" if it's
clearly labeled as such. However I suspect that most people who go to see
this version think they're going to hear real Mussorgsky. I think my big
problem with changing the Schumann symphonies is that people a) tinker with
them without the public being fully aware of it; & b) they ONLY tinker, and
the re-orchestrations are not really evident to the average listener, so
why bother? c) I still maintain that what Schumann wrote works fine.
--
Gareth Morrell do...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
Roger Lustig
>In a previous article, ma...@software.pulse.com (Mark Orton) says:
>>The analogy is not valid. There is a fundamental difference between the
>>performing arts (e.g. music) and fine arts (e.g. painting).
>>A painting essentially goes through two stages of interpretation:
>> (1) The painter's interpretation of the subject
>> (3) The viewer's interpretation of the painting
>>(I've intentionally mis-numbered them. See below.)
>>A musical composition goes through three stages:
>> (1) The composer's interpretation of the subject
>> (2) The musician's interpretation of the composition
>> (3) The listener's interpretation of the performance
>>The analogy could be said to apply to stages 1 and 3. However,
>>stage 2 is missing in the case of fine arts. This is where the
>>analogy breaks down.
>Let's imagine that a group of art lovers go to a museum to look at a
>well-known painting, perhaps a surrealist painting. They look at it, but
>they don't understand it fully. The following week they retur, and instead
>of looking they listen to a lecturer who interprets the painting for them.
>These two situations would be analagous to listeners looking at the printed
>score versus going to a live performance.
No. They would be analogous to attending two concerts, the first preceded
by a lecture.
reading the score and listning to the piece are two entirely different
activities (though they may be pursued at the same time). If nothing
else, the element of time and the tension between the listener' experience
and expectations on the one hand, and the performer's choices on the
other, will only be present in the performance.
>The biggest difference between
>viewing art and listening to music is that most people are better trained
>to read visual images than to read musical scores.
Huh? Now you've *equated* score-reading with listening. Time to make
up your mind.
>That doesn't mean that
>there's no connection between the two processes. If you are skilled at
>reading music you can hear a musical score in your head as you read it, but
But you can't hear a *performance* of it--except, conceivably, your own.
>someone else's interpretation might still be more enlightening.
And an entirely different process. Adding another human agent into the
process changes things drastically.
>Before closing this argument everyone please consider these points
>1) I am fully aware that the analogy presented above does not work 100%,
>but it does work up to a point.
It doesn't work at all. You've killed the performer.
>2) Very few analogies are perfect, but, if one is prepared to be
>imaginitive rather than pedantic, analogy is a useful tool for shedding
>light on difficult arguments.
It can also obscure them. Your analogies to non-performing arts confuse
without revealing anything.
>3) I didn't ignore the interpretation question out of stupidity (the
>assumption of most of the flaming replies), I just excluded it because it
>wasn't relevant to my argument.
I see. You complained about certain classes of interpretation, but
issues of interpretation weren't relevant to your argument--even
the nature* of interpretation was irrelevant.
Reet.
(Not that you didn't try to bring interpretation back in via your
second analogy--the art lecture--which is even more hopeless.)
>4) I agree with Dick Berrong that it's fine to listen to a complete
>re-working of something like Rimsky's version of "Boris Godunov" if it's
>clearly labeled as such. However I suspect that most people who go to see
>this version think they're going to hear real Mussorgsky. I think my big
Do most people care? Most people go to hear and see a good show.
>problem with changing the Schumann symphonies is that people a) tinker with
>them without the public being fully aware of it;
experience shows that the public doesn't care all that much unless a
sacred cow is being gored.
>& b) they ONLY tinker, and
>the re-orchestrations are not really evident to the average listener, so
>why bother?
Again, the history of reorchestration and arrangement is a large
part of the history of music education and dissemination, notably of
old music. You're simply wrong here.
>c) I still maintain that what Schumann wrote works fine.
And I'd like to know when and where you heard a Schumann symphony
performed with a Schumann-type orchestra and no retouching of
the orchestration.
And when you're done, tell us whether we should paint the
Venus de Milo.
Roger
Christopher Colby
Gareth Morrell <do...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ac...@cs.cmu.edu (Christopher Colby) says:
>
>>>Do art museums exhibit "improved versions of Old Masters. Would Monet have
>>>thought it a good idea to take a canvas of Renoir's and change the colors
>>>slightly? I think not.
>>
>>Sure. And, as we all well know, painting and music are exactly the same.
>
>Let me try this again in English - A Schumann symphony is a work of art. A
>Renoir painting is a work of art. We exhibit paintings the way the artist
>painted them. We may not like the colors but we don't try to change them.
>In my opinion we should accord a composer the same respect that we give to
>a visual artist. Schumann's symphonies sound fine the way he wrote them.
>Some people may wish he had written them differently, but it seems arrogant
>of us to assume that we can improve on them.
>
>Of course painting is not exactly the same as music, but if you can't see
>the validity of the analogy I think the problem is not mine.
Let me try this once in English -- A pastrami sandwich is an object. A
Renoir painting is an object. We exhibit paintings the way the artist
painted them. We may not like the colors but we don't try to change them.
In my opinion we should accord the deli guy the same respect that we give
to a visual artist. His pastrami sandwich tastes fine the way he made it.
Some people may wish he had put mustard on it, but it seems arrogant of us
to assume that we can improve on it.
Of course painting is not exactly the same as pastrami sandwiches, and if
you can't see the invalidity of the analogy I think the problem is not mine.
:-) :-) :-)
-chris