Must Music Necessarily Be Performed to Be Enjoyed?

Interesting topic, do you think it can be said that the silent reading of a score (I also mean a complex one) is equal to the silent reading of a novel? If so, one could even say that music does not have to be performed to be enjoyed and therefore exists and is enjoyable even without performance.

If a person were able to "feel it" internally, yes, but to what extent?

One would need to have a very fine ear and the ability not to mistakenly think of one pitch (semitone, quarter tone, etc..) instead of another.

...shall we talk about traditional instruments? I ask because for some pieces the score might move through metaphors ...

With this premise, I also find the subject interesting...let's see which direction the topic takes

Piccinesco wrote:

If a person were able to "feel it" internally, yes, but to what extent?

One would need to have a very fine ear and the ability not to mistakenly think of one pitch (semitone, quarter tone, etc..) instead of another.

Do you mean that only a musician could enjoy it? Natan's "must" seems quite imperative to me; it exists... it must exist because it was conceived by the composer's mind.

Anyway, I am of the opinion that music is beautiful to "see" but also to hear (I mean from instruments); it would be like comparing imagining making love and actually doing it... there is no comparison...

Clearly, rather than nothing... better than nothing

I wouldn't know where to go to find it again, but it seems to me that Adorno "preached" silent musical reading. Perhaps Schoenberg too, but those should be exceptions. Music has always been considered a performing art, meaning it is intimately linked to performance. It certainly does not "reduce" to performance, but its main channel should be that.

... when I say it does not reduce to performance, I mean that there are musics that also give value to other aesthetic spheres: contemporary graphic scores (like Bussotti) are works of art in themselves, even if they are not played; in the same way, all medieval scores, even when they were curated by the composers themselves, often had no real link to performance: Guillaume de Machaut's "Remede de Fortune" is a novel that incorporates musical pieces within itself, written in the same book, both monodic and polyphonic pieces, and it is difficult to think of the "right" way to read-perform it; speaking again of conceptual music, conceptual music does not always have a necessary link to performance: in theory, I could develop a composition that says "imagine an infinite organ cluster that lasts 20 hours"... it is the same concept behind Erik Satie's "Véxations", which TODAY is performed, but which at the time of its conception was nothing more than conceptual art; let us not forget, then, that music is not just listened to, but performed, and when we perform music we have a "listening point" (like a point of view) that is quite different; this, however, does not make us enjoy it any less, just differently

Sorry, I am a "taliban" in these cases but Music does not exist except when it is being played. The score is not the Music.

Hadn't Hegel already treated the subject?

thallo wrote:

Music has always been considered a performing art, meaning it is intimately linked to execution.

I think music is performative because, in coming into contact with it, our perception can re-execute it every time. Does this not happen to you?

The score is only a graphic representation of what the composer perceived ... also accessory for various musical contexts. How can we incorporate into the discussion the fact that before the first performance, the music had already been "pre-felt," so we might say it has already had an "interior" performance?

It exists because it was felt and gathered ... otherwise it would not exist.

Carlos wrote:

Music does not exist except when it is being played.

You have created a masterpiece, finally Carlos we are in agreement.

Frank wrote:

The score is only a graphic representation of what the composer perceived ... also accessory for various musical contexts. How does the fact that, before the first performance, the music has already been "pre-felt" fit into the discussion, whereby we say it has already had an "interior" performance?

It exists because it was felt and gathered ... otherwise it would not exist.

No Frank: the score is a graphic representation of what the composer imagined should be heard. These are two very different things. The proof is that the same composer—and we know thousands of examples—after the first or initial performances, corrects the score because what they wrote does not correspond to what they had imagined or, simply, does not work. And if the composer themselves is not certain that they have written what should be heard, imagine someone else (anyone else) reading that score; what certainties can they have...

Then, of course, even I while walking down the street absorbed in my thoughts might invent a little melody that goes around in my head: does that little melody "exist"? Yes, agreed, but I don't think that was the core of the topic

Carlos wrote:

No Frank: the score is a graphic representation of what the composer imagined should be heard.

Evidently I explained myself poorly, I was writing

"for some pieces the score might move through metaphors", and it shamelessly alluded to the fact that it was only a trace. If only that were what the composer imagined.

What they truly imagined (or desired, which is better... let me correct myself) is the first COMPLETE performance from beginning to end under their supervision and with their approval, which is presumably what they developed (not thought, let me correct myself again and I'll get there) before leaving a trace of it.

Keep in mind that in some genres, secondary orality was even experienced... so...

Carlos wrote:

They are two very different things. The proof is that the same composer—and we know thousands of examples—after the first or initial performances, corrects the score because what they wrote does not correspond to what they had imagined or, simply, does not work. And if the composer themselves is not certain that they have written what should be heard, imagine someone else (anyone else) reading that score; what certainty can they have...

D'oh, Mozart!

All things excepted, you are right. In the sense that the final version of a piece can be defined through field tests; if the first draft is varied, it means that the performance just passed is no longer that work... only after someone has validated the result can there be correspondence between idea, (score), and result.

For example, in Jazz, the process is one and the same, and between thought and realization, fractions of a second pass—the time of a thought.

Anyway, to myself, I was also thinking about electronic music... let's not continue to "pretend" that music is made of only 2/3 of its possibilities, because it is no longer like that today... and hasn't been for a while.

Who knows what Hegel would say if he were among us... right now.

this discussion makes sense, in my opinion, only if we are talking about the exceptions. Because it is more or less obvious that most music created by man has a priority relationship with performance. Questioning the exceptions, however, besides letting us discover new parts of the repertoire, could help us understand how music is not "monosensory"

The issues raised by those who intervened are very interesting

thallo wrote:

this argument makes sense, in my opinion, only if we are talking about exceptions.

Questioning the exceptions, however, besides allowing us to discover new parts of the repertoire, could help us understand how music is not "monosensory"

Exceptions in what sense? Excuse the pun that fits perfectly...

Dino wrote:

Had Hegel not treated the subject?

...and what was he asserting, rest his soul?

Rotore wrote:

do you think it's possible to say that the silent reading of a score (even a complex one) is the same as the silent reading of a novel?

I don't know, when you read you concentrate on the semantics... I think. And words leave a lot of room for fantasy, perhaps more than music. And I don't know why I'm making this reasoning.

In short, the classic example is book versus film; usually the director's idea (when they make a film inspired by a book) never coincides with the one you formed yourself while reading, and it ends up that you prefer the book to the film. You'll see that it's the same thing with music, otherwise how would you judge an interpretation? When you say "I like it," it's because the other person's result coincides with what you had envisioned... when you say "boring" (since it's in vogue), then it's because there is a difference between what you imagined and what they made you feel.

Will it be about silent listening?

Piccinesco wrote:

If a person were able to "feel it" internally, yes, but to what extent?

One would need to have a very fine ear and the ability not to mistakenly think of one pitch (semitone, quarter tone, etc..) instead of another.

But what if they succeeded? Clearly we are talking about hypothetical cases and not the norm, otherwise the answer would be obvious

Thallo, responding to Piccinesco, I think I answered myself

Natan wrote:

I don't know, when you read you concentrate on the semantics ... I think. And words leave a lot of room for fantasy, perhaps more than music.

Hmm... are we sure? musical language is a-semantic. I read "white house with red roof and green windows" and I imagine a white house with a red roof and green windows. Of course, I imagine it differently from the one you imagine, that's obvious, but let's say, you and I, face to face with the score of Debussy's Images for orchestra... shall we talk about it? Far from "fantasy"!

... so do you think it would be different to foresee an image compared to pre-feeling a mixture.

In my opinion, there are strong analogies in the sense that "the white house with the red roof and green windows" could be equivalent to a certain chord played by violin and piano.

Continuing with the description, so by giving the proportions for the house and the type of chord, the images (in a broad sense) can be better defined; by giving the dimensions for the house and the pitch of the chord, we begin to imagine the same thing ... etc. etc.

Of course, the details will always be different ... but the general idea ...