Must Music Necessarily Be Performed to Be Enjoyed?

Music was born played and sung before being written. Therefore, Music is something that is played and sung and that (eventually) is written. Not the contrary.

Don't you think, however, that a project finds its foundation in writing, and the more complex it is, the more it is born from paper? 30 minutes of decent music can be written and then played; meditative music from the Far East, made of repeated sounds, does not require... but I doubt Liszt improvised the B-flat sonata; paper raises the bar

Eagle wrote:

Don't you find, however, that a project finds its foundation in writing, and the more complex it is, the more it is born thanks to paper? 30' of decent music can be written and then played; meditative music from the Far East, made of repeated sounds, does not require... but I doubt Liszt improvised the B-flat sonata; paper raises the bar.

I am not arguing about this: we wouldn't even be able to play Tannhäuser if it hadn't been written, but if we didn't play it, Tannhäuser would not exist. The question was "Must Music necessarily be performed to be enjoyed?" and for me the answer is yes.

Natan wrote:

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

I am only replying now, I hadn't seen the response.

I was thinking of Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time; if I remember correctly, he wrote it during his years of imprisonment, and I don't think he could have rehearsed on an instrument, so if I'm not talking nonsense (linking back to what I wrote a moment ago), it is possible, and in that case, we are talking about quite complex compositions, therefore with greater difficulties especially in imagining the ensemble of instruments.

Just now I read on a website (but will it be reliable?) that Messiaen was in a camp with 3 other musicians, and they were able to rehearse

many times, is it true?

I am only responding now, I hadn't seen the reply.

I was thinking about Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time; if I remember correctly, he wrote it during his years of imprisonment, and I don't think he could rehearse on an instrument, so if I'm not talking nonsense (linking back to what I wrote a moment ago), it is possible, and in that case, we are talking about quite complex compositions, therefore with greater difficulties especially in imagining the ensemble of instruments.

I just read on a website (but will it be reliable?) that Messiaen was in a camp with 3 other musicians, and they were able to rehearse

many times, is it true?

http://www.therestisnoise.com/2004/04/quartet_for_the_2.html

"The map is not the territory"

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

"The map is not the territory"

Effective ScaleForty

Boethius said that if we were truly able to hear everything with the imagination ... we would have no need for sound.

Thanks to today's intervention by Kappa, this old but interesting discussion caught my eye, to which I would like to bring my meager and belated contribution.

Given such a long time has passed since you discussed it, instead of putting 'likes', I think it is better to quote those statements of yours that struck me and in which I find myself totally. In reverse chronological order, they are:

«The map is not the territory» (ScalaQuaranta)

«Music was born played and sung before being written. Ergo, Music is something that is played and sung and that (eventually) is written. Not the contrary». (Carlos)

«music does not exist except when it is played. The score is not the Music». (Carlos)

The latter one which I have quoted, moreover, "burns" me (happily) with a question I would have liked to ask Carlos.

I admit that what I am writing now is not very musical, but what Carlos asserts by saying that music is played and sung and that only subsequently (eventually) it is written, could also be said regarding that 'musical word' which is poetry.

To be enjoyed...

For example, looking at myself... how much emotion, every time, in reading aloud!

«S'ei posson dentro da quelle faville

parlar", diss'io, "maestro, assai ten priego

e ripriego, che 'l priego vaglia mille,

che non mi facci de l'attender niego

fin che la fiamma cornuta qua vegna;

vedi che del disio ver' lei mi piego!» (If XXVI 64-69)

(when no one hears me)

An emotion (or a thrill or enjoyment) that is simply not there in observing these beautiful words made of beautiful letters printed on paper... An emotion that is only partially present (truly minimally) when reading them mentally. Therefore, I also say yes: it must be performed.

I disagree about poetry. Reading, declaiming, eliminates some "conceptual" or graphic subtleties. There are many "graphic" rhetorical figures, figures of syntax, that cannot be enjoyed except through silent reading, the kind that does not follow a clear timeline but allows you to go back or stop for an indefinite amount of time on every word.

The same thing, perhaps, can be said of music. There are many compositions for which I have "elaborated" a perfect interpretation in my memory. That interpretation does not correspond to any of the interpretations I might listen to, but if I concentrate enough, I am able to remember it, to materialize it in my mind.

The execution, the "performance," has its limits

I fear the snake is biting its own tail.

Following Thallo's reasoning, to the question "Must Music Necessarily Be Performed to Be Enjoyed?" we can answer "no". Music can be enjoyed even just by imagining it while reading the score, or remembering it while walking (or thinking it while composing it).

A sophist might, however, ask: in a certain sense, are these not also "performances"?

Mental performances, certainly! And what is put on paper would therefore be a "transcription" of these "performances"?

following Hegel and phenomenology, every perception is a re-execution of a stimulus. And certainly our ear, or our state of mind, or our background culture greatly influence the enjoyment of a musical performance. That is to say, for music to be enjoyed it must be performed, but above all it must be "followed". Without someone enjoying the performance, the performance itself serves no purpose. With this I mean that the role of the listener is very strong, so much so as to make us hypothesize borderline cases such as the silent reading of the same score, or the automatic adjustment of problems in the performance (the violin was out of tune but I was so happy that I didn't care), or even the joy in a wrong performance (like those who sing a song badly but have fun anyway). I repeat, these are borderline cases, but in my opinion they help us understand how art is nonetheless a relational object, whose beauty lies not in the object or the performance but in the RELATION between this object and the one who enjoys it

Fortunately there is Red, so what Hegel says in this regard has come out

thallo wrote:

Execution, the "performance", has limits

And thank goodness: limits are what make execution beautiful.

Only fantasy has none

LucaCavaliere wrote:

And thank goodness: limitations are the beauty of performance.

Only fantasy lacks them.

whether they are the beauty of performance, I don't know. One of the many dilemmas inherent to the ontology of performing arts works (dance, theater, music etc.) is precisely this: can a bad performance change the work to such an extent that it makes it something different from itself?

Speaking of fantasy, or memory, I also want to change perspective. In my experience, as I was saying, there are ideal interpretations that exist only in my mind. Even more so, there are "performance liberties" that exist only in my mind. To cite one, at the end of the first act of Verdi's "Macbeth," when Macduff and Banquo discover King Duncan's corpse, immediately after Banquo's words "King Duncan is murdered!", there is a timpani solo, lasting one second, which introduces the great tutti with the chorus "Schiudi inferno la bocca ed inghiotti". Well, in my ideal interpretation, that solo does not last one second but lasts at least one bar and is a crescendo :-) every time I listen to the piece I get so angry because I wish the CD could read my mind. This little story convinces me in saying that listening to music causes enjoyment, but remembering, reworking with memory, absorbing the music are all actions that cause enjoyment in the same way

thallo wrote:

Here, in my ideal interpretation, that solo does not last a second but lasts at least one measure and is a crescendo :-)

I strongly agree (not just on this small excerpt I am quoting)... So many, so many, too many points for reflection (before dinner )

I also have my own little internal licenses similar to yours regarding "Macbeth". It seems funny to me how (for me) they are all valuable "crowns" (like yours) and not even one is tight or cut... but I could be wrong

I believe very much in the principle of saturation. It is a concept I explored deeply when I was studying minimalism for my graduation thesis. One of the ways I read it being stated was simply "do it as long as you feel like it". Some repetitions in minimalism, like some repetitions in dance or pop music, respond to this principle. That is to say, there are things that are nice to listen to once and there are things that are nice to listen to a hundred thousand times.

The same principle can be found at the base of long durations. There are chords that are nice to hear for a long time, simple notes or overlaps of notes that create around them a space, an atmosphere (not by chance), a color that makes us feel good "beyond" the passage of time. Which, among other things, creates a lot of "memory"

do the limits that an interpretation has constitute its beauty?... yes.

A great musical work is like a complex object, or a landscape, a complex terrain. Who can ever grasp it all in its totality? With a single glance, a single gesture....

I like to think of an interesting interpretation, whether it be "original" or "orthodox" (with all the nuances from one extreme to the other) as a 'point of view', a viewing angle on this landscape. Every viewing angle - chosen by someone with an "eye" - has its reason for being. Every angle captures things, aspects, that are lost from other points.

it is thus in music: of a composition I can have different 'directions', each performer highlights what they want and shadows other things... those who love detail, those who love the long shot... those who illuminate the landscape with an "unreal" light...

but then, would an interpretation that could declare e v e r y t h i n g of a work (like a TAC), also be beautiful?... I don't think so.

thallo wrote:

To quote one, at the end of the first act of Verdi's "Macbeth", when Macduff and Banquo discover the corpse of King Duncan, immediately after Banquo's words "King Duncan is murdered!", there is a timpani solo, lasting one second, which introduces the great tutti with the chorus "Schiudi inferno la bocca ed inghiotti". Well, in my ideal interpretation, that solo does not last one second but lasts at least one bar and is a crescendo :-) every time I listen to the piece I get so angry because I wish the CD could read my mind.

But what CD do you have? The timpani roll lasts 3/4 (not one second: it is an Adagio and therefore lasts at least three or four) and it is indeed a crescendo (Verdi writes ff on the timpani and fff on the attack of "Schiudi inferno", so the crescendo is completely appropriate). Either you remember incorrectly or your CD is skipping bits...

but that is the beauty of the work, not of the interpretation :-)