AW.: Re: Re: 36-tone Debussy

In einer Nachricht vom 12/7/99 6:28:25 PM (MEZ) Mitteleurop�ische
Zeitschreibt kraiggrady@anaphoria.com:

<< How about this. As a composer I don't want other people tinkering or
experimenting with my works, I can't imagine a composer who would.
>>

I'm with you, Kraig. It's bad enough that laws have declared that after x
years, a musical work belongs to the "public domain", although said public
may never have given a damn in support of the composer's work. (If I were a
painter or sculpture, at least there is a solid object which I can sell to
whomever or keep (and hand down to my children) as I pleased.) Even worse
is the attitude by players or listeners that they are doing the composer such
a great service by listening to her work that they should not have to be
compensated for the work of producing the work. Worst of all is when players
decide that, in return for granting the composer the service of playing the
music, it is played only with extensive recomposition: new tunings, timbres,
etc..

I do believe there is a place for visionary transcription or recomposition:
Stravinsky's Pergolesi, Partch's Yaquis or von Schweinitz's Mozart are all
visionary. Mahler's reorchestrations of Schumann are better than the
originals, and I will never cease to be amazed by Glenn Gould's Bach (piano
and all). But this has got to be done with honesty about the nature of the
re-composition, convincing rationale for the critique implied by the project,
and enough touch of inspiration or virtuosity that discussion is unnecessary.

Daniel Wolf

At 01:24 PM 12/7/99 EST, you wrote:
>From: DWolf77309@cs.com
>
>In einer Nachricht vom 12/7/99 6:28:25 PM (MEZ) Mitteleurop�ische
>Zeitschreibt kraiggrady@anaphoria.com:

I will never cease to be amazed by Glenn Gould's Bach (piano
>and all).

You're right. I can almost hear Bach's notes over the incessant
humming/moaning.