Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Some thoughts on performing a (someone's) piece...

Ladies and gents:

It is way late, and I'm not going to go overboard, but the discussions of
the last few digests on arranging, re-interpreting, and otherwise being
hyper-creative with a pre-existing composition are quite swell. Briefly
(I'm not even going to pull quotes), some thoughts...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can't remember the last time anyone on the list discussed a mechanically
generated piece, i.e. through algorhythmic methods, chance, whatever. What
is now the subject of discussion are musical pieces that all share a common
genesis: produced (created) by human beings. What I find astonishing is
that people will apply the same assumptions/standards/biases toward both 1.
all compositions and 2. all composers -- as if they were all identical
scenarios!

And they are not, of course.

Not every composer creates the same kind of music, and it should be
patently obvious that some composers may take as great a care, and maybe
more care, with their timbral canvas as their pitch palette (i.e.
orchestration vs. melody/harmony). Sometimes, for crying out loud, it isn't
just about notes. In those cases, mucking about with the delivery method
for the notes may be just as much of a bastardization as if you go in and,
wholesale, change harmonies, melodies, etc. Quite kindly of the
experimenter, no?

There are so many threads that I find odd in the recent discourses, but
mainly from one particular angle: a willful disrespect for a composer's own
desires. How many times must we hear "if he/she had only known/had the
resources we have at our disposal today"? Well, we do, but he/she didn't!
How presumptuous of the 'arranger', then, to willy-nilly change much of the
intrinsic fabric of a piece.

To reiterate: there are large areas of the musical landscape that are ripe
for plucking (and retuning, and rearranging, etc.), but I have yet to see
even one of the proponents actively acknowledge the existence of
musics/performance works that stand *on their own*, without 'improvement'.
Oh, so much of the recent musings can only be termed "idle speculation" -
with the flimsiest historical jottings, parties run off and alter as they
see fit. What is most either galling or hilarious is the "doing it in
service of the composer" line. Please.

One case in particular: the various postings from Johnny Reinhard have been
tantalizing, but I for one will wait until JR collates all of it into one,
well-documented, written, and conceived argument for the non-12tet nature
of his Ives explorations. I don't *discount* it at this point, but the
documentary evidence is woefully vague and insubstantial. But beyond this
is *my* particular nagging question: here is a composer who so much
stretched himself (and music) in terms of meter, orchestration, and sheer
conceptualization of music -- if he were truly to be both enamored of, and
committed to, alternate tunings in his music, how is it that the subject is
only approached obliquely, minutely, with inference? I don't disbelieve,
but I sure ain't convinced.

And the biggest question of all (for me): just how much of this is actually
"in service to the composer", and how much of it is egotistical
coat-tailing? Really now, it is a hell of a lot easier to draw muso-strokes
by saying "J. S. Bach, arranged by Josephine Blow" than it is to come up
with a composition on your own. I once had an exchange with the leader of a
famous string quartet that had appropriated music of a composer I feel
strongly about (clear enough?), and this fellow said that there was music
that "he couldn't imagine not being involved in". Well, tough shit. Some
composers, if they had *wanted* to write for a string quartet, would have
written for a string quartet; *not* writing for a string quartet might even
indicate something *more* than simply an omission. Yet the hubris in this
person's statement rarely goes challenged, all in spite of the world of
music that has been specifically commissioned and written for them. This, I
propose, is disrespect for a composer's stated and explicit wishes. There
are times, fellow tunologists, when you can't escape that fact.

To say that all music is fair game for your aural playground is not
correct. To state that all composers would welcome your contributions to
their compositional experiments is disingenuous and rude. As a very young
man, I once heard Saint-Saens "The Swan" (from Carnival of the Animals)
being played on marimba; it struck me as ludicrous and ugly -- before I had
ever heard it on cello. I often think of the person that was playing the
piece, and wonder just what the hell they were thinking; I can think of a
number of answers, and they all fall flat. Personally, I've written both
kinds of music: pieces that are malleable and could exist in a number of
arrangements, and pieces that are meant for one delivery only - surely that
can't be too difficult to conceive!

So: tweak your tuning tables, change your temperments, alter your
instrumentations (and vocalizations), substitute lyrics, change languages,
do whatever you want. Just be honest about it: if the composer came up to
you and asked you to please not do that to their work, would you tell them
to piss off or respect their wishes?

Discuss.

Kisses and hugs,
Jon
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Jonathan M. Szanto : Corporeal Meadows - Harry Partch, online.
jszanto@adnc.com : http://www.corporeal.com/
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`

Some thoughts on performing a (someone's) piece...

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <jszanto@xxxx.xxxx>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>