Hubris, Inc.

I respond mainly because points were brought up directly regarding my last
posting on the subject of 'interpretation'. As a short preface, I hope that
everyone on the list can grasp the *extremely* wide variety of performing
scenarios involved in the word "music"! What is appropriate to jazz may not
be to classical, Sousa marches vs. Javanese gamelan. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING
(though I have to say it) that I *expect* a rendition of Mingus' "Goodbye,
Pork Pie Hat" to include improvisation and arrangement; I *don't* expect
extended solos in a middle-period Beethoven quartet. I am tending, as
should be obvious, to be directing my comments to composed (probably
Western classical) works, as opposed to melody-and-chord chart lead sheets.

Yeesh.

Back to the tarmac. To whit:

[JdL, TD 431.8:]

>Is your finger pointed at me, Jon?

Dear John, I'm not pointing fingers but discussing broad issues that people
support or reject (or ignore or are bored with). You certainly don't see
things the way I do.

>but I think I've also been careful to make the point that it's impossible
>to know what the original composer would think

And I would choose to make *any* performance assumptions based on their own
body of work, the period in which the music was composed, similar
performance practices, and the like. If the effort is made for the purpose
of examining the composer's thrust of the piece, in a sincere and
intelligent (and heartfelt) way, there can be great value. If pieces are
operated on for ear candy, for raw material in service of some historically
unsupportable hypothesis, I find that not of value and disrespectful. It
may be impossible to know, but there are *lots* of evidential parameters
that can be examined - if one cares to.

>Presumptuous? I will accept 'audacious', but your choice of words
>illustrates the stark difference in our feelings about messing with
>existing works

You state that it is impossible to know a composer's intent, and therefore
you substitute your own alterations. You are presuming to know what is
right, better, or preferable in this case. I find that ... not good.

> >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'.
>
>Does it have to be one or the other? I don't think it does.

There have even been composers _here_on_the_list_ that have stated similar
views as mine with regard to their own music. Are you actually proposing
that they have no right to ask for people to respect their aesthetic and
compositional choices and decisions? That you refuse to allow for a musical
creation that has already been thought about to the point of not applying a
third-party's "improvements"?

> >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.
>
>Is it? I'm not sure that's true. And if it is, so what? Does that
>make one valid, one invalid?

I'm not saying that arrangements are invalid, but that they must be
examined in a larger context, as well as stating that there are pieces that
don't need your help. And having done a lot of composition AND
arrangements, it is my feeling that pulling an entirely new musical life
out of the aether is tougher than tweaking someone else's notes. Your
mileage may vary.

> >To state that all composers would welcome your contributions to their
> >compositional experiments is disingenuous and rude.
>
>Has anyone actually made that claim?

Well, John, you don't exclude anyone from revisionism, so either you think
they would all love your adjustments to their hard work, or you don't give
a damn what they would think. Or some sliding percentage of those twin
demons. In essence, *you* are making that claim.

>However, I
>would at the same time support some other arranger's "right" to tinker
>with even the works of someone who asked that it not be done, even if I
>personally believed the attempt completely wrong-headed (copyrights and
>original composer's lifetime exempted, as I've stated).

I see no reason why someone dying should lead to such an unfortunate and
inconsiderate situation. It's as if you propose an "Ambulance-Chasers
Arrangers Guild". And John, really, this last paragraph of yours ends it
for me: it is so at odds with what I believe the human creative spirit is
about that we should just not discuss it any further. It saddens me.

>It is my hope, as I continue to try to refine my methods, to have a
>group of people with whom to share. Perhaps I've picked the wrong
>group?

I would propose that this is *just* the kind of group. If you shared only
with like-minded individuals, important elements of the debate would go
entirely unrepresented. And these are things that you *must* think about.

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

[Johnathan M. Szanto, TD 432.2:]
>I am tending, as should be obvious, to be directing my comments to
>composed (probably Western classical) works, as opposed to
>melody-and-chord chart lead sheets.

Yes. But isn't it striking that so many other genres of music DO
encourage improvisation, rearrangement, etc.? How, and importantly
WHEN, did classical music become subject to this rigidified attitude?

>If pieces are operated on for ear candy, for raw material in service of
>some historically unsupportable hypothesis, I find that not of value
>and disrespectful.

"Ear candy?" What's that supposed to mean, other than an attempt to
dismiss another's sense of what is beautiful?

"Disrespectful"? In music, the ultimate disrespect for a piece is to
wall it up in rigid requirements until it dies. I fear that this is
precisely what is happening to classical music today.

>It may be impossible to know, but there are *lots* of evidential
>parameters that can be examined - if one cares to.

I'm still waiting for word that, say, 19th century composers actually
stated that they didn't want their work tinkered with, and for word that
I'm wrong in stating that they themselves drew freely upon whatever
interested them in the pursuit of their own vision. I think the rigid
attitude you display came later, but I will defer to the historians of
the list.

[JdL:]
>>Presumptuous? I will accept 'audacious', but your choice of words
>>illustrates the stark difference in our feelings about messing with
>>existing works

[Szanto:]
>You state that it is impossible to know a composer's intent, and
>therefore you substitute your own alterations. You are presuming to
>know what is right, better, or preferable in this case. I find that
>... not good.

I am very sorry, Jon, but I can make no sense whatever out of those
words. I'm just presenting something my ears happen to like; why do
you feel it necessary to wrap all this other baggage around it?

>There have even been composers _here_on_the_list_ that have stated
>similar views as mine with regard to their own music. Are you actually
>proposing that they have no right to ask for people to respect their
>aesthetic and compositional choices and decisions? That you refuse to
>allow for a musical creation that has already been thought about to the
>point of not applying a third-party's "improvements"?

I have said that I will respect the wishes of anyone who makes them
known in that regard. What more do you want from me?

[Szanto:]
>>>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.

[JdL:]
>>Is it? I'm not sure that's true. And if it is, so what? Does that
>>make one valid, one invalid?

[Szanto:]
>I'm not saying that arrangements are invalid, but that they must be
>examined in a larger context, as well as stating that there are pieces
>that don't need your help. And having done a lot of composition AND
>arrangements, it is my feeling that pulling an entirely new musical
>life out of the aether is tougher than tweaking someone else's notes.

"There are pieces that don't need your help." Good gosh, Jon, NO piece
"needs my help." That is missing the point completely! Why are you
trying to cast my work into something it's not?

[Szanto:]
>>>To state that all composers would welcome your contributions to their
>>>compositional experiments is disingenuous and rude.

[JdL:]
>>Has anyone actually made that claim?

[Szanto:]
>Well, John, you don't exclude anyone from revisionism, so either you
>think they would all love your adjustments to their hard work, or you
>don't give a damn what they would think. Or some sliding percentage of
>those twin demons. In essence, *you* are making that claim.

Nonsense. It is YOU, Jon, who are making one claim after another, each
vying with the others for maximum hyperbole.

[JdL:]
>>However, I would at the same time support some other arranger's
>>"right" to tinker with even the works of someone who asked that it not
>>be done, even if I personally believed the attempt completely
>>wrong-headed (copyrights and original composer's lifetime exempted, as
>>I've stated).

[Szanto:]
>I see no reason why someone dying should lead to such an unfortunate
>and inconsiderate situation. It's as if you propose an
>"Ambulance-Chasers Arrangers Guild". And John, really, this last
>paragraph of yours ends it for me: it is so at odds with what I believe
>the human creative spirit is about that we should just not discuss it
>any further. It saddens me.

It saddens me too, Jon, that you seem to feel it is absolutely necessary
to cast this small thing I've done in such terms.

[JdL:]
>>It is my hope, as I continue to try to refine my methods, to have a
>>group of people with whom to share. Perhaps I've picked the wrong
>>group?

[Szanto:]
>I would propose that this is *just* the kind of group. If you shared
>only with like-minded individuals, important elements of the debate
>would go entirely unrepresented.

No. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of
the work I do. Anything else is a useless distraction, IMHO. The two
are very distinct categories of subject.

>And these are things that you *must* think about.

Another statement couched in absolutist terms! Sheesh!

Jon, my love for music is my guide. I may be totally misguided; time
will tell. Trash does not last; can we at least agree on that? I am
very sorry that you feel I am "presumptuous" and all other words you
have chosen to level against me. I will continue to do what I do
because your negative judgement means less to me than my own vision,
whether misguided or not. But I must confess that I'm having a hard
time visualizing making another joyous posting of some new arrangement
that I think truly lovely, knowing that there are those who, without
even listening, have decided that some sense of musical duty compels
them to condemn it.

JdL