Dear Naomi and Vocalisters:
You wrote:
"Are you acquainted with the concept of open score & closed score?
It's a terminology I've picked up in my work in new music theatre.
Open scores are those whose notation leaves room for interpretation
-- lead sheets, aleatory works, da capo sections of Baroque arias.
Closed scores are those whose notation is very specific -- many
Elliott Carter scores, for example. You can think of it as a
continuum, though. Most scores are somewhere in the middle. It
occurs to me that even opera scores are more open than we often
define them as being. Yet classically-trained singers (and
instrumentalists to a certain degree) have it drummed into our skulls
that the printed page is inviolate. I find that more often than not,
it's a road map rather than being the road itself."
The attitude of what is allowed when performing a musical score is an
ever changing one. The end of the 19th Century was well known for
its attitude of "knowing better" what a composer intended in his
writings. Consequently there were re-writings and re-instrumentation
of Beethoven scores by some of the most respected conductors and
composers (Mahler's work on the Beethoven 9th, for example).
At the beginning of the 20th Century a contrary attitude began to
appear which insisted on accuracy to the written score as far as
possible. Toscanini"s work as a conductor was founded on this
concept and his ideas were met with much resistance at first. It
them became the accepted standard. One was to consider the printed
page as sacrosanct and only make minimal interpretive changes.
Finally, Stravinsky expressed the most extreme form of this concept
when he stated that he wanted the performer to only reproduce what
was on his printed page and add NO interpretive work of any kind to
this printed score.
We now, most clearly, are returning to concepts that are more
romantic than classical and with this concept change comes the
attitude that the performer must apply his/her own personality to
what is printed in the score. This is true not only in popular music
but also in classical music. The application of this concept to
classical music is very treacherous water because classical music is
intended to be performed as written within very limited performance
standards.
Some time ago I wrote the following during another discussion of this
topic of interpretation:
Leonard Bernstein once explained the difference between "classical"
music and "popular" music by saying that "classical" music was, more
or less, EXACT music and "popular" music was, more or less,
UNFINISHED music.
The "classical" composer attempts to write down everything he can
about the music he writes. He wants as much control about how it is
performed as possible. Consequently, there are limitations about how
"classical" music is re-created. The performer is under more
restrictions. Too many steps away from the composer's intent and it
is no longer "classical" music.
The "popular" composer basically gives only an outline of his/her
musical intent. The performers are encouraged, even required, to
insert their own musical ideas and create a mix of the composed with
the performed. Terms such as improvisation, stylizing, etc. are all
examples of performers assuming the responsibility of inserting their
own personalities into the mix we call "popular" music. Of course,
that mix varies within the "popular" music field but it is the
concept of the performer sharing the creation arena with the composer
that is the essence of "popular" music.
If a classical artist performs popular music it would seem likely
that he/she might be 'testing the waters" of improvisation and
stylization. It would not be a big surprise if the outcome was a bit
different than a performance by a seasoned popular artist on the same
popular music. But, based on the description given above, the
classical artist has not destroyed the popular music nor even moved
it out of the arena of the popular idiom. It then become a simple
matter of what one prefers.
On the other hand, if a popular artist performs classical music and
steps beyond the bounds of what the classical composer intended, that
is, if the popular artist inserts his/her usual improvisation and
stylization, then the popular artist HAS destroyed the classical
music and HAS moved it out the arena of the classical idiom. It is
no longer a matter of what one prefers. The classical music is no
long what it was intended to be.
In short, it is not reasonable to say that Whitney Huston destroyed a
popular song because she did not do it the way E. Franklin does it.
And I doubt of you would ever hear anyone say that. But it is
reasonable to say you prefer one version over the other. The popular
artist is a major part of the final product. The popular artist is
supposed to be a major contributor to the musical content of the
final product.
Not so with classical music. The performing classical artist must
find a means of personal expression WITHIN the limitations of the
composer's intent. He may not impose his personality on the music.
He must express his personality THROUGH the music. This point is
often confused, even within the ranks of classical artists. Witness
the song "stylizing" of Elizabeth Swartzkopf and Dietrich
Fischer-Dieskau and compare "their" versions with what the composer
so carefully wrote. Of course, the interpretive decisions are always
individual but the basic performing process must remain; the
composer's intent must be sought and honored. This is the reason
that classical artists spend hours each day honing their performing
skills so they may be perfect instruments to re-create what the
composer intended within their understanding of that intent. But
understanding that intent does not give them license to impose
themselves on the music.
Any popular artist who does NOT impose themselves on popular music
will not have an audience. The popular artist is an equal, or, in
some situation, a superior part of the final performance.
Finally, none of the above is intended as an evaluation of which
music is best, classical or popular. They simply are different.
They each exist within their own parameters of artistic concepts.
--
Lloyd W. Hanson
|
