[CITTERN] Re: Memorization...

[Kevin Lawton]

Hi Kevin, 
Yeah, I agree with you to an extent that it is up to
the performer to impart a peformance with those
non-mechanical aspects which cannot be expressed in
the written notation. However, if the musical notation
has been written well then I feel that a purely
'mechanical' rendering of all the information which
has been written is still a valid performance. 
This, I think, is quite different from improvisation
(or 'extemporisation') where the performer actually
departs from exactly what has been written in an
attempt to interpret some of the original musical
ideas. 
I guess in some ways it could be likened to the
performance of a play or reciting of some poetry. It
is up to the orators or actors to impart the words
they read off the page with appropriate feeling and
emotion. This I would call 'performance'. However I
think it is pretty unusual for orators or actors to
improvise their own replacements for some of the
written words (ad libbing) unless particularly called
for in the script. 
Back to written music and I feel that the onus has to
be on the person writing the musical notation to make
sure that the musical ideas are properly expressed. 
As regards the balancing of the performance of a piece
of music like an algebraic equation then yes, that
certainly does seem to be an elegant similie. I guess
you can witness this most obviously in jazz where,
half-way through a piece, a performer might have built
up a degree of tension with an intentional 'imbalance'
which gets resolved later just before the piece ends. 
Kevin (the 'other' Kevin ? ? ?).   
------------------    
--- Kevin McDermott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Dear "other" Kevin :>)
> Someone else has taken on the issue of
> improvisation....but allow me  
> to address your point speaking strictly about the
> black dots on the  
> page.
> 
> As I wrote previously, any notation is a
> representation of something,  
> not the thing itself. The difference between a
> portrait, however  
> lifelike, and the subject alive and standing in
> front of you is one of  
> quiddity: one is the thing; the other is a
> representation of the thing.
> 
> However carefully notated, even presuming it was
> possible to notate  
> every nuance of expression, a score is NOT music
> itself. Music itself  
> has an internal logic and cohesion which is entirely
> independent of  
> its written picture. It's the job of the performer
> to reanimate the  
> written picture, and send it back into the world to
> which it is a  
> native: that of sound vibrations in the air, to be
> perceived by ears  
> and the brain attached to them.
> 
> If the performer doesn't do that--that is, add what
> the notes can't-- 
> then yes, I think it's all too possible (and all too
> common) for  
> performers to be much too dependent on the notes on
> the page.
> 
> But it's only....well, you know what I was going to
> write.
> 
> Cheers
> "other other" Kevin
> 
> PS: another correspondent on this thread mentioned
> that to know how to  
> play the beginning and the middle, one had to know
> how the piece would  
> end. This is certainly true, but perhaps suggests
> that there's only  
> one way to play a piece successfully. To me, music
> is like an  
> algebraic equation; as long as it sums to zero, it
> works. There are a  
> host of different variables that can be plugged in,
> and if they  
> balance, you've solved it. If they don't.....well,
> you end up with an  
> unsuccessful performance. But this balancing can,
> and I believe  
> should, be done on the fly. If you understand the
> internal logic of  
> the piece you can do as your heart commands in a
> given performance: if  
> you feel you want to play faster here, then you'll
> know you have to  
> play slower there to make it balance (rubato); if
> you build to a  
> climax in one place, you'll have to find some way to
> not have that  
> unbalance the whole. This freedom to reshape a piece
> a hundred times,  
> and do it successfully a hundred times, is what
> makes music music and  
> not a recording. Or so it seems to me.
> 
> 
> On Apr 7, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Kevin Lawton wrote:
> 
> > Sorry if I sound a little argumentative on this
> point,
> > but isn't describing a classical musician as 'much
> too
> > denendant on notes on a page' a little like
> describing
> > a Shakespearian actor as 'much too dependant upon
> the
> > written script' ?
> > Kevin.
> > --------------------
> > --- guy_and_liz Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> And I fully agree that most classically trained
> >> musicians (myself included)
> >> tend to be much too dependent on notes on a page.
> I
> >> consider it one of my
> >> biggest limitations, especially with cittern,
> which
> >> I use mostly for
> >> relatively informal music.
> >>
> >> I suspect one good way to learn is to get
> involved
> >> with some sort of folk
> >> group that cittern could function in, where you
> have
> >> little choice but to
> >> improvise based on chord progressions or what
> have
> >> you. IIRC, Jim Stimson
> >> mentioned to me once that he played his cittern
> in
> >> an Irish band on
> >> occasion, which would probably be a great way to
> >> learn. If I just had a bit
> >> more time...
> >>
> >> Guy
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Andrew Hartig"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: "cittern list" <cittern@cs.dartmouth.edu>
> >> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 12:00 PM
> >> Subject: [CITTERN] Re: Memorization...
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> One thing I forgot to add in my previous message
> >> is that the other
> >>> thing I have tried to do of late is to play
> music
> >> away from the page
> >>> as much as possible. Since I have two small
> >> children running around
> >>> the house now (one is 3 years old, the other
> just
> >> turned 1), I don't
> >>> have a lot of opportunity to sit down with music
> >> in front of me (and
> >>> not have it snatched, ripped, or pages turned
> when
> >> I'm not ready!).
> >>> Instead (since they are still too small to reach
> >> the instrument if I
> >>> play while standing!) I spend time playing tunes
> >> out of my head, or
> >>> at least trying to "hear" a tune I'm familiar
> with
> >> aurally and
> >>> recreate it on my instrument.
> >>>
> >>> I have found that this has greatly assisted my
> >> memorization skills in
> >>> that I am now equating "sounds" with "locations"
> >> without regard for
> >>> notes on a page. It becomes the synthesis of
> body
> >> and mind! This is,
> >>> of course, what all good musicians do
> >> (instinctively or otherwise)
> >>> and is also the basis of improvisation. I use
> this
> >> technique along
> >>> with the hearing/visualizing I mentioned
> earlier.
> >>>
> >>> Of late I have been sight reading the tablature
> to
> >> get a sense of
> >>> what the piece is supposed to sound like. Once I
> >> have the "piece"
> >>> committed to memory as "sound," I spend the rest
> >> of the time seeing
> >>> if I can figure out how to recreate that sound
> on
> >> the instrument
> >>> until it is memorized. In some instances this
> has
> >> resulted in me
> >>> fingering phrases differently than the notation
> >> (which, once I've
> >>> discovered this, allows me to look back and see
> >> *why* it may have
> >>> been written the way it was) or playing runs or
> >> other phrases in the
> >>> spirit of the piece rather than what is written
> >> (the "making music"
> >>> not "making early music" that Kevin referred to
> >> earlier).
> >>>
> >>> I could not agree with Guy more about the
> >> importance of sight reading
> >>> skills. Tablature is a near-perfect medium for
> >> sight reading;
> >>> unfortunately, I feel too many (myself, for
> one!)
> >> have probably
> 
=== message truncated ===



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html