Performances of Ferneyhough (at least the ones I've heard) tend to
be approximate at best. I don't fault the performers -- I very much
doubt the composer could clap his own rhythms with any accuracy
either.
as i understand it he has actually performed in one of his recent
works, and i think things just might depend on where you have heard
it and by whom...
i have seen performances of ferneyhough and find them to be as
"accurate" as any performance of beethoven works. noone faults
richter for playing insane amounts of wrong notes, but this defensive
and superficial critique of the performance of ferneyhough (as only
one example) seems to be terribly common and simply avoids discussing
the music itself (as with richter/beethoven). and the tsunami of
accusations of inaccurate performances completely shadows the fact
that so many performers are in fact able to orient themselves within
this music and absolutely nail simultaneous entries within a wash of
rhythmicly-independent lines. but real examples are never given,
only vacuous accusations.
and then the counterargument never gets a chance to discuss the music
either because it seems like the only way that anyone is allowed to
defend music with challenging time sigs (as only one of a number of
examples) is to prove to the nay-sayers -- who have no interest in
challenging themselves with this music in any case -- that they
aren't difficult, or that they are even doable, which is absolute and
utter bullshit. fine, they're some work to do but any performer who
has gone through the process comes out a stronger performer, with an
entirely new degree of perception, and if you ask around you'll find
performers all over the place who can in in fact do play these
things. um, similar to someone who goes through rachmaninoff 3. but
for christ's sake, noone would ever suggest you shouldn't play that
because it's too hard. why is it so different for new music?
in a class where cowell's rhythmic ideas were being presented, while
several people in my class bitched about how you couldn't play this
stuff, what was the guy thinking, that musicians aren't machines (and
the usual bullshit reactions), i had a look through it and could read
-- accurately! -- the completely random line of "partial durations"
the prof had arbitrarily written out before they finished trying to
convince themselves that they weren't to be expected as professionals
to be subjected to such challenges.
but in case you don't want to take my word for it, check out
arditti's site (as only one example), check out just how much this
music is being performed around the world and compare it to even 10
yrs ago. there is a whole generation of musicians who have grown up
with the possibility of performing his music, and learning it from
people who had to "figure it out'" themselves.
in 1999 i saw steven schick perform bone alphabet in NYC, from
memory, as he did for all works in the entire three-day solo perc
programme. he performed it again as an encore. he said to me at
that time he had 3 students learning the piece with him. that was 9
years ago. he has higher numbers now, but i don't know how many, the
numbers are moot, the point isn't.
guys, really, get over it. this music is playable, but if you don't
want to believe that, you won't. because as long as you'll only look
at the weather through your own smog-crusted window without moving an
inch from your own armchair of course you'll have no idea that on the
other side of town it isn't raining.
or, i'll tell you what... at least give your argument a fighting
chance. typically -- and the comment "i bet the composer can't even
play what he wrote" is a completely uninteresting and invalidated
comment that doesn't even deserve a response, being no more than the
stock unreflected reactionary response to any divergence from the
hallowed norms of classical music -- noone who challenges such
rhythms seems able to understand, let alone admit, that the use of
"complicated rhythms" in works like time and motion study II is on a
fundamentally different level than in carceri d'invenzione.
no, unfortunately there is never a distinction made between works
from two different periods in ferneyhough's writing, although the
differences are just as important, i would dare to propose, as the
differences between haydn and late mozart string quartets. then we
could at least salvage some of the nay-sayers' argument and have a
discussion that risks having some meaning... for ALL involved!
but as long as there is no discrimination of the varying **degrees**
of detail in such music, with real comparisons of real excerpts from
real scores -- instead of some vague hand-waving to the tune of
"pfawwwww" -- any discussion which simply suggests "those sorts of
things are unplayable" is completely pointless... but by not saying
anything, the nay-sayers will simply assume that i tacitly agree, or
can't or won't rise to defend it.
it really comes down to this, for me. instead of saying "X is
unplayable", any argument against such things should begin with "i
can't play that."
i am so utterly sick of the simplicity of this argument...
a friend of mine hates bananas; application of this kind of argument
to that situation would imply by extension that everyone in the world
hates bananas.
so let's ban bananas and make everyone happy.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
