Susan, what you say is certainly true to some extent, but it raises a
fundamental question: what does "perfect" mean? Knowing whether
something is "perfect" means knowing whether it's what was aimed for
and whether that aim was met. If we go in an apply a standard that was
never intended (a modern standard, or a standard from another
tradition), we'll hear something as imperfect in ways that are unfair
and inappropriate to that tradition.
Think of it another way: find a truly great singer in a "folk"
tradition (Woody Guthrie for American, Marta Sebestyén for Hungarian,
Kongar-ol Ondar for Tuvan music, etc.) and ask that person to sing a
Puccini aria. What are you going to get? I'm willing to bet it won't
sound right at all. Now ask Placido Domingo to sing the songs that
these singers are known for. It won't sound right either. It's not
that any of them are not masters of their art, but rather that even at
the heights of mastery there are fundamental differences in what is
aspired to.
Or perhaps more directly analogous, in Bach's time vibrato was not
aspired to, while today most singers can't turn it off. In some cases
Bach has very fast notes for which modern singers used to fairly heavy
vibrato cannot define the pitch because there simply isn't time to get
in enough vibrato to define the pitch that was intended. So these
singers, considered masters today, would likely have sounded
incredibly sloppy in Bach's time. Similarly, for audiences who expect
vibrato, performances without it would sound somewhat dull. It's not
that they are not aiming for something other than perfection in either
rase, it's that, in the old phrase "other times, other fashions." Or,
as another example, we no longer know how the earliest operas (serial
operas) were meant to sound, and there is an open question about how
to perform them now without them sounding very strange.
There have always been artists who placed a high value on "perfection"
within their framework and absolutely meant it to be perfect. Others
may not have cared at all. But the recordings I am talking about that
sound bad today are specifically ones played by folks recognized as
great masters in their own time, ones who are still held up today as
models for players. But we now use them as selective models, because,
quite frankly, some of what they thought of as perfection sounds like
garbage to us, so we take some elements (buzzing bridge style,
ornamentation) and leave others (tone, tuning). Similarly, if we could
send our best recordings back in time they would no doubt be appalled
at some of the aesthetic choices we make and wonder why we are doing
what we are doing.
So I don't know that we should assert that they were aiming for a
"lower" standard (one not so flattering and somewhat unfair way of
reading your statement) but rather that we often don't know what
standard they were aiming for so we are no longer able to accurately
assess their playing. We can no longer understand it as they did, so
we can no longer recognize perfection...
Best,
Arle
On Feb 7, 2008, at 7:26 PM, Susan wrote:
I don't often weigh in on discussions, especially if they get
technical, but I do have an opinion on this issue. I think it is
all to easy, in this day and age of high fidelity musical
perfection, to lose sight of the fact that music doesn't have to be,
and isn't meant to be, perfect. It is meant to be personal, with
all the interesting imperfection that entails. People can get
awfully snobby about it, but for me it all comes down to playing
your instrument (even if it is from a kit!) and having fun. Viva lo
fi! Suze
