When is the music recognisably the composers?

[SIMON GABRIELOW]

I have had one of those rather philosophical thoughts recently; regarding what is original thought or the perception of it at least.

Say, if one looks at a score, or smaller piece of music [any instrument]  on the page, are they really just dots or circles, or lines, marks, and the like, or maybe do they also perhaps somehow contain something more tangible ?  A part of more than the flat symbols? The composers personality writ within it?  For example you may see a group of notes, or say a middle C on a music page, written by anyone, known, or unknown, and they look the same; there may be, if  hand written, a certain line quality that is obvious to the eye in its individuality, but somehow if you play that note is it potentially different by the knowing of the composer, or not?  Or possess another quality altogether?  And at what point does a melody truly begin to a listener? For example, play a middle C [just example] on a piece by [Mr A, composer]  and same note by [ Mrs. Composer] at that point they are the same note, but then continue until the melody begins, a few bars on,  then all could diverge into recognisably individual tunes.  Of course  a performer of music brings out the nuances as best they can anyway, and that  helps too.  I once repeated a beginning note on a record of a Chopin piano piece several times; and it was just a note - but then I let the record go on a few seconds more; and out came the tune! 

What may at first seem to be my 'tangled' explanation, is I hope something worth thinking over, or at the least debating?

 

[seanc]

Middle C is middle C is middle C. Regardless of who wrote it.

 

the reality is that a written score can either be a exact blue print of exactly what is supposed to be played. Or a frame work. 
 

irish trad music, as written, tends to be radically different from how it is played. Generally, ornaments are not written. And there may be unlimited “versions” of the same song.

 

you could also make the leap.. that a composer like Bach, where it can get complicated. And with quite a bit of variation and counter point really wanted it to played as perfectly as possible as written.

 

While it is easy to envision a Mozart might well have handed out the scores and then sung how he intended it to be played. Essentially, rewriting on the fly as he listened to how it sounded. And being too busy to bother writing it all down. Possibly, adding not notated ornaments. Or playing Eighths as more triplet feels. And rushing or slowing certain points.

so, a written score can really either be an exact piece, or a general suggestion. 

[JimR]

Have you ever watched "Name That Tune" and see someone get the tune one one note?

[seanc]

19 minutes ago, JimR said:

Have you ever watched "Name That Tune" and see someone get the tune one one note?

Many times.. but they give a ton of verbal clues before they play the note.

 

and you can call a ton of tunes with one note/ chord. But, many have such a defined signature tone. And then add in really great recognizable engineering. So you know from the first note exactly who it is.

but, generic lounge lizard Larry playing cover tunes at the Ramada on Tuesday nights during “blue plate special, 3 for one margaritas!!” from 4-6 on his vaguely “acoustic piano” sounding low end Casio keyboard?
 

Not so much.

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by seanc

[Anglo-Irishman]

I've thought about this quite a bit. The composer Leonard Bernstein once said he didn't differentiate so much between "serious" and "popular" music - it was more important to distinguish "good" music and "bad" music.

For me, another way of categorising music is to call it "composers' music" or "performers' music." @seanc mentions Irish trad. and Bach, and these are two examples that  are wide apart on the composer/performer spectrum.

 

Bach's works are typically for ensemles of players and singers, and they are musically pretty complex. The only way to perform them is for each musician and singer to do what the composer lays down in his score (the conductor helps them to do this). Improvisation and innovation are not advisable - any deviation from the meticulously balanced mix of notes would most likely sound "off." It's the composer's music, so the performers don't mess with it!

 

With Irish trad., improvisation and innovation are of the essence. A traditional song exists merely as a melody and a lyric - everything else, be it key, tempo, style of ornamentation  orchestration, harmonic structure, expression ..., is up to the performer. You'll often find that one singer can deliver a folk song so that it thrills you, but another singer, singing the same song, leaves you cold. That's performers' music!

 

As I say, there's a spectrum here. A romantic composer may write a beautiful version of a folk song for baritone and piano - that would be the composer's music. Or I, as a banjoist, may play my impromptu variations on a theme from a Haydn string quartet - that's the performer's music. Each performance could be slightly different, but it would still be "authentic." If the pianist or the baritone took liberties with the composer's score, it would be regarded as improper.

 

There is a grey zone: some composers' music is so demanding that not every soloist can manage it - so a truly virtuoso violinist or pianist can make a classical concerto his or her "own." And , of course, there must have been somebody who first performed the songs that we call folk songs - so the performer can't take 100% if the credit there, either!

 

Cheers,

John