But for now, I'm bothered by something I read today in Harold Fiske's Understanding Musical Understanding. On pages 25-26, Harold writes,
[Sculpture can be observed by any angle and for as long as the viewer desires.] Not so for music, where 'viewing' time for music is controlled exclusively by the performer. And once over, returing to the room in which the performance occurred would not afford continued experience with the same work. Once the piece is over, it is over. Even playing the piece again (a recording for example) does not represent a continued experience with the piece but rather a different experience, though it is the same music being listened to.
First of all, I don't believe the performer controls all aspects of the performance time. Besides the instructions of the composer, there are constraints placed on the performer(s) by cultural expectations, acoustic limitations of the venue, and general perceptual limitations. And the listener does have control of what performance aspects to which s/he pays attention. This attention is a main part of Fiske's thesis that musical time is very different from clock time, thus the listener does control his/her musical time experience.
But the second thing is more troubling, that rehearings are different experiences rather than a continued experience. It is troubling, because part of me agrees that rehearings (whether a physical rehearing or a mental replay) are indeed different experiences. The listener has different knowledge by the time of the replay, etc. But the two hearings share a commonality of the schemata of the performance. The order of the notes, the timings, the timbres are all the same, just as a sculpture keeps the same physical features. So I really want to say that the rehearing is a continuation of the experience of the piece, just as when I revisit the sculpture it continues my experiences with that artwork, even though I have different knowledge from the last time I experienced it. What say you? Is a rehearing a completely new experience, or is it a continuation of the same musical experience?
6 comments:
I'm uncomfortable with either/or questions about complex phenomena such as remembrances of (musical) events past. Perhaps the conflict between the two points of view doesn't need to be resolved, just accepted. Aren't rehearings both continuations (sometimes significant, sometimes marginal) of a prior experience AND a new experience, or at least an experience with new elements? Isn't there some continuum? A Kinsey-like scale to be developed ("the Spiegelberg scale of continuitiy of musical experience")?
And something about "rehearing" bothers me. When I replay/reexperience a musical event, whether a live performance or recording, I remember the larger (evolvng perceptions of) human experience--where I was, body sensations, emotional reactions to the time and place, etc. Some of my strongest memories of long-ago performances are much more physical, visual, and emotional than actual rehearings of the actual sounds.
I completely agree about the physical/visual/emotional aspects of replays. I hadn't thought about the limitations of that term, I meant it to include all embodiments (that was the topic of my other workshop at Mannes).
I think it's the analogy to sculpture that's flawed. Music does not take place in a finite space but rather represents a definite moment in infinite time. The experience of a piece of music (whether a first hearing or a repeated one), therefore, is very different from the experience of a work of plastic art. When compared to, say, film, or theater, the questions of what constitutes the work and the experience of the work seem more manageable. (Or are they?) I have to say, though, that I'm inclined to agree with Fiske that a repeated listening, just like a repeated viewing of a film, is a different experience. The differences, however, do not denigrate or preclude one another but rather present new ways of enjoying a work.
The way I like to illustrate this to students, when I have them, is within Nietzsche's view of the Apollonian and Dionysian in art. The initial listening is more likely to elicit a fully Dionysian reaction in the audience. This experience is often diminished, gradually, as a work is encountered with increased familarity (or are replaced with different Dionysian respones: I, as a listener, can get very excited by a piece the first time I hear it and, as I get to know it, my excitement is elicited by remembering beloved events that I know are coming, but which I am experiencing within the intimacy of knowledge. Or, to return to my film analogy for a second: my Dionysian experience as an 8 year old seeing The Empire Strikes Back is very different from that of tmy 36 year old self seeing it. The shock of finding out that Darth Vader is Luke Skywaker's father has worn off through familiarity, although the memory of my initial shock and surprise is now part of my Dionysian response to that film). As a work of art is encountered repeatedly my increased familiarity with it allows for a more objective Apollonian response, allowing for more careful analysis which can itself elicit new Dionysian responses as well as Apollonian responses to those same Dionysian ones and so on.
And yet, a piece of music is still the same, with minimal variations, when encountered through different performances. Not THAT much changes, really, from performance to performance or performer to performer. There are only so many things that can change in Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to make it THAT different an experience (yet a particularly insightful performer can make even the most staid of warhorses come to vibrant life as though it were a new work, as was my experience a few years ago when encountering John Eliot Gardner's recordings of the Beethoven and Schumann symphonies).
So...was that just a long way of saying "I don't know" then?
I think it's the analogy to sculpture that's flawed. Music does not take place in a finite space but rather represents a definite moment in infinite time. The experience of a piece of music (whether a first hearing or a repeated one), therefore, is very different from the experience of a work of plastic art. When compared to, say, film, or theater, the questions of what constitutes the work and the experience of the work seem more manageable. (Or are they?) I have to say, though, that I'm inclined to agree with Fiske that a repeated listening, just like a repeated viewing of a film, is a different experience. The differences, however, do not denigrate or preclude one another but rather present new ways of enjoying a work.
The way I like to illustrate this to students, when I have them, is within Nietzsche's view of the Apollonian and Dionysian in art. The initial listening is more likely to elicit a fully Dionysian reaction in the audience. This experience is often diminished, gradually, as a work is encountered with increased familarity (or are replaced with different Dionysian respones: I, as a listener, can get very excited by a piece the first time I hear it and, as I get to know it, my excitement is elicited by remembering beloved events that I know are coming, but which I am experiencing within the intimacy of knowledge. Or, to return to my film analogy for a second: my Dionysian experience as an 8 year old seeing The Empire Strikes Back is very different from that of tmy 36 year old self seeing it. The shock of finding out that Darth Vader is Luke Skywaker's father has worn off through familiarity, although the memory of my initial shock and surprise is now part of my Dionysian response to that film). As a work of art is encountered repeatedly my increased familiarity with it allows for a more objective Apollonian response, allowing for more careful analysis which can itself elicit new Dionysian responses as well as Apollonian responses to those same Dionysian ones and so on.
And yet, a piece of music is still the same, with minimal variations, when encountered through different performances. Not THAT much changes, really, from performance to performance or performer to performer. There are only so many things that can change in Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to make it THAT different an experience (yet a particularly insightful performer can make even the most staid of warhorses come to vibrant life as though it were a new work, as was my experience a few years ago when encountering John Eliot Gardner's recordings of the Beethoven and Schumann symphonies).
So...was that just a long way of saying "I don't know" then?
Philip Auslander gave a talk on this subject, in which he grabbed a term from Benjamin's Work of Art...Reproduction. The term was "reactivation," that hearing a work in the present is both a present event in itself, but also activates the past (previous hearings as well as the circumstances of its original making). That seems the most sense here.
What I find fascinating is how the first hearing shapes everything else, or I guess how you expect/want/imagine the work is "supposed" to sound like. Because sometimes I hear it for the first time and I want it different,and other times the tempos feel off or something because it isn't that first version I fell in love with.
Armando, that was a very long way of giving a nuanced opinion on your uncertainty. You are a natural academic! I think the main problem is the separation of the work from the experience, whether that is wise. Perhaps it is best to talk about categories of experiences, so any hearings of Beethoven's 5th are separate experiences within the same category.
Dan, thanks for the reference. I have the same experiences preferring first performances. In fact, I argued with a professor in grad school about the best performance of Beethoven's 7th, because I was first exposed to Pierre Monteux's performance by a very enthusiastic teacher, so I always prefer that one (his Beethoven 4th as well).
Post a Comment