In a message dated 4/20/2001 5:56:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, linda@f... writes: linda@f... writes:
<< Maybe we should start to consider whether the composer's music is a vehicle for our performance, or whether our performance is a vehicle for the composer's music. >>
can't it be both? actually, it already is. there exists, in the performance practice of 'classical' music, the notion that the composer is infallible. under this notion, the performer's task is to be enslaved by the composer's intentions. i'm sure there are a few of you who might object to my wording but i ask you, where would you allow liberties? one might say there are decisions to be made where the flaws of notation have made the composer's intent vague. the purist, however, sees these passages as problems to be solved, still along the guidelines of the composer's intent, as opposed to being oppurtunities to 'go crazy'.
on the other hand, in a 'live' performance of his song 'flor de lis', the brazilian pop singer djavan is joined enthusiastically by the audience. as the song goes on, djavan starts the phrases with the audience and then starts singing embellished accompaniments (a pseudo descant) while the audience continues with the original phrase. this would be composer as performer, audience as performer (performer/arranger? performer/orchestrator? ), composer/performer as audience, composer/performer/audience as re-composer/performer, turning the triangle into an ascending zig-zag (isn't that a brand of rolling papers?).
despite my obvious prejudices, i hope i have made the point that the roles of composer, performer and audience take various forms already. different styles seem to shift the power in the triangle. we could argue one over the others and some would say "isn't there enough room for each", etc. but, we might all agree that the worst triangle of all is the one dangled on a string by a recording industry executive.
mike
|