Someone has recently raised the subject matter on the improvisatory nature of baroque and classical period composers. Many of them were in fact improvising AS THEY WERE composing. But they only (largely) documented ONE VERSION of their improvisation, which is the score archived till today for others to play. There are larger implications to music and music education, which many disagree with me. So far few people (e.g. Dr Leonard Tan, conductor of the Singapore National Youth Symphony... See More
Someone has recently raised the subject matter on the improvisatory nature of baroque and classical period composers. Many of them were in fact improvising AS THEY WERE composing. But they only (largely) documented ONE VERSION of their improvisation, which is the score archived till today for others to play. There are larger implications to music and music education, which many disagree with me. So far few people (e.g. Dr Leonard Tan, conductor of the Singapore National Youth Symphony Orchestra) agree with me.
The implications are: Why must we be having to have the DOGMA of having to play every single note (dictated on the documented score) to the last letter WHEN the composer himself could have used a slightly different set of notes if he had written the score using another improvised version of his work?
And it is exactly this dogma, passed through the centuries and generations, that the general conventional music fraternity is holding dearly to. Don't get me wrong - this definitely has its important purpose which we need to maintain. I'm more referring to the general player who simply wants to appreciate and enjoy playing classical music (not joining an orchestra or be a concert pianist) - why must they choose the "only" route on score-reading?
If we can embrace improvised versions of Mozart's Symphony No 40 in jazz version and Mambo version, wouldn't it be strange then, that we ask FOR THE SCORES for these versions? [That we want to rely on a precise score to play EVEN an IMPROVISED version of a work!] See the logical fallacy here?
" .. when the composer himself could have used a slightly different set of notes if he had written the score using another improvised version of his work ... "
At the end of the day, would... See More
" .. when the composer himself could have used a slightly different set of notes if he had written the score using another improvised version of his work ... "
At the end of the day, would the composer still choose a final version he wants the audience to hear as the definitive?
For example, when you hear a recording published by the composer, would it be reasonable to conclude that, while he had tried many versions / many improvised versions of his work; he will still choose one definitive to be shown to the public?
Hmm, I would say it is a combination of yes and no. Someone recently mentioned the cadenza issue, which would shed some lights to it. As a classical composer myself, coupled with some of my other... See More
Hmm, I would say it is a combination of yes and no. Someone recently mentioned the cadenza issue, which would shed some lights to it. As a classical composer myself, coupled with some of my other classical composer friends, though there is a "final version" of our works which we would set on it (and document it), we feel we are quite fine if some of the "less important notes" (e.g. the way to produce or sound out the chords at certain junctures) are changed slightly, since it won't affect its overall musicality. But once they change things that are more pivotal (such as our counter melodies), then it is a strict no-no. But having said that, there are other composers who would want 100% conformance of playing w.r.t. to what they have written precisely.
"... though there is a final version of our works ... quite fine if some of the less important notes are changed slightly ..."
Since there still has to be a final version delivered to the... See More
"... though there is a final version of our works ... quite fine if some of the less important notes are changed slightly ..."
Since there still has to be a final version delivered to the public, it would best represent what the composer truly wants. Otherwise, if he has felt that a slight change in some of the notes would suit better, he would have chosen that as the definitive piece. Thus, the published piece contains the intricate musical qualities, and emotions, among other collaterals; that the composer wants the world to hear and feel it.
He might hope that this song would be played in its entirety to preserve his intentions. If he has wanted other variations, he might publish his works in variations. For example, Mozart's Twelve Variations on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman".
What the future generations would perform, is something the composer cannot predict. Musicians now can perform it in its truest form, or improvised form, and whether it can be accepted depends largely on the current state of musical taste among the population.
At the end of the day, would it boil down to who decides which is part of the composer's authoritative / canonical works, and which is not ? The publisher of the works, the patron, a panel, the... See More
At the end of the day, would it boil down to who decides which is part of the composer's authoritative / canonical works, and which is not ? The publisher of the works, the patron, a panel, the composer himself ? Is it a matter of power ?