Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Astonishing Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto


Stephen  Fine
 Share

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

If it is just "for some" but not for others, then it is not an objective measure, by definition.

In the couple of languages I speak more or less, the definition of "objective" is practically identical : "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions".

It follows that if I am narrow minded enough, I am objective. How about that ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 324
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

1. Analyzing music, i.e. "any harmony or counterpoint treatise," counts as a musical experience, and violation of a pre-defined set of rules can objectively considered "not good," in regards to obeying the rules, but it does not make the music itself intrinsically and objectively "not good:" 

2. "Music is more than notes on a page."

3. A popular example is that using the tritone ("the Devil's Chord") was rejected in some musical treatises as "wrong", but that reason did not make music using the chord objectively "bad."

4. It has been posited here by some that music is objectively "good" or "not good." One of the people espousing this position wrote repeatedly that a very fine violinist is a "fraud" and a "charlatan" because of her performances, so I am waiting to find out how it can be objectively discerned if any given piece of music from any culture at any time (past, present, or future) is "good" or "not good." 

 

1. You chose an extreme interpretation of "objective" which I believe not to be applicable to music or art in general. In philosophy this had a name I can not remember at the moment.

2. Sure. 

3. Well, it would be "bad" if a very long tritone would be the entire piece. :)  Seriously now, music happens in time and there need to be a number of deviations from rules. My point here is that given a historical moment a person deciding music goodness by the rules has the right to claim of being objective. 

4. Now, this IS interesting and here is my take

If she plays an "arrangement" based on Tch's c/to and if she "explains" her ideas in ways however exaggerated, she has my  respect. I can like or not. The only criticism I would dare venture is that her tone emission is not working for me and that she should get a better violin. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the kind of show she's putting up could work wonderfully in the right musical context. 

If she plays Tch's c/to then she should do that and not something else. Tch indicated clearly how he wishes his c/to to be played, a LONG and eminent tradition found no reason to deviate and (!) one may be accordingly excused for thinking that no such reason exists. (Of course, usual interpretative artifacts are welcomed) . One should also be excused for thinking that the cultural heritage of a country deserves some respect and that she, not being quite Igor Markevitch, might simply not know what she's talking about.  I don't think it can be claimed she "understands" Tch's c/to better than say, Oistrakh. I would not call her a charlatan and I don't think she is a fraud - I think she has a reasonable degree of sincerity.    But, should I buy a ticked to listen to Tch's c/to with her as a soloist and should I be subjected to her "ideas" I would definitely quietly walk out and ask for my money back. She's definitely misrepresenting things.    

Even more revealing is her performance in Beethoven. In particular the 2nd Mov where she seems to labor under the  delusion that B was incompetent and in critical need of her "improvements".                                                                                                                                                                       

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Carl Stross said:

In the opinion of Kreisler, Thibaud, Enesco, Menuhin, Szeryng etc Erica Morini was the best lady violin player pre wwII. She's a bit long in the tooth here but still...  :

 

 

Is this with Arthur Rodzinski? Because I think she was exemplary in that recording. Otherwise there are some pretty good in interpretations out there amongst the new generation of violinists  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Carl Stross said:

1. You chose an extreme interpretation of "objective" which I believe not to be applicable to music or art in general. In philosophy this had a name I can not remember at the moment.

If you decide to make-up whatever convenient personal definition of "objective" that you want then the word becomes meaningless.

The definition of "objective" is not subjective.

Let's use the dictionary:

objective | əbˈjektiv | adjective1 (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: historians try to be objective and impartial. Contrasted with subjective. not dependent on the mind for existence; actual: a matter of objective fact.

Otherwise you're just speaking like Humpty Dumpty:*

Quote

"‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.' 

‘The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things." 

‘The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.'"

*From Through The Looking Glass and What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, stradel said:

Is this with Arthur Rodzinski? Because I think she was exemplary in that recording. Otherwise there are some pretty good in interpretations out there amongst the new generation of violinists  

Wasn't that the Tch c/to ? I think it was. Anyway, I can't see on my phone who's conducting and I don't think I'd recognize him anyway. The newer generations of players are wonderful but Morini has an intention behind her phrasing I do not often hear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

Let's use the dictionary:

objective | əbˈjektiv | adjective1 (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

Yes, that's the definition. Where is the problem ? 

I am not influenced by personal feelings or opinions - I read the book of rules and judge  based on that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

Otherwise you're just speaking like Humpty Dumpty:*

Quote

"‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.' 

‘The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things." 

‘The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.'"

*From Through The Looking Glass and What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll

 

No. You want scientific objectivity. That's not applicable here. Many thousand of pages have been written trying to adapt the notion of objectivity to the reality of actual thinking. The so called "view from nowhere" is of limited use. Lenin put it very nicely when he wrote "Logic can not be separated from the content of thought." Neither can objectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...