"What value, if any, is there in an "authentic" musical performance, or is it merely a matter of differing tastes?" This question was posed by Edward Manak, and though I have already responded to a question this week, my idea for a blog came so close to this idea that I figured I would answer his instead.
First of all, there are many subjects upon which I can speak with confidence and competence; music is not one of them. This having been established, I shall continue.
I do not think that the authenticity of a musical performance is, at all, a matter of taste. Authenticity, at least according to Davies, is judged based upon how faithful the performers are to the composer's expressed instructions. In this, I agree with Davies, for I can see no other way to judge authenticity, of a musical performance that is.
Well, actually, I suppose I missed the point of the question. While taste plays no role in judging the authenticity of a performance, the value of an authentic performance would be a matter of taste. Personally, I would not enjoy a musical performance more knowing that it is purely authentic. My aesthetic reaction to a piece of music, or to a performance for that matter, is not impacted at all by the authenticity of that piece.
So I suppose, in my opinion, there is no value in an authentic performance.
And now for something completely different: I often feel the need to reiterate the distinction between art and beauty. I feel that we often get caught up in the moment and are too eager to ascribe the status of art to anything we find beautiful. Can not something be beautiful without being art? Or am I not right to make this distinction?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment