If you have difficulty registering for an account on the forum please email firstname.lastname@example.org. In the question regarding the composer use just the surname, not including forenames Charles-Marie.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
From the vantage-point of cosmic radiation, there are three types of relevant cases of bad musical practices to be referenced on the account of our subject in this report. The first, is the substitution of digital media for proper instruments, as this substitution engenders an improper confinement within which musical performances are intended to be heard. The second, is those practices of composition of music and speech which are associated, implicitly, with the standards set by the anti-Classical post-1949 Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), including the use of “elevated pitch” as a substitute for the natural tuning at approximately C=256. Prior to the close of the 1980s, the great majority of all leading Classical singers openly supported the defense of the natural registration shifts defined by C=256, despite the influence of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. This is still the case among the greatest Classically developed singing voices, and a large portion of Classical musicians generally. Notably, according to expert scientific tests, the greatest of the crafted violins and other instruments of the Classical repertoire, were subject to damage, as in the case of the greatest violins, if stressed by elevated pitches. There were two leading arguments in defense of that Classical standard from Bach through Brahms and beyond. One emphasized the natural register-shifts associated with bel canto singing voices; a second, complementary argument, was that only the physically strongest of trained singing voices could withstand the “wear and tear” done to the singing voices by adaptation to elevated pitches. The bad practices sometimes coincided, tellingly, with the kind of conductor who would direct by aid of stop watches at the podium. The third, is the resort to the extremely loud performance, and chaotic “effects,” as virtually noise, of either of each of the first two referenced types.Those three types of destructive practices, have the effect of cutting the human mind off from the knowledgeable experience of what is properly defined as creative modes of expressed thinking. That problematic behavior, is typified by the habits associated with the grave error of treating the subject of physical science as a sub-stratum of formal digital mathematics. To define that problem in other words, we must mark the distinction, as in the practice of science, between physical mathematics (the evolving mathematics whose progressive development is derived from, and defined by the discovery of physical principles) and mathematical physics (the mathematics which confines the definition of physical principles to products of mere mathematics).The natural register shift set in correspondence with the approximately C-256 well-tempered scale, is, itself, an integral part of the real music. Lack of it, when adopted as a policy, rather than as an imperfection of intention, is not pro-creation; it is the moral equivalent of masturbation.
I have always been intrigued by Historically Informed Performance Practise, obviously with reference to music of the Baroque period. The dissonance created by following the original tuning has always struck me as far more organic, more vital, than the well tempered sounds of later tunings.There is always the argument tht IF early composers had had access to modern instruments, they would PERHAPS have changed their approach quite radically.There is surely place for both historically informed and modern tuning. Modern music performed in the previous tuning becomes simply a curiosity, surely. And there is always the unwritten stylistic expectation that varies according to the fashion of each era, and the so called normal sound for an instrument two hundred years ago is certainly not the sound by today´s audience.