Blog 7

The articles presented this week seem to all center around change: a change from the physical to the ethereal. In the speech transcription, Watt recalls nostalgically of his days as an undergrad where he viewed the library as somewhat of a level playing field. He, a budding researcher, alongside his well-learned professors, toiling away among the collections of their university library. It all sounds lovely until the issue of money is brought up. It is seldom an issue of which we like to speak, but it is unavoidable: some universities have more money than others and thus, more and perhaps better resources. With the online archives and resources available to us today, I'd happily forego Watt's nostalgia.

But!

Money. Sadly, money matters on the internet as well. The internet is a human invention and humans are rather big fans of money. Also, legalities are an issue, particularly those surrounding copyright. Copyright is a strange thing and as one sees in the IMSLP review, regulated differently in different places. IMSLP is a terrific resource, but I do recall when using it that it is a bit hard to navigate and a bit frustrating that so many pieces, 20th century pieces especially, weren't available due to copyright. That said, it is still a fantastic resource and a tremendous idea.

In the articles dealing with Google, I have some differing opinions. I doubt in Google's early days that they could have predicted the company would become the superpower it is today. While it is unfortunate they seemed to abandon the projects such as Google books, I can't say I would expect anything different from anybody. It's a wonderful idea, a noble one even. Even though librarians might have felt betrayed and Google could have been a bit more (a lot more) clear in their intentions, they are, after all, a business and they like money. It seems Google books isn't where the money was. But, as we see in the Baio and the Lepore, there is a light: The Internet Archive. This is a wonderfully bold endeavor and indeed a noble one. To archive all of the internet's information is an incredible goal and if achieved (though it is always growing), I believe the founder will one-up the Greeks.

Blog 6

Oh how I enjoy reading academics argue and call each other stupid. 

"I want to remain faithful to the composer's intent."

*rolls eyes* "That's dumb."

But in actuality, I do agree that trying so hard to play early music as it was heard then is too difficult a task to complete. There is no way to know if what we do in these "reproductions" are correct. Slonimsky calls urtext a "magic word conjuring up an idea of absolute authenticity..." which is a wonderful definition. Magic because we are unable to achieve absolute authenticity. Playing early music exactly as written is wrong, as it was full of improvisation. That is something that has changed tremendously in classical music. Beethoven and Mozart and their contemporaries were adept improvisers. Today, such skills aren't necessary to be a classical musician. This fact alone attests more to the fact that our early music reproductions are more of interpretations from 20th century minds. As Richard Taruskin repeatedly says, that's ok! 

Speaking of Mr. Taruskin, I found his article to read very quickly. I really ripped into those involved in "historical performances." What he say, I agree with. We should just call these historical performances 20th century interpretations, which is what they are. He cites several examples of historical performers doing things so wrong. It seems like early music performers want to stay true to the composers' intent, but not the parts with which they disagree. I know this is a heavily biased article, but the examples he gives make the early music performances seem a bit silly as the level of accuracy they are going for is wholly unattainable.

 I should say, as a clarification, that I am generally not a fan of early music. I listen to baroque music on occasion, but I find most music of the classical era uninteresting (with exceptions, of course). I am far more interested in 20th century music and new music. So, those are where my biases lie. With all of that said, I quite liked the Kozinn article. The author stated that music was just as much a performer's art as it was a composer's. Interpretation is where so much of music's beauty lies, in my opinion. 

Blog 5

Starting with the definitions, the most significant thing I learned was the difference between holograph and autograph. I suppose I never really knew the definition of autograph, but I always assumed it was what a holograph actually is. Aside from that, I was rather confused by the definitions: urtext especially. It says it's the earliest version of a certain text, but then brings up the case of revisions made by the composers, themselves making several urtexts for one source? Then there is facsimile that seeks to reproduce an autograph. So, it is original, but not the original. Perhaps I'm in the wrong mindset for reading these, or perhaps it is because there are so many similarities between all of them that they all seem to join in my head and confuse me.

The first two documents both dealt with the same area in Brahms's Hungarian Dance No. 5. It's quite interesting to discover something that has been a topic of debate among so many performers for so long, that so specifically solves the issue. I also think it's funny that part of the reason why it was so open to interpretation was because Brahms had terrible handwriting. That makes me feel kind of powerful, as a person with terrible handwriting. What horrible problems could I cause simply because nobody knows what I'm trying to say? But, I suppose I'm not important enough for that. Anyway, it makes me think of what other important things we're missing because of similar issues.

The last article started to disperse the fog around urtext for me, but still left me a bit confused on the subject. It makes sense that the "original" source can be revised when one finds newly discovered information on it, and thus more accurately presents the author's vision. With the Schumann piece they discussed how an earlier version of the same work is sort of looked upon as a different work, but both as urtext? And the fog came creeping back in. 

I thought the video sources were both quite beautiful. Books, just as compilations of information and thoughts and creations are amazing. The power of words and knowledge is truly humbling. But, I imagine a book made by these methods is surely more valuable. The amount of equipment, time, energy, skill, and dedication needed to make a single book is incredible. Truly, the text made on a press and a binding in that old style are far more beautiful than today's mass produced methods. It also makes me think about a binder or a printer in the seventeenth century talking about work:

"How was work?"

"It was terrific! I must have made in excess of four books!"

It can also be said, that while a book might have meant more, or been more treasured in the times when they were made with such techniques, that the true wonder of a book is the knowledge it holds. Today, we can print books so much faster and give so many more people all of the knowledge they contain, which is perhaps more wondrous and beautiful than the most beautiful of books.

Blog 4

Plagiarism has always a topic of confusion for me and I know most other students feel the same way. On the surface, it's so simple: credit given where credit is due. Obviously. But, then there is accidental plagiarism and the issue of common knowledge among the general public and intended audiences and it has me worried that my blog for my bibliography class will be pulled because a sequence of words ended up being too similar to a song that I didn't know existed by an artist I've never heard of before. Or worse: Metallica. When I've written papers in the past, frantically citing in fear of being expelled I've always felt that I flooded the paper with them. Many times, upon completing the paper I wasn't sure if I'd incorporated any independent thought at all. And I don't feel much better after reading the cases in the Sampsel. I suppose anybody can say it was an honest mistake and be lying about it, but the thought of having funds held because of one is terrifying to me.

In the Sands article, she talked about two things that had particular impact on me: the first being about double standards of plagiarism and the second about cultural differences. I find it especially interesting that I know of Led Zeppelin, John Lennon, Elvis Presley, and Randy Rhoads being accused of plagiarism but I had no idea that powerful figures such as Joe Biden and Rand Paul were. Why is there more attention given to those in the former rather than the latter? Since I just mentioned music, I think it's worth noting that using another's work in one's own was not always considered wrong. Composers quote each other all the time and back in earlier times might have inserted another composer's work into theirs for various reasons. That was standard practice at the time, and it wasn't different in academia. It's sort of akin to the issue of sampling in hip-hop. Then, there is the issue of cultural differences where what would be considered plagiarism in the West would be considered praise in another culture. It's very difficult to find where one should draw the line in many cases.

Onto the Goldsmith interview.

I'm not quite sure where I stand with Goldsmith's views. I thought immediately of Marcel Duchamp when I started reading the interview and then saw he mentioned him, so I felt reassured. I feel the same way about Duchamp in that I don't really know how to feel about Duchamp. Both of them say and do similar things with which I agree and they deal with expression in choice. My choices in music and fashion and literature say something about me much like a short story I write would. As Goldsmith says "There's so much information out there already," which is almost painfully true. It's hard to come up with independent ideas that others haven't already had. But, I'm not entirely convinced in the second half of Goldsmith's thought: "...that really one need not create any more." I think it's worth trying, because any new information is valid and important: it's just becoming increasingly difficult to come by.