参与分析和绩效

IF 0.3 2区 艺术学 0 MUSIC
B. Duinker
{"title":"参与分析和绩效","authors":"B. Duinker","doi":"10.1080/07494467.2023.2199246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Performance issues have engaged the discipline of music theory and analysis for as long as this discipline has been institutionalised in Europe and North America. Such lasting engagement has culminated in several seminal publications over the past few decades, among them Nicholas Cook’s Beyond the Score (2013), Daphne Leong’s Performing Knowledge (2019), and Philip Auslander’s In Concert (2021). Taken together, these publications (and others) have encouraged analytical looks beyond the score, attention to the experience of performers themselves, and consideration of musical/performative acts beyond sound itself. Having travelled far from the era where theorists and musicologists wrote prescriptively to ‘diagnose and cure the performer’s “malady”’ (Latham 2005, 137), we now experience a landscape where bilateral exchange between performing musicians and music theorists/musicologists generates provoking avenues of discussion, which can be formulated as broad questions. How can the concerns, choices, and pursuits of music performance and music analysis inform one another? And what sites of intersection provide promise for collaborative research between music theorists, musicologists, composers, and performers? To explore these questions, the Faculty of Music at the University of Toronto hosted the inaugural symposium Dialogues: Analysis and Performance in October 2021. The symposium convened artists and scholars, spurring interdisciplinary dialogue on topics such as structural analysis, criticism, interpretation, technology, performance practice, and embodied knowledge. Presenters responded to a call for proposals that situated analysis and performance as distinct but related activities, with a specific focus on contemporary music and musical practices. What quickly became apparent among the accepted presentations, however, was that for many artist/scholars specialising in contemporary music, analysis and performance are essentially inseparable, if not entirely one and the same. What began as a symposium seeking to uncover shared strategies for two distinct pursuits—analysis and performance— became a forum on how those pursuits are tightly connected through a network of elements: score, instrument, performer, and environment. The seven articles presented in this special issue reflect this inseparable network. As such, two prevailing themes emerge through the articles. The acts of analysis and performance are often indistinguishable. Many artists and scholars whose research connects performance and analysis might argue that one is not fully defined without consideration of the other. The work presented here goes even further, suggesting that one cannot fully exist without the other. Timothy Roth’s article on the reconstruction of obsolete technology to perform Stockhausen’s Mikrophone I (1964) foregrounds the analytical detail required to perform this work today, when the composer’s preferred sound filter is not readily available. Roth argues that, in navigating technological obsolescence, musicians’ reconstruction of new technological materials to perform this work constitutes a type of analysis that is indispensable for interpretation of this work and others like it. Kate Doyle and Agnesse Toniutti demonstrate how a circular dialogue between score-based analysis and performance-based experimentation is necessary to","PeriodicalId":44746,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Music Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Engaging Analysis and Performance\",\"authors\":\"B. Duinker\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07494467.2023.2199246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Performance issues have engaged the discipline of music theory and analysis for as long as this discipline has been institutionalised in Europe and North America. Such lasting engagement has culminated in several seminal publications over the past few decades, among them Nicholas Cook’s Beyond the Score (2013), Daphne Leong’s Performing Knowledge (2019), and Philip Auslander’s In Concert (2021). Taken together, these publications (and others) have encouraged analytical looks beyond the score, attention to the experience of performers themselves, and consideration of musical/performative acts beyond sound itself. Having travelled far from the era where theorists and musicologists wrote prescriptively to ‘diagnose and cure the performer’s “malady”’ (Latham 2005, 137), we now experience a landscape where bilateral exchange between performing musicians and music theorists/musicologists generates provoking avenues of discussion, which can be formulated as broad questions. How can the concerns, choices, and pursuits of music performance and music analysis inform one another? And what sites of intersection provide promise for collaborative research between music theorists, musicologists, composers, and performers? To explore these questions, the Faculty of Music at the University of Toronto hosted the inaugural symposium Dialogues: Analysis and Performance in October 2021. The symposium convened artists and scholars, spurring interdisciplinary dialogue on topics such as structural analysis, criticism, interpretation, technology, performance practice, and embodied knowledge. Presenters responded to a call for proposals that situated analysis and performance as distinct but related activities, with a specific focus on contemporary music and musical practices. What quickly became apparent among the accepted presentations, however, was that for many artist/scholars specialising in contemporary music, analysis and performance are essentially inseparable, if not entirely one and the same. What began as a symposium seeking to uncover shared strategies for two distinct pursuits—analysis and performance— became a forum on how those pursuits are tightly connected through a network of elements: score, instrument, performer, and environment. The seven articles presented in this special issue reflect this inseparable network. As such, two prevailing themes emerge through the articles. The acts of analysis and performance are often indistinguishable. Many artists and scholars whose research connects performance and analysis might argue that one is not fully defined without consideration of the other. The work presented here goes even further, suggesting that one cannot fully exist without the other. Timothy Roth’s article on the reconstruction of obsolete technology to perform Stockhausen’s Mikrophone I (1964) foregrounds the analytical detail required to perform this work today, when the composer’s preferred sound filter is not readily available. Roth argues that, in navigating technological obsolescence, musicians’ reconstruction of new technological materials to perform this work constitutes a type of analysis that is indispensable for interpretation of this work and others like it. Kate Doyle and Agnesse Toniutti demonstrate how a circular dialogue between score-based analysis and performance-based experimentation is necessary to\",\"PeriodicalId\":44746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Music Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Music Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07494467.2023.2199246\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"MUSIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Music Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07494467.2023.2199246","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

只要音乐理论和分析学科在欧洲和北美已经制度化,表演问题就一直涉及这一学科。在过去的几十年里,这种持久的参与在几本具有开创性意义的出版物中达到了顶峰,其中包括尼古拉斯·库克的《超越分数》(2013)、达芙妮·梁的《表演知识》(2019)和菲利普·奥斯兰德的《音乐会》(2021)。总之,这些出版物(以及其他出版物)鼓励在乐谱之外进行分析,关注表演者自身的体验,并考虑声音本身之外的音乐/表演行为。我们已经远离了理论家和音乐学家为“诊断和治愈表演者的“疾病”(Latham 2005137)而写下的条条框框的时代,现在我们经历了表演音乐家和音乐理论家/音乐学家之间的双边交流产生了引人深思的讨论途径,这些讨论可以被表述为广泛的问题。音乐表演和音乐分析的关注、选择和追求如何相互影响?哪些交叉点为音乐理论家、音乐学家、作曲家和表演者之间的合作研究提供了希望?为了探讨这些问题,多伦多大学音乐学院于2021年10月举办了首届研讨会“对话:分析与表演”。研讨会召集了艺术家和学者,就结构分析、批评、阐释、技术、表演实践和具体知识等主题展开了跨学科对话。主持人响应了一项提案呼吁,将分析和表演定位为不同但相关的活动,特别关注当代音乐和音乐实践。然而,在公认的演讲中,很快就显而易见的是,对于许多专门研究当代音乐的艺术家/学者来说,分析和表演基本上是不可分割的,如果不是完全一样的话。最初是一个研讨会,旨在揭示分析和表演这两种不同追求的共同策略,后来成为了一个论坛,讨论这些追求是如何通过一个元素网络紧密联系在一起的:配乐、乐器、表演者和环境。本期特刊的七篇文章反映了这个不可分割的网络。因此,文章中出现了两个主要主题。分析和表现的行为往往是无法区分的。许多将表演和分析联系在一起的艺术家和学者可能会认为,如果不考虑另一种,就不能完全定义其中一种。这里介绍的工作更进一步,表明没有另一个,一个就不可能完全存在。蒂莫西·罗斯(Timothy Roth)在1964年发表的一篇关于重建过时技术以演奏斯托克豪森(Stockhausen)的《Mikrophone I》的文章中,强调了当今演奏这部作品所需的分析细节,当时作曲家喜欢的滤音器还不可用。Roth认为,在应对技术过时的过程中,音乐家们重建新的技术材料来表演这部作品构成了一种分析类型,这对于解读这部作品和其他类似作品来说是必不可少的。Kate Doyle和Agnesse Toniutti展示了基于分数的分析和基于表现的实验之间的循环对话是如何必要的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Engaging Analysis and Performance
Performance issues have engaged the discipline of music theory and analysis for as long as this discipline has been institutionalised in Europe and North America. Such lasting engagement has culminated in several seminal publications over the past few decades, among them Nicholas Cook’s Beyond the Score (2013), Daphne Leong’s Performing Knowledge (2019), and Philip Auslander’s In Concert (2021). Taken together, these publications (and others) have encouraged analytical looks beyond the score, attention to the experience of performers themselves, and consideration of musical/performative acts beyond sound itself. Having travelled far from the era where theorists and musicologists wrote prescriptively to ‘diagnose and cure the performer’s “malady”’ (Latham 2005, 137), we now experience a landscape where bilateral exchange between performing musicians and music theorists/musicologists generates provoking avenues of discussion, which can be formulated as broad questions. How can the concerns, choices, and pursuits of music performance and music analysis inform one another? And what sites of intersection provide promise for collaborative research between music theorists, musicologists, composers, and performers? To explore these questions, the Faculty of Music at the University of Toronto hosted the inaugural symposium Dialogues: Analysis and Performance in October 2021. The symposium convened artists and scholars, spurring interdisciplinary dialogue on topics such as structural analysis, criticism, interpretation, technology, performance practice, and embodied knowledge. Presenters responded to a call for proposals that situated analysis and performance as distinct but related activities, with a specific focus on contemporary music and musical practices. What quickly became apparent among the accepted presentations, however, was that for many artist/scholars specialising in contemporary music, analysis and performance are essentially inseparable, if not entirely one and the same. What began as a symposium seeking to uncover shared strategies for two distinct pursuits—analysis and performance— became a forum on how those pursuits are tightly connected through a network of elements: score, instrument, performer, and environment. The seven articles presented in this special issue reflect this inseparable network. As such, two prevailing themes emerge through the articles. The acts of analysis and performance are often indistinguishable. Many artists and scholars whose research connects performance and analysis might argue that one is not fully defined without consideration of the other. The work presented here goes even further, suggesting that one cannot fully exist without the other. Timothy Roth’s article on the reconstruction of obsolete technology to perform Stockhausen’s Mikrophone I (1964) foregrounds the analytical detail required to perform this work today, when the composer’s preferred sound filter is not readily available. Roth argues that, in navigating technological obsolescence, musicians’ reconstruction of new technological materials to perform this work constitutes a type of analysis that is indispensable for interpretation of this work and others like it. Kate Doyle and Agnesse Toniutti demonstrate how a circular dialogue between score-based analysis and performance-based experimentation is necessary to
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: Contemporary Music Review provides a forum for musicians and musicologists to discuss recent musical currents in both breadth and depth. The main concern of the journal is the critical study of music today in all its aspects—its techniques of performance and composition, texts and contexts, aesthetics, technologies, and relationships with other disciplines and currents of thought. The journal may also serve as a vehicle to communicate documentary materials, interviews, and other items of interest to contemporary music scholars. All articles are subjected to rigorous peer review before publication. Proposals for themed issues are welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信