SCORE(S)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCORE(S)
Nowadays, a score seems to be quite a straightforward notion : the score is the place when the music is written, and musicians, who supposedly know how to read it, play music from what's written.
The score, reputedly, includes notes, tempo, rythm, level etc.
In fact, the issue is not so easy.
For example, let's look at an old Gregorian chant score.
Only 4 lines instead of five. The key is weird. There is no mention of rythm. Also, no forte or piano.
It is probable that back in the XIIIth, XIVth.... centuries, the way to sing that score depended on the area, or even on the monastery - a local tradition issue.
There is no "absolute" way to sing those prayers. That's a big difference with today's scores.More details on how to depict this score :
http://lphrc.org/Chant/
http://www3.wittenberg.edu/dkazez/Mus110/Gregorian-Chant/
This one is a song from Guillaume de Machaut :
There are now our traditional 5 lines, there seem to be more details (more written notes).
However, no real rhythm can be seen.That was already, and even more than today, the "white man sickness" : no interest in rythm ;-)
Now to the XVIIth century : a score from Monteverdi.
It becomes to be close to what we know.It's obviously a reasonably complex vocal polyphony.
The white man sickness is desperately obvious, though there are bars for the first time.
A little later : a score from JS Bach.
It's a "cantata" : a song.
Notice something very important : it's the first score that isn't strictly vocal.
However, at these times, the "accompanying instruments" were not strictly specified. One could play the instrumental parts with many different instruments.
A piano piece from Beethoven :
Here, the instrument is specified : it's a piece for pianoforte, the close ancestor of our modern piano.
There is more rythm. The whole thing is beginning to be more complex.
An orchestra score from Malher, end of the XIXth, beginning of the XXth.
This is the archetype of the "standard" score.
There are bars, the instruments are strictly specified, it's quite detailed....
We've now reached the "standard score". What comes after is a bit messy.
We're going to see a few examples of what happened to the western academic musical thought.
A score from Varese :
This is a graphical score.
Though it's less accurate than the standard score, it has a distinct scientific feel to it - (x,y) axes and coordinates.The debate "wysiwyg vs wyhiwg" is slowly becoming relevant.
A score from Stockhausen :
This one is more "conceptual". Obviously the musicians don't have to really follow the score anymore. They have to extrapolate what they play from the score.
Last but not least : a score from the musician's arch nemesis, Boulez.
In regards to the "wysiwyg vs wyhiwg" issue, this score is very interesting.
It's very easy to read ; the concept seems to be solid ; it's clear and obvious ; it's easy to analyze, the mind is satisified.
... but to 90% of the audience, if not 99%, it sounds like shit. At the very least, it makes no sense.It seems to be very relevant to ask oneself : is this music made to be read or to be listened. Does it address the intellect only, or does it have any chance to bring emotions ?
Naturally, there is always the question : does the music have to bring emotions ? This can only be answered looking at the cultural context. And looking at today's world, the answer is obviously yes.In this case, this is museum music : a curiosity. Not to be listened to, not to be enjoyed, but a disincarnated object of study, with no relation to any audience except researchers and alike.