ss:i?S Á?*;+::s-:;g i?GIi::j =+ s:==Ei41í:.2;c{=,a;:c } +i"-i;s-;

;.á+CG lr:TC-3i§

l'rrblishcd byAshgatc Publishing Limited( irlwcr llouse('rofl l{oadA ltlcrshotllirrnpshireGUll3HRl'.rrgland

Ashgate Publ ishing CompanySuire 420l0l Cherry StreetBurlington, VT 0540 1 -4405

USA

rt'r §i1'l¡¡¡l¡¡s ('ook .l(X)7

Allri¡.qltls rcscrvcrl. No ¡ritrl ol'tlris ¡lultlieirlion rrriry bc ¡'cprotlucctl. slorcrl ilr l rctricvllsystctnortr¡tttsltlillctl itt arty lirrtn orby arty n¡c¿uls. clcctronic. rrrccl¡¿rnicirl. ¡rlroloco¡ryirrg. rccorclingor olltcrwisc without lhc prior perrnission of'tlrc publishcr.

Nicholns Cook has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act,l98ll. to be identified as the author of this work.

Contents

l, I l, ,rr l,',11,'ttt,'ttl.¡

lntt,"lnt ll¡ttl

I ttl,lt¡lt,,l ll t'ttttt!:.\

I l\lu',rr,rl l'olnr irnd thc l,istener (1987)

' I lr, l't'rlt'¡rl iorr ol'Large-Scale Tonal Closure (1987)

t llr , llrovt'rr's IJnlinished Piano Concerto: a Case of Double Vision? (1989)

| ',r l¡r'rrLt'r's Ihcury of Music as Ethics (1989)

I lr, l rlitol r¡nrl thc Virtuoso, or Schenker vs. Bülow (1991)

r, llr'lu rr lr Sclrcnkcr. Polemicist: a Reading of the Ninth

I

rl

lll

il

t'

lr

vii

ix

xix

I

9

t9

57

83

I nrnsot. *"biiá' http/ r**ahg"t".".

I SllN 978-0-7 546-21 18-0

llrilish Library Cataloguing in Publication Data('rxrk. Nicholas, 1950-

Music, performance, meaning : selected essays. - (Ashgatecontemporary thinkers on critical musicology)L Musicologyt.'t'irle780',7',2

llS Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data( 'rxrk. N icholas, 1950-

Music, performance, meaning : selected essays / by Nicholas Cook.p. cm.- (Ashgate contemporary thinkers on critical musicology

scrics )

Includes index.lSllN 978-0-7546-2718 0 (alk. paper)

l. Music-Philosophy and aesthetics. I. Title.

Ml,3800.c74 2007'7tll.l'7 dc22

§yrtr¡rhony Monograph (1995) l0l

Murlc Minus One: Rock, Theory and Performance (1995-96) I 19

l'lts l)olncstic Cesamtkunstwerk, or Record Sleeves and Reception (1998) 139

Al ll¡c llorders of Musical Identity: Schenker, Corelli and the Graces (1999) 157

lltoorlzing Musical Meaning (2001) 213

lirl't¡r urrtl Syntax: a Tale of Two Terms (2002) 241

l'ltc ( )lhr¡r llcethoven: Heroism, the Canon, and the Works of 1813-14 (2003) 261

lrerlirnl¡uncc Writ Large: Desultory Remarks on Furnishing the Abode of the

ll,lttcrl St lrollt'(2(X):i) 283

I I ltr l'r¡rr,,t'ol'Synrbolic l\rvcrty (2004) 301

I i U'r rtrr,1 on Mr¡sic or Axcs t«r (lrind: Road Rage and Musical Community (2003) 301

lr' [\lrrl irr¡,Mrrsic'lirLlctlrcr', or lrn¡rrovis¿rtiolr and its Others (2004) 321

ltt,l, t :i43l'r'irrtcrl irrrtl horrnrl irr ( il'cirl llrilirill lly 'l'.1 lrrler¡rrrrliorrirl l,ltl. l,¡rtlslorv. ('onrrvirll

2007013633

('llAlr'l'lil{ 7

M rNus ()Nn: RocK,'I'nnoRy, ANDPnnronuANcEt

. lit's so nluch in dexterity and habit that I scarce think it a

for discourse. Upon the whole, performers in greatrlr,rll l¡c «lunces in ltheoreticall skill.

Roger North2

rrtc always retrospective; it was nearly the middle of ther ('ntr¡¡y l¡cfbre the classical repertory as we know it solidified. (If

ir to hc given, it might be 1841, exactly fifty years after Mozart's.r r«'vicw of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony described it as 'thetr rrly rernarkable artistic period, exalted byJ. Haydn, Mozart, andSo it s«'cmed like the end of an era when, in the late 1980s, the

started reissuing a selection of the previous quarter of a

in boxed sets of CDs, thereby confirming the emergence

And it was atjust this time that music theorists first began to

rtrk. Of course the academic study of popular music was a

field by then; but the initiative had been taken by

.rrrrl culture theorists, and later by sociologically-inclined

The result was a climate of opinion in which close musical

the type familiar in the study of the western art tradition were

with suspicion, if not downright hostility, on the Brounds that they

at best an illegitimate transference of approaches derived from

, and at worst a deliberate attempt at academic mystification.however, had an equally compelling argument: why, they

¡he musi¿ of rock not be accorded the same detailed scrutiny as

wirk'ly valued repertory?.oly might be said to have come of age in November 1990, when a

rock was included at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Music( );rkland, California; papers were given by Graeme Boone, Matthew

(lovach, Walter Everett, and Dave Headlam. And recent

hy thc last two of these authors highlight in a particularly tangibleof the issues involved in, and difficulties attendant on, the

¡¡f rrxk. My intention in this article is to focus these difficultiesI see as two related issues: the concept of authority that is built

<liscourse, and the theorising of musical performance. Itlrrl, in lx¡tlt th<:sc respects, approaches developed for the analysis

muric repertory have been transferred too directly and uncritically to

l. MythankstoJoséBowen, Dai Griffiths,and Robynn Stilwellfor their suggestionsbroed on a draftversion of this article,

2. MaryChanand

Jamie Kmsler (eds),

Rogu North\ CursoryNorzs of Muicb,SehoolofEnglish, Universityof New South Wales,Kensington, NSW1986, p157.

3. Froman 1841review of Beethoven'sNinth Symphony inthe Allgruinemwihalishe Zeitung,quoted in David Levy,'Early Performances ofBeethoven's NinthSymphony: aD«umentary Study ofFive Cities', Ph.D.diss., Eastman Schoolof Music, University ofRchester, 1979, p391.

ol rrx k; rny :rinr is to idcntify some of the unhelpful conceptual

4. Dave Headlam,'Does the SongRemain the Same?

Questions ofAuthority andIdentification in theMusic of LedZeppelin', in EtizabethWest Marvin andRichard Hermann(eds), Concut Muic,Rock, andJazz since

1945, Uníverstty ofRochester Press,

Rochester, NY 1995,(herealter ConcfttMruic) pp313-63, fromwhich all thereferences in this piece

to Headlam's workGme. The first part ofthe present article is amuch expandedvemion ofanargument sketched inthe concludingchapter which Iconributed to thiscollection (see footnote7 below).

lra¡1¡y¡¡c tlrt.sc ir¡r¡rro;rt:hcs bt'ing wi(lr tl¡r.rrr, llctlrirrltirrg rucll al)l)rr)a(:lt(.s is a

plecondition fi¡r a more adequate the«rry of rrx:k, llut tl¡is artide is not so muclrabout theorising rock as about what rock can tell us about theorising music ir)

general. In short, I shall suggest that until we know how to theorise musicalperfbrmance we cannot reasonably claim to have an adequate theoreticalapproach to rock, or to the art tradition either.

I

Dave Headlam's'Does the Song Remain the Same? Questions of Authority andIdentification in the Music of Led Zeppelin'a is about the relationship berweenLed Zeppelin's songs and the blues or other sources on which they werefrequently based. Headlam's central question is 'in what, if any, context may

Led Zeppelin be considered the originator of its own most disrinctive sorgs?'and he seeks to answer this in what he provocatively refers to as purely musical'terms. His argument turns on the distinction between the mere fact of derivingone piece of music from another, arld its incorporation within a significantlynew aesthetic whole. Headlam maintains that songs like'You Shook Me'and'ICan't Quit You Baby', both of which were derived from originals by theChicago bluesman Willie Dixon, fall into the first category; both, he says, are'virtual transcriptions of the originals transplanted to a rock ensemble'. (Ofcourse, this already means that they inhabit a quire differenr sound world fromthe original.) But 'Whole Lotta Love', which is based on Dixon's 'You NeedLove', evidences a much more thoroughgoing transformation; for example,Headlam points out, the anacrusis motive of Dixon's song is stripped down intoa repeated rifi while the song as a whole is expanded into a large-scalesectional form through the addition of what he describes as an improvisatory,psychedelic middle section. And he adds: 'The power and effect of "WholeLotta Love" .. . derives in large part from the forma.l contrast and cornbinationof the two seemingly disparate elements - driving, rhythmic blues-riffs andfree-form psychedelic effects - inco a coherent whole'.

The last two words represent the heart of the matter. 'Whole Lotta Love',Headlam is saying, is an arristic entity in its own right because it has its owncharacteristics and because these cohere to form an aesthetic unity. Moreover,he claims, these characteristics are representative of Led Zeppelin in general;songs like 'Whole Lotta Love' 'share musical elemenrs with the originalversions, but are .transformed formally, timbrally, rhythmically, motivically,and harmonically into the defining features of the Led Zeppelin sound'. Thesongs, then, are not mere.ly unified in themselves. They cohere within theoeuure af Led Zeppelin as a whole, by virtue of what Headlam calls 'the unifyingforce of the band as "aurhors"' - in much the same way as each of (say)

Beethoven's compositions acquires an added resonance through being relateclto the others. But of course, Headlam is much too sophisticated to identify'authors' in this sense with the flesh-and-blood individuals who make up theband. Rather, he is availing himself of the structuralist and post-srructuralisr

¡0ilrr'l)lroilr¡l lltr'.tt¡lllr¡l:t\;ilr url¡llrt('llv(tllll\lllltllttlltttttgs¡xrrllr:rll1 t0

l,or¡rrrrrlt, lrc rvtrlt'r llrirt'irr (lris vicw, tlrt ";tttlltot" tottslilttlts ir lrtitrri¡rlc ol

rrrlv iulr()nl{ ;r t lltss ol wr¡t ks, st¡lllewltat ;rkirl to ¿r theol'y, ulltlel which

rlrr¡r;rr';rtc wolks (an bc glouped together by their shared characteristics

rt|rrurirrg lrr»il tlral authclrship'. By demonstrating coherence, then, by

rlrowirrg lror.v cvc¡r al)l)arcntly diversified musical configurations embody an

rrrr,['r'lyirr¡3 unity - in short, by operating in its most familiar manner - musical

,rr;rlysis pr'ovides an essential criterion of both authorship and the identity ofrlrc rr¡rrsical work that authorship underwrites.

l lris approach has the obvious advantage of making theory matter. In other

r!.rys, lr())vever, it might seem a perverse approach to the rock repertory. Given

rlrrrt the adaptation and re-adaptation of existing material is a commonplace ofilr('sr popular music traditions, why should it nxatter whettter or not Led

/.c¡rpclin are regarded as authors? Wouldn't it be more §ensible to recognise

tlr;rt the practices of popular music undermine the idea of authorship as

ro¡rstrr¡t:ted within the western art music tradition? As Headlarn explains,

Ir,rwr:ver, there is a historical context to these issues, and specifically to the

rlurti¡rction (which he adopts from Arnold Shaw) between the genuinely

r rr,;rrive 'reworking', such as 'Whole Lotta Love', and the merely derivative'r ovcr' (fbr instance, 'You Shook Me'). 'Genuinely' creative, 'merely'derivative:

tlrrrc is nothing fortuitous about the ethical overtones of these terms. The

re!(ilrive connotations of the'cover'date back to the mid-1950s, when North

r\rrrerican record producers habitually took songs by black artists and

rr l.t'<orded them (in a suitably toned-down form) for white audiences, using

nlrrtt'¡nusicians; it was notorious that the original artists generally made no

rnn('y out olthe songs'subsequen[ success, though the record and pubiishing

rorrr¡>;mies did. And Led Zeppelin became tarred with the same brush as a

rr'¡r¡lt of their own failure to credit the artists from whom they adapted their

r,,ngs. Several court cases resulted, among them Willie Dixon's successful

rr( I ir )n i11 respect of 'Whole Lotta Love'. (Despite this, the current CD release ofrlrr. song - Lett ZeppeLin 11, on Atlantic 19127-2 - still credits it solely to the fourrrrr,lrlrurs of the band.)

I lrcle have recently been signs of a convergence of interest between music

rl¡r.olists and copyright lawyers;5 had Dixon's action been taken in the 1990s, itri :rlnr()st possible to imagine the kind of analytical demonstration which

llr';rrll;rnr c¡ffers in relation to'Whole Lotta Love'being invoked as evidence fortlrr rk'lence. Forensic musical analysis, if it may be called that, concatenates

rrrrrlr('ri( valueandintellectualpropertyrights;theoneisseenasendorsingthe,¡tlrcr. l\l( rvhat is revealing is that, at the same time as he argues in favour ofI Irl Zt'¡r¡x'lirr's stat.us as authors, Headlam also relates their derivative practices

rrr lnnnrv [);rgt"s a»d.John Paul.]ones' previous experience as studio musicians.

,\r lrr' ¡rrrls it, in sudr a context'originality was not valued as much as the

rr¡rlr;rliorr r¡r'rcctt':tti<¡r¡ of the appropriate style', and accordingly'stylistic and

r¡rolrtirlrirl rortt¡riLtliott wlts a nat.ural out.growth of the band mernbers'

¡r. \'rous slrtrlio cx¡x ticnrls'. I lrclt' :ttc srtggt'slirltts llt'tr^rl atloll.¡cr ¡rrlssiblr:

5. Aconspicuousexample is the specialsession or¡ musicalplagiaúsm at the 1994

Annual Meeting oftheCollege Music Societyin Minneapolis.

24 Nr w l.i )l{MA r t( )Ns Mf r\rr l\4rNls ()Nt R(xtK.'l t¡t,()l{Y ANI) I'llRl()RM^Nr:l 2!,

li, ltl Concüt Mui4pp I 72-228. Side 2 ofAhbt'y Rwd| 0¡ retponds to tracks7- I 7 of thc CD rclcase

li¡tc lr¡l lltc rlt'li'¡¡r t'('rrr'lrrrl, rny (licnt3 tlirlrr't k¡¡orv wlrlrt tlrry w(.r'(.(l()ing'). llurtlt:tt isr¡'t wlurt lll'arll:rrn is llrirlralily:ritrrirrg irt. Wlurt ltt.is rt'ally rkrirr¡i r.

drawing a line [¡etween the two roles f hat tr:rl /,e¡rpelin a¡rd ()thct t(x l,

nlusicians play in relation to their music: the role of 'genuine'composer.s (;r\ rr'Wholc Lotta Love'), and the role of 'mere' performers (as in 'You Shook l\ lr

and'I Can't Quit You Baby'). And his whole argument is constructed ()n tllassumption that it is the first of these that is crucial in establishing acsllr(.trlegitimacy.

In this way, Headlam recognises but does not theorise the deriv;rr¡r,practices of rock music; his distinction between the rock musician as comlx rv r

and the rock musician as author renders some of these practices amenalr[.r,,interpretation along established music-theoretical lines, while elimir-r;rrrrr¡1

others as üable objects of study. Again, he recognises the collectivity ol rlr,

production and dissemination of popular music, bur the whole rhrust ol lrrr

argument is to enable traditional style-analytical approaches to be applirrl r,,

collectively-produced music without giving any further artention t(, rr1

collectivity. The very title of Headlam's chapter betrays its underll,irr¡¡motivation; after all, 'authority' and 'identification' only emerge as 'quesri()r.,

in the music of Led Zeppelin by virtue of their anomalous relationship «r r lr,,

art musical tradition, and in particular to the ideology of the autonomous rvor l.

of art on which music theory, as we know it, is predicated.

II

On the last page of his chapter, Headlam writes that, in the genuinely crc:rrrr r

reworking, the transformation must. be so complere rhar the reworking and tlr,.

original can stand side by side and both be accepted completely on their r¡rvrr

terms, with an appreciation of the elements that bind and separate the tno' I

would like to draw attention to two aspects of Headlam's language hert.: l¡r,,

prescriptive use of the word 'must', and the always revealing tt.r rrr

'appreciation', which sets up the idea of a critical observer (who else is like lv r,,

set the two versions of üe music 'side by side' so as to assess the elements rl¡.rr

'bind and separate' them?), while neatly combining the connotatiorrs ,,1

education and evaluation. And the link between analysis, education, :rrrrl

evaluation - in short, the impulse toward.s canonisation - becomes even n¡otr

evident in Walter Everett's significantly-named 'The Beatles as Compost.r'The Genesis of Abbey Road. Side Two'.6

Everett relies principally on Schenkerian analysis to demonsrratr. rlr,compositional properties (unity, coherence, and so forth) of üe Beatles' nrr¡sr, .

and not only at the level of individual songs; he reads the whole of Sidt'2,,1Abbey Roa"tl as a single 3-2-l structure in C major, with a strong setorxl;rrremphasis on A major. Many critics, of course, are opposed irr ¡rritrti¡rk.ro tlrr

application to popular music of an analyti<:al rnetlr«rd rlcsigrrt:rl lirl rlrr

elucidation of the Austro-(ierman masterworks. llut it nright he poirrtcrl orrt rrr

26 Nlw I,I)RMA l t()Ns

l.,vrlrlt.\tlt.lt.ttrt.tll;llsrltrt¡kr.l¡:tIt:ttt;tlyrisltltslx.r.ttlrrritlrrllyit¡l¡rlir.rll(lllt¡lllyti,¡('tlt)ti('r lot wltir ll ll w¡t§ lt(f il¡lctrrk'rt' t:rrrgirrg lirr¡¡l tlttxlit:val lxrly¡lltorty ttt

fulo r¡rr¡si(.. Arrtt if it is olli<rtetl rl¡ut sr:hr:nkcliun analysis igtt<-rt'cs things likt'

rr,rrrrc arrrl rext,r.c - which arc t¡r'terr essential in p.pular music (and c]asslcaf

rrrr¡ir. rrxr, fbr that rnar.tcr) - then the viability of the Beatres'songs in a host' ol

vootl ¿ttul i¡lstl'tllnctttal transcripdons demonstrates the central role that pitch

¡rr rr( rr¡¡(: ¡»lays in ,1"''' Fi;;Iry:ti 'it tott of analyzing the whole of Side 2 of

Ahhm ltoa¡las a single musical structure seems excessively ambitious or abstract

lr l'lverett realll claiming that liste"ets hear a prolongadon of 3 right up to the

lr¡irrrring of 'The End'? - then exactly the same can be said of attempts to

¡rrly$c clrtire song sets "t ";t;;t '"

terms of tonal structure' The problem' if

,'1,",'",*,r,,",doesnotrelatespecificallytopopularmusic'Wltat I want to emphasise' however' is not the technical aspects of Everett's

rl¡ntotrstradon of structural coherence' but its motivation' A less inclusively-

rrltt(lcd analyst might Otttt"t a Schenkerian reading of Side 2 and leave it at

rrrnr. rlrrt Everett wants to go further; in his own words, he'searches for an

uvrt nlching theme in this group of songs that were chosen andjoined in a very

r.r¡r:ir¡us manner,. u. foin,, out t;at the secondary tonar centre.. A, is

l,rx.i;rted with lyrics úrat dear with serfishness and self-gratification' whereas

tlrr lyrics that emphasise ,t"t'"'n' cluster round C' The interlocking tonal

rrr¡llcrt' then, have " ty*ñlit"l as weII as a purely musical significance' And

¡¡¡tt ir¡ this light, 'Tt'e End' takes on the attributes of a moral as well as a

.t¡t¡ital resolution; 'tlltcu't""y" writes Everett'.'comes to the earth-shaking

rf{liilarion rhat rhere t, ;;; ,;'*".h self-gratifying love ("the t"*- y:: ':T']'tltrt ()l A major, as

'r"'"lt'"r tr" gt"tto'-t kind ("ihe love you make")' that of

(l trtrrior... [Ilt seems rewarding to hear this uplifting message as a very

¡rt ronal f inal gift from McCartney to his mates' as weII as from the Beatles to

tl¡a w<¡rld" As I have written elsewhere"such a reading is "rewarding" because

ll rlrnws out from the music its potential for moral improvement' In this'way

!,vrr crt,s cssay shows t o* tt. music of the Beatres displays the ethical tuafies

tltnl havc since the Romantic period been seen as the hallmark of great art' It is

Itt rllect an exercise in aesthetic legitimation' an argument for the inclusion of

tlt¡lleatlesalongwithBachandB-eetho"eninthebasiccurriculumofaliberalll l¡ e(lucation"T

Wriring in the music appreciation tradition characteristically passes from the

rnllyrin of structural;;ir to the assertion ofcxpressive and ethical value

wlll¡(,r¡t it ever being O""l t*^t exactly what the connecdon between these

tltlrrgr tnight be. And this applies to Everett's essay' as I shall try to demonstrate

llttrrrrglr a close reading of his commentary on a Passage from.'Here^:,:::: tn'

Itttr' (wlrir:h *o, tt"ait"a to C'eorge Harrison)' The passage in question is'the

¡l¡ lilnca repeated '"* ''""' tJ"' t"tt' here it comes" which is followed by

Inttr b¿¡¡s that build of u' "'

1V'1 utptggio' Everett provides a Schenkerian

rtulyrin ol thc son¡1, ani on the basis of this he says as follows:

r,lrc v.i.c r«:irrrirrg ,[.t.his micrdle sectiofi (mm. 3l-32) consists of a series of

7. 'Music TheorY and

the Postmodem Muse:

An Afterword', inConcerl Mwic, PP422'39. To be fair, it is also

a plea for the academic

musical esGblishment

ro interest itselfin the

kind of music most

inhabitants of the

world actually listen to'

a plea which

recognises the linkage

bemeen canonic

values and academic

viabilitY.

IMus¡r; MtNrrs ()NI':r R(x:K' '.1'lltoRY AND PERtoRM^NCtl 27

rr,,,( r,,,i,r *..,,,,,],..'-,",l.,,, .],1;'].:,1,'::, ;,i:.".',"'', ,,,,,,, ( i r¡, (, r, r) rr¡ ,\, ,v¡rrr r

fr:r¡r.isorr's r¡rt.tri(:rÍior¡ ,,-..,:,,,,:..',.', "'¡( lilfirir'\rl',rr r¡r.r ilrrrrir;rrivr.sr.rr,

rur,rr.,y ,,, ,,,"rjl,l'j'#:::';]rt',:,'L ll:rrrs'(

"'l( "ri,t wt,.rr rlrt' tr<¡,¡¡i,,,r r

mcasurc i2, hearcr six times., " o;,;;;;;:;:.:;li::.li;:lr:,,:i::l

;,:upper neighbour ro the third of Venlightenmlnt is seemingly celebrated harmony"" The coml¡,r,,

retransition's rad' ln measures 33-36 by rl,,

exuberanrsever,nlTá unfolding of V7 harmony, culminating orr rlr,

We can pick out the r

passase: gentreness,'Tffi:ni J*jlHil:r:jffi:j";H::"il:l,l:These richly suggestive terms tell a spiritual stcEverett links plllsibly enough with Harrison,.'?

o, themselves, a sror) rr,,,r

transcendenul medit¿they are to be p...,;;J:i ,T*frr::.3,,;fi:,xi1i,Til:'fi.[i,;:, ,',

Anrl this is what ;;; .-::'::::: - the music s expressive trajectorv.

;::,il.:::H:;;;,;iilü,t:::,::t::.J;;;;":.i1.#;l*";rrom rheir ,,".";;;;.-,ll:.r#::f::1i:,:.ss,is seen u. u.i.i,f ;;;. ,

Il,]:ll1**"l!b a soollrear _o..,,..ijr*;;;:.j:: IJ"*r*,rr*1;ll, :,a serres of parallel tenths (B_A-G# ou.. a?ru-rr.*at the first .sun, (b,. tl) aplel:ins r.-,;;;;.'":ii:I]l1J:l,.:::;,Ji,,iilil."#::fiffi;:.Ti,:I neighboJrs aisapffi wh,e the series or rou,rr¡remains ; i -o,,ia ;il:: ,l1 j"",f;ff .'ff l1ntreness

* -n"n i.-r,,, i.

multiple repetition, as weil as to the measur., .noo'utto'and the very far r ,,r

music from c to E; the effect;. .".i,ir."*;;i:i::T."H;iTi::Ji:.:::il';. TT::,1,,1'lo^':'-: ^;;il';;:;",.. or,he parare,-,, r r,

schenker wourd call , ,0" t"'in which the A chord at'comes'dr. ;;;l; ,r;,.;,

ne:essarv ro ars.ue, ,, .,:'",i:::T,[:i:?;::Tund'; seen ,n" *,f, ',

,.,,:neishbour to th-e third of v nu.*o,y, t"* _i"" ;f;l.}i;.H:'firlJr,:f i;, :l*.:.n. A moving to G#t. But again the "r..;i;;i:T T;:":.T::' jT:'-.,,,;" "* il ; ;"1 ;i:;::::i;T:ii: :: :;: :, : :

lx'rwee;;dia;;;,i,ir..ltt structural harmonv' siving rise . * "o;";;;;,;;,'

; *, i:i;::r*i## fl *HT]; :1T'.?.::* :L,,ffi i; ii

r

,,,, ,,\ .. rxr;,,¡sr."r,n.,r"ffi,ii,liili;.11ifi,"::T,?Jl:T;::1:i:il,l,;,':.:,

'l ,,,¡rr.s lr¡.ighten during the last three reDer.

:1,^11 l- rir,r.rr,r.s,v(.cp ora ñ;;;;;,;.:;::l** or the phrasc rrr,

su8gests tlt. lrrrrlrl-rr¡r ,f liu.rrt :-:-^"'' arrui ru. me al anv ralr" il l.sistrl,l'

wi],n".,;.,;:r,;',,,'i,,-l',1'*"t as.the sur¡ emerges from behi,rr ;r rl,r,rmore rhan,,;_;i. ;,.,;,;;,,,.-ili:.TjJ}:*j:.il:::,].,|lis ¡,<,in, ,,,,,.,,,,,,, ,,,

'.rtl Ncw Fonu¡.r"loNs

I .ilil rrl'Ir[' ro r[.rkl r\\'o lxrrrs. I ll lrrsr is rlr:rr llr¡.¡(]¡rr.rrlo¡ lr.rwr.r.¡ rlrr.tcr lilrrr,rl;rrrl rlrc lxl)r(.\\r\,(.slr¡ricr rlr.rr l,,vr.rr.il tr.lls rr.;rlly isrr't rlrirl srrr)nl.l; yrlrl

'.ilrrlr;ilrB('rlrr';rrr:rl1'srs,l¡r¡llr.lrvt:tlrt.r.x¡rrr.ssiv<'inr(.rl)r(:lilli()il;rssil()il1{(rr;¡s;rrrr',rl ;rs il w:rs i, tlr. flrst ¡rl:r.r'. '1. this extert the argumcnt li-om tet:hnical.rrr.rl'¡sis r, r'x¡rr.ssivt irrlt'r'¡r.clatiorr r,ight be seen as sleight of hand;indeed Ir,,rrkl siry it isr'r rtally ar ¿ilgurnerrr at all, but a coupling ol two quite distinct,¡\',r'rri(,r¡s. 'l hc other point arises lrom the multiplicity of viable analyticalrrr.l l)l ('t:rtions ¿lvailable even within the schenkerian approach (for of course itr*r)r rrf y intcrrtir-r¡r to suggest that Everett's reduction iswrong).If there is morerlr,ur r¡¡rc way t.o read the passage, then there is something decidedly¡rr,rlrlcrD:rtic about his repeated use of the word 'truly'; it amounts to no moretl¡,rr :rlr cxhortation in disguise. And this is by no means the only occasion onn l¡ir lr live rett avails himself of such vocabulary, which embodies a rhetoric of,rrrrlr.r'iry that is deeply embedded in the music appreciation tradition and in,rrrsir l hcory i, general.s what I am drawing attention to is not the judgmentalr¡rr;rlity of Everert's language, for example when he speaks of McCartney,srlrgirrrt. polyphony'or the'inspired composition, of Abbey Road, as a whole;rrrrlivirit¡al readers wi,ll have their own views regarding the assimilation of thellr';rtlt's into the masterwork tradition that is conveyed by such terms.e It isr ,rt lr.l t he way in which Everett deemphasises his own role as interpreter; he¡rvcs lhe impression that he is simply explaining the music as it is. His writing¡ rt , jr.ts what Ellie Hisama has called the 'disembodied voice of authorirv'- r0

ilt

I *rrkl like to set this rhetoric of authority into its historical conrext. And as

¡lrrxl :r wav to approach it as any is via the idea of the.authoritaüve edition,orf /rn'rl. which has been the focus of so much musicological endeavour since the.r., ,¡rrrl h¿rlf of the nineteenth century.

l l¡r' :rim of the uñext is to remove the accretions of a work's reception (whichm,rl, r'ange from misprints that have acquired the force of law ro ther.r,rrr hirrgs or bowdlerisings of later editors), and so to arrive back at the scorerr rlr. r:rrnposer intended it. As is the case with historically,authentic,fx'r l()r rnirnces, then, the authority of the Llrtext is a reflected one; its sou.ce isr'r', :r( lying in the composer's intentions, and both musicologists and¡r'r l.r rrrirrg musicians use the language of intentionality with what must strike¡rrt lir('r:,y thurrist as gay abandon. Music theory, however, replaces thisl,,rgrrrg. lvirh one that curiously combines nineteenth-century metaphysicsrvrrlr lx)sr-sr.¡(;tu'alism. writing near the beginning of the present century,ll.irrirlr s<hcnker (from whom so much of present-day music theoryr ilr,rrr:rr|s) s¡xlifically ¿lttacked the notion of composers' intentions, not solnl lr ,¡l tlr. g*rrlrrls that thcy (an never be established, but rather that they,rr.ilr.k'v;rrrr,'l'lrt'«r¡ilrt.xrollrisrcrD:¡rksiswhatheseesa.sthe.fálsetheory,of'llr' ,lru¡r lr nror!t.s; r'vr.n llt'r.lllr¡vrrr, he says, in thc quartet Op. lil2, t.rie<l t.o

8. Forinstance, onpl96 he refers to 'thetrue nature'o.faparticular chord in'Because', when againthe salienr point wouldappear to be itsambiguity.

9. This ¿ssimilationgoes back at least as faras Wilfrid Mellers'sThe Mwic of the Beatbs :Tuilight of thc Gods,Faber, London 1973.

10. 'The Question ofClimax in RuthCrawford's StringQuartet, Mrr. 3', inConcet't Muic , pp285-312, p285, f@tnore 2.

Musr Mtlrrs ( )N¡ R(x:N, 'l'Ht,()Ry ANt) l,t:R1,.()RMAN(:t,. 211

t, f,.,,u", ,i,r',,.,, r,,

/l¿rarry. I )rrvrlll0r,rr (.il), tr

l.lr¡.rlrc¡l¡ M.r¡¡rrlirr¡crc, I lliverrrtv ol( ilrir,rgrr llt.ss,( ilrr rgo l lll'r4,

¡r¡li{) li L

ll. Rr¡l¡¡rd Barthes,rr. Srcpl¡(¡r Ilcath,lragr, lvluic, Tert,

l.i)nta¡)a, London,11177, ¡rl4tt:'the birthol thc rcader must be

¡rt tlla ( ost of the deathol t.hc Author.'

lll. IleiurichSchenker, tr. and ed.

.lohn Rotlrgeb,lluthoun's Ninths'Nilrhon!: A Pofiralalol lk Mwtcal ContenL

uith Running( i,mmanl4ry on

ltttlomate and,

Itu'r«ture As Well,YaleI Jn¡vcrsity Press, NewI laverr 1992, p20.

l,l. Hei¡¡richSchenker. tr. and ed.ll¡ ¡rst Oster, F¡¿¿( i»n post tton, Longñan,Ncw York 1979, p128.

l,'), See MaynardSt¡k¡rnorr,'Onllcclhoven's creative

lrl({c}li a two-part¡rvrtilion', B«thou¿nIr-sa1r, HarvardI Ir¡ivcrsity Press,( irrrrlrr irlge Mass 1988,

¡r¡r | 2(i.3tl.

lli. Scc Sylvan Kalib,' I l¡ir recl lissays fromlhc'l lrrcc Ycarbooks"l )lr Meistcrwerk inrlrr Mtrrik" byI l¡irr¡ ilh Schcnker:,\r¡ A¡¡rr¡tatcdI r.¡¡rrl¡tior¡', Ph.f).rlirr . Nr¡t tl¡weslcrnllrrivcrsity,1975,

¡r¡rlli{) lil, lll0.

ronrlnr¡( ,r((orrlur,.l lo llrir llrlorl llrtl ir Hr('irl :ulirl lrlr lk'r'llrov¡'tr'rot¡lrl r'rr

Bcl lnnrr('ll lr) ult('t :ur ;nlisli( r¡nltulll, ('v('n llt()uHlt ltts rrrt¡sr iorts cllotlr rr, r,

Hr¡i(lc([ in ll¡;rt «lilcr;tir¡rr'.ll Stllr:nkcr'(r)niur'(:s rrl) ¿r rr¡(.r¡¡()r'illrlt'inr:rgc ol tlr,

l{rnius-(ornl)oscr wl¡() sl)caks with a v()ice that is ¡rc¡t his orvu:

Itt or<ler to banish F ma-jor once and fbr'¿rll fil¡¡r ()ur l¡(-r-(('lrtr,'lflBeethoven] carefully avoided any B-flat, which would hirvc lcrl tlr,

composition into the sphere of f major. He had no idea that behi¡rtl his lr.r, I

there stood that higher force of Nature and led his pen, lortirrg l,r.

composition into F major while he himself was sure he was composirrg irr rlr,

Lydian mode, merely because that was his conscious will and intention.

In the {inal r€sort it is not, then, Beethoven who wields the pen; like I}rrrrlr,'.

Schenker proclaims the death of the author.12 However it is not the rt-arllr l,rrrthe'ultimate necessities of the masterworks'to which birth is therebl, givcrr r'

Schenker's analytical method is devoted to explicating the intrinsically nrrrsr, ,,1

laws according to which the masterworks are shaped, and for hirrr tlr,

possibility of explication in such terms represented the one demo¡rsl¡rrlrlr

authoritative criterion of musical value. In his definitive theoretical w()¡k. ,),,

freie Satz, Schenker enthusiastically cited Mozart's account of how hc 's;ru" lrr

compositions in the form of a beautiful picture, with every detail of thc rrrr¡rr,imagined'not all in succession ... but somehov/ all at once'.I4 As is nowrrrl,rr

well known, this accountis a nineteenth-century fabrication from tht'¡rcrr ,,1

Friedrich Rochlitz.ls But that in no way lessens its significance for what rrrr¡ilrtbe called the ideological underpinning of music theory. The synoptic visiorr ,,1

a musical work that Rochlitz described, however fictitiously, embodies rrll rlr,

qualities that analysts have traditionally looked for in music: unity, irL'rrrrrr

and authorial value. For Schenker, such a synoptic vision was the proviu( ( ,,l

the creative genius alone; through analysis, however, it was possible to H;rur .rr

least an intellectual apprehension of the genius's intuition.16 In this way, rrrrlrl ,

the Urtetct of historical musicology, t}re U rlini.e of Schenkerian analysis poss(' \ \ r

an intrinsic authority: it recaptures what might be called the moment ol r¡ urlr

in which a masterwork is revealed, §o providing what Schenke¡ (who rlirl rr,,r

favour the term Urtext) saw as the only adequate basis for a truly au(li()r it:rtru

edidou.lT And in speaking of revelation, I mean to imply that, for Sch«'rrk, r

there is ultimately but one source of authority, one Author: true cohercrrr r', lr,

wrote, is found only in 'God and ... the geniuses through whom he works.'r"Seen in this perhaps incongruous light, the agenda of Headlam's css;r\ ,,1

Led Zeppelin may become more intelligible, and with it the rern¿r¡k,rl,l,

accommodations he has had to make in order to assimilate rock i¡rto tlr,interpretive paradigm of established music theory. Faced with the plrrr':rlitr ,,1

complementary versions that is normal in popular music, Hca(lllrn's lrrrrimperative is to establish an authoritative text for analysis, a lock er¡uiv:rh nt ,rl

ihe Urtext. He becomes a little defensive as he explains his procedurc:

30 Nlw l,ilrr'¡¡ l ¡oNs

()trr olr¡'rllott lo trty 'rrr;tlylirlll tlt'illlll('lll ol lltc soltgs trrtglrt lx'tlli¡t t'(11

/,c¡r¡rchlr t 'rtttlltttitlly t tt""*ttt ¡t¡trl cvt¡lvcrl i¡r tl¡cir'(:('tt((:¡ l vr:rsiotts r¡l ihcst'

rlr¡Hr . lk'spitc tlrcs<'i"'¡llt''i"tti'"*' ht.»wcvcr' ertch sotrg has a fixed studir-¡

vctrir»¡t tltrtl l,o* l'"tt""L' <lelinitivc' and fbrmed at lcast the basis fi¡r

tnr¡rovisilti()lls ()ll slall(:' I <oltsitlcr the studic¡ version§'iustification for my

rl I ¡¡¡lysts'

It rrriglrt, of course' be pointed o':. 9"t Headlam's u§e of the term

,lilr¡rrrrvisati.rrs, to describe Led Zeppelin's concert performances Prejudges

llrn i¡rt¡tr; it is only by 'ittue of cornparison with a frxed text that the concert

lrr lr)r't¡rances.u" bt at"tii"á ^ iptouitu'o 'y'1o

in this way the aural/oral

¡rpc( t$ of rock pertormancJi" i*pfltt'y subordinated to a text-based theory'

llr¿¡tlla¡n's second imPerative is' as we have seen' to construct a stable

Iull¡r'ial Persona i" pfttt "i tfte to"tinge"ties of grouP comPo§ition; like

l{r ltctrkcr, Headlam is concerned with what the music does' and not with the

lrrtr¡tlit¡¡rs of individual band members' When he speaks of 'Led Zeppelin '

lltrt¡, lleadlam is rtferrinf to an authorial construct and not to a group ol

Inttrl('ialrs - altho'gf' fto ñttt""ry * to whether'Led Zeppelin' should take a

rltr¡rrlar or a piural verb betrays " t"tt'it' ]ac\

of ease with this strategem'

(l'vrrcrt aPPears t" b" "q;ly ;ncomfortable about this' At one moment he

t|triltc$ (;eorge Mardn's recollection that'it was more a question of being a good

l¡Én¡ lhari ofisolating inaii¿u'ts as being Producer' arranger' or songwriter'i

tltc tt<'xt moment ht it^t;;;; that 'Iiarrison's meditation becomes ruly

lrrr¡¡r(:errdertal', or refetrinf á 'tht to-poser's enlightenmenc') And this

lrt lrrgs to light the ""ttgt 'ñt"ion

that takes place in Headlam's adoption of

lltr ¡xrst-structut"ftt toit"pt of the author' For Barthes' the death of the

trtllr)t rePrese"tt¿ u a""t"'¡ng of authority' But for Headlam it represents

r¡rrrr the oPPo§ite' By d;;;;t;lacing the flesh-and-blood author (or rather

attl¡tors) with a theoretical construct' he achieves the extension to a new

rl¡rt¡t¡ritr of ^ to"ttp' of authority that is unambiguously rooted in

ltlttrtr('lrth-century value 'y"t-'' Here is the source of the 'disembodied voice

ul [l¡lh(rl'ity'to which Hisama refers'

( i¡¡h. "1 l¡c l',tlttot ¡¡r'ltltc V¡I tull¡,1»Srhcnkc¡ vc¡sus

Bülow',.loun*l oJ tltt

Ro¡al Musrol,4¡¡ocmrion, VolumeI 16, pp78-95; and'Heinrich Schenkerand the AuthoritY ofthe l-l¡text', inTokumaru Yoshiko ¿¿

al (eds),Trad'itim and

its Futtne in Mui'MitaPress, Osaka 1991,

pp27-n3.

18. Schenker, oP cif,p160.

lv

ll ir thc conflation of authorship and authority - a conflation equally

r l¡nt nt:teristic of no*tt"tiJ* urra *o¿"t'litm - that explains the remarkable

rltlllculty we seem t" n; ;";eorising' rather than swerving away from'

ilrrrltil,lc uurhorship i. *rr.-i.; s.rr.nker's"ultimately theological (which is to say 19. Johncovach

||r,r¡r¡tlrcis(ic) cofiception .i "r,n.*nto is only one instance of a quite Seneral broachesthisissuein

.tttil)¡¡thy lowards the idea of art being t t"rn*'"J ptod"t'io"' Whut 'lffif;'yt:*

lr¡kcr this dilhculty ..*u.oror" is that multiple authofshiP is such a common Musicologv" in

lrlrrr¡(l*¡r¡K)r¡. rr is by no means restrict.d to th" gto'ftt-**n'"" "t':1L:1 it:lffi':i':t1li

trll¡c¡ li»r'rrts ol ¡xr¡rulat rnusit:;19 notorious examples from the art muslc RethinkingMu,.'

Irnlitiorr iltt:ludc tlrc Mozart/Siissnrayr Requiem and Mu"orgsky/Rimsky- forthcoming'

Must(: MlNtls ()Nl:' R()cK' 'l H!:()RY ^ND

Pt:RroRM^Noi 3l

2ll Ar0IteItpr)t.ltylt¡rltlr a tt wlt,tt Iliglrtl,¡ r,rllcrl rlrciorrtpositiorrr hy¡ rlrtr¡t¡Ita' l¡1)rn thcI'co¡rlc'r Rc¡rrrblir of( il¡irr¡r, tl¡c l¡est k¡rowr¡ol whiclr is thc lltllalñI t¡,¿¡t' (.)otut¡'lo (l\( ihcn (;ang andr Iher s).

2 l. Lisa A. Lewis,( ;.il.I?r I'olitic! andl\4 fV: Voicing the

l)lterence,TempleI lrrivcr sity Press,l'hiladelphia 1990.

¡1i3. Ofcourse auindividual musiciantrl¡y, oD occasion,ur(lcrtake two or¡¡¡ore of these roles.

'll. l.cwis, op.cit.,

¡r¡fi,l-ir. A few ba¡rdsr r r.tlit their songsr ollcctively ro the band(lirr cxanrple, U2( icrrcral Public), orr re(lir them toallr¡¡livi<lr¡al bandttrerrhcr s (forcx;rrnplc, carly (ienesis,rllrrrnrs). I owe thisol¡¡c¡vrtir»r to RobynnSt¡lrv¡ll.

I(ots:tkov's llott,t (iutlo¡utt¡.2r)'l lrr, r¡olorir.tt, i¡¡ r.,r¡ l¡ ol llrr.st.(its(.s is;r rll:rtrr. l\

l(1r'ltl l)l¡('tto¡It('¡l()n, an(l rl<'livt's l¡rlrr lltr.tr.;tlts¿ttt()l rltat;r higlrlv vitlll(.rl r' .,

(l()es ¡1()l ¡()present tl¡e rrnadulterale(l visi()lt ()f its n;t¡ne(l c()mlx)scl . A¡rrl rr ,

nol so long since another form of'multiple authorship wils tlt(.n',r,,Beethoven's symphonies were performed as reorchestrated l)y W:rgrrr.r i,,,

Btilow, or Weingartner, or Mahler), while period keyboard nnr\ir r, r

perfbrmed in Liszt's or Bülow's or Busoni's editions. The idea of the I /rlrrr, lrt ,

that ofhistorical performance practice, goes back to the days ofBrahn¡s, l,rrr rr

accePtance as the norm of informed performance dates back hardly lirrrlr,,than the 1960s. It is as if the tenets of modernism became establislrr.,l r¡,

performance only at the dawn of postmodernism.In referring to reorchestrations and editions as instances of'rrrrrlrr¡,1,

authorship' I am, of course, broadening the term, and I propose to bnr;rrlr.r¡ rr

still furüer. Once again rock shows the way. Like most popular nrr\ri linvolves collaboration and negodation between songwriters, compost'r.s, lr.rr,,rmembers or solo stars, producers, engineers, and record company persorrrr I

the result is, to use Lisa Lewis's term, a highly segmented process of cre:rrr,,r '

And a glance at the credits on recent CDs will show rhat this segmenl:rrr,,rr r

increasingly recognised by the music industry; lyrics, music, productiorr. r.rr r,

bass lines or samples may be individually credited. But as Lewis says,

This system of assigning credit represents only a small modificatiorr r¡r rlr,

model of individual authorship in that it maintains the focus r¡¡r rl,,

individual rather than the collective. Because no consensus for <rrlk.,rr,,authorship has emerged to counter the historical focus on the inrlivrrlrr,,lauthor (despite the collectivity of modern production), authorship disr,,rr r.,has become increasingly conflicted and contradictory under inrlrrrtr,,tcapitalism.22

Such segmentation is equally a feature of the art music tradition. The rc¡x.r r, ,, '

as we know it today is the result of collaboration and negotiation br.rs,r', r,

composers, performers, patrons and other sponsors, impresarios, editors.rrr,lpublishers. To be sure, the production process in classical musir is lr ,

collective than that of popular music; it is easier to distinguish rhe clillcr, r,r

roles, if only because they are largely sequential (whereas in popular rrrrlr,

Produc¿ion they are largely simultaneous). And whereas authorship in ¡r,r¡rrrl.rrmusic is bewilderingly fragmented, with almost as many patr('r'r¡s , 'tcollaboration as there are songs, classical music is dominated by onc rrxrssrr r lr

important variety of segmentation: the division of labour between c()ntln,\, r

and performer. Nevertheless, if authorship discourse has become r.orrllr, r,,,1

and contradictory in relation to popular music, the sarne appli('s to llr..lrrnt¡sic tradition.

Lcwis observes of popular music thaf 'l.lnaware of how segr)lcnl(,(l nrr1r.

product.iorr really is, the public will often assume rhat the pcrfi».mr:t is ;rls. rl¡,

composer of the music.'And she itdds th¡t evelt when p('t'fi)r'ilt(.ts'l¡,nr. rr,,

52 Nrw l,ir¡<lr,r Irovs

rrr,, rlr r.r¡r¡.rrt ilr I oilrlx)rlllolr ... rt rs rtrll ¡xrssillk.to ttt:tk(';r s(rr¡l{ (}ll("s ()wtt tltrortglt

rlr¡ .rr I ol ¡x.rlolrn;rrrrr.'.:ll li()l illstllll((, I\l:ttlr¡ttttI's'Matcrial (lirl'rcmains Mad- !ll' /iral¡rplrfr'lili

,,rrr,r'.'Nl:tlcli:rl (iirl'rcgaltllcss of lhe firct that Peter llrown arld Robert Rarls

.. r,rrl ll¡r'sttttg,;ltttt Maly l'arrtlx'rt tlirtt:lc«i thc virlco; in factone of the aims of

rlr' \rl(()s(:('lllsl()havt:[x:ctltocorttributetothecon'structionofMadonnaasa(r*..r(.:.¡rrror rather than an industry puppet (to borrow Lewis's terms

,¡¡.rn''r).Nt¡wthisargumentwillnottransfetdi'"ttlytotheartmusictradition;24'Ibid'p63;ontr rr l¡¡rr.nr.¡.s, srrrcly, think that Nigel Kennedy wrote Brahms's Violin Concerto' X?j|H;}§t|?]"

llttlt.vt.ttRuhinsteindi<lnotupp*p.iut.Chopin,snocturnestotheextentthatregardingthevideois.lllrrru t's thought he wrote them- (Indeed the ca§e of Kteister points to the :1T:1[:[ffi"*"

l rltrr pltenomenon: to gain credibility fo'I:"-t compositions' you have to Madonnas(thesinger-

,.r r rltr. rrr('r^ ro someone else, preferably dead') At the same time' people buy XLtl'ffij,:l;h, rrrrcrly's vicleo of Brahms'iiolin Concerto because it is Kennedy's and not constructs'by

l,r , ,*$r it is Brahms,; reissues of historic recordings are bought by music-lovers 'Ij]i:?T:;r:Hl:i;

* lrr r u,,¡¡rt to hear Rubinstein, not to acquire yet another recording ofthe chopin autho¡lMadonna (see

il'x lttl ll('s. The segmentation of rnusical consumPtion - the fact that audiences NicholroCook'

., r, rr rrcr <rsrecl in performances and not just (in some contexts' not primarily) in #::irY'!'I'*"":

'llll¡|x)$il'ions_issuchanobviou§factof]ifethatitalmostseemsredundanttoforthcoming).Thism,,rrt ir)n it, and this is amplyborne outby the adu..tisit'g pages of any news-stancl

ry;fi:;i,i1"",!::I ll rrrugitzine. To identify áuthorship with the production of scores, or even with Foucaldian lincs that

rlrr lirrrl of composidonal manipulations Headlam discusses in 'whole Lotta lleadlamadv<rates'

I ,r,r', ir to narrow the co,a"pt 'oit" Point that it does not adequately reflect the

wrtr ill which music is either produced or consumed'

Itr ll¡r't:ase of classical music' then' the contradiction in authorship discourse

tr ilrrtrlially between how music is experienced and how it is written about'

Arrrrtrlirrg to the publisher's blurb' the N¿z¿r Oxford' Companiovt''to -Mus-it

tlt¡tr'¡rlier NOCIA is 'iJispensable " to a wide and diverse readership in

ü,rrrrlr r¡l information and enlightenment on anything to do with music"

Itrr¡rt, that is, for its performánce! The. NOCM finds a place in its two

r tltrr iot¡s volumes fot to*pottt' known only to the musically erudite (Certon'

llnrrlirrg, a¡tcl Horovitz, io"*u-ptt¡' But names like Furtwángler' Toscanini'

lftrr.witz, ancl Michelangeli are simply nor there; there is the'music minus one'

lrl rrry t il le. And as I see ii, the explanation for this extraordinary state of affairs

(lttu¡irte an encyclopedia of sport that did not. mention any sportsmen or

wllllrrll) lics in the *';;t "" Iut'gt-rugt in relation to music' We do not talk

irrrrrr r¡rr¡sicasif irwere.o.irle*páie.rc€;we.urkaboutitasif itconsistedof

rtlrll¡¡l ¡tsscts' We categorise the music o1 tlt l'* in terms of z¿orfts' which

,r.rr¡riillly rneans auth;;iutive texts coupled wiü an established (or at least 25' Aparticularlv

t, .,,lt'rl) l)11)v(:lla.ce' C)"t ""'ut"lur for music is as irremediably platonist as [:?::f#iy

t'

ilil trr lilri(.irl vrrabulary for it; we talk about performance as performance of MatthewBrou'n's

rr¡t!¡, rlctivit'r8 a situated experience of music from an ideal' timeless entity' t;hth'I]!;:"i

lltt¡rtirgr,iltsltrlr('le¿¡dst<¡the*a.gin"lisationofperformance.PerhapstheCognition,,inJohnlr¡rr rrrrlir;rrir¡rr.f this is rhe way in which, as I said, we establish the aesthetic ;::1tj,§3,ffffi,,h¡ltltrr,r, 1 of ¡rt't[orrnett by dámonstrating that they aren't just performers RochMuic'

Itttl,lt¡xrlt¡tt's('llst.,(()Il)lx)sers2I) forthcoming'

Mlrst(, M¡Nlrs ()t'lt Rtx;x, l'tt¡:o*Y ¡rNlr Pl:RIr()RMAN(:l': 33

26. I do, howcvcr,know whcre to start:l,ydia Goehr's Iñalmagtnory Muam ofMuical Wohs : An Essay

in the Philosophl ofMuir, Clarendo¡Press, Oxford 1992.

27. Dika Newlin,Schoenbetg Remembued:Dia,rbs a¡d, R¿coll¿ctim( 1936-7 6), Pendragon,New York 1980, pI64.

V

llow shorrkl !v('llrink r¡l tlrc rcllrtiorrslri¡r lx'lrvccrr wr¡r'k ¿¡rr<l l)('rli)tnr:ur"Obviously this is nruch too big a qucsti()n l() ar)sw(:r'('()nrl)r'cl¡cnsiv('lf irr.,,,article like this (and anyhow I am not sure I know rvhat a compl'cl¡r'trrrr,answer would look like26). But all I am aiming for here is to suggest how isru, .

of musical performance and multiple authorship intersect with one un()tlrr r

and for this purpose it will suffice to set out three models ol urrrvr.rl

performance: two impossible ones, and one possible one.

The first model arises from taking seriously the platonist language wc r¡s( r',

talk about music; I shall call this the NOCM model. According to it, rrrrr.r,

consists of sonatas and symphonies in the same sense that literature collsisl\ ,,1

novels and poems, and thejob of making these works perceptible is sirrr¡,lr ,

technical one; performers, in other words, serve the same kind of functi,¡n .,

printers - they have to be there, but we don't have to talk about them. Ar rr,,l,l

Schoenberg spelt out the implications of this model quite explicitly whcn l¡,

told Dika Newlin that

Music need not be performed any more than books need to be read al,,r¡,1

for its logic is perfectly represented on the printed page; and the perfot nr.r

for all his intolerable arrogance, is totally unnecessary except as lr',interpretations make t}te music understandable to an audience unforlur¡.rr'enough not to be able to read it in prin¡.z2

Presumably Schoenberg said this on the rebound from some negirrir,

performing experience, or maybe he was being mischievous; at any ¡ato. it r',

very hard to take the NOCM model seriously, because it is so massively orrt ,,1

kilter with how music is used in everyday life (though not, to be sure, with lr,,',

it is used in the theory classroom, where one recording tends to be as grxxl ,r.

another, and no recording is better still). And what is revealing is that wht'rr r',

are faced with an instance of performance that can be accommodated by rlr,

NOCM model, we tend to be unhappy about calling it a 'performance' ¡rt .rll

Suppose that you compile the score of Schoenberg s Klaui¿rstück Op. 33a irrt,, ,,

MIDI file, and output it through a Yamaha Disklavier grand piano: is tlrir ,r

performance, rather than a realisation? Is it a performance when a t.r¡,,

composition is played back in public (and do you clap, unless the composct is rrr

the auditorium)? I don't think the issue is simply whether or not you can h:rlr' .r

performancewithoutperformers. Itiswhetherornotthereisanyscopefirr tlr,

performance to be other than what it is a performance of. In other worrls, I .rrrr

suggesting that the idea of performance embodies a principle of difftrmrt, ;¡t,lthis is something I shall come back to later.

The second, and equally impossible, model of performance is irrst tlrropposite; I shall call it the'free improvisation'model. As I said with rcli r.rr,,to Led Zeppelin, improvisation is generally understood as a lelatiotr:rl lcrrlone improvises against an existing text, or at any rate in rclati<¡rr t() :l slx ( rlr'

34 Nt.,w l¡orr,r¡ t toNs

rrrtrtgt'll(l'ol stylistit (r)llv('llliollr{ 'l lrlrt is wlry llrc lt't¡tt'lttt'll¡ll)lovls:Illoll

lrl¡ll¡tllrllx.lrliltrrl,i¡trllrlt.l.ltltlt.tlrllr.it¡lr.l.ltlt.tttaltt.t.ilrwlrit.lrtrtltrltrlylixcrlrr ¡l¡ lrtll t'vclt ¡rtt'tk'lt'ttrrirrt'rl stylistit <;oltvettl'iolts lrlc abiured"Ihe problent'

r¡r r,r¡ru., is tlr¡rt it i, i,rrfurriú" to abjure stylistic conventions' To take a

r¡rrrllir' cxirtrtl'rl"' tl'" '"t'tl'dittgs of Ka'rlheinz Stockhausen's Au d'en si'ehen

,',Iar (lr':¡w ort atr casily lffii'"uf" musical .style'

that of the Darmstadt

{r{rt-Brlr'(l('i irttlt:t:tl thcy t"flt'tt tht stylistic idiosyncracies of the individual

lrrr¡k iittts who played in them' and above all the personal style of Stockhausen

lrltt¡rell. Aus den sieben \-agen is also interesti"g 1."" accommodation of the

Irrr¡rrrrrilrle Project of f?* -

i*pto'itation within the institutional and

¡Írrttttttiottirl structures of the '*otk' tradition' Stockhausen's brief poetic texts'

pltlt l¡ wcrt: «;omposed d;;; ' period of meditative retreat' evoke a desired

¡llrtl ¡rlrd occasionally 'a¿ I *ot" or less inscrutable direction; they are so

lrrrr ¡pet:ific with resPect to acoustic outcome that it is not obvious how you

r.rt'r rretermine whether a given performance was a performance 'of ' one of

lltr lcxis or not. (In *ftt' 'io'at"f have no idea how a case of plagiarism in

m,hllorr l(r AlLs d'en sieben Tagen could be advanced or defended' unless of

rlrr¡e ir had to do *irrr.oplirrg the words.) The rexts and the sounds are

Itrrtttr¡t¡te¡rsurablel the reladásñip between the work and the performance

,rr¡tiiltr of nothing b;;;ifft""te' And under these conditions the

tltlil l)l¡t iateness of the term 'work' seem§ as questionable as the term

'¡rt lttlttrattce' did in the t"t of tn" NOCM model' The texts O*"'nt1-::.f'r

trr¡ titre Aus d,n sieben 7.agen are probabry most sensibry seen as document'atton

rrl tltc Iree improvisation-s which Stockhausen and his musicians recorded and

tttrl hele(l under the 'u-t "'*t' rather than as in any useful sense a 'work' in

llt¡ll owrr right - even if they do appear in the Unive¡sal Edition catalogue'

rrrrr¡ rhc impossible locM model and the equally impossible 'free

Ittt¡rtovisation' model resist the division of authorship between composer and

ltlt lorlner. The one possible relationship between work and performance -

¡rrrllrle i¡r the sense tn"tlt Oot' not tend towards the denial.ofet*1t:::::-*

ll¡¡ ntl¡r'r'- builds on the idea of collaboration' Musical works (or composrhons'

ttt ¡riercs, ()r events) ut" ttrttt""*d very differently in different cultures'

wh¡thcl by means of u "otuti'o"

that speciñes sound qualities' or a tablature' or

att ¡lt¡tirl/oral o'¿itiorr' * " combínation of these' But in every case the

r¡rrr llication i, 'ig"ifitu"t§ incomplete' Fo¡ insance' western staff notadon

r¡rtrilics ¡ritt:lr and th;;; to*ptth""ti'ely but is intrinsically vague about

rlrrrlrre ¡r¡rcl ar.ticulation; the increasing density of composers' markings since

rrr¡ rrrirlc,e or tn. nrtl.ñ.y orrty .ir". ,o highright the limitations of.the

tr)l'rllr)¡¡ in (hese respects' Chi¡ese ch'intat¡lature' on the other hand' specifies

¡tltr lr, tirrrlrrc a"d attir:t'lation in detail but is almost indeterminate as regards

t ltyl lrrrrl il's as if there *er.e ' gt"*f principle that a high level of specificity in

trtt¡ thrtrrain has to bc compensated by a corresponding lack ol 1f'lricltf

i"

tltt)tllrl .'l'lrt: r'oltset¡tte"tt i"n"t there is in each case an irreducible difference

l¡¡lw*tt llrt' ttrt¡sit "*

tt '* '"nt"*"trtetl

ancl thc ¡rerformance fnd tlt-11'"'ll tll l{ll.' is thal tlrrs rlif li'l t:lrt:r' (r)nstitules an arena fbr meaningful

I

Mlrst( ['l¡Nlrs ( )NI ll(x:K l ll]r)RY ANll I¡lRt()RMAN(:r llfi

ill{. lirr ¡r gc¡¡cr:¡lrlisr r¡ssio¡r sct Mir haclK r.rrrsr, Rightness and

l{casr¡¡¡s it¡ Musicallrrtcr¡rretation', inMirlracl Krausz (ed),'l'fu lnl¿rftlatton ofIrl t sir : l' hilosophiml/.i*a.1s, Olarendonllcss. Oxford 1993.pp7Llt7. Krauszr cr¡arks Ihat 'Thisirrrrrmpleteness is a

fi.¿tur e of the

l)rcscnily cntrenched

Lcilrc ofmu§icalirrtcrprctation' (p75)-

2!). SeeJonathan DelMar , 'Appendix 2:fhe 'fext of the Ninth

Syrrrpho»y', inNi< holx Cook (ed),

Ihrlhoun : SymphonlNo. 9, Cambridgell¡¡iversity Press,(lambridge 1993,

¡rpl l0'17.

:10. Nicholas Cook,"l lrt: (i¡rrducto¡ andtlrc l heorist:l;r¡¡ twiingler,Sr lrc¡kcr, and thel,i¡ st Movement ofllcctlroveu's NinthSyrrr¡rlrorry', inJohnllrrk (.d), l he Pructiceol I \' | | ot ¡nai « : Studi$

( i.rrr¡irrirlgcI lrrive¡sity Press,( i:rrrrlrr rlgc, 1995.

'J l Will¡rl¡r¡l,rilwilrglcr (cdllorr.rkl l .rykrr ),l'uttrll»Nlü oil ML\a(,S¡ oh¡ l)¡css.

Ailcr sltrr l1){.)1, ¡r12.

ar¡ditsirlcr.l)r(:lcr.. rlr,rr rrriRrrilit;¡rrtlyrlillt'n'ntl'lrrrttwh;rlissllccifiedinthesc<¡re''l'he nr.st. obvious way in which a musical repr.eserltatioll (.a, i.\rr, \rrl I w(|lrl(l ,ritiltlllill that tlris is not simply arr idiosyncratic lbible r-¡rt

typicalenoughexample.wehaveamoreorlessñxedtext;atpresentthtrt.r., , , r,lrr¡.r¡. lir take .iust one more example' Luciano Berio's G¿sfi for alto

surprisingly large number of doubtful readings,zs but their extent shoulrl r r, ,r ,, , .r r k,r :r( hieves very much the same result' though by quite different means'

be exaggerated and will in any case diminish as editions based on a ¡rr,,,, lhrrr'\ n()lali()rr, invented specially for this piece' separates the two principal

careful and comprehensive examination of the sources become availablt.. I l¡, .rr *I ;r( tivity in playing the recorder: the mouth and the fingers' Each of

text and a relatively continuous performance tradition, then, constrairr rlr, rh,¡¡ lr;rsir..ornrtur.,almostinthemannerof aduet'Atthebeginningof the

bounds of viable interpretation. All the same, from Mengelberg to Hogh'(x,,t t,r,, r,, lk,r'io asks the Performer repeatedly to finger one ortwo bars (any one

from Toscanini to Harnoncourt, there is an astonishing range of differt.rr, ,r rr\rllr!s) tionr aspecifiedTelemannsonatamovement; themouthPart'by

between performances, which is also to say between text and perfbrnr;rrr, ,,rrr,r\1,(r)nsistsof arlenseseriesof highlyspec;ficnotationslbrdegreesoflip

And then there is Furtwángler, who created great waves of tempo charrgr. rr, r, ,rr,.. lluttertongue, singing through the instrument' and inhaling' 'Because

tandem wirh the prolongational spans of the music, inserting his ,,,,,, ,,t rlrr. lic(luent"contradicdons"betweenthetensionof thelipsandthefinger

interpretationintotheintersticesof Beethoven'sscore.soFurtwánglersp()kr.,,l 1,,¡rrrrrr§,'writes Berio,'and because of the speed of changing patterns' the

the performer's need to 'laboriously reconstruct' the composer's 'ove.rirlrrr¡1 ,,.*lrrr¡¡ s.ttnd is unpredictable"' Sometimes the instrunrent will produce no

vision'of the work, but the result of his prolonged engagement wirlr rlr, .,¡*r(l :rl all.'32 ln rhi, *ry, Berio withclraws the specification of intended

symphony was a highly personal way ol'perlbrming it;31 FurÍvángler's Nrrrrl, .,,rril, lhc core aspect around which the other elemenE of recorder

sounds (and was no doubt intended to sound) nothing like Mengelberg. ,,, 1,. r lrnnurrce - fir'rg.. movement, breath control' and the rest - are normally

Toscanini's.Andyet,ofcourse,whenwespeakof Furtwángler'sNinthwr.,l,, ,,,,'rrlr*rl('d arrd integrated. I{e deconstructs the act of performancei he

not mean to deny that it is also Beethoven's Ninth, or to suggcsl rlr,rr ,,,.¡x.ls llrt: p..fnr^.i to reilrvent his or her technique' resulting again in a

Furtwángler's Ninth is something other than Beethoven's. 'rhe r,.,., r,, r.,¡rr;rl i,-,tJ.pr.tutior-, that cannot but be significantly different from any

'Beethoven's Ninth' has the idea of collaborarion already built into it.In this way Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is, in a significant sr.rr.,

indeterminate; if we don't easily recognise its indeterminacy - if we think <¡l rlr,

Ninth Symphony as something fixed - then that may be largely the rcstrlt ,,t

our platonic language for music. And if the Ninth Symphony is in a signilir .rrrr

sense indeterminate, then this is all the more true of earlier music in rtl¡¡, lr

performers were expected to realise continuo parts, clothe slow movemt:lrtr rrr

elaborate ornamentation, and so forth; as I said, composers of the last crrrtr¡rrand a half have moved towards ever more detailed speciñcation ol rlr,

intended performance. But this movement is not what it might sr., rrr

Paradoxically, it results in a second way in which musical representation (,ur

invite collaboration. At first sight Stockhausen's Klattierstikhe, for instanr:t.. |r,,,1,

like the last word in compositional speciñcation, especially as regar<ls rrrrr,

complex rhythmic patterns are subsumed under irrational tempo pl'op()rtr.rllike 7:3, which are sometimes themselves subsumed under further in';rli,,rr.rlproportions. And the physical demands of performance - fbr irrsl:rr,,enormous leaps without enough time to make them - sr¡rncti¡nt:s ;r¡r¡rro;rr lr ,,rcven exceed the bounds of possibility. But then that is.irrst the ¡roirrr. tkrtlr ¡rr

physical and conceptual terms¡ Stockhausen's Klauit:tsliicfu Iir.strhst;rrrtr.rllrIrcyond the limits of literal performan<:c, a¡¡d so dr.ln¡rr¡¡l ir ur:urr(.r ,,l

¡rerlortn:rnce that is othc¡ than the litcllrl. l'lre,v irrslig:rtt.:l l)t(x(.ss ol ¡x.rsorr.rl

:lli Nt,w l,o¡r¡r,r I lors

,rlrlt ¡rcrfbrmer's.llr rrtcrtlts of an apparently high level of comPositional specification' then'

l,,,rlr Strx khausen and Berio force the Perforñrer to assunre what can only be

rll, rl ;t rotnpositional role irr relation to the auclible outcomei the relationship

l{ r\\. ('n «)rnposer and performer' between the text and its interpreter'

r.r ¡,rrr(.s ()*e of conaboration, just as in the case of Furtwángrer and the Ninth

,\rr¡lu)ny. In saying this I do not mean to suggest that these instances are

, ¡' r'lrtr()ila1, that performers fulfil a compositional role only in the paradoxical

,.,rrLr r¡l the avant-garde or lrhen they are artists of Furtwángier's stature' On

rl, r.ullirt'y, Iamarguingthatallperformanceisinsomesensecompositional',, r,r put it rnore straightforwardli' that musical authorship is always divided'

\rrrl rvlt:tl is tt:lling in this regard is the passion with which musiciansdefend

,,,rrll¡rh' :rtltlrol'ship ,,'¿ tf'J compositional incleterminacy t-hat underlies it

r r lrr rr rglr, t() l)€ sure, they do not Pu; it this way)' A good examPle is the crusade

. rrrr rr sr lrt.rrkcr i.itiated againsi nineteenth-century interpretive editors who

r,rrrrIrr rrrI rrr:.rslcrw()l.ks of thc past under a mass of perfbrmance directions;

,, lr|ilht'¡'s olr¡t'tl was ,t't ti'."¡'ly t'hat the eclitors'directions were wrong' but

rl¡ rr ti, (ottsltirilt ¡lcrlormatt<;c in this way representated a miscomprehension

,,1 rrr .srcttli:tl lt¡tllllr'.'r:r l'llis [ras lrt:come t¡ne of the basic principles of the

lil,lrrl lr.ll ¡x'l l0t tlt:tttl ('Ill(tv('lIl( lll'

llrrt ¡rctlr,t¡ts tlrt lrl()sl \llikirlg t'x;rltr¡»lt'is:t tt«'g:ltivt'ottr" likt'Sl¡t'rltxk

32. Luciano Berio,

Ges¿i for A[to

Recorder, UniversalEditiol, Vienna, UE

t5627,P5.

33. AsWilliamRothstein Points out,

this is whY Scheuker'

did not, and wouldnot, publish'performing' editions

of his own. William

Rothstcin,'HcirrricltSchenker as an

l utcrPrctelrf'I\r'clhr»r'tr's I'iltrr¡r

S(,triltll\', lr)l' I i''iilt I

,\lrr¡ V¡¡lrr¡¡rc l{, [''' I

Nlr',rr \llrl .(), I lirrI llll('ll\ \Nlr l'ltrl"l¡llrtt ll'l

34. LawrenceRorcnwald, 'Theory,'ltxt-setting, andPerformance' , Joumaltuf Musicologl,Yolumell,p6I-2.

l lol¡rcs' rLrg llurl rlitl rrot l¡lrlk ill tlrr rrrgltt l lrrtrl tlrr. ntl(.t v(.ntion ol trrorlr.r ¡r

It'r'lttrology, r¡tt¡si(:tl s()ull(l w¡rs (.!:lr(srr,rt: rt w;rs ¡xrssilrlr. lr¡ ltr.lrr lrr¡rr

(1)tttlxls('r-lx'tlirrtttcts ¡rlaycrl tlrcil r¡wrr nrrrsir ()nly slx)ta(li(::rlly tlulirr¡1 tlr,.r,lili'tirnt:s, an(l nol at all after their death. Nowa<lays, ol coursc, evervthin¡{ lr.r..

changed. We hnow how such composers as Bartok, Rachmaninov, anrl llrirrr'¡¡played their music; realising the composer's intentions, as perfolmel's s;r\. r,,

something that we can now d,o. And yet, in practice, we don't. A pi;rrrrrr

preparing a piece by one of these composers may well listen to the composr.r '

recording, just as she or he may well listen to other pianists'recordings. Arr,lobviously she or he will hear the composer's recording as possessing a r'(.r't.r,kind of authority that the others don't, just because it is the composer's. Brrl f r.r,

pianists will feel constrained to earnestly reproduce the wayward rhythrrrs,,tDebussy's playing, any more than conductors are likely to lovingly replir.rrrElgar's portamenti; that just isn't what performance is about. Perlbrrrr.r.sometimes justify this by arguing that composers rarely play their own nlu\r,well, and that we shouldn't too readily identify their recordings wirh rheir. r,r¡lmusical intentions. But the truth is much simpler than this convr¡lrrrr.,l

argument would suggest. Classical performers are just the same as pop srar.s: ri,

borrow Lisa Lewis's terms again, they see themselves (and are seen l)\ rlr,

audiences) as authors, and not as puppets.

VI

Lawrence Rosenwald has praised Richard Taruskin's seminal study ol rlr,

Ninth Symphony in performance on the grounds that Taruskin 'rrror,

precisely from a consideration ofvarious actual performances back to a llr.rlranalysis of the piece - not rhe piece itself, whatever [hat phrase mighr rrrr..rrr

but the piece considered as something existing in the relation betwt.r.n rr,notation and the field of its performances'.3a Insofar as music theory is rlclrrr, ,l

as the study of music in terms of 'the piece itself, rather than the contexts ()l rt.,

production and reception,'that phrase'has generally been assumed [o nrr.rrthe score. This isn't to say that theorists don't care about anything ('x' r'l,r

scores; of course they c¿lre about how music is created, how it is pt'rlorrrr,,lhow it is experienced. But theory is focused around scores, and tlrr' r.

justiñable not only on methodological grounds (because you havc t() \r.rrsomewh¿re when studying any complex phenomenon) but also because Wr.str.r¡r

art music has always signified as writing and not just as sound. By rhis I rrr, ,rlthat composers'choices and historical influences are tied up with how rlrrrr¡1 ,

look, or make sense, on the page; they can't be understood purely in r(.r rr\ ,,1

how the music sounds. Indeed the sometimes incommensurable rclrrtiorrrlrr¡,between what is seen and what is heard is an integral part of thc < oll:rlx rr.rrr,,,,

between composer and performer, the negotiatiolr l¡ctw<:r'n tr.rt .rr¡,t

interpreter, that I have already described.But obviously t.he score-based approach rvill not work with rock ol rlrtl¡ ,,,rr

other primarily aurally/orally-transmitted music, af leust willrorrt rrr.r¡,,,

38 Nr:w I,i)RMA lt()Ns

{rlrrl)l,tllr)ll. ll tlrt'olrly rlillt'lct¡rc lx'lwct'tt lttl l¡tr¡sir :ttttl trxk wctt'llt¿tl ottc

rrllrrlrerrvily()ll§(()l('s:ttrtlllt«:()th(:l(l(x:sll'l'lllt:l¡tllcstratcgyatlo¡rtt:<lbyllr,rrll¡tr¡¡ ¡ttt<l livclc(t l¡light w()rk wcll enough: as I sai(l' they treat acoust'ic

l rn (tltitl is to say lctrrrclings) as if'they were a kind of score' indeed as if they

*r'tl kirtrl ttl ltrl¿xl. I'trc troublc is that no rock text f'unctions llke an Urtext'

Itlr,tl wr: ruight call lhc lJrlext model consists of a hierarchy with a dominant

tr,rr (r¡¡y a lleethoven symphony) at i§ apex' and-l.variety of subordinate and

rh,r lv¡rtive texts at the lower levels (bowdlerised editions' adaptadons for school

rr lrmltil, arrangenlents for chamber grouPs or keyboard' and so forth)' But

t r l l t lr xls tlrlt, ot.{er this; instead, it offers a multiplicity of texts, the sum total of

nrr' rr dr:f.i'es a rock song as a cultural entity. This is not to say that no versron

'rl ,r i()trg is ever privileged over others; groups like Rush' who explicitty aim for

{rr rr l,tlt'ate reProduction of their t"toáit'gt in live performance' are in effect

rrr'{lurl{ these recordings as a kind of [Jrt¿xt' and the same might be said of the

[il]-[likc'bands modelled on the canonic grouPs of the past' But such

lrrlvtlrgitlg of a single text is by no means the norm in rock; much more

,u¡,,.r.u,o,iu. is the multiplicity of concert versions to which ÉIeadlam refers'

,rll trxr lrriefly, in his analysis of Led Zeppelin's music'

ll¡t'l.lrtextmodel, to which Headlarn and Everett seeks to assimilate rock

rnr¡tr, w()rks from the top down; there is a kind of 'trickle'down' effect - as

I ¡rrr¡ctvativepoliticians"y-f'o-theauthoritativetexttosuccessivelylower',,,,1 less authoritative, láyets of the hierarchy (such as Led Zeppelint

rnlrr)vi$ations on stage', to rePeat Headlam's Phrase)' But an approach

¡,,,r1i,',,t..1 on multiple texts and multiple authorship - the model I want to

,llvrr;tte lor theorising rock - equally has to -ork the other way round' üat is

r, lrv l t om the bottom uP' What does this mean? For one thing' it means'tr¡ng

t, utt(lerstand Performances in their own terms' rather than immeáiately

rlr.r rirrg them to whatever they are suPposed to be performances of a pcrhaps

lr,,lrrl way to express this is that *" "t"d to attend to the illocutionary force of

rx I tcxls, to what rrrey d'o rather than what they represent'35 (Examples

lrr lt¡rlc the embodied máanings that Robert Walser has discussed in reladon to

Il,¡vv rttctal, and Allan Mootti 'sound-box' model of production; but the ñeld

,rl ¡ret'lormance also includes the extensive networks of stylistic and

lrtr.t tr.xtr¡al rclerences on which rock performers PIay, quite independent\ of

thr, ¡rrtt lit:ulirr songs they are performing'36) Fot another thing' it means taking

,,lvrrtlitge of the full range ;f available rock texts' by which I mean not only

rrrl¡tttitl releases, single rlmixes' concert recordings' and remakes' but-also

rh'ttttt¡, stt¡tlio tapes, and covers; to u§e Rosenwald's word' it is the field of these

r. rr, lll(' rrclwork ol diff'erences between them' that mu§t be the primary

'rlrlrrt ol st.trdy if rock is to be understood as a Performing art' One Problem

Irltr, ¡tr,John Covach has pointed out' is that much of the necessary

rprrlr wr)l k has still to l'e done'S? It is easy for theorists to forget how far their

,rIIúrrlttly t'lli¡rllcss rt:arlittgs dcpend on the kind of so-called 'positivistic'

.,',r'rrr r rtr¡rlil's llt¡tt l¡¿tvc lralt:ly lx:gtrn irl poptrlar music'

llrrt l r¡rirl lll;ll nlllsi(] tlrtrlty rrteirtls t'hc study of.musical pie«:s,an<l I am n()t

35. OnillocutionarYforce seeJ.L. Austin,How to Do Things with

Wuü,H.awañ,UniversitY Press,

Cambridge, Mass

1962; see also mY

chapter'AnalYsingPerformance, and

Performing AnalYsis'

i¡ Nicholas Cook and

Mark Everist (eds),

Rethi,nking Mwic'Volume 1, op.d¿.'

Oxford'

36. Onembodiedmeanings in heavY

metal, see Robert

Walser,'The BodY inthe Music:

EpistemologY and

Musical Semiotio' ,

Collcge MuicSlmPosim,Yofume 31,

ppl l7-26; on the

'sound-bod, re AllanMoote, Rock: The

Primary Text:

DrudnPinga MuicoLogl

o/Rocl, OxfordUniversitY Press,

Buckingham, 1992,

pp t06'1 I0i on §tylistic

and intenextualreferences, see PhiliP

Tagg,'AnalYsingPoPular Music:

Theory, Method, and

Pracúce' , PoPulnr

Muú, Volume 2,

pP37-67

3?..loltl(iovrrh,of .0t.

N,ll \r l\'llNl'\ ( )Nl larx l l ll¡on\' ^ND

lrlRll)lN!^N(:l' :t1)

3ti. Mattlrew Brown's' "l.ittle Wing": AStudy iu Musical(lognir¡on' a/r..ir., is a

rare cxarnple of therr¡r¡rlication ofapr oblern-solvingaPProach to

¡rrformance.

rilHl{('slllrl{ llt;rl, ttt !rl1l('l l0 llltttttr| llltltl( ,lr lx'lll)llllitll((', w('sll(}tll(ls(l¡t('lt()w lot¡1r't:tlxrttl lltcotisirr¡¡ ll.t\ (ollll)o\lll()ll. Wl¡:'¡l l;tttt stlggt'slitrg rr

tlrat tl¡crc is ¡ro clcar line between conllx)sili()lr iul(l l)erfi)rnlatlcc, ¿¡tld tllitl \\r

tl¡ercfbrc have an opportunity to traltsf¿r tnu(:h ol wh¿rt we havc leartrt ltlxrtrt

tnusic as conlposition to music as Perfbrmarlce. For instancc, insiglrts irrt,'

compositional choice and strategy, the extent to which a given choicc ('lrlirrl\

others, the deñning and solving of problems, the contribution of conventi()rr,rl

schemata towards such definition - all these apProaches are as aPPlicablc li'

performance as they are to composition (and between them they account li)r .r

great deal of what is done under the name of musical analysis).38 And I arr¡ :rl'"suggesting that, just as we traditionally understand performances in tcll)rs ol

the works they are performances of, so we need to understand works in t('l rrr\

of the performances they emerge from. In other words, we need an analyti(.rl

approach that doesn't presuppose the identity of a song as a meaningful wlrrtlt'

but lets it emerge in answer to the question 'by virtue of tvhat are thesc l( \llreceived as representations of the same abstract entity, such that t'hat is llt ;r t

' l

derives meaning from being heard in this context?' As I see it, Headllttr'r

article on Led Zeppelin is important to the extent that it problematises the issrrr

of identity in rock music. But I also see it as importantly misguided in th:rl rt

offers a premature solution, a quick fix whose source lies in nineteenth-ccttlrrr I

conceptions of authorship and authority, and not in detailed scrutiny ()l llrl

available texts.

Why have theorists concentrated on rock, and Particularly progressive rrr l'

while virtually ignoring other genres of popular music? The answer is p('r lr.rl'\

obvious: because of the coincidence of the Romantic values underlying tttttrr'

theory and the Romantic values underlying rock. Borrowing Lisa Lewis's tt'r trrr

for the last time, we could say that rock musicians, and in particular Proglcs\r'rock musicians, see pop musicians as industry PuPpets but themselvcs .,.

genuine authors. And for this reason the top-down, masterpiece-oli('rrllrl

rhetoric óf traditional music theory fits rock all too well; it builds u1:ott tlr,

existing ideology of rock instead of subjecting it to critical examination l .rrrr

suggesting, then, that a bottom-up approach (pursued in conjunction willr tlr,

top-down one) is a precondition for a more critical engagement of theot v u rtlr

rock, and for any engagement with pop. But I don't want to stop tht'I'. \{'r

have become used to theorising western art music in almost exr:lttsrrllt

top-down terms, subordinating the music of all periods to a Romantic idt'olrgr

and so ending up with a picture that is not so much incorrect as incomplt'tt' ,rrr,l

unbalanced. The most obvious manifestation of this is the lack ol atty st'tr,,,,u

theoretical engagement with performance, and by this I mealt tl()t r¡rtlt'll,finished performance but the process of negotiation with a tt'xt, , 'lcollaboration with its composer, that takes place in rehearsal.'l't¡ ltt'rtt .rrt

interpretation evolving as musicians rehearse is to hcar rnrrlti¡rlc arrlltorslrt¡r rtr

action. Rehearsal is onc of the principal sites for the makitrg ol tltttsit;tl ¡rtr', , 'and yet it seems to be unknown to theory.

II wc were to stick to western art rnt¡sic, with its tur«litir¡¡ ol itttlltotil,rlr,

40 Nr:w I.I)RMA r r()NS

rrilrr.\.ilr(r its,rrlrrl;rtiorr or r0rrlxrrr.rs lrr rrrr.r'x¡x:nsr: of ¡lt:tlottttt:ls' tllell w(:

rrr¡4ltl ¡ttsl;tlxrtttlrt'"1'lt'tt"t'tutl""tlrirlkingthetop-dowlrapproa<:hthatisbuiltInlo nrrtsi( lltcoty as wt'kn<¡w it torlay l'opular rnusic' where multiple texts and

rrrrrlti¡rlt'ltt¡tll()lsllil) al(: tlte Ilorln' t'ok"' "th rethinking aln¿os' inevitable -

lrrrt ttol t¡ttilc' o' H"oaU-t u"tl f'"tett'' articles show' At the risk of being

Ir rr I rl)tivc, t would fif" - J-rgg*t that instead of somehow forcing popular

r¡rrrrir itttt¡thefiamework"it'il'ttheory'wewoulddobettertousepopular*rrrrir ¡rs . catalyst for.pening theory up to nerv perspectives, to the benefit of

'rilr tll¡(l('l standing of all music'

MUstr, MlNtls ()Nl'l R(x:K.'I ¡llt()¡rY ANI) Pr:Rr()RMAN(:¡: 4l