The practice of performing

This week we are going to be discussing some questions from Mozart’s Symphonies: Context, Performance Practice, Reception. These questions will breakdown performance practices, period instruments, and the ins and outs of symphonies of the late 1700′

I do not personally believe that period instruments are “worth it”. In the article it gives a pretty solid point, “Even if we could fully re-create 18th century sounds, their affect on us would not be the same as listeners from 200 years ago”. I believe this is due to the peoples “modern ear” being that we have been exposed to a higher quality of instruments that were used back then, and that we have been exposed to a vast genre of different kind of music from all over. A pro to attempting to recreate period instruments is that by attempting to recreate these performance conditions of the time, historians and theorist are better able to understand and diagnose what the common performance practices were of that time.

The problem with the laboratory approach to period performances is that these specialist performances are isolated from the critique and influence of public response. These performances are not able to arrive at a high level that is applicable enough to reveal the musical context needed. The Neo-classical procedure also lacks in base. We have no idea of what is really “right” since we do not have a time machine. Everything is based on very close approximations, which still isn’t 100% “right”.

Regarding the quote “for performances to come alive, they must be of our time, not of other times, and that it is the job of the performer not merely to interpret but to reinterpret the music of previous eras.”? I believe that it holds some truth, but also is wrong. While yes, it is best to take old musical ideas that may seem old fashioned/used in excess and make them more modern, it is equally important to note that the era and style of music history is ever changing and adapting. Taking for example how the Romantic era takes us from Beethoven’s 9th and Mahler “Symphony of a thousand” to John Cage’s 4’33, even our current time is just another era being created. One in which none of us might come to know what it will be labeled as.

Orchestras were not standardized in the 18th century. There were not orchestral standards, but more so regional traditions and preferences. It was similar to our time in the quantity of variety and vast musical ideas. Mozart had a habit of adjusting his arias to specific performers strengths’s and weaknesses. This translated into his symphony writing in which he would adjust its form and content based on the ensemble provided and the patrons in which he was writing for.

There were some circumstances that influenced the size of an orchestra in the 18th century. The size of the orchestra usually was a result of economic forces. Downsizing of an orchestra can occur because of a war/depression, or it could be due to the size of the venue its performing in. Patrons, local customs an political changes were also a factor. Koch suggests that an orchestra have at least 6 first violins and 6 seconds. His ratio for churth/theatre orchestras ar 4-4-2-2-2 or 5-5-3-3-2 (Violin 1, Violin 2, Viola, Cello, Double Bass)

The low pitch of a’ = 409 was adapted due to the prized French Instruments being pitched at that level and their standardized pitch travelling with them. “Mozart’s pitch” is based on the pitch he apparently would have encountered in Vienna and some other places at the end of his career.

If one is aiming to do a period performance of Mozart’s symphonies, it would do well to consider the venue. Concert rooms and theaters have changed since the 18th century. An ideal hall would have the the proportions, acoustics, and ambiance of an eighteenth-century concert hall that is small and resonant.