I have a recording of the Fantasie in F minor from an organ album that I purchased recently, and I listened to both of the recordings on NAS, and none of these were performed by a mechanical clock. Richards’ article was predicated on the interweaving of the piece and the context. I’m sure this mechanical clock was no defecating duck, but it still sounds like a work of intricate subtlety that’s worth hearing.
-What, then, would be the different effect of this piece being played not on the organ or on a bunch of wind instruments, but on the originally intended instrument, the clock?
The author implies that one organist simply cannot perform the piece as written, whereas a machine has no problems doing so.
-Are we missing a sense of congruency that lacks in human performances of automated music?
The piece was touted to be around 8-9 minutes long. The recordings on the organ range from 10:30 to nearly 13 minutes. Only the winds could achieve the timing that the mechanical clock.
-Why can’t the organ achieve the speed of a machine? Is the machine more technically advanced than fingers?
Human interpretation of mechanized processes is inherently imperfect. Also, Mozart’s counterpoint is very intricately contrived, painstakingly precise. We can read the notes on the page, but performers take liberties with their own interpretations.
-Are we, listeners of human interpretations, missing some of the sublimity that is supposedly present within the mechanical rendition of this same piece?
I’m still confused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reading your post influenced me to research the original music on the musical clock and although I didn't find a recording from an actual mechanical clock, i was able to find how the piece would sound computer generated (which is still going by the "machine made" theme).
ReplyDeletehttp://home.versatel.nl/vspickelen/Mozartfiles/Mozart.htm
This site also has a short history of the musical clock if anyone is interested.
What I found interesting about the recordings was that the computer synthesized versions played at a faster tempo and played the pieces a bit more smoother, but lacked "expression" in my opinion.
On the comment of "missing a sense of congruency", I do think that there is something missing in the lack of human performances. However the usage of a machine for music is helpful in that it introduces new sections of the music realm that was not possible before with human performances alone. This can open us to new heights and in a sense makes up for the lack of "expression" or the "human touch".
I agree with you about how "human interpretation of mechanized process is inherently imperfect". This is not necessarily a bad thing as flaws are what makes us human in many instances and gives character and uniqueness to musical pieces.