Technology, Philosophy and Criticism in Glenn Gould’s Musical Thought and Practice
Who Owns the Music? The 19th- century ideas and conceptions of music described in the previous chap- ter have had significant ideological consequences: the substance of music has been located in musical works, regarded as ontologically independent from their interpretation and reception. The agency of music, therefore, has been that of the composer, and the interpretation of musical works has been seen as mediation of the composer’s intentions. The aesthetic value of a given interpretation has been regarded as dependent on how the musician succeeds in this. One important philosophical and intellectual historical source for such a concep- tion is Immanuel Kant’s theory of the genius. The word originally refers to an exceptional creative individual who gives “art its rules” (1790/2000, 188).36 Even though Kant wrote very little on music in particular – and when he did, he de- scribed it as an art form inferior to almost all others (e.g. 1790/2000, 217–219) – the whole 19th-century idea of Classical music as revolving around the con- ceptions of genius and autonomous works is basically post-Kantian.37 The works created by the genius have been seen as defined by the score and as infallible wholes the authentic interpretation of which is bound by the musician’s ethical duty, Werktreue. A musician should aim at a disinterested interpretation, whose norms are dictated only by the “work itself,” not by the audience or the musician’s intentions. 36 Kant (ibid., 189–190) elaborates on the particular qualities of genius as follows: ”(1) [T] alent for producing...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.