Product Description

Over the last dozen years, the writings of Richard Taruskin have transformed the debate about "early music" and "authenticity." Text and Act collects for the first time the most important of Taruskin's essays and reviews from this period, many of which now classics in the field. Taking a wide-ranging cultural view of the phenomenon, he shows that the movement, far from reviving ancient traditions, in fact represents the only truly modern style of performance being offered today. He goes on to contend that the movement is therefore far more valuable and even authentic than the historical verisimilitude for which it ostensibly strives could ever be. These essays cast fresh light on many aspects of contemporary music-making and music-thinking, mixing lighthearted debunking with impassioned argumentation. Taruskin ranges from theoretical speculation to practical criticism, and covers a repertory spanning from Bach to Stravinsky. Including a newly written introduction, Text and Act collects the very best of one of our most incisive musical thinkers.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #455926 in Books
• Published on: 1995-09-07
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 392 pages

Amazon.com Review
Music lovers who have watched the "authenticity" (period instrument) wars of the 1980s and 1990s could be excused for forgetting that Richard Taruskin is a musicologist and professor by trade, not a professional critic. For it is as an essayist and critic (if not a professional gadfly) that he has made a real impact on American musical culture. Indeed, in early-music circles, and even in the marketing of period-instrument performances by record labels, the word authentic has been abandoned almost entirely--and this is due largely to Taruskin's impassioned arguments (and his ability to get them published in places like The New York Times).

Text & Act is a collection of Taruskin's most important (or, at least, most inflammatory) essays and articles on the subject of authenticity in the performance of 18th- and 19th-century music. These are the pieces that got Taruskin a reputation for being a flame-thrower; many fans of what is now called HIP (historically informed performance) have gotten the idea that Taruskin is the enemy of everything HIP stands for. They should have a look at this book: they'll see that he actually applauds many of the HIP movement's achievements. (In fact, Taruskin was himself a Baroque cellist and a founding member of the New York period-instrument orchestra Concert Royal.) What he skewers mercilessly are the pretensions and a few of the assumptions on which HIP was originally based and that it used to market itself.

Readers will also see why Taruskin has deeply infuriated so many people. He regularly makes inflammatory (if not downright insulting) statements at the outset of an essay and then backpedals in the middle. He quotes a statement by another writer or musician, draws implications from that statement that are far more extensive than the speaker apparently intended, and then demolishes those implications and often mocks the unwitting speaker. Especially in his introduction (which I recommend you skip until you've read the rest of the book), he continues to fight battles that he has already won, even as he seems to brag of his triumphs.

Nevertheless, Taruskin's main points are persuasive. They may even seem obvious, but all too many musicians seem to have forgotten them. "Authenticity" in the sense of a faithful re-creation of the composer's intentions and preferred conditions of performance is simply not an achievable goal. We can't know the composer's real intentions (he or she is almost certainly dead), and re-creating original performance conditions is unfeasible (we can't spend the equivalent of the unlimited budget Louis XIV had for his operas, and there are no more French nobles trained in Baroque dance to do the ballets), if not impossible (there are no more 14-year-old boy sopranos to sing Taverner's masses or Bach's soprano solos). There's no point in having as a goal a performance that would please the composer--again, the composer is (as a rule) dead. What's important is a performance that pleases us, the people performing and listening to the music now. So for anyone who wants to understand the early-music revival of the late 20th century and the debates surrounding it, this book is indispensable. Just don't be surprised if you want to smack the author every so often. --Matthew Westphal

Review

"This is not a book, it's an education, and a joyous one. Richard Taruskin's stylistic flair and incisive wit make it an endless pleasure to pick his fertile brain."--James R. Oestreich, Classical Music Editor, The New York Times
"This deliciously readable collection by America's most brilliant musicologist is a model of how to think independently, even before that becomes fashionable, and of how to articulate values, even after that becomes unfashionable. When other books on music are forgotten, Taruskin's essays, like those of Berlioz and Tovey, will be savored and relished as the best musical writing of their time."--Rose Rosengard Subotnik, Professor of Music, Brown University
"Little escapes his sharp eye, and his incisive commentary spans developments from the Middle Ages to the present era. The author is sometimes whimsical, often bitingly critical, occasionally self-indulgent, and always provocative. Highly recommended."--Library Journal
"Should be consulted by everyone interested in the performance of old music."--Choice
"Taruskin's prose is remarkably readable, and the content is very thought-provoking. He readdresses old concerns (tempo, authenticity) in a most refreshing way."--Dr. Gary Miller, Southeast Missouri State University

About the Author
Richard Taruskin is at University of California, Berkeley.

Customer Reviews

Authentic scholarship
A fascinating book, which holds together very cogently for a book of essays. Ignore the Introduction - or at least read it after the rest of the book. In any case it is full of petty squabbling and point-scoring from the heart of Academia-ville which is unworthy of the rest of the book. Professor Taruskin arguments are persuasive and convincing, and emerge with great force. If they get a bit repetitive after a while that must be partly because all these essays were originally published as stand alone pieces. Mr Taruskin's style can irritate in such large doses, from needlessly obscure vocabulary and convoluted sentence construction to some leaden sarcasm, but it is never unreadable. He is at his best making brilliant insights drawing together disparate musical strands to tell us fascinating things about our modern musical culture. There is also a passion about, and love for, the music in question which shines through all the pieces. Like all the best revelatory insights Taruskin's main point has a simplicity and obviousness which can blind the reader to the fact that what he is saying is both radical and true, and he was the first person to stand up and say it. Bravo.

Not Just For Early Music Bashing
The "mainstream" vs. "authentic" debate was settled years ago. The working relationship between the two groups is more amiable, today. Perhaps because, "Text and Act" by Richard Taruskin pointed out that both "mainstream" and "authentic" movements shared the same false assumptions (musical truths can be derived through manuscripts, critical editions, and selected primary documents), pursued the same unattainable goals (faithful reproductions of composer intent and composer circumstance), and interpreted music through the same modernist bias (rejection of 19th century tempos via objective neoclassism). "Text and Act" was written with an axe to grind against the early music movement, but if the mainstream musicians and concertgoers look beyond the verbal combat, they too will glean some understanding of their own interpretations of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and other avatars of the Western Art Music Tradition. Lastly, Taruskin's broad perspective offers a rounded view of the standard repertoire and their composers which does well to fill in the gaps left by both "authentic" and "mainstream" musicians who tend to look at repertoire on a case-by-case basis and make musical decisions based on selective scholarship. Keep a Webster's handy and enjoy the author's invectives.

opinion masquerading as scholarship
Taruskin's contribution to the "authenticity" debate needs no introduction: indeed, his central point - that using documents does not mean an "authentic" performance has been achieved - is clearly important. Yet it also happens to be a rather obvious, even basic, one, and the credibility of his arguments are lacking in light of the following -

1. Apparently, HIP [historically informed performance] is not aiming to recreate the past but is instead only interested in the 'shock of newness' [p.79]. Thus, the 'Brüggens and Bilsons' are "authentic" not through 'historical verisimilitude' but by being 'a true mirror of late twentieth-century taste' [p.166]. Unfortunately for Taruskin and his disciples, this proposition is too simplistic. If the sole aim was to pander to the ideal of what's in and what's new, why bother with any documents at all? (After all, Wendy Carlos and the Swingle Singers etc managed to create 'new' performances of Bach, WITHOUT such slavish recourse to documents). When sources as prescriptive as Quantz ('Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen', 1752) and Starke ('Wiener Piano-Forte-Schule', 1819-21) etc are consulted, it is somewhat illogical to argue that a brand new performance style has been created. [The fact that they may sound brand new to us is a totally separate issue.] It is quite obvious that no performance of today can completely recreate the past, but unfortunately that DOES NOT justify his argument that they are merely - 'new'. They are - in fact - a hybrid. To draw a non-musicological parallel, reconstructed Viking longhouses - based on, for example, the extant remains of the houses of Skallaholt and Isleifstadhir in Stöng (Iceland) - are SURELY not 'new' houses just because they use 21st-century thatch and turf, because they do not feel and smell the same to us as they would have done to Viking inhabitants, or because it is a contemporary concept to reconstruct historical houses. They do not, for example, have central heating, fitted carpets or a TV set.

2. R.e: the supposed fraudulent claim of the likes of the Hanover Band to having presented Beethoven's music 'in a form he would recognise' [p.204-5]. In addition to the point made above (i.e. Beethoven would perhaps 'recognise' a Stein or Walter piano above a Yamaha synthesizer, etc) one further observation must be made. Taruskin claims that this statement implies that other performances cannot also be 'in a form he would recognise' - but they do NOT say this. They do NOT say that others are unable to attempt similar reconstructions and in fact, they do NOT even say that other performers SHOULD TRY to attempt similar reconstructions!! Neither Taruskin nor any of his flock have provided a concrete example of an early music group who claim that their version of the work in question - AND THEIRS ALONE - is THE correct rendition, down to the last breath, fermata and accent (bravo chaps!). However, I'd be delighted for someone to offer Taruskin a helping hand here...

3. In order to substantiate his arguments, Taruskin peppers his points with invented facts and contradictions. The Tallis Scholars, for example, are cited as contributing to the modern obsession with countertenors [p.165] - this in spite of the fact that by near-unanimous agreement, their overriding characteristic is actually their use of...SOPRANOS. Taruskin then continues his countertenor-revolution hypothesis by citing Gothic Voices. But hang on a minute...their complete discography [21 CDs to date] has NO SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A COUNTERTENOR [the top voice is either a contralto or a tenor, and in some rare cases a soprano]. Compare this error with p.352, where he does indeed notice (congratulations, Mr Taruskin) that the top vocalist is - in fact - MARGARET Philpot (i.e. a WOMAN). And yet another careless contradiction (just how many are there?) - compare his comments on indicated tempo markings in Brüggen's Beethoven performances on p.164 and p.229...

4. Taruskin's aesthetic preference for "traditional" performances (despite occasional attempts to look balanced) is so obvious that we can conclude only this: 'Text and Act' is simply a ragged apologia for conventional interpretations. One example will suffice: Taruskin praises the 'air of excitement' about Beethoven performances which are - by his own admission - 'scrappy studio' versions, such as those of Scherchen and Liebowitz. Indeed, he finds - 'anything' - preferable to Hogwood's, 'all cloaked up in the mantle of authenticity' [p.226-7].

It is this final point which undoubtedly highlights the main issue here. If you hate "authentic" performances, you will obviously find his arguments wonderfully persuasive. If, however, you do not hate "authentic" performances, you will find his arguments far too extreme to convince entirely. It's certainly fabulously entertaining (e.g. 'sew that into a sampler and hang it on the wall', p.231) - but is it scholarship...? That, ladies and gentlemen, is for you to decide.

Sirven a mi nombre todos mucho o poco, pero no ay hombre que piense ser loco...