Philosophy of the Performing Arts

52 performance and the classical paradigm
The third movement is a scurrying Scherzo which erupts in fiery outbursts.
Its lyrical trio, lento e suave , in which an oboe sings remote, plainsong-like
phrases, is reintroduced before the movement surges into the Finale. The
slower sections of the last movement recapture the pastoral quality of the
first, but the dominant mood of the Finale is heroic, and its big tune undeni-
ably stirring.^1
Day’s commentary conveys to us a number of different things about the
Second Symphony, all of which arguably bear upon its appreciation. Some
of these relate to broadly structural features of the work and the ways in
which elements relate to one another. He talks here of such things as “sonata-
form structure,” “rhapsodic structure,” “coherence,” themes “evolving” out of
one another, “exposition” and “recapitulation.” These expressions character-
ize the sequence of sounds prescribed by the composer in terms of formal
relationships that, if we had a trained eye and appropriate musical training,
we might be able to grasp from a perusal of the score, where the composer’s
prescriptions are registered. Viewed as a pure structure having these fea-
tures, it seems that the work could to some extent be appreciated without
the need for a public performance, or even a private performance in the head
of one perusing the score. Other features in Day’s commentary concern the
instrumentation prescribed for the execution of the sound sequence – brass,
cello, bassoon, and oboe, for example. He thereby conveys to someone who
is familiar with these instruments the kinds of timbral properties that would
characterize a performance of the piece that complied with the composer’s
prescriptions. These are the “varied sonorities” to which he refers, including
the “dark colour of the lower registers of the orchestra.” His commentary
provides support for the view, discussed in the preceding chapter, that tim-
bral properties are integral to at least some works. For such properties seem
crucial in the oeuvre of a composer like Sibelius who relies so much upon
the “varied sonorities” to which Day refers. It also suggests that, to appre-
ciate such works, we require more than the mere knowledge that certain
instruments are prescribed. We must also be aware of the specific timbral
qualities that might be realized through the collective execution, on those
instruments, of the prescribed sequence of sounds. Indeed, it is difficult to
imagine how the full timbral richness of a work like the Second Symphony
could be gauged without hearing a public performance, even by the most
skilled sight reader.^2
However, the vast majority of Day’s observations relate to what are
broadly expressive properties of the prescribed sequence that depend at least
in part upon its timbral richness. He speaks of passages in the work as “elo-
quent,” “powerful,” “harsh,” “forlorn,” “melancholy,” “sunny,” and “menacing,”
for example. He also anchors these expressive properties in prescriptions by