Performing an Interpretation: a Reply

TL;DR: In this paper, Dipert argues there are non-aesthetic cases where part of a token cannot be replaced by part of another of the same type, i.e., a line of print from one fount and replacing it with the corresponding part from a different fount in such a way that the result is not recognizable as that, or any other sentence.

Abstract: Problems there may be about the interpretation of Peirce's distinction between type and token but nothing Professor Dipert says in his reply1 persuades me that my original distinction2 was ill-found. I argued that in general one section of a token can be replaced by the corresponding section from another of the same type; the fact that this cannot generally be done in the case of performances of music whereas it can be done in the case of a copy of a poem suggests that the type of which performances are the tokens is not the work but the interpretation. Dipert argues there are nonaesthetic cases where part of a token cannot be replaced by part of another of the same type. He instances removing the top part of a line of print from one fount and replacing it with the corresponding part from a different fount in such a way that the result is not recognizable as that, or any other sentence. Secondly he argues that the replacement of one part of a musical performance by the corresponding part of another is quite possible, contrary to what he believes to be my position. The first argument is easily disposed of. It is an ignoratio elenchi. Dipert has not shown that the result of his transplant is not a token of the same type but merely that it is not (immediately?) recognizable as such. The second argument is more interesting because it reveals either a lack of concern for or a lack of understanding of the distinctions that musicians commonly make, distinctions which I think can be given a rationale. Dipert maintains that we can 'almost certainly' interchange passages or at least a single chord between performances by Bernstein and Walter without aesthetic damage. This I would not deny providing that the performances are performances of the same interpretation. Both his examples and the general tenor of his argument suggest that Dipert intended to write 'interpretation' instead of 'performance' and I shall take this more plausible form of his criticism as the basis for discussion. If, as is virtually certain, Bernstein's interpretation is neither a copy of nor coincidentally identical with Walter's, then Dipert's claim is evidently intuitively wrong. I think that there are some interesting arguments which are relevant. First of all the very 'spacing' of a chord should be integral to an interpretation. The way that either of these conductors stresses or plays down the inner parts should cohere with an overall vision of the work. It is, of course, not to the point that any individual listener might fail to notice