I ran across an interesting clip on YouTube I want to share with you. Initially it was because it was the very unusual case of a classical guitarist playing a transcription of a piece by Olivier Messiaen. But while watching and listening I realized first, that I didn't really think the transcription worked that well--replacing a singing cello line with a guitar tremolo doesn't quite work--and what I really found interesting was the room where the recording took place.
Realize for a moment the profound differences between a visual artist's studio and a musician's studio. Here is a typical artist's studio:
There is a profusion of materials and workspaces and tools. Compare that with the lovely space where guitarist Edith Pageaud is recording;
(Even though I don't think this transcription quite works, her other recordings are very fine. Have a listen to her Scarlatti, for example.)
I'm reminded of the cover of a Gustav Leonhardt album from years ago. He is seated at a harpsichord in an austere white room containing only bookshelves. An ideal musician's studio is a lot like a monk's cell but with a musical instrument and possibly a chair.
Doesn't this tell us something about the nature of the musical art form versus painting and sculpture? Music is essentially ethereal, evanescent while the visual arts are material. Yes, of course, musical instruments and concert halls, not to mention musicians themselves, are material, but the music itself is nothing more than pressure waves in the air. Invisible and instantly evaporating.