 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-03-21 17:30
Just a link here from Classics Today on the concept of Vibrato in relation to Historically Informed Practice(which the article states is a lunatic fringe>)
http://www.classicstoday.com/features/ClassicsToday-Vibrato.pdf
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-03-21 17:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-03-23 01:33
Just thought I'd let you know I read this and there is some pretty fine arguements against the original instrument movement on certain key concepts.
worth reading if you have a bit of time
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2007-03-30 06:46
I have not yet finished reading David Hurwitz's rather long-winded article. When I have I may write a response with some examples, in actual SCORES, that contradict Mr Hurwitz's theories.
In the meantime I would like to clear up a few things regarding what David Dow wrote. The article does not say that historically informed performance practice is a lunatic fringe, only that certain individuals (so far in the article there is mention of only one) have what he considers to be extreme views.
I also fail to see how the article argues against the original instrument movement. Where exactly does Mr Hurwirz criticise playing on original instruments?
Roger Norrington is one man. An individual with his own ideas. But to use his ideas to criticise the entire "original instrument movement" would be absurd. Other conductors who are well known in this field have completely different ideas. Nikolaus Harnoncourt told us in rehearsals of a Mozart opera that there is no such thing as "non-vibrato", and also demanded that the clarinets play with vibrato, just like the other woodwind instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2007-03-30 12:03
Who is the author and what is his background? I also have to ask why has this essay come about now and not at the time when 'period performance' was at the top. Having only read the first couple of pages, i also get the impression that the author has something against Roger Norrington. I think what needs to be thought about is no vibrato as this is really only a modern term but mezzo de voce (sp). There is a huge difference. We must bear in mind that playing instruments right back in time evolved from voice and singing techniques. It is written in various tutors from the late 18th C. It is when there is a swell on a note at the high point of the phrase. The recordings of Beethoven's complete symphonies by the Hanover Band employ this. There is a lot of infomation in the booklet with the set on how they came to these things including pitch, ensemble layout etc.
I'll print this out and read it through the weekend and then come back with some thoughts.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2007-03-30 12:30
"Who is the author and what is his background?"
David Hurwitz is a classical music writer, record reviewer and also sells houses in New York City. It is interesting if people choose to believe his views over those of recognised scholars in this field.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2007-03-30 17:34
I find it hard to trust the intentions of a person who express’s himself so aggressively about a subject where it is so easy to contradict him on good grounds. He seems very vindictive to the early music movement. Maybe he was busted by the Baroque Police.
D Dow: you read the article, what are the key concepts he’s pointing out? Would be nice to know if there is anything worth commenting.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-03-30 23:45
I posted this link becuase it is nice to see someone out there who does not find the ORIGINAL instrument movement as the total answer.
In a musical discussion one needs to find balance and although Hurwitz is
dogmatic and inclined to verbage he at least adds a new voice to the arguement.
However, I think Hurwitz is a bit hard to take and many of his points are incorrect ...
yet he also brings up some wonderful examples of areas to argue about. I myself rather distrust Hurwitz because many of his criticisms are not always thought out.
Yet there are some really good points on composer's dynamic markings... I also find myself rather in disagreement with Hurwitz on modern performances. He slams Karajan a good deal of the time yet I find in Beethoven Karajan very good...
So I just put it up there as something to think about...
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2007-03-31 00:38
If you are looking for an alternative view on historically informed performance practice, you might like to read Text and Act by Richard Taruskin.
I believe Taruskin is a professor at Berkeley and also writes for the New York Times. He has written a groundbreaking study of Stravinsky and his folk influences as well as recently compiling a complete History of Western Music.
Taruskin's main argument is that the early music movement (at least that which started late 70's to mid 80s) is an extension of the modernist aesthetic perpetuated by Stravinsky, leading to rhythmically uncomplicated performances with a minimum of 'interpretation'. He sees this manifested in a tendency to idolise the score and its various editions, as well as a desire to shirk interpretative responsibility by only using historically verifiable material. In this way he claims, historically informed performances (as least those throughout the 70s 80s and early 90s) often are merely an indication of the state of research rather than a creative recreation of the work.
While I don't think its a perfect book, it is a virtuosic and highly entertaining piece of writing worth having a look at before blindly pledging allegiance to any type of historically informed performance.
Post Edited (2007-03-31 09:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2007-03-31 23:51
When somebody criticizes “historically informed performance” one has to think of what the alternatives are: historically uninformed performance or historically badly informed performance?
Ever since Mendelssohn re-discovered Bach people have been playing old music in a style that was in fashion at a given time without thinking so much about old interpretation and playing styles. The music was considered speaking by itself through melodies, harmonies, form and counter point. Instead of informing themselves about what composers might have had in mind when a particular piece was written other than what they knew about general music history, musicians relied on a mutual middle way called Tradition. This Tradition gradually grew on how to play early music. In this tradition the differences between composers were minimal. Some basic rules were formed: Short notes are always leading to the next long note which should be played with vibrato as should all long notes; the leading tone is always high; the highest note in a phrase is always the peak and if nothing else is marked like staccato, legato or tenuto all notes should be played detached. Simple, easy to follow rules, a formula. On top of this a version or an interpretation was given to the musician by his/her professor. These versions could vary a bit depending on if the year was 1900, 1930 or 1960.
In the mid 20th century various groups of musicians spread over Europe were tired of this formalistic way of music making and decided to go one step further. What interested them the most to begin with was how the music would sound using original instruments. Step two was to study playing techniques, articulation, phrasing and all other aspects of the past that were lost in modern performance.
This was the beginning of the early music movement. This movement has also inspired later generation musicians in a way that it has become almost impossible to go back to the old formalistic viewpoint because according to many has a new dimension been opened and the music has been given a new life under the right type of devoted artistry. This makes the early music movement a progressive one and it is of course anything but conservative. The only ones who have a reason to criticize this task would be bitter old stuck conservatives who are to lazy to even open their eyes.
If performing a modern piece of music most musicians would be very careful to follow the composer’s intensions, if possible even meet the composer and study with him/her. It’s the same thing with early music with the difference that the composers aren’t here anymore. That’s why we as musicians have the obligation to do what we can with what we’ve got to study the essence of all the music we’re playing and to come to a devoted conclusion: Informed performance.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2007-04-01 03:19
But Alphie, is historically uninformed performance bad?
What if its a great performance? What if it touches you emotionally? Or perhaps even more controversially, what if everyday listeners like it more than a more 'correct' performance? I am not against HIP per se, but I think that it can just as easily become a new formalistic 'tradition'. I think there is definitely a place for this type of research and performance, however not at the expense of sound musical judgement.
A while back I had an interesting conversation with my dad about HIP. He learnt to play clarinet when he was younger, but never seriously pursued music (and to my knowledge never played in an orchestra or a band). So his engagement with music is primarily as a listener. He asked me a series of questions:
"Why don't you just play music in a way that you think sounds good? What if you can play a piece in a way that makes the music sound better than what the composer wrote? What responsibility do you have towards a dead composer?"
I know they seem like fairly naive questions but I couldn't answer any of them adequately. The three questions ask a larger one - "Why don't you use your own judgement and trust yourself". Despite its rather iconoclastic bent, this is not a terrible attitude to have. At least it makes you question accepted wisdom like the middle ground called Alphie calls 'tradition', and even the progressive road of historically informed practice.
For the record, I believe the most rewarding aspect of research is actually getting to know the composers as real people. I think this type of knowledge gives you a sense of communion with the composers that is perhaps lacking in historical treatises. I like to believe that being able to imaginatively recreate the composers means there can be a quasi-dialogue between us, resulting in a performance which pleases both the performer and our imaginatively reconstructed composers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-04-01 10:22
Alexis's father asked:
"Why don't you just play music in a way that you think sounds good? What if you can play a piece in a way that makes the music sound better than what the composer wrote? What responsibility do you have towards a dead composer?"
Charles Rosen wrote:
"It is the moral duty of a performer to choose what he thinks is the musically superior version, whatever the composer's clearly marked intention -- it is also the moral responsibility of a pianist to try to convince himself that the composer knew what he was doing."
The issue, of course, as Bastian discovered in the Neverending Story, is -- who IS the 'you' in the sentence, "Why don't you just play music in a way that you think sounds good?" Is it the uninformed, uneducated you, or is it the you that you may become as you learn more about the situation? The process of discovering what you REALLY want is non-trivial.
I wrote some more about this on the clarinet list recently in reply to Keith Bowen:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2007/02/000249.txt
Tony
Post Edited (2007-04-03 16:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2007-04-01 12:53
I wish I thought of that on the spot!
I suppose the idea of objectively rendering the composers 'intentions' is actually rather impossible given the intimate relationship a performer has with the performance. Perhaps questioning 'your' own input is somewhat counterproductive then.
Thanks for the link Tony. I have also found your paper "Phrasing in Contention" to be of great musical benefit.
Out of interest, what do you think of the Taruskin book "Text and Act" which I mentioned in an earlier post?
Cheers
Alex
Post Edited (2007-04-01 13:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2007-04-01 22:59
From Aristocats: "A square with that horn,
makes you wish you weren't born,
ever'time he plays;
and with a square in the act,
he's gonna set this music back
to the Stone Age days."
This is basically my point. To me this refers to the bad Tradition from my earlier posting. If you want to play swing you have to know HOW to play swing. You have to feel it in your body. There aren’t many rights but a massive amount of wrongs. Nobody wants to listen to swing played like a Prussian March.
If you want to dance Viennese Waltz to music by Johann Strauss it’s not good enough with Square Dance just because that’s the only dance you happens to know. You have to learn how to dance Viennese Waltz to fit in.
In various ethnic music it’s even more important: klezmer, Argentinean tango, Balkan you name it. If you don’t know the style what’s the point?
It’s the same thing with classical music. You need to collect all the tools in the box, learn how to use them and make the music a part of you. Knowledge about playing styles, phrasing, articulation, appoggiaturas etc. and how to use them means enlightenment and artistic freedom. Why would anybody like to remain in the darkness of Tradition?
Alphie
Post Edited (2007-04-02 07:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-04-02 14:03
Alexis wrote:
>>Out of interest, what do you think of the Taruskin book "Text and Act" which I mentioned in an earlier post?>>
I think it's a highly worthwhile and exhilaratingly racy read. But it's primarily an attack on the justifications that some early period performers made of their approach. Such performers wanted to banish individuality THEORETICALLY, and claim that they were representing the music directly. Of course, there is much else of interest by the way.
On the whole, though, I don't find it so relevant to my concerns, because I go along with Alphie in feeling that what is more important is to deal with what we know of the nuts and bolts of a style -- say, the classical style -- by becoming expert at USING them to construct performances. I wrote something about that, again for my OAE seminar, that I'll reproduce below -- but before doing so, I want to be clear that becoming expert in this way isn't a trivial matter, to be achieved in the course of a three-hour rehearsal.
Taruskin himself wrote (1984, The Limits of Authenticity):
"[The reason for regarding modern mainstream performance styles with a jaundiced eye] ought not to be that they are anachronistic. They are not anachronistic for everything, after all, and we will all differ as to where the line of anachronism is to be drawn. The reason, rather, is that a performer schooled in the mainstream (any mainstream) receives his basic training before he has reached the age of consent, and that therefore his musical responses and tastes will have been formed at a preconscious level -- will be vested, so to speak, in his spinal column. And there would be nothing wrong with that if our musical culture were the kind of homogeneous thing it remained, say, until World War 1. In fact, it would be the best possilbe thing, as we may still observe in the performances of new music, and especially in folk and pop music, where there is a tacit, wholly internalised, integrated and implicit identification of the performer's habits with the demands of the music performed and the expectations of the audience. But now that our classical musical culture has become so wildly pluralistic (which, after all, is in large part the reason why authenticity ever became an issue), the conditioned reflexes of our mainstream performers give rise to a uniformity of performance style (manifested in, for example, those perennial bugbears, vibrato and seamless phrasing) that has seemed ever more essentially and disconcertingly at variance with the enormous stylistic diversity encompassed by their (our) repertory.
"But simple rejection of the mainstream will only produce a vacuum, and it will not suffice to fill it by merely inferring what can be inferred from the documentary remains of the past....we want to find out what was, or rather IS, good for the music -- and for ourselves. [...] But to limit ourselves to positive data is nothing but literalism, leading at best to an impersonation of what Thurston Dart would call the "dull dogs" of the past. And impersonation of anything, after all, is the opposite of authentic."
I see no reason to disagree. The process of having the "nuts and bolts" of a style become 'vested in our spinal columns' as an alternative mode of authentic expression is a slow one, though.
I had the experience, 6 or 7 years ago, of playing a concert in Siena consisting of the Mozart and Beethoven piano and wind quintets, plus the Serenades K375 and K388. The idea was that Hans-Jorg Schellenberger (oboe) and Daniele Damiano (bassoon), both from the Berlin Philharmonic, plus myself, all of whom were teaching summer courses at the Chigiana, should each choose two students from our respective courses to play the Serenades (one each) with us, and fill up the programme with the Quintets, along with two professional horn players from Firenze and the pianist from Schellenberger's course.
It quickly became obvious to me that Schellenberger and Damiano had very different ideas of the Serenades from my own. They approached the music with an eloquent, romantic style, almost invariably crescendo based. After a bit though, Schellenberger said to me, "Tony, you're not saying very much in this rehearsal. We thought you were something of a specialist in this period, no?"
So I said, you see, the difficulty is that I would approach the music in a fundamentally different way. But they said, Great! Tell us what you'd do.
So I said, well, for example, this middle section of the slow movement of K375 (the bit we happened to be rehearsing), that goes, 'dee-yah, dee-yah, Deeeeee...diddle um-dah-dah-dah Daaa-di-dee'; Daniele wants to start quietly and crescendo expressively to the first, impassioned 'Deeeeee' -- so you ge 'ee-yah, DeE-YAH, DEEEEE!!' But I think of it in a much lower key way, because it's a very simple duet for just clarinet and bassoon; and I'd follow bar hierarchy much more, so the second 'dee-yah' is lighter, in a way, than the first 'dee-yah'.
So we tried for a bit; but you know, these wonderful players -- and you can't get much better credentials than first oboe and first bassoon in the BPO -- found it so unnatural that in the end we forgot all about playing it 'my way' and just did the concert as best we could. Their attempt to use different stylistic tools killed off all their natural expression, and they became 'spineless' -- in Taruskin's sense.
It's difficult to put myself in their position, now, because I can do that music either way. (But I recently took part in a dance workshop that introduced me to French Baroque dancing -- minuets and all -- and found myself at a loss. I could SEE the elegance and naturalness of the RISE on the downbeat, but could I do it...no. And I spent last summer playing Cosi with a colleague on second clarinet who was new to the approach (outlined in Phrasing in Contention), who told me afterwards that she'd found it almost impossible at first, but that after a month could hardly imagine it any other way.)
Anyway, here's my little piece:
TOOLS NOT RULES
One of the pitfalls I think we have to avoid when playing in the OAE, or in any period orchestra, is that of inhabiting a style BACKWARDS. I mean by that that we have to avoid thinking of it as just 'following rules'.
You CAN think of a style as a set of RULES that give rise to a collection of musical features -- in the classical style, these would be things like appoggiaturas and other harmonic conventions, phrase structures, bar hierarchies, and so on. These features constitute what we might call the vocabulary of the style. Then, you CAN think that playing 'stylishly' would consist of following the 'rules' that (more or less) we limit ourselves to those features and no others.
But that's a backwards version of how the style evolved in the first place, and it's a backwards version of how we may best think of our own playing.
The thing is, playing stylishly came FIRST, before anything like rules. The 'stylistic rule' formulation is just a distillation of what the best players of the time actually did when they played. The great composer/players from before Bach and through Beethoven developed their use of stylistic features as they progressively evolved their improvisations.
Stylistic features therefore have something in common with nuts and bolts -- and, most importantly, with TOOLS. They came about, like nuts, bolts and tools, because they were what it took to build something: in this case, a performance. As the stock-in-trade of the great improvisors, the stylistic features of the classical style then became part of the language in which composers spoke to other performers in their written music. Composers rightly assumed they would be part of the toolkit of properly educated musicians.
So classical stylistic features are powerful tools. They enable us to articulate some of the greatest music we possess.
And, you don't OBEY a tool -- you continually develop its use in your playing.
The reason for my use of the aesthetically questionable term 'cashing out' was that I wanted to draw attention to the point that rules, as well as being useless if they are IGNORED -- and that all too often happens as well, I'd say -- are equally useless if they are merely OBEYED. They need to be USED.
I say that being continually aware of how classical stylistic features actually perform expressive and other functions in the building of performances -- how they 'cash out' (sorry) -- is one way of guarding against our functioning backwards.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-04-02 16:43
I’ve finished the Hurwitz article. However, I skipped a lot of his "analysis" of the 190 works he mentions, once I realized that they were simply lists of "dolce" and "vibrato" markings in each score.
In my opinion, the article is worthless, because it is constructed upside down. The key is at p. 29, where Hurwitz writes: "If you believe, as I do, that the request to use vibrato means 'in addition to what is already there' or 'make it more prominent than usual,' then this may be all the evidence you need to accept the presence of 'continuous' vibrato in the orchestra at a very early period." That is, he simply assumes at the beginning what he claims to "prove."
His argument is based on his belief that orchestras used continuous vibrato, and for him this is confirmed by every score marking that calls for vibrato, on the assumption that the composer was calling for *extra* vibrato. To me, it's overwhelmingly more likely that a "vibrato" marking means exactly what it says: "use vibrato here even though you wouldn't normally use it."
Equally important, Hurwitz brushes aside the work of Robert Philip in, "Early Recordings and Musical Style," and is apparently unaware of Philip's second book, "Performing Music in the Age of Recording." Hurwitz writes that Philip has analyzed only solo recordings and ignores orchestral vibrato. This is false. I've read the Philip books, and they contain at least as much analysis of orchestral playing as of solo playing. I've also bought a number of the orchestral recordings Philip mentions and heard with my own ears that there was practically no section vibrato. Unlike Philip, Hurwitz does not refer to even one orchestral recording, and only a few solo ones. His essay is based entirely on looking at scores.
Finally, I was put off by his playground-insult name for his opponents, the "Historically Informed Performance Practice Lunatic Fringe," which, he says, has "foisted on the music-loving public" its unjustified techniques. I'd much prefer sober analysis, based on actually listening to early recordings.
To bad. I would have really liked to read something worth serious discussion.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-04-03 22:35
Ken Shaw wrote:
>> I would have really liked to read something worth serious discussion.>>
Like you, I skimmed the article with similar conclusions. But we could have worked out that he couldn't POSSIBLY have demonstrated what he claimed, even without reading it.
And, even if he had, so what? We already know that you can produce highly effective performances without using continuous vibrato. Of course, they are performances with different priorities, that use different expressive means; they are not to be obtained by simply eschewing vibrato and playing otherwise the same.
The only worthwhile discussion would have been a detailed one, about how to use vibrato effectively as a tool. We did have a sort of discussion of this on the clarinet list once, sparked off by my:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2003/06/000705.txt
...but those were more civilised days, I recall.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
