 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2007-05-09 00:44
I’ve just been watching an episode of “American Idol”, an edited shorter version for European viewers. What strikes me about the entertainment industry as such is how careful people have to be about keeping their performance of a song within a certain style and that it’s so obvious that that’s the way it should be. To them you don’t have to explain the difference between country style and soul, or between jazz and rock’n roll. If you don’t know those differences you’re just plain dumb and you should go home and listen a bit more and learn.
Why don’t we as classical musicians demand the same? Why is it so difficult for classical musicians to understand that the differences in various types of “classical” music are just as big but people just don’t seem to care? Most violin players would still play Bach’s partitas in the same manner as they play Kreizler or Sarasate unless they’re “historically informed”, one of the more stupid terms I know. What’s wrong with just “informed performance”? You’re learning how to play an instrument, you’re learning how to play the notes, you’re learning how to produce a good sound, you’re learning how to achieve a good technique, why not “informing” yourself on how to play the music as well when you’ve bothered to learn everything else before you go out on a stage.
What got me going today was after listening to a recording of Bach’s Goldberg Variations in a version for string trio, played by three very fine internationally well-known musicians. They had good intonation, good sense of rhythm and technically perfect in every way but no connection with the music and cold as Siberian tundra. Isn’t it sad?
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-05-09 02:04
Good point- pop musicians do often seem to make more effort than classical musicians. I had a rehearsal reciently and we were playing some Baroque arrangements and we got into a bit of an argument about many of the things that the editor put in. Crecendi, ritardandi, etc. were littered in the score. I suggested that we remove much of it and the fight began.
One 'advantage' that pop musicians have is that there are recordings of just about all the 'original' renditions. If one asks, 'what did Marvin Gay sound like?' the answer is 'Let's just listen and find out'. For that reason it is also much less debateable than Mozart or Bach.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeeB
Date: 2007-05-09 02:09
Well, there's no law that says you can't play a given piece of music any way you please. In a cosmic sense, I don't know if it really makes any difference at all.
Obviously, if the market demands authenticity, it would be financially lucrative to be authentic.
No matter the human endeavor or activity, there will be people who approach things from more of a purist perspective. Nothing wrong with that. Follow your bliss. But iff there are people out there that enjoy their Bach played on electric guitar through a stack of Marshall amps, there's nothing wrong with that, either. Who knows? At some point, it might lead them to be curious about how the music was originally performed.
It's also interesting to consider that Bach's music fell out of favor after his death, and was somewhat rediscovered in later times. Some amount or reinvention most likely contributed to simulating the renewed interest. Think of the generation of people who might have had their first significant exposure to Bach listening to Wendy (Walter) Carlos's "Switched on Bach." That certainly wouldn't have been considered an "informed performance."
BTW, we don't have recordings of the original performances of any Bach, so an "informed performance" is always going to be somewhat a matter of scholarly conjecture and debate.
Regarding "the difference between country style and soul, or between jazz and rock’n roll," I've heard a lot of contemporary pop material reinterpreted and sung by a vast variety of performers of all persuasions. Sometimes things work very well, sometimes not. I do think, however, that the universe of music would be very much diminished if everyone rigidly followed the rules at all times.
YMMV
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2007-05-09 05:31
''Think of the generation of people who might have had their first significant exposure to Bach listening to Wendy (Walter) Carlos's "Switched on Bach." That certainly wouldn't have been considered an "informed performance." ''
Yes this is the situation for me.
''Who knows? At some point, it might lead them to be curious about how the music was originally performed.''
And...yes again for me...I went out and investigated the origins.
I have done this repeatedly in the jazz genre.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-05-09 06:33
> They had good intonation, good sense of rhythm and technically perfect in
> every way but no connection with the music and cold as Siberian tundra.
Can you explain what was wrong with it as clearly as you explained the good things?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joannew
Date: 2007-05-09 10:06
"Well, there's no law that says you can't play a given piece of music any way you please. In a cosmic sense, I don't know if it really makes any difference at all."
I think the original objection was not that music is played in the 'wrong' style, but rather that no deliberate thought was given to the style. If the style of playing was selected among multiple other options for artistic or even financial reasons, fine (whether you enjoy listening to the outcome is another matter). But if it is played as a sort of default due to lack of insight that we have the option of making alternative stylistic choices, that is another matter.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-05-09 11:49
Pianist: I play Bach on piano and shall continue, just as you play him on harpsichord. We each play in our own way.
Wanda Landowska: Yes, my dear, we shall both continue to play Bach. You in your way, I in his.
Yet listening to Landowska's monster Pleyel today, it sounds little more like a harpsichord than a piano does.
There have been great Bach performances on piano. Listen to Lipatti. Bach himself might not recognize him, and probably wouldn't be satisfied. All we can do is listen through, now, 21st century ears.
And there's no rule that you can't play the Goldbergs musically with a string trio, or, for that matter, on electric bass guitar. It's just that my ears have been spoiled by listening to that music on harpischord, but also by Gould's 1955 recording on piano.
In the same way, I can't enjoy the Baroque Beatles Book recording, half because I hear the original in my head, and half because it's not very good baroque-style music.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeeB
Date: 2007-05-09 13:13
"Pianist: I play Bach on piano and shall continue, just as you play him on harpsichord. We each play in our own way.
Wanda Landowska: Yes, my dear, we shall both continue to play Bach. You in your way, I in his."
OTOH, if you could jump in a time machine and drop off a nice, new Steinway D at Bach's house, I think we can be pretty sure that it would not remain unused. Bach used all the instruments and resources available to him in his time. I really doubt that he would have shunned the piano.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-05-09 16:11
LeeB -
True enough, but he would have written very different music for it.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-05-09 16:51
Nitai wrote:
>>Can you explain what was wrong with it as clearly as you explained the good things?>>
That's often difficult, though, isn't it? -- even though the judgement itself can be unequivocal. Compare: someone can tell us something, and we find we just don't believe him. We may even say, "He's not a very good liar," have other people agree with us -- and still not be able to say in detail why, exactly.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2007-05-09 20:46
>>Can you explain what was wrong with it as clearly as you explained the good things?>>
It’s difficult to explain because there was nothing else there. It’s not about what they did do but more about what they didn’t do. It was dots on piece of a paper, what more can I say. I wanted to say; “speak to me, do something, where is J-S? HELLO!”
To me musical style is not a matter of history or in what century a piece was written. It’s more about passion for the music itself and if you are passionate about something you want to find out everything about it. The environmental circumstances under which a piece was written I find important to truly get near music and here history comes in as a source of information.
You will understand Bill Haley’s and Buddy Holly’s music much better if you know about what America was like in the 1950th; You will never understand the magic of Woodstock if you don’t know anything about Flower Power and the Vietnam War. You can copy the music from listening to it but the enlightenment comes from information about what soil the music came from.
With really old music without any sound samples it’s a more demanding task. If you’re passionate enough you will study which “nuts and bolts” (thanks for the expression Tony) you have to your disposition and learn how to use them. This takes a lot of study but is very rewarding and so much better than taking the easy way out and relay on a boring Tradition as the Trio I heard.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-05-10 11:58
> That's often difficult, though, isn't it? -- even though the judgement itself
> can be unequivocal. Compare: someone can tell us something, and we find we just
> don't believe him. We may even say, "He's not a very good liar," have other
> people agree with us -- and still not be able to say in detail why, exactly.
It could be difficult in some cases, sometimes not, and sometimes difficult but not impossible! Actually, I wanted to know if he could more that the actual explaination, and it was interesting for me because understanding and explaining exactly those type of things that seem difficult or sometimes impossible to explain clearly is a big part of what I do.
Your liar example maybe wouldn't be so hard to explain for someone who is an expert in face expression and voice tone, etc. the same as musicians are (usually) able to explain better about music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeeB
Date: 2007-05-10 15:53
<<<You will understand Bill Haley’s and Buddy Holly’s music much better if you know about what America was like in the 1950th>>>
This is all pretty relative. It depends on the time, the genre, the artist, the composer, the culture, the technology available for distributing music to the public, etc. In pop music, sometimes the things that catch on are daring, radical departures from where society happens to be at the time. Music is in part responsible for changing the culture. For instance, people weren't generally acting like Elvis before Elvis.
The flip side of this would be a lot of ivory tower scholarly composition that has little to do with contemporary culture, and has next to no influence on contemporary culture outside of the concert hall.
It's interesting to consider that in Bach's time, he was much more well known as a virtuosic organist than as a composer. Felix Mendelssohn was greatly responsible for the resurgence in interest in Bach's compostions. Mendelssohn was born long after Bach died, so he would not have ever heard original performances of Bach's music.
I don't think you can conclude that any given historic music is connected at the hip with the culture of its time. There are always those out there marching to different drummers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ginny
Date: 2007-05-10 16:38
" What got me going today was after listening to a recording of Bach’s Goldberg Variations in a version for string trio, played by three very fine internationally well-known musicians. They had good intonation, good sense of rhythm and technically perfect in every way but no connection with the music and cold as Siberian tundra. Isn’t it sad?"
That's funny, as the GV were the first Bach I'd heard (we really only listened to classical and romantic growing up.) My older brother got the Goldberg Variations and I thought it the most boring thing I'd ever heard, absolutely made me drowsy. I heard years later that Goldberg suffered insomnia and the variations were written to help with that. If that's true, you heard a great performance, showing more of Bach's genius. Perhaps that story's a myth, but I recall it from my music history.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: musiciandave
Date: 2007-05-11 14:02
It's like hearing a Mozart Concerto performance played like it were by Brahms...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-05-12 21:47
Two thoughts:
1) Bach was the Leipzig dealer for Silbermann fortepianos.
2) Bach's music transcends all of our efforts to screw it up whatever performance medium or style we use. And we have countless examples to prove it.
Best regards,
Mary Vinquist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2007-05-13 06:52
LeeB wrote:
"In pop music, sometimes the things that catch on are daring, radical departures from where society happens to be at the time. Music is in part responsible for changing the culture. For instance, people weren't generally acting like Elvis before Elvis."
But you have to understand what the society was like at the time to understand what the shock value was of these radical departures. You also need to understand the musical languaue and "norms" of the time to understand what the composers were saying that was different and what the impact might have been to listeners of the day.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
