Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-07-24 19:18
Arnoldstang wrote:
> Yes, "veiled" is an option much like a muted forte but this is
> contrary to the vibrant quality that Karl spoke of above..
> "full voiced" "sung freely". You can't have it both ways.
Well, I'm not so sure you can't. First, "the character of forte" is very much within my description. Second, "the sound of piano" may well refer to a round, unforced sound that in my ear could still be vibrant (colorful, not dull) and freely sung. I don't think any of us wants to say the real dynamic level of the opening of the sonata (since that was my original example) is really meant to be in the piano area. And no one that I've heard plays it that way.
When composers use verbal descriptors, especially when they're non-standard (like poco f is), it's both a problem and a strength. In any case, it allows or forces the player (depending on whether you see a strength or a problem) to follow his own logic to make sense of the composer's meaning, to give meaning to the words and symbols on the page. Pitch notation and most rhythmic notation, within the realm of "classical" music and even many jazz styles, have been largely standardized and unambiguous in the Western music tradition since the 17th century. The meanings of verbal descriptors aren't nearly so universally agreed on. The result, of course, is the difference between Klemperer and Muti (to date myself slightly) or perhaps Milstein or Elman and Pearlman or Bell. If these "expressive" terms were straightforward and had universally accepted meanings, there'd be no point in marketing 15 recorded versions of anything.
> I note the existence of these two books, "Brahms Performance
> Practice" by Ian Pace and "Performing Brahms" by Michael
> Musgrave and Bernard Sherman. Has anyone looked at these?
>
No, I wasn't aware of either book and will be interested to see what each says about a number of issues.
Karl
|
|