Accuracy to the score (Beethoven, Schumann, Bruckner, et al.)

Started by (poco) Sforzando, February 28, 2016, 05:08:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Karl Henning

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 24, 2016, 04:05:49 AM
[...] A composer's own interpretation of his work has obvious special interest, but I don't think we can say it's the only possible interpretation or even the definitive one.

And (as hinted by examples in your post) in the cases where a composer tolerates/admits/welcomes a range of interpretation, how could there be "a definitive performance"?
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

(poco) Sforzando

#41
Quote from: karlhenning on March 24, 2016, 04:36:31 AM
And (as hinted by examples in your post) in the cases where a composer tolerates/admits/welcomes a range of interpretation, how could there be "a definitive performance"?

That said, I think we can all agree that some interpretations are more successful than others (though we may disagree about which ones).
"I don't know what sforzando means, though it clearly means something."


(poco) Sforzando

"I don't know what sforzando means, though it clearly means something."

Jo498

Quote from: amw on March 24, 2016, 03:37:15 AM
Gilels's performance was very beautiful if somewhat Romanticised. At the same time, I found it almost impossible to concentrate on it simply because the music lost all of its forward motion and most of its potential for drama (understated, obviously, but the semiquaver turns in the development section with the intermittent sigh figures above form an effectively soft climax in the hands of a good pianist, like Kovacevich or someone). It became soporific and in parts almost dirgelike. Gilels is highly regarded and a lot of it seems to be because of his slow tempi, so I don't know where I went wrong.
I am not sure if Gilels is highly regarded because of slow tempi. Although there are some listeners who apparently think that (especially) slow movements can hardly be slow enough, Gilels is extremely slow in some of them. [I very much disagree with equating slowness and profundity. But I have to admit that I love (some) 18-20 min performances of op.132,iii although I know that they are at half speed.]
And he sometimes makes them work because he uses lots of nuances, wide dynamics, can bring out inner voices well etc.
But there are some movements, including op.22ii where I cannot agree with the character a piece (recall that Kolisch's notorious essay was titled "Tempo and Character in Beethoven's music") receives in Gilels' interpretation through extremly broad tempi. His is the slowest op.10/1i I have heard, he ignores the alla breve in op.14/2ii and plays it at half speed which sounds grotesquely funny (a pity because I love his first playing in the first movement where I prefer a slower tempo) and probably also the slowest op.28 I have heard. Whereas I can enjoy his broad tempi in e.g. opp.109+110 as a beautiful alternative (and I do not find any of them so far off as in the examples above).
Tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre.
- Blaise Pascal

PerfectWagnerite

Quote from: Jo498 on March 24, 2016, 08:48:24 AM
I am not sure if Gilels is highly regarded because of slow tempi. Although there are some listeners who apparently think that (especially) slow movements can hardly be slow enough, Gilels is extremely slow in some of them. [I very much disagree with equating slowness and profundity. But I have to admit that I love (some) 18-20 min performances of op.132,iii although I know that they are at half speed.]

Is that Beethoven's Opus 132? Did Giles learn to play a string instrument?

Jo498

Yes and No, I departed from the topic of pianists there; it's another movement that is frequently played extremely slow because that's supposed to be the most profound way and amw mentioned it above as one example of such movements, in line with e.g. the adagio from op.106 (although Gilels ist almost swift there with slightly below 20 min.)
Tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre.
- Blaise Pascal

kishnevi

Possibly only applicable to Baroque keyboard works,  but this may be pertinent.
From the liner notes written by Vladimir Feltsman to his newly released recording of Bach's French Suites and Overture in the French Style.*  Writing about the latter, he says

Quote

The Overture opens with a powerful introduction filled with dotted rhythms and written in double time alla breve. ( How to play the dotted rhythms and what should be the real value of dotted 16th notes has been the subject of endless discussion. No 'scientific' answer which could be applied on all occasions can be found. However it seems a good idea to shorten the 16ths so they become more like 32nds, which strengthens the rhythmic structure.)


*Copyright date is 2015 but the Suites were recorded in 2005 and the Overture in 2002.

amw

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 24, 2016, 04:28:24 AM
And I see no need to accelerate past the point where the main fugue theme returns in the right hand in Ab (where the bass comes back in 16th notes); it has the effect of a recapitulation, and though I know there's no explicit marking, I feel a steady tempo from this point to the end seems appropriate.
I think that's more likely to be correct. I should do some reading on tempi & interpretation in Op. 110.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 24, 2016, 01:18:27 PM
Possibly only applicable to Baroque keyboard works,  but this may be pertinent.
From the liner notes written by Vladimir Feltsman to his newly released recording of Bach's French Suites and Overture in the French Style.*  Writing about the latter, he says
The largest controversy I've seen about double-dotting in Baroque music is Fugue V from WTC I. It seems like it should be double-dotted at first (with the demisemiquaver/32nd figures) but later on the dotted figure returns under descending semiquavers/16ths, where double-dotting would make no sense. Every commentator has an opinion and usually quite a rigid one.

(It's known that it was common in French overture style to double-dot—I believe such was advised by, idk, CPE Bach or someone like that? So doing so for the explicitly titled French Overture makes sense to an extent. But whether you should do so all the time is one thing. Whether WTC I/Fugue V is actually an example of French overture style is another.)

zamyrabyrd

Quote from: amw on March 23, 2016, 09:32:32 PM
This is just me playing at the tempi that felt most natural to me. I can't speak to historical accuracy.
110/iii
Klagender Gesang - 1:25 (approximately dotted eighth = 54)
Fuga - 2:28 (approximately dotted quarter = 71)
Ermattert klagend - 1:38 (approximately dotted eighth = 54)
L'inversione della Fuga - 0:54 [until Meno allegro] (approximately dotted quarter = 71) or 2:09 [to the end] (approximately dotted quarter = 74)

I have been just chasing Alfred Brendel's beautiful and convincing Op. 110 with a metronome but it was very difficult, like trying to get an exact recipe from a cook who doesn't use measuring cups.

Anyway, The 1st movement is around q=60, although towards the end, he hovers around 56.
ii: For all practical purposes the quarters are revved up to 4x they were in i, so about h=120

Now the fun begins: the recitative of course is free but the arioso is in the low 40's each dotted 8th also in the return. The fugue starts at around dq=66*, then gradually increases to about dq=84 at the end of the section. The return of the fugue is consistent with the first appearance of the theme dq=63 but also speeding up (anyway, there are indications saying to do just this) to about dq=84.

Ergo, metronomic markings are an inexact science and trying to clock someone's performance is also liable to err. But my idea about the tempo of the arioso as being possibly 2/3 of the fugue was borne out in the above (in other words, 2/16ths equal to the coming dotted quarter rather than 3/16ths)  but at the end of the fugue, the pace was just about twice 84= dq compared to 40 = d8th of the arioso.

*dotted quarter
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."

― Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds