Galina Ustvolskaya (1919-2006)

Started by bhodges, February 14, 2008, 10:30:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mandryka

#40
Quote from: Mandryka on August 23, 2023, 01:35:09 PMBack to this for the first time in 9 years, and I agree with everything here.

But Arden is not necessarily better than this fabulous recording from Malov - and here you get thought provoking interpretations of Compositions 1 - 3 to boot.

It's very well recorded.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

Mandryka

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

T. D.

#42
Quote from: Mandryka on August 23, 2023, 11:27:11 PMBut Arden is not necessarily better than this fabulous recording from Malov - and here you get thought provoking interpretations of Compositions 1 - 3 to boot.

It's very well recorded.




I like that recording as well as Malov's Piano Sonatas, have owned them for decades.

Somewhat more recently I got Ivan Sokolov's Complete Piano Music set, but that didn't make much of an impression and Malov is preferred.

The Compositions are essential.

The late Reinbert de Leeuw and the Schoenberg Ensembles were big Ustvolskaya advocates. Don't own much in the way of recordings (though I expect they are excellent), but have watched some fine videos, in particular Composition #2.

Mandryka

Quote from: T. D. on August 24, 2023, 04:06:46 AMThe late Reinbert de Leeuw and the Schoenberg Ensembles were big Ustvolskaya advocates. Don't own much in the way of recordings (though I expect they are excellent), but have watched some fine videos, in particular Composition #2.

Some fun facts about the coffin in Composition 2

The cube of Ustvolskaya

In some concerts of the music of Ustvolskaya (e.g. Marino Formenti (2009), Reinbert De Leeuw (2011), Patricia Kopatchinskaja (2017–2021), Ensemble Modern (2019) and others) during the performance of the Second Composition was used a percussion instrument described by LA Times as "a long, wooden, coffin-sized crate whacked upon by with nasty-looking beaters".

Galina Ustvolskaya never actually asked for the use in these works of any wooden "crate", and never anything "coffin-sized" as it was described by journalists. She designed a percussion instrument of a specific form with a very specific sound: a cube (43 cm x 43 cm) made of the 2 cm thick chipboards which is struck with two mallets. The cube is completely closed. The leather strap was attached to it for the first time when it travelled outside of Russia, namely to Amsterdam.

Marian Lee wrote in her thesis (2002): "According to Oleg Malov, who premiered many of Ustvolskaya's works, 'the wooden cube was originally supposed to be an actual coffin, but Ustvolskaya was not satisfied with the quality of the sound and had a wooden cube built instead'".

This catchy image was immediately used by at least four other musicologists, who based their research on this "fact". The Guardian went as far as this: "wooden cube, a coffin-like instrument". Can you really imagine a coffin shaped like a cube? What kind of entity could find the eternal peace in it? The truth is very simple: the cube is not "a coffin". During Ustvolskaya's life, one musicologist compared the cube with a coffin; at first she laughed, then became exasperated: "I did not write music for coffins!". She just needed the specific sound for her Composition No 2. In 2015 Oleg Malov confirmed that he was misinterpreted: "There were no talks about a coffin. That was my speculation. An imaginative one. Based on the composition's title [Dies irae]."

Marian Lee commented: "Malov may say now (15 years later) that I misunderstood what he meant, which is possible since I'm not a native Russian speaker, but if I wrote it in my research, it meant that at the time, that is what I heard and understood from him. If the idea of the coffin was his own elaborate imagination and interpretation, then he obviously didn't make that clear."
By using "a coffin" performers not only distort the composer's original idea regarding the sound, they also change the symbolism of cube into something else.
The history of the creation of this instrument is as follows:

n the courtyard of the music college, where Galina Ivanovna worked there was a carpenter's shop. When Ustvolskaya came to this shop in order to have an instrument built for the Second Composition, she did not know yet the size or the material she wanted. She said that she only knew the sound that it should produce. When the carpenter made one, she came to test it by knocking on it. She could then tell: "No, not that one." Varied sizes and wooden materials were tried, Galina Ivanovna came to knock on each new variant – the sound still was not right. This went on for a long time – the poor master builder, glimpsing Ustvolskaya in the music college yards, on a few occasions tried to escape. Then it turned out that any box made of any kind of wood makes a clear sound which the composer did not like and so they replaced wood with chipboard, and the muffled sound appeared – that was what Ustvolskaya was looking for. The expensive box (the master requested a rather high price for his work) was brought home.
Currently, the author's original copy of the instrument – the only one she deemed sonically correct – is located in Ustvolskaya's archive in Moscow. This cube was used in all concerts in Leningrad, where the Second Composition and the Fifth Symphony were performed.

Why respected Dutch and American (and possibly other) musicians decided to use a "coffin-sized" wooden instrument with a ringing sound (not to mention those who simply use a standard percussion instrument as was the case, for example, in Warsaw in 2001 or in Bari in 2012 where cajon was used) instead of the chipboard cube that measured 43 cm by 43 cm as described in the scores – we do not know.
In Leningrad the original cube was always used in the performances of Composition No 2 and Symphony No 5, it was hit with the tubular bells hammers.

Here is the sound of the original cube (p, mf, f) played by Konstantin Bagrenin in July 2013 in the Ustvolskaya's flat (recorded with Zoom H4n Pro). For this recording a wooden mallet covered with felt was used.



http://ustvolskaya.org/eng/precision.php
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

AnotherSpin

Quote from: Mandryka on August 24, 2023, 06:21:41 AMSome fun facts about the coffin in Composition 2

The cube of Ustvolskaya

In some concerts of the music of Ustvolskaya (e.g. Marino Formenti (2009), Reinbert De Leeuw (2011), Patricia Kopatchinskaja (2017–2021), Ensemble Modern (2019) and others) during the performance of the Second Composition was used a percussion instrument described by LA Times as "a long, wooden, coffin-sized crate whacked upon by with nasty-looking beaters".

Galina Ustvolskaya never actually asked for the use in these works of any wooden "crate", and never anything "coffin-sized" as it was described by journalists. She designed a percussion instrument of a specific form with a very specific sound: a cube (43 cm x 43 cm) made of the 2 cm thick chipboards which is struck with two mallets. The cube is completely closed. The leather strap was attached to it for the first time when it travelled outside of Russia, namely to Amsterdam.

Marian Lee wrote in her thesis (2002): "According to Oleg Malov, who premiered many of Ustvolskaya's works, 'the wooden cube was originally supposed to be an actual coffin, but Ustvolskaya was not satisfied with the quality of the sound and had a wooden cube built instead'".

This catchy image was immediately used by at least four other musicologists, who based their research on this "fact". The Guardian went as far as this: "wooden cube, a coffin-like instrument". Can you really imagine a coffin shaped like a cube? What kind of entity could find the eternal peace in it? The truth is very simple: the cube is not "a coffin". During Ustvolskaya's life, one musicologist compared the cube with a coffin; at first she laughed, then became exasperated: "I did not write music for coffins!". She just needed the specific sound for her Composition No 2. In 2015 Oleg Malov confirmed that he was misinterpreted: "There were no talks about a coffin. That was my speculation. An imaginative one. Based on the composition's title [Dies irae]."

Marian Lee commented: "Malov may say now (15 years later) that I misunderstood what he meant, which is possible since I'm not a native Russian speaker, but if I wrote it in my research, it meant that at the time, that is what I heard and understood from him. If the idea of the coffin was his own elaborate imagination and interpretation, then he obviously didn't make that clear."
By using "a coffin" performers not only distort the composer's original idea regarding the sound, they also change the symbolism of cube into something else.
The history of the creation of this instrument is as follows:

n the courtyard of the music college, where Galina Ivanovna worked there was a carpenter's shop. When Ustvolskaya came to this shop in order to have an instrument built for the Second Composition, she did not know yet the size or the material she wanted. She said that she only knew the sound that it should produce. When the carpenter made one, she came to test it by knocking on it. She could then tell: "No, not that one." Varied sizes and wooden materials were tried, Galina Ivanovna came to knock on each new variant – the sound still was not right. This went on for a long time – the poor master builder, glimpsing Ustvolskaya in the music college yards, on a few occasions tried to escape. Then it turned out that any box made of any kind of wood makes a clear sound which the composer did not like and so they replaced wood with chipboard, and the muffled sound appeared – that was what Ustvolskaya was looking for. The expensive box (the master requested a rather high price for his work) was brought home.
Currently, the author's original copy of the instrument – the only one she deemed sonically correct – is located in Ustvolskaya's archive in Moscow. This cube was used in all concerts in Leningrad, where the Second Composition and the Fifth Symphony were performed.

Why respected Dutch and American (and possibly other) musicians decided to use a "coffin-sized" wooden instrument with a ringing sound (not to mention those who simply use a standard percussion instrument as was the case, for example, in Warsaw in 2001 or in Bari in 2012 where cajon was used) instead of the chipboard cube that measured 43 cm by 43 cm as described in the scores – we do not know.
In Leningrad the original cube was always used in the performances of Composition No 2 and Symphony No 5, it was hit with the tubular bells hammers.

Here is the sound of the original cube (p, mf, f) played by Konstantin Bagrenin in July 2013 in the Ustvolskaya's flat (recorded with Zoom H4n Pro). For this recording a wooden mallet covered with felt was used.



http://ustvolskaya.org/eng/precision.php


In India, the bodies of some saints were placed after death in cubic shaped vaults in a sitting posture, along with embalming substances. For example, Sri Ramana Maharshi's body is in the ashram at Tiruvannamalai in a vault partially embedded in the floor at a later date. The bodies of saints were not necessarily burnt as they do not need to be purified by fire.

T. D.

Quote from: Mandryka on August 24, 2023, 06:21:41 AMSome fun facts about the coffin in Composition 2

The cube of Ustvolskaya

In some concerts of the music of Ustvolskaya (e.g. Marino Formenti (2009), Reinbert De Leeuw (2011), Patricia Kopatchinskaja (2017–2021), Ensemble Modern (2019) and others) during the performance of the Second Composition was used a percussion instrument described by LA Times as "a long, wooden, coffin-sized crate whacked upon by with nasty-looking beaters".

Galina Ustvolskaya never actually asked for the use in these works of any wooden "crate", and never anything "coffin-sized" as it was described by journalists. She designed a percussion instrument of a specific form with a very specific sound: a cube (43 cm x 43 cm) made of the 2 cm thick chipboards which is struck with two mallets. The cube is completely closed. The leather strap was attached to it for the first time when it travelled outside of Russia, namely to Amsterdam.

Marian Lee wrote in her thesis (2002): "According to Oleg Malov, who premiered many of Ustvolskaya's works, 'the wooden cube was originally supposed to be an actual coffin, but Ustvolskaya was not satisfied with the quality of the sound and had a wooden cube built instead'".

This catchy image was immediately used by at least four other musicologists, who based their research on this "fact". The Guardian went as far as this: "wooden cube, a coffin-like instrument". Can you really imagine a coffin shaped like a cube? What kind of entity could find the eternal peace in it? The truth is very simple: the cube is not "a coffin". During Ustvolskaya's life, one musicologist compared the cube with a coffin; at first she laughed, then became exasperated: "I did not write music for coffins!". She just needed the specific sound for her Composition No 2. In 2015 Oleg Malov confirmed that he was misinterpreted: "There were no talks about a coffin. That was my speculation. An imaginative one. Based on the composition's title [Dies irae]."

Marian Lee commented: "Malov may say now (15 years later) that I misunderstood what he meant, which is possible since I'm not a native Russian speaker, but if I wrote it in my research, it meant that at the time, that is what I heard and understood from him. If the idea of the coffin was his own elaborate imagination and interpretation, then he obviously didn't make that clear."
By using "a coffin" performers not only distort the composer's original idea regarding the sound, they also change the symbolism of cube into something else.
The history of the creation of this instrument is as follows:

n the courtyard of the music college, where Galina Ivanovna worked there was a carpenter's shop. When Ustvolskaya came to this shop in order to have an instrument built for the Second Composition, she did not know yet the size or the material she wanted. She said that she only knew the sound that it should produce. When the carpenter made one, she came to test it by knocking on it. She could then tell: "No, not that one." Varied sizes and wooden materials were tried, Galina Ivanovna came to knock on each new variant – the sound still was not right. This went on for a long time – the poor master builder, glimpsing Ustvolskaya in the music college yards, on a few occasions tried to escape. Then it turned out that any box made of any kind of wood makes a clear sound which the composer did not like and so they replaced wood with chipboard, and the muffled sound appeared – that was what Ustvolskaya was looking for. The expensive box (the master requested a rather high price for his work) was brought home.
Currently, the author's original copy of the instrument – the only one she deemed sonically correct – is located in Ustvolskaya's archive in Moscow. This cube was used in all concerts in Leningrad, where the Second Composition and the Fifth Symphony were performed.

Why respected Dutch and American (and possibly other) musicians decided to use a "coffin-sized" wooden instrument with a ringing sound (not to mention those who simply use a standard percussion instrument as was the case, for example, in Warsaw in 2001 or in Bari in 2012 where cajon was used) instead of the chipboard cube that measured 43 cm by 43 cm as described in the scores – we do not know.
In Leningrad the original cube was always used in the performances of Composition No 2 and Symphony No 5, it was hit with the tubular bells hammers.

Here is the sound of the original cube (p, mf, f) played by Konstantin Bagrenin in July 2013 in the Ustvolskaya's flat (recorded with Zoom H4n Pro). For this recording a wooden mallet covered with felt was used.



http://ustvolskaya.org/eng/precision.php

Interesting. The score indeed says "plywood cube" and that's what I've seen in liner notes, e.g. Malov.
But the only performance I've seen (a Dutch one perchance referred to above) uses a coffin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnZ0UBC07Ow


Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 24, 2023, 06:49:47 AMIn India, the bodies of some saints were placed after death in cubic shaped vaults in a sitting posture, along with embalming substances. For example, Sri Ramana Maharshi's body is in the ashram at Tiruvannamalai in a vault partially embedded in the floor at a later date. The bodies of saints were not necessarily burnt as they do not need to be purified by fire.

Off-topic, but I wonder whether any Indian saints achieved the "rainbow body" like certain Tibetan Buddhist masters. Maybe so, doesn't seem clear but I didn't search long.

AnotherSpin

Quote from: T. D. on August 24, 2023, 07:52:13 AMInteresting. The score indeed says "plywood cube" and that's what I've seen in liner notes, e.g. Malov.
But the only performance I've seen (a Dutch one perchance referred to above) uses a coffin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnZ0UBC07Ow


Off-topic, but I wonder whether any Indian saints achieved the "rainbow body" like certain Tibetan Buddhist masters. Maybe so, doesn't seem clear but I didn't search long.

Real masters do not concern much with anything body-related.