Understanding Interpretation in Classical Music
Posted by: Whizzkid on 24 July 2008
Hi all,
I had a bit of a revelation the other night while listening to a CD from Sir Charles Mackerras & The SCO Beethoven cycle. When I first purchased this box set I'd been used to, though briefly, a more dramatic interpretation of Beethovens music from older conductors like Furtwangler and Karajan and Mackerras' style seem to be too fast and lacking in drama, I thought to myself how can someone get it so wrong, but now that I've own the box set for a few weeks I finally realised that night what he was getting at. His interpretation is just a more upbeat and jubilant with a more celebrational aspect to it rather than the slower paced Furtwangler that has dread and forboding mixed in with more beautiful aspects, a sign of the times he lived in? But after reading Florestans little "outburst" in the Sonata's thread I feel I understand why Classical lovers have many different readings of the same score. I did start to dismiss this box set because it did not fit in with my limited understanding of Beethoven's music, I have always thought that it should be heavy on the drama and light on the romance but hey! I don't really know now what is the right way to play this music now, I'm enjoying the Mackerras more because of this revelation but I think I still err on the dramatic edge of the older performances but saying that i could change my mind in the future. This understanding has lead me to another dimension in listening to music the differences that two different conductors can bring to a score is quite incredible really. Am I slow to this realisation or have other people had a similar experience.
Dean..
I had a bit of a revelation the other night while listening to a CD from Sir Charles Mackerras & The SCO Beethoven cycle. When I first purchased this box set I'd been used to, though briefly, a more dramatic interpretation of Beethovens music from older conductors like Furtwangler and Karajan and Mackerras' style seem to be too fast and lacking in drama, I thought to myself how can someone get it so wrong, but now that I've own the box set for a few weeks I finally realised that night what he was getting at. His interpretation is just a more upbeat and jubilant with a more celebrational aspect to it rather than the slower paced Furtwangler that has dread and forboding mixed in with more beautiful aspects, a sign of the times he lived in? But after reading Florestans little "outburst" in the Sonata's thread I feel I understand why Classical lovers have many different readings of the same score. I did start to dismiss this box set because it did not fit in with my limited understanding of Beethoven's music, I have always thought that it should be heavy on the drama and light on the romance but hey! I don't really know now what is the right way to play this music now, I'm enjoying the Mackerras more because of this revelation but I think I still err on the dramatic edge of the older performances but saying that i could change my mind in the future. This understanding has lead me to another dimension in listening to music the differences that two different conductors can bring to a score is quite incredible really. Am I slow to this realisation or have other people had a similar experience.
Dean..
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by BigH47
I'm sorry but I still don't understand this "interpretation" business, if the notes ,the time signature, even "the spirit" is written down. So I don't see how it can be faster slower or whatever. Play it like the guy wrote it, they don't leave paint brushes and knives in the Louvre so you can re-interpret the pictures or chisels for the statues.I know we've been hear before. It's one of the reasons I can't get into more classical music because of all the bollocks spoken about it.
End rant.
End rant.
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by Whizzkid
Howard,
That has been on my mind but I don't presume to know why I have just understood the how.
Dean..
That has been on my mind but I don't presume to know why I have just understood the how.
Dean..
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by Geoff P
Howrad...Here goes with how I think about this.quote:I'm sorry but I still don't understand this "interpretation" business, if the notes ,the time signature, even "the spirit" is written down. So I don't see how it can be faster slower or whatever. Play it like the guy wrote it, they don't leave paint brushes and knives in the Louvre so you can re-interpret the pictures or chisels for the statues.I know we've been hear before. It's one of the reasons I can't get into more classical music because of all the bollocks spoken about it.
When we listen to Jazz a lot of the music is improvised. In a sense that is the raison d'étre of Jazz. The key element is that every performance is different as the musicians create against the standard chord structure that defines the piece being played.
In a similar way a lot of classical music is not absolutely defined with every single note written down and there are passages where the composer expected the interpreter to actively 'improvise' within the disciplined structure of the composition. This allows for and explains the way differences in interpretation become meanningful in classical music.
It is beacsue of this that there are all these different recordings out there. With no degrees of freedom at all we would theoretically only need to record each piece of classic composed music once and all buy a copy and that would be that. Not desirable at all IMO.
regards
Geoff
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by Steve S1
Howard,
It's precisely because the composer does not (often) leave rigid instructions - more likely just guidelines, that you can hear the same work produced so many different ways.
I'd be sorry if it put you off, because for me, it adds enormously to the enjoyment.
It isn't 'bollocks'. Ask three people to walk slowly and see if they all move at the same speed.
Steve
It's precisely because the composer does not (often) leave rigid instructions - more likely just guidelines, that you can hear the same work produced so many different ways.
I'd be sorry if it put you off, because for me, it adds enormously to the enjoyment.
It isn't 'bollocks'. Ask three people to walk slowly and see if they all move at the same speed.
Steve
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by KenM
Geoff,
I couldn't have put it better.
Whizzkid,
Why not appreciate both the Mackerras and the Klemperer approaches? I'm no expert, but it seems to me that there is not, and probably never will be the perfect interpretation in music of this complexity
Ken.
I couldn't have put it better.
Whizzkid,
Why not appreciate both the Mackerras and the Klemperer approaches? I'm no expert, but it seems to me that there is not, and probably never will be the perfect interpretation in music of this complexity
Ken.
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Dean and Howard,
Interpretation is built into all performance art, be it reading poetry, the theatre, music or whatever else requires an artist to bring the artwork off the page for an audience in real time.
In this way performed art is utterly different from other static spheres such as painting, sculpture, [etc.], or even the written word where it is read directly by the person appreciating the work. Reading a novel out loud turns it into a performance.
Straight away you are left with the simple fact that you have variations in how any performance goes between different artists, and indeed between the same artist on different days, let alone performances separated by many years.
Why should this be? The answer is simple in that beyond [generally] unwritten stylistic boundaries, which are themselves are the reason why great artists are often also very influential teachers - they teach style - the musical notes on the page or the words, give but a fraction of the information to make a satisfactory performance. Of course everything that is in the score in the case of music, should be played, but such a simple piece of information as the metronome mark, might seem to make the issue of the correct speed simple, but it often complicates it.
Tempo:
Is the music's pulse a steady, rigid one or one that is flexible? If you can show me one piece of music that it would be correct to play in a literally rigid metronomic tempo I shall be surprised. Music breathes, and its pulse varies. And so the metronome becomes an indication of reasonable speed, but is this the first bar, the second, or the one hundred and fiftieth? None of these in all probability. Possibly none in the music at all, but perhaps some of the beats contained in some of the bars may be precisely at the given tempo! Of course some musical forms are required to have a fairly steady beat and pulse, such as Bach's Fugues frequently seem to demand, but oddly Bach never gave very precise indications of the tempo. Every church has a different pipe organ and acoustic, so the important issue remains clarity and music effect of the result, and not any specific given tempo. Andante will be slower than Alegro, etc, but beyond that the choice is left to the performer in a very large degree. The wordy decription indicates a possible range, the metromone may indicate an accurate speed in certain specific sets of circumstance, as a guide to the speed with the general natural elasticity in the music.
Have you ever sung a hymn, and did you stick to an exactly rigid speed? If you did then you certainly sung it out of time with everyone else! That would be unmusical.
So if we accept that music exists in an elastic rhythmic and speed framework, then we have to decide what might be considered stylish. Would you play a Viennese waltz in the same rhythmic pattern as a French Waltz? No of course not. They have an entirely different sense of the three beats that exist within the bar structure. This is simply one example. I could fill several tens of paragraphs with references in learned tomes on musical style, which would be pointless. What is certain is that what is in the score is not a rigid blueprint, so much as an indication of what is required to make a satisfactory interpretation.
Dynamic.
The bald dynamic indication may be as simple as the word Forte for example. This means loud. How loud? Is the hall a two thousand seater or a drawing room? The dynamic will be different in the same music in either space. The performer must judge what is suitable for the occasion and the performing space!
Conclusion:
It is this judgement of the needs of the music, to suit the occasion, the acoustic properties of the hall, the actual instrument being played, and the discrimination in terms of applying the training of years that is a prerequisite for any performing artist, that constitutes "interpretation." Like it or not it is a necessity.
The big variable is of course that different artists have different personalities, different teachers, and fashions change as well.
Over time even the instruments have changed. The generic violin,recorded in the orchestral works of Elgar in the 1920s and 30s, is set up quite differently to the violin that would be recorded in the same music in today's studio. The instrument would be played with a slightly different style. If things have distinctly changed in eighty years, then consider how much they have changed since Beethoven's time, or even more so since Bach's.
Thus even if one could be utterly certain about correct style, one can never be sure on issues of dynamic and tempo even given that these are apparently plainly stated.
Discrimination in performing artists is crucial, and of course covers a range, which can appear rather wide between different artists.
___________
I have never been fond of major arguments of the relative merits of different interpretations, but rather prefer to stick to letting people know about artists whose solutions I enjoy. Everyone will enjoy a slightly or even significantly different approach. Over time one person's taste will almost certainly alter as well.
I hope that helps.
ATB from George
Interpretation is built into all performance art, be it reading poetry, the theatre, music or whatever else requires an artist to bring the artwork off the page for an audience in real time.
In this way performed art is utterly different from other static spheres such as painting, sculpture, [etc.], or even the written word where it is read directly by the person appreciating the work. Reading a novel out loud turns it into a performance.
Straight away you are left with the simple fact that you have variations in how any performance goes between different artists, and indeed between the same artist on different days, let alone performances separated by many years.
Why should this be? The answer is simple in that beyond [generally] unwritten stylistic boundaries, which are themselves are the reason why great artists are often also very influential teachers - they teach style - the musical notes on the page or the words, give but a fraction of the information to make a satisfactory performance. Of course everything that is in the score in the case of music, should be played, but such a simple piece of information as the metronome mark, might seem to make the issue of the correct speed simple, but it often complicates it.
Tempo:
Is the music's pulse a steady, rigid one or one that is flexible? If you can show me one piece of music that it would be correct to play in a literally rigid metronomic tempo I shall be surprised. Music breathes, and its pulse varies. And so the metronome becomes an indication of reasonable speed, but is this the first bar, the second, or the one hundred and fiftieth? None of these in all probability. Possibly none in the music at all, but perhaps some of the beats contained in some of the bars may be precisely at the given tempo! Of course some musical forms are required to have a fairly steady beat and pulse, such as Bach's Fugues frequently seem to demand, but oddly Bach never gave very precise indications of the tempo. Every church has a different pipe organ and acoustic, so the important issue remains clarity and music effect of the result, and not any specific given tempo. Andante will be slower than Alegro, etc, but beyond that the choice is left to the performer in a very large degree. The wordy decription indicates a possible range, the metromone may indicate an accurate speed in certain specific sets of circumstance, as a guide to the speed with the general natural elasticity in the music.
Have you ever sung a hymn, and did you stick to an exactly rigid speed? If you did then you certainly sung it out of time with everyone else! That would be unmusical.
So if we accept that music exists in an elastic rhythmic and speed framework, then we have to decide what might be considered stylish. Would you play a Viennese waltz in the same rhythmic pattern as a French Waltz? No of course not. They have an entirely different sense of the three beats that exist within the bar structure. This is simply one example. I could fill several tens of paragraphs with references in learned tomes on musical style, which would be pointless. What is certain is that what is in the score is not a rigid blueprint, so much as an indication of what is required to make a satisfactory interpretation.
Dynamic.
The bald dynamic indication may be as simple as the word Forte for example. This means loud. How loud? Is the hall a two thousand seater or a drawing room? The dynamic will be different in the same music in either space. The performer must judge what is suitable for the occasion and the performing space!
Conclusion:
It is this judgement of the needs of the music, to suit the occasion, the acoustic properties of the hall, the actual instrument being played, and the discrimination in terms of applying the training of years that is a prerequisite for any performing artist, that constitutes "interpretation." Like it or not it is a necessity.
The big variable is of course that different artists have different personalities, different teachers, and fashions change as well.
Over time even the instruments have changed. The generic violin,recorded in the orchestral works of Elgar in the 1920s and 30s, is set up quite differently to the violin that would be recorded in the same music in today's studio. The instrument would be played with a slightly different style. If things have distinctly changed in eighty years, then consider how much they have changed since Beethoven's time, or even more so since Bach's.
Thus even if one could be utterly certain about correct style, one can never be sure on issues of dynamic and tempo even given that these are apparently plainly stated.
Discrimination in performing artists is crucial, and of course covers a range, which can appear rather wide between different artists.
___________
I have never been fond of major arguments of the relative merits of different interpretations, but rather prefer to stick to letting people know about artists whose solutions I enjoy. Everyone will enjoy a slightly or even significantly different approach. Over time one person's taste will almost certainly alter as well.
I hope that helps.
ATB from George
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by Whizzkid
quote:Originally posted by KenM:
Geoff,
I couldn't have put it better.
Whizzkid,
Why not appreciate both the Mackerras and the Klemperer approaches? I'm no expert, but it seems to me that there is not, and probably never will be the perfect interpretation in music of this complexity
Ken.
Ken,
Thats the point of my post.
Dean..
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by Whizzkid
Thanks George,
I now understand the fundamentals to interpretation. My post was a epiphany which I just wanted to share and has made me see why I should not dismiss a work out of hand as I said it has added a different dimension to my listening pleasure.
Dean..
I now understand the fundamentals to interpretation. My post was a epiphany which I just wanted to share and has made me see why I should not dismiss a work out of hand as I said it has added a different dimension to my listening pleasure.
Dean..
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by Steve S1
quote:Originally posted by Whizzkid:
Thanks George,
I now understand the fundamentals to interpretation. My post was a epiphany which I just wanted to share and has made me see why I should not dismiss a work out of hand as I said it has added a different dimension to my listening pleasure.
Dean..
Wanna give Levi's interpretation of Romeo & Juliet another go Dean.
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Dean,
I think the point is that you should listen and enjoy the music. To be honest, almost anything that makes it onto records will have some tremendous value! That does not mean that you will necessarily enjoy the performance, but I am increasingly reluctant to spend efforts to put down that which I do not personally care for. There are times when the style is plain wrong, and this is a factual issue rather than a personal and subjective one, but rather I prefer to send people to performances I like, and try to explain what is good about them! I hate negativity, especially with music!!!
Also anything that actually gets promoted in the concert hall is likely to be rather fine, even if occasional live performances can go quite badly. Who among us has not had a bad day at work!!
I think you have a lovely chance to see seemingly different styles of performance will each inform your appreciation of the other, and then most importantly the music itself. I like to have many different performances of favouite music - often rather contrasted, but not always!
See my current Brahms and Bach Threads for an indication of this!
ATB from George
I think the point is that you should listen and enjoy the music. To be honest, almost anything that makes it onto records will have some tremendous value! That does not mean that you will necessarily enjoy the performance, but I am increasingly reluctant to spend efforts to put down that which I do not personally care for. There are times when the style is plain wrong, and this is a factual issue rather than a personal and subjective one, but rather I prefer to send people to performances I like, and try to explain what is good about them! I hate negativity, especially with music!!!
Also anything that actually gets promoted in the concert hall is likely to be rather fine, even if occasional live performances can go quite badly. Who among us has not had a bad day at work!!
I think you have a lovely chance to see seemingly different styles of performance will each inform your appreciation of the other, and then most importantly the music itself. I like to have many different performances of favouite music - often rather contrasted, but not always!
See my current Brahms and Bach Threads for an indication of this!
ATB from George
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by Whizzkid
quote:Originally posted by Steve S1:quote:Originally posted by Whizzkid:
Thanks George,
I now understand the fundamentals to interpretation. My post was a epiphany which I just wanted to share and has made me see why I should not dismiss a work out of hand as I said it has added a different dimension to my listening pleasure.
Dean..
Wanna give Levi's interpretation of Romeo & Juliet another go Dean.
Why not I'm game for a laugh. I atually have a more pacey version on vinyl but it needs a bloody good clean first, snap, crackle and pop is an understatement to its condition. Any weekend in August except Sat the 2nd is fine for me.
Dean..
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by Guido Fawkes
quote:they don't leave paint brushes and knives in the Louvre so you can re-interpret the pictures or chisels for the statues.
I'm not so sure - I made a few improvements to the Venus De Milo - wanna buy an arm on eBay?
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by fred simon
quote:Originally posted by BigH47:
I'm sorry but I still don't understand this "interpretation" business, if the notes ,the time signature, even "the spirit" is written down. So I don't see how it can be faster slower or whatever. Play it like the guy wrote it, they don't leave paint brushes and knives in the Louvre so you can re-interpret the pictures or chisels for the statues.
This analogy doesn't work ... a composer's score is the recipe for a musical realization, just as a playwright's script is the recipe for a theatrical realization. On the other hand, a painting or a sculpture is the realization itself.
Same problem with Joni Mitchell's (in)famous quip on her live album, Miles of Aisles, in response to audience requests for her hits, that no one ever asked Van Gogh to paint Starry Night again. Hey, Joni ... songs are meant to be sung again and again. No one is asking you to write a song again.
Anyway, even the most rigorously notated score there is room for interpretation, as there should be ... that's where the magic comes in: the realization of the recipe.
All best,
Fred
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by BigH47
Best explanation yet thanks Fred.
Posted on: 24 July 2008 by pcstockton
Exactly Fred and George.
We aren't robots!
are we?
We aren't robots!
are we?
Posted on: 25 July 2008 by Whizzkid
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear Dean,
I think the point is that you should listen and enjoy the music. To be honest, almost anything that makes it onto records will have some tremendous value! That does not mean that you will necessarily enjoy the performance, but I am increasingly reluctant to spend efforts to put down that which I do not personally care for. There are times when the style is plain wrong, and this is a factual issue rather than a personal and subjective one, but rather I prefer to send people to performances I like, and try to explain what is good about them! I hate negativity, especially with music!!!
Also anything that actually gets promoted in the concert hall is likely to be rather fine, even if occasional live performances can go quite badly. Who among us has not had a bad day at work!!
I think you have a lovely chance to see seemingly different styles of performance will each inform your appreciation of the other, and then most importantly the music itself. I like to have many different performances of favouite music - often rather contrasted, but not always!
See my current Brahms and Bach Threads for an indication of this!
ATB from George
George,
The problem I had was expectation which came from the fact that I felt Beethovens music should be bold, dark and dramatic and that was bolstered by the first few performances that I listened to and the Mackerras was completely different the pace is unlike all the other conductors and that was a shock to my ears. Now I always give anything I buy time before I dismiss it, usually I gain pleasure from either just trying out new styles of music or I actually come to like the work a lot. Classical music and to a lesser extant Jazz are different because of the title of this thread and understanding why people would buy 5 copies of the same music can be alien to people but working on listening to the Mackerras interpretations has helped me understand why and now I will not be selling them on but appreciating his for me slightly unusual approach.
I am going to the Proms on Saturday to hear Musorgsky, Prokofiev (which I'm really looking forward too) and Ade's which should really be interesting my first full on Classical experience.
Dean..
Posted on: 25 July 2008 by BigH47
My overall feeling still is it's Beethovens music not Mackerras's etc.
Also I said there is a lot of bollocks talked about classical music(and art in general), not that ALL talk about it was bollocks.
Also I said there is a lot of bollocks talked about classical music(and art in general), not that ALL talk about it was bollocks.
Posted on: 25 July 2008 by Whizzkid
Howard,
Once an Artist in any Art form releases his work to the world it ceases to be his work and only that of the people appreciating the work because we all have different reactions to the work that might be totally different and usually are to what the Artist intended.
Dean..
Once an Artist in any Art form releases his work to the world it ceases to be his work and only that of the people appreciating the work because we all have different reactions to the work that might be totally different and usually are to what the Artist intended.
Dean..
Posted on: 25 July 2008 by uem
Fred,
Excellent comparison !
A painting IS the work of art (well, if it’s art in the first place...)
The music score – and that is for most „non-contemporary“ music – all there is for the musicians & conductor to go by, needs interpretation by the performers.
OK, there are also written or "anecdotal" evidence, of how fast, etc, the composer intended to play his music (outside the actual score), but all the “classical period” music, etc, was never heard by any one alive.
As I have followed this over the years, there appear to be interesting fashions and flavours of the time. –some I like, others I’m happy to forget
Original instruments and the „Baroque-style“ movement, etc all left their mark. This is exactly one of the many aspects, why I love classical music:
The composers score is (mostly) the same, but what the musicians, performers & conductors – and to some remarkable degree probably also the sound engineers - create, may be very different to my ears and mind.
….Wouldn’t it be very boring, if there was just only one version of the 4 Seasons…..??
–and we couldn’t buy the same pieces all over again…
Regards
Urs
Excellent comparison !
A painting IS the work of art (well, if it’s art in the first place...)
The music score – and that is for most „non-contemporary“ music – all there is for the musicians & conductor to go by, needs interpretation by the performers.
OK, there are also written or "anecdotal" evidence, of how fast, etc, the composer intended to play his music (outside the actual score), but all the “classical period” music, etc, was never heard by any one alive.
As I have followed this over the years, there appear to be interesting fashions and flavours of the time. –some I like, others I’m happy to forget
Original instruments and the „Baroque-style“ movement, etc all left their mark. This is exactly one of the many aspects, why I love classical music:
The composers score is (mostly) the same, but what the musicians, performers & conductors – and to some remarkable degree probably also the sound engineers - create, may be very different to my ears and mind.
….Wouldn’t it be very boring, if there was just only one version of the 4 Seasons…..??
–and we couldn’t buy the same pieces all over again…
Regards
Urs
Posted on: 25 July 2008 by Noye's Fludde
quote:Originally posted by BigH47:
My overall feeling still is it's Beethovens music not Mackerras's etc.
Also I said there is a lot of bollocks talked about classical music(and art in general), not that ALL talk about it was bollocks.
You admit you know little about interpretation then dismiss things as 'bollocks'..
Believe me, if it were as simple as you say,... that would be a relief. Just get into classical and after a time, trust me, you will discover the importance of the performers role, it can make or break a piece of music. I didn't care about such things when I started, so I guess I can partly identify with your comments.
Noyes
Posted on: 25 July 2008 by stephenjohn
I think the difference can be as stark as between a pub rock cover version and say the Beatles/Led Zep/Insert your own recording artist here
SJ
SJ
Posted on: 25 July 2008 by fred simon
quote:Originally posted by Geoff P:
When we listen to Jazz a lot of the music is improvised. In a sense that is the raison d'étre of Jazz. The key element is that every performance is different as the musicians create against the standard chord structure that defines the piece being played.
In a similar way a lot of classical music is not absolutely defined with every single note written down and there are passages where the composer expected the interpreter to actively 'improvise' within the disciplined structure of the composition. This allows for and explains the way differences in interpretation become meanningful in classical music.
It is beacsue of this that there are all these different recordings out there. With no degrees of freedom at all we would theoretically only need to record each piece of classic composed music once and all buy a copy and that would be that. Not desirable at all IMO.
Geoff, while it's true that improvisation is the cornerstone of jazz, it's not quite accurate to say that "a lot of classical music" features improvised passages. The main exception is the concerto form, in which the soloist is free to improvise (or compose) an unaccompanied cadenza in one of its movements. Even then, it's more common for a performer to play a transcription of the composer's own cadenza, or that of a well known editor/historian. But in the vast majority of Western European-based classical music (at least before the advent of aleatory music) every single note is indeed written down.
In jazz, there are actually two overlapping yet distinct improvisational processes. A jazz musician improvises actual musical content ... melodies, harmonies, rhythms, dynamics, articulation, phrasing, etc. A jazz musician also improvises the moment to moment interaction with other musicians, the give and take which is a constant.
For the most part, a classical musician performs well-defined specific music content, but also uses personal taste to guide interpretive elements such as tempo, dynamic level, phrasing, articulation, etc. However, many of these interpretive choices are not improvised but set through hours of practice.
Classical musicians also employ moment to moment improvisation in their interaction with other musicians. As with all musicians, listening is key.
All best,
Fred
Posted on: 26 July 2008 by manicatel
Very basically, if you don't enjoy it, move on. Plenty of other stuff out there that will float your boat.
I have also tried (struggled) with getting in to more classical stuff, with mixed success. George's recent post on the Brandenburg concertos helped me greatly to realise a few things.
Firstly, I now realise that I prefer smaller scale performances, ie chamber orchestra, string quartets etc rather than full on orchestras & operas. I find I can follow each of the performers playing more easily & I think this helps me understand the structure of the music, the harmonys & counterpoints, etc. Having now heard a few different interpretations of the Brandenburg concertos, there are indeed significant differences between them. Tempo, which instruments are being used, & even inclusion/exclusion of passages.PRaT indeed is relevant to the performance, as well as the hifi!
Cadenza's could be viewed as the equivalent of a guitar solo, etc. Composers left the details blank so that the featured player could improvise to quite a degree. At least thats the way I understand it.
I'm prepared to be corrected by those with superior knowledge.
Matt.
I have also tried (struggled) with getting in to more classical stuff, with mixed success. George's recent post on the Brandenburg concertos helped me greatly to realise a few things.
Firstly, I now realise that I prefer smaller scale performances, ie chamber orchestra, string quartets etc rather than full on orchestras & operas. I find I can follow each of the performers playing more easily & I think this helps me understand the structure of the music, the harmonys & counterpoints, etc. Having now heard a few different interpretations of the Brandenburg concertos, there are indeed significant differences between them. Tempo, which instruments are being used, & even inclusion/exclusion of passages.PRaT indeed is relevant to the performance, as well as the hifi!
Cadenza's could be viewed as the equivalent of a guitar solo, etc. Composers left the details blank so that the featured player could improvise to quite a degree. At least thats the way I understand it.
I'm prepared to be corrected by those with superior knowledge.
Matt.
Posted on: 26 July 2008 by u5227470736789439
On improvisation.
The cadenza is a place in the music usually very near the end of a concerto movement where the soloist is granted the opportunity to improvise over a cadence [usually from the dominant to the tonic key] with nothing but a pause mark written in the score over the cadence.
The soloist may choose to play his or her own invention, or one made by a great musician from the past [for examples the cadenzas in Beethoven's Violin Concerto are often the ones made either by Fritz Kreisler, or Joseph Joachim] or even one left by the composer.
In some cases there is little or no choice, as in the Emperor Concerto [Fifth Piano Concerto] by Beethoven, where Beethoven wrote out the Cadenzas.
The other two areas where in fully written out music improvisation is stylistically acceptable and in some cases essential, is in the repeat in a [Baroque] Aria-form piece, where the same exact music is played a second time, and the soloist may well add what are called "graces" such as suspensions, called Appoggiaturas, where a "wrong note" is performed only to find the "right note" within the written rhythmic value of the correct note. There are firm rules on how this should be phrased, and the duration of the suspension as a proportion of the written note.
Other examples may be the addition of mordents, trill, interpolated passing note runs, and so forth. The addition of graces should be to enhance with emotional shape of the original written music within the good [hopefully] taste of the performer, rather actually radically change the shape of the original melodic invention.
The case of Bach is interesting as he tended to mark in the graces, and he was rather specific that there were enough marked to make adding further ones not only unnecessary, but a positively bad thing in almost every case. In Handel the exact opposite is the case, so there is considerably more freedom for the Handelian performer than the Bachian one, simply because Handel assumed that he would be present at the performance to ensure the good taste of what the performing [usually singer] might bring out, where as Bach seems to have wanted to be much more precise in what he wrote down and expected to be played.
There are examples even from the twentieth century where a composer allowed and accepted an "improvisation" and one interesting one is that during the second HMV recording in 1927 of his own Second Symphony [published before the First War, the trumpeter held a very high note right over the subsequent bar. Elgar stopped the orchestra and asked the player if that was a genuine possibility. On being told that it was, Elgar asked the player to "always do it" and actually then he went back to the score and amended it! He told the publisher that that was what he had in mind all along, but doubted the technical possibility of it being achieved!
ATB from George
The cadenza is a place in the music usually very near the end of a concerto movement where the soloist is granted the opportunity to improvise over a cadence [usually from the dominant to the tonic key] with nothing but a pause mark written in the score over the cadence.
The soloist may choose to play his or her own invention, or one made by a great musician from the past [for examples the cadenzas in Beethoven's Violin Concerto are often the ones made either by Fritz Kreisler, or Joseph Joachim] or even one left by the composer.
In some cases there is little or no choice, as in the Emperor Concerto [Fifth Piano Concerto] by Beethoven, where Beethoven wrote out the Cadenzas.
The other two areas where in fully written out music improvisation is stylistically acceptable and in some cases essential, is in the repeat in a [Baroque] Aria-form piece, where the same exact music is played a second time, and the soloist may well add what are called "graces" such as suspensions, called Appoggiaturas, where a "wrong note" is performed only to find the "right note" within the written rhythmic value of the correct note. There are firm rules on how this should be phrased, and the duration of the suspension as a proportion of the written note.
Other examples may be the addition of mordents, trill, interpolated passing note runs, and so forth. The addition of graces should be to enhance with emotional shape of the original written music within the good [hopefully] taste of the performer, rather actually radically change the shape of the original melodic invention.
The case of Bach is interesting as he tended to mark in the graces, and he was rather specific that there were enough marked to make adding further ones not only unnecessary, but a positively bad thing in almost every case. In Handel the exact opposite is the case, so there is considerably more freedom for the Handelian performer than the Bachian one, simply because Handel assumed that he would be present at the performance to ensure the good taste of what the performing [usually singer] might bring out, where as Bach seems to have wanted to be much more precise in what he wrote down and expected to be played.
There are examples even from the twentieth century where a composer allowed and accepted an "improvisation" and one interesting one is that during the second HMV recording in 1927 of his own Second Symphony [published before the First War, the trumpeter held a very high note right over the subsequent bar. Elgar stopped the orchestra and asked the player if that was a genuine possibility. On being told that it was, Elgar asked the player to "always do it" and actually then he went back to the score and amended it! He told the publisher that that was what he had in mind all along, but doubted the technical possibility of it being achieved!
ATB from George
Posted on: 30 July 2008 by u5227470736789439
Two further examples where something unwritten may be played, and probably is more accurate to the intention of the composer - at least in Baroque music, is the cadential trill, and in classical opera the weak cadence appogiatura!
Both take some explaining in words, and are perfectly easy to comprehend when you listen to such places, stylishly "graced" or bald!
There is a lot to style, and this is why the music student needs be more than simply an technical wizard on the instrument [or of the voice], but also a real student of music history!
ATB from George
Both take some explaining in words, and are perfectly easy to comprehend when you listen to such places, stylishly "graced" or bald!
There is a lot to style, and this is why the music student needs be more than simply an technical wizard on the instrument [or of the voice], but also a real student of music history!
ATB from George