1955 Glen Gould re-performed
Posted by: Nyonyo on 10 July 2007
All,
Last week, I purchased the 1955 Glen Gould's Goldberg variation re-performed CD. It was awesome not only the music but also the recording, especially when you listen to the SACD format. This is my favorite piano CD at this moment.
RS
Last week, I purchased the 1955 Glen Gould's Goldberg variation re-performed CD. It was awesome not only the music but also the recording, especially when you listen to the SACD format. This is my favorite piano CD at this moment.
RS
Posted on: 19 July 2007 by u5227470736789439
quote:Originally posted by Nyonyo:
Tam and Fredrik,
Both of you have not listened to the SACD format. Once you guys have a chance to listen to the SACD format (not from a radio), you let us know what you think. The discussion will be much more credible once you analyze the real SACD. RS
Dear RS,
You make a fairly big assumption there, and one that is not quite wrong, or quite right either!
My player is a SACD/CD playing machine, and I even own a 5.1 SACD disc, a sampler with many intersting recordings on it! The set is only two channel otherwise, but I think it fair to say that I actually prefer mono to all but the best stereo, and find multi-channel music [as opposed to Home Theatre] replay less satisfactory in every case. Therefore it not on the cards that I shall be upgrading to 5.1, and thus able to assess the quality of the new recording in my own home. I have had a demonstration of the some of best of Audio 5.1! Very impressive as sound, but most distracting at the same time for me, musically.
I have CDs of recordings made between 1913 and 2005, which are either stereo or mono, and none acts as an insumountable obstacle to me apreciating the musical qualities of the perfomance replayed! Not all are pristine recordings, but clarity, and fine musical balances [between the lines of music] are what matter to me rather than a need to recreate the impression of being in a concert hall or venue. If the sonics are the first consideration then I am not the person to talk to about it, which is a long way from saying that I don't care about the sonics enough to get a respectable quality of replay equipement, even if the very best is so expensive that it would never be my aim. I take a moderate view of replay! It can be more than satisfactory without being the last word. The values of Hifi and Music are by no means parallel, and the subset of values which are the same in both cases can be well accomplished at quite modest cost in my experience.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 20 July 2007 by Nyonyo
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
This recording gets top marks in a review in HiFi+ (fwiw)
Not only was this recording the top marks in HiFi+ but also in Stereophile, very top marks for both recording quality and musicality.
I also agree with the rating. This is one recording that I totally enjoy both sound and musical quality.
By the way, the trill in Bach music is very very subjective. Everybody plays differently.
RS
Posted on: 22 July 2007 by u5227470736789439
quote:Originally posted by Nyonyo:
By the way, the trill in Bach music is very very subjective. Everybody plays differently. RS
Not so! Read especially Donnington [though Quantz, as a comtemporary source, explains it, if less easily], as mentioned earlier, and you will see that the correct rendering of the various styles of Trill - and Bach is scrupulous as to the way he marked all his graces including Trills - is absolutely known, and absolutely objective in the sense that what is correct and intended is known.
If you insist on it I can give you chapter and verse, but that would mostly be boring, and it would be better that you read the texts for yourself, rather than firing off ill-informed guesswork based on faulty readings on records, or in live performances.
One thing that should not pass as fact is a factual inaccuracy. Especially in the case of Bach, who was so precise in his intentions, is this doubly important.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
PS: On one level you are absolutely right in the sense that all too many permances are still managed without, apparently, the most rudimantary understanding of what was meant by the rather precise notation of musical Graces [including Trills], and not only by Bach, though JSB was punctilious about what he did intend. He left a table of his Grace notation and their correct rendereing, though this does not vary except in small detail from tables laid down by French composers in the immediately precedeing decades- especially from the Couperins.
The Modern [inverted] Trill still had not completely superceded the Baroque conventions by the time Schubert wrote the Trout Quintet [note the Trilling in the Violin Part in the Fourth, Variation Movement], so we may well consider that an awful lot of Trilling performed nowadays is actually wrong, and demonstarably so!
Posted on: 23 July 2007 by Earwicker
I don't know how explicit Bach's manuscripts are, but approaches to the trill have certainly changed over the past 20 - 30 years - generally making them "lighter". Short of actually scoring out the trill - a minority interest!! - a "tr" can be played all sorts of ways, from something close to a turn to playing two notes as many times as possible in the space of the note! No doubt, as Fredrik suggests, modern scholarship has shed light, but I haven't read it.
A recording I'm actively admiring at the moment is Kremer's of the Sonatas and Partitas, in which he omits trills I'm used used to hearing and playing. In a lot of cases, I find I prefer it without. Did Bach really want all his leading notes trilled for e.g.? Maybe he did, I don't know. Kremer obviously thinks not. Are there any written instructions from the master?
EW
A recording I'm actively admiring at the moment is Kremer's of the Sonatas and Partitas, in which he omits trills I'm used used to hearing and playing. In a lot of cases, I find I prefer it without. Did Bach really want all his leading notes trilled for e.g.? Maybe he did, I don't know. Kremer obviously thinks not. Are there any written instructions from the master?
EW
Posted on: 23 July 2007 by u5227470736789439
Bach can seem very sparing with his use of Graces [including Trills] compared to other Baroque composers. Handel was often quite careless about what he actually wrote down, but it is usually possible [where doubt persists] to make a reasonable estimate of what he had in mind by looking at parallel passages elsewhere in the music, or how the other lines are working in the vertical sense in the score, as well as what goes nicely with the line.
With Bach the situation is different. He wrote what he intended, and intended what he wrote! The only freedom he allows is generally how much extra Gracing would be used in the repeats of sections, where the performer's taste will rule what is done to a much larger degree. Thus some performers are very stylish with very little or even no extra ornamentation in repeats, like Helmut Walcha for example, or other cases where more additions are used, and quite within the style. This is the extent of the subjectivity, rather than that applying to how to play what is there in music without repeats, or in the first time playing. Bach's Trills are of two types - the short and the long and this defines how the way they are ended. Either with or without a turn. The first note is correctly the upper note and depending on the context [there are easily understood rules on this and it is not speculative, though good taste and a throrough grounding in the style are necessary for the performer to really make them work well as an expressive device] this may be held enough to begin to sound like the start of an appogiatura. The turn is correctly taken at the speed of the last notes of the shake [the shake is the pair of notes alternated] and this will generally accelerate through the course of the Trill [though very short Trills will be exacly measured in some circumstnces].
The Long Trill can be very short, but has a turn, and the Short Trill can be long but has no turn, and usually ends staccato... ! They are marked differently in the music. The ultimate speed of a shake will also be related to the musical context. A quick movement will have faster trills than a slow movement. Also a Cello trill for example would be expected to be less fast than a Violin Trill. Sometimes Bach actually writes a Trill out in full to prevet it being taken too fast...
There is a certain amount of discretion available to the performer in some circumstancs. It is not stylish to ignore a Grace that is notated, for all that. Bach's own playing style seems to have been that he played very closely what he had written, often went reasonably quickly compared to others of his time, and rarely was flexable with tempi within a section. One of his sons describe another player as being no good at his father's music because he keeps changing tempo!
One of the great authorities on these issues was Dr Reginald Jacques [whose fame with the Bach Choir and the Jacques Orchestra in London] has probably now largely faded, but who may be heard leading the famous recording of the Saint Matthew Passion with Kathlenn Ferrier [in the Elgar/Atkins edition setting the words in English]. Though recorded in 1947 and 1948, this remains one of the most beautiful examples of correct style with regards to the Graces, as well as using them to really underline the message in the Music! Its cheif failing is the use of a rather too large organ in some parts.
Really the issue requires a fair bit of reading, but the result is that what might seem obscure, even vague, is soon enough seen as clear if somewhat, at first, complex! If confusion arrises, the various texts will always indicate [in Bach's case] what a stylish and viable solution is...
ATB from Fredrik
With Bach the situation is different. He wrote what he intended, and intended what he wrote! The only freedom he allows is generally how much extra Gracing would be used in the repeats of sections, where the performer's taste will rule what is done to a much larger degree. Thus some performers are very stylish with very little or even no extra ornamentation in repeats, like Helmut Walcha for example, or other cases where more additions are used, and quite within the style. This is the extent of the subjectivity, rather than that applying to how to play what is there in music without repeats, or in the first time playing. Bach's Trills are of two types - the short and the long and this defines how the way they are ended. Either with or without a turn. The first note is correctly the upper note and depending on the context [there are easily understood rules on this and it is not speculative, though good taste and a throrough grounding in the style are necessary for the performer to really make them work well as an expressive device] this may be held enough to begin to sound like the start of an appogiatura. The turn is correctly taken at the speed of the last notes of the shake [the shake is the pair of notes alternated] and this will generally accelerate through the course of the Trill [though very short Trills will be exacly measured in some circumstnces].
The Long Trill can be very short, but has a turn, and the Short Trill can be long but has no turn, and usually ends staccato... ! They are marked differently in the music. The ultimate speed of a shake will also be related to the musical context. A quick movement will have faster trills than a slow movement. Also a Cello trill for example would be expected to be less fast than a Violin Trill. Sometimes Bach actually writes a Trill out in full to prevet it being taken too fast...
There is a certain amount of discretion available to the performer in some circumstancs. It is not stylish to ignore a Grace that is notated, for all that. Bach's own playing style seems to have been that he played very closely what he had written, often went reasonably quickly compared to others of his time, and rarely was flexable with tempi within a section. One of his sons describe another player as being no good at his father's music because he keeps changing tempo!
One of the great authorities on these issues was Dr Reginald Jacques [whose fame with the Bach Choir and the Jacques Orchestra in London] has probably now largely faded, but who may be heard leading the famous recording of the Saint Matthew Passion with Kathlenn Ferrier [in the Elgar/Atkins edition setting the words in English]. Though recorded in 1947 and 1948, this remains one of the most beautiful examples of correct style with regards to the Graces, as well as using them to really underline the message in the Music! Its cheif failing is the use of a rather too large organ in some parts.
Really the issue requires a fair bit of reading, but the result is that what might seem obscure, even vague, is soon enough seen as clear if somewhat, at first, complex! If confusion arrises, the various texts will always indicate [in Bach's case] what a stylish and viable solution is...
ATB from Fredrik
Posted on: 23 July 2007 by droodzilla
Fredrik - I've haunted the walls of academia as a Ph.D. student, so I have to ask how much of the musicological analysis you cite is taken as given within the profession. In my experience, agreement in academia is hard to come by - even (especially?) whenit comes to fundamental questions.
Posted on: 23 July 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear droo,
The problem of agreement on what Bach meant with his notation is far less complicated than most composers of the time, becasue he was so precise in what he wrote down. This is why I made the first post [about five up] about it, when Bach's Trill was erroneously described as a subjective issue!
The first, but not the last book I would recomend is Donnington. He is a rather impartial observer, and frequently peppers his text with conflicting evidence, and this, as he notes in his commentary, shows that the style and performnce of the old Music was variable in different countries and even different artists. The exception seems to have been Bach, whose style was a sor of Universal one taking aspects from every major European Music Stream of Music. He adopted French, Italian, and German elements, and formed a style which set the tone for European music for another hundred yeards at the least.
He was immensely precise in what he wrote and intended, so there is little room for disagreement on it. It must be one of the few areas where the blueprint for performance is so clear that all the recreative artist's efforts can be directed to discovering and bringing to life the music behind the notes. This is much better than wasting a lot of energy trying to work out what notes are supposed to be being played, before working out what might be their significance or meaning!
ATB from Fredrik
The problem of agreement on what Bach meant with his notation is far less complicated than most composers of the time, becasue he was so precise in what he wrote down. This is why I made the first post [about five up] about it, when Bach's Trill was erroneously described as a subjective issue!
The first, but not the last book I would recomend is Donnington. He is a rather impartial observer, and frequently peppers his text with conflicting evidence, and this, as he notes in his commentary, shows that the style and performnce of the old Music was variable in different countries and even different artists. The exception seems to have been Bach, whose style was a sor of Universal one taking aspects from every major European Music Stream of Music. He adopted French, Italian, and German elements, and formed a style which set the tone for European music for another hundred yeards at the least.
He was immensely precise in what he wrote and intended, so there is little room for disagreement on it. It must be one of the few areas where the blueprint for performance is so clear that all the recreative artist's efforts can be directed to discovering and bringing to life the music behind the notes. This is much better than wasting a lot of energy trying to work out what notes are supposed to be being played, before working out what might be their significance or meaning!
ATB from Fredrik