|
George Garnett
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: 00:20:35, 15-01-2008 » |
|
Back to Bach now.
I think the voice parts all ought to be played on a consort of chalumeaus. I defy Parrott et al to come up with evidence that specifically says it shouldn't be.
Hear, hear! And if Parrott et Al (Who he? Ed) did come up with a contemporary copy that said it shouldn't be played on chalumeaus that would clearly be evidence that in all other cases this would have been the norm.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #46 on: 11:50:26, 15-01-2008 » |
|
...of course indeed it is, if those presenting the choral option are not just presenting it as a musically valid possibility but have a vested interest in its being perceived as Bach's intended medium because to some extent they cash in on the 'authenticity' capital. Not necessarily: they can be saying 'not only does it sound awful' (not my view, but some of theirs) 'but it isn't even what Bach knew/wanted, so doesn't even pass the test of 'authenticity', the only reason for which it is being done'. Again, not my view, but one that some would articulate, and slightly different from the above. Hm. In that case they would be welcome to come here and articulate it. I would imagine subjecting their opinions to the vagaries of middle-of-the-road, mostly British, taste, might not be the highest thing on their list of priorities  But I really can't imagine what kind of evidence they could conceivably come up with. One of the most striking things about Rifkin's research is that the documents he was looking at were the same primary sources that have been doing the rounds for decades if not centuries - he simply pointed out that various assumptions which had been imposed on the documents in order to make them appear to point in a particular direction weren't necessary. This is a curious line of argument - because one interpretation of primary source documents comes later than others, then it necessarily supercedes them? Rifkin's work doesn't come with its own assumptions, as well? Have you read all of the writings by those who don't accept the Parrott/Rifkin conclusions (I've read a number, a while ago, but certainly not all, including not all of those in response to Parrott's book)? I don't have Parrott's book to hand right now, but don't recall it presenting that much that wasn't already in Rifkin's various backs and forth with Koopman and others. In any case, even if Rifkin's, Parrott's, McCreesh's, Milnes's, Kuijken's and Junghänel's efforts (I'm sure I've left someone out...) did sound awful, that in itself wouldn't actually be evidence one way or the other...
In the case of Rifkin, Parrott and McCreesh, they don't sound awful to me, just rather typical of that Bach-Lite that you tend to get from many Anglo-Saxon practitioners, tasteful, objective, void of any more complex emotions, essentially a way of rendering the music within a set of normative stylistic practices that have a much longer history. But that may say more about the particular individuals' approach to various aspects of music-making than necessarily the fruits of their research. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 11:53:23, 15-01-2008 » |
|
Re strina's interesting post: I tend to think of it slightly differently, in terms of the ways in which the types of forces, style of playing, etc., etc. might have influenced the composer's conception of the work. Whether one actually needs to reproduce those precise forces is another question; but it's not really possible to gauge that conception adequately, IMO, without apprehending those factors.
I'm not sure that notions of a composer's conception would have been as cut-and-dry then as they are now. This was a time when composers wrote sonatas for violin, flute, oboe, or any treble instrument you have to hand. Pieces written for "keyboard" could have been played on chamber organ, on harpsichord, on clavichord etc. Continuo sections were never clearly defined, and could be as simple as a single violone or as complex as an array of theorbos + harp + cello + harpsichord + bassoon. The conception, which could encompass a range of options rather than a singular one, needn't be cut-and-dry, but it surely has limits. And specificity of instrumentation within the boundaries of what was known during the composer's time may make less of a difference than the rendering of the work in terms of much later instrumental and stylistic practices (not that the latter should be ruled out as an option, though; but it can't do any harm to understand something of the difference between then and now). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 11:56:02, 15-01-2008 » |
|
To me the point isn't only what the composer happened to want; it's also that for me some ways of performing bring the music to life in a way that others don't. Well, would that be a viable option with a contemporary work if the approach to performing it was diametrically opposed to the composer's preferences, then? If that dispute was stark, I'd find it hard to countenance the idea that what is being played is 'the composer's piece'. For example, if using a radically different tempo explicitly forbidden - not so far from that to changing the actual pitches or rhythms in favour of something one prefers? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #49 on: 12:13:09, 15-01-2008 » |
|
Well, would that be a viable option with a contemporary work if the approach to performing it was diametrically opposed to the composer's preferences, then? If that dispute was stark, I'd find it hard to countenance the idea that what is being played is 'the composer's piece'.
This is a very interesting subject - and probably worth discussing in a separate thread, if it's going to be widened-out to modern music rather than the OVPP/Bach question? To me this argument clearly leads into semiotic theory, specifically Barthes's theory (in "S/Z") that any text (including a musical text) is capable of multiple interpretations, many of which might not have been those purposed by the author. However, this is another discussion, I think? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #50 on: 12:16:17, 15-01-2008 » |
|
Well, would that be a viable option with a contemporary work if the approach to performing it was diametrically opposed to the composer's preferences, then? If that dispute was stark, I'd find it hard to countenance the idea that what is being played is 'the composer's piece'.
This is a very interesting subject - and probably worth discussing in a separate thread, if it's going to be widened-out to modern music rather than the OVPP/Bach question? That would be a good idea - to do with 'composer's intention' or something like that? To me this argument clearly leads into semiotic theory, specifically Barthes's theory (in "S/Z") that any text (including a musical text) is capable of multiple interpretations, many of which might not have been those purposed by the author. However, this is another discussion, I think? Certainly related, but different because of the lack of intermediary in the case of literature, in the form of the performer. The situation in S/Z would be rather more akin to the listener being able to arrive at multiple interpretations, some of which would be quite different to those envisaged by the composer - but perhaps the situation would be different if those were arrived at by virtue by a performance that somehow contravenes the 'text' (in the broadest sense of both the literal text and the body of knowledge concerning the composers likes and dislikes)? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #51 on: 12:26:24, 15-01-2008 » |
|
This is a curious line of argument - because one interpretation of primary source documents comes later than others, then it necessarily supercedes them? The crucial one is probably this. Zu iedweden musicalischen Chor gehören wenigsten 3 Sopranisten, 3 Altisten, 3 Tenoristen, und eben so viel Baßisten ... (NB. Wiewohln es noch beßer, wenn der Coetus so beschaffen wäre, daß mann zu ieder Stimme 4 subjecta nehmen, und also ieden Chor mit 16. Persohnen bestellen könte.)
Each 'musical' choir must have at least three sopranos, three altos, three tenors and as many basses ... (NB. Although it would be even better if the student body was so set up that one could take 4 individuals for each line and thus set up each choir with 16 persons.) Reading 'ieden Chor... bestellen' as 'set up each choir' (Bach had four) is very nearly unambiguous. Reading it as 'perform each chorus' is pretty nearly unsustainable but is the only really concrete evidence for the 12-16 singer argument. Yes, I hold that reading as superseded. Have you read all of the writings by those who don't accept the Parrott/Rifkin conclusions (I've read a number, a while ago, but certainly not all, including not all of those in response to Parrott's book)? If you feel like presenting any arguments then certainly feel free. But I find this talk of 'Anglo-Saxon Bach-Lite' not entirely relevant. I suspect Kuijken and Junghänel would agree. (Bach on the other hand might just raise an eyebrow and ask 'yes, I am to some extent a Saxon, but what is this Anglo of which you speak?'.) I don't think this is a matter of interpretative freedom. I don't think anyone's arguing that there's no right to perform Bach with a chamber choir or indeed a full choir (frankly I'd rather hear Furtwängler's St Matthew than Koopman's but that's by the by), just as a performer has to some extent a right to change dynamics... and even pitches to some extent (high or low note substitution in opera springs to mind). The question is simply what Bach's forces actually were. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 12:41:05, 15-01-2008 » |
|
Reading 'ieden Chor... bestellen' as 'set up each choir' (Bach had four) is very nearly unambiguous. Reading it as 'perform each chorus' is pretty nearly unsustainable but is the only really concrete evidence for the 12-16 singer argument. Yes, I hold that reading as superseded.
Pardon me if I'm being obtuse, but doesn't "setting up a choir" imply that the "choir", ideally of 16 persons, should perform those movements designated as "Coro" in the cantatas? If he doesn't say "perform all the choruses" neither does he say "perform only the chorales", does he? By the way, on the subject of "Bach Lite", I do think it's important that these people start moving in the direction of what are supposed to have been Bach's performing forces, I just don't think, on the basis of what I've heard to date, that they've got there yet in terms of putting together a vocal consort which is well-balanced, coherent and convincing as a realisation of the idea. This, I respectfully suggest, would also include some serious work on pronunciation. The difference (as with, for example, francophone rather than italianate Latin pronunciation of France baroque sacred music) would I think be almost as great as that between a vocal consort and a small choir, in terms of musical texture. I wonder whether anyone has actually tried it up till now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 12:46:59, 15-01-2008 » |
|
This is a curious line of argument - because one interpretation of primary source documents comes later than others, then it necessarily supercedes them? The crucial one is probably this.... Now at least that's a specific argument - my point was in response to a generalised inference. Have you read all of the writings by those who don't accept the Parrott/Rifkin conclusions (I've read a number, a while ago, but certainly not all, including not all of those in response to Parrott's book)? If you feel like presenting any arguments then certainly feel free. [/quote] I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm sure some who are probably could do. Just wary of insisting upon closure on an issue that continues to divide a large number of people who know a great deal about the subject, and are involved in performing it. But I find this talk of 'Anglo-Saxon Bach-Lite' not entirely relevant. It is a line of argument that has been put by others as well as me - but as I said, this might be about more than simply the research. Certainly in the case of HIP 19th century performance, there are plenty of cases of meticulous (or often dogmatic) adherence to evidence of certain seemingly 'classical' practices (or at least those which break with some things previously associated with romanticism), in terms of non-vibrato, lighter textures, types of articulation, etc., but pretty blatant disregard of equally compelling historical evidence of high degrees of rubato and generally great freedom in terms of metre and tempo, etc. (as for example in the case of Brahms), as well as a general tendency to render those aspects of performance for which there is little documentation in terms of the sorts of objectivist norms that frequently characterise British (and often Dutch) HIP performances. The case made by Taruskin, that many of the HIPsters real agenda is to render the music in terms of the style of neo-classical Stravinsky, is I believe in the form he presents it rather too broad, but certainly seems applicable in some cases. The question is simply what Bach's forces actually were. Well, the question is surely not just what the forces were (which may be simply down to practical necessity) but also what the preferences were - and then from that whether the piece might have been composed in terms of available or ideal forces, and so on and so forth. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 12:48:28, 15-01-2008 » |
|
Certainly related, but different because of the lack of intermediary in the case of literature, in the form of the performer.
Ah, but I am seeing the performer as the one who "reads" the text. Your question raises another - for whom do composers write... for themselves, for the performer, or for some putative "listener"? There's certainly (trying to stay with Bach and his period here) a corpus of music, written for domestic consumption and performance, in which the "end-user" is really the performer anyhow? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #55 on: 12:51:03, 15-01-2008 » |
|
Certainly related, but different because of the lack of intermediary in the case of literature, in the form of the performer.
Ah, but I am seeing the performer as the one who "reads" the text. Your question raises another - for whom do composers write... for themselves, for the performer, or for some putative "listener"? There's certainly (trying to stay with Bach and his period here) a corpus of music, written for domestic consumption and performance, in which the "end-user" is really the performer anyhow? That's a very good point; yes, perhaps where the music was primarily designed for private consumption/performance (as with plenty of Bach, and a good deal of music both earlier and later - for example the 4-hand piano repertoire of the 19th century), then the situation is closer to the Barthes one. Maybe the 'responsibility' of the performer is different in the case of public performance? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 12:53:22, 15-01-2008 » |
|
Pardon me if I'm being obtuse, but doesn't "setting up a choir" imply that the "choir", ideally of 16 persons, should perform those movements designated as "Coro" in the cantatas? No, it means that the actual singers each week will be drawn from those 12-16 persons. In particular from those who aren't ill or performing on instruments that week. He asked for three on a part on the roster "...so that even if one person falls ill (as very often happens, and particularly at this time of year [late August], as the prescriptions written by the school doctor for the apothecary must show), at least a two-choir motet can be sung." I just don't think, on the basis of what I've heard to date, that they've got there yet in terms of putting together a vocal consort which is well-balanced, coherent and convincing as a realisation of the idea. That is surely an argument for more people to do it, of course. While I'm certainly also in favour of sorting out the pronunciation (and in particular returning to the older word forms - kömmt instead of kommt, for example) I really don't think that the musical effect is as dependent on this as it is on the right balance within the textures. I wouldn't think the difference would be anywhere near as great as that between French (and for that matter English or German) vs. Italianate Latin, though. Indeed I'd be surprised if the difference were even quite as great as between eighteenth- and twentieth-century French (what with the French unlike the Germans having had a revolution which rather did away with posh talking). Actually I would also imagine that fixing up pronunciation would also have a much greater effect with single voices... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 12:57:28, 15-01-2008 » |
|
Now at least that's a specific argument - my point was in response to a generalised inference. There has been rather a lot of specific material presented on the thread thus far, in fact. I'm not going to engage in 'some people say' arguments. If you want a generalised inference (and one that frankly borders on the racist) I humbly point you towards 'Anglo-Saxon Bach-Lite'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #58 on: 13:04:53, 15-01-2008 » |
|
I just don't think, on the basis of what I've heard to date, that they've got there yet in terms of putting together a vocal consort which is well-balanced, coherent and convincing as a realisation of the idea. That is surely an argument for more people to do it, of course. Yes it is. And, as you say, with single voices the difference will be greater. I wouldn't think the difference would be anywhere near as great as that between French (and for that matter English or German) vs. Italianate Latin, though. I beg to differ. As I mentioned earlier, even a present-day Saxon accent sounds pretty thick to an outsider, and in the mid 18th century there wasn't even a Germany, let alone a Hochdeutsch, and the relative lack of population mobility in those days would also tend to enhance distinctions between dialects. (As we see, for example, in the relative lack of influence of Hochdeutsch on the accents local to ex-DDR Länder between 1945 and 1989.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 13:10:45, 15-01-2008 » |
|
it's not a matter of 'defending' the 12- or 16-voice choir as a performance option
No indeed. Nor am I very inclined to take Mijnheer Koopman's word in any matter of authenticity I'm afraid. The strengths of his arguments and evidence are what counts, not one's personal prejudices against the individual. By the way, perhaps you could point to the tiniest example anywhere of my expressing a personal prejudice against Ton Koopman. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
