|
thompson1780
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: 11:11:50, 06-07-2008 » |
|
Tommo, somewhere at the head of this thread on curved bows, I think you mentioned the Hupfeld Phonoliszt Violina.
Sorry - my fault!  Perhaps one of our lovely Moderators could use his or her magic powers to sort out a curved bow thread? Indeed, could most of this thread be transferred to the 'Violin and Viola Thread' in 'Making Music'? Thanks Tommo |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 11:18:26, 06-07-2008 » |
|
Or we could transfer the Violina postings over to the original Hupfeld thread posted by Richard couple of months ago?? Might be the easier option  and you can suggest a new title for this thread! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 12:11:41, 06-07-2008 » |
|
Or we could transfer the Violina postings over to the original Hupfeld thread posted by Richard couple of months ago?? Might be the easier option and you can suggest a new title for this thread! OK, and call the remainder 'Bows and Bowing Technique'. Then we can get comments about how to acknowledge applause on it as well Tommo PS Sorry to start a new thread for Violina, but I didn't find Richard's separate thread about Hupfeld. Just a question he had about a tune from a Hupfeld Violina |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 13:01:36, 06-07-2008 » |
|
OK, and call the remainder 'Bows and Bowing Technique'.
I expect contributors would agree with that? Sorry to start a new thread for Violina, but I didn't find Richard's separate thread about Hupfeld. Just a question he had about a tune from a Hupfeld Violina
Yes, the thread was 'Anyone know this piece?' Richard, would you mind if recent violina messages were added to your 'Anyone know....' thread and all the message titles changed to 'Violina'? (I think there are references to the violina in the pianola thread but I think they should stay).John W |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 13:29:11, 06-07-2008 » |
|
Even were the notes initially sounded simultaneously, only a player of total perversity would fail to do that! The issue remains ONLY one of deciding whether the initial sounding of the chords (hence therefore throughout) should be effected simultaneously instead of being 'spread'. And the inexactitude of the notation in other respects is clearly an important part of the background information: if one's going to be pedantic about what the notation says about the beginning of the note, surely what the notation says or fails to say about the end of the note is worth a look. I note of course that not even the old Bach-Gesellschaft bothered to line the notes up although it would indeed be somewhat perverse to attempt to perform them in the left-to-right order in which they appear on the page  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 23:45:42, 06-07-2008 » |
|
Have any fiddlers here ever played all 4 strings at once?
Yes. It's quite easy really. Without any lateral movement, even with a modern set-up you can get the hairs to touch all 4 strings, although it requires a lot of downwards pressure. If you release at the same time as starting your lateral movement, you'll get a 4 part chord momentarily. What is causing all the kerfuffle is the sense of needing to sustain all 4 notes. That is hard, and would require a phenomenal technique to do so on a modern set up without huge scratchiness. Essentially, the harder you press into the string, the slower you have to move laterally. However, there are limits, and I think the pressure you would need for 4 strings is just too much for the modern instrument. Nevertheless, it is quite possible to sustain 3 part chords. Much of the fun of interpretation is deciding whether to do 3 bottom then 3 top, or 1 and 3, or 2 and 2, or.... I guess the other question is whether or not equipment and technique gave you the option of sustained 4 part chords in olden days. Need to just have a read through the rest of this thread before commenting on that.... Tommo |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 23:58:14, 06-07-2008 » |
|
FWIW, the last photo on the page cited looks seriously implausible to me! Not a fiddlist, but I would be terrified of losing control completely with a bend like that! Telmanyi seems to have managed. But I agree it is terrifying. The instrument shown in that picture is surely a cello. With the smaller violin bridge, surely there is a greater chance of hitting the actual belly of the instrument with the bow frog? Tommo |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 00:17:33, 07-07-2008 » |
|
At several points in these solo violin works, when a long chord is to be accentuated, Bach writes "arpeggio". Why would he single out the occasional chords, if all chords were to be performed as arpeggios? Because at the points where he writes that he's asking for repeated arpeggiation of the chords (and not only chords but polyphonic textures), not for a single 'spread' attack. I concur. If one really wishes to be pedantic about it, the notation for the opening of the Chaconne could be said to be demanding a rearticulation of the A over a sustained chord, and similarly in the first full bar. I don't see a curved bow helping with that one (and I don't believe it to be the case, either).
Indeed. Bach was not a sloppy writer. He made sure that his manuscripts conveyed every precise detail necessary to render the piece to his satisfaction. Indeed he annoyed many of his contemporary performers by his frequent habit of fully writing-in the trills and ornaments – normally considered the performer's perks, to be performed as the performer's own taste and mood of the moment dictated. If Bach wrote chords, then chords were what he intended to be played. So, if Bach was so precise, he intended that in the very first bar, a three part chord is played for 3 quavers, then the bottom two are sustained whilst a minute gap is allowed between the two 'A's, and then the A is resounded. He did not intend that the D and F were also resounded. So, we can ignore Telmanyi's interpretation then. Equally, in Bar 6, a 4 part chord momentarily becomes a 3 parter before becoming 4 again. Nothing stopping this if you have a flexibow, but it's just damn hard. By the way, did anyone notice the spread still apparent in Telanyi's mp3 two and three bars later? Not so easy eh? Having said that, I do quite like the sound of 'true' chords sustained for the opening passage. Perhaps Bach notated it as such because that's what he wanted us to aim for, even if it was not entirely possible? Tommo |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 00:20:59, 07-07-2008 » |
|
the gut strings were not tensioned so greatly, the fingerboard was shorter, and the geometry of the instrument meant that the strings (because the shorter fingerboard was aligned with the instrument rather than angled downwards) required less 'attack' from the bow to produce clean and clear sounds.
Can someone explain to me please the physics of how fingerboard alignment influences required 'bow attack'? Tommo |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 00:31:35, 07-07-2008 » |
|
Ah, I see reply 25 covers most of my reply 28. I think it just goes to show that the article on www.baroquemusic.org cannot be trusted. If Bach was meticulous, we would have written dotted crotchets for D, F and A in the first bar. He did this later (see bar  . Unless he genuinely did want what he wrote, which Baz considers perverse. That's not so say that 4 part chords were not played by adjustable tension bows, it just goes to show that the article doesn't give a convincing case for it. Tommo |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 08:42:36, 07-07-2008 » |
|
Ah, I see reply 25 covers most of my reply 28. I think it just goes to show that the article on www.baroquemusic.org cannot be trusted. If Bach was meticulous, we would have written dotted crotchets for D, F and A in the first bar. He did this later (see bar 8 ). Unless he genuinely did want what he wrote, which Baz considers perverse. That's not so say that 4 part chords were not played by adjustable tension bows, it just goes to show that the article doesn't give a convincing case for it. Tommo I don't think I ever said that playing the piece in its usually-heard manner was 'perverse' - indeed some time ago I posted such a performance which you may remember Tommo because you did not share my liking of it. In my experience, it is nearly always an error to argue a case for performance upon the basis of Bach's notational presentation. This usually turns out to be descriptive rather than prescriptive - and its mysteries usually become resolved only when one comes to realize that Bach (like most other Baroque composers) was writing for performers who were already well-versed and practised in the performance traditions of the day. Through the notation, they merely performed the composer's notes within a style that both they and the composer were already expecting. It is we - generations later - who have lost this knowledge, and attempts at re-establishing it will always be contentious and full of disputes. This is particularly so when ideas challenge what we have thought acceptable and 'normal'. Bach's notation is very careful only to indicate the clear architectural and structural elements of the music (e.g. the harmonic and contrapuntal details, sometimes the bowing and phrasing, on occasions dynamic contrasts between f and p). Looking at the piece in question, the presentation of the notes only concerns itself with the conceptual understanding and communication of these technical details, as they bear upon the unfolding of harmony and melody. They do not in themselves indicate what would have been instinctive to the players - Performance Practice. The fact the Bach holds the two lower notes of the first chord through, underneath the final A of the melody, is not to be read as meaning either that the chord is played with simultaneous notes, or that it is spread: in neither performance method can exactly what he has written be performed exactly as it stands (and neither should it need to be played that way). Your citation of bar 8 (and you did not mean the smiley - I just inserted a space after the 8 ) again does not show a difference in performance just because the lower notes appear as dotted quavers. The reason for this notation is to indicate the harmonic and melodic structure of the chords (however these chords were attacked) - not to provide a prescription as to performance methodology. The upper melody on its repetition there is ornamented, and it is harmonically inappropriate (in conceptual terms) for the chord to remain in place beneath this embellishment, which now places the musical priority upon the melody. This does not indicate that the chord there should be spread any more than that it should be sounded with simultaneity - and the notational licence displayed (i.e. the lack of rests one assumes must go with the chords) does not in itself indicate any freedom of performance either. The extent of freedom, or tightness, to be adopted is only a choice to be made by the performer (not the composer) after a conceptual understanding of the musical technicalities as conveyed by the composer has been grasped. So this does not really push the argument either one way or the other does it? Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 08:49:45, 07-07-2008 » |
|
the gut strings were not tensioned so greatly, the fingerboard was shorter, and the geometry of the instrument meant that the strings (because the shorter fingerboard was aligned with the instrument rather than angled downwards) required less 'attack' from the bow to produce clean and clear sounds.
Can someone explain to me please the physics of how fingerboard alignment influences required 'bow attack'? Tommo Remember I am new to the violin and not read much about the subject of baroque violins, I use the word think because I'm just thinking of the physics and gut (sorry) reaction here I really should swot up on vibration physics before I guess about this  If the baroque fingerboard was aligned with the instrument then I'd expect the bridge would have to be much shorter, not as high as modern instruments, so that the baroque strings were not lifted too far away from the fingerboards at the higher positions. The realignment of fingerboards would have allowed for higher bridges and would have meant the strings could be closer to the fingerboard and uniformly so along the length. The actions of the left hand fingers would have become slightly easier/lighter and more accurate, maybe. As for the strings, the higher bridge and longer fingerboard required longer strings, and I think longer strings would need more tension than the shorter ones. I think the more tensioned strings (along with the higher bridge) would vibrate more accurately and resonate better with the instrument, I suppose would produce a louder effect, therefore requiring less energy of attack during playing. The lighter fingering would also improve the general playing and the end effect. Are there any better technical aarticles about baroque violin that I can read on the net, with a good drawing or picture available of a Baroque violin, I can look at? John W |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11:35:59, 07-07-2008 by John W »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 09:41:48, 07-07-2008 » |
|
So this does not really push the argument either one way or the other does it? Which was indeed exactly my point and I hope you'll pardon me noting that I made it rather more succinctly. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 10:23:01, 07-07-2008 » |
|
So this does not really push the argument either one way or the other does it? Which was indeed exactly my point and I hope you'll pardon me noting that I made it rather more succinctly. With reciprocal respect, that was actually - er - not your point (as originally offered in message #11 above) since you offered the following statement: If one really wishes to be pedantic about it, the notation for the opening of the Chaconne could be said to be demanding a rearticulation of the A over a sustained chord, and similarly in the first full bar. I don't see a curved bow helping with that one (and I don't believe it to be the case, either). Here - contrary to what I have just observed - a case is being suggested for taking the supposed 'literal meaning' of Bach's notation as indicating that the chord - should a curved bow have been intended (which, for other unstated reasons you say you do not believe to have been the case) - is asking for a rearticulation of the A above a held chord underneath. I, however, am rejecting this assumption, and thereby leaving the question open. You seem already to have closed it off, and cite (what I believe to be) a fallacious piece of notational evidence to support your view. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 11:02:47, 07-07-2008 » |
|
Ah, I see reply 25 covers most of my reply 28. I think it just goes to show that the article on www.baroquemusic.org cannot be trusted. If Bach was meticulous, we would have written dotted crotchets for D, F and A in the first bar. He did this later (see bar 8 ). Unless he genuinely did want what he wrote, which Baz considers perverse. That's not so say that 4 part chords were not played by adjustable tension bows, it just goes to show that the article doesn't give a convincing case for it. Tommo I don't think I ever said that playing the piece in its usually-heard manner was 'perverse' - indeed some time ago I posted such a performance which you may remember Tommo because you did not share my liking of it. Sorry for any lack of clarity on my part. By "Unless he genuinely did want what he wrote, which Baz considers perverse." I meant that I thought you had said that to hold the bottom two notes for the full minim was perverse. I got that impression from here: This is not a convincing argument Ollie. There is nothing in the notation to indicate that the performance was intended to sustain the lower notes right through rather than cut them short as a normal means of articulating the upbeat in the next bar. Even were the notes initially sounded simultaneously, only a player of total perversity would fail to do that! The issue remains ONLY one of deciding whether the initial sounding of the chords (hence therefore throughout) should be effected simultaneously instead of being 'spread'.
So, if we are agreed that the D and F should not necessarily be held for a full minim, and given.... In my experience, it is nearly always an error to argue a case for performance upon the basis of Bach's notational presentation. This usually turns out to be descriptive rather than prescriptive - and its mysteries usually become resolved only when one comes to realize that Bach (like most other Baroque composers) was writing for performers who were already well-versed and practised in the performance traditions of the day. Through the notation, they merely performed the composer's notes within a style that both they and the composer were already expecting. It is we - generations later - who have lost this knowledge, and attempts at re-establishing it will always be contentious and full of disputes. This is particularly so when ideas challenge what we have thought acceptable and 'normal'.
Bach's notation is very careful only to indicate the clear architectural and structural elements of the music (e.g. the harmonic and contrapuntal details, sometimes the bowing and phrasing, on occasions dynamic contrasts between f and p). Looking at the piece in question, the presentation of the notes only concerns itself with the conceptual understanding and communication of these technical details, as they bear upon the unfolding of harmony and melody. They do not in themselves indicate what would have been instinctive to the players - Performance Practice. The fact the Bach holds the two lower notes of the first chord through, underneath the final A of the melody, is not to be read as meaning either that the chord is played with simultaneous notes, or that it is spread: in neither performance method can exactly what he has written be performed exactly as it stands (and neither should it need to be played that way). Your citation of bar 8 (and you did not mean the smiley - I just inserted a space after the 8 ) again does not show a difference in performance just because the lower notes appear as dotted quavers. The reason for this notation is to indicate the harmonic and melodic structure of the chords (however these chords were attacked) - not to provide a prescription as to performance methodology. The upper melody on its repetition there is ornamented, and it is harmonically inappropriate (in conceptual terms) for the chord to remain in place beneath this embellishment, which now places the musical priority upon the melody. This does not indicate that the chord there should be spread any more than that it should be sounded with simultaneity - and the notational licence displayed (i.e. the lack of rests one assumes must go with the chords) does not in itself indicate any freedom of performance either. The extent of freedom, or tightness, to be adopted is only a choice to be made by the performer (not the composer) after a conceptual understanding of the musical technicalities as conveyed by the composer has been grasped.
... (which makes a lot of sense), then are we agreed that the article on www.baroquemusic.org is not correct in saying that Bach was meticulous in his notation? Tommo |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
