|
Ian Pace
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: 12:00:06, 06-04-2007 » |
|
I've heard quite a few string players say that Richard Strauss is amongst the hardest orchestral stuff to play in the standard repertoire. Bellini (especially Norma) always sounds as if it's ferociously hard for singers. For pianists, leaving aside contemporary music (the difficulties are generally of a different nature - I'd say a handful of works by Xenakis Finnissy, Barrett, Barlow, Globokar and a few others constitute about as hard as it gets), the Chopin-Godowsky Etudes are what I would call amongst the most taxing. A few things of Alkan, but that's pianistic in a different way (Godowsky is pianistic but much more spidery to play!). A few things of Liszt (just a few), like the fantasies on Donizetti's Lucrezia Borgia (little known, but utterly crazy), the earlier versions of the Transcendental and Paganini Etudes, as well as more obviously Feux Follets are pretty hair-raising. Some Beethoven can indeed be very hard, as can some Chopin. Rachmaninov also comes into the 'spidery' category at times. Brahms's Second Piano Concerto is one of the harder of the standard repertoire, I would say, also Prokofiev's Second. Similarly, I imagine that Brahms's Violin Concerto is considerably harder than more obviously ostentatious ones, including that of Tchaikovsky - violinists, any thoughts?
(now I recall a truly pointless flame-war on r.m.c.r. as to whether you should transliterate as 'Rachmaninov/Prokofiev' or 'Rachmaninoff/Prokofieff'!)
///////////////////<<<<<<<<<<<<Can you explain what you mean by "spidery", Ian Pace? Simply that the hands and fingers come to resemble a spider! |
|
|
|
|
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 #46 on: 12:13:47, 06-04-2007 » |
|
My word, Ian, you talk about Sorabji like Bush talks about Saddam Hussein. Actually, if Sorabji had had any influence on public life, I think he would have been worse than Saddam, actually (and that's no idle rhetoric - his politics were well to the right of Ezra Pound, say). I've been avoiding mentioning his name for some time on these boards knowing that any such thing would unleash such a stream of vitriol, but you've excelled yourself here. Actually, I was determined to give another go, and didn't know those pieces much, and knew that you thought highly of them. I read your other message in the Sorabji appreciation thread and simply think - 'yes, but so what'? What do all those things amount to, in terms of the end result? Most of them just seem technical means, which might be 'interesting' in the same way as Steve Davis is 'interesting'. But I think it can be valuable and informative to look comparatively at composers. You point out that Sorabji creates 'states' rather than transitions. OK, there are numerous composers who do this but find ways of sustaining them over whatever length of time (probably none do so better than Debussy, but late Nono, Feldman, Walter Zimmermann, Sciarrino, Radulescu, occasionally Scelsi all seem to manage). Often this has to do with a certain innate tension within the 'state' itself even in a static form, which they find various ways of maintaining. I've heard Gulistan live and heard both recordings and find none of that (Feldman's For Samuel Beckett, Clarinet and String Quartet or Coptic Light seem short in comparison), at least in those performers, edited - mod it ranks marginally below a Turkish Delight advert. The closest thing to it that I know now is Ades, actually. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01:16:16, 16-04-2007 by John W »
|
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'
|
|
|
|
autoharp
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 13:17:55, 06-04-2007 » |
|
I've only encountered this thread this morning and I've found enough to keep me off the streets all day . . .
A few thoughts on the Janacek Sinfonietta as initiated by Tony Watson.
Janacek's instrumental writing and orchestration in the Sinfonietta is unique in many ways. At first glance, there is much which seems amateurish and haphazard - extreme registers (sometimes with missing mid-register sounds) , both apparent and real impracticalities, some things that simply don't work - all mixed in with some absolutely bizarre ideas which are enormously effective. I'll list a few examples from movements 2 + 3 (the only ones I have to hand). Don't know which edition you have, Tony - I have UE . . .
High register - + apparently ambitious/impractical writing
mt 2 - 1st violins between figures 5 + 6
mt 3 - piccolo + 3 flutes between figures 5 + 6
mt 3 - horn 1 from figure 9 (l'istesso tempo) to 11
Real impracticality
mt 2 - cellos and (particularly) double basses from figure 4 (piu mosso)
Something that really doesn't work
mt 2 - triplets within flutes and violins from figure 10 (maestoso) to Tempo 1
Effective though bizarre
mt 2 - bar 5 on (allegretto) - oboes + clarinets in close harmony accompanied by low staccato muted trombones - and nothing in mid-register
- much of the trombone writing - which orchestral instrument is least suited by its construction to the classical turn ? Trombone 2 has a couple in mt 3 between figures 4 + 5
mt 3 - trombone 1 solo after figure 6 (tempo 1)
- and the examples listed under "high register + apparently ambitious . . . "
Questions arising
Does he know what he's doing ?
Is he a high-risk gambler ?
What effects is he after ?
Do most performances do it justice ?
Most of the time I reckon he knows what he's doing. Folk music may provide a couple of answers regarding high-register writing (think of the folk-singer who operates at an uncomfortably high pitch for purposes of heightened expression) and an often deliberately unblended approach to orchestration (such as is found in folk instrumental combinations).
The examples I've listed under "high register and apparently ambitious . . ." are not possible for individuals to play accurately, let alone small or large groups of instruments to play in unison. Most recordings try and clean up these moments or (in the case of the horn 1 solo mt 3 figure 9) make them invisible.
The only recording I've found which takes what I would term a fearless and full-frontal approach to such moments is the old Supraphon recording (Czech Philharmonic conducted by Karel Ancerl) which I was delighted to find has been transferred to CD.
I've not answered half of my own questions but I hope it gives a bit to chew on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Watson
Guest
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 16:07:53, 06-04-2007 » |
|
Thanks for a really fascinating posting, autoharp. It comes closest in response to my opening remark. When I first followed the score I kept asking myself: "How do they do that?" I hestitated to put up my thoughts in case they sounded naive amongst all the professionals and university people who join in this MB. But I'm very pleased with the way it's developed, although I should have called the thread Which piece... rather than Which composer.
My edition is the Philharmonia one but I could follow your examples because it includes all the figures you mention. I love looking at scores, perhaps it's the mathematician in me, and I've enjoyed looking at the piano examples. I'm fascinated by markings such as 6:5 - six notes in the place of 5, I presume (I can picture all the PhD people rolling their eyes at my innocence) - and I wonder how any one can be that accurate when there are other, regular notes going on at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #49 on: 16:36:30, 06-04-2007 » |
|
I'm fascinated by markings such as 6:5 - six notes in the place of 5, I presume (I can picture all the PhD people rolling their eyes at my innocence) - and I wonder how any one can be that accurate when there are other, regular notes going on at the same time.
One way to look at it is that both the 6 and the 5 are in fact regular - if you break the overall duration up into 30 tiny slices (30 being the lowest common denominator of 5 and 6), the 6 comes every five slices and the 5 comes every six. In this way it could easily be practised slowly... and when you speed it up it becomes a pattern you can remember like any other. (And I don't even have a PhD!) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
trained-pianist
|
|
« Reply #50 on: 17:50:32, 06-04-2007 » |
|
I heard somebody said how to play 2 against 3 at the same time. One has to say: Nice cup of tea.
There was Nicer cup of tea to help you to play some other tricky rhythms.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martle
|
|
« Reply #51 on: 18:34:52, 06-04-2007 » |
|
t-p
3 against four: read both lines at once
Pass the -damn -ter.
Pass god- but-
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
trained-pianist
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 19:27:20, 06-04-2007 » |
|
Thank you martle, it is a good one.
How about 3 against 4? Is there anything for that? I don't know why it is so hard for some to play 2 against 3, but it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 20:53:23, 06-04-2007 » |
|
You point out that Sorabji creates 'states' rather than transitions. OK, there are numerous composers who do this but find ways of sustaining them over whatever length of time (probably none do so better than Debussy, but late Nono, Feldman, Walter Zimmermann, Sciarrino, Radulescu, occasionally Scelsi all seem to manage). Often this has to do with a certain innate tension within the 'state' itself even in a static form, which they find various ways of maintaining. I've heard Gulistan live and heard both recordings and find none of that (Feldman's For Samuel Beckett, Clarinet and String Quartet or Coptic Light seem short in comparison), at least in those performers, edited - mod it ranks marginally below a Turkish Delight advert. The closest thing to it that I know now is Ades, actually. Harsh words indeed! But all of this just goes to show that there aren't any objective criteria for what makes a "successful" piece of music. To my ears Gulistan sustains interest over its duration at least as well as do the Feldman pieces you mention (which, coincidentally, are just about my least favourite Feldman pieces, apart from the very end of Coptic Light where my ears normally prick up a couple of minutes before it stops). Actually, now that I've got to know more Sorabji, many of the first 25 studies come over almost as "trailers" for some of the longer pieces rather than as musical statements in themselves, and quite a few of them don't make much of an impression, although those that do (and I can't quote the numbers at you right now, not having listened to them for a little while, though the very first one is among them) made a rather strong one on me. edited - mod |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01:14:55, 16-04-2007 by John W »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marbleflugel
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 21:01:42, 06-04-2007 » |
|
I've only encountered this thread this morning and I've found enough to keep me off the streets all day . . .
A few thoughts on the Janacek Sinfonietta as initiated by Tony Watson.
Janacek's instrumental writing and orchestration in the Sinfonietta is unique in many ways. At first glance, there is much which seems amateurish and haphazard - extreme registers (sometimes with missing mid-register sounds) , both apparent and real impracticalities, some things that simply don't work - all mixed in with some absolutely bizarre ideas which are enormously effective. I'll list a few examples from movements 2 + 3 (the only ones I have to hand). Don't know which edition you have, Tony - I have UE . . .
High register - + apparently ambitious/impractical writing
mt 2 - 1st violins between figures 5 + 6
mt 3 - piccolo + 3 flutes between figures 5 + 6
mt 3 - horn 1 from figure 9 (l'istesso tempo) to 11
Real impracticality
mt 2 - cellos and (particularly) double basses from figure 4 (piu mosso)
Something that really doesn't work
mt 2 - triplets within flutes and violins from figure 10 (maestoso) to Tempo 1
Effective though bizarre
mt 2 - bar 5 on (allegretto) - oboes + clarinets in close harmony accompanied by low staccato muted trombones - and nothing in mid-register
- much of the trombone writing - which orchestral instrument is least suited by its construction to the classical turn ? Trombone 2 has a couple in mt 3 between figures 4 + 5
mt 3 - trombone 1 solo after figure 6 (tempo 1)
- and the examples listed under "high register + apparently ambitious . . . "
Questions arising
Does he know what he's doing ?
Is he a high-risk gambler ?
What effects is he after ?
Do most performances do it justice ?
Most of the time I reckon he knows what he's doing. Folk music may provide a couple of answers regarding high-register writing (think of the folk-singer who operates at an uncomfortably high pitch for purposes of heightened expression) and an often deliberately unblended approach to orchestration (such as is found in folk instrumental combinations).
The examples I've listed under "high register and apparently ambitious . . ." are not possible for individuals to play accurately, let alone small or large groups of instruments to play in unison. Most recordings try and clean up these moments or (in the case of the horn 1 solo mt 3 figure 9) make them invisible.
The only recording I've found which takes what I would term a fearless and full-frontal approach to such moments is the old Supraphon recording (Czech Philharmonic conducted by Karel Ancerl) which I was delighted to find has been transferred to CD.
I've not answered half of my own questions but I hope it gives a bit to chew on.
quick note on the trombone and turns-perfectly possible with the 'plug' (the length of tubing converting the instrument from B flat to F and E flat etc on bass trombones). We trombonists are wont to knock out the Bach cello suites courteousy of one Andre Lafosse, whence the ornamentation ad lib of course. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'...A celebrity is someone who didn't get the attention they needed as an adult'
Arnold Brown
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #55 on: 21:11:40, 06-04-2007 » |
|
Would the F plug have been in common use in Moravia at the time? I have no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marbleflugel
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 21:25:49, 06-04-2007 » |
|
They were about in accessible bits of middle Europe I'm pretty certain Richard. Its such a fantastic bit of innovation as a score I wonder what decent musicology has been done on it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'...A celebrity is someone who didn't get the attention they needed as an adult'
Arnold Brown
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 22:06:05, 06-04-2007 » |
|
Thank you martle, it is a good one.
How about 3 against 4? Is there anything for that?
Martle did just post one - a politer version is 'pass the bread and butter'. The other way round you can have 'four fitting into three', which is prosaic but admirably descriptive. A friend once told me a fine mnemonic for 5:4 - 'She's pregnant, don't know what to do.' As far as Janacek's impossibilities go: sometimes precisely in bits where a single instrument can't reliably pull something off, an orchestral section can make a very fine go of it simply because there will rarely be a note that absolutely none of them have hit. I'd be reluctant to change anything for the sake of practicality in the Sinfonietta. Any more than these people should play anything slower because they were worried about it sounding a bit rough. There has indeed been a bit of musicology done on it - resulting in among other things the restoration of the correct octave in the piccolo in some madly swirling scales. I've once had to conduct 5 in one hand against 6 in the other. Fortunately the composer had written out a little rhythm in the score which saved me having to work out for myself exactly when each hand would give a beat. Richard was there at the time, by the way, but not having to follow it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
aaron cassidy
|
|
« Reply #58 on: 23:56:38, 06-04-2007 » |
|
I've once had to conduct 5 in one hand against 6 in the other.
That's one of my favorite little parlor tricks. I remember being a kid (12 or so?) and reading somewhere that Boulez could conduct 2 in one hand and 3 in the other, so stayed up late at night teaching myself to do it (I was an odd kid), and then progressively upped the ante to trickier polyrhythms. I recently realized, though, that somehow I had ingrained the patterns to specific hands (my 4:3 was always R:L, for example), so now I'm on a similarly useless quest to be able to do all the various conducted polyrhythms in either hand, w/ the completely useless goal of being able to swap hands back and forth per bar. Next up after that is various compound meter patterns (7(3+2+2):6(3+3), for example) for faster tempi. Nice to have you back on the grid, Ollie. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
autoharp
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 00:01:58, 07-04-2007 » |
|
3:4 = sound the trump et Lizzie
5:3 = drink up yer beer c'mon please
5:4 = hot curries for your la dy friend
7:4 = why fart a bout when you know bugger all ?
7:3 = you look pretty good on a bike mate
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 10:37:17, 09-04-2007 by autoharp »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
