Playing Beethoven/Mozart/Bach

[Bessy]

Originally posted by Peter: try setting the metronome to any great recording of Beethoven sonatas and it won't work!

One of the qualities you hear musicians talking about most is sense of rhythm and projecting this throughout a complete work is the hallmark of a great artist.

[/B]

The tempo marking is supposed to be a speed word in Italian. Why do Americans insist on saying "Play in a happy way." "Play with feeling" or "lively" is not considered the tempo to me. Also why is it that the metronome of today does not correlate with those classical composers of yesteryear?



[This message has been edited by Bessy (edited 03-11-2005).]

[Bessy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
Paul Komen
Pianoforte: Salvatore la Grassa, Viennese school c. 1815
Sonatas 16-18
Globe GLO 5136 (1995)

Paul Komen
Pianoforte: Johann Fritz, Vienna 1825
Sonatas 21-23, Globe GLO 5118 (1994)

Paul Komen
Pianoforte: Conrad Graf, Vienna c. 1830
Sonatas 30-32 Globe GLO 5106 (1993)

[/QUOTE Thank you for the Paul Komen suggestion.

[Uniqor]

"Well they ARE ranked - amongst the top players in the world!"

I see word-play in there...

Peter, while your anwser is quite detailed in technicality, it doesn't really reply to the essence of my presvious post. I couldn't care less how a pianist interprets so that he played a particular piece that way. All I know is: do I like that way of playing the piece or not.

Anyway, the fact that Beethoven gave exact tempo markings, doesn't favour the composer himself. As I said, we are different, some of us prefer 50, some prefer 60... So a marking of Allegro will do just fine for everyone. Now this needs to be asked - what's more important: the original intention/preference of the composer? Or the preference of the player/listener? For me, it's an easy anwser according to this principle: the value of art is to entertain.

"Objective quality", "just right"... Again, sloppy old reasoning indeed.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
"Well they ARE ranked - amongst the top players in the world!"

I see word-play in there...

Peter, while your anwser is quite detailed in technicality, it doesn't really reply to the essence of my presvious post. I couldn't care less how a pianist interprets so that he played a particular piece that way. All I know is: do I like that way of playing the piece or not.

Anyway, the fact that Beethoven gave exact tempo markings, doesn't favour the composer himself. As I said, we are different, some of us prefer 50, some prefer 60... So a marking of Allegro will do just fine for everyone. Now this needs to be asked - what's more important: the original intention/preference of the composer? Or the preference of the player/listener? For me, it's an easy anwser according to this principle: the value of art is to entertain.

"Objective quality", "just right"... Again, sloppy old reasoning indeed.

The performer is at the service of the composer, not the other way round - any other approach is amateurish.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Uniqor]

Peter, a person who puts himself at the service of others is... someone who should go back to Beethoven's time and live there.

Personally, I cultivate music for enriching my own spiritual life, not enhancing others' in an imitative way, especially not for someone who died a couple of centuries ago. Wether I am a performer or composer, is absolutely of no relavence here - I can enjoy myself both ways, and that's what's really important. To say again, the whole poin of art is to entertain. Actually, the whole point of life is to make yourself happy and fullfilled. If everyone embarking on a way in which he carries on some onelse's tradition, then the world can never advance, we'll all die of boredom for sure.

In absolute terms, nobody is at the service of nobody, everyone is at his own interest, especially in this modern society, despite wether you'd like to admitte it or not. Art's development is due to nothing but individuality; art's preciousness is because of nothing but variaty.

You'll probably do well at something that's strictly systematic and rigid, art, especially the art of sound, is the exact opposite thing to that. This is one reason why I admire Beethoven - his ever so revolutionary creativity.



[This message has been edited by Uniqor (edited 03-13-2005).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
Peter, a person who puts himself at the service of others is... someone who should go back to Beethoven's time and live there.

Really! I regard someone who puts himself in the service of others as selfless and highly admirable, a pity that in this selfish age you decry such values. This however with regard to music is a separate issue. I know having been taught by one of the finest teachers (herself a pupil of Adelina de Lara, Harold Craxton and Margueritte Long) that seeking to understand the music is paramount. Perhaps you are unaware of the HIP movement which influences not only those who use period instruments but those who use modern as well? Perhaps you are unaware of urtext editions of composers works which through diligent scholarship seek to present as near as possible the composers intentions? Yes there is a certain freedom in interpretation, but it has to come from knowledge not from laziness - the do as I like approach is fine for the amateur playing to aunty Mabel, but has no place on the concert platform.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 03-13-2005).]

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Peter:
Really! I regard someone who puts himself in the service of others as selfless and highly admirable, a pity that in this selfish age you decry such values. This however with regard to music is a separate issue. I know having been taught by one of the finest teachers (herself a pupil of Adelina de Lara, Harold Craxton and Margueritte Long) that seeking to understand the music is paramount. Perhaps you are unaware of the HIP movement which influences not only those who use period instruments but those who use modern as well? Perhaps you are unaware of urtext editions of composers works which through diligent scholarship seek to present as near as possible the composers intentions? Yes there is a certain freedom in interpretation, but it has to come from knowledge not from laziness - the do as I like approach is fine for the amateur playing to aunty Mabel, but has no place on the concert platform.

Indeed! In order to play whether for audience or for self and maximize the experience it is vital to know more than just rudimentaries of the work and composer. Nice way of putting that, Peter!

[Uniqor]

Peter wrote: "I regard someone who puts himself in the service of others as selfless and highly admirable..."

I don't, I doubt many others do. I think Beethoven was the last person on earth who would serve under the intentions of other composers. Anyway, you can hardly conclude that people like myself are selfish for this reason.

Again, you failed to address the essence of my posts, instead, you merely addresses your self-assumed musical superiority... I perfectly understandd your position right from the start, but I don't see why you've been failing to understand mine. So here it goes for the last time:

1 Art's purpose is to entertain, metaphysical beauty doesn't exist as some "objective quality" - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

2 People differ in the ways in which they can be entertained. This is undoubtable.

3 Performers and composers need individuality and variaty to make everybody feel entertained. This is why modern music is a world away from ancient music.

To really convince me, you'll need to address
the above statements. Otherwise, you're not arguing at all.

Sorano, welcome to the conversation. Do you think you can come up with your own stuff instead of repeating Peter's?

[KyleC]

Uniquor calm down no need to "yell" at Sorrano's or Peter's for his opinion in which you clearly state several times varies from person to person. WE understand what you are saying we just dont necessary agree with it. Now please note all though in the following my tone may come accross as argueing or being bitter towards you i'm not. Im just trying to show you where we are coming from

However the fact remains that, other than playing "to aunt Mabel" as Peter so wonderfully put it, you can't just play a piece any way you want atleast respectably. If this was true what would be the purpose of putting in tempo markings or dynamics if people would just massacre a song by ignoring them completely? The composer put a "mark" there for a reason and it is your duty as a musician to show a little respect and taste by listening to them, whether or not they are dead, because afterall you are playing THEIR song. If you composed something that in your mind and somebody was playing it differently than you intended wouldnt you be a little annoyed? Of course every song is open to interpretation just WITHIN REASON. ff is not the same as pp nor sticcato legato just because you feel like it.

1. Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder but like i said before whether you like it or not you must listen to the composer. yes art is mainly for entertainment. but there are a thousand ways to make things beuatiful without getting ridiculous.

2. duh.

3. yes modern music definetly is in a world away from good music. that is if we can call most modern music music. i think a better word would be noise. ok yes variety is good, heck its very good. But there are many ways to vary a piece. i.e. all the ways the peter mentioned.

regardless of whether or not something sounds good it is disrespectful and amatuer to slaughter a piece by thinking you know a way better than the composers. if you look at the way music has evolved nobody went from baroque to modnern in one jump. There are baby steps along the way. Going from Baroque to mondernism or romanticism would sound ridiculous and makes a mockery out of the music like ff when really marked p.

anyways to each his own. its not like im gonna find you and stop you. i just have an opinion. sorry for this response being so long. you can slap me if you want. lol

[Uniqor]

KyleC, no need to bring in all those "being nices" into discussion, they are so boring. lol.

Anyway, apreciate your comments here. Let me get on with biz now:

1 Glad you and me agree on the fact that beauty doesn't exist as "objective quality", which Peter seems to have an inclination towards. "Getting radiculous"? Same thing, you think this as radiculous, another person might think it as nice - no objectivity involved. Anyway, speaking by commen sense, I'm an individual who's intellegent enough not to always try to be radiculous.

2 "duh"? I'm sorry, but I really can't comment on this one...

3 "A world away from good music"? This is not mt original statement, please don't distort it to your will. It's obvious that you have a rather low opinion about modern music. This is a contradiction that I don't understand: how can you believe "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", while sacastically calling something as "noise"?

I don't consider myself as a musical amatuer. I agree with much of what you said in this paragraph, but it's not really relevant to the issue being discused.

Again, I appreciate your opinion, and I love long responses, as long as they are coherent and straightly call for blood.

btw, I don't "shout" at peoeple; I tend to very strictly concentrate on the issues in concern, so much so that someone who's not used to it is likely to get the wrong impression. Let me be clear about that now: I simply means no disregard in my posts.

[This message has been edited by Uniqor (edited 03-14-2005).]

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uniqor:

I think Beethoven was the last person on earth who would serve under the intentions of other composers.

Since you mentioned Beethoven I'll try to answer in reference to him. Carl Czerny embellished Beethoven's works on one famous occasion with his own ideas - Beethoven wrote to him after "I burst out yesterday without thinking, but you must forgive an author who would rather hear his works as written, however finely, for the rest, you played."

The great Beethoven interpreter Schnabel said "Humility to the score is a forgone conclusion. The performer thus necessarily seeks the ideal of making music which shall be both absolutely faithful and yet completely unfettered. A composition, more than its presentation, ranks supreme in the hierarchy of art, and the performer must be guided only by it."

That is the professional approach to music.



Again, you failed to address the essence of my posts, instead, you merely addresses your self-assumed musical superiority...

We are not in a court of law, so no need for the cross-examination tactics! I'm not expressing any self-assumed musical superiority, I'm merely passing on the knowledge I gained from people who were definitely musically superior to you and I. With a little humility one recognises we can learn from others who have achieved far more than we can ever hope.


Art's purpose is to entertain, metaphysical beauty doesn't exist as some "objective quality" - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.


Beethoven was no mere entertainer. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are many different pianists. You say you understand my point, but I'm not sure you do. I am not advocating sameness. Brendel, Schnabel, Ashkenazy, Kempff, Komen to name just a few great artists are all very different, but they all arrive at their interpretations through scholarship and respect for the score.



To really convince me, you'll need to address
the above statements. Otherwise, you're not arguing at all.

I've no desire to argue or convince you - what you believe is your own affair.


------------------
'Man know thyself'



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 03-14-2005).]

[Bessy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uniqor:
[B]

1 Art's purpose is to entertain, metaphysical beauty doesn't exist as some "objective quality" - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

2 People differ in the ways in which they can be entertained. This is undoubtable.

3 Performers and composers need individuality and variaty to make everybody feel entertained. This is why modern music is a world away from ancient music.

Right ON! This is a fascinating discussion, but honestly you can argue about art until the cows come home. It is like religion or politics. Face it: agree to disagree. I, for one, see that interpretation is key to any artistic form. Music is scientific, yes, but NOT a science. With the technology today, all we need is a computer to turn on the same version of Beethoven every time. How Boring! Like a life with one culture, one religion, one face, one opinion... boring, boring, boring. The angst of the right and left brain.. never the twain shall meet, but what would one do without the other? yin and yang, men and women... chocolate and vanilla etc. etc.

Come on boys... everyone knows there is great joy in eating a nice big bowl ROCKY ROAD!

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Uniqor:


Sorano, welcome to the conversation. Do you think you can come up with your own stuff instead of repeating Peter's?

Why bother while I agree with what Peter said? He said it better than I could have.

[KyleC]

a response to come... in school ready to go to lunch.

[KyleC]

1.well as long as you arent being over exagerant which i doubt you are becuase it would take quite a bit of effort to do that with a piece and im sure you dont try to do so.

2.i had no real response to that one. It is undoubtable that is why there are so many different types of music.

3.i do believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder which is exactly why i can call something noise. to me its not beautiful, not all of it of course some is ok or even good, so therefore since i dont like it... i can call it noise because to me that is what it is. i wasnt trying to attack modern music i was just saying what it is like to me.

hope this clears things up a bit!
oh and long posts are okay sometimes that is if the person has anything to say that is worth beinng heard.