Sonority

[Bonn1827]

Following upon Jamesofedinburgh's comments on another thread (with an unfortunate title!) I thought moving this discussion would be useful. I perceive sonority in terms of tonality/pitch/timbre etc., and also in terms of the playing of instruments. For example, I love LvB played on "the Steinway", but have been a supporter of HIP and the fortepiano. But, no doubt about it, "the Steinway" creates altogether new sonorities that Beethoven neither knew nor may have anticipated. (The fact that his big, late piano sonatas sit so well with the modern concert grand that it makes you wonder, though.) I've just received a double CD set of Haydn's "The Creation" with JEG/EBS/Monteverdi Choir. Though the recording standard for this group has been patchy, at best, I love the period instruments' clarity and texture and, yes, sonority. I also love the fortepiano as "continuo" in the recitative. Having only just recently discovered the joy of Haydn's sacred music, I think I'll still with period performances until I've fully absorbed the textures of these, before moving onto the somewhat more lush modern symphony orchestra. For me, it's a question of sonority and personal preference.

I'm keen to hear others' opinions.

[Peter]

The HIP movement has come a long way since I first heard a fortepiano recording in the early 80s which was simply dreadful and put me off for a long time. Then we had some pretty heated debates here in the early days of this forum (way back at the beginning of the century!) and I started listening to more HIP as a result and I think it provides a very interesting and different approach which has been very healthy even for performances on modern instruments which have had to respond to the research done on things such as tempi, ensemble size and general performance practice.

Unfortunately there is plenty of dogma on the issue from some of the HIP movement - for example, Norrington who simply will not allow the use of vibrato. Others insist that you simply shouldn't perform Beethoven on modern instruments and I think this an extreme view.

[Hofrat]

I like HIP recordings because it allows us the opportunity of hearing the composition as the composer invisioned it. Also it allows the performer to play the composition as it is written.

[jamesofedinburgh]

I've just received a double CD set of Haydn's "The Creation" with JEG/EBS/Monteverdi Choir. Though the recording standard for this group has been patchy, at best, I love the period instruments' clarity and texture and, yes, sonority. I also love the fortepiano as "continuo" in the recitative. Having only just recently discovered the joy of Haydn's sacred music, I think I'll still with period performances until I've fully absorbed the textures of these, before moving onto the somewhat more lush modern symphony orchestra. For me, it's a question of sonority and personal preference.

I'm keen to hear others' opinions.

Coincidence! I just downloaded the same recording though I haven't had time to listen to it yet. I will do so soon, and also reply on this thread regarding this very interesting question. I've only listened to the opening 'Depiction of Chaos' which was beautiful and very restrained as a composition - clearly Haydn's Deity knew where 'He' (let us be politically correct!) was going from the first tone, even if we don't. You can imagine what Scriabin or someone similar would have done to depict chaos - though Schoenberg and Ives are good at it in their idioms.

I have Gardiner's Missa Solemnis and it is outstanding, but (perhaps for my modern-instrument-sins!) I prefer Bernstein live with the Concertgebouw and other recordings of the same work that are not HIP.

[Chris]

I've just received a double CD set of Haydn's "The Creation" with JEG/EBS/Monteverdi Choir. Though the recording standard for this group has been patchy, at best

Really? I find Gardiner's group to be one of the consistently best-recorded period instrument ensembles there is. No scratchy-sounding strings, no intonation problems...

I also love the fortepiano as "continuo" in the recitative.

I love period instruments for certain music and hate them for others. All my Baroque recordings are on period instruments. All of my Beethoven and later music is on modern instruments. I find that modern instruments give the best effect here, although there have been some good period instrument recordings of Beethoven's music (such as by Gardiner). For Haydn and Mozart, I like a mix. I find things that mix orchestra and voices are particularly effective on period instruments, such as oratorios and masses.

But I have to say, I hate the fortepiano. It's just such a weak, ugly-sounding thing. The only place I have found for it is in the Mozart piano concertos. I love Bilson's recordings here. The music is "light" enough that it works, and the varying timbre across the range of the instrument provides some nice effects. But it isn't even really the piano - it's the orchestra and the piano's interaction with it that I find works so well in these works (and it is Gardiner and the English Baroque Soloists again!). I do find that the slow movements don't work as well as with modern instruments, though.

I especially hate it when used as continuo. Hogwood does this sometimes, and it just doesn't make a nice sound, in my opinion.

Having only just recently discovered the joy of Haydn's sacred music, I think I'll still with period performances until I've fully absorbed the textures of these, before moving onto the somewhat more lush modern symphony orchestra. For me, it's a question of sonority and personal preference.

I agree with you there. Gardiner has an excellent recording of the six late Haydn masses, and Richard Hickox has a set of the complete Masses (along with some other sacred works) on period instruments that I can also recommend highly.

[jamesofedinburgh]

But I have to say, I hate the fortepiano. It's just such a weak, ugly-sounding thing. The only place I have found for it is in the Mozart piano concertos. I love Bilson's recordings here. The music is "light" enough that it works, and the varying timbre across the range of the instrument provides some nice effects. But it isn't even really the piano - it's the orchestra and the piano's interaction with it that I find works so well in these works (and it is Gardiner and the English Baroque Soloists again!). I do find that the slow movements don't work as well as with modern instruments, though.

Yes, slow movements are where the fortepiano is often weakest, be it Mozart or Beethoven. It is at its poorest in the highest register (which makes the beautiful 'Elvira Madigan' slow movement to K.467 sound tinny), and at it's strongest in the lower mid-range where it can help untangle some complex contrapuntal passages (say Beethoven Opus 109 variation 5). And yet! - even there, the sound of the modern instrument just makes that variation 'sing' in a manner that a fortepiano cannot.

I don't mind the fortepiano as a continuo instrument, FWIW.

[Ed C]

I love the fortepiano - the worse sounding the better

I guess because my background comes from listening to Stockhausen and Cage (and Hendrix), the fortepiano actually sounds like a ring-modulated prepared piano when played on a really "historically informed" model. The sonatas actually sound even more revolutionary (IMHO)...strings near-breaking and all that. Of course I love my modern recordings as well - my ratio of modern to HIP is 4 to 1...but I wouldn't leave home without my Badura-Skoda fp set on 4 different fortepianos

Oh as far as orchestral works, reduced HIP orchestra's tend to reveal more inner voices IMHO - I like to hear the distinctions between the string and wind sections - whereas a 120 piece "tends" to blend. My ratio for orchestral work is probably 3 to 1 modern vs HIP.

[Bonn1827]

All such interesting comments! I agree with most of these, except I like the fortepiano of Levin, Binns, Tan etc. I like my Mozart piano concertos this way, otherwise they come across as too sugary, IMO (only by comparison) with a huge symphony orchestra. I have some excellent recordings with EBS/Tan that I wouldn't be without. I totally agree with Ed that the lines become blurred and it all sounds blended if not on period instruments. I adore the clarity and texture of the individual "voices" interacting.

Chris the standard of recordings of JEG/EBS: in some of my earlier digital recordings (eg. Mozart "Requiem") the sound is hard and dry, and this is a feature of some of his later CDs too. Even this Haydn oratorio has some of that harshness and I note it is over 10 years old. More recent recordings seem to have improved. The Bach pilgrimage recordings are not like that. (My Bach pilgrimage CD came from a friend who accompanied the ensemble through Europe for the occasion, and I'm not sure where or how he got it as I've forgotten and he has recently died.)

When I turn up the volume this harshness is particularly noticeable (I live on 1 acre so that I can do precisely that!). My equipment is still very good and was very expensive when I bought it years ago.

I love the Monteverdi Choir and think they sound like no other. (Sorry, Heidi, from the Singverein!!) JEG's Bach recordings sound very well with period instruments and realization. In fact, I don't like Bach any other way - except his keyboard work, which I prefer on a modern piano. I agree about the dogmatic element too and maybe this is why Norrington seems to be a little bit sidelined these days, compared to some other practitioners. I remember writing a very large essay for Musicology about period instruments 20 years ago and it was a hot topic back then - even though Thurston Dart had been actively engaged in it since the early 1950's.

I have Monteverdi's operas on period instruments and (I know these can't be compared to Mozart/Haydn/Beethoven on modern instruments) and I go straight to heaven listening to them with Chitarrone, Theorbo etc. and the effect of spun gold. But that is another topic too!

[Chris]

Chris the standard of recordings of JEG/EBS: in some of my earlier digital recordings (eg. Mozart "Requiem") the sound is hard and dry, and this is a feature of some of his later CDs too.

Hm. I have that recording of the Requiem, and I never noticed anything bad about the sound, and there have been numerous period instrument recordings I have found unacceptable. I'll have to give it another listen.

[Bonn1827]

The sound is harsh and over-modulated in that recording: almost like it hits a "ceiling" and becomes flat and one-dimensional. I've just bought a CD with Berliner Philharmoniker/Rattle of the "Nutcracker" (having been to the aforementioned orchestra's concert in Sydney on 19/11 - OMG!!!!!!!!!) and the sound is simply magnificent, with recording quality second to none. One of the best recordings on CD, in terms of clarity and depth, that I own - and I have some terrific recordings. The reproduction of the celeste? So good and unusual that I actually discussed with my daughter (who has done some sound engineering in radio) what role the producer has in classical music and how this influences performance. The topic of another thread, perhaps?

[Bonn1827]

As an aside, before I answer your comments, last week my sister was here for lunch and I showed her this site and some of the more intelligent discussions. She commented that it was 'like a university tutorial: I could become enthusiastic about these kinds of forums'. Her (masters) degrees are in economics and US politics, not music.

"JoE" (your new shortened name), what you have said is very thought-provoking and challenging and I'm wondering if I'm up to the task!! I downloaded and printed your comments so that I could refer back to them (but I have things to do today!!!!).

Firstly, I don't have the scores to hand of LvB's string quartets. Some contributors to this site may well have. You have analyzed the scores and this is what one needs to do with music to get any real insights into its "architectural" properties and well, I guess, 'sonority'. However, I think the term 'sonority' can have different meanings and I alluded to this with my first comments.

Secondly, you suggest that LvB was "hinting at a future sound" and that this also involves "subliminal listening". I think one cannot have one of these criteria without the other. You seem to be moving beyond mere tonal language in music in trying to explain, perhaps, the ineffable. As I have not deconstructed the passages about which you speak I cannot agree or disagree about its sonority, but we have talked before on this Forum about 'musical fingerprints' and I'm wondering if this isn't what you're essentially trying to define.

To imagine a deaf composer thinking beyond the written and played notes and on to another, quite modern, conception and level of 'sonority' and the 'anticipation' of sounds is entering the realm of philosophical discussion. (This is if I have interpreted your comments correctly, and it's entirely possible that I have not.) I would suggest to you that the 'sonority' arises from the unique arrangements of the tones, the musical structure and that these things contribute (not wholly) to the composer's musical fingerprint. Yes, this is great music which need not be limited to a discussion of 'sonority'.

How does one define 'great' painting, architecture, sculpturing or writing? It can be defined, by consensus, but can it be EXPLAINED? I think not.

You are showing HOW Beethoven achieved his sonorities and attributing to them a metaphysical beauty which, I'm sure, we all agree exists. But I don't think we can really 'explain' this concept. Your idea about 'anticipating sounds' comes from the very vibrant nexus which exists between composer, performer and informed listener.

As ever, I welcome the views of others on this forum. I'm sure there are a few who will have some great ideas to contribute and who, like me, think this is much more important than thinking about Christmas food!!

[Bonn1827]

"JoE", I think I'm out of my league here. I very much appreciate your thought-provoking comments but feel at a disadvantage because I have not analyzed the scores. I'm busy trying to learn German prior to my Vienna stay, otherwise I would certainly get myself to the Conservatorium and borrow them for study. 2012 is the best I can do now!! (However, at this stage I am contemplating starting a PhD in film and have had some excellent advice from a historian and scholar - an erstwhile friend from my days in television - at our national film archive.) But this is incidental!

I think I need to find out more about Stockhausen because so many people talk about his pioneering work. Perhaps you can recommend something for me? I dislike Wagner because I feel his music, while very clever - especially the leitmotiv - is pompous and humourless (except for the Tristan love/death). I also love his "Idyll" written for the birth of his son. I would have said "Siegfried", but I don't know how to spell the name!!!!!!!!!

Anticipation of sounds...mmmm......I'm thinking about this again and again. Actually I think I do know partly what you mean, since tiny melodic, sound-world fragments can be anticipated in one movement and developed, or even merely paraphrased, in the next. But this is probably not what you meant. I should leave these kinds of discussions to the experts.

[jamesofedinburgh]

Yes, sonority leads to philosophy and then words are hard to use for things as ineffable as sounds and sound structures.

I don't care much for Wagner either. I listened to some of Parsifal the other night, I found the opening of Act 1 had some beautiful music but it is very static. When Wagner tries to move the action along then it is, to me, uninteresting. I dislike the man as well and have full sympathy with Jewish people who cannot abide his music. I also sense that Wagnerians are very repressed - sexually and otherwise! - all those Nordic women bouncing around and super heroes chasing them, it's like a Russ Meyer film with a marginally better soundtrack at times. (I suppose someone, somewhere, wants to shoot me now.) For that matter I prefer Star Wars, better plot, better FX, better music, and who can resist those holographic chess pieces in the first episode that beat each other up? (Now I know someone, somewhere, wants to shoot me.)

Yes, Tristan has its moments, but the whole Tristran's delirium thing in Act 3 - aside from the magnificent opening orchestral prelude and the equally beautiful horn solo - is just too long, the first movement of the Appassionata does delirium with integrity, at least to my ears.

Stockhausen? - Stimmung, it's a capella. A bit long (though not by his standards) and basically it's one chord sung over and over with occasional vocal interjections. 'Man's sex is the root of all evil' (as I recall) intoned most earnestly and contritely by a counter-tenor and then the same chord starts humming away once more, as if hippies were holding a revivalist meeting of sorts and Groucho Marx's one regret in the after life is that he's not there to lampoon it. Stockhausen just wants to prolong the sound of that chord as long as he can. I make fun of it, but it's actually interesting to listen to, though I have to do something else while listening, it's not that gripping, at least to me.

[Ed C]

Wow, Stockhausen, Star Wars, Russ Meyer and Opus 132 all in 1 thread - whew! LOL

I appreciate your analysis James of the "through-thread" in many of B's works. That's why I always tell non-cognoscenti that B's music is somehow always rewarding - you never seem to get to the bottom. I believe even Toscanini once said "OMG - I just realized it's an appoggiatura!" regarding part of a symphony he'd conducted a hundred times. Glenn Gould has an interesting talk where he purports that B was doing retrograde procedures before Schoenberg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztt1Z_90aag

That actually addresses both the anticipation of future elements in a piece as well as future elements in musical history

I wonder how much of B's work is "intentional" - that is, he said to himself - "we need a retrograde harmonic progression here, let's go for it - they'll dig that in 1970" - or he just wrote and wrote and his inner ear just told him where to go...he really wrote for "a future age".

Stockhausen: Before B I was (and am) a Stockhausen fan for 20 years. I barely consider his work classical - it's much more to do with new sonorities outside of traditional composition. I think his stuff has less in common with classical music than Billy Joel. I would consider him in a genre by himself almost actually. If you want to hear some interesting piano work tho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37cLn5VCubY

this may tie into the pianoforte discussion I suppose - he ring-modulates the piano sounds.

I am in the process of making "Reader's Digest edits" of Stockhausen's works for my iPod - I was able to shrink Momente (2.5 hrs) into 30 minutes. Stimmung could be shrunk to 6 minutes I think....

Wagner - I just started listening to the Ring for the first time - I actually like it more than I expected - only on Scene 2 of Die Walkure tho...

[Bonn1827]

Stockhausen has always been a deterrent for me because I'm generally wary of anything avant-garde, though these days I suspect he wouldn't be so considered. I did watch a performance of his "Helicopter" quartet on good old U-Tube and though it preposterous - though I did note the "point" he was trying to make about sonorities, thinking that would be better made in a Philosophy or Physics lecture. However, there are those who are groupies and cheerleaders, but how much of this is really attention-seeking??!! I think of Barry Humphries and his hilarious forays into "Dada" - "Forkscape" being one preposterous notion he mercilessly lampooned. He conducted all manner of practical jokes here in Australia to draw attention to avant-gardism for its own sake. He once had a plastic-lined paper bag into which he pretended to throw up whilst on a suburban train trip in Melbourne. A couple of stops later he produced a plastic fork (yes, "Forkscape") and proceeded to eat from the bag, as it was actually a tin of stew!!! I thought this very act covered all the bases, really.

I can't help being cynical about it, because I remember ill-conceived ideas about experimental film which disappeared but later re-emerged assimilated into the mainstream. I'm thinking here of the more recent "Dogma" approach to film-making which has emerged from Scandanavia. Some fashionable people think it's cool whilst others, like myself, are bored by this kind of ostentation. This can be applied equally in the realm of music.