A couple favorite moments in B's String Qrtts

[Quijote]

And here's another thought about analysis. The composer Trevor Wishart relates a story of when he met up in Paris (at IRCAM, as it happens) with fellow composer Brian Ferneyhough. During their conversation over dinner (always a most convivial moment for talking about music, I find) it transpired that for Ferneyhough, the methodology of composition (hence analysable) was the principle object, not the effect on the listener. Or to put it another way, "the composition is like a document that evidences the composer's methodology [...] that will only become apparent through detached analytical study [...]." For Wishart it was quite the opposite : what counts is how the listener perceives the music. For instance, a passage in one of Ferneyhough's pieces (hah! all, surely?) was thoroughly 'through-composed', that is to say, conceived down to the last micro detail (and if you take a look at almost any Ferneyhough score you will see what I mean). To Wishart's ears, however, it sounded "random". What carries more weight in your view? Ferneyhough's wish (as the composer of the work in question) that you appreciate the totally controlled down-to-the-last-detail design, or the listener's "take"? It's sure that a detailed analysis will reveal the "mechanism" if you will, but what will the music "mean"? Can one have both? An expert's understanding of the mechanics of the composition (be that Beethoven's, Xenakis' or whoever the hell you want) and a more intuitive awareness of some sort of "meaning"?

[Sorrano]

In other words, if you "see" something, you may not be able to unsee it.

[Quijote]

Interesting concept Sorrano. Reminds me of one by Boulez : "Present in its absence".

[Chris]

One of my favorite moments is from an early quartet, Op. 18, No. 4 in C minor, 4th movement. After the final statement of the main theme, there is a little coda. The first violin plays a few notes that sounds like it has started the main theme again, but instead it plays this little bit that delights me every time. I wish I could describe it better, but it's hard without the sheet music.

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFDNiuwNx1M

The part starting at 3:34. Love it.

[Peter]

In other words, if you "see" something, you may not be able to unsee it.

I think Glen Gould said something similar (he may have got it from Schoenberg) regarding teaching which he didn't do - something along the lines of if he actually thought about how he did it then he couldn't do it!

[Michael]

I think Glen Gould said something similar (he may have got it from Schoenberg) regarding teaching which he didn't do - something along the lines of if he actually thought about how he did it then he couldn't do it!

When I was working, I had to press a digital code of six numbers each morning to get into the office. A colleague asked me for the code one day and I couldn't remember it - I had to stand physically outside the door and let my fingers do it.

[Quijote]

When I was working, I had to press a digital code of six numbers each morning to get into the office. A colleague asked me for the code one day and I couldn't remember it - I had to stand physically outside the door and let my fingers do it.

A similar experience : when people ask me for my 'phone number here in France there's no problem if it's a Frenchie asking me. When Brits (or indeed other Anglo Saxons) ask me for my number, I have problems reeling off the numbers, and usually have to write them down as I say them to myself in French. Weird.

[Sorrano]

The fingers recognize patterns quickly and once they are in place we tend to not think of them mentally. I find this sort of thing helpful with keyboard playing; the fingering becomes so critical to the performance and then, as second nature, we don't think about it, we just do it.

[Chris]

The fingers recognize patterns quickly and once they are in place we tend to not think of them mentally. I find this sort of thing helpful with keyboard playing; the fingering becomes so critical to the performance and then, as second nature, we don't think about it, we just do it.

I find this incredibly annoying, actually. When my organ teacher tells me to play something in a different key or take this part out of the left hand and play it on the pedal instead, I just can't do it. It's worse than learning a piece from scratch, because first I have to sort of deprogram myself from playing it the way my fingers remember it. I am truly amazed at anyone who has the ability to spontaneously transpose difficult keyboard music or play the parts with a different appendage.

[Quijote]

I find this incredibly annoying, actually. When my organ teacher tells me to play something in a different key or take this part out of the left hand and play it on the pedal instead, I just can't do it. It's worse than learning a piece from scratch, because first I have to sort of deprogram myself from playing it the way my fingers remember it. I am truly amazed at anyone who has the ability to spontaneously transpose difficult keyboard music or play the parts with a different appendage.

Yes, transposition is difficult on the piano I find, too. That said, it's ok if it's an "enharmonic transposition". By that I mean transposing from F to F-sharp (G to G-sharp etc.) and vice versa. I once had to do this on the 'cello during rehearsals. It was some Purcell piece or other for voice and harpsichord with bass continuo (me!). The singer (bless her, lovely lady, very neurotic, aren't most singers?) gave me my part in D-flat major (which I thought was rather an odd key for Purcell, but what the hell, what do I know ...). Anyway, I turned up for the rehearsal. Now here I can't quite remember if the problem was that the harpischordist's part was in D major (it can happen if one mixes up editions) of if the instrument was tuned a semitone higher, but anyway, I had to play from my part in D-flat and transpose into D major. As I tried to explain to Chris above, simple "enharmonic" transpositions are not so hard, just read the D-flat part as if it's in D (i.e. pretend that the written D-flat looks just like a natural D and so on). OK, a few on-the-spot changes in fingereings are called for, but so long as the piece is andante or adagio, no sweat!

[Sorrano]

I find this incredibly annoying, actually. When my organ teacher tells me to play something in a different key or take this part out of the left hand and play it on the pedal instead, I just can't do it. It's worse than learning a piece from scratch, because first I have to sort of deprogram myself from playing it the way my fingers remember it. I am truly amazed at anyone who has the ability to spontaneously transpose difficult keyboard music or play the parts with a different appendage.

If the scales are memorized with the fingers, then part of that problem is fixed. But it is hard to deprogram the fingers from a specific piece.

[Peter]

If the scales are memorized with the fingers, then part of that problem is fixed. But it is hard to deprogram the fingers from a specific piece.

Exactly and I keep telling my pupils that! The analogy I often use is a telephone number and I point out the impossibility of remembering it if they simply guess at it and don't repeat the sequence accurately.

[Peter]

Yes, transposition is difficult on the piano I find, too. That said, it's ok if it's an "enharmonic transposition". By that I mean transposing from F to F-sharp (G to G-sharp etc.) and vice versa. I once had to do this on the 'cello during rehearsals. It was some Purcell piece or other for voice and harpsichord with bass continuo (me!). The singer (bless her, lovely lady, very neurotic, aren't most singers?) gave me my part in D-flat major (which I thought was rather an odd key for Purcell, but what the hell, what do I know ...). Anyway, I turned up for the rehearsal. Now here I can't quite remember if the problem was that the harpischordist's part was in D major (it can happen if one mixes up editions) of if the instrument was tuned a semitone higher, but anyway, I had to play from my part in D-flat and transpose into D major. As I tried to explain to Chris above, simple "enharmonic" transpositions are not so hard, just read the D-flat part as if it's in D (i.e. pretend that the written D-flat looks just like a natural D and so on). OK, a few on-the-spot changes in fingereings are called for, but so long as the piece is andante or adagio, no sweat!

Yes it makes one realises how paltry a musician one is when you read accounts like the following:

When Brahms was just 20 years old as an accompanist for the violinist Remenyi he had to perform the Kreutzer sonata on a piano tuned a semitone low - he transposed the whole work from memory. Having been required by his piano teacher to transpose the Bach 48 into all keys, he regarded this as no real feat at all!

Aside from Liszt's sight-reading of Grieg's piano concerto, there's another incident with one of Grieg's violin sonatas, where Liszt sight-read the entire piece and played it as if it was a piano composition. Here's Grieg's quote:
"Now you must bear in mind that in the first place he had never seen nor heard the sonata, and in the second that it was a sonata with a violin part, now above, now below, independent of the piano part. And what does Liszt do? He plays the whole thing, root and branch, violin and piano, nay, more, for he played fuller, more broadly. The violin part got its due right in the middle of the piano part. He was literally all over the whole piano at once, without missing a note, and how he played! With grandeur, beauty, genius, unique comprehension. I think I laughed-laughed like a child."

[Sorrano]

Peter, that just boggles my mind!

[Chris]

Having been required by his piano teacher to transpose the Bach 48 into all keys, he regarded this as no real feat at all!

Playing all 48 in all twelve keys? That's...a lot of work on the WTC. I'm not even sure I could accomplish that in my entire lifetime.