Chopin Db Prelude (Raindrop) Pedal Question
Steven Lowe
The answer may be obvious but I want to check anyway:
When the key changes to F# minor, during the first seven measures of
that part, I don't see any pedal markings. Every other measure does have
them. Should that section be played without pedal?
I'm using the Schirmer edition.
Thanks
EROMLIGNOD
Mark A.
> When the key changes to F# minor, during the first seven measures of
> that part, I don't see any pedal markings. Every other measure does have
> them. Should that section be played without pedal?
>
> I'm using the Schirmer edition.
I'm assuming you meant C# minor.
My Henle Urtext edition also has no pedal markings in that section.
I've always used the pedal there anyway, but perhaps I'm being very
naughty :-) .
EROMLIGNOD
The Raindrop prelude is in Db (five flats), not C# minor (four sharps).
C#-*major* would be an enharmonic key with Db, but would be notated with seven
sharps in the signature and all the notes would be on different lines or spaces
of the staff.
The relative minor of Db (same key signature) is Bb-minor, but we know the
piece is in Db since the melody centers around Db.
Don
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: The Raindrop prelude is in Db (five flats), not C# minor (four sharps).
The middle section is notated in C# minor, IIRC.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Alan Young
> The Raindrop prelude is in Db (five flats), not C# minor (four sharps).
Not only didn't you answer the question, you muddied the waters with
misleading information. The prelude begins in Db, but has an extensive
middle section in c#. Go back to your corner.
--
alan
+++++++++
"I wish I could play like Tatum's right hand!"
-- Charlie Parker
EROMLIGNOD
I beg your pardon, but Mark was the first to scold. He corrected the poster in
error. I already confirmed the answer to the question in a previous posting.
This prelude is simply in Db. It begins and ends in Db. The main melody is in
Db. Just because a piece may wander temporarily into its parallel key has no
bearing on what key the piece is named by. This is basic music theory, Alan.
It is known as the prelude op. 28, #15 in Db.
The preludes are arranged in the order of keys, major first then minor, for
each key signature in the order of the circle of fifths.This prelude comes
right after the Eb-minor prelude and right before the Bb-minor one. Get the
picture?
Maybe you are the one who should spend a little time in the corner reviewing
elementary music theory.
Don
Alan Young
<eroml...@aol.com> wrote:
> Mr. Young:
>
> I beg your pardon, but Mark was the first to scold. He corrected the poster
You are referring to this post (from Mark):
> In article <3DD813D6...@prodigy.net>, Steven Lowe wrote:
> > When the key changes to F# minor, during the first seven measures of
> > that part, I don't see any pedal markings. Every other measure does have
> > them. Should that section be played without pedal?
> >
> > I'm using the Schirmer edition.
>
> I'm assuming you meant C# minor.
Mark was correct. The key changes to c# minor.
> This prelude is simply in Db. It begins and ends in Db. The main melody is
> in
> Db. Just because a piece may wander temporarily into its parallel key has no
> bearing on what key the piece is named by.
It doesn't "wander." There is a section written in C# minor, complete
with key-signature change. A key change is different from a temporary
modulation, and while some cases can be referred to either way, there's
no question here, because the c# section is structurally distinct.
And we were not talking about the *name* of the prelude, but simply
using a reference point in the score which is unmistakeable: the key
change. The original poster was precise (and pragmatic) in describing
*where* in the score his question arises; Mark correctly adjusted the
name of the key at that point.
> Maybe you are the one who should spend a little time in the corner reviewing
> elementary music theory.
I *teach* music theory. I don't need your idiotic presumptions.
------------
Now, to offer something more constructive, I'll answer the original
question. I have an very helpful edition published by Alfred, edited by
Palmer. It shows the original notation *plus* editorial suggestions in
light type, which I think is ideal because it offers you an informed
choice.
So, it shows the C# minor section (ahem!) with the first measure
pedalled on each quarter note; the next two measures are marked
editorially "Ped. simile". Which should be intuitively self-evident
anyway, but if you wanted an "authority" to tell you it's correct,
there you have it. 8-)
IMCA
Chopin was exceptionally meticulous about his notation, including
pedaling, which he thought out fully. Often, his pedaling is tied to
and used to illuminate events of structural significance, while at
other times imposed as a subtle means to exploit harmonic ambiguity.
While you are certainly on the ball to observe his removal of pedal
marking at the onset of the C sharp minor section (not F# minor!) ,and
while it is certainly possible to play the passage in question
entirely without pedal -- to do so is to engage in a kind of dogmatism
that misses the point. For one thing, the section is marked sotto
voce, with a continual pedal point on the dominant, played by the
right hand. This is a rather customary and usual compositional device
often used by Chopin, and other composers, to symbolize a tolling
bell. The G sharp must be played very quietly, but in such a way as
to convey its movement forward in time.
In the left hand , which lies under a very long slur, you will need
to carefully cultivate the legato. I would advise the use of a very
light pedal-- not fully depressed at all, but only a quarter depressed
or, at the most, half. The pedal should be changed frequently, just
*after* (by a micro-second) the onset of every beat -- four times per
bar, with the exception of the fourth and eight bars, where it can be
held (lightly) throughout. The foot must remain active. Conceptually,
you might even think of the foot as *lifting* slightly between the
beats, rather than thinking of pushing it down. Pedaling in this
passage, then, ought be discrete so as to enhance a well-cultivated
legato -- which legato you can command locally with the fingers and
hand (without making a fetish of either, insofar as co-ordination,
not fingerfertigkeit, is the key, physically speaking, to a good
legato), rather than used as a crutch to smother it, or to hide poor
preparation.
Also, there is essentially one point of arrival for each four bar unit
-- and that occurs in the fourth bar (Bar 31) itself, where the open
fifth on G# and D# occurs. Chopin clearly indicates this as a goal
point, not only through the imposition of a crescendo en route to
that point, which is also given over, suddenly, to a slower harmonic
rhythm, in tht the dominant chord here is given over to four entire
beats all by itself. What's more, the chord is missing its leading
tone, thus compromising and rendering ambiguous its very status as
the dominant. This chord has special significance, and it is something
that you must allow your ears to be drawn into, as it exerts upon all
the surrounding pitches a kind of graviational field.
The pedals, as Michelangeli so often and so wisely opined, are like
lungs -- a tool that provides the pianist one means to enhance musical
breath and illuminate compositional structures. There is no harm in
using the pedal responsibly and as a way to clarify musical issues.
It's only when it is abused and used as a proxy for work not fully
done (for example, the pianist with a lazy foot who would just assume
depress it to the floor and leave it there), and abandoned as a tool
of musical value that its use becomes burdensome and undesirable.
John Bell Young
IMCA
> Mark:
>
> The Raindrop prelude is in Db (five flats), not C# minor (four sharps).
> C#-*major* would be an enharmonic key with Db, but would be notated with seven
> sharps in the signature and all the notes would be on different lines or spaces
> of the staff.
I have to correct you here. The middle section of this particular
prelude is in fact in C sharp minor, and Chopin notates as much by
changing the key signature to exactly that at Bar 28.
John Bell Young
Steven Lowe
IMCA wrote:
> Chopin was exceptionally meticulous about his notation, including
> pedaling, which he thought out fully.
Thanks for such a comprehensive answer and to everyone else who replied.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Chopin was exceptionally meticulous about his notation, including
: pedaling, which he thought out fully. Often, his pedaling is tied to
: and used to illuminate events of structural significance, while at
: other times imposed as a subtle means to exploit harmonic ambiguity.
Which perhaps is an argument against playing Chopin on a modern piano?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Brian
> Now, to offer something more constructive, I'll answer the original
> question. I have an very helpful edition published by Alfred, edited by
> Palmer. It shows the original notation *plus* editorial suggestions in
> light type, which I think is ideal because it offers you an informed
> choice.
>
> So, it shows the C# minor section (ahem!) with the first measure
> pedalled on each quarter note; the next two measures are marked
> editorially "Ped. simile". Which should be intuitively self-evident
> anyway, but if you wanted an "authority" to tell you it's correct,
> there you have it. 8-)
I wasn't going to respond to this thread since I probably make all
kinds of pedaling faux pas, but I just thought I'd mention that this
is the way I tend to pedale that section. It seems the most intuitive
way--if you're going to pedale this section at all--to do it and keep
it clean. I second this method to the original poster.
Brian
www.sketchee.com
Mark A.
Yes, many thanks to IMCA. I learned a lot from his answer, too.
BTW, I certainly wasn't trying to "scold" you about tha C# minor
mixup. I figured it was just a typo.
IMCA
By the way, just to clarify, since tehre are two of us here with the
same last name(!), I am not Alan Young, to whom your post above is
addressed. However, I have to agree with Alan's response to you.
While you are indeed correct to say that the prelude is generally
referred to as as being in the key of D flat, that is rather a simple
truism, a generic means of identification only which hardly addresses
the substnative issues that draws the astuet listener into the orbit
and dimensions of this extraordinary composition.
In any case, in the household of analysis, the matter is not anywhere
near so simple as that, but delightfully more complex. Indeed, before
engaging anything as complex as a pitch class analysis that would
simultaneously avail itself of Schenkerian analytical methods in
order to move beyond the skin and into the body of this famous prelude
with any seriousness of analytical exegesis, it is plain enough that
even the simplest, most cursory analysis of its harmonic content, and
the trajectory that content assumes, reveals that Chopin had good
reason for engaging in key migration exactly where and how he did. He
did so precisely in order to codify his aesthetic intentions. The
function of the pedal point on A flat, which then duplicates itself
as G# in a higher register in the C# minor section, assumes an
entirely different function, and with good reason. And here's why:
Often Chopin's reasons for changing key were structural; sometimes,
as befits the aesthetics of the period, it was to convey a shift of
mood or character, while collapsing onto and enhancing (and
intensifying) the material that gave voice to such changes, e.g.,
diminiution, augmentation, variation, motivic characterization etc. to
speak nothing of its symbolic importance. The issue becomes a problem,
to some extent, for musical semiotics, given the imposition of his
distinct notation and the meaning, musical and symbolic, that may lie
behind it. There is little doubt, in my view, that by shifting the
teritary paradigm, so to speak, Chopin accomplishes precisely what he
sets out to do in the first place, namely , to heighten tension, not
only through the creation of a more prescient mood (wherein he turns
the introductory material on its head, now planting the droning pedal
point in the upper voices instead while introducing a disturbing,
restless and harmonically ambiguous theme in fifths and sixths in the
bass which maintains and perpetuates that tension in part by
increasing substantially the rate of harmonic rhythm), but through
the no less fascinating (and subtle) reinvention of meaning itself.
Indeed, the function of the pedal point on A flat that inaugrates the
prelude was configured for precisely the opposite reason than that of
the ensuing pedal on the enharmonically brighter G# (to speak nothing
of the psychological significance, for the performer as well as
listener, of the brighter key of C# minor--what Jean Jacques Nattiez
referred to as an esthesic --not aesthetic!- phenomonon, and which
refers to the manner of reception), namely, to convey a sense of
undisturbed quiescence, calm and peace, supported materially by the
considerably slower harmonic rhythm, and the prevalence of harmonic
consonance. But the pedal on G# assumes a wholly different character,
and is given over to a position of prominence, by virtue of its shift
of registration, that it did not enjoy in the opening. Here, Chopin
takes advantage of a something approaching the "stile concitato"
adopted by Vivaldi, Bach and the baroque masters to convey unease,
terror, and anxiety --or in some cases, merely bad weather! The
codification of a pedal point, such as he paints it in the C# minor
section, was in fact a commonly used compositional device adopted not
only by Chopin's muscial ancestors, but by every subsequent composer
from Liszt to Rachmninoff -- and it is a particularly Slavic idea at
that, in that it symbolized, in compositional categories, bell
changes. Thus, it is as if we have gone from the purely functional
dissemination of the pedal point in the A section (on A flat) to a
fundamentally symbolic one in the B section. Or put another way, from
the pragmatic tothe conceptual -- or as Vyacheslav Ivanov once said of
Scriabin's music, "from the real to the more real". This again, as
you can see, becomes a most intriguing challenge for compositional
semiotics.
All this is particularly fasinating for the analyst, as it adumbrates
an idea that Mussorgsky would harvest and cultivate decades later in
works such as Khovanschina and Boris ((and even Scriabin, in his late
music, availed himself of a similar idea, which expressed itself as
what we call transpositional invariance, but that would take us rather
too far afield here), namely, the idea of compositional *stasis* as
a central but highly symbolic systole of a musical philosophy and
aesthetic point of view.
Indeed, in the baroque era -- the aesthetic ideals and even musical
ideology to which Chopin, by his own admission, aspired with
diligence while reinventing bel canto to suit his own expressive
agenda in the romantic age -- a change of key, even to the parallel
minor, was always significant, a kind of compositional event that
usually coincided with a change of tempo, or voice exchange between
registers, or inversion. Indeed, even two otherwise identical tones,
enharmonically notated, were considered non-identical, and string
players took great care to differentiate such pitches. Chopin, who
composed almost exclusively for the piano, was acutely aware of these
highly idiosyncratic elements peculiar to musical composition and
relization --namely, the expressive potential and limitations of the
human voice as well as those of the orchestral instrumentarium --
which he took pains to incorporate and translate, if you will, into
his piano music. Indeed, you will find an abundance of such examples
in his nocturnes, and of course, nowhere more so than in his
mazurkas.
John Bell Young
Alan Young
I agree with pretty much everything you said, although I found your
choice of vocabulary rather amazing at times.
I'd love it if you could clarify this parenthetical remark,
In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA
<im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> (to speak nothing
> of the psychological significance, for the performer as well as
> listener, of the brighter key of C# minor--what Jean Jacques Nattiez
> referred to as an esthesic --not aesthetic!- phenomonon, and which
> refers to the manner of reception),
I'm quite interested in psychological mechanism of harmonic and tonal
systems; is that what Nattiez was talking about? Can you provide a
reference for this discussion? And what could possibly be meant by
"esthesic", a word I'm sure I've never seen before?
Thanks...
alan
--
"[Television programming] is a campaign of fear and consumption. Make
people afraid and they'll consume."
--Marilyn Manson in "Bowling for Columbine"
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : Chopin was exceptionally meticulous about his notation, including
> : pedaling, which he thought out fully. Often, his pedaling is tied to
> : and used to illuminate events of structural significance, while at
> : other times imposed as a subtle means to exploit harmonic ambiguity.
>
> Which perhaps is an argument against playing Chopin on a modern piano?
Yes, I suppose it could be -- for the purists! Certainly, the
instruments of Chopin's day, and particularly the Pleyels that he
favored, sported a more dulcet quality than the modern grand, and one
rich in overtones. Even so, there is more similarity between the best
pianos of his day than there is, say, between a piano and a
harpsichord, or even a fortepiano. But what is of greater concern
than the instrument is the the character and aesthetic environment of
the music itself, and what the composer so shrewdly and meticulously
codifies in the text, as a kind of detailed blueprint, and what he
signals to the interpreter, in considerable detail, to convey.
Clearly, it is not such a good idea, for example, to use the pedal in
such a way as to muddy the musical waters and compromise contrapuntal
clarity, which is so crucial in such densly polyphonic music. Even on
the most pristinely calibrated Steinway cocnert grand, the pianist who
simply pushes the pedal to the floor and holds it there, or who is
insufficiently savvy about how to use the damper and una corda peals
(and even the sostenuto pedal, though the use of this pedal is
something one has to ponder with great care, as its function is so
specific ) will make it very difficult for himself and for the
listener to appreciate and delineate all that is going on inside even
the simplest work of Chopin.
Pedaling demands as much care and aforethought as any other aspect of
piano playing, and its role in relation to illuminating a musical
gesture, mood, or idea is, naturally, every bit as integral to the
work at hand as the playing the notes and paying attention to
dynamics, articulation and rhythm. Of course, there are certain of
"dos and dont's" about pedal useage -- tricks of the trade, if you
will. But these only scratch the surface of what the pedals, carefully
adjudicated, are really capable of musically speaking. One thing is
for sure: absent any musical intent, pedaling will do little to make
anything sound better.
One of the most difficult works of Chopin with regard to pedaling is
certainly the Barcarolle, where the colors (a vague word that really
refers to compositional function more than anything else, but which
pianists seem to understand) demand a certain pastel hue at times,
achieved through the judicious maipulation of partially depressed
damper and una corda pedals in tandem --and which also depend on the
prevailing harmony, its specific trajectory and its manner of
evolution at any given moment (such as in the opening bars where the
left hand alone introduces its gondola motive). Indeed, this is a work
ripe with certain ambigities which Chopin specifically builds into the
text itself. Certainly, the opening is evocative of one of those
Turner Venetian landscapes, where the things seem to come into view
gradually from a haze that reveals definitive shapes and figures with
continued viewing. Music can, I believe, be even more specific; the
nearly imperceptible shifts of partial pedals as the left hand solo
anticipates the entry of the bel canto duet must emerge as if from
offstage, but not with such a deep pedal that it becomes mud. The
distended open fith comprised by a pedal point on the tonic and the
fifth degree above it, as an implied second voice angles its way to
the third degree of the scale in the tenor are at once intertinwied
and also two different events. With careful pedaling, the A#, which is
the apex of this line can be slightly elongated, a trace of its sound
blended into the ensuing C# but then partially annulled, so as to
convey the connection --the legato --while illuminating the difference
in function that distinguishes the motive to which it belongs (2
sixteenths followed by an eighth) from the droning open fifth beneath
it. Were one ot depress the pedal all the way, that clarity would be
lost.
Frankly, I think that the music of Chopin is probably even better
served by modern pianos, as the potential of today's best instruments
to sustain pitch is considerably greater. The modern piano at least
has potential for providing opportunities for radical contrasts and
colors that open up the music, and the pianist, to a whole new world
of possibilities. That is not to say that the old instruments were
incapable of doing the same, on their own terms. But in the final
analysis we also have to be cognizant of Chopin's musical language,
its discretion and the aesthetic and historical context in which it
evolved. In the end, it's really up to the pianist, as artist, to let
the piano, whatever its metier and origins, serve the music, and not
the other way round.
However, for anyone who is interested, Michel Boegner's recordings of
the nocturnes (on the Calliope label, I believe) on an exceptionally
fine 1837 Pleyel reveal a great deal about Chopin's instrumentarium
(according to the liner notes Chopin himself performed on this piano).
And Maurizio Baglini's recording (on Phoenix ) of the Etudes on three
period instruments is no less interesting, although one of them, a
Walter piano, is either poorly rebuilt or badly miked, as it sounds
too harsh, metallic and stringy.
John Bell Young
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Clearly, it is not such a good idea, for example, to use the pedal in
: such a way as to muddy the musical waters and compromise contrapuntal
: clarity, which is so crucial in such densly polyphonic music.
You had me up to the point where you tried to convince me that the Db
prelude (or just about anything that Chopin wrote) is "densly [sic]
polyphonic." I don't know about you, but I find Chopin and Schubert
much easier to memorize than Bach precisely because their music is
*not* densely polyphonic. It's true that Chopin is very careful about
voice leading in his accompaniments (even the oompah kind) -- but that's
hardly the same thing.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Tom Shaw
follow Chopins pedal instructions for Op 28 #4 Prelude (including responses
to this same question I have posed previously to rmmp). AFAIK, and in my
Schirmer edition there is no pedaling indicated anywhere except in measures
17 and 18. I wanted to learn this piece using as much sustain as possible
with the left hand on the chords w/o pedal as the score indicates. But, as
I said everyone, including my teacher, disagrees with this. I feel that if
I was skilled enough I could play the piece quite nicely w/o all the
pedaling (what is suggested is to pedal every chord change and some even
suggest also pedaling on some of the melody changes). So what is the story?
TS
.
"IMCA" <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com...
> Steven Lowe <sd...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:<3DD813D6...@prodigy.net>...
> > The answer may be obvious but I want to check anyway:
> >
> > When the key changes to F# minor, during the first seven measures of
> > that part, I don't see any pedal markings. Every other measure does have
> > them. Should that section be played without pedal?
> >
> > I'm using the Schirmer edition.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Chopin was exceptionally meticulous about his notation, including
> pedaling, which he thought out fully.
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : Clearly, it is not such a good idea, for example, to use the pedal in
> : such a way as to muddy the musical waters and compromise contrapuntal
> : clarity, which is so crucial in such densly polyphonic music.
>
> You had me up to the point where you tried to convince me that the Db
> prelude (or just about anything that Chopin wrote) is "densly [sic]
> polyphonic." I don't know about you, but I find Chopin and Schubert
> much easier to memorize than Bach precisely because their music is
> *not* densely polyphonic. It's true that Chopin is very careful about
> voice leading in his accompaniments (even the oompah kind) -- but that's
> hardly the same thing.
>
But of course Chopin's music--virtually all of it -- is richly
polyphonic; ask anyone who knows even a modicum about theory and
composiional process. I'm not inventing this. On the contrary, it is
just a matter of technical fact in compositional categories, that's
all, one that hardly needs any defense and for which there is aan
abundant amount of extant literature available for anyone who cares
to take the time to study it, and impose upon themselves the
intellectual discipline it demands to master. The extraordinary
polyphonic dimensions of Chopin's music (which, by the way, also
exerted a profound influence on Scriabin's compositional aesthetics
and methods decades later, as Scriabin availed himself of the same
obssession with polyphony.) is noting if not the very heart and core
of what his music is all about, and what makes it tick. What's more,
these are issues that are coered in most Theory 101 courses as a
customary and usual subject for analysis, and plain enough for any
first year theory student to see and grasp. Indeed, my first
theoretical exposure to these issues was as a high school freshman in
an exceptionally good first year harmony course.
There are dozens, indeed, hundreds of theoretical works and books
about this very subject -- the polyphoic dimensions of Chopin's music
and his compositional methodology--that I would be happy to recommend,
so that, if you care to, you can continue to research the issue in
depth, and sort out the facts of the matter. Indeed you might be most
interested to read Schenker, Salzer and Schachter's analyses of any
number of Chopin's works, including a particuarly probing one of the
Polonaise-Fantasie. If there is a forum about music theory I would
even be willing to go into an elaborate discussion in technical
cateogories, though that will take quite a bit of time, and I wouldn't
be the first to do so. But I see no particular point in doing that, as
I don't have anything new to add to a discussion of Chopin's
polyphony per se, at least where theoretical exegesis is concerned,
and that has not already been said or written about a hundred times
by legions of theorists over the last century (though as a practcal
matter, I can offer advice on how best to appropriate the extant
information in the service of musical interpretation)
The idea of Chopin's music as mere melody and accompaniment is as
much as an anachronism long ago cultivated by swooning blue haired
ladies as it is wholly apocryphal. It is certainly the most naive
approach for anyone seeking to interpretthis music to take; to think
of his music that way is not only ludicrous, and technically
falacious, but a misleading enouragement for those who are not so well
informed and do not know any better> It is precisely the wrong way, in
fact, to think of and play Chopin. Unfortunately, there are a few
pianists --but very few nowadays, thank God, at least among
professionals - -who harbor such shallow views, as most have been well
trained and educated in substantive and related musical issues beyond
simply piano playing.
Indeed, it was in baroque compositional aesthetics, and even
techniques, that Chopin invested aesthetically and even
methodologically, and from which he drew many of his ideas and, to a
some extent, his compositional vocabulary. Chopin cut his teeth on
Bach, and reqmined enamoured of his music, and his methods, throughout
his life. You might want to explore what we mean, too, by
contrapuntal melodies, in which a single line implies two or mor
voices simultaneously.
As for memorizing, that is always an individual thing, of course,
regardless of the composer or the work. There are those who simply
have an easier time memorizing, as you do, Chopin or Schubert over
Couperin or Mozart. Personally -- and I speak only for myself here --
I don't have any trouble memorizing anything at all once I do the
work, and understand how a work functions from the inside out, no
matter what it is. However, I have not yet tried to tackle a sonata of
Boulez or the Carter Sonata, which would present special problems to
be sure. All this does bring to mind, though, an amusing story Charles
Rosen once told me. He was getting ready to perform the Carter Sonata,
and just before he went out on stage, someone backstage said "Do you
mean you are going to paly that whole thing by *memory*?" Startled,
Charles continued to the piano, sat down, and promptly forgot some 6
pages or more!
John Bell Young
John Bell Young
> -----
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : Clearly, it is not such a good idea, for example, to use the pedal in
> : such a way as to muddy the musical waters and compromise contrapuntal
> : clarity, which is so crucial in such densly polyphonic music.
>
> You had me up to the point where you tried to convince me that the Db
> prelude (or just about anything that Chopin wrote) is "densly [sic]
> polyphonic." I don't know about you, but I find Chopin and Schubert
> much easier to memorize than Bach precisely because their music is
> *not* densely polyphonic. It's true that Chopin is very careful about
> voice leading in his accompaniments (even the oompah kind) -- but that's
> hardly the same thing.
>
I should add that, with regard to my last post, I am speaking about
Chopin's music overall, in general. While the D flat prelude is also
a reasonable example of Chopin's mastery of polyphony, its relatively
simple construction and fairly straightforward four voice texture
makes it considerbly less dense, as you are certainly correct to
observe, than, say, the Barcarolle or the B minor Sonata. But it most
certainly is *not* an occassion to think about, nor treat, as a melody
and accompaniment opportunity. There is a great deal going on in this
work harmonically, rhythmically and contrapuntally; And while some
compositional events obtain to themselves greater significance than
others, as in all music, every line, indeed virtually every pitch,
has its own, specific function in relation to what it orbits and
modifies, and what modifies and orbits it. One need only look at
Chopin's notation, to speak nothing of the work's harmonic layout and
strategy, to see precisely where he envisions so much as as single
pitch or group of pitches as belonging to one or more linear complexes
siultaneously.
John Bell Young
IMCA
> Hello, John Bell, unrelated namesake.
>
> I agree with pretty much everything you said, although I found your
> choice of vocabulary rather amazing at times.
>
> I'd love it if you could clarify this parenthetical remark,
>
> In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA
> <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > (to speak nothing
> > of the psychological significance, for the performer as well as
> > listener, of the brighter key of C# minor--what Jean Jacques Nattiez
> > referred to as an esthesic --not aesthetic!- phenomonon, and which
> > refers to the manner of reception),
>
> I'm quite interested in psychological mechanism of harmonic and tonal
> systems; is that what Nattiez was talking about? Can you provide a
> reference for this discussion? And what could possibly be meant by
> "esthesic", a word I'm sure I've never seen before?
>
> Thanks...
>
My pleasure. The word "esthesic" , though coined and used by Nattiez
to a larger extent than any other theorist I've encountered, is in
fact a neologism that Paul Valery used in his inaugural lecture at
the College de France in 1945. It's a Greek word, and refers to the
faculty of perception. The esthesic dimensions form a subject for a
reception theory about music. When we listen to a work, we don't so
much "recieve" information about it, which the work itself conveys
about itself (mindful that music is *not* strictly speaking a
language,any more than a snowflake is --though there are similarites
to language in the household of intent and structure -- because music
communicates nothing specific beyond its own abstract systems, which
are open to widely subjective interpretation, as opposed to a spoken
language, which communicates concrete information, demands, requests,
etc about things exterior to that information; so for example,while
music can never tell you to open your front door, the command "Open
your front door" most certainly can), so much as we *construct* the
work for ourselves as we listen, and as it presents itself through
time.
What Nattiez insists is the function of the esthesic dimensions of
musical reception is that which brings us, as listeners and also as
musicians, in touch with the entire experience of music as we listen,
absorb and respond to it. We are at once exposed to the music, to the
producer of the music (the interpreter/performer), and with the
consumer who is charged with listening and reacting to what he hears.
Critical analysis of the musical object, on the other hand, does not
lead us down this same road, nor provide access to the same level of
information, though it may reveal the manner in which those structures
are arranged and how they function, and the specific compositional
grammar they avail themselves of. What we cannot lose sight of is that
anaylsyis, while pragmatic and valuable, is a language in its own
right -- a language *about* music that is not identical to musical
experience itself.
On the other side of esthesic is the poietic, which refers to the act
of production and creation, and the operations which are specifically
required , upon external materials, to bring a work of music into
existence where it did not exist before, at least in sound. Thus
meaning - -and even the meaning of the words Nattiez uses to describe
these phenomena -- always depends on *situation*, and on the hierarchy
of signs that point in this direction or that en route to meaning, and
in which signs we tend to invest symbolic significance.
The distinction is subtle. What Nattiez suggests is that theorists and
musicologists represent themselves as the "collective consiousness"
-- to cite Nattiez himself -- of all listeners, creating a kind of
uni-class whose relevance, while demonstrable, may also be misleading
with regard to the fullness of any one individual's experience of a
music/object. The theorist's work is fundamentally intropsective, and
specific, but relies on rather general ideas about musical perception.
This does not in any way render the theorists' analytical perspective
or technical exegeses invalid, or useless, but rather marginalizes it
to the realm of neutral, or what some may refer to as objective. The
listener, on the other hand, whose experience is in real time, "in the
moment", and evolves absent the academic benefits of analytical
aforethought, poses a psychological challenge to the what theorists
decree to this uni-callss of all potential listeners, saying in effect
"this is whay you are hearing". What concerns the esthesic is what
the listener, removed from such abstractions, actually experiences as
he listens. Thus, there are multiple "situations" from which, as
Nattiez deduces, music can be analyzed, depending on the particular
function - theoretical, harmonic, contrapuntal, formal, societal,
psychological, perceptive, etc.-- where one cares to expend his
energy and focus.
There are many variables, then, involved in musical experience, which
include the thorough and thoughtful critical anaylsis of a musical
text, in all its compositional fullness, and which analysis is crucial
and indeed, useful for the interpreter to indulge, so as to better
understand what informs a musical text from within. But this is not
enough in its own right for the savviest musical interpreters. The
work of the musician cannot stop there. I wrote about this in some
depth in my paper "Scriabin Defended Against His Devotees" wherein I
found in the works of Bakhtin and Foucault many provocative new
challenges to this kind of intellectual pluarality that refuses to
pigeonhole any thing. This begs the question as to why it's dangerous
to fetishize anything in music, as some groups, for example, have done
with early music, failing to understand that the very historical
ruptures, discontinuities and thresholds elaborated by Foucault impart
to language itself multiple meanings, depending on situation.
Indeed, we no longer listen to baroque music with the same ears as
those who listened to it in 1640. In fact, there was no such thing as
baroque music for those people; the word had not even entered the
overall lexicon as a means of period and stylistic description. Thus,
we must as Harnoncourt so smartly observed, maintain a certain
flexibility of outlook, while continuing to use all the available
technical and theoretical tools at our disposal to sort out the
abstractions. Once we do that, in tandem with considering so many
other "situations" -- both receptive and in the household of creative
production -- then we will be less likely to reify any particular
point of view, or even analysis, into something monolithic and
impenetrable. At the same time, as performers, this kind of thinking
allows us to enter simultaneously into a state of awareness that
involves ourselves as well as the composer, his ideas and intentions;
the music, which exists autnomously as it codifies the composer's
symbolic agenda and the performer's interpreation of that agenda; and
the listener, whose response mechanism is modified by all of the
former, to whit, the composer, the music and the perfomer, as well as
by his (the listener's) own individual sensibility. This dialectical
dance opens us up as msuciains and as human beings in so many areas,
not the least of which is the aestehtic, philosophical and symbolic
meta-language or agenda that informs any given work of music. That is
yet one more reason that to suggest, for example that Chopin ( or any
other major composer for that matter of the last 400 years, since
homophony, as the principal modus of composition, rather went out of
fashion in the late 16th century) is about melody and accompaniment is
so wholly juvenile and naive, when the sheer historical density and
symbolic gestuary that informs his music on so many levels is but
anther thread in the rich multivalence of its dense polyphony,wherein
virtually every voice -- including every last one the innumerable
ancillary vocal lines that remain embedded even within single voices
across registers, and which impart to Chopin's counterpoint its very
raison d'etre, to speak nothing of its complexity, largesse and
opulence -- assumes its own specific function, shape and relevance.
John Bell Young
IMCA
> That being true I have never talked to anyone who has suggested that you
> follow Chopins pedal instructions for Op 28 #4 Prelude (including responses
> to this same question I have posed previously to rmmp). AFAIK, and in my
> Schirmer edition there is no pedaling indicated anywhere except in measures
> 17 and 18. I wanted to learn this piece using as much sustain as possible
> with the left hand on the chords w/o pedal as the score indicates. But, as
> I said everyone, including my teacher, disagrees with this. I feel that if
> I was skilled enough I could play the piece quite nicely w/o all the
> pedaling (what is suggested is to pedal every chord change and some even
> suggest also pedaling on some of the melody changes). So what is the story?
> TS
> .
Well, look, it's admirable your desire to take pay attention to the
letter of the score. And as I said, it is possible, certainly, to
play that passage without pedal. But in this case to do so would not
only be to indulge in a kind of academic literalness that would only
serve to compromise rather than enhance Chopin's intentions, but would
be rather inartistic, too -- to put it mildly. The pedal is important
in Chopin, and it was important to him as a pianist. His revocation of
the previous pedal does not absolutely instruct the player to abandon
it altogether, but beckons him to find a new color commensurate with
the introduction of a new theme in the bass, the eerie pedal point
drone in the right hand, and the sustaining of a particular mood.
Also, you might consider the ambiance and sound of Chopin's Pleyels
and the instrumentarium of his day, which were quite rich in
overtones, and had a rather different, more ghostly sound due to
stright stringing in some cases. Even without the pedal those
instruments had an extraordinary quality entirely different from our
present day grands. I recally fondly, in fact, having to practice on
one ()though a bit later - made in the early 1860s) at my home in
France for nearly 2 years out in a 15th century grange, restored for
concerts, on the property. In any case, it is to the sotto voce, that
Chopin marks indicates, that attention must be focused. That
undulating mysteriouso demands light pedaling in such as way as to
evoke, at the very least,the spectral,but overtone-rich quality of the
early pianos.
You need only cultivate an active foot and a shrewd ear, as well as
pay pay close attention to how you use the pedals. Don't depress the
damper fully, but only partially, lifting it just after the onset of
each new harmony; that will be quite enough.
John Bell Young
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: But of course Chopin's music--virtually all of it -- is richly
: polyphonic; ask anyone who knows even a modicum about theory and
: composiional process.
There is a difference between "richly" polyphonic and what you originally
said -- that his music was "densely" polyphonic. A large fraction (perhaps
an absolute majority, although I haven't checked) of his music consists
of a melody line supported by an accompaniment. This is not what we usually
think of when we think of dense polyphony which consists of large numbers
of independent lines. How many *independent* voices are there in a typical
nocturne, or waltz, or even ballade?
: I'm not inventing this.
"I'm not making this up, you know."
: . . . .What's more,
: these are issues that are coered in most Theory 101 courses as a
: customary and usual subject for analysis, and plain enough for any
: first year theory student to see and grasp. Indeed, my first
: theoretical exposure to these issues was as a high school freshman in
: an exceptionally good first year harmony course.
Believe it or not, I have taken courses in music theory. In a theory course
I took at college, we even examined the A minor prelude. It should also
be plain enough for any first-year theory to grasp that in the majority of
Chopin's music, while one can definitely find and follow multiple voices --
I already mentioned the care with which he constructs the voice leading in
his accompaniments -- these voices are not moving independently as a general
rule. That makes most of his music a good deal less polyphonic than you
would have us believe.
For someone who is as willing as you are to take other people to task for
not being nice enough, I would respectfully suggest that you make just a
small effort to be just a tiny bit less patronizing towards people who know
a good deal more than you are willing to give them credit for.
P.S. You also might want to consider that your penchant for name-dropping
doesn't come off quite the way you probably think that it does.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
gregpresley
While I tend to agree with your conclusions about the multi-layered quality
of Chopin's music, I do believe that the pleasures of enjoying and loving
that aspect of his music belong to the performer and the people in the
audience who may have themselves studied the repertory items, but probably
not to most of the audience members.. The average listener, I believe,
perceives Chopin's music as melody with harmonic support (not recognizing
in the richness of the harmonic language the many linear simultaneities that
have a polyphonic origin) but instead hearing a "juicy" chord that sounds
really neat with the melody. And I'm really not even sure that we should
demand of performers that they invest a lot of energy into
"over-emphasizing" the polyphonic aspects of Chopin's music. I do think that
every line (soprano, alto, tenor, bass) needs to be shaped with as much
skill as the pianist has at his disposal, but, that being said, still the
primary balance belongs in most instances to the top voice, and the most
attention should be given to it in order to help the listener follow the
"argument' of the music. Sometimes, as in some of the transition sections of
the fourth Ballade, or in the development section of the B minor sonata, the
polyphonic elements are central to the ideas that Chopin is putting forth,
and here, with no clear soprano lead line, the performer ought to give
whatever voice has the important thematic material at the moment the primary
balance. But in the majority of the music, the performer ought to be paying
the most attention to the movement of the melody against the bass line and
the harmonies created by that tension, will, to a certain extent, take care
of themselves. However, I do believe it is the job of the performer, during
his./her preparatory stage, to investigate the construction of the piece, to
become aware of the interplay of voices, etc. Only with such investigation
can the performer understand why the pedal has to clear momentarily to allow
the alto line to resolve a suspension and other nuances of that ilk. But
this is personal work, not to be brought out for the audience to hear. If
they perceive such things on some subliminal level, great, but really, what
could be more successful that a Chopin performance in which the audience
leaves the hall singing, humming or whistling the principal tunes? That says
it all - it says they heard the music shaped in such a way that their minds
recognized in the cold, disembodied, separated tones that the piano produces
as its natural instrumental sound, the essence of something profoundly vocal
in origin - the one instrument that every listener can relate to on a
visceral level.
Tom Shaw
I wonder if you noticed that I revised the title of my post on this thread.
There is no pedal indicated at all in the piece I am referring to until the
17th measure. I thought you had said that Chopin was very precise in his
pedal instructions. I am still confused unless you are now saying that one
should exercise judgement. What, in your opinion, were Chopin's intentions
as to how this piece should be played?
TS
Daniel G. Emilio
IMHO Chopin, more than any other composer, requires looking to
secondary voicing that must constantly stand out and then recede.
It's a give and take, and just when you thought you knew where he was
going, a new voice sings out. Listen closely to great performances of
Chopin and you will hear this constantly. It is true that a casual
listener will not recognize these individual nuances, but he
appreciates the greatness of the performance, even though he doesn't
know why, because of what the performer has to put into it. The
challenge for the performer is to let different voices sing out,
without making a solo of it. It makes Chopin much more difficult to
perform but nobody ever said Chopin was easy. Demands are not made of
the listener, but yes, we do make great demands of the performer, and
if he doesn't wish to expend such energy, then he should become a
brick-layer.
Daniel G. Emilio
"gregpresley" <gpre...@iea.com> wrote in message news:<arfi0j$hn0jj$1...@ID-153412.news.dfncis.de>...
Alan Young
<9958443A5664B74C.F8A6144E...@lp.airnews.net>,
Tom Shaw <a000...@airmail.net> wrote:
> I wonder if you noticed that I revised the title of my post on this thread.
Well, it would be clearer if you deleted the reference to "Db" and
"Raindrop"
Tom Shaw
preserve the flow of IMCA's response in its total context. Besides it is
not clear either that his response was, in fact, with regards to the new
piece I was discussing.
TSnews:201120020934576899%aay...@sonic.net...
IMCA
> Thank you kindly for your response. However....
> I wonder if you noticed that I revised the title of my post on this thread.
> There is no pedal indicated at all in the piece I am referring to until the
> 17th measure. I thought you had said that Chopin was very precise in his
> pedal instructions. I am still confused unless you are now saying that one
> should exercise judgement. What, in your opinion, were Chopin's intentions
> as to how this piece should be played?
I think you may have misread my resopnse, which is cognizant of
Chopin's pedal markings, and in which I already addressed your
questions here. Perhaps you mssed the opening paragraph. Again, here
is what I wrote in response:
"Well, look, it's admirable your desire to take pay attention to the
letter of the score. And as I said, it is possible, certainly, to
play that passage without pedal. But in this case to do so would not
only be to indulge in a kind of academic literalness that would
only
serve to compromise rather than enhance Chopin's intentions, but
would
be rather inartistic, too -- to put it mildly. The pedal is
important
in Chopin, and it was important to him as a pianist. His revocation
of
the previous pedal does not absolutely instruct the player to abandon
it altogether, but beckons him to find a new color commensurate with
the introduction of a new theme in the bass, the eerie pedal point
drone in the right hand, and the sustaining of a particular mood."
No artist worth his salt can be or should be pigeonholed to follow a
score slavishly for its own sake, with academic self-righteoushness.
In studying a scoere, of course you must pay meticulous attention to
the composer's wishes, and adhere to what he specifically writes as
closely as possible. But there are times --many times -- when an
artist must also take into consideration a work in its broadest
aesthetic, historical and compositioanl context, as we unover and
attempt to illuminate new and sometimes obscure relationships within
the work itself, relationships that even the composer might not have
been aware of, at least consciously.
We know, for example,that the mood Chopin paintsst from the 17th
measure is one of quiescence and mystery; we also know that musical
notation in general is a a kind of detailed guide or blueprint, as
much as it is a codification of intent. But a text is not and should
*never* be looked upon as something monolithic and dead, as something
to be reified so as to pay homage to a lack of imagination, or to be
followed slavishly by the letter only. Behind and between the notes
of any muscial art work is a living, breathing organic systole of
musical life governed by innumerable relationships that only the
performer can bring to life, by virtue of his ability to turn those
dots and lines and notes into sound. What's more, you have to
consider, as I said, the historical context, not the least of which is
the instrumentarium of Choipin's day, which was so extraordinarily
rich in overtones. In a passage such as the one you mention, the
sound, even if played without pedal on an 1835 Pleyel, would have been
errie, haunting, mysterioous, and unusually resonant --very much like
what it sounds like when you use frequent quarter or half pedals on
the modern Steinway, which is the best way to convey that sound. I
suggest you find a particularly good instrument from Chopin's day, one
that is in fine mechanical condition, and see for yourself.
A great composer is meticulous about his compositional intentions, and
yes, we must reapect these, and yes, we are obliged to follow the
letter of the score closely. But never, ever make yourself a slave to
simply what is on the printed page: look behind and between the notes,
and at the larger context of the work, its immanent relationships, its
historicity, and the performance practices that inform it, in order to
bring it to life. The compser did not want a legion of robots
performing his music by some reified standard, wherein every
perofrmance is exactly the same. Interpretation is also a dialectical
activity; we invest ourselves, and our expert and informed judgement
(informed by all we know about compositional process, performance
practice, theory, stylisiticand historical considerations,
interpretive data culled from centuries of tradition, etc.) within the
musical work at hand,; we listen to it as much as it listens to us.
Each of us relates to the work in our own idividual way, and that is
not to say that the artistic decision we make are in any way flip or
arbitrary, but on the contrary, informed by the text, which ought to
provide us, as artists, a point of departure for those informed
decisions. For example, a sforzando in Beethoven, depending on the
prevailing dynamic context, might not be forte at all, but simply a
call for a discrete rhytmic or articulatory emphasis. How do we know
ths? well, by taking a look around the text, in *context* We have to
look at ALL instances in that particular work where Beethoven uses a
sforzando, and how; we have to look at how that particular scorzando
functions rhythmically and dynamically. We have to examine the
surrounding passages and motivic systoles to determine the prevailing
mood and dynamic. We have to take a look at where, strucutrually
speaking, the scforzando came from and where it is headed, and how it
modifies or effects the surrouunding material, that is, what impact it
has on its neighbors within the composition. And then we have to
consider its symbolic potential or character, as sforzandos in
Beethoven ( and Shostakovih and Haydn , too) much like trills in
Scriabin, can be viewed as symbolic signifiers that may point to some
extra-musical message. And though that message may be one that can
only be interpreted with a high degree of subjectivity, and must
therefore remain ambiguous, we also must consider that meaning within
the larger aesthetic and artistic context.
Another example: In baroque music, a dot over a note does not --does
*NOT*!!!! --mean stacatto. Not at all!!! But those who remain ignorant
and ill-informed would only presume it does, because they have been
long trained in the context, thanks to bad teaching, of believing
that a dot over a pitch automatically indicates stacatto. But for
those who have taken the time and trouble to study the practices and
conventions of the baroque era, through the innumerable and voluminous
treatises, accounts by contemporaries, books, and the instrumentarium
itself, know that a dot was in fact only an indication of a
cancellation of the previous legato -- the prevailing context in which
music, even keyboard music was to be conveyed. A dot over a group of
sucessive notes, likewise, only indicates a *separation* of one from
the other, not an opportunity to strangle a pitch of its breath and
resonance. And sometimes, depending on context -- in a slow movement
or sarabande, for example -- a dot over a note can actually indicate a
slight *lengthening* of the pitch -- which some composers, including
Bach ( who left nothing to chance where performances of his music
were concerned ) availed themselves of as a way of literally writing
out the inegale.
So, yes, Chopin indicates no pedal at Bar 17. But on the modern
piano, to fail to avail yourself of frequent half-pedals at that point
would not only be ludicrous and artistically invalid, but would sound
awful. So go ahead, by all means, help yourself to the pedal, with
discretion!
John Bell Young
Tom Shaw
and will try to apply your consideration whenever I can.news:448889ba.02112...@posting.google.com...
IMCA
> While I tend to agree with your conclusions about the multi-layered quality
> of Chopin's music, I do believe that the pleasures of enjoying and loving
> that aspect of his music belong to the performer and the people in the
> audience who may have themselves studied the repertory items, but probably
> not to most of the audience members.. The average listener, I believe,
> perceives Chopin's music as melody with harmonic support (not recognizing
> in the richness of the harmonic language the many linear simultaneities that
> have a polyphonic origin)
While the overwhelming majority of non-expert, average listeners do
indeed, as you say, experience music in that way -- an issue that is a
matter for reception theory -- you are technically in error here with
regard to the role of polyphony in Chopin. His music IS polyphonic,
period. It is *not* homophonic. That is just a technical reality of
Chopin's compositoinal process and vocabulary, and that of virtually
every major western composer after 1600. Polyphony won't simply
disappear because the audience is not aware of it; nor is it
something, as you seem to suggest, that makes an occassonal
appearance when it's convenient.
but instead hearing a "juicy" chord that sounds
> really neat with the melody. And I'm really not even sure that we should
> demand of performers that they invest a lot of energy into
> "over-emphasizing" the polyphonic aspects of Chopin's music.
Who said anything about over-emphasizing? The music can speak fo
itself. If anything is over-empohasized, especailly by amateurs, it is
the the right hand melodies in Chopin at the expense of the
extraordinary opulence and complexity of affect embedded in the text
itself. The savvy and professional interpreter knows he is obliged to
convey as much about the composition as he possibly can. There have
been far too many bad performances of Chopin which simply presume the
music to be nothing more than a right hand melody accompanied by
inconsequential background lines in the left. Not only does such an
approach make a travesty of the music, but it is wholly irresponsible,
to speak nothing of amateur.
I do think that
> every line (soprano, alto, tenor, bass) needs to be shaped with as much
> skill as the pianist has at his disposal, but, that being said, still the
> primary balance belongs in most instances to the top voice,
Nonsense. To suggest any such thing is a gross oversimplification
that fails to take into account the extraoridinary richesse of this
music, and ignores entirely its aesthetic and historical context, and
indeed, the specific demands of the compositions themselves. Forgive
me for being so blunt --and I mean no disrespect as I am sure you are
a fine pianist, giving you the benefit of the doubt insofar as I have
not heard you as yet -- but I must put my foot down and say that, as
much as we all love Chopin's right hand melodies, that is precisely
the kind of attitude that marginalizes his music, which is so
enormously complex, to little more than puerile entertainments for
blue haired ladies out in the boondocks. It is an attitude that is
both misiinformed apocryphal and amateur, sorry to say. And I cannot
think of a single colleague in the pantheon of distinguished artists I
have long know personally who would disagree. Chopin's lovely
melodies, at least those which surface in the right hand, are obvious,
and need no help from the player to make themselves known, though
plenty of help from the interpreter to assuem their proper shape,
perspective in relation to the rest of the text (and I use text in its
full semiotic sense to mean something living, organic, alive, moving,
breathing).
? and the most
> attention should be given to it in order to help the listener follow the
> "argument' of the music.
Absolutely, demonstrably wrong. To do so would precisely eviscerate
the music of its argument, that is , of its world of contradictions,
which are so pristinely codified and embedded in the complex
relationships of its myriad parts. Chopin is not a one-voiced pony. On
the contrary, it is exactly the polyphonic dimensions of the work that
give way to the very presence of musical argument, a kind of contest
between the voices, if you will, that was also one of the driving
prinicpals in music of the baroque era, to which principals Chopin
himself aspired, by his own admission.
Sometimes, as in some of the transition sections of
> the fourth Ballade, or in the development section of the B minor sonata, the
> polyphonic elements are central to the ideas that Chopin is putting forth,
> and here, with no clear soprano lead line, the performer ought to give
> whatever voice has the important thematic material at the moment the primary
> balance.
Why? For what reason? To make a judgement so capriciously is to give
legitimacy to the unintelligible. After all, there are melodies, and
there are melodies -- the soprano voice has no monopoly on bel canto,
you know, or melody. And *especially* in such transitional passages ,
as you mention, tehre are sextremely important motivic and rhythmic
considerations that an interpreter is obliged to take into account.
as these are the very gluons, the very semes of the work at hand, and
convey an important psychological message, both within and without the
comopsition. Very much, again, like his baroque predecessors, Chopin's
appropriation and development of motivic fragments, with a view
towards cultivating these affectively over long stretches, are
something the informed interpreter views as singifiers which not
only serve to infuse and shape the work with its own idiosyncratic
identity, but also connect one passage, section or even movement to
another. To come to grips with these realities s absolutely crucial to
any intelligent and substantive realization of Chopin's (and anyone
else's!) music.
>But in the majority of the music, the performer ought to be paying
> the most attention to the movement of the melody against the bass line and
> the harmonies created by that tension, will, to a certain extent, take care
> of themselves.
Nonsense again. They will not take care of themselves, and the last
thing a performer should emphasize is the obvious! That's something an
ajatuer would do, as i t is the easy way out and doesn't require much
if any thought, to speak nothing of ruthelws and scrupulous listnening
and a great technique. If the listener wants to pay attention to the
right hand melodies, taht is up to him, and he is welcome to
experience music however he sees fit. But the interpreter, at least
the professional, ahs a much greater responsiblity to the music.
Tension in Chopin doe s *NOT* emerge solely from the counterpoint
formed by only two voices, the sporano and the bass. That is utterly
ludcrous, and demonstrably specious in techincal categories. Harmony
is not something Chopin or any other graet composer arranges with a
kind of excvlusive verticality and with monolithic intent. On the
contrary, harmony is distends itself over both short and long periods
of time, and interacts with so many otheer compositional elements,
not the least of which are rhythm and motivic systoles. An entire
passage may, for example, orbit around the constuction and destiny of
a ninth chord, for example, the pitch material of which is distributed
throughout innumerable voices and registers. It is up to the
interpreter to illuminate these relationships, and determine which
pitches bear a certain weight and relevance in relation to others, so
as to clarify and convey the inner workings of the composition
itself, and the substantive dimensions of the music. Musical tension
is a consequence of many, many things within the compositional
Diaspora, and requires, for its conveyance, a great deal of patience,
analysis, aforethought and intutive savvy, informed by a commanding
knowledge of the work's history, aesthetic agenda as codified by the
composer, to speak nothing of the work's compositional relationships.
form, and philosophical background. There are many extant papers and
other works that address these issues, but I should point you with
pleasure to Jeff Klaberg's "Chopin at the Boundaries : Sex, History
and Musical Genre" (Harvard University Press), where they are
addressed in detail from yet another informed perspective.
However, I do believe it is the job of the performer, during
> his./her preparatory stage, to investigate the construction of the piece, to
> become aware of the interplay of voices, etc.
That is the obligation of the performer at *every* stage of the work,
at least where great musical compositions are concerned. The process
of learning doesn't ksuddenly stop; it is dialectical, and continues
to burgeon, to develop, to grow. The savvy performer knows that the
harvest is never finished.
>Only with such investigation
> can the performer understand why the pedal has to clear momentarily to allow
> the alto line to resolve a suspension and other nuances of that ilk. But
> this is personal work, not to be brought out for the audience to hear.
If there is no point in illuminating such strategically and
compositionally important issues, then why bother performing at all?
Why even bother doing the work that necessitates it? My advice: pay
attention to the music at hand. Be polite and deferential to your
audience, but don't allow them to make decisoin s for you, or ot
influence in any way the manner in which you responsibly resolve to
interpret a work, and convey its meaning. I would agree, however,
that the work must be invisible once the performer is on stage: a
concert is not a lecture, and the audience does not need to hear
anyone doing his homework in public.
If
> they perceive such things on some subliminal level, great, but really, what
> could be more successful that a Chopin performance in which the audience
> leaves the hall singing, humming or whistling the principal tunes?
Oi! I can't quite believe I'm hearing this! Well, that is certainly
not what I, or most of my colleagues, would consider a successful
performance. The audience does not determine what is or is not a
successful performance, or a composition, either. Were that the case,
Beethoven's 9th would never have seen the light of day, while the Rite
of Spring would have been banned nearly a century ago. Pianists such
as Pollini, Rosen, Oppens, and so many others who play late 20th
century or dodecaphonic music, much to the chagrin of some
close-minded presenters and to the dismay of unsophisticated
listeners, would never have been able to do so at all in the light of
your assessment of what constitutes a succssful performance. Indeed,
even great performances of rarely played and l;argely unfamiliar music
from the 17th, 18th and 19th century, which might puzzle most
listeners, would have to be rejected as being unsucessful due to the
reaction of this or that audience unable to sort out, on first
hearing, the complexities of the music of Zelenka or Biber.
If the audience wants to whistle and sing, by all means, let them.
That is their right, and if that gives them pleasure, why shouldn't
they? But to presume that because they do so is proof positive that
the performance succeeded on artistic levels is ludicrous. In fact,
any such suggestion is an indication of the worst kind of pandering to
a crowd. Not only is it illogical to presume anything of the kind,
it's tacky.
On the contrary, what determines a great performance is how
sucessfully the musical work itself has been re-created and conveyed,
how its innumerable details have been adeptly illuminated from within,
the extent to which the performer has allowed the work to satsify its
own concept, and in so doing, has entered into and communicated the
spirit of the work *in its entirety*. Chopin's melodies are by now
very well known to many concert goers; it should shock no one that
audiences, relating to those tunes from childhood or by virtue of
having heard them on film, in television and radio commercials, would
leave the hall whistling. So what? That they do so is utterly
meaningless to the artistic merit and quality of an interpretation,
even if it satisfies the ego of the performer.
?That says
> it all - it says they heard the music shaped in such a way that their minds
> recognized in the cold, disembodied, separated tones that the piano produces
> as its natural instrumental sound, the essence of something profoundly vocal
> in origin - the one instrument that every listener can relate to on a
> visceral level.
While it is true that every listener relates to and experience music
in his own individual way --something I just wrote at length about on
another thread in which I discussed Nattiez's and Tarasti's recpetion
theory and what we mean by the musically "esthesic" (as opposed to
aesthetic) - to say so is only a kind of truism. It goes without
sayng that the listener constructs for himself the music as it unfolds
in time, and can thus recognize it as *being* music-- sound that is
purposefully organized -- and that the piano, in this case, evokes or
can evoke something of vocal music. But that is not why we devote our
lives, as professionals, to music. It is not for the sake of the
audinece that we dig as deep as we do, and are obliged to, though the
consequences of our work will, hopefully, give them some pleasure, or
better yet, a more substnative experience than merely that. No, it is
not to please an audience, much as we love and need them, that we
become musicians, but to explore, illuminate and serve the demands of
the composition itself, from the inside, and not exogenously.
John Bell Young
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : But of course Chopin's music--virtually all of it -- is richly
> : polyphonic; ask anyone who knows even a modicum about theory and
> : composiional process.
>
> There is a difference between "richly" polyphonic and what you originally
> said -- that his music was "densely" polyphonic. A large fraction (perhaps
> an absolute majority, although I haven't checked) of his music consists
> of a melody line supported by an accompaniment. This is not what we usually
> think of when we think of dense polyphony which consists of large numbers
> of independent lines. How many *independent* voices are there in a typical
> nocturne, or waltz, or even ballade?
Many. But you see, that is just where you are wrong, techncially.
There is really no such thing, in the generic and oversimplified sense
that you describe, as an "accompaniment" in Chopin. You misunderstand
the very concept of what informs Copin's harmony and his compositional
vocabulary. It's a common mistake, though --certainly not just yours
-- one that most amateurs presume to be the case as they have never
had occasison to study themujsic, or theory, in nay depth.
What you deem to be mere background is in fact considerably richer,
and yes, denser. The polyphony is embedded within the line; it is, in
fact, what some theorists have refererred to as a "contrapuntal
melody":. Certain pitches within the line maintain and elaborate
specific harmonic funtions in relation to each other, though they are
distended in time and written out across registers. What's more,
>
> : I'm not inventing this.
>
> "I'm not making this up, you know."
>
> : . . . .What's more,
> : these are issues that are coered in most Theory 101 courses as a
> : customary and usual subject for analysis, and plain enough for any
> : first year theory student to see and grasp. Indeed, my first
> : theoretical exposure to these issues was as a high school freshman in
> : an exceptionally good first year harmony course.
>
> Believe it or not, I have taken courses in music theory. In a theory course
> I took at college, we even examined the A minor prelude. It should also
> be plain enough for any first-year theory to grasp that in the majority of
> Chopin's music, while one can definitely find and follow multiple voices --
> I already mentioned the care with which he constructs the voice leading in
> his accompaniments -- these voices are not moving independently as a general
> rule. That makes most of his music a good deal less polyphonic than you
> would have us believe.
That';s very nifce that yo had a whole year (!) of tj=hoery. well,
that's a start at least. But until you spend another dozen or so
throwing yourself with gusto into theoretical and aesthetic isuses
pertaining to msuic, you might want ot sto an dconsider the informed
opinions of those of us who have done just that, and who are msucial
professionals. You don['t have to agree, of course, but youjight want
to at least reconsider your sources, experieince and the overall depth
of your knowledge in this area in the rather more illuminating light
of those of us who have devoted a lifetime to such issues. ?
> For someone who is as willing as you are to take other people to task for
> not being nice enough, I would respectfully suggest that you make just a
> small effort to be just a tiny bit less patronizing towards people who know
> a good deal more than you are willing to give them credit for.
Well, what you consider patronizing is something that, alas, I fear
you misinterpret, confusing as you do critical speicificity and acumen
with some kind of personal agenda intended to insult people. Well, you
are off the mark, and though I can certainly see how you might
confuse hard criticism with something outside of exegesis, rest
assured that it is not my intention at all to patronize anyone. I
don't have to. All I am trying to do here is to address specifically
musical issues in a highly specific, critical and professional manner.
Everyone here is entitled to his opinion, insofar as every individual
experiences music in his own idiosyncratic way. Sometimes non-experts,
much as they love music, get confused on some very basic principals
which concern its construction. For those who prefer to wallow in
ignorance and perpetuate false information as if it were gospel, well,
there is probably nothing much I or anyone else can do about it. What
I *can* do, however, is offer what I know about music, which is quite
a lot, and set the record straight on issues that are not so
subjective. I agree with you wholeheartedly that many of those who
contribute to this ng know plenty, but those who make demonstrably
false stametents about concrete musical issues, no matter their
background, should have no problem in welcoming a correcton. C# minor
is not F # minor. Black is not white. Forte is not piano. And an
"accompaniment' in Chopin is not homophonic or non-polyphonic. I
certainly wouldn't --and don't -- fail to welcome corrections when I
am in error.
>
> P.S. You also might want to consider that your penchant for name-dropping
> doesn't come off quite the way you probably think that it does.
OK, here's a name I'd like to drop, deep into a Pennsylvania mining
well, if possible: Richard Schultz! By golly, you're right! It
doesn't mean a thing! Gotcha! In all seriousness though, I hadn't
realized that by mentioning such eminent musicians as Scriabin,
Schenker, Schachter, Adorno, Hatten, Taruskin, Roberts, Monsaingeon,
Salzter, Arrau, Harnoncourt, Tarasti, Nattiez and other therorists, as
well as names of relevant interpreters such as Rosen is tantamount is
to name dropping, insofar as these people are hardly celebrities and
not even know to the general public, nor even to the overwhelming
majority of the music going puclic. Where I mention such people I do
so in support of an argument or a position, as their work, much of
which is published and freely available for anyone ambitious enough to
find and study it, is central to a good many of the ideas I set forth.
Though you may care less, there are others here who may find this
information valuable, and may want to know how to pursue it further
and where to look for more. So don't be so damned selfish. You are not
the only person in this ng, nor are you someone I have singled out to
teach or to offer substantive information.It is hardly professional to
react to criticism , and a correction of your demonstrably specious
interpretation of polyphony in Chopin by going on an ad hominenm
attack on the critic. Why don't you do a little homework, and see for
yourself? The fact is that you are simply wrong on this issue, and
though I wish I had the time to spend guiding your though all the
technical reasons that your ideas are moribund, that is not something
I eitehr care or have the time to do, at least on this ng -- since it
is not strictly speaking, devoted to theoretical issues. However, if
you really want to believe and kid yourself that Chopin's music is not
polyphonic, and that accompaniment figures are essentially homophonic
and uneventful, then you should do that. What you don't know won't
hurt you. I asl only that you refrain from spreading such nonsense to
music students who might actually believe it!
Everyone is free to offer what they can here, and to share their
knowledge in the best way they know how; and to partake of whatever
information is offered by others. In any case, as for those musicains
I see fit to mention, which I do for good reason, you need to
understand something: these are people with whom I have worked and
studied with, known personally in many cases for most of my life, and
count as my frends colleagues and clients for decades. These are
hardly household names, and they will be virtually unknown to most
people. God knows, if I wanted to impress anyone with a name, believe
me, it certainly wouldn't be Charles Rosen or Carl Schachter, but
instead any number of the many friends I have who are movie stars.
But I don't do that, because to do so would indeed by name dropping,
and would, in any case, have aboslutely no relevance to the matters
under discussion on this ng.
In any case, I remind and caution you for the thousandth time: please,
try to stick to the script, that is to the discussion at hand. Try to
exercise a little restraint from any temptation to engage in ad
hominem, when no one has ever attacked you. I assure you I have no
interest whatsoever in turning critical commentary into some kind of
personal issue wherein someone imagines they are being disparaged in
any way. I address the issues, not the person. Everyone's opinion has
value, even where it is misinformed, and the facts are incorrect and
have been misconstrued. Just as your view of polyphony is so
clearly misinformed in technical and historical categories -- probably
through no fault of your own, but due to insufficient experience in
music theory and performance, and even more likely due to bad teaching
-- that it is so is no excuse for condemnation. But it does invite
strict correction. My purpose is only to illuminate the facts, if you
care to explore them. In any case, you need not blame yourself for
not having had access to this information earlier. But you might want
to consider what you *can* do to learn something more about it all.
That is entirely up to you.
In any case, I can only hope that the information I offer here as a
professional may be of some use to some people at some time. Evidently
it is, as I have received so many kind notes of thanks privately. What
concerns me on this ng is music, period, nothing more. So if you care
to discuss music I respectfully ask only that you do so in as
profesional a manner as you possibly can without twisting things into
what they absolutely are not. I guarantee you, it is not a personal
matter. What's more, you are welcome to avail yourself to four
centuries of an exceptionally rich critical and analytical
vocabulary that most of us, as professionals, use to engage in music
criticism. In so doing, you can continue to discuss things, but in
depth and with specificity. Even in the absence of such a vocabulary,
there is no need to be overly sensitive, as if someone were out to get
you for what you don't know! On the contrary, you are welcome to share
whatever anyone, be it I or someone else, has to offer, given that my
views are fully supported by experience, training, and my professioanl
colleagues, to speak noting of volumes and volumes of extant
literature going back as far as 1500. To such an effort that
demonstrates seriousness of purpose I can respond. I can even respond
to questions about music, such as you legitimatly ask here. But to
silly personal asides and anything that even remotely smacks of
mean-spirited innunedo, I will not, as that kind of thing, as
everyone knows, is as immensly boorish as it is a useslss waste of
everyone's time. As for demonstrably false statements about
specifically musical issues, technical and otherwise, these I will
correct whenever and wherever I find them, lest some naive person or
burgeoning music student be mizlead by such remarks.
John Bell Young
IMCA
> Thank you kindly for your response. However....
> I wonder if you noticed that I revised the title of my post on this thread.
> There is no pedal indicated at all in the piece I am referring to until the
> 17th measure. I thought you had said that Chopin was very precise in his
> pedal instructions. I am still confused unless you are now saying that one
> should exercise judgement. What, in your opinion, were Chopin's intentions
> as to how this piece should be played?
> TS
Mea culpa. I see now that you are talking about another prelude than
the one you specifically referred to in the title of this thread.
However, that changes nothing of what I wrote earlier about pedal
useage, which is to say, the philosphy behind using them and making
music.
Of COURSE you have to use pedal in the E minor prelude!! You know,
simply because folks live way wack in 1832 and played old Pleyels does
not mean they were inartistic! There are, among the performance
practices of every musical era, a great many unwritten rules. It was
understood among musicians even then that the pedal is a tool,
something that was to be resopnisbly used, and not abused, to enhance
and illuminate musical meaning. Chopin was indeed carful about his
notation, and where he indicates pedal, he does so to make absolutely
certain that the performer understands what he wants at specific
points int he ocjposition. But where he indicates none for long
stretches does *not* mean , nor should it be taken so literally to
mean, that he wants no pedal at all.
As for how to use it, I again advise light pedals -- half pedals which
are changed with each change of harmony. There are subtleties; I would
not use the pedal on the opening upbeat, but only depress it with the
entry of the downbeat in bar 1. (this is an old trick of the trade
that we use to convey more precisely the quality of the human voice,
particularly where a broken octave in such melodic line is concerned
-- Unless you are a Tibetan monk, it's impossible to sing two pitches
at the same time. So the ascent from the alto B to the soprano B in
the opening upbeat is more effectvely conveyed without pedal --but in
doing so, even without pedal, do NOT forasake legato!) Then, at the
fourth beat in Bar 1, release it, but just a micro second after the
onset of the beat. Syncopated pedaling works in this piece. The
important thing is to keep the chords in the LH moving forward... It
must not sound busy, or vertical.
As for Bar 17, what the pedaling suggests here above all is the
*cancellation* of any pedal useage in the final beat of the previous
bar, at the conclusion of the diminuendo. This contrast will also
enhance the stretto that Chopin indicates.
John Bell Young
As for
IMCA
John Bell Young
daniel...@earthlink.net (Daniel G. Emilio) wrote in message news:<fdd71043.02112...@posting.google.com>...
IMCA
> IMHO Chopin, more than any other composer, requires looking to
> secondary voicing that must constantly stand out and then recede.
> It's a give and take, and just when you thought you knew where he was
> going, a new voice sings out. Listen closely to great performances of
> Chopin and you will hear this constantly. It is true that a casual
> listener will not recognize these individual nuances, but he
> appreciates the greatness of the performance, even though he doesn't
> know why, because of what the performer has to put into it. The
> challenge for the performer is to let different voices sing out,
> without making a solo of it. It makes Chopin much more difficult to
> perform but nobody ever said Chopin was easy. Demands are not made of
> the listener, but yes, we do make great demands of the performer, and
> if he doesn't wish to expend such energy, then he should become a
> brick-layer.
>
> Daniel G. Emilio
>
an "impressionist" composer and that Scriabin was merely a "mystic".
Such is the grotesque power of misinformation taken seriously by
anyone who doesn't dig deeper.
John Bell Young
IMCA
> <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<arf836$313$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
> > In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > : But of course Chopin's music--virtually all of it -- is richly
> > : polyphonic; ask anyone who knows even a modicum about theory and
> > : composiional process.
> >
> > There is a difference between "richly" polyphonic and what you originally
> > said -- that his music was "densely" polyphonic. A large fraction (perhaps
> > an absolute majority, although I haven't checked) of his music consists
> > of a melody line supported by an accompaniment. This is not what we usually
> > think of when we think of dense polyphony which consists of large numbers
> > of independent lines. How many *independent* voices are there in a typical
> > nocturne, or waltz, or even ballade?
>
> Many. But you see, that is just where you are wrong, techncially.
> There is really no such thing, in the generic and oversimplified sense
> that you describe, as an "accompaniment" in Chopin. You misunderstand
> vocabulary. It's a common mistake, though --certainly not just yours
> -- one that most amateurs presume to be the case as they have never
>
> What you deem to be mere background is in fact considerably richer,
> and yes, denser. The polyphony is embedded within the line; it is, in
> fact, what some theorists have refererred to as a "contrapuntal
> melody":. Certain pitches within the line maintain and elaborate
> specific harmonic funtions in relation to each other, though they are
> distended in time and written out across registers. What's more,
> >
>
To finish this thought: What's more, the cumulative organization of
this pitch material gives way to independent lines within the
counterpoint as they give emphasis or extend motivic fragments,
implying more than one line within a single one. This pitches
collectively often echo, within a larger rhythmic context, a
specific harmonic contstruct germane to the harmonic strategy of the
work itself, and which and form a clearly recognizeable line, an
unerlying skeleton, if you will, that transcends the kind of drab,
uneventful and unintelligible linearity that your so-called
"accompaniment" would allow you to simply settle for.
You might consider studying a little Schenkner to at the very least
get yourself acclimatized to the idea of listening to musical
structures, wherein you can avail yourself of tecniques of cultivating
your listening habits to become far more precise, intonationally
acute and sophisticated than they are now. What something says and
what it means are not identical. Of course, if you prefer to continue
to presume that Chopin's music is so wholly uneventful, and that there
are really "accompaniment" figures whose meaning is negligible and
inconsequential beyond some wholly superficial role as being secondary
in importance to melodies in the right hand, then that is a fantasy
that you are certainly welcome to cultivate. After all, you have
nothing to lose by doing so, unless you attempt to pander such
nonsense to the musical intelligentsia, where such a position would
only be met with benign amusement (but not too mcuh, I believe, in
teh way of critical derision, as the position you state with such
cahrming naivite is so ludicrous that no one would take it seriously)
and which would only serve to embarass you.
But in the final analysis, you have a point. After all, if Chopin
for you is about nothing more than melody and accompaniment, and that
attitude towards the music is what gives you the greatest pleasure in
listening to it, in spite of eviscerating the experience of its
greater potential; and even if playing his works for yourself -- so
long as you are not selling recordings to the public that feature such
threadbare music making, which would be the inevitable consequence of
such an attitude -- than so be it. Why shouldn't you enjoy yourself
and the music in whatever way you see fit? Far be it from me to stand
in your way, or anyone else who would dare to. Maybe the lovely right
hand melodies are enough in their own right to satisfy your musical
proclivities and aspirations. However, they are certainly nowhere near
enough to satisfy mine, or those of my savvier colleagues and other
serious, well-informed, and experienced professional musicians.
John Bell Young
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: What you deem to be mere background is in fact considerably richer,
: and yes, denser. The polyphony is embedded within the line; it is, in
: fact, what some theorists have refererred to as a "contrapuntal
: melody":. Certain pitches within the line maintain and elaborate
: specific harmonic funtions in relation to each other, though they are
: distended in time and written out across registers.
Tell me something: if I was not aware of the existence of multiple voices,
why would I have, on several different occasions, referred to the care
that Chopin took with his voice leading?
And, just out of curiosity -- do you think that Bellini had absolutely no
influence on Chopin?
: That';s very nifce that yo had a whole year (!) of tj=hoery. well,
: that's a start at least.
I challenge you to go through my posts and find any where where I said
that I only studied theory for one year. Hint: the use of the plural
word "courses" implies more than one.
: But until you spend another dozen or so
: throwing yourself with gusto into theoretical and aesthetic isuses
: pertaining to msuic, you might want ot sto an dconsider the informed
: opinions of those of us who have done just that, and who are msucial
: professionals. You don['t have to agree, of course, but youjight want
: to at least reconsider your sources, experieince and the overall depth
: of your knowledge in this area in the rather more illuminating light
: of those of us who have devoted a lifetime to such issues. ?
And what makes you think that I haven't devoted a lifetime to such issues?
Or that someone can devote a lifetime to an issue and still not know what
he is talking about? (I'm not saying that you don't know what you are talking
about -- only asking whether you think that it is possible.)
:> For someone who is as willing as you are to take other people to task for
:> not being nice enough, I would respectfully suggest that you make just a
:> small effort to be just a tiny bit less patronizing towards people who know
:> a good deal more than you are willing to give them credit for.
:
: . . . rest
: assured that it is not my intention at all to patronize anyone.
Your inability to see that your statement
: That';s very nifce that yo had a whole year (!) of tj=hoery. well,
: that's a start at least.
is going to be taken as patronizing by just about any normal human
being doesn't surprise me in the least. Of course, I can understand
why you take this attitude. Here you are, the greatest musician in the
world -- and no one has ever heard of you. I can see why you would feel
the need to patronize people like me who freely admit to not being the
greatest musician in the world.
:> P.S. You also might want to consider that your penchant for name-dropping
:> doesn't come off quite the way you probably think that it does.
:
: OK, here's a name I'd like to drop, deep into a Pennsylvania mining
: well, if possible: Richard Schultz! By golly, you're right! It
: doesn't mean a thing! Gotcha! In all seriousness though, I hadn't
: realized that by mentioning such eminent musicians as Scriabin,
: Schenker, Schachter, Adorno, Hatten, Taruskin, Roberts, Monsaingeon,
: Salzter, Arrau, Harnoncourt, Tarasti, Nattiez and other therorists, as
: well as names of relevant interpreters such as Rosen is tantamount is
: to name dropping. . .
Do you know what the term "name dropping" means? I merely ask for information.
: It is hardly professional to
: react to criticism , and a correction of your demonstrably specious
: interpretation of polyphony in Chopin by going on an ad hominenm
: attack on the critic.
Of course, my "demonstrably specious" interpretation is in fact a straw man
that you made up and which has remarkably little to do with what I actually
said, which was merely to question the accuracy of your use of the word
"dense" to describe Chopin's polyphony. That is not the same thing as denying
that the polyphony is there -- only to say that in general, it does not
operate in the same way musically as the polyphony of, say, Bach.
: . . .However, if
: you really want to believe and kid yourself that Chopin's music is not
: polyphonic, and that accompaniment figures are essentially homophonic
: and uneventful, then you should do that.
Since I don't believe that, and if you had actually taken the trouble to
read what I wrote, you would know that I don't believe that, I am not
sure why you think that I would want to believe it.
: In any case, I remind and caution you for the thousandth time: please,
: try to stick to the script, that is to the discussion at hand.
I have, but you keep turning the discussion into something else.
: Try to
: exercise a little restraint from any temptation to engage in ad
: hominem, when no one has ever attacked you.
Excuse me, but you have engaged in ad hominem attacks against me -- several
of which I have deleted because I have no interest in them.
: I assure you I have no
: interest whatsoever in turning critical commentary into some kind of
: personal issue wherein someone imagines they are being disparaged in
: any way.
Except that you spend most of your time disparaging me.
: I address the issues, not the person.
Considering the relative amount of time you spent in explaining how little
I know about music versus the amount of time you failed to spend giving any
kind of coherent explanation of Chopin's polyphony and how it should be
realized in performance, the most positive interpretation of that statement
that I can make is that you are seriously delusional.
: My purpose is only to illuminate the facts, if you care to explore them.
Well, go ahead and illuminate them. Instead of vague gaseous comments
about Chopin and his polyphony, give us specific examples. For example,
how would you suggest to a performer that he approach the polyphonic
elements of the opening section of the C minor nocturne (Op. 48, No. 1)?
And to illustrate what I mean by my objection to your calling Chopin's
polyphony "dense": one piece that I dearly love but whose intricacies I
have not (and may never) fully worked out is the B minor prelude and fugue
from Book I of the WTC. Now, here are two examples of problems that Bach
presents for the performer:
1. In the prelude, there is a recurring motive of a rising fourth. This
is fairly ubiquitous, recurs in many passages, and yet is always in an inner
voice. How does one make the listener aware of this motive without over-
emphasizing it? In one passage near the end, one can get away with what
was (AFAIK) standard Baroque practice and play a notated quarter note as
an eighth note, but in most of the other places where the rising fourth
appears, it really is buried.
2. In the fugue, there is a recurring descending scale passage, that once
again is frequently only heard in inner voices, and moreover, could be
interpreted as the "real" (in a pseudo-Schenkerian sense) theme, of which
the nominal fugue subject is an elaboration. How does one make the *listener*
aware of such subtleties while keeping them subtle?
Now I will ask you -- can you give specific examples from Chopin where he
presents problems in polyphony (gotta love the alliteration) to the performer
that are of a similar nature?
Daniel G. Emilio
> In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : But of course Chopin's music--virtually all of it -- is richly
> : polyphonic; ask anyone who knows even a modicum about theory and
> : composiional process.
>
> There is a difference between "richly" polyphonic and what you originally
> said -- that his music was "densely" polyphonic. A large fraction (perhaps
> an absolute majority, although I haven't checked) of his music consists
> of a melody line supported by an accompaniment. This is not what we usually
> think of when we think of dense polyphony which consists of large numbers
> of independent lines. How many *independent* voices are there in a typical
> nocturne, or waltz, or even ballade?
I cannot believe what I'm reading. You cannot compare Chopin's
polyphony with Bach or virtually anyone else. Chopin creates
polyphony out of a single line - that's his genius, and if you are
simply playing through these passages you are doing yourself a great
disservice. For the most part, you can see polyphonic passages by
looking at the accents and double stems. Play these parts apart from
the regular line and you will see another melody emerge - within the
original line. That's what is so great about Chopin - to find these
melodies and bring them out.
For example, take the Ballade 1, at the 18th and 19th measures after
the Meno Mosso, in the right hand comes an accented Db then an
accented Cb and then in the next measure the left hand takes the
accented Bb - a simple 3-note melody moving in the opposite direction
of the line of the rest of the passage, and one of my favorite spots
in the piece. Then in the same piece about 3 pages after the Meno
Mosso comes a piu animato and then at the 16th measure in the right
hand comes a double stemmed Eb, D, C and Bb. This is really a
wonderful passage because first it is a short 4 note melody, but what
makes it especially nice is that the notes don't come ON the beat and
it gives the feel of a ritard when it really isn't. Then 9 bars later
look at the next 4 measures and notice the double stemmed notes in the
right hand, which must be brought out - but that additional melody is
also countered by yet another line in the left hand at the accented
octaves. So here you have what appears as only 2 lines, but is
actually 4 different themes played simultaneously.
These are just a couple of examples, but this goes on all the time
with Chopin. You don't see this with other composers - they simply
could not write music for the piano like Chopin.
What I suggest is that you go back through other Chopin works and look
for these secondary melodies and work to bring them out without losing
the flavor of the original line. It's a challenge but quite
gratifying.
Good Luck,
Daniel G. Emilio
gregpresley
news:<arfi0j$hn0jj$1...@ID-153412.news.dfncis.de>...
quality
> > perceives Chopin's music as melody with harmonic support (not
recognizing
> > in the richness of the harmonic language the many linear simultaneities
that
> > have a polyphonic origin)
>
> While the overwhelming majority of non-expert, average listeners do
> indeed, as you say, experience music in that way -- an issue that is a
> matter for reception theory -- you are technically in error here with
> regard to the role of polyphony in Chopin. His music IS polyphonic,
> period. It is *not* homophonic.
John, it appears that you have a reading comprehension problem here. I JUST
SAID that Chopin's music is polyphonic in that the linear simultaneities
create the harmonic texture from a polyphonic origin - and that AFTER I
agreed with you about Chopin's music is multi-layered.....How could I have
said it more clearly? Incidentally, I have probably studied as much Schenker
as you have, so I really don't need a lecture on how harmonies are derived
from polyphonic lines. I also have "special honors in music" appended to my
undergraduate diploma from Yale University because as part of my final
comprehensive exam, I wrote a 5 voice fugue in 24 hours based upon the F
minor fugue subject from WTC II, in which I used every fugal device,
including countersubject, invertible counterpoint, stretto, augmentation of
the subject, etc etc., without breaking any of the rules.
> disappear because the audience is not aware of it; nor is it
> something, as you seem to suggest, that makes an occassonal
> appearance when it's convenient.
I never suggested this. Again, you need to read more carefully.I suggested
that "obvious" polyphonic textures (for example, canonic or imitative
materials) only rarely make an appearance in Chopin's music, (as they do
very clearly in the transition passages I mentioned in the 4th Ballade and
in the B minor sonata 1st movement development sections) but obviously
independent musical rhythims and lines are operating at all times in his
music - otherwise Chopin couldn't be generating linear simultaneities, when
the do occure, could he?
> itself. The savvy and professional interpreter knows he is obliged to
> convey as much about the composition as he possibly can. There have
> been far too many bad performances of Chopin which simply presume the
> music to be nothing more than a right hand melody accompanied by
> inconsequential background lines in the left. Not only does such an
> approach make a travesty of the music, but it is wholly irresponsible,
> to speak nothing of amateur.
John, one again you have entirely misread my post. Did I not say that every
musical line (soprano, alto, tenor, and bass) has to be sensitively shaped?
How does that equate to a right-hand melody accompanied by inconsequential
backround lines in the left? That is your own interpretation of what I said.
A person who shapes every musical line is HONORING polyphony - if you don't
know that, you need to return to music 101. I can and do sing every single
line of every voice in every piece of music I play before I ever set it in
front of an audience. Nonetheless, ALL music, even polyphony, demands
balance. The audience must be able to follow a through-line from the
beginning to the end of a composition, or it will lose interest. This does
not mean that that line will always be in the soprano. It DOES necessarily
mean that at every moment of the piece there will be a dominant voice. This
is true in Baroque counterpoint as well. What is a fugue performance in
which the entrance of the successive voices is obscured by a far-too-noisy
countersubject? It is a musically unsuccessful performance. Empirically,
the number of measures in Chopin in which the right hand melody (or in many
cases, the top note of two parts in the right hand) is dominant over the
other active lines, is probably in a ratio of 10:1 to those in which a
melody emerges from the bass, tenor, or alto as dominant. What I am NOT
saying, but what you apparently believe I am saying, is that independent
melodies don't exist in those other lines when the right hand melody is
dominant. They DO exist, they do contribute to the musical meaning and
message. Nonetheless, they are intended to be less-prominent than the
melody - and here I'm simply talking about dynamics, not the contribution
that the other lines are making to the richness of the composition itself.
>
>
> I do think that
> > every line (soprano, alto, tenor, bass) needs to be shaped with as much
> > skill as the pianist has at his disposal, but, that being said, still
the
> > primary balance belongs in most instances to the top voice,
to say. And I cannot
> think of a single colleague in the pantheon of distinguished artists I
> have long know personally who would disagree. Chopin's lovely
> melodies, at least those which surface in the right hand, are obvious,
> and need no help from the player to make themselves known, though
> plenty of help from the interpreter to assuem their proper shape,
> perspective in relation to the rest of the text (and I use text in its
> full semiotic sense to mean something living, organic, alive, moving,
> breathing).
John, we agree on this point. However, I think the lack of beautiful shaping
of Chopin's melodies ( no matter in which voice they occur) is THE most
common disappointment to audiences - whether made up of professionals or
people off the street. The harshness of a carelessly resolved appoggiatura,
a nasty "bump" in the middle of a long melodic line - these things linger
far longer in the consciousness than the idea that in measure 5 so and so
neglected to adequately bring out the Ab in the left hand tenor voice which
lent a nice counterbalance to the G in the right hand.
>
>
> Absolutely, demonstrably wrong. To do so would precisely eviscerate
> the music of its argument, that is , of its world of contradictions,
> which are so pristinely codified and embedded in the complex
> relationships of its myriad parts.
Again, I was speaking merely of which voice should receive the most
prominence dynamically. Perhaps, you disagree with my thesis that all parts
ought not to have equal dynamic prominence at all times. However, I too have
known my share of well-known pianists, and have studied with many of the
same, and I have absorbed this notion from that training.
the driving
> prinicpals in music of the baroque era, to which principals Chopin
> himself aspired, by his own admission.
However, Chopin's polyphony is not directly analagous to Baroque
contrapuntal polyphony, because the basis for the majority of his polyphony
is not imitation!
I guess I don't understand why you think that what I said above directly
contradicts the reply you made to it. In passages where imitation IS the
primary indicator of polyphonic texture, it has been standard practice since
the baroque era to make a musical decision about what material constitutes
the "subject": and then bring that subject into prominence in whatever
voice it appears, whenever it appears. If you have a different way of
performing imitative counterpoint, please explain how and why to us.
I will anwer the rest of your reply in another post.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<arf836$313$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
:> In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
:>
:> : But of course Chopin's music--virtually all of it -- is richly
:> : polyphonic; ask anyone who knows even a modicum about theory and
:> : composiional process.
:>
:> There is a difference between "richly" polyphonic and what you originally
:> said -- that his music was "densely" polyphonic. A large fraction (perhaps
:> an absolute majority, although I haven't checked) of his music consists
:> of a melody line supported by an accompaniment. This is not what we usually
:> think of when we think of dense polyphony which consists of large numbers
:> of independent lines. How many *independent* voices are there in a typical
:> nocturne, or waltz, or even ballade?
:
: I cannot believe what I'm reading. You cannot compare Chopin's
: polyphony with Bach or virtually anyone else. Chopin creates
: polyphony out of a single line - that's his genius, and if you are
: simply playing through these passages you are doing yourself a great
: disservice. For the most part, you can see polyphonic passages by
: looking at the accents and double stems. Play these parts apart from
: the regular line and you will see another melody emerge - within the
: original line. That's what is so great about Chopin - to find these
: melodies and bring them out.
context of my remarks and try to glean the meaning of them? Or, to put
it another way, am I actually the only person in the universe who believes
that using the term "voice leading" implies that one is talking about a
polyphonic (i.e. multiple voice) texture? You may not believe this, but
everything you said in fact agrees with what I was saying -- that "dense"
is not an accurate description of Chopin's polyphony. Compare a Bach
Fugue with a Chopin Nocturne. In one, there are several voices with equal
or nearly equal prominence. In the other, there is one voice that is
clearly intended to be more prominent than the others. Can you tell which
is which? And let's not even start talking about the Chopin rubato.
: These are just a couple of examples, but this goes on all the time
: with Chopin. You don't see this with other composers - they simply
: could not write music for the piano like Chopin.
You'll get no argument from me that Chopin was an expert in writing
specifically pianistic music.
: What I suggest is that you go back through other Chopin works and look
: for these secondary melodies and work to bring them out without losing
: the flavor of the original line. It's a challenge but quite
: gratifying.
And what in I wrote suggests to you that I am incapable of finding those
melodies that are by your own admission "secondary"?
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: I never suggested this. Again, you need to read more carefully.I suggested
: that "obvious" polyphonic textures (for example, canonic or imitative
: materials) only rarely make an appearance in Chopin's music, (as they do
: very clearly in the transition passages I mentioned in the 4th Ballade and
: in the B minor sonata 1st movement development sections) but obviously
: independent musical rhythims and lines are operating at all times in his
: music - otherwise Chopin couldn't be generating linear simultaneities, when
: the do occure, could he?
That's why I objected to Mr. Young's use of the word "dense" to describe
the polyphonic texture of Chopin's music. To me, a "dense" polyphonic
texture is one in which there are multiple melodic lines of equal prominence
occurring simultaneously -- Bach and Mahler wrote what I would call "dense"
polyphony. But not Chopin.
: A person who shapes every musical line is HONORING polyphony - if you don't
: know that, you need to return to music 101.
I pointed that out too -- and was ignored. Twice. I think that you and I
made the same fundamental mistake -- namely, implying that we think that Mr.
Young may not be God's Gift to Music and Musicology.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"That's *genius*!"
"Really? I thought it was Rachmaninov."
IMCA
Now here is someone who knows what precisely he's talking about. Just so!
John Bell Young
gregpresley
itself over both short and long periods
> of time, and interacts with so many otheer compositional elements,
> not the least of which are rhythm and motivic systoles. An entire
> passage may, for example, orbit around the constuction and destiny of
> a ninth chord, for example, the pitch material of which is distributed
> throughout innumerable voices and registers. It is up to the
> interpreter to illuminate these relationships, and determine which
> pitches bear a certain weight and relevance in relation to others, so
> as to clarify and convey the inner workings of the composition
> itself, and the substantive dimensions of the music. Musical tension
> is a consequence of many, many things within the compositional
> Diaspora, and requires, for its conveyance, a great deal of patience,
> analysis, aforethought and intutive savvy, informed by a commanding
> knowledge of the work's history, aesthetic agenda as codified by the
> composer, to speak nothing of the work's compositional relationships.
> form, and philosophical background.
John, awareness of the elements you listed above, contribute to the
performer's interest in the piece, and give him/her some rays of insight
into the composer's state of mind at the time of composition, etc. Such
information COULD contribute to a richer performance. However, a successful
performance can be made without them. A good performer understands musical
construction and knows how to listen to himself and shape lines. Before he
undertakes performances of music from the past he will also have learned a
great deal about period style - will have learned why rubato was important
to the music of the nineteenth century, how much pedal is appropriate, how
piano music was influenced by the operas of the day, etc. Then he has to ask
himself many questions, mostly beginning with WHY? Why has the composer
inserted 20 measures of pedal-point here or there, why does the theme return
in octaves here, why is there a rest in the second beat of the theme on the
return but not in the exposition of the material, and so forth. But having
answered those questions with some sort of artistic logic, the performer is
ready to begin. As Chopin himself said in certain letters, the person who
does not really understand the language of music can play all the notes in
the correct rhythm, but it will be like someone reading a language he has
never spoken out loud from a book. I'm assuming that what he meant by the
language of music, was the awareness of musical construction, the
sensitivity to phrasing and the vocal origin of musical lines, which allows
someone to breathe and teaches him to follow the "natural law" of rubato,
and enough mastery of the instrument to make the dynamic and rhythmic
distinctions that will allow for nuance which is capable of communication..
Implied in Chopin's statement is the idea that if one has taken the time to
learn the language of music, he is ready to perform successfully - whether
or not he knows the philosophical background of the piece or the aesthetic
agenda of the composer.
>
> However, I do believe it is the job of the performer, during
> > his./her preparatory stage, to investigate the construction of the
piece, to
> > become aware of the interplay of voices, etc.
>
> That is the obligation of the performer at *every* stage of the work,
> at least where great musical compositions are concerned. The process
> of learning doesn't ksuddenly stop; it is dialectical, and continues
> to burgeon, to develop, to grow. The savvy performer knows that the
> harvest is never finished.
>
I didn't say that the preparation phase stops, John. However, at the moment
of ANY performance, the preparation phase has stopped for that moment in
time. Decisions have to be made and they have to be followed through. A good
performance would not result from the thought mid-way through a piece of
"gosh, I need to rethink the coda " . After the performance, yes......
> >Only with such investigation
> > can the performer understand why the pedal has to clear momentarily to
allow
> > the alto line to resolve a suspension and other nuances of that ilk. But
> > this is personal work, not to be brought out for the audience to hear.
>
> If there is no point in illuminating such strategically and
> compositionally important issues, then why bother performing at all?
Somehow I get the impression that we see the world through different lenses,
John. If I walk into a beautifully and tastefully decorated home, filled
with lovely objets d'art, I really don't want the owner to follow me around
and show me where the electric plug is or the track lite is concealed which
enables him to highlight his Van Gogh so beautifully. I'd rather trust that
the reason that I received such a great impression of his home was that he
had taken care of all of those details with loving attention - precisely so
that I don't have to.......I think we both agree that the details are
important - crucial even - but I don't need or want (as an audience member)
a fussy performance that constantly interrupts the flow of the music to say,
"hey, I'm going to shove this in you face, because I spent a lot of time
working out this nuance and I don't want you to miss it". I don't think
that's necessarily what you are advocating either, but by the vehemence with
which you defend the necessity to show (or illuminate) the details, it gives
me that impression.
> Why even bother doing the work that necessitates it? My advice: pay
> attention to the music at hand. Be polite and deferential to your
> audience, but don't allow them to make decisoin s for you, or ot
> influence in any way the manner in which you responsibly resolve to
> interpret a work, and convey its meaning. I would agree, however,
> that the work must be invisible once the performer is on stage: a
> concert is not a lecture, and the audience does not need to hear
> anyone doing his homework in public.
I believe that was my point....
>
>
> If
> > they perceive such things on some subliminal level, great, but really,
what
> > could be more successful that a Chopin performance in which the audience
> > leaves the hall singing, humming or whistling the principal tunes?
>
> Oi! I can't quite believe I'm hearing this! Well, that is certainly
> not what I, or most of my colleagues, would consider a successful
> performance. The audience does not determine what is or is not a
> successful performance,
Well, certainly, you can't be claiming that the performer determines what
was a succesful performance.. That would require a good deal more
objectivity than anyone I know is capable of. Nonetheless, I agree that this
was not a very good statement and it left me open to some appropriate
skewering. However, we, as performers ARE entertainers. It is not a very
dignified term considering how much of our blood, sweat, tears and personal
investment go into what we do, but nonetheless, it is part of the reality of
how the world perceives us. And the judgments that we make amongst ourselves
about who has the most worth as such is necessarily highly subjective. There
ARE other factors than preparation, intelligence, knowledge and so forth.
There are also intangibles such as charisma, ability to communicate passion
or other authentic emotions, etc. And in some cases, the audience IS a
better judge of those intangibles than the professionals.
> can evoke something of vocal music. But that is not why we devote our
> lives, as professionals, to music.
Well, I cannot quite agree with your statement below, unless you amend it to
"our lives as performers of the music of the past" . Some of us have devoted
our lives to music simply because we love music - in my case, as a
performer, composer, accompanist, teacher, and improvisor. Yes, we seek to
honor the intentions of the composer when we perform his music, but I at
least did not become a musician because I considered that my HIGHEST duty
within the art form. For myself, I would go about redefining my purpose in
becoming a professional musician as the desire to participate in the
creation or the re-creation of the particular incredible beauty and grace
that organized sound brings to the human race and to use that sound as an
alternative means of communication.
Tak-Shing Chan
> <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<arf836$313$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
The most accessible (overplayed?) examples of Chopin's
secondary melodies are probably these:
(1) Op. 66, bb. 13-
(2) Op. 42, bb. 9-
(3) Op. 64/2, piu mosso (ed. Klindworth-Scharwenka only;
none of Mikuli (Dover)/Cortot/Paderewski had the inner melody)
Tak-Shing
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.02112...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> Tell me something: if I was not aware of the existence of multiple voices,
> why would I have, on several different occasions, referred to the care
> that Chopin took with his voice leading?
Voice leading is a function of counterpoint. And though cumulatively
it may be construed as the cultivation of motivic material, it is not,
in anx of itself,identical either in substance or in fucntion to an
independent voice. Your comments were plain enough -- not merely
suggestive, but sownright demostrative that the waltzes, ballades and
nocturnes are devoid of anything more than a single voice with
"accompaniment' or as you even referred in one post , to "um-pahs"
Why attemt to reinvent what you so plainly stated earlier, iunless of
course, seeing the fallacy of you arguement, you are now backing away
from it. Of coure, I see now that I am not the only person here to
address your remarks.
>
> And, just out of curiosity -- do you think that Bellini had absolutely no
> influence on Chopin?
Of course he did. What does that have to do with anything? I suppose
you 're now going to tell us that Bellin's music is monophonic as
well. And that bel canto is an invention of the 19th century. Think
again. Again, I encourge you to look into the concept of contrapuntal
melody, and what that means.
>
> : That';s very nifce that yo had a whole year (!) of tj=hoery. well,
> : that's a start at least.
>
> I challenge you to go through my posts and find any where where I said
> that I only studied theory for one year. Hint: the use of the plural
> word "courses" implies more than one.
W
Whatever. I sincerely hope you learend something. From your remarks on
Chopin and polyphony, it would seem that someone didn't provide you
the facts. I've studied music for 45 years, inluding all manner of
theory, aesthetics, , orchestration, and composition -- and a few
other related disciplines. That's because I knew at age five that I
would become a professional So that gives me a bit of an edge in
the household of authority. Now, since it takes 400 degrees to cook a
pizza, do you mean to imply that you are an authorityhin music or a
professional? Do tell.
>
> : B
>
> And what makes you think that I haven't devoted a lifetime to such issues?
The devotion of a non-profesisonal is not on the order of those of us
who have devoted virtually every moment of our waking lives to music
and its related discipline in a thoroughly professional manner. I
certainly respect your decision to have pursued your studies, but that
doesn't concern me. What concerns me is what you actually wrote here,
that is your remarks on polyphony which were were simply wrong, dead
wrong, Period. I can cut and paste them here, and take them apart bit
by bit with ruthless technical precision. But to what end? they speak
for themselves.
> Or that someone can devote a lifetime to an issue and still not know what
> he is talking about? (I'm not saying that you don't know what you are talking
> about -- only asking whether you think that it is possible.)
Of course, it is possible, But if you know so much, then why on earth
would you allo woyrself to say something so demonstrably specious
about polyphony in Chopin? Why would you confuse voice leading as
being something identical to counterpoint when it is but a function of
counterpoint? Why would you deny the existence of linear multiplicity
in the music of Chopin, and attempt to legitimie something as
apocryphal as "accompaniment", as if it were meaningless and
uneventful? Should I cut and paste your own words here?
>
> :> For someone who is as willing as you are to take other people to task for
> :> not being nice enough, I would respectfully suggest that you make just a
> :> small effort to be just a tiny bit less patronizing towards people who know
> :> a good deal more than you are willing to give them credit for.
> :
> : . . . rest
> : assured that it is not my intention at all to patronize anyone.
>
> Your inability to see that your statement
It's one thing to try to bust my chops, guy, on this forum, which is
populated by real pianists, amateru and aprofessional, as opposed to
record collectors with an sas to grign and aonther cult hero to
worship. It is quite another to waste my time when all I essentially
contribute is sound, informed musical criticism. Try to grasp this:
my condcern is with the issues, not with your or anyone else's
personality. Believe what you will: that is oyur business, but please,
don't attempt to make it mine.
>
>
> is going to be taken as patronizing by just about any normal human
> being doesn't surprise me in the least. Of course, I can understand
> why you take this attitude. Here you are, the greatest musician in the
> world -- and no one has ever heard of you.
Oh really? I am the greatest musician in the world? Hmm, I don't
recall ever having made such a ludicrous claim. Nor would I. My
interest is in music, period.
Now, first, let me apologize in advance to everyone who is about to
read the following, if read you must. In fact, I'd feel a lot more
comfortable if you would just skip the next three paragraphs, and as
a favor to me, simply consider it as a kind of private communication
to Dr. Schultz , but one made in public. I would in fact do it in
private, but he doesn't like to be contacted that way. So please
indulge me, with my apologies -- I'd rather not take time explaining
the whole dynamic here, as that would be unfair to the gorup and to
Dr. Schultz -- while I respond to his customary and usual
nastiness. I beg you to just ignore it all. After all, it really is
not at all important in the larger scheme of things, or even in the
smaller scheme of things,
So, Doc, as for no one ever having heard of me, well, that is equally
ludicrous, and you know it, of course. You can say so, and whatever
you like, but let's not ignore the facts, such as stats on the sales
of my recordings on 3 major labels; the 300 or so feature articles
and reviews of my work in more than 10 major publications in more
than a dozen languages in more than 25 countries over 35 years
including Time Magazine, the New York Times, Piano Quarterly, the San
Francisco Chronicle, the US News and World Report, the Chicago
Tribune, the Wall Street Journal, Pravda, Het Parool, Der Tijd, the
Daily News, the St Petersburg Times, the Beijing Daily, Le Monde de la
Musique, Lingua Franca, Chaspik, the Hamburger Abendblatt, Musica
Rivista Italiano, Clavier, the American Record Guide, the Listeners
Companion, Fanfare, Diapaison, El Diario, the New York Guide, and
many dozens of other publications and books. Or the some one million
viewers that, I am told, have seen one of my televised recitals, to
speak nothing of the daily airplay my recordings get on radio stations
all over the world. Or the graduate philosophy course on Nietzsche at
Cambridge University that, as of this year, is using my recordings
as a central tenet of study. And all this does not even include the
2. 5 million readers that my columns, as a critic, reach every
single week in one major American newspaper alone: the St Petersburg
Times... and so on and so on and os on and so on.....
It's really a bore to have to defend myself against such mean
spiritedness, and the totally unnecessary ad hominem slurs as you
invariably hurl my way in your continuing effort to make yourself
feel superior -- which in my view is rather sick --though I think it
has rather the opposite effect. I find having to do mount such a
defencsem, and introduce this litany of facts as extremely
distasteful, but on the other hand, I cannot hestitate to set the
record straight. Why can't you simply avoid all that nonsense, learn
how to accept criticism of your views, partiuclarly when you are
wrong, and contribute something constructive and intelligent, just
once? Alas, since you put me on the spot with such ill-willed slurs, I
see no reason not to respond in kind, meeting the challenge and
simply stating the facts, a large number of which, of course, are
available for anyone's perusal on my website at www.johnbellyoung.com
with all the necessary documentation -- and even more distasteful is
that your remarks put me in the position of having to disclose the
URL to that website on this forum. That is something I have always
avoided, unlike some people who always include theirs with their
signature. But don't believe this is an appropriate place for
advertising and promotion.
But to hell with that for now, so long as you see fit to malign my
work and my modest status in the international music community as both
a concert and recording artist, to speak nothing of a critic for more
than 30 years. So, let me fill you in further, Doc. Let's see. Oh
yeah, then there's my new recording of Strauss's "Enoch Arden", with
the celebrated film star, Michael York, which will be released in
about two weeks time on the Americus label --the first of several
projects I have going just now with Michael and other actor friends
who are likewise household names -- and which our publicists in
Hollywood (we have two) are going to town with, booking us on a
slew of network television talk programs, seen by mega- millions all
over the planet, programs that are even broadcast in your native
Israel. Or hadn't you heard about any of this "Doc"? By the way, our
collaboration is no accident; as you can imagine, someone of Michael
York's stature is hardly given to working with just anybody who is
not of a certain stature and reputation of their own; the privelege of
working with him as closely as I have over the last year is something
that I earned over many, many years, in case you hadn't sorted that
out by now. Of course, I wouldn't expect that you would understand the
nuance of any of that, insofar as you are far too preoccupied with
finding some new way to make an insulting remark as a kind of
negative parting gift that you leave behind in virtually of your
responses to me, rather like a dog with a loose bowel. That is your
customary and usual M.O. Of course, if you don't believe any of
this, you need only take a look at Michael York's websites at www.
imdb.com and his principal site, as well as any number of other
sites that I would be happy to point you to. I don't have to tell you
which major awards this recording will be considered for (win or not,
it's nice to be considered) you can figure that one out for yourself.
Add to that the numerous A-list festivals around the world that our
agent, Jacques Leiser (remember him, old boy? --the fellow who was
also Michelangeli's, Berman's, Nikolayeva's, Collard's and Richter's
agent, and who I can assure you is not one to bother with any msucial
artist that is unknown) is booking us. Is *that* enough for you?
Well, tell me, if you dare: is it? I think these simple facts, all
documented, rather knock the steam out of your stupid remark -yes,
stupid, as an otherwise intelligent man like you should know better,
and not allow such petty feelings to get the better of him, like a
small child -- don't you? Or do you want more? I'd be only too, too
happy to oblige. The documentatary evidence numbers in the thousands
upon thousands of pages and photographs, and hundreds of reels of
print, broadcast and recorded materials. Of course, if you have some
time you can also take a look at the 1000 or so listings that will
likely turn up under my name in any major Search engine, such as Alta
Vista, where you can find even more information, which increases
exponentially every month; or, through the Dow or the Electronic
Library, where you will find more than 2000 articles that I have
penned over the years (However, to access those databases, you have
to pay for a subscription) I have the visitation statistics on myany
of these sites. I have a half a million visitors to one of my mp3. com
websites alone, which earned about $50, 000 when things over there
were really cooking and the company was paying decently. SO, Doc, I
wouldn't exactly characterize my work as unknown, or that no one has
ever heard of me. Sorry, bud, you're dead wrong. Of course, you say so
only to inflict injury. It's so juvenile! Shame on you! Shame! Don't
you know that your karma will catch up with you soon enough, Doc, and
in the most surprising ways that will only mirror and turn back upon
you all the unkind and wicked things you say out of spite? Just
watch, Doc. Your time is coming, and only God knows what is in store
for you. I sure would't wnat to be in your shoes. Whatever it is,
you'll get yours in return by virtue of what you have expended so
negatively, only it wil be far more severe than anything you have
meted out thus far. Perhaps you have time to make amends, and repent.
your sns.
Oh, well, try again, Doc. Please, stop breaking my chops, and don't
waste my time, or yours! Stick to the script: music. I don't care
particuarly that you are an amateur, or a dilletante, or that you find
it perfectly acceptable to say the most ludicrous things about music
as if they were gospel, and that you do not demonstrate either the
dignity or the largesse to admit to your errors. Here, to avoid
fessing up, you simply try to reinvent what you in fact wrote. People
are not idiots on this forum,and all of us can read. So, please, at
the very least get the facts straight, even when you make a cutting
comments about someting as marginal and irrelevant to musical
discussino as me and my work (as it is a given than my expertise and
professinoalism bring something of value to the table ) bringing
these into the equation, as you do, with deliberately specious
remaarks that do not even attempt to avail themselves of the facts.
When you are mistaken, you should make every effort to admit it. There
is no point in trying to legitimize an untenable position!
I can see why you would feel
> the need to patronize people like me who freely admit to not being the
> greatest musician in the world.
You, sir, do not concern me. Music does. And where you misinterpret
musical data, only to proclaim your error as the stuff of legitimate
theory when it is no such thing, and then pretend to authority, that
is where I , as a critic, and as a professional, have to draw the
line, and where I feel it necessary to offer the strongest and most
uncompromising criticism.
>
> Do you know what the term "name dropping" means?
I know exactly what it means. Of course, I have a unique advantage: I
actually *know* personally the people behind the names I mention. As
I said ALREADY, I don't name drop. I refer to relevant professionals
and their work in support of my arguments. I will admit now to name
dropping Michael York, which I felt compelled to in the context of
setting the record straight on my work and overall stature within the
community, and by virtue of your having instigated that defense. You
left me no choice. How utterly repugnant.
>I merely ask for information.
Sure you do.
>
>
> Of course, my "demonstrably specious" interpretation is in fact a straw man
> that you made up and which has remarkably little to do with what I actually
> said, which was merely to question the accuracy of your use of the word
> "dense" to describe Chopin's polyphony.
Baloney. Read what you wrote. Others have. Or have you already
forgotten? Nice try, but reinventing your faux pas won't work now.
Too late, Doc. Just admit to your error and move on. That's not so
difficult to do, at least for a real mensch. I'd really hate to
embarrass you further by cutting and pasting your comments on Chopin
and polyphony here. But that is unnecessary; everyone can simply click
on your earlier posts and read them easily enough.
That is not the same thing as denying
> that the polyphony is there -- only to say that in general, it does not
> operate in the same way musically as the polyphony of, say, Bach.
Well, there you are wrong again! Nothing a little homework won't help
to show you the light. What I suggest you do is study a little
something about baroque compositional procedures and aesthetics. Would
you like me to recommend a reading list? It's a long one. But I'd be
happy to, so long as you promise to do the work. On the level of
contrapuntal operation, Chopin has a great deal more in common with
Bach than with most other composers. And his appropriation and
understanding of contrapuntal melody is very much in the manner of
Bach (as contrpunatal melody was central to baroue cmoopsitional
rhetoric) rendering his music identical in its treatment of line,
and in more ways than one, to Bach.
>
> : . . .However, if
> : you really want to believe and kid yourself that Chopin's music is not
> : polyphonic, and that accompaniment figures are essentially homophonic
> : and uneventful, then you should do that.
>
> Since I don't believe that, and if you had actually taken the trouble to
> read what I wrote, you would know that I don't believe that, I am not
> sure why you think that I would want to believe it.
Your posts were quite clear as to what you meant. They are hardly
ambiguous about your thoughts and interpretation of what constitutes
polyphony. Nice try to wiggle out of it now, but that's not exactly
the most honest way to deal with your errors, now is it?
>
> : In any case, I remind and caution you for the thousandth time: please,
> : try to stick to the script, that is to the discussion at hand.
>
> I have, but you keep turning the discussion into something else.
>
If I have, then I take responsibility for that. But even a cursory
examination of my posts will amply demonstrate that I turn every
discussion directly towards the musical issues at hand, and nowhere
else. I don't engage in name calling, or personality issues, or
anything of the kind. That I leave to you.
> : Try to
> : exercise a little restraint from any temptation to engage in ad
> : hominem, when no one has ever attacked you.
>
> Excuse me, but you have engaged in ad hominem attacks against me
Here? When? Really? I don't recall anything of the kind. I do recall
engaging in rather strict criticism of the issues such and your
specific interpretation of them. Perhaps you are confusing one for the
other. But ad hominem attacks against you personally, on this forum. I
think not! And yet, I have already counted, in your post here,
several personal ad hominem attacks agains me and my work, as well as
my standing in the musical community. Shame on you! Now just *stop*
it! Get a hold of yourself!
everal
> of which I have deleted because I have no interest in them.
>
> : I assure you I have no
> : interest whatsoever in turning critical commentary into some kind of
> : personal issue wherein someone imagines they are being disparaged in
> : any way.
>
> Except that you spend most of your time disparaging me.
I don't care to disparage you. But your remarks I *will* criticize
and correct where they invite as much. That is not disparagement. That
is reasonable though tough criticism. If you cannot take the heat of
substantive criticism, then I suggest you avoid discussing music
altogether.
>
> : I address the issues, not the person.
>
> Considering the relative amount of time you spent in explaining how little
> I know about music versus the amount of time you failed to spend giving any
> kind of coherent explanation of Chopin's polyphony and how it should be
> realized in performance, the most positive interpretation of that statement
> that I can make is that you are seriously delusional.
What can I say to that? It's just terrible. Here's yet another
example of an ad hominem attack. Why do you do that? Shame on you!
Why be so mean spirited? That kind of behaviour is simply repugnant,
and does not merit a response.
But to address your question, I have written streams of specific,
concrete advice on the relation of Chopins s polyphonic compositional
procedures in relation to the interpretation of his music. with
examples, on this thread and others, all over the net, for years. In
recent days alone, I have devoted a small book to the subject right
her on this ng., most recently in a discussion of a couple of Chopin
preludes, and earlier with regard the Barcarolle. Just take the time
and look around.
>
> : My purpose is only to illuminate the facts, if you care to explore them.
>
> Well, go ahead and illuminate them. Instead of vague gaseous comments
Vaue? Gaseous? You must be kidding. That is clear evidence that you
have not read much if anything of what I have contributed to this ng
in recent weeks.
> about Chopin and his polyphony, give us specific examples.
>For example, how would you suggest to a performer that he approach
the polyphonic> elements of the opening section of the C minor
nocturne (Op. 48, No. 1)?
Fair enough, though as I said, I have already contributed more than my
fair share of specific advice on several works on this ng.
The most common error that students make with this rather operatic
nocturne is largely rhythmic, and one which proceeds from a
misunderstanding of where things are moving, especially in the LH. It
is no accident that Chopin spent more than an hour teaching astudent
how to play the first four bars alone of this nocturne. We have what
is essentially a four voiced texture with doublings. A common error is
to impose a lsur,where one does not exist, over every two beats in the
LH as if there was a continual line linking the bass to the chords in
the upper register, when there are actually three independent lines
moving forward simultaneously. The first and third beats form a line
--which I believe even Schenker would logically argue comprise at
least the principal pitch material of the urlinie (though on closer
examination, it is unlikely that these could be interpreted at the
local level -that is, bar to bar -- s the urlinie, since to do so
would require seeing how things connect over a much broader temporal
area). The tenor and alto voices, likewise, require shaping and
definition as well throughout. The rhythm of the opening relies
largely on the relationship of the strong beats, codified in the bass
octaves, which form their own line, to the melodic pitches that occur
on the weak beats in the soprano. I have observed that students --and
indeed, even some professional pianists, tend to bring in the second
beat a microsecond too soon. But the downbeat in Bar one, as with all
the strong beats, virtually sets up the second beat as a kind of
vibratory reaction, Whie neither the right nor the left hand involves
the kind of contrapuntal complexity of other nocturnes , such as Op.
55 or Op 62, yet, with regard to pitch material, it is the dominant, G
natural around which the soprano melody orbits. Not only does the
theme begin on that pith, but it continually comes back to it,
alighting upon it, and usually on off beats. Of particular interest is
the introduction of the A flat (modified for empasis by an
appoggiatura) in bar 4, which has a rather different function than it
id, as the sixth degree of the scale, only a few bars earlier. Here it
fulils its destiny as the ninth degree in the context of the dominant,
thus implying a kind of discrete and dissonant tension at a most
unexpected moment, and giving definition to the cadence. The next
four bars, with its expanded intervals that contradict the relatively
close motion of the first four measures, introduce the most
significant point of departure in bar 8, where the broken octave on D
introduces the largest interval thus far.
Elsewhere, the half-stepwise motion of the RH is mirrored in all three
voices in the LH. Though I cannot introduce a graph here as I don't
have the software to do so, I would have to decipher the urlinie, in a
cursory examination, of the soprano in the first four bars as limited
essentially to three pitches: G, A flat and C. The embededd
intervalic structure of D to E flat that occurs in Bars 2 and 4, ,
mirroring again (though out of phase and at a ore rapid rate of speed)
the half-step motive that defines the opening bar, is significant,
and contributes to the harmonic tension that begins to infest the
piece as early as Bar 2. Indeed, rather than intensify the dynamic
with a crescendo from bar 1 (which I often hear students do), and
thus making a dramatic meal of Bar 2, I would suggest backing off a
bit, following the somewhat tense, and dynamically heightened ascent
to A flat in the previous bar. Instead, I recommend coming down in
volume, to something along the lines of a subito piano, at the onset
of Bar 2, as if the soprano line was sung almost under the breath, or
being intoned as a vocalise is intoned. This retreat to a pianissimo
(providing you begin the work in the overall dynamic of a full, rich
piano (what Schnabel called an "executive piano") will also serve to
illuminate and differentiate the intervallic structures at play,
particularly the relatinship of D to E lat, which moves upward to F;
and the alighting on the final sixteenth of the bar, which is a
critcally important pitch in the urlinie, made all the more
significant by the unexpected descent, without passing tone
modification, to the tonic C on the downbear of bar 3. That in turn is
further intensified by repition for two and a half beats, interuppeted
by the D. (And by the wya, the motion from C to D, though by a whole
step, mirrors that of Bar 1, and yet, suriously, is even more
foreboding, in part due to the oposite motion defind by the descent of
a minor third in the bass; and the ambiguity of hte harony, which can
be viewesd as either a simply subdominant, but, with the presence of
the D, would have to also be interpreted as related to the more
distant, and unexpected --thus mysterious -- mediant, i.e, as V of
III. Therefore, as I state again, the D natural in Bar 3 assumes an
entirely different, and heightened significance than it enjoyed in the
previous bar. Practically speaking, I advise the pianist to connect
these three D's in his inner ear, but do NOT equalize them -- their
fulfill different roles and functions. Also, pay close attention and
try to highlight the final G (sixteenth) in Bar 2. This you can do by
bringing it in a micro second late, if you wish, or by lengthening it
ever so slighlty, and then taking great care to link it across the bar
line in a sinous legato, to the C in Bar 3 -- but avoid a bump or
discernable accent on the downbeat! Also, you will find that, by
playing the second bar quieter, the aura of mystery and prescience is
intensifeid dramatically. With regard to the prosody of these first
four bars, I would advise you to think of it as - ~ ~ - ((which is
sometimes expressed sas Heavy - Light Light - Heavy ). In other words,
invest the most weight in bars 1 and 4, and "pass through" bars 2 and
3, while gently shaping the pitch material such as I described it,
drawing the ear's eat attetion to the soprano lines dual function: 1)
the pitches G and C, which the inner ear must strive to connect and
understand as a solitary harmonic unit in their own right and 2) the
embeddesd sub-unit that gives voice to the hidden counterpoint -- the
couplet D-E flat and and its tenuos ascent to F. In bar four, the
relationship between the A flat and G is crucial, as it is precisely
the inversion of the openng bar, and what's more, in diminiution
Segregate slightly and discretly the D - E flat -C that follow, as
these again form the pitch material of the underlying urlinie. Take
care with these details not to break up the line; that is *not* what
we are after; but we want to make the most intelligible sentence,
paying attention to each phoneme, syllable, and seme - and , when
combined into musical "words", they must express the harmonic and
rhythmic function of the counterpoint, informed by the urlinie, with
affective discretion and nuance. What I am trying to describe here is
a matter of degrees -- by no means should anyone impose accents, or
rush or engage in any sort of overt distortion of meter , rhtyhm or
tempo.
John Bell Young
Tom Shaw
damping and the E-minor doesn't sound badly to my ears even with no damping
in the early measures. I can see and hear how very skillfully applied
pedal work would improve the piece. But was confused because of the absence
of pedal indications.
Thanks again.news:448889ba.02112...@posting.google.com...
IMCA
I can name a million instances, but I can't spend all this time with
you, Doc. If you want to avail yourself of my comnent on Chopin and
polyphony, why don't you subscribe to http:// www.masterclass.ws,
where, for only $9.95 a month, you can actually learn something about
it all, on videotape. You know, actually, I would very much like to
oblige you, but given your attitude and continued rudeness towards me,
and all the insults, why should I? I see no reason to provide you
with any more information than I already have, quite generously, for
free. If you want examples, read Schenker and Schacter's and
Parakilas and Tarasti. Just do the work, Doc,. I have no desire to do
it for you. There are many other people here who I would prefer to
spend the time with, because they have demonstrated such tremendous
civility, restraint, discipline, good character, and what's more, they
consistently show respect for others --not only me - They respect
not only people not only for who they are, but for what they do and
what they have accomplished. I see this everwhere on this ng,
regardless of the status or expertise of an individual. It's a very
different climate than the recordings ng. In ancy case, it's a two
way street, and I return the favor, and then some by contributing my
time and expertise as often as I can. I want to stop there, rather
than going on to say anything that might hurt you. But I would ask you
simply to leave me in peace henceforth, and to refrain from responding
to my posts. May you live in peace.
John Bell Young
Mark A.
when it relates to performance of specific pieces of music.
But I'm bothered by the dismissive tone in the use of the term
"amateur". I get the idea that those of use who work in other fields
and don't have much theory under our belts are barely worthy of
attempting to play Chopin, and should certainly never play it when
others could hear. Is it really that hopeless for amateurs?
At one point (I lost the original posting) someone mentioned the
opening of the C minor Nocturne. Since this is a piece of music I
enjoy playing (though you'll be glad to know I almost never play it
for others), I'd like to hear how polyphony theory can apply in this
example and influence how it should be played.
IMCA
> "IMCA" <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in > contrary, harmony is distends
> itself over both short and long periods
> > of time, and interacts with so many otheer compositional elements,
> > not the least of which are rhythm and motivic systoles. An entire
> > passage may, for example, orbit around the constuction and destiny of
> > a ninth chord, for example, the pitch material of which is distributed
> > throughout innumerable voices and registers. It is up to the
> > interpreter to illuminate these relationships, and determine which
> > pitches bear a certain weight and relevance in relation to others, so
> > as to clarify and convey the inner workings of the composition
> > itself, and the substantive dimensions of the music. Musical tension
> > is a consequence of many, many things within the compositional
> > Diaspora, and requires, for its conveyance, a great deal of patience,
> > analysis, aforethought and intutive savvy, informed by a commanding
> > knowledge of the work's history, aesthetic agenda as codified by the
> > composer, to speak nothing of the work's compositional relationships.
> > form, and philosophical background.
>
> John, awareness of the elements you listed above, contribute to the
> performer's interest in the piece, and give him/her some rays of insight
> into the composer's state of mind at the time of composition, etc. Such
> information COULD contribute to a richer performance. However, a successful
First, let me say what a great pleasure it is debating with you Greg,
as your resopnses are always thoughtful, polite and well informed. No
one could possibly ask for anything more.
Basically, we are in agreement. But you have taken someting I said out
of context, namely , the relative value of investing oneself in the
aesthtiec and historical climate of the work and its making. However,
while everything you say is true about preparation, you premise, which
would deny important knowledge its rightful place and specifically
interpretive influence, strikes me as a little naive, to put it
mildy. You seem to presume its all extra-musical, and that such
knowledge is something that cannot be translated or effectively
appropiated in the service of music making. On the contrary, without
access to the abundant information that informs a musical work, and
its very construction, a musician will be left rather in the dark
about specific details and obective performance practices. Absent
inforamtion,for example, about the role of rhetoric and speech
rhythms, to speak nothing of prosody, in the aesthetic of the Baroqeu
era, and how these influenced, *specific articulation, dynamics,
tempos, and rhythm, the player would be at a supreme loss. Without
access to this information, how will he know anyting about the
inegale, or what that involves, and how to put it work? How will he
know anything about vibrato, and that it is a wholly different animal
in baroque muisc than in music of a later period --to wit, tha
vibrato is to be used anc copnsidered in the same class as
ornamentation? How will he know the effects of the shorter bows adn
thicker bridges? How will he know how to interpet and convey dots
over ptich material, or the rhytmic thrust of a French overture?
Liekwise, in the music of Chopin, there are so many elements that, if
ignored, will only compromise the performance of anyone who ahs not
bothered to dig deeper. Bel canto, for one. watht is that all about,
adn what is its origins?
Thsu, the deeper our knowledge of performance practices that were
influenced and determined by contemporaries of the composer, the
instrumentarium of the day and its limitations; the more we know
about the aesthetic sensibility and agenda of the composer, and his
sources (Chopin appropriated a great many compositional strategies
from the baroque era, and also from Mozart; as well as virtually
reinventing the bel canto--itself a creation of the baroque -- in
piano music) which is to say, his approach to musical matters that
involve conflict and symbolism as much as it does the notes and
rhythms that hich give voice to them; the more we know about the
relation of his culture and language to the manner of musical
expression , the better. For example, Greg, are you award of the
extraordinary importance of the trochee in the msuical prosody of
Chopin?
I can assure you,Greg, this is no accident nor coincidence, but rather
the duplication in rhythmic categories of certain aspects of the
Polish langauge. These minute but significant systoles virtually
infest every one of Chopin's major works, and with good reason; their
symbolic significance cannot be underestimated. And what is that
symbolic significance? Well, aside from from their role as signifiers
that reperesent the man and his thought and his feeling -- as a
composer's creative output can never be entirely abstracted from the
very person who created the work, insofar as he codifies something of
his thought processes, his culture, his native (spoken ) language and
yes, his philosophy - this trochaic reference to the Polish
language, its emboidment as a muscial translation of a speech rhythm
(again, an ideal of baroque era aesthetics, to which Chopin aspired )
-- is also indicative of the man's longing, his connection with his
Slavic roots and its aura of melancholy. There is no question,
either, that Chopin was deeply affected by the Russian invasion of
Poland in the 1830s -- and there are of course innumerable instances
throughout his music where he cites or appropriates Polish folk music
to intensify these connections. Now, one can simply play the notes,
and get on with it, but Greg, do you actually KNOW how a Polish
christmas Carol is actually sung -- in Polish, in a cathedral? DO you
KNOW where the accentuation belongs? Do you know the difference
between the 3 basic variants of hte mazurka nd their sub-variants, and
where the stress lies, and how that relates to not only to the dance
forms, but to elements embedded in the Polish language? Well,Greg,
the artist who fails to account for these things, and fails to gather
the necessary historical and aesthetic data to do so will be all the
poorer artistically, and what's more, entirely too selfish to give
expression to anything more than how he, the artist, simply "feels"
about it all.
You mght want to study Musorgsky in this connection, as few
composers, save Bartok, have ever made such a diligent study of the
relationship of music to langauge, and then did their level best to
codify it in their music. To lay Musorgksy and have no knowledge of
the Russian language is, I am sorry to tely, just grasping straws in
the dark. Nine out of ten prerformances of Pictures, for example, are
all wrong, rhythmically.
But let me turn attention to Scriabin for a bit, as no other composer
demonstrates so succintly the importance of taking account of
aesthetic and historical data, and examining just how that data has
been specifically and technically transalted into compositional
issues. My paper, "Scriabin Defended Against his Devotees" is
devoted entirely to this idea. More about that later. Taruskin alos
wrote a superb analysis of Scriabin that makes a most persuasive
argument for the manner in which Scriabin codified his aesthetic and
philosphical principals in music. That's right, Greg --that is
precisely what Scriabin did, and the interpreter who had not made a
thorough study of those principals, and just how AND why he managed to
fashion an entire musical vocabulary specifically to embody and
duplicate those ideas in sound should simply not play Scriabin at all.
Suffice it to say without going into too much detail here, that
Scriabin used octatonic and whole tone scales in combination with
French sixths and their inherent tritones to obliterate tertiary
harmony of its center --and this he did even before he began to
explore atonality. He experimented with the natural symmetry of the
tritone, which divides a scale equally in two parts, and taking that
further, into a system where traspositonal invariance predominated
--that is, a harmonic realm that involved an aggregate of whole tones
and a French sixth, which contained three tritones. This aggreagate
simultaneously expressed the dominant function, also enmobied all the
constituents of the whole tone scale. Thus, this created a chord that,
due to its constituent make up and stucture, remained
intervallicaly identical in every position it assumed. "No matter
which of its members was in the bass, no matter by which of its
constituent intervals' writes Taruskin "it was transposed, the pitch
and interval content of the chord never varied; it waas a chord that
could be endless 'walked around" [Scriabins own words].
As he aspired to the philosphy of the Vedanta --which you can read all
about in R. C Zaeher's remarably coherent work on eastern religions
and mysticism -- and its emphasis on non-materiality and the
annhilation, or transcendance of the ego, that is, the obliteration
of center, he endeavored to find a way to express these ideas
musically. And it was precisley in this chordal aggregate that he
found his anser. This enormous dominantquality aggreagate consists
of an absolutely symmetrical scale comprised of equal inervals that
are in consequence equidistant and not subject to structural
differentiation, nor even to functional classification. Our
expectations rely so much on our perception of how and where harmony
fluctuates and resolves, and how we identify with scale degrees (for
example, after 400 ears of conditioning, we fully expect the leading
tone to move to the tonic; we fully expect the resolution on to the
tonic of a dominant seventh, and we fully expect a tritone to move
inwards to a major third or outwards to minor sixth). These
specifrically harmonic relationships and tensions translate
themeselves, for the listener, into emotional responses, as tensions
that need to be resolved. But in Scriabin's chord all that had
vanished. He had in fact transcended the center.
Now, Greg, if you play late Scriabin, and don't know anyting about
this, or the contructs of these chord, or the pitch classes that
comprise the works, or how certain ptiches and aggreagates move across
huge spatial territories and connect; or if you are unaware of how
Russian bell music is organized, and at what tempos, and what
particular type of bell music Scriabin appropriated (Eogrievesy
Chimes, quite often); or if you are not aware and have not taken into
account the ceremonial dimensions of this music which rely not only on
bell music, but on early Orthodox chant --which, depending on the typ
e of chant and context, is intoned in ahighly idiosyncratic way that
nees to be experienced, and which Scriabin essentially intuited by
virtue of his cultural status -- well then you will be at at
tremendous disadvantage playing this complex music. If you are not
aware that the final page of the Seventh Sonata is a reference to the
coronation music of Boris Gudonov, and if you do not know the proper
tempo for Coronation Music, and the insturmentarium (bells) that
deliver it, and what it symbolizes, then, like so many pianists, you
will play it much too fast, and loose all connection with the
passage's nobility and spirit. That would simply be, in a word, wrong.
That is because you will have no points of reference, no
understanding where it all comes from, or where it is going, and why.
Indeed, all of Scriabin's late music form about 1908 on can be viewed
as a single work, a huge tapestry composed in the service of a single
aestheic agenda - ego transcedance. That Scriabin himself saw it this
way is no accident. To cite my own paper:
"Scriabin's music demands more than lip service. It requires the
elucidation of extra-musicaldimensions that no only co-exist with but
migrate nto the corpus of teh music itself. It is a sacramental sphere
where music assumes a votive function taht emulates prayer, and thus
fulfills its own concept as the prolongation of a private epiphany..
To rescue Scriabin from the oblivion into which entertaiment (passive)
modes of listening condemn him, performance eeds to exploit the
relation of his music to poetry and the Russian langauge. It must
bring to life the droning intonations and obscre cadential
prlognations it shares with the undulating rhythms of Russian prayer.
The interpreters job is to illuminate those hypnotic moments which
allude to liturgical recitation and underlie the ideology they share
with the ceremonial functions of religious traditions. And he must
satsify the procreative impulse demanded by union: harnessing the
forces of Scriabin's musical tension with breathless intensity, whole
sequences of truncated climaxes are driven by a cumulative, rhythmic
energy in unmistakeable simulation of orgasm. The dialectic between
performer and composition thus breached, symbolic union is corporeally
projected."
The same goes for every composer, including Chopin. Each comopser has
his own idiosyncric sytem , vocabulary , and aesthetic principals. A
musician would be utterly remiss to ignore this or to marginalize
knowledge of it all as somehow unnecessary to intepretation and
performance. ON the contrary, nothing could be *more* important. It
takes a great deal of work and study, but the dividends pay off
handsomely in virtually every way -- technically, spiritually,
interpretively, symbolically.
> > However, I do believe it is the job of the performer, during
> > > his./her preparatory stage, to investigate the construction of the
> piece, to
> > > become aware of the interplay of voices, etc.
> >
> > That is the obligation of the performer at *every* stage of the work,
> > at least where great musical compositions are concerned. The process
> > of learning doesn't ksuddenly stop; it is dialectical, and continues
> > to burgeon, to develop, to grow. The savvy performer knows that the
> > harvest is never finished.
> >
> I didn't say that the preparation phase stops, John. However, at the moment
> of ANY performance, the preparation phase has stopped for that moment in
> time. Decisions have to be made and they have to be followed through. A good
> performance would not result from the thought mid-way through a piece of
> "gosh, I need to rethink the coda " . After the performance, yes......
Of course, this is precisely what I mean, too. However, your prose
left quite a different impression, one that suggested that work of
this sort is only necessary at thee beginning stages of learning a
work. Of course, I quite agree, that the moment of a performance is
one where the work has been done as best it can up to that point, and
the pianist must simply play, that's all. He cannot do his homework on
stage.
>
> > >Only with such investigation
> > > can the performer understand why the pedal has to clear momentarily to
> allow
> > > the alto line to resolve a suspension and other nuances of that ilk. But
> > > this is personal work, not to be brought out for the audience to hear.
> >
> > If there is no point in illuminating such strategically and
> > compositionally important issues, then why bother performing at all?
>
> Somehow I get the impression that we see the world through different lenses,
> John. If I walk into a beautifully and tastefully decorated home, filled
> with lovely objets d'art, I really don't want the owner to follow me around
> and show me where the electric plug is or the track lite is concealed which
> enables him to highlight his Van Gogh so beautifully. I'd rather trust that
> the reason that I received such a great impression of his home was that he
> had taken care of all of those details with loving attention - precisely so
> that I don't have to.......I think we both agree that the details are
> important - crucial even - but I don't need or want (as an audience member)
> a fussy performance that constantly interrupts the flow of the music to say,
> "hey, I'm going to shove this in you face, because I spent a lot of time
> working out this nuance and I don't want you to miss it". I don't think
> that's necessarily what you are advocating either, but by the vehemence with
> which you defend the necessity to show (or illuminate) the details, it gives
> me that impression.
>
That is not what I advocate at all. I suggest only that one become
intimate with as much detail as possible, in as broad a way as
possible, when learning a work, with a view towards freeing it, and
oneself, at the moment of performance.
> > Why even bother doing the work that necessitates it? My advice: pay
> > attention to the music at hand. Be polite and deferential to your
> > audience, but don't allow them to make decisoin s for you, or ot
> > influence in any way the manner in which you responsibly resolve to
> > interpret a work, and convey its meaning. I would agree, however,
> > that the work must be invisible once the performer is on stage: a
> > concert is not a lecture, and the audience does not need to hear
> > anyone doing his homework in public.
>
> I believe that was my point....
Yes.
> >
> >
> > If
> > > they perceive such things on some subliminal level, great, but really,
> what
> > > could be more successful that a Chopin performance in which the audience
> > > leaves the hall singing, humming or whistling the principal tunes?
> >
> > Oi! I can't quite believe I'm hearing this! Well, that is certainly
> > not what I, or most of my colleagues, would consider a successful
> > performance. The audience does not determine what is or is not a
> > successful performance,
>
> Well, certainly, you can't be claiming that the performer determines what
> was a succesful performance.
The performer is certainy in a better position to know what is
scucessful about his own performance. OF coursae! What kind of
musicina would he be if he were not so self-aware? The audience is not
privy to all the details of a composition, nor how well the performer
has brought them together and to life. Indeed, whatis *artistically*
sucesssful is ultimately in the eyes of the performer, no matter how
much the audience may love or dislike what he has heard on a certain
day. It is a very personal matter. Sometimes, when a musicain does
not play very well, the audience goes wild, whie at other times, when
he palyes superbly, accounting not only for detail but, in so doing,
for the deeper spirit fo the work, the audience is deferential.
That would require a good deal more
> objectivity than anyone I know is capable of. Nonetheless, I agree that this
> was not a very good statement and it left me open to some appropriate
> skewering. However, we, as performers ARE entertainers.
Now that I cannot agree with at all. The very idea makes my skin
crawl. The entire mindset and purpose of entertainment is at strict
philosophical and aesthetic odds with art music. Entertainment does
not demand active, but passive listening on the part of the listner,
though it does require a certain concentration on the part of the
performer, even where popular music is played. But entertainment as
such embraces commercical issues and places emphasis squarely on the
act of consumerism, on the consumer himself an on the consumed. I do
not make music to entertain anone, or to put a happy face on a
consumer who only hopes to get his money's worth, rendering equal the
price he has paid for his ticket to the musical experience itself.
No, my concern is with the musical object, period. If the listener
enjoys himself, thats fine. I f he is upset or emotianly devestated by
what he hears, that is fine too. If he is puzzled or intrigued or
drawn into the music due to the ineluctable gravitational pull of its
myriad threads, and because of the power evoked by its harmonic
vocabulary, rhthmic energy and overall organization. Once you pander
to the audience, the game is up; you become no more than a circus
animal, a charletan, a fake, a puppet to be manipulated by the will of
the audience. You surrender your integrity, intelelctual autonmomy
and freedom. One would have to be awfuly desperate to allow
themselves into such a terrible position. It's not particularly
professional, either, as it demonstrates not only a lack of fatih, but
a lack of integrity. There is absolutely no need to entertain
anyone. What *is* necessary is to devote 200% of your energy to
musical issues, and let the work of art unfold itself and speak for
itself, with our interpretive mediation as the means of bringing it to
life, for the listener. I would rather the complexity and meaning and
depth of a great work of music reach deep into the psyche and heart
of a just one single listener who allows its powers and charms to move
in on him, and carry him away, than feeling I have to play to the
balcony in order to provide someone with an excuses to pass time and
feel good. On stage, one need only be himself, and stay out of his own
way, and God knows, out of the way of the music.
So,don't worry yourself about what the audience is going to think of
you, or how you look, or how white your teeth are when you smile.
That is totally superficial. Concert artists are not movie actors; we
are not presenting the latest sit-com or a Broadway musical. Classical
music is far too complex for that, and demands uncompromising and
ruthless concentration, to speak nothing of expertise. Virtuosity,
which thrives on the artistic manipulation of detail, rises to its own
level, and does not exist on credit, as Vladimir Janekelvitsch wisely
observed in "Liszt et la Rhasodie: Un essai sur la virtuosite" (If
you are not familiar with that great philospher and musical
aesthetician, you should be...his was a most remarkable mind)
If you want the audience to cheer and love you, then deliver as
detailed and abundant and infomred and inspiring a performance as you
possibly can. All the rest -- beyond the conventional necessities of
bowing politely, commanding the attention of the public from the
moment you wlak on stage, and comporting oneself well -- is just
crap. If it is stage presence or taking command of an audience and the
fourth wall from stage, this can be accomplished with a year or so of
acting lessonf from a competent teacher. I studied acting with Uta
Hagen, Earl Hyman an others at HB in New York; and, at the Chekhov
Studio, also in New York, with Beatrice Straight; as well as other
theatrical disciplines voice production, dialects, movement, medeival
dance, projection, Shakespeare, directing with various teachers at HB
and other studios, and from long talk about it with my many actor
friends on both coasts. But that was quite enough,as I don't want to
be an actor.
It is not a very
> dignified term considering how much of our blood, sweat, tears and personal
> investment go into what we do, but nonetheless, it is part of the reality of
> how the world perceives us.
That may be, but our obligation as musicians is to the music, period.
*That* is th ultimate reality, or as Ivanov once said of Scriabin's
idea about music in relation to the material world, "the more real"
The rest is just gravy. I advise musicians: Don't worry so much about
the audience. Only those who have some overwhelming need to be loved
by the public will trouble themselves that way. Leave the emphasis on
entertainment to lounge singers and pop music providers. That is not
our metier, not at all. Were it ever to become our metier, then I will
no longer perform or record. There would be no point, as to debase
anyting as complex and necessarily thughtful as art music into mere
entertainment is so grotesque that it would be best just to withdraw
it permanently from the public distribution, and give it over
exclusively to those who want study and pursue it for themselves, in
the privacy of their own homes, and perhaps fot a few like-minded
souls.
And the judgments that we make amongst ourselves
> about who has the most worth as such is necessarily highly subjective. There
> ARE other factors than preparation, intelligence, knowledge and so forth.
> There are also intangibles such as charisma, ability to communicate passion
> or other authentic emotions, etc.
Sure, I agree with all that absolutely. But that is no reason to
legitimize mere entertainment as the rasion d'etre or fundamental
assessment of who and what we are and do as classical artists.
And in some cases, the audience IS a
> better judge of those intangibles than the professionals.
Again, the audience as the adjudicator of superficial data is simply
not that important in my book, or in the books of pianists usch as
Michelanglei, Arrau, Pollini etc. It just wasnt', What matters is the
quality of the music making, Stick to that script and the rest will
come, if that is what you want, and depending on what you are looking
for. If you are looking solely to make money, then get those caps
fixed, smile broadly, kick up your heels and belt out your song and
dance number before launching into a program that consists of the
Chopin E flat nocturne, the Pathetique sonata, The Rustle of Spring,
and Islamey.
> > can evoke something of vocal music. But that is not why we devote our
> > lives, as professionals, to music.
>
> Well, I cannot quite agree with your statement below, unless you amend it to
> "our lives as performers of the music of the past" .
Why? And why only music of hte past? Waht about the music of living
comopsers such as Crumb, Ligeti, Dalbavie, Rzewski and so many others?
What we are obliged to serve are the demands of the composition at
hand. In the broader arena of what Bakhtin called "Great Time", of
course, we devote our lives to music of the past, but not exclusively
so. Actually, philosophically speaking, all music becomes music of the
past the moment it is written down. At the same time, music is very
much in the present at the moment we bring it to life and play it. It
doesn't matter that Beetovens Op. 109 was composed 180 years ago or
so. What matters, when we play it, is that it is emerging RiGHT NOW,
in its full glory, its potential exposed, its systoles illuminated, it
rhythms dancing. Why on earth and to what purpose would you ever want
to marginalize music to "the past", and describe in that context? God
forbid, as that is the last thing classical music needs nowadays.
That attitude will only serve to put up yet another wall and
alienate the public to a degree even greater than it already is.
Some of us have devoted
> our lives to music simply because we love music - in my case, as a
> performer, composer, accompanist, teacher, and improvisor. Yes, we seek to
> honor the intentions of the composer when we perform his music, but I at
> least did not become a musician because I considered that my HIGHEST duty
> within the art form. For myself, I would go about redefining my purpose in
> becoming a professional musician as the desire to participate in the
> creation or the re-creation of the particular incredible beauty and grace
> that organized sound brings to the human race and to use that sound as an
> alternative means of communication.
That's all fine, and eviene of a noble in spirit. but don't lose
sight of the object itself: music. we don't have any room or time for
sentimentality where the cultivation of the highest and most refined
dimensions of our art an abilities are concerned, including a virtuoso
technique And music, as Michelangeli was fond of saying, is not a
democracy.
John Bell Young
IMCA
knowledgeable, consider this:
Now, if you are so convinced of your position, and so overwhelmingly
certain as to the legitimacy of your "argument" --if it can even be
called that, given its total absence of technical specificity, its
refusal to engage in the reasonable demands of debate, and its
complete lack of evidentiary data, which any one else would at least
have taken the trouble to cull from some four centuries of literature
in support of its agenda -- then why don't you show us? May I
suggest, then, that you upload something formal that you have had
published on the issue in a major critical or theoretical journal, or
that you plan to submit to such a publication? At the very least,
let's see something substantive and critical from you, instead of all
the hearsay and empty, crudely formulated bravado , which has no
basis whatsoever in fact.
Or, better yet, why not show us what you mean by demonstrating it?
Why don't you simply upload a recording that you have made of the
music of Chopin? Here
you are among pianists, professional and amateurs, and not among
record collectors, as you are in another ng, so the request is hardly
unreasonable. Since you have spoken of how easily you memorize
Chopin and Schubert, I have to conclude that you are some kind of
pianist. Now don't worry, we'll settle for a home made or vanity
recording, and no one expects that you will have a professional
recording of yourself on hand. After all, there is no need to be
embarrased if a bona fide recording company has never recognized your
great innate talent, nor seen fit to engage you. But I am sure that
that we'd all be most interested to listen to your performances for
at least 30 seconds, so that we can evaluate them. All kidding aside,
because I am a severe judge, though a fair one, I'll even agree to
listen to the whole thing. Rest assured I will hold your work to
the same high standard I hold every musical performance. But so long
as you are willing to admit your wholly amateur status beforehand,
difficult as that may be for you, and don't pretend it is anything
more, I'll take that into consideration and temper my critique
accordingly. I promise I won't try to compare you to any professional
pianist, though I may compare you to Helfgott, who may end uplooking
like Michelangeli in comparison. But Doc, please, by all means,
thrill us all to no end with your virtuosic and musically informed
readings of Chopin's preludes, etudes, nocturnes, mazurkas, sonatas
and polonaises. Or perhaps you'd be content with sharing your
performances of the Andante Spianato, the Barcarolle, the Berceuse or
the Tarantella. Or even an early work such as the little Fugue or the
Allegro de Concert would do nicely. Also, perhaps you can a upload
a master class -- preferably on video -- on just how to interpret
Chopin, so that we can all bathe in the blinding light of your
fabulous expertise. Why, gee whiz, I'd just love to see *that*.
Indeed, that might keep us interested for a full *60* seconds. Yes,
let's hear, then, *exactly* what you mean by "accompaniment". Show
us, why don't you? No excuses, now. It's time to cut to the chase
now and to abandon all the BS and the small talk you shovel out ad
infinitum, that is, if you wish to support, much less prove your
point. Let's see, at long last just how "Doctor" Richard --what's
your lazst name --oh yes, Schulz-- *really* listens to music. .I
dare you. Lets find out Doc what you are really made of. I think its
papier mache, but I could be wwrong, and thus, giving you the benefit
of the doub, I'll opt to say its somehing one finds at the end of the
day underneath one's foot at a horse farm.
I mean, "Doctor" Schultz. -- as you insist on being addressed,
speaking of attaching far too much importance to a name (ironic that,
don't you think, in light of your recent complaint?) , as if the
moniker could possibly make anyone more important or a better human
being ( God knows, I've heard of more than a few doctors sitting in
Federal prison for fraud, malpractice and even murder -- you wouldn't
be writing from Sing Sing, now would you, Doc? Just *kidding*.,
dorogoi moi!) So c'mon, where's the beef? Time to get real, Doc.
Being a record collector with one year or even five of basic theory
training, and probably not much more in piano playing may make you
more knowledgable than the average person -- no doubt it does -- but
hardly serves to make you an authority in much of anything musial,
absent real, continued and professional experience. Evidently, it
hasn't occured to you just yet that you are trying to argue a subject
that is plainly more than a little out of your depth. Of course,
for anyone who is truly interested in learning something new, and in
self-improvement -- as I have discovered the majority of participants
in this ng most certainly are, even those who are learning the piano
for the first time -- you'd think it would be enough to make you
realize, especially when confronted by genuine authority and a
thoughtfully constructed analysis, just how much you do in fact have
left to learn. Unfortunately, it is only your vanity, I'm afraid,
that stands in the way of such noble aspiratations, that compromises
a willingness to tolerate
criticism, much less respond to it intelligibly and with equally
scrupulous aforethought, and that obliterates any resolve to correct
one's closely held opinions, especially when those opinions are
demonstrably illigitimate, as yours, I'm afraid, so obviously are.
This group is a nice mix of professionals and well meaning, eager
to-learn amateur pianists who aspire to be the best they can be. I
have found that those who know their limitations here are not afraid
to admit them. That's how they are able to learn, to grow. I suggest
you follow their example, as you could learn a great deal about
attitude, to speak nothing of music. So, Doc, if you really know so
much as you claim to, and wish to live up to your convictions
about Chopin and polyphony, no matter how skwered they in fact are,
then surely you'll want to provide concrete evidence of your sagacity,
won't you now? Are you up to that challenge? Or will you find some
excuse to to avoid meeting it? Or find another putdown to launch at
those of us who would challenge uold challenge you, in order to
compensate for your inadequacies in this area?
So yes, *that* is what I want from you: Proof that you can really
play, and that you can express your ideas succinctly, honestly and
persuasively, at the piano. Let's just see about it, shall we, Doc?
THough |I wouldn't put it past you, don't cheat by substituting a
recording of Rubinstein and expect us to believe it's you. I'll know
right away. (all the more reason to include a video). I think I'd want
some verifiable proof that the recording is indeed one of you. (video
will satsify that) Otherwise, your "interpretation": amounts to
little more than a lot of empty banter that only serves to waste my
time, and everyone else's.
Look, you are free to invest in whatever fantasy you care to invent
about polyphony or any other musical issue. That is you right.
Surely, you have nothing to lose by doing so, insofar as you are not
a professional, and need not fear, on the whole, being marginalized,
ostracized or ridiculed by the musical intelligentsia, to whom I
would hope you would at least have the good sense to refrain from
submitting any such ill-conceived claims. But that is your choice.
Perhaps there really is some truth to the old saying that ignorance
is bliss. Whatever the case, if such a fantasy is your preference,
and you want to continue inhabiting it, then God bless you By all
means, enjoy the bubble while it lasts and before it bursts. Even so,
I suspect that, so long as you continue to buy into your own
fantasy, it never will.
For the record please allow me to set forth one thing to music
lovers and students out there, which is to advise them that old Doc
Schult'z interpretation of polyphony is utter hogwash. It is woefully
misinformed and dangerously naive, even if it does provide some
moments of amusement for taking itself so bloody seriously, as if it
had any merit. So pay it no attention whatsoever. Do the work for
yourself, folks. Consult and study diligently the proper,
authoritative and traditional sources, without relying on fallacious
hearsay from those who boast they know more than they really do, and
whose imaginative poverty is further elaborated when they refuse to
provide even so much as a single shred of concrete evidence in
support of their contentions.
NOw, Doc, are you ready to play for us? Peraonlly, I just can't wait
to hear it. So go on now, Doc, let's see what you've got. Enoguh of
BS. Play. Play now. I dare you. Can you do that, Dick?
John Bell Young
(aka Sherlock Holmes to the Doctor's Moriarty. Good prevails over
evil. )
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<aric68$ff4$2...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
> In article <fdd71043.02112...@posting.google.com>, Daniel G. Emilio <daniel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<arf836$313$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
> :> In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> : But of course Chopin's music--virtually all of it -- is richly
> :> : polyphonic; ask anyone who knows even a modicum about theory and
> :> : composiional process. '
> :> > : I cannot believe what I'm reading. You cannot compare Chopin's
IMCA
> In article <fdd71043.02112...@posting.google.com>, Daniel G. Emilio <daniel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<arf836$313$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
> :> In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> :
> : polyphony with Bach or virtually anyone else. Chopin creates
> : polyphony out of a single line - that's his genius, and if you are
> : simply playing through these passages you are doing yourself a great
> : disservice. For the most part, you can see polyphonic passages by
> : looking at the accents and double stems. Play these parts apart from
> : the regular line and you will see another melody emerge - within the
> : original line. That's what is so great about Chopin - to find these
> : melodies and bring them out.
>
> I cannot believe what I'm reading. Why don't you go back and look at the
> context of my remarks and try to glean the meaning of them? Or, to put
> it another way, am I actually the only person in the universe who believes
> that using the term "voice leading" implies that one is talking about a
> polyphonic (i.e. multiple voice) texture? You may not believe this, but
> everything you said in fact agrees with what I was saying -- that "dense"
> is not an accurate description of Chopin's polyphony. Compare a Bach
> Fugue with a Chopin Nocturne. In one, there are several voices with equal
> or nearly equal prominence.
Absolutely dead wrong again!~ Amazing. Really, Doc, you need to knucle
down and do some work instead of making up all thsi nonsense, and
pretending to know saomething when you only put your foot in your
mouth with each new bit of demonstrably specious drivel. YOu are
inhabithjing a world of yoour own making that is rooted in a chmeram,
in fantasy. Listen to meL voices do NOT attain to equal prominence
in Bach, ever. That is an utter fallacy. Where on earth did you lever
learn that: in an auto mechanics school? I strongly advise you to
get your hands on as much of the extant contemporory literature and
sources as you possibly can, and start studying. The school of
terraced dynamics and the notion that voices and even pitch material
in a fugue and in virtually all the music of the baroque era ought be
equalized with mechanica; dispatch is an anachronism perpetuated a
group of Baroque music revivalists in the mid 19th, not the 18th
century, at the Paris Conservatoire. As you begin to do the necessary
work, you will discover that the voluminous contemporary literture
proves quite a different view and performance practice from Bach's
contemporaries,on that involves, and celebratees micro-dynamic, nobile
and viles, the inegale, improvisatoin, etc.
> In the other, there is one voice that is
> clearly intended to be more prominent than the others.
That is a wholly superficial and unprofessional interpretation that
is based on nothing but puerile and amateurish conjecture that
satisfies no theoretical concept whatsoever, nor even the demands of
the music itself. It is wholly superficial. Think again, Doc, and
consider this: the role of ambiguity in the harmonic Diaspora and the
disposition of counterpoint. In any case, you are dead wrong,
absolutely, dead, wrong. I suggest you get with the program. To make
such a grotesque oversimplification adn such a naive, and technically
fallacious remark as if it were the gospel truth,and as if it were
cofvered an entire body of work is so ludicrous as to be worth
posting on a theory site just to give those in the know a belly
laugh. But don't worry, I'm not so cruel as that, though I will
certainly refer to this. But Doc, so try to get with the program, do
at least a little reading and research, and try to understand the
finer points of Chopin and his compositional vocabulary. Right now
your so-called analysis and sweeping statements are about as crude as
it gets. I mean, you don't want anyone laughing at you for being
---shall I say it? IT's bad enough that you haven't even botherd to
get the cacts straight, and pretend to authority, but spoiuing souch
GARBAGE as that really takes the cake. Garbage!
John Bell Young
IMCA
I'm sure you do know Schenker, which is mor than I can say for some
people around here. I don't doubt your credential at all, Greg. And
what's more, I can engage you in real debate, precisely because you
are a professional who knows what'w what and is up to the challenge.
It's great that you did all the work adn teh counterpoint exercises,as
we all did. That goes without saying among pros, but there is no need
to bring that up. I assumed that a long time ago where you are
concerned. No, my interest now is in debating the merits of a living
interpretation, not good penmanship and perfect compositional manners
in a harmony exercise. It is the amateurs who, in order to pretend to
authority, and who are really less than honest with themslelves
especially, who will fake anything to pump themselves into something
they are not. That I cannot abide, as it is the worst kind of
behavior, and so phony. It makes my skin crawl. Anyway, your point
well taken, as yes, you were attributng the lack of perception of the
polyphonic of non-expert listeners
>
> > disappear because the audience is not aware of it; nor is it
> > something, as you seem to suggest, that makes an occassonal
> > appearance when it's convenient.
>
> I never suggested this. Again, you need to read more carefully.I suggested
> that "obvious" polyphonic textures (for example, canonic or imitative
> materials) only rarely make an appearance in Chopin's music, (as they do
> very clearly in the transition passages I mentioned in the 4th Ballade and
> in the B minor sonata 1st movement development sections) but obviously
> independent musical rhythims and lines are operating at all times in his
> music - otherwise Chopin couldn't be generating linear simultaneities, when
> the do occure, could he?
Actually, your statement was not nearly so specific as that, and a
good deal more ambiguous, conveying the opposite. But let's move on;
I'll take your word for it.
>
> > itself. The savvy and professional interpreter knows he is obliged to
> > convey as much about the composition as he possibly can. There have
> > been far too many bad performances of Chopin which simply presume the
> > music to be nothing more than a right hand melody accompanied by
> > inconsequential background lines in the left. Not only does such an
> > approach make a travesty of the music, but it is wholly irresponsible,
> > to speak nothing of amateur.
>
> John, one again you have entirely misread my post. Did I not say that every
> musical line (soprano, alto, tenor, and bass) has to be sensitively shaped?
Absolutely. Of course.
> How does that equate to a right-hand melody accompanied by inconsequential
> backround lines in the left?
Since when is anything inconsequential? Michelangeli would have
beaten you with a broomstick for saying any such thing (!) But
seriously, there is nothing inconseuqenti. There are degrees. yes, .of
importance in relationships between musical components and lines. And
of course, to equalize parts withoin or among lines is not all what I
am suggesting, Again, since you know Schenker, you should know all
about contrpuntal melodies, where they lurk and how they are organized
temporaly.
>That is your own interpretation of what I said.
> A person who shapes every musical line is HONORING polyphony - if you don't
> know that, you need to return to music 101.
I don't think so. I will, however, return to the recording studio at
Sony, Newport and Americus Records, where I have the great luxury of
getting my ideas out there in the marketplace. But really, do you
mean to suggest there is something wrong with paying attention to and
honoring, as you describe it, polyphony? Just ask Sofronitsky all
about that, to speak nothing of Scriabin. Of *course* it's crucial to
shape every line, to determine its affective character, which also
includes recognizing ambiguity when it is present as part of the
composer's compositional vocabulary. What one must never do, however,
is to render any two lines affectively and and dynamically equal.
Things change; voices interact and inter-react; they fragment and
re-unite. There are thresholds and dispersions wherein lines emerge
and recede one into the other.
I can and do sing every single
> line of every voice in every piece of music I play before I ever set it in
> front of an audience.
Good idea.
Nonetheless, ALL music, even polyphony, demands
> balance. The audience must be able to follow a through-line from the
> beginning to the end of a composition, or it will lose interest.
Of course it demands balance, but not at the sort of balance that
shifts all wieight to a single melody, or the right hand, or
evisceraates other voices of their objcective harmonic realitia and
contrpuntal fucntion. As for the audience, well, it needs to follow
the destiny of the work. But do know what will or will not interest
an audience, ao long as you make them part of the equaiton from the
beginning? You seem to misunderstand me: again, I am not advocating
equalization in dynamic arenas by any means. Of course not. But to
pigeonwhole a composition by imposing upon it a through line a priori
--which you don't explain precisely here, and if you mean by that
the right hand melodies of any individual composition, well, that
couldn't be more wrong -- well, that is rather to close the door on
the compositional dialectic, and the dialectic that links us as
players to the work itself in its full bloom. That is a rather
academic way of thinking: setting everything up from the beginning as
it were a pat cut-out and then connecting the dots. Sruelym, you don't
mean to imply that, as that would be to reify the text.
Naturally, I advocate, as you do, doing the analysis. One has to find
the relationships that thrive within the text and cultivate them,
examining the motivic material and how it develops. Find the urlinie.
Determine how voices interact, and which compositional events deserve
more prominence than others. Do all the work. Compositional funciton
is determined by what is going on within. This may be something as
fundamentlal as as single motive, as it is, for example, in
Beethoven, Op. 10 No 3, where teh relationship between only two
pitches, D and C # --virtually drives the entire work, and defines
its consturction, intensity and line.
This does
> not mean that that line will always be in the soprano. It DOES necessarily
> mean that at every moment of the piece there will be a dominant voice.
Of course, I agree with you. That is true, and that contradicts
nothing of what I have been saying. But to render a dominant voice
equal with a conventional melody, as your prose implied, is incorrect.
This
> is true in Baroque counterpoint as well. What is a fugue performance in
> which the entrance of the successive voices is obscured by a far-too-noisy
> countersubject? It is a musically unsuccessful performance.
Yes, precisely, And this is what one person here fails to understand,
imagining, incorrectly, that baroque music is all about equalization
of the voices.
Empirically,
> the number of measures in Chopin in which the right hand melody (or in many
> cases, the top note of two parts in the right hand) is dominant over the
> other active lines, is probably in a ratio of 10:1 to those in which a
> melody emerges from the bass, tenor, or alto as dominant. What I am NOT
> saying, but what you apparently believe I am saying, is that independent
> melodies don't exist in those other lines when the right hand melody is
> dominant. They DO exist, they do contribute to the musical meaning and
> message. Nonetheless, they are intended to be less-prominent than the
> melody - and here I'm simply talking about dynamics, not the contribution
> that the other lines are making to the richness of the composition itself.
Well, what Chopin intends to be prominent does not always coincide
with any particular melody, nor does what he asks us to bring out
necessarily rely on lyricism to make its case. His notation is quite
explicit, as you know. And what I am telling you is that in Chopin,
what appears to be a single melody --even in the right hand -- is
never just that, but a pluarality of of conflicting melodies operating
within the same space at the same time. What you choose to simplify as
a simple tune, I see as as arich tapestry of relationships and
inflective potential, both rhytmically, contrapuntally and
harmonically. It is a matter of what is "implicit* in a given voice,
including a right hand regardless of its aetiology or its
registrational location. As for empircal data, you might also take
into consideration the imposition of piano versus forte: the
overwhelming promionence of piano --of quiescence -- compels us to
rethink the very concept of how Chopin's famous melodies relate to the
text as a whole.
> >
> >
> > I do think that
> > > every line (soprano, alto, tenor, bass) needs to be shaped with as much
> > > skill as the pianist has at his disposal, but, that being said, still
> the
> > > primary balance belongs in most instances to the top voice,
Not necessarily. That is rather an oversimplification. It all depends
on context and *specific* compsitional events. No one need ignore the
top voice, but please, don't shove it down throat *as* a uni-linear
melody, because it is so very mcuh richer than that. .
>
>
> to say. And I cannot
> > think of a single colleague in the pantheon of distinguished artists I
> > have long know personally who would disagree. Chopin's lovely
> > melodies, at least those which surface in the right hand, are obvious,
> > and need no help from the player to make themselves known, though
> > plenty of help from the interpreter to assuem their proper shape,
> > perspective in relation to the rest of the text (and I use text in its
> > full semiotic sense to mean something living, organic, alive, moving,
> > breathing).
>
> John, we agree on this point. However, I think the lack of beautiful shaping
> of Chopin's melodies ( no matter in which voice they occur) is THE most
> common disappointment to audiences -
Yes, that is precisely right.
> whether made up of pro
Let's stick to the former for the sake of argument! I've had my fill
of street people peddling musical advice for one day, thank you very
much!
? The harshness of a carelessly resolved appoggiatura,
> a nasty "bump" in the middle of a long melodic line - these things linger
> far longer in the consciousness than the idea that in measure 5 so and so
> neglected to adequately bring out the Ab in the left hand tenor voice which
> lent a nice counterbalance to the G in the right hand.
Yes, we agree again. True enough.
> >
> >
> > Absolutely, demonstrably wrong. To do so would precisely eviscerate
> > the music of its argument, that is , of its world of contradictions,
> > which are so pristinely codified and embedded in the complex
> > relationships of its myriad parts.
>
> Again, I was speaking merely of which voice should receive the most
> prominence dynamically. Perhaps, you disagree with my thesis that all parts
> ought not to have equal dynamic prominence at all times.
Not at all. I agree with you 200% on that issue. BUT.. musical
argument occurs locally in the housheold of contrapuntal
relationships, just as it ahas since the early 17th century and the
cultivation of polyphohny as the principal vocabulary of western
composition. *As you stated it*, you suggested precisely the opposite,
that is, that the elaobration of a melody is what a listener relies
upon to grasp msuical argument. That is only partially true, as the
context in which any melody thrives in relation to its own pitch
constituents and thus discrete hamronic implications, and within the
larger context of the rest of the text, is the breeding ground of
musical conflict --harmonic, rhtymic, formal -- among various voices.
However, I too have
> known my share of well-known pianists, and have studied with many of the
> same, and I have absorbed this notion from that training.
Naturellement.
>
> the driving
> > prinicpals in music of the baroque era, to which principals Chopin
> > himself aspired, by his own admission.
>
> However, Chopin's polyphony is not directly analagous to Baroque
> contrapuntal polyphony, because the basis for the majority of his polyphony
> is not imitation!
By which you mean to suggest the opposite, that is, that the basis for
the majority of baroque polyphony *is* imitation. Well, I beg to
differ, as imitation in baroque music is but one aspect of
compositional procedure, as you must well know. Chopin's polyphony
resembles Bach in many ways, but in one thatis particualrly
importabnt, anemly , in his appropriation and use of contrapuntal
melodies, that is, again, pitch material embedded in what is
appearently a single voice that, by virtue of how those pitches relate
to the harmonifc context and to each other acorss time and registers,
form a line of their own. Chopin's frequent use of double stems,
beams, longer note values and accents, to speak nothing of pedaling
and dyamics, offer plenty of clues long before one would hve to
indulge in a Schenker graph to sort them out.
Yes, that is true
> and then bring that subject into prominence in whatever
> voice it appears, whenever it appears.
That has been tradition, but a tradition, I'm afraid that was an idea
that gained far greater weight in the romantic than in the baroque
era. So onthis point, which concerns early music, I must illuminate
your presumption, as it is not entirely correct. It certainly doesn't
have much to do with baroque performance practice, though there are
of course any number of examples where the vigourous entry of a new
voice is entirely appropriate.
But in the baroque era, the prominence of a voice did not by any
means depend soley on its entry! God no, certainly not! On the
contrary, even in a fugue subject, the entry of a voice depends again
on context; in an instrumental ensemble, for exmaple, on the
instrument that carries it, and on the nature of the entry itself.
Individual pitches were interpreted and viewed very much as if they
were syllables; the onset of pitch began quietly, expanded a bit, and
then faded out. The dynamics of the barouqe period were conceive as
and taken from language; theire field of operation was within the
smallest possible units, and they belonged to complexes of
articulation Dynamics in those days modified and referred to small
groups of notes, and even to single tones. The principal aesthetic
capital was that of speech, of musical dialogue and discourse; and the
smallest particles, including individual pitches , were systoles of
pronunciation.
There are just as many instances where an entry must be made
discretely, in order to allow, even conceptually (on a keyboard
insturment) the expansion of pitch or small group of pitches before
moving on and gaining energy cumulatively.
If you have a different way of
> performing imitative counterpoint, please explain how and why to us.
Well, I think I just did, above.
>
John Bell Young
IMCA
> In article <fdd71043.02112...@posting.google.com>, Daniel G. Emilio <daniel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<arf836$313$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
> :> In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> : But of course Chopin's music--virtually all of it -- is richly
> :> : polyphonic; ask anyone who knows even a modicum about theory and
> :> : composiional process.
> :>
> :> There is a difference between "richly" polyphonic and what you originally
> :> said -- that his music was "densely" polyphonic. A large fraction (perhaps
> :> an absolute majority, although I haven't checked) of his music consists
> :> of a melody line supported by an accompaniment. This is not what we usually
> :> think of when we think of dense polyphony which consists of large numbers
> :> of independent lines. How many *independent* voices are there in a typical
> :> nocturne, or waltz, or even ballade?
> :
> : I cannot believe what I'm reading. You cannot compare Chopin's
> : polyphony with Bach or virtually anyone else.
> I cannot believe what I'm reading.
Polly want a cracker?
John Bell Young
Daniel G. Emilio
You are quite right. Secondary melodies are literally everywhere in
Chopin's music. In your Op. 66 citation, the secondary melody is so
strong that it's difficult to imagine anything "secondary" about it.
In fact, when I first thought about your citation, I wasn't sure what
you meant because I've played this piece so many times, and the melody
is so obvious, that I actually never quite thought of it in that way.
But you are absolutely correct.
The Op. 64/2 waltz is very interesting because I've heard performances
of it without any secondary melody at the Piu mosso, and indeed, I
play from the Peters edition which also doesn't have it. When I
learned it (about 40 years ago), my piano teacher taught it to me as
something that great artists did but that wasn't written down. So,
I've always played it that way. I always had the sense (but without
evidentiary support) that Chopin played it that way but for some
reason didn't write it down, and so it had to be passed on from
teacher to student. Now the problem is I don't have access to the
Klindworth-Scharwenka edition and so I'm not absolutely positive that
we are talking about the same thing, but let me describe what I'm
talking about and you can tell me if it's the same.
At the Piu mosso in the right hand is a repeating 1-measure downwardly
cascading figure that goes for 6 measures and then 2 measures go up
and the cascading figure comes back for another 4 measures and the
passage ends in an upward scale. The entire passage is then repeated,
almost verbatim. Now, I was taught that on the first time through,
the passage is played exactly as written without any secondary melody,
but on the second playing, the last note of each of the cascading
figures is accented, or rather held as though it was almost a dotted
quarter note to be held through the following measure. So, the melody
you get is G#, G#, F#, E, D#, C#, with each of those notes being
accented and held but the C# was accented only but not held, and then
the next group of 4 measures treated the same. (It should go without
saying that the accents are not heavy but done like a song.) Now the
Piu mosso is repeated two more times in the waltz and treated the same
each time, with the first time without the secondary melody and the
second time with. I am very much interested in what others have
learned about this and how they perform it. I am not saying that what
I do is the only way (especially considering that I have heard it
recorded differently), but it is the way I was taught and how I choose
to perform it. Others may have different views or stories if
something similar was passed on to them.
BTW, I've read other threads that suggest that Chopin is easy to
memorize, and I'm here to tell you that I find the opposite true and
that this Piu mosso section is a good case in point. I said that the
passage was repeated almost verbatim - but not completely. A close
reading will show that several of the chords are different and a
couple are not repeated at all. And this is not unusual for Chopin.
Very often, he will do something one way and then he repeats it later
with very subtle changes. This makes memorization very difficult if
you are intent on playing it as written. While Horowitz, Rubenstein
and very few others have license to do as they wish, no one else
should be so presumptuous as to casually make changes or to be
imprecise in memorization. But this is easy for me to say since I
haven't performed publicly since College and when I do perform for
friends, I can afford to be "liberal" in my performance (because
frankly my listeners don't know any better). But I don't do this
purposefully because my goal is always to do it correctly. I just
can't spend the time each piece would require. But for serious
students, my advice is to be scrupulous in learning and memorizing
Chopin as it was written, but then in performing, relax, let it flow
and enjoy the rush.
Good Luck
Daniel G. Emilio
IMCA
>
> : But of course Chopin's music--virtually all of it -- is richly
> : polyphonic; ask anyone who knows even a modicum about theory and
> : composiional process.
>
> :
>
Whoop de doo!
John Bell Young
Mason Clark
>-----
>Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
I don't know about the rest of you, but I make strong use of
*filter* in newsgroups and Mr. Schultz has gone into my "Kill" filter.
I strongly recommend the improvement that kill filters make.
IMCA
Thanks very much for this critique. Mea culpa! Of course, in the face
of great music I dare say we are all amateurs, a word that in fact
means "lover" . Indeed, I don't think anyone can deny that we are all
lovers of music. I suppose it's inevitable that its use in a context
where things are discussed in such technical detail, and in relation
to the activities of professionals, might sound perjorative. And to
tell you the truth, that sense of it is not something I am unaware of
when I write. It makes me cringe a bit, but I continue to use it
anyway, bucking political correctness as I often have to do when
teaching. Music, as Michelangeli said, is not a democracy! But in
using the word "amateur" I certainly mean no disrespect whatsoever to
anyone; it is a useful term, however, to distinguish to whatever
extent it can the kind of work, resposnibility, time, authority and
knowledge that a professional --at least one who is worth his salt --
has devoted a lifetime to accumulating and cultivating, as opposed to
gifted players who for one reason or another simply have not purseued
the art with that kind of detailed attention, nor pent the time
required to gather as much information as the would have had to were
they professionals.
Of course there are so-called amateurs, by their own admition, who
play at the level of profesionals. This is a case where the word is
used only in its most material sense, that is, where it is essentially
equivalent to the word "consumer". (This is one of the reason I adore
langauge and the issues it engenders -- and in fact, this particular
issue is one taht musical semiotics deals with routiely). The only
reason such people--who, by the way, I have heard myself, though
rarely, when I've served on the jury of "amateur" piano competitions,
such as that in Boston and in Fort Worth (I served only on the former
jury)-- are not professional, or not called porofessional, is because
they earn their livings doing something else entirely. But i know
engineers and doctors who have cultivated real virtuoso techniqeus and
could certainly pursue a career as concert artists if they wished.
So, when I use amateur, it is essentially to make a distinction, as
best I can and in a general way only, between what a pro has to knock
himself out doing for years, and what those whose fundamental
objective is simply to enjoy playing see fit to do.
As for the C minor nocturne, I posted an analysis of it, with some
practical suggestions on how to approach playing it, in an earlier
(but rather long) post here. I suppose the best thing would be to cut
and paste it and re-subjmit just that part of the post so that folks
don't have to wade through the entire litany of verbal pirouettes that
I asked, at the beginning of the post, for folks to indulge me in....
By the way, please keep a look out today for a little contest I'm
gong to post here, I suppose on a separate thread-- I'll post 10
questions about music. The winner who correctly answers them will win
a free subscription to www.masterclass.ws , which includes
videotaped masterclasses and performances by Jorge Bolet, Dag Achatz,
Jorg Demus, Margarita Fyodorova, Andrezj Wasowski and me.
John Bell Young
www.johnbellyoung.com
www.mp3.com/johnbellyoung
Tak-Shing Chan
> Tak-Shing Chan <es...@city.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.0211211207210.15998-100000@swindon>...
>> (3) Op. 64/2, piu mosso (ed. Klindworth-Scharwenka only;
>> none of Mikuli (Dover)/Cortot/Paderewski had the inner melody)
>
> The Op. 64/2 waltz is very interesting because I've heard performances
> of it without any secondary melody at the Piu mosso, and indeed, I
> play from the Peters edition which also doesn't have it. When I
> learned it (about 40 years ago), my piano teacher taught it to me as
> something that great artists did but that wasn't written down. So,
> I've always played it that way. I always had the sense (but without
> evidentiary support) that Chopin played it that way but for some
> reason didn't write it down, and so it had to be passed on from
> teacher to student. Now the problem is I don't have access to the
> Klindworth-Scharwenka edition and so I'm not absolutely positive that
> we are talking about the same thing, but let me describe what I'm
> talking about and you can tell me if it's the same.
Yes it is almost the same, except that Klindworth-Scharwenka
have the first 16 measures with secondary melody and the last 16
measures without, in all of the piu mosso sections. This fits
better with Chopin's indication that the last 16 measures should
be played softer than the first, but it has less diversity than
your interesting interpretation...
> BTW, I've read other threads that suggest that Chopin is easy to
> memorize, and I'm here to tell you that I find the opposite true and
> that this Piu mosso section is a good case in point. I said that the
> passage was repeated almost verbatim - but not completely. A close
> reading will show that several of the chords are different and a
> couple are not repeated at all.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.
Tak-Shing
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.02111...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : But of course Chopin's music--virtually all of it -- is richly
> : polyphonic; ask anyone who knows even a modicum about theory and
> : composiional process.
>
> said -- that his music was "densely" polyphonic. A large fraction (perhaps
> an absolute majority, although I haven't checked) of his music consists
> of a melody line supported by an accompaniment. This is not what we usually
> think of when we think of dense polyphony which consists of large numbers
> of independent lines.
Let me just point out yet another ludicrous remark and blatant error
perpetuated by this man's wierd world of make-believe theory: in case
he hadn't noticed, there ARE large numbers --very large numbers, in
fact -- of independent voices in Chopin-- throughout virtually every
one of his works, and all the time. You;d have to be deaf not to
grasp that. Also, a little lesson on polyphony: two or more voices,
and you have polyphony, capiche?
John Bell Young
IMCA
>
>
> opening of the C minor Nocturne. Since this is a piece of music I
> enjoy playing (though you'll be glad to know I almost never play it
> for others), I'd like to hear how polyphony theory can apply in this
> example and influence how it should be played.
[Heres the bit I included on an earlier, lengthier post, as
promised]:
The most common error that students make with this rather operatic
nocturne is largely rhythmic, and one which proceeds from a
misunderstanding of where things are moving, especially in the LH. It
is no accident that Chopin spent more than an hour teaching a student
how to play the first four bars alone of this nocturne. We have what
is essentially a four voiced texture with doublings. A common error is
to impose a slur where one does not exist over every two beats in the
LH, as if there was a continual line linking the bass to the chords
in the upper register. But there are actually three independent lines
moving forward simultaneously. The first and third beats form a line
--which I believe even Schenker would logically argue comprise at
least the principal pitch material of the urlinie (though on closer
examination, it is unlikely that these could be interpreted at the
local level - that is, bar to bar -- since to do so would require
seeing how things connect over a much broader temporal area). The
tenor and alto voices, likewise, require shaping and efinition as well
throughout. The rhythm of the opening relies largely on the
relationship of the strong beats, codified in the bass octaves, which
form their own line, to the melodic pitches that occur on the weak
beats in the soprano.
I have observed that students --and indeed, even some professional
pianists, tend to bring in the second beat a micro-second too soon.
But the downbeat in Bar one, as with all the strong beats, virtually
sets up the second beat as a kind of vibratory reaction, Whie neither
the right nor the left hand involves
the kind of contrapuntal complexity of other nocturnes , such as Op.
55 or Op 62, yet, with regard to pitch material, it is the dominant, G
natural around which the soprano melody orbits. Not only does the
theme begin on that pitch, but it continually comes back to it,
alighting upon it, and usually doing so on off beats. Of particular
interest is the introduction of the A flat (modified for emphasis by
an appoggiatura) in bar 4, which has a rather different function than
it did, as the sixth degree of the scale, only a few bars earlier.
Here it fulills its destiny as the ninth degree in the context of the
dominant,
thus implying a kind of discrete and dissonant tension at a most
unexpected moment, and giving definition to the cadence. The next
four bars, with its expanded intervals that contradict the relatively
close motion of the first four measures, introduce the most
significant point of departure in bar 8, where the broken octave on D
introduces the largest interval thus far.
Elsewhere, the half-stepwise motion of the RH is mirrored in all three
voices in the LH. Though I cannot introduce a graph here as I don't
have the software to do so, I would have to decipher the urlinie, in a
cursory examination, of the soprano in the first four bars as limited
essentially to three pitches: G, A flat and C. The embedded
intervalic structure of D to E flat that occurs in Bars 2 and 4,
mirroring again (though out of phase and at a ore rapid rate of speed)
the half-step motive that defines the opening bar, is significant,
and contributes to the harmonic tension that begins to infest the
piece as early as Bar 2. Indeed, rather than intensify the dynamic
with a crescendo from bar 1 (which I often hear students do), and
thus making a dramatic meal of Bar 2, I would suggest backing off a
bit, following the somewhat tense, and dynamically heightened ascent
to A flat in the previous bar. Instead, I recommend coming down in
volume, to something along the lines of a subito piano, at the onset
of Bar 2, as if the soprano line was sung almost under the breath, or
being intoned as a vocalise is intoned. This retreat to a pianissimo
(providing you begin the work in the overall dynamic of a full, rich
piano (what Schnabel called an "executive piano") will also serve to
illuminate and differentiate the intervallic structures at play,
particularly the relationship of D to E lat, which moves upward to F;
and the alighting on the final sixteenth of the bar, which is a
critically important pitch in the urlinie, made all the more
significant by the unexpected descent, without passing tone
modification, to the tonic C on the downbeat of bar 3. That in turn is
further intensified by repetition for two and a half beats, interupted
by the D. (And by the way, the motion from C to D, though by a whole
step, mirrors that of Bar 1, and yet sounds even more foreboding, in
part due to the oposite motion defined by the descent of a minor third
in the bass; and the ambiguity of the harmony, which can be viewed as
either a simple subdominant, but, with the presence of the D, would
have to also be interpreted as related to the more distant, and
unexpected -- thus mysterious -- mediant, i.e, as V of III. Therefore
the D natural in Bar 3 assumes an entirely different, and heightened
significance than it enjoyed in the previous bar. Practically
speaking, I advise the pianist to connect these three D's in his inner
ear, but do NOT equalize them -- they fulfill different roles and
functions!
Pay close attention and try to highlight the final G (sixteenth) in
Bar 2. This you can do by bringing it in a micro-second late, if you
wish, or by lengthening it ever so slightly, and then taking great
care to link it across the bar line in a sinuous legato, to the C in
Bar 3 -- but avoid a bump or discernable accent on the downbeat!
Also, you will find that, by playing the second bar quieter, the aura
of mystery and prescience is intensified. With regard to the prosody
of these first four bars, I would advise you to think of it as - ~ ~
- (which is sometimes expressed as Heavy - Light-Light-Heavy ). In
other words, invest the most weight in bars 1 and 4, and "pass
through" bars 2 and 3, while gently shaping the pitch material such as
I described it, drawing the ear's attention to the soprano lines dual
function: 1) the pitches G and C, which the inner ear must strive to
connect and understand as a solitary harmonic unit in their own right
and 2) the embedded sub-unit that gives voice to the hidden
counterpoint -- the couplet D-E flat and and its tenuos ascent to F.
In bar four, the relationship between the A flat and G is crucial, as
it is precisely the inversion of the openng bar, and what's more, in
diminution .
Segregate slightly and discretly the D - E flat -C that follow, as
these again form the pitch material of the underlying urlinie. Take
care with these details not to break up the line; that is *not* what
we are after; but we want to make the most intelligible sentence,
paying attention to each phoneme, syllable, and seme - and , when
combined into musical "words", they must express the harmonic and
rhythmic function of the counterpoint, informed by the urlinie, with
affective discretion and nuance. What I am trying to describe here is
a matter of degrees -- by no means should anyone impose accents, or
rush or engage in any sort of overt distortion of meter, rhythm or
tempo.
John Bell Young
Jim Riley
>Absolutely dead wrong again!~ Amazing. Really, Doc, you need to knucle
>down and do some work instead of making up all thsi nonsense, and
>pretending to know saomething when you only put your foot in your
>mouth with each new bit of demonstrably specious drivel. YOu are
>inhabithjing a world of yoour own making that is rooted in a chmeram,
>in fantasy.
Wow! It's a gusher!
So, if I understand correctly, the assertions that unleashed all this
ad hominem vitriol were roughly as follows:
1. While Chopin uses counterpoint in very special ways, one melodic
line is most apparent to the listener much of the time in his music.
2. That happens less of the time in Bach than in Chopin.
Doesn't seem too outlandish to me. In fact, I would hazard a guess
that the great majority of listeners who are familiar with both
composers would agree.
Then again, it could be that my world is also rooted in a chmeram,
whatever that is.
-- Jim
IMCA
> Thank you very much for the clarification. Actually my piano has inadequate
> damping and the E-minor doesn't sound badly to my ears even with no damping
> in the early measures. I can see and hear how very skillfully applied
> pedal work would improve the piece. But was confused because of the absence
> of pedal indications.
> Thanks again.
> TS
If you will be a little patient, and don't mind waiting a day or so, I
will video tape a master class on this prelude, and make it available
for you.
John Bell Young
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<arhscp$18s$3...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
:> Now, here are two examples of problems that Bach
:> presents for the performer:
:> [examples deleted for brevity]
:> Now I will ask you -- can you give specific examples from Chopin where he
:> presents problems in polyphony (gotta love the alliteration) to the
:> performer that are of a similar nature?
: Bwaaaak, Bwahk, bwahk, bwahk, bwahk
Exactly.
IMCA
Sorry for the typo. The word was meant to be chimera. As for the
first part of your statement, you are more or less correct, but it's
an oversimplification such as you state it. Look, counterpoint and
music is complex, not simple. Things are not always what they seem. To
simplify things, let's just say Chopin, weaves independent voices
into the very fabric of the registration, wherein certain pithces
relate to each other i space and voer time. This pitch material, which
Chopin often deftly manipulates throughout registers (and often, but
not always codifies it through the imposition of accents, double
stems, tenuto marks, rests, beaming, etc) gives voice to always new,
endlessly emerging relationships that some scholars have dubbed
"contrapuntal melodies". that owe their life and indeed, their form
to This material is organized both rhythmically and strategically in
any given figure, unit of affect or phrase period, and tangoes with
its neighbors. Competing voices emerge and recede as if by stealth, as
significant pitches -which the composer may alight upon for specific
structural purposes, and in order to enhance musical tension - make
themselves known for their functional relevance, and indeed, their
relevance within the prevailing harmonic and rhythmic structure. Now,
without going into too muchtdetail, that strategy goes to what a work
may fundamentally concer. For example, a composition might concern
itself with something as relatively straightforward as the destiny of
a ninth chord, or the the potential of tritones withing a French
sixth; or it might concern itself with certain rhythmic relationships
which induct themselces periodically within the work to certain
effect, and at certain times, subject to variance. Or, where form
again melts into content, it might concern itself with devloping
variation, as it does in so many works of Brahms and Schoenberg.
Indeed, the affective permutations and conflicts inherent within a
single chord is something that a musical strucutre perpetuates and
which the interpreter is obliged to intuit, discern and grasp, for
their inelectable relationships, throughout a work. As interpreters,
we have no choice but to dig deep into the work, and look for those
rleaionships that lie embedded int he text. Often , the composer
--especially one as meticulous about notation as Chopin - provides
plenty of data, information and clues. At other times these
relationships move about as an unconsious by-product of the composer's
imagination, which, when as succinctly and scrupulously pristne and
well-organized as that of Chopin, or Brahms or Janacek, gives way to a
hell of a lot of fascinating and provocative musical opportunities.
As for the second part, no, you are not exactly correct, as your
comment suggests that tehmusic of Bach is somehow less complex than
Chopin's. Again, Bach's music, like Chopin's,is polyphonic. The
difference in genres resides largely at the local level of
compositional strategy. The central aesthetic of baroque music
invested itself in the idea of the duplication, in musical
categories, of dialogue, or speech rhythms. Rhythm was organized
cumulatively and in relaively small periodic units. Long periodic
phrases, such as those that became customary and usual to
compositional procedure in Liszt's day, for example, were unknown
here. Music was organized around the phonemes,semes and syllables,
that is in motivic material that was compactly juxtaposed and viewed
as very much as it they were words in a sentence.
Chopin was a devotee of Bach and the baroque, and the potential of its
polyphonic excess. Of course, he found his own voice, and availed
himself of contemporary trends in compostion that were wholly his own.
But at the same time, he warmed to the relationshiop of msuic to
language, anticipating Musorgsky's perhaps more specific
experimentation in this area by decades. Of course, Chopin's love and
devoton to opera and its most celebrated creators was no accident,
either,and only served to stimulate his imagination in this area.
Anyway, I hope this provides at least a modicum of satisfaction for
your questions.
John Bell Young
www.johnbellyoung.com
IMCA
Let me also add that what is merely apparent to the listener -which is
an awfully broad category, given that there are different kinds of
listeners -- in the music of Chopin or Bach, or any composer of merit
for that mattere is largely a function of both the expertise and
cultivation of the interpreter, and the listening apparatus and habits
of the listener.
Now by that I do not mean to suggest in any way that one person's
experience of a work is any better than any other person's -that is
far too subjective a thing, and besides, there is no measurable way
to discern it, nor even any particular reason to, as each of us
responsd s to and takes away from music something unique and
hopefully, satisfying.
But what is speifically immanent in a work of music, especially music
as complex as that of Chopin, goes far, far beyond the presence of a
single melodic line. For the professional, a careful and responsible
examination of musical content geos without saying; what is perfectly
satisfactory and non-problematic for the average listener, who simply
want to enjoy the music and let someone else do the work, is not
enough for the informed and responsible musician, who is obliged to
look much deeper and sort out as much about the work at hand as he
possibly can.
Thus, where the average, non-expert listener will only hear or be
attuned to a single melody, usually the bel canto tune of the right
hand in a Chopin prelude or ballade, for example --which response
might very well be helped along by a less than savvy player who
punches out the soprano voice as if it were the only line in the
texture, rather than the plurality of lines, which, in Coin's music,
it invariably is --i.e., a contrapuntal melody; and at the expencse of
the innumerable other voices that comprise the text, -- others among
us hear other and equally significant lines and compositional
relationships. Again, it comes back to what I tried to explain in my
last post: that what might appear to be a single line or melody is
more often than not a contrapuntal melody, that is, a line that
implies two or more voices simultaneously in light of the organization
of the pitch material and the relation of that material to the
prevailing harmonic strategy and the principal motivic elements that
lend both substnace and consistency to the work itself.
I can provide many, many specific examples, of course. There are
thousands. But here's just one. in the E minor prelude (Op. 28 No.
4), the left hand is ostensibly written as a three voiced texture. But
a closer look reveals that, while that is true, things are bit more
complex. Indeed, the configuration and exfoliation of the harmonies
reveal themslelves quite plainly as a kind of compsed, built-in
stretto, and a virtual celebration of imitation that moves across
boundaries and exploits itself across registers. At one point, in the
bars following the climax at Bar 17, virtually the same pitch material
and melodic line Chopin asigned to that climax is embedded in the left
hand voices, but distributed among the three voices. Now, of course,
this is not something I would advise, as a practical matter, any
pianist to bring out forcefully; there is no reason to, as in this
particular cae, Chopin, does not ask us to do that, as he sometimes
does through his precise notation.
But a shrewed and informe pianist and musician should certainly make
himself aware of this dimension of the work, and in so doing, find a
means to discretely signify it, principally for his own ears, and as
a subtle means to intensify the compositional focus and structure. A
tasteful interpretation might even lightly highlight the relevant
pitches, and in so doing, provide a kind of psychological subtext that
the average listener may not hear in any kind of immedate or visceral
way, but may detect vaguely on unconscious levels. In other words, he
may intuit that there is something about the passage that is richer,
or more compelling, or disturbing than remembered, or had heard in
some other performace -- or, even on first hearing, might strike him
as unusual or particularly satisfying -- and yet he is not quite able
to put his finger on it.
John Bell Young
Daniel G. Emilio
I sense derision in your tone as though all this is much ado about
nothing. But let me say that residing in this ng are many beginning
players who look to others on how music should be performed, and while
a listener doesn't need to know these things, a performer certainly
does. So what was being discussed is of significance because unsound
or incorrect statements made by people who sound authoritative in
their remarks must not go unchallenged.
Daniel G. Emilio
Tak-Shing Chan
> (3) Op. 64/2, piu mosso (ed. Klindworth-Scharwenka only;
> none of Mikuli (Dover)/Cortot/Paderewski had the inner melody)
Please forgive my unreliable memory.
Correction: Cortot *did* mention this in passing (see his
footnote 8), but he did not bother to write the held note into
the score. Furthermore, he did it only once, in the pp part of
the *second* piu mosso section (i.e. the first and last piu
mosso sections are plain).
Tak-Shing
Tak-Shing Chan
> On 21 Nov 2002, Daniel G. Emilio wrote:
>
>> Tak-Shing Chan <es...@city.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.0211211207210.15998-100000@swindon>...
>>> (3) Op. 64/2, piu mosso (ed. Klindworth-Scharwenka only;
>>> none of Mikuli (Dover)/Cortot/Paderewski had the inner melody)
>>
>> The Op. 64/2 waltz is very interesting because I've heard performances
>> of it without any secondary melody at the Piu mosso, and indeed, I
>> play from the Peters edition which also doesn't have it. When I
>> learned it (about 40 years ago), my piano teacher taught it to me as
>> something that great artists did but that wasn't written down. So,
>> I've always played it that way. I always had the sense (but without
>> evidentiary support) that Chopin played it that way but for some
>> reason didn't write it down, and so it had to be passed on from
>> teacher to student. Now the problem is I don't have access to the
>> Klindworth-Scharwenka edition and so I'm not absolutely positive that
>> we are talking about the same thing, but let me describe what I'm
>> talking about and you can tell me if it's the same.
>
> Yes it is almost the same, except that Klindworth-Scharwenka
> have the first 16 measures with secondary melody and the last 16
> measures without, in all of the piu mosso sections. This fits
> better with Chopin's indication that the last 16 measures should
> be played softer than the first, but it has less diversity than
> your interesting interpretation...
Regarding diversity, I must admit that I have misread your
previous post: I thought you were subdividing the piu mosso
section into four parts (instead of two).
It turns out that your interpretation is actually halfway
between Klindworth-Scharwenka and Cortot, as I have just found
out today.
Tak-Shing
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.0211...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> : <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<arhscp$18s$3...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
>
> :> Now, here are two examples of problems that Bach
> :> presents for the performer:
>
> :> [examples deleted for brevity]
>
> :> Now I will ask you -- can you give specific examples from Chopin where he
> :> presents problems in polyphony (gotta love the alliteration) to the
> :> performer that are of a similar nature?
>
> : Bwaaaak, Bwahk, bwahk, bwahk, bwahk
>
> Exactly.
>
Now the subject has taken to responding to his own posts. The op.cit.
above is not mine, but his own. More amusing is that, from his perch
within his very own make-believe music theory fantasy land, he has
found the perfect vocabulary to give voice to his ideas: nonsense
syllables.
John Bell Young
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.0211...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> : <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<arhscp$18s$3...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
>
> Exactly.
We are still waiting for the recording and video of this fellow's
breathtaking piano playing, which would provide clear and compelling
evidence of his intellectual and artistic savoir faire, the very
things he would like so desperaetely for everyone to believe. Whatever
could be causing the delay, I wonder? What could possibly be the
problem? A C major scale, perhaps? Well, I certainly look forward to
his performance of even so much as few standard works in the
repertoire, and to his master classes, so as to see if this chap is
really capable of putting his money where his mouth is. Let's not
dawdle! After all, it is time for this guy to put his cards on the
table and prove what he's really got to offer in support of his
pretentions to authority. It is certainly a reasonable request.
Otherwise, he is just wasting time.
John Bell Young
IMCA
Precisement...enfin, un voix de raison....
John Bell Young
Daniel G. Emilio
Interesting. I will make a point of checking this out.
Daniel G. Emilio
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<arppnj$33a$6...@news.iucc.ac.il>...:> : Bwaaaak, Bwahk, bwahk, bwahk, bwahk
:> Exactly.
: Now the subject has taken to responding to his own posts. The op.cit.
: above is not mine, but his own. More amusing is that, from his perch
: within his very own make-believe music theory fantasy land, he has
: found the perfect vocabulary to give voice to his ideas: nonsense syllables.
That whooshing noise you heard was the sound of an insult going over
your head.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: We are still waiting for the recording and video of this fellow's
: breathtaking piano playing, which would provide clear and compelling
: evidence of his intellectual and artistic savoir faire, the very
: things he would like so desperaetely for everyone to believe.
Are you saying that only a professional level pianist can understand a
piece of Chopin's music well enough to be able to comment on it? I realize
that there's probably little point in expecting a sensible answer from you
on that one, given that (if I can parse the rather ungrammatical comments
you make) I don't really care -- certainly not to the point of
"desperaetion" -- whether people believe that I have as much "intellectual
and artistic savoir faire" as you do. All I know is that one of us seems
so obsessed with the rest of the world that he will post daily several
articles, each of which is hundreds of lines long, whose sole purpose seems
to be to convince the rest of the world of what a genius he is.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.02112...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : We are still waiting for the recording and video of this fellow's
> : breathtaking piano playing, which would provide clear and compelling
> : evidence of his intellectual and artistic savoir faire, the very
> : things he would like so desperaetely for everyone to believe.
>
> Are you saying that only a professional level pianist can understand a
> piece of Chopin's music well enough to be able to comment on it?
What I am saying is that the poster consistently pretends to
authority without offering a thraed of evidence either theoretically
or actually, to support the nonsene he espouses, to speak nothing of
not having the cajones to retract his false statements and show some
modesty by allowing those of us who are authentic authorities in this
area to correct his errors. and hten, to compensate for his
intellectual inadequacy, what does he do? why he hurls names and
insults and derisive comments, both directly and by innuendo, at
those of us, like Daniel and me, who would set him striaght. The man
is actually buys into his own fanatasies. God forbid he allow himself
to be exposed for what he is: a phony. the ggraet pity is that he is
only a phony by virtue of pretending to be someting he is not, adn
sticking to that wholly and demonstrably specious position. His
behavior is *fundamnentally* disonest; he is untrustworthy. Lots of
talk, which is all BS, but absolutely no beef.
I realize
> that there's probably little point in expecting a sensible answer from you
> on that one,
Oh, the posetr will get a very sensible and logical answer from me,
supported by concrete, informed and thoroughly researched evidence,
both every significant musical category from theory to comopsition to
interpretive practice, and which I have not only made available
frequenlty on this forum, but which can be found elsewhere in my
formal and pulbished papers over the last few decades. And of course,
the fact that, unlike the poster, I can play for real. What we will
get from the poster in response are just more falsehoods, gratuitous
and provocative ad hominem attacks, derision and nasty comments,
which will not go unchallenged, and which I am only too happy to
return in kind, though more elegantly,
given that (if I can parse the rather ungrammatical comments
> you make)
Now the poster fancies himself a writer. That's a laugh. For one who
can barely put together a sentece, much less a thought, ad whose
native language is note even English, he should talk. I suggest the
poster have a look at his moth eaten prose, and its litany of
wasteful locutions. That does not even begin to address the
substantive illogic and warehouse of errors.
I don't really care -- certainly not to the point of
> "desperaetion" -- whether people believe that I have as much "intellectual
> and artistic savoir faire" as you do. All I know is that one of us seems
> so obsessed with the rest of the world that he will post daily several
> articles, each of which is hundreds of lines long, whose sole purpose seems
> to be to convince the rest of the world of what a genius he is.
My sole purpose is to make sure htat phhonies like the poster are
exposed otthe widest possble audience so that thhe nonsense they
esopuse is utterly demolished and voided of any leigtimacy whatsoever.
God is in the details, which is why the poster is incapable of writing
about music in any serous or critical manner, that requires time and
lengthy exegesis. He complains about hundresds of lines, which only
points to how intellectually impoverished this man is, and how lazy
his mind. There are high school students and just plain Christian
folks on this forum who are a thosuand times more intelligent,
ntellectually curious, open-minded and eager to learn than this man,
who extols his intellectual laziness as a virtue. God knows what
he'd have a stroke if he had to actually read a book or a treatise on
music, the most substantive of whichy reach into the thousands of
pages. htousands of pages.
John Bell Young
> -----
> Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Good, do us all a favor. Stay there, and take a day trip to Palestine
on a bus, why don't you?
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.02112...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : We are still waiting for the recording and video of this fellow's
> : breathtaking piano playing, which would provide clear and compelling
> : evidence of his intellectual and artistic savoir faire, the very
> : things he would like so desperaetely for everyone to believe.
>
> Are you saying that only a professional level pianist can understand a
> piece of Chopin's music well enough to be able to comment on it? I realize
> that there's probably little point in expecting a sensible answer from you
> on that one, given that (if I can parse the rather ungrammatical comments
> you make) I don't really care -- certainly not to the point of
> "desperaetion" -- whether people believe that I have as much "intellectual
> and artistic savoir faire" as you do. All I know is that one of us seems
> so obsessed with the rest of the world that he will post daily several
> articles, each of which is hundreds of lines long, whose sole purpose seems
> to be to convince the rest of the world of what a genius he is.
>
I think one of my last comments was uncalled for, and I apoologize to
Dr Schultz for having made the comment about a day trip by bus to
Palestine. He should walk.
John Bell Young
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.02112...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : We are still waiting for the recording and video of this fellow's
> : breathtaking piano playing, which would provide clear and compelling
> : evidence of his intellectual and artistic savoir faire, the very
> : things he would like so desperaetely for everyone to believe.
>
> Are you saying that only a professional level pianist can understand a
> piece of Chopin's music well enough to be able to comment on it? I realize
> that there's probably little point in expecting a sensible answer from you
> on that one, given that (if I can parse the rather ungrammatical comments
> you make) I don't really care -- certainly not to the point of
> "desperaetion" -- whether people believe that I have as much "intellectual
> and artistic savoir faire" as you do. All I know is that one of us seems
> so obsessed with the rest of the world that he will post daily several
> articles, each of which is hundreds of lines long, whose sole purpose seems
> to be to convince the rest of the world of what a genius he is.
>
> -----
We are still waiting for the recording and video of this fellow's
breathtaking piano playing, which would provide clear and compelling
evidence of his intellectual and artistic savoir faire, the very
things he would like so desperaetely for everyone to believe.
In case Doctor Dick is hard of hearing, which he evidently is:
We are still waiting for the recording and video of this fellow's
breathtaking piano playing, which would provide clear and compelling
evidence of his intellectual and artistic savoir faire, the very
things he would like so desperaetely for everyone to believe.
What's the matter? Can't cut it, Doctor Dick? If you have something to
prove, then prove it. But don't waste my time.
John Bell Young
>
>
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: We are still waiting for the recording and video of this fellow's
: breathtaking piano playing, which would provide clear and compelling
: evidence of his intellectual and artistic savoir faire, the very
: things he would like so desperaetely for everyone to believe.
Why don't you answer the question that I asked? Do you, or do you not,
believe that one has to be a professional level performer to be able to
make informed comments about music?
: What's the matter? Can't cut it, Doctor Dick? If you have something to
: prove, then prove it. But don't waste my time.
I have never once claimed to be a performer at that level. I would estimate
the technical level of my playing as something like "advanced amateur" and
I have never claimed otherwise.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Mark A.
>> At one point (I lost the original posting) someone mentioned the
>> opening of the C minor Nocturne. Since this is a piece of music I
>> enjoy playing (though you'll be glad to know I almost never play it
>> for others), I'd like to hear how polyphony theory can apply in this
>> example and influence how it should be played.
>
> [Heres the bit I included on an earlier, lengthier post, as
> promised]:
Thanks for a very interesting posting. I got out the score and
followed along, though I'm still a bit puzzled by some things. I'm
not sure what "seme" and "urlinie" mean, though I can kinda-sorta tell
from the context. I'm sure a few moments with Google will clear that
up later.
What I have trouble with is moving from the understanding of the piece
in this analytic sense to the actual playing of it. For example, you
wrote:
> In bar four, the relationship between the A flat and G is crucial, as
> it is precisely the inversion of the openng bar, and what's more, in
> diminution .
I can see the inversion here, but I still am hazy about how I would
play this bit to make clear that this particular note relationship is
"crucial". Obviously, this is something that would be best explained
by a demonstration at the piano, rather than in a newsgroup.
(I really need to get back to taking lessons again; I stopped after
moving an hour away from my teacher.)
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.02112...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : We are still waiting for the recording and video of this fellow's
> : breathtaking piano playing, which would provide clear and compelling
> : evidence of his intellectual and artistic savoir faire, the very
> : things he would like so desperaetely for everyone to believe.
>
> Why don't you answer the question that I asked? Do you, or do you not,
> believe that one has to be a professional level performer to be able to
> make informed comments about music?
No. Of course not, which is to say, one does NOT have to be a
professonal performer to make intelligent and informed comments about
music. But there's the ruv: "infiorned". And that one, single issue is
really my only beef with you> it ahs to do with a fairly
straightforward technical matter, the facts surrounding which you were
mistaken about in some earlier posts, and which I felt it important to
correct, as did at least one other person here.
>
> : What's the matter? Can't cut it, Doctor Dick? If you have something to
> : prove, then prove it. But don't waste my time.
>
> I have never once claimed to be a performer at that level. I would estimate
> the technical level of my playing as something like "advanced amateur" and
> I have never claimed otherwise.
OK. Agreed and understood. I now put the matter to rest.
John Bell Young
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:> In article <448889ba.02112...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
:>
:> : We are still waiting for the recording and video of this fellow's
:> : breathtaking piano playing, which would provide clear and compelling
:> : evidence of his intellectual and artistic savoir faire, the very
:> : things he would like so desperaetely for everyone to believe.
:>
:> Why don't you answer the question that I asked? Do you, or do you not,
:> believe that one has to be a professional level performer to be able to
:> make informed comments about music?
:
: No. Of course not, which is to say, one does NOT have to be a
: professonal performer to make intelligent and informed comments about
: music.
Then what was the relevance of your demand to hear my peformance as if
that had anything to do with anything?
: But there's the ruv: "infiorned".
You misspelled "fjord." HTH!
: And that one, single issue is really my only beef with you
Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
: it ahs to do with a fairly
: straightforward technical matter, the facts surrounding which you were
: mistaken about in some earlier posts, and which I felt it important to
: correct, as did at least one other person here.
In fact, the "fairly straightforward technical matter" was my having
the temerity to claim that "dense" is not a good word to describe the
polyphony in Chopin's music. At least, it was that statement that set
off your "time for condescension and personal abuse" flag.
As for my statement that Chopin nocturnes typically consist of a melody
and an accompaniment to that melody (although there might be several
voices in and levels to the accompaniment), I stand by that statement, and
more than that, I will say that anyone who thinks that my statement is
incorrect, and tries to perform a typical Chopin nocturne in any other
fashion, has either holes or rocks in his head.
:> : What's the matter? Can't cut it, Doctor Dick? If you have something to
:> : prove, then prove it. But don't waste my time.
:>
:> I have never once claimed to be a performer at that level. I would estimate
:> the technical level of my playing as something like "advanced amateur" and
:> I have never claimed otherwise.
:
: OK. Agreed and understood. I now put the matter to rest.
That's not sufficient. What you have to do is to acknowledge that your
derisive comments about my playing had no place in this discussion, for
you to apologize in public for having made them, and for you to make some
kind of promise that we can believe that you will not do so in the future.
Either that, or see your doctor and check that you are being given
appropriate doses of your medication.
IMCA
> In article <448889ba.02112...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> : <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<arv1ta$eck$4...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
> :> In article <448889ba.02112...@posting.google.com>, IMCA <im...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> : We are still waiting for the recording and video of this fellow's
> :> : breathtaking piano playing, which would provide clear and compelling
> :> : evidence of his intellectual and artistic savoir faire, the very
> :> : things he would like so desperaetely for everyone to believe.
> :>
> :> Why don't you answer the question that I asked? Do you, or do you not,
> :> believe that one has to be a professional level performer to be able to
> :> make informed comments about music?
> :
> : No. Of course not, which is to say, one does NOT have to be a
> : professonal performer to make intelligent and informed comments about
> : music.
>
> Then what was the relevance of your demand to hear my peformance as if
> that had anything to do with anything?
Obvious. If one is so eager to make claims that are cleary specious,
and so sure of themselves, then one should also be prepared to prove
their point. The best way to do that, given your errors, would be to
demonstrate your perspective and points at the piano, or submit a
formal paper. Your positions and analyses were simply, blatantly
incorrect. Chopin's polyphony IS dense, very, very,very dense. There
are a multivalence of voices. That is not conjecture: it is a
technical fact. Deal with it, read, study, investigate -- in other
words, do the work that muisc demands, from the inside out. The
relevant literature on thses issues is abundant. Find it. Read it.
Study it. Analyze it.Absorb it. Use it. Experience it. Until then, you
are doing little more than talking out the side of your mouth about
things to which you are and never have been privy; in a word, Schultz,
you are out of your depth, and your feelings about the music, while
certainly legitmate, are not enough to account for the entire
compositional picture and the substantial components and realities
that comprise that picture.
> : But there's the ruv: "infiorned".
>
> You misspelled "fjord." HTH!
I like Sweden. I play there often.
>
> : And that one, single issue is really my only beef with you
>
> Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
Ding a ling.
>
> : it ahs to do with a fairly
> : straightforward technical matter, the facts surrounding which you were
> : mistaken about in some earlier posts, and which I felt it important to
> : correct, as did at least one other person here.
>
> In fact, the "fairly straightforward technical matter" was my having
> the temerity to claim that "dense" is not a good word to describe the
> polyphony in Chopin's music. At least, it was that statement that set
> off your "time for condescension and personal abuse" flag.
But there is precisely where you are in error, you see. The polyphony
is extremely dense. And if you are going to presume the opposite, and
take another position, then you had better be prepared to support it
with concrete evidence. That is impossible, since one could not find
a better description of the multivalent polypony in Chopin, than the
word "dense". That is not only because of the sheer number of
integrated voices, but the manner in which Chopin organizes them
across registrationally and in relation to one another as contrapuntal
melodies. I suggest you spend some time with Schenker on this issue,
and Schoenberg wouldn't be such a bad idea either. The fact is you
are quite, dead wrong about it, and that is becasue, by your own
admission, you imagine Chopin to be essentially about melody and
accompaniment, which it most cerrtainly is not in technical
categories. Thus, if you want to submit a formal paper moving into
the technical issues and subtleties of counterpoint, by all means, do
so. But don't sit there and espouse such aboslute, demonstrably
specious nonsense. It's the worst kind of amateusism, because it
presents itselfs as expert when it is nothing of the kind.
>
> As for my statement that Chopin nocturnes typically consist of a melody
> and an accompaniment to that melody (although there might be several
> voices in and levels to the accompaniment), I stand by that statement,
Well, you are quite wrong, and entirely naive. You do not have the
authority, experience or expertise to make that judgement, not the
requisite theoretical background. That is what I am trying to teach
you. If you want to wallow in ignorance of the facts, that is up to
you. That would be, regretably, your loss, but believing such nonsense
as that is also your privilege. Of course, you'd get an F in any
serious theory and analysis course for presenting such a view,
especially in light of offering no substantive evidence to back it up.
If you care to study the matter, there is plenty of extant literature,
as I have already told you, and to which I can point you. Your concept
of a nocturne, for example, is misguided, and wholly shallow, in that
you confuse "accompaniment" with homophony; there are a plethora of
voices in those so-called accompaniments, and one need only examine
the urlinie to understand that.
and
> more than that, I will say that anyone who thinks that my statement is
> incorrect, and tries to perform a typical Chopin nocturne in any other
> fashion, has either holes or rocks in his head.
Your statement is dead wrong. Why can't you just accept that? At the
very least, why don't you do the work and research that would prove it
to you? Are you *that* lazy? Your statement is pompous: to say that
anyone who plays Chopin in a way that is not as ill-conceived and
thoroughly illigitmate, to speak nothing of specious in technical
acategories alone, as the manner in which you so wrongly percieive
the music suggests that you know better than professional musicians
and experienced concert artists. You most certainly do not. So I am
here to teach you what the facts are. So learn already. This is about
music, not about the stubborn vanity of Richard Schultz. who thinks
he's right when he is wrong. I told you, already, that you are wrong.
An d you stil cling to some silly fantasy that is so grossly
misinformed.
So until you are ready to do the real work, you should avoid espousing
such nonsense. Your position is untenable, and demonstrably wrong in
virtually every compositional category, period. Try to grasp that. You
are wrong. I am not going to do the work for you. Find the literature:
study.
Now, since you know so much about performing Chopin correctly, then I
see that I must ask you again, in light of your new uncompromiosing
and wholly pompous statement, to do what is relevant: prove it. So
yes, I ask you agin: show us, perform the music of Chopin and upload
it for all to see if you care to demonstrate your point.
You see, your listening apparatus is not sufficiently sophisticated at
this point, it seems, to discern all the activity within the music.
Ordinarliy, I would say that is no fault of your own. But in this
case, it is your fault, because you cannot admit your own mistakes and
errors, nor do you take the troubole to do the work. That is not the
mark of an honest intellect or an honest man; and to the extent that
you espouse these things publicly, and with such vigor, as if you knew
better than professionaly, is the mark of a dilletante. You hear only
what you want to hear, and that is all. That is not enough, and it is
unsatisfactory to the demands and immanent content of the music
itself. That is not how we, as musicians and concert artists, work and
view things. We dig much deeper than that. But to dismiss the facts
because you have yet to improve your listening skills and technical
savoir faire is ridiculous. You need only spend a little time and do
the work. I can have at least 400 of my colleagues in theory and
performance set you straight in a New York minute. But I would advise
you not to put yourself in a position of one who parades his
ignorance as a virtue. Why would you want to do that? To satisfy your
own pretentions to authority? Even first year conservatory students
are open to learning and having their errors corrected. Don't you
understand that? You are wrong, so what you should do is graciously
get over yourself and accept the corrections --as this is not a matter
of mere conjecture or idle speculation, but technical fact -- of
those who know a great deal more than you do about these things.
> :> I have never once claimed to be a performer at that level. I would estimate
> :> the technical level of my playing as something like "advanced amateur" and
> :> I have never claimed otherwise.
> :
> : OK. Agreed and understood. I now put the matter to rest.
>
> That's not sufficient.
You are right. It is not sufficient. It is not sufficient that you
continue to make false statemtents and pretend to authority, as you do
here yet again, astonishingly, and fail to offer evidence. You are a
real piece of work, Schultz. Now I really DO want to hear you, in
light of your arrogant comments here -- which are incredible, given
that any reasonable and serious person would have at least done the
work, and paid attention to those of us who had the largesse to
disavow them of such ersatz theories. What the hell is wrong with you?
Are you so utterly conceited and vain that you really believe you know
it all and have nothing to learn from those in a position to advise
you of the realities and facts, and who are willing to help you
distinguish between right and what is wrong? What kind of man are
you?
So, come on, let's hear you play. Prove your point. And let's see
your technical paper. You are not going to squirm out of this one.
Oh,actually, you probably are going to squirm out of it, like a worm
exposed to the light.
What you have to do is to acknowledge that your
> derisive comments about my playing had no place in this discussion,
I haven't madee any derisive comments about your paying, as I have not
yet heard it. I only asked you to provide evidence of your playing. So
far, you have not done so. And that I suspect is because you are
terrified of the revealing the truth about yourself. You espouse all
these outrageous theories which have no basis in reality, and now tell
us that anyone who plays the music differently than you perceive it
has ""rocks in their head". Well, Richard Schultz, it is in fact YOU
who have one great big rock between your ears. And that you do not
even have the humility to do the work, address the issues at hand in
an adult, musicianly and responsible way, and correct your
fallacious notions is indicative of the most breathtaking arrogance I
can possibly imagine.
for
> you to apologize in public for having made them, and for you to make some
> kind of promise that we can believe that you will not do so in the future.
Oh, get over yourself. You are a piece of work, that's for sure. You
have a better chance of winning the lottery than expecting that I
would ever demeann myself by apologizing to the likes of you, thus
kowtowing to your grotesque arrogance and the thoroguh inadequacies of
your positions, to speak nothing of your consistently provocative,
snide and and rude remaarks. Get real. You are merely bothered that I
have exposed your critical weaknesses, and the poverty of your
positions in musical categories, and because I am willing to confront
you. Your problem is that you are incapable of critical judgement, and
of reamining objective. For you, if it isn't to your liking, feel
compelled to project your inadequacies by attakcing the messenger.
That, I suppose, make you feel better somehow, as if it legitimized
your errors.
You are a rude and snide little man with an agenda, nothing more. I
tried to take seriously, but you are too arrogant to bother
responding to at this point. I don't owe you a thing. On the
contrary, you have it backwards. It is you who need to apolgoize to
those who you continue to deliberately mislead with your falsehoods
about musical issues. But you need not apologize to me personally for
the streams and streams of snide and cutting remarks, which in spite
of my trying to be civil, you cannot help but include in every one of
your posts, and continue to provoke me to put you in your place. That
says more about you then it does about me.
However, I do need to criticize and correct your positions when they
are wrong. And I will do whatever it takes to make sure that such
grotesque detritus, such as you espouse, is challenged and annhilated,
so that the record is set straight, just as most of us who are
professional and who care about detail in musical issues always do,
be it in an academic environment or on the internet. What your
position now reveals, and now your outrageous request for an apology,
is breathtaking for its arrogance in the face of great art.
> Either that, or see your doctor and check that you are being given
> appropriate doses of your medication.
There you go again. Another one of your snide remarks, of course.
Let's not forget, Schultz, you don't know the meaning of an insult
until I get going. But I won't go there. I refuse to come down to your
level. You are hopeless and incorrigible.
So, again Richard: where's the beef? Show us how smart and talented
you really are. Let's hear you play. Let's see that paper. I suspect
that it is you who are going to need a doctor, as the stroke that will
ensue in the shame of having revealed yourself for who and what you
really are will result in a breakdown. So, Richard Schultz, put up or
shut up. Enough of the BS.
Or, try to stick to the script, to the object of the discussion;
music. Nothing else. Let's see if you can hold you own. Actually, on
second thought, it's not worth my valuable time to enter into a
discussion with someone of your ilk. Why try to show light to a blind
man? Your arrogance and stubborness are impenetrable, serving only
to corrupt your intellectual potential, and deafen you to musical
fact. Attmpting to have a normal and critically substantive
conversation with someone who, like you, imposes upon themselves
such illiteracy, when you don't have to do so, is like attempting to
engage a 2 year old in a discussion of nuclear physics. I know what
the facts are, as do my colleagues; that you don't and refuse to learn
is your problem. So feel free: wallow in ignorance, celebrate the
nonsense you have so arrogantly embraced. and do so as you see fit.
After all, you are not a musician, so nothing you say is particularly
consequential to my work and life, nor to that of my colleagues, nor
to the public, so who cares? Say what you will. It just BS, anyway,
and insofar as no serious or professional musician will take it
seriously, much less even take notice, there is probably no harm done.
I probably shouldn't get so worked up about it, because, after all,
you have no widespread public forum or authority in the music business
or the world of music; in other words, the fact that you are an
amateur is the one saving grace. The public does not look to you for
expert opinion or critque of musical issues, nor does it expect
anything from you. You have nothing of substance to offer, and have
never had. There are and never will be recordings, performances,
teaching, or theoretical treatises from the hand of Richard Schulz.
You have no track record. And you have zero influence in the music
business, so it really should not matter a whole lot what you say.
What's more, you are free to delude yourself as much as you like, and
you are also free to refuse instruction. No one can force you to learn
anythig.
The cultivation of illiteracy for such people is itself a kind of art
form. Richard Schultz, in fact, is probably just some lonely,
nervous little guy living in a war zone, trying to avoid the gas and
the suicide bombers and the next incoming scud missle, who thinks he
likes music but who has enjoyed very little training; his agenda is
whatever he cares to make of it. Part of that agenda is to show off
and to try to look important whenever he encounters real musicians,
professionals that is, who might have something to share with or teach
him, but which he declines to learn. Oh, no, Richard Schultz knows
better, for anyone who disagrees with his point of view, no matter how
ill informed, has rocks in his head. That's it. I tried, for a long
time with a great deal of patience and civility, but no more. This guy
is totally out to lunch. A man who thinks he knows what he doesn't
know, and boasts about it. Yes, it's pathetic, but there you are.
It's your life, Schultz. Thank God it is not mine.
This is all i have to say on the matter. Don't expect any more
information or answers from me, Schultz. You go right ahead and play
with yourself, and inhabit your little fantasy world, shooting off
your snide little rockets as you like: you are not a worthy opponent,
and as such, entirely inconsequential. It is a pity, but you are not
one who can be taken seriously. You have wasted more than enough of my
time, which I prefer to spend working with those who wnat to learn and
to become better musicians. You, Schultz, have no genuine interst in
music, but only superficial; youhave made it abundantly clear that you
are interested in one thing, and one thing only: your own incomparable
vanity. For that kind of thing I have no patience whatsoever.
Dismissed!
John Bell Young
IMCA
Mark, I would be very happy to go over these things with you in
detail, but not on this thread. There is one guy here, Richard
Schultz, who is very negative and disruptive, and who wastes a lot of
time. Though I have resolved not to respond to him henceforth, he
continues nevertheless to misrepresent himself as an authority and to
post utterly and demonstrably false information. He is not a
professional, though he' like to think he is, but the fact remains
that he doesn't know what he is talking about at all. So I am
concerned that those who are eager to learn, but not professional,
may be influenced by such patent nonsense; and I would rather
communicate with you one on one. In fact, if you like, and are
willing, I can give you a free subscription to masterclass.ws , as
that will allow me to use video tapes to explain things even more
clearly and in detail, at the piano. This might help you a lot. You
need only let me know, and write me privately.
John Bell Young
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: There is one guy here, Richard Schultz, who is very negative and disruptive,
: and who wastes a lot of time.
I may be negative and disruptive, although these attributes are, I think,
in the mind of the beholder. I can say, however, that I have never openly
expressed an opinion that another poster to rmmp should die violently.
Actually, I've never even thought that or anything close to it.
: Though I have resolved not to respond to him henceforth, he
: continues nevertheless to misrepresent himself as an authority and to
: post utterly and demonstrably false information.
Note that not only have I never claimed to be or represented myself as an
"authority," Mr. Young has (as far as I know -- I don't have time to read
his screeds to the end, especially when he starts telling me that he wishes
that I were dead) never told any of us what *demonstrable* falsehoods I
have told (as opposed to differences of opinion with him).
: He is not a professional, though he' like [sic] to think he is,
Not only have I never claimed to be a professional, and not only do I not
consider myself one, I specifically used the word "amateur" to describe
my level of piano playing. And you have already agreed with me that it
is possible for a professional not to know what he is talking about.
: but the fact remains that he doesn't know what he is talking about at all.
Note that while I may not be a professional musician, I do know the difference
between a fact and an opinion.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
IMCA
> Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
The poster's opinion alone? Hmm... Is that so? Posting from a
university address, well, we're just going to have to see about that.
John Bell Young