 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.248.68.220
Too bad we missed this one:
Follow Ups:
WOW! I always wondered what a cello sounded like in the snow... Ever heard Martin Zeller`s version of the first three suites?
todd
ms
..i have the MA recording of zellers'6 bach suites on violincello and it is superb..played it last night ...
Dear Calloway
I am very glad that you enjoy Martin`s work. It is very musical and I was very honored to be able to record such an amazing instrument as the Steiner cello. I know it is hard to imagine being in close proximity to such a work of art as that Cello, but it really has an amazing sound and commands respect. Just imagine Steiner, the person who built that instrument, his life in the 17th century, etc. The sound that Martin coaxes out of it, perhaps allows us to feel just a little closer to the life and times of that period in the development of art in western European culture.
Sonically yours,
todd
ma
With all the fuss made here about these performances, I went to CDbaby and listened to all the tracks previewed there.
Ms East's playing is devoid of vibrato, no bones about it. She also plays some movements in "rehearsal" tempi, as if sightreading, with no idea of underlying structure. She hits a lot of open strings rather than fingering notes, which makes for discontinuities of tone production. She seems confident in one section, and lost in others. She gets little richness or full tone from her instrument, and there is a lot of fingerboard noise.
All in all, I don't think her efforts would win a contest for high school players and would not get past the first round in a major competition. Ms East appears to have recorded other albums, but I don't think I will seek them out.
Worst Bach suites on record? Maybe not. But close enough.
Now, can we get back to discussing vibrato since 1659? I don't believe I was alive back then and it would be nice to know more!
As for the state of vibrato since 1659, both C.B. and I are very passionate about this (in our opposing ways) - it's like arguing about religion! :-)
I likwen their sound to an Elk gasping its last breath, a sound I have heard. I have not hears a cow in the throes of death.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
But sometimes a critic is just a critic.
You know Miles Davis Kinda of Blue Kinda Sucks!
Clearly, there are ways to say he didn't care of this version without making the entire review a put down.
I was curious about this recording and went to CDBaby to give it a listen. Yes, it does seem rather slow compared to other artists' interpretation of these works; however, after the initial (almost) shock to the system of hearing the first piece played so slowly, and having skimmed through a dozen or so more tracks, I feel it interesting enough to possibly make a purchase.
And from my understanding, weren't these suites written as an exercise for a cellist? And if that is the case, then is there really a "correct" way to play it?
And if it is subject to an artist's interpretation, then isn't this version just as valid as that of any other? And if it is just as valid as any others' interpretation, then why did the reviewer put such effort into ripping this performance apart?
The reviewer seems like an ass. To me.
"Clearly, there are ways to say he didn't care of this version without making the entire review a put down."
Sure, but that's not Hurwitz's style. In reality, I suspect that a lot more people probably are at least looking into this set than would have if he'd been more polite.
"I was curious about this recording and went to CDBaby to give it a listen. Yes, it does seem rather slow compared to other artists' interpretation of these works; however, after the initial (almost) shock to the system of hearing the first piece played so slowly, and having skimmed through a dozen or so more tracks, I feel it interesting enough to possibly make a purchase."
Enjoy. I listened to those same selections, and came to the conclusion that Hurwitz is probably right.
"And from my understanding, weren't these suites written as an exercise for a cellist?"
I don't believe that anyone actually knows why Bach wrote them.
"And if it is subject to an artist's interpretation, then isn't this version just as valid as that of any other? And if it is just as valid as any others' interpretation, then why did the reviewer put such effort into ripping this performance apart?"
Because your basic premise is incorrect. I just finished working on Suite #1, and by your logic, my version is just as good as Fournier's. My wife has heard both, and would probably not agree with you.
There are good performances, and there are bad performances. We may not always agree about which is which, but each of us has standards by which to make those judgements for ourselves.
"The reviewer seems like an ass. To me."
Oh, come now. Isn't one critic's opinion and style every bit as valid as anyone else's?
Critics have a job, and Hurwitz does his well. We get the value of his judgment for free, with the effort of a few mouse clicks. I don't always agree with him, but he has a large body of musical information from which he can draw relative evaluations of lots of different kinds of music. You must respect his knowledge, if not his taste. He has probably heard dozens of versions of popular pieces, and he is exposed to all levels of quality. When a particular performance or recording is bad compared to the myriad others already available, I think he should give it a thumping. He is not an ass simply because he writes a caustic review.
So you "skimmed" through some portions of this recording and after your "initial shock" you feel they are "interesting enough to possibly make a purchase". My, what a glowing recommendation! Face it: Hurwitz has more guts than you do, and he's willing to save all of the us the frustration of spending money to acquire a lousy performance of works that are available in many, many other suitable, even superb, versions.
There are not infinite acceptable performance styles of a piece of music. The composer intended it to sound a certain way. If a performer can't make it sound like that, then it's wrong, and no amount of wishy-washy new age thinking will make it right. Not every interpretation is valid, whether the music is intended as exercises or not.
If this version stinks, I'm glad he called it that way. I wish more critics had the balls to do that.
Peace,
Tom E
I seem like a wet noodle because I wrote the reviewer seems like an ass for being unduly harsh?
I don't get that one.
I agree that a critic has a job to do, but clearly, there's more than one way to say something. He could have just as easily conveyed that the recording in question was subpar without going to such extremes. It's as if he "puffed out" his reviewer's chest at the expense of the artist.
It's quite obvious that I don't place this critic on the same pedestal as you do. I feel any critic who gives such a mean-spirited review is an ass. I've read many thousands of reviews in my time and not once have I ever, at the end of reading a piece, thought, "What an asshole." Never.
I skimmed through the disc because A) you only get a short sample per piece and B) since there are so many pieces, I stopped around 10 or so. And yes, I felt it interesting enough to possibly make a purchase. Obviously, that's not a "glowing recommendation". How can that possibly be when I'm only skimming thru few seconds of each piece? Get real.
And where do you get this "he has more guts than you do" crap from? I'm surprised there weren't typos in your post .
Of course there are an infinite performance styles of any given piece of music. Whether it's acceptable to you, or the ass wipe who wrote that review is irrevelant. Since you seem to know, please enlighten us and do share how Bach intended these exercises to be played. And what do you mean, "not every interpretation is valid"? I disagre 100 percent. I may not like one recording as much as another, but that in no way makes it invalid.
The reviewer doesn't have "balls" he's just a huge ass.
You don't get wet noodle? Well, that makes me reasonably sure you won't get much of anything I might write. Your moniker is certainly apt.
I believe I have never seen the word "ass" used so frequently in a single post. I will not be drawn into an argument with a vapid, vulgar piece of puffery.
Please check this for typos; then you probably want to check your vocabulary.
Regards,
Tom E
I know what a wet noodle is. I just didn't see how that phrase applied to my post you criticized.
Checked for typos.
None noted.
If that's true, you will be the second person I know of on this forum to hold that opinion.
I tried to disabuse the first person of that notion a couple of years ago, but I doubt I was successful. However, she rarely posts here anymore, so I don't know for sure.
p.s.: I'm not talking about Teresa aka DSD - there's one person who thinks there are PLENTY of bad recordings. :-)
I never said there are never "bad" recordings. I feel that just because one does not like a particular recording makes it "invalid". It could still be bad, to that person; however, it's still valid. It's an artist's interpretation of something, or not. Could be something original.
My point is just because someone thinks a particular recording sucks, doesn't make it invalid.
nt
. . . but even when you don't agree, I think you have to admit that Hurwitz is knowledgeable about what he's reviewing most of the time - which puts him ahead of 90% of the other reviewers I'm aware of. Yes, he sometimes states his opinions in a deliberately provocative manner, but I still respect his underlying comprehension of the music at hand.
See my other post on this subject for an indication of how uneducated Hurwitz is on the subject of music history--what you called the "musicologist's party line."Hey--a critic is a critic, and I should know, 'cuz I'm one, too. A critic's opinions are only useful when they serve as a guide to a successful CD purchase, or the attendance at an enjoyable concert. Said opinions, right or wrong, may eventually become part of the historical record, but that's a whole other topic entirely (I'm thinking for example of Hanslick's condemnations of Wagner and Bruckner).
A flawed historical perspective, such as the one that David Hurwitz exhibits with pride, is not helpful, although it's probably not the end of the world, especially for haters of HIP.
For all we know, Hurwitz may be right on this one--that is to say, his observation that the CD is not worth purchasing may be correct. But we'll only know if we judge for ourselves.
Edits: 11/27/09
So far you've attempted to discredit the messenger - unsuccessfully IMO - and gone off into a laborious rap about vibrato. But not a word about the recording Hurwitz was talking about, the review of which was the OP's topic.Are you ready to go on record and tell us you completely disagree with Hurwitz's assessment of Angela East's "interpretations" and playing on her cd of the Bach suites?
Amazingly, in your zeal to display your disdain for Hurwitz and go off into a lengthy vibrato discourse, you apparently haven't even bothered to listen to the subject of his review. I wonder, after all you've typed, can you admit that regarding East's cd Hurwitz's musical judgment was not amiss?
Edits: 11/27/09
If so, Angel East needs to continue to exercise.
Being somewhat obsessed with the suites, I Just listened to the samples on CD Baby to at least
give her a... listen. Eyes closed, stupid cover out of view. Her intonation is terrible and her interpretation seems vapid
and soulless, her tempos lugubrious. She seems to be trying to turn the suites into a made for TV, daytime melodrama.
Certainly she has a right to her own interpretation, but as a professional musician offering a retail product for sale she also owes
her potential audience a performance that at least seems somewhat professional. Her version just doesn't have the spark
of what I would consider a performance worth listening to, let alone
having to pay to do so, and I can see why the reviewer was so harsh and such a smart ass with his review.
IMO she easily warrants such disregard for releasing (let alone creating) such abysmal crap.
I've heard street musicians struggling with these pieces that gave more honest, hearfelt interpretations.
Certainly to each their own on what given music touches an emotional or intellectual base that
speaks to them and makes that music personally matter . I hope some find that touchstone in Angela East's
interpretations. I hope I never have to be subjected to hers again.
For recommended versions, and if you haven't yet, I suggest you read the previous threads hear on the Bach Cello Suites,
in which you will find dozens of fine to sublime versions that may help put East's version in perspective.
Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination. -Michael McClure
is that your "abysmal crap" is my "stately and emotional".
Happy Thanksgiving.
and no doubt many things I listen to (and otherwise) that
bring me bliss would be considered abysmal crap by others.
Keeps life interesting!
Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination. -Michael McClure
Ms. East's "interpretations" aren't merely slow, they're almost completely disjointed, and destroy the continuity of the lines. The reviewer may be an ass, but that has no impact on the recording in question.I suggest you check out some clips at the link below. IMO Angela East's "interpretations" are not even remotely on the same level as recorded versions by great musicians like Starker, Fournier, Bylsma, Rostropovich,Tortelier, Schiff, Casals (and no doubt others).
I'm a musician and do not enjoy putting other musicians down. But why Ms. East would choose to put this out and thereby invite comparison to performances by musicians so far superior to her in interpreting and playing these suites is beyond me.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Edits: 11/26/09 11/26/09 11/26/09 11/26/09
David Hurwitz is an idiot of the first magnitude. A while ago he wrote a diatribe on vibrato (you can find it online somewhere) that is full of historical misinformation and personal opinion disguised as fact.
In the case of the CD reviewed, I would suggest listening to it first, if possible, before condemning it. I don't trust his judgment as far as I can throw it.
Whatever happeneed to civilized discourse? You dislike someone's opinions on music and that makes them an idiot of the first magnitude? You don't sound so bright, either, making extreme statements like that.
I sometimes disagree with Hurwitz, and who doesn't, with almost any critic? I don't regard him as an idiot because of that, however. The reason you give below is pretty thin, and the fact that he made a minor misinterpretation in the midst of a lengthy article doesn't make it "full" of historical misinformation.
You had best tone down your own hysterical criticism.
Peace,
Tom E
I lapsed into an ad hominem argument, which is wrong. My dislike for Hurwitz has nothing to do with his opinions, which he is entitled to. Rather, it has to do with passing those opinions off as historical 'fact' in an article pretending to be a scholarly investigation.
...in seeing his books placed side-by-side with more academic, formally historical surveys of the same music, I am forced (and it takes some effort) to ensure that I read him for exactly what he is, and not for what he is not, to keep a perspective. As an enthusiastic guide, however, he is terrific.
Hurwitz is right on IMHO. Just because he doesn't toe the musicologist "party line" doesn't make him wrong.
I'm going on memory here, but the most egregious point in Hurwitz's article was probably the statement that Geminiani, in his famous treatise on violin playing, advocated 'continuous vibrato'. For Hurwitz, this was justification for performing all music of the period with continuous vibrato, in the manner of modern-day conservatory-trained violinists.
In fact, what Geminiani said is that violinists should use vibrato 'as often as possible'. This must be understood in the context of the performance tradition of the 17th and 18th centuries, where vibrato was considered solely an ornament to be used on long notes at the high point or ends of phrases. In other words, use vibrato as often as you can to add expression to selected notes of the phrase. That's a far cry from 'continuous vibrato'.
Hurwitz's argument, therefore, is either a case of misinterpreting Geminiani's remark, or worse, deliberate misrepresentation. Considering that the article is riddled with unsubstantiated opinions and unbridled antagonism towards historical performance practice, I would guess the latter.
I swear, C.B., I just shake my head when I see how righteous you HIPsters are with respect to your beloved sackcloth and ashes approach to vibrato and how cowering you are before the self-appointed musicological keepers of performance-practice purity (their view of it anyway!) in the academe! :-)
(BTW, the links to Hurwitz's vibrato articles are right on the home page of the Classics Today site.)
First, you agree that Geminiani said that vibrato should be used "as often as possible", but then you claim that vibrato was "solely an ornament to be used on long notes at the high point or ends of phrases" without citing any source of your own! Which is it? Is it continuous or is it used only on long notes? (The latter sure doesn't seem to square with Geminiani's statement.) And BTW what is the source for YOUR claims - the authority of the scholasticists entrenched in our music departments? At least Hurwitz cites Geminiani.
Also, how does your HIPster claim about the absence of vibrato square with another passage in Geminiani's treatise (which Paul Henry Lang was so fond of quoting): that vibrato was "indispensible" in violin playing?
Having disposed of Hurwitz' citation of Geminiani (not!), you then claim that Hurwitz's articles are riddled with "unsubstantiated opinions" (which you fail to enumerate). Suffice to say that I consider Hurwitz' opinions on this subject to be quite substantiated, as anyone who actually reads the articles can find out. Granted, they're not written in the deliberately obscure, scholasticist style of academic publications, but to me, that's another point in their favor.
I never said that there was an 'absence of vibrato' in the Baroque era, only that it should be used selectively and appropriately, to heighten the expression of the music.
This is what every single writer on music during the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries has said, even Geminiani.
Hurwitz, if I understand him correctly, says the historical evidence supports using it continuously, on every note--except the very short ones, of course, where there is not enough time to vibrate. To me, based on the evidence I've listed below, this is neither stylistically (historically) correct nor musically interesting. In fact, I think it's boring and unimaginative to vibrate exactly the same way ALL the time--for example, the way Pinchus Zuckerman does.
So tell me--how does the desire to be expressive and imaginative translate to 'cowering' and 'sackcloth and ashes'? That's really a stretch for me.
Back to the facts, assuming you're still with me. There are, in fact, TWO types of vibrato in the Baroque--the 'one finger' (essentially the same as modern vibrato), and the 'two finger', which the French called 'battement'. I'll bet Hurwitz has never even heard of that. He certainly doesn't talk about it in his article.
You want documentation? Here goes--
Christopher Simpon, Division-Violist, 1659.
"Close-shake is that when we shake the Finger as close and near the sounding Note as possible as be, touching the String with the Shaking finger so softly and nicely that it make no variation of tone. This may be used where no other Grace is concerned."
The implication here is that the 'close shake' (the English term of the time for vibrato) is a 'grace' or ornament.
Jean Rousseau, Traite de la Viole, 1687.
"The batement is made when two fingers being pressed one against the other, the one is held on the string, and the next strikes it very lightly...it imitates a certain sweet agitation of the Voice...is used in all contexts where the length of the Note permits, and should last as long as the note.
"The Langueur [the normal, 'modern' vibrato] is made by varying the finger on the fingerboard...this ornament is to replace the Batement which is unavailable when the little finger is held down."
Again, the discussion is clearly about vibrato as an ornament.
Geminiani, Art of Playing the Violin, 1751.
"Of the close shake...you must press the Finger strongly upon the String of the Instrument, and move the wrist in and out slowly and equally. When it is long continued, swelling the sound by degrees, drawing the bow nearer to the bridge, and ending it very strong, it may express majesty, dignity, etc. But making it shorter, lower and softer, it may denote affliction, fear, etc., and when made on short Notes, it only contributes to make their Sound more agreeable and for this reason it should be made use of as often as possible."
Obviously, Geminiani is talking about using vibrato in varying amounts and degrees to suit the music. In other words, an expressive device, not a constant element of tone production, as in modern violin playing. Hurwitz IFAIK does not offer a direct quote from Geminiani, and his 'interpretation' is mostly of his own fabrication.
Leopold Mozart, Violinschule, 1756.
"The tremolo [meaning vibrato] is an adornment which arises from Nature itself...if we strike a slack string or a bell sharply, we hear after the stroke a certain undulation...Take pains to imitate this natural quivering on the violin, when the finger is pressed strongly on the string, and one makes a small movement with the whole hand...
"Now because the tremolo is not purely on one note but sounds undulating, so it would be a mistake to give every note the tremolo. There are performers who tremble [make vibrato] on every note without exception as if they had the palsy...
That passage speaks for itself, I think.
The topic continued to be discussed well into the 19th century:
Louis Spohr, Violinschule, 1832.
"In the vibrato--called oddly by its singer's name of tremolo--the deviation from the perfect intonation of the note should hardly be perceptible to the ear...Avoid however its frequent use, or improper places."
I could add more quotes on the selective use of vibrato from Ballot, Joachim, even Leopold Auer, but I'm tired of typing. This is all standard material in any music history class, and I find it strange to be posting it on an Internet forum. I offer it in the most impartial manner I know how, in order that others may judge for themselves.
If you still think that this is 'performance-practice purity' or 'deliberately obscure scholasticist [sic] style', then you need to think carefully about what you're saying and do your homework. If you think academic publications in the musical field are somehow to be avoided, or that nothing useless can be learned from them, then I find that very unfortunate.
If it weren't for the 'dreaded' field of musicology, we wouldn't have most of the music we have today, including a substantial portion of the outputs of Vivaldi, Telemann, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, and many others.
If you think I'm being 'righteous', then you'd be correct, because I resent personal opinions, obfuscation and misinformation disguised as 'scholarly research' (Hurwitz) or 'fact'.
It's OK if you or David Hurwitz don't care for the historically-informed performance style--that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. In fact, there are quite a few HIP recordings that I don't care for, because the style in many cases has degenerated into a set of mannerisms or cliches. I think baroque performance practice has evolved in the last twenty or thirty years--now there are quite a few modern-instrument groups that play with the proper style and expression. Lately, we seem to be experiencing a 'synthesis' between old and new that in many cases suits the music quite well. A good example is the Canadian group Les Violons du Roy, who play modern violins with baroque bows and a real appreciation for the style.
Part of what makes that synthesis work, I think, is an enlightened approach to vibrato. I'm sorry, but the 'gypsy fiddler', Punchus Zuckerman kind of vibrato does not work in baroque music, despite what David Hurwitz says.
I love how, when we're discussing the Bach Cello Suites (composed around 1720), your first two quotes are from treatises from 1659 (before Bach was even born) and 1687 (when Bach was two years old) respectively. I therefore rule them out of bounds, and not germane. Let's try to keep the red herrings out of the discussion.
Having said that, I'll concede your point about my use of the phrase "absence of vibrato" - I should have qualified that phrase by adding the word "general", as in "general absence of vibrato".
I can't comment on Pinchas Zuckerman (I don't know his recordings that well), but I would really be surprised if he has to "vibrate exactly the same way ALL the time". I accompany dozens of high-school and college age string players every year, and they all vary the way they vibrate - or, if they don't, they're told about it by their various teachers! :-)
I guess to keep things on track, I'll have to quote the other portions of your post now, section by section:
Geminiani, Art of Playing the Violin, 1751.
"Of the close shake...you must press the Finger strongly upon the String of the Instrument, and move the wrist in and out slowly and equally. When it is long continued, swelling the sound by degrees, drawing the bow nearer to the bridge, and ending it very strong, it may express majesty, dignity, etc. But making it shorter, lower and softer, it may denote affliction, fear, etc., and when made on short Notes, it only contributes to make their Sound more agreeable and for this reason it should be made use of as often as possible."
Obviously, Geminiani is talking about using vibrato in varying amounts and degrees to suit the music. In other words, an expressive device, not a constant element of tone production, as in modern violin playing. Hurwitz IFAIK does not offer a direct quote from Geminiani, and his 'interpretation' is mostly of his own fabrication.
No - wrong, wrong, wrong! As I mentioned before, ALL modern violinists vary their vibrato. The trouble with you HIPsters is that you throw the baby out with the bath water: just because Geminiani describes varying degrees of vibrato, the cult of HIP concludes that it is not a constant element of tone production, and that therefore large sections of the music must be played without any vibrato at all. (And be honest: you and I both know that most of the dessicated HIP string playing we hear these days is vibratoless.) How can that be logical, especially when Geminiani says"it should be made use of as often as possible"? I just don't think you can weasel out of this.
Leopold Mozart, Violinschule, 1756.
"The tremolo [meaning vibrato] is an adornment which arises from Nature itself...if we strike a slack string or a bell sharply, we hear after the stroke a certain undulation...Take pains to imitate this natural quivering on the violin, when the finger is pressed strongly on the string, and one makes a small movement with the whole hand...
"Now because the tremolo is not purely on one note but sounds undulating, so it would be a mistake to give every note the tremolo. There are performers who tremble [make vibrato] on every note without exception as if they had the palsy...
That passage speaks for itself, I think.
Yes it does - but not for reason you think. No violinist plays every note with vibrato - it's impossible. OTOH, there is clearly some vibrato which is excessive: think of singers whose vibratos are a minor third wide (!), or Szigeti in the later stages of his career. If someone plays with this type of out of control vibrato (because of illness, or age, or whatever), then clearly that's excessive and incorrect. I'd guess that these examples are probably closer to the "palsy" Leopold Mozart warns about.
As for your Spohr quote, that is dealt with in Hurwitz' article, although I don't remember the specific refutation he makes of the standard academic interpretation of Spohr's work. (I can only take so much fun on the day after Thanksgiving :-).)
If you still think that this is 'performance-practice purity' or 'deliberately obscure scholasticist [sic] style', then you need to think carefully about what you're saying and do your homework. If you think academic publications in the musical field are somehow to be avoided, or that nothing useless can be learned from them, then I find that very unfortunate.
If it weren't for the 'dreaded' field of musicology, we wouldn't have most of the music we have today, including a substantial portion of the outputs of Vivaldi, Telemann, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, and many others.
If you think I'm being 'righteous', then you'd be correct, because I resent personal opinions, obfuscation and misinformation disguised as 'scholarly research' (Hurwitz) or 'fact'.
I still contend that you have far from proven the case for the gross limitations on vibrato that we hear on HIP recordings - I'm talking about the arid, dessicated stretches where the music all but dies before we're vouchsafed a precious moment of vibrato as an "ornament". We're talking about vibrato here, not bringing to light portions of the output of great composers, so again, let's keep the red herrings out of the discussion. I also don't think that Hurwitz is trying to disguise anything - the fact that he states his findings and conclusions in plain English is a far cry from the, yes, deliberately obscure scholasticist style typical of academic journals of musicology.
It's OK if you or David Hurwitz don't care for the historically-informed performance style--that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. In fact, there are quite a few HIP recordings that I don't care for, because the style in many cases has degenerated into a set of mannerisms or cliches.
Hey - we agree! :-)
BTW, here's a summary (from one of my previous posts) of some additional points from Hurwitz's articles on vibrato:
1. For a phenomenon which is said to have appeared suddenly around the time of World War II (i.e., the ubiquitous use of orchestral string vibrato), it certainly seems strange that the many conductors who lived through this era make absolutely no mention of this supposed revolution in playing style in their statements, interviews, or memoirs. This group would include folks such as Walter, Klemperer, Szell, Reiner, Monteux (who played for Brahms himself), and many others. Doesn't it seem strange that such a fundamental change in orchestral performance/execution receives not even a passing mention in the writings of any of these conductors?
2. In many cases, the recordings which predate World War II are so poorly engineered (in terms of pitch stability), that it is impossible to tell whether orchestral string vibrato is being used or not. (I mean, really, you could just as easily argue that, based on early recordings, pianos were played with vibrato!)
3. The presence of a "vibrato" indication in some sections of nineteenth-century orchestral scores does NOT mean that no vibrato was used in the other sections. After all, Hurwitz quotes an impressive number of examples in post-World-War-II compositions which contain similar "vibrato" indications, even though everyone (even the early music mafia) agrees that ubiquitous orchestral vibrato was standard in this time period (i.e., post World War II). So what do these "vibrato" indications mean? - It means that the players should use even MORE vibrato than the normal vibrato they use throughout the rest of the work. In this sense, it's the additional intensity of the vibrato which constitutes the "expressive ornament".
Hurwitz argues for the presence of vibrato in orchestral string playing back to the eighteenth century (and in so doing, handily refutes the "vibrato-only-as-a-seldom-used-expressive-ornament" interpretations of treatises by Spohr and Leopold Mozart), so it's no use quoting seventeenth-century treatises - Hurwitz is not arguing back that far.
Hello everyone. I've enjoyed reading this thread very much. Just to set the record straight: I NEVER said nor do I believe that Geminiani advocated continuous vibrato. The ONLY point I was making is that there is no evidence to support the contention that orchestral music in any period should be played with no vibrato, and copious evidence to the contrary. That is all. And the primary determinant of what is appropriate is not anyone's treatise, but rather the character and expressive intensity of the work, and clearly indicated in the score. For the most part, the amount of vibrato in any work regulates itself; it is a function of the style of the writing and, of course, tempo (that is, giving the player sufficient time to produce it). Similarly, there is very little question about what musical notation and score markings mean; the language of musical notation and its conventions have been fixed in most major aspects since the early 17th century, if not before. Modern performance practice is the direct outgrowth of this continuity over time, and so if someone is going to claim that, say, "espressivo" does not mean "use more vibrato" (as well as other things), then they'd better be able to prove it. Of course they cannot; all the evidence points in the opposite direction, and that is my basic point. I have never said, and never will, that vibrato in earlier epochs was the same as modern "continuous" vibrato for the obvious reason that it's a stupid claim on its face because none of us were there, and because the HIP construct of "modern continuous vibrato" does not exist and never has.
My quarrel with the HIP movement on this issue stems from the fact that the justification for using no vibrato, or as little as possible, has nothing to do with what is historically correct, and everything to do with the need to sound different from what is typical today. The result does a disservice to the very object of HIP inquiry--to play the music as the composer understood it should sound to the extent we can fathom it. The non-vibrato school is intellectually dishonest from the get-go, and this is nowhere more evident than in the way it ignores the clear evidence of the very sources it cites in support of its position. It is a fact that Baroque music played with modest and tasteful vibrato, particularly in slow movements, would simply lack sufficient timbral distinction to qualify for what some today regard as an "authentic" sound. This is a claim that any performer can test for themselves. And so they go to an unmusical, unhistorical extreme based on fallacious arguments, leave it out entirely, and otherwise offer the ugly result as historically correct performance practice (particularly when HIP conductors work with modern instruments and normal ensembles, where it's much harder to achieve the desired timbre unless the playing is grotesquely exaggerated).
If you're interested, I give what I hope is my final word on the subject in the latest essay, which covers the Baroque and Classical periods, with special emphasis on the music of Zelenka, Gluck, Boccherini, the Mannheim school, and Haydn. It's on the CT.com home page, and whether or not you agree with my conclusions, I'm proud of the information that these essays contain, much of which has never been published before and which is quite interesting in its own right. This last essay is extremely long (330 pages!) because I took the time to include all of the passages in question from the scores I cite, rather than simply referencing them and leaving it at that.
As to those who find my writing style in reviews too harshly negative, I have no answer other than there is nothing I say in any review that is not supported by readily audible facts. You may disagree with the way I characterize those facts, and that's your right, but when it comes to the basic repertoire, where dozens of wonderful recordings are available of just about everything, I regard it as both necessary and desirable to make choice as clear as possible for the reader. That is why they read criticism in the first place; and writing criticism is as much an artform as is performance--it should try to be entertaining, educational, sometimes provocative, as well as informative. Performers, and I see there are some here, tend to object to harsh criticism directed at other performers, and that's understandable. That is also why criticism is necessary. Performers cannot be expected to police themselves; but Ms. East's Bach is disgusting, as even a casual glance at the score will show, and despite the fact that Bach leaves a huge amount open to personal interpretation. I enjoy performances as diverse as Schiff, Fournier, Wispelwey, and Bylsma, and many others besides, and although you may not like the WAY I say something, rest assured that it is always supported by careful, comparative listening. And if someone dislikes my style enough to rush out and buy the disc in question just for spite, that's fine with me.
There is no such thing as bad publicity. CT.com has more than 1.5 million unique monthly visitors; Ms. East will receive more attention as a result of that review than she otherwise would have; some will agree with me, others will not, and the only result will be to create interest and curiosity in her work. I don't consider a review successful if everyone agrees with my conclusions; it is successful if it generates comment, interest, and ultimately draws attention to thoughtful discussion of the MUSIC itself. By those standards, that review was successful, and as I said, I value the fact that it has generated some debate here. And let's face it, you've all enjoyed yourselves, haven't you? So you're welcome.
Best regards,
Dave
My quarrel with the HIP movement on this issue stems from the fact that the justification for using no vibrato, or as little as possible, has nothing to do with what is historically correct, and everything to do with the need to sound different from what is typical today. The result does a disservice to the very object of HIP inquiry--to play the music as the composer understood it should sound to the extent we can fathom it. The non-vibrato school is intellectually dishonest from the get-go, and this is nowhere more evident than in the way it ignores the clear evidence of the very sources it cites in support of its position. It is a fact that Baroque music played with modest and tasteful vibrato, particularly in slow movements, would simply lack sufficient timbral distinction to qualify for what some today regard as an "authentic" sound. This is a claim that any performer can test for themselves. And so they go to an unmusical, unhistorical extreme based on fallacious arguments, leave it out entirely, and otherwise offer the ugly result as historically correct performance practice (particularly when HIP conductors work with modern instruments and normal ensembles, where it's much harder to achieve the desired timbre unless the playing is grotesquely exaggerated).
You see, this paragraph alone contains so many misrepresentations of what constitutes period instrument performance (or historically informed performance--I hate using the epithet 'HIP'), that I doubt if you (and Chris) have every really bothered to investigate or understand it fully.
Where do I begin?--there are so many bogus points.
"...using no vibrato, or as little as possible..." No writer, no performer to my knowledge has ever used this idea as a point of departure, because as I've shown, vibrato was one weapon (of many) in the Baroque arsenal to bring expression to music.
"...Historically correct..."
This couples with the term 'authenticity', both of which are not goals in true period instrument performance. These are words invented by the record companies to sell CDs.
No true artist, period or modern, sits down to create an 'authentic' performance--his goal is to make music, to find the expression in the music and to communicate it to the audience.
Christopher Hogwood wrote a very useful article on this subject, in which he states quite vehemently that the term 'authentic performance' is an anathema in any style or genre, and should be jettisoned.
"...The non-vibrato school is intellectually dishonest from the get-go..."
First of all, it's not the 'non-vibrato school'--that should be quite clear by now. And by leveling that kind of bogus accusation, you're showing your own 'intellectual dishonesty'.
"...it ignores the clear evidence of the very sources it cites in support of its position."
Again, a false accusation. No period instrumentalist ignores 'the clear evidence', but as I've shown, uses it as basis for developing his style.
In many universities and conservatories around the world, period performance and music history (they go together) are studied intensely. There are many, many useful books on these subjects by respected authors--Lang, Reese, Bukofzer, Galpin, Dart, Donnington, Boyden, Duffin, Baines, Burgess, Hoeprich, Waterhouse, Kipnis--not to mention he primary sources, such as Quantz, Hotteterre, Tartini, Emanuel Bach and L. Mozart.
Do these names mean anything to you? Have you read any of them?
"...It is a fact that Baroque music played with modest and tasteful vibrato, particularly in slow movements, would simply lack sufficient timbral distinction to qualify for what some today regard as an "authentic" sound."
Is that a fact? Try listening to Sinom Standage, for example, who plays with a beautiful sound (I think) that contains a fair but selective amount of vibrato.
But we're getting to the crux of the matter, because despite your protestations to the contrary, when you say 'lack sufficient timbral distinction', you're talking about vibrato in a roundabout way as a device for tone production. You say you don't advocate continuous vibrato in 18th century music, but that's the implication. Intellectual dishonesty, once again.
Leaving aside what's 'historical', I contend that vibrating on every note is unmusical and uninteresting. There are important notes in a phrase, and there are notes (pickups, passing notes, notes on weak beats) that do not require a vibrato.
It gets back to the important idea that, in the Baroque, a phrase contain strong notes and weak notes--it's the concept of emulating speech patterns, of creating 'gestures' or 'rhetoric' in music--concepts that 18th century writers also held dear. In dance-derived music, it has to do with the very basic necessity of keeping the stylized beat pattern (sarabande, gavotte, gigue, etc.) at the forefront.
Violinists and singers who vibrate on every available note (obviously not the short ones) invariable play and sing so that every note is very nearly equal in emphasis. I contend--solely from an artistic standpoint--that this in not musical, nor is it interesting, in baroque music.
Such performers have lost the natural, agogic feel of the music. The playing may be quite beautiful tonally, from a modern standpoint, but it misses the inherent expression in the music. This is particularly true of singers--someone trained in the standard operatic tradition, for example--who fail to find the stress patterns of the text.
That you and others dwell on the 'issue' of vibrato makes me think that you have failed to notice, or don't even care about, all the other ingredients that go into making a good performance--overall and agogic phrasing, articulation (violin bowing is a whole other fascinating topic), ornamentation, both free and written-down, orchestral balance, types of instrument and equipment, temperament and tuning, pitch level, the appropriate performing spaces for baroque music, etc., etc.
That leads me to believe that you are an 'armchair' researcher who picks and chooses information to suit his needs. You accuse period performers of 'ignoring' the facts, but I think it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Tell me, what exactly ARE you credentials to make all these pontifications?
I read what you said quite carefully, and two points strike me forcibly:
1. I don't think that we are as far apart as you suggest on this issue, but the only way for you to understand that is to read what I actually wrote, and until you do that, there's no point in discussing the matter with you further because you have chosen NOT to know what sources I have read (and cite), and who I am arguing against. The fact that you even need to ask if I have read the sources you list means that you know nothing about the basis for my arguments.
2. Further to this last point, your typification of the HIP movement is simply not correct. That some of it is as your describe I agree fully, but as I have said over and over, my objective is quite limited. There is indeed a group of performers and academics who claim that vibrato was not (or was hardly) present AT ALL in Baroque and Classical orchestral music, and some who take the argument as far as the 20th century. I speak from personal experience in this regard as a performer and critic going back some 30 years, and no amount of denial from you will change that. It is what it is.
I take great pains to distinguish between those kooks, and the rest of the HIP movement, much of which I admire and enjoy. If you had even a glancing familiarity with my essays on vibrato, or my work as a critic generally, you would understand this without question. As we speak, I am working on a review of Handel's Op. 7 Organ Concerti with Richard Egarr and the Academy of Ancient Music which is absolutely stunning in every way. It will be a 'disc of the month' selection for December.
I am by no means a "fan" of vibrato, nor do I regard all of HIP as a monolithic block to be unilaterally opposed. I'm not the one making the generalizations here. Speaking personally, I prefer less vibrato rather than more, if using more means limiting the variety of timbres and articulation that I believe the music requires, and I prefer more rather than less for the same reason. I think we agree about this, and again, if you actually bothered to read my work you would see that quite plainly. In other words, you are not arguing with me, but with your own fantastical construct--it is that standard of intellectual probity that I find rampant in HIP scholarship, unfortunately, and you do yourself an injustice not to take the time and trouble to learn the truth for yourself before taking me (or anyone else) to task for what you imagine our positions to be.
Best,
Dave
Dear Dave
I would like to send you Martin Zeller`s version. Would you mind? If not, let me know where you want it sent...
tks
todd
ma
I'm growing more fond of his versions with each listen.
Is Vol. 2 in the works?
You have great a label that gives fresh, honest, uncluttered voice to
some fantastic musicians and music.
Thanks for that!
Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination. -Michael McClure
You've given the impression to me of not liking any historically informed performances. Is that correct? If not, which of those performances DO you like? I'm just curious.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
Hi, Travis,
You are correct - I do not like ANY HIP performances. To me, the whole movement represents the triumph of academicism and musicology over music. Unfortunately for me, listeners cannot get access to certain repertoire these days without encountering HIP performances - I'm thinking of, say, the suites from the Rameau operas. There are some performances that I suppose are barely tolerable, such as the Brόggen/Orchestra of the 18th Century, or McGegan/Philharmonia Baroque (whom I've seen live a number of times). I guess that's the best I can say.
Some singers whom I've accompanied have said that they like to sing with HIP orchestras because these orchestras don't put out as much volume, and therefore the singers know that they're less likely to be overbalanced. I guess that could be a point in the HIPsters favor. :-)
A couple of years ago, this topic came up tangential to another conversation, and C.B. recommended that I listen to a HIP string quartet, the Smithson on Hyperion. I took him up on his recommendation, and, by golly, these were wonderful performances in every respect, EXCEPT ONE: (you might have guessed it) the almost complete absence of vibrato. Terrible! In that respect, it sounded like string players from an elementary school! But I say again, in every other respect, these were great performances. Go figure!
I'm not as HIP as I used to be(!). I bought the Angela Hewitt Bach concerti mainly because I like the way the Australian Chamber Orchestra phrases and plays the ripieno sections but the piano allows me to hear the keyboard solos. I love Glenn Gould's playing, HIP before his time, but the orchestral accompaniment is just too overbearing for my taste. As a former singer, I liked the mostly lower pitch in HIP. Everybody seemed a bit more relaxed at say, 415 since there was less tension (voice and string) all 'round. It's unfortunate that you associate no vibrato with childish playing, except that children don't play in tune and rarely phrase naturally. Frankly, I find that in almost all HIP, there is some vibrato. I smile when folks remark that Emma Kirkby uses no vibrato. It weakens whatever point they are trying to make because they are obviously not listening very carefully. I also enjoy the rhetorical aspect of HIP phrasing. I find it so much more natural and interesting than the intense romantic long line as applied to an earlier period. I, too, can use the word academicism in a pejorative sense. It's what ruined contemporary classical music in America in the mid 20th century IMHO, but that's a topic for another post.
I know this little scattershot paragraph above won't change your mind in the least little bit. I think we both have good reasons for having different tastes.
But, as a former concertmaster of the Houston Symphony once said regarding playing the baroque repertoire, "It's all music.", and that is where I have trouble.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
I never really understood this debate, since all performance of historic (i.e., pre-contemporary, pre-20th-century, pre-anyone currently living, or however else one chooses to define it) music is, or at least should be, "historically informed", even Walter/Wendy Carlos and the Swingle Singers.
The problem, as Stephen Preston and others have cogently argued, is when performers become unecessarily rigid and dogmatic about supposedly "proper" performance practices. It's easy to get the overall impression from an 18th century author like Tromlitz, for example, that there is one and only one proper way to do things down to the nth detail. But I suspect Tromlitz was reacting (or in frustration sometimes even overreacting) to a reality of performance standards that were very far from well-established or uniform. I think this lack of uniformity was a major factor at least until the age of recording, and makes it hard to legitimately call one particular performance style "HIP" for a particular time period.
Anyway, the main goal is and must always be to engage and win over the audience, regardless of how "authentic" you try to be.
You asked for documentation, and then you refute every one that I listed (there are many more) with your own 'interpretation'.
You rule the late 17th century 'out of bounds', even though 17th century string playing (Corelli) is the foundation of the 18th. Based on that kind of logic, everything that happened musically in the 1920s and '30s has no bearing on the post-WWII era.
Tell me again on what grounds Hurwitz rejects Spohr (I don't feel like reading his masterly prose again)--and then tell me if he uses the same questionable reasoning to refute Baillot, Dubourg, Alard, David, Joachim, Wieniaski, Flesch and Auer, all of whom say essentially the same thing about vibrato. Or does he even mention them?
You claim that 'every modern violinist varies his vibrato', but offer no proof for this rather sweeping statement. I have lots of recordings where the violinist vibrates on every note longer than roughly an eighth note--I'll list them if you like. This excludes double and triple stops, of course, and a few vibratoless notes thrown in for effect. If you call that 'varying the vibrato', then we need to re-define our terms.
You make the generalization that historically informed performance is characterized by 'large portions of vibratoless playing' and 'precious moments of vibrato', without offering examples. Again, I have many period-instrument recordings where that simply isn't the case. Do you want the catalog numbers?
And then there is Hurwitz's (your) strange digression about the appearance of orchestral vibrato around WWII (actually, it's more like WWI) and the lack of documentation thereof. First of all, I should point out that in every treatise I listed, all the way up into the 20th century, the primary focus is solo playing. Orchestral practice naturally follows from that. So the poor quality of orchestral recordings from that time really has little say about soloists--as I'm sure you'll agree.
On the topic of the introduction of continuous vibrato, all you have to do is listen to Fritz Kreisler, who is widely considered to be the first important soloist to use it--his career took off in the early years of the century, and his playing is well-documented on good-sounding acoustical recordings from the '20s and '30s. Kreisler's vibrato is very easy to hear--much more controlled and tasteful than many modern-day violinists--as is the case with several others from that era.
To get back to the topic at hand: none of this is conjecture or 'interpretation' on my part--it's all covered in David Boyden's book ( The History of Violin Playing from Its Origins to 1761 , London, 1965), which is considered the definitive work on the subject. Another useful book is Robert Donnington's String Playing in Baroque Music , London, 1977. Have you read either one? I can almost guarantee that David Hurwitz hasn't.
So when you say that Hurwitz has "handily refuted the 'vibrato-only-as-a-seldom-used-expressive-ornament' interpretation of treatises by Spohr and Leopold Mozart--no, not to my satisfaction. And nobody ever said vibrato was a 'seldom used expressive ornament' in the first place. To reiterate: Muffat, Geminiani, Tartini, Corrette, Lolli, Mozart, Spohr, et. al., all said it should be used selectively (i.e., on the important notes of phrases, not on pickup notes, passing notes, etc.) and with varying degrees of intensity, when the music calls for it. That could be a little or even a lot, depending on the music. But not on every note of eighth note duration or longer--that's unmusical, at least in earlier music, because it makes every note of equal importance. And Baroque music is definitely about the inequality of the notes.
In later music, such as the standard orchestral repertoire, I don't care so much, as long as the vibrato isn't used as a crutch for poor intonation.
What might really help the discussion here is to deconstruct a phrase of, say, Bach, and apply what each one of us thinks is musically appropriate in the way of vibrato, dynamics (phrasing), articulation, ornamentation (if required), etc. Of course, that's impossible on a Internet forum, but 'up close and in person' it would be a lot more instructive about the relative musical savvy of the individuals involved.
Personally, I'd much rather play or sing music (to the extent that my limited technique allows) that to talk about it.
So if you have anything new or enlightening to say that isn't derogatory or denegrating ('HIPsters', 'early music mafia', 'deliberately obscure scholasticist style'), let's hear it. Otherwise, let's move on to something else.
In the meantime, you could see what you think of Dave's reply in this thread. :-)
maybe the guy hasn't been on audiogon in a while..how do we know?if you're going to post,post something positive..don't scare people away.
jim buck
nt
.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
I often disagree with Hurwitz, but based on the snippets I heard at CDBaby (see link below), it sounds like a long, slow, tonally unattractive slog through the suites. I find it hard to pass up *any* version of these works, but even I have my limits.
Hilarious -- unless you are Angela East or Reference Recordings.
But any musician or record company that ventures to record these masterpieces knows ahead of time that the competition is tremendous. There are so many recordings of these suites now, many *excellent* performances on disc.
On her website, the blurb about this recording says "The recording began in 2001 and after a catalogue of obstacles, each painstakingly surmounted, here it is!" The final obstacles of performance and audio were apparently never overcome. And Hurwitz failed to mention that the 6th suite was not even played by her, but by a different cellist.
You know, I don't like to be negative about people. We all try our best to get through life, making choices we believe are the right choices, using what abilities we were given, just trying to make our way. But occasionally, you just have to wonder about some things. Like, what were they thinking?
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
as if that bonehead cover wouldn't have!
Thanks for posting!
Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination. -Michael McClure
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
