FaithManor, or other classical music knowledge people

[Caitilin]

I was listening to someone (a professional organist) discuss classical music, and the way some of it should be played. She said that, for instance, Pablo Casals' renditions of Bach's works for cello, while beautiful, are "too emotional" to be correct.

 

So I was wondering, are the same kinds of criticisms leveled against, say, Glenn Gould, who renders Bach in what is, to my ear, an "emotional" way? and what about the humming? I love it because it makes it seem more like a real person than some recordings. But is it correct?;)

 

And what makes an emotional rendering "wrong?" How do we know how the pieces were meant to sound, to be played?

 

Thank-you! :D

[FaithManor]

The assertions are based on the a "historical rendering" of the piece. Classical musicians are taught to interpret the music based on historical accuracy. Bach was a mathematician, physicist, and master organ builder. His music is defined by his pursuit of mathematical precision, learning to "tinker" with pitch until he came up with the well-tempered tuning system so all 24 key signatures were actually pleasant to listen to, and the mathematical relationships between harmonic structures. I liken them to "math" represented as music. The Baroque era, as opposed to the romantic era, was one of aristocratic complexities, but not one of grand shows of musical emotion either. So, as a general rule, to play Bach "accurately" one would not play in the same way one would play a late Beethoven piece, much less say Chopin.

 

However, I hesitate to call it "wrong". Yes, if one is playing in a competition, all things being pretty equal between pianists, cellists, etc. the emotional player "wooing" over Bach is going to get slammed on the score. But, on the other hand, one the beautiful and exquisite characteristics of classical music is that it transcends time and speaks to people in a variety of ways. So, an emotional rendition of Bach may make his music more meaningful to one listener than to another.

 

Technically, Bach is to be played precisely and on the piano, to be accurate, would be played as if one were playing a harpsichord since much of his work was designed to be played on the harpsichord ro clavier since pianos were a rather new innovation. It took a while for the range of greater dynamic ability and touch control to begin being represented in the design of the music. While some of Bach's instrumental works allow for a wider range of "interpretive" playing, the reality is that the man was just a serious mathematician, clinical, scientific, in his approach to composing and he himself was not an emotional player. Not to say he wasn't an emotional man, it just wasn't his playing style.

 

Off topic, but possibly of interest to you, is a little trivia on Bach. He was a man of rather deep feelings and he did have a bit of a temper. He was a coffee adict of the HIGHEST order and had a coffee house he frequented VERY regularly. He once got into a major fight with another man about the best coffee bean/. Neither man would end the argument or walk away. The altercation escalated and bach spent a night in jail for disturbing the peace. He didn't sleep that night and spent the entire time composing an entire cantata to Java writing it on water slips of paper he could get the jailer to give him, his shirt, his underclothes, etc.

 

So, again, from a technical perspective, an emotional rendering is historically inaccurate and especially one that plays a lot of havoc with the mathematical precision of the timing and the embellishments (trills, mordents, turns, passing tones, etc.), but it isn't bad either. It's different and not super accurate. But, if it speaks to the people, if someone comes to love Bach, love the piece, absorbs the music, then it isn't bad either. I firmly believe that if musicians can't bring "themselves" into the music, then what's the point. The beauty lies in the fact that from one master musician to the next, every single time we hear that piece, something new should come from it, something a little different, something that sparks our attention. Otherwise, musicians would be robots that just "reproduce" music instead of "make music".

 

Faith

[FO4UR]

Awesome answer, Faith!:iagree:

[zillymom]

Love Faith's response!

 

And on the coffee side note... some colleagues and I performed parts of the coffee cantata on a baroque recital we did. Soprano, flute, bassoon, harpsichord. Was soooo much fun seeing that side of Bach!

[Carol in Cal.]

OK, but there is a tremendous amount of emotion in Bach's church music.

 

It's not ONLY emotion. But it's very, very strong there.

 

It is born from a tremendous immersion in Lutheran teachings and hymnody and Bible knowledge and appropriate devotion. Everyone who heard the St. Matthew Passion, for instance, would have 'heard' the words to "Lamb of God, Pure and Holy" when it was played as a descant to the opening piece, on a second organ, with the antiphonal choirs and symphonies singing some of the best choral music of all time, as BACKGROUND to the central event, the Agnus Dei. Because of that immersion and common culture, Bach could be a bit understated and still have a tremendous impact. He could be precise and evoke tremendous emotion.

 

So to play him imprecisely is both unnecessary and fundamentally improper and distracting.

[Bird Girl]

I agree. I would even go so far as to say that it's the interpretation of the musician that creates the art--otherwise, the concertgoers could just purchase a CD of historical instruments playing each piece and stay at home.

 

In many ways, Bach was limited by the technology of his time period. If his musicians had had access to modern instruments, perhaps his artistic emphasis would have been less on precision and more on expression. It's impossible to say. It can be enjoyable to listen to a historic performance of ur-text music, and it can be enjoyable to hear Glenn Gould. Both are art, and neither are "wrong."

[newlifemom]

Fascinating! I knew some of that, but never put 2+2 together. [sorry it was all that made sense :tongue_smilie:]

[Caitilin]

Thank-you, Faith, for the explanation. That helps. And, I admit, part of what I truly enjoy about listening to Bach is the logical progressions which are as satisfying as a well-written essay or a geometric proof.

 

So, is Glenn Gould's style ahistorical? He is certainly very, very precise in his playing...:001_smile:

[Carol in Cal.]

 

In many ways, Bach was limited by the technology of his time period. If his musicians had had access to modern instruments, perhaps his artistic emphasis would have been less on precision and more on expression.

 

It just goes to show how working within limits can lead to the best possible realization of art.