Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner about whether we can truly realize the composer's intent

I tend to follow the score pretty closely, but I think it's a complicated issue, because it's just not clear whether a composer regarded his interpretive markings as commandments or suggestions. As has already been mentioned, listening to composers play their own works, and disregard their own markings, gives one pause.

I think the issue of fidelity to the score is subtle, and complex, and historically informed. Hence the "fuss".

-J

Very few composers, who are presently decomposing, approved their manuscripts. Music editors and publishers of the past (and, I might add, the present) shamelessly changed notes in scores, assuming that the composer had made an error (I mentioned in an earlier thread Saint-Saëns, who edited and corrected all of Charpentier's "errors" in cross-relations to make them more "harmonious"), and adding dynamic and phrasing markings to help the aspiring pianist. One can follow the score, or one can do his/her best to bring the ink splotches on the page alive.

Editors changing notes is ridiculous. Why couldn't they just sit down with the composer and work it out?

Being dead presents a problem. Charpentier died 1704, Saint-Saëns was born 1835

So, given a J.S. Bach autograph of a keyboard work that contains no markings of any kind as to tempo, dynamic level, phrasing and so on, how would you play it, being faithful to the score? I would argue a MIDI playback device set at 60bpm and mf with no phrasing would satisfy "fidelity".

When a composer doesn't use any markings it's safe to assume he expected the performer to do something more than keep the tempo, dynamics, etc. constant. Fidelity to the markings in the score is a non issue if there are no markings.

But therein lies the issue. Since the composer clearly "intended" to not put markings in the score, are you assuming that all interpretations, no matter how wild, satisfy the intent of the composer? And, do you, the listener, respond to all of the interpretations with the same, "Oh my Gawd, THAT was what the composer intended!" ?

Bach put no dynamic markings in keyboard works, because harpsichords did not have dynamic contrast... We are playing them on a piano, so it's okay to do judicious phrasing, dynamic contrast, and some spare use of pedal. I wouldn't overdo the dynamic contrast, phrasing, or pedaling, though, but that's to keep in a somewhat "harpsichord-ish" style.

And this delves more into the issue of performance practice and style, which is somewhat varied between both authorities and "authorities."

Actually, that is not quite correct. Bach did put a number of dynamic markings in his autographs, just not very often. He, like many other composers of his era, used terraced dynamics, which on the harpsichord, meant a change of stop or of manual. He also occasionally indicated phrasings in keyboard works, which imitated baroque bowing conventions.

As a "university trained harpsichordist, whatever the heck that means", I can assure you that harpsichords DO have dynamic contrast. Or was I just deluding myself?

An argument can be made (but I'm not going to argue it) that if a score was written for harpsichord, then playing it on the piano violates the "composer's intent".

It is interesting that after Arrau went to the trouble of learning and publicly performing all of Bach's works that are playable on harpsichord (a pretty huge undertaking, IMO), he stopped playing them because he came to think they weren't suited for the piano.

Obviously it's a little different with Bach, and you must know that. If you've ever heard his choral works, that's where it's at. That's Bach. He knew what he was doing - I think in the manuscript of the Inventions he wrote "to be played cantabile", and you need shape to play cantabile. Which means you are allowed to shape. Still, we don't play it like it's a wild romantic piece (well, I guess some do but that's besides the point). Bach also preferred the clavichord to the harpsichord because it had more of a dynamic range. Btw, how much dynamic range does the harpsichord really have? Idle curiosity. I have heard harpsichordists claiming it has it, but is it basically the difference between one manual to another? I thought it definitely doesn't have the ability to crescendo from note to note. I always thought it was quite subtle and that a clavichord possesses more of a dynamic range.

But I'm in no way an expert on such instruments. It's just what I've read and experienced while playing them.

Yeah, it does. But so does playing a Beethoven sonata on a Steinway.... Or any Bach on a modern violin... etc etc. We should play them on our instruments, otherwise it would be a huge loss in my opinion. But we should also play them more or less in style and not in a grotesque way.. it just has to be done tastefully.

I do think that it is sometimes fun to play music or hear performances on period instruments, though

Because composers often lived very far away, and email and telephones didn't exist.

The process was very slow, and there was often a rush to get things published and on the market.

And, too, in the case of harpsichords - they are still being built and modern composers do write music for them, so maybe they aren't really period instruments. At least not in the sense that a theorbo is.

If I may comment on that...

With Editions Musica Ferrum thus far I've dealt with 15-17 composers. Most were quite eager to help out the editing process. Some were gone the minute the contracts were signed and we were forced to take actions in our hands. A couple of composers were too eager to have ago at editing themselves...

So it could very well be a case that a composer is/was too busy to care for the publishing material...

Now, we're in the process of adding works from two dead composers. The first one is a case, whose daughter is an accomplished musician, who's performed her fathers works regularly, so it should be "ok". The second case though is a nightmare. His children are not musicians, his manuscripts are a bit of mess, and while there's been some attempt at musicological research on his case, things are still blurry at best.

Even if the contracts with the above two cases were to be signed today, we'd still have to publish (ergo print officially) their first work towards the end of 2014 for the first composer and 2015 for the second (talking about big orchestral works, not solo piano stuff, btw. Which is a huge game changer).

And that, only, to publish a 2nd edition shortly after with plenty of mistakes corrected and many more to be corrected thereafter!

_____________________

About a week ago, I was contacted by someone in this forum, about a possible error in "Piano Stories".

Here's my reply to him:


Some tpyos can be fun I guess (I frequently type the word tpyo as such, and I know that it's wrong. I do the same with the word awesmoe! ;))

His reply was equally delightful, but I can't quote it without his permission...

Perhaps the above things might shed some light on some things... :-/

The clavichord has a large dynamic range, it is just between ppp and p and is controlled by the player the same way as on a piano - velocity. The harpsichord has almost no dynamic range on a single string - an increase in the velocity of a key strike does change the volume slightly. The big change in dynamic level occurs by adding stops (strings). The Pleyel two manual I used for performance had 16', 8',8', and 4' strings on the lower manual, and 8',8' on the upper. The second upper 8 was a second set of plectra placed closer to the forward termination point of the string, causing a nasal sound. A mute stop was also used.

I much, much prefer to hear orchestral performances on period instruments with scholarly research used as the basis of the performance practice.

I much, much prefer to hear the Bach's WTC played well on a piano, not by Angela H. however - BOORING! - I can listen to Edward Aldwell's WTC all day, every day.

Not to morph the thread too much, but here are a few interesting examples I'd like to share.

In this lesson below, Robert Hill answers your question about the dynamic range on a harpsichord. (EDIT: I see Mwm answered while I was typing! Consider this corroboration, then.) That answer starts at about 2:13 in the vid. I'm embedding the lesson, because the first minute and a half underscores other wisdom that has been shared previously in this thread about making music, which, btw, I think Mwm expressed quite beautifully when he said, "One can follow the score, or one can do his/her best to bring the ink splotches on the page alive." (That part, Pogo, I know you already know... )



2:18--"On the harpsichord, it's very difficult to control the dynamic of the instrument anyway, the instrument is not very sensitive to dynamic, well, actually, it is exquisitely sensitive but it's a very tiny range, so to get the difference between a note that sounds louder, and a note that's not so loud, we have to keep out hands very relaxed."

Also, regarding the question about how to get Bach to fit on a piano--an oblique answer, but this was one of those true "Ah-ha!!!" moments when I stumbled across this. Here is the prelude from Handel's Keyboard Suite in B-flat major, played on a... fortepiano ! :



In the comment section, the performer, Robert Hill, notes, "There is solid evidence that Händel had a Florentine fortepiano regularly available to him in the house of a friend from the 1730's onwards. This performance explores how his keyboard music can sound on a fortepiano of the kind he was familiar with." Fortepianos have a sustain mechanism operated by one's knee. When I heard this performance, above, it untied all sorts of mental knots I was having about "How much pedal to use when playing Baroque on a piano?" Take a deep breath and use your judgement is, I think, the answer.

And that is your early instrument lesson for today. Now, go practice piano!

--Andy