|
Post by princessmoose on May 28, 2006 17:46:26 GMT
I'm nowhere near that standard, but again surely if you can argue your reasoning for playing it in that way, then you can't get slated that much?......
|
|
|
Post by petite joueuse on May 28, 2006 17:50:37 GMT
Well actually this is the message that I keep getting! My worry is that I often feel quite out on a limb. Apart from fora like these, I don't really have that many people to bounce ideas off. My teacher has never seen anyone through Dip...so she doesn't often know how best to advise me. I'd like to do it really well - I don't want to go in not really sure of what I'm doing. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately.....?), things like dynamics in Baroque seem to be very personal. I've been reading around the topic loads....and everyone seems to have a different opinion!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on May 28, 2006 17:51:31 GMT
Interesting to read 2 versions of what one thinks a harpsichord sounds like . Always good to have a contrast of opinions . I resisted the urge to smite though . Such virtue brings its own rewards. I shall exalt you for not smiting me after I have exalted CD because her karma is low and pj exalted her. Got a headache yet? No. The nearest I came was years ago, playing a clavichord on display at RNCM. The sound was beautiful beyond belief - so sweet. Sadly, the sound was so soft that it would not have been heard at the far end of a reasonably large room. A singer would have drowned the sound, so I can see why it did not survive as anything other than a period piece. Steve
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on May 28, 2006 17:52:24 GMT
Then tell the examiners that . As long as you have researched into different ideas on how to use dynamics in Baroque music, then even if you do play it slightly differently to others, you can still say you looked at various possibilities and you prefer your way blah blah. ...
|
|
|
Post by YetAnotherKlavierist on May 28, 2006 17:56:34 GMT
Tricky isn't it. I've taken my playing of Baroque music back to basics; with the assistance of a harpsichord, but this is by no means necessary. Throwing dynamics out of the window, I learnt how to differ articulation and tastefully ornament to achieve the effects I wanted. Then, I've reintroduced dynamics to get a best-of-both-worlds effect. Now, I'm in a position where I'm much happier than I was with how I should play Baroque music.
For DipABRSM, I'd say the key thing is to be aware of what the instruments were like at the time - I think I was asked questions about that relating to my Bach and Beethoven. Have a feel for what temperament is all about too. In terms of playing it, I'd hold off the rubato (although it was used in the Baroque period you'll have an easier life staying away and using your other repertoire to demonstrate that) and try and get a very 'clean' sound, pay attention to articulation and use dynamics. As a guide, dynamic changes probably shouldn't be as frequent as in later music; and as Steve says, if it goes up, go louder isn't a bad start.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on May 28, 2006 17:57:38 GMT
Then tell the examiners that . As long as you have researched into different ideas on how to use dynamics in Baroque music, then even if you do play it slightly differently to others, you can still say you looked at various possibilities and you prefer your way blah blah. ... I agree. Even the more 'romantic' interpretations of baroque keyboard music I hear are still recognisably 'in style' for the period. There is room for many styles of playing. Steve
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on May 28, 2006 17:59:51 GMT
Then tell the examiners that . As long as you have researched into different ideas on how to use dynamics in Baroque music, then even if you do play it slightly differently to others, you can still say you looked at various possibilities and you prefer your way blah blah. ... I agree. Even the more 'romantic' interpretations of baroque keyboard music I hear are still recognisably 'in style' for the period. There is room for many styles of playing. Steve W.o.w... I said something valid .
|
|
|
Post by anacrusis on May 28, 2006 21:26:23 GMT
Other instrumentalists in the Baroque period did have more dynamic range, and I understand Bach played the violin too - you happen not to be playing a harpsichord, but an instrument with more dynamic range, so I do think it is fine to use that. The music itself would keep you from using the full, fearsome welly available to you on a concert grand, I'm sure. I've been to a couple of clavichord concerts! We joked beforehand that there ought to be dotted lines on the programmes, to enable audience members to fold their own ear-trumpets... The most amazing instrument on show was a pedal clavichord, with two manuals and a pedalboard like that of an organ, but with a clavichord mechanism. Great for QUIET organ practice. Funny thing is, after about ten minutes, your ears do in fact settle in to the quiet sound - we were asked not to applaud between pieces, though. Fortepianos should have been named the other way round, and we really ought to be be playing fortes today, not pianos. They are much thinner in tone. I think it was Sir Thomas Beecham who made the comments about the harpsichord. He'd only heard the very nasty instruments made as so-called "improvements" on the old instruments. The ones in the Russell and Mirrey Collections housed in Edinburgh are a different matter altogether, even if I am biased!
|
|
|
Post by YetAnotherKlavierist on May 28, 2006 22:42:21 GMT
Prelude and Fugue 5 in D major Just a quick question about the fugue, assuming you have the AB edition - note a) suggests using two lower-mordents in the first subject entry; and then goes on to suggest using these for all subject entries. Have you tried this? I find it works well, and really helps emphasise where the subject entries are.
|
|
|
Post by Trebor on May 28, 2006 22:54:25 GMT
Prelude and Fugue 5 in D major Just a quick question about the fugue, assuming you have the AB edition - note a) suggests using two lower-mordents in the first subject entry; and then goes on to suggest using these for all subject entries. Have you tried this? I find it works well, and really helps emphasise where the subject entries are. No, I hadn't actually looked at the notes for that piece. Although it sounds like a good idea - I'll try it out tomorrow. Assuming you also have the AB edition, can you put into layman's terms what Tovey is talking about vis-a-vis the three demisemiquavers. Because, by my reading, he says they should be faster than demisemis, slower than semis, but definitely NOT triplets. Which doesn't seem to leave me with any options (ironically, the other version of WTC has them marked as triplets in the score).
|
|
|
Post by YetAnotherKlavierist on May 28, 2006 23:07:47 GMT
Assuming you also have the AB edition, can you put into layman's terms what Tovey is talking about vis-a-vis the three demisemiquavers. Yep, it's a case of matters being confused by the edition being translated into modern notation. Start by playing the piece without the three demisemis; extend the previous note to subsume their length. Now, think of the three demisemis as being an ornament on the note onto which they arrive. For instance, in bar 3, the written note is an A: the ornament is to play E F# G on a run-up to it, such that the A sounds on the beat. The important thing is that none of the three demis have any weight - they're throwaway notes, the important one is the destination. Coming back to the whole faking dynamics on a harpsichord thing again, the demis serve to emphasise the note following them - the fast pace grabs the ear's attention in advance of the note we want pointing out.
|
|
|
Post by Trebor on May 28, 2006 23:15:32 GMT
Assuming you also have the AB edition, can you put into layman's terms what Tovey is talking about vis-a-vis the three demisemiquavers. Yep, it's a case of matters being confused by the edition being translated into modern notation. Start by playing the piece without the three demisemis; extend the previous note to subsume their length. Now, think of the three demisemis as being an ornament on the note onto which they arrive. For instance, in bar 3, the written note is an A: the ornament is to play E F# G on a run-up to it, such that the A sounds on the beat. The important thing is that none of the three demis have any weight - they're throwaway notes, the important one is the destination. Coming back to the whole faking dynamics on a harpsichord thing again, the demis serve to emphasise the note following them - the fast pace grabs the ear's attention in advance of the note we want pointing out. Thanks, makes a lot more sense now
|
|
|
Post by YetAnotherKlavierist on May 28, 2006 23:41:31 GMT
Have a listen to (right-click and Save Target As): www.forumrecordings.co.uk/BachF5.mp3I've recorded the first three bars, less the mordents on subject entries to make life easier for myself. I used the harpsichord voice on the Clavinova. Listen to the effect of the three demis on the following note. You might also notice, particularly in the right-hand set, that I played them non-legato. As I mentioned just now, the three demis should be quieter; so I used the old harpsichord trick of playing them non-legato.
|
|
|
Post by Trebor on May 28, 2006 23:50:06 GMT
I've recorded the first three bars, less the mordents on subject entries to make life easier for myself. I used the harpsichord voice on the Clavinova. Listen to the effect of the three demis on the following note. You might also notice, particularly in the right-hand set, that I played them non-legato. As I mentioned just now, the three demis should be quieter; so I used the old harpsichord trick of playing them non-legato. Thanks - that gives me a better idea of what I'm aiming for. The dotted quaver-semiquaver pairs are also very sharply done - is that a similar idea? And just out of curiosity: is a Clavinova harpsichord anything like the real thing?
|
|
|
Post by YetAnotherKlavierist on May 28, 2006 23:56:23 GMT
Thanks - that gives me a better idea of what I'm aiming for. The dotted quaver-semiquaver pairs are also very sharply done - is that a similar idea? Not quite. If you carry on reading Tovey's notes, he goes on to mention the dotted quavers. Bach's music pre-dates the double-dot notation, so one has to use one's judgement as to whether it should be interpreted as a dot or a double dot. I happen to think they sound better in those bars played as double dots. Tovey gives a few guidelines for what to do, but to summarise: if they're against four semiquavers, play them as single dots; if they're against demisemiquavers, play them as double dots; otherwise, it's up to you. Not too far off - have a listen to the two Byrd recordings of mine on the recordings site. OK, so I listen to them now and think but I've been playing for several times longer now than I had when I recorded them. You'll get an idea about the instrument sounds though. Big difference is that the keys are smaller on a harpsichord and don't have to be pressed down as much to make a sound, so although the sound isn't too different the playing experience is.
|
|