Expressiveness and Fidelity to the Score

[blur]

I have in front of me an article published in the November 1982 issue of Guitar Magazine. The author is Reginald Smith Brindle, a multi-instrumentalist and composer of some well-known pieces for classical guitar e.g. "El Polifemo de Oro", and is part of a series titled Performance Psychology which he did for the magazine at the time.

In the article he states that in 1945 he was asked to transcribe an unpublished Weiss "Suite in A Major" (later discovered to be actually by Ponce) from a Segovia recording. In doing so he mentions that he had to listen intently to every note, not just for the pitch, but also to hear the string on which it was being played and so learned a great deal about the Segovia style.

Some selected quotes from the article...

"The unexpected exaggeration of certain notes seemingly without musical reason, the delays and onward rushes, made the precise rhythmic designs difficult to guess at."

"While I was copying these discs, I gradually learned what to expect, absorbing Segovia's style, and knowing what to put on paper, even if he played things differently. Almost subconsciously, I became aware of several factors which were distinctly against musical tradition, and with other instruments would be regarded as blatantly erroneous."

"Segovia's strongly personal style makes him outstanding, with a stature head and shoulders higher than if he were merely 'correct'. Unfortunately it would seem that some of his eccentricities have been taken up by his admirers. They have become almost standard guitar practice, and some grotesque musical errors are being committed every day, without even being noticed, except possibly by non-guitarists."

He then goes on to make it clear that he is not meaning to be derogatory towards Segovia, just to try and "improve the standard of our musical language".

I should add that I am also not intending to be derogatory towards the guitarist who made the statement in question -- I have enjoyed his on-line performances.

Just adding some food for thought.

John G

[lucy]

Blur raised the issue of Segovia’s imprecise rhythm.

I’m certainly no expert, and Segovia may well be an extreme example, but I’d like to ask whether Segovia’s playing style was much different to many other early 20th century performers? In my recording of the Bach cello suites played by Casals, he is, in places, almost as free with the rhythm as Segovia.

I’ve been told that performance practice, for all instruments, changed dramatically during the 20th century, from being fairly loose with rhythm, to playing music almost as written.

Anyone agree with this?

[blur]

Blur raised the issue of Segovia’s imprecise rhythm.

I’m certainly no expert, and Segovia may well be an extreme example, but I’d like to ask whether Segovia’s playing style was much different to many other early 20th century performers? In my recording of the Bach cello suites played by Casals, he is, in places, almost as free with the rhythm as Segovia.

I’ve been told that performance practice, for all instruments, changed dramatically during the 20th century, from being fairly loose with rhythm, to playing music almost as written.

Anyone agree with this?

Like you, Lucy, I am certainly no expert, but I believe that you are correct with regard to general performance practice.

However I think the point that was being made by Reginald Smith Brindle in the article that I quoted was that the various distortions of rhythm and emphasis in Segovia's style seemed sometimes to be done without obvious musical reason, and that generations of guitarists since had slavishly copied those mannerisms without applying a little intellectual rigour.

My own view is that any departure from the written score with regard to rhythm should be fairly subtle and should have some rational basis. I have heard many performances where the guitarist seemed to be fiddling about with the rhythm in some attempt to inject a sense of "emotion" or whatever which often comes across to me as mawkish sentimentality.

I don't mean that I expect an elegy to be played in the same manner as a summer dance, and it is very difficult to put into words, but hopefully you get my drift.

John G

[paulcroft]

My own view is that any departure from the written score with regard to rhythm should be fairly subtle and should have some rational basis. I have heard many performances where the guitarist seemed to be fiddling about with the rhythm in some attempt to inject a sense of "emotion" or whatever which often comes across to me as mawkish sentimentality.

There does seem a view, particularly prevalent in the classical guitar world, that since playing musically can sometimes means being rhythmically flexible, that the opposite must also hold true always. It actually sounds excruciating when it has no musical relevance.

[lucy]

My own view is that any departure from the written score with regard to rhythm should be fairly subtle and should have some rational basis. I have heard many performances where the guitarist seemed to be fiddling about with the rhythm in some attempt to inject a sense of "emotion" or whatever which often comes across to me as mawkish sentimentality.

There does seem a view, particularly prevalent in the classical guitar world, that since playing musically can sometimes means being rhythmically flexible, that the opposite must also hold true always. It actually sounds excruciating when it has no musical relevance.

I have to admit I'm quite a fan of rubato. Some of the most successful guitarists today use a lot of it, eg. Milos, Craig Ogden. In contrast, I feel some other professional guitarists play too rigidly in time and to me they sound a bit mechanical.

However, I do think there's a difference between someone sounding like they are just playing a rhythm wrongly and someone who is playing out of time convincingly, so a listener can still perceive where the beat would have been if it had been in time. I was taught that even rallentandos have rhythm - you just slow the beat down gradually.

[lucy]

However I think the point that was being made by Reginald Smith Brindle in the article that I quoted was that the various distortions of rhythm and emphasis in Segovia's style seemed sometimes to be done without obvious musical reason, and that generations of guitarists since had slavishly copied those mannerisms without applying a little intellectual rigour.

I agree that Segovia's distortions of rhythm do sound odd and out of place at times and it may well be true that many guitarists copied him. However, I think we should bear in mind we are listening with modern ears and this may bias our expectations of what sounds "right"?

When listening to Segovia, I try to listen with an open mind and pay little attention to the perceived "oddities". I can now appreciate his magic and understand why he had such an impact. There must have been a reason why he became world famous and so many composers chose to write pieces for him.

[paulcroft]

A very simple example of inappropriate flexiblity is easily seen in a section from a song. Take "Oh Rose Marie, I Love You" [no idea why I thought of that.] If you consider a pause on, or after, "love" its clearly ludicrous. Correct phrasing follows similar rules but instead of it being quite that obvious one has to understand the elements that make up each phrase with real clarity before you can "play" with them. Many players don't understand it instincively but also don't study it musically or intellectually either, which can be a bit of a lose/lose situation.

That's not to say that an audience with a similar knowledge base won't think its great, in the same way as I could easily be very impressed by an average gymnast because I would just think it all seemed impressively difficult, but without having any real understanding of what was really good or bad.

Paul.

[60moo]

For the most part when playing solo classical guitar, there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with the concept of disrespecting the rhythm. It's how you do it. To quote Segovia from one of his masterclasses, it is "...in this lack of respect [for the rhythm that] you may define the good artist and the bad artist."

Segovia doing it in the extreme can still provide the superior listening experience, compared to a contemporary performer doing it ever so slightly, but nonetheless invalidly. Sometimes with the contemporary player, everything can appear to be flowing smoothly...until - in the context of how that piece is being played - either a note is held on to a little too long, or there's an inappropriate pause before commencing the next phrase, or an arpeggio may be played too openly as to disrupt the underlying pulse. These have the opposite effect of a "nuanced" performance, resulting in something that sounds awkward.

[blur]

For the most part when playing solo classical guitar, there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with the concept of disrespecting the rhythm. It's how you do it. To quote Segovia from one of his masterclasses, it is "...in this lack of respect [for the rhythm that] you may define the good artist and the bad artist."

I'm not sure I agree with the concept of "disrespecting the rhythm". In a way it means that the guitarist is saying that they disrespect the composer's intentions. As someone who has been writing music (usually but not always for my own use) for forty years I think that I'm entitled to put down four semiquavers and expect that they will be played as four semiquavers, not some random note values.

NOW, don't think that I'm against instilling the piece with life through the use of rubato etc...

My opinion however is that the guitarist should be able to justify at every point in the piece why it was played in that particular fashion. If perhaps there is a phrase with a sweeping melody over lush harmony, then the guitarist might want to play it slightly more broadly, pull back a little on the tempo to allow the beauty of the thing to sink in. The next phrase might have some rather astringent staccato chords that tumble down the fretboard and seem to need a sense of urgency. The guitarist should be able to recognize this and respond accordingly.

That is not the same as the seemingly random stops and starts that we frequently hear e.g. the "big" chords in Asturias, but I'm sure everyone can insert their own examples.

I can't remember any orchestral performance where things got so far off track as many of the solo guitar performances I've heard.

I think every guitarist should think of themselves as an orchestra with their own internal conductor. Work out how you are going to conduct the piece and then follow that internal conductor.

John G

[paulcroft]

Work out how you are going to conduct the piece and then follow that internal conductor.

John G

This is critical. Another small example: Duarte's English Suite begins with alternating 2/4 and 3/4; every performance I've heard sounds like 1/4. Although I could hear that was wrong it was only by conducting that I began to figure out what was going to work to bring the change of meter out and make it rhythmically effective.

[Tonyyyyy]

For the most part when playing solo classical guitar, there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with the concept of disrespecting the rhythm. It's how you do it. To quote Segovia from one of his masterclasses, it is "...in this lack of respect [for the rhythm that] you may define the good artist and the bad artist."

I'm not sure I agree with the concept of "disrespecting the rhythm". In a way it means that the guitarist is saying that they disrespect the composer's intentions. As someone who has been writing music (usually but not always for my own use) for forty years I think that I'm entitled to put down four semiquavers and expect that they will be played as four semiquavers, not some random note values.....
I think every guitarist should think of themselves as an orchestra with their own internal conductor. Work out how you are going to conduct the piece and then follow that internal conductor.
John G

If you play a melody and another musician is playing accompaniment , it is surprising just how much melodic flexibility is possible without changing the basic pulse
This is the type of rubato Chopin taught (though was accused of not practicing this in performance 0


Talking of rhythm and CG - I really would recommend going to a few percussion classes. I learned a bit of Djembe, and I felt it sharpened and clarified my rhythmm and the way I thought about it

[lucy]

NOW, don't think that I'm against instilling the piece with life through the use of rubato etc...

My opinion however is that the guitarist should be able to justify at every point in the piece why it was played in that particular fashion. If perhaps there is a phrase with a sweeping melody over lush harmony, then the guitarist might want to play it slightly more broadly, pull back a little on the tempo to allow the beauty of the thing to sink in. The next phrase might have some rather astringent staccato chords that tumble down the fretboard and seem to need a sense of urgency. The guitarist should be able to recognize this and respond accordingly.

I can't remember any orchestral performance where things got so far off track as many of the solo guitar performances I've heard.

I think every guitarist should think of themselves as an orchestra with their own internal conductor. Work out how you are going to conduct the piece and then follow that internal conductor.

Thanks for those very eloquent examples describing how rubato can be employed effectively. I agree with you on that. However, I think there is a difference between an orchestra and a soloist.

I think conductors lead orchestras and impose rubato in such a way that will make sense to the many different players/personalities in their ensemble. There needs to be mutual understanding. As such, I think there may be a limit to their freedom, as they have to be able to communicate their ideas to all the players. An orchestra can't afford to go very far off track, otherwise they would never keep together.

I think soloists, (including pianists who play romantic repertoire), can and should enjoy more freedom, as it's only their ideas that are being expressed - but these ideas won't sound "right" to everyone.

[lucy]

Work out how you are going to conduct the piece and then follow that internal conductor.

John G

This is critical. Another small example: Duarte's English Suite begins with alternating 2/4 and 3/4; every performance I've heard sounds like 1/4. Although I could hear that was wrong it was only by conducting that I began to figure out what was going to work to bring the change of meter out and make it rhythmically effective.

Paul, although you may be strictly speaking correct about the nuts and bolts of this, does it matter so much? I know the nuts and bolts of music have a basis in maths and physics, but for me, music is primarily an art and in essence creative. Maybe some performers don't always play everything absolutely "correctly", (however that is defined), but as they are out there walking the boards and people are paying to hear them play, I feel we should give them some credibility.

I believe great performers express their personality, to a certain extent, through their performances. It is how well someone communicates with an audience, by the nature of their unique personal touch, (and this may be in very subtle ways, that are difficult to define), that makes a concert memorable. It is not whether every "i" is dotted and every "t" crossed. I have also heard the view that a score is only the starting point for a performance - it is how someone interprets it that counts. It's often said music is recreative art.

I feel that many players establish successful careers, in spite of minor technical misjudgements, because their playing has emotional impact. Most people in audiences are not concerned with minor details, but buy tickets because they want to be enthralled and above all moved.

[Tiago]

Shouldn't we break rules only after we know and understand them? Doesn't the same apply here to some degree?

[paulcroft]

I can't really say I understand Lucy's point at all. If a composer writes a change of meter I believe they'd prefer it was respected. The suggestion seems to be that if one does show that respect then you lose in "creativity". Well you don't, you gain by having achieved a better, deeper understanding of the composer's intentions and therefore earned the right to then wrap your own creative ideas around their music.

I quite agree that, having done so, many in an audience may not understand eveything one tries to do, anymore than I fully understand everything a player of, say, Jonathan Leathwood's depth brings to his performances of Bach. However, I don't see that as an excuse not to bother or talk of "nuts and bolts", and I'm quite offended by the implication that if one is interested in accurately analysing, understanding and realising the composer's work, that somehow leaves you less capable than a player who doesn't to still see music as a creative, expressive and emotional art. I think that's a rather naive idea frankly.

I wouldn't like my epitaph [not that I'll get one] to be: "He was utter rubbish but ooo he did play with such feeling".

Paul.

Paul.