Hi Yisrael:Yisrael van Handel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:15 pmI spent quite some time on #03. Since it is not technically difficult, I wanted to work on presentation (interpretation?). I wanted to get away from the very boring emphasize-first-beat-of-each-measure. I tried to apply harmonic analysis, especially stressing passing tones (suspended notes?) between chord transitions and chords that were the furthest from home. As you will see, it was hardly a ringing success. Part of the problem is that I do not have enough control over tone quality to make convincing changes in dynamics. I tried all kinds of things to get a more convincing tone, but so far the results are discouraging. There are other ways to enhance the dynamics: louder when climbing up the scale and softer when climbing down the scale. But I think that is too obvious to be very effective. The other way around is also a possibility. I am going to continue to experiment and focus on presentation at the expense of needed work, especially in the right hand. Simply, if I do not find a satisfying way to present the music I am going to get bored.
My study notes:
- This piece does not present any major technical difficulties.
- I used broken chords on the first beat of every other measure to make sure that the rhythm is clear. I had some problems starting the broken chords on the beat because I was playing the bass note with an almost apoyando movement, and it was too slow.
- As far as I know, it is impossible to play measure #5 as written. The A3-C2-E1 (the numbers refer to the string) chord at the start of measure 5 must be fingered with 1-3, not with 1-2 as written, otherwise you cannot sustain the half notes.
- I had some insecurity in the last three measures. I also approached the last three measures completely differently the second time. I think the accentuation the second time was much better. In general, I do not think it is a good idea to completely change the accentuation in a repeat, it just confuses the listener. I have to find a different way to create variety in the repeats. Right now I am just trying to find a way to introduce some color into the overall piece by focusing on phrasing and harmonic development.
Comments welcome. That is the purpose of this group.
Hi, Jorge,Jorge Oliveira wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:33 pm
Listened a couple of times to your rendition of Sor's Opus 35 #3 (by the way, you mistakenly posted it in the the Sor's Opus 60 thread ) and my main comment is that I think you are playing it way too fast. <snip>
PS: I'm still struggling to achieve the proper speed in the #4. Not easy at all these Elementary pieces...
No special reason, indeed, Yisrael, it's simply that both powderedtoastman and Steve Gallagher played it that fast in this thread and I liked their interpretations. But I guess you are right, the score does not have any indication of speed so I don't have to aim that high. In fact, I managed to record it yesterday night at 1/4 = 90 bpm. By persisting I could mechanize my hands to go even further but it would take me a further week or so and I'm getting tired of it, I must move on... . I'm going to post it now and I'll be waiting for your comments.Yisrael van Handel wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:12 am...
Why do you need to play #4 at 1/4=95? In dance pieces, a faster rhythm is sometimes essential to keep the beat from falling apart. But in an aria (melodic piece), as long as the melody makes sense, I think that speed is not critical. Try bringing out the melody with rest strokes, where possible, and see if it doesn't sound fine at a slower tempo. Let me know, because it is relevant for my practicing also.
No, Yisrael, no, don't you worry, I don't feel preached at all by your always kind and considerate comments to my renditions (though I was not aware that you had spent so many years in a seminary ). They are always quite positive and, rest assured, I value them very much, they have contributed a lot in these past years to the improvements I feel I have achieved in my guitar playing, thank you.Yisrael van Handel wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:14 pm...
I feel that I sound pedantic or preaching. Maybe it comes from spending 15 years in seminary. Maybe it is difficult to give properly nuanced feedback in writing. It is meant with all the warmth, regard, and respect that I feel for you as a close friend.
- Bravo for posting. I know you had some doubts, but there was no reason not to post.
- As you suspected, your tempos are a bit mechanical now. Please get that metronome out of your ear. The piece needs a little bit of breathing between phrases. You have solved your timing problems. I am not suggesting that you abandon the metronome altogether, but I think that you do not need it any more and do not want it after you understand the tempos of the piece.
- The first beat of the even measures is a long note (blanco or negro puntado) that needs to be held for its full value.
- Try just playing the melody (upper line) and see if you can get it to stick together better: perhaps more legato and stronger focus on the melody. I am not quite ready to post #4 yet, but I found it quite effective to play much of the melody apoyando both to give a richer quality and to separate it better from the accompaniment. In these kind of pieces that are highly melodical, it is the melody that holds the piece together and around which the piece is organized. If you practice the melody by itself, it will give you a lot of insight into how to phrase the piece and express the music.
Way, way better, Yisrael . You still have to clean out m.20 onwards, but that is just a question time I'm sure. The first inverted gruppetto is somehow fuzzy, but its repeat is flawless. The problem is that they are very fast notes, they do not always come out nicely. As for the tempo, it is all right as it is, I think you are now expressing nicely the mournful, sad nature of a larghetto.Yisrael van Handel wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:52 pmSecond try of Sor's Opus 60, #03.
My study notes:
Your comments are very welcome. That is the purpose of this list and they are very helpful to me.Sor_Op35_#03a.wma
- I added singer's pause to mark the end of phrases. On second listening, I think it was not enough in most places.
- Tried to pay greater attention to the dotted rhythms
- Noticed that many of the arpeggios were not clearly arpeggiated, listener cannot tell what the intention was.
- Insecurity in one or two places, especially in the first repetition of the B part. Second repetition was somewhat better.
- I think it is smoother than previous recording.
Not exactly. The last three notes of what looks like a five-note arpeggio in both measures belong to the upper voice, as is clearly indicated by Sor. This is an important melodic figure that recurs throughout the piece. Whenever it occurs, as in Bar 1, 2, 17-21, etc, it is crucial not to execute the five-note sequence as an arpeggio but as a two-voiced texture - the first two notes belonging to the lower, the last three to the upper voice. Failure to do so and indulging instead in arpeggiation, which is all too common, results in obfuscating the melodic line at those places.
You are overthinking what is actually a simple structure: the melody remains on the upper voice throughout the piece, and is indicated by the upward stem whenever there are multiple voices. The passage you describe above is no exception - the first melodic phrase starts with the first G in Bar 1, continues on the upper voice, and ends with the C in Bar 4; the second melodic phrase, a logical continuation of the first, starts with the first C in Bar 5, continues on the upper voice, and ends with the first F# in Bar 8. And so it goes on until the end of the piece.powderedtoastman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:32 pmThird measure the whole descending scale run from the high G can be thought of as melody, but then something interesting happens, the bass line takes over and in my opinion overlaps a little starting with first A in the next measure while the higher voice starts to fade back to harmony.