Segovia's interpretation of BWV 996 Allemande

cyberninja

I find Segovia's interpretation:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-XZdLoD34&mode=related&search=

Man this is my first time to listen to the great guy's BWV 996 Allemande...It is amazing and emotional ... but the tempo and and the rhythm....so surprising... omg, I never saw a player process in that way. Is it "Notes inégales" orsomething else?

I posted the note to e-borneo and some replies are really funny....

cyberninja

Not at all it has all the Segovia trademarks:-

1. Poor technical ability (but he was self-taught you know)

2. Inability to use any ornamentation.

3. Large dose of Segovia syrup to go!

4. Vibrato at every possible moment producing that renowned "Mickey
Mouse" effect.

5. Lack of any serious competition leading to delusions of grandeur
and Messianic tendencies.

I'm glad that his "era" has passed enabling the guitar to escape from
his clutches where it was virtually smothered to death and held captive
for so long. Fortunately people like Bream and Williams rescued it from
the man who said he rescued it...I like that a lot!

cyberninja

In other words, it actually resembles a musical interpretation.
Not like a robotic piano with over ornamented boredom?

Get over the Segovia thing guy.
And put the Nike shirt on, and just "Do it".

All the crying about Segovia this, and Parkening that.

They are all GREAT musicians period.


rant initiated

cyberninja

Ninja, this story reminds me of my own history with the Allemande:

1) the old master liked to romanticize this kind of music. today, most people believe that a similar interpretation is historically inaccurate. Then again, you can see on the Sting thread that I enjoyed his own 'historically inaccurate' rendition of Dowland. I used to play the Allemande like this but changed to a more stringent interpretation after a masterclass with Rodney Stucky, who graciously explained the difference to me.

2) such a use of rubato and freedom of phrasing requires a very strong understanding of the rhythmical and structural nature of the piece. Basically, I think it would be better (or at least more efficient) to learn to play the piece more "strictly" and then apply a 'romanticization' (if you so choose) at a later stage.

I am happy the Segovia rendition touched you. I think it would be a great motivation to aspire to a similar interpretation (it would always be 'your own') - so good luck and keep working on it!

gf

cyberninja

it's not notes inegales as that term is usually used. which is to say, unequal division of notes that are written equal, putting an extra dot on every second note for example, 'overdotting', so 2 eigth notes are not played equal, but as 3 sixteenths tied, and one sixteenth on it's own.
in that sense it's like 'swing eighths' which might be written equal but are played (if you know that's what you're meant to do) as triplets.

what Segovia is doing is closer to rubato, but it isn't exactly that either, he had better musical sense to apply romantic rubato to a baroque piece of counterpoint.

there is no word for it, perhaps because it derives from a musician's approach to non-contemporary music, no scholars getting involved saying what's 'right', no contemporary practice to set a common style and give it a period name. it's just playing music.

it's one genius meeting another across a few centuries. usually I find it very refreshing and often utterly convincing. although I doubt we should be attempting anything similar now, because to do so would be to reject scholarship, to play outside of the commonly accepted style to an unacceptable degree, and because we aren't living in those times with that style of performance practice (if that isn't saying the same thing twice).

it is brilliant though. if you listen to enough early 20th century recordings of Bach, or even mid-20th like Gould, modern styles (and they are modern) seem a bit bland. amazind and emotional it is, as Pablo Casals said of
Bach - "It is a rediscovery of the world of which I have the joy of being a part. It fills me with awareness of the wonder of life, with the feeling of the incredible marvel of being a human being." somehow, I just don't think John Williams ever felt like that.

cyberninja

Pete, thats a good way to view it.

The bottom line is think of it in these terms.

If a voilinist or a cellist was to perform anything, but in this case in particular, Bach for example, do you HONESTLY feel that they would just attempt to play it in an EXACT metronomical perfection, or piano like flowing of notes?

I do NOT mean to belittle the beautiful piano, which is a wonderful instrument in itself.

But much like even Segovia said, AMONGST OTHERS!, that the guitar loses its charm once you attempt to destroy the very beauty in which transcends the spell in itself, in that I mean the beauty of music, and the guitaristic qualities that are introduced to the melodies when played by a master artist.

I find it literally a bore to hear everything plucked, and little sluring where it destroys, rather than beautifies the work.
As well as a monotonish tone, or sound, as opposed to a "moving" section, that gives the illusion of life, and character.

It is always important to remember that not always what occurs in the performers head, is always propogated to the listener.

As Barrueco once was quoted as saying in a master class, you must make it musical to the listener, even if that means over exaggerating some things to reveal the point of your signature.

Look Williams, and Bream, and several others are damn good players.
They just do NOT convey the "spell" or the "magic" that some others have.

Of course like a woman walking down the street, the beauty will ultimately ALWAYS be in the eyes of the beholder, like a$$ holes, we all have one, and like fingerprints, they are ALL different!


rant retained

cyberninja

其实这些关于如何处理吉他音乐尤其是早期音乐的讨论很有意思, 要是有时间都可以写成一篇论文了....可惜太长, 大家尽量练练英文吧...呵呵

To romanticize, or not to romanticize, that is the question.

[ 本帖最后由 cyberninja 于 2007-3-16 07:41 编辑 ]

沃尔夫岗

如果不是洋文to much，我倒愿意研究研究他怎么说。

cyberninja

原帖由 沃尔夫岗 于 2007-3-16 12:14 发表
如果不是洋文to much，我倒愿意研究研究他怎么说。

其实就是关于是否可以用romantic的方式演奏Baroque的讨论.

沃尔夫岗

嗯，rubato跟romantic是不一样的，虽然听觉上可能有点类似。early music的rubato跟古典浪漫时期的rubato也是不一样的。early music的rubato更为自由一点，古典浪漫时期的rubato会先把节拍限定，然后在节拍里面自由处理音符长短。细心听一下是可以分辨出来的。
Baroque的处理是有很多rubato的因素，但这种rubato的方法是绝对Baroque风格的，不能像romantic的方式去处理。

cyberninja

原帖由 沃尔夫岗 于 2007-3-16 12:56 发表
嗯，rubato跟romantic是不一样的，虽然听觉上可能有点类似。early music的rubato跟古典浪漫时期的rubato也是不一样的。early music的rubato更为自由一点，古典浪漫时期的rubato会先把节拍限定，然后在节拍里面自 ...

对, rubato只是从那里"借"时间到这里, 以后要"还"的, 总时间不变, 当然cadences可以rit. 但是romanticizing就是有点free style了....看Segovia处理这首的速度和romanticizing....吃惊, 当然他是大师, 这么弹就这么弹了...你我要这么玩就要被人骂死了.......Barrueco 是说过演出是可以夸张表现来吸引观众("you must make it musical to the listener, even if that means overexaggerating some things to reveal the point of your signature.")....不过个人不太喜欢老塞这么处理....

cyberninja

(找到全力支持Segovia的了)
Amazing! Perfecto! How could it be played any better?