4. Zin, Not Zyn

WEBVTT
00:00:17.899 --> 00:00:20.660
Hello, and welcome back to Beyond the Notation, a podcast
00:00:20.660 --> 00:00:23.539
on the ongoing reading of the Personal Manifesto
00:00:23.539 --> 00:00:26.260
and Doctoral Thesis on Early Music. The notation
00:00:26.260 --> 00:00:28.640
is not the music. Reflections on early music
00:00:28.640 --> 00:00:31.980
practice and performance by Barthold Kuijken. I
00:00:31.980 --> 00:00:34.039
am Kenneth Chang, and I'm with Marilyn Ganz.
00:00:34.100 --> 00:00:36.539
We are both young, aspiring musicians seeking
00:00:36.539 --> 00:00:38.920
insight into the fascinating and intricate world
00:00:38.920 --> 00:00:42.000
of historically informed performance and early
00:00:42.000 --> 00:00:44.359
music. Welcome back, Marilyn. How are you doing?
00:00:44.439 --> 00:00:45.740
I'm doing good. How are you today? I'm doing
00:00:45.740 --> 00:00:49.200
good. How are you, Kenny? So I was putting this
00:00:49.200 --> 00:00:51.960
in post, right? Right. Yesterday. And I forgot
00:00:51.960 --> 00:00:55.219
we've... We put in the disclaimer, right? So
00:00:55.219 --> 00:00:58.799
I just barged the old one in. Did you cut it
00:00:58.799 --> 00:01:00.219
in somewhere else? Yeah, but it actually sounds
00:01:00.219 --> 00:01:01.299
pretty good. You know what? That's all right.
00:01:01.359 --> 00:01:03.399
That's all right. It's the editing magic on one
00:01:03.399 --> 00:01:05.620
of the programs. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There's a
00:01:05.620 --> 00:01:07.920
lot of crazy audio things you can do nowadays.
00:01:07.939 --> 00:01:09.980
Yeah, sure. I'm very happy that we have access
00:01:09.980 --> 00:01:12.359
to that. So, without further ado, this episode
00:01:12.359 --> 00:01:14.340
includes content from The Notation Is Not The
00:01:14.340 --> 00:01:16.599
Music by Barthold Kuijken, used with permission
00:01:16.599 --> 00:01:19.819
of Indiana University Press. All right, we're
00:01:19.819 --> 00:01:23.859
so, we finished stuff, content that has to cover
00:01:23.859 --> 00:01:26.680
over temperament and tuning, which I found very
00:01:26.680 --> 00:01:31.969
fascinating, also with pitch and vibrato. What
00:01:31.969 --> 00:01:34.370
was something that was really cool, like fascinating?
00:01:34.930 --> 00:01:37.730
Yeah. What I remember from the last episode,
00:01:37.810 --> 00:01:39.750
too, is we kind of just went over the fact that
00:01:39.750 --> 00:01:43.040
tempo... Judges using tempo as an example from
00:01:43.040 --> 00:01:46.280
the chapter was really something kind of personalized
00:01:46.280 --> 00:01:49.060
for each composer or each performer. And so nowadays
00:01:49.060 --> 00:01:51.680
in the 21st century in music, classical music,
00:01:51.819 --> 00:01:53.819
we often think of, okay, Allegro is going to
00:01:53.819 --> 00:01:56.180
be this many beats per minute or, I don't know,
00:01:56.299 --> 00:01:58.159
Vivace is going to be a little faster, you know,
00:01:58.159 --> 00:02:00.120
things like that. But, you know, he went over
00:02:00.120 --> 00:02:02.219
things like, who was the composer, Telemann?
00:02:03.700 --> 00:02:05.540
Telemann? I think he was Telemann. Yeah, who
00:02:05.540 --> 00:02:08.050
said it was in a previous chapter. who said that
00:02:08.050 --> 00:02:10.270
his version of Avace should actually be slower
00:02:10.270 --> 00:02:13.250
than Allegro, I think. I think that was the thing
00:02:13.250 --> 00:02:14.490
he said. There are plenty of contradictions.
00:02:14.669 --> 00:02:17.409
And then didn't Quantz Ludwig, was it Ludwig
00:02:17.409 --> 00:02:20.009
Quantz, didn't he say in one of his treatises
00:02:20.009 --> 00:02:24.509
that there was a tempo connection to the human
00:02:24.509 --> 00:02:27.090
heartbeat? Human heartbeat, right. Which is very
00:02:27.090 --> 00:02:29.969
different than today. We talked about how it's
00:02:29.969 --> 00:02:32.490
just kind of a controversial topic in classical
00:02:32.490 --> 00:02:35.129
music, especially where it's like, you know...
00:02:35.500 --> 00:02:37.900
how fast do we actually go, and we want to make
00:02:37.900 --> 00:02:39.740
sure that the articulation is there, but also
00:02:39.740 --> 00:02:42.560
that the tempo is what the composer wanted. But
00:02:42.560 --> 00:02:44.199
what we think of as what the composer wanted
00:02:44.199 --> 00:02:46.699
maybe isn't even what they actually wanted in
00:02:46.699 --> 00:02:50.580
historical terms, so it's crazy. All right, and
00:02:50.580 --> 00:02:52.139
then I'm trying to think if there's anything
00:02:52.139 --> 00:02:57.639
else from the previous chapter. Yeah, but I'm
00:02:57.639 --> 00:03:01.139
looking forward to what Mr. Kaika has to say
00:03:01.139 --> 00:03:04.280
about rhythm, though. The next one. I mean, okay,
00:03:04.379 --> 00:03:07.400
so you have, yeah, but no, no, that's the thing.
00:03:07.439 --> 00:03:09.240
Rhythm is one of the most important elements,
00:03:09.340 --> 00:03:12.159
so I think we're going to be diving into some
00:03:12.159 --> 00:03:15.439
interesting stuff here. In regards to, like,
00:03:15.460 --> 00:03:18.199
because I like how he splits everything not into,
00:03:18.280 --> 00:03:21.020
like, general categories, because you notice
00:03:21.020 --> 00:03:23.639
temperament and pitch were separate of each other.
00:03:23.659 --> 00:03:25.139
Separate, yeah. And then we have tempo, rubato,
00:03:25.199 --> 00:03:28.580
and then rhythm. Rubato and rhythm. Yeah, I think
00:03:28.580 --> 00:03:30.159
we're just going to dive in a little bit more
00:03:30.159 --> 00:03:34.240
about that world, tempo, rhythm, bravado, all
00:03:34.240 --> 00:03:37.039
within that section. So do you want to give it
00:03:37.039 --> 00:03:41.020
a go? Yeah, sure. So at the top of the page it
00:03:41.020 --> 00:03:43.539
says, Stephen E. Heffling has written the most
00:03:43.539 --> 00:03:45.740
complete study of inequality and related matters.
00:03:46.659 --> 00:03:49.289
Rhythmic... altercation in 17th and 18th century
00:03:49.289 --> 00:03:51.990
music published in 1993. Occasionally, however,
00:03:52.189 --> 00:03:54.189
I would interpret some historical text differently
00:03:54.189 --> 00:03:57.050
or establish connections to the spoken word more
00:03:57.050 --> 00:04:00.650
strongly. In the November 2007 and February 2012
00:04:00.650 --> 00:04:05.150
issues of Early Music, John Byrd gives very interesting
00:04:05.150 --> 00:04:07.509
examples of inequality in Italian -style compositions
00:04:07.509 --> 00:04:09.990
from the end of the 17th and first half of the
00:04:09.990 --> 00:04:13.240
18th centuries. And then he writes, the 18th
00:04:13.240 --> 00:04:15.379
century musician did not observe our modern rules
00:04:15.379 --> 00:04:17.800
about strict sulfage down to the smallest note
00:04:17.800 --> 00:04:20.439
values. These notes seem to be treated as ornamental
00:04:20.439 --> 00:04:22.600
rather than essential and could thus be performed
00:04:22.600 --> 00:04:25.279
more freely, some longer, some shorter, than
00:04:25.279 --> 00:04:27.879
notated. The next hier rhythmic unit, however,
00:04:28.079 --> 00:04:30.639
would remain unaffected by these changes. One
00:04:30.639 --> 00:04:32.560
can easily link this inequality of the shortest
00:04:32.560 --> 00:04:36.540
note values to the, what is that? Iambic? Iambic?
00:04:37.779 --> 00:04:41.540
Trokaic. Trokaic. Oh! Wow, we're going all the
00:04:41.540 --> 00:04:45.019
way back to Greek times. Yeah, so, iambic, meaning
00:04:45.019 --> 00:04:47.480
short to long, and then, what is it? Short long.
00:04:47.600 --> 00:04:51.720
Short long. Trochaic is long short. Wait, isn't,
00:04:51.720 --> 00:04:53.360
that kind of reminds me of, like, when you play
00:04:53.360 --> 00:04:55.220
a Haydn or something, or anything classical,
00:04:55.300 --> 00:05:00.959
there's an appoggiatura. Yeah. Like that. That's
00:05:00.959 --> 00:05:04.939
exactly what this is referencing. Verse feet,
00:05:05.000 --> 00:05:08.180
which were, at least since Greek and Roman antiquity,
00:05:08.199 --> 00:05:12.839
in general use in poetry and theater all over
00:05:12.839 --> 00:05:17.680
Europe. Whereas in today's colloquial speech,
00:05:18.060 --> 00:05:20.699
the implied rhythmic inequality is mostly neglected.
00:05:20.779 --> 00:05:23.399
This was not yet the case in the 17th and 18th
00:05:23.399 --> 00:05:25.800
centuries theatrical declamation or in singing.
00:05:26.279 --> 00:05:29.060
A typical example is Gluck's famous... Okay,
00:05:29.160 --> 00:05:33.500
it's Italian. Wait, Schifaro senza Iridice. And
00:05:33.500 --> 00:05:38.300
so this is Orfeo. Orfeo. This is the OG, I believe,
00:05:38.379 --> 00:05:41.480
the OG opera that began all other operas. All
00:05:41.480 --> 00:05:44.360
after the... Because this is from 1762. Yeah,
00:05:44.399 --> 00:05:50.000
no, no, actually, Orfeo and Iridice was the source
00:05:50.000 --> 00:05:52.199
material, and then Gluck. I think did like an
00:05:52.199 --> 00:05:54.439
adaptation of it, I guess. Like an original.
00:05:54.680 --> 00:05:56.620
It's like Ravel's pictures at an exhibition.
00:05:56.699 --> 00:06:00.019
Exactly. We got to play that in an orchestra.
00:06:00.740 --> 00:06:04.319
That was so cool. What else? Okay, I think this
00:06:04.319 --> 00:06:09.560
is French. In the French version, which is from
00:06:09.560 --> 00:06:12.399
1774, the singer's first two notes were written
00:06:12.399 --> 00:06:15.180
as equal eighth notes, but even today, most people
00:06:15.180 --> 00:06:17.079
justly sing the first note much longer than the
00:06:17.079 --> 00:06:20.100
second, as necessitated by correct metrical dictation.
00:06:20.519 --> 00:06:23.680
Interestingly, in his remarks about the Kramer
00:06:23.680 --> 00:06:25.779
piano etudes, Beethoven is still speaking about
00:06:25.779 --> 00:06:28.439
the verse feet requiring exact knowledge and
00:06:28.439 --> 00:06:30.920
application of them. Very consequently, he recommends
00:06:30.920 --> 00:06:33.600
rhythmic inequality of the shortest notes in
00:06:33.600 --> 00:06:35.360
some of these etudes, which he saw as the best
00:06:35.360 --> 00:06:37.819
preparation for his own piano compositions. I
00:06:37.819 --> 00:06:39.439
would love to hear this approach, at least sometime.
00:06:40.100 --> 00:06:42.959
In German, the accented symbol or note is expressed
00:06:42.959 --> 00:06:45.899
more, not exclusively, by strength than by length.
00:06:45.980 --> 00:06:49.579
We find this clearly illustrated in Johann Gottfried's
00:06:49.959 --> 00:06:53.879
Well, Walters or Valter, if you want to say that.
00:06:53.879 --> 00:06:57.860
Walters. Oh, you want to say that? Oh, let's
00:06:57.860 --> 00:07:02.980
see. Okay. Let's see. You know. Precepta. Precepta.
00:07:02.980 --> 00:07:07.680
Their musical. Musical. Musical. Composition.
00:07:08.819 --> 00:07:12.540
1707. That's early. And his. Okay. Musical. Musical.
00:07:13.259 --> 00:07:17.959
Musical. Lexicon. From 1732. These are the German
00:07:17.959 --> 00:07:21.439
ones. Yeah, so, and then he says, he uses the
00:07:21.439 --> 00:07:26.000
phrase, mein Seel ruft und schreit, to demonstrate
00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:28.300
the alternating long and short symbols, which
00:07:28.300 --> 00:07:32.800
he calls innerlich lang, or innerlich kurz. But,
00:07:32.800 --> 00:07:36.399
außerlich glick, intrinsic... Gleich. Gleich.
00:07:37.980 --> 00:07:40.519
Intrinsically long. Intrinsically long or intrinsically
00:07:40.519 --> 00:07:43.120
short. But externally, in the written form, identical.
00:07:43.740 --> 00:07:45.720
According to him, they should be sung or played
00:07:45.720 --> 00:07:48.160
as strong and weak, respectively, and the weak
00:07:48.160 --> 00:07:50.540
note should be also somewhat shorter. In French
00:07:50.540 --> 00:07:53.019
declamation, the stress is given by length rather
00:07:53.019 --> 00:07:54.660
than by strength, so the opposite of the German.
00:07:54.920 --> 00:07:56.899
The accented symbol is pronounced approximately
00:07:56.899 --> 00:08:00.560
twice as long as the unaccented symbol. The actual
00:08:00.560 --> 00:08:03.620
degree of inequality would depend on the text
00:08:03.620 --> 00:08:07.459
to be recited or sung. Indeed, the A in amour
00:08:07.459 --> 00:08:11.000
must be made less long than the pli and placere.
00:08:11.550 --> 00:08:14.970
as, let's, uh, Banin, Banin, Banin de Basili,
00:08:15.009 --> 00:08:17.389
explains in the very lengthy chapter about pronunciation
00:08:17.389 --> 00:08:21.509
and pros, pros, prosity, in his Ram, Ramarcus,
00:08:21.730 --> 00:08:25.430
Curiosus, Curiosus, I thought you'd take it,
00:08:25.529 --> 00:08:28.370
the being chanter, I don't know, 1668, these
00:08:28.370 --> 00:08:30.129
are all these, like, pamphlets from the time,
00:08:30.170 --> 00:08:33.250
and, um, I think we said this last episode, too,
00:08:33.309 --> 00:08:35.909
where it was kind of interesting how many different,
00:08:36.029 --> 00:08:38.809
uh, texts they had on musical playing and then
00:08:38.809 --> 00:08:41.110
nowadays it's kind of like we have our Kreutzer
00:08:41.110 --> 00:08:43.409
etudes and our, I don't know, our Hanon piano
00:08:43.409 --> 00:08:44.649
studies, but for the most part - But you have
00:08:44.649 --> 00:08:47.090
Remarque's Choresse Sonnard. Yeah, he's very
00:08:47.090 --> 00:08:50.029
fancy, like little excerpts here. We should make
00:08:50.029 --> 00:08:52.809
a meme, right? Like it should be like, you know
00:08:52.809 --> 00:08:56.909
this, Popper, Kreutzer, all, I don't know what
00:08:56.909 --> 00:08:59.750
for piano etudes you have, but then you, but
00:08:59.750 --> 00:09:08.120
you also have He says in Italian singing as well,
00:09:08.259 --> 00:09:10.100
the text can be more easily understood if the
00:09:10.100 --> 00:09:11.720
metrical structure of the verse is respected.
00:09:12.000 --> 00:09:14.500
In vocal music on Italian texts, especially from
00:09:14.500 --> 00:09:16.860
the first half of the 18th century, we find numerous
00:09:16.860 --> 00:09:19.299
practical indications of inequality similar to
00:09:19.299 --> 00:09:21.759
the gluck example already cited. Composers such
00:09:21.759 --> 00:09:26.700
as A. Scarlatti, G. Bonosini, or L. Vinci in
00:09:26.700 --> 00:09:29.419
Italy, G .F. Handel in England and R. Kaiser
00:09:29.419 --> 00:09:32.100
in Germany frequently write equal sixteenth notes
00:09:32.100 --> 00:09:35.299
in a vocal part in symbolic as well as melismatic
00:09:35.299 --> 00:09:38.080
passages, but use dotted notation when the same
00:09:38.080 --> 00:09:40.320
motifs are to be performed by the basso continuo,
00:09:40.320 --> 00:09:43.259
obbligato instruments, or orchestra. Clearly,
00:09:43.340 --> 00:09:44.759
the singer is supposed to know which symbols
00:09:44.759 --> 00:09:47.000
must be sung longer or shorter according to the
00:09:47.000 --> 00:09:49.220
metric structure of the text, whereas the absence
00:09:49.220 --> 00:09:51.399
of text necessitates a somewhat more precise
00:09:51.399 --> 00:09:53.759
notation for the instrumentalists. It is obvious
00:09:53.759 --> 00:09:56.259
that in Italian, too, the exact degree of inequality
00:09:56.259 --> 00:09:58.340
will depend on the specific text to be sung,
00:09:58.460 --> 00:10:00.399
so I guess singers are kind of given their own
00:10:00.759 --> 00:10:02.639
like separate notation back in the day. Whereas
00:10:02.639 --> 00:10:05.480
now, if you look at an opera score, if you're
00:10:05.480 --> 00:10:07.240
doing Fidelio or something, you look at the opera
00:10:07.240 --> 00:10:10.059
and it's the same notation as the orchestra too.
00:10:10.179 --> 00:10:12.240
And that helps the conductor as well. Because
00:10:12.240 --> 00:10:13.799
actually, if you're a conductor in this time
00:10:13.799 --> 00:10:17.100
period and the note values are different for
00:10:17.100 --> 00:10:19.740
the vocalist versus the instrumentalist, you
00:10:19.740 --> 00:10:22.200
have to know both and somehow conduct that and
00:10:22.200 --> 00:10:25.340
make it line up. That sounds kind of hard. I
00:10:25.340 --> 00:10:27.720
mean, I don't know. It seems kind of different.
00:10:27.759 --> 00:10:30.590
It's kind of crazy. He says, instrumentalists
00:10:30.590 --> 00:10:32.250
were always required to take singers as their
00:10:32.250 --> 00:10:34.490
model, and indeed they will have needed to listen
00:10:34.490 --> 00:10:36.230
attentively to the singer in order to imitate
00:10:36.230 --> 00:10:39.649
or accompany well at appropriate places. In purely
00:10:39.649 --> 00:10:41.330
instrumental music, they will have applied a
00:10:41.330 --> 00:10:43.870
similar flexibility or have imagined a text under
00:10:43.870 --> 00:10:46.500
their notes. The request for unequal performance
00:10:46.500 --> 00:10:48.379
of equally written short notes is documented
00:10:48.379 --> 00:10:51.899
from 1550 until circa 1800. It is not surprising
00:10:51.899 --> 00:10:54.259
that we find most, but by no means all, references
00:10:54.259 --> 00:10:56.419
to this principle in France, where the rhythmic
00:10:56.419 --> 00:11:00.480
inequality is most inherent in the prosody of
00:11:00.480 --> 00:11:02.759
the language. The numerous treatises for instruments
00:11:02.759 --> 00:11:05.299
as well for the voices generally agree with one
00:11:05.299 --> 00:11:08.480
another about the use of the notes inegales?
00:11:08.740 --> 00:11:15.070
Inegales, or unequal. Unequal. You know, in the
00:11:15.070 --> 00:11:17.570
second orchestral swing, B minor by Bach, there's
00:11:17.570 --> 00:11:22.740
a very... prominent flute part, right? In the
00:11:22.740 --> 00:11:25.440
beginning and to the very end. Right. And I know
00:11:25.440 --> 00:11:28.379
Barthold Kuijken, there was a comment in one of the
00:11:28.379 --> 00:11:30.840
YouTube videos, he was playing in Igal, because
00:11:30.840 --> 00:11:34.000
they played a lot of the, you know, the Bach
00:11:34.000 --> 00:11:37.480
repertoire kind of like in Igal style. Yeah.
00:11:37.940 --> 00:11:40.720
Unlike back then in the orchestras in the 60s,
00:11:40.720 --> 00:11:43.340
everything was very widespread. Yeah. It was
00:11:43.340 --> 00:11:48.379
more, yeah, it was more like played without that,
00:11:48.379 --> 00:11:54.179
like, idea in mind, so there's clearly some contrast
00:11:54.179 --> 00:11:55.700
I can notice here. Very different perspective
00:11:55.700 --> 00:11:59.000
there. He says, let's see, systematically, the
00:11:59.000 --> 00:12:01.200
note that falls on the beat or on the subdivision
00:12:01.200 --> 00:12:03.539
thereof is lengthened and the following note
00:12:03.539 --> 00:12:05.600
is shortened. The ratio between long and short
00:12:05.600 --> 00:12:08.139
can change according to character, but seldom
00:12:08.139 --> 00:12:10.519
reaches the dotted rhythm's ratio of three to
00:12:10.519 --> 00:12:14.820
one. And the preface to his livret d 'orgue d
00:12:14.820 --> 00:12:24.190
'orgue d 'orgue 1665 I think you're pronouncing
00:12:24.190 --> 00:12:29.110
them better than me. I think you're pronouncing
00:12:29.110 --> 00:12:33.970
them better than me. He gives a beautiful description
00:12:33.970 --> 00:12:36.559
of inequality. Okay, this is in French. I'm just
00:12:36.559 --> 00:12:38.340
going to skip to the English part. He says, one
00:12:38.340 --> 00:12:40.720
accent triplets, and in some situations, longer
00:12:40.720 --> 00:12:43.039
or larger intervals and repeated notes. With
00:12:43.039 --> 00:12:44.919
respect to the last category, repeated notes,
00:12:45.039 --> 00:12:47.460
various notations of the Marsalis. Oh, it's like
00:12:47.460 --> 00:12:51.080
Marsalis. Oh, wait. We're done. We're done, Marsalis.
00:12:51.279 --> 00:12:55.179
Marsalis. Wait. Marsalis. Marsalis. Marsalis.
00:12:56.919 --> 00:13:06.909
1792 are informative. Okay. Lyle mentioned. We
00:13:06.909 --> 00:13:09.049
got it in the story here. He wrote that the beginning
00:13:09.049 --> 00:13:10.990
in Dada Rhythm and many other editions do the
00:13:10.990 --> 00:13:13.029
same, but quite a number of sources at the same
00:13:13.029 --> 00:13:15.370
time are notated using equal notes. I suppose
00:13:15.370 --> 00:13:17.950
everybody knew how to sing or play the tune,
00:13:18.070 --> 00:13:20.769
regardless of the equal notation. After studying
00:13:20.769 --> 00:13:22.990
all the sources, it becomes clear that the French...
00:13:24.389 --> 00:13:26.990
intaglit is not an ornament, not an option, but
00:13:26.990 --> 00:13:29.429
is pure necessity. Good taste consisting in knowing
00:13:29.429 --> 00:13:32.250
how unequal one had to sing or play, but not
00:13:32.250 --> 00:13:35.870
whether or not one would apply inequality. That
00:13:35.870 --> 00:13:37.929
is a foregone conclusion. In French compositions,
00:13:38.230 --> 00:13:40.730
inequality is not usually called for verbatim.
00:13:40.889 --> 00:13:43.169
Yeah, called for verbatim. Everybody knew where
00:13:43.169 --> 00:13:45.289
it occurred, and only in exceptional situations
00:13:45.289 --> 00:13:47.710
where specific remarks, both prescriptive and
00:13:47.710 --> 00:13:49.830
prohibitive, required. So it was just sort of
00:13:49.830 --> 00:13:53.250
an assumed thing if you're a singer. I guess
00:13:53.250 --> 00:13:54.570
kind of in, I mean, there are certain aspects
00:13:54.570 --> 00:13:57.750
of the way that we perform today in, like, this
00:13:57.750 --> 00:14:00.789
era as well. Certain things that we do, kind
00:14:00.789 --> 00:14:02.870
of going back to, like, the rubato, where it's
00:14:02.870 --> 00:14:05.990
almost maybe not written in the music, but because
00:14:05.990 --> 00:14:09.730
we do it, we all do it nowadays. It's kind of
00:14:09.730 --> 00:14:11.230
the same thing, where even though it's not explicitly
00:14:11.230 --> 00:14:13.990
written, there are still, like, artistic things.
00:14:14.149 --> 00:14:17.269
Instances of, yeah. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Choices
00:14:17.269 --> 00:14:22.419
were given, or, like, during that time. And some
00:14:22.419 --> 00:14:24.360
of them, I guess, like, there's so many factors
00:14:24.360 --> 00:14:27.120
that go into that specific rubato element that
00:14:27.120 --> 00:14:30.259
someone plays. But, like, when you see 21st century
00:14:30.259 --> 00:14:33.539
versus 20th, 19th, 18th century style rubato,
00:14:33.539 --> 00:14:36.120
there's so many characteristics. Yeah, exactly.
00:14:36.559 --> 00:14:39.519
So he says, just as the splendor of Versailles
00:14:39.519 --> 00:14:41.519
was imitated everywhere in Europe, the French
00:14:41.519 --> 00:14:44.259
music, one of the salient ingredients of, oh
00:14:44.259 --> 00:14:47.600
gosh, Louis the... Louis XIV? This is XIV. I
00:14:47.600 --> 00:14:50.240
think this is like the OG Louis XIV. Yes! Because
00:14:50.240 --> 00:14:53.279
I went, I don't know, you visited Versailles?
00:14:53.820 --> 00:14:55.519
No, I haven't been to France yet. Yeah, I've
00:14:55.519 --> 00:14:59.139
been to Versailles, and yeah, the XIV, the Sun
00:14:59.139 --> 00:15:01.740
King, I believe the Sun King, he was the OG guy.
00:15:01.860 --> 00:15:03.620
He was the guy with like the... If you've ever
00:15:03.620 --> 00:15:07.840
taken in the US, the AP European, wait, yeah,
00:15:07.879 --> 00:15:11.200
European History course, yes, you would know,
00:15:11.220 --> 00:15:14.039
this is like a big guy. He's like the, yes. Louis
00:15:14.039 --> 00:15:16.539
XIV's court. And especially in the suite form,
00:15:16.700 --> 00:15:19.279
with the overture and dances, became very popular
00:15:19.279 --> 00:15:21.779
in Germany and England. Composers such as J .S.
00:15:21.779 --> 00:15:24.179
Bach, Handel, and Telouan wrote many suites in
00:15:24.179 --> 00:15:26.799
the French style. I actually recently played
00:15:26.799 --> 00:15:28.440
the Bach French suites, and those are kind of
00:15:28.440 --> 00:15:31.159
a little bit different than what Bach would usually
00:15:31.159 --> 00:15:34.340
write. He says Henry Purcell and Handel used
00:15:34.340 --> 00:15:36.320
it in their operas and keyboard works, and even
00:15:36.320 --> 00:15:54.620
arch... I think that this French means, is this
00:15:54.620 --> 00:16:00.590
just note inequality? Maybe not. However, since
00:16:00.590 --> 00:16:02.389
some orchestras counted the least students or
00:16:02.389 --> 00:16:04.490
followers in their ranks or as their leaders,
00:16:04.669 --> 00:16:06.629
one could expect a fair degree of knowledge and
00:16:06.629 --> 00:16:09.049
tradition to be passed on. Outside of France,
00:16:09.210 --> 00:16:11.250
I would thus expect many dances of French origin
00:16:11.250 --> 00:16:13.309
to have been played with eloquent inequality.
00:16:14.190 --> 00:16:18.509
I like that word. Eloquent inequality. Obviously,
00:16:18.649 --> 00:16:22.389
there is also, well, we have varied. There was
00:16:22.389 --> 00:16:25.009
no ratio, no recording, and no television. It
00:16:25.009 --> 00:16:26.669
is less clear whether outside of France, inequality
00:16:26.669 --> 00:16:28.929
was generally adopted for pieces that were not
00:16:28.929 --> 00:16:31.269
written in the French, I think it's overture,
00:16:31.289 --> 00:16:34.330
overture, or dance style. Except for Quance,
00:16:34.429 --> 00:16:36.710
few German, English, or Italian authors mention
00:16:36.710 --> 00:16:38.629
inequality very much in their theoretical...
00:16:39.679 --> 00:16:41.799
Yeah, theoretical writings. If it was used at
00:16:41.799 --> 00:16:43.919
all, it seems to have been less omnipresent than
00:16:43.919 --> 00:16:46.159
in France. Instead of inequality, we frequently
00:16:46.159 --> 00:16:48.399
encounter the concept of quote good and quote
00:16:48.399 --> 00:16:51.279
bad notes, the first being stronger, not necessarily
00:16:51.279 --> 00:16:53.620
also longer than the second. We shall meet this
00:16:53.620 --> 00:16:56.080
concept again in the next sections. Quant, however,
00:16:56.200 --> 00:16:58.580
wants us to apply inequality in all music. He
00:16:58.580 --> 00:17:00.419
never mentions inequality especially in connection
00:17:00.419 --> 00:17:02.720
with French music. He stands quite alone with
00:17:02.720 --> 00:17:04.839
this request, but as a very influential artist
00:17:04.839 --> 00:17:06.700
in the mid -18th century, we might have had many
00:17:06.700 --> 00:17:09.029
followers. Or he might have had many followers.
00:17:09.210 --> 00:17:11.869
It is quite clear where he got this idea. We
00:17:11.869 --> 00:17:13.369
will have been familiar with the French inequality
00:17:13.369 --> 00:17:15.509
from his studies with the famous French flautist
00:17:15.509 --> 00:17:18.269
Bouffardine, who was principal flute in what
00:17:18.269 --> 00:17:20.589
was then a very French -minded Dresden Choir
00:17:20.589 --> 00:17:26.559
Orchestra led by Valémy. another Frenchman and
00:17:26.559 --> 00:17:28.940
possibly a student of Lully's. On the other hand,
00:17:28.980 --> 00:17:32.339
Quance had had the occasion to hear the best
00:17:32.339 --> 00:17:34.259
Italian singers during his travels to Vienna
00:17:34.259 --> 00:17:36.200
and Italy, and throughout his later profession
00:17:36.200 --> 00:17:40.220
and life, and then the more Italianate, dressed
00:17:40.220 --> 00:17:43.960
in orchestra and in Berlin. In his treatise,
00:17:44.000 --> 00:17:47.279
Quance insists that instrumentalists have to
00:17:47.279 --> 00:17:48.980
model their performance on the Italian singing
00:17:48.980 --> 00:17:51.140
tradition, and we have seen the inequality in
00:17:51.140 --> 00:17:53.880
Italian vocal music was widespread. even if it
00:17:53.880 --> 00:17:56.440
was mostly not notated and probably less systematical
00:17:56.440 --> 00:17:59.000
than in France. As Quance was influenced by French
00:17:59.000 --> 00:18:02.420
as well as Italian practice of inequality, it
00:18:02.420 --> 00:18:04.480
comes as no surprise that his rules for the correct
00:18:04.480 --> 00:18:06.460
application of inequality was expressed in the
00:18:06.460 --> 00:18:09.500
Versuches from 1752 and not identical with the
00:18:09.500 --> 00:18:11.839
virtual unanimous rules of countless French treatises.
00:18:12.480 --> 00:18:15.180
Interestingly, inequality appears more than 30
00:18:15.180 --> 00:18:17.740
times in Quance's treatise and thus receives
00:18:17.740 --> 00:18:19.740
a more detailed and nuanced treatment than his
00:18:19.740 --> 00:18:23.150
simple and, um, so wait, simple Oh, and often
00:18:23.150 --> 00:18:25.869
quoted basic rules would suggest. So I guess
00:18:25.869 --> 00:18:28.690
I kind of feel like here in classical music,
00:18:28.829 --> 00:18:31.430
there is sort of like a, I don't want to say
00:18:31.430 --> 00:18:33.369
a battle, but there is a comparison between it's
00:18:33.369 --> 00:18:36.710
like, you know, Germany has a very distinct way
00:18:36.710 --> 00:18:39.170
of doing things, and then Italy was kind of like
00:18:39.170 --> 00:18:42.329
the opposite, where it's like, do you want a
00:18:42.329 --> 00:18:44.109
German singer who's going to sing it straight,
00:18:44.190 --> 00:18:46.490
or the Italian singers kind of add their flourishes
00:18:46.490 --> 00:18:47.910
a little bit more? Yeah, I guess they go everywhere.
00:18:48.569 --> 00:18:50.630
And then I guess France, too, has like a really
00:18:50.630 --> 00:18:53.910
long history of, Things like the inequalities
00:18:53.910 --> 00:18:56.529
with their notes. So if you're a composer and
00:18:56.529 --> 00:18:59.130
you're like, I want to find singers for my opera
00:18:59.130 --> 00:19:01.609
or something, you're like, okay, I'm going to
00:19:01.609 --> 00:19:03.190
write the score down, but do I want an Italian
00:19:03.190 --> 00:19:05.849
singer who's going to do it this way? Do I want
00:19:05.849 --> 00:19:07.329
the French singer? Oh yeah, I think if you watch
00:19:07.329 --> 00:19:10.990
Amadeus in 1985. They talk about that, don't
00:19:10.990 --> 00:19:13.450
they? What was Mozart going to compose that wasn't
00:19:13.450 --> 00:19:17.730
like, he wanted a, did he want a German singer?
00:19:17.730 --> 00:19:22.059
I think he wanted German singers. No, okay, I'm
00:19:22.059 --> 00:19:23.619
trying to remember the scene. He was commissioned,
00:19:23.819 --> 00:19:25.880
right? He walks in, he's commissioned, and he
00:19:25.880 --> 00:19:29.420
wanted to write his opera in German. Right. For
00:19:29.420 --> 00:19:32.039
some reason. Correct. I forgot his reason. But
00:19:32.039 --> 00:19:37.140
then, what was the opera that... Oh, it's not
00:19:37.140 --> 00:19:39.779
really... Okay, it's kind of an early Mozart
00:19:39.779 --> 00:19:41.700
opera. I can pull it up right now, but it was
00:19:41.700 --> 00:19:43.220
like... You can do it, yeah. Hold on, okay, let
00:19:43.220 --> 00:19:44.980
me find it. Go find it, because this is... Okay,
00:19:44.980 --> 00:19:47.549
this is interesting. vital to our research here.
00:19:47.609 --> 00:19:50.250
This opera also slaps. I really love it. It's
00:19:50.250 --> 00:19:55.549
so good. Let's see. Let's go to my Spotify. One
00:19:55.549 --> 00:19:58.789
second, ladies and gentlemen. Yeah, by the way,
00:19:58.849 --> 00:20:02.230
yeah. The reason why this is important, because
00:20:02.230 --> 00:20:05.349
from Amadeus, there were two Mozart operas that
00:20:05.349 --> 00:20:10.009
were in, like, you know, they were both contenders
00:20:10.009 --> 00:20:13.730
towards being a final work. What were you...
00:20:20.690 --> 00:20:26.150
We got the salty recording. So was this the exact
00:20:26.150 --> 00:20:28.750
one? I think this was the exact one and it was
00:20:28.750 --> 00:20:30.630
all in German and it does definitely have a very
00:20:30.630 --> 00:20:34.220
different sound to it than... Wait, wasn't there
00:20:34.220 --> 00:20:36.880
something he wanted to add? There was this Turkish
00:20:36.880 --> 00:20:39.440
style. Yeah, that was his work. It's like the
00:20:39.440 --> 00:20:42.680
Turkish dances and stuff like that. See, yeah,
00:20:42.779 --> 00:20:45.039
it's quite diverse then. No, exactly. All sorts
00:20:45.039 --> 00:20:48.160
of these worlds coming together. Yeah. But all
00:20:48.160 --> 00:20:50.599
of them independently are very unique of their
00:20:50.599 --> 00:20:52.380
own, and you're not going to get the same musical
00:20:52.380 --> 00:20:54.630
output from it. Well, yeah, you know, the language
00:20:54.630 --> 00:20:56.529
is very different. Like, German has a different
00:20:56.529 --> 00:21:01.049
sound to it than Italian would. So for the melodies
00:21:01.049 --> 00:21:02.490
that you're writing for your opera, you might
00:21:02.490 --> 00:21:05.170
kind of envision an Italian singer saying or
00:21:05.170 --> 00:21:07.930
singing the words versus German. It's like when
00:21:07.930 --> 00:21:10.150
you translate a pop song to another country or
00:21:10.150 --> 00:21:11.549
a different language, and it's like, huh, that
00:21:11.549 --> 00:21:13.970
sounds kind of weird. Because we kind of associate
00:21:13.970 --> 00:21:18.789
the melody to the words. Okay, where did I leave
00:21:18.789 --> 00:21:22.210
off here? You said... Many additional examples
00:21:22.210 --> 00:21:24.230
and exceptions are found in Quant's above -mentioned
00:21:24.230 --> 00:21:26.470
self -edgy. These can be understood as nuances
00:21:26.470 --> 00:21:28.849
or exceptions to the general rules, because the
00:21:28.849 --> 00:21:30.789
application of inequality at these very spots
00:21:30.789 --> 00:21:32.869
might not have been totally evident for everybody.
00:21:33.170 --> 00:21:35.630
We thus receive invaluable first -hand information
00:21:35.630 --> 00:21:37.910
about specific passages from well -known food
00:21:37.910 --> 00:21:41.410
compositions by Quant himself, Telemann, W .F.
00:21:41.430 --> 00:21:42.930
Bach, and many other colleagues and friends.
00:21:43.170 --> 00:21:45.630
I cannot quite understand why so many players
00:21:45.630 --> 00:21:48.250
continue to ignore this instruction. Inequality
00:21:48.250 --> 00:21:52.470
in Italian music is also well documented in France.
00:21:52.569 --> 00:21:54.750
Some want to believe that this only shows the
00:21:54.750 --> 00:21:56.549
peculiar French habit of performing everything
00:21:56.549 --> 00:22:09.109
à la francoise. But a number of indications convince
00:22:09.109 --> 00:22:11.210
me that in this case the inequality is factually
00:22:11.210 --> 00:22:15.809
based on Italian examples. Oh, it's coming back.
00:22:15.930 --> 00:22:19.750
It's coming back. Les Romains, presumably so
00:22:19.750 --> 00:22:21.549
-called, or so -called because he had worked
00:22:21.549 --> 00:22:25.130
in Rome from 1698 to 1700, during the days of
00:22:25.130 --> 00:22:27.289
Corelli's greatest fame, quoted many Corelli
00:22:27.289 --> 00:22:29.630
examples in a lengthy explanation about time
00:22:29.630 --> 00:22:31.730
signatures and their effect upon inequality in
00:22:31.730 --> 00:22:38.529
Oh my gosh. From 1719. He is an important ear
00:22:38.529 --> 00:22:40.710
witness to Corelli's playing, and it seems very
00:22:40.710 --> 00:22:42.410
strange that he would choose to quote Corelli
00:22:42.410 --> 00:22:44.170
for inequality if he had heard him play these
00:22:44.170 --> 00:22:48.170
pieces equally. The picture emerged from Michael
00:22:48.170 --> 00:22:51.609
Coretti's... Wait, yeah, Coretti's... Coretti's...
00:22:51.609 --> 00:22:54.109
Coretti's... Coretti's... I guess the E's...
00:22:54.109 --> 00:22:56.069
Yeah, actually, I'm not sure how that works.
00:22:56.089 --> 00:22:58.970
I gotta go back to school. Treatise for Violin,
00:22:59.130 --> 00:23:05.200
1738, and Circa, 1782, Violoncello, 1741. Flute,
00:23:05.200 --> 00:23:09.619
circa 1742, and Pardessus de viol, from 1748,
00:23:09.859 --> 00:23:11.960
seems to indicate that whereas he wants the eighth
00:23:11.960 --> 00:23:14.299
notes in Italian music performed equally, the
00:23:14.299 --> 00:23:16.619
sixteenth must generally be played unequally.
00:23:16.819 --> 00:23:19.059
In the flute method, for example, he writes that
00:23:19.059 --> 00:23:21.720
in Italian allegro or presto sonata or concerto
00:23:21.720 --> 00:23:25.200
movements in C or cut time... Wait, is this...
00:23:25.200 --> 00:23:27.720
I guess... I wonder if, like, the capital C is
00:23:27.720 --> 00:23:31.180
common time? Is it? That makes sense. Like, common
00:23:31.180 --> 00:23:33.319
time or cut time. Yeah, but it's obviously because
00:23:33.319 --> 00:23:36.279
it can't be in the key of C. No, this is common.
00:23:36.380 --> 00:23:38.519
That's interesting. Maybe that's if you ever
00:23:38.519 --> 00:23:40.079
want to write an essay or a book, you should
00:23:40.079 --> 00:23:41.660
do it that way. Do it with the C. You gotta get
00:23:41.660 --> 00:23:45.039
a special character from cut time. I find that
00:23:45.039 --> 00:23:48.019
cool. That's pretty cool. Yeah, so allegro or
00:23:48.019 --> 00:23:50.680
presto sonata or concerto movements in common
00:23:50.680 --> 00:23:55.259
time or cut time. one sometimes my italics, plays
00:23:55.259 --> 00:23:57.640
equal sixteenth notes. In those years in Paris,
00:23:57.819 --> 00:24:01.660
Corre must have heard numerous Italian musicians
00:24:01.660 --> 00:24:04.960
in the concert spirituals and elsewhere. Just
00:24:04.960 --> 00:24:09.099
as for Hatere, it seems strange that he would
00:24:09.099 --> 00:24:12.079
prescribe another practice than the one he himself
00:24:12.079 --> 00:24:15.019
had heard. Regrettably, the uncertainty surrounding
00:24:15.019 --> 00:24:17.579
the application of inequality, where and how
00:24:17.579 --> 00:24:20.099
much, seems to lead many performers away from
00:24:20.099 --> 00:24:25.880
it, even in French music. Matheson? Johan Matheson?
00:24:25.920 --> 00:24:29.619
Oh, yes. This is another big pinnacle figure
00:24:29.619 --> 00:24:34.039
in the Baroque movement. Johan Mattheson. Mattheson.
00:24:34.039 --> 00:24:38.740
He compares this in his current Melodischer Wissenschaft
00:24:38.740 --> 00:24:45.140
from 1737 and again in Der Volkommene. So, Der
00:24:45.140 --> 00:24:48.099
Volkommene. Yeah, Coleman and Kappelmeister.
00:24:48.299 --> 00:24:51.079
Kappelmeister in 1739 to cooking without salt.
00:24:51.220 --> 00:24:53.619
That's kind of funny. Something I just kind of
00:24:53.619 --> 00:24:55.640
realized, too. So, I mean, you know, a lot of
00:24:55.640 --> 00:24:58.559
our records of how musicians and composers would
00:24:58.559 --> 00:25:00.680
perform come from other musicians and performers,
00:25:00.799 --> 00:25:03.440
I found. So I'm curious to see if we have any
00:25:03.440 --> 00:25:06.480
documents from, I mean, non -musician... audience
00:25:06.480 --> 00:25:08.700
members who maybe heard a concert and were like,
00:25:08.720 --> 00:25:11.400
oh, I thought that it was too slow or too fast.
00:25:11.579 --> 00:25:13.420
It's something like... Because, you know... You
00:25:13.420 --> 00:25:15.259
would get that quick... You would easily find
00:25:15.259 --> 00:25:17.680
those from critics first, and then, I guess,
00:25:17.740 --> 00:25:19.859
other famous figures. No, that's a good point.
00:25:19.920 --> 00:25:22.019
That's a good point. Because musicians talking
00:25:22.019 --> 00:25:25.759
about other musicians oftentimes, I think, can
00:25:25.759 --> 00:25:29.339
be really specific about things, but also can
00:25:29.339 --> 00:25:32.140
leave out some basic... It's like when you're
00:25:32.140 --> 00:25:35.579
too... much in the world yourself sometimes maybe
00:25:35.579 --> 00:25:37.279
you there's like a blind spot in terms of what
00:25:37.279 --> 00:25:38.940
the audience actually hears so that'd be kind
00:25:38.940 --> 00:25:41.000
of cool he writes another frequent deviation
00:25:41.000 --> 00:25:43.799
from the rhythmic notation is over dotting this
00:25:43.799 --> 00:25:46.140
can be but does not have to be or does not need
00:25:46.140 --> 00:25:48.579
to be a consequence of inequality in the eighth
00:25:48.579 --> 00:25:50.660
notes must be played wait if the eighth notes
00:25:50.660 --> 00:25:53.240
must be played unequally The eighth note after
00:25:53.240 --> 00:25:55.500
a dotted quarter will be shortened as well. However,
00:25:55.680 --> 00:25:57.539
over -dotting exists independently of inequality.
00:25:58.119 --> 00:26:00.099
Many German sources from the second half of the
00:26:00.099 --> 00:26:02.619
18th century request us to lengthen the dot and
00:26:02.619 --> 00:26:05.200
perform the note or notes after the dot as late
00:26:05.200 --> 00:26:07.400
and fast as possible. From dotted eighth notes
00:26:07.400 --> 00:26:10.839
downward, but from dotted quarters in a la breve
00:26:10.839 --> 00:26:13.380
time, this double dot must not necessarily be
00:26:13.380 --> 00:26:15.779
entirely played. There could also be a silence
00:26:15.779 --> 00:26:18.039
instead of the dot or dots. The over -dotting
00:26:18.039 --> 00:26:20.059
principle is not limited to French overtures.
00:26:20.539 --> 00:26:23.539
were especially effective. According to Quance,
00:26:23.660 --> 00:26:26.279
C.P.E. Bach, Leopold, Mozart, and others, over
00:26:26.279 --> 00:26:29.799
-dotting needs to be generally applied. This
00:26:29.799 --> 00:26:32.359
is crazy. This is stuff I would never, ever think
00:26:32.359 --> 00:26:34.660
about in this day and age. Well, I don't think
00:26:34.660 --> 00:26:37.559
any average student would think about this. Can
00:26:37.559 --> 00:26:40.079
you name any other students in the United States
00:26:40.079 --> 00:26:44.619
of America? Well, no, especially with age, too.
00:26:44.759 --> 00:26:48.170
I mean... Even undergraduate music students.
00:26:48.210 --> 00:26:51.009
If you're in performance, you're not thinking
00:26:51.009 --> 00:26:53.869
about this. If you're getting a certificate too,
00:26:54.049 --> 00:26:56.970
you're not going to care about it. Only situations
00:26:56.970 --> 00:27:00.829
I would think would be applicable. Clearly musicology
00:27:00.829 --> 00:27:03.710
majors. Those people would be aware. I don't
00:27:03.710 --> 00:27:06.430
know if anyone else. Some music critics actually
00:27:06.430 --> 00:27:10.440
like getting into this stuff. These are some
00:27:10.440 --> 00:27:13.420
of the very applicable only few that get into
00:27:13.420 --> 00:27:16.740
this stuff. Even if you're super into it and
00:27:16.740 --> 00:27:19.380
you know all of the history, the lore behind
00:27:19.380 --> 00:27:21.660
it, if you're a performer, you're still like
00:27:21.660 --> 00:27:23.460
a 21st century performer, so it's going to be
00:27:23.460 --> 00:27:25.920
very difficult to really just intrinsically tap
00:27:25.920 --> 00:27:27.599
into that when you're playing. So you'd have
00:27:27.599 --> 00:27:29.779
to really study it and practice it a certain
00:27:29.779 --> 00:27:32.750
way. Double dot. I like the double dot. rule
00:27:32.750 --> 00:27:35.170
here and the double m is not necessarily being
00:27:35.170 --> 00:27:38.130
entirely played entirely played he says on the
00:27:38.130 --> 00:27:39.990
other hand under dotting is mentioned in connection
00:27:39.990 --> 00:27:42.190
with the simultaneous appearance of dotted dotted
00:27:42.190 --> 00:27:44.950
rhythms and triplets quants and cpe bach and
00:27:44.950 --> 00:27:47.809
their versuch and jf aracola and their article
00:27:47.809 --> 00:27:52.630
in the um agricola agricola agricola coca -cola
00:27:52.630 --> 00:28:01.690
um Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek. So bibliothek
00:28:01.690 --> 00:28:07.009
is library. Library. So all German libraries.
00:28:08.609 --> 00:28:11.150
1769, all working at the same time at the court
00:28:11.150 --> 00:28:13.609
of Frederick the Great, each formulate quite
00:28:13.609 --> 00:28:15.890
different solutions to this problem. Quans wants
00:28:15.890 --> 00:28:18.329
the dotted rhythm to be over dotted and thus
00:28:18.329 --> 00:28:20.309
the note after the dot to be performed as late
00:28:20.309 --> 00:28:22.589
as possible after the third note of the triplet.
00:28:22.789 --> 00:28:25.509
C .P .E. Bach wants the note under the dot simultaneous
00:28:25.509 --> 00:28:27.630
with the last note of the triplet under dotting.
00:28:27.950 --> 00:28:30.250
Otherwise, he finds the effect disagreeable and
00:28:30.250 --> 00:28:32.910
the execution difficult. Agricola has the most
00:28:32.910 --> 00:28:36.750
flexible and practical approach and lets it depend
00:28:36.750 --> 00:28:39.690
on tempo. He prescribes that only in a very fast
00:28:39.690 --> 00:28:43.289
tempo, the note after the dot is played simultaneously
00:28:43.289 --> 00:28:45.849
with the last note of the triplet. He cites his
00:28:45.849 --> 00:28:47.990
revered teacher, J .S. Bach, as his authority,
00:28:48.190 --> 00:28:50.650
but of course J .S. Bach and also C .P .E. Bach's
00:28:50.650 --> 00:28:55.289
only teacher, as C .P .E. proudly states, And
00:28:55.289 --> 00:28:57.930
Agricola was also a student of CPE Bach and Quants.
00:28:58.569 --> 00:29:00.450
Imagine being a student of Bach. That's crazy.
00:29:00.630 --> 00:29:02.329
First generation student of Bach. Oh yes, the
00:29:02.329 --> 00:29:06.309
god. The god. The god of all fugues and such.
00:29:06.650 --> 00:29:09.170
That's correct. Adopting dotted rhythm to simultaneous
00:29:09.170 --> 00:29:11.950
triplets can be found in actual notation at least
00:29:11.950 --> 00:29:14.279
until Schubert and Chopin. I have frequently
00:29:14.279 --> 00:29:16.480
met another situation where underdotting could
00:29:16.480 --> 00:29:18.440
be called for, though I have never found any
00:29:18.440 --> 00:29:20.900
direct mention of it. The top part of many opening
00:29:20.900 --> 00:29:22.680
slow or moderately slow movements of Italian,
00:29:22.960 --> 00:29:25.000
English, or German sonatas of the first half
00:29:25.000 --> 00:29:27.180
of the 18th century, by Handel among others,
00:29:27.319 --> 00:29:31.380
consists of, um, oh gosh I lost it. Almost continuous?
00:29:32.160 --> 00:29:34.740
Oh yeah, almost continuous pairs of dotted 16th
00:29:34.740 --> 00:29:37.720
note and a 32nd note. These movements are not
00:29:37.720 --> 00:29:40.440
an overture style and the normal overdotting
00:29:40.440 --> 00:29:43.680
makes them very stiff and stern. The clue for
00:29:43.680 --> 00:29:45.819
underdotting them can be found in France, where
00:29:45.819 --> 00:29:50.740
F. Couperin states in Les Rates des... Okay,
00:29:50.759 --> 00:29:54.339
wait, I got this. Les Rates des... Maybe I don't
00:29:54.339 --> 00:29:59.420
got this. La clavicine? Clavicine? Yeah, clavicine.
00:29:59.500 --> 00:30:02.460
From 1717, that non -French composers generally
00:30:02.460 --> 00:30:05.000
notated the rhythm they wanted to hear, in contrast
00:30:05.000 --> 00:30:06.859
to the French composers' convention of implied
00:30:06.859 --> 00:30:10.000
but not notated inequality. However, French inequality
00:30:10.000 --> 00:30:12.180
is too subtle and varied to be precisely written
00:30:12.180 --> 00:30:14.619
down, but these very passages with equal notes
00:30:14.619 --> 00:30:21.980
might thus have notated these very passages with
00:30:21.980 --> 00:30:26.279
equal notes, knowing that they would be performed
00:30:26.279 --> 00:30:29.099
unequally anyway. Outside France, performers
00:30:29.099 --> 00:30:31.720
needed to be told to do so. Consequently, a non
00:30:31.720 --> 00:30:33.400
-French composer wanting to hear something like
00:30:33.400 --> 00:30:35.440
inequality had no other choice than to write
00:30:35.440 --> 00:30:37.740
the close approximation. Dotted notes. Indeed,
00:30:38.000 --> 00:30:40.559
I have never seen a non -French score requesting
00:30:40.559 --> 00:30:45.619
inequality à la François. That's probably wrong.
00:30:45.740 --> 00:30:50.019
Inequality à la Francais, please. Since inequality
00:30:50.019 --> 00:30:52.440
itself is normally less than dotted, this Italian
00:30:52.440 --> 00:30:54.619
-English -German equivalent might require under
00:30:54.619 --> 00:30:57.660
rather than over -dotting as well. The variable
00:30:57.660 --> 00:31:00.940
proportion between the long and the short note,
00:31:01.079 --> 00:31:04.920
as in the French inegalite, makes these movements
00:31:04.920 --> 00:31:07.140
much more flexible and expressive. I suppose
00:31:07.140 --> 00:31:08.839
that their unequal performance will have sounded
00:31:08.839 --> 00:31:10.859
quite similar to the inequality encountered in
00:31:10.859 --> 00:31:13.279
Italian -style vocal music as explained above.
00:31:13.700 --> 00:31:17.500
Oh my goodness. So this is just crazy. And then
00:31:17.500 --> 00:31:19.880
one of the things I was thinking is, okay, so
00:31:19.880 --> 00:31:23.660
this is the kind of 1700s, like late 1600s, 1700s.
00:31:23.660 --> 00:31:27.299
Going into the Romantic era, you still had very
00:31:27.299 --> 00:31:29.940
prominent German and French and Italian composers
00:31:29.940 --> 00:31:33.640
at the time. So I wonder how much of this era
00:31:33.640 --> 00:31:37.950
of music affected... like, I don't know how,
00:31:38.009 --> 00:31:39.789
I mean, French composers, so does that really,
00:31:39.890 --> 00:31:42.890
in terms of the under -dotting or over -dotting,
00:31:42.970 --> 00:31:45.049
how did that influence Chopin, for example, who
00:31:45.049 --> 00:31:46.789
was half French, or how did that? Because all
00:31:46.789 --> 00:31:48.849
of them, in the ultimate end, all of them are
00:31:48.849 --> 00:31:50.910
somehow connected. Right, it's kind of a lineage.
00:31:51.009 --> 00:31:53.789
There's some sort of connection. You could name,
00:31:54.109 --> 00:31:56.509
because we were, I had a friend, and we were
00:31:56.509 --> 00:31:58.829
trying to play this little game on Wikipedia,
00:31:58.869 --> 00:32:01.349
so you go on a regular, generic Wikipedia page,
00:32:01.490 --> 00:32:04.690
right? Yeah. Find one thing that you know, right,
00:32:04.750 --> 00:32:07.329
and search it, Okay. And then find another completely
00:32:07.329 --> 00:32:10.829
contrasting thing, right? And try to get to it.
00:32:10.829 --> 00:32:12.410
And you've got to click all the links, no cheating,
00:32:12.569 --> 00:32:14.490
and then get all the way. There's always a connection
00:32:14.490 --> 00:32:16.609
between some of these composers. So, with that
00:32:16.609 --> 00:32:21.630
being said, I would want to know more about how...
00:32:22.190 --> 00:32:25.710
some of this i guess like and not really instructions
00:32:25.710 --> 00:32:29.609
but maybe like advice as you know father to son
00:32:29.609 --> 00:32:33.410
uh mother to daughter like how exactly this is
00:32:33.410 --> 00:32:37.549
passed down and yeah if the composers uh that
00:32:37.549 --> 00:32:41.230
inherit that actually use it or not or yeah and
00:32:41.230 --> 00:32:43.900
also like did This kind of made me a dumb question,
00:32:43.960 --> 00:32:45.779
but did Schumann even know about this, like,
00:32:45.839 --> 00:32:47.700
in the Romantic era? Was it something that the
00:32:47.700 --> 00:32:50.819
Romantic or 20th composers even were aware of,
00:32:50.839 --> 00:32:54.480
that their music ancestors were discussing it?
00:32:54.579 --> 00:32:56.180
And I'm sure they knew some of it. Because year
00:32:56.180 --> 00:32:59.200
by year, something always either gets added or
00:32:59.200 --> 00:33:01.720
subtracted. Yeah, right, right. Yeah, it's interesting.
00:33:02.319 --> 00:33:07.059
Not all the time in favor of... Good, like, constitutes
00:33:07.059 --> 00:33:11.099
good and bad music, but... Trend. Yeah. When
00:33:11.099 --> 00:33:20.799
trends follow, yeah. That's true. He says, Slavish?
00:33:21.900 --> 00:33:24.500
What? What does that even mean? Slavish? Wait,
00:33:24.599 --> 00:33:27.279
that's not like Slavic, is it? No, no, no, no,
00:33:27.279 --> 00:33:29.180
no, no. At least in the short, it was not Slavish.
00:33:29.480 --> 00:33:34.039
What does define Slavish, Siri? So it describes
00:33:34.039 --> 00:33:36.700
someone or something that is overly submissive,
00:33:36.700 --> 00:33:39.180
servile, or completely lacking in originality.
00:33:39.299 --> 00:33:43.220
Oh, okay, okay. There. So it says, was not Slavish.
00:33:43.240 --> 00:33:45.819
So we have a choice. In this, we must choose
00:33:45.819 --> 00:33:48.529
with knowledge and sense of responsibility. And
00:33:48.529 --> 00:33:50.089
he kind of says that a lot, too, actually, throughout
00:33:50.089 --> 00:33:51.470
this book, where it's like, we have all this
00:33:51.470 --> 00:33:53.250
knowledge, but what do we do with it? And I think
00:33:53.250 --> 00:33:56.789
we just have to, I mean... We hide a lot of it.
00:33:56.849 --> 00:33:59.390
Yeah, we kind of choose... I guess when you hear
00:33:59.390 --> 00:34:02.170
performances and watch people, I guess it takes
00:34:02.170 --> 00:34:06.920
the initiative. for yourself or other people
00:34:06.920 --> 00:34:10.019
who discover others. Yeah, yeah. Find that. So
00:34:10.019 --> 00:34:11.619
it's kind of, I guess, push the art, I guess.
00:34:12.000 --> 00:34:14.400
Playing the notation literally is not always
00:34:14.400 --> 00:34:16.539
an adequate option unless we definitely choose
00:34:16.539 --> 00:34:18.639
for some reason to do exactly that. And then
00:34:18.639 --> 00:34:22.219
we have something from Francesco Gimignani. And
00:34:22.219 --> 00:34:25.860
this is the piece, I believe it's Assembio 20?
00:34:26.719 --> 00:34:31.480
Yeah, it's 20, 20. Oh, yeah, 20. 10, 10. It's
00:34:31.480 --> 00:34:33.920
basically in the book here we have a... a whole
00:34:33.920 --> 00:34:38.059
page of sheet music. Let's see here. What is
00:34:38.059 --> 00:34:39.920
this one? This one's from The Art of Playing
00:34:39.920 --> 00:34:45.920
on the Violin, Op. 6? No, no, no, no, no. This
00:34:45.920 --> 00:34:51.360
is 9. I'm very positive this is 9, guys. Don't
00:34:51.360 --> 00:34:53.539
worry. Is this... You're on the numeral. Yeah,
00:34:53.539 --> 00:34:59.219
no, it's... Yeah, 9. Bingo. 1751. It says...
00:34:59.820 --> 00:35:01.980
It's under the score here unaltered from second
00:35:01.980 --> 00:35:06.380
edition, Bremer, London, circa 1765. And this
00:35:06.380 --> 00:35:08.519
is used with the library, permission with the
00:35:08.519 --> 00:35:10.380
library of the Brussels Royal Conservatory. Brussels,
00:35:10.400 --> 00:35:13.059
yes. Well, he has a connection with Brussels,
00:35:13.079 --> 00:35:15.179
too. Yeah, of course. Go ahead and read that,
00:35:15.199 --> 00:35:18.920
or I can look at it. Yeah, you can read that,
00:35:18.940 --> 00:35:21.019
and I'll bring up some stuff. Sure, sure. So
00:35:21.019 --> 00:35:24.059
just finishing up this chapter, he says in, let's
00:35:24.059 --> 00:35:29.070
see, Geminiani's? Geminiani. Geminiani. Highly
00:35:29.070 --> 00:35:31.309
interesting, The Art of Playing on the Violin
00:35:31.309 --> 00:35:33.989
from 1751. This is really off topic, but apparently
00:35:33.989 --> 00:35:37.389
Leopold Mozart wrote a whole book on, and I saw
00:35:37.389 --> 00:35:39.829
it because I was in Austria one time, so he wrote
00:35:39.829 --> 00:35:41.570
a whole book on the study of violin playing,
00:35:41.730 --> 00:35:44.989
and I believe they got a... They hired an artist
00:35:44.989 --> 00:35:47.750
to put a little Mozart on the front cover. It's
00:35:47.750 --> 00:35:50.530
like, here's a kid with a violin and it's Mozart.
00:35:50.889 --> 00:35:54.050
Anyway, I don't want to get a copy of that book.
00:35:54.070 --> 00:35:56.570
That is very W. I'm going to get my kid on you.
00:35:57.010 --> 00:35:59.250
Several different ways of playing the same standard
00:35:59.250 --> 00:36:01.849
passages are shown, both in fast and slow tempi.
00:36:02.150 --> 00:36:04.230
The most literal and straightforward interpretations,
00:36:04.690 --> 00:36:06.690
which are those we hear most frequently today,
00:36:07.309 --> 00:36:11.300
Gimignani calls mediocre. cattivo, bad, pessimo,
00:36:11.380 --> 00:36:15.800
very bad, or cattivo o particolare. In most cases
00:36:15.800 --> 00:36:18.260
it is bad, but as a special effect it can be
00:36:18.260 --> 00:36:20.039
good. And then they say figure two, which is
00:36:20.039 --> 00:36:23.239
the same music here. One could ask why composers
00:36:23.239 --> 00:36:25.340
did not write more precisely. They presumably
00:36:25.340 --> 00:36:27.340
did not need to, since performers would know
00:36:27.340 --> 00:36:31.059
what to do, or did it not matter so much? Good
00:36:31.059 --> 00:36:32.699
taste can have many different shades indeed.
00:36:33.320 --> 00:36:35.880
You know, looking at this sheet music, I kind
00:36:35.880 --> 00:36:38.400
of wish that everything was like this. Yeah,
00:36:38.420 --> 00:36:40.400
look at this. This is crazy. This is not even
00:36:40.400 --> 00:36:44.539
dynamic markings. These are literal textual instructions
00:36:44.539 --> 00:36:49.079
telling you what to characterize stuff. You've
00:36:49.079 --> 00:36:51.159
never seen this before, too? I've never seen
00:36:51.159 --> 00:36:55.079
this before. I guess this is a signature of Jimignani.
00:36:55.280 --> 00:36:57.820
It kind of. This is clearly not seen in other.
00:36:58.539 --> 00:37:01.780
kind of uh what is it violin especially at least
00:37:01.780 --> 00:37:05.619
violin play um uh stuff i because and remember
00:37:05.619 --> 00:37:07.760
this is from the text the art of the playing
00:37:07.760 --> 00:37:10.380
the violin so this is more of like um i i don't
00:37:10.380 --> 00:37:11.920
think it's a treatise but it's more at least
00:37:11.920 --> 00:37:16.260
it's still um uh instructional kind of like style
00:37:16.260 --> 00:37:20.059
book teaching um the violin yeah yeah one two
00:37:20.059 --> 00:37:22.420
three hmm the only thing i noticed about this
00:37:22.420 --> 00:37:26.179
really is that um oh first of all look at that
00:37:26.179 --> 00:37:29.860
sharp What's that? Wait a second. So we got...
00:37:29.860 --> 00:37:33.219
Wait, why is it... Oh, wait. No, no. That's F
00:37:33.219 --> 00:37:37.019
sharp and C sharp. So it's... Right? F and...
00:37:37.019 --> 00:37:38.960
No, no, no, no. Wait, wait, wait. Is that an
00:37:38.960 --> 00:37:44.119
E on the top? Or an F? Those are two Fs. Wait
00:37:44.119 --> 00:37:47.940
a second. Why would... So is it changing multiple
00:37:47.940 --> 00:37:50.179
times throughout? Wait. Oh, my goodness. So that
00:37:50.179 --> 00:37:57.190
is... Wait, because it's not, even though if
00:37:57.190 --> 00:38:00.949
it's two sharps, it's not referencing C sharp?
00:38:01.090 --> 00:38:08.909
Wait, that is interesting. This is crazy. I'm
00:38:08.909 --> 00:38:10.530
really curious because those look to be the same
00:38:10.530 --> 00:38:12.469
note. So two F sharps, just an octave apart.
00:38:12.710 --> 00:38:16.369
But when you get down to the bottom example here,
00:38:16.750 --> 00:38:19.269
it looks like we have F sharp, C sharp, and another
00:38:19.269 --> 00:38:22.530
F sharp. So I wonder if maybe it was just a standard
00:38:22.530 --> 00:38:26.090
for the first sharp of the set to do two octaves
00:38:26.090 --> 00:38:28.630
or something. I'm going to have to look into
00:38:28.630 --> 00:38:30.349
that because that's, I've never seen that before.
00:38:30.349 --> 00:38:31.909
That's a question you should maybe add if you
00:38:31.909 --> 00:38:33.590
want to do that. Yeah, let me see. Let me write
00:38:33.590 --> 00:38:35.610
that down actually. So this is, hold on, hold
00:38:35.610 --> 00:38:40.130
on people. Hold on. This is also our quest to
00:38:40.130 --> 00:38:43.710
see if we can meet the man behind this. I'll
00:38:43.710 --> 00:38:47.590
report back. Of course we can search it up with
00:38:47.590 --> 00:38:51.320
Google AI, but you know. If you want a cool answer,
00:38:51.440 --> 00:38:54.559
you can get the most human and cool, unique answer
00:38:54.559 --> 00:38:56.659
from the people who actually are behind it. Who
00:38:56.659 --> 00:38:58.840
actually wrote it here. All right. I'm going
00:38:58.840 --> 00:39:00.380
to look into it. Hold on. I'm literally going
00:39:00.380 --> 00:39:02.079
to add this to my calendar for next episode.
00:39:02.340 --> 00:39:04.119
Oh, yes. Very good. Let's see here. I applaud.
00:39:04.420 --> 00:39:08.300
I applaud. Look into the F sharp situation on
00:39:08.300 --> 00:39:13.000
B. Yeah, and then C. C sharp is right there.
00:39:13.059 --> 00:39:17.739
So that's very interesting. I'm very confused.
00:39:17.760 --> 00:39:20.019
I mean. The only explanation, okay, just looking
00:39:20.019 --> 00:39:22.940
at it, the only thing I can think is that maybe
00:39:22.940 --> 00:39:25.760
they doubled up the first sharp because it was
00:39:25.760 --> 00:39:27.699
the first one of the set. Because it goes, like,
00:39:27.719 --> 00:39:32.440
F, C, you know, whatever. But, yeah. You should
00:39:32.440 --> 00:39:34.559
do that on a theory exam. On a theory? Oh, I'm
00:39:34.559 --> 00:39:36.019
sure. You know what? If I did that nowadays,
00:39:36.239 --> 00:39:39.679
perfect points. Yeah. Also, there's another violinist.
00:39:39.699 --> 00:39:43.280
I'm sure the Kayka family they've worked with
00:39:43.280 --> 00:39:46.820
in La Petita on their ensemble was... What is
00:39:46.820 --> 00:39:49.199
it? Makoto Akatsu. He's a Japanese Baroque violinist
00:39:49.199 --> 00:39:52.000
trained under Sigismund. And a lot of the, if
00:39:52.000 --> 00:39:53.960
you wanted to learn Baroque violin, a lot of
00:39:53.960 --> 00:39:56.159
the lessons would consist of playing these texts,
00:39:56.260 --> 00:39:59.840
like the art of playing the violin and all the
00:39:59.840 --> 00:40:02.940
treatises associated with it. So nowadays with
00:40:02.940 --> 00:40:05.559
education, I don't think, obviously, clearly
00:40:05.559 --> 00:40:08.570
not too many people do that. You go start on
00:40:08.570 --> 00:40:11.429
Suzuki. You can start on the Suzuki curriculum.
00:40:12.170 --> 00:40:14.429
For those who don't start on Suzuki, there's
00:40:14.429 --> 00:40:17.210
a lot of warm -up books, but I guess that's how
00:40:17.210 --> 00:40:19.730
it works for strings. The Suzuki books, yeah.
00:40:20.010 --> 00:40:22.869
You know, I don't know. Sorry, one more thing
00:40:22.869 --> 00:40:26.449
I noticed, too, about this, too. Okay, so there
00:40:26.449 --> 00:40:28.489
are kind of these lyrics. I don't think they're
00:40:28.489 --> 00:40:31.769
lyrics. They're like Italian. a text underneath
00:40:31.769 --> 00:40:35.289
the staff. And at the very top of the staff,
00:40:35.349 --> 00:40:37.309
we have, I think, like these numbers. So we have
00:40:37.309 --> 00:40:40.849
20, 30, jumps to 40, jumps to 50, so on. But
00:40:40.849 --> 00:40:44.769
it only jumps when there's another statement
00:40:44.769 --> 00:40:47.429
underneath. So 50, we have, let's see, cativo,
00:40:47.570 --> 00:40:50.289
particulare, and then it jumps to 60 for the
00:40:50.289 --> 00:40:52.909
next one. But then it jumps to 70 for bueno,
00:40:53.130 --> 00:40:57.099
80, ottimo. And so on. I don't know what that
00:40:57.099 --> 00:40:59.360
means. Is that sort of maybe a way to tell the
00:40:59.360 --> 00:41:03.260
performer, like, okay, melodically here, and
00:41:03.260 --> 00:41:06.519
then sharply here. I'm actually not sure. That,
00:41:06.519 --> 00:41:08.619
I have no clue. That's another thing I gotta
00:41:08.619 --> 00:41:11.139
look into. This is not a generic measure. This
00:41:11.139 --> 00:41:14.019
is crazy. This is totally something else. Guys,
00:41:14.139 --> 00:41:22.480
can we jump to measure bueno? And I guess I can
00:41:22.480 --> 00:41:24.940
summarize it up. Whereas tempo and rhythm are
00:41:24.940 --> 00:41:26.699
at least approximately given by the composer,
00:41:27.019 --> 00:41:29.980
phrasing, articulation, and dynamics, the basic
00:41:29.980 --> 00:41:33.659
elements of the performer's elocutio were often
00:41:33.659 --> 00:41:36.420
not indicated at all. True brilliant recent studies,
00:41:36.559 --> 00:41:38.920
the first about the 16th century and second about
00:41:38.920 --> 00:41:41.760
the 18th century, elaborate this wide field.
00:41:42.000 --> 00:41:46.440
They do not start from anachronistic and or fashionable
00:41:46.440 --> 00:41:49.699
concepts, but through diligent and in -depth
00:41:49.699 --> 00:41:51.940
reading of contemporary documents, compositions,
00:41:52.059 --> 00:41:57.360
and treatises about Solomon. Psalmization, counterpoint,
00:41:57.500 --> 00:42:00.679
fugue, composition, keyboard, basal, continual,
00:42:00.739 --> 00:42:03.579
and rhetoric yield fascinating views from within
00:42:03.579 --> 00:42:05.960
upon the relative performance practice conventions
00:42:05.960 --> 00:42:08.940
regarding expression, phrasing, dynamics, etc.,
00:42:08.940 --> 00:42:11.639
etc. I thank both authors for generously having
00:42:11.639 --> 00:42:13.219
shared their ideals with me during the work.
00:42:13.460 --> 00:42:16.820
And it says, Ann Smith, and this is the text,
00:42:16.940 --> 00:42:19.400
The Performance of 16th Century Music Learning
00:42:19.400 --> 00:42:22.820
from the Theorists, 2011. And Evolve de Maier,
00:42:22.960 --> 00:42:25.739
Johann Sebastian Bach's Art of Fugue, performance
00:42:25.739 --> 00:42:27.780
practice based on German 18th century theory.
00:42:28.559 --> 00:42:30.659
Publication, which was going to be published
00:42:30.659 --> 00:42:33.679
in 2013 because this book was published in, I
00:42:33.679 --> 00:42:36.940
believe, 11. Was it 11? Yeah. Before this. And
00:42:36.940 --> 00:42:39.420
Evolve de Maier is another cool figure. He is
00:42:39.420 --> 00:42:42.739
a Belgian harpsichordist. He did not study with
00:42:42.739 --> 00:42:45.460
Leonhard, unfortunately. But he is a great intellectual
00:42:45.460 --> 00:42:53.039
musicologist and theorist. specializing in counterpoint.
00:42:53.119 --> 00:42:55.300
He's a counterpoint professor. That's all he
00:42:55.300 --> 00:42:57.639
does. And he has recorded the Brandenburg concertos
00:42:57.639 --> 00:43:00.460
with the Caica La Petite Bonne Ensemble. Oh,
00:43:00.460 --> 00:43:02.480
cool, cool. So, yeah, if you want to give that
00:43:02.480 --> 00:43:05.119
a go and listen to that, that's very cool because
00:43:05.119 --> 00:43:07.579
I think some of those recordings are, like, perfect.
00:43:08.280 --> 00:43:13.059
Perfecto. Perfecto. And now we begin with phrasing.
00:43:13.099 --> 00:43:15.760
This one is pretty short, so I want to see how
00:43:15.760 --> 00:43:19.860
much time we're going to take on with... I think
00:43:19.860 --> 00:43:21.500
you'll like this one. This one has a cool turn
00:43:23.320 --> 00:43:26.000
There's no pun intended with the term that it's
00:43:26.000 --> 00:43:28.300
going to come up. Okay, okay. You can guess.
00:43:28.539 --> 00:43:32.659
I'm sure I'll find it. Yeah, let's go. In most
00:43:32.659 --> 00:43:34.800
of today's mainstream musical performances, we
00:43:34.800 --> 00:43:37.159
hear long wine playing. The horizontal aspect
00:43:37.159 --> 00:43:39.480
clearly dominates and sometimes almost annihilates
00:43:39.480 --> 00:43:41.719
the vertical aspect. Each note is quite similar
00:43:41.719 --> 00:43:44.179
to its neighbors to the left and right, and changes
00:43:44.179 --> 00:43:46.760
are made very gradually. In earlier times, music,
00:43:46.860 --> 00:43:49.980
just as society, was not so democratic. Not all
00:43:49.980 --> 00:43:52.559
notes were equal. We have already seen that not
00:43:52.559 --> 00:43:54.900
all 12 semitones were equal, that shorter notes
00:43:54.900 --> 00:43:56.980
can be performed of inequality, and now we will
00:43:56.980 --> 00:43:59.639
see that the hierarchical principle extends much
00:43:59.639 --> 00:44:02.059
further. When we compare music and language,
00:44:02.139 --> 00:44:03.980
we can equate the grammatical phrase with the
00:44:03.980 --> 00:44:06.219
musical phrase. It is the expression of a more
00:44:06.219 --> 00:44:09.360
or less complex meaningful entity. Musical phrasing
00:44:09.360 --> 00:44:12.360
can then be understood as the intelligible rendering
00:44:12.360 --> 00:44:15.840
of that meaningful entity as pertaining to the
00:44:15.840 --> 00:44:17.679
emotional and structural contents of the phrase.
00:44:17.840 --> 00:44:20.929
Here. Our Flemish word for phrase or sentence
00:44:20.929 --> 00:44:23.809
is Zin. No pun intended also. I intentionally
00:44:23.809 --> 00:44:27.190
put that in. Not Zin. Not the drug Zin. Not the
00:44:27.190 --> 00:44:30.230
drug Zin. But apparently this is a Flemish term.
00:44:30.309 --> 00:44:33.530
It's not Dutch. It's not German. It's Flemish.
00:44:33.630 --> 00:44:35.949
This is obviously related to the English word
00:44:35.949 --> 00:44:37.969
sense, but it has even more interesting meanings
00:44:37.969 --> 00:44:41.860
and connotations. Oh, yeah. So I guess he already
00:44:41.860 --> 00:44:46.320
tested there. It can also mean direction, goal,
00:44:46.559 --> 00:44:50.199
purpose, significance, desire, or pleasure. That's
00:44:50.199 --> 00:44:53.159
good. Maybe I'm going to learn a little bit more
00:44:53.159 --> 00:44:57.400
Flemish. Yeah. As well, zen is used to indicate
00:44:57.400 --> 00:44:59.280
the five senses and is linked to sensibility,
00:44:59.480 --> 00:45:02.679
sensitivity, sensuality, and so forth. In my
00:45:02.679 --> 00:45:05.179
opinion, a textual or musical phrase that does
00:45:05.179 --> 00:45:08.320
not include most of the aspects makes no sense.
00:45:08.920 --> 00:45:12.980
hmm okay long line playing the zen in all meanings
00:45:12.980 --> 00:45:15.780
and the declamation of individual words of sacrifice
00:45:15.780 --> 00:45:19.110
to the continuous streaming of the sound to the
00:45:19.110 --> 00:45:21.389
horizontal line. So take, for example, Herbert
00:45:21.389 --> 00:45:23.869
von Karajan's recordings might have been the
00:45:23.869 --> 00:45:26.829
culmination of the style. His same Berlin Philharmonic
00:45:26.829 --> 00:45:29.230
Orchestra under Sir Simon Rattle has moved somewhat
00:45:29.230 --> 00:45:33.429
away from it. That's it. Okay. Go read the articles.
00:45:33.489 --> 00:45:35.949
Go read the Strad. Go read the album. The Strad.
00:45:37.369 --> 00:45:40.210
What's the other one? Oh, I forgot. It's with
00:45:40.210 --> 00:45:45.460
Norman Labrest guy. Oh, who got fired? That guy
00:45:45.460 --> 00:45:47.940
is kind of interesting. I'm not going to say
00:45:47.940 --> 00:45:51.280
too much. No comment. No comment. I plead the
00:45:51.280 --> 00:45:54.639
fifth on that, man. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I plead
00:45:54.639 --> 00:45:56.820
the fifth, too. Oh, my gosh. So we're both included.
00:45:57.119 --> 00:46:00.199
In the best case, the general affect of the phrase
00:46:00.199 --> 00:46:02.579
is expressed. In the worst case, there is only
00:46:02.579 --> 00:46:05.320
an algebraic beauty of sound. Basically, it's
00:46:05.320 --> 00:46:07.480
the consequent application of rules that were
00:46:07.480 --> 00:46:11.280
already prescribed by Hugo Riemann in his Musica
00:46:11.280 --> 00:46:21.800
Licea Dynamica Agogica. and system their musicalization
00:46:21.800 --> 00:46:25.440
rhythmic metric in 1903. One could summarize
00:46:25.440 --> 00:46:29.579
the system as following. Music goes per upbeat.
00:46:29.880 --> 00:46:32.659
You can reach the climax by pushing toward it
00:46:32.659 --> 00:46:35.360
with crescendo and accelerando. After the climax,
00:46:35.440 --> 00:46:38.710
you make diminuendo and ritardando. When the
00:46:38.710 --> 00:46:41.409
melody moves up, you make crescendo and accelerando.
00:46:41.469 --> 00:46:44.050
When it moves down, you make diminuendo and ritardando.
00:46:44.250 --> 00:46:47.670
In the second half of the 20th century, the accelerando
00:46:47.670 --> 00:46:49.829
-ritardando element progressively went out of
00:46:49.829 --> 00:46:52.090
fashion, probably being judged as too romantic.
00:46:52.590 --> 00:46:57.190
Wait, let's trace back here after all the tread
00:46:57.190 --> 00:47:02.909
on. Accelerando -ritardando. So that's speeding
00:47:02.909 --> 00:47:06.389
up and then slowing down. Oh yeah, I can kind
00:47:06.389 --> 00:47:08.710
of get, I can see that. Especially in like Schubert.
00:47:08.949 --> 00:47:10.949
Yeah, Schubert. I'm just thinking like the very
00:47:10.949 --> 00:47:14.010
famous Tristan and Isolde, like Wagner. Same
00:47:14.010 --> 00:47:16.489
with Brahms. Yeah, very romantic here. When the
00:47:16.489 --> 00:47:19.070
melody moves up, you make crescendo and accelerando
00:47:19.070 --> 00:47:22.090
and that moves down. Okay, yeah. This is like
00:47:22.090 --> 00:47:24.150
common stuff that you would see in a lot of music.
00:47:24.150 --> 00:47:26.130
Stuff we would do now even. Because I remember
00:47:26.130 --> 00:47:28.030
I had a piano teacher tell me too where she's
00:47:28.030 --> 00:47:30.429
like rule of thumb when you're playing music.
00:47:30.650 --> 00:47:33.090
I mean, as long as you, if you crescendo, unless
00:47:33.090 --> 00:47:35.619
it explicitly says don't do that, uh, crescendo
00:47:35.619 --> 00:47:38.460
going up a scale, decrescendo, or, yeah, decrescendo
00:47:38.460 --> 00:47:40.460
going down a scale, and that's how you get sort
00:47:40.460 --> 00:47:42.440
of those, um, more layered. Right, exactly. You're
00:47:42.440 --> 00:47:44.840
taught, like, especially on the scale, right?
00:47:44.880 --> 00:47:53.179
Like a Mannheim rocket. Right? You're taught
00:47:53.179 --> 00:47:55.519
to kind of do that, and still, even, like, historical
00:47:55.519 --> 00:47:57.739
players would do that, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
00:47:57.739 --> 00:47:59.840
Surprisingly enough, many early music specialists
00:47:59.840 --> 00:48:01.820
are heard to follow these very principles, though
00:48:01.820 --> 00:48:03.599
it can easily be demonstrated that historically,
00:48:04.139 --> 00:48:05.960
they will be the exception rather than the rule.
00:48:06.159 --> 00:48:08.360
This late romantic phrasing is, of course, what
00:48:08.360 --> 00:48:10.719
we all grown up with, and it is easily recognizable
00:48:10.719 --> 00:48:12.699
and understood by a broad and non -specialist
00:48:12.699 --> 00:48:15.460
audience. It has thus found favor with many performers,
00:48:15.679 --> 00:48:17.340
even for music that has been composed according
00:48:17.340 --> 00:48:19.960
to different set of conventions. This is quite
00:48:19.960 --> 00:48:22.300
understandable, but in my opinion, the price
00:48:22.300 --> 00:48:25.179
for easy success is too high. Earlier compositions
00:48:25.179 --> 00:48:27.719
treated in this later style will lose part of
00:48:27.719 --> 00:48:30.639
their zen. The thicker performance sauce all
00:48:30.639 --> 00:48:33.119
but covers a number of the composition's characteristics.
00:48:34.159 --> 00:48:36.840
Monteverdi and Verdi, Rossi and Rossini, Bach
00:48:36.840 --> 00:48:40.679
and Offenbach. Oh, my God. Wait. We made up.
00:48:40.719 --> 00:48:45.380
We broke. This is mind -boggling right here.
00:48:45.500 --> 00:48:48.420
Bach and Offenbach, Monteverdi and Verdi, Rossi
00:48:48.420 --> 00:48:50.619
and Rossini, which are all composers. Yeah, they
00:48:50.619 --> 00:48:53.599
all, yeah. Then all sound too similar. Whoa.
00:48:54.780 --> 00:48:56.860
He's right there. Have you ever thought of that?
00:48:56.880 --> 00:48:59.780
I have never. Monteverdi sounds, well, yeah.
00:49:00.000 --> 00:49:02.679
Something Verdi. Monteverdi is the old Verdi.
00:49:03.199 --> 00:49:05.900
And then Verdi for Verdi. Rossi's the only Rossi.
00:49:05.900 --> 00:49:08.780
It's like Strauss I, Strauss II. No, but there's,
00:49:08.780 --> 00:49:11.039
yeah, there's Strauss, what, Johann Strauss II.
00:49:11.559 --> 00:49:12.880
Johann Strauss, and then, yeah. There's also
00:49:12.880 --> 00:49:15.280
the first, I guess. The first one. Yeah. And
00:49:15.280 --> 00:49:18.460
then you got, no, no, no, no. Who's the other
00:49:18.460 --> 00:49:20.820
guy? Richard Strauss? Richard Strauss. Are they
00:49:20.820 --> 00:49:23.019
even related? I don't think so. I don't think
00:49:23.019 --> 00:49:24.500
they are. I think because they're like different
00:49:24.500 --> 00:49:26.480
eras, too, because Richard Strauss was like the
00:49:26.480 --> 00:49:32.699
19th century guy. Wasn't he? I'm gonna look this
00:49:32.699 --> 00:49:34.360
up. Hold on, because this is crazy. No, no, no,
00:49:34.360 --> 00:49:37.340
because Richard Strauss was 1900, because...
00:49:37.340 --> 00:49:39.780
Right, because, yeah, he was, like, early 20th.
00:49:40.039 --> 00:49:43.460
I'm sorry, 19th century, because... Richard Strauss.
00:49:43.940 --> 00:49:48.099
All the Waltz and Waltz's content that he composed,
00:49:48.260 --> 00:49:50.500
a lot of that was in the 19th century. Okay,
00:49:50.579 --> 00:49:52.320
so, because there are two. So, Richard Strauss
00:49:52.320 --> 00:49:56.420
is the... Born 1860, or sorry, 1864, died. He
00:49:56.420 --> 00:49:59.900
composed also Sparag, yeah, yeah, he did. But
00:49:59.900 --> 00:50:01.920
there is the other one who's like the Viennese
00:50:01.920 --> 00:50:04.880
waltz composer. The Viennese style. Oh, okay,
00:50:04.980 --> 00:50:07.380
let's see, hold on. Oh, Johann Strauss is the
00:50:07.380 --> 00:50:09.619
other one. And it looks like they're not related.
00:50:10.239 --> 00:50:12.340
Okay. Yeah, they're not related. Okay, there
00:50:12.340 --> 00:50:15.860
you go. But wait, but the fascination between
00:50:15.860 --> 00:50:18.099
the, the relation between Bach and Offenbach
00:50:18.099 --> 00:50:20.840
is crazy. Because what's the only piece you can
00:50:20.840 --> 00:50:32.929
think of from Offenbach? As is often the case
00:50:32.929 --> 00:50:34.769
with theorists, rather than being innovative,
00:50:35.170 --> 00:50:37.610
Raimon probably systematized what had slowly
00:50:37.610 --> 00:50:39.889
developed over some generations and had become
00:50:39.889 --> 00:50:42.030
current practice, not unlike Quance's attitude
00:50:42.030 --> 00:50:44.909
in fact. Which rules do we find before Raimon?
00:50:45.179 --> 00:50:47.239
Singing treatises often give us very valuable
00:50:47.239 --> 00:50:49.440
information, since singers were considered to
00:50:49.440 --> 00:50:51.360
be the ideal performers who furthermore could
00:50:51.360 --> 00:50:53.519
rely on the literary text in order to shape and
00:50:53.519 --> 00:50:56.980
refine their musical phrasing. Instrumental treatises
00:50:56.980 --> 00:50:59.579
such as those by Quance, C .P .E. Bach, and L.
00:50:59.780 --> 00:51:02.719
Mozart always cite good singers as the examples
00:51:02.719 --> 00:51:05.659
to be imitated. General principles found in these
00:51:05.659 --> 00:51:08.280
sources include the following. A good note, this
00:51:08.280 --> 00:51:09.900
idea will be further explained in the second
00:51:09.900 --> 00:51:12.440
section about dynamics, and stressed syllables
00:51:12.440 --> 00:51:14.900
or notes will be preceded by a silence rather
00:51:14.900 --> 00:51:18.119
than being pushed into or even come late. Poetic
00:51:18.119 --> 00:51:20.920
feet are judged to be of great importance for
00:51:20.920 --> 00:51:23.699
composers and performers and is documented by
00:51:23.699 --> 00:51:28.139
Mattheson's Der vollkommene Kapelmeister in 1739
00:51:28.139 --> 00:51:31.380
and elsewhere and is still present in Beethoven's
00:51:31.380 --> 00:51:34.199
annotations of the Kramer piano etudes. And lastly,
00:51:34.480 --> 00:51:38.760
comparable to good prosody, we should use differentiated
00:51:38.760 --> 00:51:42.139
dynamics within the bar. I would call these microdynamics.
00:51:42.840 --> 00:51:45.800
This precludes the general publishing of the
00:51:45.800 --> 00:51:49.000
notes toward the next climax or toward the last
00:51:49.000 --> 00:51:52.579
note of the phrase. That was a handpunch full
00:51:52.579 --> 00:51:56.480
of words. Was there anything you saw on this?
00:51:56.539 --> 00:52:00.739
So stress syllables or notes will be preceded
00:52:00.739 --> 00:52:04.510
by a silence. rather than being pushed into or
00:52:04.510 --> 00:52:08.190
even come late. What can you visualize from that?
00:52:08.429 --> 00:52:10.389
I'm just trying to think, when you're making
00:52:10.389 --> 00:52:12.090
all these chains, kind of like in the last chapter
00:52:12.090 --> 00:52:14.090
about the dotted notes, right? It's like you
00:52:14.090 --> 00:52:15.550
kind of have to be smart about it because you
00:52:15.550 --> 00:52:18.090
don't want to, you want to maybe hold on to a
00:52:18.090 --> 00:52:20.989
note or shorten a note or do things like adding
00:52:20.989 --> 00:52:23.389
those stressed syllables to notes to kind of
00:52:23.389 --> 00:52:25.190
bring them out. But at the same time, you want
00:52:25.190 --> 00:52:27.489
it to still fall within the rhythmic structure
00:52:27.489 --> 00:52:30.369
of the measure. So it's all about that kind of...
00:52:31.139 --> 00:52:34.079
You don't want a 4 -4 piece to be like 3 -4 here
00:52:34.079 --> 00:52:36.440
in one measure, and then 5 in this measure, and
00:52:36.440 --> 00:52:38.440
then 6 in this. So it is kind of like, how can
00:52:38.440 --> 00:52:42.139
I still kind of push the rhythm of it, but still
00:52:42.139 --> 00:52:45.000
have good, I don't know, make sure the beats
00:52:45.000 --> 00:52:47.559
are lining up correctly. So that, I can see that
00:52:47.559 --> 00:52:49.719
for sure. Microdynamics is cool. What would you
00:52:49.719 --> 00:52:52.360
think of microdynamics until we actually see
00:52:52.360 --> 00:52:54.199
it? Well, microdynamics... I think it's like...
00:52:55.070 --> 00:52:57.690
It's a dynamics within that dynamic within the
00:52:57.690 --> 00:52:59.530
dynamics and that's true too because it's not
00:52:59.530 --> 00:53:02.150
like Forte is always um Forte's like Forte like
00:53:02.150 --> 00:53:04.369
loud all the time. It's like you have um, I think
00:53:04.369 --> 00:53:06.869
that's what it's saying Maybe because in orchestra
00:53:06.869 --> 00:53:09.590
we're taught. Oh, we're gonna have to do an orchestra
00:53:09.590 --> 00:53:11.929
Forte This is this is gonna be different than
00:53:11.929 --> 00:53:14.929
what you playing solo. This our orchestra Forte
00:53:14.929 --> 00:53:17.320
is gonna be like blasting all over the place,
00:53:17.360 --> 00:53:18.840
maybe. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or if you're playing
00:53:18.840 --> 00:53:20.460
with soloists, it's like, okay, we're loud here,
00:53:20.539 --> 00:53:22.380
but we also need to make sure the, I don't know,
00:53:22.400 --> 00:53:25.000
violin concerto is going well. Don't play anything.
00:53:25.239 --> 00:53:27.079
Just, like, literally have your hair just above
00:53:27.079 --> 00:53:29.179
the string. Just literally like this. Oh my gosh.
00:53:29.179 --> 00:53:31.179
That's gonna be good. Like, tilt the bow like...
00:53:31.179 --> 00:53:34.239
Exactly. So, that's what I think about that.
00:53:34.619 --> 00:53:37.760
In my opinion, these ideas are strongly linked
00:53:37.760 --> 00:53:40.340
to the bel canto technique before circa 1840,
00:53:40.539 --> 00:53:43.380
which was duly imitated on all instruments. Their
00:53:43.380 --> 00:53:46.239
great importance was attached to the son filet,
00:53:46.239 --> 00:53:49.679
a crescendo diminuendo on one single longer note.
00:53:49.980 --> 00:53:52.760
Further, a raise in the pitch did not automatically
00:53:52.760 --> 00:53:55.239
include a crescendo, but rather a diminuendo.
00:53:55.679 --> 00:53:58.139
The transition from this vocal ideal into modern
00:53:58.139 --> 00:54:01.800
singing, where equality and homogeneity are stressed
00:54:01.800 --> 00:54:03.900
and where high notes are generally sung more
00:54:03.900 --> 00:54:06.380
loudly and heavily, often in disregard of text
00:54:06.380 --> 00:54:08.619
accent, is clearly illustrated around the middle
00:54:08.619 --> 00:54:11.380
of the 19th century by the famous voice and piano
00:54:11.380 --> 00:54:14.539
teacher Friedrich Wieck, Schumann's father -in
00:54:14.539 --> 00:54:16.500
-law. Oh, what? You can add that to the family
00:54:16.500 --> 00:54:19.219
tree. Yeah, the Schumann tree. And his ironic
00:54:19.219 --> 00:54:23.099
but highly interesting clavier and guesang. Didac
00:54:23.099 --> 00:54:27.579
Tichet, un polémichet, 1853, polémichets. He
00:54:27.579 --> 00:54:29.900
strongly takes a position against a new fashion.
00:54:30.619 --> 00:54:34.239
Vic sees the same tendency in piano playing as
00:54:34.239 --> 00:54:37.460
in singing. The sacrifice of elegance took force.
00:54:38.139 --> 00:54:42.280
Hmm, okay. That's interesting. The sacrifice
00:54:42.280 --> 00:54:45.440
of elegance took force. Took force. I guess with
00:54:45.440 --> 00:54:48.400
those high notes. I mean, I guess, you know,
00:54:48.420 --> 00:54:51.460
that is true. I'm not a singer, but I assume
00:54:51.460 --> 00:54:54.260
if you're a mezzosoprano and you have to really
00:54:54.260 --> 00:54:56.440
sing that high note, it's got to be harder to
00:54:56.440 --> 00:54:58.679
sing quieter up there. Or would it be the opposite,
00:54:58.860 --> 00:55:00.940
is my question. If you have to jump up, I'm not
00:55:00.940 --> 00:55:02.159
about to try it right now, but if you're going
00:55:02.159 --> 00:55:06.039
to jump up like, I don't know, give it like,
00:55:06.139 --> 00:55:08.079
I don't know, Queen of the Night aria or something.
00:55:08.320 --> 00:55:12.320
Is it easier to sing louder? to get the high
00:55:12.320 --> 00:55:15.000
note out, or is it better to stay softer? And
00:55:15.000 --> 00:55:17.179
maybe it's just a personal thing, I'm not sure.
00:55:17.340 --> 00:55:19.840
That's when, I think, especially with this section,
00:55:20.039 --> 00:55:22.800
it's just, it goes into even further down a rabbit
00:55:22.800 --> 00:55:24.940
hole. I think all the ones, I think it can be
00:55:24.940 --> 00:55:28.159
easily more debated on, if you think of on an
00:55:28.159 --> 00:55:30.440
iceberg level, but I believe phrasing, I think,
00:55:30.440 --> 00:55:33.460
goes pretty down, because, like, I think the
00:55:33.460 --> 00:55:37.280
variability of it is just... extremely widespread
00:55:37.280 --> 00:55:41.360
there's all sorts of it like variants or like
00:55:41.360 --> 00:55:44.760
maybe even you would consider think of them as
00:55:44.760 --> 00:55:47.199
mutations of all these mutations yeah if you
00:55:47.199 --> 00:55:49.480
think there's like one right there was one and
00:55:49.480 --> 00:55:52.159
then there was two and then there was four and
00:55:52.159 --> 00:55:54.280
then there was eight and there was 16 and 32
00:55:54.280 --> 00:55:56.599
and 64 it's like how do you you know it completely
00:55:56.599 --> 00:56:00.119
depends all sorts of yeah yeah yeah like Departed
00:56:00.119 --> 00:56:03.079
from all the other, you know. Yeah. You know,
00:56:03.099 --> 00:56:04.699
one comment I actually had, so kind of going
00:56:04.699 --> 00:56:07.420
back, I think it was the first page. He, he.
00:56:07.789 --> 00:56:09.610
kind of talks about different conductors, so
00:56:09.610 --> 00:56:12.230
he brought up Carrion, really having that, like,
00:56:12.230 --> 00:56:14.809
long, horizontal line. You can even see his conducting,
00:56:14.929 --> 00:56:16.230
he's like this. You can think about it right
00:56:16.230 --> 00:56:18.650
now, when you listen, like, visualize, maybe,
00:56:18.849 --> 00:56:20.309
like, you know, in your brain, like, listening
00:56:20.309 --> 00:56:23.369
to it, right? It's like a longer line versus,
00:56:23.409 --> 00:56:25.650
he brought up, I think, Simon, yeah, Simon Rattle,
00:56:25.750 --> 00:56:28.670
so I was kind of, I fell down this rabbit hole,
00:56:28.809 --> 00:56:30.769
I think it was, like, last year, where I discovered
00:56:30.769 --> 00:56:33.750
there's sort of this, like, divide between the
00:56:33.750 --> 00:56:36.190
chord composers versus the line composers? Because
00:56:36.190 --> 00:56:38.530
I always, okay, this is a personal thing, I was
00:56:38.530 --> 00:56:41.409
always questioning why, okay, for the composers
00:56:41.409 --> 00:56:43.010
that I've always, like, really been drawn to
00:56:43.010 --> 00:56:46.550
are, like, the Mozart or Chopin or... Chopin's
00:56:46.550 --> 00:56:48.690
a great one to think. To think is, like, so,
00:56:48.690 --> 00:56:50.829
for example, because, okay, I kind of, I'm just
00:56:50.829 --> 00:56:52.889
going to use Mozart and Chopin. I think those
00:56:52.889 --> 00:56:55.630
are two line composers. Yeah, I agree. No, I
00:56:55.630 --> 00:56:58.150
totally agree. I totally agree. I think some
00:56:58.150 --> 00:57:00.210
chord composers, though, were probably Brahms
00:57:00.210 --> 00:57:03.969
and Beethoven. I might be, maybe I'm wrong about
00:57:03.969 --> 00:57:06.289
that. And of course it depends on the piece they're
00:57:06.289 --> 00:57:08.349
playing. But generally, I think, I think of Brahms
00:57:08.349 --> 00:57:10.730
symphonies, Beethoven symphonies is very chord
00:57:10.730 --> 00:57:12.230
based. I mean, there are melodies within them.
00:57:12.289 --> 00:57:15.789
Whereas like the Mozart melodies are like, or
00:57:15.789 --> 00:57:20.269
even the Mozart or the Chopin. It's very, very
00:57:20.269 --> 00:57:23.170
like line oriented single note instead of like,
00:57:23.190 --> 00:57:25.650
I mean, there are piano chords in it, but not,
00:57:25.670 --> 00:57:27.630
I don't know. I don't know. So that's kind of
00:57:27.630 --> 00:57:30.730
a whole thing. And I wonder if maybe, It's just
00:57:30.730 --> 00:57:33.250
a lineage, and maybe it's just a personal thing
00:57:33.250 --> 00:57:35.769
for the composer. It evolved in some way. Yeah,
00:57:35.769 --> 00:57:38.550
it changed, right? Just like how Natural Selection
00:57:38.550 --> 00:57:40.849
does. Natural Selection. It's musical Natural
00:57:40.849 --> 00:57:46.590
Selection. I have no comment of the Darwinism
00:57:46.590 --> 00:57:49.389
theory. No comment. I'd play the fifth on that.
00:57:49.590 --> 00:57:52.389
You still have to learn it in biology and all
00:57:52.389 --> 00:57:54.530
that. Biology class. And all the such. But I
00:57:54.530 --> 00:57:56.849
think that's a wrap right there. Yeah, we got
00:57:56.849 --> 00:57:59.840
through a lot. I think, yeah, and phrasing also,
00:58:00.000 --> 00:58:03.260
I guess, is, I don't know, it's kind of hard
00:58:03.260 --> 00:58:05.320
to say. It's very personal, I guess you would
00:58:05.320 --> 00:58:08.500
say. Do you know, I don't know, this is irrelevant,
00:58:08.739 --> 00:58:11.139
but do you know Garrick Olsen? Oh, yeah, yeah,
00:58:11.300 --> 00:58:15.480
yeah. Isn't he like a pretty famous? Yeah, yeah.
00:58:15.559 --> 00:58:20.860
Chopin's famous. We just had the Chopin Piano
00:58:20.860 --> 00:58:22.900
Competition. He was giving commentary that entire
00:58:22.900 --> 00:58:24.940
time. I would be on YouTube and it's like, Gary
00:58:24.940 --> 00:58:27.179
Golson says this and Gary Golson says that. And
00:58:27.179 --> 00:58:28.420
I'm like, yeah, I'm going to watch that right
00:58:28.420 --> 00:58:32.739
now. I did. I think I saw him. Yeah, I saw him
00:58:32.739 --> 00:58:35.059
at the Ravinia Festival in Highland Park, Illinois.
00:58:35.380 --> 00:58:38.980
So yeah, he had some pretty cool stuff to show.
00:58:39.099 --> 00:58:41.940
I don't know. He was performing a Mozart piano
00:58:41.940 --> 00:58:46.280
concerto. definitely know but Ravenia concerts
00:58:46.280 --> 00:58:49.320
for CSO and with CSO residency generally those
00:58:49.320 --> 00:58:51.219
are what we call popcorn performances they're
00:58:51.219 --> 00:58:53.699
just like oh we have one rehearsal two rehearsals
00:58:53.699 --> 00:58:55.760
I remember my high school music teacher he's
00:58:55.760 --> 00:58:58.920
a saxophonist John Wojciechowski and he actually
00:58:58.920 --> 00:59:02.099
does get some gigs in Chicago with jazz but he
00:59:02.099 --> 00:59:04.059
was there and he said we only got one rehearsal
00:59:04.059 --> 00:59:14.619
for 30 minutes some of the artists, but what
00:59:14.619 --> 00:59:16.699
I was going to say about Gary Golsan was he just
00:59:16.699 --> 00:59:19.800
kind of like, I guess he just, you know, you
00:59:19.800 --> 00:59:21.780
don't practice and he just comes on stage and
00:59:21.780 --> 00:59:23.199
I'm ready to play my Mozart. I'm ready to play
00:59:23.199 --> 00:59:26.760
my Mozart. Imagine if he's a critic. You better
00:59:26.760 --> 00:59:29.500
meet Symphony Hall instead. Exactly, exactly.
00:59:29.539 --> 00:59:31.619
Just enjoy the scenery and all this. Yeah, everybody
00:59:31.619 --> 00:59:34.599
has a whole different thing to do. Yes. Yeah.