3. A Well-Tempered Fallacy

WEBVTT
00:00:17.719 --> 00:00:20.379
Hello, and welcome back to Beyond the Notation, a podcast
00:00:20.379 --> 00:00:23.179
on the ongoing reading of the personal manifesto
00:00:23.179 --> 00:00:26.079
and doctoral thesis on early music, The Notation
00:00:26.079 --> 00:00:28.679
is Not the Music, Reflections on Early Music
00:00:28.679 --> 00:00:31.440
Practice and Performance by Barthold Kuijken. I'm
00:00:31.440 --> 00:00:33.960
Kenneth Chang, and I am with Marilyn Gans. We
00:00:33.960 --> 00:00:36.659
are both young, aspiring musicians seeking insight
00:00:36.659 --> 00:00:38.880
into the fascinating and intricate world of historically
00:00:38.880 --> 00:00:42.210
informed performance and early music. This episode
00:00:42.210 --> 00:00:44.090
includes content from The Notation Is Not The
00:00:44.090 --> 00:00:46.350
Music by Barthold Kuijken, used with the permission
00:00:46.350 --> 00:00:48.950
of Indiana University Press. Welcome back, Marilyn.
00:00:49.170 --> 00:00:50.609
How are you doing? I'm good, how are you? How
00:00:50.609 --> 00:00:53.070
are you feeling? Yeah, feeling good, feeling
00:00:53.070 --> 00:00:57.140
good. I woke up about... Two hours ago. And I
00:00:57.140 --> 00:00:59.880
was like, you know, I should probably get ready
00:00:59.880 --> 00:01:02.920
because I have a podcast to follow. I know. And,
00:01:03.020 --> 00:01:05.260
you know, my house is a horrible place because
00:01:05.260 --> 00:01:08.120
if you go in there, it's like a slum and it's
00:01:08.120 --> 00:01:10.540
kind of hard to record here. To record it. Yeah,
00:01:10.540 --> 00:01:13.400
so it's nice to get a nice empty room. Clean
00:01:13.400 --> 00:01:14.900
slate at the library. Yeah, clean slate. A very
00:01:14.900 --> 00:01:17.659
clean slate to just, like, you know, do our yapping
00:01:17.659 --> 00:01:27.230
about stuff. So we kind of left off where we
00:01:27.230 --> 00:01:29.750
were talking about all sorts of tuning. This
00:01:29.750 --> 00:01:32.810
was the chapter on temperament. We were talking
00:01:32.810 --> 00:01:37.370
about different kind of like tuning that would
00:01:37.370 --> 00:01:39.629
be applied to keyboard instruments, woodwinds,
00:01:39.629 --> 00:01:43.390
brass, how, you know, there's this like... concoction
00:01:43.390 --> 00:01:47.109
of all sorts of different tuning systems um limitations
00:01:47.109 --> 00:01:50.849
and you know realizations that maybe the typical
00:01:50.849 --> 00:01:53.250
musician or audience member can't really like
00:01:53.250 --> 00:01:55.969
see you know from the yeah um from the hidden
00:01:55.969 --> 00:02:00.150
eye so uh marilyn why don't you look for what
00:02:00.150 --> 00:02:05.370
um where we can um go yeah go back yeah so just
00:02:05.370 --> 00:02:07.609
reading a paragraph kind of Like, from where
00:02:07.609 --> 00:02:09.789
we sort of left off, it reads, The fact that
00:02:09.789 --> 00:02:12.009
keyboard instruments need one temperament or
00:02:12.009 --> 00:02:14.169
another does not necessarily mean that all other
00:02:14.169 --> 00:02:15.949
instruments and voices should be enslaved by
00:02:15.949 --> 00:02:18.530
the same rigors. Certainly not in early music,
00:02:18.629 --> 00:02:20.770
with its relatively simple harmonies and strongly
00:02:20.770 --> 00:02:23.430
modal or tonal structure. String instruments
00:02:23.430 --> 00:02:25.650
are somewhat limited by their open strings. When
00:02:25.650 --> 00:02:27.849
both the cello and a violin tune all their fifths
00:02:27.849 --> 00:02:29.830
pure, the interval between the cello's lowest
00:02:29.830 --> 00:02:31.789
string, which is C, and the violin's highest
00:02:31.789 --> 00:02:34.469
string, which is E2, Three octaves plus a major
00:02:34.469 --> 00:02:36.889
third is much too wide. If they tune this pure
00:02:36.889 --> 00:02:39.509
interval, their fifths become very small. The
00:02:39.509 --> 00:02:41.310
rich overtones of a good string instrument include,
00:02:41.449 --> 00:02:43.590
of course, both the pure fifth and the pure major
00:02:43.590 --> 00:02:45.930
third, but we cannot have the best of both worlds,
00:02:45.969 --> 00:02:47.789
so usually string players will choose something
00:02:47.789 --> 00:02:50.830
in between these two extreme solutions. Actually,
00:02:50.870 --> 00:02:52.710
that is kind of true. I'm just thinking, because
00:02:52.710 --> 00:02:56.990
so many elements of Western classical music The
00:02:56.990 --> 00:02:59.270
joke in composition is don't use your parallel
00:02:59.270 --> 00:03:01.710
fifths in your writing. It's like you can't go
00:03:01.710 --> 00:03:03.349
after that. That's a very common music theory
00:03:03.349 --> 00:03:05.610
thing. In class, if you do a part writing, a
00:03:05.610 --> 00:03:07.870
four -part part writing, you can't do parallel
00:03:07.870 --> 00:03:11.490
octaves, parallel fifths. There's a lot of those
00:03:11.490 --> 00:03:38.750
rules. Yeah. He can even say, must be achieved
00:03:38.750 --> 00:03:41.330
by lip and breath corrections. Woodwinds were
00:03:41.330 --> 00:03:43.750
not tuned in a specific system, but through fingering
00:03:43.750 --> 00:03:46.129
and aperture and good ears, they mostly could
00:03:46.129 --> 00:03:48.509
adapt quite well to different situations. The
00:03:48.509 --> 00:03:50.710
voice is the most adaptable and free. Singing
00:03:50.710 --> 00:03:52.530
pure intervals gives a very resonant quality
00:03:52.530 --> 00:03:54.870
to the ensemble or choir, but might entail a
00:03:54.870 --> 00:03:56.669
subtle change of overall pitch during a piece.
00:03:57.169 --> 00:03:59.229
Indeed, let us suppose using pure thirds and
00:03:59.229 --> 00:04:01.810
fifths in a C major a cappella piece. The A can
00:04:01.810 --> 00:04:04.210
be in a low position as a fifth below E, or in
00:04:04.210 --> 00:04:06.750
a high position as a fifth above D. It can be
00:04:06.750 --> 00:04:08.590
easily computed that the difference between these
00:04:08.590 --> 00:04:10.930
two positions is almost a quarter of an equally
00:04:10.930 --> 00:04:13.689
tempered semitone, quite noticeable. When the
00:04:13.689 --> 00:04:16.029
A is reached against an already sounding and
00:04:16.029 --> 00:04:18.790
held D or E, the singer or conductor has to choose
00:04:18.790 --> 00:04:21.430
between one of the two positions. If this A in
00:04:21.430 --> 00:04:23.329
its turn becomes a note against which the other
00:04:23.329 --> 00:04:25.670
intervals have to be tuned, a substantial pitch
00:04:25.670 --> 00:04:28.470
variance can be noticed for the whole piece.
00:04:29.209 --> 00:04:31.050
Most performers would cheat, however, accepting
00:04:31.050 --> 00:04:34.490
a not -so -pure fifth D, A, or A -E, or slightly
00:04:34.490 --> 00:04:37.370
vary the pitch to the tenuto D or E. In practice,
00:04:37.529 --> 00:04:39.649
the resonating quality of pure intervals is mostly
00:04:39.649 --> 00:04:41.790
important on long notes and at important places,
00:04:41.949 --> 00:04:45.050
whereas passing notes or dissonances can be treated
00:04:45.050 --> 00:04:48.529
more flexibly. Life is not perfect. This is interesting.
00:04:48.610 --> 00:04:52.189
I feel like these are aspects of performing and
00:04:52.189 --> 00:04:54.430
composing and things that we just don't really...
00:04:54.839 --> 00:04:56.899
really think about these days. I mean, when you're
00:04:56.899 --> 00:04:59.000
in orchestra, it's very much everyone be in tune
00:04:59.000 --> 00:05:01.379
with each other. And, um, we have this sort of
00:05:01.379 --> 00:05:04.220
more standardized set of tuning and we have our
00:05:04.220 --> 00:05:05.680
equal temperament between the instruments, but,
00:05:05.720 --> 00:05:08.480
um, it's very rare for, I guess you to be like
00:05:08.480 --> 00:05:10.759
in an ensemble and it's like, Hey, that's my,
00:05:10.759 --> 00:05:14.899
my D four 30. And then your, your E four 15.
00:05:14.980 --> 00:05:17.279
It's hard. It's hard to be passionate about something
00:05:17.279 --> 00:05:20.230
like that. And it's, it. I still think you can
00:05:20.230 --> 00:05:22.430
get some pretty cool outcomes out of it. I mean,
00:05:22.449 --> 00:05:27.449
that's what the work of, what is it, 70, 80,
00:05:27.569 --> 00:05:31.810
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, almost 70, 80 years of pioneering
00:05:31.810 --> 00:05:35.269
work and convincing through recording performances
00:05:35.269 --> 00:05:38.750
and just constant practice and showing other
00:05:38.750 --> 00:05:42.829
musicians has turned into. And I feel kind of...
00:05:43.040 --> 00:05:45.579
pretty happy about it especially when you listen
00:05:45.579 --> 00:05:48.519
to all sorts of these um experimental like tunings
00:05:48.519 --> 00:05:51.420
that you might want to play around with yeah
00:05:51.420 --> 00:05:53.500
yeah i also love the idea i think you talked
00:05:53.500 --> 00:05:56.100
about this in uh the previous chapter where um
00:05:56.100 --> 00:05:59.519
it wasn't always on like on purpose but people
00:05:59.519 --> 00:06:01.680
had all these different instruments and so one
00:06:01.680 --> 00:06:04.319
like your neighbor's flute could be longer and
00:06:04.319 --> 00:06:05.980
then your flute could be shorter and maybe the
00:06:05.980 --> 00:06:08.819
the wood quality was different so it really depended
00:06:08.819 --> 00:06:12.759
um So going on, he says, simultaneous pitch standards,
00:06:12.959 --> 00:06:16.319
as in Bach's Weimar... Weimar? It's in German.
00:06:17.180 --> 00:06:20.480
Weimar, yeah. Weimar leaps and cantatas cause
00:06:20.480 --> 00:06:22.240
some problems due to the involved transposition.
00:06:22.500 --> 00:06:25.220
In many unequal temperaments, D -flat major sounds
00:06:25.220 --> 00:06:27.759
less well than E -flat major because the D -flat
00:06:27.759 --> 00:06:30.279
is too low, rather functioning as a C -sharp.
00:06:30.980 --> 00:06:34.600
Consequently, the major triad on the tonic of
00:06:34.600 --> 00:06:37.300
D -flat major is quite out of tune because of
00:06:37.300 --> 00:06:39.360
much too wide major third between D -flat and
00:06:39.360 --> 00:06:42.160
F. Historical treatises also mention the problems
00:06:42.160 --> 00:06:43.920
encountered when different types of instruments,
00:06:44.120 --> 00:06:45.980
each favoring a different temperament, play together.
00:06:46.420 --> 00:06:48.740
Not all problems can be avoided, but in practice,
00:06:48.959 --> 00:06:51.399
keyboard players could omit distributing out
00:06:51.399 --> 00:06:52.939
-of -tune notes from their base of continual
00:06:52.939 --> 00:06:54.899
realization, or hide them in the middle of the
00:06:54.899 --> 00:06:59.439
chord. George Falk, in his, this is the title,
00:06:59.839 --> 00:07:04.259
Idea Boni Cantoris, from 1688, recommends organists
00:07:04.259 --> 00:07:06.540
play a trill or morden on an out -of -tune note,
00:07:06.639 --> 00:07:08.939
for example, when F should function as an E -sharp.
00:07:21.139 --> 00:07:23.860
This is from 1791. There seem to have been a
00:07:23.860 --> 00:07:27.259
lot of historical pamphlets and I guess essays
00:07:27.259 --> 00:07:29.990
on how to play. And that's actually really interesting.
00:07:30.110 --> 00:07:32.129
I feel like we don't really have... Actually,
00:07:32.129 --> 00:07:35.129
I'm kind of curious. Do we even see that now?
00:07:35.230 --> 00:07:37.629
I don't know. I don't think because there's...
00:07:37.629 --> 00:07:40.050
I don't know. Because, I mean, you've seen since
00:07:40.050 --> 00:07:42.910
18th century, there's been all these texts which,
00:07:43.009 --> 00:07:45.750
you know, we're being presented with. But do
00:07:45.750 --> 00:07:48.470
we actually see any, like, modern, like, 21st
00:07:48.470 --> 00:07:51.310
century stuff? I haven't seen it, at least. Yeah.
00:07:51.389 --> 00:07:54.269
Until the 20th, like, maybe mid -20th century,
00:07:54.410 --> 00:07:56.790
I haven't seen that much come out. On how to
00:07:56.790 --> 00:07:58.629
play the instrument, it's... I never see anybody
00:07:58.629 --> 00:08:01.750
say, like, you have to trill from this note.
00:08:01.850 --> 00:08:04.250
Or when you're playing the bassoon, you have
00:08:04.250 --> 00:08:07.509
to, like, do this. Make sure your reed is this
00:08:07.509 --> 00:08:09.810
way. Yeah, I don't see it. Nowadays, it's the
00:08:09.810 --> 00:08:12.550
teachers, like, these famous teachers. They pass
00:08:12.550 --> 00:08:16.310
it down. It's more of a pass. We only see pass
00:08:16.310 --> 00:08:18.689
down. We don't see, like, more people relying
00:08:18.689 --> 00:08:21.560
on the text. On natural text, yeah. He continues
00:08:21.560 --> 00:08:24.180
to say it provides interesting information. He
00:08:24.180 --> 00:08:25.759
would like the keyboard to be tuned in equal
00:08:25.759 --> 00:08:27.839
temperament, though the method he describes will
00:08:27.839 --> 00:08:30.019
not really yield equal temperament, but recommends
00:08:30.019 --> 00:08:32.799
leaving out the keyboard from larger ensembles
00:08:32.799 --> 00:08:34.600
so that the other instruments can play pure thirds
00:08:34.600 --> 00:08:37.080
and fifths in the important chords. Furthermore,
00:08:37.360 --> 00:08:44.620
in... Now this one is... From 1800. He shows
00:08:44.620 --> 00:08:47.779
that an A -sharp as lower arpeggiatora to the
00:08:47.779 --> 00:08:51.289
B -natural of the G major triad, G... can be
00:08:51.289 --> 00:08:53.929
played higher with the enharmonic B flat fingering.
00:08:54.049 --> 00:08:56.129
The same can be applied to passing notes, neighbor
00:08:56.129 --> 00:08:58.549
tones, and so forth. I find this expressive tuning
00:08:58.549 --> 00:09:00.750
of non -essential notes highly efficient, but
00:09:00.750 --> 00:09:02.549
not many people dare to use it. In recording
00:09:02.549 --> 00:09:04.529
sessions, the red light will easily be turned
00:09:04.529 --> 00:09:06.350
off and the performer asks to do another take
00:09:06.350 --> 00:09:08.809
because of perceived intonation irregularities.
00:09:09.750 --> 00:09:11.830
Enharmonics are another problematic case. In
00:09:11.830 --> 00:09:14.269
his composition lessons from Thomas Atwood, I
00:09:14.269 --> 00:09:19.200
think it's Kershaw or Keebee? KV506A? Yeah, KV
00:09:19.200 --> 00:09:23.799
was the Kershaw. Mozart speaks of wide diatonic
00:09:23.799 --> 00:09:26.240
and small chromatic semitones. Anharmonic shifts
00:09:26.240 --> 00:09:28.740
on non -keyboard instruments would often have
00:09:28.740 --> 00:09:31.559
to be clearly heard and felt. This applies even,
00:09:31.679 --> 00:09:33.720
or especially, to anharmonic changes occurring
00:09:33.720 --> 00:09:36.600
on tight or repeated notes. The pitch drops when
00:09:36.600 --> 00:09:39.179
C -flat becomes B -natural, as happens in the
00:09:39.179 --> 00:09:42.299
first movement of Wilhelm Friedmanbach's flute
00:09:42.299 --> 00:09:44.080
duet in E -flat major, and this is the Flock
00:09:44.080 --> 00:09:47.470
55. In measures 45 through 59, the second flute
00:09:47.470 --> 00:09:49.710
plays C -flat a number of times, which is changed
00:09:49.710 --> 00:09:52.389
to a B -natural at the end of measure 49. That's
00:09:52.389 --> 00:09:53.970
actually interesting, so I guess you have to
00:09:53.970 --> 00:09:57.509
adapt on those kind of early pieces. He writes,
00:09:57.590 --> 00:09:59.330
Quantz points to this problematic spot in his
00:09:59.330 --> 00:10:02.149
Solfeggi, a manuscript collection of short, commented
00:10:02.149 --> 00:10:05.330
excerpts presumably assembled for or by a student.
00:10:05.429 --> 00:10:07.309
The preface in the current modern edition is
00:10:07.309 --> 00:10:09.370
quite incorrect in stating that the only extant
00:10:09.370 --> 00:10:11.649
copy of the Solfeggi was actually penned by Quantz
00:10:11.649 --> 00:10:14.539
himself. In measure 45, he writes about the C
00:10:14.539 --> 00:10:22.600
-flat, which means pure, turned out somewhat
00:10:22.600 --> 00:10:25.100
in order to play sharper. Again, in measure 49,
00:10:25.279 --> 00:10:31.179
he writes... turned out just as much as before.
00:10:31.340 --> 00:10:33.600
Much as before. There is no comment to the B
00:10:33.600 --> 00:10:35.820
natural, which thus should be played in the standard
00:10:35.820 --> 00:10:38.379
armature position and not, turned out, thus lower
00:10:38.379 --> 00:10:40.799
than the C flat. There are some unusual situations,
00:10:40.820 --> 00:10:43.960
such as Mozart's Symphony, this is Kershaw 543,
00:10:44.399 --> 00:10:48.480
where we find a fifth A flat to D sharp and an
00:10:48.480 --> 00:10:52.620
octave A flat to G sharp. Here, the instruments
00:10:52.620 --> 00:10:54.519
with the flats in their motif at the same moment
00:10:54.519 --> 00:10:57.799
as those with sharps start their motif. I would
00:10:57.799 --> 00:11:00.019
surmise that fifths, unisons, and octaves are
00:11:00.019 --> 00:11:05.759
kept pure, as probably is done in the piano concerto,
00:11:05.759 --> 00:11:09.320
where the piano plays a sustained D -flat against
00:11:09.320 --> 00:11:11.820
a C -sharp in the bassoon. I do not believe that
00:11:11.820 --> 00:11:14.539
any general rule can or should be made. The possibilities
00:11:14.539 --> 00:11:16.779
and impossibilities and the desired expression
00:11:16.779 --> 00:11:20.220
will direct my choices. So that is... Kind of
00:11:20.220 --> 00:11:21.700
interesting because when you're younger, you
00:11:21.700 --> 00:11:24.039
sort of have this idea where when you figure
00:11:24.039 --> 00:11:27.100
out, oh, C sharp is really D flat and vice versa.
00:11:27.320 --> 00:11:29.279
And harmonic equivalence. Right. It's kind of
00:11:29.279 --> 00:11:30.360
interesting because you think, oh, yeah, that
00:11:30.360 --> 00:11:32.679
makes sense. But there are examples where they're
00:11:32.679 --> 00:11:34.980
not exactly the same note. There is a slight
00:11:34.980 --> 00:11:37.700
difference between them. Yeah. That's why, like,
00:11:37.779 --> 00:11:40.059
I've seen videos on YouTube, right, on music
00:11:40.059 --> 00:11:42.179
theory. When you, like, compose something. Yeah.
00:11:42.779 --> 00:11:45.960
There's reasons why you might want to use F sharp
00:11:45.960 --> 00:11:49.659
major versus G flat major. Yeah, yeah. So it's
00:11:49.659 --> 00:11:53.120
fascinating to see that, and clearly there's
00:11:53.120 --> 00:11:57.179
more to this with Baroque repertoire. I think
00:11:57.179 --> 00:11:59.080
they were more conscious of it back then. I think
00:11:59.080 --> 00:12:00.860
nowadays... Nowadays you can do whatever you
00:12:00.860 --> 00:12:01.879
want. You can do whatever you want. Especially
00:12:01.879 --> 00:12:05.820
with video games, and I've seen shows, stuff
00:12:05.820 --> 00:12:09.360
in F sharp major. I know, for example, the moon
00:12:09.360 --> 00:12:12.730
theme from... DuckTales, if you know the DuckTales
00:12:12.730 --> 00:12:16.309
Moon theme. You can just think, oh, this is in
00:12:16.309 --> 00:12:18.049
G -flat major, right? And then someone says,
00:12:18.070 --> 00:12:21.889
no, it's actually in F -sharp. But back then,
00:12:21.909 --> 00:12:23.889
if you were to say that, it's going to be like,
00:12:24.129 --> 00:12:27.990
oh, I composed this only in F -sharp major. Only
00:12:27.990 --> 00:12:29.690
in F -sharp, right. That's a cool connection.
00:12:29.870 --> 00:12:31.889
Like, excuse me, you're playing my F -sharp major
00:12:31.889 --> 00:12:35.230
in G -flat. I noticed the tuning there. I noticed
00:12:35.230 --> 00:12:37.909
the tuning. This is horrible. We've got to fix
00:12:37.909 --> 00:12:41.419
that semitone. So even in less complicated matters
00:12:41.419 --> 00:12:43.860
than unharmonic shifts, not all performers will
00:12:43.860 --> 00:12:45.940
have the same tuning preferences. This is how
00:12:45.940 --> 00:12:49.000
I usually proceed in ensembles. When there's
00:12:49.000 --> 00:12:50.940
a keyboard instrument, bass players should stay
00:12:50.940 --> 00:12:52.779
in unison with the keyboard temperament. They
00:12:52.779 --> 00:12:54.539
often sit next to it and thus could not easily
00:12:54.539 --> 00:12:56.860
adopt a different tuning. whereas the other instruments
00:12:56.860 --> 00:12:59.000
play pure intervals on the bass note as far as
00:12:59.000 --> 00:13:01.580
possible. Consequently, they do not play in the
00:13:01.580 --> 00:13:03.580
keyboard's temperament, unless an unavoidable
00:13:03.580 --> 00:13:05.940
or audible unison would occur. Generally, the
00:13:05.940 --> 00:13:07.600
fewer instruments playing next to the keyboard,
00:13:07.820 --> 00:13:09.519
the more they might have to follow its temperament.
00:13:09.679 --> 00:13:12.440
In smaller ensembles without keyboard, and if
00:13:12.440 --> 00:13:14.379
the music does not modulate too far, the string
00:13:14.379 --> 00:13:17.700
players can tune the open strings that lie in
00:13:17.700 --> 00:13:19.440
the tonic and dominant chords of the piece in
00:13:19.440 --> 00:13:21.460
pure fifths and compensate by making smaller
00:13:21.460 --> 00:13:24.899
fifths elsewhere. But even with equally tempered
00:13:24.899 --> 00:13:26.679
fifths, there is no need to play everything in
00:13:26.679 --> 00:13:29.080
equal temperament. In the orchestra, and particularly
00:13:29.080 --> 00:13:31.259
in classical music, where the winds hold long
00:13:31.259 --> 00:13:33.259
chords, it is essential that on the important
00:13:33.259 --> 00:13:35.240
chords the winds play pure intervals on the given
00:13:35.240 --> 00:13:37.899
bass note. Thus they will reinforce each other's
00:13:37.899 --> 00:13:39.759
overtones and create a very strong resonating
00:13:39.759 --> 00:13:41.940
harmonic background, even when the open strings
00:13:41.940 --> 00:13:44.379
are tuned slightly differently. A slight difference
00:13:44.379 --> 00:13:46.919
in tuning between harmony and melody can be less
00:13:46.919 --> 00:13:48.879
disturbing than a long, out -of -tune chord.
00:13:49.100 --> 00:13:53.340
So, I guess that is kind of true, where... I
00:13:53.340 --> 00:13:55.580
guess the instruments are set up in a way where
00:13:55.580 --> 00:13:57.899
all the strings kind of work together. So if
00:13:57.899 --> 00:14:01.759
the bass is in one tuning, the violas, cellos,
00:14:01.779 --> 00:14:04.440
violins have to really kind of copy that. Yeah,
00:14:04.460 --> 00:14:06.360
follow through. Follow through. But I guess wind
00:14:06.360 --> 00:14:08.879
instruments are, I mean, and it makes sense,
00:14:08.899 --> 00:14:10.580
but each section of the orchestra is going to
00:14:10.580 --> 00:14:12.399
have their own kind of separate thing going on.
00:14:12.440 --> 00:14:14.620
And so you have to adapt to make sure it's like.
00:14:15.120 --> 00:14:16.639
okay, strings are doing their own thing, but
00:14:16.639 --> 00:14:19.139
somewhat match the bassoon, or the winds, and
00:14:19.139 --> 00:14:20.960
winds are doing their own thing, but match the
00:14:20.960 --> 00:14:22.279
brass, and then you get keyboard instruments.
00:14:22.279 --> 00:14:24.940
Conventionally, it's even, yeah. Yeah. Essentially,
00:14:25.340 --> 00:14:28.860
you have the keyboard, and then, you know, most
00:14:28.860 --> 00:14:30.799
of the strings, and then woodwinds follow through,
00:14:30.860 --> 00:14:33.419
but I, yeah, the hierarchy can obviously differ
00:14:33.419 --> 00:14:37.870
in context. It's true. He says, melody playing
00:14:37.870 --> 00:14:40.450
can also gain by using pure intervals. For example,
00:14:40.490 --> 00:14:42.429
in the performance of duets for two high instruments,
00:14:42.649 --> 00:14:46.029
where a different tone can reinforce the resonance
00:14:46.029 --> 00:14:48.370
or even create a perfect bass line. When the
00:14:48.370 --> 00:14:51.250
sequence G2, A2, G2 is played simultaneously
00:14:51.250 --> 00:14:56.629
with C2, F2, E2, a virtual bass line of C1, F,
00:14:56.769 --> 00:14:59.759
C is heard. Indeed, when two relatively high
00:14:59.759 --> 00:15:02.139
notes are sounded together, a humming lower sound
00:15:02.139 --> 00:15:04.220
can clearly be perceived at the difference of
00:15:04.220 --> 00:15:06.919
their respective frequencies. Thus, a pure 5th
00:15:06.919 --> 00:15:11.620
C2 to G2 will yield a pure C1. A pure 3rd F2
00:15:11.620 --> 00:15:14.720
to A2 produces a pure F, and so forth. These
00:15:14.720 --> 00:15:17.019
bass notes can be used as a touchstone for pure
00:15:17.019 --> 00:15:19.899
tuning, since slight impurities in the played
00:15:19.899 --> 00:15:22.320
interval produce much greater deviations in the
00:15:22.320 --> 00:15:25.779
pitch of the difference tone. In practice, knowing
00:15:25.779 --> 00:15:27.779
what is historically, quote, correct is not enough.
00:15:28.000 --> 00:15:30.039
Good ears, a quick realization of each note's
00:15:30.039 --> 00:15:32.059
function within the given harmony, and a willingness
00:15:32.059 --> 00:15:34.059
to experiment and adapt will help us to find
00:15:34.059 --> 00:15:36.600
the best compromise. I like that. I like that,
00:15:36.720 --> 00:15:40.440
too. That's just so, like, transparent and also
00:15:40.440 --> 00:15:43.399
humble at the same time. It's not very, I guess,
00:15:43.600 --> 00:15:47.500
subjective at all. It's actually, I kind of like
00:15:47.500 --> 00:15:50.539
how the view gets taken here. Unbiased, sort
00:15:50.539 --> 00:15:52.370
of, just, you know. You've got to go through
00:15:52.370 --> 00:15:54.750
it. But still, the fact that people don't follow
00:15:54.750 --> 00:15:57.950
through through that, and some orchestras, ensembles
00:15:57.950 --> 00:16:01.250
perhaps, they would just continue their norms.
00:16:01.409 --> 00:16:03.549
Maybe they do try and make those adjustments,
00:16:03.629 --> 00:16:06.409
but it's very subtle. It's subtle, yeah. And
00:16:06.409 --> 00:16:09.649
you don't see that or listen to that that much.
00:16:10.129 --> 00:16:14.470
So this is a good summary, and I can go take
00:16:14.470 --> 00:16:18.179
at it. Tempo, rhythm, phrasing. Articulation
00:16:18.179 --> 00:16:20.559
dynamics sound ideal and ornamentation frequently
00:16:20.559 --> 00:16:23.340
interact with one another. Taken together, I
00:16:23.340 --> 00:16:25.600
see them as ingredients of the performer's Quote,
00:16:25.620 --> 00:16:28.340
practical rhetoric. Rhetoric in music and in
00:16:28.340 --> 00:16:30.419
language are naturally related, and both fields,
00:16:30.559 --> 00:16:32.759
they help communicate the message to the audience
00:16:32.759 --> 00:16:35.120
in a convincing way. From the vantage point of
00:16:35.120 --> 00:16:38.700
the author or composer, rhetoric enables the
00:16:38.700 --> 00:16:41.759
artful expressing and ordering of their ideas
00:16:41.759 --> 00:16:44.139
so that the form enhances the content both on
00:16:44.139 --> 00:16:46.740
the structural and emotional level. I would define
00:16:46.740 --> 00:16:48.899
the performance rhetoric as the efficient transmission
00:16:48.899 --> 00:16:51.580
of the text, literary and or musical, to the
00:16:51.580 --> 00:16:53.779
listener, making the audience both understand
00:16:53.779 --> 00:16:55.820
and feel its meaning. simultaneously communicating
00:16:55.820 --> 00:16:59.559
on many different levels. Through music and language
00:16:59.559 --> 00:17:02.440
are related, though music and language are related,
00:17:02.580 --> 00:17:05.220
music starts where the words end, as the proverb
00:17:05.220 --> 00:17:08.140
goes. Consequently, we cannot expect musical
00:17:08.140 --> 00:17:10.400
rhetoric to be identical to language -based rhetoric.
00:17:10.640 --> 00:17:12.960
However, since speaking about music is difficult,
00:17:13.099 --> 00:17:15.299
and because language -based rhetoric is a convenient
00:17:15.299 --> 00:17:18.559
tool for analyzing literary texts, for many centuries
00:17:18.559 --> 00:17:20.519
scholars have been tempted to use language -based
00:17:20.519 --> 00:17:22.680
rhetoric as a valid system for speaking about
00:17:22.680 --> 00:17:25.680
music as well. It is my opinion that this might
00:17:25.680 --> 00:17:28.160
function to some extent, but it can also lead
00:17:28.160 --> 00:17:31.119
us away from purely musical matters. Why should
00:17:31.119 --> 00:17:33.119
we construct or want to analyze a sonata movement
00:17:33.119 --> 00:17:35.559
in the same way as a public speech? The application
00:17:35.559 --> 00:17:37.940
of language -based rhetoric to music can feel
00:17:37.940 --> 00:17:40.319
like using a wrong unit of measurement, like
00:17:40.319 --> 00:17:42.599
trying to measure a building in hertz or decibels.
00:17:42.720 --> 00:17:44.700
I would rather look at the individual characteristic
00:17:44.700 --> 00:17:48.579
of performing arts. Poets, actors, dancers, conductors,
00:17:48.640 --> 00:17:50.920
singers, and instrumentalists all have their
00:17:50.920 --> 00:17:53.319
own sets of rules and conventions, which are
00:17:53.319 --> 00:17:56.059
accepted and recognized by their audiences. Evidently,
00:17:56.059 --> 00:17:59.220
these rules vary over time. I think that's what
00:17:59.220 --> 00:18:02.519
makes it so challenging, too. I think we said
00:18:02.519 --> 00:18:04.599
this, maybe our first episode, we kind of went
00:18:04.599 --> 00:18:06.539
over the difference between the arts and the
00:18:06.539 --> 00:18:09.220
sciences and just how we kind of research them
00:18:09.220 --> 00:18:12.740
and analyze them. And I guess language, when
00:18:12.740 --> 00:18:16.329
you're reading a book, for example, There are
00:18:16.329 --> 00:18:18.190
things, there are subtleties, there are nuances
00:18:18.190 --> 00:18:19.849
to it in the way that the author is going to
00:18:19.849 --> 00:18:22.250
convey what they're trying to say, but music
00:18:22.250 --> 00:18:25.269
is a little bit different where when you're reading
00:18:25.269 --> 00:18:27.990
a novel, you're kind of just looking into the
00:18:27.990 --> 00:18:29.910
mind of what the author is going for, but with
00:18:29.910 --> 00:18:31.910
music, there's the implication that you're going
00:18:31.910 --> 00:18:33.750
to play it, or you're going to conduct it, or
00:18:33.750 --> 00:18:35.630
be a part of it. You're going to recreate it.
00:18:35.950 --> 00:18:37.750
Recreate it, and so there's sort of an extra,
00:18:37.890 --> 00:18:39.730
I don't want to say the word pressure. A dimension?
00:18:40.320 --> 00:18:42.099
Extra dimension, yeah, to it. I mean, you have
00:18:42.099 --> 00:18:44.960
to, there's that debate where it's like, okay,
00:18:45.019 --> 00:18:46.859
I'm going to really try and go for what the composer
00:18:46.859 --> 00:18:51.200
was trying, but also every single musician, I
00:18:51.200 --> 00:18:53.180
mean, whether you're a solo musician or you're
00:18:53.180 --> 00:18:54.740
playing in an orchestra, every single person
00:18:54.740 --> 00:18:56.720
who's performing is going to have their own.
00:18:57.210 --> 00:18:59.329
kind of unique idea as to how they're supposed
00:18:59.329 --> 00:19:01.170
to play. Even the way they hold their instrument
00:19:01.170 --> 00:19:03.549
is going to be different slightly. And so it
00:19:03.549 --> 00:19:05.630
just creates all these different variations and
00:19:05.630 --> 00:19:07.369
nuances on the piece. It kind of reminds me,
00:19:07.390 --> 00:19:09.670
like, when you're in a high school English class,
00:19:09.750 --> 00:19:12.289
when you read the Shakespeare's, what is it,
00:19:12.309 --> 00:19:15.470
Hamlet, I guess? Right, right. Or, what is it,
00:19:15.490 --> 00:19:19.049
Romeo and Juliet. Yeah. We would do these little
00:19:19.049 --> 00:19:21.049
mini act -outs from each of the acts. You'd go
00:19:21.049 --> 00:19:24.809
through with it. You would not know what the
00:19:24.809 --> 00:19:28.170
heck the original people, right of the manuscript
00:19:28.170 --> 00:19:31.490
and the original scores of people who are gonna
00:19:31.490 --> 00:19:34.690
you know actually play that and and you're you're
00:19:34.690 --> 00:19:37.549
here just like you know just saying like random
00:19:37.549 --> 00:19:41.490
stuff from a 15 14th century so that's that's
00:19:41.490 --> 00:19:43.630
basically the best way to like bring it up i
00:19:43.630 --> 00:19:46.869
guess for most people who would who might listen
00:19:46.869 --> 00:19:50.430
to this um in the sense because yeah this this
00:19:50.430 --> 00:19:52.950
this brings up a great argument also then the
00:19:52.950 --> 00:19:55.670
fact that no one would actually like i actually
00:19:56.369 --> 00:19:59.990
proactively listen to this, too. So, yeah, that
00:19:59.990 --> 00:20:03.930
concluded Temperament, which I think he went
00:20:03.930 --> 00:20:06.470
a little bit over Temperament because a lot of
00:20:06.470 --> 00:20:08.470
it was also, like, different, like, tuning, like,
00:20:08.509 --> 00:20:10.509
many tuning setups here and there. Yeah, kind
00:20:10.509 --> 00:20:13.529
of more niche, like, aspects of it. Nonetheless,
00:20:13.650 --> 00:20:17.170
I think we should do Tempo and Rubato. Tempo
00:20:17.170 --> 00:20:19.529
and Rubato is next. This will be interesting.
00:20:19.690 --> 00:20:22.009
This is sort of my interesting topic. I think
00:20:22.009 --> 00:20:25.009
this is yours because as a pianist, you're also
00:20:25.009 --> 00:20:27.529
a violinist. Right. And all that stuff. I think
00:20:27.529 --> 00:20:30.470
this one's going to be very interesting. I don't
00:20:30.470 --> 00:20:32.509
know. Temperament tuning. Okay. Like if this
00:20:32.509 --> 00:20:35.089
is like, what is it? Like, uh, like an ingredient
00:20:35.089 --> 00:20:37.450
on a hamburger. Like this is only one component.
00:20:37.509 --> 00:20:39.369
I would say the tempo and rubato is like more
00:20:39.369 --> 00:20:41.730
of the meat. Cause if you've heard teachers say
00:20:41.730 --> 00:20:44.369
rhythm is like one of the most important elements
00:20:44.369 --> 00:20:47.130
of incorporating. You could play, you could be
00:20:47.130 --> 00:20:49.109
in tune all the whole time, but if you're not
00:20:49.109 --> 00:20:52.089
like maintaining rhythmic integrity in the sense
00:20:52.089 --> 00:20:57.680
that, that tends to be a problem. I think most
00:20:57.680 --> 00:21:00.160
teachers in general, not all of them, but would
00:21:00.160 --> 00:21:02.700
want to see someone who actually has the rhythm
00:21:02.700 --> 00:21:05.900
down. But, you know, maybe tuning here and there,
00:21:06.000 --> 00:21:08.559
you know, obviously. So you can fix that, but
00:21:08.559 --> 00:21:11.779
yeah. Yeah, that would be more of like in the
00:21:11.779 --> 00:21:15.559
top 5 % things to fix. Right, and I think, you
00:21:15.559 --> 00:21:18.099
know, the temperament thing is, and he kind of
00:21:18.099 --> 00:21:20.079
explains it in the book, it's very much that...
00:21:21.069 --> 00:21:24.049
In the modern era, much of those quote -unquote
00:21:24.049 --> 00:21:26.930
problems or those challenges we faced back in
00:21:26.930 --> 00:21:28.990
the day have kind of been fixed in the sense
00:21:28.990 --> 00:21:30.470
where it's like we all have very standardized
00:21:30.470 --> 00:21:34.289
tuning now. I mean, it is limiting, but at least
00:21:34.289 --> 00:21:36.549
we have different problems. And most of our current
00:21:36.549 --> 00:21:38.690
-day classical problems are things like tempo
00:21:38.690 --> 00:21:41.220
and rubato. That's kind of... sort of a modern
00:21:41.220 --> 00:21:43.779
predicament because there's all this debate as
00:21:43.779 --> 00:21:46.480
to how much Roboto do you have to add or how
00:21:46.480 --> 00:21:49.759
much tempo are we going to change? What does
00:21:49.759 --> 00:21:52.019
Allegro really mean to the composer and the time
00:21:52.019 --> 00:21:54.500
period and things like that? The whole double
00:21:54.500 --> 00:21:56.519
B theory that's popular. The big bang theory.
00:21:57.420 --> 00:22:00.740
So notice how we started with pitch and then
00:22:00.740 --> 00:22:02.500
temperament, but they're related, right? But
00:22:02.500 --> 00:22:05.559
they're two separate entire worlds. Same thing
00:22:05.559 --> 00:22:09.710
where we see a lot of like... I guess it's not
00:22:09.710 --> 00:22:13.150
just talked about too much. So we'll explore
00:22:13.150 --> 00:22:15.990
a little bit of tempo and rubato. Many details
00:22:15.990 --> 00:22:18.210
about tempo and rubato can be found in Klaus
00:22:18.210 --> 00:22:21.049
Meiling, Das Tempo in der Musik von Baroque und
00:22:21.049 --> 00:22:23.339
Vorklassik. which is broken classic, which is
00:22:23.339 --> 00:22:26.539
cool, 1993. Clive Brown, Classical and Romantic
00:22:26.539 --> 00:22:30.000
Performance Practice from 1750 to 1900, which
00:22:30.000 --> 00:22:33.059
was published in 1999. And Richard Hudson, Stolen
00:22:33.059 --> 00:22:36.440
Time, The History of Tempo Rubato, 1994. So we've
00:22:36.440 --> 00:22:37.859
got some good synthesis. The source is here.
00:22:38.779 --> 00:22:42.019
There are few precise descriptions of tempo before
00:22:42.019 --> 00:22:44.019
the metronome came into general use during the
00:22:44.019 --> 00:22:46.730
19th century. Even then, they are not necessarily
00:22:46.730 --> 00:22:49.869
to be taken at face value. Recordings from circa
00:22:49.869 --> 00:22:52.890
1900 onward show that composers such as Alexander
00:22:52.890 --> 00:22:55.609
Scriban and Edward Elgar frequently performed
00:22:55.609 --> 00:22:58.170
their own pieces at another tempo than the one
00:22:58.170 --> 00:23:00.230
they prescribed. Okay, see, that's the exact
00:23:00.230 --> 00:23:03.910
thing. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You see, there's
00:23:03.910 --> 00:23:06.509
like Shostakovich 5 finale you could see on YouTube
00:23:06.509 --> 00:23:09.329
with Leonard Bernstein and the LSO in 1966. Have
00:23:09.329 --> 00:23:11.309
you seen the black and white one? That one goes
00:23:11.309 --> 00:23:13.829
incredibly fast. That was not, you could not
00:23:13.829 --> 00:23:15.809
see that anywhere. in the Shostakovich score,
00:23:15.950 --> 00:23:18.009
but there was a comment, and I think this was
00:23:18.009 --> 00:23:22.609
very, this was actually, like, legit. This was
00:23:22.609 --> 00:23:26.430
a fact. It's not a myth, but apparently Shostakovich
00:23:26.430 --> 00:23:29.089
did like it. Like, he said, oh, that's pretty
00:23:29.089 --> 00:23:31.230
good. I like that. You know, there's even a recording,
00:23:31.349 --> 00:23:33.230
there's this famous recording where Leonard Bernstein
00:23:33.230 --> 00:23:36.569
came to Russia and he played, I think it's Shostakovich
00:23:36.569 --> 00:23:39.650
7? The seventh? The Leningrad Symphony? And Shostakovich
00:23:39.650 --> 00:23:42.150
is in the audience, and the tempo was so fast,
00:23:42.349 --> 00:23:44.890
but it was, like, magnificent. And you see Shostakovich
00:23:44.890 --> 00:23:47.329
in the audience like, yeah. Like, yeah. That
00:23:47.329 --> 00:23:50.250
sounds good. That's awesome. I'm sure in his
00:23:50.250 --> 00:23:52.970
mind it's like, oh, you can do it that way, too?
00:23:53.049 --> 00:23:54.470
You can do it that way, too? You know, I like
00:23:54.470 --> 00:23:56.170
it. I like it. It's pretty good. I like it. It's
00:23:56.170 --> 00:23:57.470
awesome. Leonard Bernstein usually takes things
00:23:57.470 --> 00:24:00.349
really slow, so it's kind of odd. And also, there's,
00:24:00.369 --> 00:24:02.630
like, this... Maybe he's got his heart up high.
00:24:02.769 --> 00:24:04.750
Yeah, yeah. The heartbeat up because Soviet Union
00:24:04.750 --> 00:24:06.509
is, you know, it's like, oh, no, I'm in here.
00:24:07.759 --> 00:24:12.779
And yet that's another contradiction with what
00:24:12.779 --> 00:24:16.000
performers have to deal with, right? Because
00:24:16.000 --> 00:24:19.359
you have these cases of other artists going faster,
00:24:19.420 --> 00:24:23.849
slower, and that's interesting. So let's resume.
00:24:24.009 --> 00:24:27.130
We know the duration of some pieces, but this
00:24:27.130 --> 00:24:29.349
might approximate as well, and it's not always
00:24:29.349 --> 00:24:34.369
evident if repeats were played. Some authors,
00:24:34.509 --> 00:24:39.869
such as Etienne Lully and Michael Lealfer, which
00:24:39.869 --> 00:24:43.329
is French, I can't do French, sorry, rather than
00:24:43.329 --> 00:24:46.470
prescribe tempo by markings of a pendulum from
00:24:46.470 --> 00:24:49.740
where we can calculate metronome markings. In
00:24:49.740 --> 00:24:52.720
his Versuch, Quantz expresses his tempo prescriptions
00:24:52.720 --> 00:24:55.519
in simple proportions of average human heartbeat
00:24:55.519 --> 00:24:59.359
of 80 beats per minute. 160, 120, 80, and 40.
00:24:59.599 --> 00:25:01.759
I like that. That's kind of like, it feels very
00:25:01.759 --> 00:25:04.539
natural, like in that sense. You hear those words
00:25:04.539 --> 00:25:07.079
laid out in that sentence. Though he accepts
00:25:07.079 --> 00:25:09.279
that there can be small deviations, he considers
00:25:09.279 --> 00:25:11.279
this system as generally valid for instrumental
00:25:11.279 --> 00:25:14.009
music. In reality, the practice may have well
00:25:14.009 --> 00:25:16.609
been very much more varied. For example, in Quance's
00:25:16.609 --> 00:25:19.130
own works, I found 16 qualifiers attached to
00:25:19.130 --> 00:25:25.390
Allegro. And here's all the variants. I don't
00:25:25.390 --> 00:25:42.140
even know too many of these. I'm going to look
00:25:42.140 --> 00:25:44.980
this up. Yeah. That is a great page, though.
00:25:45.039 --> 00:25:47.839
It's a great conversation. I want to get some
00:25:47.839 --> 00:25:50.339
ideas. Get some ideas. Even if these qualifiers
00:25:50.339 --> 00:25:52.279
mainly describe the general character of the
00:25:52.279 --> 00:25:54.579
movement, they will certainly also affect its
00:25:54.579 --> 00:25:57.720
tempo. Their students or contemporaries gave
00:25:57.720 --> 00:26:01.319
some precise tempo indications for works by Haydn,
00:26:01.380 --> 00:26:03.990
Mozart, or Beethoven. I regret that so few of
00:26:03.990 --> 00:26:06.069
these, our 19th century metronome marks, are
00:26:06.069 --> 00:26:08.630
taken seriously, even by early music specialists.
00:26:08.950 --> 00:26:11.150
And you can definitely hear that in John Elliot
00:26:11.150 --> 00:26:15.609
Gardner, who's a famous early music conductor.
00:26:15.750 --> 00:26:18.970
You got Nicolas Hanancourt. Some of them go extremely
00:26:18.970 --> 00:26:22.890
slow with Bach. Sometimes we find relative values.
00:26:23.130 --> 00:26:26.230
Today, we are taught that Vivace is faster than
00:26:26.230 --> 00:26:29.529
Allegro. But Telamon, in the preface to Harmonische
00:26:29.529 --> 00:26:34.589
Gottesdienst in 1725, wanted it slower. This
00:26:34.589 --> 00:26:36.769
does not necessarily apply to all of Telamon's
00:26:36.769 --> 00:26:38.910
contemporaries, but for his own works, or at
00:26:38.910 --> 00:26:42.130
least for the cantata collection, it is useful
00:26:42.130 --> 00:26:44.890
information. Neither do all indications need
00:26:44.890 --> 00:26:46.690
to mean the same thing in different countries,
00:26:46.809 --> 00:26:50.430
nor in translation. Studying the notation and
00:26:50.430 --> 00:26:53.289
the number of short note values written, an Italian
00:26:53.289 --> 00:26:55.670
allegro often had a faster pulse than a French
00:26:55.670 --> 00:26:58.519
gaiment. Though both words basically have the
00:26:58.519 --> 00:27:01.240
same meaning. Tempi were often... related to
00:27:01.240 --> 00:27:04.119
dances, but even there we meet with different
00:27:04.119 --> 00:27:07.119
traditions. A minuet or a gavotte was not danced
00:27:07.119 --> 00:27:09.660
at the same speed everywhere and at all times.
00:27:09.859 --> 00:27:12.380
When a dance is no longer danced, but rather
00:27:12.380 --> 00:27:14.220
exists as an independent instrumental piece,
00:27:14.500 --> 00:27:16.799
it can become more sophisticated and complicated,
00:27:17.059 --> 00:27:20.240
and thus will be performed more slowly. Conversely,
00:27:20.259 --> 00:27:24.180
W .A. Mozart's letter from Bologna to his sister
00:27:24.180 --> 00:27:27.900
in March 24, 1770, speaks of the slow dance minuet
00:27:27.900 --> 00:27:32.539
tempo and Milan, as opposed to the faster symphonic
00:27:32.539 --> 00:27:34.900
tempo in Austria. Nevertheless, we would expect
00:27:34.900 --> 00:27:37.599
to recognize the basic character of a given dance,
00:27:37.740 --> 00:27:39.799
mostly due to its fundamental rhythmic shape.
00:27:40.039 --> 00:27:42.460
In today's early music practice, regrettably,
00:27:42.559 --> 00:27:45.200
much historical information about dance, tempi
00:27:45.200 --> 00:27:47.579
does not find its way onto the stage. And I guess
00:27:47.579 --> 00:27:49.799
you can relate to that. Is there anything from
00:27:49.799 --> 00:27:53.900
Bach? I'm only saying Bach because it's the most
00:27:53.900 --> 00:27:56.440
common thing you can get on for a repertoire.
00:27:56.880 --> 00:28:00.599
Have you done the... Is there any, like, I thought
00:28:00.599 --> 00:28:03.400
there was, like, sonata suites and stuff. Yeah,
00:28:03.400 --> 00:28:06.779
but the French suites. Oh, I've done the French
00:28:06.779 --> 00:28:08.420
suites. That is some trauma right there. But
00:28:08.420 --> 00:28:10.740
I played a couple movements of that on the piano,
00:28:10.740 --> 00:28:13.380
and it is sort of like that, where they're all
00:28:13.380 --> 00:28:15.920
supposed to be, like, different tempos from each
00:28:15.920 --> 00:28:18.200
other. It's, like, these different sets of dance.
00:28:18.259 --> 00:28:20.019
Like, there's, I'm trying to think, there's the
00:28:20.019 --> 00:28:22.400
Allemande style, which is a little bit slower,
00:28:22.480 --> 00:28:24.980
and then you have just, like, your first movement
00:28:24.980 --> 00:28:27.319
is kind of usually faster. So that is kind of
00:28:27.319 --> 00:28:30.569
the question of... I've heard, well, actually,
00:28:30.670 --> 00:28:34.630
I'll use an example. I played a Chopin waltz,
00:28:34.630 --> 00:28:36.730
actually, at a competition, and one of the comments
00:28:36.730 --> 00:28:40.029
that I got was that, well, I mean, for the record,
00:28:40.150 --> 00:28:43.029
I did play second place. What was this movement?
00:28:43.109 --> 00:28:47.549
Go for you. What was the movement? I'm trying
00:28:47.549 --> 00:28:51.150
to think. It was like opus, I think opus. waltz
00:28:51.150 --> 00:28:53.910
opus 169 maybe something like that but it was
00:28:53.910 --> 00:28:55.869
anyway supposed to be kind of that waltz movement
00:28:55.869 --> 00:28:58.529
and one of the comments that i got was that um
00:28:58.529 --> 00:29:02.309
you know the tempo uh the rubato of the tempo
00:29:02.309 --> 00:29:04.349
should have actually been more straight because
00:29:04.349 --> 00:29:07.569
if it was then um the dancers could actually
00:29:07.569 --> 00:29:10.509
have the like more standardized was this one
00:29:10.509 --> 00:29:12.750
of the pieces that actually you can have it dancers
00:29:12.750 --> 00:29:15.450
dance i think so at least and sort of the style
00:29:15.450 --> 00:29:17.710
of like the walls it's like one two three you
00:29:17.710 --> 00:29:20.029
can have uh the revival slows it down but pretty
00:29:20.029 --> 00:29:22.470
much whenever you slow down the goal is to speed
00:29:22.470 --> 00:29:24.569
up almost immediately i didn't know the jury
00:29:24.569 --> 00:29:28.910
dude wanted actual dancers i was like yeah he's
00:29:28.910 --> 00:29:31.109
probably like no he's like looking he's like
00:29:31.450 --> 00:29:33.630
Mapping in his brain a dancer right there. He's
00:29:33.630 --> 00:29:35.190
probably picturing it as I was playing it. It's
00:29:35.190 --> 00:29:36.789
like, how can a dancer actually kind of keep
00:29:36.789 --> 00:29:38.509
the rhythm? It's like, they're stumbling around.
00:29:39.069 --> 00:29:42.670
It's okay. No, that's fabulous. It's still got
00:29:42.670 --> 00:29:45.130
second place, but that's another insight. It
00:29:45.130 --> 00:29:47.829
is, yeah. Even if we do not know the absolute
00:29:47.829 --> 00:29:50.130
tempi, the proportion of tempo between the two
00:29:50.130 --> 00:29:52.329
sections of a piece can be indicated by the time
00:29:52.329 --> 00:29:54.710
signatures. In the French overture, as established
00:29:54.710 --> 00:29:57.549
by Lully, the beginning is most often notated
00:29:57.549 --> 00:30:00.619
in Chu or cut time. The difference between these
00:30:00.619 --> 00:30:03.759
time signatures is not always clear. Georges
00:30:03.759 --> 00:30:06.599
Mouffat in the introduction, and I'm going to
00:30:06.599 --> 00:30:10.039
have to pronounce this well, in his Floridium
00:30:10.039 --> 00:30:14.460
Premium, 1695. I think Georges Mouffat is French.
00:30:15.400 --> 00:30:16.920
Please correct me, guys. I think that sounds
00:30:16.920 --> 00:30:19.019
like a French last name. Yeah. Wants two to be
00:30:19.019 --> 00:30:22.119
slower than cut time and cities. His teacher...
00:30:22.119 --> 00:30:23.920
Oh, besides his teacher. Yeah, French. Lily is
00:30:23.920 --> 00:30:27.000
providing evidence for this. Hoteter, who was
00:30:27.000 --> 00:30:29.099
trained in the same Lillian tradition, says the
00:30:29.099 --> 00:30:31.519
opposite is in the very extensive and interesting
00:30:31.519 --> 00:30:34.140
section of time signatures of Lourdes de Prelude
00:30:34.140 --> 00:30:37.980
in 1719. Let me know if you know any of these.
00:30:38.019 --> 00:30:39.940
You know Lily, right? I know Lily, yeah. You
00:30:39.940 --> 00:30:43.700
got Hoteter. You got George Mouffat. George Mouffat,
00:30:43.779 --> 00:30:47.089
I... I just barely know from the surface. It's
00:30:47.089 --> 00:30:50.069
like if you see the list of all the girl composers,
00:30:50.309 --> 00:30:53.549
that's the first I know about these people. But
00:30:53.549 --> 00:30:56.170
a lot of these were pupils and teachers of others.
00:30:57.150 --> 00:31:01.750
We did this quiz a couple weeks ago. Italian
00:31:01.750 --> 00:31:07.599
composers after spaghetti. Which one is it? Yeah,
00:31:07.740 --> 00:31:09.779
some of them are kind of questionable. You would
00:31:09.779 --> 00:31:11.420
actually think it's spaghetti, but it's not.
00:31:11.519 --> 00:31:14.980
It's a legit human who once lived in the 15th
00:31:14.980 --> 00:31:17.980
century. However, he adds that Lilly himself
00:31:17.980 --> 00:31:20.720
did not always distinguish between the two. The
00:31:20.720 --> 00:31:22.880
following fugato section is usually written in
00:31:22.880 --> 00:31:25.099
three, with the half bar of the first two or
00:31:25.099 --> 00:31:27.220
cut time section corresponding to the whole bar
00:31:27.220 --> 00:31:29.720
of the second. As a general rule, this is certainly
00:31:29.720 --> 00:31:32.640
useful, but quite often qualifiers or deviating
00:31:32.640 --> 00:31:35.019
time signatures, such as 3 -8 instead of 3 -4,
00:31:35.210 --> 00:31:37.849
three indicate that the ratio can be variable
00:31:37.849 --> 00:31:40.349
in numerous pieces sticking to flute repertoire
00:31:40.349 --> 00:31:43.710
because um is the one of the one of the finest
00:31:43.710 --> 00:31:47.049
um flute players on the baroque repertoire js
00:31:47.049 --> 00:31:49.529
box second orchestral suite this is a favorite
00:31:49.529 --> 00:31:54.160
of mine wv 1067, the solo pour la flue traversière,
00:31:54.319 --> 00:31:59.000
BWV 1013, or the B minor sonata, BWV 1030, strict
00:31:59.000 --> 00:32:01.019
observance of simple mathematical proportions
00:32:01.019 --> 00:32:03.180
between sections or movements makes one or the
00:32:03.180 --> 00:32:05.740
other tempo sound unconvincing or impossible
00:32:05.740 --> 00:32:09.650
to play. And do you have a comment for that?
00:32:09.829 --> 00:32:12.190
The only thing I was going to say is, you know,
00:32:12.250 --> 00:32:14.470
I think a lot of, I kind of come from a piano
00:32:14.470 --> 00:32:17.630
perspective, but if you look at those more flashy,
00:32:17.670 --> 00:32:21.250
like, etude pieces on the piano, a lot of, there
00:32:21.250 --> 00:32:23.849
was this theory that came out, I think. Maybe
00:32:23.849 --> 00:32:25.930
20 years, probably longer. But there's this theory
00:32:25.930 --> 00:32:28.390
that came out about double beat theory, where
00:32:28.390 --> 00:32:30.490
if you have a metronome marking for quarter note
00:32:30.490 --> 00:32:32.289
equals 120 or something, which is very fast,
00:32:32.369 --> 00:32:33.990
they actually believed you're supposed to cut
00:32:33.990 --> 00:32:36.029
that in half. And so there was this whole debate.
00:32:36.430 --> 00:32:41.400
So would it be as half note equals 60? I think
00:32:41.400 --> 00:32:43.940
something like that, basically, where somehow
00:32:43.940 --> 00:32:46.539
it was supposed to be much, much slower, and
00:32:46.539 --> 00:32:48.900
it kind of caused this whole riff, because people
00:32:48.900 --> 00:32:50.500
were like, first of all, that would change the
00:32:50.500 --> 00:32:52.140
entire piece, and then there were all these historical
00:32:52.140 --> 00:32:53.779
records showing, and it's like, no, that's actually
00:32:53.779 --> 00:32:56.059
not the case. And I think even more so, it was
00:32:56.059 --> 00:32:57.900
just kind of like hope, where it's like, actually,
00:32:58.059 --> 00:33:00.259
it is supposed to be this tempo, but it's really
00:33:00.259 --> 00:33:02.220
difficult, so people are like, no, no, it's supposed
00:33:02.220 --> 00:33:04.759
to be half the speed, which is fun, but it created
00:33:04.759 --> 00:33:06.940
this whole big thing in the music world, where
00:33:06.940 --> 00:33:10.359
it's like, well, you know, maybe, it you know
00:33:10.359 --> 00:33:12.519
tempos kind of do change like he's saying uh
00:33:12.519 --> 00:33:14.500
two like two four is different than cut time
00:33:14.500 --> 00:33:17.579
exactly but uh not that extreme so there were
00:33:17.579 --> 00:33:20.259
always like the the brandenburg four first movement
00:33:20.259 --> 00:33:24.880
is in three eight one two three one two three
00:33:24.880 --> 00:33:28.319
and but it's not in three four it's not because
00:33:28.319 --> 00:33:31.599
then that that would be what would that be in
00:33:32.269 --> 00:33:35.230
Is that kind of like quarters in 3 -4? Yeah.
00:33:35.569 --> 00:33:38.750
But it's not in 3 -4. But it's not. It's kind
00:33:38.750 --> 00:33:43.490
of like in that 16th beams for 3 -8. Because
00:33:43.490 --> 00:33:45.950
you can also kind of feel in that characteristic
00:33:45.950 --> 00:33:50.250
or sense that it kind of feels like in 3 -8.
00:33:50.269 --> 00:33:53.609
I think that's what it was trying to say. In
00:33:53.609 --> 00:33:55.549
many situations, the character rather than the
00:33:55.549 --> 00:33:57.960
tempo might be indicated. I understand vivace
00:33:57.960 --> 00:34:00.079
as a prescription to play lively in whatever
00:34:00.079 --> 00:34:02.640
tempo. Telemann's vivace movements will have
00:34:02.640 --> 00:34:05.019
to have more diverse rhythmic values and patterns
00:34:05.019 --> 00:34:08.619
in a mixture of 8th, 16th, and 32nd notes than
00:34:08.619 --> 00:34:10.760
his allegro's, which mostly include only 8th
00:34:10.760 --> 00:34:13.739
and 16th notes. Thus, though the tempo will be
00:34:13.739 --> 00:34:16.400
somewhat slower, in the vivace we will hear a
00:34:16.400 --> 00:34:19.139
greater liveliness through additional variety
00:34:19.139 --> 00:34:20.940
and through the faster speed of the shortest
00:34:20.940 --> 00:34:23.489
notes than in the allegro. Character differences
00:34:23.489 --> 00:34:26.650
can be very subtle. I would not consider Gavok
00:34:26.650 --> 00:34:30.570
gay, Gavok gay, and Gavok gayment. I was not
00:34:30.570 --> 00:34:33.289
going to say Gavok gay. And also, remember, gay
00:34:33.289 --> 00:34:35.769
was also meant back then as happy. Like happy.
00:34:35.849 --> 00:34:39.349
Happy. And I've seen it in like some compositions,
00:34:39.570 --> 00:34:42.570
okay? I've seen it. But now the connotation,
00:34:42.610 --> 00:34:45.349
you know, as times change, everything kind of
00:34:45.349 --> 00:34:49.769
like shifts in time itself. So gayment and Gavok
00:34:49.769 --> 00:34:53.130
gayment is entirely synonymous. you wouldn't
00:34:53.130 --> 00:34:56.309
consider different variants of Gavat. in that
00:34:56.309 --> 00:34:59.289
sense as um you know as the same kind of like
00:34:59.289 --> 00:35:00.929
they're all different kind of interpretation
00:35:00.929 --> 00:35:03.869
yeah same parallel in the first the character
00:35:03.869 --> 00:35:06.289
is given by the piece itself whereas in the last
00:35:06.289 --> 00:35:08.610
the performer is more responsible for it the
00:35:08.610 --> 00:35:10.489
second seems less specified it might lie in the
00:35:10.489 --> 00:35:13.030
middle in practice i often observe a gradation
00:35:13.030 --> 00:35:16.550
from the most overtly gay in the first case no
00:35:16.550 --> 00:35:19.670
pun intended okay see again he knows he he's
00:35:19.670 --> 00:35:22.809
the book is self -awareness to a more gentle
00:35:22.809 --> 00:35:26.650
character in the last um The environment in which
00:35:26.650 --> 00:35:29.369
the music is played has always had its influence
00:35:29.369 --> 00:35:32.170
on the tempo, so that for the same piece, different
00:35:32.170 --> 00:35:34.230
tempi might have thought appropriate in different
00:35:34.230 --> 00:35:36.670
situations. The determining external factors
00:35:36.670 --> 00:35:38.809
are the varying acoustics, size, and particular
00:35:38.809 --> 00:35:41.769
venue, like an opera, ballroom, music room, and
00:35:41.769 --> 00:35:43.710
a palace, private home, church, or open air.
00:35:44.030 --> 00:35:48.110
That's crazy. Name all these that you've been
00:35:48.110 --> 00:35:51.889
to. No, seriously. You've done a ballroom, haven't
00:35:51.889 --> 00:35:54.070
you? Yeah, do you know the Granger Ballroom?
00:35:54.349 --> 00:35:56.989
Yeah, yeah. I've done that. Okay, so we did that.
00:35:57.030 --> 00:36:00.690
Have you done a music room in a palace? I don't
00:36:00.690 --> 00:36:03.269
think. Yes, I have done that. Oh, my God. Wait,
00:36:03.349 --> 00:36:05.690
I did that with the Music Institute of Chicago.
00:36:06.170 --> 00:36:09.409
We did. When you went on tour. On tour in Italy.
00:36:09.530 --> 00:36:11.329
Yeah, we did that. And then. And then you did,
00:36:11.389 --> 00:36:12.889
obviously, private home. Private home. And then
00:36:12.889 --> 00:36:16.449
church. Church, I've done that. Open air? Wait,
00:36:16.630 --> 00:36:18.769
open air? I think that just means outside. I
00:36:18.769 --> 00:36:22.190
have done that. That's a very nice experience.
00:36:23.289 --> 00:36:27.789
Fabulous. The climate's perfect. Never had any
00:36:27.789 --> 00:36:30.809
issues ever. I played at this orchestra. It was
00:36:30.809 --> 00:36:33.210
one of my youth orchestras before our orchestra.
00:36:34.489 --> 00:36:37.030
I'll just say this. It was outside. It was in
00:36:37.030 --> 00:36:39.889
the fall. And it was so cold that nobody could
00:36:39.889 --> 00:36:41.769
play their instruments. And it was a youth orchestra,
00:36:41.909 --> 00:36:43.510
so nobody could play their instruments to begin
00:36:43.510 --> 00:36:45.429
with. What was the temperature? Do you remember
00:36:45.429 --> 00:36:47.989
vividly? It was like 50 degrees. It was really
00:36:47.989 --> 00:36:51.030
bad. 50? Oh, yeah. It must have been windy, wasn't
00:36:51.030 --> 00:36:53.650
it? Yeah. So that's the same thing I've seen.
00:36:53.829 --> 00:36:56.630
There was a North Korean and U .S. partnership
00:36:56.630 --> 00:36:59.710
in 2011. I don't know exactly. But the New York
00:36:59.710 --> 00:37:02.010
Philharmonic went to Pyongyang in the capital.
00:37:02.210 --> 00:37:04.940
And I remember these footage. of, like, North
00:37:04.940 --> 00:37:07.659
Korean players playing literally in 23 degree
00:37:07.659 --> 00:37:09.699
Fahrenheit, and they're still playing in tune.
00:37:09.840 --> 00:37:12.599
Like, think about, like, how much worse it could
00:37:12.599 --> 00:37:15.510
be. That's crazy. Yo, seriously. Like, imagine,
00:37:15.690 --> 00:37:17.389
like, think about, like, Siberian players, especially
00:37:17.389 --> 00:37:19.730
in Moscow. I also, too, and, like, in Russia.
00:37:20.010 --> 00:37:22.829
Russia and anything in, like, northern, like,
00:37:22.829 --> 00:37:25.929
hemisphere. Even Finland, Sweden, Norway. Like,
00:37:25.969 --> 00:37:27.730
think about, like, just all the responsibility
00:37:27.730 --> 00:37:30.889
that's attached with, like, winter climate. You
00:37:30.889 --> 00:37:33.170
know, they say sometimes practicing with gloves
00:37:33.170 --> 00:37:35.269
on is really good for, like, finger dexterity
00:37:35.269 --> 00:37:36.909
because you have to work harder. But I wonder
00:37:36.909 --> 00:37:38.909
if maybe practicing outside is good, too, if
00:37:38.909 --> 00:37:41.289
it's cold. I may be completely wrong about that.
00:37:41.369 --> 00:37:43.250
Okay, guys, don't do it. Don't take my advice.
00:37:43.949 --> 00:37:49.849
Don't go there just yet. Ask your teachers. Viewer
00:37:49.849 --> 00:37:52.190
discretion. Viewer discretion. Okay, let's see.
00:37:52.250 --> 00:37:54.849
There's another type, the choice of instrument.
00:37:54.969 --> 00:37:57.070
The harpsichord may permit a faster tempo than
00:37:57.070 --> 00:37:59.210
the organ, the size of an ensemble, character
00:37:59.210 --> 00:38:01.309
and capacity of players, the presence or absence
00:38:01.309 --> 00:38:03.969
of an audience, the nature and size of the audience,
00:38:04.130 --> 00:38:05.969
and the audience's musical taste and education.
00:38:06.449 --> 00:38:09.050
Nevertheless, we read of individual performances'
00:38:09.449 --> 00:38:12.510
tendencies. though this is doubtlessly interesting.
00:38:12.849 --> 00:38:15.650
It is also relative, as we do not know to which
00:38:15.650 --> 00:38:18.130
standards it relates. Some examples, like J .S.
00:38:18.130 --> 00:38:21.449
Bach, is reputed to have played fast. Performers
00:38:21.449 --> 00:38:23.090
of the Berlin School in the second half of the
00:38:23.090 --> 00:38:25.989
18th century took Allegro's very fast and Adagio's
00:38:25.989 --> 00:38:29.110
very slow. This had immediate influence on ornamentation,
00:38:29.110 --> 00:38:31.809
as we shall see later. Franz Schubert is said
00:38:31.809 --> 00:38:34.690
to have observed tempo very strictly. Okay, that
00:38:34.690 --> 00:38:38.570
might be a good clue there, if you ever want
00:38:38.570 --> 00:38:41.369
to play more Schubert there. How regular was
00:38:41.369 --> 00:38:43.630
the tempo intended to be? In resuscitatives,
00:38:43.789 --> 00:38:45.550
the singer had to follow the character and rhythm
00:38:45.550 --> 00:38:48.090
of the words. Whereas in France, this was quite
00:38:48.090 --> 00:38:49.690
precisely indicated through frequent changes
00:38:49.690 --> 00:38:52.269
of time signature. In Italian, English, and German
00:38:52.269 --> 00:38:53.969
compositions, the singer had to find out for
00:38:53.969 --> 00:38:56.690
himself how to handle this element. aiming at
00:38:56.690 --> 00:38:58.949
a forceful declamation of the literary text.
00:38:59.269 --> 00:39:01.269
Yeah, some of this is pretty good information,
00:39:01.309 --> 00:39:04.769
too. It is, as a performing standpoint. I wouldn't
00:39:04.769 --> 00:39:07.510
even, like, be distrusted. This is pretty, like,
00:39:07.710 --> 00:39:12.730
I mean, in my terms, in my opinion, I think this
00:39:12.730 --> 00:39:16.789
is, like, it's pretty accurate, too. Yeah. I
00:39:16.789 --> 00:39:19.429
wouldn't, I would not be, like, I would not be,
00:39:19.469 --> 00:39:21.650
like, oh, this is, like, oh, this is, like, some,
00:39:21.690 --> 00:39:23.809
like, you know, crazy man. Like, random, stop
00:39:23.809 --> 00:39:25.989
going, yeah. This is not from Uncle Joe's website.
00:39:26.130 --> 00:39:30.170
This is, so, I find that interesting, because
00:39:30.170 --> 00:39:33.789
I'm going to work on Arpeggione Sonata. Oh, yeah,
00:39:33.829 --> 00:39:37.269
from college and stuff. So that's very fun to
00:39:37.269 --> 00:39:42.369
know. And then for Bach, we had Allegro as very
00:39:42.369 --> 00:39:45.010
fast and Adagio as very slow in the Berlin School,
00:39:45.289 --> 00:39:48.769
which I saw in, what was it? There was a Brandenburg
00:39:48.769 --> 00:39:54.210
Five recording with the Freiburg Baroque Orchestra,
00:39:54.230 --> 00:39:56.389
and they did everything very fast and very slow.
00:39:56.530 --> 00:39:59.469
So that's a cool connection there. For other
00:39:59.469 --> 00:40:01.730
genres, treatises often stress steadiness of
00:40:01.730 --> 00:40:03.989
tempo. but that could be merely pedagogical.
00:40:04.449 --> 00:40:06.630
In music for the dance, one can suppose that
00:40:06.630 --> 00:40:10.409
a steady rhythm is essential, but is this rigidity
00:40:10.409 --> 00:40:13.010
still essential once the dance has become an
00:40:13.010 --> 00:40:15.869
independent instrumental or vocal piece? In his
00:40:15.869 --> 00:40:19.349
very detailed singing treatise Remarks, Curieuses
00:40:19.349 --> 00:40:25.599
sur l 'art d 'y bien chanter, in 1668, I don't
00:40:25.599 --> 00:40:29.340
even know how to. Oh, my God. This guy, he knows
00:40:29.340 --> 00:40:31.380
every single one. Every single person. Don't
00:40:31.380 --> 00:40:39.920
blame me, guys. As airs, various, and other pieces,
00:40:40.199 --> 00:40:42.260
one has to observe the exact proportions of meter,
00:40:42.400 --> 00:40:46.059
as in dance music. When François Couperin appends
00:40:46.059 --> 00:40:48.219
the direction measured to some pieces, does this
00:40:48.219 --> 00:40:50.659
mean that all of his other works were to be performed
00:40:50.659 --> 00:40:53.239
freely? And if so, how freely, to that extent?
00:40:54.159 --> 00:40:56.920
Authors such as Roger North, Pierre Aftosi, C
00:40:56.920 --> 00:40:59.719
.P .E. Bach, W .E. Mozart, and Frédéric Chopin
00:40:59.719 --> 00:41:02.460
most often describe rubato as the free playing
00:41:02.460 --> 00:41:04.739
of a solo part against strictly observed tempo
00:41:04.739 --> 00:41:07.619
in the accompaniment. I call this the old rubato.
00:41:07.719 --> 00:41:10.019
as opposed to the modern rubato where all parts
00:41:10.019 --> 00:41:13.280
change tempo, since it is very seldom explicitly
00:41:13.280 --> 00:41:15.519
asked for in the score knowing where and when
00:41:15.519 --> 00:41:18.639
and how to apply the ode of rubato belongs to
00:41:18.639 --> 00:41:22.760
a soloist's training and good taste. I hypothesize
00:41:22.760 --> 00:41:24.840
that this kind of rubato could be meant in some
00:41:24.840 --> 00:41:27.260
passages that are notated in syncopations with
00:41:27.260 --> 00:41:31.400
the bass on the beats and the melody in between
00:41:31.400 --> 00:41:34.500
as occurs quite frequently in Pietro Lucatelli,
00:41:34.579 --> 00:41:37.559
C .P. Bach, W .E. Mozart. This form of rubato
00:41:37.559 --> 00:41:40.420
is obviously considered exquisite. but difficult
00:41:40.420 --> 00:41:43.860
to perform. Today it is rarely heard. I can only
00:41:43.860 --> 00:41:46.460
dream of a pianist playing a beautiful passage
00:41:46.460 --> 00:41:49.019
in a slow movement of a Mozart sonata with rubato
00:41:49.019 --> 00:41:51.019
in the right hand against a steady left hand,
00:41:51.099 --> 00:41:53.639
as Mozart describes in his letter on October
00:41:53.639 --> 00:42:00.519
24, 1777 to his father. Okay. This is all in...
00:42:00.519 --> 00:42:02.599
Oh, the English is done. I'm just going to say
00:42:02.599 --> 00:42:05.159
the English one to just, you know, not waste
00:42:05.159 --> 00:42:08.119
time. Everybody is astonished that I always stay
00:42:08.119 --> 00:42:19.840
accurately in tempo. Wow. That is some fire words
00:42:19.840 --> 00:42:23.360
right there. Seriously, Roboto is such a great...
00:42:23.360 --> 00:42:27.679
What am I trying to say? Everybody looks at the
00:42:27.679 --> 00:42:30.099
Roboto, especially for certain composers, and
00:42:30.099 --> 00:42:32.639
so to think that we're... I don't want to say
00:42:32.639 --> 00:42:35.500
doing it wrong, but... it's just changed so much,
00:42:35.559 --> 00:42:37.739
where on the piano, if the left hand is supposed
00:42:37.739 --> 00:42:40.280
to be steady, it's almost never done now. Usually,
00:42:40.500 --> 00:42:42.199
if the right hand is slowing down, the left hand
00:42:42.199 --> 00:42:43.780
is going to slow down as well, and that can create
00:42:43.780 --> 00:42:46.340
really, really beautiful passages, but it is
00:42:46.340 --> 00:42:48.199
a different sound than what Mozart described,
00:42:48.360 --> 00:42:51.380
where the left hand stays pretty much in tempo,
00:42:51.460 --> 00:42:53.139
and then the right hand is the one that has those
00:42:53.139 --> 00:42:56.159
flourishes on it. Very interesting. Yeah, left
00:42:56.159 --> 00:42:59.139
follows the right. The second movement of Mozart's
00:42:59.139 --> 00:43:01.400
Sonata for Harpsichord with accompanying violin,
00:43:01.739 --> 00:43:05.420
KV7, 1764, shows us that Mozart must have already
00:43:05.420 --> 00:43:08.059
acquired this skill at a very young age. And
00:43:08.059 --> 00:43:11.019
below this, you would actually see in the book
00:43:11.019 --> 00:43:16.239
a figure of the KV7, 1764. So it's an adagio
00:43:16.239 --> 00:43:19.880
sonata for keyboard and violin. Do you want to
00:43:19.880 --> 00:43:22.199
take this look? You can take a look while I read
00:43:22.199 --> 00:43:24.320
and let me know if you have any things to say.
00:43:24.460 --> 00:43:26.340
When the accompaniment follows the rubato of
00:43:26.340 --> 00:43:28.599
the melody, the basic tempo is lost and the modern
00:43:28.599 --> 00:43:31.079
rubato takes the place of the old. This adds
00:43:31.079 --> 00:43:33.139
a totally different stylistic flavor to the music.
00:43:33.320 --> 00:43:36.039
In his Versuch über die wahre des Klavier zu
00:43:36.039 --> 00:43:40.400
spielen, 1753 and 1762, with additions in 1787,
00:43:41.059 --> 00:43:43.460
C .P .E. Bach speaks of the modern rubato as
00:43:43.460 --> 00:43:45.900
well, but he recommends it's used only by a soloist
00:43:45.900 --> 00:43:48.659
or by a small and well -rehearsed ensemble. He
00:43:48.659 --> 00:43:50.619
suggests, for instance, to play more slowly when
00:43:50.619 --> 00:43:52.579
we repeat a passage in minor instead of major.
00:43:53.199 --> 00:43:55.619
Significantly, C .P .E. Bach strongly warns against
00:43:55.619 --> 00:43:58.579
any unconscious use of it. Do you see anything
00:43:58.579 --> 00:44:02.519
interesting? Yeah, so I'm just looking at the
00:44:02.519 --> 00:44:04.239
sheet music that they provide in the book. So
00:44:04.239 --> 00:44:08.860
Mozart is already using the 2 -4 time signature,
00:44:08.980 --> 00:44:10.940
but we have triplets. That's kind of, I mean,
00:44:10.980 --> 00:44:13.940
3 and 2 is kind of odd. Oh, yeah, I see. But
00:44:13.940 --> 00:44:18.070
also, so in measure 4 of this, he has... Well,
00:44:18.090 --> 00:44:19.349
actually, I'm going to go backtrack. If you go
00:44:19.349 --> 00:44:21.530
to measure one, the very end, you basically have,
00:44:21.690 --> 00:44:24.309
in the piano part, you have four against three,
00:44:24.429 --> 00:44:27.769
which is already kind of a difficult pattern
00:44:27.769 --> 00:44:29.849
to really internalize, I think, especially as
00:44:29.849 --> 00:44:32.389
a young pianist. The violin on top is playing
00:44:32.389 --> 00:44:35.530
two. So you basically have two against four against
00:44:35.530 --> 00:44:38.309
three. And then in measure four, it gets even
00:44:38.309 --> 00:44:40.670
crazier where you have the two on the violin.
00:44:41.070 --> 00:44:44.449
Eight in the right hand against three. Eight
00:44:44.449 --> 00:44:48.050
against three is like... I'm just trying to picture,
00:44:48.130 --> 00:44:49.550
like, you know how you do those taps where you
00:44:49.550 --> 00:44:51.289
have to really get, like, that's crazy. Exactly,
00:44:51.289 --> 00:44:52.230
this is how stuff would have been written, but
00:44:52.230 --> 00:44:54.969
if you see, like, more classical and, like, romantic
00:44:54.969 --> 00:44:56.750
and then all the way to modern, you wouldn't
00:44:56.750 --> 00:44:59.190
see that convention used that much often. No,
00:44:59.230 --> 00:45:01.590
not very, yeah. But, yeah, but since this was
00:45:01.590 --> 00:45:03.349
a dachshund, even though it might have looked
00:45:03.349 --> 00:45:05.269
intimidating to you as a, like, young student,
00:45:05.369 --> 00:45:10.110
like, looking at that. Okay, this is, we're nearing
00:45:10.110 --> 00:45:13.550
towards the very end of... The world of tempo
00:45:13.550 --> 00:45:15.210
and rubato. Some of this, yeah, and then we're
00:45:15.210 --> 00:45:17.590
going to see its sister, the rhythm. The rhythm.
00:45:17.710 --> 00:45:20.690
Yes. Both forms of rubato existed side by side
00:45:20.690 --> 00:45:23.610
into the 20th century, but the subtler one against
00:45:23.610 --> 00:45:25.630
the other's variety was gradually superseded
00:45:25.630 --> 00:45:28.269
by the more obvious general tempo change. Richard
00:45:28.269 --> 00:45:30.570
Wagner, who maintained that each bar must have
00:45:30.570 --> 00:45:33.329
its own tempo, exemplified the tempo change type.
00:45:33.610 --> 00:45:36.110
Claude Debussy appears to have disagreed. In
00:45:36.110 --> 00:45:37.989
the latter's composition, we can find within
00:45:37.989 --> 00:45:40.550
the same piece, see his sonata for flute, viola,
00:45:40.550 --> 00:45:43.230
or harp, And harp or syrinx. And that piece is
00:45:43.230 --> 00:45:47.070
very mysterious. I love that. Barthold Kuijken did
00:45:47.070 --> 00:45:49.429
record syrinx for Debussy. It's a mysterious
00:45:49.429 --> 00:45:52.829
piece. Frequent indications of tempo changes.
00:45:52.969 --> 00:45:55.469
Stepwise or gradual accelerando or ritardando.
00:45:55.550 --> 00:45:58.989
But also rubato. I can only suppose that in this
00:45:58.989 --> 00:46:02.130
case the basic tempo remains unchanged. And I
00:46:02.130 --> 00:46:05.460
wanted to point out. Especially for impressionistic
00:46:05.460 --> 00:46:08.619
music, as much as Debussy wouldn't like that
00:46:08.619 --> 00:46:10.780
genre title, he didn't really like that that
00:46:10.780 --> 00:46:13.980
much. But Sirenx, you should probably listen
00:46:13.980 --> 00:46:16.760
to that. If you see the score of the Sirenx,
00:46:16.860 --> 00:46:21.960
it's kind of also freeing the air. Not to the
00:46:21.960 --> 00:46:24.219
extent of Bach, because Bach, you have the historical
00:46:24.219 --> 00:46:27.219
context. But in the sense that with impressionistic
00:46:27.219 --> 00:46:30.989
music, Sirenx has this... You have all these
00:46:30.989 --> 00:46:33.489
sorts of speeds going at the same time with different
00:46:33.489 --> 00:46:36.909
recordings. So it's interesting to see, especially...
00:46:37.199 --> 00:46:40.559
This in relation to tempo changes. The use of
00:46:40.559 --> 00:46:43.000
both kinds of rubato varied a lot from one place
00:46:43.000 --> 00:46:45.420
or time to another and from one musician to another.
00:46:45.639 --> 00:46:48.440
Italian violinists of the 18th century were reputed
00:46:48.440 --> 00:46:51.659
to play quite freely. Charles Burney, who gives
00:46:51.659 --> 00:46:54.179
us much valuable insider information in his travel
00:46:54.179 --> 00:46:57.679
diaries, tells us that when Francesco Geminiani
00:46:57.679 --> 00:47:00.179
was the leader at the Naples Opera, his rubato
00:47:00.179 --> 00:47:02.239
and frequent tempo changes created chaos around
00:47:02.239 --> 00:47:04.380
him. And Quantz vividly describes how Italian
00:47:04.380 --> 00:47:06.460
violinists could ruin the orchestra's coaching.
00:47:13.670 --> 00:47:17.110
As is so often the case in writings about music,
00:47:17.250 --> 00:47:20.869
we cannot know how far the performers went, what
00:47:20.869 --> 00:47:22.889
was tolerable and what was not, and for whom.
00:47:23.309 --> 00:47:25.269
Consequently, in today's historically informed
00:47:25.269 --> 00:47:27.510
performance practice, and not only with respect
00:47:27.510 --> 00:47:30.010
to rubato, the question to be asked is, should
00:47:30.010 --> 00:47:32.489
we try to follow the good or the bad example?
00:47:33.449 --> 00:47:36.590
and good or bad according to whose taste? Do
00:47:36.590 --> 00:47:38.670
we want a historically correct orchestra playing
00:47:38.670 --> 00:47:40.730
out of tune and not together only because it
00:47:40.730 --> 00:47:42.369
has been described that such orchestras existed?
00:47:43.190 --> 00:47:44.710
Okay, I think that's also... Well, that exists
00:47:44.710 --> 00:47:47.070
anyway. I think we're in a bit of an identity
00:47:47.070 --> 00:47:49.610
crisis if you want to ever be in historical performance
00:47:49.610 --> 00:47:53.739
because I think the... the the overall stereotype
00:47:53.739 --> 00:47:56.840
of historical and performed performance no i'm
00:47:56.840 --> 00:47:58.940
serious i have friends who actually really think
00:47:58.940 --> 00:48:01.340
about this it's it's it's just when it's in and
00:48:01.340 --> 00:48:03.719
all this stuff and some teachers even might even
00:48:03.719 --> 00:48:06.420
think that too but i think nowadays we have more
00:48:06.420 --> 00:48:08.880
teacher open to the more teachers open to that
00:48:08.880 --> 00:48:12.679
idea and you know a young and old and it's still
00:48:12.679 --> 00:48:14.880
nice to see but this this kind of hurts right
00:48:14.880 --> 00:48:17.199
there that that is no exactly you still have
00:48:17.199 --> 00:48:21.280
you have like honor bills you have Gustav Lenhardt,
00:48:21.280 --> 00:48:23.980
Malcolm Bilson, all these phenomenal people who
00:48:23.980 --> 00:48:27.960
are like virtuosos and you get a return from
00:48:27.960 --> 00:48:30.679
a comment on YouTube like this is horrible. This
00:48:30.679 --> 00:48:32.860
is awful. This is horrible. But you know what
00:48:32.860 --> 00:48:34.559
though because you're going to find that even
00:48:34.559 --> 00:48:36.639
in like the most pristine modern recordings too.
00:48:36.639 --> 00:48:37.739
There's always going to be that person that's
00:48:37.739 --> 00:48:39.920
like I don't like this or so and so. So it's
00:48:39.920 --> 00:48:42.619
kind of like I mean. You've seen, you've listened
00:48:42.619 --> 00:48:44.400
to recordings with mistakes right? With mistakes
00:48:44.400 --> 00:48:46.860
and they're like impeccable. I mean some of the
00:48:46.860 --> 00:48:50.119
early 1930s recordings you have these I don't
00:48:50.119 --> 00:48:52.320
know, romantic era pieces, these concertos, and
00:48:52.320 --> 00:48:54.119
people are making mistakes left and right. Like,
00:48:54.159 --> 00:48:57.039
I think I watched a Heifetz video, and he played,
00:48:57.039 --> 00:48:59.260
like, the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto, and it
00:48:59.260 --> 00:49:00.960
was one of the best recordings I've ever seen.
00:49:01.039 --> 00:49:03.039
There were some mistakes in there, but it's,
00:49:03.039 --> 00:49:04.860
like, nothing to the point where I'm like, oh,
00:49:04.880 --> 00:49:06.500
dang. But I feel like you couldn't even have
00:49:06.500 --> 00:49:08.420
that today. It's like you wouldn't even pass
00:49:08.420 --> 00:49:10.780
the rounds, usually. I mean, I'm sure it depends
00:49:10.780 --> 00:49:13.230
on the... the performer in the competition, but
00:49:13.230 --> 00:49:15.650
generally the standards have just become so high
00:49:15.650 --> 00:49:17.449
that we're starting to kind of lose the idea
00:49:17.449 --> 00:49:19.650
where it's like, you know, as long as the, um,
00:49:19.650 --> 00:49:23.070
the, the energy is there, I think with these
00:49:23.070 --> 00:49:25.409
like people or orchestras and we're good, but
00:49:25.409 --> 00:49:27.130
I don't know. It's kind of one of the consequences
00:49:27.130 --> 00:49:30.650
of like progressing with music, especially I
00:49:30.650 --> 00:49:35.469
can see it in technology, humanities, um, school
00:49:35.469 --> 00:49:38.389
education, right? Everything's being streamlined.
00:49:39.079 --> 00:49:42.400
Yeah. I guess, like, maybe even the idea of spark
00:49:42.400 --> 00:49:44.739
notes, too. Sure. I mean, you see spark notes
00:49:44.739 --> 00:49:47.619
as discouraged, but spark notes actually is kind
00:49:47.619 --> 00:49:50.119
of very common in the 80s and 90s. I mean, who
00:49:50.119 --> 00:49:52.659
wouldn't use spark notes? I certainly wouldn't
00:49:52.659 --> 00:49:56.420
use spark notes. See, that's when times change.
00:49:56.659 --> 00:49:59.019
And here's another contradiction. Or was this
00:49:59.019 --> 00:50:01.099
chaos part of the excitement and fire that were
00:50:01.099 --> 00:50:03.480
frequently associated with Italian music? And
00:50:03.480 --> 00:50:05.539
are we robbing this music of one of its essential
00:50:05.539 --> 00:50:07.940
qualities by overpolishing it when we try to
00:50:07.940 --> 00:50:10.579
avoid some? at least excesses for our modern
00:50:10.579 --> 00:50:13.400
ears. I can only suggest that we experiment with
00:50:13.400 --> 00:50:16.099
historical knowledge and courage, stinking to
00:50:16.099 --> 00:50:17.940
receive tradition that might feel safer to the
00:50:17.940 --> 00:50:19.860
performers and will likely not disturb their
00:50:19.860 --> 00:50:21.900
audiences, but it feels like a missed opportunity.
00:50:22.860 --> 00:50:28.989
Yeah, very interesting. Let's see. Would we like
00:50:28.989 --> 00:50:31.070
to continue to rhythm, or do you want to talk
00:50:31.070 --> 00:50:36.730
about what we've explored so far, or anything
00:50:36.730 --> 00:50:43.170
extra in regards to what Mr. Pike's ideas are,
00:50:43.269 --> 00:50:46.599
or whatever his background? just like um i get
00:50:46.599 --> 00:50:48.340
the insights that i really gained from this this
00:50:48.340 --> 00:50:50.739
specific chapter is that there again like there
00:50:50.739 --> 00:50:53.260
really is no right answer to it and he brought
00:50:53.260 --> 00:50:56.280
up um some specific examples about what composers
00:50:56.280 --> 00:50:58.159
were thinking for their own pieces so i mean
00:50:58.159 --> 00:51:00.880
you had some composers who said okay no vivace
00:51:00.880 --> 00:51:02.400
is actually going to be slower i think it was
00:51:02.400 --> 00:51:05.000
telemon um so that means that as a performer
00:51:05.000 --> 00:51:08.550
if you are tasked with the telemon piece I guess
00:51:08.550 --> 00:51:10.409
you have to address it differently than you would
00:51:10.409 --> 00:51:11.909
from being another composer. So there's that
00:51:11.909 --> 00:51:14.170
side of it. There's also the cultural side. He
00:51:14.170 --> 00:51:16.289
talked about the dance tempo. So a traditional
00:51:16.289 --> 00:51:18.130
French dance is going to be different than Italian.
00:51:18.130 --> 00:51:20.829
Yes, exactly. All those things like that. And
00:51:20.829 --> 00:51:24.690
then, yeah, he listed all these different, the
00:51:24.690 --> 00:51:28.090
16 qualifiers attached to Allegro, which is crazy
00:51:28.090 --> 00:51:30.050
that you have, I mean, you think of Allegro as
00:51:30.050 --> 00:51:32.210
one tempo, but there's all these different varied
00:51:32.210 --> 00:51:35.449
descriptions as to how they want it played. Exactly.
00:51:36.440 --> 00:51:40.400
The same thing with Bach cello suites. The thing
00:51:40.400 --> 00:51:43.619
with that is like obviously a prelude is a prelude.
00:51:43.699 --> 00:51:45.539
Prelude is a prelude. It doesn't have actually
00:51:45.539 --> 00:51:49.619
that much. It's actually the tempo is very subjective
00:51:49.619 --> 00:51:52.960
and customized, optimized within the cello suite
00:51:52.960 --> 00:51:55.639
itself. And then you have the other movements
00:51:55.639 --> 00:51:57.559
like the Allemande, which is quite mysterious.
00:51:57.679 --> 00:52:02.280
The Courante, the Sarabande. Bourrée, Minuets, Gavottes,
00:52:02.280 --> 00:52:04.539
those vary depending on the suite and the magique.
00:52:04.619 --> 00:52:07.619
But the thing is, you hear them in all different
00:52:07.619 --> 00:52:09.880
tempos, right? Yeah, yeah. And I want to note
00:52:09.880 --> 00:52:13.500
out, especially with Anner Bylsma, he had a very
00:52:13.500 --> 00:52:16.059
distinct style. It was more played like a...
00:52:16.059 --> 00:52:19.280
It was very played... I felt it was naturally
00:52:19.280 --> 00:52:25.380
executed. It was very... It felt very organic,
00:52:25.440 --> 00:52:29.789
too. It felt very natural and... Kind of like
00:52:29.789 --> 00:52:33.130
like a very like I know this is kind of like
00:52:33.130 --> 00:52:35.369
i'm playing with very easy words here But it
00:52:35.369 --> 00:52:37.909
felt like this old like reminiscent like like
00:52:37.909 --> 00:52:42.769
song this very old like, uh, what is it? Um It
00:52:42.769 --> 00:52:46.070
just had these vibes that kind of felt... What
00:52:46.070 --> 00:52:49.630
is it? I forgot. Nostalgic, in that sense. Yeah,
00:52:49.690 --> 00:52:52.150
didn't he talk... I'm sorry, I forgot if it was
00:52:52.150 --> 00:52:54.550
in this chapter or the previous one, but he talked
00:52:54.550 --> 00:52:56.829
about the heartbeat and how... Yes, exactly.
00:52:57.489 --> 00:53:02.869
That's exactly what I'm thinking. So, yeah, I
00:53:02.869 --> 00:53:04.730
don't know. It's like, not too many people, I
00:53:04.730 --> 00:53:08.030
guess, listen to that anymore. I don't, like,
00:53:08.070 --> 00:53:10.300
unless you... You know, been listening to, like,
00:53:10.340 --> 00:53:12.599
2026 recordings. Sure. There's been, I think,
00:53:12.599 --> 00:53:17.139
a Beethoven 9? No, a 5 by the Manfred Honeck and
00:53:17.139 --> 00:53:19.940
Pittsburgh Symphony. Oh, Pittsburgh, yeah. There's
00:53:19.940 --> 00:53:21.800
been releases. Maybe we should, like, listen
00:53:21.800 --> 00:53:24.800
to those. There's Mahler symphonies. But it's
00:53:24.800 --> 00:53:27.840
just overall just kind of interesting to, you
00:53:27.840 --> 00:53:31.039
know, see what people, like, take on in the future.
00:53:31.219 --> 00:53:35.599
Yeah, right. In terms of early music, because
00:53:35.599 --> 00:53:38.530
I know... We were talking about that little contradiction
00:53:38.530 --> 00:53:46.690
with the validity of the existence of these orchestras,
00:53:46.690 --> 00:53:51.610
these projects all over the world. I wonder what
00:53:51.610 --> 00:53:54.150
is for the future. I've seen it in interviews.
00:53:54.289 --> 00:53:56.789
I've seen it with some of the musicians who wrote
00:53:56.789 --> 00:53:59.510
these books and pioneers. Some people, they actually
00:53:59.510 --> 00:54:01.900
don't know. They do not know what's going to
00:54:01.900 --> 00:54:04.639
happen. I have to say, I think, at least in the
00:54:04.639 --> 00:54:06.900
United States, we have these kind of imported
00:54:06.900 --> 00:54:09.500
conductors, like Klaus Mäkelä is this kind of
00:54:09.500 --> 00:54:11.260
video for the Chicago Symphony. Yeah, it's a
00:54:11.260 --> 00:54:13.960
good level. But something that I've heard my
00:54:13.960 --> 00:54:15.880
friends say, because we're from the Chicago area,
00:54:15.960 --> 00:54:18.199
we see them conducting, I've had friends tell
00:54:18.199 --> 00:54:21.099
me that he definitely brings a lot of energy
00:54:21.099 --> 00:54:23.539
to the stage. So there's sort of like this...
00:54:24.219 --> 00:54:27.239
the conflict going on because the older generation
00:54:27.239 --> 00:54:29.500
is sort of like oh but the interpretation is
00:54:29.500 --> 00:54:32.119
wrong or we shouldn't be playing it this fast
00:54:32.119 --> 00:54:34.739
or I don't know it's just not not correct for
00:54:34.739 --> 00:54:36.739
the piece but then a lot of other people are
00:54:36.739 --> 00:54:39.670
like well it might be slightly wrong in some
00:54:39.670 --> 00:54:41.929
sections, but the energy is there, and it really
00:54:41.929 --> 00:54:44.090
riles up. Because the Chicago Symphony is kind
00:54:44.090 --> 00:54:46.530
of an older orchestra, so the stereotypes of
00:54:46.530 --> 00:54:48.070
the older... It's one of the oldest institutions
00:54:48.070 --> 00:54:50.650
in the U .S. There's, I think, a few older ones,
00:54:50.730 --> 00:54:53.610
like Philadelphia might have been a little bit
00:54:53.610 --> 00:54:55.989
before. Boston, I definitely know, was a little
00:54:55.989 --> 00:54:59.429
bit older. But, yeah, you even got instances
00:54:59.429 --> 00:55:03.789
in those cases, too, especially in regards to
00:55:03.789 --> 00:55:06.369
tempo. To tempo, yeah, interpretation. Yeah.
00:55:07.359 --> 00:55:10.980
I want to kind of, like, see. We're going to
00:55:10.980 --> 00:55:13.300
kind of have to anticipate for rhythm next, unfortunately.
00:55:13.380 --> 00:55:16.619
Right, right. We kind of dove deep, a little
00:55:16.619 --> 00:55:19.340
bit more deep, because tempo, I think, yeah,
00:55:19.400 --> 00:55:21.440
tempo is king. We had an orchestra teacher in
00:55:21.440 --> 00:55:23.260
high school. Rhythm is king. Rhythm is, like,
00:55:23.280 --> 00:55:26.719
literally everything. It's the drive. It's the
00:55:26.719 --> 00:55:30.039
drive of music, and it's never going to go away.
00:55:30.889 --> 00:55:32.769
At least, hopefully, like in the future music,
00:55:32.849 --> 00:55:35.489
it's not like, oh, the pitch, like now you have
00:55:35.489 --> 00:55:37.849
frequencies as the tempo, or like, I don't know,
00:55:37.869 --> 00:55:40.570
like some sort of random stuff. Yeah, that's
00:55:40.570 --> 00:55:42.949
even why some music teachers will say stuff like,
00:55:43.050 --> 00:55:45.809
it's not how fast you play it, it's how precise
00:55:45.809 --> 00:55:48.420
you play it. So you can even play... a scherzo
00:55:48.420 --> 00:55:51.079
sort of in a slower tempo but if the um attack
00:55:51.079 --> 00:55:53.179
is there it's still gonna have that same like
00:55:53.179 --> 00:55:57.179
riled up uh interpretation yeah in the future
00:55:57.179 --> 00:55:59.440
like what are we gonna get any music like uh
00:55:59.440 --> 00:56:03.659
i don't know like uh just like crazy craziness
00:56:03.659 --> 00:56:06.139
and chaos we'll have to see what happens yeah.