1. Preface

WEBVTT
00:00:05.420 --> 00:00:17.940
Good evening. And now, Beyond the Notation. Hello,
00:00:18.399 --> 00:00:21.800
hello, hello and welcome to Beyond the Notation.
00:00:21.879 --> 00:00:24.879
A podcast on the ongoing reading of the personal
00:00:24.879 --> 00:00:27.460
manifesto and doctoral thesis on early music,
00:00:27.960 --> 00:00:30.760
the notation is not the music. Reflections on
00:00:30.760 --> 00:00:33.100
early music practice and performance by Barthold
00:00:33.100 --> 00:00:35.979
Kuijken. I am Kenneth Chang, and I am with Marilyn
00:00:35.979 --> 00:00:39.420
Gans. We are both young aspiring musicians seeking
00:00:39.420 --> 00:00:41.659
insight into the fascinating and intricate world
00:00:41.659 --> 00:00:44.420
of historically informed performance and early
00:00:44.420 --> 00:00:46.359
music. Hello, Marilyn. How are you doing? Hi,
00:00:46.479 --> 00:00:49.420
Brady. Happy to be here. Yes. So we're going
00:00:49.420 --> 00:00:52.740
to be... This is this was interesting because
00:00:52.740 --> 00:00:54.780
I actually read this before but I want to see
00:00:54.780 --> 00:00:56.859
what kind of like your thoughts are but beyond
00:00:56.859 --> 00:01:00.780
beyond that idea I want to you know, bring more
00:01:00.780 --> 00:01:03.299
awareness to the fact that like even like beyond
00:01:03.299 --> 00:01:05.879
like high school musician Just any like people
00:01:05.879 --> 00:01:08.760
any people not only who are interested in early
00:01:08.760 --> 00:01:11.420
music But I think there's like I feel like there's
00:01:11.420 --> 00:01:13.760
like should be an awareness of kind of like how
00:01:13.760 --> 00:01:17.959
other there are other like perspectives and practices
00:01:17.959 --> 00:01:22.829
of musicians Viewing another way of popular like
00:01:22.829 --> 00:01:26.370
music trends or popular trends So if you I think
00:01:26.370 --> 00:01:28.849
it can be viewed in all sorts of other ways like
00:01:28.849 --> 00:01:33.049
there's music Which is one right? There's there's
00:01:33.049 --> 00:01:37.409
shows you got like What is it like plays and
00:01:37.409 --> 00:01:39.870
all these like Broadway performances? It's interesting
00:01:39.870 --> 00:01:42.650
to see what plays like you you you originally
00:01:42.650 --> 00:01:45.689
have had opera and then you Transition to plays
00:01:45.689 --> 00:01:48.170
and all this stuff, but it's interesting because
00:01:48.170 --> 00:01:51.370
if you see a Chicago lyric opera, they don't
00:01:51.370 --> 00:01:55.849
play the same Let's say what's an opera of Mozart
00:01:55.849 --> 00:01:58.290
that like marriage of Figaro marriage of Figaro,
00:01:58.549 --> 00:02:01.599
but it's interesting cuz Do you notice what the
00:02:01.599 --> 00:02:04.099
costumes kind of like look like? It's like, they
00:02:04.099 --> 00:02:05.819
switch it up every time. There's a different
00:02:05.819 --> 00:02:07.939
kind of like, what would we call it? Well, there's
00:02:07.939 --> 00:02:10.939
deviation in it too, and I think as an artist,
00:02:11.060 --> 00:02:13.800
it's important to know sort of the history of
00:02:13.800 --> 00:02:16.080
where art comes from, whether it's in music,
00:02:16.199 --> 00:02:18.879
or it's in being on stage, or in the physical
00:02:18.879 --> 00:02:21.360
arts like that, because I think it really, it
00:02:21.360 --> 00:02:23.319
kind of shows you where you came from and why
00:02:23.319 --> 00:02:25.740
we make the choices, such as the opera, set design,
00:02:25.780 --> 00:02:28.659
or costumes, why we choose to do certain things
00:02:28.659 --> 00:02:30.370
like that, and so it kind of... I don't know,
00:02:30.430 --> 00:02:32.830
I think having an understanding of music history
00:02:32.830 --> 00:02:35.849
or artistic history in general really pushes
00:02:35.849 --> 00:02:39.050
the forward. Yeah, exactly. So like if you are
00:02:39.050 --> 00:02:41.750
someone new to Mozart, for example, like we're
00:02:41.750 --> 00:02:44.990
gonna be reading a book that's going on with,
00:02:45.370 --> 00:02:48.289
that has to involve with early music and broke,
00:02:48.289 --> 00:02:50.909
you know, classical performance, it's interesting
00:02:50.909 --> 00:02:53.969
because if you're just a totally new like...
00:02:53.919 --> 00:02:57.599
newbie to the scene, you would go there and you
00:02:57.599 --> 00:03:01.939
would watch this kind of musical that has maybe
00:03:01.939 --> 00:03:05.879
a modern interpretation, maybe has, for example,
00:03:06.020 --> 00:03:08.379
Fidelio from Beethoven, you have this prison
00:03:08.379 --> 00:03:12.280
instead of these grand juist kind of like, what
00:03:12.280 --> 00:03:18.939
is it? Baroque or classical style building. Traditional
00:03:18.939 --> 00:03:22.180
style. So that's what we want to investigate
00:03:22.180 --> 00:03:25.000
here because it's not just beyond Itzhak Perlman,
00:03:25.379 --> 00:03:30.259
all the big Yo -Yo Ma recordings because you
00:03:30.259 --> 00:03:33.479
want to understand what's behind, beneath the
00:03:33.479 --> 00:03:38.419
layers of what we do, how we do it. how we do
00:03:38.419 --> 00:03:40.860
stuff, how we do things. How we got here to begin
00:03:40.860 --> 00:03:42.400
with, yeah. Because I think it's often taken
00:03:42.400 --> 00:03:44.840
for granted in performance and composition and
00:03:44.840 --> 00:03:47.039
conducting. It's these things that we kind of
00:03:47.039 --> 00:03:48.860
just are accustomed to because our teachers show
00:03:48.860 --> 00:03:51.960
us the ropes of it and then I think we just having
00:03:51.960 --> 00:03:54.879
a very strong understanding of historically informed
00:03:54.879 --> 00:03:57.099
performance or why we do things like vibrato
00:03:57.099 --> 00:03:59.960
or even equal temperament in keyboards and things
00:03:59.960 --> 00:04:02.319
like that. Having that understanding can really
00:04:02.319 --> 00:04:04.699
push us forward actually in the artistic scene.
00:04:05.000 --> 00:04:09.900
Yeah, yeah. or knowledge beyond what like that
00:04:09.900 --> 00:04:13.759
first level of exposure to music or whatever
00:04:13.759 --> 00:04:17.519
like subject hobby you're interested in. So without
00:04:17.519 --> 00:04:19.779
further ado, I do have to say this every time
00:04:19.779 --> 00:04:25.319
in the podcast. with generosity and maybe a little
00:04:25.319 --> 00:04:28.740
bit of a, yeah, mocking generosity. So this episode
00:04:28.740 --> 00:04:30.660
includes content from The Notation Is Not The
00:04:30.660 --> 00:04:33.500
Music by Braco Caico, used with permission of
00:04:33.500 --> 00:04:36.600
Indiana University Press. Yeah, we have to thank
00:04:36.600 --> 00:04:40.779
Indiana University for letting us read all these
00:04:40.779 --> 00:04:44.360
parts because... Without that, this podcast would
00:04:44.360 --> 00:04:47.560
simply not exist. Exactly. We do want to bring
00:04:47.560 --> 00:04:51.740
awareness to what the heck is going on with one
00:04:51.740 --> 00:04:54.980
person's perspective versus the entire whole
00:04:54.980 --> 00:04:59.790
world's universal... initial thoughts. Well,
00:04:59.850 --> 00:05:02.149
right, and even historically informed performance
00:05:02.149 --> 00:05:04.550
and how we study history changes all the time
00:05:04.550 --> 00:05:06.389
when new pieces of information come out, when
00:05:06.389 --> 00:05:09.009
people bring their new perspectives to it. So
00:05:09.009 --> 00:05:10.870
it's interesting to kind of look back and see
00:05:10.870 --> 00:05:14.149
in this book just sort of the, I think, pretty
00:05:14.149 --> 00:05:16.509
unbiased perspective actually in the text of
00:05:16.509 --> 00:05:19.769
the book. Exactly. Yeah, so I want to go a little
00:05:19.769 --> 00:05:23.550
bit, before we begin with preface, Barthold Kuijken
00:05:23.550 --> 00:05:27.089
is a Belgian flautist and You could say also
00:05:27.089 --> 00:05:29.230
woodwind player because he plays not only the
00:05:29.230 --> 00:05:32.569
flute but also different instruments like the
00:05:32.569 --> 00:05:36.209
baroque oboe that would orient him as like the
00:05:36.209 --> 00:05:38.470
woodwind player when he plays all sorts of repertoire.
00:05:38.850 --> 00:05:45.459
He got his PhD doctorate in the arts at... apologies
00:05:45.459 --> 00:05:49.240
for butchering this, V -R -I -J -E, Vrije University
00:05:49.240 --> 00:05:53.139
of Brussels, and his thesis was this book, The
00:05:53.139 --> 00:05:56.439
Notation is Not the Music, and he was more of
00:05:56.439 --> 00:05:59.540
an auto diet. He grew up with not knowing how
00:05:59.540 --> 00:06:02.750
to play Baroque, Flute, Baroque. all these instruments,
00:06:02.949 --> 00:06:05.110
because it was not a trend. So that's why in
00:06:05.110 --> 00:06:10.329
the 1960s, 1970s, it really became a pioneering
00:06:10.329 --> 00:06:13.029
period, age, and he was one of the pioneers who
00:06:13.029 --> 00:06:16.529
kind of like built the knowledge of all these
00:06:16.529 --> 00:06:19.970
old sources from 17th, 18th century Europe and
00:06:19.970 --> 00:06:21.870
incorporated it into his playing and performance.
00:06:22.129 --> 00:06:26.750
And now he made this, he wrote this thesis, which
00:06:26.750 --> 00:06:30.360
from... 2007, we're going to uncover. So we're
00:06:30.360 --> 00:06:32.560
finally at the preface now. Do you want to give
00:06:32.560 --> 00:06:34.720
it a go? Yeah, sure. I'll give it a go. So the
00:06:34.720 --> 00:06:37.279
preface reads, this essay is not meant to be
00:06:37.279 --> 00:06:42.079
a music college... Musicological! It's a musicological
00:06:42.079 --> 00:07:04.610
study! I cite my sources in sources of inspiration
00:07:04.610 --> 00:07:07.089
and the bibliography, or to refer to specific
00:07:07.089 --> 00:07:09.170
publications at the beginning of some sections.
00:07:09.769 --> 00:07:11.949
Indeed, scholarly footnotes, mostly quoting well
00:07:11.949 --> 00:07:14.230
-known facts, historical treaties, or more recent
00:07:14.230 --> 00:07:16.930
musicological studies, generally lift the information
00:07:16.930 --> 00:07:19.209
out of its context and refer to isolated facts
00:07:19.209 --> 00:07:21.050
rather than pointing to the general principles
00:07:21.050 --> 00:07:23.430
and underlying aesthetic attitude. Further, I
00:07:23.430 --> 00:07:25.089
do not want to use the weight of their authority
00:07:25.089 --> 00:07:27.589
in order to prove anything. In art, nothing can
00:07:27.589 --> 00:07:30.100
or needs to be proven. Instead, I wish to reflect
00:07:30.100 --> 00:07:32.519
upon the ideas behind the facts, behind the theory
00:07:32.519 --> 00:07:34.639
and practice of early music, as I have participated
00:07:34.639 --> 00:07:36.759
in them, and as I should, like to pass them on
00:07:36.759 --> 00:07:39.980
to future generations and musicians." Interesting.
00:07:42.379 --> 00:07:45.720
General principles, underlying aesthetic attitude.
00:07:46.720 --> 00:07:48.699
What do you think that means, that sentence?
00:07:49.240 --> 00:07:51.949
Okay. Well, I think that um... He does kind of
00:07:51.949 --> 00:07:54.750
touch on the thing that even though music or
00:07:54.750 --> 00:07:56.949
the arts in general does have the historical
00:07:56.949 --> 00:07:59.470
component to it, meaning that there are certain
00:07:59.470 --> 00:08:01.290
ways to research, certain ways to document in
00:08:01.290 --> 00:08:03.389
order to make sure it's accurate, there is still
00:08:03.389 --> 00:08:06.230
sort of a way to do it that is intrinsically
00:08:06.230 --> 00:08:09.319
artistic. And you have to be creative I think
00:08:09.319 --> 00:08:11.079
he's gonna touch on it more in the book where
00:08:11.079 --> 00:08:13.459
it's there is a science to researching the science
00:08:13.459 --> 00:08:16.360
to documenting everything but Understanding that
00:08:16.360 --> 00:08:18.360
when you're dealing with the arts not everything
00:08:18.360 --> 00:08:21.220
is gonna fit into like a perfect square peg There
00:08:21.220 --> 00:08:23.759
might have one composer who is totally different
00:08:23.759 --> 00:08:26.139
Who's writing at the the same time period as
00:08:26.139 --> 00:08:28.639
another who fix maybe more of the standard standard
00:08:28.639 --> 00:08:32.019
mold of? Composing or performing or even writing
00:08:32.019 --> 00:08:35.120
like actual books or information I could describe
00:08:35.120 --> 00:08:38.350
I can already describe the like the author as
00:08:38.350 --> 00:08:40.909
in this first paragraph as kind of like humbly
00:08:40.909 --> 00:08:44.230
intellectual I would say right it's this is this
00:08:44.230 --> 00:08:47.970
is also like remember if you look at like the
00:08:47.970 --> 00:08:52.070
mainstream whole world mainstream music perspective
00:08:52.070 --> 00:08:55.970
this would not be exactly fully mainstream I
00:08:55.970 --> 00:08:58.710
mean you got other more popular culture and this
00:08:58.710 --> 00:09:02.899
is why when you uncover a book like this It's,
00:09:02.899 --> 00:09:05.440
you kind of have to be kind of like this humbly
00:09:05.440 --> 00:09:07.799
intellectual thing because you're opening this
00:09:07.799 --> 00:09:10.799
Pandora's box, this treasure chest of kind of
00:09:10.799 --> 00:09:13.039
like all this knowledge that has been lost. It's
00:09:13.039 --> 00:09:14.860
a small world too and so because everyone's kind
00:09:14.860 --> 00:09:16.440
of like connected in a musical world you want
00:09:16.440 --> 00:09:19.039
to be like almost careful as to the ideas that
00:09:19.039 --> 00:09:20.860
you promote and he does touch on it later in
00:09:20.860 --> 00:09:23.220
the book how students often imitate their teachers
00:09:23.220 --> 00:09:26.240
and so kind of instead of teaching to imitate
00:09:26.240 --> 00:09:29.039
more so teaching to I think critically about
00:09:29.039 --> 00:09:31.379
the sources that you're reading or the pieces
00:09:31.379 --> 00:09:35.620
you're playing. Yeah, he's very humble. I do
00:09:35.620 --> 00:09:37.179
not want to use the weight of their authority
00:09:37.179 --> 00:09:40.240
in order to prove anything. Because I feel like
00:09:40.240 --> 00:09:42.440
for people who kind of like set one rule straight,
00:09:42.700 --> 00:09:44.980
there's going to be one contradiction. Like Nico
00:09:44.980 --> 00:09:46.799
and opposite reaction in the other direction
00:09:46.799 --> 00:10:19.149
with thoughts. Go on. I've always considered
00:10:19.149 --> 00:10:21.230
my research to be, quote, artistic research,
00:10:21.289 --> 00:10:23.649
unquote, even before this expression was coined.
00:10:24.169 --> 00:10:26.470
This kind of research is essentially both subjective
00:10:26.470 --> 00:10:29.230
and creative. Indeed, the artist and researcher
00:10:29.230 --> 00:10:32.029
does not stand beside or outside his topic, but
00:10:32.029 --> 00:10:35.210
is himself part of the research topic. It is
00:10:35.210 --> 00:10:38.070
researched in, not about, art. The results of
00:10:38.070 --> 00:10:39.909
this research are not aimed at being scientific.
00:10:40.250 --> 00:10:42.610
They can just be art as well. Per definition,
00:10:42.950 --> 00:10:45.129
artistic research is never definitive nor complete.
00:10:45.409 --> 00:10:47.669
It cannot be exactly repeated. It does not strive
00:10:47.669 --> 00:10:50.330
to prove something. It is never a goal in itself,
00:10:50.409 --> 00:10:52.110
but leads to deeper understanding, and thus,
00:10:52.370 --> 00:10:54.750
hopefully, to better performance or creation.
00:10:55.629 --> 00:10:57.570
The results needed to be practiced, technically
00:10:57.570 --> 00:11:00.409
and artistically mastered, applied and integrated
00:11:00.409 --> 00:11:02.649
into my own thinking, feeling, playing, conducting,
00:11:02.809 --> 00:11:05.070
and teaching, until they become part of my mother
00:11:05.070 --> 00:11:07.009
tongue. That's a beautiful paragraph there. It
00:11:07.009 --> 00:11:11.029
is! I think, yeah. It's such a, like, um... It's
00:11:11.029 --> 00:11:14.610
such a powerful means of justification of why
00:11:14.610 --> 00:11:20.850
we do what we do, why he does what he does. It's,
00:11:20.850 --> 00:11:23.590
yeah, per definition, artistic research is never
00:11:23.590 --> 00:11:26.850
definitive nor complete. It's this endless, infinite
00:11:26.850 --> 00:11:31.870
stream that goes on towards the horizon, and
00:11:31.870 --> 00:11:34.490
it would keep going on, going on, going on. I
00:11:34.490 --> 00:11:36.269
think that's part of the appeal to it, too. I
00:11:36.269 --> 00:11:39.350
mean, what, I guess, separates the arts from...
00:11:39.389 --> 00:11:42.370
the sciences or things like math is that there
00:11:42.370 --> 00:11:45.909
is sort of a correct answer to like a math problem
00:11:45.909 --> 00:11:47.870
just with the limitations we set up for ourselves
00:11:47.870 --> 00:11:50.529
in those fields but in the arts you can have
00:11:50.529 --> 00:11:53.990
I think thoughts about things and you can have
00:11:54.169 --> 00:11:56.750
using your own experiences to get a certain goal
00:11:56.750 --> 00:11:59.049
in an artistic field. But there really isn't
00:11:59.049 --> 00:12:00.970
a right or wrong answer. There's always going
00:12:00.970 --> 00:12:03.330
to be, even with compositions, there's going
00:12:03.330 --> 00:12:05.250
to be a piece that maybe people don't like listening
00:12:05.250 --> 00:12:07.230
to. There will always be that one person who
00:12:07.230 --> 00:12:09.570
sees the benefit in it and that they appreciate
00:12:09.570 --> 00:12:11.750
the goal that the composer or the conductor was
00:12:11.750 --> 00:12:14.750
trying to really get from that piece. And so
00:12:14.750 --> 00:12:19.190
I think he hit it on the head too, where that's
00:12:19.190 --> 00:12:21.970
part of the appeal to it, is that there is no
00:12:21.970 --> 00:12:26.289
definitive ending to it. Yeah, I can also think
00:12:26.289 --> 00:12:28.450
of it in like in in the world of film I mean
00:12:28.450 --> 00:12:31.110
like think about like during the 1990s right
00:12:31.110 --> 00:12:36.210
you got like Star Wars all those like crazy peak
00:12:36.210 --> 00:12:39.830
Disney films all in Disney was basically American
00:12:39.830 --> 00:12:43.370
films essentially, but then you got like what
00:12:43.370 --> 00:12:48.820
you got the other side with of Japanese anime
00:12:48.820 --> 00:12:52.360
and in that sense we have Studio Ghibli all those
00:12:52.360 --> 00:12:55.440
really big really small actually rather small
00:12:55.440 --> 00:12:59.620
studios producing these works that kind of like
00:12:59.620 --> 00:13:02.779
I would agree what you would greatly contradict
00:13:02.779 --> 00:13:06.960
with like what American film watchers expect
00:13:06.960 --> 00:13:10.460
and I think some of them actually during the
00:13:10.460 --> 00:13:12.580
time in the 90s only a few of them would actually
00:13:12.580 --> 00:13:15.940
kind of like greatly resonate with that kind
00:13:15.940 --> 00:13:20.139
of sense of the messages that people like Miyazaki
00:13:20.139 --> 00:13:24.500
or Takahata might want to you know send to the
00:13:24.500 --> 00:13:27.100
entire world or maybe just within Japan in that
00:13:27.100 --> 00:13:29.779
sense. So this is why I think yeah this is like
00:13:29.779 --> 00:13:33.059
if you're like a if you're that minority and
00:13:33.059 --> 00:13:35.460
you want to make it the majority I think it's
00:13:35.460 --> 00:13:38.240
great to kind of like know that knowledge and
00:13:38.789 --> 00:13:41.470
Bring it out bring it bring it out about the
00:13:41.470 --> 00:13:43.809
film thing too. I think one of the biggest differences
00:13:43.809 --> 00:13:46.710
between One country style of filmmaking versus
00:13:46.710 --> 00:13:48.950
another is that it's really the pacing it's things
00:13:48.950 --> 00:13:52.250
very small things like the communication and
00:13:52.250 --> 00:13:54.629
Like even just the timing of when a character
00:13:54.629 --> 00:13:56.429
will say a certain word and that kind of harps
00:13:56.429 --> 00:13:58.350
back to the music side of it, too there's a lot
00:13:58.350 --> 00:14:01.830
of controversy in terms of people's artistic
00:14:01.830 --> 00:14:04.549
interpretation as to like very famous concertos
00:14:04.549 --> 00:14:06.389
like how one violinist will play Tchaikovsky
00:14:06.389 --> 00:14:08.450
Violin Concerto versus another and it It kind
00:14:08.450 --> 00:14:11.210
of goes back to things like the pacing. How long
00:14:11.210 --> 00:14:12.850
are you going to hold that note? How much vibrato
00:14:12.850 --> 00:14:16.590
are you going to add? I mean, bow control, things
00:14:16.590 --> 00:14:21.100
like that. But kind of going back to it. One
00:14:21.100 --> 00:14:23.299
person will love an interpretation by one artist,
00:14:24.080 --> 00:14:25.440
and then another will say, oh, it's the worst
00:14:25.440 --> 00:14:26.659
thing I've heard, and so there really isn't one.
00:14:26.659 --> 00:14:28.879
It's also politically motivated, too. Sure, sure.
00:14:29.200 --> 00:14:32.879
That's the strong foundations of the classical
00:14:32.879 --> 00:14:34.620
and baroque music, because you have all these
00:14:34.620 --> 00:14:38.620
monarchies and all these royal families and stuff.
00:14:39.259 --> 00:14:42.000
And there's an influential relationship between
00:14:42.000 --> 00:14:47.149
the composers and... the patrons. And then you
00:14:47.149 --> 00:14:49.330
can see that evolved towards Beethoven, Schubert,
00:14:49.509 --> 00:14:54.909
where they just write music for people. That's
00:14:54.909 --> 00:14:56.730
interesting. Do you want to wrap that up there?
00:14:56.929 --> 00:14:59.649
Sure. And the last part reads, this essay thus
00:14:59.649 --> 00:15:01.990
inevitably expresses my own current brand of
00:15:01.990 --> 00:15:04.049
quote common knowledge, practice and theory,
00:15:04.350 --> 00:15:05.950
and will be shaped and limited by the extent
00:15:05.950 --> 00:15:07.909
of my own research and performance experience.
00:15:08.309 --> 00:15:11.830
I hope that it can give occasion to Ooh, extrapolation?
00:15:11.970 --> 00:15:13.909
Extrapolation? Yes. And then if I contribute
00:15:13.909 --> 00:15:16.269
to further thinking and searching by those who
00:15:16.269 --> 00:15:18.509
love early music, or intrigued by it, and desire
00:15:18.509 --> 00:15:20.169
to share this art form with their audiences.
00:15:20.669 --> 00:15:23.889
And we're excited to uncover it, Mr. Kaika. And
00:15:23.889 --> 00:15:25.750
there's a little note there on the footnote that
00:15:25.750 --> 00:15:27.950
I hope that female readers will accept my apologies
00:15:27.950 --> 00:15:30.149
for consistently using the masculine pronouns
00:15:30.149 --> 00:15:32.990
throughout the book. This was done not as a discriminatory
00:15:32.990 --> 00:15:35.789
move, but for the sake of brevity and simplicity.
00:15:36.090 --> 00:15:38.059
Alright, thank you so much for your time. Yeah,
00:15:38.059 --> 00:15:41.360
because I don't know if Flemish or if Dutch in
00:15:41.360 --> 00:15:46.299
that case is very, I don't know, has masculine
00:15:46.299 --> 00:15:48.720
feminine nouns. There's an emphasis on that.
00:15:48.980 --> 00:15:52.039
Seriously? Wasn't this book originally written
00:15:52.039 --> 00:15:55.379
in English? Yeah, this must have been translated.
00:15:56.279 --> 00:15:59.399
I will have to uncover this next time. There's
00:15:59.399 --> 00:16:03.909
an editor. There was an editor. I'm trying to
00:16:03.909 --> 00:16:06.149
look at it right now, because... Oh, Barbara,
00:16:06.429 --> 00:16:08.450
it says in the... with thanks to Barbara Kallar.
00:16:08.470 --> 00:16:10.649
Barbara Kallar. For the patient who educated
00:16:10.649 --> 00:16:13.809
editing of my English text. Ah, yes. So, thank
00:16:13.809 --> 00:16:16.809
you, Barbara Kallar. This is very helpful. Otherwise,
00:16:16.970 --> 00:16:19.070
we would have to... We couldn't read this. We
00:16:19.070 --> 00:16:23.549
could read this. Yeah, I can chop it off now.
00:16:23.549 --> 00:16:26.830
Sure. The underlying philosophy. Chapter one.
00:16:26.990 --> 00:16:31.620
Yes. When reading most 20th or 21st century sources,
00:16:31.899 --> 00:16:34.779
trained musicians can hear them quite precisely
00:16:34.779 --> 00:16:38.240
in the mind's ear. The exact instrumentation
00:16:38.240 --> 00:16:40.940
is given. The characteristics of the instruments
00:16:40.940 --> 00:16:44.220
are familiar. Standard modern pitch and equal
00:16:44.220 --> 00:16:47.100
temperament are presupposed. Tempo is prescribed
00:16:47.100 --> 00:16:49.600
by metronome markings. That's of course, we always
00:16:49.600 --> 00:16:52.220
grew up with that. Rhythm. Phrasing, articulation,
00:16:52.360 --> 00:16:55.600
and dynamics are clearly indicated. The realization
00:16:55.600 --> 00:16:58.299
of the few ornament signs is obvious. Even the
00:16:58.299 --> 00:17:02.360
playing techniques and sound colors are accurately
00:17:02.360 --> 00:17:05.640
notated. Except in pieces that include aleatoric
00:17:05.640 --> 00:17:08.180
composition techniques or improvisation, performers
00:17:08.180 --> 00:17:10.740
do not have much room for adding individual accents
00:17:10.740 --> 00:17:13.960
or textual changes. This adherence to the written
00:17:13.960 --> 00:17:17.910
text is exactly what many composers wanted. Consequently,
00:17:18.150 --> 00:17:20.430
this kind of traditionally notated composition
00:17:20.430 --> 00:17:23.069
can be studied quite accurately from the score.
00:17:24.710 --> 00:17:27.710
All right. What are some things that seem familiar
00:17:27.710 --> 00:17:31.569
to us? I feel like it's an instinct as musicians
00:17:31.569 --> 00:17:34.549
to know what's going on. Well, it's the first
00:17:34.549 --> 00:17:36.289
thing we're taught to in music school is look
00:17:36.289 --> 00:17:39.210
at your dynamics, look at the written, I guess,
00:17:39.569 --> 00:17:42.049
any sort of... pieces of information that the
00:17:42.049 --> 00:17:43.950
composer puts on the score to make it as accurate
00:17:43.950 --> 00:17:46.509
to what they wanted as possible. One of the things
00:17:46.509 --> 00:17:48.690
I was thinking is that, you know, during the
00:17:49.329 --> 00:17:51.569
classical period there was sort of this expectation
00:17:51.569 --> 00:17:54.069
that when you played like a piano concerto or
00:17:54.069 --> 00:17:56.410
a violin concerto you would actually either write
00:17:56.410 --> 00:17:59.869
yourself or very commonly improvise your own
00:17:59.869 --> 00:18:02.849
cadenza at the end and as you kind of see like
00:18:02.849 --> 00:18:05.730
in the more even 19th century 20th century up
00:18:05.730 --> 00:18:09.309
until today our current pieces many of the cadenzas
00:18:09.309 --> 00:18:11.930
are actually written for us in a way and so many
00:18:11.930 --> 00:18:15.410
performers kind of stick to, again, something
00:18:15.410 --> 00:18:17.549
that is written for them, very detailed by the
00:18:17.549 --> 00:18:21.569
composer. So it's kind of a lost art, but I think
00:18:21.569 --> 00:18:23.049
that's sort of an example. That's a good insight.
00:18:23.170 --> 00:18:27.390
Yeah. I mean, there's things that are kind of
00:18:27.390 --> 00:18:30.130
recognizable here, and I think it's stuff that
00:18:30.130 --> 00:18:33.049
we grew up with. I want to see what further we
00:18:33.049 --> 00:18:36.410
can, what he's trying to go get to. In earlier
00:18:36.410 --> 00:18:39.410
compositions, one easily notices that some notational
00:18:39.410 --> 00:18:42.160
parameters seem to be absent. whereas others
00:18:42.160 --> 00:18:45.500
have a less complete, what is it, compelling
00:18:45.500 --> 00:18:47.740
or altogether different meaning that is dependent
00:18:47.740 --> 00:18:50.460
upon the time or place of composition. Their
00:18:50.460 --> 00:18:52.859
correct performance cannot be documented through
00:18:52.859 --> 00:18:55.619
personal acquaintance with the composer or his
00:18:55.619 --> 00:18:59.779
contemporaneous performers, nor by studying original
00:18:59.779 --> 00:19:02.319
sound recordings. This is the repertoire I shall
00:19:02.319 --> 00:19:11.289
address as early music. uh let's see 1930 or
00:19:11.289 --> 00:19:13.809
so up until now has really really changed i think
00:19:13.809 --> 00:19:15.970
um how we think about the pieces that we play
00:19:15.970 --> 00:19:19.190
because now we have um i i don't want to say
00:19:19.190 --> 00:19:22.529
standardized but we have certain uh performers
00:19:22.529 --> 00:19:25.430
kind of encapsulate maybe a composer or a work
00:19:25.430 --> 00:19:28.349
that they write so when you think of maybe like
00:19:28.349 --> 00:19:30.150
the Bach cello suites everybody goes to Yo -Yo
00:19:30.150 --> 00:19:33.150
Ma or the Chopin octaves everyone goes to Rubenstein
00:19:33.150 --> 00:19:35.410
and things like that which is wonderful if they're
00:19:35.410 --> 00:19:37.289
great recordings which they are but it does kind
00:19:37.289 --> 00:19:40.609
of change our perception of you know performers
00:19:40.609 --> 00:19:43.089
come into a piece for the first time they already
00:19:43.089 --> 00:19:46.009
have these sort of predisposed ideas of what
00:19:46.009 --> 00:19:48.269
it should sound like yeah especially I think
00:19:48.269 --> 00:19:50.190
like when you grow up as a little kid Right,
00:19:50.230 --> 00:19:53.490
you're listening to... I think then that it might,
00:19:53.589 --> 00:19:57.150
may or might, mostly may, will get your head
00:19:57.150 --> 00:20:00.450
stuck with all that content. I mean that isn't
00:20:00.450 --> 00:20:03.190
necessarily a bad thing, but then the point when
00:20:03.190 --> 00:20:05.990
you discover there's all, there's this whole
00:20:05.990 --> 00:20:10.069
other like universe of people, musicians, recordings
00:20:10.069 --> 00:20:13.859
and... maybe even musicologists sharing these
00:20:13.859 --> 00:20:16.880
ideas, that's when the contradiction kicks in
00:20:16.880 --> 00:20:20.099
and maybe you want to do learn about all the
00:20:20.099 --> 00:20:22.240
others. So this was a good definition of early
00:20:22.240 --> 00:20:26.400
music. I actually do want to keep this tab here
00:20:26.400 --> 00:20:31.400
because I personally didn't have a definition
00:20:31.400 --> 00:20:36.160
for early music until now because this is I think
00:20:36.160 --> 00:20:40.509
a good What is it a context behind what what
00:20:40.509 --> 00:20:43.529
it means and people think it's like early music
00:20:43.529 --> 00:20:46.049
Are we talking about the Gregorian chants from?
00:20:49.250 --> 00:20:55.950
Yes However early music is not a particular repertoire
00:20:55.950 --> 00:20:59.109
But it is also understood as including historically
00:20:59.109 --> 00:21:02.309
informed performance in my eyes. This should
00:21:02.309 --> 00:21:06.009
not be a goal in itself is rather an attitude
00:21:06.009 --> 00:21:08.589
a way of reading and rendering a score striving
00:21:08.589 --> 00:21:11.269
for historical authenticity and at the same time
00:21:11.269 --> 00:21:13.970
taking up one's full responsibility as a performer
00:21:13.970 --> 00:21:17.150
it certainly does not consist of easy to learn
00:21:17.150 --> 00:21:20.509
fixed sets of rules okay so it looks like he's
00:21:20.509 --> 00:21:23.289
saying um there's like there's there's no there's
00:21:23.289 --> 00:21:25.809
yeah he's breaking the the norms of all the rules
00:21:25.809 --> 00:21:29.450
that we kind of like kind of grew up with and
00:21:29.450 --> 00:21:32.089
in contrast to, in connection to historically
00:21:32.089 --> 00:21:34.470
informed performance. We should bear in mind
00:21:34.470 --> 00:21:37.150
that in actual performance, musicians were often
00:21:37.150 --> 00:21:39.750
required to add their own unique layer of interpretation,
00:21:40.170 --> 00:21:42.390
something that I believe that we all kind of
00:21:42.390 --> 00:21:45.349
like were told to do at some point when you play
00:21:45.349 --> 00:21:47.049
an instrument. Right, I think so, I think so.
00:21:47.730 --> 00:21:51.150
Were often, okay, so which could or even should
00:21:51.150 --> 00:21:54.410
be different each time the work was played? Without
00:21:54.410 --> 00:21:56.089
this essential and creative performer provided
00:21:56.089 --> 00:21:58.490
contribution, the audience would hear an incomplete
00:21:58.490 --> 00:22:01.250
piece. Thus, studying an early music score according
00:22:01.250 --> 00:22:03.799
to present day reading conventions would out
00:22:03.799 --> 00:22:06.240
without mentally including the performer's layer
00:22:06.240 --> 00:22:08.519
of interpretation means studying an incomplete
00:22:08.519 --> 00:22:11.019
and thus different piece and coming to incomplete
00:22:11.019 --> 00:22:13.880
and thus different conclusions. This danger is
00:22:13.880 --> 00:22:16.559
encountered in musicology as well as in performance.
00:22:16.740 --> 00:22:20.140
I think you actually see it in many concerto
00:22:20.140 --> 00:22:23.140
competitions because like if a performer is playing
00:22:23.140 --> 00:22:25.339
Prokofiev or Ravel or something like that they're
00:22:25.339 --> 00:22:27.240
kind of expected to come to the table with their
00:22:27.240 --> 00:22:30.240
own unique interpretation if you're playing Prokofiev
00:22:30.240 --> 00:22:33.019
third piano concerto the even though I think
00:22:33.019 --> 00:22:36.579
Martha Argerich really made it. But I think there's
00:22:36.579 --> 00:22:38.019
sort of the expectation where it's like you're
00:22:38.019 --> 00:22:39.519
going to make these slight changes that really,
00:22:39.519 --> 00:22:42.799
really make it your own as an upcoming soloist.
00:22:43.130 --> 00:22:45.890
versus if you're playing maybe a Mozart or Haydn
00:22:45.890 --> 00:22:47.789
concerto where there is a little bit more emphasis
00:22:47.789 --> 00:22:51.029
on being more true to the score and more historically
00:22:51.029 --> 00:22:52.970
informed and things like that. So it's sort of
00:22:52.970 --> 00:22:55.670
a different mindset. Yeah, it's also interesting
00:22:55.670 --> 00:22:59.569
if you mind. I am currently reading a book by
00:22:59.569 --> 00:23:01.470
American violinist. He was part of the Guarnieri
00:23:01.470 --> 00:23:03.650
Quartet, if you've heard of him. Oh, sure. Arnold
00:23:03.650 --> 00:23:06.089
Steinhardt. Okay. And he was talking about how
00:23:06.089 --> 00:23:09.329
back even now, I think, in major competitions,
00:23:09.829 --> 00:23:13.019
there is this kind of like set model that you
00:23:13.019 --> 00:23:17.559
have to follow a certain predisposed framework
00:23:17.559 --> 00:23:21.220
that you have to show to the adjudicators and
00:23:21.220 --> 00:23:24.880
the jury because I mean sure yes interpretation
00:23:24.880 --> 00:23:27.319
is also important but I've also found that like
00:23:27.319 --> 00:23:30.759
if you you have to kind of like follow a certain
00:23:30.759 --> 00:23:34.259
method when you perform and if you don't follow
00:23:34.259 --> 00:23:37.089
that formula If you're just like playing all
00:23:37.089 --> 00:23:39.910
over the place with your choices, I noticed that
00:23:39.910 --> 00:23:43.450
there's things called deferrals. And I find that
00:23:43.450 --> 00:23:46.450
interesting too. So that's just interesting to
00:23:46.450 --> 00:23:49.589
note along with that. It's a different, more
00:23:49.589 --> 00:23:51.829
modern perspective. Whereas, you know, if we
00:23:51.829 --> 00:23:53.789
had concerto competitions maybe in the Baroque
00:23:53.789 --> 00:24:02.289
period, it would be a duel. A duel is epic. Like
00:24:02.289 --> 00:24:04.750
the Handel -Pasacali duel. That's like very epic.
00:24:06.799 --> 00:24:09.799
The fact that in early music there is no longer
00:24:09.799 --> 00:24:12.000
direct access to the composer's original creative
00:24:12.000 --> 00:24:15.049
concept can lead to absolute arbitrariness, and
00:24:15.049 --> 00:24:17.630
neglect of even the most obvious historical information
00:24:17.630 --> 00:24:20.029
about topics such as instrumentation, ornamentation,
00:24:20.269 --> 00:24:23.710
tempo, rubato, etc. etc. The composition is then
00:24:23.710 --> 00:24:26.470
often used as a pretext for displaying the performer's
00:24:26.470 --> 00:24:29.650
own ideas, emotions, and virtuosity. Regrettably,
00:24:29.869 --> 00:24:31.930
this also sometimes happens under the commercially
00:24:31.930 --> 00:24:34.849
successful label of authentic early music on
00:24:34.849 --> 00:24:38.289
historical instruments. The parentheses mostly
00:24:38.599 --> 00:24:40.900
non -specialist audience is generally not able
00:24:40.900 --> 00:24:43.839
to detect a degree of consciousness or unconsciousness
00:24:43.839 --> 00:24:46.720
manipulation involved. And sure enough, the performance
00:24:46.720 --> 00:24:49.920
can be very captivating. Alternatively, the wealth
00:24:49.920 --> 00:24:52.339
of historical documentation about the performance
00:24:52.339 --> 00:24:55.079
of early music can be studied, integrated, and
00:24:55.079 --> 00:24:58.779
put into practice. Such performances need not
00:24:58.779 --> 00:25:01.180
be less captivating for being better informed.
00:25:01.500 --> 00:25:02.740
I'm gonna just stop there right there. Do you
00:25:02.740 --> 00:25:04.920
have a comment? The only comment I have is that
00:25:04.920 --> 00:25:08.079
because historically informed performance is
00:25:08.079 --> 00:25:10.519
kind of a newer field of study coming up around
00:25:10.519 --> 00:25:13.380
like the 60s and 70s, I think as the general
00:25:13.380 --> 00:25:15.440
audience, as a classical musician, oftentimes
00:25:15.440 --> 00:25:17.940
we are kind of reliant on the recordings that
00:25:17.940 --> 00:25:20.190
we get and we kind of trust that... they know
00:25:20.190 --> 00:25:22.289
what they're talking about and this is what a
00:25:22.289 --> 00:25:24.990
true rendition of a historical piece should sound
00:25:24.990 --> 00:25:27.549
like when, you know, sometimes there is bias
00:25:27.549 --> 00:25:30.289
or there are tweaks to it that maybe the performers
00:25:30.289 --> 00:25:32.970
aren't even conscious of when they do it, but
00:25:32.970 --> 00:25:36.009
it does kind of, I guess, affect, like, is this
00:25:36.009 --> 00:25:38.069
true historical performance or is it an imitation
00:25:38.069 --> 00:25:39.950
of historical performance? And we're kind of
00:25:39.950 --> 00:25:41.430
reliant on that. Yes, we have different types.
00:25:41.630 --> 00:25:44.730
I just want to mention out. So we have people
00:25:44.730 --> 00:25:47.730
like the Kaiken family, Kaiko family. There's
00:25:47.730 --> 00:25:50.609
three brothers, Wieland Seiswald, and Bartol
00:25:50.609 --> 00:25:52.849
that you hear. He's the woodwind guy, Sigiswald
00:25:52.849 --> 00:25:56.730
is violin, and Wieland is cello viola da gamba.
00:25:56.789 --> 00:26:00.569
He was very famous viol player. Maybe we'll talk
00:26:00.569 --> 00:26:05.049
more about that later, but anyways. It's interesting
00:26:05.049 --> 00:26:07.029
because you have people like the Caica family
00:26:07.029 --> 00:26:09.250
there They have different styles of how you play
00:26:09.250 --> 00:26:11.789
and record early music and then you have people
00:26:11.789 --> 00:26:14.569
like Harnoncourt if you know Nikolaus Harnoncourt
00:26:14.569 --> 00:26:18.529
from He also kind of make a lot of similar labels
00:26:18.529 --> 00:26:22.369
with Bach and he did the I believe New Year's
00:26:22.369 --> 00:26:25.809
concert for the Vienna Philharmonic I believe
00:26:25.809 --> 00:26:29.049
but he was more of a mainstream individual, but
00:26:29.049 --> 00:26:31.990
his recordings were generally perceived by critics
00:26:31.990 --> 00:26:34.970
and audiences as more kind of like this romantic
00:26:34.970 --> 00:26:40.630
love shot. That's why, yeah, you have to have
00:26:40.630 --> 00:26:46.089
skills kind of like critical listening and seeing
00:26:46.089 --> 00:26:49.089
what their thoughts were behind what they were
00:26:49.089 --> 00:26:51.829
making. Right, I think so. I think so. That's
00:26:51.829 --> 00:26:54.089
why books like these I think are very beneficial
00:26:54.089 --> 00:26:55.690
because you can kind of get in the mind of that
00:26:55.690 --> 00:26:58.769
and the types of research. Yeah, however, it
00:26:58.769 --> 00:27:00.829
will be immediately clear that we shall never
00:27:00.829 --> 00:27:03.900
know. for example exactly how JS Bach played
00:27:03.900 --> 00:27:06.539
on which day question mark all we can aspire
00:27:06.539 --> 00:27:08.740
to do is to fall reasonably well within the limits
00:27:08.740 --> 00:27:11.380
of probability and good taste that is that is
00:27:11.380 --> 00:27:15.279
a nice uh stylish sense i like that right there
00:27:15.279 --> 00:27:17.160
again i think good taste in the sense that um
00:27:17.160 --> 00:27:19.980
sometimes i think positions uh in the attempt
00:27:19.980 --> 00:27:23.440
to be maybe, like, unique or historically -informed,
00:27:23.660 --> 00:27:26.400
make decisions that actually bring down the piece,
00:27:26.660 --> 00:27:30.259
sometimes, under the pretense of making it historical
00:27:30.259 --> 00:27:33.160
when in reality it's not as artistic, really.
00:27:33.259 --> 00:27:35.299
You have to remember, even though it is history,
00:27:35.720 --> 00:27:37.319
it was still in the arts, and so you still have
00:27:37.319 --> 00:27:42.059
to add the emotion part of it as an artist. Yes.
00:27:42.519 --> 00:27:45.900
The great artistry, charisma, pedagogical authority,
00:27:46.200 --> 00:27:48.420
and commercial success of some early music performers
00:27:48.420 --> 00:27:51.319
can be dangerous as well. Let's see. Audiences,
00:27:51.480 --> 00:27:53.980
colleagues, and students all too readily accept
00:27:53.980 --> 00:27:57.000
that these stars know all about early music.
00:27:57.259 --> 00:27:59.240
And so their performance is taken as a model
00:27:59.240 --> 00:28:02.579
to unthinkingly imitate. See, that's what we
00:28:02.579 --> 00:28:04.079
were going to... That's what we kind of like
00:28:04.079 --> 00:28:06.099
predicted right there. Needless to say, we thus
00:28:06.099 --> 00:28:08.140
create a new performance tradition that is based
00:28:08.140 --> 00:28:10.970
on the personal choice... of some historical
00:28:10.970 --> 00:28:13.569
facts, plus a strong dose of individual genius.
00:28:14.089 --> 00:28:16.769
In doing so, we remove ourselves one step away
00:28:16.769 --> 00:28:20.630
from the historical documentation itself. Students
00:28:20.630 --> 00:28:24.789
of these quote unquote stars will tend to imitate
00:28:24.789 --> 00:28:27.789
them rather than study the facts that shape the
00:28:27.789 --> 00:28:30.950
teacher's decision. And so it goes on to the
00:28:30.950 --> 00:28:34.019
third generation and students beyond. This evolution
00:28:34.019 --> 00:28:36.599
is clearly invisible and audible. It's the price
00:28:36.599 --> 00:28:38.920
we pay for the success of early music in concerts,
00:28:39.539 --> 00:28:41.359
publications, and recordings. The price we pay
00:28:41.359 --> 00:28:46.839
for having early music courses in most major
00:28:46.839 --> 00:28:50.599
conservatories, which is a new trend you would
00:28:50.599 --> 00:28:53.980
see. That's a pretty new thing actually. I didn't
00:28:53.980 --> 00:28:57.170
realize... how prevalent, I guess that's a good
00:28:57.170 --> 00:28:59.109
thing, but how prevalent that it's starting to
00:28:59.109 --> 00:29:01.670
become in just your average music conservatory.
00:29:01.670 --> 00:29:05.289
Yeah, because what I heard from this family of
00:29:05.289 --> 00:29:07.109
musicians was that there was that thing called
00:29:07.109 --> 00:29:09.829
a performance diploma and a certificate. There
00:29:09.829 --> 00:29:12.569
was a certificate that they would work for and
00:29:12.569 --> 00:29:14.930
now you've added like the bachelors of music
00:29:14.930 --> 00:29:17.670
and the masters of music and then you added like...
00:29:17.630 --> 00:29:21.009
all sorts of these other degrees to study for.
00:29:21.450 --> 00:29:23.470
I think this can never be completely avoided.
00:29:23.730 --> 00:29:26.990
Imitation is at least temporarily a part of the
00:29:26.990 --> 00:29:28.950
artistic learning process, but I consider it
00:29:28.950 --> 00:29:31.329
the teacher's task to leave this developmental
00:29:31.329 --> 00:29:34.450
stage as soon as possible. So we're already kind
00:29:34.450 --> 00:29:36.670
of like uncovering what his thoughts of teaching
00:29:36.670 --> 00:29:38.789
is, because he was a professor after all. Well,
00:29:38.809 --> 00:29:42.089
that's true. That's true. You're right. Anything
00:29:42.089 --> 00:29:45.950
here you think in contrast with like teachers?
00:29:46.589 --> 00:29:48.730
Yeah. That you've experienced? Well, no, I think
00:29:48.730 --> 00:29:51.609
that's very true. I think you have many teachers
00:29:51.609 --> 00:29:55.410
in the arts where they do try to push this idea
00:29:55.410 --> 00:29:58.759
where, I mean... in the whole of music, whether
00:29:58.759 --> 00:30:00.559
you're a performer or a composer or something
00:30:00.559 --> 00:30:03.059
like that, that you have to do it a certain way.
00:30:03.740 --> 00:30:06.180
Because it's very possible that the way they're
00:30:06.180 --> 00:30:08.019
trying to promote is successful and that it is
00:30:08.019 --> 00:30:11.640
a good, laudable process of doing it. But sometimes,
00:30:11.660 --> 00:30:14.200
though, it does kind of create that copy and
00:30:14.200 --> 00:30:16.559
paste between the teacher and the student. A
00:30:16.559 --> 00:30:19.180
mold, yeah. Yeah, a mold. I've always heard it
00:30:19.180 --> 00:30:22.000
with teachers saying, you do this and do that
00:30:22.000 --> 00:30:23.619
and do this and do that. And maybe they do grow
00:30:23.619 --> 00:30:28.390
up to be... Pretty proficient in what they do
00:30:28.390 --> 00:30:30.990
in the instrument, but it's kind of like they
00:30:30.990 --> 00:30:33.009
it's a mold. It's a chocolate mold they make
00:30:33.009 --> 00:30:38.769
they mold Forever and ever and ever So that's
00:30:38.769 --> 00:30:41.730
that's what I'm thinking and his philosophy is
00:30:41.730 --> 00:30:45.069
kind of like more of a critical thinking kind
00:30:45.069 --> 00:30:49.210
of like Standpoint a viewpoint where you have
00:30:49.210 --> 00:30:51.849
you have to like question the more the curiosity
00:30:56.420 --> 00:30:59.039
historical music like early music and also modern
00:30:59.039 --> 00:31:01.660
music contemporary starts to become more of a
00:31:01.660 --> 00:31:03.839
mainstream thing in just your traditional conservatory
00:31:03.839 --> 00:31:06.200
I almost wonder if that is gonna push the idea
00:31:06.200 --> 00:31:09.440
of that sort of like standard classical you have
00:31:09.440 --> 00:31:11.420
to do it this way and only this way I wonder
00:31:11.420 --> 00:31:13.160
if that's gonna change over the next couple years
00:31:13.160 --> 00:31:16.039
as these other styles of music just become more
00:31:16.039 --> 00:31:20.660
popular yes These two problems, arbitrariness
00:31:20.660 --> 00:31:23.079
and alienation from the sources themselves usually
00:31:23.079 --> 00:31:26.720
go hand in hand and can become fashion. Indeed,
00:31:27.019 --> 00:31:29.440
some early music performers are proud to emancipate
00:31:29.440 --> 00:31:32.000
themselves from the sources. I would call this
00:31:32.000 --> 00:31:35.009
the modern early music tradition. Interestingly,
00:31:35.289 --> 00:31:37.950
in many cases this approach uses successful recipes
00:31:37.950 --> 00:31:40.829
of late romantic performance practice, such as
00:31:40.829 --> 00:31:43.609
extended crescendos and diminuendos, upbeat phrasing,
00:31:43.990 --> 00:31:46.109
continuous vibrato, and modern rubato. I feel
00:31:46.109 --> 00:31:48.490
like, personally for me, that's kind of like
00:31:48.490 --> 00:31:51.250
what instinctually comes up to mind when you
00:31:51.250 --> 00:31:53.650
play something. Just literally, virtually anything,
00:31:54.250 --> 00:31:57.769
because that's what we grew up with. I see something
00:31:57.769 --> 00:32:01.720
pretty funny in the future. sentences here. Compositions
00:32:01.720 --> 00:32:04.660
are often subjected to re -instrumentation, that
00:32:04.660 --> 00:32:07.400
happens a lot, and arrangement in order to make
00:32:07.400 --> 00:32:09.880
them more interesting or to blow up their length.
00:32:10.440 --> 00:32:13.000
What I call the bowler row effect has become
00:32:13.000 --> 00:32:15.440
very popular. The formula is as follows. Start
00:32:15.440 --> 00:32:17.980
with a percussion instrument solo, then add the
00:32:17.980 --> 00:32:21.089
bass, and one more voice, until everybody is
00:32:21.089 --> 00:32:23.150
playing, and if desired, do the same in reverse
00:32:23.150 --> 00:32:25.730
order at the end. All these devices are easy
00:32:25.730 --> 00:32:27.470
to apply and do not require much specialized
00:32:27.470 --> 00:32:29.910
knowledge or technique. They benefit from being
00:32:29.910 --> 00:32:32.509
familiar or easy to understand for today's average
00:32:32.509 --> 00:32:34.509
listener, which also explains the success of
00:32:34.509 --> 00:32:36.950
this kind of performance. In itself, this is
00:32:36.950 --> 00:32:39.150
not the problem. Every performer is free to do
00:32:39.150 --> 00:32:41.569
as he wishes. However, when these performances
00:32:41.569 --> 00:32:44.349
are being advertised under the false label of
00:32:44.460 --> 00:32:48.099
authentic early music, either explicitly or implicitly,
00:32:48.140 --> 00:32:50.599
I perceive this as some kind of intellectual
00:32:50.599 --> 00:32:54.299
and artistic fraud. Well, yeah, and I think you
00:32:54.299 --> 00:32:56.559
know a lot of things we do kind of going back
00:32:56.559 --> 00:32:59.440
to the we play things from that sort of late
00:32:59.440 --> 00:33:02.680
romantic era period style of interpretation is
00:33:02.680 --> 00:33:05.000
Sometimes it's it's sort of an intrinsic thing
00:33:05.000 --> 00:33:07.440
that we do without even thinking about it And
00:33:07.440 --> 00:33:09.759
when you play like a Haydn concerto sometimes
00:33:09.759 --> 00:33:12.119
sometimes you had a little bit more vibrato than
00:33:12.119 --> 00:33:16.539
maybe needed for the concerto I also think I
00:33:16.539 --> 00:33:19.240
think what was it called the Bolero Bolero Bolero
00:33:19.240 --> 00:33:21.779
effect it isn't because he talks about how one
00:33:21.779 --> 00:33:24.230
voice will and then there's sort of this plethora
00:33:24.230 --> 00:33:25.490
of other instruments that will kind of build
00:33:25.490 --> 00:33:28.670
on top of it. I think that's a very Vivaldi style
00:33:28.670 --> 00:33:33.150
of instrumentation, and so we think Vivaldi is
00:33:33.150 --> 00:33:36.509
Baroque period, so there's a question of early
00:33:36.509 --> 00:33:39.609
music... Is it primarily thought of as just the
00:33:39.609 --> 00:33:42.049
Baroque or does it also incorporate things like
00:33:42.049 --> 00:33:43.930
the medieval style or the Renaissance style?
00:33:44.490 --> 00:33:46.769
So you have to, I guess, in studying early music
00:33:46.769 --> 00:33:49.630
to be careful to include even like the early
00:33:49.630 --> 00:33:51.849
early parts of music going back to like the Victorian
00:33:51.849 --> 00:33:54.849
chants to, I guess, inform your artistic decisions.
00:33:55.930 --> 00:33:59.410
Yes, let's see what else, but you know, you know,
00:33:59.490 --> 00:34:02.630
like if you were someone who kind of like contradicted
00:34:02.630 --> 00:34:05.109
this kind of like thinking You would kind of
00:34:05.109 --> 00:34:06.730
like get a red flag all the way at the bottom
00:34:06.730 --> 00:34:09.809
of the page. I perceive this as some kind of
00:34:09.809 --> 00:34:13.250
intellectual artistic fraud. Right, let's see.
00:34:13.809 --> 00:34:16.010
And then we'll kind of like do a little overview
00:34:16.010 --> 00:34:19.510
and summary thought of this entire manifest right
00:34:19.510 --> 00:34:21.889
here. What might be an alternative? We cannot
00:34:21.889 --> 00:34:25.289
go back to the situation in the 1950s and 1960s
00:34:25.289 --> 00:34:27.650
where one was virtually obliged to be self -taught.
00:34:27.719 --> 00:34:29.659
because formal instruction in early music was
00:34:29.659 --> 00:34:32.380
rarely available. I do not wish to turn the clock
00:34:32.380 --> 00:34:34.920
back, but rather desire to profit from the immense
00:34:34.920 --> 00:34:37.559
availability of information, which then needs
00:34:37.559 --> 00:34:40.719
to be taken seriously, studied, digested, and
00:34:40.719 --> 00:34:44.800
applied. This is rather also, I want to mention,
00:34:44.960 --> 00:34:48.219
because Barthold Kuijken was self -taught in this sort
00:34:48.219 --> 00:34:52.400
of practice, there was no one at the academics
00:34:52.400 --> 00:34:55.619
to kind of rely on or at your institution. You
00:34:55.619 --> 00:34:59.699
would have to... technically just do all the
00:34:59.699 --> 00:35:02.920
work yourself. And this is why I personally also
00:35:02.920 --> 00:35:05.300
kind of look up to these kind of like authors.
00:35:05.699 --> 00:35:07.820
There's a lot of people, even beyond just music,
00:35:08.940 --> 00:35:10.920
some of these people didn't go to college at
00:35:10.920 --> 00:35:13.639
all. Right, entirely self -taught. Yeah. We have,
00:35:13.639 --> 00:35:16.099
there's audio engineers who, there's a guy called
00:35:16.099 --> 00:35:18.539
Rupert Neve and he was the father of the modern
00:35:18.539 --> 00:35:20.340
recording studios. The Beatles, Michael Jackson,
00:35:20.539 --> 00:35:22.260
literally virtually everyone. The dude did not
00:35:22.260 --> 00:35:24.980
go to college, but he was, he loved electronics
00:35:24.980 --> 00:35:27.679
and circuits so much and like where they got
00:35:27.679 --> 00:35:32.110
him places like. Mr. Kaika, too. So I'm kind
00:35:32.110 --> 00:35:34.909
of fascinated with that kind of sense. It's almost
00:35:34.909 --> 00:35:37.570
unthinkable. I mean, in today's world, especially
00:35:37.570 --> 00:35:39.190
in music, because there seems to be a degree
00:35:39.190 --> 00:35:41.789
for everything. I mean, there is benefit to that,
00:35:41.789 --> 00:35:45.389
and I do see the bonus of finding a group of
00:35:45.389 --> 00:35:46.969
people that are looking. Yeah, now everything
00:35:46.969 --> 00:35:49.369
is more... It's standardized, yeah. It's more
00:35:49.369 --> 00:35:52.900
academia and more... going to an institution.
00:35:53.800 --> 00:35:56.980
I rarely see nowadays, like even now, like people
00:35:56.980 --> 00:35:59.199
maybe skipping college and they actually know
00:35:59.199 --> 00:36:02.360
what they want to do. There is also a need for
00:36:02.360 --> 00:36:04.699
diversification. The more we study the old sources,
00:36:04.800 --> 00:36:06.599
the more it becomes obvious that there is not
00:36:06.599 --> 00:36:09.059
a unique historical truth valid for all times,
00:36:09.440 --> 00:36:12.019
places, styles, genres, and composers. In my
00:36:12.019 --> 00:36:14.539
own teaching, I feel responsible for having my
00:36:14.539 --> 00:36:16.619
students focus on the historical source material
00:36:16.619 --> 00:36:19.639
itself, the scores, instruments, iconography,
00:36:20.269 --> 00:36:23.769
the treatises rather than modern editions, replicas,
00:36:24.250 --> 00:36:26.170
translations, studies, and comments. Indeed,
00:36:26.469 --> 00:36:28.730
why should my students accept my interpretations
00:36:28.730 --> 00:36:31.610
of the historical material? Even with my best
00:36:31.610 --> 00:36:33.869
intentions, the information I hand them will
00:36:33.869 --> 00:36:37.489
be paraphrased, truncated, manipulated, chosen,
00:36:38.010 --> 00:36:40.210
neglected, or combined in any way subjected to
00:36:40.210 --> 00:36:44.449
my own biases and capacities, experiences, blind
00:36:44.449 --> 00:36:47.239
spots, temperament, and taste. Students should
00:36:47.239 --> 00:36:49.400
be taught to view all information, be it from
00:36:49.400 --> 00:36:51.659
their music teachers or from musicology, with
00:36:51.659 --> 00:36:54.280
a critical eye and a healthy dose of skepticism.
00:36:55.139 --> 00:36:57.239
In my opinion, and not only in the field of early
00:36:57.239 --> 00:37:00.179
music, any teacher's goal is to make himself
00:37:00.179 --> 00:37:04.139
super -fluous and train his students to become
00:37:04.139 --> 00:37:08.059
autodidact. Okay. Right after this. I think that
00:37:08.059 --> 00:37:13.019
goes for even contemporary music as well. As
00:37:13.019 --> 00:37:15.760
artists, teachers as well as students need to
00:37:15.760 --> 00:37:18.260
acquire and maintain their instrumental or vocal
00:37:18.260 --> 00:37:20.780
mastery and simultaneously become and stay well
00:37:20.780 --> 00:37:23.480
-informed and let those two areas of study fruitfully
00:37:23.480 --> 00:37:26.599
interact with each other. I realize this is not
00:37:26.599 --> 00:37:28.760
the fast and easy way, neither for students nor
00:37:28.760 --> 00:37:30.800
for teachers, but it's certainly most rewarding
00:37:30.800 --> 00:37:33.219
for both. The benefit will be for their audiences
00:37:33.219 --> 00:37:35.739
and who will not be fooled by the Emperor's new
00:37:35.739 --> 00:37:41.289
clothes. And that's a nice little piece of figurative
00:37:41.289 --> 00:37:46.329
language right there. Let's see. So a lot of
00:37:46.329 --> 00:37:49.429
this, starting from beginning to end of this
00:37:49.429 --> 00:37:53.670
chapter, was more about philosophical teaching,
00:37:53.929 --> 00:37:58.210
the way you want to approach handing the information
00:37:58.210 --> 00:38:00.150
to students. Because ultimately, then, generation
00:38:00.150 --> 00:38:02.530
by generation, that's how the popular media is
00:38:02.530 --> 00:38:08.139
going to perceive it. So, let's go ahead and
00:38:08.139 --> 00:38:11.320
we're going to see what he talks about in research.
00:38:11.619 --> 00:38:33.469
Chapter 2, my way toward research. Since there
00:38:33.469 --> 00:38:35.210
was nobody around to teach me the recorder on
00:38:35.210 --> 00:38:38.289
a regular basis, I had to proceed alone. I think
00:38:38.289 --> 00:38:41.269
the recorder is a real instrument. It is! Stop!
00:38:41.849 --> 00:38:43.530
Especially in early music, it was because they
00:38:43.530 --> 00:38:46.130
had the... It was like the flute and the recorder
00:38:46.130 --> 00:38:49.769
was wooden, I think, so you had to... Yeah, it's
00:38:49.769 --> 00:38:52.329
way beyond just going to, what is it, elementary
00:38:52.329 --> 00:38:54.650
school in fourth grade and your music teachers
00:38:54.650 --> 00:38:57.590
in school saying, oh, play the recorder. Play
00:38:57.590 --> 00:39:00.869
your Yamaha recorder. And, you know, it's...
00:39:00.409 --> 00:39:02.889
It's it's it's wave. There's there's more to
00:39:02.889 --> 00:39:06.869
that. It's it's It is kind of deep. It's not
00:39:06.869 --> 00:39:10.210
just like surface iceberg level like oh Oh, I
00:39:10.210 --> 00:39:13.210
get to play this and I get to write in my nose
00:39:13.210 --> 00:39:19.610
But this is like this is that it's kind of very
00:39:19.610 --> 00:39:22.730
brave of him to continue on to say He continues
00:39:22.730 --> 00:39:25.150
saying this autodidactic approach became second
00:39:25.150 --> 00:39:27.570
nature and I profoundly enjoyed inventing that
00:39:27.570 --> 00:39:31.139
every next room myself In this, I was greatly
00:39:31.139 --> 00:39:33.320
supported by the general family spirit of curiosity
00:39:33.320 --> 00:39:36.219
and independent thinking. Also, especially, when
00:39:36.219 --> 00:39:38.039
this went against institutions and authorities
00:39:38.039 --> 00:39:40.480
such as school or tradition. As children, we
00:39:40.480 --> 00:39:42.420
were encouraged to follow our own path, but we
00:39:42.420 --> 00:39:44.260
were reminded by our parents of the risk of doing
00:39:44.260 --> 00:39:47.320
so. In other words, if you were convinced, go
00:39:47.320 --> 00:39:49.480
ahead, but do not complain afterwards about the
00:39:49.480 --> 00:39:52.739
consequences. Yes, this is literally going, yeah,
00:39:53.000 --> 00:39:54.940
when you're going towards another, you know...
00:39:54.860 --> 00:39:58.300
Different occupation, career path, this is literally
00:39:58.300 --> 00:40:00.840
how it's kind of like perceived as, especially
00:40:00.840 --> 00:40:03.699
with recording, recorder, the recorder instrument
00:40:03.699 --> 00:40:06.260
which he was interested in. This is also, I mean
00:40:06.260 --> 00:40:08.760
he said that this passion developed in the early
00:40:08.760 --> 00:40:12.579
1960s and that was sort of a time when you had
00:40:12.579 --> 00:40:14.780
things like rock and roll and jazz and I was
00:40:14.780 --> 00:40:16.739
kind of pushing against the status quo of classical
00:40:16.739 --> 00:40:19.460
music already, so kind of already being in the
00:40:19.460 --> 00:40:22.099
classical world and pushing against things with
00:40:22.099 --> 00:40:23.780
everything else going on at the same time was
00:40:23.780 --> 00:40:27.840
probably a bigger deal or probably had more more
00:40:27.840 --> 00:40:29.639
pushback at the time because classical music
00:40:29.639 --> 00:40:31.639
was already facing all these different genres.
00:40:32.139 --> 00:40:34.880
It's also interesting too that in the 1960s and
00:40:34.880 --> 00:40:37.619
70s you had quite a bit of I guess you'd call
00:40:37.619 --> 00:40:40.539
it the British invasion of rock and roll and
00:40:40.539 --> 00:40:44.260
with that a lot of these English bands I guess
00:40:44.260 --> 00:40:46.380
they were very familiar with medieval styles
00:40:46.380 --> 00:40:50.320
of like British old English Oh, yeah, which is
00:40:50.320 --> 00:40:52.300
cool because there were a lot of things in like
00:40:52.300 --> 00:40:54.659
prog rock where they had these like flute moments
00:40:54.659 --> 00:40:57.860
or I don't even know you like Elizabethan Tudor
00:40:57.860 --> 00:41:02.300
era. Oh, yeah Do you want to do the name drop?
00:41:05.679 --> 00:41:08.920
Genesis the prog rock band Genesis their album
00:41:08.920 --> 00:41:11.809
selling England by the pound has a couple examples
00:41:11.809 --> 00:41:14.449
where it's very much a rock and roll album, but
00:41:14.449 --> 00:41:16.449
there are moments where it's like you'll be in
00:41:16.449 --> 00:41:19.150
the middle of a drum solo and then an Elizabethan
00:41:19.150 --> 00:41:20.989
woodwind solo will come in and it's like, wow,
00:41:21.010 --> 00:41:23.130
that's really interesting. But it works. I think
00:41:23.130 --> 00:41:26.050
it's cool. It's great fusion. It is fusion, right?
00:41:26.369 --> 00:41:29.349
Great fusion. Yeah. All right. The next part
00:41:29.349 --> 00:41:31.269
reads, I was stimulated by the presence of my
00:41:31.269 --> 00:41:33.469
two older musician brothers, you'll have to...
00:41:33.469 --> 00:41:37.150
Wieland, Wieland and Sigiswold. You want to learn
00:41:37.150 --> 00:41:38.750
how to do it? Yeah, how do you pronounce it?
00:41:38.809 --> 00:41:41.650
Okay, Wieland, like I would kind of like think
00:41:41.650 --> 00:41:45.570
of Poland, you know? Wieland and Sigiswold. Sigiswold,
00:41:45.750 --> 00:41:47.570
I think Sigiswold you're just gonna have to know
00:41:47.570 --> 00:41:53.380
on your own. Sigiswold, yeah. These are all ancient
00:41:53.380 --> 00:41:56.320
kind of like Flemish and German given names,
00:41:56.599 --> 00:42:00.320
so you will not see this in... Modern Belgium
00:42:00.320 --> 00:42:02.340
like with people so this is it's very unique.
00:42:02.679 --> 00:42:09.659
They have probably like only five cgs volts Who
00:42:09.659 --> 00:42:11.539
were that so these two brothers who are then
00:42:11.539 --> 00:42:13.400
having their first experiences with early string
00:42:13.400 --> 00:42:16.139
instruments unlike them I had chosen wind instruments
00:42:16.139 --> 00:42:18.079
and this gave me a field of my own to cultivate
00:42:18.079 --> 00:42:20.659
I'm very grateful to them for not having pushed
00:42:20.659 --> 00:42:23.659
me in any particular direction At that time we
00:42:23.659 --> 00:42:25.619
were discovering and discussing the revolutionary
00:42:25.619 --> 00:42:28.019
recordings of musicians such as Alfred Deler,
00:42:28.139 --> 00:42:31.659
Nikolaus Harnor... Harnoncourt. That's the guy,
00:42:31.659 --> 00:42:35.920
yeah. Oh, sorry, Gustav Leonhardt. I remember
00:42:35.920 --> 00:42:40.900
I received Johann... Johann Joachim... Joachim
00:42:40.900 --> 00:42:45.460
Quanz. Quanz. Famous. Oh my god. I took German
00:42:45.460 --> 00:42:47.960
here. Do you want me to do this word? Versuch
00:42:47.960 --> 00:42:55.579
einer Anweisung. please do not um any German
00:42:55.579 --> 00:42:58.539
or Belgian Flemish people please do not please
00:42:58.539 --> 00:43:01.500
do not offend me i do i do not want to offend
00:43:01.500 --> 00:43:04.480
the this language 1752 but this right here i
00:43:04.480 --> 00:43:16.679
just want to point out treatises for my 13th
00:43:16.679 --> 00:43:19.019
birthday. I read it eagerly, learning German
00:43:19.019 --> 00:43:21.679
language and gothic print along the way. I consider
00:43:21.679 --> 00:43:23.780
this to be the start of my now already more than
00:43:23.780 --> 00:43:26.719
50 years long early music adventure. Kwan's book
00:43:26.719 --> 00:43:28.780
opened up a new world for me, and I was impatient
00:43:28.780 --> 00:43:31.300
to know more. Soon after, I was to become an
00:43:31.300 --> 00:43:32.840
acquaintance with other important treatises.
00:43:58.829 --> 00:44:01.769
many classical musicians some of the early pieces
00:44:01.769 --> 00:44:04.809
of I guess history knowledge that they get is
00:44:04.809 --> 00:44:07.110
from things like biographies that people have
00:44:07.110 --> 00:44:09.369
written or small history books about classical
00:44:09.369 --> 00:44:11.869
music. But this is interesting because he's saying
00:44:11.869 --> 00:44:13.969
he has basically a primary source that he got
00:44:13.969 --> 00:44:15.849
for the first time. He understood the importance
00:44:15.849 --> 00:44:18.469
of it and then he did the work to learn the language
00:44:18.469 --> 00:44:20.670
and study the historical background. I mean that's
00:44:20.670 --> 00:44:23.769
an obstacle to go through. There are people that
00:44:23.769 --> 00:44:26.170
do not want to go out of the way and learn another
00:44:26.170 --> 00:44:29.650
language waiting until the English edition comes
00:44:29.650 --> 00:44:34.500
out. This is a great start. Just before entering
00:44:34.500 --> 00:44:37.480
the Brussels Royal Conservatory, I found my first
00:44:37.480 --> 00:44:40.780
Baroque one -keyed flute. I don't even know what
00:44:40.780 --> 00:44:44.699
it is. Eventually, I found out that it had been
00:44:44.699 --> 00:44:47.199
made in the mid -19th century as a cheap model
00:44:47.199 --> 00:44:50.119
and constructed only partly according to 18th
00:44:50.119 --> 00:44:53.239
century principles. That's very interesting.
00:44:53.360 --> 00:44:55.139
I don't know, what the heck is a one -keyed flute?
00:44:55.260 --> 00:44:58.139
A one -keyed flute? There's just like two notes
00:44:58.139 --> 00:45:06.059
on it? Oh yeah, I'm thinking of that. It was
00:45:06.059 --> 00:45:08.340
not very good, but good enough to guide my first
00:45:08.340 --> 00:45:10.900
steps, and it made me hungry for more. I had
00:45:10.900 --> 00:45:12.840
already noticed that much of the flute repertoire
00:45:12.840 --> 00:45:16.300
before 1750 sounded more appropriate to me on
00:45:16.300 --> 00:45:18.239
the recorder than on the modern flute, and now,
00:45:18.440 --> 00:45:20.820
even with this mediocre instrument, things fell
00:45:20.820 --> 00:45:22.829
into place and it felt natural. whatever that
00:45:22.829 --> 00:45:25.650
means. While studying at the Brussels Royal Conservatory,
00:45:25.769 --> 00:45:28.369
I discovered that its library was full of highly
00:45:28.369 --> 00:45:31.489
interesting sources and theoretical books, most
00:45:31.489 --> 00:45:34.349
of them then not yet republished. And I spent
00:45:34.349 --> 00:45:37.269
as much as time possible in this gold mine. This
00:45:37.269 --> 00:45:39.909
occurred parallel to and independently of my
00:45:39.909 --> 00:45:43.429
regular boon, modern flute studies, which I enjoyed
00:45:43.429 --> 00:45:47.969
very much as well. Yeah, so this is not the typical
00:45:48.429 --> 00:45:52.869
2 .5 GPA activities that kids like kids in music
00:45:52.869 --> 00:45:55.449
college would do like like There's different
00:45:55.449 --> 00:45:57.969
there's different types of like music students
00:45:57.969 --> 00:46:00.750
like in college you have the performance people
00:46:01.699 --> 00:46:03.860
These people practice hours and hours on end
00:46:03.860 --> 00:46:05.599
every day. That's all what they do. And then
00:46:05.599 --> 00:46:07.659
there's, there's, I mean, I don't know, there's
00:46:07.659 --> 00:46:09.579
still people out there that do want to read all
00:46:09.579 --> 00:46:12.019
these books. Musicology. Read all these first
00:46:12.019 --> 00:46:14.820
-hand sources. Yeah, that's true. And actually,
00:46:14.920 --> 00:46:16.760
I mean, I've sort of thought this before, where
00:46:16.760 --> 00:46:18.800
much of the emphasis in the classical world goes
00:46:18.800 --> 00:46:21.460
to, and it makes sense, but it goes to the performance
00:46:21.460 --> 00:46:24.159
students. It's more so we want to find the best
00:46:24.159 --> 00:46:27.260
violinist, violist, cellist. when there is sort
00:46:27.260 --> 00:46:30.199
of, I think, a very necessary space for musicology
00:46:30.199 --> 00:46:35.039
and for, I guess, I want to say library and documentation
00:46:35.039 --> 00:46:37.800
studies, because every major orchestra has a
00:46:37.800 --> 00:46:40.539
library and they have a resident historian that
00:46:40.539 --> 00:46:43.300
comes in and understands musical history about
00:46:43.300 --> 00:46:45.619
the specific orchestra, but also just each of
00:46:45.619 --> 00:46:47.300
the composers who are playing and they put the
00:46:47.300 --> 00:46:49.940
program books together, so it's invaluable, I
00:46:49.940 --> 00:46:53.030
think. All right. Let's have you take that. So
00:46:53.030 --> 00:46:55.510
the next part says, a decisive event happened
00:46:55.510 --> 00:46:57.690
during my first year at the conservatory. I found
00:46:57.690 --> 00:46:59.869
a splendid original flute, an incredible piece
00:46:59.869 --> 00:47:02.469
of luck for a boy of 18, made in Brussels around
00:47:02.469 --> 00:47:07.289
1750 by Godfrey Adrian Ruttenberg, one of the
00:47:07.289 --> 00:47:09.010
great woodwind instrument makers of the 18th
00:47:09.010 --> 00:47:12.570
century. I didn't know that. Again, I had to
00:47:12.570 --> 00:47:14.889
proceed as an autodidact since nobody was around
00:47:14.889 --> 00:47:16.989
to teach me the Baroque flute. This proved to
00:47:16.989 --> 00:47:18.889
be a blessing. I had to make all mistakes by
00:47:18.889 --> 00:47:21.349
myself and to discover myself that and why they
00:47:21.349 --> 00:47:23.590
were mistakes. It was a slow learning process,
00:47:23.989 --> 00:47:27.449
but my good old flute was to become the best
00:47:27.449 --> 00:47:30.090
teacher I ever had. As really good instruments
00:47:30.090 --> 00:47:32.309
do, it showed me how I wanted or did not want
00:47:32.309 --> 00:47:34.610
to be played. Of course, I continued my bone
00:47:34.610 --> 00:47:36.929
flute studies, simultaneously taking two years
00:47:36.929 --> 00:47:39.030
of art history at Ghent University. Following
00:47:39.030 --> 00:47:41.510
that, I studied for one year in Holland, focusing
00:47:41.510 --> 00:47:44.389
on contemporary bone flute repertoire. So this
00:47:44.389 --> 00:47:48.480
shows that even though you are in the early music
00:47:48.480 --> 00:47:50.400
period, having an understanding of what are the
00:47:50.400 --> 00:47:52.840
contemporary flute players working on now. So
00:47:52.840 --> 00:47:54.340
you have something to kind of, I guess, compare
00:47:54.340 --> 00:47:57.780
it to. It's interesting. Yeah, and I like the
00:47:57.780 --> 00:48:01.199
fact that good instruments do make good music.
00:48:01.380 --> 00:48:04.280
I mean, what is it, what was he, good instruments,
00:48:05.340 --> 00:48:09.010
because he was able to find something by... Goldfrey
00:48:09.010 --> 00:48:12.150
Adrian Rottenberg and then he said he said he
00:48:12.150 --> 00:48:14.150
was one of the great woodwind instrument makers
00:48:14.150 --> 00:48:16.289
of the 18th century and it does like I think
00:48:16.289 --> 00:48:19.610
the I know there's I think a debate between like
00:48:19.610 --> 00:48:22.250
either having a like I think there's a debate
00:48:22.250 --> 00:48:26.250
between the definition of having a good instrument
00:48:26.250 --> 00:48:28.210
and what you're going to use it for to make good
00:48:28.210 --> 00:48:31.130
music. And there's some people who don't necessarily
00:48:31.130 --> 00:48:33.210
follow on with that, but especially I think with
00:48:33.210 --> 00:48:35.269
early music, it does make a good difference.
00:48:36.230 --> 00:48:38.250
You learn so many things from the instrument
00:48:38.250 --> 00:48:40.349
and what to do. The limitations and things like
00:48:40.349 --> 00:48:43.170
that. Continuing on, he says, this should hardly
00:48:43.170 --> 00:48:45.530
be a surprise as contemporary music, just like
00:48:45.530 --> 00:48:47.650
the music before Bach or Handel, was largely
00:48:47.650 --> 00:48:50.070
ignored or ridiculed by the conservatory. And
00:48:50.070 --> 00:48:53.000
this greatly stimulated my interest. In contemporary,
00:48:53.159 --> 00:48:55.420
often experimental music, as in early music,
00:48:55.760 --> 00:48:58.199
and more in the typical conservatory repertoire,
00:48:58.639 --> 00:49:00.460
the active and creative participation of the
00:49:00.460 --> 00:49:03.019
performer is required, and in the 60s and 70s,
00:49:03.179 --> 00:49:04.800
many colleagues were simultaneously focusing
00:49:04.800 --> 00:49:07.139
on old and very new music, both left and right
00:49:07.139 --> 00:49:09.400
from the mainstream repertoire. But I felt that
00:49:09.400 --> 00:49:11.480
early music was my real passion, and during the
00:49:11.480 --> 00:49:13.599
following years, modern flute and contemporary
00:49:13.599 --> 00:49:16.099
repertoire gradually receded into the background.
00:49:16.460 --> 00:49:18.679
My interest in research was prompted by those
00:49:18.679 --> 00:49:21.019
areas of my musical training, both at an early
00:49:21.019 --> 00:49:23.179
age and at an advanced level, that seemed to
00:49:23.179 --> 00:49:46.349
contradict each other. That's interesting. Officially
00:49:46.349 --> 00:49:49.210
based on A equals 440 Hertz, but modern orchestras
00:49:49.210 --> 00:49:51.329
play much higher and old instruments could deviate
00:49:51.329 --> 00:49:53.949
from this by as much as a whole tone up and down.
00:49:54.409 --> 00:49:56.510
Up as a whole tone. Okay, well, here's the thing.
00:49:56.769 --> 00:49:58.550
I mean, I think I heard in Poland and Germany,
00:49:59.530 --> 00:50:02.909
their tuning systems, I mean, it's not exactly
00:50:02.909 --> 00:50:06.269
440, but it can be 445. So there's something
00:50:06.269 --> 00:50:07.909
around there. It's a little more on the brighter
00:50:07.909 --> 00:50:10.150
end. Right. Yeah, and I know some other countries
00:50:10.150 --> 00:50:12.909
actually it's the opposite. It's going more down.
00:50:13.070 --> 00:50:15.610
Yeah, that's true. In perfect pitch, I cannot
00:50:15.610 --> 00:50:18.050
believe that. Perfect pitch is crazy. Because
00:50:18.050 --> 00:50:21.150
if think about, you know, in America if you're
00:50:21.150 --> 00:50:23.849
gonna take the AP music theory exam or even the
00:50:23.849 --> 00:50:27.010
RCM exam, that one's very difficult, I believe.
00:50:27.750 --> 00:50:30.369
It depends on the level that you're doing. But
00:50:30.369 --> 00:50:33.889
yeah, I mean, it is a good tool if you do have
00:50:33.889 --> 00:50:36.300
it, but some people don't. have it and this is
00:50:36.300 --> 00:50:38.440
like interesting, I mean this was also back then.
00:50:38.719 --> 00:50:42.260
Right, during the, I was supposed to say, I actually,
00:50:42.460 --> 00:50:44.059
I mean as a performer I don't have perfect pitch,
00:50:44.260 --> 00:50:47.460
I have relative pitch which is more or less for
00:50:47.460 --> 00:50:49.619
our listeners, it's being able to hear intervals
00:50:49.619 --> 00:50:51.940
between two different notes and things like that.
00:50:52.840 --> 00:50:55.760
But that is interesting, I wonder if relative
00:50:55.760 --> 00:50:58.039
pitch was just not really as important at the
00:50:58.039 --> 00:51:01.260
time as the idea of perfect pitch. The next point,
00:51:01.460 --> 00:51:03.639
he says, we learned that the major second consisted
00:51:03.639 --> 00:51:06.619
of the chromatic semitone, such as F to F sharp,
00:51:07.000 --> 00:51:10.119
five commas wide, plus the diatonic semitone,
00:51:10.400 --> 00:51:14.079
F sharp to G, of four commas. But in actual playing,
00:51:14.119 --> 00:51:16.699
we had to make all semitones equal, as on the
00:51:16.699 --> 00:51:19.900
modern piano. However, a treatise such as Quantz,
00:51:19.900 --> 00:51:23.800
uh, Versucheiner, I think you can just call it
00:51:23.800 --> 00:51:27.659
the, the, Quantz, just call it Quantz treatise,
00:51:27.760 --> 00:51:31.219
treatise, yeah. And it showed that in the 17th
00:51:31.219 --> 00:51:33.500
and 18th centuries, the diatonic semitone was
00:51:33.500 --> 00:51:35.840
mostly considered to be wider than the chromatic,
00:51:36.079 --> 00:51:38.280
and the keyboards were seldom tuned in 12 equal
00:51:38.280 --> 00:51:40.239
semitones to the octave. That creates a very
00:51:40.239 --> 00:51:42.940
different... Very different sound, I think. That
00:51:42.940 --> 00:51:45.599
definitely does, and I don't think that's taught
00:51:45.599 --> 00:51:48.659
too much, especially this kind of specific type
00:51:48.659 --> 00:51:51.980
of practice. Temperament was everything back
00:51:51.980 --> 00:51:55.079
then, I believe. But now we've just resorted
00:51:55.079 --> 00:51:57.920
to equal temperament. I think this is way beyond.
00:51:57.940 --> 00:51:59.659
This has to do something way beyond with equal
00:51:59.659 --> 00:52:02.300
temperament. I think they were definitely exploring
00:52:02.300 --> 00:52:05.619
different type of stuff. That kind of goes back
00:52:05.619 --> 00:52:08.860
to how not every performance would be the same,
00:52:08.860 --> 00:52:11.289
just based on the idea that the instruments that
00:52:11.289 --> 00:52:12.849
you were playing on would be the same. Maybe
00:52:12.849 --> 00:52:16.309
one venue would have a harpsichord that the temperament
00:52:16.309 --> 00:52:18.489
was very different than another one. So you'd
00:52:18.489 --> 00:52:21.769
have to adjust for it. So it would be a very
00:52:21.769 --> 00:52:23.869
different sound. I think even string instruments
00:52:23.869 --> 00:52:27.010
had shorter necks that were kind of an older,
00:52:27.030 --> 00:52:29.650
I might be wrong about this. So it would create
00:52:29.650 --> 00:52:31.530
a different sound. Our strings change all the
00:52:31.530 --> 00:52:34.469
time. The bow shape, like the baroque bow. String
00:52:34.469 --> 00:52:37.269
instruments were, and bows along with that, and
00:52:37.269 --> 00:52:39.010
every single instrument that you can imagine.
00:52:39.690 --> 00:52:42.909
It was not universal at all. Now it's like completely
00:52:42.909 --> 00:52:45.130
universal, like everywhere you see on YouTube.
00:52:45.989 --> 00:52:47.610
Right, right. Let's see, what's the next point?
00:52:47.869 --> 00:52:49.690
So the next point is that in theory lessons,
00:52:49.849 --> 00:52:53.650
we were shown the metrical realization of Aprajetoras.
00:52:54.090 --> 00:52:56.329
It was, astonishingly, based on the same theory
00:52:56.329 --> 00:52:58.789
as formulated in most of the 18th century. But
00:52:58.789 --> 00:53:00.869
in playing Bach or Mozart, we were not expected
00:53:00.869 --> 00:53:03.349
to apply those rules. Hmm, interesting. I know
00:53:03.349 --> 00:53:07.509
what, so yeah, I was taught Aprajetoras. just
00:53:07.509 --> 00:53:10.829
basically to notice every single one you see.
00:53:10.829 --> 00:53:13.090
Every one you see, right? Haydn, Mozart, and
00:53:13.090 --> 00:53:15.010
all this stuff. But in playing Bach or Mozart,
00:53:15.090 --> 00:53:16.809
we were not expected to apply those rules. Not
00:53:16.809 --> 00:53:19.210
expected to apply, that's interesting. The next
00:53:19.210 --> 00:53:22.349
one says that all trills were to be started on
00:53:22.349 --> 00:53:24.829
the main note, but 18th century treatises taught
00:53:24.829 --> 00:53:28.010
to start them from the upper note. See, that's
00:53:28.010 --> 00:53:31.110
what you mentioned in the beginning. Okay, but
00:53:31.110 --> 00:53:33.030
18th century treatises taught to start them from
00:53:33.030 --> 00:53:36.849
the upper note. Yeah, that's very the next one
00:53:36.849 --> 00:53:38.690
says the soulfedge an instrumental technique
00:53:38.690 --> 00:53:40.909
aimed at a literal precise reading and rendering
00:53:40.909 --> 00:53:43.590
of the notation Rhythmic freedom was not encouraged.
00:53:43.989 --> 00:53:45.969
I suppose this was judged too romantic for the
00:53:45.969 --> 00:53:49.630
post -world the post -world war two new objectivity
00:53:49.630 --> 00:53:53.429
historical treatises such as quants or Hotere?
00:53:54.510 --> 00:53:57.150
Hotere. Yeah, I don't either quants or hotere
00:53:57.150 --> 00:53:59.989
on the contrary. On the contrary, show that the
00:53:59.989 --> 00:54:02.469
shortest note values in a given piece were frequently
00:54:02.469 --> 00:54:04.969
treated with considerable freedom and that rubato
00:54:04.969 --> 00:54:07.769
did not have the same meaning as today. That's
00:54:07.769 --> 00:54:10.639
even true with... I guess you could say early
00:54:10.639 --> 00:54:13.599
romantic versus late romantic rubato styles because
00:54:13.599 --> 00:54:16.739
I've heard actually a lot of pianists say for
00:54:16.739 --> 00:54:19.059
even composers like Chopin that use so much rubato
00:54:19.059 --> 00:54:21.800
in those places that in a lot of competitions
00:54:21.800 --> 00:54:26.659
the pianists don't always they almost add too
00:54:26.659 --> 00:54:29.179
much rubato versus at the time period of like
00:54:29.179 --> 00:54:32.199
Chopin and that sort of early romantic period
00:54:32.199 --> 00:54:34.599
there was rubato but it was treated as more of
00:54:34.599 --> 00:54:36.460
an ornamentation thing it wasn't like the entire
00:54:36.460 --> 00:54:38.360
piece or you'd never do rubato the same way twice
00:54:38.360 --> 00:54:41.050
if that makes sense. Yeah, exactly. There's all
00:54:41.050 --> 00:54:43.849
sorts of different patterns and the ideas come
00:54:43.849 --> 00:54:47.250
in from concerto. Let's see. I wonder why we
00:54:47.250 --> 00:54:49.849
do not analyze Baroque or classical music according
00:54:49.849 --> 00:54:52.329
to 18th century principles rather than using
00:54:52.329 --> 00:54:54.989
uniformly Schenkerian theory or functional harmony.
00:54:55.650 --> 00:54:57.690
That's another... I believe that's kind of like
00:54:57.690 --> 00:55:02.769
a side note. I have no comment from that. Okay.
00:55:03.420 --> 00:55:05.780
So further, the information I had begun to glean
00:55:05.780 --> 00:55:07.980
from historical treatises and instruments showed
00:55:07.980 --> 00:55:09.960
me how much the standards of traditions changed
00:55:09.960 --> 00:55:12.539
over time. However, I did not hear or learn the
00:55:12.539 --> 00:55:14.679
substantially different approach in sound production,
00:55:15.039 --> 00:55:17.079
phrasing, or articulation according to different
00:55:17.079 --> 00:55:20.179
eras or countries. Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven,
00:55:20.460 --> 00:55:22.820
Wagner, Brahms, Debussy, Hindemith, Prokofiev,
00:55:22.920 --> 00:55:25.239
or Britten were all subjected to a rather uniform
00:55:25.239 --> 00:55:28.639
post -romantic interpretation. That's true. Actually,
00:55:28.780 --> 00:55:30.980
that's very true. I think those composers in
00:55:30.980 --> 00:55:35.679
general, even the early Bach, Vivaldi, things
00:55:35.679 --> 00:55:37.940
like that, even Mozart, which is sort of the
00:55:37.940 --> 00:55:40.760
late classical period, is sort of treated with
00:55:40.760 --> 00:55:43.059
that very late romantic style. It's become this
00:55:43.059 --> 00:55:45.739
uniform idea. I mean, it does sound nice. I will
00:55:45.739 --> 00:55:47.900
say that. I do like a Mozart concerto with the
00:55:47.900 --> 00:55:53.559
violin. Yeah, there are exceptions for all this.
00:55:54.139 --> 00:55:56.639
Again, amongst all of us, yes. Sorry, there are
00:55:56.639 --> 00:55:59.860
biases, I think. He said, this was illustrated
00:55:59.860 --> 00:56:02.280
by many quote modern editions of, for example,
00:56:02.599 --> 00:56:05.559
deus box music. They were freely annotated by
00:56:05.559 --> 00:56:07.900
well -known and well -meaning virtuosos without
00:56:07.900 --> 00:56:11.239
specifying how the original text read. On the
00:56:11.239 --> 00:56:12.960
other hand, the existence of several different
00:56:12.960 --> 00:56:15.800
year -text editions of one and the same work
00:56:15.800 --> 00:56:17.699
demonstrated the necessity of seeing the original
00:56:17.699 --> 00:56:21.530
sources myself in order to make up my mind. autonomously.
00:56:21.929 --> 00:56:23.949
In some cases, this later led me to publishing
00:56:23.949 --> 00:56:25.969
one or more, again, different year -text editions.
00:56:26.369 --> 00:56:28.710
I think you can actually see this with state
00:56:28.710 --> 00:56:30.989
music companies like the Henley scores. The Henley
00:56:30.989 --> 00:56:33.110
scores, yeah? Yeah, everyone is sort of like...
00:56:33.110 --> 00:56:35.070
New York edition? Yeah, like I want to see the
00:56:35.070 --> 00:56:38.929
original, or the original copy without it being
00:56:38.929 --> 00:56:41.989
kind of a messy copy. Showing any subjectivity
00:56:41.989 --> 00:56:45.110
to... That's the end. And there's also a way
00:56:45.110 --> 00:56:48.690
to like, you know... use or text scores correctly.
00:56:49.449 --> 00:56:52.909
Correctly. And that also goes down another rabbit
00:56:52.909 --> 00:56:55.670
hole. So performance practice. Or text edition.
00:56:56.289 --> 00:56:58.510
He says, I cannot understand how Baroque music,
00:56:58.730 --> 00:57:00.469
as it was frequently played before the early
00:57:00.469 --> 00:57:03.269
music revival, could be so mechanical, straightforward,
00:57:03.610 --> 00:57:06.030
unemotional, even simplistic, compared with Baroque
00:57:06.030 --> 00:57:08.250
painting, statues, literature, or architecture.
00:57:08.670 --> 00:57:10.710
I wondered which role music played in the different
00:57:10.710 --> 00:57:12.949
layers of society, and how its features would
00:57:12.949 --> 00:57:15.329
vary according to its function. I also felt the
00:57:15.329 --> 00:57:17.230
need to examine the positioning of the performer
00:57:17.230 --> 00:57:20.590
between the composer and the audience, varying
00:57:20.590 --> 00:57:22.670
according to the nature of the piece to be performed.
00:57:23.369 --> 00:57:25.269
It became increasingly easy to find historical
00:57:25.269 --> 00:57:27.750
recordings by famous singers and actors, conductors,
00:57:27.949 --> 00:57:30.230
pianists, violinists, flautists, from the first
00:57:30.230 --> 00:57:32.510
half of the 20th century. Many were reissued,
00:57:32.630 --> 00:57:35.510
first on LP, later on CD, YouTube, in the Library
00:57:35.510 --> 00:57:38.519
of Congress's national jukebox. now make an overwhelming
00:57:38.519 --> 00:57:41.320
amount of historical sound and or image information
00:57:41.320 --> 00:57:43.519
readily available for study. That is the benefit
00:57:43.519 --> 00:57:46.480
to the internet, is that you can go on things
00:57:46.480 --> 00:57:50.059
like the internet archive and find the books
00:57:50.059 --> 00:57:53.320
and the scores. The big summary from that paragraph
00:57:53.320 --> 00:57:56.639
you read to right now is you have online resources,
00:57:57.059 --> 00:57:59.260
but it's the question of who's going to actually
00:57:59.260 --> 00:58:02.340
use that, who actually does find that stuff,
00:58:02.739 --> 00:58:04.980
and how do you share it to the... to the world
00:58:04.980 --> 00:58:06.760
and your findings because some of it does get
00:58:06.760 --> 00:58:09.920
trendy. Some of it does get popular. It's just
00:58:09.920 --> 00:58:14.679
a matter of who and I guess when someone would
00:58:14.679 --> 00:58:17.699
do that because time is everything. It's true.
00:58:17.760 --> 00:58:21.179
I almost wonder if in... decades from now or
00:58:21.179 --> 00:58:23.320
something and you know romantic era music 20th
00:58:23.320 --> 00:58:25.860
is very popular in the classical world if maybe
00:58:25.860 --> 00:58:28.440
that will start to kind of become this mystical
00:58:28.440 --> 00:58:30.719
thing where people start playing it like baroque
00:58:30.719 --> 00:58:32.659
music or something like it kind of flips backwards
00:58:32.659 --> 00:58:35.599
i think that would be very interesting so yeah
00:58:35.599 --> 00:58:39.400
i i that's interesting to kind of like keep in
00:58:39.400 --> 00:58:42.500
mind right there the next section says that these
00:58:42.500 --> 00:58:44.579
recordings showed me how fast aesthetic style
00:58:44.579 --> 00:58:47.030
and fashion can change I discovered a generally
00:58:47.030 --> 00:58:49.210
much freer and more varied approach to dynamics,
00:58:49.489 --> 00:58:51.929
tempo, and rubato, less ultimate precision in
00:58:51.929 --> 00:58:54.469
playing together, and much less scrupulous fidelity
00:58:54.469 --> 00:58:57.309
to the musicological slash scientific model of
00:58:57.309 --> 00:58:59.349
the year text. These recordings demonstrated
00:58:59.349 --> 00:59:02.190
highly prominent individual virtuosity and artistic
00:59:02.190 --> 00:59:04.650
presence. This reinforced my conviction that
00:59:04.650 --> 00:59:06.309
performance in earlier times might have been
00:59:06.309 --> 00:59:08.110
very different from today's standards indeed.
00:59:08.429 --> 00:59:11.389
Questioning traditions and conventions thus became
00:59:11.389 --> 00:59:13.630
a habit, and research became a vital necessity.
00:59:14.139 --> 00:59:17.599
Yes, so that's it's just coming more to fruition
00:59:17.599 --> 00:59:22.679
the fact that What what he was like learning
00:59:22.679 --> 00:59:27.199
like now was not necessarily The essence it was
00:59:27.199 --> 00:59:29.980
he's now it now he's bringing in the sources
00:59:29.980 --> 00:59:34.760
all these practices and sure stuff from the research
00:59:35.000 --> 00:59:37.320
He says, initially, my research focused on the
00:59:37.320 --> 00:59:39.420
Baroque flutes and recorders as played from circa
00:59:39.420 --> 00:59:42.219
1660. The first appearance of Baroque recorders
00:59:42.219 --> 00:59:47.900
at the court of Louis XIV, where the one -keyed
00:59:47.900 --> 00:59:49.989
Baroque flute arrived some 20 years later. until
00:59:49.989 --> 00:59:52.050
the end of the 18th century when multi -keyed
00:59:52.050 --> 00:59:54.690
flutes became widely adopted. Soon after, I started
00:59:54.690 --> 00:59:56.550
studying the instruments, performance practice,
00:59:56.889 --> 00:59:58.969
and repertoire of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
00:59:59.469 --> 01:00:01.590
Occasionally, I extended my research into Renaissance
01:00:01.590 --> 01:00:04.050
flutes and recorders and their repertoire. Purely
01:00:04.050 --> 01:00:05.809
theoretical books and treatises from the other
01:00:05.809 --> 01:00:09.929
instruments provided me with a general framework
01:00:09.929 --> 01:00:12.340
in which to integrate the flute. After all, the
01:00:12.340 --> 01:00:13.940
flute and the recorder are not such important
01:00:13.940 --> 01:00:15.780
instruments. Much more was written about the
01:00:15.780 --> 01:00:17.960
voice, the violin, and the keyboard. That is
01:00:17.960 --> 01:00:19.920
true. I often feel like the Baroque instruments
01:00:19.920 --> 01:00:22.820
in general just have less sources on them, even
01:00:22.820 --> 01:00:26.019
though I think the woodwinds and brass instruments
01:00:26.019 --> 01:00:27.980
have gone through probably the most change in
01:00:27.980 --> 01:00:30.400
comparison to the string instruments, which I
01:00:30.400 --> 01:00:34.500
mean soloists still play on early 1700s violins
01:00:34.500 --> 01:00:36.320
when they play these modern concertos, so not
01:00:36.320 --> 01:00:38.480
much is... The only thing that I think really
01:00:38.480 --> 01:00:40.679
has changed is maybe the stylistic approach.
01:00:42.070 --> 01:00:45.090
I mean like you have natural trumpet and Baroque
01:00:45.090 --> 01:00:48.110
orchestras with no valves and then you have the
01:00:48.110 --> 01:00:50.789
ones that they use kind of like with these kind
01:00:50.789 --> 01:00:53.030
of tiny holes they're not like technically valves
01:00:53.030 --> 01:00:56.110
but they're not technically also that accurate
01:00:56.110 --> 01:00:58.869
like in terms of if you have like a Baroque orchestra
01:00:58.869 --> 01:01:03.159
performing like a Brandenburg control And that
01:01:03.159 --> 01:01:05.599
goes back actually to the argument of if you're
01:01:05.599 --> 01:01:07.880
the Chicago Symphony or Major Symphony Orchestra
01:01:07.880 --> 01:01:10.199
and you're playing a Mozart piece, do you play
01:01:10.199 --> 01:01:14.099
with the modern brass instruments that the CSO
01:01:14.099 --> 01:01:16.480
would have, or do you bring in these more historically
01:01:16.480 --> 01:01:20.400
informed instruments? That's a debate right there.
01:01:20.960 --> 01:01:23.460
And that's also pretty cool because they do want
01:01:23.460 --> 01:01:25.539
to kind of like take a twist up on it because
01:01:25.539 --> 01:01:27.719
they do use the harpsichord off pretty often.
01:01:27.960 --> 01:01:30.380
They do use, they bring in a lot of guests to
01:01:30.380 --> 01:01:32.579
kind of like create that, kind of like mimic
01:01:32.579 --> 01:01:34.900
that experience which I think... I think that's
01:01:34.900 --> 01:01:37.199
a good step in the right direction. It changes
01:01:37.199 --> 01:01:39.659
how we now listen and approach the piece. Continuing
01:01:39.659 --> 01:01:42.079
on, he said, it became obvious to me that a general
01:01:42.079 --> 01:01:44.539
historical artistic truth cannot exist and that
01:01:44.539 --> 01:01:46.739
every performer's conclusions inevitably depended
01:01:46.739 --> 01:01:49.119
on one's individual choices, driven by one's
01:01:49.119 --> 01:01:51.159
own artistic temperament and made within the
01:01:51.159 --> 01:01:54.199
context of acquired historical knowledge. Research
01:01:54.199 --> 01:01:56.519
further helped me to understand the sound behind
01:01:56.519 --> 01:01:59.099
or before the notation and pointed to the necessity
01:01:59.099 --> 01:02:01.599
of, quote, creative reading, namely, learning
01:02:01.599 --> 01:02:04.360
to supplement what was not written. Even in the
01:02:04.360 --> 01:02:06.719
best situations, when this is done with respect
01:02:06.719 --> 01:02:12.599
for style and genre and character of the music,
01:02:12.900 --> 01:02:15.420
we can only operate within a field of probabilities
01:02:15.420 --> 01:02:18.099
with fluctuating boundaries. I understood better
01:02:18.099 --> 01:02:20.340
and better that the very concept of authenticity
01:02:20.340 --> 01:02:22.880
in early music is considerably less clear or
01:02:22.880 --> 01:02:25.260
simple than it might appear at first sight. And
01:02:25.260 --> 01:02:28.469
then you get into the issue of So, let's take
01:02:28.469 --> 01:02:32.969
two romantic era composers. Mendelssohn? Mendelssohn
01:02:32.969 --> 01:02:36.750
versus Schumann. So look at their piano styles.
01:02:36.969 --> 01:02:38.670
They're both romantic era composers who are writing
01:02:38.670 --> 01:02:42.190
at the same time. They knew the same people,
01:02:42.349 --> 01:02:44.610
things like that, except that their styles are
01:02:44.610 --> 01:02:46.730
so different from each other. So when approaching
01:02:46.730 --> 01:02:50.590
early Baroque or Renaissance music, it can become
01:02:50.590 --> 01:02:52.489
difficult because not only do you have to approach
01:02:52.489 --> 01:02:54.530
it with the idea of this is a new era with new
01:02:54.530 --> 01:02:57.670
instruments, but also one composer One composer's
01:02:57.670 --> 01:02:59.550
Renaissance music is going to sound possibly
01:02:59.550 --> 01:03:01.550
very different from another one in terms of how
01:03:01.550 --> 01:03:04.309
they approach the instrument, how they approach
01:03:04.309 --> 01:03:07.869
the harmonies and composition of it. So continuing
01:03:07.869 --> 01:03:09.889
on, he says, as a result of my research, I considered
01:03:09.889 --> 01:03:11.909
the notation to be mainly a type of roadmap.
01:03:12.349 --> 01:03:17.530
And, okay, this is French, an aide -memoire to
01:03:17.530 --> 01:03:19.710
help her invention, enabling the informed reader
01:03:19.710 --> 01:03:22.369
to create an inner image of the music. Quite
01:03:22.369 --> 01:03:25.030
naturally, this image is not definitive, but
01:03:25.030 --> 01:03:27.360
will change over time. moon, circumstance, and
01:03:27.360 --> 01:03:29.940
knowledge. Once this provisational image has
01:03:29.940 --> 01:03:32.179
been formed in great detail, I can let it take
01:03:32.179 --> 01:03:34.539
an audible shape. In other words, I have to begin
01:03:34.539 --> 01:03:36.760
to play or practice with the result clearly in
01:03:36.760 --> 01:03:41.739
my heart and mind. From this total concept, quasi
01:03:41.739 --> 01:03:44.679
-retrospectively and in constant interaction
01:03:44.679 --> 01:03:46.440
with the actual reading and playing, I shape
01:03:46.440 --> 01:03:48.699
my interpretation and determine all of its performance
01:03:48.699 --> 01:03:51.460
parameters. In this sense, early music does not
01:03:51.460 --> 01:03:54.320
exist. The performance becomes recreation. The
01:03:54.320 --> 01:03:56.340
music is born at this very moment, the ink is
01:03:56.340 --> 01:04:01.400
still wet. That's interesting. Okay, I want to
01:04:01.400 --> 01:04:03.519
do a pause right there and like just kind of
01:04:03.519 --> 01:04:05.559
do a quick rundown of what you kind of like,
01:04:05.980 --> 01:04:09.340
you're just oversights and just, you know, take
01:04:09.340 --> 01:04:12.820
away thoughts from everything we've read so far
01:04:12.820 --> 01:04:16.519
and, you know, contrast to, you know, popular
01:04:16.519 --> 01:04:21.960
trend and what... what your genuine thoughts
01:04:21.960 --> 01:04:25.000
were after because we're both kind of like those
01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:28.659
aspiring musicians and I think, yeah. Is there
01:04:28.659 --> 01:04:32.699
anything, I don't know, I feel like these four
01:04:32.699 --> 01:04:36.360
points here from seven, page seven, were kind
01:04:36.360 --> 01:04:39.900
of like the most surprising. I think so too.
01:04:40.280 --> 01:04:43.920
Yeah, about the, I guess the changes that we've
01:04:43.920 --> 01:04:46.570
had. comparing like the current music versus
01:04:46.570 --> 01:04:48.550
old music, the thing that actually stuck out
01:04:48.550 --> 01:04:52.570
to me was how, I mean naturally if the study
01:04:52.570 --> 01:04:54.530
of historical music is really taking place in
01:04:54.530 --> 01:04:58.190
the 60s and 70s then we have a lot of... I mean,
01:04:58.329 --> 01:05:00.869
we're only in maybe the second or third generation
01:05:00.869 --> 01:05:03.670
of historians going over this. And so it's very,
01:05:03.670 --> 01:05:05.630
very new. So I mean, there was this quote here
01:05:05.630 --> 01:05:08.909
about how things were reissued from like an LP
01:05:08.909 --> 01:05:11.730
onto a CD. And then the CD went to YouTube and
01:05:11.730 --> 01:05:14.429
then things like the Library of Congress's national
01:05:14.429 --> 01:05:16.530
jukebox and things like that. And to me, that's
01:05:16.530 --> 01:05:19.750
kind of crazy because when you look at even composers
01:05:19.750 --> 01:05:22.239
like I don't know, Rachmaninoff or something
01:05:22.239 --> 01:05:25.840
from the early 20th century. There are so many
01:05:25.840 --> 01:05:29.039
documents and first -hand accounts of the composer
01:05:29.039 --> 01:05:31.960
and the scores and people. I think I'm going
01:05:31.960 --> 01:05:34.639
to use this. Shostakovich's wife is still alive.
01:05:35.500 --> 01:05:38.079
Really? Oh my god. It's crazy things like that
01:05:38.079 --> 01:05:40.099
where it's like, wow, that's so new. But then
01:05:40.099 --> 01:05:43.500
this early music, it's kind of hard to imagine
01:05:43.500 --> 01:05:46.260
what it would be like. And also the field of
01:05:46.260 --> 01:05:48.530
study is so new that I mean, we're bound to be
01:05:48.530 --> 01:05:50.289
surprised in a couple years as to the things
01:05:50.289 --> 01:05:53.369
we'll find. I think that there are a lot of things
01:05:53.369 --> 01:05:56.369
hidden away in libraries and archives that we're
01:05:56.369 --> 01:05:59.849
probably not even... Knowing of I mean I recently
01:05:59.849 --> 01:06:02.110
there was a Mozart piece. Yeah, there's still
01:06:02.110 --> 01:06:06.750
Mozart pieces and and as soon as the the minute
01:06:06.750 --> 01:06:10.530
passes you see videos on YouTube of Period instruments
01:06:10.530 --> 01:06:13.349
and people when I'm playing the whole thing and
01:06:13.349 --> 01:06:16.829
it's just fascinating It's an evolving subject
01:06:16.829 --> 01:06:20.719
so but Otherwise, I don't know like the literature
01:06:20.719 --> 01:06:23.039
that he's uncovered. I don't know like if maybe
01:06:23.039 --> 01:06:24.800
you're interested in kind of like seeing some
01:06:24.800 --> 01:06:29.139
of this stuff and like the gothic print of Johan
01:06:29.139 --> 01:06:33.440
Quandt's Versuche which is I think one of the
01:06:33.440 --> 01:06:36.840
yeah, it's a it's a standard to read for learning
01:06:36.840 --> 01:06:40.650
kind of like the practices of classical Baroque
01:06:40.650 --> 01:06:43.590
playing, because he was a Mozart's associate.
01:06:43.590 --> 01:06:46.010
He was associated with Mozart. They kind of like
01:06:46.010 --> 01:06:49.110
knew each other. Yeah, because they were, he
01:06:49.110 --> 01:06:51.409
was, one was kind of like this academic and musician
01:06:51.409 --> 01:06:54.809
at the same time. And the other one was the virtuoso.
01:06:54.849 --> 01:06:57.610
Yeah, right. That's true. And there's a question
01:06:57.610 --> 01:07:00.130
of, you know, we have these sort of starting
01:07:00.130 --> 01:07:01.969
documents like that training and it should it
01:07:01.969 --> 01:07:04.429
be something that is promoted in conservatory
01:07:04.429 --> 01:07:08.219
for performers to at least have an understanding
01:07:08.219 --> 01:07:10.239
of. I think there is kind of a gap there and
01:07:10.239 --> 01:07:12.059
it makes sense because there is sort of an attraction
01:07:12.059 --> 01:07:15.079
to like those those romantic era concertos and
01:07:15.079 --> 01:07:16.800
you have to learn these standard pieces of repertoire
01:07:16.800 --> 01:07:18.880
and you go to an orchestra and they're playing
01:07:18.880 --> 01:07:21.840
Brahms and Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. But should
01:07:21.840 --> 01:07:25.449
it be? a more integrated part into music schools
01:07:25.449 --> 01:07:27.630
to understand these at least what we know so
01:07:27.630 --> 01:07:30.090
far of early music and that's yeah i don't think
01:07:30.090 --> 01:07:33.150
maybe you can tell me when you go back to college
01:07:33.150 --> 01:07:37.309
of how like how how this trend goes i i i haven't
01:07:37.309 --> 01:07:39.789
asked like other friends like who who are currently
01:07:39.789 --> 01:07:41.610
in music college, because I just don't talk to
01:07:41.610 --> 01:07:45.150
them that much. But maybe it's interesting, because
01:07:45.150 --> 01:07:47.530
once you go in there, I want to see actually
01:07:47.530 --> 01:07:49.550
how many people are interested in doing that.
01:07:49.849 --> 01:07:53.590
And I know for a fact now in this time of year
01:07:53.590 --> 01:07:55.829
and this century, more people are beginning to
01:07:55.829 --> 01:07:59.510
do that, which I think is extremely beneficial.
01:08:08.519 --> 01:08:08.920
Yeah.