5. LOUD soft

WEBVTT
00:00:18.940 --> 00:00:21.579
Hello, hello, hello, and welcome to Beyond the Notation,
00:00:21.660 --> 00:00:24.079
a podcast on the ongoing reading of the personal
00:00:24.079 --> 00:00:26.440
manifesto and doctoral thesis on early music.
00:00:26.480 --> 00:00:29.109
The notation is not the music. Reflections on
00:00:29.109 --> 00:00:31.109
Early Music Practice and Performance by Barthold
00:00:31.109 --> 00:00:33.450
Kuijken. I am Marilyn Ganz. I'm here with Kenneth
00:00:33.450 --> 00:00:35.630
Chang. We are both young, aspiring musicians
00:00:35.630 --> 00:00:37.770
seeking insight into the fascinating and intricate
00:00:37.770 --> 00:00:39.710
world of historically informed performance on
00:00:39.710 --> 00:00:42.090
early music. This episode includes content from
00:00:42.090 --> 00:00:44.109
The Notation is Not the Music by Barthold Kuijken,
00:00:44.270 --> 00:00:46.429
used with permission of Indiana University Press.
00:00:47.549 --> 00:00:49.850
So what was our last chapter? Because I think
00:00:49.850 --> 00:00:51.729
we were kind of going through and just kind of,
00:00:51.729 --> 00:00:55.429
I should say reflecting. I think it was the phrasing.
00:00:55.429 --> 00:00:58.109
Phrasing. Phrasing. Phrasing is very interesting.
00:00:58.329 --> 00:01:04.269
I read a book called Indivisible Life 4, a string
00:01:04.269 --> 00:01:07.349
quartet in pursuit of harmony by Arnold Steinhardt.
00:01:07.370 --> 00:01:09.930
He was the first violinist of the Guarneri Quartet.
00:01:10.090 --> 00:01:12.109
Oh, right, right. It was very interesting because
00:01:12.109 --> 00:01:15.290
if you... I believe music educators have been
00:01:15.290 --> 00:01:18.129
saying this, and musicologists, everyone, musicians
00:01:18.129 --> 00:01:21.030
have been saying this for a long time. A lot
00:01:21.030 --> 00:01:24.209
of songs have phrasing in four. It doesn't matter
00:01:24.209 --> 00:01:27.549
if it's in 2 -4 or in 4 -4, in cut time, common
00:01:27.549 --> 00:01:30.269
time. Everything seems to be kind of like in
00:01:30.269 --> 00:01:32.450
this four phrasing. You can even see it in the
00:01:32.450 --> 00:01:36.370
waltzes over the 18th, 19th century. Even in
00:01:36.370 --> 00:01:38.829
3 -4, there's sort of that feeling. Everything
00:01:38.829 --> 00:01:44.260
has this kind of like perfect, counting a four,
00:01:44.439 --> 00:01:48.480
it seems just very interesting. You can see it
00:01:48.480 --> 00:01:53.739
in the poetry also too. I think it's pretty interesting.
00:01:54.019 --> 00:02:00.469
So let's see how it ties with articulation. That's
00:02:00.469 --> 00:02:03.049
very interesting here. So he says for articulation,
00:02:03.250 --> 00:02:06.170
with regard to articulation, singing treatises
00:02:06.170 --> 00:02:08.310
are of great help as they stress the singer's
00:02:08.310 --> 00:02:10.469
obligation to clearly pronounce consonants as
00:02:10.469 --> 00:02:13.009
well as vowels and to respect the correct prosody.
00:02:13.909 --> 00:02:16.710
The fact that this is stressed so often probably
00:02:16.710 --> 00:02:19.330
indicates that in earlier times, too, not all
00:02:19.330 --> 00:02:22.520
singers fulfilled this obligation. Goethe was
00:02:22.520 --> 00:02:26.580
not at all that flattering, but he said in 1807,
00:02:26.740 --> 00:02:28.599
this is in German, I'm going to switch to that.
00:02:28.699 --> 00:02:31.419
She says, quote, one speaks of vocal music because
00:02:31.419 --> 00:02:34.539
nowadays with singers, one only hears the vowels.
00:02:34.879 --> 00:02:37.280
The pun does not work as well in English. He
00:02:37.280 --> 00:02:39.340
says, also in matters of articulation, we can
00:02:39.340 --> 00:02:41.620
compare music to language. We should not only
00:02:41.620 --> 00:02:43.719
speak correctly, but also understand the difference
00:02:43.719 --> 00:02:46.419
between colloquial speech and public declamation.
00:02:47.159 --> 00:02:49.020
I am convinced that the invention of the microphone
00:02:49.020 --> 00:02:51.539
and loudspeaker has had a disastrous effect on
00:02:51.539 --> 00:02:54.360
declamation and rhetoric. Radio or TV news readers
00:02:54.360 --> 00:02:56.340
have learned to speak clearly and quietly into
00:02:56.340 --> 00:02:58.039
the microphone. Well, I mean, I'm trying to speak
00:02:58.039 --> 00:03:00.280
into the microphone right now. We're all trying
00:03:00.280 --> 00:03:02.639
our best. I guess. He said, without emotional
00:03:02.639 --> 00:03:05.979
accents. For example, quote, 2 ,000 people killed
00:03:05.979 --> 00:03:08.520
in an earthquake. And, quote, generally, clear
00:03:08.520 --> 00:03:10.479
skies are expected today. Or said similarly,
00:03:10.680 --> 00:03:12.120
which is true, because that's what I just did
00:03:12.120 --> 00:03:15.020
right now. He says... This kind of natural public
00:03:15.020 --> 00:03:17.060
voice, although it is actually recorded alone
00:03:17.060 --> 00:03:19.659
in a studio, has become all too familiar. It
00:03:19.659 --> 00:03:21.800
threatens to become the model, not only for public
00:03:21.800 --> 00:03:24.150
speaking, but also for playing. Everyone sounds
00:03:24.150 --> 00:03:26.949
nice, clear, clean, and even. There are no risks
00:03:26.949 --> 00:03:28.930
and no problems. The danger is that we might
00:03:28.930 --> 00:03:32.169
start to feel the same as our voices sound, insensitive
00:03:32.169 --> 00:03:34.229
to the emotional contents of the passage. That's
00:03:34.229 --> 00:03:36.250
actually very, very interesting. I think we had
00:03:36.250 --> 00:03:38.889
talked about this in sort of a previous, could
00:03:38.889 --> 00:03:42.150
have even been our first episode, how the creation
00:03:42.150 --> 00:03:44.789
of the modern audio recording has really, really
00:03:44.789 --> 00:03:48.689
affected the path of classical music and how
00:03:48.689 --> 00:03:51.629
we interpret these pieces. So, very clean recordings.
00:03:52.520 --> 00:03:54.539
Like you can think of, what is it, what is it,
00:03:54.680 --> 00:03:59.840
Joseph Joachim. Joseph Joachim, he was one of those
00:03:59.840 --> 00:04:04.300
phenomenal, astonishing virtuoso violinists back
00:04:04.300 --> 00:04:07.500
in 19th century. I think he was probably one
00:04:07.500 --> 00:04:12.000
of the ones earlier to record on the, I think
00:04:12.000 --> 00:04:14.319
it was the phonograph, I believe, or the gramophone,
00:04:14.460 --> 00:04:19.410
the gramophone. Yeah, there was a lot of, I guess,
00:04:19.569 --> 00:04:22.810
dictation of how recordings went on from that
00:04:22.810 --> 00:04:25.970
point on to modern day. Kind of imitated. Today's
00:04:25.970 --> 00:04:28.730
recordings. That's true. I kind of find that
00:04:28.730 --> 00:04:45.849
as an interesting point there. He says, Okay,
00:04:45.849 --> 00:04:51.829
Comédie Française of the Galle. Hitler ignoring
00:04:51.829 --> 00:04:54.529
the context. So a different person. Churchill,
00:04:54.670 --> 00:04:57.069
or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., his I Have a Dream
00:04:57.069 --> 00:05:00.230
speech of 1963, we hear variable tempo and rhythm,
00:05:00.389 --> 00:05:02.490
great inflections of pitch and dynamics, and
00:05:02.490 --> 00:05:04.790
ample vibrato on words that should inspire passion.
00:05:05.029 --> 00:05:07.529
The famous early 20th century Viennese actor
00:05:07.529 --> 00:05:13.399
Alexander... I think Moisi, from 1879 to 1935,
00:05:13.759 --> 00:05:15.639
eminently displayed the same characteristics,
00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:18.399
maybe more than anybody else. His recordings
00:05:18.399 --> 00:05:23.279
of, for example, Goethe's Erkenig, or Faust,
00:05:23.300 --> 00:05:26.040
or Shakespeare's Hamlet, make us understand that
00:05:26.040 --> 00:05:29.819
Schoenberg's... Sprechgesang. Sprechgesang in
00:05:29.819 --> 00:05:35.199
Pierrot -Lunier, I think? 1912, is basically
00:05:35.199 --> 00:05:36.899
the writing down of what actors were already
00:05:36.899 --> 00:05:39.480
doing, only connecting it rather vaguely to pitch
00:05:39.480 --> 00:05:42.800
and time. Gretry, I think it's Gretry, writes
00:05:42.800 --> 00:05:47.939
in his Memoire Essays sur la Musique, from, this
00:05:47.939 --> 00:05:50.259
is, I think, published, or the essays were published
00:05:50.259 --> 00:05:53.980
between 1789 to 1797, that hearing actors recite
00:05:53.980 --> 00:05:56.600
their text greatly facilitated his composition
00:05:56.600 --> 00:06:01.879
of vocal music. The recitation, Titation? Recitation.
00:06:02.100 --> 00:06:04.339
Recitation. Overcomplicated that. Recitation
00:06:04.339 --> 00:06:06.379
gave him melody and rhythm, and then he says
00:06:06.379 --> 00:06:10.139
C section for the metric recitation. Today, we
00:06:10.139 --> 00:06:11.920
might accuse this kind of declamation of being
00:06:11.920 --> 00:06:15.100
exaggerated or unnatural, whatever that is. On
00:06:15.100 --> 00:06:17.220
the other hand, I'm not sure that modern actors
00:06:17.220 --> 00:06:19.120
would necessarily be good models for composers.
00:06:19.600 --> 00:06:22.360
That's actually kind of interesting. You know,
00:06:22.379 --> 00:06:25.040
they say the difference between one culture to
00:06:25.040 --> 00:06:28.579
another culture's art is often the language of
00:06:28.579 --> 00:06:31.079
the culture. So, I mean... You see that. I think,
00:06:31.079 --> 00:06:32.879
actually, it was a previous episode, too. We
00:06:32.879 --> 00:06:35.319
were comparing the pacing of, like, modern Hollywood
00:06:35.319 --> 00:06:37.259
American films compared to, I think we brought
00:06:37.259 --> 00:06:40.120
up, like, Asian, like, animated films. Asian
00:06:40.120 --> 00:06:44.319
animated films and New Wave films. New Wave,
00:06:44.319 --> 00:06:47.680
yeah. New Waves were totally off the rails with...
00:06:47.920 --> 00:06:50.879
like normal everyday conventions you would see
00:06:50.879 --> 00:06:53.500
in traditional films yeah I think it comes from
00:06:53.500 --> 00:06:56.279
there's like a traditional like a plot you have
00:06:56.279 --> 00:06:58.980
all these characters introduced it goes up to
00:06:58.980 --> 00:07:01.519
a climax all the way and then it goes all the
00:07:01.519 --> 00:07:04.259
way down to a resolution which is totally different
00:07:04.259 --> 00:07:06.560
in a new way I guess yeah Well, and there are
00:07:06.560 --> 00:07:08.399
some languages, too, where the inflection of
00:07:08.399 --> 00:07:10.360
the voice, if it goes up versus down, will mean,
00:07:10.459 --> 00:07:12.939
even if you say the same letters put together,
00:07:13.100 --> 00:07:14.819
it'll actually mean something different. I think,
00:07:14.819 --> 00:07:17.199
like, Mandarin is like that. If you go up, it'll
00:07:17.199 --> 00:07:20.620
mean something different. Exactly. So he says,
00:07:20.759 --> 00:07:22.740
as in phrasing, instrumentalists should also
00:07:22.740 --> 00:07:25.399
imitate singers in terms of articulation. Again,
00:07:25.459 --> 00:07:27.480
we notice important differences between the modern
00:07:27.480 --> 00:07:30.540
articulation style and the principles set forth
00:07:30.540 --> 00:07:33.490
in many old treatises. In the modern style, most
00:07:33.490 --> 00:07:35.490
notes are played as long as possible and often
00:07:35.490 --> 00:07:39.029
every effort is made to have all the notes start
00:07:39.029 --> 00:07:41.569
similarly. This is clearly demonstrated in the
00:07:41.569 --> 00:07:44.350
quasi -uniform articulation, in legato, as in
00:07:44.350 --> 00:07:47.850
Perle, of so many pianists. Wind and string playing
00:07:47.850 --> 00:07:49.930
frequently follow the same approach, avoiding
00:07:49.930 --> 00:07:52.689
audible starts of notes, the equivalent of consonants
00:07:52.689 --> 00:07:55.050
before the vowels. The famous singer Elisabeth
00:07:55.050 --> 00:08:00.290
Schwarzkopf? If you want to pronounce it in German,
00:08:00.350 --> 00:08:03.779
Schwarzkopf. I'll take your word for it. In her
00:08:03.779 --> 00:08:07.000
book, On and Off the Road. I think it means blackhead.
00:08:07.459 --> 00:08:09.759
Because it says, Schwarz is black, Kopf is a
00:08:09.759 --> 00:08:12.720
head. Oh, movie. Because when you translate them
00:08:12.720 --> 00:08:15.860
into English... A lot of them, you know, if you
00:08:15.860 --> 00:08:18.360
come in as an immigrant in the U .S., then they
00:08:18.360 --> 00:08:20.279
would actually just change it to, oh, Elizabeth,
00:08:20.579 --> 00:08:22.759
I don't know. Like, whatever it is, yeah. Yes,
00:08:22.860 --> 00:08:24.879
Elizabeth Blackhead, I guess, in this context.
00:08:25.100 --> 00:08:27.860
Right. And her book, On and Off the Record, which
00:08:27.860 --> 00:08:31.019
is published 1982, reveals an interesting fact
00:08:31.019 --> 00:08:32.700
about this style when speaking of her husband,
00:08:32.799 --> 00:08:37.639
Walter Legge. who is one of the most influential
00:08:37.639 --> 00:08:40.440
mid -20th century recording directors. She quotes
00:08:40.440 --> 00:08:44.379
Legge as describing the string sound ideal he
00:08:44.379 --> 00:08:47.480
himself and Herbert von Karajan developed. As
00:08:47.480 --> 00:08:50.320
listening to Karajan's recordings, we noticed
00:08:50.320 --> 00:08:52.179
that he largely reached his goal and set a new
00:08:52.179 --> 00:08:54.340
standard. This style became the general model
00:08:54.340 --> 00:08:56.879
of most mainstream string playing for the rest
00:08:56.879 --> 00:08:58.820
of the century, no matter what era of the repertoire.
00:08:59.080 --> 00:09:02.799
And I think there was a... Quote, I guess? Yeah,
00:09:02.860 --> 00:09:06.740
there was a quote from Legate. Exquisitely polished,
00:09:06.899 --> 00:09:09.419
free of anything that is unbeautiful, of great
00:09:09.419 --> 00:09:11.480
brilliance and fortissimo without the click of
00:09:11.480 --> 00:09:13.659
an attack. We worked together for years on the
00:09:13.659 --> 00:09:16.360
theory that no entrance must start without the
00:09:16.360 --> 00:09:18.480
string vibrating and the bow already moving.
00:09:18.659 --> 00:09:21.159
And when you get a moving bow touching an already
00:09:21.159 --> 00:09:23.320
vibrating string, you get a beautiful entry.
00:09:23.480 --> 00:09:25.679
But if either of those bodies is not alive and
00:09:25.679 --> 00:09:28.539
already moving, you get a click. That's actually
00:09:28.539 --> 00:09:30.320
something. We might be able to kind of back this
00:09:30.320 --> 00:09:32.759
up as stream players too. It's always like when
00:09:32.759 --> 00:09:34.860
you're in orchestra, start vibrating before and
00:09:34.860 --> 00:09:36.440
then you can kind of come in. It creates a different
00:09:36.440 --> 00:10:04.500
sound. He says, The amount of time individual
00:10:04.500 --> 00:10:06.659
notes are held also detriments their relative
00:10:06.659 --> 00:10:09.240
weight within the bar or passage, and thus relates
00:10:09.240 --> 00:10:11.580
to dynamics. And then he lists some general principles.
00:10:11.860 --> 00:10:14.120
He says, ornaments consisting of many notes,
00:10:14.200 --> 00:10:16.840
the equivalent of culturators for the voice,
00:10:17.000 --> 00:10:19.460
are slurred. Otherwise, long slurs are rare,
00:10:19.659 --> 00:10:21.399
though they become increasingly more frequent
00:10:21.399 --> 00:10:24.200
towards the end of the 18th century. He says,
00:10:24.240 --> 00:10:26.539
slurs usually lie within one harmony and are
00:10:26.539 --> 00:10:28.960
not extended over a bar line. Generally, slurs
00:10:28.960 --> 00:10:31.379
do not connect a week to a strong beat or subdivision
00:10:31.379 --> 00:10:34.389
thereof. He says most slurs are expected to produce
00:10:34.389 --> 00:10:36.889
a diminuendo, and the last note under the slur
00:10:36.889 --> 00:10:39.070
is generally shortened, thus the note after the
00:10:39.070 --> 00:10:41.429
slur is clearly detached. And then he says Brahms,
00:10:41.429 --> 00:10:44.070
in his 1879 correspondence with his friend and
00:10:44.070 --> 00:10:46.769
famous violinist Joseph Joachim, calls this generally
00:10:46.769 --> 00:10:49.269
appropriate refinement in performance. Compare
00:10:49.269 --> 00:10:51.110
this to the modern pianist habit of extending
00:10:51.110 --> 00:10:53.110
the slur into the first note of the next beat
00:10:53.110 --> 00:10:55.450
or measure, a practice that appears to have developed
00:10:55.450 --> 00:10:58.649
during the 19th century. He says notes before
00:10:58.649 --> 00:11:02.159
arpeggio... Oh, sorry. apoggiaturas are shortened
00:11:02.159 --> 00:11:05.919
in order to give more declimatory value to the
00:11:05.919 --> 00:11:09.399
Apoggiatura. The less important the note is,
00:11:09.460 --> 00:11:12.519
the shorter it is held. Articulation is proportionate
00:11:12.519 --> 00:11:14.720
to the size of the intervals to be played. The
00:11:14.720 --> 00:11:16.940
greater the interval, the shorter the articulation.
00:11:17.259 --> 00:11:20.379
That's kind of crazy, actually. That last part.
00:11:20.600 --> 00:11:23.340
So if you're going from, like, okay, so a second,
00:11:23.379 --> 00:11:25.340
I guess you're, like, really, really articulating
00:11:25.340 --> 00:11:28.059
that versus maybe a fifth or something or a sixth.
00:11:28.200 --> 00:11:33.440
Yes. Yeah, interesting. I really feel like so
00:11:33.440 --> 00:11:36.539
much happened in the maybe mid to late 19th century
00:11:36.539 --> 00:11:39.740
that really, really impacted our view of... It's
00:11:39.740 --> 00:11:42.220
true. Some of this could still be used now, but
00:11:42.220 --> 00:11:46.679
I guess this was one account where this was regularly
00:11:46.679 --> 00:11:50.179
used on a daily basis when you play. Yeah, and
00:11:50.179 --> 00:11:51.820
these are things we just don't even do now. I
00:11:51.820 --> 00:11:53.919
mean, he lists the idea of the modern pianist
00:11:53.919 --> 00:11:57.179
with the slur into the next beat, and it's like,
00:11:57.179 --> 00:11:59.120
whoa. I mean, don't we still do some of that?
00:11:59.419 --> 00:12:03.259
I don't know for piano music, but I know maybe
00:12:03.259 --> 00:12:05.500
for cello music you might do that. Yeah, maybe.
00:12:05.720 --> 00:12:08.000
I feel like string players... Depends on the
00:12:08.000 --> 00:12:10.919
edition that you choose for a piece when you
00:12:10.919 --> 00:12:13.940
play. Yeah, the music or the composer. I've noticed
00:12:13.940 --> 00:12:17.159
that pianists, because our idea of the modern
00:12:17.159 --> 00:12:20.340
Steinway is so much newer in comparison to a
00:12:20.340 --> 00:12:23.769
violin, viola, or cello where... You know, we're
00:12:23.769 --> 00:12:25.570
still playing on the same instruments. We have
00:12:25.570 --> 00:12:28.110
famous cellists playing on 1700s instruments
00:12:28.110 --> 00:12:30.350
versus a pianist where it's like, oh, am I still
00:12:30.350 --> 00:12:32.309
where he's 10 years old? It's kind of a different
00:12:32.309 --> 00:12:34.710
approach to the music and the articulation and
00:12:34.710 --> 00:12:37.730
things. Going on, he says, the absence of articulation
00:12:37.730 --> 00:12:40.129
markings in a composition basically means that
00:12:40.129 --> 00:12:41.690
the performer had to follow the conventional
00:12:41.690 --> 00:12:44.110
rules of the time and place. As it is so often
00:12:44.110 --> 00:12:46.769
true, quote, absence of proof does not mean proof
00:12:46.769 --> 00:12:49.259
of absence, unquote. The composer was expected
00:12:49.259 --> 00:12:51.480
to notate any exceptions to these rules because
00:12:51.480 --> 00:12:53.379
even a well -trained musician could not necessarily
00:12:53.379 --> 00:12:56.120
guess where to go against the conventions. Often,
00:12:56.220 --> 00:12:58.620
music for string instruments had the most annotations
00:12:58.620 --> 00:13:00.799
since the articulations directed the bowing.
00:13:01.259 --> 00:13:03.740
String treatises stress the basic rule that the
00:13:03.740 --> 00:13:05.960
quote good beats are to be played down bow much
00:13:05.960 --> 00:13:08.059
more systematically than is done in modern playing.
00:13:08.759 --> 00:13:10.860
Unfortunately, articulation does not fare much
00:13:10.860 --> 00:13:12.639
better than phrasing in much of today's early
00:13:12.639 --> 00:13:14.960
music playing and singing. It is often careless
00:13:14.960 --> 00:13:17.820
and undifferentiated. and lacks concern for proper
00:13:17.820 --> 00:13:20.360
declamation. In vocal music, the balance between
00:13:20.360 --> 00:13:22.639
phrasing and articulation makes a text not only
00:13:22.639 --> 00:13:25.399
literally understood, but also felt, for example,
00:13:25.399 --> 00:13:28.720
understanding at an emotional level. It is so
00:13:28.720 --> 00:13:31.480
rewarding and all too exceptional to hear an
00:13:31.480 --> 00:13:33.500
opera singer whose words can actually be understood
00:13:33.500 --> 00:13:35.840
without the use of subtitles or supertitles.
00:13:35.919 --> 00:13:39.240
Then, the poetry, music, acting, and decor can
00:13:39.240 --> 00:13:42.100
collaborate and reinforce one another. However,
00:13:42.259 --> 00:13:44.279
whereas an attentive and creative listener can
00:13:44.279 --> 00:13:46.259
more or less easily imagine the latter or two,
00:13:46.460 --> 00:13:51.019
the absence of an understandable text takes away
00:13:51.019 --> 00:13:53.679
the essential element. In instrumental music,
00:13:53.860 --> 00:13:56.019
a lack of phrasing and or articulation provokes
00:13:56.019 --> 00:13:58.320
much the same effect as in singing. The attention
00:13:58.320 --> 00:14:00.299
is then drawn to the instrument as an abstract,
00:14:00.539 --> 00:14:02.919
speechless, beautiful voice rather than what
00:14:02.919 --> 00:14:06.360
is expressed through the sound. As an instrumentalist,
00:14:06.379 --> 00:14:08.279
I have always been impressed by and jealous of
00:14:08.279 --> 00:14:10.470
the excessive possibilities of the voice. When
00:14:10.470 --> 00:14:12.570
this potential is not fully used, I feel strongly
00:14:12.570 --> 00:14:15.110
disappointed. I can admire a splendid vocal or
00:14:15.110 --> 00:14:17.590
instrumental sound and virtuoso technique, but
00:14:17.590 --> 00:14:19.549
cannot stand them when they seem to become the
00:14:19.549 --> 00:14:21.950
purpose instead of the means. I compare the voice
00:14:21.950 --> 00:14:24.649
or instrument to a pencil. What I write with
00:14:24.649 --> 00:14:28.090
it is more important than the pencil itself,
00:14:28.269 --> 00:14:31.149
even if it is a golden pencil. This whole page
00:14:31.149 --> 00:14:36.289
is just incredible. How shocked are you from
00:14:36.289 --> 00:14:40.240
like... Out of, I guess, out of a score of 10.
00:14:40.899 --> 00:14:43.820
Well, I think he, you know, it's just very interesting.
00:14:43.940 --> 00:14:46.440
I think the voice is kind of this revered instrument.
00:14:46.940 --> 00:14:49.679
You often see teachers who are like, if you're
00:14:49.679 --> 00:14:51.259
going to play this passage, try and really sing
00:14:51.259 --> 00:14:53.000
it. And so it's like, okay, how do I do that
00:14:53.000 --> 00:14:56.279
then on your instrument? And I don't know, maybe
00:14:56.279 --> 00:14:58.980
that's become more of a thing. And there's also
00:14:58.980 --> 00:15:01.419
this like drama with opera singers where it's
00:15:01.419 --> 00:15:04.340
like. do we actually hear the words being said,
00:15:04.379 --> 00:15:06.100
or is it more about the music itself? And so
00:15:06.100 --> 00:15:09.259
he's writing here, it's more rewarding to actually
00:15:09.259 --> 00:15:12.720
get the text behind, or the words that the singers
00:15:12.720 --> 00:15:16.559
are singing. Yeah, there's something also, when
00:15:16.559 --> 00:15:21.860
he mentions, it's better to, I guess, when you
00:15:21.860 --> 00:15:24.740
have, especially like an opera singer sing out
00:15:24.740 --> 00:15:27.600
in any opera, right? Yeah. And you're an audience,
00:15:27.820 --> 00:15:30.879
and you have to rely, I guess sometimes you'll
00:15:30.879 --> 00:15:34.740
have, performances at operas list subtitles there's
00:15:34.740 --> 00:15:36.940
going to be a little like a screen and they project
00:15:36.940 --> 00:15:40.720
the subtitles on there yeah i mean i there was
00:15:40.720 --> 00:15:43.299
i went to a concert lecture once and and there's
00:15:43.299 --> 00:15:45.919
actually um there was a reason not to listen
00:15:45.919 --> 00:15:50.159
to those um for for many performances many first
00:15:50.159 --> 00:15:52.340
-time performances especially because i there's
00:15:52.340 --> 00:15:57.419
more of a there's like this greater like um what
00:15:57.419 --> 00:16:00.700
is it, like a plan inside your head when you're
00:16:00.700 --> 00:16:03.639
listening and watching at the same time that
00:16:03.639 --> 00:16:05.960
your brain kind of like connects all those, you
00:16:05.960 --> 00:16:08.919
know, those moments in the plot of the opera.
00:16:08.940 --> 00:16:11.480
Right, right. But more comprehendingly better
00:16:11.480 --> 00:16:13.779
because it's more like multitasking when you're
00:16:13.779 --> 00:16:16.480
watching like the subtitles and you're so fixated
00:16:16.480 --> 00:16:18.779
on kind of just that screen and what they have
00:16:18.779 --> 00:16:23.070
to say. It's like watching that WhatsApp. running
00:16:23.070 --> 00:16:25.309
game where you're jumping over the you're like
00:16:25.309 --> 00:16:28.049
crossy road uh no it's you know how there was
00:16:28.049 --> 00:16:30.690
like a meme okay for context there was this meme
00:16:30.690 --> 00:16:32.570
where people would be like an orchestra and then
00:16:32.570 --> 00:16:35.230
also watching um what is that called it's where
00:16:35.230 --> 00:16:37.009
they're like on the train tracks and you're running
00:16:37.009 --> 00:16:40.889
down oh subway surfers it's basically kind of
00:16:40.889 --> 00:16:43.129
like that where you have subtitles on one screen
00:16:43.129 --> 00:16:46.649
yes no no no no that's the same thing the dynamics
00:16:46.649 --> 00:16:50.120
of social media We're also changing all the short
00:16:50.120 --> 00:16:53.139
clips like TikTok and YouTube. You see they show
00:16:53.139 --> 00:16:57.059
you one gaming, whatever, maybe some smooth ASMR
00:16:57.059 --> 00:17:00.700
like sand video stuff. And they're also explaining
00:17:00.700 --> 00:17:03.220
stuff at the same time. I mean, it does kind
00:17:03.220 --> 00:17:07.039
of get your attention, but it's like. We've kind
00:17:07.039 --> 00:17:10.920
of shifted away from 2018 and before retro style.
00:17:11.259 --> 00:17:15.980
Just listen to what the speaker has to say in
00:17:15.980 --> 00:17:20.420
his message instead of 15 other sensory stimuli.
00:17:22.420 --> 00:17:26.349
It's the same thing with this. I guess also other
00:17:26.349 --> 00:17:29.410
opera productions. I don't know, especially with
00:17:29.410 --> 00:17:31.769
opera, because you do change the costumes up
00:17:31.769 --> 00:17:33.750
a little bit with different tastes and different
00:17:33.750 --> 00:17:38.789
perspectives. I think it's great. I think people
00:17:38.789 --> 00:17:42.130
who want to really try to understand the original
00:17:42.130 --> 00:17:45.029
one, there's specific source material beyond
00:17:45.029 --> 00:17:48.390
modern performances that are being shown nowadays
00:17:48.390 --> 00:17:52.569
that have to be... No, exactly. Sin can be said
00:17:52.569 --> 00:17:55.349
for even non -music productions like a Shakespeare
00:17:55.349 --> 00:17:58.630
play. Yes, it even expands on to Shakespeare.
00:17:59.009 --> 00:18:01.650
As long as you get the gist of it, it's more
00:18:01.650 --> 00:18:04.250
about watching the actors and piecing it together.
00:18:04.410 --> 00:18:06.490
If you're already familiar with the plot of the
00:18:06.490 --> 00:18:09.589
play or the opera, maybe that's better than watching
00:18:09.589 --> 00:18:12.559
the singers on stage or actors. and seeing the
00:18:12.559 --> 00:18:14.319
subtitles. I don't know, that's kind of a point
00:18:14.319 --> 00:18:16.839
of contention. And also, you even see it for
00:18:16.839 --> 00:18:19.880
instrumental music, too, where there will be,
00:18:19.940 --> 00:18:22.400
like, classical pieces that are just concert
00:18:22.400 --> 00:18:25.339
music, so no connection to ballet or even film
00:18:25.339 --> 00:18:28.700
scoring. But what a lot of orchestras will do,
00:18:28.740 --> 00:18:30.819
it's like, we're going to play pictures at an
00:18:30.819 --> 00:18:32.700
exhibition or something. My orchestra actually
00:18:32.700 --> 00:18:34.200
just did this, and it was kind of interesting.
00:18:34.299 --> 00:18:36.460
I mean, we were kind of talking about it in rehearsal,
00:18:36.579 --> 00:18:40.319
was our conductor was like... Do we project the
00:18:40.319 --> 00:18:42.279
pictures on the screen? Do we show the pictures
00:18:42.279 --> 00:18:44.799
if we want? I thought that was a cool decision.
00:18:45.039 --> 00:18:47.740
It was interesting. Get their heads mixed up
00:18:47.740 --> 00:18:50.480
with... I think that was a good, appropriate
00:18:50.480 --> 00:18:53.619
time to add... sensory stimuli because it was
00:18:53.619 --> 00:18:57.119
it was cool to see their reaction and conceptualize
00:18:57.119 --> 00:18:59.880
it at the same same time we're playing we're
00:18:59.880 --> 00:19:01.700
going to play the movement right right i thought
00:19:01.700 --> 00:19:03.420
that was a pretty good cool experience it was
00:19:03.420 --> 00:19:05.859
more so that um we kind of had like this orchestral
00:19:05.859 --> 00:19:07.680
debate about it it's like do we do this do we
00:19:07.680 --> 00:19:09.220
not do this will it take away from the music
00:19:09.220 --> 00:19:12.319
and i think we took a good 15 minutes out of
00:19:12.319 --> 00:19:13.980
rehearsal, where we just kind of discussed it
00:19:13.980 --> 00:19:15.940
as, I mean, there's like 80 of us or something.
00:19:16.319 --> 00:19:17.779
And that was kind of, that was interesting, and
00:19:17.779 --> 00:19:20.119
that's kind of similar with even performance
00:19:20.119 --> 00:19:23.779
orchestral music, too. Yeah, those are cool things
00:19:23.779 --> 00:19:26.660
you get to do. You don't get to do that much
00:19:26.660 --> 00:19:28.799
often. Right, right, right. Especially because
00:19:28.799 --> 00:19:31.259
when you just perform, you just perform with
00:19:31.259 --> 00:19:33.480
your instrument, and you have maybe perhaps an
00:19:33.480 --> 00:19:36.799
accompaniment, but you don't every day often
00:19:36.799 --> 00:19:39.480
get to show pictures on the screen, on the projector.
00:19:39.940 --> 00:19:44.940
So there goes articulation, and then now we transfer
00:19:44.940 --> 00:19:48.180
into the world, or I guess universe of dynamics.
00:19:48.759 --> 00:19:52.410
Dynamics is now... Oh, boy. This is going to
00:19:52.410 --> 00:19:58.470
be a biggie, I think. Because dynamics, especially
00:19:58.470 --> 00:20:02.390
I can tell, when we play Baroque repertoire today
00:20:02.390 --> 00:20:07.490
versus Baroque era dynamics, you're going to
00:20:07.490 --> 00:20:11.369
see a little bit, so far from what I know, nothing
00:20:11.369 --> 00:20:18.309
was kind of like one steady dynamic or set loudness.
00:20:18.430 --> 00:20:21.140
Because when we play, we always... We always
00:20:21.140 --> 00:20:23.880
contrast it. We think of hairpins. We think of
00:20:23.880 --> 00:20:26.099
crescendos when something goes up and something
00:20:26.099 --> 00:20:30.859
goes down. That might not have necessarily been
00:20:30.859 --> 00:20:34.059
the same during that time. So let's see what
00:20:34.059 --> 00:20:38.119
Mr. Keike has in store for us. The description
00:20:38.119 --> 00:20:40.460
of vocal ideals in this and other sections relies
00:20:40.460 --> 00:20:43.400
on historical vocal treatises themselves and
00:20:43.400 --> 00:20:46.279
on modern writings such as John Potter's Reconstructing
00:20:46.279 --> 00:20:48.519
Lost Voices, published in Tess Knighton and David
00:20:48.519 --> 00:20:52.119
Fallow's editions. Companion to Medieval Written
00:20:52.119 --> 00:20:55.210
René Achme. Okay, Companion to Medieval and Renaissance
00:20:55.210 --> 00:20:59.029
Music, 1997. The same authors, The Tenor Castrato
00:20:59.029 --> 00:21:02.250
Connections, from 1716 to 1860, published in
00:21:02.250 --> 00:21:04.789
Early Music, February 2007, and the chapters
00:21:04.789 --> 00:21:06.569
on singing in Howard Mayer Brown and Stanley
00:21:06.569 --> 00:21:09.730
Sade edition. That kind of sounds like Eric Saatchi.
00:21:09.890 --> 00:21:12.329
Eric Saatchi. I don't think they're related.
00:21:12.529 --> 00:21:15.349
Performance Practice, Music After 1600, published
00:21:15.349 --> 00:21:18.859
in 1989. Though dynamics are a very personal
00:21:18.859 --> 00:21:20.880
element of performance, in early music they were
00:21:20.880 --> 00:21:23.579
mostly not specified historical documents such
00:21:23.579 --> 00:21:25.700
as treatises and descriptions of performances.
00:21:25.740 --> 00:21:28.220
The instruments themselves and concert venue
00:21:28.220 --> 00:21:30.279
acoustics must provide much of our information.
00:21:30.799 --> 00:21:33.799
Clearly differentiated microdynamics, which I
00:21:33.799 --> 00:21:36.539
believe we did talk about a bit, valid for one
00:21:36.539 --> 00:21:38.460
note or for a very small group of notes, were
00:21:38.460 --> 00:21:40.730
predominant. a central concept in the contrast
00:21:40.730 --> 00:21:43.630
between a good and bad notes within a bar. Good
00:21:43.630 --> 00:21:45.549
notes are, first of all, those that fall in the
00:21:45.549 --> 00:21:49.710
strong beats, like 1 and 3 in C, which was common
00:21:49.710 --> 00:21:53.549
time, 1 and 2, 4, and 3, 4, etc., etc. This principle
00:21:53.549 --> 00:21:56.630
is extended down the hierarchical ladder. The
00:21:56.630 --> 00:21:58.690
first subdivision of a quarter note is better
00:21:58.690 --> 00:22:00.650
than the second, and the first 16th note is better
00:22:00.650 --> 00:22:02.690
than the second, and so forth. In this matter,
00:22:02.769 --> 00:22:04.950
a group of four articulated equal notes will
00:22:04.950 --> 00:22:09.440
be played one. So let me say this again. A group
00:22:09.440 --> 00:22:12.039
of four articulated equal notes will be played
00:22:12.039 --> 00:22:16.720
one, two, three, four. Okay, listen to how I
00:22:16.720 --> 00:22:19.140
said that. And also a longer series of 16th notes
00:22:19.140 --> 00:22:20.680
are not to be performed with equal strength,
00:22:20.779 --> 00:22:23.059
but the bad ones will be played softer and or
00:22:23.059 --> 00:22:25.420
shorter than the good ones. Shorter can mean
00:22:25.420 --> 00:22:30.319
one later, as in inequality, see section four
00:22:30.319 --> 00:22:33.660
about rhythm, or two held less long. which we'll
00:22:33.660 --> 00:22:36.640
see in section 6. Obviously, in vocal music,
00:22:36.819 --> 00:22:39.539
this makes us stay very close to the prosody
00:22:39.539 --> 00:22:42.559
of the text and the poetic effect. Vocalizes
00:22:42.559 --> 00:22:45.539
are, so I guess vocalizes are, in principle,
00:22:45.559 --> 00:22:48.359
only allowed on strong syllables. They normally
00:22:48.359 --> 00:22:51.079
make a diminuendo because the impact of the syllable
00:22:51.079 --> 00:22:52.940
or word lies at the beginning of the vocalize.
00:22:54.000 --> 00:22:56.180
For instruments, a slur is the equivalent of
00:22:56.180 --> 00:22:58.940
a vocalese and thus makes a diminuendo as well.
00:22:59.099 --> 00:23:01.059
This combines very well with Brahms' request
00:23:01.059 --> 00:23:03.359
to shorten the last note under slur, as we've
00:23:03.359 --> 00:23:05.619
seen in the previous section. Several elements
00:23:05.619 --> 00:23:07.880
can change the standard grid of dynamics related
00:23:07.880 --> 00:23:10.359
to the note's position within the bar. Intervals
00:23:10.359 --> 00:23:12.500
are one factor, and they can be compared to the
00:23:12.500 --> 00:23:15.140
rise or fall of a voice recording to its varying
00:23:15.140 --> 00:23:18.000
degrees of excitement. Harmony is another consideration.
00:23:18.680 --> 00:23:20.880
Dissonances are played stronger than the resolutions,
00:23:21.299 --> 00:23:23.500
which are normally slurred to the preceding dissonance.
00:23:23.680 --> 00:23:26.680
In the quants versuch, we find dissonances themselves
00:23:26.680 --> 00:23:29.900
divided into different classes of harshness and
00:23:29.900 --> 00:23:33.180
thus of loudness. Intervals and dissonances can
00:23:33.180 --> 00:23:35.660
nuance or even overrule the importance of the
00:23:35.660 --> 00:23:39.160
strong -weak metric position with the bar. However,
00:23:39.319 --> 00:23:41.440
this will not turn a bad note into a good note.
00:23:41.579 --> 00:23:44.180
It only makes an accented bad note highly efficient
00:23:44.180 --> 00:23:46.140
because it is then perceived as exceptional.
00:23:48.359 --> 00:23:51.279
This feels like a hierarchical, like, this is
00:23:51.279 --> 00:23:53.900
this, but within it is this, but within it is
00:23:53.900 --> 00:23:56.140
this, and we don't often think about within it
00:23:56.140 --> 00:24:00.119
is this, within it is this. No, very much. I'm
00:24:00.119 --> 00:24:02.200
kind of, I guess, going back to, like, sort of
00:24:02.200 --> 00:24:05.200
earlier in this section. You know, he talks about...
00:24:05.640 --> 00:24:08.579
um micro dynamics and stuff and i think he brings
00:24:08.579 --> 00:24:11.079
up how it kind of would depend on like the instruments
00:24:11.079 --> 00:24:13.259
and that that does make sense because earlier
00:24:13.259 --> 00:24:15.660
in the chapters we talked about how because um
00:24:15.660 --> 00:24:17.660
one flute would be maybe very different from
00:24:17.660 --> 00:24:20.259
another flute or one i don't know string instrument
00:24:20.259 --> 00:24:23.319
to especially uh actually like harpsichords would
00:24:23.319 --> 00:24:24.759
be very different organs would be different yeah
00:24:24.759 --> 00:24:28.829
um you'd kind of have to just base it on the
00:24:28.829 --> 00:24:30.890
instruments or musicians that you had at the
00:24:30.890 --> 00:24:33.950
time. So a forte could be mezzo forte to another
00:24:33.950 --> 00:24:35.849
musician or it could be double forte to another.
00:24:36.009 --> 00:24:38.710
So it does kind of depend versus today where
00:24:38.710 --> 00:24:40.170
it's like, okay, if you go to the flute store,
00:24:40.349 --> 00:24:42.390
the flutes are probably going to be, they're
00:24:42.390 --> 00:24:44.569
different from each other, but dynamically and
00:24:44.569 --> 00:24:47.690
the style of them are all going to be more homogenous,
00:24:47.769 --> 00:24:50.849
if that makes sense. Right. And then, you know,
00:24:50.849 --> 00:24:54.349
for voices, for singers, I guess composing your
00:24:54.349 --> 00:24:57.980
pieces to a singer is... Common back then. It's
00:24:57.980 --> 00:25:00.319
also common, though, I think, even in sort of
00:25:00.319 --> 00:25:02.900
like the 20th, 21st century, kind of going into
00:25:02.900 --> 00:25:05.680
like the musical theater world, but Stephen Sondheim,
00:25:05.819 --> 00:25:10.640
the Broadway composer, would often write his
00:25:10.640 --> 00:25:12.859
musicals kind of based around certain actors
00:25:12.859 --> 00:25:15.160
and singers in mind to fit the part. So even
00:25:15.160 --> 00:25:17.880
if they weren't necessarily like these... virtuoso
00:25:17.880 --> 00:25:20.740
singers, they still had a certain kind of grit
00:25:20.740 --> 00:25:22.579
to them or sound to them that he would purposefully
00:25:22.579 --> 00:25:25.220
write for. So then when they sang it, it would
00:25:25.220 --> 00:25:27.079
be like, oh, that's how it's supposed to sound
00:25:27.079 --> 00:25:28.920
because it's really, it's tailored to them. That's
00:25:28.920 --> 00:25:30.480
very smart. It's kind of, yeah, it's a different
00:25:30.480 --> 00:25:34.359
perspective there. That's a good, you know, putting
00:25:34.359 --> 00:25:38.420
good use to what, you know, someone is designed
00:25:38.420 --> 00:25:41.309
to kind of do in that role. Right, right. As
00:25:41.309 --> 00:25:43.890
has already been mentioned, the vocal ideal in
00:25:43.890 --> 00:25:46.049
earlier centuries was very different from modern
00:25:46.049 --> 00:25:47.990
singing, and instrumentalists were expected to
00:25:47.990 --> 00:25:50.589
behave like good singers. The voice had a pyramid,
00:25:50.769 --> 00:25:52.829
not a column character, stronger and broader
00:25:52.829 --> 00:25:55.630
in the low register and more refined as the sound
00:25:55.630 --> 00:25:58.470
climbed up. It is only in the 1830s that the
00:25:58.470 --> 00:26:01.650
tenor's famous high C2 in Rossini's Guillaume Tell
00:26:01.650 --> 00:26:05.009
was sung in chest voice and was strongly disliked
00:26:05.009 --> 00:26:07.650
by Rossini himself. The voice registers needed
00:26:07.650 --> 00:26:09.809
to be well joined, but difference in register
00:26:09.809 --> 00:26:13.000
was Mozart masterfully used this device in his
00:26:13.000 --> 00:26:15.880
vocal works and concerti. In vocal as well as
00:26:15.880 --> 00:26:18.079
instrumental tone production, vibrato was not
00:26:18.079 --> 00:26:20.700
considered to be an inseparable part of the sound
00:26:20.700 --> 00:26:24.980
as it is now, but an ornament, right? Yeah, for
00:26:24.980 --> 00:26:26.700
you, for instrumental playing, yeah. Were you
00:26:26.700 --> 00:26:30.099
ever in your, I guess, 18, 19 years of existence,
00:26:30.259 --> 00:26:35.059
been told that vibrato was an ornament? I guess
00:26:35.059 --> 00:26:38.329
now it's... It was more so... It was kind of
00:26:38.329 --> 00:26:40.529
like, if you don't play with vibrato, then it's
00:26:40.529 --> 00:26:42.630
going to, quote, sound bad or something, so you
00:26:42.630 --> 00:26:44.970
have to add vibrato on it. It was more, I don't
00:26:44.970 --> 00:26:46.549
know, not really thought of, because an ornament
00:26:46.549 --> 00:26:48.970
kind of implies maybe things like a grace note
00:26:48.970 --> 00:26:52.049
or a trill, instead of, which is kind of a selective
00:26:52.049 --> 00:26:53.730
thing. Because I guess it'd be a little bit different,
00:26:53.769 --> 00:26:56.029
because since you play violin, in Baroque era,
00:26:56.089 --> 00:27:00.609
you never did any technically vibrato as a template.
00:27:00.829 --> 00:27:03.049
You would never do vibrato as a template, but
00:27:03.049 --> 00:27:07.140
vibrato was appropriate. When it was done at
00:27:07.140 --> 00:27:10.660
the right time. So when I played the Bach cello
00:27:10.660 --> 00:27:13.099
suite, I was told by my teacher, oh, vibrato
00:27:13.099 --> 00:27:15.299
should be treated as more of an ornament. You've
00:27:15.299 --> 00:27:18.119
got to find those right spots and cadences, et
00:27:18.119 --> 00:27:20.559
cetera, and long, kind of like these long four
00:27:20.559 --> 00:27:25.240
-time phrases. Yeah. So that's basically what...
00:27:25.839 --> 00:27:29.180
That puts out, so in vocal as well as instrumental
00:27:29.180 --> 00:27:31.200
tone production, verbato was not considered to
00:27:31.200 --> 00:27:33.039
be an inseparable part of the sound as it is
00:27:33.039 --> 00:27:35.299
now, but an ornament to be applied with fine
00:27:35.299 --> 00:27:38.559
judgment and not too often. The mezza di voce
00:27:38.559 --> 00:27:41.579
or son file, the gradual costrendo and diminuendo
00:27:41.579 --> 00:27:44.380
on one note was the basic dynamic exercise of
00:27:44.380 --> 00:27:47.000
every singer and thus of any good melody instrument
00:27:47.000 --> 00:27:50.710
player. Interestingly, Tartini, in his Traite
00:27:50.710 --> 00:27:53.670
des Agriments, I don't know, that's another French
00:27:53.670 --> 00:27:57.650
thing, before 1756, requires the long notes performed
00:27:57.650 --> 00:28:00.809
with mezza di voce to be played absolutely without
00:28:00.809 --> 00:28:03.869
vibrato. This practice can be still heard in
00:28:03.869 --> 00:28:06.230
some historical recordings of singers such as
00:28:06.230 --> 00:28:11.150
Adelina Piatti or Luisa Tetrazini. Whereas the
00:28:11.150 --> 00:28:13.309
diminuendo is natural, all sounds eventually
00:28:13.309 --> 00:28:16.470
die out, just as we do. We can consider the crescendo
00:28:16.470 --> 00:28:19.130
as against nature, as life in reverse order,
00:28:19.230 --> 00:28:21.869
creating awe and tension. Keeping long notes
00:28:21.869 --> 00:28:24.170
straight is described in Leopold Mozart's Versuch
00:28:24.170 --> 00:28:29.190
einer gründlichen Violinschule in 1756 as a special
00:28:29.190 --> 00:28:31.650
exercise, an afterthought after several Boeing...
00:28:31.660 --> 00:28:34.299
exercises with changing dynamics. He considers
00:28:34.299 --> 00:28:37.059
it useful for mastering the bow, but not as a
00:28:37.059 --> 00:28:39.579
performance option. On the contrary, he states
00:28:39.579 --> 00:28:42.839
that each note, even the loudest, must start
00:28:42.839 --> 00:28:46.160
finished softly, however brief that softer beginning
00:28:46.160 --> 00:28:49.960
may be. Otherwise, it would be an incomprehensible
00:28:49.960 --> 00:28:54.019
noise. The Klingler Quartet, continuing the tradition
00:28:54.019 --> 00:28:57.539
of Joseph Joachim, still adhere to the principle
00:28:57.539 --> 00:29:00.299
as demonstrated in the recordings from the first
00:29:00.299 --> 00:29:02.920
third of the previous century. I'm really going
00:29:02.920 --> 00:29:05.119
to have to go back and listen to some classical
00:29:05.119 --> 00:29:07.220
operas and kind of hear how the singers approach
00:29:07.220 --> 00:29:10.500
it. I'm just thinking of Mozart arias. I feel
00:29:10.500 --> 00:29:12.119
like, well, Mozart's kind of a different case
00:29:12.119 --> 00:29:13.839
because he does kind of border on that classical
00:29:13.839 --> 00:29:16.200
going into the romantic period. So I'm not sure
00:29:16.200 --> 00:29:19.460
if maybe he changed some of that stuff later
00:29:19.460 --> 00:29:23.539
in life, but I don't know. I mean, it's kind
00:29:23.539 --> 00:29:26.380
of like a standard thing. And we've said, too,
00:29:26.440 --> 00:29:28.819
I think as musicians, when we play classical
00:29:28.819 --> 00:29:30.759
music or baroque music, these are things we kind
00:29:30.759 --> 00:29:32.940
of try and do anyway, but we weren't exactly...
00:29:33.200 --> 00:29:34.660
Like, we're not super conscious of it. Like,
00:29:34.700 --> 00:29:36.339
why we do the things we do. We just kind of,
00:29:36.380 --> 00:29:37.900
like, oh, it's classical, so it has to sound
00:29:37.900 --> 00:29:40.559
this way. And then that kind of all goes out
00:29:40.559 --> 00:29:43.240
the window by the time you get to 1830. And then
00:29:43.240 --> 00:29:44.779
we all start to do it in, like, the Romantic
00:29:44.779 --> 00:29:47.680
period. Like, late Romantic. Then everyone decides
00:29:47.680 --> 00:29:51.480
to do it. So maybe that's another good text to
00:29:51.480 --> 00:29:55.859
check out. And there are good English editions
00:29:55.859 --> 00:30:00.779
out there. There's people even in mid -20th century
00:30:00.779 --> 00:30:03.380
that were... just beginning to translate all
00:30:03.380 --> 00:30:06.380
these texts and um yeah same thing i'm repeating
00:30:06.380 --> 00:30:08.619
no one not too many people do actually read these
00:30:08.619 --> 00:30:11.200
people except the musicologists and they can't
00:30:11.200 --> 00:30:14.619
unfortunately communicate as well to the 21st
00:30:14.619 --> 00:30:17.619
century because all the directors are saying
00:30:17.619 --> 00:30:19.940
oh i've got it i can do it my way so we're gonna
00:30:19.940 --> 00:30:22.380
just follow the norm that everyone's not listening
00:30:22.380 --> 00:30:27.799
to exactly it's there yeah um it's interesting
00:30:27.799 --> 00:30:31.039
field of research An interesting field of research
00:30:31.039 --> 00:30:33.539
still insufficiently explored is inquiry into
00:30:33.539 --> 00:30:36.180
the many volumes of manuscript or printed solfege
00:30:36.180 --> 00:30:38.779
for singers. Among many others, we have highly
00:30:38.779 --> 00:30:42.240
virtuosic examples of Leonardo Leo, Hasse for
00:30:42.240 --> 00:30:44.640
his wife Faustina, one of the greatest mezzo
00:30:44.640 --> 00:30:48.359
-sopranos of the 18th century, Mozart, and Crescentini.
00:30:49.079 --> 00:30:52.119
Crescentini's include very detailed dynamics
00:30:52.119 --> 00:30:54.420
which were, in his own words, essential to bringing
00:30:54.420 --> 00:30:57.400
out musical syntax. These exercises, together
00:30:57.400 --> 00:30:59.640
with vocal treatises and descriptions of singers'
00:30:59.759 --> 00:31:02.720
performances, give us a rich picture of vocal
00:31:02.720 --> 00:31:05.619
aesthetics in the 17th through the early 19th
00:31:05.619 --> 00:31:08.380
century. They show a style of performance drastically
00:31:08.380 --> 00:31:11.000
different from what is common today, even among
00:31:11.000 --> 00:31:13.779
specialized performers. We can only dream of
00:31:13.779 --> 00:31:16.019
hearing this style again, and hope that someday
00:31:16.019 --> 00:31:18.460
a gifted young singer dares to move in that direction
00:31:18.460 --> 00:31:21.400
without too much readiness for compromise the
00:31:21.400 --> 00:31:23.799
difference between early and modern singing is
00:31:23.799 --> 00:31:27.740
not that there are no there are no castrati anymore
00:31:27.740 --> 00:31:31.019
i don't know what castrati is do you know could
00:31:31.019 --> 00:31:34.880
you make that out from what they did it was sort
00:31:34.880 --> 00:31:38.660
of like this movement in the um like the i forget
00:31:38.660 --> 00:31:42.630
the year it would have been It was really high
00:31:42.630 --> 00:31:45.210
singing. It was sort of a movement of, like,
00:31:45.250 --> 00:31:47.849
younger kids, basically, singing really high.
00:31:48.390 --> 00:31:50.950
Because I think it was, like, younger boys singing
00:31:50.950 --> 00:31:54.470
instead of women. Right. I don't know if... Yeah,
00:31:54.529 --> 00:31:56.890
that was definitely practiced, probably, in the
00:31:56.890 --> 00:31:59.549
18th century. And I think it kind of died out.
00:32:00.609 --> 00:32:03.390
It was sort of a church movement, I think. I'm
00:32:03.390 --> 00:32:05.930
not sure. It definitely had religious connotation,
00:32:05.930 --> 00:32:08.269
context in it. I wonder how long it lasted, though,
00:32:08.309 --> 00:32:11.299
because... Maybe it depended on the country?
00:32:11.519 --> 00:32:16.680
We have recordings now in even the late 20th
00:32:16.680 --> 00:32:19.759
century where Nikolaus Harnoncourt, I think he
00:32:19.759 --> 00:32:21.740
was an Austrian conductor and he was a cellist
00:32:21.740 --> 00:32:24.759
in the early historical informed performance
00:32:24.759 --> 00:32:28.380
movement. And he recorded the Weinax Oratorium,
00:32:28.460 --> 00:32:31.599
which is the Christmas oratorio with a group
00:32:31.599 --> 00:32:34.200
of younger boys as a choir. So this is, yeah,
00:32:34.259 --> 00:32:37.279
that's perfectly put into context with... in
00:32:37.279 --> 00:32:41.509
regards to this paragraph. There is a still ongoing
00:32:41.509 --> 00:32:43.630
development toward louder and more homogeneous
00:32:43.630 --> 00:32:45.990
instruments and voices as concert venues and
00:32:45.990 --> 00:32:49.130
orchestras grow in size. Antonio Bagatella, a
00:32:49.130 --> 00:32:51.789
violin maker associated with Tartini, wrote an
00:32:51.789 --> 00:32:54.170
important treatise on violin making, written
00:32:54.170 --> 00:32:57.529
in 1782 and published in 1786. I'm going to say
00:32:57.529 --> 00:33:00.349
this out loud, guys. Here we go. Regole per la
00:33:00.349 --> 00:33:05.549
construzione dei violini, violi, violoncelli
00:33:05.549 --> 00:33:08.390
e violoni. That's a lot. That's a handful. That's
00:33:08.390 --> 00:33:14.789
a whole bunch. He expresses the view that true
00:33:14.789 --> 00:33:18.390
sound ideals exist for the violin. The round
00:33:18.390 --> 00:33:21.609
and soft voce umana for solo playing and more
00:33:21.609 --> 00:33:25.309
pretending voce argentina for orchestral playing.
00:33:25.529 --> 00:33:28.029
W .A. Mozart recognizes this difference in a
00:33:28.029 --> 00:33:32.109
letter to his father on October 6, 1777. That's
00:33:32.109 --> 00:33:34.289
a year after the U .S. Declaration of Independence
00:33:34.289 --> 00:33:38.369
was conceived. And all the stuff in the United
00:33:38.369 --> 00:33:40.769
States, or the colonies, and then meanwhile in
00:33:40.769 --> 00:33:42.529
Austria, Mozart's like, what? Mozart's writing
00:33:42.529 --> 00:33:45.470
a letter. Here we go. I don't know what this
00:33:45.470 --> 00:33:52.460
is in German. Buttergeige, which the four - or
00:33:52.460 --> 00:33:55.500
five -year -old Wolfgang loved so much was testified
00:33:55.500 --> 00:33:58.579
by Johann Andreas Schnatchter's letter to Mozart's
00:33:58.579 --> 00:34:02.240
sister on April 24, 1792, presumably belonged
00:34:02.240 --> 00:34:05.339
to the former category. Around 1800 or somewhat
00:34:05.339 --> 00:34:07.940
later, the idea was abandoned. Solo instruments
00:34:07.940 --> 00:34:11.099
had to become louder. The same motivation of
00:34:11.099 --> 00:34:13.420
greater volume and evenness is the reason for
00:34:13.420 --> 00:34:15.579
technological improvements in other instruments.
00:34:15.920 --> 00:34:18.179
During the last decades of the 18th century,
00:34:18.320 --> 00:34:20.420
woodwinds were equipped with an increasing number
00:34:20.420 --> 00:34:23.000
of chromatic keys. Keys or valves were developed
00:34:23.000 --> 00:34:24.880
for brass instruments, and keyboard instruments
00:34:24.880 --> 00:34:27.179
were designed with a longer sound and a slower
00:34:27.179 --> 00:34:30.219
diminuendo. Comparing the modern Steinway with
00:34:30.219 --> 00:34:32.559
a Cristofori piano, the player feels invited
00:34:32.559 --> 00:34:35.159
to consider his use of dynamics afresh and to
00:34:35.159 --> 00:34:37.619
include many microdynamic shadings on the earlier
00:34:37.619 --> 00:34:40.750
instrument. I don't know if you were ever given
00:34:40.750 --> 00:34:43.170
an opportunity to do that. Oh, man, I would love
00:34:43.170 --> 00:34:46.909
to. You've done Steinway, right? Yeah, Steinway.
00:34:46.909 --> 00:34:51.280
Because everyone's done a Steinway. Have you
00:34:51.280 --> 00:34:53.679
heard the Cristofori piano models? Yes, I have.
00:34:53.780 --> 00:34:56.519
Well, I was going to say, so a big difference,
00:34:56.519 --> 00:34:59.219
too. No, I haven't played one. I would actually
00:34:59.219 --> 00:35:01.940
love to. The college that I'm about to go to
00:35:01.940 --> 00:35:05.000
has a very big, like, musical history department.
00:35:05.519 --> 00:35:07.460
So I think they have, like, piano fortes there.
00:35:07.579 --> 00:35:09.679
I might be able to try. Forte pianos. Yeah, forte
00:35:09.679 --> 00:35:12.579
piano. Yeah, because they specialize in early
00:35:12.579 --> 00:35:15.300
music, too, they would have it. So, yeah, you
00:35:15.300 --> 00:35:18.440
should come back to me on that if there's anything.
00:35:18.559 --> 00:35:20.590
I'll record music. Yeah, everything. seriously
00:35:20.590 --> 00:35:23.170
and also uh pedaling is kind of a big thing in
00:35:23.170 --> 00:35:26.590
these early uh pianos because what do we think
00:35:26.590 --> 00:35:28.210
of is like okay you have your sustained pedal
00:35:28.210 --> 00:35:31.230
you have the dampen or you'll like make quiet
00:35:31.230 --> 00:35:34.829
the thing so okay long story short the steinway
00:35:34.829 --> 00:35:38.250
pedaling is much more dramatic than some of the
00:35:38.250 --> 00:35:40.349
early pianos where if you actually pedal down
00:35:40.349 --> 00:35:43.550
you could have a sustain but not a full sustain
00:35:43.550 --> 00:35:45.550
which kind of created more of like a blended
00:35:45.550 --> 00:35:48.449
sound for maybe like those early Chopin nocturnes
00:35:48.449 --> 00:35:50.510
or something like that. So that I would love
00:35:50.510 --> 00:35:52.150
to try especially for the pedal because that
00:35:52.150 --> 00:35:55.320
would be kind of cool. Yes, that's very epic.
00:35:55.619 --> 00:35:58.880
I like that. You could do that same. There's
00:35:58.880 --> 00:36:01.119
obviously clear differences with the strings
00:36:01.119 --> 00:36:04.559
when it comes to strings, and you get more kind
00:36:04.559 --> 00:36:08.300
of like a nutty, like a nasal sound out of gut
00:36:08.300 --> 00:36:10.500
strings and all that. Yeah, oh, the string thing
00:36:10.500 --> 00:36:12.920
is a big thing too. Yeah, that's very fun. Evolution,
00:36:13.400 --> 00:36:15.760
with its construct of adaptation for survival,
00:36:15.960 --> 00:36:18.619
is not necessarily synonymous with overall improvement.
00:36:19.239 --> 00:36:21.659
Instruments may gain an evenness in volume, but
00:36:21.659 --> 00:36:24.219
might at the same time lose variety of colors
00:36:24.219 --> 00:36:27.389
and delicacy. The tendency of favoring force
00:36:27.389 --> 00:36:30.369
over finesse, very noticeable in early music
00:36:30.369 --> 00:36:32.769
as well as in standard performances, has been
00:36:32.769 --> 00:36:35.110
compared to the inflation of superlatives in
00:36:35.110 --> 00:36:37.909
today's spoken language. This was what Morris
00:36:37.909 --> 00:36:41.070
Raskin, a well -known Belgian violin virtuoso
00:36:41.070 --> 00:36:43.650
and pedagogue, told me in the early 1970s. He
00:36:43.650 --> 00:36:45.769
added that in his youth, during the 1920s and
00:36:45.769 --> 00:36:49.010
1930s, violinists never played as loudly as they
00:36:49.010 --> 00:36:52.579
did 50 years later. See, this is another good
00:36:52.579 --> 00:36:56.659
account, too. So I guess, what was it? Because
00:36:56.659 --> 00:37:00.059
I kind of read, but I can't also comprehend real
00:37:00.059 --> 00:37:03.340
quickly. No, me too. Wait, so violinists never
00:37:03.340 --> 00:37:06.619
played as loudly as they did 50 years later.
00:37:06.780 --> 00:37:11.780
Think about the change in acoustics of the places
00:37:11.780 --> 00:37:16.920
they play in. That just also astounds me, too,
00:37:16.980 --> 00:37:20.369
because I guess... I can even visualize in the
00:37:20.369 --> 00:37:24.469
18th century when you played in the Baroque era,
00:37:24.610 --> 00:37:26.969
I guess everything was just a little bit more
00:37:26.969 --> 00:37:32.210
on this gentle side. Nowadays, you go see a violin
00:37:32.210 --> 00:37:33.809
concerto and it's really loud because they're
00:37:33.809 --> 00:37:35.510
playing over the whole orchestra. Maybe it's
00:37:35.510 --> 00:37:37.610
because, well, okay, I take that back. I was
00:37:37.610 --> 00:37:39.050
going to say maybe it was because orchestras
00:37:39.050 --> 00:37:41.570
have grown in size, but the size of an orchestra
00:37:41.570 --> 00:37:44.809
is the same from the 20s and 30s to the 1970s,
00:37:44.809 --> 00:37:47.570
so I'm not sure. I don't know, it changed. Maybe
00:37:47.570 --> 00:37:52.269
audio quality for some reason. Maybe violinists
00:37:52.269 --> 00:37:54.570
had to play louder. I sure would like to play
00:37:54.570 --> 00:37:56.849
softer. Yeah, honestly, me too. Like, you know
00:37:56.849 --> 00:38:00.389
what? I won't be projecting today, thanks. I
00:38:00.389 --> 00:38:04.849
guess in that context, it would be for just especially
00:38:04.849 --> 00:38:07.809
performances because you would be playing for
00:38:07.809 --> 00:38:11.510
more people. Oh, maybe, maybe. I don't know.
00:38:11.570 --> 00:38:15.000
This quote, I think, is very... I think I can
00:38:15.000 --> 00:38:16.699
be a little bit more on the subjective side.
00:38:16.780 --> 00:38:19.659
I would have to understand or maybe even create
00:38:19.659 --> 00:38:22.159
a question in that sense if we want to ever ask
00:38:22.159 --> 00:38:24.760
that to someone later in this, I guess, series.
00:38:26.460 --> 00:38:29.610
Let's talk about microdynamics. When microdynamics
00:38:29.610 --> 00:38:31.809
are omnipresent, mostly not notated but very
00:38:31.809 --> 00:38:35.250
systematically codified and observed, macrodynamics,
00:38:35.250 --> 00:38:37.670
extending over longer passages, cannot be very
00:38:37.670 --> 00:38:40.150
important. They would indeed render the smaller
00:38:40.150 --> 00:38:42.670
effects insignificant, go against all conventions,
00:38:43.110 --> 00:38:45.250
and make everything equal, as in the case of
00:38:45.250 --> 00:38:47.889
the 20th century's long line playing. We find
00:38:47.889 --> 00:38:50.510
macrodynamics notated in a few typical situations,
00:38:50.829 --> 00:38:53.929
one as an echo effect or two as an indication
00:38:53.929 --> 00:38:56.849
of tutti and solo episodes in a concerto or aria.
00:38:56.949 --> 00:38:59.190
In these cases, they mainly indicate on which
00:38:59.190 --> 00:39:01.690
level the microdynamics operate. At other places,
00:39:01.710 --> 00:39:04.349
similarly to the place of articulation markings,
00:39:04.590 --> 00:39:06.769
they will be explicitly required when they are
00:39:06.769 --> 00:39:09.210
unconventional and therefore might not be added
00:39:09.210 --> 00:39:11.530
by the average performer as a matter of course.
00:39:11.929 --> 00:39:14.489
This is often the case in the Berlin Sturm und
00:39:14.489 --> 00:39:17.389
Drang style of the second half of the 18th century.
00:39:18.119 --> 00:39:21.679
In the Mannheim school of Johann Stammets, long
00:39:21.679 --> 00:39:24.880
crescendi, or more often than diminuendi, appear
00:39:24.880 --> 00:39:27.539
with increasing frequency. They are not only
00:39:27.539 --> 00:39:31.239
specified crescendo il forte, but can be mostly
00:39:31.239 --> 00:39:33.800
seen in the instrumentation as well, as more
00:39:33.800 --> 00:39:36.230
parts are added one after the other. These long
00:39:36.230 --> 00:39:39.210
crescendos often occur on patterns that are repeated
00:39:39.210 --> 00:39:41.449
on a higher pitch or on a sustained harmony.
00:39:41.750 --> 00:39:45.389
J .F. Reichardt describes their effect in the
00:39:45.389 --> 00:39:49.449
Briefe eines aufmerksamen Reisenden in 1774.
00:39:51.739 --> 00:39:55.000
Yes, this is auf Deutsch. Maybe I should give
00:39:55.000 --> 00:39:59.119
it a go. I have to take a German class. I think
00:39:59.119 --> 00:40:02.059
I'm going to have to do AP German. We're going
00:40:02.059 --> 00:40:13.159
to have to do this right now. Yes, yes. Die Zuhörer
00:40:13.159 --> 00:40:17.260
sich bei dem Crescendo allmöglich von den Sitzen
00:40:17.260 --> 00:40:20.699
erhoben und bei dem Diminuendo es wieder Luft
00:40:20.699 --> 00:40:25.599
schubften und merkten, dass ihnen der Atem ausgeblieben
00:40:25.599 --> 00:40:29.579
war. Gebleiben war, ich habe diese Letzere Wirkung
00:40:29.579 --> 00:40:32.500
in Mannheim an mir selbst empfunden. It is said
00:40:32.500 --> 00:40:35.019
that when Yomeli displayed this effect for the
00:40:35.019 --> 00:40:37.199
first time in Rome, the listeners gradually lifted
00:40:37.199 --> 00:40:39.360
themselves up for their chairs during the crescendo
00:40:39.360 --> 00:40:41.659
and only took breath again with the diminuendo,
00:40:41.760 --> 00:40:45.539
noticing they had been breathless. I experienced
00:40:45.539 --> 00:40:48.900
this effect on myself in Manheim. Huh, that's
00:40:48.900 --> 00:40:54.639
interesting. Okay. Okay, so yeah. Yeah, this
00:40:54.639 --> 00:40:56.619
was quite another handful. So long crescendo
00:40:56.619 --> 00:41:00.400
appear with increasing frequency more often than
00:41:00.400 --> 00:41:05.940
diminuendo. So what I'm just perceiving from
00:41:05.940 --> 00:41:08.480
that is just crescendos happen more often in
00:41:08.480 --> 00:41:11.940
that sense. Yeah, maybe. Over the overall line.
00:41:11.960 --> 00:41:15.260
On a pattern. Yeah, yeah. And more parts are
00:41:15.260 --> 00:41:17.699
added one or the other. So the long crescendos
00:41:17.699 --> 00:41:20.780
often occur on patterns that are repeated on
00:41:20.780 --> 00:41:25.639
higher pitch. or on a sustained harmony. Just
00:41:25.639 --> 00:41:29.559
another handful of things that we never often
00:41:29.559 --> 00:41:32.460
think to take into consideration when we play.
00:41:33.099 --> 00:41:36.519
Okay. Let's see. Even if this were only a tale,
00:41:36.659 --> 00:41:38.960
it still clearly indicates that the longer crescendo
00:41:38.960 --> 00:41:41.380
diminuendo was new and was experienced as something
00:41:41.380 --> 00:41:45.099
extraordinary. Reichhardt adds that the two great
00:41:45.099 --> 00:41:47.360
German opera composers of the mid -18th century,
00:41:47.480 --> 00:41:50.639
Haas and Graun, never used this device. Mozart
00:41:50.639 --> 00:41:52.960
only sparingly writes long crescendos. It is
00:41:52.960 --> 00:41:55.579
found in the accompaniment under the final trill
00:41:55.579 --> 00:41:58.519
of a solo section in a concerto announcing the
00:41:58.519 --> 00:42:00.480
tutti entrance of the orchestra. Oh, that's actually
00:42:00.480 --> 00:42:08.079
true. It's like... Then they all go silent, quiet
00:42:08.079 --> 00:42:10.780
when the soloist comes in. The soloist comes
00:42:10.780 --> 00:42:15.480
in. Yeah, exactly. So here's an example. Even
00:42:15.480 --> 00:42:19.059
in the late G minor symphony, KV 550, he asked
00:42:19.059 --> 00:42:20.929
for a crescendo. only twice in the first movement
00:42:20.929 --> 00:42:23.469
and twice in the trio of the minuet. Toward the
00:42:23.469 --> 00:42:25.610
end of the 18th century and increasingly in the
00:42:25.610 --> 00:42:28.289
19th century, macrodynamic effects overshadowed
00:42:28.289 --> 00:42:30.670
microdynamics until the latter almost disappeared
00:42:30.670 --> 00:42:33.730
from memory. Microdynamics were rediscovered
00:42:33.730 --> 00:42:35.809
together with phrasing and articulation principles
00:42:35.809 --> 00:42:38.769
when early music performance was seriously studied
00:42:38.769 --> 00:42:41.860
again in the 20th century. Wow, I'm going to
00:42:41.860 --> 00:42:43.500
have to watch my crescendos and decrescendos
00:42:43.500 --> 00:42:46.219
then when I play classical music. Oh yeah, don't
00:42:46.219 --> 00:42:49.400
want to get into dangerous waters. Dangerous
00:42:49.400 --> 00:42:52.980
waters if I decrescendo too quickly. Or crescendo
00:42:52.980 --> 00:42:56.840
too fast. I remember if you wanted to actually
00:42:56.840 --> 00:42:59.420
play things pretty well, there was a teacher
00:42:59.420 --> 00:43:04.719
who said... Just play all the markings. How often
00:43:04.719 --> 00:43:06.599
do you actually play all the markings while you
00:43:06.599 --> 00:43:10.519
practice? There's a good chunk of us that don't
00:43:10.519 --> 00:43:13.119
do that well. Forget things, right? Yeah. Small
00:43:13.119 --> 00:43:17.019
things. All right. Well, he actually goes on
00:43:17.019 --> 00:43:20.460
to our next part is orchestration, instrumentation,
00:43:20.460 --> 00:43:22.639
and arrangement. This is very interesting because,
00:43:22.780 --> 00:43:26.960
you know. Composers and arrangers and even conductors
00:43:26.960 --> 00:43:28.920
who deal with scores all the time are always
00:43:28.920 --> 00:43:31.639
looking at all these different editions of a
00:43:31.639 --> 00:43:33.480
score. So if you get, I don't know, a Mahler
00:43:33.480 --> 00:43:35.139
symphony from one publisher, they're going to
00:43:35.139 --> 00:43:36.719
be... Well, actually, Mahler's not a good example
00:43:36.719 --> 00:43:38.619
because he wrote a ton of notes in his... Okay,
00:43:38.699 --> 00:43:41.019
let's do... Leave it Mozart. If you get a Mozart
00:43:41.019 --> 00:43:43.760
score from one publishing company, there are
00:43:43.760 --> 00:43:46.119
going to be marks that are omitted or added depending
00:43:46.119 --> 00:43:48.420
on whoever did that arranging versus another
00:43:48.420 --> 00:43:51.000
company. So it can really, really change your
00:43:51.000 --> 00:43:54.250
perception and then, like... Even the famous
00:43:54.250 --> 00:43:57.869
orchestras of the United States, like if you
00:43:57.869 --> 00:44:00.389
get a copy from the Los Angeles Philharmonic
00:44:00.389 --> 00:44:02.809
versus the Chicago Symphony. Oh, those markings
00:44:02.809 --> 00:44:03.829
will be totally different. Those markings are
00:44:03.829 --> 00:44:06.889
crazy. There's so many contrasting things. Directors
00:44:06.889 --> 00:44:08.949
that made those orchestras famous, dead back
00:44:08.949 --> 00:44:11.929
then, their choices. It lives on into this new
00:44:11.929 --> 00:44:15.150
era. At the top of the chapter, he says, the
00:44:15.150 --> 00:44:17.449
birth of the orchestra by John Spitzer and Neil,
00:44:17.590 --> 00:44:24.500
I think it's Zaz. Zaslav. Zaslav. And 2004, the
00:44:24.500 --> 00:44:27.579
scoring of rural concertos by Richard Monder,
00:44:27.679 --> 00:44:30.260
2004, and the Essential Bach Choir by Andrew
00:44:30.260 --> 00:44:33.820
Parot, 2000, are some of the most valuable recent
00:44:33.820 --> 00:44:35.860
studies in this field. Though their conclusions
00:44:35.860 --> 00:44:39.460
might not convince everybody, they bring a wealth
00:44:39.460 --> 00:44:41.380
of information, which mostly confirmed my own
00:44:41.380 --> 00:44:44.800
findings and experience. Okay, he writes, composers
00:44:44.800 --> 00:44:46.840
frequently handle orchestration aspects quite
00:44:46.840 --> 00:44:49.420
freely. Scores do not indicate a number of players
00:44:49.420 --> 00:44:52.280
per part. and we must undertake considerable
00:44:52.280 --> 00:44:54.300
research in order to know the local customs.
00:44:54.659 --> 00:44:57.840
The very words orchestra and choir may be misleading,
00:44:58.079 --> 00:45:00.400
as we assume we know what they mean, a group
00:45:00.400 --> 00:45:03.019
of players or singers, where most parts are performed
00:45:03.019 --> 00:45:05.559
by a number of persons in unison. If the group
00:45:05.559 --> 00:45:08.079
is small, we can speak of chamber choir or chamber
00:45:08.079 --> 00:45:10.519
orchestra. We call chamber music the situation
00:45:10.519 --> 00:45:15.900
where each part is performed individually. Iconographical
00:45:15.900 --> 00:45:19.599
and historical research and the surviving performance
00:45:19.599 --> 00:45:21.940
material demonstrates that the great majority
00:45:21.940 --> 00:45:23.980
of Baroque concerti and orchestral suites are
00:45:23.980 --> 00:45:28.639
performed one to a part. This could be the case
00:45:28.639 --> 00:45:31.360
for even the symphonies. Tutti and solo specify
00:45:31.360 --> 00:45:34.360
the function rather than the number of players.
00:45:34.719 --> 00:45:37.300
Similarly, in many of Bach's cantatas, the choir
00:45:37.300 --> 00:45:39.699
often seems to have consisted of one soprano,
00:45:42.210 --> 00:45:45.429
contralto, tenor, and bass each, who frequently
00:45:45.429 --> 00:45:50.110
also had to sing their own recitative and or
00:45:50.110 --> 00:45:53.510
aria. The orchestra was proportionally small,
00:45:53.650 --> 00:45:56.650
a maximum of two or three first and second violins,
00:45:56.710 --> 00:45:59.230
one or two violas, two or three string basses,
00:45:59.230 --> 00:46:01.670
organ, and some wood instruments. I'm going to
00:46:01.670 --> 00:46:03.989
be putting together a concert pretty soon where
00:46:03.989 --> 00:46:05.869
I'm going to be playing a Mozart piano concerto.
00:46:05.909 --> 00:46:07.670
And that's pretty much the amount of musicians
00:46:07.670 --> 00:46:09.869
that we have. It's like two to three cellos,
00:46:09.909 --> 00:46:11.829
two to three basses. So you know what? I'll have
00:46:11.829 --> 00:46:14.989
a historically important performance. I mean,
00:46:15.010 --> 00:46:19.349
who cares about having 50 people in the entire
00:46:19.349 --> 00:46:22.570
orchestra? I'll have just 20 instead. It's like
00:46:22.570 --> 00:46:26.989
saying I need an amp to amp my performance. Exactly.
00:46:28.349 --> 00:46:30.630
He says, we know of descriptions of specific
00:46:30.630 --> 00:46:33.170
and sometimes quite unusual occasions. For example,
00:46:33.409 --> 00:46:36.090
Corelli conducted an orchestra of more than 100
00:46:36.090 --> 00:46:39.250
players in 1705. Mozart performed a symphony
00:46:39.250 --> 00:46:41.769
with an orchestra of about 85 to 90 players in
00:46:41.769 --> 00:46:44.889
1781, while the orchestra of only 32 players
00:46:44.889 --> 00:46:46.809
first performed Beethoven's Eroica Symphony.
00:46:47.389 --> 00:46:49.409
These personnel decisions were dependent on the
00:46:49.409 --> 00:46:51.550
occasion and on the money available. That's still
00:46:51.550 --> 00:46:53.730
kind of the case. We should realize that the
00:46:53.730 --> 00:46:56.429
numbers in such specific situations have had
00:46:56.429 --> 00:46:58.670
the consequences upon the performance itself.
00:46:59.269 --> 00:47:01.809
In the first half of the last century, William
00:47:01.809 --> 00:47:09.449
Menkelberg used a choir of 400 to 500 singers,
00:47:09.469 --> 00:47:13.369
400 to 500 singers, what? St. Matthew Passion.
00:47:13.929 --> 00:47:18.139
Wow. My gosh, that sounds cool. With the full
00:47:18.139 --> 00:47:21.699
and large Concerto Cabal Orchestra. That is impressive.
00:47:22.500 --> 00:47:25.079
I like that. That's like 600 people. That's a
00:47:25.079 --> 00:47:28.840
lot of people. You know what? I'm sure rehearsal
00:47:28.840 --> 00:47:31.260
was like, 30 people can't make it? No problem.
00:47:31.619 --> 00:47:35.539
No problem. Some extremely slow tempi, as documented
00:47:35.539 --> 00:47:39.219
in his 1939 recording of this work, might be
00:47:39.219 --> 00:47:41.719
the consequence of these large numbers. Related
00:47:41.719 --> 00:47:44.400
to the orchestration is the disposition of the
00:47:44.400 --> 00:47:46.840
ensemble. Is the cantata performed on the church
00:47:46.840 --> 00:47:49.179
tribune, back or side gallery, or close to the
00:47:49.179 --> 00:47:51.920
altar? The accompaniment of organ, one or two
00:47:51.920 --> 00:47:57.099
string basses, and bassoon in Bach's church recitatives
00:47:57.099 --> 00:47:59.719
might be explained by their being positioned
00:47:59.719 --> 00:48:01.639
on the tribune next to the organ, relatively
00:48:01.639 --> 00:48:04.860
far from and above the audience, and behind the
00:48:04.860 --> 00:48:06.820
singer who would stand close to the railing.
00:48:07.309 --> 00:48:09.590
The same continual group close to the altar might
00:48:09.590 --> 00:48:11.889
easily cover the singer's words. In the opera
00:48:11.889 --> 00:48:14.349
pit, do the first violins sit in one row with
00:48:14.349 --> 00:48:15.849
their backs to the audience while the second
00:48:15.849 --> 00:48:18.530
violins face the audience? This setup, largely
00:48:18.530 --> 00:48:22.030
documented in iconogra... Oh my gosh. Iconogra...
00:48:22.030 --> 00:48:26.650
Iconogra... Second time. Yeah, I know. Okay.
00:48:26.829 --> 00:48:29.090
And in literature, does not necessarily give
00:48:29.090 --> 00:48:31.550
a badly balanced sound. The second violins usually
00:48:31.550 --> 00:48:34.719
play in a lower tessitura than the first. But
00:48:34.719 --> 00:48:36.559
in this positioning, their instruments are directed
00:48:36.559 --> 00:48:38.900
more efficiently towards the audience. When a
00:48:38.900 --> 00:48:40.599
classical or romantic concerto is performed,
00:48:40.920 --> 00:48:42.840
does the orchestra sit on the same level as the
00:48:42.840 --> 00:48:45.159
soloist, or is the soloist alone on stage with
00:48:45.159 --> 00:48:47.340
the orchestra in the pit? That's interesting.
00:48:47.519 --> 00:48:50.940
In this autobiography, published in 1860 -61,
00:48:51.059 --> 00:48:54.219
shortly after his death, Louis Spohr relates
00:48:54.219 --> 00:48:56.699
that he chose this latter possibility when he
00:48:56.699 --> 00:49:00.239
played a concerto in the Milan Teatro della Scala
00:49:00.239 --> 00:49:04.360
in 1816. because of the large volume of the venue.
00:49:04.820 --> 00:49:07.139
The latter setup works very well for Mozart's
00:49:07.139 --> 00:49:09.039
piano concertos, with their rich orchestration.
00:49:09.440 --> 00:49:12.800
I'll keep that in note. So even in the practice
00:49:12.800 --> 00:49:14.699
of conducting and or leading his consequences,
00:49:15.119 --> 00:49:17.639
is the ensemble led from the first violin, as
00:49:17.639 --> 00:49:19.480
in the case of the Beethoven Eroica mentioned
00:49:19.480 --> 00:49:21.800
earlier, or from the harpsichord, or is someone
00:49:21.800 --> 00:49:24.500
beating time? My experience is that without a
00:49:24.500 --> 00:49:26.559
conductor, every orchestral player has a far
00:49:26.559 --> 00:49:29.179
greater autonomy, individuality, and responsibility.
00:49:30.110 --> 00:49:32.389
Or are there two directors, as was in the case
00:49:32.389 --> 00:49:34.809
of the Italian opera up to Verdi's time, the
00:49:34.809 --> 00:49:37.150
conductor for the soloist and the first violin
00:49:37.150 --> 00:49:39.170
leading the orchestra, plus the possibility of
00:49:39.170 --> 00:49:41.210
a third conductor of the choir in the wings?
00:49:41.690 --> 00:49:43.570
Assessing the practical consequences of these
00:49:43.570 --> 00:49:46.369
and similar questions is not an easy task. We
00:49:46.369 --> 00:49:49.889
have to study the sources, experiment, extrapolate,
00:49:49.889 --> 00:49:51.949
play, and listen, and bear in mind that the composers
00:49:51.949 --> 00:49:55.869
will by necessity have had an empirical approach
00:49:55.869 --> 00:49:59.460
in light of the different variables. Yeah, it's
00:49:59.460 --> 00:50:00.840
really got to depend on the piece, actually.
00:50:00.960 --> 00:50:04.679
I'm just thinking. The piece and also the building
00:50:04.679 --> 00:50:06.420
that you're playing with, and that's sort of
00:50:06.420 --> 00:50:09.480
a thing, too. You go to one concert venue versus
00:50:09.480 --> 00:50:14.360
another, and by 2026, I mean, most of the placement
00:50:14.360 --> 00:50:16.980
of the musicians is kind of even now. It's pretty,
00:50:17.119 --> 00:50:21.539
I don't know, homogenous. So he said, let us
00:50:21.539 --> 00:50:23.539
imagine, for example, Bach conducting his St.
00:50:23.579 --> 00:50:29.000
Matthew's Passion in the Amsterdam concert. Today,
00:50:29.000 --> 00:50:31.219
even if he had accepted secular instead of religious
00:50:31.219 --> 00:50:33.440
surroundings and assuming that he would have
00:50:33.440 --> 00:50:35.659
had free choice, I'm not certain that he would
00:50:35.659 --> 00:50:38.460
have chosen the same sources or forces and set
00:50:38.460 --> 00:50:42.079
up as in his Leipzig St. Thomas Church. Nor do
00:50:42.079 --> 00:50:44.659
I want to say that he would have used Mengelberg's
00:50:44.659 --> 00:50:47.119
version, which incidentally I found very beautiful
00:50:47.119 --> 00:50:50.920
and touching, though demonstrably wrong against
00:50:50.920 --> 00:50:52.840
most historically documented evidence and many
00:50:52.840 --> 00:50:55.190
details. However, I would guess that had Bach
00:50:55.190 --> 00:50:57.369
known the size of the hall, the number of performers,
00:50:57.550 --> 00:51:00.329
and the modern instruments, and voices with their
00:51:00.329 --> 00:51:02.449
specific technique and aesthetics, he might have
00:51:02.449 --> 00:51:05.230
written something entirely different. In a number
00:51:05.230 --> 00:51:07.369
of cases, we do not know the exact significance
00:51:07.369 --> 00:51:10.090
of the terminology used. Fortunately, research
00:51:10.090 --> 00:51:12.510
continues to be carried out in this field and
00:51:12.510 --> 00:51:14.329
shows that meanings can vary in time and place.
00:51:14.869 --> 00:51:17.090
Conclusions are sometimes unfamiliar or uncomfortable
00:51:17.090 --> 00:51:20.050
and thus not easily believed, accepted, or integrated
00:51:20.050 --> 00:51:32.699
into practice. A violone. It's basically, you
00:51:32.699 --> 00:51:36.280
think of your double bass, but they were in all
00:51:36.280 --> 00:51:40.639
sorts of various sizes and different strings
00:51:40.639 --> 00:51:44.280
configurations. So a violone was basically a
00:51:44.280 --> 00:51:46.300
double bass in that sense. It's like when people
00:51:46.300 --> 00:51:49.219
say, oh, you play a big violin. Big violin, yeah.
00:51:49.820 --> 00:51:53.119
It's just another variation. It is used as an
00:51:53.119 --> 00:51:55.840
8 - or 16 -foot instrument. Whoa, my gosh. 8
00:51:55.840 --> 00:51:58.260
- or 16 -foot instrument. Yeah, that's pretty
00:51:58.260 --> 00:52:02.099
big. And with how many strings and with which
00:52:02.099 --> 00:52:06.400
tuning? Violoncello is a small violone. Violone.
00:52:06.780 --> 00:52:10.409
But how small and with how many strings? Was
00:52:10.409 --> 00:52:11.969
it always played vertically between the legs,
00:52:12.070 --> 00:52:14.690
just as the viola da gamba? Or could violoncello,
00:52:14.769 --> 00:52:17.690
with or without the qualifier piccolo, actually
00:52:17.690 --> 00:52:21.090
mean viola da spalla? We know that viola di spalla
00:52:21.090 --> 00:52:23.369
was played horizontally, hung around the player's
00:52:23.369 --> 00:52:26.210
neck. But how big could it be? What did it sound
00:52:26.210 --> 00:52:28.190
like? How many strings did it have? And how was
00:52:28.190 --> 00:52:32.010
it tuned? For how long and where was it used?
00:52:32.230 --> 00:52:35.050
From what time does the word violoncello rather
00:52:35.050 --> 00:52:40.929
refer to our sights of violoncello? I think it's
00:52:40.929 --> 00:52:43.829
been violoncello, isn't it? Violoncello. Okay,
00:52:43.909 --> 00:52:46.570
so he says, if it can be shown that up to circa
00:52:46.570 --> 00:52:49.670
1730, violoncello generally meant viola da spalla,
00:52:49.769 --> 00:52:52.289
most normal cellos that bear earlier dates would
00:52:52.289 --> 00:52:55.010
be falsifications or were cut down from bigger
00:52:55.010 --> 00:52:59.650
instruments. A foot violones or basses, basses,
00:52:59.650 --> 00:53:04.110
de violo, at a later date. Is viola al ingles,
00:53:04.110 --> 00:53:08.000
the same as a viola, did the oboe da... Pastilla
00:53:08.000 --> 00:53:10.360
always have to be rounded form. I'm really butchering
00:53:10.360 --> 00:53:14.000
this. I bought it. Always have the rounded form
00:53:14.000 --> 00:53:16.659
and brass bell. Or could it be straight as the
00:53:16.659 --> 00:53:23.679
tie? Tie? Yeah, that one I'm going to have a
00:53:23.679 --> 00:53:25.860
problem with. Everyone get a copy and read along
00:53:25.860 --> 00:53:31.360
with it. Okay, that's a T -A -I -L -L -E, guys.
00:53:31.800 --> 00:53:35.019
Help our fans figure it out faster than us reaching
00:53:35.019 --> 00:53:38.920
the Google on our phone. here speaks italian
00:53:38.920 --> 00:53:41.219
please let us know because oh yeah should we
00:53:41.219 --> 00:53:43.340
bring in i think i think you'll probably need
00:53:43.340 --> 00:53:46.440
to bring an italian like speaker somebody a translator
00:53:46.440 --> 00:53:50.760
yeah we need one uh like a therapy day where
00:53:50.760 --> 00:53:54.039
we're just struggling with all the it's not just
00:53:54.039 --> 00:53:57.760
our italian yeah uh flato usually means recorder
00:53:57.760 --> 00:53:59.880
until that instrument went out of fashion in
00:53:59.880 --> 00:54:04.449
the 1730s and 1740s But why do many of Vivaldi's
00:54:04.449 --> 00:54:07.730
flauto parts look so much like a flauto -traverso
00:54:07.730 --> 00:54:11.150
part? There he uses the designation flauto -traverso
00:54:11.150 --> 00:54:14.210
elsewhere. Was Vivaldi's flautino a little recorder
00:54:14.210 --> 00:54:19.170
or a flagolette? And in which tonality did it
00:54:19.170 --> 00:54:24.050
stand? What were Bach's Fiotti d 'Echo or Telemann's
00:54:24.050 --> 00:54:26.909
flauto pastoral? Is the voice flute an instrument
00:54:26.909 --> 00:54:30.130
in a D1 at low pitch or a normal tenor recorder
00:54:30.130 --> 00:54:33.460
in C1 at high pitch? Actually, yeah. So he says,
00:54:33.579 --> 00:54:35.260
it doesn't make any difference, or does it matter?
00:54:36.400 --> 00:54:39.179
Does a flutter piccolo play at the four -foot
00:54:39.179 --> 00:54:44.320
or the two -foot pitch in Mozart's Entführung?
00:54:44.980 --> 00:54:47.940
Was that his opera? That's definitely another
00:54:47.940 --> 00:54:50.199
opera. I think that's an opera. How many operas
00:54:50.199 --> 00:54:52.860
did he write? At least a dozen or less than a
00:54:52.860 --> 00:54:57.400
dozen? So Mozart died at, what, 35? 35, so that's...
00:54:57.690 --> 00:55:00.849
He's really cranking them out. My gosh. I think
00:55:00.849 --> 00:55:02.869
he would have done at least five. I'm going to
00:55:02.869 --> 00:55:06.050
fact check that next time. How many can I...
00:55:06.050 --> 00:55:09.170
Okay, Marriage of a Big Girl. This one. Magic
00:55:09.170 --> 00:55:13.929
Flute. The Dark One. What's it called? The Dark
00:55:13.929 --> 00:55:17.449
One. It's... You know it exists. I know. It's
00:55:17.449 --> 00:55:21.769
like... Hold on. Marriage of a Big... No, no.
00:55:21.769 --> 00:55:25.500
It's the kind of later one. Was it towards when
00:55:25.500 --> 00:55:38.639
he was sick? I don't know Okay, there's a fourth
00:55:38.639 --> 00:55:51.260
one I guess Okay, so maybe fourth but still that
00:55:51.260 --> 00:55:53.340
that's that's pretty significant until his age
00:55:54.009 --> 00:55:58.349
until it passed away. That's crazy. Okay, and
00:55:58.349 --> 00:55:59.989
then he says, and again, which type of instruments
00:55:59.989 --> 00:56:02.869
was it? Transverse, recording -like, or flageolet?
00:56:02.889 --> 00:56:06.329
Okay, first of all, I want to go back to that
00:56:06.329 --> 00:56:10.869
paragraph, if you don't mind. Okay, I didn't
00:56:10.869 --> 00:56:13.570
do this before when I read this chapter, but
00:56:13.570 --> 00:56:18.349
I'm going to mark all the questions that... he
00:56:18.349 --> 00:56:21.050
put in this paragraph because it's it's a lot
00:56:21.050 --> 00:56:25.030
and i think we some of these are good philosophical
00:56:25.030 --> 00:56:28.550
philosophical questions to actually like um ponder
00:56:28.550 --> 00:56:34.210
on so the first one if i can verify here obviously
00:56:34.210 --> 00:56:38.570
a violone is a big viola but how this is actually
00:56:38.570 --> 00:56:42.110
why don't we show these to like our guests we
00:56:42.110 --> 00:56:45.469
if we bring ada or derek if we bring one of them
00:56:46.119 --> 00:56:48.239
We can bring one up and just show them this whole
00:56:48.239 --> 00:56:50.300
list. I know he also asked so many questions,
00:56:50.440 --> 00:56:52.480
but this one, this is the rant. This is the rant
00:56:52.480 --> 00:56:55.659
part. Is it used as an 8 or 16 -foot instrument,
00:56:55.760 --> 00:56:57.980
and with how many strings and which tuning? That's
00:56:57.980 --> 00:57:00.699
a good one there. Violoncello is a small violone,
00:57:00.699 --> 00:57:02.679
but how small and how many strings? That one's
00:57:02.679 --> 00:57:04.760
a good one, because in Bach cello suites... You
00:57:04.760 --> 00:57:07.079
do have different configurations, like with tuning.
00:57:07.260 --> 00:57:10.400
Like the Scordatura, you tune the A to a G. Or
00:57:10.400 --> 00:57:13.480
the 6th Cello Suite, you have a 5th string on
00:57:13.480 --> 00:57:16.199
the E, which you add on top of the 5th above
00:57:16.199 --> 00:57:18.500
A. Was it always played vertically between the
00:57:18.500 --> 00:57:20.159
lines? This is a good one, too, because you can
00:57:20.159 --> 00:57:23.369
play... Or on the side you can play between the
00:57:23.369 --> 00:57:25.949
legs or on the side We know that viola the spalla
00:57:25.949 --> 00:57:27.889
was played horizontally hung around the players
00:57:27.889 --> 00:57:30.849
neck. How big could it be? And how was it tuned?
00:57:31.050 --> 00:57:33.730
That's another one for a lot how long and where
00:57:33.730 --> 00:57:36.570
it was used because the viola the spalla is It's
00:57:36.570 --> 00:57:39.050
also known as the violoncello the spalla and
00:57:39.050 --> 00:57:40.730
there was a lot of videos of people playing it
00:57:40.730 --> 00:57:43.150
on the sixth cello suite But it kind of died
00:57:43.150 --> 00:57:45.650
out in popularity like with other instruments
00:57:45.650 --> 00:57:47.809
like the arpeggio name, which was a big guitar
00:57:47.809 --> 00:57:52.250
hybrid what time Does the word violoncello refer
00:57:52.250 --> 00:57:55.750
to the size of violoncello? How many so far?
00:57:55.829 --> 00:58:03.730
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. I'm going to say 8, 9, 10.
00:58:04.349 --> 00:58:12.210
Wait, hold on. 10, 11, 12, 13. Oh, God. 14. And
00:58:12.210 --> 00:58:15.030
15. That's... Like, Ada, we gotta do some research
00:58:15.030 --> 00:58:17.969
here. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, when you ever
00:58:17.969 --> 00:58:20.409
feel offended by, like, some other musician,
00:58:20.550 --> 00:58:23.050
say, hi, this is not true. This is not true.
00:58:23.150 --> 00:58:25.150
You can just get your script up in your brain
00:58:25.150 --> 00:58:27.469
ready. No, exactly. Wait a minute. Did the ovo,
00:58:27.590 --> 00:58:30.570
the cassia always have the rounded form and brass
00:58:30.570 --> 00:58:33.110
bow, or could it be straight as a tally? That'd
00:58:33.110 --> 00:58:35.170
be kind of funny to just, you know, just say
00:58:35.170 --> 00:58:39.510
out. Yeah, but I think some of these questions
00:58:39.510 --> 00:58:41.630
are worth... Just, like, passing out randomly,
00:58:41.750 --> 00:58:43.170
too. Well, yeah, I'm curious now. And see what
00:58:43.170 --> 00:58:45.670
they think about. They'll be like, I don't know
00:58:45.670 --> 00:58:47.329
what calculus is. I don't know what calculus
00:58:47.329 --> 00:58:49.630
is. I don't know what an integral is. You know,
00:58:49.630 --> 00:58:53.170
me, I don't either. Ever since I graduated high
00:58:53.170 --> 00:58:54.949
school, I'm like, I'm not looking back. I'm so
00:58:54.949 --> 00:58:57.030
done. I'm done with math. I'm on to music now.
00:58:57.030 --> 00:58:58.690
I might keep the history and writing a bit, but
00:58:58.690 --> 00:59:01.929
that's pretty much it. On to new things. Yeah,
00:59:01.969 --> 00:59:03.349
we'll have to do research. I mean, that's also
00:59:03.349 --> 00:59:05.530
the point is, like, okay. You know, we think
00:59:05.530 --> 00:59:08.070
we have violin, viola, cello, bass, but then,
00:59:08.130 --> 00:59:10.269
oh, wow, we have all these variations of violin,
00:59:10.329 --> 00:59:12.590
viola, cello, bass. Like this one here is, okay,
00:59:12.889 --> 00:59:15.010
so what's the difference between them? Why did
00:59:15.010 --> 00:59:17.849
we really finalize on the four string quartet
00:59:17.849 --> 00:59:20.610
instruments with bass? How did we get there?
00:59:20.809 --> 00:59:24.570
So, yeah, it's crazy. Yes, and wrapping it up,
00:59:24.690 --> 00:59:28.199
there's also... Ina Klein and Nock Music, right?
00:59:28.239 --> 00:59:30.440
You've seen it in smaller chamber ensembles,
00:59:30.480 --> 00:59:32.239
and you've seen it in string quartet versions.
00:59:32.519 --> 00:59:35.739
You've seen what is a whole, I believe, whole
00:59:35.739 --> 00:59:38.599
St. Paul Suite, or even Benjamin Britten's Simple
00:59:38.599 --> 00:59:42.440
Symphony played in orchestra chamber ensemble,
00:59:42.679 --> 00:59:44.659
or you've seen it in string quartet, which I've
00:59:44.659 --> 00:59:49.119
had to do in that situation before. So it's just
00:59:49.119 --> 00:59:51.340
so, there's so many variations in that people,
00:59:51.460 --> 00:59:53.239
not too many people know, even musicians themselves
00:59:53.239 --> 00:59:57.449
when you perform. So I just find that also, very
00:59:57.449 --> 01:00:00.670
astonishing to just, you know, kind of like ponder
01:00:00.670 --> 01:00:04.590
over again at the same time. Also, the 400, 500
01:00:04.590 --> 01:00:07.130
singers in the St. Matthew Passion, that was
01:00:07.130 --> 01:00:10.530
quite monumental. That was crazy. I kind of like
01:00:10.530 --> 01:00:13.610
that. That's the whole village. Yeah, they had
01:00:13.610 --> 01:00:15.969
quite the money in Amsterdam. I remember Netherlands
01:00:15.969 --> 01:00:19.050
was the center of trade and they were, I think,
01:00:19.090 --> 01:00:22.760
kind of rich. Let's just admit that. There was
01:00:22.760 --> 01:00:25.860
also, if you remember, Beethoven 9, and I believe
01:00:25.860 --> 01:00:28.280
Japan does this annually. I don't think annually,
01:00:28.380 --> 01:00:31.039
but maybe every three, five years or even a decade.
01:00:31.119 --> 01:00:34.219
They have 10 ,000 people who sing the Beethoven
01:00:34.219 --> 01:00:37.059
Choir, and it's so monumental. That's so crazy.
01:00:37.059 --> 01:00:41.820
It's so moving, too, humanly, if I would say,
01:00:41.920 --> 01:00:45.320
because it feels like the world is just going
01:00:45.320 --> 01:00:47.679
to change on a whim. The world is healing all
01:00:47.679 --> 01:00:50.500
at once. I think it does in a way. Yeah, maybe
01:00:50.500 --> 01:00:53.320
we should get 10 ,000. people uh maybe we start
01:00:53.320 --> 01:00:56.059
to yeah just like oh yeah we should get like
01:00:56.059 --> 01:00:58.519
um just get our gamers and say let's just all
01:00:58.519 --> 01:01:01.260
sing it and you know we're gonna do for non -profit.