Hey Jef,
Thanks for your comments. I find myself agreeing with much of it,
especially this:
some of it really does have to be played "as written" for the piece
to work at all, but there are other times where, to conclude
arditti's point, rhythmic detail definitely has to be mastered, but
then you have to do something with it to make it musical and
coherent with the piece and with your interpretation of the piece.
And this:
a friend once complained about how so many musicians play triplets
like they are notated and proceeded to play like a dozen kinds of
triplets and could explain -- and make audible -- the differences
between them.
Similarly, though, I've heard saxophonist Dave Liebman demonstrate a
different beat placement over four choruses of blues -- first chorus
behind the beat, second chorus straight down the middle, third chorus
on top of the beat, and fourth chorus above the beat (what might have,
in lesser hands, sounded like wanky rubato). And each chorus was
*killing*. It was a completely vivid and compelling demonstration of
rhythmic authority, and I wish more musicians on the classical side of
things made mastering rhythm on this level a priority.
But I feel I should reiterate, though, that I'm definitely not trying
to dismiss Ferneyhough on the basis of his use of meters like 2/10.
That would be stupid.
In fact, I'm not trying to dismiss him at all -- all I am saying is
that I just don't find his music compelling, for a variety of reasons.
Yes, I've heard performances of his music by rhythmic charlatans, and
they have pissed me off, BUT... I've also heard performances by young
musicians I know and respect, who put a lot of sweat and toil into
preparing the work.
Nonetheless, what I've heard of his music doesn't speak to me. That's
not some kind of objective judgement from on high -- I don't believe
in objectivity when it comes to aesthetics -- nor is it an attack on
his methods, or anything of the sort. I just don't dig his stuff. You
know, there's a *lot* of music out there, and most of it, even
consensus great works, is stuff I don't care for. I don't suspect that
makes me any different from anyone else.
I don't "insist" on looking for an audible grid when it's not there,
and the composer/performers have other priorities. I just tend to
prefer music that has one. Not all the time, and not in all cases, of
course, but it's true that I'm always going to have less patience with
a piece that doesn't have an an audible pulse, so whatever else it has
to recommend it had better be really, really good.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 24 Mar 2008, at 7:16 AM, shirling & neueweise wrote:
As for the rest of your post, I wish you wouldn't give me credit
for saying things I'm not saying.
darcy, my apologies if that came across as a personal attack, it
wasn't menat that way, it was an attack on the argument itself,
because it is more often than not the only thing that people can say
about such music, and with such comments a whole range of musical
styles and interests is simply dismissed because of a problem which
may in fact have nothing to do with the composers who wrote the
music, or with the music.
i saw arditti give a master class once where he berated a violinist
playing a piece written partly in proportional notation but mostly
in non-metric rhythmic figures without barlines or recognizable
(recurrent) pulse: i don't think you have mastered the basic
rhythmic aspects of this piece to take the kind of freedom in
rhythmic interpretation you are doing at the moment.
the "audible grid" may not be an aspect of the piece the composer is
at all interested in, so if you insist on looking for it, listening
to the music with the "wrong ears" essentially, of course the
experience will be uninteresting. you don't listen to victoria for
interesting meters and great swing passages...
you can hear sloppy playing in ferneyhough's music as well, but you
have to have enough of a reference with the music to judge it
properly. but you can also hear sincere performances of it as well,
where yes maybe some of the specific hyper-notation is not played as
it is written, but this doesn't necessarily mean they aren't playing
"the piece"... what's written on a jazz chart isn't what's played on
stage either.
check out and compare different performances of ferneyhough's time
and motion study II (i think there are 3 versions recorded), and you
will immediately see what i mean about this music ALSO being one
that can be **interpreted** in different ways. in fact, one
performance that is particularly musical is one that is sometimes
quite far away from the score. but there is no doubt about the
musician's talent. and again, to continue to kill the jazz analogy,
the worst performances of jazz i have heard were when people "played
the score". the same is just as true about the performance of a
late beethoven sonata, of a late mozart string quartet, and of much
new music. some of it really does have to be played "as written"
for the piece to work at all, but there are other times where, to
conclude arditti's point, rhythmic detail definitely has to be
mastered, but then you have to do something with it to make it
musical and coherent with the piece and with your interpretation of
the piece.
a friend once complained about how so many musicians play triplets
like they are notated and proceeded to play like a dozen kinds of
triplets and could explain -- and make audible -- the differences
between them.
and again, i repeat, it depends on where you've heard it and who was
playing it (and why they were playing it!). i know that there is a
core of "complexists" in the SW USA and a few people playing this
kind of stuff in the NE here and there, but the new music scene in
the US is quite limited in scope and depth in many places. using
performances in the US to pass judgement on any kind of music is
just erroneous.
if you ever get a chance, check out greg beyer, NY percussionist,
has played loads of stuff with serious rhythmical challenges (the
guy eats the shit for breakfast!), incl. a drumset piece by james
dillon (might be called ta-ri-ti-ki-da???). also steven schick
teaches and plays in NYC regularly.
Many professional classically-trained musicians -- most, I would
say, although younger generations are considerably better -- can't
play *Piazolla's* rhythms accurately or convincingly, let alone
Ferneyhough's. A great many of them cannot play a long string of
quarter notes without speeding up or slowing down, or play three
quarter-note triplets of equal length (which is kind of an
important prerequisite before attempting 5/6). Rhythmic authority
is not something that is emphasized in conservatory training. Many
established classical teachers even disdain rhythmic accuracy as
"mechanical," something to be avoided at all costs in all
situations, and heap even more disdain on music that requires a
regular, stable pulse. And god forbid you suggest that they might
want to break out the metronome on occasion.
So it's a bit galling for someone coming from a tradition where it
don't mean a thing if it ain't got that rhythmic authority to hear
players who clearly have zero emotional connection to rhythm, and
who have not spent the long hours necessary to develop a solid
internal sense of time, fake their way through the rhythmic
minefileds laid by composers like Ferneyhough (especially when you
know these are players who fall all over themselves trying to find
the "and" of three in a bar of 4/4). And then to have people
congratulate them on their uncanny ability to perform such
rhythmically challenging music!
I also find it frustrating that performers can mostly get away with
this sloppiness in this kind of music, because it so often lacks an
audible rhythmic grid, some kind of regular reference point against
which the "irrational" rhythms are juxtaposed. I find the jazz-
based and postminimalist/totalist/metametric/Downtown approach to
these rhythms much more satisfying. And in those situations, you
can tell instantly if someone is faking it. But, you know, that's
just my personal preference.
I don't like Ferneyhough's stuff -- it's not my thing. But I
certainly don't begrudge him his music or his admirers, nor
performances by musicians who take his music's considerable
rhythmic demands seriously. It's only the pikers I can't stand.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
