Fascinating! Thank you Philip!
There are some very close parallels between the approaches you've described, 
the articulation of Peacock-style variations, and Clough's advice about 
phrasing.

As a youngster I used to approach the Peacock variations by playing as fast and 
as staccato as I possibly could - and probably sounded like machine gun fire 
:-)  (The lovely Jane Robson used to call me the Pipsqueak!!!) In time I found 
that it was more effective to take liberties with the rhythm and introduce an 
element of ebb and flow.  This could be further emphasised by varying the 
amount of detachment between notes.

Clough's advice was to:
a)Begin at the tempo at which you can comfortably play the most complicated 
variation
b)If the tune is an air for a song, use the tempo that the song would be sung to
c)Sing the song in your mind as you play

Not dissimilar to the Rennaisance musicians attempting to imitate the human 
voice!

Francis sent me an old clip from the Times, reviewing a Clough performance in 
London.  I don't have it to hand, but the reviewer commented on Tom's 
absorption in his music, and his sense of phrasing - can you elighten us, 
Francis?

Chris



-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Gruar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 October 2008 14:11
To: [email protected]
Subject: [NSP] Mistakes in public perfomance, Miles Davis etc


Barry wrote
>
> I trust there is a tongue in cheek element here.

Well spotted, Barry! (-;

> Among the reasons I have chosen to attempt a detached style of
> playing is that I feel that it allows more control of the rhythm.

There is now sense and moderation in the discussion. We have achieved a 
result!

As John, Barry again and finally Chris have emphasised, it's all to do with 
expressing the music, and having the technique to do it justice. The Miles 
Davis references completely reinforce this - I don't know much about jazz, 
but I think one of Davis's greatest skills was total control over 
articulation so that he could express the music with whatever subtlety he 
wanted - the trumpet was a totally flexible voice.
To bring my own early-music speciality to bear - this ties in completely 
with the Renaissance wind instrumentalist's ideal of imitating the human 
voice. They believed that as God made the human voice, it was the perfect 
instrument, and the duty of all other instruments was to imititate vocal 
expressiveness as far as possible. Jazz playing preserves this idea into the 
modern age far more than classical technique does. The treatises on playing 
"divisions" (very like NSP variation sets) which survive from the turn of 
the 16th/17th century - e.g. Dalla Casa's book published Venice 1584, 
intended primarily for cornetto, which he played in St Mark's, but also 
relevant for recorder (and whistle or even trumpet?) - start with pages of 
articulation exercises on different syllables le-re-le-re, de-re-le-re, 
ter-re-te-re, te-re-le-re, te-che-te-che... etc. The most successful 
technique when playing this music is not to actually slur anything, but try 
to get a variety of separately articulated notes ranging from ALMOST slurred 
to quite staccato. Listen to a recording of a really good cornetto player, 
like Bruce Dickey, to hear the effect - very like Miles Davis's trumpet in 
fact.
Moving forward to the Baroque period, where actual slurring is often 
required; in say Vivaldi or a Handel recorder or flute sonata there will be 
pages of semiquaver runs, but with no written slurs - at that time the 
composers hardly ever put them in. If played all equally tongued, there is 
no shape to the phrasing and it sounds like machine-gun fire. The player has 
to decide which notes to slur, and which to tongue gently or combine in 
"tu-ru" or "diddle-diddle" type tonguings, and which to separate quite 
distinctly. Slurring two or more notes together always gives the effect of a 
slight accent on the first of the group. Nearly every note can be slightly 
different in length from its neighbours - and so this sort of music is given 
life and interest, which it doesn't have when just seen as an endless stream 
of notes. With pipes, there's no tongue (or bow)  to do all this, hence 
gracing on all open-ended pipes and detatched fingering on closed-end pipes, 
or those like the musette which have closed fingering and the illusion of 
separated notes.
I don't claim to be much of a Northumbrian piper  - no Barry, it won't be 
worth spending money on petrol to hear me play the pipes, but I don't mind 
you hearing me play the recorder :-) but when I play the pipes, I try to use 
the detached fingering as far as I can to get the differing lengths of notes 
needed to point the rhythm and try to express the tunes. Players like Chris 
do it, and I can't - but it's far from being a universally staccato effect. 
Sometimes in the Great Debate, I was afraid that people were demanding 
EVERYTHING had to be very staccato, or it wasn't proper Northumbrian piping.

Sorry about the long rambling!
Philip




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure
under the NHS Code of Openness or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Unless the information is legally exempt, the confidentiality of this e-mail
and your reply cannot be guaranteed.
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the information contained in this e-mail
is intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not copy, distribute, or take any action or reliance upon
it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender. Any
unauthorised disclosure of the information contained in this e-mail is
strictly prohibited.


Reply via email to