Cultural intolerance in music

On one hand, it is only a matter of credibility. Every solution in itself can be fine, but it is in the overall vision of the work that one can understand if that solution is truly more or less musical; the point is to relate it to what comes before and after.

D'other hand, more generally, when reading the comments of the masters, they must be related within an aesthetic context... I do not think these are discussions that can be applied to a piano student, or rather, the discussion should be contextualized regardless. Absolutes in music do not exist.

I completely agree with ttw... To give another example: in Mozart, does the trill start from the principal note or from the upper note? Or is it a single or double trill?

Some contexts in which performing trills in Mozart are decidedly awkward... I believe that performing a double trill is better, otherwise it would turn into a mordent but, obviously, if playing a double trill means distorting the piece, well, then perhaps in that case a single trill was more appropriate. Still in Mozart, other difficult contexts can occur when at the end of a descending scale we land on the tonic to which a trill is applied. In that case, the rule of the upper note does not always seem to work and in this context perhaps it is better to start from the principal note.

In short, certain things must be contextualized, while keeping in mind that in Mozart the interpretation of ornaments is very free. To take it to an extreme, if we listen to Zimmerman, in Mozart's sonatas he sometimes completely invents ornaments that Mozart didn't even include... Perhaps that is an exaggeration; it is my opinion that if one is an interpreter, one should strictly adhere to the indications provided in the score.

Ahhhh... the true musicians!... Those who don't need explanations to distinguish the beautiful from the ugly.. blessed are they.

In the Curci edition (Artur Schnabel) those mordents are indicated on the beat, complete with an explanatory note at the bottom of the page.

the mystery deepens

Curci does not seem like a very critical edition to me; it is better to read treatises on the performance practice of the period and rely on "clean" scores, see Mozarteum if one does not have the financial means to buy a truly well-curated edition.

Silbermann wrote:

Curci does not seem to me a very critical
edition [...]

"Very critical" editions and "not very critical" editions do not exist. At most, there are critical editions produced more or less correctly... In this specific case, I believe that the edition edited by Schnabel represented the state of the art at its time; therefore, it may be dated, but it is not "not very critical"!

As for Casella's glosses, I remember those in the Well-Tempered Clavier of "Johann Sebastian Bach" in which he depicts Czerny as a fool... evidently Czerny was not a fool, his aesthetics were simply those of a century prior.

I remember that a similar topic was discussed here

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2307-il-revisore-questo-sconosciuto/

RedScharlach wrote:

There are no "highly critical" editions and "little critical" editions. At most, there are critical editions produced more or less correctly... In this specific case, I believe that the edition edited by Schnabel represented the state of the art at its time, so it may be dated, but not "little critical"!

As for Casella's glosses, I remember those in the Well-Tempered Clavier of "Johann Sebastian Bach" in which he depicts Czerny as a fool... evidently Czerny was not a fool, his aesthetics were simply those of a century prior.

I remember that a similar theme was discussed here

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2307-il-revisore-questo-sconosciuto/

YES RedScharlach, I expressed myself poorly but I meant exactly what you were saying, with one step further. Every "revision" (since you cite that topic) has its limits and its "duration"; it is better to start from the source and propose something of one's own (obviously, always with limits and "duration", since we are talking about aesthetics and great masters in comparison... and their assertions)

Better to start from the source?... It depends.

If 'the source' were not a metaphor, if it were truly a clean spring to drink from, then yes: it is better to drink from the source. Always, anyway, for anyone.

In the case of a 'work of art' to be interpreted (where the best metaphor would be that of an 'aquifer': clean, yes, but buried by eras, aesthetics, and interpretive stratifications), wanting to refer directly to the 'source' seems to me a somewhat... "romantic" idea (and one that I too once held, before changing my mind).

Going to the source (dealing with Urtext, manuscripts, codices, papyri...) is something I would leave only to an interpreter sufficiently mature to do so.

Do not ask me to define 'sufficiently-mature-interpreter'. Everyone, in good conscience, knows themselves well enough in this regard.

Students, beginners (and amateurs like me) are better off having the mediation of a teacher: who should be, first and foremost, their own teacher, aided by a good, seriously curated edition.

A critical edition of a work (musical, but also a literary work) in which the editor/reviewer does not "elbow" their way through every explanatory note to show off their own interpretive genius, and in which they know how to provide a brief account of different interpretive opinions (without elegantly calling those with different interpretive visions fools), is something precious in itself.

it is like the work of a loving gardener, who strives so that things may flow in the right direction.

So that the future great interpreter can be a bit like the little grandson listening to his father and grandfather.

Then, when grown, they will do things their own way. Of course.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Then, when they are grown, they will do as they please. Of course.

To me, this is a note that rings false; one also learns (and matures) how to do things on one's own. If one is a slave until adulthood to ready-made mush, it will be difficult to learn how to cook it all of a sudden.

Therefore, your reasoning only holds true in the case where someone does not want to become a musician; otherwise, it must be matured by growing one's autonomy of judgment and critical approach to editions. This step is only possible if one is accustomed from the very beginning to (forgive the exaggeration) performing a review rather than just taking things as they are given.

Certain music only makes sense if one follows the performance practice; the teacher must indicate the treatises, highlight the salient parts, relate these aspects to the score, and foster the growth of what is at that moment a student and who will one day become a master.

Therefore, an edition should be seen as an additional point of view and not as a saving grace; from this perspective, I perfectly agree with Silbermann's post.

PS

I forgot, often certain editions contain macroscopic errors that

ttw wrote:

one must mature by growing autonomy of judgment and a critical approach to revisions.

This was obvious.

In fact: even those who remain amateurs should always have a critical, alert eye, and a capacity for personal judgment.

Regarding the slavery of "ready-made meals," I do not agree.

No one learns to cook "all of a sudden." Of course.

But one learns to cook only through comparison - a humble comparison - with the culinary tradition that preceded us.

Without the impatience to demonstrate one's own originality.

Originality - both culinary and interpretive - will come out on its own, even if one were to, absurdly, try to keep it hidden.

It will come out (if it exists).

ttw wrote:

On one hand, it is only a matter of credibility. Every solution in itself can be fine, but it is in the general vision of the work that one can understand if that solution is truly more or less musical; the point is to relate it to what comes before and after.

On the other hand, more generally, when reading the comments of the greats, they must be related within an aesthetic context... I do not think these are discussions that can be applied to a piano student, or rather, the discussion should be contextualized regardless. Absolutes in music do not exist.

I fully agree with the first consideration, which is exactly the opposite of the thought (at the time) expressed by Casella.

Shifting the discussion slightly, let's take the edition edited by Schnabel: in the first movement of the "storm" [tempesta], a precise point of view is indicated regarding the role to be assigned to the right and left hands. Yet other great performers have followed different solutions.

The problem lies in the way the thought is presented (on the part of the editor, but the discussion could be more general). Schnabel, for example, does so by providing motivation in relation to Beethoven's own writing; and when elsewhere he refers to his own taste, he says so expressly with phrases like "the editor prefers..." or "the editor does not like...".

And here I disagree with the second consideration: I agree that revisions, especially by great musicians, are a resource for the mature performer and precious historical testimonies. However, I do not believe they should not also be considered intended for piano students, or at least it should be well explained to students, especially if they are judgments expressed as absolutes.

Of course, in Casella's time, many things were thought differently than they are today.

If I had been aware of that when, as a boy, I read that sentence after I had already studied the Pathetique, taking great care to execute the mordents on the beat, perhaps I wouldn't have thought I wasn't cut out for music (but that is my own problem, excuse the outing).

not being able to edit, I specify that by "they are a resource for the mature performer" (ambiguous phrase) I mean that they are a resource if read with a critical spirit that presupposes artistic maturity.