well if you've seen another score by Guarnieri you know what I mean... it's not exactly mid-1700s Viennese refinement...
I have seen several scores by Guarnieri, both autographs and transcriptions (some transcribed quite well, others unfortunately transcribed decidedly poorly). Observing his scores and listening to his music, I find a musical thought that is refined, powerful, and personal. Of course, it has nothing to do with the mid-1700s Viennese style, but I don't see how this has any relevance.
I also find Guarnieri's music very personal. And very communicative, powerful. And I like that.
I wouldn't call it very refined, though... on the contrary, it seems to me a rather "raw" writing style... in some cases (not very isolated ones, by the way) there are even instrumental errors... I would make a distinction between Ferneyhough's executive utopia and more banal instrumental errors.
anyway, let's just say these are "details" (so to speak...).
let's say that Ferneyhough's writing borders on perfection at a technical level. Guarnieri's definitely does not.
expressively, in my opinion, it is very different from Ferneyhough's tuxedo-clad elegance. It reminds me more of piles of waste of every kind, color... even if every now and then, amidst this landfill, incredible "pearls" can be found.
anyway, mine is not a value judgment... they are just impressions, precisely.
it reminds me more than anything of piles of waste of every kind, color... even if every now and then in the middle of this landfill one finds incredible "pearls".
Sorry if I insist, eh! But I just don't understand this metaphor ... (PS a new topic would probably be necessary to carry on the discussion)
My teacher did quite the opposite. A nice piece of shit on a white wall makes quite an impression; the same piece of shit on a pile of garbage... will probably go unnoticed.
Probably the story about pearls in the middle of a landfill ....doesn't change the issue much
Sorry if I'm insisting, eh! But I really don't understand this metaphor ... (PS a new topic would probably be necessary to carry the discussion forward)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYM_JbqScR0
i didn't know this piece. it seems rather "clear" indeed. anyway, I'm no Guarnieri expert... I only know a few pieces. i had something like an homage to Mina in mind, for example... which is also a piece that I like.
anyway, even in this piece you posted, the difference in writing elegance between Ferneyhough and Guarnieri is quite marked in my opinion... I'd be curious to see the score!
Natan wrote:
My teacher used to do the opposite example. A nice pile of shit on a white wall makes a certain impression; the same pile of shit on a heap of garbage... will probably go unnoticed.
Probably the story about pearls in the middle of a landfill ....doesn't change the issue much
well... I understand the concept, but that wasn't exactly the direction I wanted to take, ehehe
I see the issue slightly differently. Ferneyhough's notation is utopian, it's true. It is impossible to perform certain instrumental articulations "precisely," impossible to sight-read "precisely" certain irregular rhythms (quintuplets enclosing triplets enclosing sextuplets...). Ferneyhough's writing proposes an excess of information to the performer. And yet, Ferneyhough does not ask the performer to play "approximately": on the contrary, he demands a sight-reading that is as precise as possible. The performer therefore submits to an impossible task, and the challenge in facing this impossibility (and the tension and, I would even say, the stress connected to it) are part of the compositional game.
I don't see what you write as being very far from what I meant; clearly, in my preliminary post, I wanted to summarize the matter with a joke. Moreover, I find the concept of giving the performer the maximum amount of information possible interesting.
We often take for granted that we and the performer have the same vision of the score, and especially in our type of modernity, in the absence of performance practice, one must specify as much as possible... without forgetting that we are writing after Debussy and Mahler... who certainly know a thing or two about precision.
If we then look at the type of language... how to do otherwise than Ferneyhough. I have read some of your posts; I don't know if it has been mentioned that understanding Ferneyhough's writing deeply presupposes knowing the entire creative process that precedes the writing of the work, which lies outside the strictly musical realm.
It is another one that draws from other disciplines, so a group of 22 notes can be very significant for his poetics... and then, the fact that certain rhythmic combinations/overlaps are almost literally unachievable and change the sound effect very little, is another matter entirely.
Surely Ferneyhough is a mandatory stop for anyone interested in a certain type of complexity of writing, and a musician whom a finished composer should know.
I don't see what you are writing as being very far from what I meant; clearly, in my preliminary post, I wanted to summarize the matter with a joke. Moreover, I find the concept of giving the performer as much information as possible interesting.
We often take for granted that we and the performer have the same vision of the score and, especially in our type of modernity, in the absence of performance practice, one must specify as much as possible...
Yes, the concept is similar. However, this detail strikes me: you write "giving the performer as much information as possible," and this is the legitimate aspiration of any composer who wants their music to be understandable. It seems to me instead that Ferneyhough does not give "the maximum amount of information," but rather an "excess of information": instead of being a means of communication, the information becomes an obstacle to overcome in order to make communication possible. Not for nothing, the ensembles capable of playing his music can be counted on one hand!
From here also stems Sciarrino's criticism: ยซAu contraire de Ferneyhough, je pense que lโลuvre doit le plus possible รชtre donnรฉe ร lโauditeur. Ce nโest pas en la soustrayant que lโลuvre survit et rรฉsiste ร lโรจpreuve de plusieurs รจcoutes [โฆ]. La complication ne sert ร rien, car nous simplifions ร lโรฉcouteยป.
Instead, it seems to me that Ferneyhough does not give "the maximum amount of information," but rather an "excess of information": instead of being a means of communication, information becomes an obstacle to be overcome in order to make communication possible.
From my point of view, you are referring to the result, which essentially justifies the adjective "utopian" that I used initially.
Working on intentions is not my style; I understand that regarding musicians of this stature, one can have different points of view on the matter, and often basing them on various quarrels (see Sciarrino, but music history is full of examples) does not yield great advantages, because mechanisms that are sometimes far too perverse come into play. Everything should be perfectly contextualized and explained, whether we are talking about Zarlino v/Monteverdi or Nono v/Stockhausen, etc.
Let's say that regarding those twenty years of the 1900s (let's say around the 1980s/1990s), I studied them with someone who passed directly through Ferneyhough's hands. It seems to me that I have gathered from the same person who knew himโI will tell you more, right as he wrote the piece I proposedโan impression not very dissimilar from mine. I have certainly been influenced by it, but if they were in contact... you understand that perhaps he was able to pick up "something" that might not be written in the score. Because, as I was saying, one tries to reason about intentions, which makes it a rather subjective field.
If we really want to find a purpose in Ferneyhough, I doubt it is obstructionism towards the instrumentalist... or rather, I would like to have concrete elements to adopt this concept as my own. If even Thallo, who seems to be of the same idea, or others interested wanted to contribute... everything is most welcome.
sciarrino and ferneyhough are truly poles apart regarding their conception of notation.
one should ask questions about what the value of notation is (understood precisely as the amount of information to be given to the instrumentalist, the communicative immediacy of the acoustic result upon reading the score, psychological intentions towards the instrumentalist - do you want to create a situation of tension towards utopia or a "comfortable" base upon which they can work? how much space for free interpretation do you want to give them?), notation solely as a mnemonic device or as a vehicle for other information? etc. etc...
these are also rather tangible parameters that the adoption of one type of notation or another influences.
it is evident that those on opposite sides of these choices can only disagree with each other, but it is equally evident that an objectively better position than another does not exist. Rather, it is about the proper and effective use of that given position.
X
Xenakis
Member
Reply 50 by Xenakis
Posts
287
Analyzing another composer's music, I don't find it correct to give weight to one's own preferences, precisely because analysis is the tool to understand whether that piece works or not... and it could work regardless of one's tastes
When analyzing the music of another composer, I do not think it is correct to give weight to one's own preferences, precisely because analysis is the tool used to understand whether that piece works or not... and it could work regardless of one's personal tastes
a what are you referring?
X
Xenakis
Member
Reply 52 by Xenakis
Posts
287
scelsi wrote:
it is evident that those on opposite sides of these choices can only disagree with one another
There is one thing I really haven't understood, but in the initial notes of the score of Second String Quartet there is a squared dynamic mark, I really didn't understand its function
There is one thing I really haven't understood, but in the initial notes of the Second String Quartet score there is a boxed dynamic marking; I haven't understood its function at all.
The concept is quite clear: "Where the dynamic indication appears within a box, the passage must be played with techniques appropriate to such dynamics (violence of movement, speed of bow change, etc.), but producing an actual volume corresponding to the 'normal' dynamic indications placed in the usual location".
Looking at the score, one can understand its meaning at m. 103, where it is required to play with a ffff intention on figurations that allow for a "real" dynamic oscillating between ff and mf (instead, it is a bit less clear to me what Ferneyhough wants at m. 72).
There is one thing I really haven't understood, but in the initial notes of the Second String Quartet score there is a boxed dynamic marking; I haven't understood its function at all.
The concept is quite clear: "Where the dynamic indication appears inside a box, the passage must be played with techniques appropriate to such dynamics (violence of movement, speed of bow change, etc.), but producing an actual volume corresponding to the 'normal' dynamic indications placed in the usual location."
Looking at the score, one can understand its meaning at m. 103, where it is required to play with a ffff intention on figurations that allow for a 'real' dynamic oscillating between ff and mf (instead, it is a bit less clear to me what Ferneyhough wants at m. 72).
D
Dino
Member
Reply 57 by Dino
Posts
277
RedScharlach wrote:
(it is a little less clear to me).
In some places it puts that indication about a pause
S
Shark
Member
Reply 58 by Shark
Posts
106
RedScharlach wrote:
The concept is quite clear:
So clear that nobody understood what he wanted to ask the performer.
Instead of scribbling on the score, wouldn't it have been faster to use a conventional notation? At least everyone would understand it ... it would mean that everyone will do as they please and perhaps use an eraser to remove useless things
it will mean that everyone will do whatever they please and maybe use an eraser to delete useless things
I really don't think so: if a quartet decides to play a piece by Ferneyhough, they decide to play along with his game, which is to face its - deliberate - difficulties (mainly the deciphering of the notation, precisely).
S
Shark
Member
Reply 60 by Shark
Posts
106
Forgive me, but I am used to trying to interpret the musical thought of a musician... not the orthographic thought
RedScharlach wrote:
if a quartet decides to play a piece by Ferneyhough, they decide to play along with his game, namely to face the - deliberate - difficulties (mainly the deciphering of the notation, precisely).
... in fact, they push themselves to play it ... they are all there, unable to wait.
I say, if you were the first violin, what would you do when faced with that symbol? How would you research it to figure it out?
And don't answer that you aren't a violinist, because since time immemorial, any musician takes a score and understands what is written on it without too many flights of fancy. At most, one digs deeper to better understand a composer's aesthetics... it would be quite something if one even had to figure out why someone puts 4 squared f's on a rest
