The usual question... philology or not

thallo wrote:

You always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

I was talking about spoken theater, not opera (otherwise I would have used that definition), where we know well that improvisation can only be done almost exclusively in cadenzas.

rstrauss wrote:

Different instrument, different mouthpiece, different mechanics ... but the rest is always the same.

... you have the answer

Frank wrote:

... you have the answer

There is also the clarification regarding the sound, which in my opinion, is perhaps even more important ... plucked and struck would be enough to make me doubt the use of one or the other instrument indifferently ... despite the keyboards being aesthetically identical ... but they are also identical for the organ ... try playing Chopin's 1st Ballade on the organ or Vidor's toccata on the piano !

I am asking, does a violin glissando or a Bartok pizzicato make it another instrument?

but then I put forth a more drastic provocation: you have to perform this Haydn concerto (which I actually don't know) with a specific ensemble and you discover that the trumpeter has at his disposal both a modern piston trumpet and an ancient keyed trumpet. Delighted, you begin the rehearsal and realize that the aforementioned trumpeter is terrible at playing the keyed trumpet and plays, instead, the piston one very well.

Dilemma: do you make him play the ancient instrument, becoming complicit in the preparation of an ugly and poorly played concert (but historically coherent), or do you make the decision to have him play the modern trumpet, because that way at least the concert is beautiful?

P.S.

i remember how even the worst dissonances, even in times of strict counterpoint, can be justified for "causa pulchritudinis", that is, because they sounded good...

@Rstrauss

I find your response strange for the simple fact that I related the harpsichord to the piano and not the organ (or the clavichord) to the piano, which have nothing to do with one another. I renew the suggestion to deepen the subject at an organological level. The organ is one thing and the harpsichord is another; the subject is already complicated, let's not spread misinformation.

thallo wrote:

even the worst dissonances...etc

I am appealing to those with capsule instruments, does anyone know what this is about?

Chopin wrote:

I am asking, so that a violin glissando or a Bartók-style pizzicato make it another instrument?

Without bringing up the prepared piano, the strings of the piano today can be struck (and are struck) with the most imaginative means. Let's evolve the discussion: listening to a ping-pong ball bouncing on the strings, what would you think of?

I forgot, who said that the piano cannot be plucked?

thallo wrote:

but then I will put forth a more drastic provocation: you have to have this Haydn concerto (which in reality I do not know) played by a specific ensemble and you discover that the trumpeter has at his disposal both a modern piston trumpet and an ancient keyed trumpet. Very happy, you begin the rehearsal and realize that the aforementioned trumpeter is terrible at playing the keyed trumpet and plays, instead, the piston one very well. Dilemma: do you have him play the ancient instrument, making yourselves complicit in the preparation of an ugly and poorly played concert (but historically coherent), or do you make the decision to have him play the modern trumpet, because that way at least the concert is beautiful? P.S. I remember how even the worst dissonances, even in times of strict counterpoint, can be justified for "causa pulchritudinis", that is, because they sounded good...

i would also have the concerto played with the modern trumpet ... but it is still a trumpet after all.

fwould you do the same with a harpsichord concerto and have it played by a piano with all the usual consequences?

Frank wrote:

@Rstrauss

I find your response strange for the simple fact that I compared the harpsichord to the piano and not the organ (or the clavichord) to the piano, which have nothing to do with one another. I renew my suggestion to deepen the subject at an organological level. The organ is one thing and the harpsichord is another; the subject is already complicated, let's not spread misinformation.

It was a comparison intended only to demonstrate that the only thing they have in common is the keyboard... the difference in sound between piano and harpsichord is not even remotely comparable to the difference between, to refer back to Thallo, keyed trumpet/modern trumpet... the same applies to natural horn/French horn or gut strings/metal strings etc. ...

I am not a fanatic of period instruments and I am firmly convinced that in 2014 we must play music on modern instruments... but I remain convinced that distorting a piece by using an instrument too different from the original is not correct.

I don't know if you have ever tried playing piano and harpsichord... I have played the harpsichord several times as basso continuo, so without soloistic outbursts or passages technically difficult for a pianist... well, at an execution level, the differences are truly many, starting from the touch, from the articulation required to play, to the sonic result etc. ...

this is the reason why if I accept the modern trumpet with Haydn, double horns or a modern organ for Bach, I simply cannot accept the piano in place of the harpsichord for any composer, Bach foremost.

Now I don't know if those who claim to practice philology have these same motivations, but they are certainly not ideological, but rather dictated more by correctness towards the original writing of a piece.

Frank wrote:

Without bothering the prepared piano, a piano string today can be struck (and is struck) with the most imaginative means. Let's evolve the discussion: listening to a ping-pong ball bouncing on the strings, what would you think?

I forgot, who said that the piano cannot be plucked?

In reality, I am not discussing the instrument itself ... a piano concerto with a ping-pong ball bouncing around would be acceptable to me ... provided it is played with a ping-pong ball and not with a pinball, for example.

the same goes for the plucked piano ... let's do it, but then it must not be played by scraping the strings ...

Since we are talking about brass instruments, I will join in too

rstrauss wrote:

i would also have the concerto played with the modern trumpet ... but it is still a matter of the trumpet.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but in terms of timbre, the piston trumpet and the keyed trumpet don't have anything in common at all (otherwise they wouldn't be recognizable by ear)...they only have the name in common

I don't remember who had already written to him, maybe Thallo

rstrauss wrote:

... but I still remain convinced that distorting a piece using an instrument too different from the original is not correct.

I don't understand what value a "correct" thing adds to the enjoyment of a work. The right way is a synonym for nothing in music.

I was forgetting, above all, who decides what is right? Frankly, the opinions of Gould, András Schiff, Kissin (etc., if you want I can continue) already seem like an excellent reference to me. I am sorry to say it, but only a deaf person wouldn't appreciate it, so frankly, I don't care about the concept of what is correct.

Abate, there is one for those who like pears and one for those who like apples

Frankly, I like both, but I understand those who have different tastes... precisely, tastes. I am also convinced that art is the thing furthest from what is right; at most, it is the thing closest to beauty

AntonioArso wrote:

Since we are talking about wind instruments, I will join in too

I am sorry to disappoint you, but in terms of timbre, the piston trumpet and the keyed trumpet don't have anything in common at all (otherwise they wouldn't be recognizable by ear)...they only share the name

How can one tell the difference between a natural horn and a double horn? The sound might also have a different timbre, but they remain instruments of the same nature.

AbateFaria wrote:

I was forgetting, above all, who decides what is right? Frankly, the opinions of Gould, András Schiff, Kissin (etc., if you want I can continue) already seem like an excellent reference to me. I am sorry to say it, but only a deaf person would not appreciate it, so frankly I don't care about the concept of 'correct'.

And it is clear that when I speak of 'correct', I assert it based on what I would or would not do... and I do not mean correct in the sense of being right, but correct in the sense of respect for the original, which can be a feeling that someone perceives and someone else does not... or simply isn't interested in.

rstrauss wrote:

I would also have the concerto played with a modern trumpet... but it is still a matter of trumpet.

fould you do the same with a harpsichord concerto and have it played by a piano with all the usual consequences?

Personally, yes, taking responsibility for the choice and justifying it somehow, unless it is "tradition" to do so. This whole discussion is degenerating, in the sense that there are so many examples in history, both recent and ancient, of adaptations, transcriptions, and re-orchestrations, that I really have the impression we are all playing the virgin at the temple.

Let's put the discussion on a practical level. If Pollini arrives and tells you he wants to play Scarlatti on the piano, what do you do, tell him no? If you are conducting an opera at the Metropolitan in New York and there are recitatives accompanied by harpsichord, but the stage is so large that the singers can't hear a damn thing, what do you do, keep the harpsichord and screw everything else up? On the way back from Pisa the other night, my choir master brought up a point saying that there are about eighty different versions of the "Puer natus est in nobis" [Note: user wrote Papae Marcelli, likely referring to Palestrina or a specific work], all more or less consistent with the performance practices of various churches. Now, putting aside the fact that in past centuries musicians were not afraid of their own shadow and if they found it necessary to re-transcribe something they did so, as my teacher says, the point is not to understand which version is better; the point is to be able to sing them, or conduct them, or play them all well.

In my career as a singer, I have often sung for study arias written for soprano, or baritone, or any other vocal type. There are recordings of Callas singing pieces for baritone and they are wonderful, even just for the technical value they possess. In essence, if a concerto written for clarinet is better played by a violin, I would be delighted to take all the responsibility in the case and have it played by a violin.

rstrauss wrote:

Now I don't know if those who say they practice philology have these same motivations, but they are certainly not ideological, but rather dictated more by correctness toward the original writing of a piece.

"Correctness," as will be said later, is ideological. Personal taste is not. You are talking to us about your personal taste, and that is legitimate, but you must understand that it is YOUR personal taste; it is not a common or right criterion for everyone, and IT IS NOT a historical criterion, because it is likely that Haydn and Bach would have disagreed with you.

From my point of view, then, this derives from OUR vision and consideration of the musical text. The score is not a law; it almost never has been. Things change just around 1900, but talking about how Bach should not be performed on the piano is something that has to do only with taste, not with the practice of Bach's time, nor of the times following Bach.

rstrauss wrote:

It's clear that when I speak of "correct," I assert it based on what I would or would not do... and I don't mean correct in the sense of right, but correct in the sense of respect for the original, which can be a feeling that someone perceives and someone else does not... or simply isn't interested in.

"Correctness" in the world of music is a discussion truly full of pitfalls... and some of these pitfalls have been advanced precisely by musical philology. I would like to remind everyone that most autograph orchestral scores are riddled with errors, which were sometimes corrected by copyists but, in some cases, have been passed down without any correction. I know very well that this is a different issue compared to the choice of a solo instrument for a concerto or an instrumentation for an ensemble, but we should evaluate how often even the most important choices depend on contingencies. The composers of old wrote for specific performers because those were the ones available to them. Much music was written "a secco," without knowing what the ensemble that would play it would be, and only later was it orchestrated or instrumented. Which is somewhat the reason why some Baroque solo concertos have a long tradition of authorial rewritings: flute, oboe, and violin share many pages in the history of the solo concerto... Now, if even the composers did not live through this problem, why must we live through it?!

... and nobody mentions the tuning fork?

Wonderful discussion (for me).

A discussion that has taken a very beautiful turn (useful, for me since I was unaware of many things said).

That little nothing that I could have brought you, Thallo and AbateFaria told me, which truly took my words right out of my mouth when speaking of "correctness" and "taste."

The only thing I can say is that the tuning fork is a steel fork.

Yes... But: what steel alloy? Just so as to be precise.