Discussion:
The Question of Instrument
(too old to reply)
JPD
2013-02-20 13:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Glenn Gould rehearsing a few opinions that should be of interest to
guitarists:


Fadosolrélamisi
2013-02-20 15:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPD
Glenn Gould rehearsing a few opinions that should be of interest to
http://youtu.be/sWwi5M_F9Gs
You see, towards the end, I wish they would have use Kazoos for their little singing interlude, that would have given back to this unrivaled instrument its
letters of nobility!
JPD
2013-02-20 17:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fadosolrélamisi
Post by JPD
Glenn Gould rehearsing a few opinions that should be of interest to
http://youtu.be/sWwi5M_F9Gs
You see, towards the end, I wish they would have use Kazoos for their little singing interlude, that would have given back to this unrivaled instrument its
letters of nobility!
Sonority vis a vis structure. Gould cares about structure and not so
much about sonorities. Some people talk as if structure is all that's
important. (Jazz guys and their analyses, for instance. Gould mentions
this in a subsequent video -- I think it was in the 3rd part.)

But this won't work so well for a classical guitarist. I tried to
approach this idea in the thread about playing guitar pieces on piano.
It doesn't work because the beauty of guitar music depends a lot more
on sonorities, colors, etc., than on structure. There are a few guitar
pieces that, because of their structure, would be of interest and
maybe even beautiful on other instruments, but not many. (Sor/Segovia
1 comes to mind.) Our very best pieces -- Falla's "Homage" and
Britten's "Nocturnal", for instance -- are lost without the guitar,
and without a guitarist who loves the sound of the guitar for itself.
Gerry
2013-02-20 18:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPD
Sonority vis a vis structure. Gould cares about structure and not so
much about sonorities.
I didn't hear that: I heard that he didn't think that most composers
would insist on the fidelity to their (at that time) limited choices.
In the case of Ruggles he indicates an absolute disregard for how
others might orchestrate.
Post by JPD
Some people talk as if structure is all that's important. (Jazz guys
and their analyses, for instance. Gould mentions this in a subsequent
video -- I think it was in the 3rd part.)
I wonder what "Jazz guys" you're lumping altogether in one groupthink.
Post by JPD
But this won't work so well for a classical guitarist. I tried to
approach this idea in the thread about playing guitar pieces on piano.
It doesn't work because the beauty of guitar music depends a lot more
on sonorities, colors, etc., than on structure.
And would does not have the same sonorities, colors, etc. on other
instruments, just as every actor does not have the same voice and face.
But that never implies that voice and face are irrelevant or sit in
some measure of superiority relative to their lines of dialogue.
Post by JPD
There are a few guitar pieces that, because of their structure, would
be of interest and maybe even beautiful on other instruments, but not
many. (Sor/Segovia 1 comes to mind.) Our very best pieces -- Falla's
"Homage" and Britten's "Nocturnal", for instance -- are lost without
the guitar, and without a guitarist who loves the sound of the guitar
for itself.
It's a question of fidelity to the original score and the projection of
fidely to the composer. So much of piano literature is out of reach of
a single guitar because of the guitar's limitations, but that doesn't
mean that a wholly suitable, and conspicuously modified version of a
piano piece can't be configured for guitar or multiple guitars. But
first one has to violate or dismiss the principle of fidelity to a
composer whose intent in this regard would be unknown, or if known
disregarded as irrelevant to the performers.

Similar is the task of bringing the comparative thimble-full of guitar
lit. to the piano.
--
Music is the best means we have of digesting time. -- W. H. Auden
Steve Freides
2013-02-21 00:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry
Post by JPD
Sonority vis a vis structure. Gould cares about structure and not so
much about sonorities.
I didn't hear that: I heard that he didn't think that most composers
would insist on the fidelity to their (at that time) limited choices.
No, I don't think that's what he said, either. He said that some pieces
lend themselves to specific instrumentation, even require it, while
others are concerned primarily with their own internal musical structure
and, as such, could be performed on a variety of instruments
successfully. It has to do with whether or not the composition is
primarily concerned with its own musical structure or not.

-S-
a***@gmail.com
2013-02-21 04:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Gerry
Post by JPD
Sonority vis a vis structure. Gould cares about structure and not so
much about sonorities.
I didn't hear that: I heard that he didn't think that most composers
would insist on the fidelity to their (at that time) limited choices.
No, I don't think that's what he said, either. He said that some pieces
lend themselves to specific instrumentation, even require it, while
others are concerned primarily with their own internal musical structure
and, as such, could be performed on a variety of instruments
successfully. It has to do with whether or not the composition is
primarily concerned with its own musical structure or not.
-S-
Glen Good is gould!
Gerry
2013-02-21 06:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Gerry
Post by JPD
Sonority vis a vis structure. Gould cares about structure and not so
much about sonorities.
I didn't hear that: I heard that he didn't think that most composers
would insist on the fidelity to their (at that time) limited choices.
No, I don't think that's what he said, either. He said that some
pieces lend themselves to specific instrumentation, even require it,
Which piece died he mention that required it?
Post by Steve Freides
...while others are concerned primarily with their own internal musical
structure and, as such, could be performed on a variety of instruments
successfully. It has to do with whether or not the composition is
primarily concerned with its own musical structure or not.
I guess we watched different videos.
--
Music is the best means we have of digesting time. -- W. H. Auden
Steve Freides
2013-02-21 22:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Gerry
Post by JPD
Sonority vis a vis structure. Gould cares about structure and not
so much about sonorities.
I didn't hear that: I heard that he didn't think that most composers
would insist on the fidelity to their (at that time) limited
choices.
No, I don't think that's what he said, either. He said that some
pieces lend themselves to specific instrumentation, even require it,
Which piece died he mention that required it?
Post by Steve Freides
...while others are concerned primarily with their own internal
musical structure and, as such, could be performed on a variety of
instruments successfully. It has to do with whether or not the
composition is primarily concerned with its own musical structure or
not.
I guess we watched different videos.
I'll try to watch again, but he did mention one or two specific pieces
and that was the general impression he gave.

IOW, Bach is mostly concerned with musical structure and therefore most
of his pieces can be moved to different instruments, but his point was
that this is a piece-by-piece decision. Mostly for Bach, you can move
to different instruments.

-S-
Gerry
2013-02-22 01:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Gerry
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Gerry
Post by JPD
Sonority vis a vis structure. Gould cares about structure and not
so much about sonorities.
I didn't hear that: I heard that he didn't think that most composers
would insist on the fidelity to their (at that time) limited choices.
No, I don't think that's what he said, either. He said that some
pieces lend themselves to specific instrumentation, even require it,
Which piece died he mention that required it?
Post by Steve Freides
...while others are concerned primarily with their own internal
musical structure and, as such, could be performed on a variety of
instruments successfully. It has to do with whether or not the
composition is primarily concerned with its own musical structure or
not.
I guess we watched different videos.
I'll try to watch again, but he did mention one or two specific pieces
and that was the general impression he gave.
IOW, Bach is mostly concerned with musical structure and therefore most
of his pieces can be moved to different instruments, but his point was
that this is a piece-by-piece decision. Mostly for Bach, you can move
to different instruments.
Sure, some will work some won't. I just didn't hear him say that that
some pieces "require" one instrument or other, or that "internal
structure" of some pieces make them non-transferrable. It's not that
disagree with that, without reworking the piece; it's that I didn't
hear him cover what couldn't/shouldn't be done.

I didn't him really address any specific transfer, only to speak of how
pieces for earlier keyboards were, in general, easily moved to piano.
They both mused on what "Bach would think", but I sensed that if Bach
would have threatened suicide, his needs weren't really so important.

Just my response.
--
Music is the best means we have of digesting time. -- W. H. Auden
Steve Freides
2013-02-22 02:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry
Post by Steve Freides
IOW, Bach is mostly concerned with musical structure and therefore
most of his pieces can be moved to different instruments, but his
point was that this is a piece-by-piece decision. Mostly for Bach,
you can move to different instruments.
Sure, some will work some won't. I just didn't hear him say that that
some pieces "require" one instrument or other, or that "internal
structure" of some pieces make them non-transferrable.
The idea is that pieces that are about their own structure, which is
most but not all Bach, are easily transported, while pieces that are
about idiomatic writing for a particular instrument are just that,
concerned about exploiting the capabilities of the instrument. And, of
course, there will be many places along that continuum.

-S-
Gerry
2013-02-22 17:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Gerry
Post by Steve Freides
IOW, Bach is mostly concerned with musical structure and therefore
most of his pieces can be moved to different instruments, but his
point was that this is a piece-by-piece decision. Mostly for Bach,
you can move to different instruments.
Sure, some will work some won't. I just didn't hear him say that that
some pieces "require" one instrument or other, or that "internal
structure" of some pieces make them non-transferrable.
The idea is that pieces that are about their own structure, which is
most but not all Bach, are easily transported, while pieces that are
about idiomatic writing for a particular instrument are just that,
concerned about exploiting the capabilities of the instrument. And, of
course, there will be many places along that continuum.
But of course I agree with all of that. Any piano piece can't simply be
picked up by a lone guitarist and played. But the restrictive nature of
the world's repertoire as played, say, by a trombone is even more
vastly difficult and obvious.

I just didn't hear him discuss the restrictive aspects of idiomatic
writing, I heard him addressing the general inclination for pieces
written for one keyboard to be easily produced on another. And in the
case of the Ruggles piece that it could be performed with myriad other
orchestrations.

If we had an intellect like Gould's making the rounds in guitar
performance, it would be nice to hear his/her view of transport from
piano to guitar and vice-versa. I don't find any intellectual strain
in the transition from harpsichord ot piano.
--
Music is the best means we have of digesting time. -- W. H. Auden
Steve Freides
2013-02-22 18:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry
I just didn't hear him discuss the restrictive aspects of idiomatic
writing, I heard him addressing the general inclination for pieces
written for one keyboard to be easily produced on another. And in the
case of the Ruggles piece that it could be performed with myriad other
orchestrations.
I hit on someone's play list and listened to the whole interview - maybe
what I heard wasn't in the specific link given at the start of this
thread but elsewhere in the same interview.

-S-
Gerry
2013-02-22 21:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Gerry
I just didn't hear him discuss the restrictive aspects of idiomatic
writing, I heard him addressing the general inclination for pieces
written for one keyboard to be easily produced on another. And in the
case of the Ruggles piece that it could be performed with myriad other
orchestrations.
I hit on someone's play list and listened to the whole interview -
maybe what I heard wasn't in the specific link given at the start of
this thread but elsewhere in the same interview.
Well, I'm sure the topic is somewhere in the vast canon of Gould's
opinions. What a mind!

For those who haven't seen it, I recommend the PBS American Masters
episode: Genius Within, the Inner Life of Glenn Gould. It's worth the
effort.

http://tinyurl.com/2cbntzo

Inexplicably it is unavailable for viewing on line. Maybe it will be
back next week.
--
Music is the best means we have of digesting time. -- W. H. Auden
Steve Freides
2013-02-24 13:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry
For those who haven't seen it, I recommend the PBS American Masters
episode: Genius Within, the Inner Life of Glenn Gould. It's worth the
effort.
http://tinyurl.com/2cbntzo
Inexplicably it is unavailable for viewing on line. Maybe it will be
back next week.
From that web page:

... Genius Within: The Inner Life of Glenn Gould airing nationally,
Monday, December 27 at 9pm on PBS (check local listings). After the
broadcast premiere, the video will be available to watch online for two
weeks, with a DVD available at by calling 1-800-336-1917.

So I think that means we now have to buy the DVD.

-S-
Gerry
2013-02-24 18:22:36 UTC
Permalink
[ Updated: ]
Post by Gerry
For those who haven't seen it, I recommend the PBS American Masters
episode: Genius Within, the Inner Life of Glenn Gould. It's worth the
effort.
One can (as of this date) see it via Netflix where it is available both
on DVD and via streaming:

http://tinyurl.com/b9sbqmg
--
Music is the best means we have of digesting time. -- W. H. Auden
Steve Freides
2013-02-25 02:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry
[ Updated: ]
Post by Gerry
For those who haven't seen it, I recommend the PBS American Masters
episode: Genius Within, the Inner Life of Glenn Gould. It's worth
the effort.
One can (as of this date) see it via Netflix where it is available
http://tinyurl.com/b9sbqmg
I will look - we have Netflix.

-S-

Jonathan
2013-02-22 15:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Gerry
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Gerry
Post by JPD
Sonority vis a vis structure. Gould cares about structure and not
so much about sonorities.
I didn't hear that: I heard that he didn't think that most composers
would insist on the fidelity to their (at that time) limited
choices.
No, I don't think that's what he said, either. He said that some
pieces lend themselves to specific instrumentation, even require it,
Which piece died he mention that required it?
Post by Steve Freides
...while others are concerned primarily with their own internal
musical structure and, as such, could be performed on a variety of
instruments successfully. It has to do with whether or not the
composition is primarily concerned with its own musical structure or
not.
I guess we watched different videos.
I'll try to watch again, but he did mention one or two specific pieces
and that was the general impression he gave.
IOW, Bach is mostly concerned with musical structure and therefore most
of his pieces can be moved to different instruments, but his point was
that this is a piece-by-piece decision. Mostly for Bach, you can move
to different instruments.
-S-
I wonder whether Bach composed on a harpsichord.
That instrument certainly wouldn't lend itself to experimenting with tonal colors and dynamics.
Just the first thing that jumped into my mind.
Slogoin
2013-02-22 15:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
I wonder whether Bach composed on a harpsichord.
For Bach singing, violin, organ, orchestra... might be more the way
to think of his music but you need to add the idea of a master of
tonal color who worked on organs and worked with every imaginable
combination of instruments of his time, with no electronics. His sense
of acoustics was as good as it gets and he could imagine the sound of
just about any tonal color in any room.
ag
2013-02-21 07:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPD
Post by Fadosolrélamisi
Post by JPD
Glenn Gould rehearsing a few opinions that should be of interest to
http://youtu.be/sWwi5M_F9Gs
You see, towards the end, I wish they would have use Kazoos for their little singing interlude, that would have given back to this unrivaled instrument its
letters of nobility!
Sonority vis a vis structure. Gould cares about structure and not so
much about sonorities. Some people talk as if structure is all that's
important. (Jazz guys and their analyses, for instance. Gould mentions
this in a subsequent video -- I think it was in the 3rd part.)
But this won't work so well for a classical guitarist. I tried to
approach this idea in the thread about playing guitar pieces on piano.
It doesn't work because the beauty of guitar music depends a lot more
on sonorities, colors, etc., than on structure. There are a few guitar
pieces that, because of their structure, would be of interest and
maybe even beautiful on other instruments, but not many. (Sor/Segovia
1 comes to mind.) Our very best pieces -- Falla's "Homage" and
Britten's "Nocturnal", for instance -- are lost without the guitar,
and without a guitarist who loves the sound of the guitar for itself.
A piece of music relies upon structure: without it, we have not a composition, but a series of gestures, more or less attractive - and this is the case of the majority of guitar music written by guitarists who lack a background in the compositional techniques: it is the delight only of guitarists. Of course, structure is not the only component of a piece - it calls also for a perfect command of the idiomatic resources of the instrument(s) for which it is written. Exactly as we have a lot of empty "gestural" guitar music written by innocent self believing composers, we have also - regrettably - an amount of music which, flawless on paper, does not work properly on the instrument because the authors lacked a deep insight in the idiomatic resources of the guitar.

Good guitar music is the work either of composers who have learnt how to write for guitar through a study of the instrument "from outside" (it is quite a study, and an accessible one) or of guitarists (a minority, nowadays) who have mastered the composition techniques and the forms - so as to be able, if needed, to write a fugue for organ, an orchestral score, etc.

Structure, of course, can be mastered as a component of an artistic result only if it is designed, forged and controlled beyond an academic level. Claude Debussy, to an idiot who maintained that "La mer" was a piece without a structure, commented: "I have been able to create a structure, yes, but also to hide it".

ag
Slogoin
2013-02-21 09:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ag
Structure, of course, can be mastered as a component of an artistic
result only if it is designed, forged and controlled beyond an academic level.
Claude Debussy, to an idiot who maintained that "La mer" was a piece
"I have been able to create a structure, yes, but also to hide it".
I paint with shapes.
Alexander Calder
Steve Freides
2013-02-21 22:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ag
A piece of music relies upon structure: without it, we have not a
composition, but a series of gestures, more or less attractive
There are many such pieces of music, some of them quite good.

-S-
Steven Bornfeld
2013-02-21 22:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by ag
A piece of music relies upon structure: without it, we have not a
composition, but a series of gestures, more or less attractive
There are many such pieces of music, some of them quite good.
-S-
Music without structure? Examples?
Slogoin
2013-02-22 01:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Music without structure?  Examples?
My answer was Calder.

The difference is between the structure of the mobiles kids do in
schools all over this globe and what Calder did. Most grade school
teachers cannot tell the difference nor do many know why it matters.
Same as the building a bridge project and why tetrahedrons matter.
Structures matter in the sense that they emerge as common patterns in
diverse fields as solutions to everything from Sudoku to how to sends
these bits across the globe. Even when we try to destroy any sense of
structure we find that things like a random number are not trivial.

Now, are you laughing or am I just lacking in any sense of humor...
either way it's not knowing if you are being scammed that makes this
hiding of structure so difficult to do without insulting some fragile
ego. The Lexicon of Musical Invective.
Steve Freides
2013-02-22 02:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Steve Freides
Post by ag
A piece of music relies upon structure: without it, we have not a
composition, but a series of gestures, more or less attractive
There are many such pieces of music, some of them quite good.
-S-
Music without structure? Examples?
Not without structure, but rather a focus on certain instrument-specific
traits as opposed to a purely musical method of composition and concept
that isn't particular to any one instrument.

The usual example of instrument-specific music is Chopin.

-S-
Steven Bornfeld
2013-02-22 03:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Steve Freides
Post by ag
A piece of music relies upon structure: without it, we have not a
composition, but a series of gestures, more or less attractive
There are many such pieces of music, some of them quite good.
-S-
Music without structure? Examples?
Not without structure, but rather a focus on certain instrument-specific
traits as opposed to a purely musical method of composition and concept
that isn't particular to any one instrument.
The usual example of instrument-specific music is Chopin.
-S-
OK
Fadosolrélamisi
2013-02-22 05:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Steve Freides
Post by ag
A piece of music relies upon structure: without it, we have not a
composition, but a series of gestures, more or less attractive
There are many such pieces of music, some of them quite good.
-S-
Music without structure? Examples?
4:33 ...
dsi1
2013-02-21 07:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPD
Post by Fadosolrélamisi
Post by JPD
Glenn Gould rehearsing a few opinions that should be of interest to
http://youtu.be/sWwi5M_F9Gs
You see, towards the end, I wish they would have use Kazoos for their little singing interlude, that would have given back to this unrivaled instrument its
letters of nobility!
Sonority vis a vis structure. Gould cares about structure and not so
much about sonorities. Some people talk as if structure is all that's
important. (Jazz guys and their analyses, for instance. Gould mentions
this in a subsequent video -- I think it was in the 3rd part.)
But this won't work so well for a classical guitarist. I tried to
approach this idea in the thread about playing guitar pieces on piano.
It doesn't work because the beauty of guitar music depends a lot more
on sonorities, colors, etc., than on structure. There are a few guitar
pieces that, because of their structure, would be of interest and
maybe even beautiful on other instruments, but not many. (Sor/Segovia
1 comes to mind.) Our very best pieces -- Falla's "Homage" and
Britten's "Nocturnal", for instance -- are lost without the guitar,
and without a guitarist who loves the sound of the guitar for itself.
There are some pieces which are obviously written for the guitar or composed on a guitar. Typically they're pretty and nice. You get the feeling that it was born of the guitar and it's going to be stuck on the guitar forever. That's a sad fate for a piece of music. I don't much care for pieces like that. To me, a piece should be eminently open to re-interpretation.

I don't much care for the idea that we should stick to our imagining of the composer's original vision in order for a piece to be valid. Bach probably would never imagine that we would still be playing his music and I think he'd be delighted and amazed at what we've done to it to make it live and speak to the people of our times.
ag
2013-02-21 10:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsi1
There are some pieces which are obviously written for the guitar or composed on a guitar. Typically they're pretty and nice. You get the feeling that it was born of the guitar and it's going to be stuck on the guitar forever. That's a sad fate for a piece of music. I don't much care for pieces like that. To me, a piece should be eminently open to re-interpretation.
I don't much care for the idea that we should stick to our imagining of the composer's original vision in order for a piece to be valid. Bach probably would never imagine that we would still be playing his music and I think he'd be delighted and amazed at what we've done to it to make it live and speak to the people of our times.
--------

If a piece for guitar - besides its being idiomatically conceived - has also a structure and a musical sense - and if it is not just an example of "les fron fron ordinaires" - of course it is open to re-intepretation. The strongest re-interpretation of a piece written for guitar (or for piano) is of course its orchestration. Here you can listen to Tarrega and Sor solo guitar pieces in a different interpretation, made possible just because, besides their being guitar music, they are also well structured pieces.

https://soundcloud.com/angelo-gilardino


ag
dsi1
2013-02-21 23:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ag
Post by dsi1
There are some pieces which are obviously written for the guitar or composed on a guitar. Typically they're pretty and nice. You get the feeling that it was born of the guitar and it's going to be stuck on the guitar forever. That's a sad fate for a piece of music. I don't much care for pieces like that. To me, a piece should be eminently open to re-interpretation.
I don't much care for the idea that we should stick to our imagining of the composer's original vision in order for a piece to be valid. Bach probably would never imagine that we would still be playing his music and I think he'd be delighted and amazed at what we've done to it to make it live and speak to the people of our times.
--------
If a piece for guitar - besides its being idiomatically conceived - has also a structure and a musical sense - and if it is not just an example of "les fron fron ordinaires" - of course it is open to re-intepretation. The strongest re-interpretation of a piece written for guitar (or for piano) is of course its orchestration. Here you can listen to Tarrega and Sor solo guitar pieces in a different interpretation, made possible just because, besides their being guitar music, they are also well structured pieces.
https://soundcloud.com/angelo-gilardino
ag
There's some pieces that feel great playing on the guitar alright. It's quite seductive sometimes. Most of these pieces will play out in the first few frets. I'm kind of a slacker but hanging around the first few frets was never my thing. It's as if you're giving up on something. That's just my weird notion.
Gerry
2013-02-22 01:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsi1
There's some pieces that feel great playing on the guitar alright.
Yout got that right. I like playing the guitar so that summons my
feelings about alot of guitar playing.
Post by dsi1
It's quite seductive sometimes. Most of these pieces will play out in
the first few frets.
What does that mean?
Post by dsi1
I'm kind of a slacker but hanging around the first few frets was never
my thing. It's as if you're giving up on something. That's just my
weird notion.
So you like playing the guitar in higher positions. That's not seductive?
--
Music is the best means we have of digesting time. -- W. H. Auden
dsi1
2013-02-22 01:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry
Post by dsi1
There's some pieces that feel great playing on the guitar alright.
Yout got that right. I like playing the guitar so that summons my
feelings about alot of guitar playing.
Post by dsi1
It's quite seductive sometimes. Most of these pieces will play out in
the first few frets.
What does that mean?
I'm talking about piece that are played mostly in the first position. My
teacher always gave me sheets like this. I did not like these pieces. I
believe that teachers favor them.
Post by Gerry
Post by dsi1
I'm kind of a slacker but hanging around the first few frets was never
my thing. It's as if you're giving up on something. That's just my
weird notion.
So you like playing the guitar in higher positions. That's not seductive?
I like moving about. Some people like that, others do not.
thomas
2013-02-21 22:50:19 UTC
Permalink
I don't much care for the idea that we should stick to our imagining of the composer's original vision in order for a piece to be valid. Bach probably would never imagine that we would still be playing his music and I think he'd be delighted and amazed at what we've done to it to make it live and speak to the people of our times.>
I think Rameau would have been delighted with what Bob James did to him using synthesizers. How could he not love this?


Steven Bornfeld
2013-02-21 22:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
I think Rameau would have been delighted with what Bob James did to him using synthesizers. How could he not love this?
http://youtu.be/pFxpOCYozrE
LOL
dsi1
2013-02-21 23:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
I think Rameau would have been delighted with what Bob James did to him using synthesizers. How could he not love this?
http://youtu.be/pFxpOCYozrE
LOL
Two words: Giorgio Moroder!

Steven Bornfeld
2013-02-22 03:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsi1
Post by thomas
I think Rameau would have been delighted with what Bob James did to him using synthesizers. How could he not love this?
http://youtu.be/pFxpOCYozrE
LOL
Two words: Giorgio Moroder! http://youtu.be/in_ZVmckrmU
Amazing how quaint that seems--like this:

Loading Image...

Steve
dsi1
2013-02-22 08:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by dsi1
Post by thomas
I think Rameau would have been delighted with what Bob James did to
him using synthesizers. How could he not love this?
http://youtu.be/pFxpOCYozrE
LOL
Two words: Giorgio Moroder! http://youtu.be/in_ZVmckrmU
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3jIwz9Q4c6c/SwsLM3pLhMI/AAAAAAAAAJM/SfBgjvOUodE/s1600/url.jpg
It wasn't the greatest of times. I didn't play the guitar during that
decade. Cars and computers and video games all sucked. The music was ok
since the guitar fell out of fashion and I liked synths and techno-pop.
As an added bonus, Regan didn't incinerate mankind in nuclear
Armageddon. I guess that would be my favorite part of the 80s.
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Steve
dsi1
2013-02-21 23:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
I don't much care for the idea that we should stick to our imagining of the composer's original vision in order for a piece to be valid. Bach probably would never imagine that we would still be playing his music and I think he'd be delighted and amazed at what we've done to it to make it live and speak to the people of our times.>
I think Rameau would have been delighted with what Bob James did to him using synthesizers. How could he not love this?
http://youtu.be/pFxpOCYozrE
If he was alive, it would blow his mind that all that sound would come from a single keyboard. Then we give him some LSD...
Thomas Scharkowski
2013-02-21 14:29:25 UTC
Permalink
...
Our very best pieces -- Falla's "Homage" and Britten's
"Nocturnal", for instance -- are lost without the guitar, and without a
guitarist who loves the sound of the guitar for itself.
You don't seem to know Falla's own arrangement of the "Homenaje" for
orchestra? It's the second mouvement of "Homenajes" for orchestra (called
"Á C. Debussy (Elegia de la guitarra)" there and well worth a listen.
There is also a piano version IIRC.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_Homenajes


Also interesting:

William Walton: Varii Capricci for orchestra, based on the "5 Bagatelles"
for guitar


Frank Martin: "Guitare" for piano based on the "Quatre pièces brèves"
http://www.universaledition.com/Guitare-for-piano-Frank-Martin/composers-
and-works/composer/456/work/2699


Greetings
Thomas
ag
2013-02-21 15:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Scharkowski
...
Our very best pieces -- Falla's "Homage" and Britten's
"Nocturnal", for instance -- are lost without the guitar, and without a
guitarist who loves the sound of the guitar for itself.
You don't seem to know Falla's own arrangement of the "Homenaje" for
orchestra? It's the second mouvement of "Homenajes" for orchestra (called
"Á C. Debussy (Elegia de la guitarra)" there and well worth a listen.
There is also a piano version IIRC.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_Homenajes
William Walton: Varii Capricci for orchestra, based on the "5 Bagatelles"
for guitar
http://youtu.be/tT1cTEsx0_0
Frank Martin: "Guitare" for piano based on the "Quatre pièces brèves"
http://www.universaledition.com/Guitare-for-piano-Frank-Martin/composers-
and-works/composer/456/work/2699
Greetings
Thomas
The list of pieces for solo guitar which were either orchestrated or elaborated for piano by their authors is not a short one. "Errimina" by Father Donostia (piano); "Briviesca" by Henri Collet (piano); "Prelude" by Aloys Fornerod (piano); "Spiritual" by Pierre-Octave Ferroud (orchestra); Quatre pièces by Henri Martelli (piano); "Cuadros" by Raoul Laparra (piano), etc. etc. The most eloquent example of elaboration of a solo guitar piece is the Divertimento for Orchestra by Joan Manén, realized by the author upon his own Fantasia-Sonata (composed on 1929 for Segovia). A magnificent work indeed, both in the former guitar version and in the spirited version for orchestra.

ag
m***@gmail.com
2013-02-21 21:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ag
Post by Thomas Scharkowski
...
Our very best pieces -- Falla's "Homage" and Britten's
"Nocturnal", for instance -- are lost without the guitar, and without a
guitarist who loves the sound of the guitar for itself.
You don't seem to know Falla's own arrangement of the "Homenaje" for
orchestra? It's the second mouvement of "Homenajes" for orchestra (called
"Á C. Debussy (Elegia de la guitarra)" there and well worth a listen.
There is also a piano version IIRC.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_Homenajes
William Walton: Varii Capricci for orchestra, based on the "5 Bagatelles"
for guitar
http://youtu.be/tT1cTEsx0_0
Frank Martin: "Guitare" for piano based on the "Quatre pièces brèves"
http://www.universaledition.com/Guitare-for-piano-Frank-Martin/compos...
and-works/composer/456/work/2699
Greetings
Thomas
The list of pieces for solo guitar which were either orchestrated or elaborated for piano by their authors is not a short one. "Errimina" by Father Donostia (piano); "Briviesca" by Henri Collet (piano); "Prelude" by Aloys Fornerod (piano); "Spiritual" by Pierre-Octave Ferroud (orchestra); Quatre pièces by Henri Martelli (piano); "Cuadros" by Raoul Laparra (piano), etc. etc. The most eloquent example of elaboration of a solo guitar piece is the Divertimento for Orchestra by Joan Manén, realized by the author upon his own Fantasia-Sonata (composed on 1929 for Segovia). A magnificent work indeed, both in the former guitar version and in the spirited version for orchestra.
ag
Earliest known (to me, at least....) such transcription was the one
of the Suite Andalusia by Guillermo Gomez, which was performed,
according to the ever amazing P. J. Bone, by the New York Philharmonic
in 1929.

I meant to check this out on the NYT on line archive, but I
discontinued my subscription to that...

MO.
Thomas Scharkowski
2013-02-21 14:38:59 UTC
Permalink
...
Our very best pieces -- Falla's "Homage" and Britten's
"Nocturnal", for instance -- are lost without the guitar, and without a
guitarist who loves the sound of the guitar for itself.
You don't seem to know Falla's own arrangement of the "Homage" for
orchestra? It's the 2nd mouvement of the suite "Homenajes" and calle "Á
C. Debussy (Elegia de la guitarra) there an is well worth a listen.
There is also a piano version.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_Homenajes

Also interesting:
William Walton: Varii Capricchi for orchestra, based on the "Five
Bagatelles"
http://youtu.be/tT1cTEsx0_0

Frank Martin: Guitare pour piano, based on the "Quatre pièces brèves"
http://www.universaledition.com/Guitare-for-piano-Frank-Martin/composers-
and-works/composer/456/work/2699

Greetings
Thomas
Steve Freides
2013-02-20 18:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPD
Glenn Gould rehearsing a few opinions that should be of interest to
http://youtu.be/sWwi5M_F9Gs
Very interesting - thank you for posting.

-S-
Thomas Scharkowski
2013-02-21 14:41:21 UTC
Permalink
...
Our very best pieces -- Falla's "Homage" and Britten's
"Nocturnal", for instance -- are lost without the guitar, and without a
guitarist who loves the sound of the guitar for itself.
You don't seem to know Falla's own arrangement of the "Homage" for
orchestra? It's the 2nd mouvement of the suite "Homenajes" and calle "Á
C. Debussy (Elegia de la guitarra) there an is well worth a listen.
There is also a piano version.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_Homenajes

Also interesting:
William Walton: Varii Capricchi for orchestra, based on the "Five
Bagatelles"
http://youtu.be/tT1cTEsx0_0

Frank Martin: Guitare pour piano, based on the "Quatre pièces brèves"
http://www.universaledition.com/Guitare-for-piano-Frank-Martin/composers-
and-works/composer/456/work/2699

Greetings
Thomas
Gerry
2013-02-21 17:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Scharkowski
...
Our very best pieces -- Falla's "Homage" and Britten's
"Nocturnal", for instance -- are lost without the guitar, and without a
guitarist who loves the sound of the guitar for itself.
You don't seem to know Falla's own arrangement of the "Homage" for
orchestra? It's the 2nd mouvement of the suite "Homenajes" and calle "Á
C. Debussy (Elegia de la guitarra) there an is well worth a listen.
There is also a piano version.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite_Homenajes
William Walton: Varii Capricchi for orchestra, based on the "Five
Bagatelles"
http://youtu.be/tT1cTEsx0_0
Frank Martin: Guitare pour piano, based on the "Quatre pièces brèves"
http://www.universaledition.com/Guitare-for-piano-Frank-Martin/composers-
and-works/composer/456/work/2699
Greetings
Thomas
FYI: Your message was posted 3 times.
t***@scharkowski.com
2013-02-21 21:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Sorry,
there seemed to be a problem with my news reader.
Thomas
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...