Glass - Etude no. 6

[liszt1022]

Hello.
This is Philip Glass's Etude no. 6.
It was composed in 1996 but the score remained unpublished until three months ago, when the complete score of 20 Etudes was finally published all at once - the composition of the whole set ranges from 1992 to 2012.

The form of this, if you'd like to follow along, is:

Two-bar intro, then each following four-bar block is repeated once before moving on.
ABCD
ABCD
EFDC
D
EFDC
BA

Fun game: spot the moment where I lose focus on the repeat scheme for a half-beat or so. But this is an unedited single take and that sort of thing can happen with this composer.

I think the rhythm in block F is pretty neat.


I'm open to any comments.

[cbreemer]

I could never warm to Glass's music like I can to that of, say, Adams or Ten Holt. And so it is here,
I find the piece dreadfully monotonic, repetitive and void of melodic interest. Perhaps it is an acquired taste but it sounds like an amateur new-age composer especially with the totally uninspired ending - just slow down and stop... I'd expected more of Glass.

I believe you make the most of it though, this can 't be easy with all those repeated notes. It
sounds excellently played. That nifty rhythm in block F could have been made more interesting
by better emphasizing and phrasing 5-against-3. It would have been an aha-moment amidst
all the monotony.

[faulty_damper]

There are a couple of issues I had with the performance:
1. the harmonies change but the performance was flat
2. the right hand is too loud
3. the hesitations when making the hand displacements abruptly stops the forward flow
4. dynamically monotonous

This piece should be performed like any harmonic piece.  Certain harmonies should be louder and others softer, e.g. V (louder) - I (softer).  Otherwise, good choice of tempo, keep that.

[cbreemer]

I agree on point 3) above. This was something I noticed too.
Not sure on the other points. Perhaps minimal music, or this piece in particular, is supposed to
be played like that ? I'm not enough of a minimal music adept to pas judgement on that.

[faulty_damper]

Perhaps minimal music, or this piece in particular, is supposed to
be played like that ? I'm not enough of a minimal music adept to pas judgement on that.

It's not minimalist music.  Just think J.S. Bach's Prelude in C Major, WTC1.  That's how this music should be interpreted, as harmonic elaboration.

[pianoman53]

Why is V louder than one!??!! You're writing such nonsense! It's kindergarden theory, and applies to the most basic interpretations, that never makes it to any sort of venue.

[faulty_damper]

Why is V louder than one!??!! You're writing such nonsense! It's kindergarden theory, and applies to the most basic interpretations, that never makes it to any sort of venue.

You are a *** idiot.  Anyone who studies music hears that a dominant applies tension toward the tonic.  That's why it's louder. You need to take a rudimentary music class if you don't even know this.

[pianoman53]

First 3 notes of appassionata.  F minor triad. You say that there's no tension there? Thediminished chords in waldstein, right before the presto, you think they are better played forte?

[j_menz]

Anyone who studies music hears that a dominant applies tension toward the tonic.  That's why it's louder. You need to take a rudimentary music class if you don't even know this.

And if you only take a rudimentary music class, that is what you will learn. Most people go on to learn more, though - usually after a couple of weeks. 

[cbreemer]

It's not minimalist music.  Just think J.S. Bach's Prelude in C Major, WTC1.  That's how this music should be interpreted, as harmonic elaboration.

I stand corrected ! I did not realize this was a "harmonic piece" and that it should be performed like the famous WTC prelude. learning all the time ! 

[liszt1022]

"downloaded 28 times"
Thanks to anyone who was curious. If you like it, please suggest another for me to do!

I could never warm to Glass's music like I can to that of, say, Adams or Ten Holt. And so it is here, I find the piece dreadfully monotonic, repetitive and void of melodic interest. Perhaps it is an acquired taste but it sounds like an amateur new-age composer especially with the totally uninspired ending - just slow down and stop... I'd expected more of Glass.

You're expecting more melodic interest and a definite ending from Glass? That's asking a lot. He sometimes "plays nice' with his movie soundtracks, but for his own "pure" music this is pretty much what you can expect.

That nifty rhythm in block F could have been made more interesting by better emphasizing and phrasing 5-against-3.

But it isn't 5 against 3, it's 18 triplet eighths grouped 5+5+5+3 against 12 eighths. It's still 3 against 2, but I can't accent every 3rd triplet in the RH because of the noted slurs in the quoted passage above. In the new recording I did at least try to emphasise the beats in the LH some more.

There are a couple of issues I had with the performance:
1. the harmonies change but the performance was flat
2. the right hand is too loud
3. the hesitations when making the hand displacements abruptly stops the forward flow
4. dynamically monotonous

Well I can't agree with 1 or 4, really, because you're not looking at the score. The only written in dynamics range from p to f, nothing on either extreme end. Crescendos and decrescendos are uncommon and most blocks only have one written in dynamic.
However, I re-recorded the piece trying to better follow the dynamics that are present, and I brought down the RH in spots when I think there is something worth bringing out in the LH (which there isn't, often, the chords move strangely through a theoretical lens.)
As far hesitations, it's not hesitation, it's just broadening in order to be more confident in the leaps. If it's distracting to the flow, I'll keep working on it. In the new recording I take less time to get around, at a slight expense of accuracy.

I stand corrected ! I did not realize this was a "harmonic piece" and that it should be performed like the famous WTC prelude. learning all the time ! 

Well uh... it's best to listen to Philip Glass outside of the world of functional harmony and traditional concepts of melodic development. I would like to make a thread about the subject, but the basic thing is I feel his music in terms of complacency and urgency, which is a little different than a standard V-I idea of "tension/release."

Consider three aspects of music: melody, rhythm, harmony. Glass is capable of some very nice melodies, but he is more interested in the other two. Call it reactionary against the composers who rebel against all 3, or rhythm-only percussive piano works like some Ligeti etudes (which have their own merit.)

[faulty_damper]

There's not much of a difference with the new recording.  Dynamics are still monotonous and harmonies flat.  RH still too loud.  You'll see that the harmonies modulate but the performance didn't reflect that.  E.g. opening harmonic progression: you should hear harmonic tension build before returning to I.  That is, I < *** > I.  Composers rarely write this because it's implicitly understood.

If you look at what Chopin's wrote in the scores of his students, he marks <> very liberally, and in complex melodies, multiple < > are written in single phrases that follow the melodic contours.  Obviously, none of this is actually written in the published scores.  It's assumed the performer understands melodic and harmonic contour to do this automatically in performance.

Edit: the dynamic expansion critique is targeted more at the left hand than the right.  So the left hand needs to modulate instead of being flat.

[gyzzzmo]

Great for in an elevator, or for movies when long stretches of the same emotion needs to be enhanced.

[liszt1022]

There's not much of a difference with the new recording.  Dynamics are still monotonous and harmonies flat.  RH still too loud.

The two recordings are very different, and if you can't tell that by listening, please stop offering advice. Just look at the waveforms. The second recording has better control over the dynamics, more swells & fades, and a softer RH. Other features such as the faster leaps are visible were I to zoom in. I'm not going to exaggerate the music any further because I'm not here to please you. I like aspects of both recordings and my future playing will be a mix of features between both of them, but there is nothing further I wish to change. I am confident that I am respecting the score as written.

[faulty_damper]

That's bullshit.  You come up with a waveform to prove that it's different.  Yes, they are different, but not that much different.  No one needs to look at waveforms to hear that they are different, but again, it's not that much different.  The issues mentioned before are still present regardless of the waveforms.

Also, you're too married to the score to really listen to what you're doing.  The score is not a map.  It's  a piece of paper with markings that attempts to translate musical ideas.  But it is not music.  Music must be performed, either in the mind or on an instrument, for it to be real.

Go ahead and do whatever you want but don't tell me to stop offering advice when it's you who should stop posting monotonous performances.

[j_menz]

don't tell me to stop offering advice

Since your "advice" boils down to "play it as if Chopin had written it", I think we're at least entitled to a lift in quality in lieu of a cessation.

[liszt1022]

Faulty_hearing I had to post that because I was -literally- doing what you suggested and you couldn't tell, so I assumed your eyes work better than your ears.

[faulty_damper]

You were not "-literally-" doing what I suggested.  All you did change the RH leaving the harmonic bass in the LH static.  Yes, you tried to get rid of the hesitation but the monotonous tone is still there in those passages.  Really, you're incredibly disrespectful toward someone who's taking his time and effort to listen to your performances and giving you feedback.

[liszt1022]

Actually what I did was listen to you, respond with comments of my own, and record it over with your comments in mind - which is quite a lot of respect for somebody who doesn't deserve any of it.

[faulty_damper]

.
Edit: I made a snarky sarcastic reply basically saying what most people would say if it were a well-known classical piece.  I did it out of anger mostly.  I deleted it but I'll just avoid making any comments on any of your threads next time.

[liszt1022]

Thanks. Have a nice day!