Wagner-Liszt: Isolde's Liebestod from Tristan and Isolde

[donjuan]

Recorded today.  Enjoy!

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Hi donjuan,

I always enjoy your Liszt recordings, as it seems to me that you have a stylistic affinity for his music. To comment on this piece is both interesting and difficult for me, as it is almost certainly my alltime favourite piece of piano music, and I've worked on it on and off for so long that I have very definite interpretative opinions on it, and I'd like to think that I've thought about various issues in it quite deeply. (That's not to say, of course, that my opinions are necessarily right.)  I don't always manage to play it the way I want, either

I've also had the privilege of working on this piece at a summer camp/masterclass session with two very competent pianists, one of whom happens to be just about the biggest Wagner fan imaginable (I've tried to recall/paraphrase some of his comments where I think they might be of interest, and have put them in quotes).

You're welcome to disagree with my general comments; after all they are interpretative and thus only a matter of opinion.

Overall, I think your tempo is slightly fast, but then again, I suspect the tempo I choose would conventionally be considered slow. My rationale is that I don't believe this type of aria should be played on the piano at the same speed as it would be performed operatically, because the piano is not capable, for all the skill of Liszt's transcription, of producing the depth and colour of the full orchestral sound, so I think that, if it is played too, it loses drama, space, and dignity - but that the pianist does get someway to recreating that by playing it a bit slower than it is written orchestrally. I hasten to add that your performance doesn't fall into the trap of letting the piece come over as matter-of-fact.

0.10 "Nothing ever happens quickly in Wagner" I tend to play the semiquavers (perhaps overly) slowly and not literally as written.

0.23 your lh tremolo is much better than mine.. how do you keep it so quiet? I find that to be the hardest thing in the whole piece.

1.03 I like the left hand here - at 1.10 I've taken to trying to split the Ab and Bb in the left hand so that you hear much more of the Bb than the Ab - it didn't come out as intended a fortnight ago!

1.57 I like your handling of the second page; I think you probably got the slight rhythmic undulation effect caused by the alternation between semiquavers and triplet semiquavers. It was really interesting to me how you played this passage and the parallel ones every two bars after. Isn't it so easy to mess up the articulation in the demisemis? And I really don't think I believe in playing them literally as written, in which case they can get garbled.. I recall "calmness.. not a hint of virtuosity here" being said. I'm inclined to play them on the slow side - this applies throughout the piece.

2.48 What you do sounds good, but I think it's even better if you can split the bottom of the chord, pp, and play the top of the chord mp so you get the melody floating on top of the arpeggiated chord. For how not to play the passage, see Brendel on youtube. Yuck. There are also some counter-melodies going on in the bass that you don't really catch.

3.19 Maybe you are right here, and it should be played at that tempo. Perhaps my playing is sentimental kitsch I'll think about it.

3.38 I like to try to bring out the upper treble voice here.

4.00-5.12 the build-up to the big climax: the suggestions I was given here were:
in the bars with the triplet quavers, hold back marginally on the regular quavers, and press forward on the triplets to give impetus; 4.34 it is traditional to return to pp on the A# chord; 4.54 this bar is "tranquillo, note the absence of dynamic markings, all is still as the moon passes over the scene" - I rather like this way of looking at it.

5.06 I think it's too fast too soon. And I think a momentary pause before the big climax at 5.12 is wonderfully effective. Of course this is maybe an affectation on my part I play the ossia tremolando climax, but that's obviously a matter of taste. I've had one large musical argument over my choice here, and I don't feel like having another

6.25-6.33 In Wagner's original there's an oboe, it is represented by the alto line G#, A, A#, B, C#, D# in the transcription. As it's an important motif in the Wagnerian context, I believe in emphasizing it in the piano version too.

It probably sounds like I'm being very nit-picking and pedantic, when in reality I enjoyed your performance a lot. I don't agree with some of your interpretation, but who's to say my ideas are right either? I've posted in the comments as much as anything as a basis for discussion and thought. If you want to dissect my performance of this piece that's currently also in the audition room, I certainly won't mind.

[donjuan]

Hi Ronde des Sylphes,

Thanks so much for listening to and adjudicating my performance.  I have watched many of your performances on youtube and needless to say I'm a fan of yours.  You play many pieces people only dream of being able to play.

You're welcome to disagree with my general comments; after all they are interpretative and thus only a matter of opinion.

Yes, thank you for recognizing the ambiguous nature of interpreting music.  Very few people on this forum do that.  They are all like 'I'm right, you're wrong; screw you.'  The truth is we're both right considering our different backgrounds and influences etc.

Overall, I think your tempo is slightly fast, but then again, I suspect the tempo I choose would conventionally be considered slow. My rationale is that I don't believe this type of aria should be played on the piano at the same speed as it would be performed operatically, because the piano is not capable, for all the skill of Liszt's transcription, of producing the depth and colour of the full orchestral sound, so I think that, if it is played too, it loses drama, space, and dignity - but that the pianist does get someway to recreating that by playing it a bit slower than it is written orchestrally. I hasten to add that your performance doesn't fall into the trap of letting the piece come over as matter-of-fact.

I was greatly influenced by Daniel Barenboim's orchestral (with no singer) recording when it came to pacing.  After listening to his interpretation, all slower ones seemed to lack structure and momentum and I got bored while listening.  I think it should only be played more slowly only when there is a singer.

0.10 "Nothing ever happens quickly in Wagner" I tend to play the semiquavers (perhaps overly) slowly and not literally as written.

yeah I was influenced by Horowitz.  Now I can't stand to dwell (as in use excessive rubato) on introductions.  'We have the Tristan chord, let's move on now.'   However I do understand how it may come across as a bit jarring.

0.23 your lh tremolo is much better than mine.. how do you keep it so quiet? I find that to be the hardest thing in the whole piece.

I spent hours working with my teacher on tremolos.  Basically, the less you do, the better it sounds.  Here's a good start: when you begin, play the left hand as a solid chord and only retouch the notes when you feel the sound fading.

1.03 I like the left hand here - at 1.10 I've taken to trying to split the Ab and Bb in the left hand so that you hear much more of the Bb than the Ab - it didn't come out as intended a fortnight ago!

1.03- Horowitz again! You got to pull the audience's attention somewhere all the time or else they really don't know what to listen to!  1.10: As for the Ab and Bb in the left hand, you are right; that was just carelessness on my part.

1.57 I like your handling of the second page; I think you probably got the slight rhythmic undulation effect caused by the alternation between semiquavers and triplet semiquavers. It was really interesting to me how you played this passage and the parallel ones every two bars after. Isn't it so easy to mess up the articulation in the demisemis? And I really don't think I believe in playing them literally as written, in which case they can get garbled.. I recall "calmness.. not a hint of virtuosity here" being said. I'm inclined to play them on the slow side - this applies throughout the piece.

We'll have to agree to disagree with our interpretations.  in this piece, always in the background I think of feverish yearning and restlessness where you think of 'calmness'

2.48 What you do sounds good, but I think it's even better if you can split the bottom of the chord, pp, and play the top of the chord mp so you get the melody floating on top of the arpeggiated chord. For how not to play the passage, see Brendel on youtube. Yuck. There are also some counter-melodies going on in the bass that you don't really catch.

I agree!  emphasizing the top note is actually what I was doing before I brought this piece to my teacher, who then told me that I was passing over the interesting secondary melodies in the left hand by doing so.  However, in retrospect I don't like the way I ripped the arpeggiated right hand chords out of the keyboard.

3.19 Maybe you are right here, and it should be played at that tempo. Perhaps my playing is sentimental kitsch I'll think about it.

I'm glad you'll think about it.  I think rubato is overrated in this place, and it only cuts the phrase shorter than it should be.

3.38 I like to try to bring out the upper treble voice here.

Good idea.  I think my way hid the melody behind overly audacious chords and didnt serve the music well.

4.00-5.12 the build-up to the big climax: the suggestions I was given here were:
in the bars with the triplet quavers, hold back marginally on the regular quavers, and press forward on the triplets to give impetus; 4.34 it is traditional to return to pp on the A# chord; 4.54 this bar is "tranquillo, note the absence of dynamic markings, all is still as the moon passes over the scene" - I rather like this way of looking at it.

Good suggestions!  I think my interpretation is a bit flat.

5.06 I think it's too fast too soon.

Agreed! 

And I think a momentary pause before the big climax at 5.12 is wonderfully effective.

and I believe in momentum and spilling it all over the top, especially since this is the big climax.  I used to like holding it back, but doing so at this point would be like "bing bang boom" without ever getting to the 'boom' if you know what I mean.  I was originally going to use some kind of sexual analogy (i.e. how much 'blue balls' sucks) to say this but hopefully you know what I'm getting at..

I play the ossia tremolando climax, but that's obviously a matter of taste. I've had one large musical argument over my choice here, and I don't feel like having another

I love cheap tricks and thunder, what can I say?  In the future I'll be interested in trying the other ossia with the descending arpeggios.  Yeah I experimented with the tremolos and I thought they sound too pretentious and scholastic for my taste.  At this moment I want nothing more than an unbridled eargasm and thunder.

6.25-6.33 In Wagner's original there's an oboe, it is represented by the alto line G#, A, A#, B, C#, D# in the transcription. As it's an important motif in the Wagnerian context, I believe in emphasizing it in the piano version too.

I'll have to check that out, thanks!

If you want to dissect my performance of this piece that's currently also in the audition room, I certainly won't mind.

You have some big cojones playing this piece live, I'll say that's fo sho!! I won't be dissecting your performance because I feel you should have a pretty good idea of the way I approach this piece through reading my responses to your critique.

thanks again!

p.s. I understand we have a mutual acquaintance -shiftyoliver.. hehe I had chinese food with him a couople months ago! 

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I was greatly influenced by Daniel Barenboim's orchestral (with no singer) recording when it came to pacing.  After listening to his interpretation, all slower ones seemed to lack structure and momentum and I got bored while listening.  I think it should only be played more slowly only when there is a singer.

I wasn't directly influenced by this performance, but when I first listened to it, I think I was speechless:

Ultimately (to me, at least) it says everything I could ever want to say musically in the Liebestod and renders further comment superfluous.  I think it is beautiful beyond belief.

and I believe in momentum and spilling it all over the top, especially since this is the big climax.  I used to like holding it back, but doing so at this point would be like "bing bang boom" without ever getting to the 'boom' if you know what I mean.  I was originally going to use some kind of sexual analogy (i.e. how much 'blue balls' sucks) to say this but hopefully you know what I'm getting at..

Erm. yes

I spent hours working with my teacher on tremolos.  Basically, the less you do, the better it sounds.  Here's a good start: when you begin, play the left hand as a solid chord and only retouch the notes when you feel the sound fading.

Thanks for the suggestion. Part of my problem, I suspect, is that I practice on an upright and an keyboard and that when I come to play on a concert grand, it's just totally different.