Note values exceeding time signature - Voices in Bach

[nyiregyhazi]

Not at all. Anticipation of all voices. Every single one of them. And therefore, anticipation of upcoming harmonic relations.

So you do now concede that you indeed have to associate voices on the vertical level (rather than treat them solely on their internal logic)- given that no individual voice defines that harmony unless referenced vertically with the others? You no longer stand by this contradictory assertion:

The volume, and every other attribute, of each note at a single point is determined exclusively by its position in and in relation to the voice wherein it occurs. Nothing else is needed.

?

[j_menz]

So you do now concede that you indeed have to associate voices on the vertical level (rather than treat them solely on their internal logic)- given that no individual voice defines that harmony unless referenced vertically with the others? You no longer stand by this contradictory assertion:

?

There is no contradiction between the two statements.

A voice is influenced by the harmonic and volumetric soundscape through which it passes. These are influences, not the primary determinate of the shape of the voice, which is determined also by a range of other factors (whether it's a restatement, or some form of development or alteration of a previous incarnation either of itself or another voice, or is a response to something in itself or another voice). It is the voice that is affected - the whole voice, the individual notes are then determined by their position in and in relation to that voice.

[lostinidlewonder]

As I already pointed out, an organ sustains without decay.

Irrelevant to my discussion, you randomly throw in this comment for no reason. Why did you mention a digital piano without a "dynamic" effect? You merely talked about it then when you are shown how stupid it was to talk about that you evade discussing it again.

 A piano doesn't.

Wow Mr Obvious strikes again.

So a long note needs to be differentiated, or it will not sing through to the next, but will get trampled by even competition.

Generalistic rubbish

read conrad wolff on schnabel's teaching.

Yes why not throw in some names of academics just for the sake of it... oh yeah it makes you look smart doesn't it.

A piano does not perform as an organ does.

Mr Obvious is obvious.

Even if eveness is taken as the ultimate ideal, only the starts of notes are "equal" unless you bring in differentiation.

Generalistic bs.

Equal attack is a poor basis for executing counterpoint that involves long notes.

Quote someone else who used the term "Equal Attack" and defined what that random word means? You will find only yourself mentions it. lol

the only way to base it on literal equality is to indeed play an instrument where long notes do not decay. On the piano, even the illusion of eveness can only be achieved by differentiation.

Good golly gosh you really don't have any point at all do you.

You simply cannot make a long note sing out out for its full horizontal length like that, without significantly dropping the intensity of the quavers.

Wrong. You are saying this is true 100% of the time which it is not.

It's the same trick that Gilels uses to prevent melodic lines sagging in romantic music.

Oh a trick now... Yeah, everything you discuss and describe is an amazing technique, trick, secret ahahah.

[nyiregyhazi]

There is no contradiction between the two statements.

A voice is influenced by the harmonic and volumetric soundscape through which it passes. These are influences, not the primary determinate of the shape of the voice, which is determined also by a range of other factors (whether it's a restatement, or some form of development or alteration of a previous incarnation either of itself or another voice, or is a response to something in itself or another voice). It is the voice that is affected - the whole voice, the individual notes are then determined by their position in and in relation to that voice.

As I already explained, in an interrupted cadence, two of three harmonic notes are shared with the tonic. So it's impossible to know the harmony from a single voice. A lone voice usually implies a perfect cadence with no surprise, unless referenced to the root note of chord six in another part. Harmony is defined by interplay of voices on a vertical level, at a moment in time. Your two statements are mutually exclusive and only one can be true- so you have to decide which one you are going to choose. Either the execution of the part is influenced by harmony (which is read by looking at other voices vertically and not in a vacuum) or it is based purely on it's own logic. There's no compatibility, if you exclude external factors in such unequivocal choice of language. Harmony is not defined by a lone voice but by the combination. Your statement excludes that. It doesn't say it's a "lesser" factor but asserts that no such factor even exists. That's to say nothing of the fact that there are countless way to interpret and reflect surprise. If each part had it's own purely independent logic (which might or might not involve rhythmic freedom), it might not even arrive at the same time as others- especially when not containing the surprise note in the interrupted cadence. When a pause exists that all parts observe in the same way, they are unified vertically and not merely by horizontal movement alone. You can insist all you like that there's only a horizontal aspect but there's ALSO a vertical one- no matter how many people have drummed into you that the vertical is always a dirty thing.

There's absolutely and unequivocally no way for both of those statements to be true.

[nyiregyhazi]

Irrelevant to my discussion, you randomly throw in this comment for no reason. Why did you mention a digital piano without a "dynamic" effect? You merely talked about it then when you are shown how stupid it was to talk about that you evade discussing it again.
Wow Mr Obvious strikes again.
Generalistic rubbish
Yes why not throw in some names of academics just for the sake of it... oh yeah it makes you look smart doesn't it.
Mr Obvious is obvious.
Generalistic bs.
Quote someone else who used the term "Equal Attack" and defined what that random word means? You will find only yourself mentions it. lol
Good golly gosh you really don't have any point at all do you.
Wrong. You are saying this is true 100% of the time which it is not.
Oh a trick now... Yeah, everything you discuss and describe is an amazing technique, trick, secret ahahah.

I'm not interested unless you are talking on topic. Indulge in whatever off-topic personally directed hate speech you desire- but please direct it to my inbox, if it has no topical bearing. Your post adds nothing to the topic or to potential discussion.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm not interested unless you are talking on topic. Indulge in whatever off-topic personally directed hate speech you desire- but please direct it to my inbox, if it has no topical bearing. Your post adds nothing to the topic or to potential discussion.

I'm quoting your very words, I don't expect you to see how loosely you write with so many holes and talking past people.

[j_menz]

Either the execution of the part is influenced by harmony (which is read by looking at other voices vertically and not in a vacuum) or it is based purely on it's own logic. There's no compatibility, if you exclude external factors in such unequivocal choice of language. Harmony is not defined by a lone voice but by the combination. Your statement excludes that.

It's own logic includes it's relationship to other voices. In part that is an harmonic relationship (but only in part).

Your example of a cadence is telling as well, a cadence is a horizontal harmonic relationship, not a vertical one - a movement from one harmonic relationship to another. V -> I is a cadence, V on it's own is not.

[nyiregyhazi]

It's own logic includes it's relationship to other voices. In part that is an harmonic relationship (but only in part).

Your example of a cadence is telling as well, a cadence is a horizontal harmonic relationship, not a vertical one - a movement from one harmonic relationship to another. V -> I is a cadence, V on it's own is not.

The volume, and every other attribute, of each note at a single point is determined exclusively by its position in and in relation to the voice wherein it occurs. Nothing else is needed.

If this statement does not unequivocally exclude other voices from consideration, my eyes are seriously deceiving me. That is the logic of the whole- not the logic of the particular voice in which a perfectly ordinary note occurs (while another has a surprise turn).

And I'm not talking about the whole cadence. I'm talking about the exact moment of arrival on chord 6. This is a vertical moment- that is either landed together, due to all voices being unified to that which takes time for the surprise bass. Or it's not landed together due to the parts that seem to have a perfect cadence having charged ahead in stricter time, based on their own logic. (not that it takes anything away to consider the whole cadence horizontally too, given that I have never set up a polarised camp, like yourself. The parts will always approach it horizontally, but they must also be unified to the logic of the whole, in order to arrive together. You'll never hear me deny any of the horizontal aspects- but merely offer reminders of vertical AND horizontal in the whole. Changing the subject to a horizontal element only takes attention away from the vertical elements- it doesn't offer any objective substance by which to negate their objective existence or relevance to interpretation).

[j_menz]

If this statement does not unequivocally exclude other voices from consideration, my eyes are seriously deceiving me. That is the logic of the whole- not the logic of the particular voice in which a perfectly ordinary note occurs (while another has a surprise turn).

It is the voice that is affected by it's interrelationship with other voices. The note is determined by the voice.

And I'm not talking about the whole cadence. I'm talking about the exact moment of arrival on chord 6. This is a vertical moment- that is either landed together, due to all voices being unified to that which takes time for the surprise bass. Or it's not landed together due to the parts that seem to have a perfect cadence having charged ahead in stricter time, based on their own logic. (not that it takes anything away to consider the whole cadence horizontally too, given that I have never set up a polarised camp, like yourself. The parts will always approach it horizontally, but they must also be unified to the logic of the whole, in order to arrive together. You'll never hear me deny any of the horizontal aspects- but merely offer reminders of vertical AND horizontal in the whole. Changing the subject to a horizontal element only takes attention away from the vertical elements- it doesn't offer any objective substance by which to negate their objective existence or relevance to interpretation).

VI on it's own never happens in a meaningful way. It is always contextualised by what preceded it and what follows it.

You keep saying that you have never denied the horizontal, but every example you give is in relation to a purely vertical slice with no horizontal context whatsoever.  I have never denied that there are vertical relationships that affect the horizontal flow (the avoidance of dissonance in baroque works, for example), but I regard them as just one small part of the whole picture.

[nyiregyhazi]

It is the voice that is affected by it's interrelationship with other voices. The note is determined by the voice.

That is not even true in musical construction, never mind in interpretation- unless you reference to the others. As long as you refuse to see it from BOTH angles rather than merely as horizontal OR vertical, you will miss the big picture. As I stated before, intervals are often "corrected" to fit the harmonic backdrop. Bach sculpted voices to make sure they fit into a harmonic scheme. He did not simply allow horizontal movement to produce the harmonies that Webern's use of counterpoint might have done. Even the choice of notes is definably not based exclusively on the logic of that line alone. It's based on its association to other voices.

VI on it's own never happens in a meaningful way. It is always contextualised by what preceded it and what follows it.

A separate issue. You're just changing the subject.  You don't need to see a whole game of football to see whether the ball is in the goal in a given moment, or outside of it. The issue remains the same within the horizontal context or when brought to a single beat- ie that only the note that plays the root note in chord six has any inherent surprise to reflect. If the parts moved truly independently and that player reflected the surprise, the others with normal notes would not arrive at the same time. The fact that there are horizontal details are an irrelevance to this crux- which proves how strongly voices must be associated to each other (unless you play to a ticking metronome without fail). In the grand scheme of the music however, obviously it's a compromise between horizontal independence and the need to land chord 6 as one entity- rather than as a hotchpotch of differently timed voices. You cannot pretend that the truth of one thing negates the truth of another, within a complex whole.

You keep saying that you have never denied the horizontal, but every example you give is in relation to a purely vertical slice with no horizontal context whatsoever. 

That's because you're already arguing for that. Nobody denied it. You did, however deny the vertical- hence the need to prove that you are simply wrong to do so- and that the musical whole cannot be properly understood without reference to BOTH (a word I have capitalised over and over throughout).

I have never denied that there are vertical relationships that affect the horizontal flow (the avoidance of dissonance in baroque works, for example), but I regard them as just one small part of the whole picture.

Your statement that I quoted actually excluded them completely. Anyway, personally, I don't regard it as a small part of the big picture to both reflect harmonic issues in my interpretation and ensure that any freedoms of timing are properly coordinated. In a fugue, failure to land voices together really doesn't work (even though I'm happy to go out of sync in romantic styles). If the ordinary voices got their before the voice with a surprise in interrupted cadences, I wouldn't regard that as any small part of the picture.

Also, as I demonstrated via Fischer, vertical associations between levels of horizontal lines determines the duration of perceived horizontal value in long notes. Find me a player who projects the semibreves of that fugue to their end with such a melodic quality without subjugating the dynamics of the quavers to such an extent, if you deny my analysis of what he is doing. Again, as I've stated over and over, quality of horizontal lines depends on quality of vertical awareness. Not only do they affect the whole but they also have an effect on the quality of each other. For pianists who listen with their ears (rather than create some bizarre form of "listening" that is based on imagination of sounds, rather than observation of real ones) literally all listening exists vertically at a single moment in time. If you cannot hear relativity of dynamics vertically, neither can you assemble an accurate horizontal picture in your inner imagination. It's the only form of listening in which we really experience our true sound (rather than some fantasy about how we wished we sound)- when you listen in the moment.

[j_menz]

That is not even true in musical construction, never mind in interpretation- unless you reference to the others. As long as you refuse to see it from BOTH angles rather than merely as horizontal OR vertical, you will miss the big picture. As I stated before, intervals are often "corrected" to fit the harmonic backdrop. Bach sculpted voices to make sure they fit into a harmonic scheme. He did not simply allow horizontal movement to produce the harmonies that Webern's use of counterpoint might have done. Even the choice of notes is definably not based exclusively on the logic of that line alone. It's based on its association to other voices.

We are not talking about construction. That has been done. Bach, Webern or whoever has already made those decisions. Each voice is the result.
 

A separate issue. You're just changing the subject.  You don't need to see a whole game of football to see whether the ball is in the goal in a given moment, or outside of it. The issue remains the same within the horizontal context or when brought to a single beat- ie that only the note that plays the root note in chord six has any inherent surprise to reflect. If the parts moved truly independently and that player reflected the surprise, the others with normal notes would not arrive at the same time. The fact that there are horizontal details are an irrelevance to this crux- which proves how strongly voices must be associated to each other (unless you play to a ticking metronome without fail). In the grand scheme of the music however, obviously it's a compromise between horizontal independence and the need to land chord 6 as one entity- rather than as a hotchpotch of differently timed voices. You cannot pretend that the truth of one thing negates the truth of another, within a complex whole.

You appear to think that fugues are played once and that is it. Independent of any ability to anticipate a given point, in most cases one will have been there before. It's trodden over ground.

That's because you're already arguing for that. Nobody denied it. You did, however deny the vertical- hence the need to prove that you are simply wrong to do so- and that the musical whole cannot be properly understood without reference to BOTH (a word I have capitalised over and over throughout).

 I have never denied that vertical elements affect the "shape" (for want of a better embracing term) of voices. We may disagree on the extent of that affect, but I have repeatedly acknowledged that it is an influence. But what you are left with then is each voice, as shaped. And each such voice is what you then play. And how you play it is horizontally.

Your statement that I quoted actually excluded them completely. 

Only if you persist in misunderstanding it.

Also, as I demonstrated via Fischer, vertical associations between levels of horizontal lines determines the duration of perceived horizontal value in long notes. Find me a player who projects the semibreves of that fugue to their end with such a melodic quality without subjugating the dynamics of the quavers to such an extent, if you deny my analysis of what he is doing. Again, as I've stated over and over, quality of horizontal lines depends on quality of vertical awareness. Not only do they affect the whole but they also have an effect on the quality of each other. For pianists who listen with their ears (rather than create some bizarre form of "listening" that is based on imagination of sounds, rather than observation of real ones) literally all listening exists vertically at a single moment in time. If you cannot hear relativity of dynamics vertically, neither can you assemble an accurate horizontal picture in your inner imagination. It's the only form of listening in which we really experience our true sound (rather than some fantasy about how we wished we sound)- when you listen in the moment.

No, you asserted that in relation to Fischer. Fischer's ability to project and sustain tone was much admired, and that in relation to non-polyphonic works and against orchestral background as well. Your explanation of how he did it is pure speculation on your part.

On the listening in the moment - I fear it is you who are constructing an artificial listening. As I have said earlier, listening is contextual - influenced as much by what has preceded, what now is, what was expected and what is now expected. Only you here have argued against that, claiming a purer listening on the basis of "just in the moment" so that you are sure you are heard correctly. Let me let you in on a little secret - your audience is listening in the way I describe and if you want to make your intentions heard, you need to reflect that.

[nyiregyhazi]

We are not talking about construction. That has been done. Bach, Webern or whoever has already made those decisions. Each voice is the result.

And it doesn't matter whether we appreciate their consideration of a vertical issue, in defining the details? It literally proves that Bach often placed vertical logic over horizontal logic- beyond all reasonable doubt. You have no interest in understanding the process of creation and structure,as Bach performed it? I don't find that a remotely acceptable get out. What is so troubling to you about acknowledging two sides of a coin rather than stressing only one and either excluding or trying to downplay the importance of the other to as close as possible to zero? They are not contradictory, but complementary- so your whole premise for denial is completely fallacious. It's crazy to have to resort to a get-out argument that the compositional construction can be casually ignored, over the idea of looking at it from a balanced perspective that acknowledges interplay between horizontal and vertical at every step.
 

You appear to think that fugues are played once and that is it. Independent of any ability to anticipate a given point, in most cases one will have been there before. It's trodden over ground.

Experience does not negate the fact that the initial awareness of harmony is acquired from vertical awareness of parts in association- whether the pianist should later forget the source or not. Absent-mindedness as to how something was originally determined does not change the actual source.

But what you are left with then is each voice, as shaped. And each such voice is what you then play. And how you play it is horizontally.

Obviously. That's part of a whole that exists both horizontally and vertically- as I always stressed. If I ever suggested otherwise, by all means cite where.

Only if you persist in misunderstanding it.

It's not a misunderstanding. It's an illustration that if you make a statement that insists parts are not associated on a vertical level but only treated on their own merits, you have to accept the follow up to that- or adjust the statement to reflect the necessary issues that it had excluded from consideration.

No, you asserted that in relation to Fischer. Fischer's ability to project and sustain tone was much admired, and that in relation to non-polyphonic works and against orchestral background as well. Your explanation of how he did it is pure speculation on your part.

Then find me a pianist who achieves the same horizontal projection of long notes without the same vertical differentiation. I'll cite Gilels in Bach Siloti as another player who most audibly achieves that level of rare horizontal sustain through a long note by audibly severe differentiation between dynamic levels. If you know other players who can sing through the full length of a long note like that, without doing the notable differentiation as I describe, present the recordings as a counterexample to my description and prove otherwise. I've studied this extensively in my own playing and among great artists. There's no possibility of achieving maximal horizontal sustain without use of extreme vertical differentiation, throughout the full horizontal duration of the note. As soon as one note overloads the vertical texture, the ear stops perceiving the sustain of the long note. I challenge you to find me a counter-example.

On the listening in the moment - I fear it is you who are constructing an artificial listening. As I have said earlier, listening is contextual - influenced as much by what has preceded, what now is, what was expected and what is now expected.

See my former post on this issue. If you listen in the moment, without trying to "listen" to sounds that are not currently being made, you will get a clearer picture of your actual sound, that is less distorted by fantasy. I don't want something that is not real to cloud my listening, but instead base it on past and present. The future is determined by what I am hearing in the split second before a note. Only the context of the present in the split second before gives an accurate context of what the listener will be hearing as context. I don't care to guess at what that context MIGHT sounds like in advance of getting to it, but prefer to observe the real thing as it happens and adapt to whatever that balance actually sounds like.

Only you here have argued against that, claiming a purer listening on the basis of "just in the moment" so that you are sure you are heard correctly. Let me let you in on a little secret - your audience is listening in the way I describe and if you want to make your intentions heard, you need to reflect that.

Not true. Your own subjective expectations will not be heard by them and indeed cannot UNLESS they are reflected in your actual sound. In my opinion, the more you are bogged down in imagining the future prematurely, the less attention you will pay to your present sound and the less effectively you will match following sounds to it.

I'll never forget the time I heard a guy recite the old dogma about how all of technique is in the "ear" and then heard a concert. He had one of the ugliest most poorly differentiated and percussive sounds I ever heard. What he was hearing was doubtless wonderful- but he wasn't hearing his actual sound but only the one in his head. As an audience member, I heard how the piano actually sounded and it really wasn't pretty.

[j_menz]

And it doesn't matter whether we appreciate their consideration of a vertical issue, in defining the details? 

Ultimately, no. It may be interesting in understanding why a note is what it is, but it ultimately doesn't affect the fact that it now is that and has to be dealt with as such.


 

Experience does not negate the fact that the initial awareness of harmony is acquired from vertical awareness of parts in association- whether the pianist should later forget the source or not. Absent-mindedness as to how something was originally determined does not change the actual source.

But we move past that initial awareness - not absentmindedly forget it - and place that momentary harmony into a sequence of harmonies within which each voice has and takes it's part.

if you make a statement that insists parts are not associated on a vertical level but only treated on their own merits

I have not said that. But where you say parts, you mean notes (the voice in the moment), and I mean lines (the voice in motion).

Then find me a pianist who achieves the same horizontal projection of long notes without the same vertical differentiation. I'll cite Gilels in Bach Siloti as another player who most audibly achieves that level of rare horizontal sustain through a long note by audibly severe differentiation between dynamic levels. If you know other players who can sing through the full length of a long note like that, without doing the notable differentiation as I describe, present the recordings as a counterexample to my description and prove otherwise. I've studied this extensively in my own playing and among great artists. There's no possibility of achieving maximal horizontal sustain without use of extreme vertical differentiation, throughout the full horizontal duration of the note. As soon as one note overloads the vertical texture, the ear stops perceiving the sustain of the long note. I challenge you to find me a counter-example.

Post a YT of the Gilels you mean. I'm not familiar with his recordings of the Siloti transcriptions, and wouldn't want to guess at which transcription you mean anyway. I try not to comment on matters before hearing the evidence presented.

With that caveat, though, and as a generalisation, I'd also say that a note only overwhelms the vertical texture if all you are considering is the vertical moment. It doesn't necessarily overwhelm the horizontal texture, and that informs the vertical, even to the extent of creating an auditory illusion.

If you listen in the moment, without trying to "listen" to sounds that are not currently being made, you will get a clearer picture of your actual sound, that is less distorted by fantasy.

I'm not arguing that some pianists clearly have no idea of what they actually sound like. But there is no objective standard either - a note, and a sequence of notes, is heard subjectively. If your listener has a "fantasy" that distorts their hearing, you need to be aware of it so that what you wish to be heard is in fact what is heard. Indeed, manipulation of that fantasy is part of the art.

[j_menz]

BTW, if you mean the Bm Prelude:

(worth listening to anyway, btw)

[nyiregyhazi]

Ultimately, no. It may be interesting in understanding why a note is what it is, but it ultimately doesn't affect the fact that it now is that and has to be dealt with as such.

How far does this go? We should just play the notes, without having the first clue about what was going through the composer's head when he put them together? And that's supposed to be a more musically noble attitude than that outrageous one in which a pianist dares to see horizontally AND vertically- enabling ongoing appreciation of harmony from the manner in which it organically arises, as opposed to mere memorisation of a chord sequence?


 

But we move past that initial awareness - not absentmindedly forget it - and place that momentary harmony into a sequence of harmonies within which each voice has and takes it's part.

Still makes no sense, conceptually. So, you memorise a chord sequence and then stop processing vertical issues altogether? That's just a nonsense still, sorry. A good pianist carries on observing and FEELING the harmony, from how the voices produce it on a vertical level. They don't memorise a chord sequence like a jazz pianist and then refrain from paying any vertical attention altogether- out of some ridiculous dogma that falsely paints any degree of vertical awareness (within a grand scheme of awareness that obviously involves horizontal awareness) as a negative.

Post a YT of the Gilels you mean. I'm not familiar with his recordings of the Siloti transcriptions, and wouldn't want to guess at which transcription you mean anyway. I try not to comment on matters before hearing the evidence presented.

With that caveat, though, and as a generalisation, I'd also say that a note only overwhelms the vertical texture if all you are considering is the vertical moment. It doesn't necessarily overwhelm the horizontal texture, and that informs the vertical, even to the extent of creating an auditory illusion.

There's only one Bach Siloti that Gilels recorded:

Note the projection of the D at 2.29 and the Bs just before the end. You cannot do that without vertical awareness of hierarchy. The most intense melody notes are matched with LESS accompaniment and not more- or they simply don't register like that. Gilels varies the accompaniment and sometimes allows it to draw more attention. However, the awareness of length is always at its greatest when he keeps the competing notes within a small dynamic sphere. Although he is not significantly limited by the concept, his really remarkable moments of horizontal projection take it to the extreme. Elsewhere he merely keeps it in in check enough not to overpower. Pianists who do not continue to listen to the vertical heirarchy throughout the whole horizontal duration of the note cannot emulate that. Horziontal and vertical are one in this issue- not something that can be separated.  

The recording you posted is accomplished enough but very lumpy by comparison and not terribly melodic. Nowhere near that ongoing horizontal intensity that Fischer and Gilels can coax out of a long note. I really don't like the way he brings out the thumb at the expense of the actual melody line- which is a classic example of a performer missing the extent to which overloading the vertical hierarchy kills the horizontal projection of a melodic line. To be perfectly honest, he doesn't appear to actually have noticed where the primary melodic line is marked (when it switches from left hand to right hand)- given that he does the same overloading of the melody on the first time and repeat. However, it's still a manifestation of how poor vertical use of tonal hierarchy kills the horizontal duration of long melodic notes. The places where his melodic notes do resonate through horizontally are those where he stops banging his competing left hand thumb and plays the semiquavers softly- in a vertically proportioned hierarchy.

I don't believe that a listener should EVER be required to do the performers work for him. Listeners should just listen. I know that the semiquaver line resolves on the D sharp at the end of that piece. However, that doesn't make me forgive that young pianist for failing to bring it out of the last chord- unlike Gilels, who projects it through the vertical texture, as a horizontally important completion of that line. Gilels does his job, but the young performer merely plays a singular chunk of undifferentiated sound, without reflecting horizontal context of lines in the execution of vertical voicing. I'm sure he knows that the D sharp is the completion of the line. But because he failed to delineate from the vertical texture, no listener will hear that horizontal completion (including myself, who obviously knows full well about it- but these shouldn't be merely for those who know the piece, but for any listener).A pianist who requires the listener to listen in a certain way to hear a musical result is not doing his job as a musician. Gilels and Fischer can MAKE you hear the horizontal length of a sustained note, by the vertical balancing. They don't grumble something to the audience about how it's supposedly their fault for listening vertically instead of horizontally. If a pianist wishes the listener to hear a voice horizontally, they must delineate it from any competing note at the time of of it's arrival, via a vertical heirarchy. And they must be capable of doing that on an ongoing basis. They have no business whatsoever complaining about how a listener listens if they only manage on that with 1 out of 4 notes of a subject. A note or two can sometimes be implied by horizontal context, but the performer has to man up enough to accept responsibility for bringing most of them out for real, off their own bat. Equally, they have no business expecting the listener to listen through long notes if they are unable to subdue the competition. How far do you propose to take this? If I hear a pianist punch out every note of a melody choppily, should I listen more "horizontally" and do their work by imagining a fluid legato based on better horizontal relationships? I'll listen to someone else who does their job, thanks.  Singers don't decrescendo on every note and nobody would listen to one who does. To emulate that successfully, you have to first master vertical hierarchy throughout a note's full duration, in order to create the illusion that the note sings right through.

I'm not arguing that some pianists clearly have no idea of what they actually sound like. But there is no objective standard either - a note, and a sequence of notes, is heard subjectively. If your listener has a "fantasy" that distorts their hearing, you need to be aware of it so that what you wish to be heard is in fact what is heard. Indeed, manipulation of that fantasy is part of the art.

? You take a straw poll of an audience of 500 and then play to their individual subjectivities? I think not. I think it's just a little simpler to do everything you can to observe your actual sound- rather than keep getting lost in trying to imagine details that you ought to be listening to instead. Only the broad scheme can be done in the imagination. Sensitive playing adapts to the sound of the moment. Subjective issues aside, the closer you observe your sound by listening instead of imagining, the closer you will be to hearing the sound that the audience is hearing.

[brogers70]

How far does this go? We should just play the notes, without having the first clue about what was going through the composer's head when he put them together? ......

I don't believe that a listener should EVER be required to do the performers work for him. ........ How far do you propose to take this? If I hear a pianist punch out every note of a melody choppily, should I listen more "horizontally" and do their work by imagining a fluid legato based on better horizontal relationships? I'll listen to someone else who does their job, thanks.  Singers don't decrescendo on every note and nobody would listen to one who does. To emulate that successfully, you have to first master vertical hierarchy throughout a note's full duration, in order to create the illusion that the note sings right through.


? You take a straw poll of an audience of 500 and then play to their individual subjectivities? I think not.

My impression from reading many posts by j_menz is that he is very far from an idiot. A reading of his posts which presumes he is indeed an idiot seems to me to be a pretty inaccurate and tendentious reading.

[nyiregyhazi]

My impression from reading many posts by j_menz is that he is very far from an idiot. A reading of his posts which presumes he is indeed an idiot seems to me to be a pretty inaccurate and tendentious reading.

I didn't call anyone an idiot- so please don't feed words into my mouth. However, I certainly am baffled by the increasingly bizarre nature of the arguments that he now turns to- rather than stop to ask objective questions of a belief system that fails to acknowledge that there is more than side to a coin. There is a wealth of stuff that cannot be accounted for without intensive vertical awareness, in the big picture. I urge him to come up with a recording that illustrates the utmost horizontal projection through the full length of a long note, without the same vertical differentiation utilised by Gilels and Fischer- if he really is so unwilling to appreciate how the two aspects are totally interdependent variables (where neglect of either serves to the detriment of the other).

Just because something is not on somebody's personal radar, it does not give the right to dismiss it off-hand and exclude its validity. That's why I've taken the time to provide examples that illustrate how dependent horizontal aspects are on vertical awareness. If these are under dispute, I await proper counterexamples- of pianists who can employ comparable horizontal melodic sustain without an audibly pronounced vertical hierarchy to keep following notes taking all the attention from the sustain.

[j_menz]

How far does this go? We should just play the notes, without having the first clue about what was going through the composer's head when he put them together?

What's going through the composer's head may be no more than "avoid dissonances".

Still makes no sense, conceptually. So, you memorise a chord sequence and then stop processing vertical issues altogether?

It's NOT A CHORD SEQUENCE. It's two or more horizontal lines that have a harmonic relationship to one another.

There's only one Bach Siloti that Gilels recorded:

Note the projection of the D at 2.29 and the Bs just before the end. You cannot do that without vertical awareness of hierarchy. The most intense melody notes are matched with LESS accompaniment and not more- or they simply don't register like that.

The bass line is nice. The treble line is compromised.

You speak of "melody" and "accompaniment". It's not. It's two melodies.

I generally like Gilels, but I can see why he didn't do more. Not his best work.

I don't believe that a listener should EVER be required to do the performers work for him. Listeners should just listen.

You have a very low opinion of your listeners if you do not think they bring some intelligence to the task. They are active listeners, not passive sponges.

[nyiregyhazi]

What's going through the composer's head may be no more than "avoid dissonances".

So, he settled for swapping it to any old harmony that wasn't dissonant? That's the opinion in which you hold Bach's compositional decisions? You'd sooner paint a picture of him as a sloppy fool to protect your predetermined one-sided opinion, than consider adjusting it,  in order to reflect the evident significance that these procedures point to regarding vertical issues?

It's NOT A CHORD SEQUENCE. It's two or more horizontal lines that have a harmonic relationship to one another.

#

False polarisation. It IS also a harmonic sequence. For you to make a selective point of view does not change the objective issue under discussion. If you were interested in the construction issues that you openly pronounce desire to be ignorant of, you'd know that it's common place for composers to have a picture of harmonic structure BEFORE working out all the details for parts. Your personal viewpoint cannot change such objective facts or make them appear to be false. You're like the proverbial blind man insisting the elephant is a snake, here, because he's only feeling the trunk. But refusing to see the whole picture does not alter it.

The bass line is nice. The treble line is compromised.

? Please expand on this. In what way?

You speak of "melody" and "accompaniment". It's not. It's two melodies.

Not here. This is an arrangement. The first time Gilels subdues the melodic line and the second time he sudues the semiquavers to a role of accompaniment. That is the tradition in which Siloti played his arrangement.

I generally like Gilels, but I can see why he didn't do more. Not his best work.

Fine, if you don't like it we'll stick to Fischer's straighter version of the same manner of tonal differentiation in original Bach, as an example. but you still need to direct me to a recording where the same sense of horizontal sustain is achieved through the full duration of a long note of the primary voice- despite competing parts. If horizontal movement is best achieved without reference to vertical hierarchy, show me an example of a pianist who can keep the attention of a listener who does not know the score, throughout the full duration of a long note. Fischer's voicing shows the listener how the line proceeds horizontally. Loud quavers negate that effect and leave it down to the listener to have memorised the piece for himself, to see what is going on horizontally. And as Fischer, demonstrates, playing the quavers at a lower dynamic level does not preclude them from being played with their own logical horizontal phrasing. When you appreciate horizontal and vertical, you can separate two voices in order to make them audible, without having to lose their internal logic as musical lines. When you don't reference them, however, you only get the horizontal logic of the voice which contains shorter notes, while the other voice is lost to the ear that does not already know to listen for it.

You have a very low opinion of your listeners if you do not think they bring some intelligence to the task. They are active listeners, not passive sponges.

No, I have a very low opinion of performers who expect audience members to know the works inside out already, or to have such good hearing that they hear all voices, regardless of differentiation and delineation. If I have no interest in a performer who leaves the interpretation and awareness of the voices down to my experience, I don't see why an average concert goer should have to attempt to listen that way.

[ajspiano]

No, I have a very low opinion of performers who expect audience members to know the works inside out already, or to have such good hearing that they hear all voices, regardless of differentiation and delineation. If I have no interest in a performer who leaves the interpretation and awareness of the voices down to my experience, I don't see why an average concert goer should have to attempt to listen that way.

Not that I think the music can't be enjoyed as a listener without understanding the voices, or it shouldn't be performed in such a way to make that most possible..

But realistically, if I don't listen with an experienced ear - that would be tantamount to me (as an english only speaker) going to a play in french - its not up to the actors to translate..  I can still enjoy the performance, but its not the actors fault that I will only partly understand the performance.

...

Its not a listeners responsibility to know or have that capability, but its in their interest to if they really want to enjoy the music.

[nyiregyhazi]

Not that I think the music can't be enjoyed as a listener without understanding the voices, or it shouldn't be performed in such a way to make that most possible..

But realistically, if I don't listen with an experienced ear - that would be tantamount to me (as an english only speaker) going to a play in french - its not up to the actors to translate..  I can still enjoy the performance, but its not the actors fault that I will only partly understand the performance.

The analogy I'd choose myself is one where extras are shouting out insignificant lines so loudly that you cannot hear half of what the lead characters are saying, when there's an important plot turn. Or actors mumbling occasional syllables of their lines, rather than enunciating them. A pianist may or may not make the music easier to understand. However, if they fail to delineate voices to the listener, you may as well be listening to a MIDI version with no programmed dynamics. Due to the single timbre of piano, nobody could tell which voice is which without a score and neither could they perceive subjects. It's outrageous to suggest that listeners have the responsibility for these issues, over the performer.

Did you hear Fischer play that C sharp minor Fugue? Anyone can hear where those beautifully voiced long notes are headed to.

[ajspiano]

So, he settled for swapping it to any old harmony that wasn't dissonant? That's the opinion in which you hold Bach's compositional decisions? You'd sooner paint a picture of him as a sloppy fool to protect your predetermined one-sided opinion, than consider adjusting it,  in order to reflect the evident significance that these procedures point to regarding vertical issues?

I don't think "any old harmony" is a valid way to describe what j_menz is saying. You sure as hell don't consciously qualify the vertical relationships between notes in real time when improvising this kind of thing, they go off on their own, and when you hear dissonance you resolve it by taking some horizontal motion in a certain voice to create a vertical harmony.. its a vertical relationship but its not thought about vertically.

Experience dictates better choices based on sound, its not a mechanically decided on vertical analysis. And the chord progressions may come first when learning to do it, but they don't in free improv/composition... the cadences etc can appear naturally as a result of the melodic choices as much as you may choice one and then fit a melodic line to it.

Obviously we do vertical analysis when teaching/learning to write counterpoint, but I don't agree that its thought about in that way once the person has reached the right degree of competency.

........

However, if they fail to delineate voices to the listener, you may as well be listening to a MIDI version with no programmed dynamics. Due to the single timbre of piano, nobody could tell which voice is which without a score and neither could they perceive subjects.

I'm not sure the acting analogy is really that compatible to be honest - but in anycase I'm not disagreeing that there is a vertical concern. I only argue that in performance its not really thought about vertically in real time, because for me the harmonious vertical relationships are created as a side effect of horizontal choices that lead to them.

Did you hear Fischer play that C sharp minor Fugue? Anyone can hear where those beautifully voiced long notes are headed to.

No I haven't I'll have to go back and find the link. My apologies, I really should just randomly comment without reading the full context.

[j_menz]

So, he settled for swapping it to any old harmony that wasn't dissonant? That's the opinion in which you hold Bach's compositional decisions? You'd sooner paint a picture of him as a sloppy fool to protect your predetermined one-sided opinion, than consider adjusting it,  in order to reflect the evident significance that these procedures point to regarding vertical issues?

A voice may be predetermined by it's nature - an inversion of a subject, for example. The composer's choice to do this at a particular point is part of getting into the composer's head. One consequence of a straight inversion, however, may be that at a particular point it's harmonic relationship to another voice is dissonant. The composer then decides to avoid the dissonance by moving the voice to a consonant note. Hardly the work of a sloppy fool, but not different to how I have been saying it works either.

? Please expand on this. In what way?

Not here. This is an arrangement. The first time Gilels subdues the melodic line and the second time he sudues the semiquavers to a role of accompaniment. That is the tradition in which Siloti played his arrangement.

So you are saying the work is not polyphonic at all now? How then is it relevant?

Personally, I see it as polyphonic, so what Gilels does to the treble in weakening the note at the start of each bar to accommodate the bass is unwarranted, unneccessary and misses the point of the exercise.

"In the tradition in which Siloti played" is a claim you are going to have to substantiate with a recording, or a contemporary good reference. I find it difficult to believe he played it in the manner you suggest, particularly when he didn't write it in that way.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think "any old harmony" is a valid way to describe what j_menz is saying. You sure as hell don't consciously qualify the vertical relationships between notes in real time when improvising this kind of thing, they go off on their own, and when you hear dissonance you resolve it by taking some horizontal motion in a certain voice to create a vertical harmony.. its a vertical relationship but its not thought about vertically.

The instincts stem from a background in vertical awareness though. Over and over, the parts unify onto a chord. In many cases, it's actually more true to describe some of the parts as an elaboration around harmonic arrivals, than it is to see them as independently construed lines. They are not independent at all- because they keep landing on standard harmonic notes- and I hardly think it can be interpreted as coincidence if 3 or 4 parts repeatedly happen to land on harmonic references over and over. True independence would produce a far lower percentage of harmonic arrivals and a far greater level of dissonance than typically encountered. A good improviser may be capable of forgetting the foundations they have, but those harmonic foundations and points of reference are sure as hell there.

And the chord progressions may come first when learning to do it, but they don't in free improv/composition... the cadences etc can appear naturally as a result of the melodic choices as much as you may choice one and then fit a melodic line to it.

Do you also gravitate to parallel fifths, or to Scriabinesque harmony? I'm quite happy to see it from both ends to an extent, but it's no coincidence that the voices seem to produce typical perfect cadences off their own movement- whereas they never produce bizarre harmonies. It's no coincidence that if one part modulates to a new key, the others tend to meet it there.

Obviously we do vertical analysis when teaching/learning to write counterpoint, but I don't agree that its thought about in that way once the person has reached the right degree of competency.

It depends what level of mastery exists in the person, before they decide to forget about it.

I'm not sure the acting analogy is really that compatible to be honest - but in anycase I'm not disagreeing that there is a vertical concern. I only argue that in performance its not really thought about vertically in real time, because for me the harmonious vertical relationships are created as a side effect of horizontal choices that lead to them

.

I wouldn't go so far as that. Consider if one part accidentally fluffs a note. Without vertical references, recovery is highly unlikely- as there's no horizontal context any more. The more evolved the less you might need to actively be aware of vertical issues, but you have to really know the first. They're not gone so much as second nature. But in students I see lack of awareness of proper mental reference points all the time. Even among grade 1 two part counterpoint, kids can play hands separate fine yet make errors of alignment together. It's because they have two horizontal flows that function fine, but exist without vertical references. Good sightreaders need to be intensely aware of vertical meetings, in order to be good sightreaders. Again in sightreading, I constantly see students miss an entry- because they were so caught up in reading one hand horizontally that they failed to set a clear vertical point for the arrival of the other part. I'm happy for attention to be shifted once mastery exists, but I think a lot of problems occur due to failures to appreciate the vertical aspects.

[nyiregyhazi]

So you are saying the work is not polyphonic at all now? How then is it relevant?

Indeed, the right hand part is actually just one voice in the original, with the thumb projected in the arrangement to imply an additional line. The relevance is how it makes a listener hear horizontal sustain of long notes- rather than merely the vertical arrival point followed by other notes drawing all the attention due to their volume of attack. Fischer uses the same fundamental technique to making long notes project to the listener for the full length in traditional Bach. Where's your counterexample, if my analysis of how vertical balance contributes to horizontal sustain is bogus? It's one thing to be suspicious that a trend is more than broadly accurate, but when you deny something as a truth outright, it really shouldn't be hard to find and present counterexamples. If there's a pianist singing through the full length of notes without using a vertical hierarchy of tonal intensity to keep it at the forefront, present it. I've explored these issues for years, listening to my own playing and recordings. I've never encountered an example of long notes sounding melodically relevant to their very end without this device. It kills the horizontal line without it.

"In the tradition in which Siloti played" is a claim you are going to have to substantiate with a recording, or a contemporary good reference. I find it difficult to believe he played it in the manner you suggest, particularly when he didn't write it in that way.

See the large volume of his works (some American publisher?). The footnote describes the tradition as passed on to his daughter. This score actually marks the repeat and describes the tradition of different dynamics, unlike another version I've seen online.

[j_menz]

The relevance is how it makes a listener hear horizontal sustain of long notes- rather than merely the vertical arrival point followed by other notes drawing all the attention due to their volume of attack.

Odd then that Bach expected the same sustain to be heard on a harpsichord. I personally don't hear Fischer doing what you suggest in the C#m P&F. I do hear the sustain, but not the compromise in the other voices. You make a note heard if you make the line heard. The brain is even  quite keen to fill it in if the line is strong enough. 

See the large volume of his works (some American publisher?).

It's actually Dover. I have it. I'll check.

[nyiregyhazi]

Odd then that Bach expected the same sustain to be heard on a harpsichord. I personally don't hear Fischer doing what you suggest in the C#m P&F. I do hear the sustain, but not the compromise in the other voices. You make a note heard if you make the line heard. The brain is even  quite keen to fill it in if the line is strong enough.  

It's actually Dover. I have it. I'll check.

No, you make the line heard if you keep a long note heard by reducing competition. Nobody said the listener should hear compromise. It's just an objective fact that Fischer never plays the shorter notes as loudly, when he's projecting. If you deny it, find me ANY example of someone who projects long notes past busily competing voices. You describe the inverse of the accurate logical progression in your chain. A line is heard if it's notes are heard with relatively similar timbre to each other. Skip just a couple, or let the sound of a long note flag, and the listener takes their attention elsewhere. The brain does not fill in long notes that have too much competition because competing notes both have more distinctive timbre to a sustained sound and are louder than the horizontal leftover. The unbiased ear goes to that which is louder, unless you already know that you're supposed to be listening to a the fading note. I don't see giving different voices different dynamic intensities as a "compromise".

My Siloti is not a Dover edition, btw.

PS Organs sustain. If Bach wasn't imagining sustain, he woudln't have bothered writing long notes but would have written rests. On the piano we can realise his instruction, where the harpsichord could not.

[j_menz]

It's just an objective fact that Fischer never plays the shorter notes as loudly, when he's projecting. If you deny it, find me ANY example of someone who projects long notes past busily competing voices.

It's not an objective fact at all. I simply don;t see Fischer doing that, and I would cite him as an exxcellent example of "someone who projects long notes past busily competing voices".

My Siloti is not a Dover edition, btw.

Can you be more specific, then? The Dover may be a reprint of the same, or we may be looking at different books entirely. It would be useful to know which is the case.

PS Organs sustain. If Bach wasn't imagining sustain, he woudln't have bothered writing long notes but would have written rests. On the piano we can realise his instruction, where the harpsichord could not.

I would not presume to think that Bach, who wrote for a range of instruments, was not aware of which he was writing for.

[nyiregyhazi]

It's not an objective fact at all. I simply don;t see Fischer doing that, and I would cite him as an exxcellent example of "someone who projects long notes past busily competing voices".

Then make a recording of yourself doing the same for a couple of bars of the fugue, without significant vertical differentiations. Show that the voices can be played dynamically equal yet still get long notes to prolong horizontally like that. It won't happen. You can imagine it, but an impartial listener won't hear the same effect of horizontal sustain. The illusion depends on bringing back the competition, without making it sound "empty".

Can you be more specific, then? The Dover may be a reprint of the same, or we may be looking at different books entirely. It would be useful to know which is the case.

I don't have it to hand, but it's not Dover. They also published many Godowsky volumes.

I would not presume to think that Bach, who wrote for a range of instruments, was not aware of which he was writing for.

I didn't suggest he didn't know what he writing for. I said he wrote long notes- that the instrument cannot do. If they were not supposed to be long and were being written specifically to fit the harpsichord, he wouldn't have written them long at all. He would have replaced their duration with rests. As everyone always says, all of Bach's music relates to the voice- not simply to the instrument it was to be played on.

[j_menz]

Then make a recording of yourself doing the same for a couple of bars of the fugue, without significant vertical differentiations. Show that the voices can be played dynamically equal yet still get long notes to prolong horizontally like that. It won't happen. You can imagine it, but an impartial listener won't hear the same effect of horizontal sustain. The illusion depends on bringing back the competition, without making it sound "empty".

How does my ability, or lack of ability, to produce notes as Fischer was renowned for doing prove anything? I am not arguing that he doesn't produce the effect, merely that he doesn't do it by the means you insist.

I don't have it to hand, but it's not Dover. They also published many Godowsky volumes.

Hmm.. quick search shows mine to actually be Carl Fischer, who also does the Godowski Collections, so we are at least using the same text. Not sure why I thought it was Dover.

Excellent book, btw, and one I'd highly recommend people have on their shelves - if anyone is still reading.

[nyiregyhazi]

How does my ability, or lack of ability, to produce notes as Fischer was renowned for doing prove anything? I am not arguing that he doesn't produce the effect, merely that he doesn't do it by the means you insist.

Then point me to someone else who does. Why would it be so hard? I've listened extensively to other pianists and experimented extensively with these effects myself. I've never heard it done, without either TRYING to hear the full duration of the long note (which you cannot assume of an unbiased listener who does not have a score, and which Fischer himself does not require from the listener) or by setting a significantly lower level for competing voices. Also, it was no less a pianist than Jorge Bolet who stated that the secret to bringing notes out of the texture is not to play them louder, but to play other parts softer. And it was Schnabel who said play long notes louder and short notes quieter. If you feel you can do it without that aspect, you need to show us. Or point us to someone who can. Otherwise there's simply no evident basis upon which to be asserting that an equivalent sense of sustain can be achieved without this aspect- minus any evidence of a situation where that occurs.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think you're forgetting that we have no control over actual sustain of a long note, on a horizontal basis. All we can do is strike and hold. Given that you acknowledge the sense of sustain and length- how and why would Fischer be able to literally make his notes last longer than others? What rational explanation do you propose- if not the mundane fact that the ears better perceive the sustain that does exist, when nothing is taking significant attention from it with louder attacks? If not that, is it simply because he plays the long notes louder and earns sustain from that? So, if relativity doesn't matter, what if I play everything loud? That will still sound sustained, like Fischer melody notes? Really? Where is the example of a pianist doing this and creating a sense of horizontal length? And does this mean that Fischer must have been one of the loudest pianists of all time- if the sustain stems not from relativivity but from absolute volume? If not, what factor explains his sound and the fact that other pianists do not get it? The subjectivity of our hearing is based on relative proportions of dynamic levels- not simply on perceiving all sounds equally. At least, not unless you're one of those geniuses who can instantly hear every note in any 8 note chord. Mortals are influenced more by timbre than by a vivid mental awareness of all sounds that are produced.

[j_menz]

I think you're forgetting that we have no control over actual sustain of a long note, on a horizontal basis. All we can do is strike and hold. Given that you acknowledge the sense of sustain and length- how and why would Fischer be able to literally make his notes last longer than others? What rational explanation do you propose- if not the fact that the mundane fact that the ears better perceive the sustain that does exist, when nothing is taking significant attention from it with loud attacks? If not that, is it simply because he plays the long notes louder and earns sustain from that? So, if relativity doesn't matter, what if I play everything loud? That will still sound sustained, like Fischer melody notes? Really? Where is the example of a pianist doing this and creating a sense of horizontal length? And does this mean that Fischer must have been one of the loudest pianists of all time- if the sustain stems not from relativivity but from absolute volume? If not, what factor explains his sound and the fact that other pianists do not get it? The subjectivity of our hearing is based on relative proportions of dynamic levels- not simply on perceiving all sounds equally. At least, not unless you're one of those geniuses who can instantly hear every note in any 8 note chord. Mortals are influenced more by timbre than by a vivid mental awareness of all sounds that are produced.

Both this and your previous post amply demonstrate that you have so taught yourself to listen in the vertical moment, that you hear only the instant, and each instant as such.

Hearing every note in a chord is not the same as hearing every voice in polyphony. Voices are not static. They have movement, direction. And if you can't hear them, you're not able to listen properly to polyphony. I give most listeners more credit than you do, but if a listener is not able to perceive what is going on, the answer is not to "dumb it down" for them.

And in any case, your method works for one voice, how would you apply it to bringing out five voices which, at a moment, are equally important?

This is not an example of what you asked for, but can you say that the voices are not equally clear?

[outin]

Excellent book, btw, and one I'd highly recommend people have on their shelves - if anyone is still reading.

How could we not...such an interesting subject 

[j_menz]

How could we not...such an interesting subject  

Don't allow this discussion to colour your view of Siloti. He was a pupil of Liszt, later a friend and editor. He was also a friend of Tchaikovsky. His views on music were very highly regarded. Indeed, Liszt gave him free reign to "correct" his scores for publication, saying "Siloti is always right". His arrangements reflect a deep understanding of what he is doing, and shed great light on the originals. Not even mainly Bach. Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Liadov, Scriabin, Tchaikovsky and many others.

[outin]

Don't allow this discussion to colour your view of Siloti. He was a pupil of Liszt, later a friend and editor. He was also a friend of Tchaikovsky. His views on music were very highly regarded. Indeed, Liszt gave him free reign to "correct" his scores for publication, saying "Siloti is always right". His arrangements reflect a deep understanding of what he is doing, and shed great light on the originals. Not even mainly Bach. Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Liadov, Scriabin, Tchaikovsky and many others.

Did he write any original works? Never heard or seen any...

[j_menz]

Did he write any original works? Never heard or seen any...

None that I am aware of. Odd, really.

[nyiregyhazi]

Both this and your previous post amply demonstrate that you have so taught yourself to listen in the vertical moment, that you hear only the instant, and each instant as such.

Hearing every note in a chord is not the same as hearing every voice in polyphony. Voices are not static. They have movement, direction. And if you can't hear them, you're not able to listen properly to polyphony. I give most listeners more credit than you do, but if a listener is not able to perceive what is going on, the answer is not to "dumb it down" for them.

And in any case, your method works for one voice, how would you apply it to bringing out five voices which, at a moment, are equally important?

This is not an example of what you asked for, but can you say that the voices are not equally clear?

changing the subject again? I'm more interested in a credible theory that can explain Fischer's prolongation of tone than in arguing the absurd notion that listeners are supposed to use their imagination as a replacement for the performer's ability.


horizontal movement is what the brain assembles from hearing vertical differentiation over a continuous period of time. Without that vertical differentiation, voices get confused with each other- as they have no unique timbre for the ear to separate them. would you like to explain the logic behind your assertion that simply because I notice this element, my brain therefore fails to make that assembly out of it? all I can see is yet another false polarisation- that anyone who might hear vertically obviously can't hear horizontally too. particularly given that it's the sheer sense of horionzontal prolongation that impresses me so about Fischer long notes, you're missing the point. Even when I had been directing conscious attention to other significant voices, I could not fail to hear that horizontal prolongation of tone through the primary subject. likewise, all the knowledge in the world about where the semi quavers end to complete the Bach Siloti did not make me satisfied when the young pianist failed to connect it up to the final D sharp- instead ending a line nowhere and ending with a clump that had lost all horizontal context. my awareness left me disappointed by his failure to complete the line, not imagining that he had. a listener who doesn't know the work could not possibly have realised how the voices moved and someone who do did will notice a hole in the horizontal progression. So how did I notice that if I listen vertically and only vertically? perhaps, because like all horizontal listeners, my brain can only assemble the horizontal picture from hearing that exists in the present- illustrating that vertical hearing is literally a prequisite for any possibility of horizontal hearing?


the fact that I flat out refuse to do the work for performers who fail to differentiate between voices (by using my imagination of what they have failed to do) has nothing to do with with whether I listen vertically or not. It has to do with whether the pianist succeeds in drawing my attention to prolongation of a note and whether he actively takes my attention away from it with too many vertical attacks.


you can speculate all you like, but what you need to provide is an example of a pianist who makes long notes heard on a horizontal level to an unbiased listener. otherwise there's nothing to be debated. you're denying one credible and rational explanation and putting neither a counterexample nor an alternative theory on the table.  Telling me that I'm listening wrong, is totally missing the point. how far do you want that to go? you can get a MIDI recording and make the same argument. it's not about the elitist issue of whether the listener is choosing to imagine his way through the horizontal progression of a long note, when any human ear is naturally being drawn by events in four loudly competing voices. A performer that doesn't take steps to earn my imagination is not a performer that I am willing to grant it to. I'll listen to a pianist like Fischer, who puts the effort into both sculpting horizontal lines and differentiating the most important ones from the texture. I refuse to imagine what a performer does not do, unless he at least makes a good implication of it. The fact that I'm accustomed to listening to the sound of good singers does not mean that I'm going to listen to players with no sense of singing tone and imagine it for them. that's just a barmy train of thought. A good performer REVEALS the most significant musical elements to any listener. that's why Fischer is held in somewhat higher esteem than a MIDI execution without any dynamics.

[nyiregyhazi]

regarding Gould, the horizontal prolongation of the long notes is the weakest part of the performance. although I do like it overall, the primary subject sounds like three vertical events (that you have to know about to detect, much of the time). it doesn't generally sing through effectively as a horizontal line, even in the fast tempo. note that he uses another trick to keep some attention on the longer notes though. in staccato, after the attack the attention is naturally on the remaining sound in the holes- so you get more sense of long notes resonating horizontally than when you play notes of the same volume legato. differentiated articulation on a vertical level is another thing that inspires the brain to group voices into horizontal progressions. remove that differentiation and the monotonous timbre again demands that the listener already knows which voice is which to keep horizontal track. it's always related to both aspects.


also, notice how many vertical decisions Gould makes and applies to voices. he sometimes plays the repeated note subject quite lightly, but elsewhere brings out to the foreground, substantially on top of other voices. that's a vertical decision of hierarchy, not one that has anything to do with a different horizontal logic at that moment. it's the same old subject but a different decision in terms of what level of intensity to apply to it, within the vertical context of the texture. Nothing exists truly independently of both horizontal and vertical.


anyway, what I'm really interested in is a player who can make long notes part of a horizontal line when competing voices are not played at a lower dynamic level. Gould doesn't achieve that there, but brings out other facets.

[nyiregyhazi]

I just listened to your performance from the pianostreet competition.

I'm afraid this exemplifies to me the pitfalls of thinking horizontally, but not listening in to how you must reflect that in practise via vertical differentiations. The horizontal lines are exactly what get lost in translation. It's what is traditionally known as vertical playing- with a series of equally intense events, without tonal differentiation that distinguishes between horizontal layers. I'm sure you don't experience it this way, but you're not listening to how the accompaniment detracts from the melody line. Due to the consistency of timbre, melody line plus accompaniment form a compounded rhythm of 6 quavers. Rather than singing through, all the attention goes from a melodic event to a chord underneath. you may be able to resist that effect, by choosing to listen through the melody, but an average listener will not share you subjective picture. you need to create differentiated levels so the attention of the ear is automatically retained in the melody, rather than stolen away. you will never hear the artists who are renowned for their melodic lines making the mistake of assigning an identical timbre and intensity to both melody and accompaniment- as that's what leaves a piano sounding like a humble piano rather than a whole orchestra. Keypeg's recording was extremely impressive for an amateur- in that she listened to how the vertical accumulations influence horizontal attention. Her melody sang past the accompaniment chords on a coherent line- because those chords were suitably voiced with a more subtle timber, that didn't steal attention away from the melody notes.

Your personal attention may be sustained through the whole melody in your internal picture of the sound. But the sound you project to an unbiased listener will be of 6 undifferentiated quaver landings, without distinction between voices or a sense of a long melodic line. you can't tell them they ought to listen more horizontally, if you don't succeed in creating a horizontal line in a neutral ear that has no expectations. By refusing to acknowledge the importance of monitoring the vertical hierarchy, it's actually the sense of horizontal independence that is compromised in your sound.

[j_menz]

Frankly, I give up. Clearly you have trained yourself to listen in a particular fashion and have convinced yourself that that is not only the correct way, but that any "unbiased listener" does exactly the same. I think you'[re wrong as to the latter and rather missing out on the point of polyphony, and for that I feel sorry for you. But I do not see any interest on your part in changing, I have no interest in changing, and so this discussion has become pointless. We can both leave feeling the other is missing out.

I just listened to your performance from the pianostreet competition.

Which I do not posit as a good example of anything.

[nyiregyhazi]

Frankly, I give up. Clearly you have trained yourself to listen in a particular fashion and have convinced yourself that that is not only the correct way, but that any "unbiased listener" does exactly the same. I think you'[re wrong as to the latter and rather missing out on the point of polyphony, and for that I feel sorry for you. But I do not see any interest on your part in changing, I have no interest in changing, and so this discussion has become pointless. We can both leave feeling the other is missing out.
I
Which I do not posit as a good example of anything.

it doesn't matter if you posted it as a good example. what it lacks as a musical performance correlates perfectly to the attitude you have shown here. I posted it as evidence of the fact that a person who mistakenly decides that a key pianistic element should be deliberately neglected does not flourish as a truly great musician. you play it that that way specifically because you have not turned your attention to vertical differentiation- and it's the absence of that which prevents any significant bel canto sound. compare to Keypeg's recording and listen to the differentiation of voices. do you honestly deny that difference? Because of your vertical neglect you do not succeed in offering any notable horizontal progressions, but only the disconnected vertical sounds that you think your methodology protects against. it doesn't though. horizontal assembly of a pianistic whole can only begin after you've learned to create different dynamic levels on a vertical level. Then the next step is to maintain those differentiations while also assigning a logic to each part. If appreciating BOTH steps (rather than excluding any benefit from step one and hoping to leap to step 2 right away) is somehow wrong, then it's not a perspective I'm going to change in favour of a less balanced view, no. If you don't learn both aspects first, the horizontal sound never gets off the ground. the ear doesn't assign separate layers to notes of consistent dynamic and timbre, regardless of what the pianists mind expects (rather than listens to).


I'd recommend you do a listening exercise for that piece where you stop after every accompanying chord and listen. sometimes listen to the melody and sometimes to the accompaniment. sometimes play the accompaniment literally as soft as can be, sometimes unusually loudly. every time, listen to the interaction between the melodic sound and the accompanying chord and observe when the melody carries on singing out best. Only once you have learned to truly differentiate between tonal layers (through self critical listening to  single snapshots wirhin the whole) can the possibility of long and meaningful horizontal lines even begin. you can blame my manner of listening, but you would never hear a respected professional musician who expects a singing line to carry horizontally with quite so little differentiation between levels. you can write off vertical awareness all you like, but you won't take that performance off the ground unless you start turning your attention to that issue. if you're thinking horizontally, I'm sorry to say that there's no evidence of independent horizontal lines or voices emerging from within your sound. just lots of very equally struck piano sounds. skipping the process of learning  meaningful vertical differentiation ironically perpetuates what is called a vertical style of playing.


I've not played the piece at all, but I may read through it tomorrow and post two recordings, to illustrate quite how much difference it makes whether you have an earthbound samey accompaniment or a differentiated layer.  

[nyiregyhazi]

I've started a new thread, with a video that I recorded of that piece- to show quite the inescapable importance to musical execution, of the concepts being denied here.

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=51925.0#new