Note values exceeding time signature - Voices in Bach

[j_menz]

Cool.

I have an ongoing fantasy to find someone willing to try and improvise this kind of thing. Where you define a motif and counter motif, and then just mimic each other and develop it together on the fly. I'm not sure you could do anything all that complex without running into problems, but I wonder if you could set certain constraints that mean that the ending of a particular subject defines the beginning point of the following response absolutely. So that one musician can predict the most of the others improvisational reactions to the music, and choose the appropriate variation of a counter-motif for their expectation of the other performer.

I use such a concept in my own playing, but I'd love to see if its possible to do between two separate minds.

Hasn't jazz solved these problems?  You basically need a jazz muso with a good grounding in counterpoint.

The result could be amazing:

Improvisation on Bach Double Violin Concerto - Grappelli & South

[ajspiano]

Hasn't jazz solved these problems? You basically need a jazz muso with a good grounding in counterpoint.

Probably yes (I can't be the only person to have thought about it), only my "fantasy" extends to 4 or 5 musicians and whole fugues, which I doubt is possible.

I'd love you to prove me wrong with another recording though.

[j_menz]

Probably yes (I can't be the only person to have thought about it), only my "fantasy" extends to 4 or 5 musicians and whole fugues, which I doubt is possible.

I'd love you to prove me wrong with another recording though.

Not 4 or 5, but here's 3 (piano, violin, cello) (The A-Tribute Ensemble improvising a fugue:

Fugue in Gm (Improvisation)

And not anywhere near the baroque, but an improvised fantasy and fugue using 4 players (piano, clarinet, percussion and cello):

[outin]

Indeed, which is while all and sundry should learn all 15 inventions (and perhaps some of bach's other works that might qualify as 2 part inventions) before tackling 3 and in turn more voices.

..as we keep saying to people here.

You do, but haven't managed to convince everyone

Since Bach did not invent counterpoint, I don't see how studying his 15 2-voice inventions could be the only way to learn how to execute it?

[ajspiano]

Since Bach did not invent counterpoint, I don't see how studying his 15 2-voice inventions could be the only way to learn how to execute it?

Its not, its just a particularly excellent one.

Arranging jazz tunes would take you a good part of the way for example.. given that it requires thinking in melody, accomp, bass, and its possible to create counter melodic lines within the accompaniment.

[outin]

Its not, its just a particularly excellent one.

That's better. I need to find other ways, since every attempt to practice those leads into pain in my right thumb...

[j_menz]

You do, but haven't managed to convince everyone

Since Bach did not invent counterpoint, I don't see how studying his 15 2-voice inventions could be the only way to learn how to execute it?

It's by no means the only way, but they were written  as a teaching aid by the master of the form, and alternatives are hard to find so concisely and comprehensively expressed.

They are also extremely good in their own right as music, in idea considered novel sometime later when Chopin adopted it in his etudes.

[ajspiano]

That's better. I need to find other ways, since every attempt to practice those leads into pain in my right thumb...

..do you think that problem is unique to the inventions?

and are you left handed or right handed?

[outin]

They are also extremely good in their own right as music,

Isn't that a matter of taste? Or did you finally manage to create a way to evaluate goodness in a universal and objective way?

[ajspiano]

Isn't that a matter of taste? Or did you finally manage to create a way to evaluate goodness in a universal and objective way?

Well ofcourse..

But if you are going to intellectually and rationally judge the quality of a piece of art - the inventions are remarkably difficult to top.. in a "most intellectual value in the least number of bars" kind of way..

[outin]

..do you think that problem is unique to the inventions?

and are you left handed or right handed?

Not just the inventions, but those in particular aggravate it. And other Bach pieces too. It seems he was very fond of 1-2 (or 3) streches in the right hand.

To clarify, I am talking about skin pain. I have this extremely sensitive spot on my thumb, which rubs against the sharp edges of the keys on my piano. I thought it would harden if I just keep going but it just gets worse until I am unable to play without a plaster on my thumb. If I had a little more natural reach I could avoid this, but the hand is what it is...The other option is to jump even when it's supposed to be legato, but that's clumsy and my ears just can't handle that

[outin]

Well ofcourse..

But if you are going to intellectually and rationally judge the quality of a piece of art - the inventions are remarkably difficult to top.. in a "most intellectual value in the least number of bars" kind of way..

I have never questioned the quality of Bach's works. I just don't like most of them. 
So if the purpose of studying piano is to study pieces that one can enjoy as music... Wouldn't it be worth to look for other ways to improve?

[j_menz]

Or did you finally manage to create a way to evaluate goodness in a universal and objective way?

Indeed I did. I appointed myself sole arbiter.

[ajspiano]

Not just the inventions, but those in particular aggravate it. And other Bach pieces too. It seems he was very fond of 1-2 (or 3) streches in the right hand.

Not too far into this video Mr fraser discusses comfortably expanding the hand for octaves and chords. Something you've seen or done before? was there any impact?

[outin]

Not too far into this video Mr fraser discusses comfortably expanding the hand for octaves and chords. Something you've seen or done before? was there any impact?

Didn't watch the video yet, but I have tried all kinds of exercises (with and without my teacher)...and I have managed to get from only being able to play a RH octave on the edge of the keys to being able to play it slowly deeper in the keys. But that already requires me to "grip" the keys with the finger joint or push my hand against the fallboard (don't know how to explain it better), not just drop my hand to the keys. Left hand can do normally. The problem is that my right hand thumb joint is not quite normal, it's somehow crooked, so the thumb is in a different position than the other and I cannot straighten it.

I hope it will help one day when I get a piano with different keys, because my teacher's keys do not cause the pain, they feel quite smooth...

[ajspiano]

I hope it will help one day when I get a piano with different keys, because my teacher's keys do not cause the pain, they feel quite smooth...

Well that in itself suggests that you don't have any real problem, excusing the adjustments require as the material gets significantly harder.

That already requires me to "grip" the keys with the finger joint or push my hand against the fallboard (don't know how to explain it better), not just drop my hand to the keys. Left hand can do normally. The problem is that my right hand thumb joint is not quite normal, it's somehow crooked, so the thumb is in a different position than the other and I cannot straighten it.

Well, obviously not being able to to see your thumb who knows - but you'll find in the video he strongly advocates gripping the keys - the grasping action is one of the real foundations of his teachings (what the hand is made to do). It may be entirely different to how you are doing it though..

He also talks about allowing the palm to sink forward and in against the keys to allow the thumb to free up and the hand widen, and then just a little addition of index finger movement to bring the hand structure back up..   might be just that bit more info you need to make a real difference to your reach (hopefully)

[nyiregyhazi]

Not at all. But what determines how you start one voice is as much a matter of how you started another voice of which it is a restatement/answer/echo. That most often will be not vertical, but a way back in the score.  

There are many ways of shaping a given phrase, but that shaping must relate to how you have shaped the corresponding parts of other voices elsewhere, not what those other voices are doing at the present time.  

yet again, you are guilty of false polarisation. the first statement of the last paragraph does not disprove the second. why can you not appreciate that a complex whole has many complementary elements - all of which have importance?


let's say we take an orchestra and tell all the individual players that they can do any dynamics they like, as long as they all have the same shape of the subject. would that work? no. unless they have a simplistic formula where subjects are loud and other parts are subjugated, it would be chaos. not every arrival of the subject is going to be identical and there is a harmonic context which suggests the overall dynamic level. as far as separate parts are concerned, every subject is simply the subject. in the grand scheme of things, the harmonic context will be different and texture will be different. that determines necessary differences in details, in order to get the overall texture right. it's not merely about knowing about imitations etc. the vertical texture is EXTREMELY important too and note the word "too" ie in addition to and not "instead of" horizontal awareness. it would be disastrous if some parts played pp and others played FF, without awareness of how there is an overall texture that requires unification based on referencing parts vertically in the texture. if one statement of a subject is to be played softer (which may be perfectly valid based on harmonic context) then other parts need to be adapted around that, to avoid overpowering it.


also, take Bach's 5 part c sharp minor fugue. in this case, there's call for contextual contrasting with reference to vertical texture- rather than unification. when the lowest bass statement of the main subject occurs, the quaver based subject must be subdued. if not, it takes attention from the bass in the vertical texture- which kills the horizontal feel of the subject (when it arrives in a very interesting register. when making the bass truly boom out as a big arrival, you cannot also do the shorter notes loudly, or they conflict with the awareness of the primary subject. elsewhere in the fugue, the same subject may be deemed to arrive with less significance- so it may be absolutely fine to give the quaver subject more prominence. the big issue about this one arrival is vertical texture and harmonic arrival back at c sharp minor. these considerations must play a role in how horizontal lines are to be put into the whole.



also, take an interrupted cadence. two notes are shared between tonic and submediant. do you seriously think it doesn't matter whether a voice that arrives on an implied perfect cadence knows that it's actually a point of a surprise arrival? even the voice which defines the interrupted cadence may not see the surprise, with reference to their own part alone. harmonic context is sometimes implied and sometimes not, by a single part. even when it is implied, it may prove to have been WRONGLY Implied once referenced to other parts. This has zero to do with the longer term issues you claim are the only issue. it is a short term vertical issue of harmony - that must be taken into account when playing the longer horizontal line. a part played with total ignorance to harmony is not even acceptable in a serious musical context - never mind desirable or "correct", as you seem to think.


also, look at how intervals in subjects are routinely changed. that is because is Bach considered vertical harmony. literal transpositions may often produce dodgy harmonies, which is why Bach was perfectly happy to make alterations based on vertical context rather than to persist with literal reproductions of the horizontal lines at any cost. A composer who didn't care about the vertical would not make such adaptation - and serial fugues are indeed based on exact reproduction of horizontal lines without the intervallic adaptations used by Bach.


you can make all the false polarisation in the world, but horizontal playing that is not referenced to the vertical is useless and so is vertical playing that is not referenced to horizontal issues. If you turn the fact that counterpoint is chiefly based on horizontal lines into an erroneous assertion that any vertical awareness is bad, you exclude a wealth of fundamental issues of musical control. This can actively interfere with horizontal projection. listen to Edwin fisher in Bach and you'll hear a pianist who makes long notes truly audible for their full horizontal length. It's not because of how he plays those long notes but because he is aware that (on a vertical level) competing voices need to be subdued or they detract from the ability to hear long notes lasting. he's pianist who appreciated quite how much of a role vertical referencing plays in horizontal results. pianists who only see horizontally are often extremely poor at tonal layering- which is an absolute prequisite for projection of horionztal lines rather than a monotonous lumps of dead sound. There's no horizontal without vertical and there's no vertical without horizontal.

[nyiregyhazi]

It works when I process the beat only, and i feel where the entry is in relation to the beat, not the other voice. The dynamics and timing can be described can be describe vertically, but that's not how I deal with it when playing it.

We even rationally decide perhaps on dynamics with reference to a vertical context (upper voice vs lower voice).. only the thing is, its not on a note by note basis using each individual chord. its always based on the full line. There's practically zero vertical processing for me.

if the last statement were true, it would mean you never listen to yourself. listening exists in the present. it is literally vertical by definition. the brain can try to assemble these moments of time into the horizontal context of how a note blends into the next. but we listen vertically. it's not a dirty thing to appreciate that vertical context. horizontal factors do not determine whether a key inner voice is heard. the vertical balance determines whether it's heard. all the good horionztal intentions in the world are nothing if a pianist cannot project that note out past competing voices- because the horizontal is what suffers when an important note of an important line is not projected out of the whole.


it's only when false polarisation are made that vertical awareness sounds like a dirty thing. listening is literally vertical. a pianist who has no mastery of vertical voicing will never play a half decent fugue and will not be capable of translating any of his horizontal thinking into an actual sound. all too often pianists don't even realise how badly they fail to project the important line - because they don't stop to perform the vertical act of actually listening to whether the important voice is coming out of the texture and neither do they learn the vertical means of doing so. this is only the first step, but if you can't bring any note of a statement of a subject out of The moment in the texture, you haven't yet built a foundation upon which you are ready to start assembling the whole horizontal texture as a big phrase. no amount of horizontal work would help with that, until the pianist learns to listen and voice on a vertical level. I'm a huge believer in exercises that train listening and the physical balancing of individual chords. they set the foundations by which horizontal thinking can actually translate into a sound (rather than into an undifferentiated hotchpotch of monotonous lumps that the pianist has no independent control over).

[outin]

Well that in itself suggests that you don't have any real problem, excusing the adjustments require as the material gets significantly harder.

Not sure what you mean, but the problem is quite real to me...because I have to practice 7 days a week on my own piano...so now I simply avoid material that irritates the thumb (like much of Bach)...I guess the other option is to wear gloves...

Well, obviously not being able to to see your thumb who knows - but you'll find in the video he strongly advocates gripping the keys - the grasping action is one of the real foundations of his teachings (what the hand is made to do). It may be entirely different to how you are doing it though..

He also talks about allowing the palm to sink forward and in against the keys to allow the thumb to free up and the hand widen, and then just a little addition of index finger movement to bring the hand structure back up..   might be just that bit more info you need to make a real difference to your reach (hopefully)

I think these 2 things (gripping and sinking forward) have enabled me to play the octave deeper at all. But still I must go slowly (I need to be very precise and careful to avoid pressing  the adjacent key). I am a bit sceptic about it getting much better...the hand is already streched to such extremes that no adjustment to the hand shape is possible...I have tried to get the structure back up, but it's just impossible without the thumb closing in. The difference to my left hand is clearly visible in this sense.

I also have to be careful with thumb exercises, with certain movements the thumb joint cracks and pops and I don't think it's a good thing... not that I've ever seen much improvement from these exercises anyway...

Edit: I tried to watch the video, but I didn't really get what he was talking about...

[nyiregyhazi]

Well that in itself suggests that you don't have any real problem, excusing the adjustments require as the material gets significantly harder.

Well, obviously not being able to to see your thumb who knows - but you'll find in the video he strongly advocates gripping the keys - the grasping action is one of the real foundations of his teachings (what the hand is made to do). It may be entirely different to how you are doing it though..

He also talks about allowing the palm to sink forward and in against the keys to allow the thumb to free up and the hand widen, and then just a little addition of index finger movement to bring the hand structure back up..   might be just that bit more info you need to make a real difference to your reach (hopefully)

although I've learned huge amounts from Alan Fraser, I've actually come to disagree with the degree of conscious focus on grasping. when grasping, the hand naturally opens itself. for me, that opening is 95 percent of the big picture and the grasp itself is secondary. I don't want to advocate throwing all literal grasping out altogether, but it's easy to overdo this. when I switched my attention to the opening above the grasping, I learned much more ease and freedom.


if you grasp as he shows, there's a key moment of switching. either you carry on grasping against nothing in particular and overwork or you stop grasping and stay supported by a subtle act of lengthening out the fingers (to stop them simply drooping when you relax). for me, the style of activity that comes after his grasp is overwhelmingly more important than the grasp itself. I'm seeing the grasp more as indirect trigger for actions than an end in itself. it creates experience of a useful position, but it's not the action which you ultimately want to use to get that position. In most octave playing I don't even use it as a trigger any more, but instead actively OPEN the space in the hand. both thumb and fifth lengthen out through the keys, but they also feel like they open space between each other. grasping can teach your hand to stand up on the keys, but I actually had to deliberately eliminate it to reach a workable action for the end product.

[j_menz]

listen to Edwin fisher in Bach and you'll hear a pianist who makes long notes truly audible for their full horizontal length. It's not because of how he plays those long notes but because he is aware that (on a vertical level) competing voices need to be subdued or they detract from the ability to hear long notes lasting. he's pianist who appreciated quite how much of a role vertical referencing plays in horizontal results.

Here's Edwin Fischer playing the (Prelude and) Fugue you mentioned:

I do not hear a note that supports your assertion. Not a nuance that is not explicable solely as an expression of a horizontal thought process - five lines weaving through space and time together. Of course there is a relationship when they occur at the same time. The modification of lines to avoid dissonances is an example of that - a sort of bouncing off one another. And how a voice sounds dynamically is influenced by the sound scape it is in - a note will sound louder against silence than competing voices.

listening exists in the present. it is literally vertical by definition. the brain can try to assemble these moments of time into the horizontal context of how a note blends into the next.

No, listening exists as memory of what has been, what now is and anticipation of what is to come.

all too often pianists don't even realise how badly they fail to project the important line - because they don't stop to perform the vertical act of actually listening to whether the important voice is coming out of the texture and neither do they learn the vertical means of doing so.

I would say that they fail to project a line because they are not aware of it as a line. Too many pianists cannot hear all the voices they are playing, so cannot possibly control them. Too many play one dominant voice and a harmonic slurry behind it, not the two, three, four or more actual voices. They fail to perform a fully contextualised, polyphonic act of listening, and fail to control multiple voices in an independent, though interrelated, manner.

Incidentally, you don't have to look to the serialists for examples of fugues that don't bend to the needs of harmonic sonority. Beethoven will serve just as well.

[brogers70]

No, listening exists as memory of what has been, what now is and anticipation of what is to come.

Yes, yes, yes, well said. The brain revises what it heard in light of what it is hearing and what it expects to hear. And it back dates the revision so that it feels like the only experience that occurred. You can read about an analogous tactile effect, the cutaneous rabbit illusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutaneous_rabbit

[nyiregyhazi]

Here's Edwin Fischer playing the (Prelude and) Fugue you mentioned:

I do not hear a note that supports your assertion. Not a nuance that is not explicable solely as an expression of a horizontal thought process - five lines weaving through space and time together. Of course there is a relationship when they occur at the same time. The modification of lines to avoid dissonances is an example of that - a sort of bouncing off one another. And how a voice sounds dynamically is influenced by the sound scape it is in - a note will sound louder against silence than competing voices.

No, listening exists as memory of what has been, what now is and anticipation of what is to come.



I would say that they fail to project a line because they are not aware of it as a line. Too many pianists cannot hear all the voices they are playing, so cannot possibly control them. Too many play one dominant voice and a harmonic slurry behind it, not the two, three, four or more actual voices. They fail to perform a fully contextualised, polyphonic act of listening, and fail to control multiple voices in an independent, though interrelated, manner.

Incidentally, you don't have to look to the serialists for examples of fugues that don't bend to the needs of harmonic sonority. Beethoven will serve just as well.

yet again, the running theme of your post is fallacious polarisation ie. the false implication that the truth of A falsifies the truth of B. it doesn't. I'll give you specifics on the Fischer recording later but consider the interrupted cadence as described before. two of three harmonic notes could belong to a perfect cadence. a slight ease of the tempo to show surprise is frequently desirable. only the lowest voice can even see so much as implication of the surprise, if even that one. The vertical harmony is what defines the slight hesitation in ALL voices. if you're telling me you'd never take time for an interrupted cadence, I'm afraid I wouldn't care to listen to you play. a player who ploughs on metronomically, regardless of harmonic context, is not a player I have any time for as a musician. This in an exceedingly important element of what you deny, so I'm expecting an extremely specific response- if you really do feel that harmony should never influence timing in any way.


you can refer to the fact that the brain assembles a bigger picture, but that's not listening. that's use of imagination. watch someone run and you see them in single location in space- not in a continuous blur of their whole path. Listening too is only a moment in time. The rest is based on use of imagination, as the actual hearing exists solely in the present. Particularly, to refer to anticipation as listening is outright miscategorisation of pure imagination, beyond any doubt. I'm talking about observing the sounds from the piano. listening is a matter of relationships between pitches in a given moment in time. literally all listening and all retrospective associations are the product of vertical snapshots combined to make a whole that becomes EQUALLY horizontal in nature. The brain processes horizontal elements out of hearing that exists vertically. That's why horizontal and vertical are part of one whole. Neither is anything without the other.


by the way, you can casually assert that the fault is always horizontal rather than vertical. But any pianist who can bring out either left or right in two part writing, yet who cannot show the subject in inner voices within 4 part writing has vertical problems. pretending that no such issue even exists does not help such pianists. this is a case where lack of vertical voicing skill kills any hope of horizontal results before they even had a chance

[lostinidlewonder]

Play Bach's music on a pipe organ and the extended note lengths make more musical sense. For the pianoforte, an instrument where the tone decays as soon as you play the note, having long holds are more difficult to appreciate unlike a pipe organ (or choir or strings etc) which can maintain the same volume of their tone when produced.

Lol @ the debate, I thought members here realized the person who argues all the time is a boring mindless troll who pretends to be smart by using smoke and mirrors of BS to baffle rather than educate.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes, yes, yes, well said. The brain revises what it heard in light of what it is hearing and what it expects to hear. And it back dates the revision so that it feels like the only experience that occurred. You can read about an analogous tactile effect, the cutaneous rabbit illusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutaneous_rabbit

Is that in any way desirable? I'd rather hear how I actually sound- so the less of these adjustments the better. I'd never wish to mishear my present sound out of excessive worry about a sound that has yet to occur. I'd never argue entirely against use of imagination, but some people push it so heavily that they are caught up in an imagination of sounds they never actually produce. I'm a firm believer in the importance of using literal listening to try to assess how you literally sound in any present moment and making this the primary manner of listening- rather than getting so caught up in internal "hearing" that you never notice the sounds that your audience will literally hear.

[lostinidlewonder]

Although Bach's music is very clear as to what notes has to be played he leaves the pianist with a freedom as how to play it. However this also can be applied to other music too, that we are open to interpretation. However Bach wrote pretty much on Clavichord, Harpsichord and Organ. Could he really imagine the modern piano of today? As exponents of the modern piano we have to make intelligent decisions as to how to musically express Bach.

Let me paraphrase 48 Prelude and Fugues (Tovey and Sameul)
"..One thing is certain, before anything "pianistic" is attempted the student should have thoroughly mastered Bach's exact part-writing as written, should be able to express its climaxes distinctly without adding or altering a note.

... our appreciation of Bach loses more than it gains from the occasional bursts of pianistic effectiveness accidentally possible in passages which may not be climaxes at all.

JS Bach is fond crowding all the harmony he could into both hands; not until we have learnt to achieve Bach's part-writing with our fingers can we venture to translate him into any pianoforte style which produces volume at the expense of part-writing.

... it may be taken as an axiom that when a phrasing or touch represents a "pianistic" mannerism that would sound ugly on the harpsichord, that phrasing will misconstrue Bach's language and tell us nothing interesting about the pianoforte. If players think it "natural" they are mistaken, however habitually they may do it. They are merely applying a small part of the pianoforte technique of 1806 to the clavichord and harpsichord music of 1730.

There are very simple ways of detecting what is unnatural in the interpretation of most of Bach's themes; and, if the test sometimes fails to answer directly, it certainly never misleads. It is summed up in two words, Sing it.

If the phrase proves singable at all, the attempt to sing it will almost certainly reveal natural types of expression easily perfectible on the pianoforte and incomparably better than any result of the natural behavior of the pianists hands. Even in matters that at first seem to be merely instrumental, the vocal test reveals much.

Organists who play fugues more often than most people, do not find it necessary, when the subject enters in the inner parts, to pick it out with the thumb or another manual. They and their listeners enjoy the polyphony because the inner parts can neither stick out nor fail to balance within the harmony, so long as the notes are played at all. On the pianoforte however constant care is needed to prevent failure of tone, and certainly the subject of a fugue should not be liable to such failure. But never should the counterpoints, indeed the less heard clearly (e.g: the clinching third countersubject of the F minor Fugues in Bk1) Most of Bach's counterpoint actually sounds best when the parts are evenly balanced. It is never a mere combinations of melodies, but always a mass of harmony stated in terms of a combination of melodies.

When Bach combines melodies, the combination forms full harmony as soon as two parts are present. (Even a solitary part will be a melody which is its own bass.) Each additional part adds new harmonic meaning, as well as its own melody and rhythm, and all are in transparent contrast with each other at every point. No part needs bringing out at the expense of others, but on the pianoforte care is most needed for that part which is most in danger of failure of tone.

[nyiregyhazi]

Play Bach's music on a pipe organ and the extended note lengths make more musical sense. For the pianoforte, an instrument where the tone decays as soon as you play the note, having long holds are more difficult to appreciate unlike a pipe organ (or choir or strings etc) which can maintain the same volume of their tone when produced.

Lol @ the debate, I thought members here realized the person who argues all the time is a boring mindless troll who pretends to be smart by using smoke and mirrors of BS to baffle rather than educate.

If you wish to throw your support the idea that harmonic context plays literally no role in how any individual voice operates, then by all means chip in with some justification.

I'm not sure why it's seemingly controversial to recognise that there's more than one element to something complex, in addition to its most transparently obvious feature.

[lostinidlewonder]

If you wish to throw your support the idea that harmonic context plays literally no role in how any individual voice operates, then by all means chip in with some justification.

If you want to throw in your pretend ideologies on what other people are writing about don't even bother quoting me. lol

I'm not sure why it's seemingly controversial to recognise that there's more than one element to something complex, in addition to its most transparently obvious feature.

What are you talking about? More meaningless generalistic talk? Boring.

[nyiregyhazi]

If you want to throw in your pretend ideologies on what other people are writing about don't even bother quoting me. lol
What are you talking about? More meaningless generalistic talk? Boring.

I'm debating bach. If that's not an issue you care to engage with, I'm not going to respond to any off-topic personally directed antics, so fire away with whatever accusations you like.

PS you didn't explain what point you were trying to raise with the quote, but tovey would doubtless have revised his opinion on voices literally being even, if he had access to a digital with dynamics off. It doesn't work for long notes competing with short ones- specifically because an organ sustains long notes but on a piano they die. What SEEMS even requires contextual nuance.  That involves a tonal hierarchy, even if you're looking for relative similarity.

[j_menz]

if you really do feel that harmony should never influence timing in any way.

You appear to have missed that I have never said that at all. The harmony is part of the soundscape through which the voices weave and to which they react.

you can refer to the fact that the brain assembles a bigger picture, but that's not listening. that's use of imagination. watch someone run and you see them in single location in space- not in a continuous blur of their whole path. Listening too is only a moment in time. The rest is based on use of imagination, as the actual hearing exists solely in the present. Particularly, to refer to anticipation as listening is outright miscategorisation of pure imagination, beyond any doubt. I'm talking about observing the sounds from the piano. listening is a matter of relationships between pitches in a given moment in time. literally all listening and all retrospective associations are the product of vertical snapshots combined to make a whole that becomes EQUALLY horizontal in nature. The brain processes horizontal elements out of hearing that exists vertically. That's why horizontal and vertical are part of one whole. Neither is anything without the other.

You'll be telling me that a movie is no more than the sum of it's frames next.

by the way, you can casually assert that the fault is always horizontal rather than vertical. But any pianist who can bring out either left or right in two part writing, yet who cannot show the subject in inner voices within 4 part writing has vertical problems. pretending that no such issue even exists does not help such pianists. this is a case where lack of vertical voicing skill kills any hope of horizontal results before they even had a chance

A pianist who cannot deal with the middle voices in a four voice piece may fail to do so for two reasons. The first may be a lack of physical control, but nothing in what I have said previously relates to that. The other is that they have a conceptual failing - they simply do not hear the voice as a voice. And what can't be heard, can't be controlled.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm debating bach. If that's not an issue you care to engage with, I'm not going to respond to any off-topic personally directed antics, so fire away with whatever accusations you like.

No you try to twist my quote to suit the subject you are arguing. Why bother doing this? Not everyone responds on pianostreet asking YOU to respond to them.

PS you didn't explain what point you were trying to raise with the quote, but tovey would doubtless have revised his opinion on voices literally being even, if he had access to a digital with dynamics off. It doesn't work for long notes competing with short ones- specifically because an organ sustains long notes but on a piano they die. What SEEMS even requires contextual nuance.  That involves a tonal hierarchy, even if you're looking for relative similarity.

Wow its so amazing you know that Tovey would have DOUBTLESSLY revised his opinion. I'd rather not engage with someone who thinks they know what other academics would have improved upon, I am sure you say this so that you don't have any evidence that disagrees with you. lol.

[nyiregyhazi]

You appear to have missed that I have never said that at all. The harmony is part of the soundscape through which the voices weave and to which they react.

You'll be telling me that a movie is no more than the sum of it's frames next.

A pianist who cannot deal with the middle voices in a four voice piece may fail to do so for two reasons. The first may be a lack of physical control, but nothing in what I have said previously relates to that. The other is that they have a conceptual failing - they simply do not hear the voice as a voice. And what can't be heard, can't be controlled.

and it's pure coincidence that it's the middle voices they struggle with even when told? And that they can bring out either voice easily in two part writing, when told? Its really not coincidence that this is so frequently to be seen. Its because of the lack of technique required to execute the voicing of lines. If you tell them but they can't do it, they don't have the ability.

Regarding the harmonic thing, I illustrated the logical progression of how your assertion that parts should not be assimilated vertically leads to the impossibility of unifying their timing in a surprise cadence. Nothing but vertical cross referencing can unify them in reflecting surprise- as their internal logic does not reveal the interrupted cadence in any way. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either you stick with an argument that renders it impossible for all parts to reflect harmony in a unified fashion. Or you must concede that they all act together in a pause before the cadence, due to the vertical associations that form the harmony in the cadence. If the latter is really troubling for you to concede, can I remind you yet again that being influenced by vertical associations between parts in no way excludes horizontal phrasing, in a balanced and complete whole?

[nyiregyhazi]

No you try to twist my quote to suit the subject you are arguing. Why bother doing this? Not everyone responds on pianostreet asking YOU to respond to them.

Wow its so amazing you know that Tovey would have DOUBTLESSLY revised his opinion. I'd rather not engage with someone who thinks they know what other academics would have improved upon, I am sure you say this so that you don't have any evidence that disagrees with you. lol.

Tovey was too good a musician to realise that his concept of even and a literal uniformity (as heard on a digital with constant velocity on) is different.

Find a digital, turn the dynamics off and play the c sharp minor fugue. Do you seriously feel that the way the C sharp in the recapitulation of the subject in the bass resister peters into nothing (while quavers blast out with an intensity long lost by that note) is a musical ideal? If you think that's what Tovey wanted, you have a dim view of his musicianship. In reality, the problem with accomplished musicians is quite how much musicianship they put into what they merely PERCEIVE as being even. His words must be taken with appreciation of that context. Tovey wrote what he did in an era of tonally extreme romanticism, where contrast was majorly exaggerated. Fischer was a "straight" player, of the time- yet uses plenty of pianistic contrast.What he meant by even and what a digital piano offers as actually even are not one and the same thing. There's a middle ground that sounds relatively even, but which is not the product of literally playing each part at the same volume.

[lostinidlewonder]

Tovey was too good a musician to realise that his concept of even and a computerised one is different.

Find a digital, turn the dynamics off.......

You crazy!. We are now using a digital piano with some effects turned off to describe the art of piano playing? ok.... hang on.... AHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAH.... wait a minute.... AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

[j_menz]

and it's pure coincidence that it's the middle voices they struggle with even when told? And that they can bring out either voice easily in two part writing, when told? Its really not coincidence that this is so frequently to be seen. Its because of the lack of technique required to execute the voicing of lines. If you tell them but they can't do it, they don't have the ability.

Not being exposed to pupils, I'll have to accept that the middle voices are the problematic ones. Not that it especially surprises me - there's a certain familiarity with a bass line and a treble line.  Clearly if they can't do it, they don't have the ability - that's a truism. But do you have people who can voice complex chords in non-polyphonic works with skill and sophistication, but who cannot balance multiple voices? I'd have thought so. A listen through lots of performances on YT should provide ample evidence.

Nothing but vertical cross referencing can unify them in reflecting surprise- as their internal logic does not reveal the interrupted cadence in any way. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either you stick with an argument that renders it impossible for all parts to reflect harmony in a unified fashion. Or you must concede that they all act together in a pause before the cadence, due to the vertical associations that form the harmony in the cadence. If the latter is really troubling for you to concede, can I remind you yet again that being influenced by vertical associations between parts in no way excludes horizontal phrasing, in a balanced and complete whole?

Listen to the improvised fugue (the three voice one) I posted a link to above. Given that they cannot look ahead and do a vertical analysis - there is no score - how do they keep balance and time and respond to the directions each takes on the fly, including the harmonic implications of those directions?

Incidentally, the interrupted cadence is evident if one allows oneself to look beyond the moment and listen ahead. Anticipation, as I said, is part of listening.  

Indeed, if it wasn't for an ability to counfound that anticipation - to surprise - many works would be very dull indeed. Schubert would be unbearable.

[nyiregyhazi]

You crazy!. We are now using a digital piano with some effects turned off to describe the art of piano playing? ok.... hang on.... AHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAH.... wait a minute.... AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

No, as an illustration of the very opposite  to the stance that you so poorly try to imply, for the sake of being argumentative (I credit you with enough intelligence to have seen full well that I used it as as an example of what is undesirable about literal interpretation of his words). Tovey's even can NOT be taken as the type of literal eveness that is exemplified by a digital. He just didn't want voices getting totally lost. That doesn't mean he didn't involve significant tonal layering and differentiation- just as fischer (who was considered "straight" in his time" didn't play everything at anything like literally end equal intensity.

If you want to argue against me you'll need to make points that conflict with mine- not reiterate the point I already made about how awful a literal lack of differentiation between voices sounds.

[lostinidlewonder]

No, as an illustration of the very opposite  to the stance that you so poorly try to imply

It is not my fault your choice for description (Digital with some function turned off) is a poor one.

Tovey's even can NOT be taken as the literal eveness that is exemplified by a digital.

You are misreading what Tovey and Sameul are writing, why should we educate you to read properly?

[nyiregyhazi]

It is not my fault your choice for description (Digital with some function turned off) is a poor one.
You are misreading what Tovey and Sameul are writing, why should we educate you to read properly?

I'm not going to argue with someone who's only interested in being in an opposing camp.

Go back to laughing at how bad a digital sounds when executing a fugue without differentiating between parts via dynamics. Then try referencing that with what tovey said about playing all the parts without differentiating between them in dynamics- and you might start to understand my problem with reading him at face value.

[lostinidlewonder]

Your point is just irrelevant. What about a pipe organ where there is no difference in volume depending on how hard you press the keys? Are you saying that this kind of instrument has not been considered before? However we are considering Bach on the modern pianoforte, which has nothing to do with this pipe organ type instrument you are trying to consider in an erroneous negative light.

[nyiregyhazi]

Your point is just irrelevant. What about a pipe organ where there is no difference in volume depending on how hard you press the keys? Are you saying that this kind of instrument has not been considered before? However we are considering Bach on the modern pianoforte, which has nothing to do with this pipe organ type instrument you are trying to consider in an erroneous negative light.

As I already pointed out, an organ sustains without decay.  A piano doesn't. So a long note needs to be differentiated, or it will not sing through to the next, but will get trampled by even competition. read conrad wolff on schnabel's teaching. A piano does not perform as an organ does. Even if eveness is taken as the ultimate ideal, only the starts of notes are "equal" unless you bring in differentiation. Equal attack is a poor basis for executing counterpoint that involves long notes. 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.


I just listened to fischer again. interestingly, despite real differentiation in much of the writing, he doesn't make the most of the bass entry. however, listen to the entry at the top after. 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. Fischer can sing out those long lines like virtually nobody playing bach today because he appreciates both horizontal lines and the affect that vertical relationships have upon projection. That's how he makes his notes resonate with a sense of length akin to an organ's sustain. That beautiful sense of length will never be achieved by a pianist who cannot appreciate both horizontal and vertical aspects- and above all its the sense of notes lasting horizontally that is the result of his contextual appreciation of how the execution of one part influences the resultant sound of another. It's the same trick that Gilels uses to prevent melodic lines sagging in romantic music.

[j_menz]

Fischer can sing out those long lines like virtually nobody playing bach today because he appreciates both horizontal lines and the affect that vertical relationships have upon projection.

If his pupil Brendel is to be given credence, Fischer hiself appears to have seen it differently:

Fischer was anything but a perfect pianist in the academic sense. Nervousness and physical illness sometimes cast a shadow over his playing. But in the avoidance of false sentiment he was unrivalled. Moreover, as the initiated will know, it would be presumptuous to underrate a technique that made possible performances of such fabulous richness of expression. The principal carrier of this expressiveness was his marvellously full, floating tone, which retained its roundness even at climactic, explosive moments, and remained singing and sustained in the most unbelievable pianissimo. (In conversation, Fischer once compared piano tone to the sound of the vowels. He told me that in present-day musical practice the a and o are neglected in favour of the e and i. The glaring and shrill triumphs over the lofty and sonorous, technique over the sense of wonder. Are not ah! and oh! the sounds of wonder?)

Alfred Brendel
Edwin Fischer: Remembering My Teacher
From Musical Thoughts & Afterthoughts

[nyiregyhazi]

If his pupil Brendel is to be given credence, Fischer hiself appears to have seen it differently:

? What about that conflicts with my description and supports yours? where does it say "Fischer insisted that voices should never be cross-referenced against the vertical issue that is harmony, but must only be treated based on their own merits- regardless of whether that might interfere with the melodic projection of another voice"? or anything even remotely like that. I'm not at all clear that what about that passage suggests that Fischer didn't consider texture both vertically AND horizontally. Even if it did, above all his sound tells us he did. Anything where long notes sing out for the full length (without being masked by others) involves awareness of vertical relationships between dynamics. Take the Schubert G flat impromptu. nothing about the internal logic of the quaver figure demands that it be subdued. the fact that the melody is not heard for its full length unless you do so is what defines it. There may not be such a simplistic hierarchy in the fugue, but try making the long notes sing like Fischer purely on their own merits and you will fail. to even begin to emulate his effect, you must appreciate that projection of a long note for its full horizontal length can only be accomplished by making competing shorter notes significantly softer in the vertical hierarchy. if you're truly listening to that note horizontally, you should still be listening in and monitoring that vertical hierarchy as every new short note enters- not merely at the single moment where the long note begins. If you don't assess your balance, you lose the long note's horizontal value.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Not being exposed to pupils, I'll have to accept that the middle voices are the problematic ones. Not that it especially surprises me - there's a certain familiarity with a bass line and a treble line.  Clearly if they can't do it, they don't have the ability - that's a truism. But do you have people who can voice complex chords in non-polyphonic works with skill and sophistication, but who cannot balance multiple voices? I'd have thought so. A listen through lots of performances on YT should provide ample evidence."

I didn't argue otherwise. that is indeed the challenge of counterpoint. but when a student can't even make the correct part audible, their first challenge is to learn how to differentiate a voice on a vertical level. only when that capability exists can the even greater difficulty of fully maintaining the horizontal logic of each part begin. when you can't even make the notes of a subject heard (despite knowing it and being able to play it fine on it's own) the fundamental failure exists in the vertical execution of the layers.





"Listen to the improvised fugue (the three voice one) I posted a link to above. Given that they cannot look ahead and do a vertical analysis - there is no score - how do they keep balance and time and respond to the directions each takes on the fly, including the harmonic implications of those directions?"


clearly they are working on a harmonic scheme and have some form of planning.

"Incidentally, the interrupted cadence is evident if one allows oneself to look beyond the moment and listen ahead. Anticipation, as I said, is part of listening.  "

? anticipation of vertical harmony- which is defined exclusively by associated voices and not by isolation of parts. your assertion would involve anticipation of that voice alone, which does not define harmony or context within in. so this whole thing is out, if you're intent on sticking to that claim. also listening is in the present. imagination of what is to come is not listening (any more than expectation of what might occur next in a film is "seeing") and offers no guarantee that will you produce the sound you anticipate. the listening only occurs to the sound you actually make once you get there (which requires a means of execution, or that which had been imagined can never be heard for real).



also, you can argue that interrupted cadences may even sound best when they player willfully anticipates a perfect cadence (just as a listener should be doing) - but then feels as if they made a last minute decision to do an interrupted cadence. emulation this improvisatory concept is what is being imitated when taking slight time. the harmony can creates a global plan for all parts, which must be linked up. however, I often prefer to deliberately make the harmonic decision that (unifies all parts in the same slight rhythmic freedom) at the latest possible moment. A pianist who starts Beethoven les adieu in expectation of the third chord needs to be an extremely good actor, or their sense of anticipation may be the very thing that makes it sound mundane. I prefer the "method" approach of anticipating something normal so I can actually experience the surprise for myself.

[timothy42b]

But cheer up -- it's even worse on an organ, where it is a little unusual, but by no means unheard of, to have one of the voices on, say, the lower stave, played on one manual, and another on a different manual -- which leads to all sorts of interesting contortions...

Worse even than organ music is handbell music, which has some interesting notation conventions.

In the OPs example, handbell music may omit the rests and may not have beats line up vertically.  In every new piece I teach there will be a measure or two that the handbell ringers can't figure out without asking.  Usually it's obvious to me but occasionally I'm puzzled while I figure out the intent.

Polyphony?  think hocket. 

[iansinclair]

I have to admit that I've sort of given up on this thread.  However, a few remarks which seem to need to be said in relation to some of the more recent posts.

One of the key problems, it seems to me, that we are seeing in these posts relates to playing Bach -- or, for that matter, pretty much any baroque or renaissance music, but Bach is the most obvious target -- on an instrument -- a modern piano -- which he could not possibly have thought of.  Depending on the particular piece, this may be easier or harder.  In the case of pieces originally written for harpsichord, it isn't too bad; first place, all the fingering will be feasible.  Second place, the tone of the instrument will decay with time; indeed, quite a bit faster than a piano's tone will.  On the other hand, a harpsichord -- like an organ -- has discrete stops, not fine gradations of either tone colour or volume, and therefore changes in volume to bring out this line or that one are inappropriate (step changes in volume can be, but must be used with great care).  What is appropriate, if one line is to be emphasized for some reason, is subtle changes in legato.  This will be quite ample.  The situation for the pieces for clavichord is somewhat similar.

However.

When we come to pieces written for organ, we are faced with a major problem: the organ tone does not decay, nor is there any possibility of changing the attack.  You press the key or pedal, you have the note -- and it will stay that way (barring evil happenings to the instrument itself!) until you let go.  Bach (and others) knew all about this, and meant it to be that way.  You can't do that with a piano.  If he wanted a sustained note over, say 15 measures or so, that's exactly what he wanted.  No decay.  No intermediate attacks.  On the other hand, by using multiple manuals and the pedals with different registrations, you can get quite significant volume and tone colour differences, which you can use to great advantage (if also with great discretion).  Bach knew all about that, too, and meant it to be that way (in fairness, he wasn't always very clear about registration and manual changes, but it's usually pretty obvious).  To a limited extent you can do that on a piano, but only with volume, not tone colour.

For this reason, at the risk of sounding like a hopeless pedant (which I may be, I'll grant you) I have found that, with very very rare exceptions, piano transcriptions of works originally for organ are not particularly satisfying -- unless they were done by someone who was, in fact, a composer on their own, and essentially re-wrote the piece for piano, rather than simply transcribing it.

I am not suggesting that pianists should not play Bach.  Indeed I would very very strongly recommend that they do; the Inventions, the French and English suites, the WTC for sure.  But I have to admit that I would suggest staying away from the organ chorales, or the Orgelbuchlein, or any of the organ preludes and fugues, unless they are using one of the few really good transcriptions -- which are fiendishly difficult, even for pieces which aren't all that hard on the organ.

The situation is, of course, even worse for pieces originally written for voice or instruments...

Of course, it goes the other way, too -- compare, if you will, the Ravel orchestration (really a complete re-realisation) of the Mussourgsky Pictures at an Exhibition with the original piano work...

[brogers70]

Is that in any way desirable? I'd rather hear how I actually sound- so the less of these adjustments the better. I'd never wish to mishear my present sound out of excessive worry about a sound that has yet to occur. I'd never argue entirely against use of imagination, but some people push it so heavily that they are caught up in an imagination of sounds they never actually produce. I'm a firm believer in the importance of using literal listening to try to assess how you literally sound in any present moment and making this the primary manner of listening- rather than getting so caught up in internal "hearing" that you never notice the sounds that your audience will literally hear.

This is not a conscious effect and not a matter of imagination; you can't change it by wishing to hear or mishear, anymore than you can consciously decide to make your visual system de-emphasize edges and simply report the light intensity as it actually falls on your retina.

[nyiregyhazi]

This is not a conscious effect and not a matter of imagination; you can't change it by wishing toi hear or mishear, anymore than you can consciously decide to make your visual system de-emphasize edges and simply report the light intensity as it actually falls on your retina.

You're missing the free will element that determines extent of expectation. That is very much under our control.


there's an example of the phenomenon where people hear gibberish first from a song played backwards and then relisten with subtitles. suddenly it sounds very similar to the words. in this case, you indeed cannot exert control over the expectation. as long as you are reading the words, you will have no choice but to hear them. but unless you memorise them, it sounds like gibberish again on the next listen. in other words, if you have an expectation and the objective sound is close enough (this doesn't work for literally anything, but requires some basic similarity) the expectation specifically causes mishearing. remove the expectation, however, and the brain gets a more accurate picture, without correcting it in the same way.

pianistically, we have free will over the degree of expectation and the level of visualisation of future sounds. arguably, someone whose interpretation is set in stone may become a poor listener because their expectations could become so strong as to cause the same phenomenon- where listening is warped to match expectations that the playing fails to actually fulfil for any other listener than themself . however, a pianist can choose to stop their expectations being at the forefront and direct their listening to the moment. by analogy, this ought to reduce the level of misheard information. an attitude of listening in the moment (and making adaptive decisions based on what you hear in that moment, in an exploratory interpretation) should logically be expected to reduce the false hearing. personally, I don't care to "hear" what level intensity the next sound is going to have until a split second before I play it- so my attention stays focused on the decaying intensity of the note that I am going to match it up to. If I think too far ahead, I'm inevitably more likely to stop listening to the context in which I am to place that note into. I don't want to make guesses long in advance. I wait to actually HEAR the actual context I'm going to be placing a note inside- by expecting nothing of it but simply observing it in the moment it truly occurs.


I can't prove that the same phenomenon is in play, but it's common to hear students start a piece musically yet end up sounding hideously unmusical after more familiarity. this phenomenon could well be an issue. initially they may start with more explorations. but the more they grow accustomed to a consistent interpretation, the less objective their listening becomes and the more it's falsely distorted to match expectations- hence they start missing how unmusical aspects have really become. only by returning more to the moment in some of their practise and making spur of the moment decisions could they return to truly hearing them self. I don't find it hard to believe that excess focus on a mapped out expected result (that never gets altered based on present context) might distort accuracy of listening, by analogy with the backwards speak

[j_menz]

One of the key problems, it seems to me, that we are seeing in these posts relates to playing Bach -- or, for that matter, pretty much any baroque or renaissance music, but Bach is the most obvious target -- on an instrument -- a modern piano -- which he could not possibly have thought of. 

I was hoping the context of this would be broader, and therefore eliminate or at least shed new light on this issue. Whilst it is obvious that no baroque pieces were actually written for a modern piano, there are plenty of polyphonic works - fugues included - that have been written in various styles since then that were written for a modern piano.

[iansinclair]

I was hoping the context of this would be broader, and therefore eliminate or at least shed new light on this issue. Whilst it is obvious that no baroque pieces were actually written for a modern piano, there are plenty of polyphonic works - fugues included - that have been written in various styles since then that were written for a modern piano.

Oh my goodness gracious yes -- plenty of modern works for piano which are polyphonic.  For that matter, if one can extend a bit beyond "just" piano, just listen to any really good small jazz group.  Not only polyphonic, but improvised.  Those guys (and gals) are really good.

[j_menz]

your assertion would involve anticipation of that voice alone, which does not define harmony or context within in.

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