Posts in music
Schoenberg Discussed and Played

by Matthew Raley [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av2XTNgA72w]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmf4Z9HsnFQ&feature=related]

I have written elsewhere about the entertaining contrasts between Glenn Gould and Yehudi Menuhin. In the first video, the contrasts are amplified as the pair converses about Arnold Schoenberg's Fantasie, Op 47. In the second, we see another example of the duo's partnership.

In one sense, I don't know why I post these. People usually hate Schoenberg. Added to this is the fact that the discussion between Gould and Mehunin is at a high technical level.

But, dog-GON-it!, they're saying some important things about real musical problems, especially after Gould says, "All cards on the table, you really don't like the Schoenberg." And the playing is quite good, demonstrating that Menuhin retained even post-war a powerful tone and intonation when he was "on."

So, if you've never heard anything by Schoenberg, take this in.

By the way, my 3-year-old Malcolm sat silently on my lap through the entire 10-minute performance, transfixed. (No jokes there in back!)

Ravel Played by the Hagen Quartet

by Matthew Raley [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvwPMuCZEU]

For me, one of the transporting possibilities of chamber music is blending sounds. In a string quartet, such as we have here, each instrument can ride the tone qualities of the others, creating a corporate resonance.

Blend is not automatic. The Hagen Quartet uses a number of skills to produce it. Each player's intonation is not merely correct, but is tempered to the harmonic situation of each note. Also, the players use the blossoming of tone in their instruments to craft subtleties and climaxes together.

I particularly noticed their use of vibrato. It is not continuous. These players have forged a unity about when to use it and when to let notes speak for themselves.

All of these practices create the vibrations amongst the instruments that constitute blend. This is a marvelous performance of a gorgeous piece.

Menuhin and Gould With a Complete Bach Sonata

by Matthew Raley No excerpts today, but a complete work in a film that is fascinating at many levels. Start with the performers, Glenn Gould and Yehudi Menuhin. It would be hard to find two more different characters.

Gould was eccentricity incarnate, seen here making a circular movement with his head that is, shall we say, unsettling, and seeming to talk to the keyboard. You can also, of course, hear him singing.

Menuhin was a study in elegance. Not only his left- and right-hand positions, but his posture and his tailoring are flawless. He has an economy of motion that is inspiring.

So, behold, the cherub and the gargoyle.

The piece itself adds another layer of interest. Bach's Violin Sonata, BWV 1017, is a powerful work, and the third movement (pt. 3) is a favorite of mine. But the question always is, "How will the performer interpret this music?" Today, there is a consensus that we should play it Bach's way -- light, dance-like, less vibrato. This is a consensus I basically agree with.

At the time this film was made, the romantic interpretive approach to Bach was beginning to sound inauthentic. The heavy articulation, the dark tone, and the sentiment expressed in slides and accents, all turned counterpoint into a soup.

That is why Gould had formulated a modern interpretive approach to Bach at the piano. It was unsentimental: dry, spiky, fast. Some would still criticize his approach as mechanical. Gould was a controversial figure, especially for his 1955 recording of the Goldberg Variations, a sharp departure from the romanticism of the time.

Which brings us to the really fascinating layer of this film.

Gould is playing with the man who popularized the romantic style of playing Bach on the violin. Menuhin is credited with bringing the unaccompanied sonatas the attention they deserve from audiences in the 1930s. He plays here with all his famous warmth of tone, all his sustained vibrato, and even with one or two slides. (It is also the case that his intonation is no longer secure, but that is another difficult story.)

See if you don't agree with me, you music lovers, that these two men achieved a common interpretation that works. I believe it has power even as the performers retain their musical personalities. Something of the contrast is part of that power. But their ensemble, their unity on such things as the length of 8th notes in the fourth movement (pt. 4), and their authority in playing the piece, all create an unusual synergy.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz2TnU5dJSs&feature=related]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbzWLnBl4oM&feature=related]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccuawruSsqc&feature=related]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFMKCUuGh5o&feature=related]

Glenn Gould Plays Hindemith

by Matthew Raley [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpAIEp6DUo]

Paul Hindemith wrote a piece of music for every instrument in the modern orchestra, which distinguishes but does not necessarily recommend him. I often find his music sterile. But not this fugue from the Piano Sonata No. 3.

This piece has it all: rhythmic interest, contrapuntal high-wire acts, atonal harmonies that sometimes imply tonal colors, and drama.

I say the piece is atonal, but that needs some qualification. The fugue subject is broadly and recognizably from the world of the scale, and the piece works its way toward a cadence that would have offended Theodor Adorno. But Hindemith makes no attempt to keep the harmonies produced by his counterpoint within even the outer frontiers of the common practice period.

Glenn Gould's playing is powerful, as always, and his mannerisms not as eccentric as they could be.

Yehudi Menuhin Plays Bazzini

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbvitdwlMhY&feature=related] Bazzini's Calabrese is one of those virtuosic show-stoppers that send audiences to their feet. Besides displaying Menuhin's warm and flawless tone, the piece exhibits an intimidating list of the violin's special effects:

1. Spicatto: The bouncing of the bow, done here at tremendous speeds, producing very short, light notes.

2. Glissando: A slide up or down a string using one finger of the left hand.

3. Sul G: Playing only on the lowest string to produce a thick, rich tone.

4. Octaves: Playing a note at two different pitches at the same time -- two A's, for example. This is done usually with the index finger together with the pinky of the left hand, and requires a shift for every new pitch-class.

5. Tenths: Another instance of playing two notes at the same time, or double-stopping. The interval of a tenth is a third wider than an octave, and so requires the index finger and the pinky to stretch.

6. Assorted other multiple stops: There are some fiendish parallel sixths in this piece.

7. Harmonics: When a left-hand finger lightly touches the string at certain points, the player produces a ringing, flute-like sound. Harmonics can be heard in the very first gestures Menuhin plays, on the highest pitches.

At the piano, playing with perfect clarity and subtlety, is Adolph Baller, one of whose students I will be performing with this Sunday evening, February 8th. Laura Aue and I will play Beethoven's Violin Sonata No. 2 in A major at the Orland Evangelical Free Church.

Bach's Abstraction

by Matthew Raley [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBFrEJK7oAg&feature=related]

The cello suites by Johann Sebastian Bach are not light fare, by anyone's standard. The six pieces retain the characteristic rhythms and patterns of emphasis of old dances. But I doubt anyone ever danced to them. Bach used the dances as structures for his more abstract compositions.

This movement, the Saraband from the Suite No. 5, could be considered the most abstract of the entire set. Some moments are so chromatic that one could lose track of the harmonic progressions, which in themselves are linear and implied, not vertical and literal.

And yet, for me, this is one of the most emotionally compelling movements in all the cello suites.

Uchida's Spellbinding Encore

by Matthew Raley [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQpsL_kh6pE&feature=related]

Mitsuko Uchida has an endless variety of pyrotechnics to use for encores, short pieces played at the end of a concert as a kind of bonus for the audience. But here Uchida gives a quiet reading of the 2nd movement of Mozart's Piano Sonata in C, K. 545.

I didn't know the piece, but only clicked it to hear Uchida. This bit of late Mozart is rich, and her performance froze me in my seat until the last note.

The "Death and the Maiden" Tarantella

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW57vTzNCGg] Here is last movement of Franz Schubert's String Quartet in d minor, D 810. The movement is very fast (marked "Presto"), and is a tarantella, a frenzied dance to ward off the poison of a tarantula bite.

The four-movement quartet did not acquire its macabre title, "Death and the Maiden," because of this tarantella movement, but because of the slow second movement. It uses a song of the same name also composed by Schubert.

Ivry Gitlis Playing Saint-Seans

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN5eoZM-vE4] Ivry Gitlis is the violin's crazy old man. Here he is as a crazy young man, gremlin face and all, tossing off Camille Saint-Seans' Rondo Capriccioso with casual brilliance and a mighty sense of fun.

What I love most about Gitlis' playing, beyond his technical mastery, is the range of his tone colors. He can be hoarse, floaty, or rich. He has a wealth of vibrato techniques (speeds at which he vibrates his finger on the string), from non vibrato to a tornado-like spin.

I'd like to be crazy like this.

Nathan Milstein's "Kreutzer"

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sklCKCE7zLc] My friend Dr. David Mallory, a formidable violinist, told me that one test of a violin is to perform Beethoven's Kreutzer sonata with a nine-foot grand piano. If the violin is audible it passes the test.

Here is my favorite violinist, Milstein, playing the Kreutzer's last movement. I call Milstein my favorite not because his playing was better than other virtuosi, but because his eccentricities speak to me.

He held the violin slightly lower on the shoulder than most other players, and his bowing was not particularly straight, making his appearance seem loose. But his playing always strikes me as intuitive and free, as if he were improvising. Milstein seemed to have absorbed the music into his very personality.

His use of the bow in this piece is fantastic. He goes out of his way to place accents at the tip of the bow (0:30), rather than at the frog -- where the bow is held, and where gravity urges us to place our accents. The effect is a definite nudge at the front of the note with growth as the note is sustained.

I am also struck by Milstein as a collaborator with Georges Pludermacher, his pianist. When he has running eigth-notes with the piano (5:10), Milstein drops his volume slightly, allowing his sound to blend with the sound from Pludermacher's right hand.

And, of course, the gold tone of Milstein's Strad can be heard just fine.

From Bach's Christmas Oratorio

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J66PUOysSOk&feature=related] Here is alto Angelika Kirchschlager singing "Bereite dich Zion." Translation of the text:

Prepare thyself, Zion, with tender desire/ the Fairest and Dearest to behold with thee soon!/ Thy cheeks/ today must shine the lovelier;/ hasten most ardently the Bridegroom to love.

Merry Christmas!

David Oistrakh Plays Brahms

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFMcBMqE6mQ] Here is a violin master performing the Scherzo by Johannes Brahms. There are several things I respond to in Oistrakh's playing.

For starters, Oistrakh played at a time when art music didn't have to be sold. He played with a disregard for the audience that I find healthy, as opposed to camera-oriented attitude that classical performers apparently have to have today. I accept the necessity of marketing in the arts now. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I love the economy and potency of Oistrakh's movements. I love the straightforward reading he gives here: not a lot of fooling with the tempo. And I think Brahms left us an compelling little piece.

But it's Oistrakh's tone that knocks me over. It is focused, clear, deep, and gutsy. And he uses changes of tone color and vibrato to express harmonic and melodic subtleties. Check out the change of sound he makes by lightening the bow toward the end of the second theme (1:40).

It's also comforting to know that the violin gods sweat.

Sondheim As a Preacher

I've spent many hours this week in an orchestra pit rehearsing for Chico State's production of A Little Night Music by Stephen Sondheim. Between keeping track of key changes, being anxious for the physical safety of our percussionist as scenery collapses above him, and enjoying the great voices of the cast, I have been evaluating Sondheim's success as a preacher. A preacher has to do more than convey information about "how one ought to live." In my view, he has to show listeners how their lives are inextricably bound to God, and how that bond impacts their decisions. That mission calls him to engage listeners with drama, emotion, narrative, and especially characters. His preaching has to display individuals who struggle with God, both rightly and wrongly.

To fulfill this mission, the preacher has several tools: the Bible (source for the dramatic material), doctrine (derived from the Bible, and delivered as principles), life experience (his own, his listeners'), etc. In a sermon, he uses these tools to redirect the motivations of his audience Godward.

I've written about the inability of the evangelical populist to go deeper than sentimentality. So much of the spiritual deadness of evangelicalism, the dearth of transforming love, goes back to the shallow emotional range of its preachers. Most, it seems, can't convey anything higher than healthful living habits.

Sondheim, though he presents what I find to be a spirituality of hopelessness, is skilled at preaching the worldly word. He has his source of dramatic material, a combination of what I'll loosely call European tradition and American showmanship. His symbols, dramatic and musical, all derive from such sources, of which he has intuitive knowledge. Sondheim also shows keen insight into life experience. He flirts with audience expectations by using stock characters whom he later rounds out with humane understanding.

Which leaves doctrine.

There is a principle that animates the story of Night Music. The characters are all troubled, some driven to morose contemplation, others to flippancy, still others to cynicism. They struggle to find what a main character calls "a coherent existence," and the field of their struggle is sex. Their escapades are often funny, usually humiliating, and occasionally moving. But each learns the doctrine by the end, learns it in his or her own way.

Night Music's doctrine? You recover a coherent existence when you find the object of your true desire. And to recognize that object, you must know yourself. The god this musical preaches so effectively is inside the human personality.

A few qualifications. Audiences don't go to musicals for spiritual training. Tony awards like those lavished on this show are not given to productions that "make a point," and this show is not "preachy" in that way. Sondheim's goal was to give people something to enjoy, not to teach them. He may or may not believe the principle this story shows.

But Sondheim is a skillful preacher.

He shows how people's lives are inextricably bound to the god of their desires, and how that bond impacts their decisions. His characters speak to people's struggles.

My wayward imagination wonders how an evangelical, with his grab-bag of practical tips, would preach the Night Music doctrine. "Five Steps to Open Communication With Your Mistress." "What Would Ibsen Do?" "Your Best Adultery Now!" If evangelicals preached sin the way they preach Christ, sin might go into as deep a decline as Christianity.

A preacher's job is not to entertain, as Sondheim's is. But evangelical preachers would teach and exhort with more potency if their Bible, their doctrine, and their life experience spoke to people's struggles. The God of the Bible is not the God of easy answers. Jesus Christ struggles with us just as we struggle with him, if the Gospel of John is any guide. He is no stranger to relational agony. And he does not use gimmicks.

I notice that when I preach this God, using the Bible's drama as powerfully and truthfully as I can, listeners take heart. They renew their struggles with greater insight, and they see God's blessings. Their certitudes gained in struggle are earned, not purchased in bulk.

So I learn something about preaching from Sondheim. But I leave the orchestra pit relieved that the living God is larger than the gods of Broadway.