I just read this article on Nigel Kennedy talking about Bach interpretation. You have to realize, when reading things that performers, conductors, composers or business people in music say in the press, that it is mostly special pleading designed to build audiences. In other words, the truth is not the real end of the exercise. But a little criticism is fun to read. Kennedy is accusing other performers of either being soulless technicians or fussy academics. I have no doubt that there are lots of examples of both as well as every other sin: facile virtuosity, maudlin sentimentality, Bach as a circus stunt and so on. Hey, you can do anything to Bach you want! He's dead, he can't sue. So let's listen to a little Bach on solo violin and see what we hear. Here is Nigel Kennedy playing the gigue from the D minor Partita:
(at least I think it's Nigel Kennedy, with YouTube you can never be sure...) Well that's ok, I guess. It's not lacking in passion. But the constant fooling with the tempo, the pushing and pulling of the dynamics and the slightly frenetic tempo tend to make you feel you are watching someone juggle violins rather than play Bach. Here is Itzak Perlman playing the same piece. Blogger refuses to embed the clip, so please follow this link. That has less of the pushing the tempo around, but that tempo is so fast there probably isn't room anyway. Whenever he lands on a longer note, there is a wobbly vibrato. This feels one-dimensional somehow. Here is Hilary Hahn playing the gigue on a German tv show. The performance starts around 54 seconds.
Ah, now that is rather nice. The first performance that has some elegance to it. The tempo is better and it actually has the feel of a dance. Dynamics are integrated into the musical ideas. Good performance, clean and musical. Here is a performance by a non-celebrity violinist:
Sure, there were some flaws: a glissando that probably should be omitted, a little memory lapse, some technical wobbles: but I find this perfectly listenable. He brought out some different aspects of the phrasing and it sounded to me like a sincere performance of the piece. Here is a performance by the late Austrian violinist Wolfgang Schneiderhan:
Quite nice, but a couple of things bother me. Like some others he tends to anticipate the beat and there is too much vibrato on the longer notes. Here is a very different version. Hopkinson Smith plays it on baroque lute with added bass notes. This is following Bach's own example, who made a lute version of the E major partita for lute with added bass notes:
Now that's a slow tempo! But you get used to it. Here is Jascha Heifetz playing in 1935. The gigue begins around 3:16:
Tempo is a bit brisk, but it has an airy grace to it and the feel of a dance. At this point I had a version by David Russell on guitar, but that was taken down from YouTube, so I've removed it. What I would really like to put up is Pepe Romero's beautiful version, but it doesn't seem to be available. Here is the Hungarian violinist Kristof Barati:
Wow! That is very, very nice. He is the same age as Hilary Hahn, 32. But this performance is even more poised. I think that when Bach is really played well there is something almost celestial about it. This is the first version that captures that. Now, finally, let's hear Menuhin, about whom Nigel Kennedy raves. Unfortunately I can't find him playing this gigue on YouTube. But here is the gigue to the E major partita, which is quite similar:
Well, the phrase ham-fisted comes to mind. The tempo doesn't feel steady and much of it is slightly out of tune. The articulations are a bit odd and he starts telegraphing the end about two measures too soon. Where did we get the idea that Menuhin was a great Bach interpreter?
My conclusion, and yours too, I hope, after this exercise is that Nigel Kennedy is a blowhard whose Bach, honestly, is about the worst short of that of his teacher, Yehudi Menuhin. If you really want great solo Bach on the violin, your best bets are Kristof Barati and Hilary Hahn. I was actually surprised by this even though I am pretty cynical about musical celebrities. I just didn't expect the results to be so blatant.
THE MUSIC SALON: classical music, popular culture, philosophy and anything else that catches my fancy...
20 comments:
I would have no right to draw a "conclusion" about a professional musicain. But this method of juxtaposing several different performances of a work or passage is pedagogically powerful. I feel I understand many things I did not before. I have a couple of (older) collections of recordings of music that are meant to provide an understanding of "The History of" (with accompanying pamphlet or heavy tome). Arranged chronologically, they do serve as a kind of musical bus tour to give rapid glimpses of passing fads. This multiple presentation of "the same thing" is an exciting idea I have never experienced before. Are there electronic courses in music history that use this technique now that so much is online?
BTW one of your clips did not play due to copyright complaints.
I think all listeners have a right to their individual reactions to a performance and the subsequent right to describe them. But I also think that one's reactions develop over time with more knowledge and experience. Comparing different performances of the same piece is something I have done my whole career as a performer--I never thought it was unusual! It is a bit like a 'horizontal' wine-tasting. Can be quite revealing...
Ah yes, the David Russell performance is not working now. Luckily, it is peripheral to the main argument. I'll update the post to remove it.
I came here from the Guardian. Thanks for doing this. I greatly enjoyed reading your post and listening to these interpretations. To me, the best Bach interpretations are those which make you hear Bach himself, not the person performing Bach.
Kennedy's dexterity is impressive but I agree his dynamics are awful and, more seriously, by soulful music he seems to imply that the listener should get a taste of his own soul. But why should I care about Kennedy's soul? In this case, I only care about the soul of a genius who lived a quarter-millenium ago. And I don't see how Kennedy's nervous outbursts, like undesired sneezing, gives me that.
Curious to hear what you think of Segovia's Chaconne.
Thanks for the comment! Yes, I am of the school that strives for a transparent performance, one that doesn't interpose the performer between the listener and the music.
Interesting question about the Chaconne. Guitarists owe a great debt to Segovia for this and many other things. Transcribing the Chaconne for guitar was an inspired choice as was his transcription of Asturias by Albeniz.
That said, I can't say that his performance of the Chaconne is the best. He is a bit wayward rhythmically and tends to play the sixteenths following dotted eighths staccato--something that sounds odd because they are often leading, harmonically, to the next note and shouldn't be separated in that way. John Williams has a fine interpretation of the Chaconne and the most interesting from an ornamental point of view is probably that of Leo Brouwer. You should try and have a listen to Brouwer's recording of Scarlatti sonata's sometime. Amazing ornaments. But at the end of the day, my favorite Chaconne is that recorded by Pepe Romero with the rest of the suite as well, plus the third cello suite. We don't think of Pepe as a Bach player, but it is very beautiful, legato and with an absolutely lovely, warm sound.
Maybe I should do a post on Bach on guitar...
Wonderful! Thanks for the pointers. I'll check out Brouwer and Romero. I love Segovia's performance because that's the music I grew up with, but I've always felt a certain awkwardness in his playing, the way I do with Charlie Byrd, though I have nothing but the utmost respect for the musicianship of these amazing artists.
Again thanks! And yes a post on Bach for Guitar would be great!
Thanks for posting this. It's a great way to critique performances.
To be fair to Menuhin, his recording is at least 50 years older than the others, so he didn't get to benefit from the huge leaps in recording technology that the others did. In this case, his performance is distorted to the point that it sounds like he's playing in the wrong key (as some Youtubers have already pointed out).
A lot of people don't realize how important context (instrument quality, recording quality, acoustics, etc.) is in performance. I love Hilary Hahn's playing, but I was a little disappointed by her performance here. I thought it was timid and underplayed--that's quite likely due to the terrible acoustical situation that she's playing in. The stage is utterly dead, with none of the reverberation that you get in a concert hall. Kristof Barati's performance is a nice contrast because he's playing in a great hall and he's lapping up the wonderful sound (you can even tell with the sub-par Youtube audio). Hahn doesn't get that kind of reverberant feedback from the room, so she has to rely on experience and muscle memory.
I also wanted to express a divergent opinion--my favorite two videos were Kennedy and Barati. I found it hard to choose, so I asked my wife (without telling her who the performers were), and she responded in favor of Kennedy without hesitation. He has masses of technique, but it's only in aid of his penetrating and wonderfully inventive interpretation. I thought he captured the spirit of the gigue perfectly. He clears off any whiff of musty old courtly dances and makes it new, exciting, virtuosic, witty, and maybe even a bit bawdy--just like the dance ought to be.
Thanks for the comment, Edward. Whenever I was learning a significant new piece, I often would compare several different performances. That was partly to see if there was anything that I could contribute and partly to see what I could learn. As soon as I started working on it, I would stop listening. Even now, I don't like listening to performances of stuff in my current repertoire--the differences tend to stick in the mind and can throw you off the next time you play the piece!
Yes, there are some serious differences in recording quality here--though I'm trying to listen past that.
You made me go back and listen to Kennedy again. I take your point: his interpretation IS penetrating and inventive. I can see why you like his version. I think I still differ because I hope you can be exciting and virtuosic without pushing the tempo back and forth so much, which bothers me! But fair comment indeed. Thanks again, Edward.
Kennedy's tempo fluctuations don't bother me, for some reason. You may be right that it would be a more effective performance if he managed to distill all his ideas into a more rhythmically stable framework. And I don't like his comments in the Guardian any more than you do. On the other hand, he's made a career and a lot of money partially on his "bad boy" image, and it can't be that easy to walk away from all that. People might think he's gone soft or something.
The violin world probably needs a Nigel Kennedy, a feisty "bad boy". Looking around on Amazon, the only Bach recordings I see from Kennedy are of concertos. I wonder if he plans on releasing some of the solo Bach, or if I have just missed it. Because I really wouldn't mind hearing what he does with some other kinds of movements.
I would propose a synthesis to your idea of a "transparent" performance ( of which I believe Perleman to be the best example though I see your point with the Barati ) winning against the soulful approach of Kennedy and Menuhin ( Ham-fisted indeed - you must have found the worst recording out there ).
Henryk Szeryng plays the Dminor Gigue with some of the soulful phrasing of Menuhin without sacrificing the danceability of a clean rhythm .
For me the violin is a like a voice in that it should have the musician's soul showing through . Menuhin would not have had the popular following he did if that was not true.
Kennedy could still learn rhythm but can players like Hahn grow a soul?
Thanks! Some good and wise comments from another violinist. Do you really think Hahn has no soul? As for rhythm, it is one of those things that, in my experience, is very hard to work on. I have had many students that just could not fine-tune their rhythmic sense. It seems to operate on such a deep somatic level, that it is hard to think about...
jansumi said:
Wonderfully, this helped me define my criteria: i. well done, respectable, mind wanders but returns, acknowledges... ii. interesting, mind fully engaged, participates, appreciates.. iii. exciting, well-known piece sounds new, sense of discovery, explore, awe at talent.. iv. mind disappears, surrender..
Jansumi, are you a violinist? It sounds as if you practice the "zen of violin-playing" which is kind of fascinating.
Jansumi: I'm not, Bryan - piano, voice, dance - so i guess it's more the zen of listening in this case. :> But i can't imagine any other way to approach music. ie. In contrasting rhythm and soul - i'd say the deep somatic connection needed to establish rhythm means embodying the music, and so inevitably includes the soul.
Speaking of somatic connection, I have often noticed that dancers and musicians seem to have a different sense of rhythm. Musicians tend not to be dancers and the dancers I have taught have tended not to have a great sense of rhythm when playing music. Any thoughts on that?
yes! i think so. or at least i'm certainly aware of how musicians aren't dancers... not quite certain of the reverse - though, many dancers also just dance to or over the music rather than embodying it. 'course they're also used to just receiving, rather than having to actually make, the music. so also, just as i sight read way better as a singer than a pianist, then the interim step of having an instrument between self and body plays a role.
If I'm reading right, that Hahn recording is from when she was 15. She actually seems to have slowed down as she got older, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36xdMffuCE, and the performance definitely is the better for the change. It sounds to me less like someone showing off, and more someone trying to find the "true" sound of the piece.
You could be right about her age. I didn't check on that. Her very first recording, done when she was 17 or 18, was of the solo Bach repertoire.
I notice you didn't use any of the Baroque violin performances for comparison, Bryan. I don't think they can be dismissed in this day and age, whatever one's personal preference (even 'Strad' acknowledges their existence these days, which I never thought would happen!), and Rachel Podger's performances are especially good. And that's from someone who grew up with, and still listens to the Grumiaux recordings.
I¡m actually a big fan of the Baroque violin performances and I have Rachel Podger's full set of the Bach solo works. I just put up one of her performances yesterday. I don't recall why I didn't post a Baroque violin performance in this comparison, but it was not due to an aesthetic reservation. Maybe a good one didn't come up in YouTube that day.
Post a Comment