tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5244014424535464612.post8874510992429535809..comments2023-08-06T05:22:33.610-07:00Comments on Richard Sparks - Music, Conducting, Choirs: Historical authenticityRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14910774133392443899noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5244014424535464612.post-46527347017147055252008-08-25T23:34:00.000-07:002008-08-25T23:34:00.000-07:00At some point, Peter, I'll talk a bit about vibrat...At some point, Peter, I'll talk a bit about vibrato--such an interesting (and controversial!) topic.<BR/><BR/>Thanks, Fred, for your observations.<BR/><BR/>To follow up on John's comment about ears being best critics--of course, I agree. Ultimately, the conductor's ears are the arbiter of what's selected (or not) in the ensemble's performance.<BR/><BR/>Communication is ultimately the goal. I can enjoy a big, Victorian Messiah (and would love to do one, sometime, actually), but primarily choose to do a performance that's more HIPP (historically informed performance practice), whether or not I have period instruments available. BUT . . . if my research and decisions lead me to forget about communication and expression (and connection to the audience and their reaction to the music), then I (and the audience) lose.<BR/><BR/>As I said in an earlier comment, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. In fact, what one learns from study of performance practices, from what period instruments can and can't do, can inform and lead to MORE expressive performances.<BR/><BR/>I often find, when I listen to an older recording, that the music seems stodgy, over-blown, or in some other way NOT expressive. It's my ear that's led me there . . . but that's an ear which has been trained by listening to period instrument performances. I know hear what was once "state of the art" as not so interesting and not evocative of what I think the composer intended to say, i.e., express.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14910774133392443899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5244014424535464612.post-8368168360995497842008-08-25T22:51:00.000-07:002008-08-25T22:51:00.000-07:00Hi Richard,Having "grown up" in musical Seattle, g...Hi Richard,<BR/><BR/>Having "grown up" in musical Seattle, gone away to Ellensburg for university in 1998, then become transplanted right back to Seattle after that, I've gotten to hear your work with SSC, PLU and Choral Arts. Such fascinating work and music and something that a young musician like me should aspire to. I came across your blog on accident as I started blogging here. Great to hear your insights! <BR/>I agree with John's comment about our ears being the best critic as well. I'm in my first job as a church musician in Auburn and I've learned from both my choir and my congregation that regardless of how well "researched" and "accurate" a performance is, if it doesn't reach the listener then what's the point? Look at the popularity of the large performances of Handel's Messiah that are still the most attractive to the average concert-goer. Remember in Seattle when they still had the "period" Messiah at St. Marks and then the more "Victorian" Messiah put on by Seattle Symphony? Which one always seemed to have the bigger draw? I recall you cut the chorus down for Messiah a few times when you were with the symphony and I think it is something that that audience really should hear. It hasn't happened since your time. Can we educate an audience to appreciate something more "historic?" Yes I think we can and should though I think there will always be those that are more receptive to the Sir Malcolm Sargent approach. Only time will tell how the public reacts.Fred William McIlroy IVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695484377955812529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5244014424535464612.post-59477838100416962122008-08-19T09:47:00.000-07:002008-08-19T09:47:00.000-07:00Richard,I would love to see a blog entry on your v...Richard,<BR/><BR/>I would love to see a blog entry on your views about vocal vibrato. My own understanding of this is that it is a necessary part of healthy singing and while we should be able to control it, the muscle "flutter" that produces true vibrato enables our vocal apparatus to stay more relaxed as we sing. I would be interested in your response to this, particularly in the context of this fascinating conversation about authenticity in performance.<BR/><BR/>PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494719778359088198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5244014424535464612.post-78227337697435428812008-08-18T15:59:00.000-07:002008-08-18T15:59:00.000-07:00Wow, this takes me back to a heated discussion wit...Wow, this takes me back to a heated discussion with my PLU voice teacher. She wanted me to change something in either a Bach or Mozart piece and when I asked her why all she could say was, "that's the way it's done." I was curious from an educational standpoint and she thought I was arguing so I never did get a reasonable answer and all she got was frustrated with me (shocking). My point is, I never did understand how modern scholars could know precisely how these pieces were originally performed without recordings. We know what we can read about the early performances, but without actually hearing them how can we know precisely how it was done? And, if modern day artists/conductors change their performance style, isn't it reasonable to say the original composers and performers did so as well? I agree with John, it comes down to our ears; we know what we like when we hear it regardless of historical accuracy.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes my husband claims to be jealous when I tell him I know what a song is really about when used in a movie (i.e., the use of Carmina Burana in every freakin' action movie ever made - AAAGGGGHHH!!!) Am I lucky? Sometimes I wonder when I consider your remark about only the educated ear will know. Maybe the ignorant concert goer enjoys the performance more because they don't know any better to critique every nuance; they just know what they like when they hear it.Jayne Leightyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05457467194430394290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5244014424535464612.post-57871566862911201312008-08-17T04:49:00.000-07:002008-08-17T04:49:00.000-07:00Thanks for the comment, John. Agreed that it's a f...Thanks for the comment, John. Agreed that it's a fascinating topic. <BR/><BR/>I remember a fascinating article in Early Music some time ago where someone READ everything they could about performance practice of Elgar's music (contemporary accounts of various performances, for example), drew the kind of conclusions one could on performance practice for the period (and for Elgar specifically), and then listened to a lot of Elgar's own performances.<BR/><BR/>It was interesting to see the number of things that were NEVER mentioned, but were significant differences in Elgar's own performances (and other contemporary performances) from current practice. This included much more use of portemento in the strings, faster tempi, etc.<BR/><BR/>These things were never mentioned in any contemporary account during Elgar's performing lifetime because they were just accepted practice, nothing seen as unusual enough to call for commentary.<BR/><BR/>We're always blind to those things that are simply accepted by all of us as "normal."<BR/><BR/>I'll have to see if I can find that article . . .Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14910774133392443899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5244014424535464612.post-62376687992830250652008-08-16T15:28:00.000-07:002008-08-16T15:28:00.000-07:00Thanks for this Richard - a great follow-up to my ...Thanks for this Richard - a great follow-up to my post, and very insightful indeed!<BR/><BR/>A topic I could talk and read about for ever I think.<BR/><BR/>When it comes down to it - I think our ears are our best critics. If something in a performance. whether it claims to be historically accurate or not, fulfills the musical obligation of the piece, then it's a job well done!John Broughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10836876751710988224noreply@blogger.com