Latest Article Get our latest posts by subscribing this site

Scarlatti K 213 - Some Comparisons

Something I haven't done for quite a while is compare different performances of the same piece of music. It can be very illuminating. About a year ago I did a fairly lengthy post comparing Nigel Kennedy's Bach with other performers. This was sparked by an interview Kennedy did in which he was rather disparaging of other people's Bach. Turns out that this, like so much else in the popular press, was mostly about self-promotion.

This time I'm inspired to look at different performances of a Scarlatti sonata simply because I'm learning it. This has pretty much been my standard modus operandi ever since I have been a performer. I'm curious to see what others have done with the piece. Sometimes I avoid hearing other versions until I have made some headway myself and then I am often surprised at what seems to be the standard interpretation.

Interpretations within a community of players can take on a life of their own. Everyone is copying aspects of the way everyone else plays the piece. I became aware of this after a concert once when a friend of mine, a composer, pointed out to me that I was completely ignoring some glissandi in the score. This was in the Prelude No. 4 by Villa-Lobos, a score he had studied when he was writing music for guitar. Of course he was correct! I, and pretty much everyone else, was simply ignoring some clearly indicated glissandi in the melodic line.

I first heard the sonata, K. 213 by Domenico Scarlatti in a wonderful vinyl recording by John Williams dating, I believe, from the mid-70s. One side was the Five Preludes by Villa-Lobos and the other was five sonatas by Scarlatti. Guitarists have been raiding the Scarlatti sonatas for a long time, starting with Segovia. Many of them are very effective on guitar as they often have a Spanish flavor and the textures are frequently spare enough to be able to be transcribed to guitar without much change. Here is a link to the score for keyboard. One of the most respected harpsichordists and the first one to record all 555 sonatas by Scarlatti was Scott Ross (who sadly, died young at age 38). They were recorded over an eighteen month period in 1984/85. Here is a selection. K. 213 starts exactly at the 9:00 mark:


Here is Dmitri Levkovich, a young Ukrainian pianist now living in Canada in a recent competition performance:


Another performance by the Dutch harpsichordist Gerard van Reenen:


Now for some guitar versions. Here is André Madeira:


Angelito Agcaoili in a concert performance:


And finally, John Williams:


This is, like quite a number of sonatas by Scarlatti, fundamentally a fairly simple piece. But it is amazing how individual each sonata is. Scarlatti is much-loved by composers because his music is such a beautiful example of pure invention. You really don't have to fuss around with it a lot in performance. This is not Schumann nor Brahms and milking every note for its romantic possibility is not the best approach. On the other hand, a little inspired connection, such as Scott Ross inserts leading into the repeat of the first half, works just fine. Scott Ross offers the best model of how Scarlatti should be played. Gustav Leonhardt does some very fine Scarlatti as well, but I don't think he recorded this particular sonata.

The version on piano by Levkovich is quite fine, but perhaps over-sensitive. Scarlatti should always have a bit of a gritty feel in my opinion, something the harpsichord provides naturally. So can the guitar, which is why they often work well on guitar. What about the three guitar performances? They all work, but they all seem to be making the same mistake: constantly fiddling with the tempo. Yes, even John Williams, whose second phrase is quite substantially rushed. His version is the best on guitar, of course, and most of it is excellent. But the wandering tempo of the beginning puts me off. Why is it that all the guitarists have trouble controlling the tempo and none of the keyboardists do?

Interpretation

I ended my post on expertise with this quote from Wittgenstein:
It is so characteristic, that just when the mechanics of reproduction are so vastly improved, there are fewer and fewer people who know how the music should be played.
Wittgenstein was a huge figure in 20th century philosophy who also knew a bit about music. His older brother Paul was a famous concert pianist who lost his right arm in WWI. After the war he simply re-commenced his career, but now as a left-handed pianist! Amazing story. Both Prokofiev and Ravel wrote concertos for the left hand for him.

But back to interpretation: "how the music should be played". This is a funny word for what musical performers do. Interpreters do things like work for the UN and translate Thai into German. Music, while it may have arguably language-like aspects, is not a language. Musical scores are not like a written foreign language that needs to be translated into musical sound (which is also not a language). But we don't seem to have another word for what performers do. What do they do?

Here are some different performances of the well-known prelude to the First Cello Suite of Bach (it was used in the movie Master and Commander):

 Mischa Maisky:
Yo-Yo Ma:
Mstislav Rostropovich:
Pablo Casals:
Anner Bylsma:
Irina Kulikova (on guitar):
Jacques Bono (electric bass):
Because I am a kind and gentle soul I will spare you the version on baritone saxophone.

Don't you love YouTube? Listening to those different versions, especially if you do it several times, will probably give you more of a sense of the concept of musical interpretation than anything I am likely to say. But I'll say it anyway!

Here is a relevant quote: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." What Leo Tolstoy says of families is partly true of musical interpretation. You probably noticed that there was a kind of generalized agreement on a lot of the way the piece should be played. Apart from small differences in tempo, Yo-Yo Ma and Rostropovich are not that far apart. Casals was recorded probably back in the 1930s, so the feel for the piece was a little different. Bylsma is playing on an original instrument, meaning one from the same time period as the composition and he is also using gut strings, so he makes a different sound. And on guitar there is a huge difference because the strings are plucked, not bowed.

But somehow the word "interpretation" just doesn't cut it for me. It pushes you in entirely the wrong direction. Music notation is not interpreted. It is read just the way poetry is read. The 'words' are quite clear. An interpreter from Thai to German has a lot of options in choosing the right word. A musical performer does not. The composer wrote a G, you play a G--you don't "interpret" it as a B flat. Tempo is obviously a place where there is some ambiguity. But notice that all the versions are about two and a half minutes, give or take twenty seconds or so. The same player might vary that much from one day to another.

I think that what players do is akin to someone reading poetry. If one person just picks up a poem and reads it aloud, that is one thing. If another person, who has thought about and researched the meaning of the poem for years picks it up and reads it aloud, that is quite a different thing. That is what musical 'interpretation' really is. Understanding as it shapes the performance.

So interpretation is the wrong word. But I just can't think what the right one would be. Any ideas?

UPDATE: I was delighted to read in the Guardian in the review of the 5th week of the Proms that Bernard Haitink is entirely of my way of thinking about interpretation:
...in his interval chat with the presenter and conductor Charles Hazelwood, Haitink answered a question about how his interpretation of Brahms had developed over the years with a wonderfully wrong-footing answer: "this word 'interpretation' should be forbidden … We have these wonderful scores and what we have to do is make sense of them. Why can't we just make music?"
 Nothing "wrong-footing", whatever that means, about that answer. That's just how it is. Music doesn't need 'interpretation' it just needs to be played.
 
Support : Your Link | Your Link | Your Link
Copyright © 2013. Free Music Learning Center - All Rights Reserved
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Proudly powered by Blogger