BaL 24.03 18 - Debussy: Preludes Book 1

[Mal]

Michelangeli ...

Though I love Michelangeli's benchmark performance of the Ravel piano concerto, I think Iain Burneside was right here: "too mannered".

[DracoM]

VG Bal. Mr Burnside made sure he got HIS side in, talked AMcG down when he had to and made cogent, listenable cases.
I'd have gone for Osborne, I think, but.....so many fine performances to choose from, and, wow! were there just a few to check through for any reviewer!

[peterthekeys]

I was particularly interested to hear what they had to say about the "controversy" surrounding "La Cathedrale Engloutie" (basically, the musicologist Roy Howat decided (decreed?) that Debussy made a bungle and wrote minims when he meant to write crotchets. This of a composer who is often held up as a model of meticulous notation! So now we have a situation where pianists either play what Debussy wrote, or play what Howat claims Debussy meant to write, and the astonishing thing is that at present, Howat's view seems to prevail.)

I was amazed that Iain Burnside just dismissed the whole thing as a fait accompli: Debussy got it wrong, Howat got it right, and any pre-Howat performances are essentially obsolete.

Let's just say that, for me, the argument is not as cut-and-dried: I totally disagree with Howat, and I'm horrified that so many pianists have swallowed his views hook, line and sinker. The biggie for the Howat camp is that there's a piano roll of Debussy playing the piece, in which he seems to support Howat's view of things. But the process of going from performance to piano roll wasn't anything like that of going from performance to vinyl or CD: the roll resulting from the performance had to be manually deciphered by a third party, so that there were multiple opportunities for errors to occur, and for the final piano roll not to match the original performance.

A few years ago, I tried the experiment of playing the big tune in fortissimo octave chords (comes in at the bottom of page 2) in a way which seemed appropriate - big, majestic and stately, like a chorale - and measuring the tempo at which I was playing it. It came out as crotchet=94. I then played the whole piece as Debussy wrote it, and sticking (fairly) rigidly to that tempo (except in the middle section, where the tempo increases a bit.) It was a revelation - I found that the piece just came into focus in a way that I'd not previously experienced. It's not easy at that tempo - but who said that Debussy wrote it to be easy? In particular, the section at the top of page 2 is very demanding to play at that tempo - but at that speed, the impression is vividly like a tremendous outburst of pealing cathedral bells. If anyone on here plays the piece, and feels up to trying the experiment themselves, I'd be very interested to hear how it goes!

[richardfinegold]

I was particularly interested to hear what they had to say about the "controversy" surrounding "La Cathedrale Engloutie" (basically, the musicologist Roy Howat decided (decreed?) that Debussy made a bungle and wrote minims when he meant to write crotchets. This of a composer who is often held up as a model of meticulous notation! So now we have a situation where pianists either play what Debussy wrote, or play what Howat claims Debussy meant to write, and the astonishing thing is that at present, Howat's view seems to prevail.)

I was amazed that Iain Burnside just dismissed the whole thing as a fait accompli: Debussy got it wrong, Howat got it right, and any pre-Howat performances are essentially obsolete.

Let's just say that, for me, the argument is not as cut-and-dried: I totally disagree with Howat, and I'm horrified that so many pianists have swallowed his views hook, line and sinker. The biggie for the Howat camp is that there's a piano roll of Debussy playing the piece, in which he seems to support Howat's view of things. But the process of going from performance to piano roll wasn't anything like that of going from performance to vinyl or CD: the roll resulting from the performance had to be manually deciphered by a third party, so that there were multiple opportunities for errors to occur, and for the final piano roll not to match the original performance.

A few years ago, I tried the experiment of playing the big tune in fortissimo octave chords (comes in at the bottom of page 2) in a way which seemed appropriate - big, majestic and stately, like a chorale - and measuring the tempo at which I was playing it. It came out as crotchet=94. I then played the whole piece as Debussy wrote it, and sticking (fairly) rigidly to that tempo (except in the middle section, where the tempo increases a bit.) It was a revelation - I found that the piece just came into focus in a way that I'd not previously experienced. It's not easy at that tempo - but who said that Debussy wrote it to be easy? In particular, the section at the top of page 2 is very demanding to play at that tempo - but at that speed, the impression is vividly like a tremendous outburst of pealing cathedral bells. If anyone on here plays the piece, and feels up to trying the experiment themselves, I'd be very interested to hear how it goes!

Very interesting.
Can you cite two recordings, one of each approach?

[ardcarp]

Great post. About the programme:

Does Andrew interject with questions and thoughts that he thinks we, the listeners, might want asked? Speaking personally, I think he is mistaken. Iain Burnside's responses were often terse and occasionally incredulous.

If time had not been thus wasted, we might have heard:

1. More music from more pianists
2. Discussion of different pianos
3. A snatch of Debussy's own piano-roll recordings which we were fleetingly teased with by their non-appearance.

I love these pieces and realise that I have in the past had a crack at quite a few of them. It is always an imperative of succeeding generations to overthrow the performance styles of preceding ones! It is a sobering thought that my own piano teacher (who spent at least half of each lesson playing to me....excellent idea IMO) was born around 1905 and must have imbibed the first wave of Debussian pianism. OK, Debussy himself didn't like the word 'Impressionism' applied to his music. But I think we all know what we mean by it, Debussy is by no means always 'smudgy' and over-pedalled...but sometimes he is. Minstrels for instance, definitely isn't. Whereas La Cathedrale needs to be. I was very impressed with what I heard of Osborne..and intrigued by Cortot. I couldn't do with the crackles...but he was/is considered by many as 'the pianists' pianist'.

[peterthekeys]

Very interesting.
Can you cite two recordings, one of each approach?

I'll give it some thought and come back on that. One problem is that there's a great difference in the way in which each pianist responds to the piece, so that it's difficult to find examples of both extremes (but most of the performances at the moment seem to be based on the Howat approach.) The Gieseking is the example which is normally given as a performance as Debussy notated the piece - but when he gets to the big chorale-like passage, it undeniably sounds slow to the point of ponderousness. For me, the whole problem possibly stems from the impression that the opening should be played very slowly - but Debussy marks it: "Profondement calme" - he doesn't actually say that it should be slow! (And there's no metronome mark.))

There was a document (on the RCM web site) discussing this issue in depth, and listing performances, together with whether they adhered to the original Debussy or Howat's version:

http://www.legacyweb.rcm.ac.uk/cache/fl0020188.pdf

- but the link is now dead. I'll see if the document is available anywhere else.

(I have wondered about uploading a recording of me playing it - but my piano is a bit decrepit at the moment, and I'm not sure that the sound of it is something that I'm keen on sharing!)

[Mal]

I was very impressed with what I heard of Osborne..and intrigued by Cortot. I couldn't do with the crackles...but he was/is considered by many as 'the pianists' pianist'.

I agree, the crackles were too much. Penguin 2012 also rate Osborne, but Gieseking get's the Rosette.

[ardcarp]

Peterthekeys: This, on the subject of piano rolls. I was aware that the bog-standard 'pianola' used mechanically produced rolls, but was also dimly aware of something called the Duo Art Reproducing Piano. So I found this online:

Unlike many other reproducing piano systems, the Duo-Art used a real-time perforator to produce an original roll as the artist played. This machine, patented by Edwin Votey, was capable of punching at around 3,600 perforation rows per minute, giving an accuracy, on this first roll, of 1/60th of a second. Dynamics were not recorded automatically, but were created on the roll as the artist played, by two dials and their associated mechanisms, controlled by the recording producer.

I'm sure you know more about it than I do, but it does seem that the original performance was at least to some extent produced exactly on the rolls...and certainly in matters of tempo.

Here's the website:

http://www.pianola.org/reproducing/reproducing_duo-art.cfm

...scroll down to Duo Art Reproducing Piano

A CD of Debussy playing Debussy appears to be available:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Debussy-plays/dp/B000F4L7KS

[BBMmk2]

Saves me some money today, as I have that set already!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A CD of Debussy playing Debussy appears to be available:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Debussy-plays/dp/B000F4L7KS

Indeed - and can be heard also via youTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=levGISzDmjs

[BBMmk2]

Indeed - and can be heard also via youTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=levGISzDmjs

I have a Cd of Mahler playing piano.

[Bergonzi]

I've discovered that my wife has 7 recordings - Bavouzet, Thiollier, Howat, Aimard, Tirimo, Michelangeli, and Geiseking. I won't have to buy one, unless it's Cortot.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Indeed - and can be heard also via youTube:

... and more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnkR0OoHHog

Debussy's comments (as reported by the Welte-Mignon company): It is impossible to achieve greater perfection of recorded sound than that of the Welte apparatus. I am happy to write in these lines of my amazement and admiration for what I have heard. My congratulations, Claude Debussy.

[Bergonzi]

... and more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnkR0OoHHog

Debussy's comments (as reported by the Welte-Mignon company): It is impossible to achieve greater perfection of recorded sound than that of the Welte apparatus. I am happy to write in these lines of my amazement and admiration for what I have heard. My congratulations, Claude Debussy.

He obviously had not heard digital recordings ...

[Bryn]

He obviously had not heard digital recordings ...

Surely that is what the punched rolls effectively were/are.