BaL 23.06.18 - Debussy: Sonata for Violin and Piano

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

As to publishers, Ferneyhoughgeliebte ... of course they do employ these and similar "allowances" these days. Perhaps you missed what Lionel Shriver was saying about the dangers of "quota publishing" the other day? I note that she faced an indignant response for having the honesty to challenge the practice.

I think that you might wish to take this opportunity to make clear that, in saying this, you don't mean to suggest that Dr Rae's works were published in order to meet such a "quota", MJ.

[Master Jacques]

But imposing uncharitable (to put it mildly) motives for a reviewer's final decision(s) is not something that I think brings anything of value to the Forum, or, for that matter, to those who indulge in such "imposings". Apologies if this sounds pompous - I'm sure it does - but I think, for the continued success of the Forum, that it needs to be made very clear.

You don't sound pompous at all, and I agree that right or wrong my reasoning produced an "uncharitable" conclusion which is hardly within the spirit of the forum - though not because my metaphor was "sexist", which it wasn't; but because in suggesting that the reviewer herself might have been prejudiced, I made an ad hominem aspersion, to which she can't reply. That was indeed indulgent of me. Apologies once again.

[Master Jacques]

I think that you might wish to take this opportunity to make clear that, in saying this, you don't mean to suggest that Dr Rae's works were published in order to meet such a "quota", MJ.

Indeed I don't mean to suggest anything of the kind. Never having read a word by Dr Rae (who was not even a name to me until Saturday) I have no opinion on the quality or accuracy of her writing. Quotas certainly exist in publishing, though - just as prejudices do in reviewers.

I've often thought that "blind sampling" (which one or two of the BaL regulars certainly try to employ when doing their listening) would be the safest way to manage such an onerous task!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Indeed I don't mean to suggest anything of the kind.

Thank you.

Never having read a word by Dr Rae (who was not even a name to me until Saturday) I have no opinion on the quality or accuracy of her writing.

Which is why I find it puzzling that you nevertheless wondered whether she made her final decision from motives that were non-Musical.

I've often thought that "blind sampling" (which one or two of the BaL regulars certainly try to employ when doing their listening) would be the safest way to manage such an onerous task!

- In the unlikely event that I were ever called upon to make such decisions and recommendations that are required of reviewers each week, I would insist on such conditions. Perhaps Dr Rae did, too?

[Master Jacques]

Or, perhaps, as Dr Rae said, she simply thought that Pike's recording best presented the work as her (CR) research had led her to understand what Debussy might have expected from his work?

This is an interesting one, ferneyhoughgeliebte. Just as I would be wary of anyone who evokes "fidelity to the score" as and when it suits them, so I certainly do have a mistrust of musicologists who seek to "impose" their view of a work, on the grounds that "this is what the composer would have wanted". There are a host of examples from recorded history to show that composers don't always - or even usually! - follow their own markings when it comes to playing their works, and also of course, that their own ideas of what to "expect" change radically with time (c.f. Stravinsky's changing interpretations down the years).

Even if Dr Rae could "prove" that Debussy wanted more than (this or that) detail played in (such or such) a way in 1918, I don't think that would be evidence for a "definitive" way of playing the piece 100 years later on - though it would of course be of great interest. To be fair to Dr Rae, she didn't go quite that far on Saturday.

[Master Jacques]

In the unlikely event that I were ever called upon to make such decisions and recommendations that are required of reviewers each week, I would insist on such conditions. Perhaps Dr Rae did, too?

We'd have to ask her that. My own uncharitable interpretation of her judgement was based on close listening, especially to her expressly stated intention (quite early on) to "indulge" Pike and Roscoe for some imperfections. At that point my warning light started flashing, and all bets were off - indulgences belong with medieval papacies!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

This is an interesting one, ferneyhoughgeliebte. Just as I would be wary of anyone who evokes "fidelity to the score" as and when it suits them, so I certainly do have a mistrust of musicologists who seek to "impose" their view of a work, on the grounds that "this is what the composer would have wanted". There are a host of examples from recorded history to show that composers don't always - or even usually! - follow their own markings when it comes to playing their works, and also of course, that their own ideas of what to "expect" change radically with time (c.f. Stravinsky's changing interpretations down the years).

The only example I know of any Musicologist "'imposing' their view of a work" is the one Alpie mentioned elsethread of the editor giving an "Allegro" marking for the Air from Handel's Water Music. Which others have caused you to have such a "mistrust". I don't know of Stravinsky's "changing interpretations" - comparisons between the different recordings he made of his own work show remarkable consistencies, changes coming from his own greater experience conducting his work, and the performers' greater experience playing it.

Even if Dr Rae could "prove" that Debussy wanted more than (this or that) detail played in (such or such) a way in 1918, I don't think that would be evidence for a "definitive" way of playing the piece 100 years later on - though it would of course be of great interest. To be fair to Dr Rae, she didn't go quite that far on Saturday.

Yes - here we've come back to a point of dispute familiar to other discussions on the Forum; who do we most favour to represent a composition - the composer or the performer? It's one of those things that remain germane to our individual personalities and something various of us have regularly had to agree to disagree on. For me, with works as astonishing as this Debussy Sonata, the composer's ideas as represented in the score remain so new that a performer's distortion of those ideas in the name of "interpretation" are simply childish and narcissitic: Debussy's score reveals imagination and insight light years ahead of performers who treat the work as if it were by Saint Saens. 100 years later on, we're all still catching up.

And, as Dr Rae amply illustrated on Saturday, the closer the performers payed attention to the details of that score, the freer and fresher the resulting performance. The more performers messed around, the duller the result.

[ardcarp]

Maybe there are 4 stages of interpretation?

1. While the composer is still alive (and maybe performed his/her own work)
2. When the composer has recently died but performers still have first hand knowledge
of performance style
3. When a couple of gnerations have elapsed since the composer's era, but pupils of pupils know how it was done and choose to ignore it or not. (And there's recordings since approx 1920.)
4. When the composer died several hundred years ago and no-one has the faintest idea of performance practices but scholars step in and tell us how it's done...until the next generation of scholars comes along.

[mikealdren]

Are we trying too hard here to see hidden agendas behind the review?

I found Dr Rae's analysis interesting and thoroughly well argued, I agreed with almost everything she said, one of the better BALs. My only issue was that too many recordings that should have been front runners (to continue the equestrian theme) were not considered.

[Master Jacques]

The only example I know of any Musicologist "'imposing' their view of a work" is the one Alpie mentioned elsethread of the editor giving an "Allegro" marking for the Air from Handel's Water Music. Which others have caused you to have such a "mistrust". I don't know of Stravinsky's "changing interpretations" - comparisons between the different recordings he made of his own work show remarkable consistencies, changes coming from his own greater experience conducting his work, and the performers' greater experience playing it.

Are we talking here of BaL curators, or widening the discussion out to critical editions of the music? I haven't seen the editorial marking Alpie was referring to, though of course Hamilton Harty's edition played fast and loose with every component of the Water Music, not just tempi. In his defence one should add that a 1922 "allegro" (as opposed to an "allegro molto" or "presto") for large symphonic forces, equated to something much slower in baroque chamber orchestra terms.

I'd have to listen out in future for examples of such impositions from BaL contributors, as I don't have a Beckmesser-like store of them to hand! When it comes to critical editions, though, it is impossible not to have (say) a Bruckner symphony or a Mussorgsky opera score which hasn't been mediated through a musicological prism. Just look at the ink spilled over the relatively simple matter of Beethoven's metronome marks.

"Urtexts" are never quite that in practice, as composer's manuscripts are by nature prone to alternative readings, where the original might be in places graphically unclear, ambiguous, inconsistent or even (in some cases) technically unplayable. That's why even editors of such "urtext" editions collect royalties on their work.

This Debussy violin and piano sonata is a case in point. Here's what the introduction to the brand-new (2018) Barenreiter urtext edition (by Douglas Woodfull-Harris) has to say:

Claude Debussy had difficulties finishing his last major work, the Sonata for Violin and Piano. This can be seen in the many drafts which have been handed down and the fact that the cycle for which it was conceived was left unfinished. The work originated under the impact of Debussy’s progressing illness as well as the First World War.

The first edition, published during the final year of Debussy’s life, contains many rhythmic errors. The non-autograph metronome marks as well as the discrepancies between the separate violin part and the violin part in small print in the piano score are two problems that have affected the work’s later reception. Both are examined here in a fresh light.

So which score is Dr Rae talking about? The faulty 1917 Durand edition, the 2009 Henle Verlag "urtext" by Ernst-Günter Heinemann or the new Barenreiter? It's claimed by these editors that the differences (some of them originating in the composer's own state of mind) are considerable enough to merit fresh perspectives on what Debussy actually wrote - or intended to write. I only know the bad, old Durand original, so I can't answer the question in detail.

Yes - here we've come back to a point of dispute familiar to other discussions on the Forum; who do we most favour to represent a composition - the composer or the performer? It's one of those things that remain germane to our individual personalities and something various of us have regularly had to agree to disagree on. For me, with works as astonishing as this Debussy Sonata, the composer's ideas as represented in the score remain so new that a performer's distortion of those ideas in the name of "interpretation" are simply childish and narcissitic: Debussy's score reveals imagination and insight light years ahead of performers who treat the work as if it were by Saint Saens. 100 years later on, we're all still catching up.

I've not been actively around the Forum long enough to have seen this dispute. My initial reaction is that there's not too much to debate, as in practical terms what performers do in performance depends not just on detailed preparation from the score, but the chemistry between one another, the physical nature and acoustic of the performing space, the composition and attitude of the audience, the characteristics of the instruments they're playing, and so on. These are the factors which influenced (e.g.) changing Stravinsky "interpretations" of his own works in concert and recording studios.

And, as Dr Rae amply illustrated on Saturday, the closer the performers payed attention to the details of that score, the freer and fresher the resulting performance. The more performers messed around, the duller the result.

Did she really illustrate that, or did she rather back up her own tastes by selective reference to the score? No need to answer that - I ask again, "which score?" and "whose score?". A score is not a bible of course, but a template and route map. No two performances can be (or should be) alike. This idea of an "ur" performance 100% obeying a composer's (often debatable) written instructions - let alone following her/his "intentions" posited by academic research - is an impossibility, and mercifully so. RVW famously complained about critics who claimed to know what his "intentions" were, that it didn't seem to occur to them that he might just have "wanted to write a piece of music": composers are not always quite so precise about the details of their scores as punctilious musicologists would have them be.

If it was a question of simply following the score, the discography of the Debussy sonata would be pretty small. Lucky us, then, that performers - and even musicologists - have to be pragmatists!

[Master Jacques]

I found Dr Rae's analysis interesting and thoroughly well argued, I agreed with almost everything she said, one of the better BALs. My only issue was that too many recordings that should have been front runners (to continue the equestrian theme) were not considered.

I agree with you, reservations included. I don't think she cast her net wide enough, concentrating too much on new (British) recordings at the expense of some gramophone benchmark classics. I don't suppose we'd be having this debate, if Dr Rae had not been an authoritative-sounding guide to the work. She was.

[richardfinegold]

Piano pieces?

My old Dad was a big Heifetz fan..and Oistrakh too...but it's a generational thing. I think that possibly early 20th century violini-playing style involved less schmolz than that used by the big names mid-century.

Schmaltz

[mikealdren]

Schmaltz

and not really a term that I would apply to either the fastidious Oistrakh or Heifetz, hard to imagine two figures less open to such excess. Yes period arrangements but that's neither a new phenomenon nor an extinct one.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

So which score is Dr Rae talking about? The faulty 1917 Durand edition, the 2009 Henle Verlag "urtext" by Ernst-Günter Heinemann or the new Barenreiter? It's claimed by these editors that the differences (some of them originating in the composer's own state of mind) are considerable enough to merit fresh perspectives on what Debussy actually wrote - or intended to write. I only know the bad, old Durand original, so I can't answer the question in detail.

I don't know. But Hefetz, for one, of course used the Durand - and the descrepancies that Dr Rae pointed out between his interpretation and that score are clear to see there: the dims substituting for written crescs etc. And all the available recordings will have used 1917 or 2009 sources - with perhaps even some performers going back to the manuscripts. That is real performance: using the texts to get to the heart of what the composer is conveying in the work - not the type of "interpretation" that proclaims that the player has better ideas about the work than the composer, and can therefore substitute those ideas rather than presenting whatever the composer wanted. Forged notes have no more place in performance than they do in a bank.

Did she really illustrate that,

Yes, she did.

or did she rather back up her own tastes by selective reference to the score?

No, she didn't.

No need to answer that

Too late.

RVW famously complained about critics who claimed to know what his "intentions" were, that it didn't seem to occur to them that he might just have "wanted to write a piece of music": composers are not always quite so precise about the details of their scores as punctilious musicologists would have them be.

You seem to be confusing "critics" and "musicologists" here - the Musicologist in this instance is text based, getting as authoritative an edition of the materials (scores, parts, relevant documentation) as can be available to them - no Musicologist worthy of the name would make the sort of programmatic interpretations of a piece of Music that RVW was referring to when he made that comment (which was, IIRC, with particular reference to critics informing their readers that the Sixth Symphony finale depicted a post-nuclear landscape).

If it was a question of simply following the score, the discography of the Debussy sonata would be pretty small.

Playing what's written ain't so "simple"! And, whilst one might imagine that scrupulous attention to the score would result in identical performances, this doesn't actually happen. Hogwood, Norrington, Bruggen, van Immerseel, and Krivine have all recorded complete Beethoven Symphony cycles - they all use instruments modelled on those available to the composer, they all pay attention to the metronome markings, they all play all the repeats - in other words, they "simply" follow the score - and they're all astonishingly different from each other. This is the point - there's no need to adjust what Beethoven wrote: the scores themselves contain multitudes of possibilities. The same is true of the Debussy Violin Sonata - Dr Rae pointed out five very different performances that all "simply followed the score". It doesn't need the interpretations of players who think they know better.

[Master Jacques]

ferneyhoughgeliebte, there's much to debate in your response, which goes marvellously beyond the confines of this BaL. Good stuff!

One, very minor point: RVW made the remark about "just wanting to write a piece of music" relative to his 4th Symphony, even before the 6th (where in response to reviews by Frank Howes and others about post-nuclear holocausts he certainly made similarly exasperated remarks). Luckily for him he did not have to contend with musicologists as well as critics, because musicology didn't exist back then as a labelled discipline. More accurately, I suppose one ought to be talking about "scholars" and "music historians" in RVW's time, who are not quite the same thing as our musicologists. More to the point, scholars and critics were (then and there) more or less interchangeable - the likes of Ernest Newman can hardly be pigeon-holed as one or the other.

"Playing what's written" is certainly not simple, I agree. Doubtless the Beethoven conductors you name would be more or less in accord about repeats, but I doubt they'd agree about much else. The range of tempi they employ are very wide indeed, for starters, and mostly they justify what they choose. Yet the fact that all these Beethoven cycles are so marvellously different, comes down more to the other factors I mention - venue, size of band, styles of playing et al. - rather than "what's in the score". That is precisely the thought I'm (inadequately) trying to convey: the score is only ever the start of the process, never the end point.

In the case of the Debussy, what is not written - e.g. questions of the violinist's style and her/his interpretation of rubato and portamento (including trying to fathom what the composer would have anticipated in those regards) - is just as important as what is.

(Although recalling Tom McKinney's breathtaking BaL on Le Marteau sans Maitre in February, perhaps there are some exceptions even to that rule!)