On 18 Apr 2010 at 9:40, timothy.price wrote: > On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > The player could tell from the content of the music what was > > intended in regard to all of those parameters. So can any > > properly-trained modern organist.
Note that this comment is taken entirely out of context, where it was referring explicitly to the music of Bach, which had almost no performance indications in the original MSS/editions. What I have said is 100% true about that repertory, and should be true for other repertories, too. I've often thought that a good way to test musicianship is to give a player a passage with no dynamics, tempo marking, articulations or bowings and see what they make out of it. > That may be the problem with the academic world view of music, Er, what? I stated FACTS. This isn't a matter of academia vs. the real world (and let me remind you that academics live in the real world, too). > thus > one might read a book during a properly trained performance. This is complete malarkey, and betrays your personal prejudices. > But > there is always the genius who comes along, like a Glenn Gould, and > makes something his own of it. Bach is always open to interpretation, > for sure. What you quote from me did *not* say that any particular performance style was more authentic, or superior to any other. You have read something into the discussion that was not there, and you've made yourself look really foolish. You seem not to have paid much attention to musical performance styles over the last 30 years or so. Practices that used to be limited to the early music movement are now heard in mainstream performances on modern instruments all the time. This is because it's good music making, not because it says so in a book. > Don't pay any attention to non-organist comments, they can be > misleading. If that's referring to me, I'll have you know that I studied organ at Oberlin for two years while get my degree in piano performance, and have held positions as organist and choir master in more than one church. I am an organist and know whereof I speak. > Like any music for any instrumentation, write what you want to hear > it sound like. Romantic period instruments may have swell boxes, > making the stops of that manual capable of dynamics from p to f, and > many organ have been adapted. Stops may be applied to only one manual > or the pedals independently. There is usually a crescendo pedal which > adds stops up to full organ. "Usually?" This sounds exactly like something a non-organist, or an organist of every limited experience, would say. A large number of instruments lack swell boxes and electronic assistance like pistons and toe studs and the like. > You may indicate different dynamic > marking for each staff. Organs are closer to the nuances possible > with an orchestra. I don't know any organists who would agree with this. It's a red herring of the late 19th century. An exception, of course, would be the Wurlitzer theater organ of the early 20th century. To hear what's possible there, I'd recommend this program: http://pipedreams.publicradio.org/listings/2010/1014/ > The organist will be very creative in using the > manuals and stops to get as close to your expression markings as he > or she can on any instrument, or chose not to. The serendipity is > often a pleasant surprise. On simpler, or older instruments, there > may be much less control so the only a general form may be obtained. Why didn't you just leave out all the polemics and veiled insults and post just this last passage? It's quite correct, and lacking details, doesn't make any actual factual mistakes. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
