Posts: 7
Threads: 6
Joined: Jan 2013
13-01-2013, 11:35
(This post was last modified: 14-01-2013, 00:20 by CRAZY-HORSE.)
Hello everybody!
"This little manual contains all those information that every expert musician knows. It took me over 15 years to make it as concise as possible and is now only 36 pages. Everything you need in order to understand the very basic knowledges of interpretation is here."
Edoardo Catemario
The book is in pdf format and is free to download here link removed
QuattroQuarti
Posts: 13,354
Threads: 236
Joined: May 2011
Welcome aboard MD, Quattro! Thanks for the booklet!...very interesting!
The ultimate connection is between a performer and its' audience!
Posts: 35,316
Threads: 3,510
Joined: Jul 2010
not sure whats in your book as i wont download it (so not really sure what it contains)and nor will anyone else here at MD now...
is it about the technical side of music? or is it about making music?
if the answer is question one, then okay IMO, studio techs need to get the best possible sound for commercial release
but..
if the answer is question two, then it is a waste of time IMO, music should come from the heart,soul and mind, its all about feel IMO and not just a product on a production-line
"BTO....Bachman,Turner,Overweight
They were big in the 70s....for five minutes,on a Saturday,after lunch..." - Me 2014.
Posts: 9,643
Threads: 255
Joined: Jun 2010
Neither - it's about music notation (incidentals etc.etc.) i.e. how you notate sheet music.
'The purpose of life is a life of purpose' - Athena Orchard.
Posts: 13,354
Threads: 236
Joined: May 2011
Not for me then as I only go for tabs..lol Jerome Wrote:Neither - it's about music notation (incidentals etc.etc.) i.e. how you notate sheet music.
The ultimate connection is between a performer and its' audience!
Posts: 311
Threads: 29
Joined: Jul 2013
Interpretation regards expert classical instrumentalists, I believe. You can't play Mozart like you play Chopin, for example. There are subtle differences in chromatics, touch, timing, legato, staccato, portato. Portato for J.S.Bach, but staccato for Scarlatti. For those who want to be refined interpreters of the great masterpieces of the past. 'Cause you just can't play Debussy in anyway you like, whether you put heart in it or not.
Posts: 13,354
Threads: 236
Joined: May 2011
Something I always wanted to know, Bellini! I've listened to quite a bit of classical and opera music ...is there improvisation in an established piece like say ...Debussy's Claire de Lune ?or even Glen Gould's Golberg Variations by Bach?...I can't tell the difference !:confused: Bellini48 Wrote:Interpretation regards expert classical instrumentalists, I believe. You can't play Mozart like you play Chopin, for example. There are subtle differences in chromatics, touch, timing, legato, staccato, portato. Portato for J.S.Bach, but staccato for Scarlatti. For those who want to be refined interpreters of the great masterpieces of the past. 'Cause you just can't play Debussy in anyway you like, whether you put heart in it or not.
The ultimate connection is between a performer and its' audience!
Posts: 311
Threads: 29
Joined: Jul 2013
I can't really call it improvisation. A classical musician is called to be as faithful to the composer's musical message as possible. These musical works are masterpieces, as Michelangelo's David in Florence. And we can't really strike up variations which depart from what the guy (in this case the great Debussy) really felt, wanted or intended. It's like re-sculpting part of the statue. But there is much debate over the issue. It's a question of personal confrontation, also. Every composer was a product of his time, his place of origin, his aesthetical upbringing, his character and his genetic code. An interpreter is also. So that's why we're supposed to read extensively on these guy's biographies in order to get leadway on what they wanted to hear. Playing Mozart with heavy technique or banging the keyboard is out of the question. That just wasn't him, or his time at that. You can bang Beethoven though, but not always. No romaticism involved in Bach, either. And the subtleties of touch need experienced acoustic fine tuning. For example, I may suggest you listen to Debussy's Claire de Lune played by one of his greatest interpreters, the german (surprised?) Arthur Geiseking, and then listen to the same piece interpreted by another, say, Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli. Both great pianists, but the italian just doesn't get it (on Debussy). He's big on Chopin. Geiseking was a Debussian, by all means. Opera? Listen to the Nessun Dorma (Turandot, Puccini) interpreted by Placido Domingo and then by Jose' Cura'. Then tell me which one of these guys renders Cavaradossi's desperation to the utmost. Sorry for the wordy answer. But just a few words ar hardly enough.
Posts: 13,354
Threads: 236
Joined: May 2011
Thanks Bellini for this very informative post! I appreciate it! I will endeavour to listen to classical pieces from different artists for a comparison.
How much music did Beethoven compose while he was deaf? I find that fact to be astounding and incomprehensible ! Maybe he used vibrations he got from the piano and other instruments? Bellini48 Wrote:I can't really call it improvisation. A classical musician is called to be as faithful to the composer's musical message as possible. These musical works are masterpieces, as Michelangelo's David in Florence. And we can't really strike up variations which depart from what the guy (in this case the great Debussy) really felt, wanted or intended. It's like re-sculpting part of the statue. But there is much debate over the issue. It's a question of personal confrontation, also. Every composer was a product of his time, his place of origin, his aesthetical upbringing, his character and his genetic code. An interpreter is also. So that's why we're supposed to read extensively on these guy's biographies in order to get leadway on what they wanted to hear. Playing Mozart with heavy technique or banging the keyboard is out of the question. That just wasn't him, or his time at that. You can bang Beethoven though, but not always. No romaticism involved in Bach, either. And the subtleties of touch need experienced acoustic fine tuning. For example, I may suggest you listen to Debussy's Claire de Lune played by one of his greatest interpreters, the german (surprised?) Arthur Geiseking, and then listen to the same piece interpreted by another, say, Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli. Both great pianists, but the italian just doesn't get it (on Debussy). He's big on Chopin. Geiseking was a Debussian, by all means. Opera? Listen to the Nessun Dorma (Turandot, Puccini) interpreted by Placido Domingo and then by Jose' Cura'. Then tell me which one of these guys renders Cavaradossi's desperation to the utmost. Sorry for the wordy answer. But just a few words ar hardly enough.
The ultimate connection is between a performer and its' audience!
Posts: 311
Threads: 29
Joined: Jul 2013
SteveO, Beethoven's greatest masterpieces were composed while he was deaf. And how he did it is still an issue under speculation. I can give you my opinion, if you want.
|
