Under the Influence (and How to Rotate Out of It)

One of the greatest tools students have gained in the last hundred years or so is recorded music.  If we can agree that one aspect of music is that it is a language, and how we phrase the music is our method of communicating that language in our own personal way.  I learned how to phrase from hours, days and years of listening to, primarily, recorded music, but also live concerts.  This is similar to how babies assimilate their vocabulary, syntax, accent, and grammar in speech, and for musicians it is just as important.    As a professor, I am often asked "How do I phrase?" (NB..the easier question to answer is "How should I phrase this?"...that I always have some ideas for)  But there is no quick answer to "How do I phrase?" Usually, I liken music to language, and point them to recordings (solo violin showpieces can very effectively demonstrate simple phrasing principles, incidentally) and ask them to only focus on the phrases and how they breathe and live when listening.  I don't believe there is a fast way to teach phrasing. I've read some books which break it down in a pseudo-scientific way, but the personal communication aspect of phrasing is inherently gone when a phrasing "method" is employed.  I will to admit to some basic ground rules, but the universal theory of phrasing has not entered into my world..yet.

As a result of all this listening I do, I certainly have become aware that sometimes my perception of a phrase when practicing may not necessarily be my own.  Often times I have caught myself emulating a style or exact approach to a line.  While there is nothing wrong with this per se (especially if the style that you are emulating is particularly great) it can lead to problems when you formulate your own ideas about a piece you are working on, and the phrasing that is influencing you may not suit the needs of your interpretation.

I encountered this while working from the manuscript for Ponce's Sonata Romantica.  It is impossible for me to not have Segovia's recording, and a hundred others, rattling around in my head.  Again, this is not necessarily bad, but having a clean slate to look at a piece with can be a useful way of learning our own voice on the instrument.  The development of the 1st movement provided a challenge to my influences harmonically (due to drastic note differences), and in phrasing (as a result of note differences) and the coda posed questions about how I assumed the movement should finish dynamically, and how a semi-tone alteration changed my perception.

The first case:
Manuscript Source: 1st movement (m.77)

Equivalent measure: Segovia Edition

For me, the measures associated with these examples caused me the most trouble in reconciling my perception of the work through years of knowing it with the manuscript material.  The version in the Segovia edition maintains a uniformity of harmony by outlining a diminished chord even in the single note articulations.  The manuscript poses a diminished sonority followed by material which doesn't continue it.  I struggled to make it sound acceptable to my ear, but I could now theorize why it was eventually changed as the manuscript version simply sounds odd, or at least, less harmonious.

I could find no harmonic or motivic evidence in the rest of the movement to make a case for one or the other.  Dead end. After consideration, I have developed a hypotheses.  Remembering that the manuscript version was performed on piano for Segovia when the two met to discuss the piece, I decided to crack my knuckles and fumble through the measures on a piano.  At first it sounded similar to a guitar rendering, and then I noticed the dynamics - the sforzando on the chord in the manuscript.  After several tries, I managed to make a sforzando, but something still wasn't right.  Looking at the Segovia edition, I noticed the piano symbol after the initial chord.  Assuming that this is what was missing from the manuscript, I tried it out.  For me...mystery solved.  On a piano, the sforzando creates a percussive effect and followed by a soft sotto voce ositinato, the figure sounded proper.  When performed in this way, the differences between the two were clear, and both were satisfying.  The manuscript version on a piano provided interesting contrasts in texture. There were two layers to the figure: the violent percussive effect, followed by a murmuring.

I have not been exactly able to recreate this effect on a guitar.  I still am looking for the right sounds, but the dynamic range of the guitar may not allow me to simulate what I heard.  If I can't ultimately solve this issue, I probably will use the version from the Segovia edition. What works on piano as a gesture doesn't always work on a guitar as a gesture.

The second case.

Manuscript. 1st movement (mm. 86-88)

Equivalent measures: Segovia edition

Initially, I just couldn't make sense of the manuscript version.  It sounded weird to my ears (again, maybe due to my perception of the piece through recordings and teaching) and provided an unsatisfying resolution to the A-flat chord. I enjoyed the manuscript material throughout this section (lots of different notes..check it out) but the lead up to the cadence just didn't sound right.  My first instinct was to make a "Frankenstein" version containing what I liked about both:

Thinking myself a gifted arranger, I went on.  I had gotten rid of the offending C natural in the bass and kept that great inner voice going.  What was Ponce thinking initially!! Silly man! (This is the conversation I have with myself while I take a practice break)...

BUT...when I sat back down, I realized that I was not the creator of this piece, and it must work..the problem is me.  I isolated the bass in the manuscript version, and it sounded good.  Then I isolated the top part..it sounded good as well.  Why not together?

One of the techniques for practice I learned from the great Hubert Kappel is called "rotating focus".  I'll discuss this fully in a future blog, but the basis of it is the you have to shift your cognitive perception from one aspect of your playing to another on individual passes through a section of music.  I usually use this in a technical manner, but it helps in interpretive issues as well.  We all have played a contrapuntal Bach work and focused on the bass, or the top line..but it is not what we immediately think of in a lot of Segovia repertoire.  This seems like a very basic technique I'm outlining, but done properly, the results are fascinating.  So after another pass at the manuscript version, I balanced the voices evenly, but my mind's eye was on the bass.  Perfect...sounded fantastic.  It then is a simple matter to balance the voices so the bass bears the focus and the chords "fill time" and enrich the harmony. (Note to students...you can easily achieve this balance by arching the wrist upwards slightly.  This serves to weaken the finger stroke while allowing more nail on the thumbstroke.  Not the only way to do it...just one of many)

What went wrong initially was where I had perceived the motion in the phrase.  After years of hearing the Segovia edition, I had heard the important motion lying in that inner voice, while the bass reinforces the harmony:

In the manuscript version, the motion is created by the bass, with the upper voice providing static harmonic support, as evidenced by its maintaining of a harmonic rhythm without voice leading within that rhythm:

I would encourage everyone to approach all pieces (in which it is possible) with an eye on the types of motion that occur within it.  The kineticism (by this I mean both pertaining to kinetics..and as pertaining to kinetic art) is what can help our interpretation, and thereby help us communicate this journey to a listener.


The third case.

Manuscript version. 1st movement.  (mm. 149-150)

Equivalent measures in Segovia edition.

I just love a good augmented chord.  From the first time I heard Rachmaninov to the Faust Symphony by Liszt that I'm listening to as I'm writing this, I realized that a well placed augmented chord can change a phrase.  So I was delighted to find one in the manuscript version where I would never have thought one would exist.  In the Segovia edition, the C-sharp chord provides a very solid and rhythmic touch to the final bars.  The dynamics reflect this solidity. In the manuscript, however, a single note C sharp rings through while the augmented chord (the g-sharp in the chord is now an A), with all its colour and mystery, merges into it.  Ponce doesn't even really need to write the diminuendo afterwards (but he does).  The ending that this provides to me is one that is more intimate, almost insecure, and prepares my thoughts for the quiet dignity of the second movement.  The ending was good before.  This one semi-tone difference just made it great for me!!

So, in practice, try to challenge your perceptions of a piece.  Make sure you are not solely relying on what you've heard before.  Explore the phrases and sections, alter your voicings, try new fingerings, and maybe you'll be able to communicate your voice through the music.  I once heard the great performer and teacher, David Tanenbaum, refer to this time of his practicing as his favourite: the time in which you can discover your interpretation. This "discovery time" should make up an important part of your practice day and is essential in developing your intimacy with the music.

See you soon.

S

What an interesting development we have here!! (The Romantica Manuscripts)

Most of the time when musicians take a look at a manuscript source for the piece, we can expect to find some note discrepancies, dynamic and expression changes, some new measures maybe and different articulations.  The manuscript version of Ponce's Sonata Romantica poses a far more difficult question.  The first movement differs significantly from the Segovia published edition, especially with regards to the development section, which, aside from some measures being the same, sets a completely different tone in terms of musical material, harmonic tension and tonal centering.  As a performer, this forces me to confront what is an unanswerable question - Do I perform the composer's original intentions, or what one can assume are the changes he wanted for the final edition?

My Grad Assistant, Bryan Fasola, and I confronted this question with the Antonio Jose Sonata.  My version is the Gilardino, which contains a facsimile of the early manuscript.  His version was the Iznaola, which contains the facsimile of the manuscript that was worked on for the first performance, with lots of supplementary markings, which can be assumed were added in sessions between performer and composer. We debated this for several weeks, and went back and forth, trying to find some clue as to which should be presented.  What we found, as disappointing as this may sound, is that there was no clear answer.  Most of the differences were minor (bass notes, accidentals), so ultimately Bryan decided to go with the performing version, as he liked the idea of the two forces (performer and composer) coming together for the performance, and there is enough evidence in the manuscripts to suggest that this was the case.

With Romantica, however, the differences are dramatic, and there is no intermediary step between manuscript and published version that would give any account of how Ponce and Segovia conceived of the changes.  It is clear from the letters from Segovia to Ponce that Segovia was with Ponce in September 1928 when Ponce first played it for him (assumedly on piano) and it is possible they discussed changes then.  This meeting also clears up why the 4th movement is not with the other 3 in the manuscript source.  It wasn't written yet, and Segovia pesters Ponce for the movement over several letters after this.  They do discuss changes in these letters, but they pertain to the 4th movement.

The changes that occur in the opening movement lack any documentation, so the performer is left wondering which version to play.  At best, the published version represents the collaboration between composer and performer,..at worst, it is Segovia's changes without Ponce's involvement.  To clarify "at worst"..if the changes constituted some octave displacement, articulation changes and thinning of textures ("dropping notes"...we all do it!!) then the discussion in my head would not be so contentious. The manuscript, however, presents an entirely different musical dialogue in the 1st movement development than the published edition.  I even have searched for anecdotal evidence...you know the stories we've all heard.."My teacher says his friend saw the Villa-Lobos 6th Prelude before it was lost"  or "Britten told Bream he preferred the the sixteenth note ossia in the 'Gently Rocking' movement of the Nocturnal" (Seriously though...if any one can steer me to evidence of this last point, I'd be greatly appreciative)

So...what do I decide?  Do I perform the composer's original intentions, or what one can assume are the changes he wanted for the final edition? In the end, I've reconciled myself to the fact that this question is not answerable.  What I have decided is that I quite like the manuscript version of the 1st movement.  There is a harmonic richness and a pleasing arc to it.  It has that piano-like texture that guitarists often encounter when working with a a non-guitarist composer.

Ultimately, the choice has to be based on music.  Were the music unplayable and poor, then there wouldn't be a blog post about it.  Students and professionals always have to make choices, and it is best to use all the tools available to us - research, intuition, and most importantly, our musical intelligence.  This is in reference to all aspects of our practice, whether it is phrasing a line, sifting through manuscripts or writing our own pieces.  The types of questions I asked myself with regards to this movement have become part of my story with the music and is an important part of the relationship I will have with it.

Next post, I'll talk about the certain musical challenges one faces when reinterprets a work which is already in our ear from recordings, concerts, and previous learning attempts. Do we reconcile, wipe the slate clean, or assimilate these influences? When interpreting a piece whose musical material remains the same in all versions, this can be difficult, but when doing this to a standard rep piece with new music it can really test your assumptions?  Keep practicing.

ALSO...if you took a week or so off for the holidays..DON'T jump back in to a 5 hour practice regimen.  Ease yourself into it by increments, like training for an 8 mile run.  Don't assume you can do it if you haven't run in several months.  Build up to it.

S