Posted by dgee on May 12, 1999 at 16:44:53:
In Reply to: the importance or rhythm? posted by Charles Brooks on May 11, 1999 at 23:29:47:
: I find it interesting that more and more people I talk to consider rhythm to be the quintessential ingredient in great playing. I just finnished reading Gerald Moores "Am I Too Loud" where he claims that the key to Dietrich Fisher Dieskau's Genius was his natural speech like rhythm. I also am studying voice (I am a young High Barritone) and more and more I find I have respect for the seemingly "bad" rhythm that singers often present argueing that the text demands it. I find it interesting that these variations in rhythm are accepted in Lieder but slammed by critics in the case of instrumentaists. If the composers wrote such rough guide lines in their songs with the obvious intention that the singers bend their rhythm somewhat to accomodate the words how strictly should we be following the rhythm in their instrumental writings? Perhaps we should be looking for a sound that is more speech like rather relying to much on what a composer presented us on a score?
The singer you mentioned is cerrtainlyone of the great performers of the century, yes? I remember his Schubert in particular. I think most professionals have good rhythm because they first start understanding rhythm and harmonic movement and phrasing as parts of a whole. Later the subtle nuance of rhythm is added to the fundamentals. Relying on taste as a determinent of expressive is our goal. The development and refinement of good taste is our goal and life-long pursuit. DG
: : It almost appears as though Rostropovich is an exception. Most people don't have that style of playing.I will tell you, if you want to make a performance interesting, master the expressive nature of rhythm. Refine your ear so that you needn't dwell on a passage too long and keep the tempos moving. The reason some of th3 finest players play quickly is that they need only a hint of what is present in the passage and the imagination will understand the full meaning. the quicker minds then need to move off of the passage quickly to avoid boredom. Slower tempos can be painfully boring for people who do not need to be bashed over the head with the melodic and harmonic movement of the music. The actual sound of the cello is simply not as important as other factors in music making in my opinion. I think that players who use a resonant world of coloration can risk the appearance of self absorbtion when they make music. If a cellist is boring, it is not because his/her sound is clean. It is because he/she is not
: : working the rhythmic elements properly. Interesting topic. DG
Post a Followup