Showing posts with label Emanuel Ax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emanuel Ax. Show all posts

2/22/10

Another Possible Outcome of the Infinite Monkey Theorem

Emanuel Ax plays Chopin and Schumann in recital

Dependability isn't necessarily the greatest compliment in classical music, but in Emanuel Ax's case, it's dependability of the highest order.


Figure 1. Extinct volcano: High degree of dependability; they’re also often fun to look at.


Figure 2a. Dormant volcano: Not so dependable


Figure 2b. But deathly exciting!


Figure 3. Active volcano: Also a high degree of dependability, plus, “meh.”


Okay. I’m going to go out on I limb, here, and offer an interpretation, because, hey, we’ve got to start somewhere and this could be interpreted in any number of ways. So, here is how I read it: Emanuel Ax brings a dependable quality to his performances. That seems reasonable, I think. Sure. Why not?

Outbursts of musical temperament do indeed happen...

Implying: dependability really means flat, monotone, or tempered. But then again, what the hell is “flatness of the highest order” supposed to mean? Let’s see. Or more likely, let’s not and say we did.

Outbursts of musical temperament do indeed happen with this 60-year-old pianist, but you don't feel as if you've missed anything when the repertoire requires and receives a genteel veneer [...]

Weird. It’s as if scores impart information. And who knew that performers actually follow what’s on the printed page? Geesh! The more you know...

To continue, Ax’s flat (?) dependability is interrupted by outbursts, which tend (?) to obscure genteel “things” written in the score, which are subsequently played. Clear enough. [Ahem]

But that doesn't mean Ax was glossy.

Right! He had “outbursts of musical temperament,” remember? Or were those written in the score, too, implying that the outbursts were independent of the score?

The Schumann selections showed the composer at his most lyrical, though even amid the extravagant outpouring of the Fantasy in C, Ax revealed glimpses of the composer's darker side, as if to show how his musical love letter to Clara Wieck (his future wife) was just one side of a passionate personality that at its most benign retreated into the world of E.T.A. Hoffmann's scary fairies, and in future years would drive him to attempt suicide.

I think Lacan would have something to say about Schumann’s fulfilled desire for Clara.


Figure 4. No objet petit a for you!


As happens from time to time, or simply all the time, the issue, I think, is that composer and performer--more appropriately, interpreter—are being confused. Is Ax being temperamental? Or is Schumann being temperamental?

More on point, if Ax is being temperamental, then what the fuck is this dependability thing?

Those were only glimpses, however.

Well, maybe Ax is dependable in that regard. You know, making sure those glimpses (which are flat and/or glossy?) aren’t obscured by his own outbursts.

Ax doesn't impose retrospective anachronisms onto music.


Figure 5. Powerpoint slide from Advanced Criticism, Week 4: Knot Tying


Where were we, again? Oh right: Huh?

Because the first movement's burst of C-major exaltation is the sort that even geniuses...

Uh, hold on. Looking at the score, I’m hard-pressed to call any of it firmly in C major. (Here’s just the first page; I dare you to call it a burst.) But, then again, scores exist for performers to ignore.

That’s it! Maybe Ax is dependably ignoring the score, which he follows sometimes, but only during moments of genteel veneer.

Because the first movement's burst of C-major exaltation is the sort that even geniuses deliver only a few times in a creative lifetime, the Fantasy's subsequent movements were fated to be anticlimactic.

Fate, ruins, Clara, olives, Beethoven, Im Lengendenton, An die Ferne Geliebte: whatever. After all this, I demand to know about Ax’s dependability!

Wisely, Ax didn't try to sustain the music's emotional temperature in later movements, but let the piece go to different, also compelling places, often by tapping into the singular eloquence of simplicity.


Figure T-Shirt.


With Ax, the notes unfolded with the inner time clock of Vladimir Horowitz but with a tone that lacked a bit of Ax's usual sheen in favor of the more mellow coloring of Arthur Rubinstein.

Dependably imposing anachronisms without imposing anachronisms?

His own strong personality accommodates influences from elsewhere in ways that add to (rather than dilute) his musical identity.

Oh. Dependably imposing anachronisms without imposing retrospective anachronisms that dilute his musical identity, which sometimes comes in outbursts of musical temperament that don’t obscure glimpses of genteel veneer the score requires, which is then to be played. Got it.

In the second half, which included Chopin's Andante spianato and Schumann's early Fantasiestucke, his tone quality deteriorated...

Uh. In other words, Ax's tone quality wasn't dependable?

...perhaps in an attempt to climax the recital with fortissimos this particular instrument couldn't easily take.

The piano wasn’t dependable!

Better to end with a bang than a whimper.

Random, closing sentence shrouded in irony.
-

12/17/08

The Critic's Paradox (Epitaph)

Here’s an example of what I have come to see as the critic's paradox.

With its mix of vigor, wit and stark introspection, Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 3 in C minor can handle a variety of approaches.

No shit, Sherlock! In fact, I would posit that, aside from tape pieces (just as an easy example), music is indeed amenable to interpretation by performers—this is what performers do: they interpret.

But, the preceding is just an empty, poetic smokescreen acting as a transition toward:

...there should be surely be [sic] more edge beyond an uncomplicated bonhomie.

“Surely” surely is the equivalent of screaming louder to sound smart. “Should be” should be axed. Is this a critique of pianist Emanuel Ax’s interpretation? Or is it the author’s personal preference, stated without an attempt to understand why Ax is playing the piece in a particular manner?

If the latter, then the author is disallowing Ax an interpretive voice. In other words, “Ax is just doing it wrong.” Therefore, he couldn’t possibly have anything worthwhile to say.

And if you want some complicated bonhomie, I suggest dating your editor.

This lack was most palpable in the Largo -- arguably, Beethoven's most beautiful concerto slow movement -- where after a rushed phrasing of the yielding main theme, the soloist seemed content to glide on the music's graceful surface without exploring its expressive depths. [no explanation follows]

1) Who argues which Beethoven concerto slow movement is the most beautiful? That’s lame and not worth my time.

2) How would the author know if Ax was trying to explore “its expressive depths” if he doesn’t allow him an interpretive voice, if there’s a better, not different, way to do things?

Just saying. This sounds like it was written by a stodgy, old curmudgeon, unwilling to open his mind to new, different possibilities.

On the other hand, to critique is to have a bias. Enter paradox.
-

4/4/08

Oh crap! My dealine is in ten minutes. Uh... "Less is more!" Sounds good.

Unlike the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Andrew Druckenbrod, I have nothing to do but sit in my basement all day, cheerlessly blogging about bad musical writing, which is why I can generously waste my time, for you, to dissect this whopping 600 word-long pile of steamy... musical clichés, written in just under ten minutes (I’ll bet my Star Wars cards on it, but not Chewbacca).

Great music is often defined by what isn't written as much as what is.

Cliché. Less is more.

An orchestra's near endless sonic possibilities can be a temptation to which composers often succumb.

Already, he’s riffing like Yngwie J. Malmsteen.

This allure often leads to "overwriting" their material, filling in the precious spaces in which the music breathes.

It just goes on and on...

Less is usually more.

...and the clichés keep piling up.

Yesterday's Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra concert at Heinz Hall brought the issue to the fore. Not only did it include Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 2, a work whose heavy-handed orchestral writing is leagues away from the ultra-sophistication of his solo piano music, ...

Has anyone ever proven that Chopin sucks at orchestration? Or has it been around for so long that it’s become an old wives' tale? Either way, it’s as familiar as the old adage, “Brahms is dense and Carter is difficult,” from The Art of War.

As enjoyable as it was to hear both pieces under Swiss conductor Charles Dutoit and by Emanuel Ax, I could not help but think just how satisfying it is when composers have the guts to ask for a certain instrument but only use it when they want.

Yngwie J. Malmsteen.

There's no unnecessary extra writing for the trumpets, bass trumpets and tenor tubas (Wagner tubas in these concerts) in "Sinfonietta" just to please their players.

Janacek = not Ygnwie J. Malmsteen

It's about the music.

Ugh.

And what a fun piece "Sinfonietta" is.

Andrew Drukenbrod = not Yoda

The main reason composers selectively use instruments is for color.

Yoda is a fictional character. I breath air. The world is flat. Yngwie J. Malmsteen riffs. Orchestration is the selective use of instruments for color.

And none were better at that than Ravel and Debussy.

By the way, did you hear the one about Chopin? Turns out he couldn’t orchestrate well. That reminds me, did you hear the one about Debussy?

Debussy's "Jeux (Games)" was awash in color, often coming in waves, in a fleeting depiction of a tennis match leading to amorous activity (and to think Maria Sharapova and Anna Kournikova weren't even born then!).

1. Are the quotation marks correct?

2. Did you hear the one about Maria Sharopova and Anna Kornikova? They make appearances in a classical music review about a piece that references tennis and sex.



Dutoit's sensitive conducting alternated between continuous arm movements and abrupt stops, depending on if the work called for surface fluidity or rhythmic underpinning.


But that's the definition of conducting, only more convoluted! Drukenbrod = Stuffit Expander.

That Dutoit continues to be a master of the French repertoire was abundantly clear.

Drukenbrod = Yoda?

Ax's light attack not only fit Chopin's phrasing for the pianist, but lent the concerto an improvisatory spirit (I could swear he gave a few extemporaneous flourishes, too). The only downside was it further exposed Chopin's stilted writing for orchestra.

No. Drukenbrod = Yngwie J. Malmsteen

Clearly the best parts of this work occur when the pianist plays.

Clearly the best part of this review is when the reviewer reviews.

Ax substituted for Alfred Brendel three weeks ago. It would be a shame not to hear him again for a while.

Less is more.