FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 

Great video on Score reading interpretation and technique
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Production Techniques  
Author Great video on Score reading interpretation and technique
Spending a fair amount of time score reading, so while taking a break and wasting time on youtube I found the following video. Well worth a look.

Fantastic vid - thanks.

Mr Bilson is an amazing player. It is interesting that he is not more famous, probably because he is an academic and an early music specialist rather than a dashing eastern european rockstar type with the flowing locks. I have all his recordings of the Mozart concerti - his attention to historically informed detail is sublime.

I am very open minded about performance practices: Bach with gut strings painstaking detailed by nerds who have the 411 on the 18th century is a wonderful thing and is FAR better than modern instrument ignoramus versions. Nonetheless, Bach would have though doing it on a synth or with Ableton or eurorack was super rad and there is no reason for us to not investigate these things. It would be nice if the modern experimenters would take the care that the early music dorks do.

This video is fantastic. It does take patience and a interest in details and while these details may feel extremely long winded, they are exactly the details that would benefit modern music in its hell bent rush to return to twitter or the latest viral video.
Yes I agree it is surprising Bilson does not get more time in the sun. Considering what he has achieved. Figure its an ideology issue where people assume that all keyboard music should be played only on a modern piano. Irrespective on what the composers intent was.

For me what swung me on the whole issue was thinking about how a composer who has never heard a modern piano, who's target instrument was something completely different write successfully for the instrument that we now hear 99% of all classical music.

I liked the video because it raises interesting issues with some music - interpretation is always a choice I think, but it becomes critical with the earlier stuff. How to adapt a score that was never intended for a modern piano is always going to be a compromise. I would prefer to have both versions to listen to though - both the target instrument and the modern piano. That is interesting to see how each instrument deals with the score.

Thing is though, part of me thinks "why do we play the majority of keyboard music on the modern piano?" why not use other keyboard instruments to see how they sound? Sure that Haydn would sound great on a synth. Perhaps people are worried about the grim wiggler copywrite trolling the use of synths for classical recitals lol...

About the technique, well - it makes you think how much of your playing/wiggling is informed by current theory and how for the most part the music we think is what the composer wrote is really very far from what they intended or what a original audience would have expected.

For me the classical scores are a goldmine of technique and ideas, one of the critiques of electronic music is there is sometimes a lack of structure/complexity/virtuosity. For me it was obvious the counter to this is to use the tools of the past to help develop future music. But I can see that being somewhat controversial.

You have the critique that well classical sores were performed on synths as a novelty during the 60s by people like Carlos. and it never caught on. But I think without pissing over the achievement that was made with these albums. It sort of misses the point. Why just perform the works of the past on new machines? Why not use the classical forms to compose new works on these instruments. I am convinced this is what composers would have done had they had these instruments available in the past. Much like you said - these composers would have used the modern piano had they had the chance, but that is the issue. They never got to hear what the thing could do. So the works they wrote were for a different beast.

My thoughts on this were if composers of the past were around today, they would be using synths and anything they thought was good to realise the vision. But that is an assumption I make again that is dangerous. Many of us ( me included) assume that the composers of the past thought in the same terms as we do now about creative output. It's not so obvious when you think about it though. The age where you live informs your attitude I guess. So who knows what they would have thought about it all..

Lol - so much for a definite answer. Dead Banana Interesting videos, I wish there were more like this.
The way I think this applies to modern instruments seems pretty clear: Malcolm talks a lot about the different voices of period pianos and modern ones, its not just louder or whatever - he goes into the real timbral differences over time, what we think of as the VCA and VCF, articulation on pianos is not all alike.

Where the OCD performance practice analysis comes in (and applies to us) is in the level of nuance that can be applied and experienced. How many of us actually use CC's / CV to shape each note in a phrase to make it tell the story? He went on and on about that single unmarked 1/4 note at the beginning of the Beethoven sonata. We have such amazing possibilities and often make so much mechanical machine music with off-on-off-on-off-on … Its like there is a freebie out there just waiting for anyone who wants to be a great electronic musician - just take the time to lovingly and painstakingly shape every note instead of just letting that 16 step sequence spin around and around and around. I have postulated before about truly futuristic music made with these unbelievably sophisticated instruments - to deafening silence.
That is what surprised me with csound of all things, there are the tools already to make music in this way if a person were to be motivated. I think the main issue is people for the most part don't want to spend eight months composing a track.

Not shitting on peoples choices, but look at the education material available in electronic music - its all based on pre-sets and generative/copy paste work flow. The education process dictates in a large part the eventual body of work a person will make. If you don't know a particular work flow exists then your mind is not open to that way. It's not going to even be on the table when considering an approach.

I can see the reasons not to do things with the Stockhausen approach (crafting each tone, managing every position on the score and considering the interrelation to all the rest of the tones.) Sure you can create something very good. But..

1. Its very hard.
2. It takes a great deal of time.
3. The potential for failure is the same as in any other work, therefore if you bomb creatively. you loose not just a few hours of work with a bag of pre-sets and samples. but months of effort.

Still I would rather listen to a fellow that spent a year creating something, even if it failed than listening to a work prepared with a bunch of pre-sets and vengeance samples. More chance that something new will me made, but on the down side. when you use pre-made samples and pre-sets. There is always this baseline of quality. You don't have that safety net going out and crafting everything independently.
wiggy81 wrote:

Not shitting on peoples choices....

Me neither, and I agree with the sentiment of your post/s - it is far too easy to produce something that sounds like music these days, and as entertainment goes it is pretty good and sometimes great.

But I like work where every note, pause and nuance counts - something that has taken time, care and consideration to produce - something the composer comes back to day after day and re-evaluates so it has a temporal element.

Thanks for the OP, it has been a good creative nudge smile
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Production Techniques  
Page 1 of 1
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group