Bach violin partita in d

[Travis Finch]

Wow, I'ts been awhile since I've had a chance to check out the forum here and I was pleased to read about the things discussed in this thread. I have a somewhat vested interest in the D minor partita, particularly the allemande and gigue, as I plan on presenting them for my assesments at the end of the year. (Yep Acquavella, it's Travis, your replacement here in London...the room booking guys see an American with a mandolin walk in and they call me Chris. How are ya?)

With regards to the gigue and tempo, I would say that it's largely up to the performer to choose what's appropriate. That being said, I watched the Chris Thile video to see what he did with it.

First off, he's a hell of a player and does some things very well...but I do think that he took it a bit fast this time. However, who's to say that this is the tempo he chooses for every performance? I am reluctant to damn him completely based on this one video I have seen of him playing this piece. Clearly he is taking it at a very flashy tempo, and why not? The audience was duly impressed, both those in attendance and several others who have obviously seen the video, enjoyed it and responded on this thread. At the end of the day, shouldn't we be focused on delivering a performance that the audience enjoys?

With that said, if I have a problem with how he performed it I can only say that I would hope that audiences have an opportunity to see a different interpretation of the piece. One that would emphasize phrasing and dynamics over raw speed. Following that, let them be the judge.

I guess one of the reasons why I might be a bit cheesed off is the fact that Chris Thile has a pretty big level of public exposure and I worry that listeners (and players who are on the way up) will see this and think that the way he plays it is THE difinitive way to play it.

But that's just silly.

Anyone who really cares about this music, or about music and performance in general, will be taking the time to listen to as many performances and performers as possible. They will make up their own minds, just as we all do.

Oh, and just for the record. I'll be performing this at the end of the year on a Pecoraro mandolin at a slower tempo.

Because that's what I think sounds good.

[Eugene]

Come now, Doug. #I've been around here long enough to have formed the opinion that the constituency here is amongst the best informed and best mannered in the whole of musical cyberspace. #"People say stuff like that because they don't have a clue" is not a remotely fair representation of the point I was trying to make. #I just don't say "you don't have a clue," because such statements are not true, such statements are not polite, and I am not impolite.

In my tirade above, I didn't say "all American mandolinists" or even "most", but quite deliberately selected "many." #After all, I myself belong to all three sets: mandolinists, Americans, and people. #I wasn't disputing an opinionated dislike of bowlback tone. #Everybody with an opinion is correct; it's not my place to judge my "clue" to be any better than that of anybody else. #I'm not going to offer my musical resume in defense unless somebody asks for it, but I certainly believe my opinion to be as valid as that of anybody else. #I thought I made it pretty clear in my post that I believe any opinion to differ from mine to still be legitimate.

What I was responding to was the specific assertion (made as an aside, really) that bowlback mandolins "lack tone." #If that were the case, it would be hard for me to imagine them being heard when accompanied by grand piano. #I have played them unamplified in duo with grand piano--even performed in ensembles with piano, harp, oboe, two sopranos, a large percussion ensemble, and an interpretive dancer--and been very clearly audible (if a little distracted by a dancer squirming at my feet). #I was not claiming that bowlbacks have identical tonal qualities as f-holed archtops. #That would be silly. #However, I do not believe they "lack" tone. #Having the opinion that their tone is not pleasant is different than asserting that they lack tone.

I also specifically refer to arched mandolins as "arched." #I only refer to mandolins as "flat" that truly are flat, like the Martin A to E model series (that still have canted soundboards) or Big Muddy/Mid MO (and not even the better of the flat mandolins are dead flat). #I was very clear on that in the section of the old Cafe FAQ that I wrote, some of which has been scavenged for the new glossary. #If you want to be really fussy, we really should separate wire-strung bowlbacks into Neapolitan, Roman, and German at the very least...not to mention all the historic, gut-strung, and/or obscure types.

I also don't believe bowlback types to have a narrower dynamic range than f-holed arched types, especially when considering the functionality of both in pianissimo ranges. #Perhaps it's only that to which I'm accustomed, but I have a much easier time coaxing a discernible, definable quiet sound from a quality bowlback. #...And, as stated before, I can make them loud enough for any of my purposes too.

Finally, I would never assert that a modern Neapolitan-type mandolin is any better suited a tool for the interpretation of Bach (or any other baroque music) than a Gibson-type F-5. #Neither had anything at all to do with Bach's mindset when setting any of his music to paper. #Whatever you have on hand when the whim to play Bach takes you is fine with me and as legitimate as anything else.

...But now back to Bach and perhaps even my sorrow that mandolinists neglect mandolin music.

[John Hill]

Having the opinion that their tone is not pleasant is different than asserting that they lack tone.

True enough. I suppose I should not assert that bowlbacks have no tone. I simply don't like the way they sound. Now, would I flee the room in terror if Carlo Aonzo showed up & started playing his bowlback? No. But I'd much rather hear a A-3 or Lyon & Healy or F-4 or my Breedlove FF. Their just more pleasant to hear. IMO, YMMV and all that.

If I'm not mistaken didn't Loar build the F-5 for use in classical music? I guess the European bowlback style was too ingrained into the system for the F-5 to make much penetration into European classical mandolin playing. Would the classical world raise eyebrows or not really care if someone showed up with an F-5 or F-4? Just curious more than anything.

[Eugene]

If I'm not mistaken didn't Loar build the F-5 for use in classical music?

Indeed, but that was largely for the American orchestral crowd who was interested mostly in transcription of popular classics and was relatively insulated from the mandolin's dedicated "classical" repertoire.

Still, archtops are plenty popular for classical music in the US, no eyebrows raised at all: consider Mair, Marshall, Frye, Press, most of the current orchestral movement here, etc.

[John Hill]

If I'm not mistaken didn't Loar build the F-5 for use in classical music?

Indeed, but that was largely for the American orchestral crowd who was interested mostly in transcription of popular classics and was relatively insulated from the mandolin's dedicated "classical" repertoire.

Still, archtops are plenty popular for classical music in the US, no eyebrows raised at all: consider Mair, Marshall, Frye, Press, most of the current orchestral movement here, etc.

I was thinking more European classical circles rather than here.

[Eugene]

I can't speak for others. I suspect some would be OK with it and some less so. It is not unknown for Carlo Aonzo to noodle on archtops. Gertrud Weyhofen was obviously displeased with Max McCullough when he whipped out a Lyon & Healy A in her first instructional video.

[Doug Hoople]

...I just don't say "you don't have a clue," because such statements are not true, such statements are not polite, and I am not impolite...

...I thought I made it pretty clear in my post that I believe any opinion to differ from mine to still be legitimate...

...Having the opinion that their tone is not pleasant is different than asserting that they lack tone...

...I also specifically refer to arched mandolins as "arched." #I only refer to mandolins as "flat" that truly are flat, like the Martin A to E model series (that still have canted soundboards) or Big Muddy/Mid MO (and not even the better of the flat mandolins are dead flat)...

Hi Eugene,

Yes, all very good points, and allow me to apologize. #I think I may have risen a little too enthusiastically to the defense of American f-stylists, and gave you no quarter for the caveats you very clearly DID make.

And the swipe about 'flat-backed' mandolins wasn't directed at you at all. #I'm sorry I didn't put it in a separate reply. #You accurately referred to Shmuel Elbaz's mandolin, which was built by Arik Kerman according to his own idiosyncratic specifications, as flat-backed. #I was actually referring to a mention on page 1 of this thread, which reminded me of a couple of times when, in live conversation, the f-style was referred to as 'flat-backed.' #In fact, this happened in a concert once, in an educational talk about mandolins! #So it's a not-uncommon misapprehension that I wanted to surface in a setting where it might be noted by a wide audience.

So thanks, Eugene, for your clarifications. #Points well taken that are duly noted. #

Doug

[Doug Hoople]

If I'm not mistaken didn't Loar build the F-5 for use in classical music?

Indeed, but that was largely for the American orchestral crowd who was interested mostly in transcription of popular classics and was relatively insulated from the mandolin's dedicated "classical" repertoire.

Still, archtops are plenty popular for classical music in the US, no eyebrows raised at all: consider Mair, Marshall, Frye, Press, most of the current orchestral movement here, etc.

I was thinking more European classical circles rather than here.

Orville Gibson was the arched-plate innovator for Gibson, starting around the turn of the century, and arched tops and backs do appear to be a wholly American contribution.

Thus, arched mandolins postdate all of European classical music (pre-modern, that is). Any wonder, then, that the arched mandolin has been slow to penetrate in the European classical community?

And yes, it does seem to be an American habit to use the arched mandolin for classical music, doesn't it? Orville and Lloyd and those good folks over at Lyon & Healy, Martin and Vega, did a pretty good job of talking us into that, didn't they?

[Eugene]

Interestingly, Martin, Vega, and especially Lyon & Healy (via the latter's Washburn and other brands) were also huge suppliers of Neapolitan types to the classical crowd, at least into the early 1920s. My main mandolin is a one-of-a-kind 1908 Martin. You can see it by clicking on my profile.

Oh, and I was remiss in not mentioning the Australian classical camp, largely at the hands of the Hooper clan, that is active and largely favors archtops.

[Doug Hoople]

Interestingly, Martin, Vega, and especially Lyon & Healy (via the latter's Washburn and other brands) were also huge suppliers of Neapolitan types to the classical crowd, at least into the early 1920s.

Not to mention Weymann, of Philadelphia, which made, among other things, very solidly-built and nice-sounding bowlback mandolins and mandolas, also from the same period. There are still a lot of them floating around. My sister has one of their mandolins, and I have a battered, but still quite playable, mandola.

[Eugene]

Indeed. You could list literally dozens of American makers of Neapolitan-type mandolins during the "golden era." I referred to those three only in reference to your previous point.

[Eugene]

...And I really took no affront to anything written here. No need to apologize at all, but all apologies accepted, and thank you for stimulating discourse. My best to all.

[Doug Hoople]

Indeed. #You could list literally dozens of American makers of Neapolitan-type mandolins during the "golden era." #I referred to those three only in reference to your previous point.

True enough. #Those three are now known primarily as perpetrators of the arched mandolin movement, alongside Gibson.

I don't think I realized just how many builders were active during the "golden era." Pretty amazing!

[Jim Garber]

I don't think I realized just how many builders were active during the "golden era." Pretty amazing!

Not all mandolin makers but Mike Holmes has a long list of American instrument makers and his list is not quite exhaustive.

[Jim Garber]

Boy, has this thread gone off-track or what? Your choice

[JimD]

This past summer at the Cape Cod Mandolin Camp, conservatory professor and player extraordinaire Jim Dalton led a highly insightful workshop on improvising preludes to 18th-century pieces. He provided a number of useful tips for tailoring the improvisations to the work.

David --Thanks for the kind comments.

I'm likely going to do that same workshop for next year's camp.

Regarding improvisation:

It seems that there is a quiet revolution going on in this regard. Most people seem to have not yet noticed that more and more "classical" musicians are improvising -- and that is in Baroque, Classical, Romantic --as well as earlier and later styles.

It is still difficult to get one's hands on good materials -- they are out there but not readily available in an organized way. I am hoping to get some resources (links, bibliography, passages from period treatises etc.) up on my website in the near future.

Meanwhile, here is a link to an interview on NPR with Rolf Lislevand. He talks about improvising and plays some examples on Baroque guitar and theorbo.

Eric Edberg is writing a book on classical improv and has some interesting stuff on his site.

An even better kept secret is the fact that some composers are writting in period styles. There was an article in Early Music America Vol.13 N0.2 (Sept. '07) entitled A New Baroque Revival: Breaking Through the Final Taboo. #Very interesting...

[jmcgann]

Jim- Many thanks for those links, Rolf's playing is wonderful. It would be great to find out how players like Rolf are dealing with the idea of improvisation in the styles of the period, as the NPR spot doesn't reveal much about the process. I'm really interested to know how improvisation would have been/would be dealt with in these different periods and styles.

[Eugene]

Look into Rolf's Alfabeto CD. It's a great example of what simple 17th-c. chord charts for guitar can be.

[JimD]

Rather than hijack this thread with a long-winded response to John's question about period improv, I've started a new thread here.

[Jim Garber]

Rather than hijack this thread with a long-winded response to John's question about period improv, I've started a new thread here.

Thank you, Jim. I think this thread has been hijacked quite enough. It has been quite a long time since anyone even mentioned Bach.... remember??

[Doug Hoople]

Rather than hijack this thread with a long-winded response to John's question about period improv, I've started a new thread here.

Thank you, Jim. I think this thread has been hijacked quite enough. It has been quite a long time since anyone even mentioned Bach.... remember??

Except, you remember, that the question about period improvisation was originally inspired by the observation that it might be a useful skill in the spectrum of skills relevant to the playing of Bach.

I'm happy, though, to see it take up life of its own as its own topic.

BTW, I don't think the thread has been hijacked at all. #The topic was Bach, esp. the partitas...

* Our response to Chris Thile playing Bach?
* Skills relevant to historically accurate playing of Bach
* Skills relevant to the musically inspiring playing of Bach
* The extent to which period dance practice should be applied to the playing of Bach
* The relevance of improvisation and dance hall fiddling as they relate to the historical practice of playing Bach
* Bowlbacks vs. arched in the playing of Bach

How far afield have we really drifted?

[Baron Collins-Hill]

i don't want to bring up any bad past memories or spark anything hateful (though i do love my controversies, they are good for us so long as they stay civilized). i therefore offer up this bit of my deeply addled mind.

can one criticize thile for something he does not know? it was said (i mean no blame) that thile should sit with the masters of the violin and the masters of the classical mandolin to learn from them. while i think this is true, i do not believe that him not having done so is any reason for him not to do what he likes in regards to bach's works. does the fact that i have not heard bird play scrapple or django play minor swing (i have heard both, by the way (not personally, i'm only 18)) somehow deny me the privilege of performing the songs?

baron

[Eugene]

I don't even know that he "should sit with the masters of the violin and the masters of the classical mandolin." He should do whatever serves his own priorities in music making. If somebody hears and enjoys, they'll listen; if they don't, they won't. Nothing wrong with that at all.