rhythm and "aliveness"

[ratsrcute]

Why do some performances strike me as mechanical due to too-perfect rhythm, while at the same times others are full of life and astonishing precisely for their perfect rhythm?

Considering Bach's keyboard works, I've never liked the performances of Trevor Pinnock. He can craft a beautiful phrase---a one measure phrase, but then the next measure is the same, and the one after that, and on...

Of course, Pinnock is Bach Himself compared to Malcom Hamilton, as recorded on a 6 record set of WTC books One and Two on Everest I recently obtained as part of a large lot of harpsichord music. I've never heard such dead reading of Bach. The guy obviously had enough technique to read through these pieces strictly in time, but didn't give them life.

Yet, when I listen to my favorite harsichordist, Gustav Leonhardt, I keep thinking, oh my goodness what perfection. The imitations between voices are so well matched in rhythm that their effect is profound.

But if that's what I really want, matched voices and imitations, why do I say about Pinnock that "everything is too much the same"?

So I'm confused. Do I like perfect rhythm as measured by computers, and performers I call "too perfect" are really not perfect, while Leonhardt is? Or does Leonhardt actually use some almost subconscious trickery such that his playing is not truly perfect in time, while giving a most glorious impression that it is so?

I suppose it could be "touch" although that can mean so many different things. If you think it is "touch," please give me some idea what you mean by that.

Thanks.

[val]

Perfection is not the same thing as uniformity. Fantasy, imagination, sense of phrasing, dynamic and accentuation, emotion, that is what makes a great interpretation.
The idea of playing Bach like a sewing machine is absurd. His music is full of life, always human.

And I agree with you. Leonhardt has all that. Pinnock, in general, hasn't.

[ratsrcute]

Perfection is not the same thing as uniformity. Fantasy, imagination, sense of phrasing, dynamic and accentuation, emotion, that is what makes a great interpretation.
The idea of playing Bach like a sewing machine is absurd. His music is full of life, always human.

And I agree with you. Leonhardt has all that. Pinnock, in general, hasn't.

Thanks, but my question remains. I know that playing Bach mechanically is absurd, but then why do Leonhardt's interpretations sometimes sound rhythmically perfect? (and also full of life?) What I'm wondering is whether there's some way that subtle deviations from perfect rhythm create the perception of perfection, while true mechanically/computerally perfect rhythm sounds lifeless? Or vice versa?

Is it something the great harpsichordists do with "touch"... for example, how they separate or join successive notes? Is there some way that a harpsichordist can affect the attack of the note?

Mike

[jbuck919]

I would like to limit my response only to performances of keyboard works for the sake of keeping this manageable (if it is manageable at all). We have a classic situation which no one here invented but which we all have to live with where there is such as Bach on one end of a spectrum and such as Chopin on the other.

I don't exactly want to start hearing recordings of Bach that are performed by a programmed MIDI without any intervention by human fingers, though this is perfectly possible and has probably already been sneaked in here and there, but the truth is that concepts approaching what would later be called rubato are alien to his music, which contains its own expressiveness without much need for the kinds of variation we might take for granted from later composers (emphatically Chopin, who ironically worshipped Bach).

Ironically, and for reasons I cannot precisely define, we can "trust" Bach performances, which are far more removed in time and artistic space, based on ordinary note perfection and reasonable attention to common sense regarding things like tempo, whereas we may never know what is really right for Chopin, the most important of composers whose interpretation is keenly associated with contemporaneous performance which is forever lost to us.

[gperkins151]

Why do some performances strike me as mechanical due to too-perfect rhythm, while at the same times others are full of life and astonishing precisely for their perfect rhythm?

I suppose this is only something you can figure out for yourself.

Considering Bach's keyboard works, I've never liked the performances of Trevor Pinnock. He can craft a beautiful phrase---a one measure phrase, but then the next measure is the same, and the one after that, and on...

Of course, Pinnock is Bach Himself compared to Malcom Hamilton, as recorded on a 6 record set of WTC books One and Two on Everest I recently obtained as part of a large lot of harpsichord music. I've never heard such dead reading of Bach. The guy obviously had enough technique to read through these pieces strictly in time, but didn't give them life.

Such a shame, I agree, esp. when people like Gould can play Bach with SUCH life.

Yet, when I listen to my favorite harsichordist, Gustav Leonhardt, I keep thinking, oh my goodness what perfection. The imitations between voices are so well matched in rhythm that their effect is profound.

But if that's what I really want, matched voices and imitations, why do I say about Pinnock that "everything is too much the same"?

Perhaps you just prefer Leonhardt's Bach? I suspect further listening will reveal the "why" to you.

[DavidRoss]

I think it's the composite of everything a performer brings to the performance, not just rubato--some more subtle and well-judged than others--but differences in dynamics, accent, phrasing, tone. Exactly which qualities you prefer is, as George suggested, something only you can figure out for yourself. It may have something to do with your training, experience, mood, personal aesthetic values, exposure, prejudices, etc. Why some people whose judgments I respect love Ashkenazy's Sibelius is something I might never understand, but I'm glad for a world in which such differences are possible.

[Donald Isler]

Rhythm is more than metronomic uniformity. Without even going as far as Romantic era rubato there can be the fast and the slow side of a tempo. In other words, there can be more subtlety to rhythm than an inflexible, mechanical beat.

But what brings the music alive is sensitivity to when the beat should be adjusted a bit vs. when it should plough vigorously ahead, in addition to other factors such as suitable dynamics, technical precision, and mastery of the style of the music.

But rhythm (or pacing) is always very important.

[DavidW]

Why do some performances strike me as
Yet, when I listen to my favorite harsichordist, Gustav Leonhardt, I keep thinking, oh my goodness what perfection. The imitations between voices are so well matched in rhythm that their effect is profound.

I think I'm with you here, Leonhardt does the most emotionally profound WTC, it's just amazing. There is a real haunting, mysterious quality about his Bach.

I like Pinnock in some works, and I don't like him in others. So I'm not going to comment on him overall. It just depends on the work. His style might be consistent, but my tastes are anything but!

[ratsrcute]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone, but no one has really addressed my question. I'm comfortable that I understand my subjective impressions of all these performances; so what I'm asking about are the technical details that go into making a performance. I'm not a professional keyboard player and not a harpsichordist so I need the help of other's experience here.

I chose harpsichord as examples because it eliminates variable strike force as a consideration. My observation is about rhythm.

For example, Trevor Pinnock and Leonhardt both have perfectly uniform rhythm when they want to. My question is not about rubato. It's not about the obvious, conscious perception of rubato. It about the conscious---that's the key word, conscious---perception of uniform rhythm. And it's asking why sometimes the perception of uniform rhythm is the perception of static, boring, or dead rhythm; while in Leonhardt's case it can be the perception of something very beautiful in its roundness and stability.

The reason I emphasize conscious perception of uniform rhythm is that this rhythm may not be uniform at the micro level. For example if we measured the rhythm using a computer we might find millisecond variations in Leonhardt's playing... and perhaps these millisecond variations are what give it its life, albiet unconsciously.

Or it might be the other way 'round: that dead rhythm is actually non-uniform at the micro level and lively rhythm is perfectly uniform.

Anyone have any perception or evidence about this?

Mike

PS. Just to answer one earlier point, I can't answer this by listening. I know through listening how I feel or perceive each performance, but I can't tell what ingredients (rhythm at the micro level, "touch", etc.) go into this without being a harpsichordist myself or without measuring the rhythm with a machine.

[gperkins151]

The reason I emphasize conscious perception of uniform rhythm is that this rhythm may not be uniform at the micro level. For example if we measured the rhythm using a computer we might find millisecond variations in Leonhardt's playing... and perhaps these millisecond variations are what give it its life, albiet unconsciously.

Or it might be the other way 'round: that dead rhythm is actually non-uniform at the micro level and lively rhythm is perfectly uniform.

Anyone have any perception or evidence about this?

Thanks for explaining again. I think I understand what you are asking now.

I think that your explanation that perfectly even rhythms sound dead vs. those with millisecond variations is dead on. I would also add that if the variances increase higher, it goes from sounding human and alive to sounding unintelligible.

I mentioned Gould's Bach earlier because I think his Bach possesses the variances you refer to, as do Gulda's Beethoven. However, they do this this is in a narrow range, for if taken too far (Like Bernard Roberts' Beethoven) the interpretation suffers IMO.

[DavidW]

Well I disagree. With this silly bit of abstraction, the fact that we are talking about people playing instruments that involve hitting keys. Especially with a harpsichord these are discrete events, one key after another.

If you want to talk about "variations on the millisecond level" you're speaking even more about the difference between how different harpsichords produce sounds differently. Leonhardt playing on one instrument would sound different from Leonhardt on another looking at that level.

If you think that those variations are what causes you to like Leonhardt over Pinnock, then I would think that is because you like the sound of Leonhardt's harpsichord over Pinnock's. I say hey fine, we can make a Pinnock fan out of you, we'll just stick him on a different harpsichord!

But anyway that's fine, I can be turned on or off of a performance on the basis of the sound of a fortepiano, so I can see others reacting the same way to the sound of a harpsichord.

[DavidW]

btw the first point would be different in the case of a modern piano. But many of the issues with a modern piano I don't think are relevant for discussing harpsichords.

[gperkins151]

If you want to talk about "variations on the millisecond level" you're speaking even more about the difference between how different harpsichords produce sounds differently. Leonhardt playing on one instrument would sound different from Leonhardt on another looking at that level.

I thought the OP was referring to rhythm, or, the space between the notes, not the notes themselves? Would Pinnock's uniform rhythm be any less so on another harpsichord? Sure, the tones themselves would sound different, but how would that affect the rhythm?

[DavidW]

I thought the OP was referring to rhythm, or, the space between the notes, not the notes themselves? Would Pinnock's uniform rhythm be any less so on another harpsichord? Sure, the tones themselves would sound different, but how would that affect the rhythm?

Rhythm is not the space between notes, it's the variation between length and accents of notes. What I'm saying is that what differs the most on small time scales is the ringing sound of the vibrating strings.

[gperkins151]

Rhythm is not the space between notes, it's the variation between length and accents of notes. What I'm saying is that what differs the most on small time scales is the ringing sound of the vibrating strings.

Sure, I get what you mean, I think. That on a small enough time scale, one needs to take into consideration the ringing of the string. But does the ringing affect how we experience rhythm? Or is the variation of the distance between (sorry, I wasn't clear about this) the attack of the notes and/or the accents on those attacks the main factor?

[BWV 1080]

I happen to like Pinnock quite a bit. He has a great sense of time and rhythmic drive. In pieces like the 3rd English Suite, and Fm Fugue from BkII of the WTC he can't be beat. His Goldberg Variations are superb as well

[DavidW]

But does the ringing affect how experience rhythm?

Well I don't think so, but that's my point. To appreciate the subtle differences between performers we're not hearing them at 1/100th of a second, we're hearing it in subtle ways, but c'mon not that subtle! And my point was that whatever you think you hear on such small time frames are probably just subharmonics, which can vary from instrument to instrument.

[ratsrcute]

I happen to like Pinnock quite a bit. He has a great sense of time and rhythmic drive. In pieces like the 3rd English Suite, and Fm Fugue from BkII of the WTC he can't be beat. His Goldberg Variations are superb as well

Yes, I'm definitely not arguing there's something wrong with Pinnock; just that I don't like him due to a perceived monotony of rhythm. I suppose others could experience that as "rhythmic drive" as you say.

Mike

[ratsrcute]

Well I disagree. With this silly bit of abstraction, the fact that we are talking about people playing instruments that involve hitting keys. Especially with a harpsichord these are discrete events, one key after another.

If you want to talk about "variations on the millisecond level" you're speaking even more about the difference between how different harpsichords produce sounds differently. Leonhardt playing on one instrument would sound different from Leonhardt on another looking at that level.

I'm talking about perceived qualities of rhythm, for example the perception of uniform rhythm, and the perception of "alive rhythm" versus "static rhythm". Many things can go into these perceptions including the sound of the harpsichord.

If you think that those variations are what causes you to like Leonhardt over Pinnock, then I would think that is because you like the sound of Leonhardt's harpsichord over Pinnock's. I say hey fine, we can make a Pinnock fan out of you, we'll just stick him on a different harpsichord!

I disagree, I think a lot of it is how each performer plays. I own many recordings by each, and there are lots of recognizable qualities (no matter what instrument they're playing).

Mike

[ratsrcute]

But does the ringing affect how experience rhythm?

Well I don't think so, but that's my point. To appreciate the subtle differences between performers we're not hearing them at 1/100th of a second, we're hearing it in subtle ways, but c'mon not that subtle! And my point was that whatever you think you hear on such small time frames are probably just subharmonics, which can vary from instrument to instrument.

I'm quite sure that the brain can perceive changes in rhythm on the millisecond level. Don Dorsey wrote about his experiments with midi performances and adjusting beats by a few milliseconds here or there. Superconductor (software) does something like that.

Note that for our brains to locate a sound in the left/right plane, the brain has to process differences in arrival on the order of 0.1 milliseconds.

But of course we don't consciously perceive these things as time delays the same way we could perceive delays on the order of seconds. What I'm wondering is whether small delays are one factor in the perception of "alive rhythm" versus "dead rhythm." I'd like some evidence if possible, or a comment from a harpsichordist.

Mike

[ratsrcute]

If you want to talk about "variations on the millisecond level" you're speaking even more about the difference between how different harpsichords produce sounds differently. Leonhardt playing on one instrument would sound different from Leonhardt on another looking at that level.

I thought the OP was referring to rhythm, or, the space between the notes, not the notes themselves? Would Pinnock's uniform rhythm be any less so on another harpsichord? Sure, the tones themselves would sound different, but how would that affect the rhythm?

I perceive Pinnock as playing with uniform rhythm and I perceive it as somewhat static, but that's not the same thing as saying in a strict physical sense (i.e. if we measured the times of the notes) that he's playing uniformly. It may well be that he's playing non-uniformly on a micro level.

Perhaps "touch" or "articulation" (i.e., gaps or smooth connections in scale runs) is a factor in the perception of "alive rhythm"; and perhaps the voicing of the harpsichord is also.

Mike