 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.30.248.240
In Reply to: Only partially true? Doesn't account for... posted by SE on March 20, 2007 at 08:12:07:
Thought you were, too.
Follow Ups:
Doesn't the "texture" of the instruments have as much to do with the emotion/message (or lack of it) as the pacing of the music?
"Removing the "non-musical context" from ANY work by Shostakovich injects disagreement with regard to proper performance."My point, apparently poorly made, was that whether or not there is or is not an extra-musical context we have an objective guide: the metronome mark.
Shostakovich's marking *forces* the musicians to bring the extra-musical meaning to the fore--it's damn hard to sound joyful at an eighth-note = 176. Whether that results in "blaring and scraping" is pretty immaterial; neither are necessary for the performance to convey the composer's meaning.
There is also a striking spatial metaphor in this ending. The strings are repeating a unison A over and over again, relentless and cold. They are like the bars of a giant cell, behind which the cowering masses "rejoice."
Your metaphor is terrific. Regardless of "how" music such as that is played, if the basic structure of the piece is adhered to the main point is made. Put another way, I'm not sure (even in my recommended performance) that I was completely convinced by the idea that ANY performance of the 5th could sound "triumphant, optimistic" -- I merely thought that "removing some of the (Russian?) idiosyncrasy" (and adding a little Telarc bass!;-) might be one answer.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
