On Teaching: Repetition II

Repetition I

Recently I have been thinking about situations in which something in a piece of music happens more than once. This encompasses out-and-out repetition—which may be written out or may be indicated by repeat signs—true da capo, the structural element known in some circumstances as “recapitulation,” recurring sections in rondo forms, and any recurrence of a passage identically—even when it is not da capo. This also includes the ubiquitous practice of using recurring motifs—fugue subjects, other motifs treated contrapuntally, any sort of leitmotiv, the repeating bass line of a chaconne or passacaglia, and so on. I want to share some of these thoughts in this column and the next.

These columns will be filled with questions and speculation about a number of different aspects of repetition and how we come to expect it. I will also offer a few practical thoughts about what the concept of repetition and recurrence means for teaching, learning music, and performance. The value of this speculation for teaching lies mostly in the possibility that students may find it interesting, and perhaps it will lead them to further exploration. I also have thoughts about ways in which focusing on repetition and recurrence can help with the practicality of the learning process.

How many times shall we repeat?

Let’s begin with a curious example of repetition. Namely, why did Bach write the first Prelude of the Well-Tempered Clavier like the passage in Example 1 rather than like in Example 2 or Example 3?

In Bach’s composition, the first half of each measure is repeated exactly to form the second half of that measure. (It is so fully exact that he could have used repeat signs.) This pattern persists until the ending, where it is altered to lead to a satisfying cadence. We are deeply accustomed to the piece that is created by this patterning: it is one of the most familiar in the repertoire. But a piece on either of the other two models would have been a perfectly valid musical entity as well. If he had written it one of those ways, we would be deeply used to that.

Or would we? Maybe the “real” version is somehow actually better. I have played through the entire piece with both of these patterns, and it is my feeling that they work. Each one suggests something different about performance. The most striking of these differences is that the three-times-per-measure version feels to me like it should go a lot faster than the other two. It ends up reminding me of this passage from the longer Praeludium in E Minor of Bruhns, at measure 95 (see Example 4). If Bach had written version 3, we might speculate that it was influenced by this passage, which he may have known.

I tend to play the once-per-measure version slower and with more rhythmic freedom than either of the others. It is interesting that a mainstream analysis of the piece, which would be an analysis of harmony, since it is such a pure chord-based piece, would be essentially identical for each of these three very different pieces. I doubt that we can answer the question of why Bach wrote it one way rather than another, or indeed whether one way is better. It seems pretty clear that one repetition is very different both from no repetition and from two or more repetitions. Would writing the chord pattern four or five times in a row be as different from three as three is from two? At what point would it become ridiculous? If each chord pattern were repeated sixteen times, it would be a particular kind of extreme statement: outside the realm of Bachian music or most of what we ever encounter, but valid nonetheless.

So what about repeats as such? We accept it as normal that in many pieces of music, something—a definable passage that has a pretty clear beginning and an end, and not typically just a half-measure—will happen twice in a row. This is a defining trait of late Renaissance and Baroque dance forms: which usually consist of two sections, sometimes more, each repeated, like A-A-B-B. We accept that as routine, but, as with the Bach prelude, we would never expect each such section to be repeated more than once: A-A-A-A-etc.-B-B-B-B-etc. Same question, here applied to bigger increments of music: why not? I mean, why not in both directions? Why is twice in a row effective, and why would more than that not be? The same question applies to other places in common musical structures where repeats are routine, such as the first section (and sometimes other sections) of works in sonata-allegro form.

Tension and release

The most interesting effect and purpose of a repeat does not arise from or during the repeat itself, but rather at the moment when the repeat does not happen that second time. That is, the repeat sets up a tension (about whether it is indeed going to happen yet again, and whether it will end), and the motion to the next section relieves that tension. This tension is a fiction that we allow ourselves to experience, or that the music allows us to experience. After all, we know that the repeated material will not go on forever. We know this for certain if we know the piece, and we know it essentially for certain even if we do not. But there is something in listening to music that allows our reaction—our appreciation—to feel surprise even when listening to something that we know intimately.

I strongly suspect that this dynamic is one of the explanations for the persistent tendency for all of us to feel that “taking the repeats” is a different matter for the first section of a piece in binary form than for the second section. When we come to the end of the second section, first time, the suspense-and-relief scenario has just happened once, and our appetite for it is perhaps satisfied. Also, we know that when the second section gives way, whether after a repeat or not, it will give way to the silence following a cadence, and then perhaps another movement or another piece. That is a less compelling change of direction. This may also tend to explain the almost universal practice of not taking repeats in da capos of the sort represented by the return of the Aria at the end of the Goldberg Variations of Bach.

This may also tend to explain why repeats of sections happen only once (AABB). If part of the point is to set up the moment at which the repeat gives way to something new, it is important for the repeat not to wear out the listener’s interest. Once makes the point, more than once risks irrelevance.

I once heard an experienced concert pianist, playing from memory, repeat the opening section of the first movement of Beethoven’s Waldstein Sonata twice (that is, play the section three times). My impression was that he accidentally started the first ending after the second time through, and that led inevitably to replaying the whole section. I remember having the following reactions: first of all, that it was nice to hear the passage an extra time, just because it is wonderful music; but second to feel a little bit of panic that it would never end!

This experience makes me ponder, how does our enjoyment of a particular passage play a role in interpreting or perceiving repeats? Does this apply in particular to pieces that are short enough that repeats will not try anyone’s patience? In the Bach variation set on the chorale O Gott du frommer Gott the composer follows the structure of the chorale melody as far as repeats are concerned, repeating the first half of each variation, but not the second, at least in most variations. In Variation V and Variation VII he does indeed repeat the second half as well, violating the relationship between the chorale melody and the shape of the variation. Why? Well, I noticed practicing the piece that the opening measures of each of those second halves was especially charismatic, unusual in texture, and harmonically rich. These are moments that I would find myself practicing over and over again just because they are so cool to play and hear. I had to remind myself to practice other bits that needed practicing more. I noticed this before I stopped to think about those repeats. But I wonder whether Bach put in those extra, musicologically “wrong,” repeats just because he liked that bit of music! This is a kind of non-rigorous, taste-driven choice making that we do not associate with JSB. But perhaps we are wrong not to do so.

Do repeats generally have to do with symmetry or logic? I think that we often assume that they do or that they should. If the allemande of a given suite is A-A-B-B, then presumably the courante and the other movements will also be. Otherwise there would be an imbalance. When playing the above-mentioned Bach variations, I have been aware of a pull either to omit the extra repeats in the two variations that have them or to add repeats to all of the “B” sections. And this would be in apparent direct contravention of the wishes of the most august of composers. I once had a student who was working on the Goldberg Variations, and who proposed to omit almost all of the repeats, but to take one pair of repeats, namely in Variation VII. He had an interesting registration idea for that movement, which required four rather than two sections. I have to admit that this bothered me: no logic or symmetry, just going with an aesthetic choice. It is just an interesting light on what I (we?) sometimes want out of repeats.

To play the repeat or not, that is the question.

This brings us to something pretty concrete and specific: “should I take the repeats?” Essentially we never find ourselves wanting to omit any part of a piece that is not a repeat. I have never had a student ask me about a through-composed piece, “should I or should I not play measures 9–16?” or anything like that. Even though we accept repeats, we clearly do not quite accept them. That is, we do not accord the notes indicated by repeat signs absolutely all of the status that we give to other notes. We give this higher status to passages that are a lot like, or exactly like, earlier passages, including actual da capos. Only when a few measures of material are repeated right away, and with such exactness that it can be notated by a repeat sign, do we consider it an issue whether to play those notes or not. In fact, we likely think that way only if the repeat is actually notated by a repeat sign. Once in a while a repeated passage, a literal, full repeat, is written out. In such a case I do not often hear a student, or anyone, suggesting cutting out the similar bits.

For an interesting side note, in his notes for his 1950s recording of Scarlatti sonatas for Columbia, Ralph Kirkpatrick said of his not taking the repeats in the pieces, almost all of them in binary form with repeats indicated, that if listeners wanted to hear them again, they could play them again on the record! This probably indicates as much about his skeptical attitude towards recording as it does anything about his approach to repeats.

As for myself, I recognize a strong tendency to want to take all repeats, in whatever way they are indicated by the composer. I think that this has to do in part with my having spent my life absorbing the ethos of “the composer is always right.” That ethos has grown pretty steadily over the last couple of centuries and has found one expression in certain aspects of the early music movement. And I believe there is a certain logic to that. If a composer put in repeats, why shouldn’t it just be routine to play them? I have this stubborn feeling that there really is not any reason to single those notes out for omission. I also recognize that this could be a different story for pieces that were written in a style that made repeats a matter of routine—early dance movements, say—than for pieces written with no assumptions about repeats—nineteenth-century sonatas, for example—as to which composers made choices about repeats on a custom basis.

I also notice that, of course, repeats make a piece longer. That may seem trivially obvious, but the magnitude of a piece in time is a valid part of its aesthetic. The difference in length between a Haydn or Mozart symphony and a Mahler or Bruckner symphony is of course not even close to the whole difference. But it is not meaningless or insignificant either. If you take no repeats in one of the Bach French suites, it becomes a short piece. There is at least one recording of all six of those pieces, by Thurston Dart from 1961, that managed to fit the whole collection onto one LP. Independent of anything about the playing or the instrument (clavichord) or the recorded sound, that presentation of the whole collection as being that short feels different from a recording twice as long that would have had to occupy at least two LPs. (I say at least because it was a rather long LP.)

Making a piece long by repeating each of its parts is not the same thing as making a piece long by composing a longer amount of new material. And one thread over the long arc of western classical music has been to look for ways to create bigger structures without literal repetition. But in making a choice about whether to take repeats or not, the effect on overall length is part of the equation.

In keeping with some of my thoughts above, I do suspect that when I hear a performance of a piece that features repeats as part of the structure, but are ignored, I usually feel disappointed by the time the second section appears. If the suspense created by the repetition has not been allowed to build, then the resolution of that suspense through moving on to something new cannot have the power that it was meant to have.

To be continued.

Gavin Black is director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center, Princeton, New Jersey.

Further thoughts about rhythm, part 4

After writing my last column and in the course of searching for further ideas about rhythm, I came across this quote, which was new to me and I quite like. It is from a review of Rhythm and Tempo by Curt Sachs published in 1953 in Journal of Research in Music Education, written by Theodore F. Newmann:

The essence of all musical expression is that of creating a feeling of organic movement. And that factor, above all else, which contributes to a work’s organic unity, its total feeling, is rhythm. Rhythm is not a matter of divisions of time and accent but rather a relation of tensions—the preparation of new expectations by the resolution of former ones. It is rooted deeply in the framework of all living organisms. It permeates the very body of music—its tempo, melody, harmony, and form. Rhythm is, in fact, the most vital element in music.

I might quibble about the absolute terms in which some of this is expressed. Rather than “the essence” I might say “an essence” or “one essential part.” Despite my focus on rhythm right now, I would not say that it is “the most vital” element in music—certainly one of the most vital, and one that, defined broadly enough, must be present.

What I really like is the part about expectations. This is a powerful way of framing the theoretical background for my second mode (as per last month) of determining rhythm in music. The ebb and flow of tension, the creation of expectations—and then the fulfilling or the subverting of those expectations—is the source of the rhythm of my second sort. And this operates at every level, from a whole piece to the motion from one short note to the next. Newmann’s quote is a beautiful expression of the notion that rhythm can be derived from and described as something other than counting beats. For me, this description also establishes that the expectation-based sense of unfolding rhythm is primary. It is not just a system of departing from the rhythm created by the beat structure. If anything it is the deeper, more essential source of rhythm.

How is it possible to reconcile the simultaneous existence of these two radically different ways of defining, projecting, and perceiving rhythm in one piece of music? I do not know if I have a thorough or systematic answer to that. Both forces being discussed here are real, and therefore they do coexist pretty much regardless of whether we know why. Not having an answer to how or why that works may reflect something about how flexible it is in actual practice. It may also relate to the phenomenon of people responding differently as listeners to the choices made by performers. After all, expectation is a listener’s experience. And if a piece or passage of music creates and then fulfills or subverts expectations, then the actual flow of that experience is very likely determined in large part by the listener’s experience, training, philosophical stance, temperament, and so on. Different listeners will hear what is being performed in a way that is literally different.

If a piece of music is ostensibly measured and structured in a regular meter, then any overt conflict between the two approaches to rhythm would take this form. The intuitive, listening-based approach might well lead to something other than playing the rhythm as written, and playing the rhythm as written might lead to ignoring the ebb and flow of tension and expectation. One axis along which a solution to this conflict might exist is that the sense of pulse is remarkably strong and resilient.

My experiment with Helmut Walcha’s recording of Sweelinck, as described in my December 2021 column, page 11, is a manifestation of this resilience. As I wrote then, my reason for testing out the literal metronome steadiness of the recording in the first place was that the performance came across to me as remarkably and inexorably steady. So it was interesting and telling that the metronome reading varied so much across the piece. I have conducted similar tests on other recorded performances. For example, about eighteen different recordings of the beginning of the first movement of Charles-Marie Widor’s Sixth Symphony yielded similar results. Some of my odd driving-based experiments about time have this same import.

A Chopin anecdote

There is an anecdote about Chopin that I have come across in writing twice over the years, though I cannot remember where exactly. One version framed the story around his mazurkas, the other around his waltzes. It works equally well for either, as they are in ¾ time. The point is that a friend of Chopin’s said to the composer that when he played one of his own waltzes there were four quarter notes in each measure, not the notated three. Chopin denied this. The friend made him sit down and play and kept strict track of the timing, and Chopin was indeed taking four quarter notes worth of time between bar lines. This story implies three things: that Chopin was playing very freely, holding some supposed quarter notes for as much as twice as long as they “should be” held; that there was nonetheless something that could be identified as “the quarter note;” and that Chopin himself intuitively accepted what he was doing as being a manifestation of three quarter notes per measure.

It seems also possible that if the intuitive, expectation-based approach to rhythm is applied thoughtfully in a way that is really derived from careful, involved listening, then it might enhance the sense of regular pulse while being less regular than a purely beat-based rhythm would be. If the sense of momentum that is associated with the concept of regular accent-based meter is as robust and as difficult to destroy as I suspect, and if an expectation-based shaping of rhythm can make the ebb and flow of intensity the most compelling that it can be, then it could make sense that the latter approach would make the accentuation patterns that define regular meter more rather than less convincing.

The actual results of the two approaches do not always have to be very different from one another. For some performers and listeners experiencing repertoire, the listening-based intuitive approach might well yield results that are quite regular in their actual rhythms.

In musing a bit about how to introduce this idea to students, I start by quoting something that I wrote in my column from April 2015, page 17:

I often suggest to students the following practice tool. Once they have identified a spot where they want to make a rhythmic gesture (usually of the sort that might be described as “rubato”) they practice that gesture, in the privacy of the studio, in as exaggerated a manner as possible: take the risk of executing a gesture that is utterly tasteless, mannered, “schmaltzy.” This is to counter the fact that we usually only visit the gestures that we think we want to make “from below” (so to speak), that is, only compared to and judged in comparison to not making such a gesture, or to a modest version of the gesture. This stems from and then reinforces a philosophy that teaches a kind of reluctance about such gestures. If you hear a rhythmic inflection from both sides, you get a different sense of exactly how it might be effective.

When I wrote the above, I invoked the word “rubato.” Now I would be inclined to avoid that, since it is a term that relates the flow of rhythm to the underlying regular meter. The relationship is real, but I would want to encourage the student to move away from considering that relationship to be primary or of overriding importance. In applying this practice suggestion with many students over many years I have observed that almost everyone finds it easy to identify spots where they intuitively want to create rhythmic gestures that are not identical to what a strict reading of the metric notation would suggest. While these gestures fluctuate in number from piece to piece, it is more common for the student to believe that their interpretation of some of them are wrong.

Experimenting with notable works

As an experiment, try giving a rhythmic inflection different degrees of magnitude—including the highly exaggerated, but not limited to that—and try to experience and analyze what is happening with each different shape. For example, consider the very beginning of J. S. Bach’s Toccata in D Minor, BWV 565. Play the opening mordent and then listen for when you think that the following scale passage “wants” to come in. Try taking longer next time. What has changed? Have you lost the moment when the impact would have been greatest, or does the added suspense increase the impact? Does it sound like you caught a sort of wave of expectation when you initiated the scale passage, or did you miss it? If you missed it, could there be another one coming up, different yet also fulfilling?

Questions like these are easy to highlight with a moment in an intrinsically free passage like this, but they are potentially present all the time. Returning to the pieces that I invoked at the beginning of this series of columns, I would say that the first barline in the opening of the first movement of Widor’s Sixth Symphony is also a place where the dynamic of this sort of rhythm is clear. A student can play it metronomically and then try various timings, listening as closely and open-mindedly as possible. What is gained or lost by various different timing possibilities? What does the timing at that barline imply or suggest or even necessitate about playing the second measure itself? Would the answers be different if this were not the opening of the piece? Is the answer to that question different if we stipulate either that it was a recapitulation or, on the other hand, that it was a new idea introduced in mid-piece? Does the use of this motif later in the movement as written affect choices here at the beginning?

It is interesting to listen for intuition-based timing of quick notes within a texture. In Example 1, in this Mozart Piano Sonata in A Major, K. 331, how can we determine exactly where to play the sixteenth notes?

My own approach to figuring this out would be to leave those notes out at first, making the rhythm of the first half of each of the first two measures the same as the rhythm of the second half. I would play this a few times, just like that, as if it were the piece. Then I would play it a few times hearing the sixteenth notes in my head, but not playing them and then add those notes back. I often do not know and cannot seem to determine as a matter of counting and calculation where I want to place short notes after dotted notes. To use a piece I have played a lot, I have no idea exactly what ratio I give to the pervasive dotted rhythms in Bach’s Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 552i. I can only hear whether they do or do not seem to do the right sort of job in creating momentum from one long note to the next.

When one asks a student to listen carefully to every moment in a passage and to discern as much as they can about rhythm through that listening, interesting things happen. Some of these are advantages while others are pitfalls. One great advantage is that this tends to keep the student from rushing. Not everyone has a tendency to rush, but most of us do at least some of the time. One reason for rushing is that we pay the most attention to the things that we must do physically—and for organ and harpsichord that means initiating the notes and releasing them. As soon as one note is safely played, there is some pull toward either the moment of release or the moment of initiating the next note. The sort of listening that I am describing here focuses the attention as much on the middle of a note as on the beginning and end.

Listening this way tends to lead to slower playing. That has been true for me, to a fault some of the time, though it is a perfectly natural outcome of this approach. The way to counter this tendency is through awareness and honesty. This listening approach is both a practice technique and something to bear in mind while actually performing. As with any other sort of practice, it is important and good to utilize it at a slow tempo, but as with any slow practice, it should be ramped up to the desired tempo in a systematic way.

It is natural to prepare for the moment when you believe the next note should occur and then play that note. This makes that moment in the music late by definition and leads to slow playing. It is probably acceptable for this to happen early in practicing a passage, as long as you are aware of it and work on evening it out as you get to know the music better. I have also been guilty of this in performance, not recognizing it clearly enough in practicing, and therefore not working to smooth out the process.

This is analogous to something that can happen when using a metronome, when one listens for the metronome beat and then plays the note. Something like this can also happen with releases. If you hear the instant at which you want to release a note and then release it, the release is late. A release that is executed by pushing off—down, then up—will also be late if the downstroke is timed to the desired moment of release. There is a sort of leap of faith when executing something, whether the timing of the beginning of a note, as we are discussing here, or of the end, without waiting to confirm that the looked-for time has arrived.

A few miscellaneous points

What is the meaning of any given note value? We know the answer: a quarter note is equal to two eighth notes or to half a half note; a whole note is four quarter notes, etc. But here’s another definition: a quarter note (or whatever note value) is whatever a listener will hear or accept as a quarter note. This relates directly to the Chopin story above.

Watching a TV game show recently, I heard the host say to a contestant, “Time is ticking away!” Why? Why is time defined as made up of discrete entities, ticks of a clock? Is it just because old clock technologies produced audible ticking? Or is there really something more fundamental about time that requires us to think that way? This vignette from a fraught moment in a game reminds us that thinking of time as ticking tends to create a sense of impatience or even panic.

The beating of the heart is sometimes evoked as a possible source for the notion of beats in music. This makes sense because the heart does beat fairly regularly in the absence of a medical issue. That beating is audible to the one whose heart it is, though not usually in a way that rises to the level of conscious awareness. If you quiet the outside world, you will easily hear your heart beating. But no heart beats as absolutely steadily as the beat we hear from a metronome. If the heart is a model for musical beats, maybe it should confer some flexibility onto those beats. If the heart is the model for a beat-derived sense of musical rhythm, breathing should be the model for a sense of rhythm based on expectation and fulfillment.

Students’ Listening II

Why should anyone ever listen to music?

That is, of course, a ridiculous question. It is obvious from history that listening to music is fundamentally human: a desire or even a need, and maybe a definitional part of human experience. Yet, I think it is important to continually remind ourselves that recordings, in addition to live performances, help us to strive to become better musicians. Musicians are often subject to self-doubt. (There is a cartoon that I see once in a while that shows a pie chart of the mind of a musician. The section labeled “crippling self-doubt” covers about 90% of the space.) That self-doubt comes from several questions, not the least of which is: “is this all worthwhile?” Yet, listening to great music provides us with an affirmative answer. The sort of self-doubt regarding the quality of one’s own playing can be exacerbated by listening—something that I will try to grapple with below.

One concrete reason for listening to music is to gain familiarity with diverse repertoire. This was the point of that “listening test” I encountered in college that I referenced last month. What repertoire? There are expanding circles ranging from music from a specific time period written specifically for our instrument to the entirety of written music. It is potentially frustrating and, for me, quite liberating to realize that it is impossible to know all of the music that is out there. Frustrating because of the inevitability of missing things that are wonderful. Liberating because, if we cannot experience everything, then we do not have to aspire to have experienced everything. We can hope to experience a substantial and meaningful subset of what there is.

How should any given student navigate the world of listening for learning about repertoire? Listening to music that you already know and like is a wonderful thing to do, but that’s not really part of this process. Going out in circles is always a good idea: if you love and listen to Brahms symphonies, try his chamber music; try symphonies by someone who influenced Brahms or whom he influenced. Then try their chamber music, piano music, and so on. If you like Schütz, listen to Gabrieli. If you like Beethoven, listen to Albrechtsberger. There need not be anything obscure, complicated, or subtle about constructing these circles. Fruitful connections can be found by perusing Wikipedia articles or CD booklets.

This is fairly obvious, and we all probably do it normally as we seek out things to listen to. But still, you should encourage your students to follow the process consciously, maybe in ways that are partly teacher-guided, perhaps with a written outline to keep track. But another idea is to seek out new things to listen to not by affinity but by opposition. If you love Brahms, listen to Wagner or Liszt. If you love Debussy, listen to a selection of music by Les Six, who consciously rejected his influence. If you love Bach, seek out the music of Marchand, who was apparently intimidated by Bach and fled from a possible competition with him. Or, if you have not already done so, listen to Handel, whose life, career, temperament, and music were so different from those of Bach.

Keeping a distance

Another way to find things to listen to is to search for music that is completely different from your norm. Whatever you have just been listening to and enjoying, move as far away as possible. If you have been listening to the Telemann Paris Quartets, find some late nineteenth-century Russian choral music. If you have been listening to a Bruckner symphony, find a clavichord performance of early seventeenth-century dances. This is a controlled randomness and guarantees avoiding ruts.

If a friend, teacher, critic, or scholar says that particular music is not worth getting to know (boring, pedestrian, unpleasant, lacking in importance), then try it out! This suggestion is not based on the notion that that friend or critic is someone of bad judgment or likely to be wrong. It is just a way of shaking things up. People of equal discernment and experience end up reacting differently to artistic experience as often as they end up reacting similarly, and that is just as true when they agree that they are people of similar tastes.

Some of my most important, rewarding, and long-term fruitful listening as a youngster came from LPs that an older musician had discarded as being of little or no interest. And the musician in question was someone from whom I learned a lot and whose taste and judgment I admired. We should never base our exploration on the assumption that any two people see things the same way.

When we talk about listening to music to broaden or deepen our familiarity with repertoire, we are mostly talking about listening to recordings. We expect to be able to find recordings of just about anything, whereas the concert offerings in any one locale can only cover a tiny amount of music, even over several concert seasons. The changes in the ways in which we encounter recordings that have taken place in the last several years are interesting to consider, especially as they influence the experience of students.

The revolution in the listening experience

In my experience, I would say that for at least five years now, 85% of the time that a student has come to a lesson and told me that they have listened to a piece, that listening has taken place on YouTube. A lot of listening is now done without any money changing hands. That opens music up to more listeners, though the effect on creators of performances is more problematic. I remember spending several days while I was in college agonizing over whether to spend, I believe, $4.99 on Ralph Kirkpatrick’s LP of four Bach harpsichord toccatas. I vividly recall going back to the Princeton University Store several times to look it over. (I did buy it.) Now anyone can find many performances of those pieces on YouTube.

When a student comes to a lesson and tells me that they have been looking into a particular piece by listening to a YouTube performance, I always ask who was playing. And never once in that situation has anyone been able to say who the performer was. Of course, that information is usually there to be found. And furthermore, all of the students in question have been extremely smart and clever people who pay attention to the world around them and care about artistic matters. It is just that expectations have changed; the ethos of how we listen has changed. YouTube is seen, for purposes like this, as a sort of neutral encyclopedia of music. It isn’t any more obvious that you would check on who was playing than it would be to dig into the question of who wrote a given encyclopedia or Wikipedia article.

Is this good, bad, neither, or both? I am not sure. I have an extreme interest in performers. Probably too extreme, in that it can get in the way; if I do not know who is playing, I have trouble feeling comfortable listening. But that is a foible of mine. If listening is being done only or mostly to learn something about what music is out there, then the identity or background of the player is perhaps best thought of as only one piece of information about what is going on, not necessarily more important than information about instruments, acoustics, recording technology, edition used, and so on. If a piece seems less interesting or compelling than you had hoped that it would be, it is often worth looking for a different performance before shelving your interest in that piece.

This modern paradigm has the effect of taking away some of the feelings of authority that we have traditionally bestowed on those performers who were invited to make recordings. Part of the dynamic of record listening over the twentieth century was that we assumed, by and large, that the recording artists were the most talented players and thoughtful interpreters. No matter how inspiring it can be to listen to great recordings, it can also be limiting. This limiting tendency has its feel-good side: getting accustomed to a certain undeniably effective performance approach and experiencing the satisfaction of absorbing and then perhaps recreating it. I would argue that the limiting nature of this outweighs the good feeling that it engenders. But even worse, there is the outwardly discouraging side: feeling intimidated by the reputed greatness of the recording artists, not just by liking their performances better than you anticipate liking your own, but being daunted by their celebrity and publicly heralded greatness. It is possible that the more democratic performance model that has taken hold now will have the psychological effect of freeing students to include themselves more easily in the universe of those whose performances are valid.

Listening to interpretation

In former days, a student might ask, “how can I hope to play as well as Marcel Dupré, Helmut Walcha, Fernando Germani, Marie-Claire Alain, etc.” Now we can say “you don’t even know who that player was. It could just as easily have been you. You can do that just as well!” This is an over-simplification, but not an unrealistic or inapt one, based on what I have seen.

This brings us to another major aspect of listening: to learn interpretation. As anyone will know who has read this column over the years, I am a strong believer in encouraging everyone to feel free to play as they want. This includes students, to such an extent that I want even beginners to make their own interpretive decisions. That is a big subject, and this is not the place to go into it fully. The role of listening to recordings in shaping interpretation or in learning how to think about the art of shaping interpretation is essentially two-fold. On the one hand, anyone’s playing can be a direct source of ideas about playing. There is nothing wrong with listening to someone else play and thinking about what that player did, the choices that he or she made, the effects that those choices seemed to have, etc. If a student is doing this as a conscious choice then it can be used in the ways that the student wants, with whatever guidance from the teacher seems useful. The teacher might do well to remind the student that anything heard in someone else’s performance is just one person’s choice.

But there is only so much that we can do by taking hold of this sort of listening consciously. To a greater or lesser extent from one person to another, but to a significant extent for almost everyone, performances heard repeatedly exert a subconscious influence, sometimes a very strong one. If we have heard a passage or a piece exactly the same way over and over again, our minds can define the piece as being what we heard as much as we define it by the notes on the page. This is true not only as defined by performance gestures—tempo, articulation, timing, etc., but also about registration or the often-irreproducible effects of acoustics. I recall an earnest conversation that I once had with an organist a bit older and more experienced than I was about what the registration “should” be for the middle section of a certain piece. I was arguing that the nature of the music called for something clear and light; he was equally sure that it needed a more “quinty”-rich sound. It turned out that each of us had had as our favorite recorded performance of that piece one that led us to these diverging conclusions. The point is not that we each liked the sound we were used to, but that we had absorbed it so deeply that we were prepared to argue that it was part of the definition of the piece.

As another example, I love the piano music of Schubert. However, I have lately realized that I so deeply absorbed Alfred Brendel’s approach to that music growing up that I have a hard time listening to anyone else playing it. For years I have sought out records or occasional live performances of Schubert by pianists whom I admire greatly. But I always react as if something is just not quite right—an interpretive/rhetorical analogue to pervasive wrong notes or bad tuning. I consider this a loss for me, and it may fade or otherwise change someday. It is not a big deal; rather, it is part of the give and take of life. But if I were trying to play that music, I would have the following bad choice: either I would play in a way that was a copy of someone else, or I would not like the way I played.

So the first antidote to getting one performance approach stuck in one’s head is to listen more or less equally to multiple performances. If you have heard each of five or six performances of a piece approximately the same number of times, then it is quite impossible that one of them can have established itself in your mind as the very definition of the piece. But this is also part of the give and take of life. If we listen to half a dozen performances of every piece that we might want to play, then we have that much less time to listen to other things. It is a question of managing what we want to do. I personally focus on pieces that I am actively working on or feel sure that I want to play some day. I solve the problem for those pieces by not listening to them at all. That is the opposite solution to listening to multiple performances. They both work for this purpose. For other music I sort of let the chips fall where they may.

Most of us spend much less time listening to live concerts in person than we do listening to recordings. Probably the major advantage of live performance is that when all is said and done, the sonorities, the effect of acoustics, and the spontaneity are simply different. A recording is not an “I couldn’t tell the difference” recreation of a concert or other live performance, and it is at least a common experience that concerts at their best are even better than recordings. This is kind of a cliché, and in this case it is only sometimes true. A given concert even by a great performer can happen to be uninspired, or something can go wrong: noise, tuning, acoustic. But there is a particular advantage to live concerts. If you hear a piece in concert and are intrigued or excited by it—a piece of the sort that you might want to play—then the chances are that you will not remember all specifics of the interpretation well enough or in enough detail to be overly influenced by them. They certainly cannot imprint themselves on your subconscious with the weight of authority that comes from repetition if that repetition has not happened.

There is a lot more to say about all of this, and I will come back to it. For the next column, I will turn to J. S. Bach’s The Art of the Fugue. Some of the features of this piece that make it particularly interesting inspire me to think and write while working on creating a performance of it, as there are some important things about the work that we do not know. For instance, we do not know the order of the movements, what instrument or instruments it was intended for, what title the composer meant for it to have, or, since it is incomplete, how it was meant to end. We do know that Bach worked on it for years, right up to his death, and that his heirs worked thereafter on getting it published. As to all of these things that we do not know, we can make highly educated guesses or assumptions—enough to make it interesting to discuss and to be getting on with for performance.

A word

Over the last year or so I have attended more cultural and artistic events than I have in several years. I have had periods of doing more of this sort of thing than I had on average before the pandemic: catching up on theater, dance, music, art galleries, one figure skating exhibition, poetry readings, lectures, movies, etc. This has been extraordinarily satisfying, life-affirming, and a good antidote to a certain claustrophobia that had rather naturally set in before. I have noticed that as it seemed to become safe to go out and experience public life in these ways, I pursued doing so almost frantically. I get maybe 100 emails per day informing me about some sort of concert or play, and for quite a while I reacted to each such email by thinking “Yes, I have to do this!!” Recently I have noticed that this exaggerated fervor has simmered down to something more normal.

Upon attending theater, concerts, and such, I noticed that I was beginning to think about performance—not so much the phenomenon as the word itself. It felt like I was saying to myself things such as: “How nice to be attending a performance again;” “I haven’t been to a performance in a long time;” “I had never gone this long without experiencing a performance.” The word began to sound weird to me, the way a word does once in a while if you hear it enough. Yet, it also sounded interesting. I began to seek out instances of the words “performance,” “performer,” and “perform.” And though it was not the point initially, I became interested in the connections between that word and our relationship to it as musicians. In particular, I wonder what holding that word up to the light a bit might say about the perennial problem that we all face: that performance is hard, nerve wracking, and productive of anxiety. Certainly most of what is so difficult about performing music is intrinsic to the activity, not something that is created by the word itself. However, the word may shape expectations of feeling to some extent.

By chance these musings about the word “performance” tie in with something that I had planned to write about anyways, and that will form the subject of the next column.

Performance

So what about that word “performance?” Below is a potpourri of some of the ideas, observations, and questions that have been going through my head.

Performance is used in the arts (or the “performing arts”) to refer to a situation in which someone provides a public exhibition of their art. What are the performing arts? Is it interesting to suggest that they are arts that involve movement through time? That is, movement through time when they are being taken in by a patron, customer, or audience member. Everything exists in time, so a painting or sculpture exists in time. When someone looks at it and focuses on or appreciates it, that takes time. But the art is not using time.

There are some moving sculptures. If that is not “performance,” why not? Presumably because the sculpture has no consciousness or volition, and the person who made the sculpture is not the one doing the moving. So if something is a “performance,” someone has to be doing the performance in real time, though not necessarily at the same time that the audience is experiencing it. Acting in a movie or television show is just as much “performance” as acting in the theater.

We certainly would say that an orchestra gives “a performance.” But would we say that of an individual orchestra member? “I love (or hated) his performance of the oboe solo in such-and-such a symphony.” “She gave a great (or terrible) performance of the opening horn solo in Schubert’s Ninth.” Probably not. We would say, “I liked (hated) the way she or he played that passage.”

What about conductors? We might say, “That conductor gave a great performance of that symphony last night.”

What about in church? Would we say that someone gave a performance of a certain piece as prelude or offertory? Maybe, though I think that in reality we would be more likely to use a phraseology involving “playing” rather than “performing.” “That prelude that you played today was a favorite of mine.” How about with hymns? I would be astonished if anyone said, “I loved her performance of Hymn #284,” rather than “I loved how she played. . . .” If I am right about that, what does that tell us? When you accompany a hymn in church you are, first of all (like a member of an orchestra), not creating the whole of the musical, artistic entity. You are also doing something that is only partially directed at the listeners/audience, or in this case the congregation, whom we have stipulated as part of the “performance” situation—that is, only partly directed at them as listeners. You are helping them to sing, and in turn their singing is probably not what we would call a “performance;” the singing is essentially for the benefit of the people engaged in doing it.

So performance is presumably directed outward. Usually? Always?

Occasionally at one of these performances I have been so avidly attending, I find myself chatting afterwards with an actor or dancer. This is usually in a small group in the lobby or out on the street in front of the venue. Occasionally, I will say, “I am also a performer,” or something to that effect. What I find fascinating is that I always feel that in saying this I am being a bit presumptuous or even a bit of a fraud. Yet, I am a performer. So what’s up? I think that part of it is that we tend to put “performers” on pedestals; we do not think of them as being “regular” people, and I happen to know first-hand that I am a “regular” person! So at some visceral level I feel as though I am misrepresenting myself or perhaps impolitely trying to cut down the real performer to whom I am talking. There is also more neutrally just the feeling that using the concept of “performer” to equate two very different things is somewhat inaccurate and reductionistic.

The difference between the two things may come down to an actor plays a part pretending to be someone else, whereas performance of music does not. Is that really true? Is it a hard and fast difference? This is the thread that I will pick up next month.

The word performance is also used with respect to athletics. “That was a great pitching performance.” “He underperformed his career average.” In athletics the word almost always means what you achieve in relation to defined standards. If I say that a golfer’s performance in the final round of a tournament was amazing, I do not mean anything other than that they shot a great score and perhaps executed some shots along the way that were really difficult. That may not be a comprehensive way of putting it, but it is all about the concrete, measurable carrying out of defined tasks. I might very well appreciate the elegance of a golfer’s swing or something about their demeanor—maybe a particular look of concentration, but in this context that is not part of their “performance” on the golf course. 

This is one of the reasons that we think that we can compare how “great” different athletes are. It is not just that statistical descriptions exist of what each athlete did in their sport. (Sometimes that information is lacking, which makes the evaluation impossible as a practical matter, but does not change the concept.) It is that “performance” is defined as being those objective results. 

Picture this: you have been sitting around the living room visiting with some friends. All of a sudden one person stands up, starts to express displeasure with everyone else in the room, increasingly loudly and insistently, and walks out shouting, “I’m finished with the lot of you!” Let us say that this was unprovoked. Someone in the room might then look at the others and say, “Well, that was quite a performance!” If the person who left the room had instead just visited peacefully and eventually said a pleasant “Good night,” no one would have characterized that as a “performance.”  

When someone acts as the officiant at a wedding, their words, gestures, and signature make the marriage official. We might say that they have “performed” a wedding ceremony. However, we would probably not refer to that phenomenon as “a performance.” When shaking the hand of a member of the clergy or judge or ship’s captain, we might say, “I loved the way you spoke at the wedding” or “I loved the way you conducted the wedding.” Maybe, “I loved the way you performed the ceremony just now.” But certainly not “I loved your performance earlier this afternoon.” What does this tell us, and what does this mean? 

Performance vs. performance art

What about “performance art?” It resists definition, as the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article on the subject illustrates. That interesting article opens with statements such as, “Performance art is an artwork or art exhibition created through actions executed by the artist or other participants,” and “Its goal is to generate a reaction,” which do not really distinguish it from other art. That leads back to the question: why use the word “performance” as the defining title of an art form or art movement that is not any more about “performance” than any theater piece or piano recital? It seems an abstraction of the concept of performance, perhaps an assertion that the act of performance as such has a life and a meaning independent of the forms through which it has traditionally been channeled. Can that concept of performance as an independent entity then be turned back on our awareness of what performance is in any form?

There is a whole other set of uses to which the word “performance” is put. One that is found disproportionately in ads and commercials is a use like “performance motor oil,” “get the best performance from your stove,” or “high performance grass seed.” This is another abstraction or maybe just a more fundamental use of the word. It means something like, “How you do something (anything).” It is interesting that in this context the word “performance” implies “really good performance.” I suspect that this is fairly new, as is a similar way of using the word “quality.” This usage is related to the “performance” of a stock or mutual fund. Two characteristics of this sort of usage are that it has an unambiguous good-to-bad axis—no one would disagree about what’s good and what’s bad—and that it refers to inanimate entities. The things doing the performing have no consciousness or awareness.  

The second of these is clearly a departure from the way “performance” is used in the arts. The first is more intriguing. I wonder whether this is connected with our heightened feelings of expectation and nervousness when what we are doing at a given moment is a “performance” rather than just playing through a piece or reciting a poem out loud because we like the sound of it. There are many reasons to find performance difficult, reasons that are grounded in the content of what we are doing. But I wonder about the linguistic: “performance” is supposed to be good, can always be better, can be measured, and can be used to create rankings.

As an anecdote about my own recent experience, I have done very little performing since the pandemic began—just two short harpsichord recitals, a year or so ago. I feel confident that I will progressively get back to performing, but it still all feels rather abstract. On the other hand, I have been doing a lot of playing at home and in my studio, playing through things, sort of practicing, but usually not in a goal-directed way. My own ears are telling me that, for my own taste and in relation to what I want to try to make happen when I play, I am playing categorically more effectively than I ever have before. I suspect that what I am hearing in my playing is related to the sense of being free from the demands of performance. And if true, this is in large part due to the substantive anxieties and pressures of performance. But I suspect that the language plays a part. If we are contemplating a “performance,” we are at risk for thinking that we have to behave like “performance motor oil”; if we are just playing, we can just play.

An upcoming workshop

I will be offering a one-day workshop on J. S. Bach’s The Art of the Fugue on Saturday, April 1. The event, presented by Princeton Early Keyboard Center, will run from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the chapel at Princeton Theological Seminary, 64 Mercer Street in Princeton, New Jersey. The workshop is free, and no advance registration is required. However, if you let me know in advance that you are coming, I will be able to keep you informed of any changes of plan, and I will also invite you to tell me about any specifics of what you would like to get out of the day. It has always been important for me to keep the exact content of workshops flexible so that we can end the experience having addressed the needs of each person who has attended. This event is open to anyone: keyboard players, other musicians, other artists, any person with any interest in The Art of the Fugue, from any background. I hope to be able to offer a valuable experience to people who already know the work very well as well as to those who know nothing about it but are interested. 

I will have at least one harpsichord at the event, and we will also be able to use the Paul Fritts organ in the chapel. I will not be giving a performance of The Art of the Fugue, but I will be playing substantial amounts of the piece. There should be opportunities for workshop attendees who wish to play a bit on various instruments.

There is information about the workshop on the PEKC website (pekc.org) and on my own website (gavinblack-baroque.com), and both of these will be kept up to date with any changes. There will likely still be some sort of Covid protocols in effect for visitors to the seminary at that time. This information will be found at both websites.

Please feel free to come, and also to let anyone know who you think might be interested. I hope to see you there!

Playing slowly

I ended last month’s column with an anecdote that I suggested would lead nicely into what I wanted to write about this month:

One day Gene Roan and I were walking along the corridor chatting when he stopped near a practice room door. He told me to listen, and then after a couple of minutes said, “Even his very slow practice has a sense of direction.” I did not know who was practicing. I think that I was shy about actually peering through the little window, or maybe it was papered over. But that was a significant lesson to me. I have tried to make sure that my slow practicing has a sense of direction ever since!

This month I discuss playing slowly—slow practice, students and their relationship to tempo, and various questions related to choice of tempo in performance. Concerning slow practice, which I have written about at some length in the past, I have some new things to say and some new ideas about how best to describe it to students.

First I want to flesh out the anecdote a little bit. After writing last month’s column, I wondered whether Professor Roan might have been engaging in a bit of stealth teaching at that moment. He certainly knew that I was a fervent believer in slow practice and that I had a tendency to prefer somewhat slow tempos for performance. Was he reminding me to take care that my slow playing incorporated as much direction and purpose as possible? Clearly one of the characteristic dangers of slow playing is that of plodding along.

But I have had a few further questions. Is it actually good to imbue your very slow practice with a sense of direction? The point of slow practicing is to learn the notes. Is listening for or trying to project a sense of direction a distraction from that? Does it reduce the efficiency of slow practice and delay the time at which the player will be able to move closer to a performance tempo and eventually all the way there?

Furthermore, what is the relationship between a sense of direction that works at one tempo and one that would work at a very different tempo? Is it possible to hear interpretive or rhetorical gestures in slow motion, so that what you are doing to shape the music four or eight times slower than you end up playing it is genuinely analogous to what you will want to do when you are playing faster? The assumption that there is a strong analogy of this sort with the physical gesture of playing is the foundation of the belief that slow practice is efficient. But that does not tell us anything directly about rhetorical or interpretive matters.

One way of expressing a fairly agreed-upon view of the relationship between systematic slow practice and end results in performance is that the slow practice leads to such solid, reliable, and controllable playing that the ears, mind, judgment, taste, etc., of the player can ask the fingers and feet to do anything and they will respond. This is certainly correct in my experience. And a logical conclusion from this formulation is that expressive content of very slow practice is essentially neither here nor there.

Perhaps the point of playing with a sense of direction or any expressive purpose and effect when practicing very slowly is not about the music that you are practicing. Maybe it is about the next very slow piece that you want to play. It is about learning to hear musical shape and direction in very slow passages in general, not particularly with reference to the piece that you are practicing. Or perhaps it is just about keeping the ears focused. In any case, these are questions to muse about rather than to answer, and it pleases me that an event that took about ninety seconds thirty or so years ago is still causing me to reflect today.

The earlier columns in which I wrote the most systematically about slow practice were those of February and March 2009. Perusing those now I see that I did not talk about one technique that I have used to help students settle in to slow practicing—in particular, not to speed up inadvertently during the process. That is a conscious focus on the sonority of individual notes. If we are lucky, the actual sound of an organ or harpsichord that we are playing is beautiful, interesting, or somehow compelling. Savoring that sound can be an antidote to a tendency to rush or hurry. This is very true on the harpsichord, where the middle to late part of the blooming and decaying sound can be fascinating and the best part. On the organ, decay does not happen. Sounds are still interesting, and the relationship between what the pipes are doing and what the room is doing can be fascinating, and it often develops over the length of even a long, slow note.

This points to a concern that I have tended to gloss over. Since organ sounds can theoretically last forever, very slow organ practice creates the risk that the inexorability of each note’s sound will become annoying. Not everyone feels this. I think that I do so only when there are other people who can hear me practicing, and I am worried that they might find the sounds annoying. This can be largely solved by using soft sounds. In fact, in the great centuries-old debate about whether to do initial practicing on a soft neutral sound or on the sound that you want for the music, this may provide a new wrinkle. Look for a sound that makes the sustained tones of slow practice as interesting as possible!

Concerning choice of tempo for performance, why ask the question, “Is it okay to play slowly?” Surely that question should in principle be a neutral one: “What is the most effective tempo for this piece or passage?” It is possible for a performance tempo to be too slow, and the telltale sign of that is that listeners react to the music as plodding or boring, but it is also possible for music to be too fast, resulting in the music being perceived as hectic or unpleasant or conveying a sense that the performer wants to get it over with. However, if music is slow, there can always be some suspicion that it is that way because the player cannot play any faster. We rarely suspect that someone who plays very fast cannot play any slower. I believe this is often a bigger issue for students than we realize. The pressure to play as fast as you have heard someone else play can be intense.

I recently witnessed a comment on a YouTube performance of a Bach piece that said, more or less, if one cannot play this any faster, one should not play. This was rather unfriendly, and it was accompanied by some other nasty comments. (One of these comments concluded this certainly was not Bach’s tempo, something about which the commenter could not possibly have actually known.) I am perfectly happy that I scrolled away from it before I noted exactly what it was or how to find it again.

I had the great good fortune to hear the pianist Mieczysław Horszowski in concert quite a few times in the 1980s and early 1990s when he was in his nineties. His tempos were usually a bit slower than the average that you would have found by surveying available recordings of the pieces, especially newer ones. His playing was also thoughtful and expressive, natural and unforced. I never suspected that he had to play slowly because of his age or for any other reason. I also noticed that he would often include something very fast among the encores. It struck me that perhaps he was trying to give us listeners the message that, yes, he was playing the way he played because that is how he wanted the music to be heard—that his fingers could indeed move as fast as ever, or as fast as anyone’s.

I tend to like slow tempos. I think that this is in part because my whole orientation to playing music and to listening to music is sonority-based. I am an organist because I fell in love with the sounds of certain organ stops very early in life, and the same with the harpsichord just a bit later. I gravitate toward instruments that sound so interesting and compelling that the experience of listening is powerful almost regardless of what the pieces are like. This is not the only way to listen, and some people would justly criticize it as insufficiently respectful of the importance of composition. But the savoring of the sonority that I recommend as a way of keeping slow practice slow is an everyday part of my listening and playing. This tends to keep my playing slower than it might be, and that can be received either well or badly by any given listener.

In Widor’s recording of his own famous “Toccata” he slows down fairly significantly in measure nine when the pedal enters. I believe this is because he wants to give the long pedal notes a chance to bloom, to savor their sounds. This is a reminder that sometimes slower notes need to be slower, as a matter of underlying tempo, than quicker notes. Sometimes slow notes need to bloom, and quick notes need to be subsumed into larger beats. I measured the Widor tempo change. The opening passage is in the mid-nineties per quarter note, measure nine is in the mid-eighties, but I had not noticed it spontaneously. The rhetoric of the tempo change is convincing.

I have noticed that when I finish listening to a piece of music, if the piece continues to go through my head, it is almost always slower than the performance I just heard. I only focused on this recently, and I do not have a precise explanation for it. It cannot be a reaction to sonority, since I am not actually listening to anything at that moment. And it is not coupled with any conscious sense of having disliked the tempo of what I just heard. It just seems to be something about my own temperament as a musician and listener. For whatever reasons in each person’s history, one has a different temperament as a listener and as a player. I believe that one’s stance as a listener should inform one’s playing perhaps more than we let it sometimes. When in doubt, play it the way you want to hear it. For some people—me, for example, and plenty of students I have known—this means in part being willing to not worry about whether someone else would have played it faster.

Not everyone’s tendency is to want to play slowly or “moderately.” But a desire to play fast is never going to be met with suspicion about the player’s level of competence. The choice to play fast is never going to be invalidated as one that was not in fact a free artistic choice.

Is it a good thing, some of the time, for really fast playing to sound like it is at the cutting edge of difficulty? Or is it necessary that if you are going to play very fast you make it seem easy? I remember a rather ironic story from my life that touches on that. Around 1981 I traveled to Binghamton, New York, at the invitation of Paul Jordan, my former teacher and good friend, to give a concert. One of the pieces that I played was the Sweelinck Chromatic Fantasy. Late in the piece there is a passage of sextuplet sixteenth notes in the top voice against slower notes in the other voices. As part of his feedback after the concert, Paul said that he thought I should play the piece faster. One reason he gave was that he thought those sextuplets should sound like they were at the very edge of what the player could execute. They should sound in that sense difficult, challenging. The irony was I thought that they already were at the limit of what I could do. I would have been terrified to try them any faster, and indeed probably would not have succeeded in pulling that off. But it interested me that they came across to Paul as being serene, too serene!

I have mentioned elsewhere that I was a late bloomer as a player. Even in early adulthood I honestly could not play every piece as fast as I wanted to hear it. It has been a long time now since that was true for me, except perhaps for some extreme cases. But remembering the Binghamton event and my limitations as to velocity back in those days leads me to a couple of thoughts that will close this thread for now. First, is it all right for a teacher to allow or to encourage a student to learn pieces that the student will realistically never be able to get up to tempo? This question should be technically meaningless, since anyone can learn any piece or passage by practicing it the right way. But not everyone is actually going to practice everything enough to learn it. This can be true as a choice or option. A student may be interested in exploring a piece, but only so far. Or it may be a real or realistic limitation. If a piece is so vastly difficult that the most careful, conscientious, systematic practicing would only permit it to be learned over decades, then learning it is probably not a real possibility.

I find it a good idea for a student to work on a piece yet only get it some of the way up to tempo. For one thing, any careful practicing is good practice in the art of practicing. For becoming better at practicing and for becoming a better player, I am tempted to say that it does not matter at all whether you get the pieces that you work on along the way fully learned or not. And the best way of not fully learning a piece is to learn it below tempo. This also allows students to get to know pieces that are for the time being, at least, beyond where they are technically. It is interesting. It also creates a situation in which the piece is primed to be fully learned later on. In fact, learning a piece solidly but well under tempo and then letting it sit for a while, even a long while, is a very effective way of ending up getting it to be a secure, well-thought-out performance when it is eventually learned. Also, being willing to keep a piece under tempo can allow a student to encounter more difficult works by a composer whose less challenging works they may want to learn more fully.

Gavin Black is director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center in Princeton, New Jersey.

Further thoughts about rhythm, part 2

Continuing from my September column, I offer here a few additional anecdotes and ideas relevant to rhythm and the teaching of rhythm. In my next column I will explore the question of how to teach rhythm or “counting” in a way that enables a student to connect those concepts as directly as possible with rhetoric and the student’s interpretive stance.

I begin by revisiting the anecdote from the last column about my colleague who, in the eyes of a particular third party, “couldn’t count.” Since I wrote that, I have had further relevant thoughts. I remember that as I walked into the rehearsal studio after that exchange, I was very sorry to have been told my colleague’s opinion. I did not want to approach my work with this fellow musician with any preconceptions. And while I certainly did not assume that the older colleague was right, I found it hard not to have a question layered on top of my focus during rehearsal. “Was that rhythm correct? Is this where I learn that she indeed cannot count?” That was distracting.

I wondered why he wanted me to focus my attention on her rhythmic deficiencies. Why did it matter in the overall picture? Why tell me as I headed into the rehearsal that “she can’t count” rather than that “she is an amazingly compelling performer?” This seems like a manifestation of bias in favor of that which can be quantified—that which seems more objective or safer to describe.

Since that day decades ago, I have become very aware that there is a strong pull in all sorts of areas of life to focus on things that can be measured and described in a way that is objective to some extent. It is a truism that in evaluating a competition, for example, or even just in reviewing a concert or a recording, it is relatively easier to note that a performance either does or does not get all the right notes, or that the rhythms are or are not all in strict accordance with the notation, or that the tempo is or is not the same as what the composer requested.

It is much more difficult to describe how expressive or moving a performance is. This is not a bad thing, and competition judges and reviewers certainly do not fail to grapple with the elusive side of things. But this has some bearing on teaching rhythm and counting. On paper, rhythm is one of the most objective matters about music—at least with our familiar rhythmic notation. Quarter notes are twice as long as eighth notes, etc. In a way, some of what is non-objective can even be described objectively. Certain dotted-note patterns, for example, are not meant to be what they apparently look like on the page, and we can often describe the ways that they differ from that presentation.

But how do we teach subtle variations in rhythms that look the same on paper? Is it an acceptable part of our understanding of rhythm for there to be such variations? If we think not, is that for musical reasons, or is it because of this pull toward the objective? If a quarter note is really always exactly twice as long as an eighth note, if all the eighth notes are really exactly the same as one another, what does that mean for a student or for how we teach? And if they are not, what does that mean? Is it possible that rhythmic notation means “these notes should be in any rhythmic relationship that would be expressed more closely this way than any other way?”

Another story from many years ago: I was coaching an amateur chamber music group—a violinist, a flautist, and a pianist who was exploring the harpsichord as part of this project. At that time, in my own work as a player I was exploring Sweelinck and beginning to discover some ideas about freedom of rhythm. At one point I played a segment of a Sweelinck toccata for the members of the group and drew their attention to a particular passage. This was one where I felt that the rhetorical force and expressiveness of the music could be enhanced by playing very freely. I had an approach to that passage that involved drawing out the development of harmonic tension and, when it was resolved, using timing to make it seem difficult to go on. That is a trite and inadequate description, but the point is that it called for freedom, and the musicians in the room found it very effective. I also played through the passage as written, and they found that almost embarrassingly boring and pointless, which was exactly what I intended to convey. So far, so good. But when we had finished this and were ready to get back to rehearsal, one of the musicians said, “Of course, you couldn’t do that with Bach.”

So, the question I had, and still have, is, “Why not?” Anyone may or may not appreciate the rhythmic choices performers exercise. In theory, there could be a plausible analysis of a Bach piece that concludes that free rhythm, or any particular approach to rhythm, might not be effective. And the question of what the composer himself would have thought always looms over our thinking about an issue like this. But none of that is what was meant by that remark that day. We discussed it, and the ensemble member specifically meant that since listeners’ expectations about Bach were pretty well formed already, unlike their expectations of Sweelinck, it would be imprudent to go too far in violating those expectations. To some extent, the way that music had been played and heard in then-recent decades had become part of the actual identity of that music. This seems to be another way in which something objective can gain a kind of privilege or priority that it might not have earned in any substantive way.

Another question that I will delve into more next month is, why rhythm? That is, what is the goal of having music organized into regular or somewhat regular micro units of time? Is it to create a sense of pulse or momentum? Is it something about comparability of experience throughout the duration of a piece or a movement? Is it very specifically about creating the palpable sense of a regular beat in the listener’s ear?

I mention it here to introduce an experiment I once conducted that was predicated on the observation that many people are of the opinion that Helmut Walcha’s recordings are rhythmically conservative. I obtained an interesting result.

I had always reacted to Walcha’s recording of Sweelinck’s Fantasia Chromatica as having both extreme steadiness and inexorable forward momentum. At the time that I did the experiment, I took it for granted that the way to achieve those qualities was to keep the beat very steady. But I must have suspected something that led me to investigate. I put on the LP and measured the beat at the opening. I then picked the needle up and dropped it a bit farther in. I measured again. I did it a third time, maybe a fourth. They were all quite different. This led to the intriguing notion that maybe inexorable forward momentum, and even the very sense of steadiness itself, might sometimes come from something other than regimented sameness of beat.

I have now repeated this exercise using more modern methods: the piece playing on my computer and an online tempo tool. The beat at the beginning hovered around 118, and later on it was over sustained passages as high as about 126 and as low as the mid 90s. That is very much like what I measured thirty years ago. I am intensely interested in the relationship between literal sameness of beat—or departures from that—and a subjective sense of steadiness, momentum, and pulse. Is it possible that sometimes a performance that features a doggedly steady beat comes across as uneven to listeners? If so, how can this be?

There are two games that I have played while riding in a car that both have to do with the use of time in music. First, if you are riding along a fairly busy two-way street or highway, pay attention to the sound of the cars passing on the opposite side. On a busy road cars will space themselves out almost regularly, since all else being equal, people pay at least a little bit of attention to following distance in front and behind. But there’s an emphasis on “almost.” The line of cars is never spaced out exactly evenly. So as the “whoosh” of each successive car goes by, see how far from even those sounds can be and if you can still accept them as conceptually even. How far apart can sounds 2 and 3 be—compared to the time between sounds 1 and 2—and can you still hear that timing as rubato or agogic accent rather than just discontinuity? For me there is a wider range of timings that I can assimilate to evenness than I would have expected.

If you can accept a stream of not quite even cars as conceptually even, is there anything interesting about the shape of the unevenness? Does it have any rhetoric to it, groupings or patterns of weak and strong beats, or impulses? One fascinating feature of this exercise is that each instance of it is ephemeral: you can hear it only once, never again the same way.

Another exercise I enjoy while driving is this: when going under an overpass, I try to experience the time in the shadow of that overpass as lasting forever. Since it will come to an end, usually in seconds or less than a second, I attempt to experience it as simultaneously brief and infinite. This feels even more intense if it is raining. It seems to me this has implications for rhythm in music. The ostensible rhythm, flow, motion of any increment of music is always about the next thing: when will the next beat come? But the state of being of each note, harmony, sonority, or beat, is also a thing that exists for as long as it exists, and that has identity and importance.

(It is probably best to do the above exercises as a passenger rather than as the driver, unless you are very sure that none of it will distract you from driving. I wonder how different any of this will seem if we have nothing but self-driving cars on the road!)

Are there other little slices of everyday life that might illuminate aspects of rhythm and the role of time in music? Rain is an interesting one. There are pieces of music that are inspired by or attempt to depict rain. What is the rhythm of rain like? It is more regular when it is fairly light. What about walking? How regular is that, and how does walking respond to outside conditions? Can one walk while hearing in one’s head a passage of music that moves at a pace different from the footsteps?

It occurred to me a few years ago that I often experience trills as containing some of that simultaneously brief and infinite quality that I get out of my second driving exercise. I sometimes suspect that that is what trills are essentially about, though that is speculative and unknowable. The fast and unmeasured quality of (usually) the middle portion of a trill seems to take it out of time, while, like all music, it is in the end bounded and defined by time.

I will pick this up again next month.