First, I wish to
express my sincere thanks to Kim Pineda for giving me the thrill of waiting
until the very last minute to complete a homework assignment. I have not had an
opportunity like this since I was an undergraduate.
This assignment
presents some interesting problems. Evaluating the performances from a
rhetorical standpoint first requires an understanding of rhetoric and how it
applies to music, or at least how it was assumed to apply to music in the eighteenth
century. The ancient practice of
rhetoric refers to techniques used for the composition and delivery of speeches
in a way that entertained but, more importantly, persuaded the audience to
agree with the viewpoint of the orator. The ability to influence people through
speech was extremely important in ancient Greece and the Roman Republic, where
the leaders of society were politicians and lawyers and often both. Creating
and playing on the emotions of one’s audience in order to make them more receptive
to your arguments was part of the technique. There were many techniques and “figures
of speech” that were taught to future orators, named and categorized by the
ancients.
The rediscovery by
musicologists that during the Renaissance and Baroque eras the composition and
performance of music was closely associated with the rhetorical techniques of
the orator was a huge help in gaining insight into how composers and performers
of the time thought about and performed the pieces. However, the more one
delves into the specifics of how rhetoric was applied to music at the time, the
less secure one becomes. Part of the problem is that music is not language
(another topic in itself), and the rules and figures that were used in the speech
may or may not have analogous practices in music. Music theorists many times
kept the names of figures but they relate only slightly if at all with the
classic figures those names describe. To make things more confusing, the
definition of the figures were not always the same from theorist to theorist.
Also, as time went on, theorists kept changing and expanding the constructs.
One has to take into account at what point during the Baroque period the piece
you are dealing with was written. It is incorrect to assume that ideas about
which Johann Mattheson wrote about were in the minds of seventeenth-century
composers. And finally, there is controversy as to how much effect the theoretical
discussions from which we get our information were understood and actually used
by the composers and performers of the time.
Thus, the situation
is somewhat confused. It does not help that the study of rhetoric is no longer taught
and its precepts no longer second-nature to us. This often results in misunderstanding
especially when the, English translations of technical terminology are cognates.
The terms have modern definitions which are related to - but different than - the
technical definitions that were used by rhetoricians. This causes terminology
to be used incorrectly and mistakes to be made in evaluating and representing a
piece based on rhetoric. This is evidenced in other papers from this homework
assignment, and I am sure that I will make my own mistakes.
Other common mistakes
regard the rhetorical techniques in the so-called “doctrine of the affections.”
Many still incorrectly think of it in mid-twentieth century terms a as a type of
encyclopedia of figures that represented fixed affects to be used by composers
as needed. “Cookbook methods” were actually frowned upon in the eighteenth
century, and it was never as easy as that in any event. Also in regards to the
importance of affect, it is still common to hear people describe music from the
period in the same way one would describe a tone poem from the nineteenth century.
The fact is, we have been so influenced by the thought patterns of nineteenth-century
Romantics that is difficult to realize that, except for specific program music,
the goal of instrumental music was to represent pure emotion. There was no “movie
in your head” matching action, storyline and music. If anything, the eighteenth-century
listener may have visualized dancers or dance steps since much of the
instrumental music was based on dance forms; If a more specific story was
required to complement the affects evoked in the music, texts were needed. This
of course was vocal music, where the rhetorical methods used in the
accompaniment were expected to complement the rhetoric of the text.
Despite the holes in our knowledge, and
the futility of trying to eliminate three centuries of influence in how we hear
the music, it is still possible to at least approach the music of the 18th
century in a manner that is respectful to the aesthetics of the men and woman
who wrote, performed and listened to it. I will now compare the two performances of
Bach’s Sonata BWV 1034 specificly addressing how they differ in their use of
rhetoric.
I think that inventio, disposition and elocution, while important, are peripheral
to the task at hand. Inventio is not
the interpretation by a performer of the composer’s intentions for the piece
butthe actual creation of the ideas that will become the piece. It is the
domain of the composer, not the performer. Old Bach completed that job long
ago. For the s performer, only three of the divisions of rhetoric directly
apply: pronunciatio, memoria and actio. Of these, only pronunciatio can be specifically critiqued
by someone listening to an audio recording - memoria can
only be addressed in the broadest way as it is unknown if the piece was
performed totally from memory or with music in either performance so it is
difficult to evaluate the performer’s abilities in memorization. And actio would require one to be at a live
performance or at least a video to evaluate.
At the beginning
of this essay, I noted that the assignment brings up some interesting problems.
The first problem is that, from a rhetorical point of view, the two
performances are simply not comparable. Part of pronunciatio is knowing your audience and playing to them, in this
case quite literally. The problem is that the audience for these performances
is different. The live performance is directed at people listening in real
time. This requires, or should, a different approach than that of a studio
recording meant to be repeatedly enjoyed
by a listener in very different acoustics.. Another issue is that due to the
differences in the recordings, necessitated in part by their surroundings as well
as by the choices made by the recording engineer, the relative volume and
timbre of the instruments is different between the recordings and may influence
the way a listener hears the music.
I assume the
studio recording is the one with cello and harpsichord continuo. The way the
instruments were recorded, the keyboard is a bit more forward-sounding than the
flute and cello. This has an effect on the rhetoric of the performance,
increasing the perceived importance of the continuo line, particularly the
improvised right hand of the keyboard. This could have been a problem if the
keyboard player was playing block chords or, as was so often the case in the
early days of the revival of continuo technique, muddied the realization with an
overdone improvisation that competed with the soloist for attention. However,
this realization tastefully adds figurations while not forgetting the main job
of filling in the harmony, so the minor over prominence is not a problem. The
live recording baroque guitar replaces
the keyboard in the continuo and has the opposite problem. The guitar, which is
very soft anyway, is somewhat lost in the ensemble. While it sounds like the
there was some interesting realizations of the bass line, it is difficult to
hear. The result is that the interaction between the cello and the flute is
made more prominent. This changes how one hears the interactions.
It surprised me
that, due to the musicians’ manner of playing, the selection of continuo
instruments and also (I believe)the recording methods and acoustics of the two
spaces, even though the live recording was at A=415 and the other at A=392, the
latter sounds brighter and more lively. This is the opposite of what I would
expect.
Finally, the
live recording has more ornamentation than the studio recording. While some of
these work better than others, in a live performance there should much more
leeway to perform ornaments and emphasize rhetorical gestures than in a
performance intended purely for an audience listening via recording. Taking
chances with ornaments and (sometimes) tasteful exaggeration which would be out
of place and annoying in a recorded performance can be quite effective to
emphasis the rhetorical character of the music. The live recording clearly does this, but
perhaps it could have been done even more.
Movement
1
The affect of this movement seems to be
a mixture of sorrow, longing, and desire. It is a serious movement that avoids
some of the more theatrical interpretations of said affects. If texted, it
would be more appropriate for a sacred cantata than the opera house. The
indication Adagio ma non tanto suggests
that the performer should avoid too slow and depressing an interpretation. Both
performances are relatively similar in tempi although the studio recording is a
bit faster. The live performance has more ornamentation, which, according to my
beliefs expressed above, it should. One can question if in a movement like this
the more subdued style of the studio recording is more appropriate for the
affect, but that is a matter of taste. The third beat in mm 5-7 is emphasized slightly
more in the live performance, giving it a more speech-like aspect. Breath
placement is generally the same at first, but as the movement progresses the
live performance tends to have more breaths of necessity and fewer that are musical.
Taken as a whole, the studio recording conveyed the affects a bit more
consistently although the rhetorical gestures were slightly stronger in the
live recording.
Movement
2
The affect of the movement suggests
resolution and perhaps courage. Bach’s tendency to use repeated half-measure phrases,
such as in mm 16-18, can be used by the
performer to highlight the affect. Repeating a phrase was always a planned
event in speeches of the Ancients. If the phrase was repeated twice, it was usually
to be recited louder and with more emphasis the second time, thus impressing
the importance of this idea on the listener. In this case, the repeated phrase
can indicate growing resolution or courage; other options could be used to
bring out other affects. In both performances, the longer line is the emphasis and
the phrases are not varied. This is effective valid choice, and brings out the
virtuosic character of the movement, but perhaps misses a chance for a
rhetorical flourish. Again, the live performance used more ornamentation. Sometimes,
such as in m 32, the ornaments seem contrary to the prevailing affect where the
resolute feeling is broken by a type of galant ornament. This is not necessarily
a bad thing and works to bring another type of affect to the work. The studio
recording is slightly crisper and seems faster although the two performances
are essentially the same tempo.
Movement
3
The affect of this movement suggests the
sublime, peace and love yet with some of the longing from the first movement
still present. Here the studio recording has the more leisurely pace, highlighting
these affects. The introduction by the continuo group is played extremely well in
both examples, but the realization in the studio recording is particularly lovely.
The ornamentation remains simple in both performances, but the use of a few more
flourishes, such as flattement, add a
slightly more seductive quality to the live recording. Both performances are
rhetorically convincing.
Movement
4
The affect is lively and in turn angry
and gay (using the old fashioned definition, that is). Again repeated phrases
and notes are used, if anything being more important than in the second
movement. The bass line also takes on greater importance, often in dialogue
with the flute. Because of this, the movement is in some ways the strongest of
the four live-performance examples. The cello and flute are able to have a
clear dialogue even though it is still difficult to hear the guitar. In both
performances, the repeated notes and phrases are differentiated to a greater
extent than they were in the second movement which complements the affects and increases
the feeling of anger and/or excitement.
There is so much more that can be said
about the piece and performances, but it is late and I have a plane to catch.
See everyone soon.
