Mephisto Waltz

I love Kapell's interpretation as well, though I think part of what makes it so great is the machine gun precision and consistency of his motivic gestures. (By the way, Why do you think he doesn't explode the chords after those octave leaps). I can see the need for some freedom in rendering a lyric line differently but even in rubato the basic rhythmic pulse needs to be preserved. So the difference in precise timing of the repetition restores symmetry to the whole section. Schoenberg once said about Nyieregyhazi that he would do things that seemed to destroy the structural logic of a piece and but then he would do something else that restored it. Anyway excessive, arbitrary variation is more 'mannered' than consistency. I disagree with the 'it's all relative' point. Where people might perceive things differently is at the in-between points. But I do not think there is any subjectivity when it comes to a really dull and homogeneous performance or a truly incoherent performance. Once you take performances that display a certain level of capability then your personal aesthetic and values do of course color your perception. I do not understand quite how the point about Liszt's thematic transformation leading to a greater need for differences. In a sequence like the one we discussed that contains basically the same gesture, there is no transformation. Then once you have the long diminished chord you do have a continuous process of change that leads to the repetitions of the F-E idea. The continuity is essential here because the listener needs to sense the logic behind going from one place to the next.

"I can see the need for some freedom in rendering a lyric line differently but even in rubato the basic rhythmic pulse needs to be preserved. So the difference in precise timing of the repetition restores symmetry to the whole section. Schoenberg once said about Nyieregyhazi that he would do things that seemed to destroy the structural logic of a piece and but then he would do something else that restored it. Anyway excessive, arbitrary variation is more 'mannered' than consistency." Who says it would be arbitrary? That's hardly my goal or that of any of the far greater pianists who also favoured variety over consistency. The point was simply that if striving for similarity in motific strands is a major goal in itself, it basically means that you both have to start straight and limit how far you depart from that. To me that's about as close as you can get to a guarantee for blandness. Characterisation always comes first, in my book. "I disagree with the 'it's all relative' point. Where people might perceive things differently is at the in-between points. But I do not think there is any subjectivity when it comes to a really dull and homogeneous performance or a truly incoherent performance." There's is plenty. Many regard Horowitz's Mephisto as a complete mess. I certainly don't. Incidentally, I can see how your point could apply in a sense to the figure of two semiquavers plus a quaver. However, I don't think it has a thing to do with making my musical intentions about showing similarity or unity. I just didn't generally execute them with enough clarity for the self-evident similarity to reveal itself. When executed with clear articulation, you can play some of them straight, start others late and then hurry etc. All it requires is sufficient articulation for the motif to be self-evident- not any desire to that which is the same sound the same. I think it's much more about beginning with technical clarity than any need to become caged within a smaller range of musical intentions. If I tightened up the clarity of execution, I believe that I could likely afford to include vastly more variety in the motif, if anything. "I do not understand quite how the point about Liszt's thematic transformation leading to a greater need for differences. In a sequence like the one we discussed that contains basically the same gesture, there is no transformation." Of course there's a transformation! It's a new harmony and it's the first time that an extension of this motif has been put into a sequential figure. There's is great significance in that, as a structural event. Prior statements of this basic idea always repeat in the same key. Putting an idea into sequence is not the same as transforming the lyrical theme into the guise with the leaps, but it's certainly not just the same thing twice either- especially compared to what has come before. "Then once you have the long diminished chord you do have a continuous process of change that leads to the repetitions of the F-E idea. The continuity is essential here because the listener needs to sense the logic behind going from one place to the next." Sorry, but all I can say is I disagree here. I sincerely appreciate your input and am under no delusions that this is great performance. However, the idea that it somehow reflects the structure better to progress straight through is not something you could possibly persuade me of. To me it's completely illogical to proceed straight through as if the harmonic descent is somehow "normal". That just makes for a total non-event and turns a genuine event into a rather mundane repetition, to my ears. I find it logical to reflect the surprise with a very brief pause to build suspense- before instantly sending the music onwards again. This is not a randomly placed comma. I just don't believe in making notable events pass by casually.

Well I wrote earlier that it is a of the original motif which generates the theme in A major and the rising fifth and falling chromatic line in the lyric theme that Sebok talks about. That is the overall transformation that ties together two strands of the piece. It takes the harmonic pattern and phrase structure from the lyric phrase. I am talking about the process the section being a sequence of the basic shape and then breaking of that falling half step idea and moving it over a diminished chord. My question was about how to articulate the sequence within the section. I also question the degree of variation necessary in a section like this. For example there is a very important expressive difference between the leap of the perfect fifth and the augmented fifth. But otherwise the harmonic structure of each phrase is very repetitive. I think the only guide to this is how much variety there is in the musical construction and the precise nature of the variety. I do not assume arbitrariness, I just ask how you maintain the structural relationships in your rendering of the lines. Horowitz himself found some of his mannerisms and hysteria unbearable. I think part of his approach was to sometimes stretch the work up to its the near limits and sometimes it didn't come of. Every moment is hyper alert and unstable but the whole performance doesn't always fit together. Variety is a means to an end. The same is true of consistency. Who could listen to 20 minutes of noodling and call it good music? There might be good ideas, but the lack of a structural plan makes it a frustrating musical experience. I am making a philosophical point here. Variety makes sense within specific boundaries. A great spontaneous interpreter needs to know the boundaries as thoroughly as a minute planner. I never denied subjectivity entirely but even the greatest Horowitz devotee would have to admit that at least some of his performances in the early 80's were incoherent and perverse. The greatest Rubinstein devotee would have to admit that he could be bland at times. No Liszt admirer could seriously say that his output was of a consistently high quality. "It's all relative" is a misleading generalization.

"I am talking about the process the section being a sequence of the basic shape and then breaking of that falling half step idea and moving it over a diminished chord. My question was about how to articulate the sequence within the section. I also question the degree of variation necessary in a section like this. For example there is a very important expressive difference between the leap of the perfect fifth and the augmented fifth. But otherwise the harmonic structure of each phrase is very repetitive." The implication being that means it should hence be performed repetitively? Sorry, but I just don't think that way. A sequence could be identical in every detail other than moving through keys. That would never make me feel each statement is basically the same. I'd want every single shift to be characterised but I'd also want variety in the inflection of the identical lines. How much variation is "necessary" is a totally personal issue of taste. Personally I can't bear those who keep it to a minimum. My ears are quite up to spotting the common roots. I don't need them to make all the details the same to appreciate that a sequence has occurred. All they have to do is play the right notes, for me to grasp that. What I want is a sense of progression in the structure- be it a sense of growth or a sense of holding back or whatever. I'm not interested in a structure that just plods along. "I think the only guide to this is how much variety there is in the musical construction and the precise nature of the variety." Well, that would suggest that every repetition of a melody in a sequence should be inflected identically. If that's what you believe then that's fine, but I do not share your values. "I do not assume arbitrariness, I just ask how you maintain the structural relationships in your rendering of the lines." Well, as I pointed out, I take the pause to illustrate a structural issue. I don't subscribe to the idea that the less you do the more the structure is conveyed. If that were the case, computers would be structural geniuses at performance. Real structure lies in the departures from strictness. My idea of good structural playing involves illustration of significance where it lies, not general conformity. "Who could listen to 20 minutes of noodling and call it good music? There might be good ideas, but the lack of a structural plan makes it a frustrating musical experience." If I could choose between 20 minutes of square, ordinary playing and a 20 minutes of varied characters with a lack of structural plan (not that varying characters in any way implies a lack of structural planning in the first place), I'd take the latter. Absolutely without question. "Variety makes sense within specific boundaries. A great spontaneous interpreter needs to know the boundaries as thoroughly as a minute planner." The boundaries are not set in stone. You might prefer it if certain performers saw the boundaries exactly where you see them. But they may not share your personal placement of them. "I never denied subjectivity entirely but even the greatest Horowitz devotee would have to admit that at least some of his performances in the early 80's were incoherent and perverse. The greatest Rubinstein devotee would have to admit that he could be bland at times. No Liszt admirer could seriously say that his output was of a consistently high quality. "It's all relative" is a misleading generalization." I don't understand how the last sentence follows on from the prior sentences. People's perceptions and beliefs differ. You used reference to structure to say I should not pause. I made my own detailed structural explanation as to why the structure of the music tells me to do something to create anticipation at that point. In my opinion, structure (and particularly the concept of cohesion) is a concept that is currently understood in very narrow terms, without any real intellectual justification. Why should Schumann's wildest and most schizophrenic music always be "cohesive", for example? Why should we try to make an evidently wild structure and unusual sound tightly connected? Who exactly is the law-maker that decided this? I don't believe structure should be a restrictive concept. Illustrating contrasts where they are suggested is my idea of excellent structure.

1. Regarding the last point I think the relationship is pretty clear. Your "it's all relative point" is misleading because even people with widely diverging or personal views would have to agree on some things. There are extremes of incoherence or monotony that almost anybody with even the most basic discernment can notice. It is flat out wrong to say that someone's aesthetic completely determines his or her perception because there is a basis in mental processing. Complex evaluative judgments do vary a lot precisely because of how much information is involved. But even evaluations at the extremes tend to become less subjective. Preferences are not as absolute as you say they are. The "It's all relative" thing is just an old cliche that people bandy around dogmatically. 2. I never said that variety is opposed to structure. I said that variety without structure is not interesting. Neither is monotony. That is not the point at all. If I were to say that debauchery is not admirable it would be silly for you the respond, "yeah, well I would choose it over asceticism and repression any day." Sure some people tend towards one side over another and that is fine but neither of the extremes are good. 3. It does not follow at all from what I say that I mean you should do less to the music or more to the music. I don't think in those terms. The whole idea of doing things to the music is mistaken. It is all about what you do while playing the music a lot to the music but her gestures are so precise and to the point that it works. That doesn't mean she is great because she does so little. Again you are making false and misleading dichotomies. 4. The rendering of the motivic unit itself need not be mechanical or boring. If the intention and execution is strong it becomes a feature of the piece, its DNA that a listener can identify. Sequences need not be played all alike. Consistency is not the same as monotony. It is a question of conserving enough of the basic gesture so the sequence makes sense. Again, if you are simply moving up a motif from one pitch level to another, that would require a different sort of variation than say a phrase that responds to another or repeats another in a more florid manner. 5. Just because boundaries are not set in stone it doesn't mean that we cannot discuss them or sense them. I might not be able to say precisely what the boundaries are but I can tell if one performance demonstrates zero understanding or if another performance doesn't explore the possibilities of a piece in a sufficiently interesting way. 6. Certainly some work expands our idea of what can be structurally coherent but that does not mean it negates the idea of coherence. I do not equate structure with continuity either. Sometimes I think that the structure requires continuity at a particular spot. For example Mozart might start a second subject by simply arriving at the dominant of the new key and then pause. Other times he might lead into it with a cadenza figure or with a deceptive cadence and a transition like in the first movement of the Prague Symphony. The continuity you would go for in interpreting the second type of situation does not apply to the first because the music works differently.

"Regarding the last point I think the relationship is pretty clear. Your "it's all relative point" is misleading because even people with widely diverging or personal views would have to agree on some things. " Occasional agree does not prove objective fact, whereas the wealth of disagreement certainly does illustrate the extent of subjectivity involved. What they would never agree on is where the boundaries lay. It's interesting that you mentioned the Schoenberg quote. While he recognised that there was a kind of emotional structure which is simply different from how he thinks, many conductors wouldn't. Indeed, the conductor (Klemperer, as I recall?) hated Nyiregyhazi's playing and was unable to see what Schoenberg had been able to appreciate. All credit to Schoenberg for being able to appreciate something that fell out of his standard boundaries- rather than believing his own tastes to be an objective "correct" and final point of judgement. "It is flat out wrong to say that someone's aesthetic completely determines his or her perception because there is a basis in mental processing. " That is completely illogical. It assumes that everybody's mental processes are identical. They are not. Everyone has their own taste. Even if it's reasonable to say that there's some objectivity in measuring the level of divergence from strictness say, there is no objective measurement for the "right" level of it. Many people find pianists I am bored by to be too "free". "The "It's all relative" thing is just an old cliche that people bandy around dogmatically." No, it's a realisation that taste is involved. I'm sorry if my disagreeing with your point of view troubles you, but I simply do not see any objective reason why going straight on at the point you refer to is more structurally sound. I've explained in detail how the comma I include is there to reflect a structural issue and I'd be far more interested in a specific follow-up to my explanation than in any generically theoretical implications that either of us might theoretically be more objectively "correct" than the other. A specific follow-up to my specific point would be far more interesting than complaining about the concept of relativity and subjectivity. If you have an objective basis to show that my structural concept is flawed, I'd sooner see that than innuendo that it might not be merely subjective. "I never said that variety is opposed to structure. I said that variety without structure is not interesting. " And that is defined by what? Structure is such a subjective concept. It's possibly one the most subjective issue in all of music. Schoenberg sure as hell realised that. "Clara Haskil doesn't necessarily have to a lot to the music but her gestures are so precise and to the point that it works. That doesn't mean she is great because she does so little. Again you are making false and misleading dichotomies." I never made any such dichotomy. I raised issues regarding what structure really is, with regard to definable reality and how ambiguous it is. If it's neither absence of doing things, not characterisation- what defines "good" structure? It's staggeringly subjective. "It is a question of conserving enough of the basic gesture so the sequence makes sense." In a practically definable sense, what does that actually mean, specifically speaking? Not only is it totally subjective as to what "makes sense", but what constitutes "conserving enough" has not even been defined in any capacity. Do you not seeing how vague these concepts are with regard to an objective reality- or how much divergence of opinion there can be on the details? "I might not be able to say precisely what the boundaries are but I can tell if one performance demonstrates zero understanding or if another performance doesn't explore the possibilities of a piece in a sufficiently interesting way." You missed the point altogether. The point is that these are YOUR boundaries- not some absolute or "correct" level of what is acceptable. Look at Schoenberg on Nyiregyhazi and consider the level of wisdom he actually displayed in what he said. I'm not claiming to be a genius of Nyiregyhazi's stature, but neither am I interested in conforming to an ethos that is totally alien to my beliefs and tastes. There are many ways of approaching structure and I'm afraid that your own taste is very much that- your own taste.

Here's some of the letter: "Dear Mr. Klemperer, .... Yesterday at Dr. Hoffmann's I heard a pianist who appears to be something really quite extraordinary. I had to overcome great resistance in order to go at all, for the description I'd heard from Dr. Hoffmann and from Maurice Zam had made me very skeptical. But I must say that I have never heard such a pianist before...First, he does not play at all in the style you and I strive for. And just as I did not judge him on that basis, I imagine that when you hear him, you too will be compelled to ignore all matters of principle, and probably will end up doing just as I did. For your principles would not be the proper standard to apply. What he plays is expression in the older sense of the word, nothing else; but such power of expression I have never heard before. You will disagree with his tempis as much as I did. You will also note that he often seems to give primacy to sharp contrasts at the expense of form, the latter appearing to get lost. I say appearing to; for then, in its own way, his music surprisingly regains its form, makes sense, establishes its own boundaries. The sound he brings out of the piano is unheard of, or at least I have never heard anything like it. He himself seems not to know how he produces these novel and quite incredible sounds - although he appears to be a man of intelligence and not just some flaccid dreamer. And such fullness of tone, achieved without ever becoming rough, I have never before encountered. For me, and probably for you too, it's really too much fullness, but as a whole it displays incredible novelty and persuasiveness." Now that's a man who understands subjectivity! Incidentally- I think you misread the meaning of "then". I believe it's in the archaic sense- rather than implying a timescale. I can't say with 100% certainty of course, but I don't believe it means he does x and "then" goes on to do Y to make up for it. In the past "then" was often used as something of an exclamation between other words- rather than necessarily to suggest a follow-up. I think it's more that Schoenberg is talking about getting used a totally different style of structure. He is referring to becoming persuaded of a whole different concept of structure- rather than suggesting that x is "then" conventionally cancelled out by a balancing follow-up of y. "establishes its own boundaries" is the big clue there. Certainly, Nyiregyhazi did not play solely with the traditional give and take style of rubato (if much at all). Even the earlier clips suggest freedoms that have nothing to do with that traditional explanation of rubato.

OK I haven't had time to read this extensive series of posts; I just want to comment on the performance, which has some lovely things to it. The main thing I like about it is the "bong-drum" sound you get on your non-pedaled staccato notes. There is something really wonderful about them. Apart from that I still see you struggling with the problems we addressed when we worked together. There is some progress indeed, but what I am looking for is transformation rather than a certain degree of improvement which retains the same problems in reduced form... So congratulations on your progress - now go back to the drawing board and try for a much more radical and complete change to your technique. If you remember our sessions you'll have a clear indication in what direction to move in... Good luck and thanks for posting this! AFF

Apart from that I still see you struggling with the problems we addressed when we worked together. There is some progress indeed, but what I am looking for is transformation rather than a certain degree of improvement which retains the same problems in reduced form... Yes, I think I'm a lot closer now, since that film, but there's still plenty of work to go. This is from more recently: The wrist issue is not entirely resolved yet, but the finger extension actions have been causing some major changes. I think I'm getting close to stopping everything getting bunched up forwards, so the fingers can start to move freely.