Etude Op 31 no'18 - Sor

[Wrighty]

Hi all

Another of Sor's beautiful Etudes in Bm - I seem to be drawn to this feel and tone, although this is the lesser known Etude it is lovely to my ears.

I recorded this at 415hz, which I had heard Rob MacKillop do - I think this pitch really suits this type of mournful piece, although you do lose a little articulation.

As always, critique very welcome - I hope you like it.

[charles Tauber]

It is a piece that lends itself to expression.

Techniques that are commonly used for expression include the following:

1. changes in dynamics
2. changes in tempo
3. changes in timbre
4. phrasing
5. tension and release

In some historic periods of music, dynamics were step-change: suddenly loud, then suddenly soft, for example. In more romantic periods, the dynamics "swell" and "receed" - gradually getting louder, gradually getting softer.

It is important both for demarcating a phrase and for continuity that the tempo be relatively constant. As the melody dictates, there are places where you can deviate from a strict tempo, either to accentuate a climax in the melody, for example, or to end a phrase or section of the music.

Changing the sound (timbre) from one section to another, from one repetition of a phrase to the next and as the melody suggests can add variety, interest and "color" to the music.

Phrasing is what allows music to "breathe". It's what allows ideas to be developed and completed. It is part of what gives the listener structure to what he or she hears. Melodies, typically, are expressed in phrases, much like speaking or writing. What made Frank Sinatra, as a singer, for example, was his phrasing. Singers are forced to take a breath, in part demanding the melody be delivered in phrases.

Music generally involves a creation of tension and a release (resolution) of that tension. The building of that tension and the release of that tension are what drive the music, what give the music direction, what gives the music direction. A good performance, generally, should do that: it should not be uniform or homogenous.

An "extreme" example of that is Beethoven's piano sonata, "Appassionata". While not the same "feel" as the piece you are playing, the sonata is, amongst other things, a good example of the use of dynamics. Imagine the piece played at the same volume throughout its entirety: it would be much diminished.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ak_7tTxZrk


The above are basic elements of music and musicallity, rather than instrument-specific. They apply to all instruments and "all" types of music.



Try singing the melody, either while playing it, or without playing while singing. Observe what you do while singing to express emotion in the melody. For example, as the melody approaches a climax, it might get louder and more brash. As the melody resolves, it might gradually get softer and sweeter.

Part of the difficulty with phrasing is that your changes from one fingering (e.g. "chord") to the next "hiccups". The changes need to be smooth and seamless, rather than momentarily stopping the music as you search for the right hand fingerings.

Sorry if the above sound overly harsh. You did ask for (constructive) criticism.

Very nice play--expressive without being mushy, variations without being choppy. I like it.

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

It is a piece that lends itself to expression.

Techniques that are commonly used for expression include the following:

1. changes in dynamics
2. changes in tempo
3. changes in timbre
4. phrasing
5. tension and release

In some historic periods of music, dynamics were step-change: suddenly loud, then suddenly soft, for example. In more romantic periods, the dynamics "swell" and "receed" - gradually getting louder, gradually getting softer.

It is important both for demarcating a phrase and for continuity that the tempo be relatively constant. As the melody dictates, there are places where you can deviate from a strict tempo, either to accentuate a climax in the melody, for example, or to end a phrase or section of the music.

Changing the sound (timbre) from one section to another, from one repetition of a phrase to the next and as the melody suggests can add variety, interest and "color" to the music.

Phrasing is what allows music to "breathe". It's what allows ideas to be developed and completed. It is part of what gives the listener structure to what he or she hears. Melodies, typically, are expressed in phrases, much like speaking or writing. What made Frank Sinatra, as a singer, for example, was his phrasing. Singers are forced to take a breath, in part demanding the melody be delivered in phrases.

Music generally involves a creation of tension and a release (resolution) of that tension. The building of that tension and the release of that tension are what drive the music, what give the music direction, what gives the music direction. A good performance, generally, should do that: it should not be uniform or homogenous.

An "extreme" example of that is Beethoven's piano sonata, "Appassionata". While not the same "feel" as the piece you are playing, the sonata is, amongst other things, a good example of the use of dynamics. Imagine the piece played at the same volume throughout its entirety: it would be much diminished.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ak_7tTxZrk


The above are basic elements of music and musicallity, rather than instrument-specific. They apply to all instruments and "all" types of music.



Try singing the melody, either while playing it, or without playing while singing. Observe what you do while singing to express emotion in the melody. For example, as the melody approaches a climax, it might get louder and more brash. As the melody resolves, it might gradually get softer and sweeter.

Part of the difficulty with phrasing is that your changes from one fingering (e.g. "chord") to the next "hiccups". The changes need to be smooth and seamless, rather than momentarily stopping the music as you search for the right hand fingerings.

Sorry if the above sound overly harsh. You did ask for (constructive) criticism.

Charles, many thanks for taking the time to offer that critique, much appreciated.

I have continued to work on it with a focus on melody, and phrasing - the video of that is below. If you get a chance please let me know if you feel it’s an improvement, and if not what in particular you feel should be prioritised.

[Su_H.]

Nicely done. You seem to be following a good path for classical guitar. Maybe in a few months, we can learn Capricho Arabe together.

[Gitfiddlemann]

Hi Peter,
Nice job of it. It's a very difficult study in many respects.
I hope people take the time to read Charles' very thorough and insightful critique above. It's very relevant to all the pieces we learn, but it also touches upon a lot of the elements in this study, which I suspect was the main thrust of his post.
I know you did, and your second version shows you are moving in the right direction.
Separating the melody from the accompaniment is a real challenge in this piece, all the while needing to make use of the expressive techniques that Charles mentioned, which I quote here again:

1. changes in dynamics
2. changes in tempo
3. changes in timbre
4. phrasing
5. tension and release

It seems like all those ingredients are present in this particular study in order to make it as musical as possible. (You didn't pick an easy one!)
This is also a study where, paradoxically, speeding up your tempo may make things easier for you to accomplish the above. Speed will help you blend in these expressive techniques more effectively. Thankfully, it's not too much of a bear, so going faster will not be a problem for you.
However, it's up to you if course how best you want to interpret the piece.
Just as an example, here is a favorite rendition of mine of this study:

It's not so much the faster tempo that stands out for me. It's the clarity of the melody line. Like following a path in a forest so you never get lost.
Keep at it. I think you're making great progress, and constantly improving.

[charles Tauber]

I've never been much of a fan of Sor as a composer.

I actually like Wrighty's slower, Moonlight-sonata-ish tempo of the piece. The lower pitch does adds a certain melancholiness to it. When I heard the opening bars of it played that way it reminded me of Barrios' La Catedral, which I feel is better crafted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmc6KV0_UVM.

Vidovic's version of it was one of the first that I listened to in searching for it on Youtube. I posted it here as a good example of incorporation of dynamics, phrasing, change of timbre and tension/release, all of which are pretty obvious in her interpretation/playing of it and are part of what gives it "life".

The 1927 silent (black and white) film, Metropolis, was originally released with accompanying classical musical score for orchestra that was written for the film. A shortened colourized version of the film was released in 1984 that had a "pop soundtrack" written for it performed by various musicians, including Moroder, Pat Benatar, Bonnie Tyler, Jon Anderson, Adam Ant, Cycle V, Loverboy, Billy Squier, and Freddie Mercury. In my opinion, the entirety of the soundtrack was singularly loud, angry and tense. Retaining a largely single volume level, emotion and tension for the entire film, in my opinion, greatly diminished the viewing of the film. Imagine, for example, seeing Star Wars with a single, loud, angry, tense sound track. Music, like film, should tell a story and takes the listener through various feelings and sensations. Music uses a variety of techniques to accomplish that, some of which I've mentioned previously.

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

I've never been much of a fan of Sor as a composer.

I actually like Wrighty's slower, Moonlight-sonata-ish tempo of the piece. The lower pitch does adds a certain melancholiness to it. When I heard the opening bars of it played that way it reminded me of Barrios' La Catedral, which I feel is better crafted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmc6KV0_UVM.

Vidovic's version of it was one of the first that I listened to in searching for it on Youtube. I posted it here as a good example of incorporation of dynamics, phrasing, change of timbre and tension/release, all of which are pretty obvious in her interpretation/playing of it and are part of what gives it "life".

The 1927 silent (black and white) film, Metropolis, was originally released with accompanying classical musical score for orchestra that was written for the film. A shortened colourized version of the film was released in 1984 that had a "pop soundtrack" written for it performed by various musicians, including Moroder, Pat Benatar, Bonnie Tyler, Jon Anderson, Adam Ant, Cycle V, Loverboy, Billy Squier, and Freddie Mercury. In my opinion, the entirety of the soundtrack was singularly loud, angry and tense. Retaining a largely single volume level, emotion and tension for the entire film, in my opinion, greatly diminished the viewing of the film. Imagine, for example, seeing Star Wars with a single, loud, angry, tense sound track. Music, like film, should tell a story and takes the listener through various feelings and sensations. Music uses a variety of techniques to accomplish that, some of which I've mentioned previously.

Thanks Charles, I watched that video - beautiful playing and, as you say, full of life and dynamics.

I like Sor, particularly the Etudes, as they bring music I love (in the main) and study together in accessible chunks.

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by AndreF

Hi Peter,
Nice job of it. It's a very difficult study in many respects.
I hope people take the time to read Charles' very thorough and insightful critique above. It's very relevant to all the pieces we learn, but it also touches upon a lot of the elements in this study, which I suspect was the main thrust of his post.
I know you did, and your second version shows you are moving in the right direction.
Separating the melody from the accompaniment is a real challenge in this piece, all the while needing to make use of the expressive techniques that Charles mentioned, which I quote here again:

It seems like all those ingredients are present in this particular study in order to make it as musical as possible. (You didn't pick an easy one!)
This is also a study where, paradoxically, speeding up your tempo may make things easier for you to accomplish the above. Speed will help you blend in these expressive techniques more effectively. Thankfully, it's not too much of a bear, so going faster will not be a problem for you.
However, it's up to you if course how best you want to interpret the piece.
Just as an example, here is a favorite rendition of mine of this study:

It's not so much the faster tempo that stands out for me. It's the clarity of the melody line. Like following a path in a forest so you never get lost.
Keep at it. I think you're making great progress, and constantly improving.

Hi Andre

Thanks, as always, for the feedback and encouragement.

I will certainly have a go at increasing the pace - I had listened to a few versions, including the amazing Barrueco version. Funnily enough I felt that his version lost a bit of melody separation as he plays the supporting notes fairly loudly to my ears. Rob MacKillops version captured the feel I was looking for;



I am keen to hear what you think about it - more melody separation?

[charles Tauber]

While art has guiding principles, it is largely subjective preference - what you like or prefer. For the most part, there are no "right" or "wrong" ways. In the field of music that gives rise to many different interpretations of the same piece. None of the interpretations are "right" or "wrong", but some will prefer one interpretation over another.

Music, like other forms of art, is a form of expression: you chose what you want to express and how you want to express it, within the means you have to do so.


Suppose that you have a female model posing for a portrait. What the artist brings to the portrait is his or her emotional content, what he or she wants to express or communicate - and whatever technique he or she has to bring that to fruition. How would the portrait differ if the extent of the technique of one artist is fingerpainting and of another artist who posesses the full range of a classical painter? The classical painter, if it were da Vinci, might have produced the Mona Lisa. That is not to say that the classical painter will produce a "better" portrait, but that it will be different based on the differences in technique that each is able to call upon. Each is an equally valid expression or interpretation of the subject.

Now, suppose you have one piece of music, say the current Sor study, that is played by two different musicians. Both play exactly the same notes. One is a "typical" steel string player, the other a "typical" classical guitarist. Each musician brings with him or her the technique each has to bring the piece to fruition. How will the two versions differ? Again, that is not to say that one is "better" than the other, just that they will likely be very different based on the differences in technique that each is able to call upon. This strikes to the heart of the differences between "typical" steel string players and "typical" classical players and the ways each has learned to play the instrument.

This is a long-winded way of asking, Wrighty, what do YOU want the Sor study to sound like? For what purpose, specifically, are you seeking input/critique?

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

While art has guiding principles, it is largely subjective preference - what you like or prefer. For the most part, there are no "right" or "wrong" ways. In the field of music that gives rise to many different interpretations of the same piece. None of the interpretations are "right" or "wrong", but some will prefer one interpretation over another.

Music, like other forms of art, is a form of expression: you chose what you want to express and how you want to express it, within the means you have to do so.


Suppose that you have a female model posing for a portrait. What the artist brings to the portrait is his or her emotional content, what he or she wants to express or communicate - and whatever technique he or she has to bring that to fruition. How would the portrait differ if the extent of the technique of one artist is fingerpainting and of another artist who posesses the full range of a classical painter? The classical painter, if it were da Vinci, might have produced the Mona Lisa. That is not to say that the classical painter will produce a "better" portrait, but that it will be different based on the differences in technique that each is able to call upon. Each is an equally valid expression or interpretation of the subject.

Now, suppose you have one piece of music, say the current Sor study, that is played by two different musicians. Both play exactly the same notes. One is a "typical" steel string player, the other a "typical" classical guitarist. Each musician brings with him or her the technique each has to bring the piece to fruition. How will the two versions differ? Again, that is not to say that one is "better" than the other, just that they will likely be very different based on the differences in technique that each is able to call upon. This strikes to the heart of the differences between "typical" steel string players and "typical" classical players and the ways each has learned to play the instrument.

This is a long-winded way of asking, Wrighty, what do YOU want the Sor study to sound like? For what purpose, specifically, are you seeking input/critique?

That's a fair question Charles and one I will try to answer.

I am an ex finger style steel string player who has made the transition to nylon/classical some 4 months ago. I did not expect to become as immersed in it as I have done (I have not played my steel string since)

I am intrigued by the classical repertoire and the accompanying technique that allows one to get such beautiful sounds from an instrument.

I am naturally drawn to slower and more melodic interpretations of the pieces I study, such as Rob's on this occasion. I feel it both captures the intent of the piece and is very musical and easy to listen to. When an observer however notes that my melody line might be brought to the fore better by playing faster then that is something I will pay attention to as well.

I am at the stage where all I can do is filter what I hear and what I like to listen to and try to find the ability to create those tones when I play.

Lastly, I want to develop the ability to create musical difference in my music through diligent use of the techniques you have previously mentioned in this thread.

Not much then ;-)

[Gitfiddlemann]

Originally Posted by Wrighty

Hi Andre

Funnily enough I felt that his version lost a bit of melody separation as he plays the supporting notes fairly loudly to my ears. Rob MacKillops version captured the feel I was looking for;



I am keen to hear what you think about it - more melody separation?

Hi Peter,
Thanks for the RM clip. He's a wonderful player and I've known about him for a while. He's proof that classical guitar can be played to a high level even without nails. He probably sounds a lot more like Sor did than Barrueco!
I think his version is lovely, and he captures all the nuances very well, note melody separation and all. I can understand based on your playing goals how his style would be influential to you. (It would be interesting to know what kind of strings he plays to get that nice tone without nails. Note though: He's definitely a large knuckle finger plucker, which is the critical element to getting that full and rounded tone. It probably helps him in this regard. Otherwise, his nail-less tone would be very thin. Conversely, people with nails can't just rely on nails for tone. We have to pluck the same way. That's a hazard we have to be mindful of as steel stringers having a go at classical)
Getting back to your question, if that version speaks to your inner voice for the piece, then by all means go for that kind of interpretation and make it your own.
One thing that my classical guitar teacher taught me years ago. The repertoire is so broad. If you're having a go at a piece, and are looking for inspiration, look beyond just guitar players for insight. Especially so if the piece was originally composed on another instrument. Bach cello/violin/keyboard pieces, Scarlatti sonatas, ancient music etc... But also modern non-guitar music often transcribed for guitar, like Satie works.
It's important to listen to cellists, violinists, pianists etc..., and not just other guitarists, for clues on how they approach the piece. It can be very revealing, especially their phrasing. And also help you zero in on your own unique and favorite way to express the music.
Of course, it doesn't apply so much for Sor and other guitar centric composers, but I imagine that your journey into classical will continue to expand. So much good music out there to keep us busy! (Modern music too, like Andrew York's. That's all I seem to bury myself into these days. )

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by AndreF

Hi Peter,
Thanks for the RM clip. He's a wonderful player and I've known about him for a while. He's proof that classical guitar can be played to a high level even without nails. He probably sounds a lot more like Sor did than Barrueco!
I think his version is lovely, and he captures all the nuances very well, note melody separation and all. I can understand based on your playing goals how his style would be influential to you. (It would be interesting to know what kind of strings he plays to get that nice tone without nails. Note though: He's definitely a large knuckle finger plucker, which is the critical element to getting that full and rounded tone. It probably helps him in this regard. Otherwise, his nail-less tone would be very thin. Conversely, people with nails can't just rely on nails for tone. We have to pluck the same way. That's a hazard we have to be mindful of as steel stringers having a go at classical)
Getting back to your question, if that version speaks to your inner voice for the piece, then by all means go for that kind of interpretation and make it your own.
One thing that my classical guitar teacher taught me years ago. The repertoire is so broad. If you're having a go at a piece, and are looking for inspiration, look beyond just guitar players for insight. Especially so if the piece was originally composed on another instrument. Bach cello/violin/keyboard pieces, Scarlatti sonatas, ancient music etc... But also modern non-guitar music often transcribed for guitar, like Satie works.
It's important to listen to cellists, violinists, pianists etc..., and not just other guitarists, for clues on how they approach the piece. It can be very revealing, especially their phrasing. And also help you zero in on your own unique and favorite way to express the music.
Of course, it doesn't apply so much for Sor and other guitar centric composers, but I imagine that your journey into classical will continue to expand. So much good music out there to keep us busy! (Modern music too, like Andrew York's. That's all I seem to bury myself into these days. )

Hi Andre

Good advice regarding the instruments to listen to. Certainly I see some Bach in my future!

Rob plays either gut or Aquila nylgut trebles and I believe their Rain basses.

I did start to learn Andrew York's piece "Home" as I love it, but just felt I needed to do more work on the Etudes and save that for later..

Have you recorded any of his pieces?

[Carey]

It occurred to me this afternoon that you (or others) might like this gentle
Serenade for guitar by Lou Harrison- from the early 50s, I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N6ad4wOWmU

Note that I wasn't able to get the video to load, and am hoping it's the right one..

[Carey]

Yeah, that's the one. John Schneider playing on a just-intonated guitar, with
interchangeable fingerboards for various temperaments. I first heard the piece
on Schneider's public radio show 'Soundboard' w/ David Starobin playing it, and was quite taken by its simple beauty. Still am.