Petroushka 1947 edition - Ballerina Dance Solo Dynamics

[trumpeterswain]

Question about dynamics in the Ballerina Dance solo in Petroushka, 1947 edition.

Consulting both the part and the Boosey & Hawkes published score for the solo at rehearsal #135, the first theme alternates mf for the staccato arpeggios and p for the connected runs. However, as published, the dynamic markings essentially stop at rehearsal #136. If taken literally, this would mean playing the remainder p, which I've never heard in performance or recordings.

I gather that it is common practice to repeat the alternating mf and p for the return of the opening theme, and then a martial f for the last measure. However, what about the center theme (before and after rehearsal #137)? Constant and even mf or should there be any dynamic contrast within that theme? If there is no contrast, then it seems that you lose an opportunity to present a transition from the center section back to the opening theme at three measures after #137.

The cornet part for that solo in the 1911 version is marked mf throughout, but I believe it's always given dynamic leeway in performance to express the different moods in the solo.

[Blackquill]

I'm no expert, but maybe you should just consult some recordings instead of worrying about the written dynamics. I see no reason to play it piano the whole rest of the way.
_________________
Trumpet is for extroverts only... no, wait... Trumpet is also for introverts who need an avenue for extrovertism!

[dstpt]

Not all recordings from top orchestra players interpret it quite that way, but I think it is certainly reasonable and musical to alternate dynamics as you've stated. I had marked the 1911 version from the Bartok series years ago in similar fashion...

http://s36.photobucket.com/user/dwspics/media/Stravinsky-Petroushka-Ballerina%20Dance_zpsnmmnjip4.jpg.html

Too often we get caught up in taking what's on the page and being entirely too literal with it. We don't see the dynamics continue, so we question our own instincts to naturally “allow” them to continue. We shouldn't sell ourselves short on our own musical intuition. For those of us who've been trained to give attention to the printed details (and that would include probably everyone reading this), there can be a blessing and a curse in this training. (I think a lot of the stylistic approach for this excerpt is also wrapped up in the articulations and note lengths the player implements. Maintaining a certain level of consistency with all of these aspects would be key.)

I personally think either Stravinsky, the music copyist, or the publishing house typesetter was too lazy to continue with the dynamics. It actually has frustrated me for years that this wasn't made clear on the page...but it wasn't...and this went to press in the 1900s, when music publishing had reached a notable level of sophistication! (Yes, that was an unintended pun.)

So what do we do? We interpret/extrapolate...and then feel confident about what we are doing when we perform it. In truth a player could implement many nuances with this excerpt, and if played convincingly, no one would question you. For all we know, Stravinsky may have felt that it was so obvious what to do, it wasn’t worth his time to write in those other dynamic markings. That’s actually what I personally think, but we can’t prove it, so I guess we’ll never know for sure.

Ultimately, what we see on a printed page is not music. I believe music is something we experience (mostly) in auditory form. The printed page (“sheet music”) is a method of communicating ideas/sounds from composer/arranger/orchestrator to audience. We are the middle man and should do our job with confidence and not feel limited to what is, or is not, on the page (within certain constraints). So, go ahead, knock yourself out and write in those dynamics...and then play it musically!

[MrOlds]

Form your own opinion based on the best recorded evidence you can find. Then confidently play it that way until the conductor tells you to do something different. Then learn from that.

[dstpt]

Continuing with the whole idea of musical interpretation...I had extensive orchestral training, and while some of that has taken me into chamber orchestra settings for years, much of my work has ended up being in the commercial realm of musical theatre. And boy, did I go through an initiation with that! I recall the first few times the lead player (who had played lead with Stan Kenton "back in the day") "interpreted" a passage and changed up the articulation. I was in classical-mode shock. I could not believe he just butchered the passage by slurring what he was "supposed" to be tonguing, and vice versa. Then I heard a sax player say something about how the lead player was "phrasing" a passage, and he wasn't "phrasing" it; he was changing up the articulations! Again, I was shocked. You aren't allowed to do that! I thought. Or are you? Hmm. I got my musical education in college, and then I got out and got another form of it...in the real world of professional musicians!

Again, what we see on the page is not always what will be heard. “Phrasing” in the commercial world often involves changing up articulations (and varying dynamics). There are constraints, and it’s all linked to a history of how certain passages are typically interpreted, or what is often formally called "performance practice." The same is true in the orchestral world, but the constraints are different and most often narrower, but they exist, and there are certain freedoms in both realms. Slight changes in note lengths can seem huge in both of these realms. I’ve even heard tongue stops used in both realms…and they have been played by major players in both realms…but we are often taught not to stop the sound with the tongue. I digress.

Ultimately, I see this thread as “taking liberties.” Are we allowed to do so, is it expected of us to do so, how much can we get away with, how much is acceptable, et al? We all know that they have to be “musical.” The tricky part is learning where the limitations (constraints) may lie.

All of this reminds me of what a local jazz trombonist used to say: “You see all those black marks on the white page? That’s just a rough sketch.”

[Andy Del]

The above is gold - we said!

We also need to consider the composer. Stravinsky did have something to do with the work and he, as a composer had his own eccentricities. These too are at times contradictory, as he was quite the stickler for the printed page, yet was open and other accepting of changes to his music.

For me, I tryu to keep this isn mind (paraphrasing the great man),

'You can't sweeten the sugar.'

He was also a pragmatist an made changes himself when necessary. The 1947 version is in many ways both an editorial improvement AND an attempt to make it more playable (and therefore profitable) by streamlining, simplifying and lessening the cost of various aspects of the work.

cheers

Andy
_________________
so many horns, so few good notes...

[dr_trumpet]

The piece of sheet music is icons, nothing more. It is the cheapest way to communicate the ideas of the composer in written form to the performer. That said, history is full of recordings of composers who perform their own works vastly different from the way they are printed.

Phrasing in music is important in certain instances. For example, if you are auditioning for an orchestra, the music you are provided had better match what comes out the end of the bell. Better or worse, it is what it is, and the bottom line is that we have fewer and fewer interpretive moments in most orchestras today. Playing SOLELY what is on the page in a classical setting is not usually open to discussion. Only in the rare instance of interpretative differences or editions that can conflict can alteration be even considered.

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned is historical reference performances and performance practice. The modern staccato is vastly different from the baroque staccato, and many times young musicians are taught staccato means "short" instead of meaning "separated". A staccato in a Stravinsky work is not approached the same as a staccato in a Mozart work, etc. etc. These performance practices and historical stylistic nuances make a huge difference in the actual performance. When playing second to a player who fails to understand these subtleties, it can be frustrating to wait for the conductor to fix the issues. Most of the time is comes, sometimes it does not. Then all that is left is to smile and cash the check.

If you are the first player and you add these stylistic nuances, it is essential that you are absolutely consistent. In the case of a full-time group, your second may become unhappy and move on if you fail to be the good leader and to pass on your interpretive ideas to the second, then remain consistent to those ideas. If you are in a part-time group, the consistency issue can spread throughout the orchestra, and you as a leader need to be consistent to lead the interpretative ideas of the composer and the conductor. In the case of a community group, you need to be consistent to gain the trust and the support of those around you, and you need to do so with kindness, but also with absolute clarity and absolute consistency.

Style is not limited to classical literature, as many times style changes between the works in a concert or performance. "Harlem Air Shaft" style, "Cotton Club" Swing style, the Count Basie style, the Thad Jones-Mel Lewis style, and so on...cool jazz, bebop, Coltrane...literally dozens of styles, sometimes defined by individual musician. All essential to a correct performance, but also all open to individual style and taste.

Interpretation and style are often the most discussed and therefore most controversial of all subjects. Hence books have been and continue to be written, all examples of the divergence in style and approach of both the individual musician and the era in music.

A wonderfully diverse "can-o-worms", so to speak.

AL
_________________
Dr. Albert L. Lilly, III DM
Artist/Clinician for Vincent Bach Trumpets (Conn-Selmer)
Principal Trumpet, Hendricks Symphony (Avon, IN)
Arranger/Composer; Lilly Music