Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)…

Posted by: ZBGM0

Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/22/13 05:36 PM



Here is the picture of the notation for Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. This wonderful arrangement was made by Matthew Cameron and I believe it is the best piano arr. for EKNM.

Look at 36th bar. As you can see there is a trill above the B note. Common sense will tell you that you should play B, C# and again B. I listened quite a few version of EKNM and my ears were telling me that it was played also like C#, B, C# and B. So, there are two interpretations.

Even more, I listened few different MIDIs of EKNM with very slow speed (in computer program) and some versions have B,C#,B, some other versions have C#, B, C#, B.

I also read some history of this trills and I actually found out that interpretation of trills was not always the same. Before 1800 (not very accurate: plus or minus 20 years) this trill above B would be C#, B, C# and B. They actually started with the upper note (not the one that has trill above). After 1800 (plus or minus 20 years) this trill would be played B, C#, B, which means they started with the note with the sing “Tr” (like today). EKNM was finished around 1787, so it is difficult to say what Mozart had in his mind when he was writing the piece or how he interpreted trills.

My question would be: does anybody know what is original interpretation of this trills for EKNM? My ears prefer C#,B,C# and B (but you need to play it faster if you want to sound it good) but I heard both interpretations. Is it even possible to find out how Mozart interpreted this trill (first or second version)?

Thanks

Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/22/13 06:52 PM

The usual practice is to start trills from this period on the upper note. However, CPE Bach gives a number of exceptions in his essay that are worth noting.
Posted by: Peter K. Mose

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/23/13 01:00 AM

If you can't manage to play the appropriate four notes of trill in the allotted time (C#-B-C#-B), you could simply leave out the ornament altogether. Many pianists would use the B-C#-B compromise solution, though it is most likely incorrect in this instance.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/23/13 01:05 AM

I think most performances of the piece in any instrumentation, including the original, play just the 3 notes.
(B - C# - B)

In any event it's not "wrong" at all. It's a common execution for a brief "trill," of any composer or any period.

Edit: The 4-note thing is more common than I thought. I did a quick search on youtube and just went down the line on the first few matches (about 6). Some clearly do the 4 notes, some I really can't tell for sure which it is, and only one clearly does just 3 (i.e. starting on the B). BTW one of those top few matches, and the only one that isn't a string ensemble or string orchestra, was a piano arrangement played by one of our members. (He plays the 4 notes.)

My ear apparently has played a trick on me with this piece. I've heard many performances, and always imagined that I was hearing just a 3-note 'shake' on that figure. I had to labor a bit in listening to these recordings to hear that some of them actually do 4.

To show that it's not just a pianist's concession to play just a 'shake,' here's the string ensemble performance in those first few matches that plays it that way:



.....and perhaps showing that it's not just ignorance or neglect of period practices that leads one to play just the 'shake,' this is an ensemble of period instruments. Of course that doesn't mean everything they do is necessarily authentic but it does tend to suggest that they care about it. smile
Posted by: BDB

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/23/13 02:12 AM

My favorite quote on the subject was someone who said that starting trills on the upper auxiliary was mentioned so often in the literature of the time that not doing it must have been almost universal!

In any case, ornaments are added according to one's ability, as well as taste. In this case, you can ignore it, play a C# crush note, play B-C#-B, or C#-B-C#-B, depending on how well and how reliably you can play it. You also have to look at any similar occurrences of the phrase, and play them all in a reasonably similar manner.
Posted by: sandalholme

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/23/13 04:10 AM

I think I read it in Tovey that trills starting on the upper note were "going out" in Mozart's time, so I guess it's a matter of taste: to ascertain whether or not they had "gone out" mainly or totally by the time a particular piece was composed would be an essay in extreme pedantry.

Looking at the OP's example, the bass has A, C# and E, which harmonises with the C# upper "start". Doesn't prove anything - harmony or dissonance is also a matter of taste depending upon your view of the music/passage. (I am no expert in harmony, so it is entirely possible that the B with the bass chord is within the harmonic spectrum of the home key - it will however be, let's say, less bland than a C#.)
Posted by: drumour

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/23/13 05:39 AM

The passage in question is firmly in D major - the dominant of the home key. The harmony is very simple - D /A7 /D /A7 /D. The B is, in each case an appoggiatura; that is an unprepared dissonance resolving by step. In the case of the D harmony, this could be termed a 6-5 appoggiatura; in the case of the A7 harmony it could be termed a 9-8 appoggiatura.


John
Posted by: ZBGM0

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/23/13 09:30 AM

Thank you all for answers. I had the same thing in my mind, it is actually personal decision how to play this trills. Both versions are OK because at full speed there is not much difference to hear. Someone can even ignore the trill if he/she is not comfortable with it.

I also don’t think that it is possible to find out how Mozart interpreted this trills. As far as I know this piece was never performed live when Mozart was alive. There are also different historical data. Some sources claim that “normal” trills that start with the lower note (like today) started at the end of baroque music (1750), other sources claim that they started around 1800. EKNM is somewhere in this “transition”.
Posted by: Mwm

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/23/13 09:57 AM

The score is sacred!!! laugh There can be no interpreting!
You must play the score as the composer intended or face the wrath of Stores (G#d incarnate).
Posted by: NeilOS

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/23/13 01:53 PM

Originally Posted By: laguna_greg
The usual practice is to start trills from this period on the upper note. However, CPE Bach gives a number of exceptions in his essay that are worth noting.


And if memory serves, the final exception CPE offers is that "if it doesn't sound good, don't do it," or words to that effect.
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/23/13 08:09 PM

I think it is fine to play only 3 notes. At any rate I think it is better if you play 3 notes smoothly than 4 notes clumsily.
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/24/13 01:36 AM

Originally Posted By: NeilOS
Originally Posted By: laguna_greg
The usual practice is to start trills from this period on the upper note. However, CPE Bach gives a number of exceptions in his essay that are worth noting.


And if memory serves, the final exception CPE offers is that "if it doesn't sound good, don't do it," or words to that effect.


Exactly Neil! It's a rather lengthy caveat in the last chapter in the ornaments section.
Posted by: ZBGM0

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/25/13 03:16 PM

Originally Posted By: ChopinAddict
I think it is fine to play only 3 notes. At any rate I think it is better if you play 3 notes smoothly than 4 notes clumsily.


I agree!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBsakvRBXG0


Here I found magnificent performance of this arrangement that is played by Cyprien Katsaris. I believe there are only two recordings of this arrangement on youtube (maybe I didn't search well).

This trill comes at 1:11. It’s so fast that I really can’t say if I hear 4 notes or 3, but to me it sounds like trill starts with C# (4 notes). Can someone with good ear confirm that?



Posted by: jeffreyjones

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/25/13 04:48 PM

For Bach, you trill from the upper auxiliary unless you are approaching from below - then you start the trill on the primary note. Whether this would have been the same in Mozart's time is open to interpretation, but they were only separated by about 30 years.
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/25/13 04:54 PM

Originally Posted By: jeffreyjones
For Bach, you trill from the upper auxiliary unless you are approaching from below - then you start the trill on the primary note. Whether this would have been the same in Mozart's time is open to interpretation, but they were only separated by about 30 years.


I thought that was the rule for Mozart as well, and whether it's true for Beethoven is open to interpretation.

-J
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/25/13 08:43 PM

Originally Posted By: beet31425
Originally Posted By: jeffreyjones
For Bach, you trill from the upper auxiliary unless you are approaching from below - then you start the trill on the primary note. Whether this would have been the same in Mozart's time is open to interpretation, but they were only separated by about 30 years.


I thought that was the rule for Mozart as well, and whether it's true for Beethoven is open to interpretation.

-J


Well, all my teachers told me that was the guideline up until Op. 25.
Posted by: antony

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 01:32 AM

Also, starting on the C# for the trill would be a leap because you're going from the A
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 01:39 AM

Originally Posted By: antony
Also, starting on the C# for the trill would be a leap because you're going from the A

I think that's probably the main reason I prefer the '3-note' version and why my ear always made it into that even when it wasn't. The leap followed by the 4-note version has pizzazz, and I suppose it's an impressive thing to do, but to my ear, it's.....uh......a little gauche.

(Readers of another thread will know where I got that word. And I mean it irrespective of the handedness of the players.) grin

The 3-note version, when done well, is IMO much more graceful -- probably especially because of the absence of the little leap -- and that's a good thing here.

BTW one of the things I love about discussions like this is how much thought we can put into a note that can often barely be heard.
Posted by: antony

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 02:04 AM

Also, the harmony is A major and that would be doubling the 3rd/ leading tone. The B is better to start on because it's not in the harmony and acts as an accented passing tone with an upper neighbor(the C#)
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 02:36 AM

Originally Posted By: antony
Also, the harmony is A major and that would be doubling the 3rd/ leading tone. The B is better to start on because it's not in the harmony and acts as an accented passing tone with an upper neighbor(the C#)

You're awfully good at this!!

(Hadn't come close to thinking of that, but agree totally with it.)

I'd love to see any of the "start-on-the-upper-note" advocates try to address the points you've raised. I think they might have a hard time of it.
Posted by: antony

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 02:52 AM

Thanks smile I studied harmony and counterpoint very intensely for years
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 03:03 AM

Originally Posted By: antony
Thanks smile I studied harmony and counterpoint very intensely for years

Me too -- but maybe not as many years. ha

Besides that, you're just really good at coming up with relevant factors and ideas on these things.
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 04:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Mwm
The score is sacred!!! laugh There can be no interpreting!
You must play the score as the composer intended or face the wrath of Stores (G#d incarnate).


Well, you're correct. There is no willy nilly personal choice about hot to play the ornaments in question. The correct way is not difficult and if you do your homework you'll find an inordinate amount of information regarding the execution of ornaments. There is already quite a bit of incorrect information that's been thrown about in this thread and there is one person who has even admitted that for years he's believed the existing ornament was something other than it was. It's highly likely that he heard the ornaments played incorrectly at some point along the way and it's stuck with him, but, and this is where the homework comes in, had he been thoroughly aware of ornaments and their proper execution his ear wouldn't have "tricked" him in the first place.
By the way, there is no "3 note version" and where you people come up with this crap is beyond me.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 04:41 AM

Originally Posted By: stores
....had he been thoroughly aware of ornaments and their proper execution....

He was as fully aware of that concept as you are. smile

Are you capable of replying meaningfully and thoughtfully to points that have been raised on the other side of what you're saying, other than stating rigid dogma and implying that we're ignorant or stupid? You've never shown such an ability for consideration and reflection, but perhaps you've been keeping things in reserve. grin

As I've said before, I'll refrain from highlighting your limitations as long as you remain inoffensive, or at least stay away from who you should stay away from. You've been doing a a pretty good job of that lately, but I guess now and then you can't help yourself.

Quote:
there is no "3 note version" and where you people come up with this crap is beyond me.

Wrong again. grin

For example, see the video I posted -- which happens to be by a period-instrument ensemble.
Posted by: ZBGM0

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 07:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C


BTW one of the things I love about discussions like this is how much thought we can put into a note that can often barely be heard.


Mark, same thing with me. Many people will probably think that I complicate so much for one little note that most people don’t even hear. But for me this is interesting…..I am curious how Mozart actually interpreted trills:) why not discuss this.…even if there is no correct answer.
Posted by: AZNpiano

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 09:27 AM

Originally Posted By: antony
Also, the harmony is A major and that would be doubling the 3rd/ leading tone. The B is better to start on because it's not in the harmony and acts as an accented passing tone with an upper neighbor(the C#)

I don't quite follow this analysis. What is "that" referring to in the first sentence? And if you're in A major, how is "that" doubling the leading tone?

Not saying it's wrong; in fact, I think you're onto something useful. I was just looking for some clarification.

For the record, I'm not in the camp that believes ALL trills must begin on the upper auxiliary note.
Posted by: natty_dread78

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 10:12 AM

There are a number of studies about that matter. I think I remember an edition of the Mozart sonatas with a long introduction about the ornaments in Mozart's music.

I think the 4 notes approach is the most universally recognized one in Mozart (or 6). In fact, playing 3 notes is technically no longer a trill, but a mordent.

However, personnaly, I usually play a mix of styles, 3 notes, 4 notes, even 5 or 6 notes sometimes.
I play what I think sounds best, and/or what I can. Indeed, all cases are different. Depending on what the previous note is, e.g., the 3 notes approach might sound better than the 4 notes one.
What I consider a good example is the following extract of K310:



I really think the 3 notes (or 5) trill sounds much better than the 4 one.

So I think we should not be too adamant about how we play them. Isn't sound the most important thing in music ? If it sounds good, it is probably correct to play that way.
Posted by: ZBGM0

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 10:56 AM

I did little testing on this trills and I discovered (for me) that I can play 3 notes easily, 4 notes cause me a little problem because you really need to play them fast to sound good. My hand can become little tired with 4 notes, especially on the beginning of the second part of EKNM (1.mvt) where you must play those trills nonstop. I will better stick with 3 notes.

On other parts of EKNM I prefer 5 notes. Recording that I listened also indicates that there are 5 notes on other parts (like beginning etc.)
Posted by: ZBGM0

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 11:26 AM

Originally Posted By: natty_dread78
In fact, playing 3 notes is technically no longer a trill, but a mordent.






Very interesting natty. I was always asking myself why we call this thing with 3 notes trill if mordent has exactly the same function.

I have the sheet music from Chopin (Nocturne op.9-2) and as you can see in the 14th bar there is mordent on Eb, which means 3 notes (Eb, F, Eb).

On the second picture you can find trill in the 22th bar on the same note (Eb) and I believe you must play this note the same way (Eb, F, Eb) like mordent. I believe there is confusion. “Tr” and mordent are sometimes played the same way (3 notes). There should be some sort agreement what separates trill from mordent. Trill should be at least 4 notes, so it can be distinguished from mordent (with only 3).
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 11:45 AM

Originally Posted By: AZNpiano
Originally Posted By: antony
Also, the harmony is A major and that would be doubling the 3rd/ leading tone. The B is better to start on because it's not in the harmony and acts as an accented passing tone with an upper neighbor(the C#)

I don't quite follow this analysis. What is "that" referring to in the first sentence? And if you're in A major, how is "that" doubling the leading tone?....

Let me take a swing at that. smile

The thing is, the KEY at that point is D major.

As he said, the harmony there is A, but the key (in that section) is D. (It would have been clearer if he had said "chord" instead of harmony, or added that it's the dominant.)
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 11:52 AM

Originally Posted By: ZBGM0
Originally Posted By: natty_dread78
In fact, playing 3 notes is technically no longer a trill, but a mordent.


[...]
I have the sheet music from Chopin (Nocturne op.9-2) and as you can see in the 14th bar there is mordent on Eb, which means 3 notes (Eb, F, Eb).

On the second picture you can find trill in the 22th bar on the same note (Eb) and I believe you must play this note the same way (Eb, F, Eb) like mordent. I believe there is confusion. “Tr” and mordent are sometimes played the same way (3 notes). There should be some sort agreement what separates trill from mordent. Trill should be at least 4 notes, so it can be distinguished from mordent (with only 3).


It has been documented that Chopin used the tr (for a short trill) and the mordent sign interchangeably. Therefore, it should not necessarily be construed that, in the example, they are different, although one wonders at a lack of consistency in the detail.

Regards,
Posted by: antony

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 01:40 PM

Downbeats mean something different than upbeats, particularly when implications of harmony are concerned. Starting the trill on the C# is leaping onto the leading tone which is already being held in the tenor for an entire quarter note. "That" would be doubling the leading tone which is not done. Playing the C# as an "upbeat"(the second of the trill notes) is different than playing the C# as the "downbeat" ( first note of the trill)
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 10:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C

Wrong again. grin

For example, see the video I posted -- which happens to be by a period-instrument ensemble.


Great. So, they're playing period instruments. You do realise, of course, that fact doesn't mean that their performance practices are necessarily correct. Ornament notation through the time of Mozart (and actually the standard baroque trill was taught into the 19th century) still realised baroque practices and the "tr" sign does not translate to "mordent". In fact, as written in this case, the appoggiatura, is implied (with, or without the #) and we've a written out termination.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 11:01 PM

As expected, you didn't give a single word of reply to the points that have been raised. (Not to mention that you're ignoring the simple fact that the 3-note version does exist.) All you show with replies like that is that indeed you just don't have the ability to engage in meaningful discussion about matters like this -- no ability to weigh something that is raised and give a thoughtful answer, no ability to discuss things on the level that so many of our members do. You only have your easy tunnel-visioned rigid views; never mind how limited and false they are.

By the way, the word is spelled "their." grin
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 11:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
All you show with replies like that is that indeed you just don't have the ability to engage in meaningful discussion about matters like this -- no ability to weigh something that is raised and give a thoughtful answer, no ability to discuss things on the level that so many of our members do.


I've come to notice this as well.
Posted by: antony

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/26/13 11:42 PM

Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: Mark_C

Wrong again. grin

For example, see the video I posted -- which happens to be by a period-instrument ensemble.


Great. So, they're playing period instruments. You do realise, of course, that fact doesn't mean that they're performance practices are necessarily correct. Ornament notation through the time of Mozart (and actually the standard baroque trill was taught into the 19th century) still realised baroque practices and the "tr" sign does not translate to "mordent". In fact, as written in this case, the appoggiatura, is implied (with, or without the #) and we've a written out termination.

What do you mean "the appoggiatura is implied"
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/27/13 04:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
As expected, you didn't give a single word of reply to the points that have been raised. (Not to mention that you're ignoring the simple fact that the 3-note version does exist.) All you show with replies like that is that indeed you just don't have the ability to engage in meaningful discussion about matters like this -- no ability to weigh something that is raised and give a thoughtful answer, no ability to discuss things on the level that so many of our members do. You only have your easy tunnel-visioned rigid views; never mind how limited and false they are.

By the way, the word is spelled "their." grin


Mark, I spend my entire day discussing music and am completely capable of engaging in meaningful discussion. Simply because I choose not to get caught up in one of your blah blah ha ha blah blah ha ha exchanges does not mean I'm incompetent. This case is fairly simple and I stand by my earlier post.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/27/13 10:33 AM

As I've said before, don't tell us, show us.

From what you've shown on this site, you painfully lack the ability to engage in such interchange. We're not just talking about your replies to my posts; it's everything. I don't doubt that you discuss music plenty in real life. But is seems likely that the nature of it would be basically the same as what we see here, with the same limitations. If you want to say that this isn't so and that you do have the ability that you seem to lack (as more and more people are coming to feel), don't tell us; show us.

And whatever you do, you would do well to cut out the insults to people who simply have different views than you do. If you just did that, we wouldn't have to confront you like this.
Posted by: Old Man

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/27/13 11:02 AM

Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
As expected, you didn't give a single word of reply to the points that have been raised. (Not to mention that you're ignoring the simple fact that the 3-note version does exist.) All you show with replies like that is that indeed you just don't have the ability to engage in meaningful discussion about matters like this -- no ability to weigh something that is raised and give a thoughtful answer, no ability to discuss things on the level that so many of our members do. You only have your easy tunnel-visioned rigid views; never mind how limited and false they are.

By the way, the word is spelled "their." grin


Mark, I spend my entire day discussing music and am completely capable of engaging in meaningful discussion. Simply because I choose not to get caught up in one of your blah blah ha ha blah blah ha ha exchanges does not mean I'm incompetent. This case is fairly simple and I stand by my earlier post.

stores, you've complained mightily about all the misinformation that's been disseminated in this forum over the years. Well, here's your chance to correct the record, to make a contribution.

The fact that the OP has opened this thread shows that he really cares about the subject -- and about the score. He's not content to just do whatever "feels good", but genuinely wants to do it the right way. I would think that this attitude would impress you, and make you eager to share your ideas on a topic that's right up your alley. He's mentioned various things he's read, so it appears that he's "done his homework", or is at least trying to research the matter. But he's not coming up with definitive answers that he finds satisfactory.

Instead of firing spit balls at other posters (particularly that "certain person"), and calling their ideas "crap", why not share your expertise? In spite of your sour disposition, you've garnered the respect of many PW members over the years, so why not spend a little of that capital? And if you're too tired after "discussing music" the entire day, couldn't you at least provide a reliable source of information to the OP? Maybe recommend some books or articles that discuss how ornamentation evolved throughout the Baroque and Classical periods?

I've always thought of you, Mark, and Plover as the Three Musketeers. When any two of you are on the same thread, there's bound to be a duel. And when all three are on, all h*ll breaks loose. And while this back and forth may be wildly entertaining to some of us (one of my guilty pleasures blush ), in a technical thread like this one, it's not very helpful. The OP sits on the sidelines, waiting for a break in the action, but is no closer to an answer.

You're a teacher, stores. Share your knowledge. Teach. You have many receptive students, eager to learn.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/27/13 11:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Old Man
....I've always thought of you, Mark, and Plover as the Three Musketeers. When any two of you are on the same thread, there's bound to be a duel. And when all three are on, all h*ll breaks loose....

Has anyone else noticed -- pianoloverus seems to be on vacation.

HEY PLOVER, WE MISS YOU!
(Really.) grin

Wherever you are, hope you're doing well -- and hope your absence is only about something good. smile
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 07:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
As I've said before, don't tell us, show us.

From what you've shown on this site, you painfully lack the ability to engage in such interchange. We're not just talking about your replies to my posts; it's everything. I don't doubt that you discuss music plenty in real life. But is seems likely that the nature of it would be basically the same as what we see here, with the same limitations. If you want to say that this isn't so and that you do have the ability that you seem to lack (as more and more people are coming to feel), don't tell us; show us.

And whatever you do, you would do well to cut out the insults to people who simply have different views than you do. If you just did that, we wouldn't have to confront you like this.


Hmmm... I'll just try and steer the conversation elsewhere and aim the focus on the fact that stores is an *********.
I am not here to please your sensibilities and I have no desire to enter into "interchange" with you (as I've stated before). I could be here for days responding to your often inane chitter chatter (that is not meant to be a slight... it's just how most of what I read from you comes across to me).
I've pointed out enough on this subject for those interested to do the homework and learn for themselves. I'm not here to draw things out on the chalkboard. If the answer is a simple one then quite often I'll throw it out there, but, if the answer is one that isn't so evident, then I usually keep things to myself so that those who are not in the know can have the more meaningful experience of their own discovery. I will, however, always attempt to weed out misinformation when I see it (and I hate to say it, but there has always been a great deal of just that coming from Mr. C, who means very well, but often gets carried away when he himself is not always thoroughly grounded and then misleads others who look to him for answers, because anyone who runs their mouth that much MUST know what he's talking about right?)
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 11:00 AM

Thus proving Mark's post right. No matter how right you are (or aren't), your lack of communication skills brings so much negative energy to this forum.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 11:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Old Man

You're a teacher, stores.


He's certainly implied that. I prefer to think of him as his original username.
Posted by: Orange Soda King

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 12:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Old Man

You're a teacher, stores.


He's certainly implied that. I prefer to think of him as his original username.


I still don't understand the fuss made about his original username... It's not any offensive word that I have ever heard of, and he's most definitely not from the region where it is supposedly an offensive word, so I don't see the fuss.

Originally Posted By: Old Man

You're a teacher, stores. Share your knowledge. Teach. You have many receptive students, eager to learn.


At the same time, that's what he gets paid to do, so maybe after teaching hours upon hours each day, he may not feel incredibly inclined to keep doing more online, unpaid.

Though that's probably not the point. I think he realizes how so many of the issues cannot be properly solved just by text online, and it's not worth it to him to write a thesis, complete with cited sources and bibliography to properly explain things. And still, especially in regards to piano technique, certain things can only be explained person-to-person, with actual physical interaction.

Of course, that may bring up the question, "well, what's the point of even having the Piano World forum?" There are still countless wonderful subjects to discuss. smile
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 01:23 PM

What was stores's original name?
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 01:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Orange Soda King
....I think he realizes how so many of the issues cannot be properly solved just by text online, and it's not worth it to him to write a thesis, complete with cited sources and bibliography to properly explain things. And still, especially in regards to piano technique, certain things can only be explained person-to-person, with actual physical interaction.....

Sure -- but:

-- Such a person would rarely handle such things with the insulting provocative hit-and-run that he so often does. There are all kinds of other ways they could do it, if it's just that they don't want to expend the energy and time, like saying their point without the provocation and insult or just staying out of the discussion. And we're not particularly asking him for sources and the like (OldMan did mention that as a possible EASY thing he might do, in case he doesn't want to do anything else, but it's not really what we're talking about), just for meaningful and normal replies to things that are raised in reply to his salvos.

-- The issues on which he says such things -- the things where he pops on with an insult about people's supposed stupidity and ignorance -- often AREN'T that simple, this thread being a perfect example. And the simple things he says are very often simply false.

You're giving him way the benefit of the doubt, and in a way that doesn't work.

To Joel: "Tosser." BTW I didn't find the user name offensive either, just quite odd. grin
I hadn't known of the meaning that some people complained about. And BTW I'm pretty sure nobody ever would have complained except for how harshly he came on as a new member. I shuddered immediately at his first few posts, even though it was subtle at first. Within days, he was getting into mayhem (not with me).
Posted by: Old Man

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 02:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Orange Soda King

At the same time, that's what he gets paid to do, so maybe after teaching hours upon hours each day, he may not feel incredibly inclined to keep doing more online, unpaid.

Though that's probably not the point. I think he realizes how so many of the issues cannot be properly solved just by text online, and it's not worth it to him to write a thesis, complete with cited sources and bibliography to properly explain things. And still, especially in regards to piano technique, certain things can only be explained person-to-person, with actual physical interaction.

I understand and agree with everything you're saying. And I thought about the "uncompensated" aspect of helping people online, but didn't want to hand out any easy excuses. grin And no one expects a thesis, or an online tutoring session. Which is why I thought he could've said something like, "It's too exhaustive a subject to discuss online. But to get you started, I highly recommend so-and-so's book on this subject."

Even after a long day at the piano, I don't believe this would have depleted all of stores' stores.
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 03:32 PM

Maybe he's just a master troll.
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 04:52 PM

Mark,

"Sure -- but:

-- Such a person would rarely handle such things with the insulting provocative hit-and-run that he so often does. "

I don't know about that. I mean, after all, he doesn't owe you a thing, nor do I or anyone. You're not his student. No student would ever talk to a teacher like that, or criticize them so freely to their faces. Also, students pay their teachers

Since we all, every one of us, engage in the uncivil practice of free and open criticism, doubt, overt cynicism, and general nastiness on this forum from time to time, I think your idea that anyone is committed to 1- answer consistently, or 2- be civil or even generous, is deeply flawed.

This forum has all the dubious claims to collegiality and veracity as a singles hotline:

"OMG! YOU PHOTOSHOPPED THAT
______________________!!!"
(insert body part here)

If you want Stores to teach you, call him up, pay him for a lesson, and then sit down, hold your tongue asnd open your ears until the hour is complete. Otherwise, well, you know very well what I'm going to way...

BTW, get over yourself... I have to from time to time...get over myself that is...
Posted by: Damon

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 05:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Orange Soda King
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Old Man

You're a teacher, stores.


He's certainly implied that. I prefer to think of him as his original username.


I still don't understand the fuss made about his original username...


No fuss, I thought it was very apt. He should have kept it.
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 06:07 PM

Ouch!
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 08:23 PM

Originally Posted By: laguna_greg
....he doesn't owe you a thing, nor do I or anyone. You're not his student. No student would ever talk to a teacher like that, or criticize them so freely to their faces....

It's more about what he owes to himself -- to avoid making himself appear how he's made himself appear. Plus, y'know, he really does owe us to not keep on being offensive and insulting. If he just stopped that, we wouldn't call him on the other stuff.

And I think you're wrong about what students would or wouldn't say. If we're talking about students of any high level, absolutely they would say things like this to a teacher who spoke so dogmatically, or insultingly, or without any thoughtful follow-up on their replies to what he had said. And when it's all three, the students would say it back to him very forcefully -- or at least darn better should.
Posted by: wr

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Mwm
The score is sacred!!! laugh There can be no interpreting!
You must play the score as the composer intended or face the wrath of Stores (G#d incarnate).


But, this is a transcription, so it is automatically an immoral and unclean abomination in its entirety, because there is no way that it can be seen as the composer's intent. There's no need to even bother with the niceties of the trills. If Mozart had meant it to be a keyboard piece, that's what he would have written.
Posted by: antony

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 09:07 PM

Originally Posted By: laguna_greg
Mark,

"Sure -- but:

-- Such a person would rarely handle such things with the insulting provocative hit-and-run that he so often does. "

I don't know about that. I mean, after all, he doesn't owe you a thing, nor do I or anyone. You're not his student. No student would ever talk to a teacher like that, or criticize them so freely to their faces. Also, students pay their teachers

Since we all, every one of us, engage in the uncivil practice of free and open criticism, doubt, overt cynicism, and general nastiness on this forum from time to time, I think your idea that anyone is committed to 1- answer consistently, or 2- be civil or even generous, is deeply flawed.
http://www.avioseuropack.com/3474/index.html[/i]
This forum has all the dubious claims to collegiality and veracity as a singles hotline:

"OMG! YOU PHOTOSHOPPED THAT
______________________!!!"
(insert body part here)

If you want Stores to teach you, call him up, pay him for a lesson, and then sit down, hold your tongue asnd open your ears until the hour is complete. Otherwise, well, you know very well what I'm going to way...

BTW, get over yourself... I have to from time to time...get over myself that is...

Your analogy is not apt for this scenario. It's entirely contradictory for one to [i]willingly join a public forum and simultaneously act as if it is all beneath them like they're a celebrity being hounded by unscrupulous paparazzi
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 09:59 PM

"Your analogy is not apt for this scenario."

You are projecting far too many of your own personal values and judgements onto a public forum than can possibly be justified.

It's much closer to strangers passing on a train, exchanging the odd remark, than you suggest.

When you get some objectivity, you write us all back.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 10:18 PM

Actually I half agree with Greg. I agree that coming onto the site doesn't mean that you owe anything about anything.

But with exceptions -- and one of those is.....let's see how to put this....it's a little hard because what Stores does is so unusual....
I could say just that it's an exception when you do insults and put-downs of other members, and I think that would be valid, but the situation with Stores is even more than that.

If you present yourself as a high-level teacher and performer and do high-sounding posts with insults and put-downs of what others have said, you owe some meaningful follow-up to the replies that you get, because the things that you say carry more weight due to how you're presenting yourself. That's in addition to how the severity of the provocativeness in itself arguably demands responsive follow-up.
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 10:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
It's more about what he owes to himself -- to avoid making himself appear how he's made himself appear. Plus, y'know, he really does owe us to not keep on being offensive and insulting. If he just stopped that, we wouldn't call him on the other stuff.


Mark, you are projecting. Among other things, you are projecting a level of intimacy and trust that does not exist on this forum, nor anywhere digitally, nor does it exist among total stranger in real time.

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
And I think you're wrong about what students would or wouldn't say. If we're talking about students of any high level...


Oh Mark...

My first teacher made me go play for Aube Tzerko at UCLA, and then Jeanine Dowis at Aspen and Juilliard, three times. And then there were a number of master classes anywhere she could find them. I can't tell you the number of times I played for Martin Katz, it was the running joke of my department for 12 years. Oh, and I did play for Dalton Baldwin twice as well, and Roger Vignoles, and Graham Johnson many times, and Menachem Pressler, et alia. We won't even talk about Taubman.

If you think they would tolerate anyone for one minute sassing off to them the way we do on this forum, in private or public, I dare you to try it to any of their faces. I can tell you, you wouldn't live to see the door on the way out, which you would find yourself outside of shortly after.

And then there was my teacher in Paris, Noel Lee. How much have you personally paid for lessons with a really famous pianist? Those lessons cost me about 1,800FF per hour, every hour (you do the math). I had to work for weeks to even save up enough money to go play for him. Do you think, at that price, I would contradict him for no good reason? Of course one asks questions, and can. But what you are suggesting vraiment dépasse les bornes.

You REALLY let your own students talk to you like that?

I don't. And that is the level of respect I demand from anyone who works with me, no matter what their level. So apparently does Stores.

And hey, you brought up, what was it, "students of any high level"...

Grâce à Dieu you never studied in France...
Posted by: Polyphonist

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 10:29 PM

I, on the other hand, would love for my students to challenge what I say in that way - it shows interest and competence. Provided, of course, that they were actually making a point. If they were just rambling (like some of the nonsense I see from beginners on this forum who are trying to offer advice to other beginners) I would shut them down, of course.
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 10:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: laguna_greg
....he doesn't owe you a thing, nor do I or anyone. You're not his student. No student would ever talk to a teacher like that, or criticize them so freely to their faces....

It's more about what he owes to himself -- to avoid making himself appear how he's made himself appear. Plus, y'know, he really does owe us to not keep on being offensive and insulting. If he just stopped that, we wouldn't call him on the other stuff.

And I think you're wrong about what students would or wouldn't say. If we're talking about students of any high level, absolutely they would say things like this to a teacher who spoke so dogmatically, or insultingly, or without any thoughtful follow-up on their replies to what he had said. And when it's all three, the students would say it back to him very forcefully -- or at least darn better should.


Mark, Greg, is correct. I don't owe you, or anyone else here a thing and I really don't care how I appear here. I tire of hearing you and others ***** about my posts and my attitude, though I rarely post these days unless I see something that really SHOULD be addressed. If you don't like it then don't look. Simple as that. If the thread is full of crap then I'm going to say it's full of crap. If you're wrong about something, then I'm going to say you're wrong. You seem to delight in saying much of what I have to say is false, but you don't say how it's false. I don't deal in falsifications. I simply called out, in this instance, what I saw as erroneous information regarding the aforementioned ornaments. If it offends you to hear that you're wrong, well then, I'm sorry, but you're still wrong. I'm not one to dance around a subject and deal in a bunch of "no, no, you first" blah blah.
By the way, I could probably find an opening for you. Leave your Scriabin at home.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 10:33 PM

Originally Posted By: laguna_greg
....My first teacher made me go play for [list of important teachers]....
If you think they would tolerate anyone for one minute sassing off to them the way we do on this forum, in private or public, I dare you to try it to any of their faces. I can tell you, you wouldn't live to see the door on the way out, which you would find yourself outside of shortly after.

Completely irrelevant. You're leaving out the most important part.

How the teachers talk and behave with the students.

I have no hesitation in saying that none of those people would ever be caught dead talking or behaving in the way that we're talking about here.

Quote:
And then there was my teacher in Paris, Noel Lee. How much have you personally paid for lessons with a really famous pianist? Those lessons cost me about 1,800FF per hour, every hour (you do the math)....

Off the subject, but as it happens, I knew people who studied regularly with him and one of them remains a close friend. Lee taught briefly at the college I went to (just before I got there) and I was lucky to hear him when he came back and played a recital. I remember especially the great experience of hearing him play his completion of Schubert's unfinished C major Sonata.

By the way I'm absolutely sure Noel Lee never would have behaved in a way that we're talking about here. ha
You don't get automatic respect and acceptance by virtue of having a certain role or title; you have to earn and deserve that respect. There are certain kinds of behavior that call for questioning and confrontation, and even just walking out the door and not coming back.

Originally Posted By: stores
....You seem to delight in saying much of what I have to say is false, but you don't say how it's false.....

OK, we've learned something more: You don't read too good. grin

Besides that I pointed out how your assertion about the 3-note version was false, I've noted that much of the general content on here shows how false is your basic rigid view on the subject of the thread. Just look through the first page, and see the specific and learned things that various people said regarding how this is a subjective, flexible, gray-area issue.
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 10:34 PM

Originally Posted By: laguna_greg
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
It's more about what he owes to himself -- to avoid making himself appear how he's made himself appear. Plus, y'know, he really does owe us to not keep on being offensive and insulting. If he just stopped that, we wouldn't call him on the other stuff.


Mark, you are projecting. Among other things, you are projecting a level of intimacy and trust that does not exist on this forum, nor anywhere digitally, nor does it exist among total stranger in real time.

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
And I think you're wrong about what students would or wouldn't say. If we're talking about students of any high level...


Oh Mark...

My first teacher made me go play for Aube Tzerko at UCLA, and then Jeanine Dowis at Aspen and Juilliard, three times. And then there were a number of master classes anywhere she could find them. I can't tell you the number of times I played for Martin Katz, it was the running joke of my department for 12 years. Oh, and I did play for Dalton Baldwin twice as well, and Roger Vignoles, and Graham Johnson many times, and Menachem Pressler, et alia. We won't even talk about Taubman.

If you think they would tolerate anyone for one minute sassing off to them the way we do on this forum, in private or public, I dare you to try it to any of their faces. I can tell you, you wouldn't live to see the door on the way out, which you would find yourself outside of shortly after.

And then there was my teacher in Paris, Noel Lee. How much have you personally paid for lessons with a really famous pianist? Those lessons cost me about 1,800FF per hour, every hour (you do the math). I had to work for weeks to even save up enough money to go play for him. Do you think, at that price, I would contradict him for no good reason? Of course one asks questions, and can. But what you are suggesting vraiment dépasse les bornes.

You REALLY let your own students talk to you like that?

I don't. And that is the level of respect I demand from anyone who works with me, no matter what their level. So apparently does Stores.

And hey, you brought up, what was it, "students of any high level"...

Grâce à Dieu you never studied in France...


You are quite right, Greg. I've seen plenty of people dismissed by teachers and have done so myself. I keep your money, by the way.
Posted by: antony

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 10:38 PM

Originally Posted By: laguna_greg
"Your analogy is not apt for this scenario."

You are projecting far too many of your own personal values and judgements onto a public forum than can possibly be justified.

It's much closer to strangers passing on a train, exchanging the odd remark, than you suggest.

When you get some objectivity, you write us all back.

"strangers on a train..." Are you trying to outdo yourself with poor analogies and bad metaphor?
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 10:41 PM

Well then Stores, we quite agree about a couple of things. And one of them is not putting up with guff from pikers.
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 10:43 PM

Originally Posted By: antony
[/quote]
"strangers on a train..." Are you trying to outdo yourself with poor analogies and bad metaphor?


No foolish boy. I'm trying to get you to see the obvious which, for some unexplainable reason, escapes you rather completely...
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 10:57 PM

Mark,

"Off the subject, but as it happens, I knew people who studied regularly with him and one of them remains a close friend. Lee taught briefly at the college I went to (just before I got there) and I was lucky to hear him when he came back and played a recital. I remember especially the great experience of hearing him play his completion of Schubert's unfinished C major Sonata."

I'm very glad you enjoyed his playing. I did on the few occasions he played in Paris when I was there and it was possible to hear him.

But you are mistaken if you think, for even one second, he would have put up with the BS you people dish out here, yourself included. While he was a gentle soul and American at heart, he was thoroughly French in the way he taught. The fact that you would even say what you did shows that you don't know what this means.

And by the way, his "students" that you knew never contradicted him to his face, or he would have had their guts for garters as he had mine on at least three occasions that I remember, one of them in a public master class on the Schumann lieder.
Posted by: antony

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 10:58 PM

Originally Posted By: laguna_greg
Originally Posted By: antony

"strangers on a train..." Are you trying to outdo yourself with poor analogies and bad metaphor?


No foolish boy. I'm trying to get you to see the obvious which, for some unexplainable reason, escapes you rather completely... [/quote]
"foolish boy"- Adding ad hominem attacks. Bravo!
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 11:04 PM

Get over yourself. Really.
Posted by: Polyphonist

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 11:05 PM

Another thread reduced to childish insults back and forth between members, with no meaningful discussion being exchanged. Every time someone does try to contribute actual information, they are instantly drowned out by the flood of arguments that has been plaguing this thread and so many others on this board lately. It looks like the PianoWorld community has once more demonstrated that it is incapable of having an intelligent, organized discussion on even a slightly controversial topic. Congratulations, and I anxiously await the locking of this thread.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 11:13 PM

Greg, you keep ignoring the main thing from what I said about that. If you do that, it's awfully easy to try to trash something.

I tried to help you out in the last reply by highlighting it. In italics even. grin
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 11:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Greg, you keep ignoring the main thing from what I said about that. If you do that, it's awfully easy to try to trash something.

I tried to help you out in the last reply by highlighting it. In italics even. grin


Are you listening to anything I've said? I really don't care what you had to say earlier.
Posted by: Polyphonist

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 11:31 PM

You guys are just talking past each other now. I'm sure you can find something better to do with your time than have an argument with some random person you don't know on the Internet in which neither of you really wants to listen to what the other is saying.
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 11:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Polyphonist
You guys are just talking past each other now. I'm sure you can find something better to do with your time than have an argument with some random person you don't know on the Internet in which neither of you really wants to listen to what the other is saying.


Oh I don't know Poly. It's Sunday night, there's nothing on the tele, and dinner's not quite ready yet...
Posted by: Polyphonist

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 11:34 PM

Originally Posted By: laguna_greg
Originally Posted By: Polyphonist
You guys are just talking past each other now. I'm sure you can find something better to do with your time than have an argument with some random person you don't know on the Internet in which neither of you really wants to listen to what the other is saying.


Oh I don't know Poly. It's Sunday night, there's nothing on the tele, and dinner's not quite ready yet...

How about you go and play some Mozart? laugh
Posted by: laguna_greg

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 11:36 PM

I'm doing that already, in between typing...
Posted by: Polyphonist

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/28/13 11:37 PM

Originally Posted By: laguna_greg
I'm doing that already, in between typing...

Well, don't let Mark's feeble arguments distract you. And come to that, don't let your own feeble arguments distract yourself. ha
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 12:17 AM

This thread is teaching me so much about Mozart's trills.

whistle
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 12:29 AM

Originally Posted By: stores


Mark, Greg, is correct. I don't owe you, or anyone else here a thing and I really don't care how I appear here. I tire of hearing you and others ***** about my posts and my attitude, though I rarely post these days unless I see something that really SHOULD be addressed. If you don't like it then don't look. Simple as that. If the thread is full of crap then I'm going to say it's full of crap. If you're wrong about something, then I'm going to say you're wrong. You seem to delight in saying much of what I have to say is false, but you don't say how it's false. I don't deal in falsifications. I simply called out, in this instance, what I saw as erroneous information regarding the aforementioned ornaments. If it offends you to hear that you're wrong, well then, I'm sorry, but you're still wrong. I'm not one to dance around a subject and deal in a bunch of "no, no, you first" blah blah.


This is all good, except you aren't always right. Sometimes you say things that are outright false. Other times you confuse your own ideals with moral obligation. "You MUST do this, you MUST do that". To use a recent thread topic as an example, you say, with conviction, that we do not have the right to alter anything in the score. Guess what, it's art. There are no rules like that. If I want to change a note for my own artistic liking, I'm going to do it. PERIOD. Who cares if YOU don't think it sounds good? To use one of your own [quite good] philosophies, if you don't like it, don't bother. That means don't spend time preaching on threads about what people should do with their artistic choices.
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 04:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C


Besides that I pointed out how your assertion about the 3-note version was false, I've noted that much of the general content on here shows how false is your basic rigid view on the subject of the thread. Just look through the first page, and see the specific and learned things that various people said regarding how this is a subjective, flexible, gray-area issue.


You pointed something out. Okay. But you didn't give me anything that says, "stores, what you're saying is incorrect." I read the entire thread and there isn't anything that says it is a "subjective, flexible, gray area issue", because it is not. How can I say that? Because I know what I'm talking about regarding ornamentation, period practices, etc., etc. The baroque and classical are my specialty and I've spent the greater part of the last 30 years or so studying (and teaching) this music in great detail. The problem is that there are too many "subjective, flexible, gray area issue(s)" with you. You seem to love these sorts of things, in fact. Show me something definitive that says your "three note version" is an acceptable variation and I'll listen, because you pointing something out that you feel to be the case simply doesn't mean that it is so.
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 04:34 AM

Originally Posted By: JoelW
Originally Posted By: stores


Mark, Greg, is correct. I don't owe you, or anyone else here a thing and I really don't care how I appear here. I tire of hearing you and others ***** about my posts and my attitude, though I rarely post these days unless I see something that really SHOULD be addressed. If you don't like it then don't look. Simple as that. If the thread is full of crap then I'm going to say it's full of crap. If you're wrong about something, then I'm going to say you're wrong. You seem to delight in saying much of what I have to say is false, but you don't say how it's false. I don't deal in falsifications. I simply called out, in this instance, what I saw as erroneous information regarding the aforementioned ornaments. If it offends you to hear that you're wrong, well then, I'm sorry, but you're still wrong. I'm not one to dance around a subject and deal in a bunch of "no, no, you first" blah blah.


This is all good, except you aren't always right. Sometimes you say things that are outright false. Other times you confuse your own ideals with moral obligation. "You MUST do this, you MUST do that". To use a recent thread topic as an example, you say, with conviction, that we do not have the right to alter anything in the score. Guess what, it's art. There are no rules like that. If I want to change a note for my own artistic liking, I'm going to do it. PERIOD. Who cares if YOU don't think it sounds good? To use one of your own [quite good] philosophies, if you don't like it, don't bother. That means don't spend time preaching on threads about what people should do with their artistic choices.


Because you like it doesn't mean it is correct, nor does it mean that my counter argument is false (it isn't a falsity to state that one should not alter the score). You basically make my point for me. Do what you like... it makes no difference to me, but keep in mind that you'll never be taken seriously, if you spend your time changing notes here and there, because you like things better that way. The "artistic choice" argument, which I've heard countless times, is an amateur one and I guarantee you it will be highlighted should you decide to insert your own alterations into the score while playing in a masterclass, or for any notable, knowledgeable teacher. To do such a thing means you must have better than good reason and be able to provide solid backup for your reason. It isn't about whether I think it sounds good and saying so simply means you don't understand the point.
Posted by: sandalholme

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 11:02 AM

stores: a genuine question and re Mozart and the score. K311, 1st movt, bar 51. My Henle Urtext edition gives a naturalised C in the 2nd half of the bar (RH). It has always sounded wrong to me - I play the C# as in the 1st half of the bar. Apart from bar 41 it's the first appearance of a C natural, although there are quite a few further on. No comments in the notes to the edition.

Is there a good harmonic reason for the C natural? Should I just get used to the shock (to me) of the C natural in that bar? It has puzzled me for some time as I much prefer to play the notes as written and learn the reasons for what appears to be a "wrong" note.
Posted by: ando

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 11:32 AM

Originally Posted By: sandalholme
stores: a genuine question and re Mozart and the score. K311, 1st movt, bar 51. My Henle Urtext edition gives a naturalised C in the 2nd half of the bar (RH). It has always sounded wrong to me - I play the C# as in the 1st half of the bar. Apart from bar 41 it's the first appearance of a C natural, although there are quite a few further on. No comments in the notes to the edition.

Is there a good harmonic reason for the C natural? Should I just get used to the shock (to me) of the C natural in that bar? It has puzzled me for some time as I much prefer to play the notes as written and learn the reasons for what appears to be a "wrong" note.


C natural is correct. The harmonic reason is that the chord with the c-natural in it is a diminished vii triad (vii of IV) applied to the following G-chord. Mozart would not typically use a C-sharp there because a F# minor chord to G major chord is not a stylistically classical resolution. The diminished is more appropriate to the period because there are dual semi-tone resolutions: the F#-G in the bass and C-B in the middle voice. I think you should try to get used to it. Remember that it is there to give a strong resolution to the G chord, it's not supposed to sound like a sweet movement from the chord before. It's intentionally deceptive, trying to surprise you. Try to listen for the descending chromatic line in the middle, C#-C-B to help your ear accept it.
Posted by: Peter K. Mose

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 11:37 AM

I posted something earlier on in this thread that in a more pussyfooting way tried to say what stores said more clearly and emphatically. I, too, know a fair bit about 18th C ornamentation, and everything I know points to this Mozart example as not gray at all. Stores *is* the voice to be heeded: this is a simple trill commencing on the note above.

If you want to play this ornament with 3 notes, starting on the principal note, going up, then back, you are playing a pretend ornament that did not exist in Mozart`s day. Or in Bach`s day. It`s historically wrong.

You can play it that wrong way, of course, and perhaps few listeners can hear the difference, and it might feel more pianistic under your fingers to play a trill upside down and inaccurately. In the grand scheme of life this debate may seem trivial. And obviously there are rivalries on this board I don`t know about. But stores has given the OP a good answer to his query.

Posted by: sandalholme

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 11:50 AM

Many thanks ando. I will go and educate my ears!
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 11:54 AM

.....and to Peter's post:

When some knowledgeable people say that something can only be one way, and other equally knowledgeable people say it's more complicated and that it's flexible and arguable, which side would usually tend to be right?

I'd also love to see anyone on your side reply to Antony's point about doubling the leading tone. I don't mean that this says you have to do the 3-note version, just that it's a point in favor of it -- and if you want to try to be academic and doctrinaire about it, you need to deal with points like that.
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 12:25 PM

Quote:
Because you like it doesn't mean it is correct


That's what you're not getting. There is no 'correct' in art.

Quote:
Do what you like... it makes no difference to me


Your activity on a recent thread proves otherwise.

Quote:
but keep in mind that you'll never be taken seriously


Plain false. Countless famous professionals have been known to change notes. Some less obvious, some glaringly obvious. Do you really think they aren't being taken seriously? Hah. I once went to a concert where a famous violinist was making little improvs during the Sibelius concerto throughout the whole show.

Quote:

I guarantee you it will be highlighted should you decide to insert your own alterations into the score while playing in a masterclass, or for any notable, knowledgeable teacher.


This assumes that you already know every teacher in the world is a purist. This would seem to contradict the famous pianists who do make changes to the score and also give masterclasses. Also, if a student is smart and knows his environment, he/she isn't going to play any alterations for a purist teacher. You wait until you're on the stage before an audience. An audience you know isn't full of purists who can ruin your career. Or if you're confident in your alteration and a real artist, nothing will stop you ever. I highly respect that.

Quote:
It isn't about whether I think it sounds good and saying so simply means you don't understand the point.


No, you don't understand the point. The point is that art isn't bound up in any of your idealistic chains.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 12:29 PM

....and in the case of this thread, it isn't even about deviating from the score, just how to interpret it.

There is such a very wide range of opinion on all such aspects, including that many people who are extreme sticklers for sticking to scores, like Stores and (I guess) Peter, still have flexible views about how to interpret them. Being strict about scores doesn't at all necessarily mean being rigid on exactly how to play an ornament.
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 12:46 PM

Perhaps I got a little off topic? grin
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 01:01 PM

Originally Posted By: JoelW
Perhaps I got a little off topic? grin

Just a little. smile
(sort of a merging of topics from 2 related threads)
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 01:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
.....and to Peter's post:

When some knowledgeable people say that something can only be one way, and other equally knowledgeable people say it's more complicated and that it's flexible and arguable, which side would usually tend to be right?

I'd also love to see anyone on your side reply to Antony's point about doubling the leading tone. I don't mean that this says you have to do the 3-note version, just that it's a point in favor of it -- and if you want to try to be academic and doctrinaire about it, you need to deal with points like that.


I'm not trying to offend, but in this case the "other equally knowledgeable people" are not. Mark, it really is quite simple... there is no three note version. Play it that way, if you must, but that isn't what Mozart has written. It simply doesn't exist.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 01:21 PM

What can you say about leaping up to the doubled leading tone?

None of you are touching that. (Maybe because it would require realizing that the subject isn't so simple?) Plus, what Jeffrey and Jason (Beet31425) said about when the figure is approached from below.

There are rules, and there are exceptions to rules. I agree that what you're saying is a "rule," although with quotes around it. We mainly just disagree on exceptions -- and using judgment.
Posted by: Luthrin

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 05:50 PM

From "Perspectives on Mozart Performance" (R. Larry Todd and Peter Williams, editors):



Badura-Skoda goes on to say:

"Not only in piano music, but in orchestral works, there
are many instances where a main-note start of a trill is
desirable for harmonic and melodic reasons."


He then gives two examples and says:

"Alas, nowadays nearly all orchestral players start these
trills with the upper note, evidently because they are 'well
instructed' that a Mozart trill must start from above."
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 08:16 PM

Luthrin: Thanks for posting this!

Originally Posted By: Luthrin
From "Perspectives on Mozart Performance" (R. Larry Todd and Peter Williams, editors):



Badura-Skoda goes on to say:

"Not only in piano music, but in orchestral works, there
are many instances where a main-note start of a trill is
desirable for harmonic and melodic reasons."


He then gives two examples and says:

"Alas, nowadays nearly all orchestral players start these
trills with the upper note, evidently because they are 'well
instructed' that a Mozart trill must start from above."


Calling Stores, Peter, Greg, and anyone who might still want to insist that the rigid "start-on-the-upper-note" view is the only 'correct' one and that the rest of us are dolts. grin

To be clear: I'm not saying at all that starting on the principal note is how you have to do it in the current example; I'm not even sure I'd do it that way, although I'm pretty sure I would, with the "leaping-to-the-leading-tone" factor mentioned by Antony being the probable clincher (and not because of pure music theory but because I regard this as a probable underlying explanation for why my ear seems to dislike and reject that version). But all I'm really saying is that the subject is open for reasonable debate and subjectivity, and that it's simply WRONG to say that your way is the only correct way. If you insist otherwise, you're up against Badura-Skoda (as well as many others).

But don't worry -- you've got company: ME. ha
Because if he meant to imply that the short upper-note trill (like the 4-note version in the current example) 'doesn't exist' -- and he seems to come close to that, doesn't he -- I would disagree with him too, just as I'd disagree with your saying that the 3-note version "doesn't exist." I don't think we can say that either way is simply wrong, and to that extent, I'm supporting you, against Badura-Skoda -- supporting the reasonableness of your preference, although not your insistence on it, and I think you'd be on firmer ground if you cited reasons besides just a supposed rule.


By the way: The others that you're up against would seem to include even C.P.E. Bach, because of how he allowed for exceptions.
Posted by: Polyphonist

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 10:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C

Calling Stores, Peter, Polyph, Greg, and anyone who might still want to insist that the rigid "start-on-the-upper-note" view is the only 'correct' one and that the rest of us are dolts. grin

Hey, wait a minute - when did I ever say that? I actually never gave my opinion on the matter, and I think I'll continue to refrain from doing so. wink
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 10:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Polyphonist
Hey, wait a minute....

Well, I was going on that post of yours about "feeble arguments." The fact that you said someone else's arguments were also feeble didn't seem to outweigh what you led off with. grin

But you're right. I should edit the above post, and I will.
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 10:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Luthrin: Thanks for posting this!

Originally Posted By: Luthrin
From "Perspectives on Mozart Performance" (R. Larry Todd and Peter Williams, editors):



Badura-Skoda goes on to say:

"Not only in piano music, but in orchestral works, there
are many instances where a main-note start of a trill is
desirable for harmonic and melodic reasons."


He then gives two examples and says:

"Alas, nowadays nearly all orchestral players start these
trills with the upper note, evidently because they are 'well
instructed' that a Mozart trill must start from above."


Calling Stores, Peter, Greg, and anyone who might still want to insist that the rigid "start-on-the-upper-note" view is the only 'correct' one and that the rest of us are dolts. grin

To be clear: I'm not saying at all that starting on the principal note is how you have to do it in the current example; I'm not even sure I'd do it that way, although I'm pretty sure I would, with the "leaping-to-the-leading-tone" factor mentioned by Antony being the probable clincher (and not because of pure music theory but because I regard this as a probable underlying explanation for why my ear seems to dislike and reject that version). But all I'm really saying is that the subject is open for reasonable debate and subjectivity, and that it's simply WRONG to say that your way is the only correct way. If you insist otherwise, you're up against Badura-Skoda (as well as many others).

But don't worry -- you've got company: ME. ha
Because if he meant to imply that the short upper-note trill (like the 4-note version in the current example) 'doesn't exist' -- and he seems to come close to that, doesn't he -- I would disagree with him too, just as I'd disagree with your saying that the 3-note version "doesn't exist." I don't think we can say that either way is simply wrong, and to that extent, I'm supporting you, against Badura-Skoda -- supporting the reasonableness of your preference, although not your insistence on it, and I think you'd be on firmer ground if you cited reasons besides just a supposed rule.


By the way: The others that you're up against would seem to include even C.P.E. Bach, because of how he allowed for exceptions.


Now we're talking, because I've actually studied with Badura-Skoda. Would I disagree with him on this subject? No, because he's correct. He would be the first, however, to tell you that your "three note version" (which isn't a trill at all is it?) doesn't exist, Mark. I've not stated anywhere that I'm insistent on trills beginning on the upper note, but as a rule they almost always do throughout the classical era (which I believe I've already stated elsewhere). What I HAVE stated is that the "tr" sign does NOT translate to "mordent", which you're insistent on seeing here. With this work, however, yes, I WOULD insist on the trill beginning on the upper note.

Of course, you would disagree with a scholar like Badura-Skoda, wouldn't you? That surprises me not. But what have you to base your disagreement on? Other than the hope that someone will produce some information backing up your belief, nothing.
Let it go.
Just so you know, I think no less of you for your stance on the issue. It is one I've heard numerous times from students who have only begun to do their homework. It is a common thing.
Posted by: Polyphonist

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 11:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Polyphonist
Hey, wait a minute....

Well, I was going on that post of yours about "feeble arguments." The fact that you said someone else's arguments were also feeble didn't seem to outweigh what you led off with. grin

I wasn't actually debating the quality of your argument, I was merely making the point that the discussion wasn't going anywhere. Sorry if you were offended. grin
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/29/13 11:15 PM

Relatively nice post, Stores -- mere condescension rather than insults. ha

Still no comment on the relevant questions, but I guess that is indeed too much to expect. smile

Regarding the basis for my possible disagreement with Badura-Skoda, which you lambasted: There are any number of bases. The easiest is simply that in the current example, most high-level performances seem to do a version of the trill (i.e. the "4-note version") that he comes close to implying doesn't exist. In fact, it's the version that you yourself have endorsed. This is very odd: you criticized (actually mocked) grin my possible disagreement with Badura-Skoda even though you share it. Somehow you must not have realized that you do, although that's hard to understand.
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/30/13 04:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Relatively nice post, Stores -- mere condescension rather than insults. ha

Still no comment on the relevant questions, but I guess that is indeed too much to expect. smile

Regarding the basis for my possible disagreement with Badura-Skoda, which you lambasted: There are any number of bases. The easiest is simply that in the current example, most high-level performances seem to do a version of the trill (i.e. the "4-note version") that he comes close to implying doesn't exist. In fact, it's the version that you yourself have endorsed. This is very odd: you criticized (actually mocked) grin my possible disagreement with Badura-Skoda even though you share it. Somehow you must not have realized that you do, although that's hard to understand.


No comment on the relevant questions? The thread, let me refresh your memory, is about a trill found in Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and that is what I've been addressing. It would seem to be THE relevant question.

What some do on recordings is only where we begin with an investigation. And yes, the 4 note ornament does exist as I've heard it many times. B-S (as we loved calling him, though not to his face ha!) does more than imply a 4 note trill, Mark. Every ornament on his list makes use of 4 notes. I agree with him completely on this issue, if I didn't make that clear enough earlier. This doesn't mean that I haven't disagreed with him on plenty of other things, but we think alike here. Just stop reading so much into things. You seem to really enjoy doing that even though there isn't anything there and there isn't in this case.
Again, let it go.
Posted by: wr

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/30/13 06:30 AM

Originally Posted By: stores
B-S (as we loved calling him, though not to his face ha!) does more than imply a 4 note trill, Mark. Every ornament on his list makes use of 4 notes.


You are wrong. The third item on his list, the "short trill" is a three-note trill. The two terms in parenthesis for that item, Pralltriller and Schneller, are both defined as an inverted mordent in Grove. And the inverted mordent is just three notes.

It is true that at one time, the term Pralltriller was a four note trill starting on the upper auxiliary, but that is not how he used it in the list, since he gives it as a synonym for Scheller, which never was a four-note trill.

Of course, you may want to argue that Grove is wrong, too, but some cites at least as solid as Grove would be in order if you do.
Posted by: Luthrin

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/30/13 10:22 AM

Badura-Skoda's article on Mozart's trills from "Perspectives on Mozart Performance" was first published in 1991. Here's the beginning of the five-page section discussing case (3) on the list of 'tr' meanings:





The following is from the ornamentation chapter of his 1961 book "Interpreting Mozart on the Keyboard" (co-authored with his wife Eva). The authors earlier define a 'prepared' trill as always starting on the upper auxiliary and an 'unprepared' one starting on the main note.

[This book is freely available at openlibrary.org]




At the end of the chapter the authors say:

"We believe that in Mozart half-shakes usually begin on the main note."
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/30/13 11:30 AM

Stores, you're just showing more and more what you can't do.

Originally Posted By: stores
B-S (as we loved calling him, though not to his face ha!) does more than imply a 4 note trill, Mark. Every ornament on his list makes use of 4 notes. I agree with him completely on this issue, if I didn't make that clear enough earlier.

You couldn't even read what Badura-Skoda said and relate it to what we've been talking about. You flat-out didn't get it. You have trouble understanding things of even the slightest complexity even when we spoon-feed them to you.

What we've been discussing as the "4-note trill" in the current piece is the thing that Badura-Skoda referred to as "the short trill beginning on the upper auxiliary." And here's what he said about it, and what I've been meaning when I said he comes close to saying it doesn't exist in Mozart (copied from Luthrin's post):

Some readers might wonder why I forgot to mention the short trill (Pralltriller) beginning on the upper auxiliary. To my regret, however, I could find no evidence for it (see below) which might in any way apply to Mozart.

What I said I would disagree with is the seeming implication that this kind of short trill doesn't exist. You blasted that disagreement -- even though you would share it.

We can see more and more why you rely so heavily on rigid principles and insults: they're easy. Thoughtful consideration and discussion are harder.
Posted by: ZBGM0

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/30/13 12:29 PM

Vauu…I read all posts.

I would never think that my question would cause such a long debate. One think is for sure: no matter which way is correct way, there IS confusion with execution Mozart’s trills in EKNM. No doubt about that. One of the smallest and one of the most “obvious” thing becomes suddenly indistinct.

It is safe to say that you can play any of the two versions. I don’t even think that it is even possible to confirm for 100% which is correct. Mozart is dead, the piece was never performed when he was alive, both versions of trills were apparently in use at that time and Mozart could easily even wrote mordent, that is now printed as a trill or people thought he wrote trill.

Where can I see original score (handwriting) form Mozart? In which museum? I would like to see how he wrote this trill… It might help..:)
Posted by: jdw

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/30/13 01:18 PM

I almost gave up lurking in this thread a while back, but I'm glad I kept on hoping to learn something. Thanks for the interesting article excerpts, Luthrin!
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/30/13 10:38 PM

Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: stores
B-S (as we loved calling him, though not to his face ha!) does more than imply a 4 note trill, Mark. Every ornament on his list makes use of 4 notes.


You are wrong. The third item on his list, the "short trill" is a three-note trill. The two terms in parenthesis for that item, Pralltriller and Schneller, are both defined as an inverted mordent in Grove. And the inverted mordent is just three notes.

It is true that at one time, the term Pralltriller was a four note trill starting on the upper auxiliary, but that is not how he used it in the list, since he gives it as a synonym for Scheller, which never was a four-note trill.

Of course, you may want to argue that Grove is wrong, too, but some cites at least as solid as Grove would be in order if you do.











Actually, no, I'm not wrong, but I do see now that BS believes the ornament in question could be a pralltriller or schneller. I disagree and here is why. Baroque ornamentation lived into the 19th century. In music written before the nineteenth century, the mordent (written as a shake sign crossed by a vertical line) is a sequence of three notes. It is known as the "lower mordent" distinguishing it from the nineteenth century ornament know as the schneller or upper/inverted mordent.
The pralltriller (half or short trill) is a series of four notes, the first of which is tied to the preceding note, and may occur only after a descending second. The note that is ornamented with the trill must be preceded by the note one diatonic step higher.
Clearly, the ornament in question can be neither.
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/30/13 10:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Stores, you're just showing more and more what you can't do.

Originally Posted By: stores
B-S (as we loved calling him, though not to his face ha!) does more than imply a 4 note trill, Mark. Every ornament on his list makes use of 4 notes. I agree with him completely on this issue, if I didn't make that clear enough earlier.

You couldn't even read what Badura-Skoda said and relate it to what we've been talking about. You flat-out didn't get it. You have trouble understanding things of even the slightest complexity even when we spoon-feed them to you.

What we've been discussing as the "4-note trill" in the current piece is the thing that Badura-Skoda referred to as "the short trill beginning on the upper auxiliary." And here's what he said about it, and what I've been meaning when I said he comes close to saying it doesn't exist in Mozart (copied from Luthrin's post):

Some readers might wonder why I forgot to mention the short trill (Pralltriller) beginning on the upper auxiliary. To my regret, however, I could find no evidence for it (see below) which might in any way apply to Mozart.

What I said I would disagree with is the seeming implication that this kind of short trill doesn't exist. You blasted that disagreement -- even though you would share it.

We can see more and more why you rely so heavily on rigid principles and insults: they're easy. Thoughtful consideration and discussion are harder.


You know, Mark, who cares. Really. I have SO had it with your "possibly, could be, may be, seeming so, etc., etc." You are easily one of THE wishy-washiest people I've ever encountered and aside from the gross misinformation you toss about, it is why I rarely comment on things you say these days. I suppose, the trick is to just put you back on ignore and let you say what you will. Hopefully, people will do their own homework and not rely on someone who they think must be in the know, since his post total is 10k+.
At any rate, I'm out... way past my bedtime.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 12:39 AM

Originally Posted By: stores
....the trick is to just put you back on ignore....

As I've said many times before: PLEASE. ha
You've said it before, and never stuck to it. Please do.

You and I are two people who would never talk to each other in real life for more than two seconds. It's best for us to observe that here too.

A couple of other things: Stop insulting other people too, and realize that having a different view than yours doesn't mean someone is ignorant. Better yet, be more open to these different ideas. You might learn a thing or two. smile
Posted by: currawong

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 02:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: stores
....the trick is to just put you back on ignore....
As I've said many times before: PLEASE. ha
You've said it before, and never stuck to it. Please do.
Why don't you just put him on ignore? Then you won't see anything he writes, so it won't bother you.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 03:18 AM

I'm going to PM you about it.......
Posted by: FSO

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 03:59 AM

Wow. Personally, I reckon that Stores is plenty nice enough in person and, though s/he clearly takes his/er music seriously, would love having a discussion and engaging on a personal level; that it's the abstraction from humanity inherent in the internet that breeds the hasty tongue...but, um, that's just what I reckon and I'm not going to make a fuss if someone contradicts me. Likewise here; no matter the source, unless it's Mozart himself, there's always a degree of "I reckon", no matter how esteemed your intellect or deep your research...otherwise, surely, the answer would have been reached by now. I mean, um, it's a little silly, if perhaps inevitable, to get heated over sides of a debate in any instance, let alone one where you can't prove anything...at the end of the day, it's still whoever reckons loudest, with the best credentials, who'll win out, if anyone does at all...even Newton was wrong; it's okay to just be wrong or to have others think you wrong and, with that in mind, can't we just play nicely? Of course, um, I don't mean to chastise or patronise anyone but...why can't we just be nice? And I swear to Bach, if someone says "but he started it" I will...I don't know...track you down and give you a hug. And that will be weird and so much effort, so please? laugh
Xxx
Posted by: antony

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 04:08 AM

Mr. Stores, PB-S does say that trill signs take on different meanings "according to context" and that the same symbol can have different meanings as " an undeniable historical fact of 18th C music". So would you mind saying why in this context the four note trill is the correct one?

The upper note beginning is not an appoggiatura; appoggiaturas are leaping from a consonance onto a dissonance and resolving down a step to a consonance and strictly speaking are not involved with trills. The turn seems to be the most "defined " ornament as far as consensus as being four note starting on the upper and passing the principle note to the one below and returning up to the principle
Posted by: wr

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 05:49 AM

Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: stores
B-S (as we loved calling him, though not to his face ha!) does more than imply a 4 note trill, Mark. Every ornament on his list makes use of 4 notes.


You are wrong. The third item on his list, the "short trill" is a three-note trill. The two terms in parenthesis for that item, Pralltriller and Schneller, are both defined as an inverted mordent in Grove. And the inverted mordent is just three notes.

It is true that at one time, the term Pralltriller was a four note trill starting on the upper auxiliary, but that is not how he used it in the list, since he gives it as a synonym for Scheller, which never was a four-note trill.

Of course, you may want to argue that Grove is wrong, too, but some cites at least as solid as Grove would be in order if you do.



Actually, no, I'm not wrong, but I do see now that BS believes the ornament in question could be a pralltriller or schneller. I disagree and here is why. Baroque ornamentation lived into the 19th century. In music written before the nineteenth century, the mordent (written as a shake sign crossed by a vertical line) is a sequence of three notes. It is known as the "lower mordent" distinguishing it from the nineteenth century ornament know as the schneller or upper/inverted mordent.
The pralltriller (half or short trill) is a series of four notes, the first of which is tied to the preceding note, and may occur only after a descending second. The note that is ornamented with the trill must be preceded by the note one diatonic step higher.
Clearly, the ornament in question can be neither.


If the first note is tied to a previous one, it isn't sounded again, and as Grove says, it may be omitted entirely. And if it is omitted, that would appear to leave the ornament as having three notes.

Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 09:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: stores
....the trick is to just put you back on ignore....

As I've said many times before: PLEASE. ha
You've said it before, and never stuck to it. Please do.

You and I are two people who would never talk to each other in real life for more than two seconds. It's best for us to observe that here too.

A couple of other things: Stop insulting other people too, and realize that having a different view than yours doesn't mean someone is ignorant. Better yet, be more open to these different ideas. You might learn a thing or two. smile


Mark, why not just stop responding to tosser's bad posts? It takes two to tango. grin
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 11:33 AM

Why not keep upping the peer pressure on him, as has in fact been happening?

You've been chiming in, as have a few others. And it works. (I don't mean completely shutting down the behavior, which shouldn't be expected.)
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 11:54 AM

You're right; his posts have since become more engaging. Why are you on tosser's bad side suddenly? (ignoring, etc.)
Posted by: Peter K. Mose

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 11:56 AM

Start the trill from above. Yes, you can find exceptions, and partisans of alternate views. Even scholars get ugly over this. But generally an 18th C trill commenced from above, as a dissonance.
Posted by: Old Man

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 05:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Why not keep upping the peer pressure on him, as has in fact been happening?

You've been chiming in, as have a few others. And it works. (I don't mean completely shutting down the behavior, which shouldn't be expected.)
I'm glad you added the parenthetical, because I don't think it's anyone's job to "pressure" someone to change. I'd much rather have people be themselves, and let the rest of us deal with them accordingly -- or not.

I did encourage stores to address the OP's question because it seemed like a perfect fit for stores' background and area of expertise. It also seemed that the OP had dropped out of the discussion, which was unfortunate. But I had no illusions about changing stores into Mr. Congeniality. Nor would I want to change the always affable Mark C into Mr. Grumps. You're both fine as you are, bickering and all. smile

Originally Posted By: JoelW
You're right; his posts have since become more engaging. Why are you on tosser's bad side suddenly? (ignoring, etc.)

"Suddenly"??? laugh Do your homework! Hit the archives!
Posted by: JoelW

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 05:27 PM

Haha
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 07/31/13 09:59 PM

Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: stores
B-S (as we loved calling him, though not to his face ha!) does more than imply a 4 note trill, Mark. Every ornament on his list makes use of 4 notes.


You are wrong. The third item on his list, the "short trill" is a three-note trill. The two terms in parenthesis for that item, Pralltriller and Schneller, are both defined as an inverted mordent in Grove. And the inverted mordent is just three notes.

It is true that at one time, the term Pralltriller was a four note trill starting on the upper auxiliary, but that is not how he used it in the list, since he gives it as a synonym for Scheller, which never was a four-note trill.

Of course, you may want to argue that Grove is wrong, too, but some cites at least as solid as Grove would be in order if you do.



Actually, no, I'm not wrong, but I do see now that BS believes the ornament in question could be a pralltriller or schneller. I disagree and here is why. Baroque ornamentation lived into the 19th century. In music written before the nineteenth century, the mordent (written as a shake sign crossed by a vertical line) is a sequence of three notes. It is known as the "lower mordent" distinguishing it from the nineteenth century ornament know as the schneller or upper/inverted mordent.
The pralltriller (half or short trill) is a series of four notes, the first of which is tied to the preceding note, and may occur only after a descending second. The note that is ornamented with the trill must be preceded by the note one diatonic step higher.
Clearly, the ornament in question can be neither.


If the first note is tied to a previous one, it isn't sounded again, and as Grove says, it may be omitted entirely. And if it is omitted, that would appear to leave the ornament as having three notes.



And how, exactly, would you pull that off in this case?
Posted by: ZBGM0

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 08/01/13 04:47 AM

This source is from Wikipeida:


In the baroque period, a number of signs indicating specific patterns with which a trill should be begun or ended were used. In the Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, Johann Sebastian Bach lists a number of these signs together with the correct way to interpret them. Unless one of these specific signs is indicated, the details of how to play the trill are up to the performer. In general, however, trills in this period are executed beginning on the auxiliary note, before the written note, often producing the effect of a harmonic suspension which resolves to the principal note. But, if the note preceding the ornamented note is itself one scale degree above the principal note, then the dissonant note has already been stated, and the trill typically starts on the principal note.

Several trill symbols and techniques common in the Baroque and early Classical period have fallen entirely out of use, including for instance the brief Pralltriller, represented by a very brief wavy line, referred to by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach in his Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments (Versuch) (1753–1762).

Beyond the baroque period, specific signs for ornamentation are very rare. Continuing through the time of Mozart, the default expectations for the interpretation of trills continued to be similar to those of the baroque. In music after the time of Mozart, the trill usually begins on the principal note.

All of these are only rules of thumb, and, together with the overall rate of the trill and whether that rate is constant or variable, can only be determined by considering the context in which the trill appears, and is usually to a large degree a matter of opinion with no single "right" way of executing the ornament.
Posted by: wr

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 08/01/13 05:38 AM

Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: stores
B-S (as we loved calling him, though not to his face ha!) does more than imply a 4 note trill, Mark. Every ornament on his list makes use of 4 notes.


You are wrong. The third item on his list, the "short trill" is a three-note trill. The two terms in parenthesis for that item, Pralltriller and Schneller, are both defined as an inverted mordent in Grove. And the inverted mordent is just three notes.

It is true that at one time, the term Pralltriller was a four note trill starting on the upper auxiliary, but that is not how he used it in the list, since he gives it as a synonym for Scheller, which never was a four-note trill.

Of course, you may want to argue that Grove is wrong, too, but some cites at least as solid as Grove would be in order if you do.



Actually, no, I'm not wrong, but I do see now that BS believes the ornament in question could be a pralltriller or schneller. I disagree and here is why. Baroque ornamentation lived into the 19th century. In music written before the nineteenth century, the mordent (written as a shake sign crossed by a vertical line) is a sequence of three notes. It is known as the "lower mordent" distinguishing it from the nineteenth century ornament know as the schneller or upper/inverted mordent.
The pralltriller (half or short trill) is a series of four notes, the first of which is tied to the preceding note, and may occur only after a descending second. The note that is ornamented with the trill must be preceded by the note one diatonic step higher.
Clearly, the ornament in question can be neither.


If the first note is tied to a previous one, it isn't sounded again, and as Grove says, it may be omitted entirely. And if it is omitted, that would appear to leave the ornament as having three notes.



And how, exactly, would you pull that off in this case?


I wouldn't, because the old version of the Pralltriller would the wrong ornament for this case, seeing that there's no note to tie across, or to omit. I'm not sure which other version of a trill I'd choose, because it would depend on tempo and my level of dexterity, and since I haven't tried the passage out on the piano, I don't know what would work best.

At any rate, I was talking about the list of possible Mozart trills given by Badura-Skoda, and not about the question of the OP. The footnote to the third item on the list clearly explains that he is not talking about the old-style four-note Pralltriller that begins on a tied upper note, which he says doesn't occur in Mozart. And if he isn't talking about that, the only option left that he could possibly be talking about is the inverted mordent, a three-note ornament, which just happens to be the modern German usage of Pralltriller.

I could see that, since he is discussing Mozart's trill signs, one might jump to the erroneous conclusion that when he gives Pralltriller along with Schneller as a parenthetical explanation of what he means by a "short trill", he could mean the old usage. But everything points to his using it in the modern sense an inverted mordent that starts on the primary note, and the footnote tries to make sure (although somewhat obliquely) that is what is understood.
Posted by: stores

Re: Experts for Mozart music (and Trills!)… - 08/01/13 10:09 PM

Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: stores
B-S (as we loved calling him, though not to his face ha!) does more than imply a 4 note trill, Mark. Every ornament on his list makes use of 4 notes.


You are wrong. The third item on his list, the "short trill" is a three-note trill. The two terms in parenthesis for that item, Pralltriller and Schneller, are both defined as an inverted mordent in Grove. And the inverted mordent is just three notes.

It is true that at one time, the term Pralltriller was a four note trill starting on the upper auxiliary, but that is not how he used it in the list, since he gives it as a synonym for Scheller, which never was a four-note trill.

Of course, you may want to argue that Grove is wrong, too, but some cites at least as solid as Grove would be in order if you do.



Actually, no, I'm not wrong, but I do see now that BS believes the ornament in question could be a pralltriller or schneller. I disagree and here is why. Baroque ornamentation lived into the 19th century. In music written before the nineteenth century, the mordent (written as a shake sign crossed by a vertical line) is a sequence of three notes. It is known as the "lower mordent" distinguishing it from the nineteenth century ornament know as the schneller or upper/inverted mordent.
The pralltriller (half or short trill) is a series of four notes, the first of which is tied to the preceding note, and may occur only after a descending second. The note that is ornamented with the trill must be preceded by the note one diatonic step higher.
Clearly, the ornament in question can be neither.


If the first note is tied to a previous one, it isn't sounded again, and as Grove says, it may be omitted entirely. And if it is omitted, that would appear to leave the ornament as having three notes.



And how, exactly, would you pull that off in this case?


I wouldn't, because the old version of the Pralltriller would the wrong ornament for this case, seeing that there's no note to tie across, or to omit. I'm not sure which other version of a trill I'd choose, because it would depend on tempo and my level of dexterity, and since I haven't tried the passage out on the piano, I don't know what would work best.

At any rate, I was talking about the list of possible Mozart trills given by Badura-Skoda, and not about the question of the OP. The footnote to the third item on the list clearly explains that he is not talking about the old-style four-note Pralltriller that begins on a tied upper note, which he says doesn't occur in Mozart. And if he isn't talking about that, the only option left that he could possibly be talking about is the inverted mordent, a three-note ornament, which just happens to be the modern German usage of Pralltriller.

I could see that, since he is discussing Mozart's trill signs, one might jump to the erroneous conclusion that when he gives Pralltriller along with Schneller as a parenthetical explanation of what he means by a "short trill", he could mean the old usage. But everything points to his using it in the modern sense an inverted mordent that starts on the primary note, and the footnote tries to make sure (although somewhat obliquely) that is what is understood.



You make some good points, wr, I will give you that. BS, should not have used the term Pralltriller at all, if his intent was an inverted mordent, since the term Pralltriller (and it's form) has long been non-existant. I still stand by my previous statement and completely disagree with his usage of Pralltriller and Schneller, since it can be neither of these and Mozart would not have used the "tr" sign to signify an inverted mordent. There is ample time to play a four note trill, which is one of the rules of thumb for ornaments such as this, unless otherwise specified. I feel quite certain that BS means something different with his "short trill" other than prall/schneller and trust me, he his extremely clear with what he wants one on one.