-
Originally Posted by S F
-
05-27-2020 07:59 PM
-
Classical guitar is a bit of a ghetto, a relatively small repertoire compared to piano and no access to the top tier classical and romantic period composers. Always surprising how little interest many guitarists have in music written for other instruments. Hard to play Carcassi or Guiliani once you get to know the Beethoven sonatas (although Sor is actually quite good).
-
Originally Posted by BWV
I studied classical for 7 years since 10... I had very good teacher who was very open-minded, and accomplished pianists ...I saw him perform 3rd Rakhmaninov concerto (yes he had to cut nsils)
In my 2nd year I moved into symphonic and piano music and began to play piano..
-
"Classical guitar is a bit of a ghetto, a relatively small repertoire compared to piano and no access to the top tier classical and romantic period composers."
BWV
Hi, B,
This, in my opinion, is is no longer true for those compositions that are capable of being transcribed for the Classical Guitar. Many piano compositions are simply not capable of being transcribed for the guitar since the range of piano is so different from the guitar. However, there is a wealth of compositions ,from all eras, that have been transcribed successfully and it would take a serious musician several lifetimes to even scratch the surface of this material. And, although some movements in a Classical Symphony have the ability to be transcribed, the differences between instruments is too great to successfully transcribe the entire work in most cases. Good playing . . . Marinero
-
Well.... one problem the modern guitar has is that the original plucked instruments of 17th, 18th century etc are becoming more common. I think a lot of working classical guitarists double on theorbo and so on.
A lot of the baroque repertoire just sounds better on baroque guitar or lute for instance. After hearing this, for instance, I don't want ever again to hear it on modern guitar. So much more dynamic, and the campanelas and so on really pop. And as a lot of those pieces are simple lightweight dance piece as opposed to for instance, Bach, it needs that vibe...
Transcription is a thing... would the music work better? Sometimes it can work in a new way... The Arpeggione sonata is an example, I suppose.
There's also the problem that no one really wants to write fort the guitar. It's a pain. Bream had to agitate for years and often the composers in question never wanted to go near the thing again.
So you need people who are good composers and guitarists... Or players who are advocates for the instrument too (like Bream and Segovia of course) and willing to do what it takes to build repetoire for it all the time.
OTOH it does mean a classic guitarist has to be more creative and active as an artist than a pianist, perhaps. This seems to be the case.
-
This is not a million miles away from the situation with jazz guitar of course. It's really a small ghetto, although fusion made the guitar trendy, and Pat and Kurt were influential in the recent history.
Today I think most young bands would prefer a fusion/rock guitar player who can play jazz than an archtop player...
-
Hi, C,
When one considers construction, tonewoods, design, choice of strings, and size, the Classical Guitar is a rich and varied instrument. Many artists seek to replicate the sound of the 19th century, for example, by playing Romantic style guitars. And, there is a difference. One of our members, Rob MacKillop, I believe, has focused much energy on these instruments. I have toyed with the idea of an original period instrument for my Romantic era repertoire but, according to feedback from many owners, they are expensive, quirky, and require constant maintenance/care. And, I have 3 luthier-built professional instruments that have wonderful voices and solid construction. So, maybe someday. Good playing . . . Marinero
-
There's also the problem that no one really wants to write fort the guitar. It's a pain. Bream had to agitate for years and often the composers in question never wanted to go near the thing again.
It is interesting that Boris does not know guitar and did not study it before writing (except maybe general idea of range) but everything fit well but Augustin is a real master.
At the end this collaboration brought to life beautiful album of original music "Symphony' composed of solo guitar pieces and ensembles of guitar with different instruments and voice... you never know.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
I was always amazed at the way my CG teacher would play the most difficult lines, and his LH seemed like it barely moved. This might have something to do with exercises which used "Preparing",i.e. descending chromatic scale exercises that started with the pinky, where fingers 1, 2 and 3 would already be down, and it would just be a matter of picking up a finger to play a note (one motion) rather than picking up a finger and placing down a finger (two motions). I think we used the Aaron Shearer Method book for this. Are there any other exercises that are used in the standard literature for "Preparing"?
-
Originally Posted by sgcim
His slur excersises are actually not for slurs but for the genral hand physiology.
But imho it worls properly only when it is directed by a good teacher.
Most of the classical guitar technique is based on efficiency and stability.
the thing is jazz gutarists mostly play their own stuff - they can afford it - they can elaborate what is convinient for them (how to build a line of make a pause etc)and jazz is less demanding to the subtle nuances. Classical musicians must be able to perform things that may be naturally not that convinient for them... and clasical music is demanding about dynamics and nuances control (how many jazz guitarists use dynamics at all?)... that is why they need - I would say - a higher discipline of performance.
-
Originally Posted by Marinero
-
I think I'd prefer a title of classical and jazz guitar are good together...why vs.?
-
Dear OP,
Greetings from 12 years in the future, where the answer is "it doesn't matter, because nobody has gigs due to a thing called coronavirus"
:-)
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
-
Originally Posted by sgcim
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
To play bop well for instance you need to be able to play things that really don’t sit naturally.
The challenges are different to playing some difficult polyphonic music, but they are very real. For instance getting 26-2 up to speed on an acoustic guitar has taken me quite a while... and that’s 32 bars of music...
I spend quite a bit of my practice time working on other people’s stuff. My own stuff I can already play so that doesn’t need work so much.
one reason why I like acoustic is dynamics actually
there are phrasing nuances in jazz but they are fundamentally different? I think ironically the switch to a more notation based pedagogy has made us less aware of this stuff, while classical has always been about breathing life into the score...
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
But - in some sense - there is a way to avoid it in jazz if you really want to))) Of course if your challenge is to be verstile session player you have to do everything (which is not always good)... but if you are more in to your thing ... Frisell or Jim Hall - they play bop heads in quite interesting manner really... they keep it up to proper tempo but they do not seem to try to articulate it in virtuoso style.. they switch some kind of 'humming'...
I do not say that jazz players do not have to practice...
You know I have a hobby: early traverso flutes... and with flutes it is seen quite clearly because how they are made reflects the approach to performance.
If you take Irish flute (which is basically just a bit modified early classical wooden flute with a few keys) and compare it with hiagh baroque flutes (they are basically the same but just have one key)... you will see how much easier Irsich flute is .. easier to articulate, to play high notes, to pronounce ' typical problematic notes' to play fast, to play loud etc.
But eventually you will notice that some baroque Rottenburgh or Buffardin models give such sweet and subtle nuances of colour, tone, dynamics, articulatio that you can never get from the Irish flute...
And that reflexes the performer's metality to a great deal..
With guitar it is the same... at one point I actually came to conclusion that classical guitar is still generally folk instruments (yes there are great classical players I admire -- though... not so many). It has always been.. (even baroquw guitar at its prime -- yes there was Gurrau but it is an exception).. in 19th century ti was a salon instrument mostly,,, and 20 it began a fight to be one of the academic instruments (I still think Segovia created a world of his own just for himself).
And other guitars are just other instruments: American steel string guitar, or manouche or rock guitar, or jazz archtop guitar.. they all belong to the style very much. It does not mean you cannot use them in other styles but to establish it there - the time is needed... and the musical culture.
Jazz achieved a level in my opinion where it - as a style - can consume any instrument and raise it to the level of style sophisitcation.
Same thing happened to violin many many years ago --
-
Originally Posted by BWV
<br>
<br>
Hi, B,<br>
One of the great players/composers/transcribers living today is Edson Lopes. If you go to his website, you will find not only his excellent performances but also his outstanding transcriptions for Classical guitar. And, you can download the sheet music free from his site. There is literally a performer's career of transcriptions in the music he provides. One of the problems, B, is that there are many fine players today but very few musicians capable of transcribing the repertoire. And, some of it is just not possible since it looses the magic of the original piano/symphonic music because the harmonic complexity and depth is lost. Imagine a guitar transcription of Wagner's Valkyries, Ring Cycle, or Tristan and Isolde??? However, if you look more deeply, you'll find Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann,Chopin,Mendelssohn, Bach,Bartok, etc, as well as those who wrote specifically for the Classical Guitar: Villa Lobos, Aguado, Carcassi, Giuliani, Mertz, Sor, Regondi, Paganini, etc. for which one could never scratch the surface of the material available ,as I said previously, in a player's lifetime. My biggest problem is not finding suitable material but having the time to master the wealth of these pieces playing 3-4 hours daily including time for my original 1966 Gibson ES125 and its repertoire that I resurrected from a long sleep. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks for your reply. Good playing . . . Marinero
-
I do not follow classical guitar scene much but Lorenzo Micheli is one my favourite players today (I know him from his lute projects and then I began to listen to his guitar performances)
Here is pretty simple Fughetta - sounds more like a counterpoint study but played very well
Here is neo-romantic - almost pop- piece of music. But this is an example of how good musician can bring in (or discover) subtlty and multifoldedness through similicity
Passacaglia by Castelnuovo-Tedesco
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
He also recorded his interpretations of short pieces by French composers such as Debussy and Ravel. What is your opinion of them?
-
Originally Posted by sgcim
Romance sounds sweet but just becasue this ia generic song (what Johnny Smith did all the time)... but anyway compare it with for example Segovia - how muc more subtle and interesting it sounds... and instead of general backgrount please?t music we hear some poem with the themes, form, ideas, drama...
It is interesting that Segovia sounds more free and flexible but still more accuarate.
But again eith Romance Johnny interepretation works - he just turns it into some kind of regular song.
But ''Old Castle'' is a different story... it is not just a tune, or just a song... this is the case where music is extremely concrete - it is not traditional form... one should use all the tools to perform it... but Johnny again plays it as if it is just a nice semi-imrovized romance
and there is not much dynamics by the way in his performance - if any... not that it is a problem, just what I noticed.
Jonny Smith is the master of course but I do not find it relative to what I was talking about.
i appreciate what he did in his approach to guitar, his influence to jazz guitar playing but I am not a big fan even of his jazz work musically - he just thinks in absolutely different direction than I would probably.. he is interested in other things.
-
Originally Posted by Marinero
I also did the Arabeske op 18, but it’s quite difficult- a better player than me could pull it off. Have also done Bartok, but 20th century piano music is far more challenging because you can’t simply rely on basic theory to thin the harmony. Am also working on some Mahler that I may record and post soon. The point is take any Romantic piano composer that is not named Isaac Albinez - there is maybe a handful of smaller pieces that will work on guitar
-
" but 20th century piano music is far more challenging because you can’t simply rely on basic theory to thin the harmony. " BWV
Hi, B,
This is also the challenge when writing chord/melody for Jazz guitar. I've found, irrespective of genre, that a good arranger/transcriber must know how to "fool the ears." Whether through inversions, doubling the root, omissions of 5th's, or broken chords, he/she must get the feel and forget about exactitude. In reality, any transcription is merely capturing the essence of the music. . . and, especially in the case of the guitar when playing piano music. Good playing . . . MarineroLast edited by Marinero; 06-05-2020 at 02:14 PM. Reason: spelling
-
good gracious what a discovery this bleak june morning when the clocks struck 13..on a serious note thank you Jonah for posting Lorenzo Micheli...not a player myself but love classical guitar.
16" 1920s/30s L5
Yesterday, 08:44 PM in For Sale