Bach, visual, em 1912

Compartilho aqui uma bela e especial partitura, que redescobri remexendo nos alfarrábios familiares:

Bach_15_Inventionen_Capa

Uma edição de 1912 das Invenções a Duas Vozes, de Bach, BWV 772-786, impressa em Leipzig. (Preciso de um scanner maior.)

Repare num detalhe maravilhoso dessa capa. No alto, há uma espécie de selo, um círculo contendo duas pautas cruzadas. Uma única nota aparece no centro, “vista” de quatro diferentes claves. Veja no detalhe:

BACH

Se você lê no sentido anti-horário a partir da esquerda — portanto, a mesma nota, sucessivamente, aparecendo em clave de Sol com um bemol, clave de Dó na quarta linha, clave de Dó na terceira linha, e clave de Sol sem acidente nenhum — você tem as quatro notas seguintes: Si bemol, Lá, Dó e Si natural. Ou seja, B-A-C-H. 🙂

O frontispício anuncia também que cada invenção é acompanhada do respectivo “esquema harmônico”.

Bach_15_Inventionen_Frontispicio

O mais fascinante, do ponto de vista da história da tipografia musical, é que a edição é em cores! Uma notação colorida é empregada para destacar os temas e contratemas. Contraponto visual, além de sonoro! Aqui, a página contendo a Invenção No. 2:

Bach_15_Inventionen_Inventio_II

E assim para todas as quinze Invenções. Que beleza, não? Espero conseguir em breve escanear essa edição na íntegra em um scanner com mais recursos.

Essa notação colorida talvez correspondesse, nos dias de hoje, a vídeos como este sobre a Grosse Fuge Op. 133 de Beethoven:

(Procure também pelos outros vídeos contemplando a Passacaglia e Fuga BWV 582, a Quinta e a Nona de Beethoven, a 40 de Mozart, etc.)

Anúncios

Viagens no som e na memória: Marlos Nobre

(In memoriam Sebastião Salim Bezerra, 1924-2009)

Essas maravilhosas redescobertas e conexões no tempo e no espaço que o Facebook, o Youtube e outras ferramentas da Internet possibilitam… Tive a agradabilíssima surpresa de encontrar no Facebook a página do maestro Marlos Nobre, na qual ele compartilha esta gravação. Estivemos, meu pai e eu, na primeira audição mundial deste Concerto para Dois Violões e Orquestra, no dia 10 de setembro de 1998, no Teatro São Pedro, no bairro da Barra Funda, em São Paulo. Esta gravação é precisamente daquele dia. Os solistas eram Sérgio e Odair Assad. Mais abaixo, vemos o programa daquele concerto.

Programa_Osesp_1998_CapaPrograma_Osesp_1998_Pagina

ssb_solo_circa_anos60Aquele foi um dos últimos concertos a que fui junto com meu pai, antes de a doença começar a miná-lo lentamente. Nós dois gostávamos de tudo que girasse em torno do violão, desde que eu era garoto. Ele, indubitavelmente, foi quem me transmitiu o amor pelo instrumento, e pela música em geral. E também acompanhávamos a evolução da obra do mestre pernambucano havia décadas. A música de Marlos Nobre se transforma ao longo do tempo, navegando entre dois grandes pólos. (O catálogo completo das obras está no site do compositor.)

Marlos_Nobre_Momentos_IIMosaicoDe um lado, há as linguagens mais experimentais, atonais, dodecafônicas e eletroacústicas — mais presentes em obras como os ciclos “Momentos”, “Sonâncias”, o “Mosaico” (1970) e “Biosfera” (1970) para orquestra, o “Rythmetron” para percussão, as “Convergências” para orquestra, o Concerto Op. 51 para violão e orquestra.

Entre os muitos trabalhos acadêmicos que foram escritos sobre a música de MN, destaco o artigo de Paulo de Tarso Salles sobre o “Momentos I” para violão, publicado na revista Per Musi da UFMG em 2003.

Em segundo lugar, há a linguagem-síntese em espírito mais, digamos, “bartokiano”, com raízes mais firmemente fincadas nas tradições musicais brasileiras — característica de obras como os “Desafios” (aliás, creio que meu tio Olafs Alnis tocou o “Desafio I” para viola e orquestra de cordas, no início dos anos 70), a cantata “Unkrinmakrinrkin” para soprano, piano e sopros, o “Cancioneiro de Lampião”, os “Três coros de Natal” e o “Agô-Lonã” para coro, os “Ciclos Nordestinos”, etc.

O Concerto para dois violões e orquestra Opus 82 transita, em seus quatro movimentos, entre essa polaridade linguística, como se pode constatar nos outros movimentos do concerto, oriundos da mesma estréia mundial de 1998, que também estão no Youtube:

On period performances, anachronism and coherence

JSBachBassFirst of all, let me say that I do not have anything against ‘period’ performances of early music at all. Oftentimes I even appreciate them, in fact. However, I think that — irate cries from the purists to the contrary notwithstanding — they are not, and cannot be considered, any more ‘authentic’ than performances using modern instruments. And what I notice is that, in the long run, I consistently prefer the latter to the former. Let me spell my arguments for this idea in turn.

On first approximation, I might suppose that if I approached music from the point of view of a music historian, then I would probably worry about anachronism, so in that case I guess would tend to prefer period instruments, period performances, and so on. But then the problem arises, be it in music as in historiography, all the same: any history is reconstruction, interpretation and conjecture, up to some degree — even if granting some objectivity to the ‘sources’ and trying to keep anachronism under control. The historian is a diachronic product of historical time herself. (So, by the way, a history that completely ‘re-enacts’ the past — to borrow Collingwood’s phrase — is improbable, to say the least.)

The benevolent reader may object that she is not a historian, but just a regular music fan. But something similar as above holds, mutatis mutandis, for music listening and playing. Period instruments and period performances are conjectural at best — perhaps good, well-grounded conjectures, perhaps, but conjectures nevertheless.

An analogy with the history of science may help making the point clear. It is nice and thoughtful to play music on period instruments and enjoy it. As nice, in fact, as attempting to repeat Galileo’s experiments with inclined planes with materials similar to those used by him, or performing Newton’s experiments in optics in a like manner, or trying to do calculus with the same notation once employed by Leibniz, or, for that matter, reading Aristotle’s theory of science in the Analytics in a thoroughly Aristotelian manner. But if a contemporary scientist attempts to explain Galilean ideas in kinematics — quite different from a trained historian trying to understand his new science of motion in its own terms — it is not very reasonable to expect her to read Galileo without making the occasional reference to her contemporary background.

Likewise, it is utopian to demand that there is a ‘correct’ way of conceiving early music, and that it can be achieved by playing it in ‘exactly’ the same way as it would have been in the past. The (conjectural) attempt at musical reconstruction is always bound to be counterbalanced by the fact that, in the centuries that separate us from the composer, culture and worldview have undergone dramatic changes. And, finally, our very perception has shifted in an irreversible manner.

As far as the listener is concerned, listening is fully contemporary. The spectator is a contemporary spectator, in an inescapable way. It is plainly impossible to listen music in the same way as it was listened in the 18th century, and thoroughly unreasonable to demand so.

Another analogy, this time with painting, may be illuminating here. No one could ever have the pretense of perceiving (and I use ‘perceiving’ in a saturated, robust sense) a painting by Masaccio or Giorgione or Rembrandt ‘with the eyes of the past’, in the same way as a spectator from the artist’s time would appreciate them — ‘re-creating’ period sensibility, as it were. Sure, one can learn a lot about period pictorial sensibility, and this certainly enriches the aesthetic experience, but the result is a patchwork of synchronic and diachronic elements.

LutePlayerSo we come to my conclusion #1: ‘period’ music enthusiasts must have it clear that they are *not* experiencing music as it was experienced in the past, at all. They are experiencing something intermediate between the (alas, forever lost) music as it sounded in the past and present-day music. If not even music historians are granted access, through period performances, to music precisely as it happened in the past, as we have seen, this is even more the case with a modern listener. This is why I always find something odd and a bit pathetic in irate purists’ comments such as “this ornamentation (or: fingering, phrasing &c.) is ‘wrong’ because they didn’t play it that way (or: it isn’t the way it sounded like) in the 17th century at all”.

So, if the merit of period performances lies not it its once supposed ‘authenticity’, how is one to appraise it? My answer is: by the same standards that are employed for any musical performance. And by this I mean internal coherence of the music, as well as coherence with the listener’s set of aesthetic values and patterns of perception and judgement (what is usually referred to, in an omnibus fashion, as ‘matters of taste’).

As in history of science, and in history of philosophy, I kind of like to play with the idea of a ‘virtuous anachronism’. In practice, this means that I like Gould and Paul Galbraith playing Bach, Primrose playing Brahms, Richter and Marriner conducting Bach, Barrueco playing De Visée, Julian Bream playing Dowland, and so on. Techniques of musical instrument construction have evolved, phrasing has changed, and this is part of our cultural heritage. Why turn our backs on this, refusing the synchronic dialectic between early score and modern-day performance?

However, I happen to like some period performances — including Herreweghe, Koopman, Harnoncourt, Goebel — and to dislike Karajan or Yo-Yo Ma or Hilary Hahn playing Bach. How come? I explain this by resorting to the notion of coherence. Granted, both the first and the second groups of performers play with a contemporary touch, a contemporary idiom, a contemporary worldview and so on. However, I submit that the first group is able to highlight structural elements already present in the compositions, and unfold substructures coherent with it; their phrasing is able to do justice to it. The second does nothing of the sort: they superimpose additional structure that does not cohere with the structure already present in the score. This has nothing to do with ‘historical authenticity’, I hasten to add.

As is well known, Jorge Luis Borges has written a nice little parable, titled “Pierre Menard, author of the Quijote“, that touches on quite similar points. Writing the Quijote qua Cervantes in the 16th century is one thing; writing the Quijote qua Pierre Menard in the 20th century is an altogether different thing. Analogously, listening to Bach as a Köthen citizen in 1730, performed on the real instruments of the day, is one thing; listening to Bach performed on modern instruments is a wholly different one — as is listening to Bach performed by a ‘period’ ensemble. What determines the choice in each case is structure and coherence. And, lest it be thought that this makes for a ‘dry’ and ‘soulless’ approach to music, let me add that structure and coherence, in the sense I take both terms, also mean swing and groove. But this is a topic for another occasion.