mainterm wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:03 pm
In the series you are working on in this thread, I listened to two renditions of No.14 in E minor. Both of them more or less have a sprinkling of split notes, usually on the down beats, but in other places too.
Regarding the one you most recently posted (V4) I think - listen back and see if you can discern this subtle split in the RH articulation of the chords, especially when things get a little more movement, i.e. mm. 11-12. Compare for example how you play m.4 repeat 1 to other chords, especially 3 notes ones.
This is just something to think about - and work on if you consider it important. Some players just don't think it matters.
Stephen Kenyon wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:46 pm
FWIW - I completely concur with the above. It was not something I thought worth raising in feedback given to no. 14. But always - be able to choose.
There you are, I'm posting again a record of Sor's Opus 60 No.14 in E Minor (Version 5), with the notes damped as suggested by you, Stephen, and without splitting the notes in measures 11, 12 and 23, as pointed out by you, mainterm
. It is not yet perfect but I think I'm moving now in the right direction and paying proper attention to this issue.
Sor, Fernando - Opus 60 #14 (V5).mp3
Nevertheless, one doubt still lingers in my mind: the splitting of notes is something that should not be done always, or are there occasions when this is, say, acceptable? For instance, I listen quite often to renditions where some accords are played in a fast arpeggio fashion. Can we accept this sort of freedom in the player as part of his "interpretation" of a particular piece, or should this be precluded completely from normal practice?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
1972 - Kuniharu Nobe #8, 658/51, Spr, RW B&S, Tokio, JP
1979 - Ryoji Matsuoka No.40, 650/51, Ced, RW B&S, JP
1987 - Aria A558, 650/51, Ced, lam RW B&S, Nagoya, JP
2014 - Hermanos Camps Master Nº 3, 650/52, CA Ced, MG RW B&S, Banyoles, ES