Posted by Rick Denney on March 06, 2003 at 11:04:17:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Grantham... posted by tubagrow on March 05, 2003 at 19:30:53:
Yes, it is, and my memory of the incident was faulty--you've brought it back to my mind more clearly. I was expecting to hear the F-Eb-F, and instead the performer played the opening motive (C-Eb-F-Eb-F) in lieu of the final F, ending up on the low F. Perhaps he thought Vaughan Williams needed one more recapitulation.
It seems to me that the critical decision is: Can I sell this modification so effectively that nobody will care, even those who know the music? I think that question works in all cases. What changes is the standard people apply when deciding they care. For jazz, they not only don't mind improvisation, they expect it. For Baroque, they don't care about changes if they are characteristically ornamental. But for something like the Vaughan Williams (outside the credenzas, of course), it seems to me that the standard would be nearly insurmountable. In the example I'm recalling, the performer did not nearly sell that modification; in fact, the whole performance was weak and he'd already played the first movement somewhat under tempo, so I was in no mood for a benefit of the doubt. Another performer on a different day might--might--have been able to sell it, but I rather doubt it.
I recall watching a video of a George Bolet master class with a range of really excellent pianists in their 20's. He suggested to one student that he speed a section up, because playing it more slowly might tell the audience that he had to. The student smiled, nodded, and played it as he had before. Mr. Bolet asked him to play it again, and then said something like, "At that spot, I would play it faster, but you are selling your approach very effectively, and I concede. Thank you." Of course, both were still working within the context of the ink.
Rick "who remembers at 120 words a minute, but with errors" Denney