#28: Discomfort and distinction
Section 3: Antonin Dvořák – String Quartet Op.96, ii: Lento
In stark contrast to the relative ease with which we assimilated a radically different ensemble concept in the Op.51 Dumka, the Lento of Op.96 proved fascinatingly problematic. In one striking response to a full take, our group’s first violinist was left feeling “really horrible” about the experience. This was not because asynchrony was permitted, but because uncertain boundaries in our collective negotiation of timing meant that she experienced a loss of mutual trust. In trying too consciously to surmount our own inclinations to synchronise, we had gone too far in the direction of interpersonal avoidance: her distress resulted from the feeling that none of us were responding sufficiently to what was being offered by others. (Everybody was taking, and nobody giving). In terms of research, this was hugely interesting, for it showed how far a dislocated ensemble style that ‘used’ ostensibly historical ‘parameters’ might have operated on a very different plane to the idea of ‘togetherness’.
This came at a relatively early stage in the process, where we were still operating in a ‘pre-synthesis’ phase. Our playing was therefore underpinned by general concepts, and was more ‘specified’ (or ‘top-down’) in its organisation. We still had to pay explicit attention to our temporal de-coupling, in order to avoid reversion to old habits; and this conscious effort had resulted in much more detachment in our interactions. The experience was uncomfortable, then, not because of ‘the style’ in the abstract, but because its specific manifestation had compromised the terms under which we related to one another. Despite the embrace of superficially appropriate ‘expressive devices’, it could not have been less ‘historical’. I do not mean to dismiss this mode of interaction out of hand – it may well have been more like the approach of other early recorded groups, especially from Germany – but it was demonstrably alien to the ensemble we were researching. (Anna Scott (2022) has gone significantly further in exploring more antagonistic ensemble relations).
On reflection, it is probably relevant that this was the movement I had spent the most time analysing ‘explicitly’. (See thesis Chapter 5, p.118-24) This meant I was very familiar with the details of how the Czech Quartet navigated particular moments, and larger structural units. Although I had discussed and listened to this movement with the viola player over several years, and all of us had spent a good amount of time with the recordings we were copying, I knew this movement in a very specific kind of detail, by comparison with my colleagues. That these early takes were so uncomfortable in terms of ‘real’ ensemble interaction may have been a direct result of my over-familiarity with (what had seemed at the time like) particular ‘decisions’ made by the Czech players: I was approaching the copying process, in this piece more than others, as if we were replicating pre-ordained, ‘known’ nuances. This meant that the continuity and context-dependence that was central to their original performance entirely evaded us. Our playing certainly had “great arbitrariness”, but little of the responsiveness that gives life and sense to imaginative gestures. This version was akin to ‘copying by imposition’, and our reaction was a useful reminder of the pitfalls of excessive analytical familiarity. Happily, this obvious failing presented a valuable opportunity to recalibrate our approach.
Scott, Anna. 2022. 'Doesn’t Play Well with Others: Performance and Embodiment in Brahms’s Chamber Music with Piano.' in Nicole Grimes and Reuben Phillips (eds.), Rethinking Brahms, 177-93. (Oxford University Press)
