One of my favorite parts of the LA Times is the tiny little
column on Page 2 called “FOR THE RECORD.”
This is where sharp-eyed readers turn in their corrections to
information (or misinformation) on previously printed articles.
I’m going to award a few prizes this week for the following
goofs.
PRIZE FOR FORGETFULNESS
On August 7, the obituary of long-time NBC News report John
Palmer noted that he left NBC in 1990 to anchor the news program “Instant
Recall” and there interviewed Anwar Sadat.
The August 14 rebuttal reminded readers that Sadat was assassinated in
1981.
PRIZE FOR MOST
SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES
An August 11 article said this weekend the 405 Freeway in
Westminster would be shut down completely in the southbound lanes but only partially
in the northbound lanes.
Oops! An August 15 a
retraction corrected that ALL northbound lanes and ALL southbound lanes would
be shut down. Makes you wonder how many
people did NOT read the retraction and got detoured off onto a side street of
an unfamiliar city? That’s actually not
a cackling matter, but nevertheless it makes you wonder how, when all the TV
stations were announcing a full-blown closure of both lanes that our most
prestigious newspaper made that kind of goof.
PRIZE FOR BIGGEST FABLE
On August 11 the business section reported that Google
co-founder Sergey Brin stole the show last year at the company’s annual
developers conference by sky-diving onto the roof while wear Google Goggles.
On August 15 they changed their tune: He wore the device at
the conference but did NOT skydive onto the roof.
Now that’s some mistake!
One wonders whether it was the writer or his source that devised that
fable.
PRIZE FOR CREATING THE
FUNNIEST CONFUSION
On August 11 the Times featured a wonderful story on Gustavo
Dudamel’s presentation of Verdi’s Requiem at the Hollywood Bowl. Regarding Verdi’s Dies Irae, “With a score marking of quadruple fortissimo – ffff – [my note: let these represent the
musical symbol for loud] that is, roughly “as loud as you can plus one” it is
some of the most ferocious music in the whole of the classical music
canon.” Now the fun begins
August 14 “FOR THE RECORD” indicates this: “We also got a
bit carried away with our Italian suffixes when illustrating a dynamic marking
of quadruple fortissimo. Verdi’s
original marking, quadruple forte, was ffff, not ffffffff,
August 15 rebuttal of “FOR THE RECORD” tries to clarify what was printed: An August 14 FOR THE RECORD item correcting an Aug 11 Arts and Books section…did not properly explain the Italian names and notations for dynamic markings. Verdi’s original marking is quadruple forte and is notated as ffff. Quadruple fortissimo, which was incorrectly mentioned in the article, would be notated as ffffffff.
So as not to leave well enough alone, the August 18 (and
perhaps the last entry) states that in
fact, the first article of August 11 said that the score contained a double
fortissimo, but it did not. Verdi’s
original marking was a quadruple forte.
SO THERE! (Really?) Cackle, cackle.
I understand the need for corrections to make sure old Verdi
is understood, but it also makes me think of this unanswerable question: How
many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
2 comments:
Well, time for a musician to weigh in.
Forte = f = loud
Fortissimo = ff = louder
These are well known Italian markings and any 2nd year music student will know them.
In practice, anything more than "ff" is a nonsensical marking. Beyond a point, it is not possible to play an instrument "fff" or "ffff". Can a violin play "ffff"? Assuredly not. Can an oboe? No freakin' way. Can a trumpet? Well, sorta.
The way to get fiddles and woodwinds to play "ffff" is to add more of them, to give the piece greater body or weight.
It is possible, with brass instruments (and percussion) to add "edge" to the sound, to push the tone quality to past the point of being sonorous and into a raucous, harsh sound. Sometimes that is what the composer intends and it can be very effectively used.
Verdi almost certainly was not calling for a raucous sound. "Harsh sounds" in the requiem? I don't think so. So what was he indicating?
A musician needs to be able to interpret a huge amount of information in real time, and there frequently isn't an opportunity to "read words" to describe the composer's intent.
Hence all of the special symbols that we use to quickly recognize what the composer wants us to do becomes another language to us. "Marks with meanings like words", John Muir once said. And indeed, that describes what Verdi was attempting to communicate.
He was saying, "play this as full as you can possibly make this section", and the way that he could communicate that to the orchestra, quickly, as the notes are flying past, was to use some variation of "ff".
By the way, in almost 40 years of playing the horn, I have never, ever, seen a definition in a music dictionary that goes beyond "ff.
Verdi chose to use "ffffffff" for a very specific purpose. Only the ignorati will attempt to put a name to this marking, as if the name is what is important. It would have been better for the fools at the Times, those wonderful know-it-all critics who can't possibly "do", to try to create understanding about Verdi's intent than to launch into a laughable exchange about what all those "f's" are called.
Great!
Post a Comment