I face issue with such paragraphs where some outside info is required, eg; science or astronomy topics. How to tackle this issue?
This is question from ‘Landowska’ passage of RC being explained in 2 months 5th week day 1 lecture of (Optional) Main Idea in Long Passages. In this question, there is requirement of understanding atleast some idea of these instruments. Otherwise particularly this type of answers are very difficult.
According to ets, everything you need to answer questions are in the passage.
No outside knowledge is needed.
The only way to get better is to practice.
Can you post the passage as well?
What outside knowledge do you think was required here?
Hey Ganesh, go t: Landowska’ passage of RC being explained in 2 months 5th week day 1 lecture of (Optional) Main Idea in Long Passages. Since the passage is distributed in pages and is visible in video, cant copy paste it.
The passage basically speaks about different musical devices, if one atleast knows these devices, would help answer question, in timed practice otherwise its difficult to get the relationship and answer question.
Thanks for the context.
Full passage for any future students:
In the early twentieth century, the idea that pianists should be musician-scholars
whose playing reflected the way composers wanted their music to sound replaced
the notion that pianists should be virtuosos whose performances thrilled audiences
with emotional daring and showy displays of technique. One important figure to
emerge in the period, though a harpsichordist rather than a pianist, was Wanda
Landowska (1879–1959). She demonstrated how the keyboard works of Baroque
composers such as Bach, Handel, Scarlatti, and Couperin probably sounded in their
own times. It would be a mistake to consider Landowska a classicist, however. She
had been born in an age of Romantic playing dominated by Liszt, Leschetizky,
and their pupils. Thus she grew up with and was influenced by certain Romantic
traditions of performance, whatever the stringency of her musical scholarship;
Landowska knew how to hold audiences breathless, and when she gave recitals,
they responded with deathlike silence and rapt attention.
Her playing was Romantic, but it was at least as close in spirit to the style of playing
intended by composers of the Baroque (1600–1750) and Classical (1750–1830) eras, as
have been the more exacting but less emotionally resonant interpretations of most
harpsichordists since Landowska. She had a miraculous quality of touch, a seemingly
autonomous left hand; no artist in her generation could clarify with such deftness the
polyphonic writing of the Baroque masters. And none could make their music so
spring to life.
Her achievements were the result of a lifetime of scholarship, truly remarkable physical
gifts, and resilient rhythm, all combined with excellent judgment about when not to hold
the printed note sacrosanct. Of course, developing such judgment demanded considerable
experience and imagination. She was a genius at underlining the dramatic and emotional
content of a piece, and to do so, she took liberties, all kinds of liberties, while nevertheless
preserving the integrity of a composer’s score. In short, her entire musical approach was
Romantic: intensely personal, full of light and shade, never pedantic.
Thanks to Landowska, Bach’s music (originally composed for the harpsichord) now
sounded inappropriately thick when played on the piano. One by one, pianists stopped
playing Bach’s music as adapted for the piano by Liszt or by Tausig. Then they gradually
stopped performing any kind of Baroque music on the piano, even Scarlatti’s. The piano
repertoire, it began to be felt, was extensive enough without reverting to transcriptions
of Baroque music originally written for the harpsichord—and piano performances of
Bach and Scarlatti were, despite the obvious similarities between the harpsichord and
the piano, transcriptions, no matter how faithfully the original notes were played.
In accordance with this kind of purism came an emphasis on studying composers’
manuscript notations, a relatively new field of musicology that is flourishing even today.
Okay now for the question
Actually in this case its not really relevant or helpful.
In the early twentieth century, the idea that pianists should be musician-scholars
whose playing reflected the way composers wanted their music to sound replaced
the notion that pianists should be virtuosos whose performances thrilled audiences
with emotional daring and showy displays of technique. One important figure to
emerge in the period, though a harpsichordist rather than a pianist, was Wanda
Landowska
From this, we can infer that Landowska was one of the people who follows the new emerging idea of “pianists should be musician-scholars whose playing reflected the way composers wanted their music to sound”
So in everyday terms it just means “she believed that musicians should play music in a way that sounds exactly how it was written”
So we wanna look for any choices that go against that idea, in this case that would be D and E
- D: the performer is using a different tempo from what the composer wanted
- E: the performer is using a different instrument from what the composer wanted
The question says “objected MOST strongly to” which means we should pick E instead of D, because in D it says they ocassionally do it, which is less of a deviation.
For the others:
- A: This one is a bit weird, cause it seems similar to E, but it does say at the start of the final para that bach wrote for the harpsichord so it will sound as he intended so L would be happy with that
- B: This is using the same instrument as the composer intended so it doesnt go against the idea
- C: Again no evidence of playing something differently to what was originally intended
So in this question outside knowledge of instruments is not required or helpful really, does that help? @siddhig
Definitely a difficult question to do under a timer though, I think this is considered a tough passage in general!
Hi Ganesh, your analysis is helpful. I am facing difficult in simplifying the sentences. Hopefully it becomes better with practice.
It might be worth drilling/practicing simplifying and rephrasing on the skill building