From: bentl...@aol.com (Bentley1)
Subject: Re: Parkening cheating?
Date: 1995/03/30
Message-ID: <3lfueg$dps@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
X-Deja-AN: 100592443
sender: r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com
references: <john.matro.118.0011A86A@mailgw.er.doe.gov>
organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
reply-to: bentl...@aol.com (Bentley1)
newsgroups: rec.music.classical.guitar

I was asked by Parkening's producer,  Pat Russ to post the following
response this opinion from Mr. Ophee. Mr. Orphee's original statements
follow this response.

 March 29, 1995



Dear editor/readers,

 A friend of a friend who reads your newsletter passed along a copy of
Matanya Ophee's letter of March 15, 1995 on "Parkening cheating?". 
Admittedly I know almost nothing about Internet or your forum (this is my
first Internet correspondence).  Hopefully Ophee's letter is not typical
of the quality submitted for your discussions.  Most people, including
myself, would see no reason to share his comments with Parkening, as the
letter reveals much more about Mr. Ophee than about Parkening.  

 As your readers might have guessed, Parkening records his pieces just as
he performs them.  I have been closely involved on his recordings for a
number of years, and can attest to their authenticity.   Although I wasn't
producer for the album Simple Gifts (formerly entitled Sacred Music for
the Guitar), I was present for part of the solo guitar recording of the
piece Ophee mentioned, Bach's Prelude from the 4th Lute Suite, and also
for the orchestral recording with the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra two
years later (Bach's Sinfonia from "We Thank Thee, Lord, We Thank Thee" 
from Cantata 29 contains substantially the same solo part as Prelude from
Suite No. 4 for lute and Prelude from Partita #3 for solo violin). 
Parkening played his own editions and fingerings.  He didn't use a musical
arrangement by Ophee.   There were no gimmicks, nothing was speeded up,
and in fact both solo and orchestral versions are recorded at the same
tempi Parkening performed in concert around the country.
 
 Parkening preferred the more energetic tempo used by organists and
violinists rather than the comparatively slower tempo often set by
guitarists.  (I remember that he enjoyed the Heifetz solo violin and the
E. Power Biggs organ versions, both of which play at similar tempi for
solo and ensemble, respectively.)   In this instance, the tempo for
keyboard or violin is still musical for guitar.  Parkening has excellent
coordination and had no difficulty playing the piece at this speed,
especially after performing the work on tour.  Actually, he made it look
easy. 

 Parkening remarked at the time that, although he played the E major
fingerings, he used a capo on the first fret for both performances because
the slightly higher pitch sounded better on his instrument, brighter and
more lute-like.  The Cantata's original key of D Major did not lay well on
the guitar and sounded dark (remembering that the guitar sounds an octave
below the written keyboard), and any key higher than F Major was too
difficult for the trumpets.  So after considering the different options,
Ronald Ravenscroft arranged the orchestral work in F Major. Thus, both
versions sound in F major.  

 Ophee suggested that Parkening made only one recording, and sped it up
for effect in the solo version.  That's silly, not simply because I was
there at both sessions, but because both recordings are in the same key of
F Major (Ophee needs a new tape player--the orchestra's performance is
certainly not in E major, as he thought.)  Not to mention, there are
subtle differences between the two performances which most people can
probably hear right away.  And besides, if a recording tape is sped up,
most musicians can hear the strings vibrate more quickly at the faster
speed, not unlike the equivalent of Alvin and the Chipmunks.  I'm not
blaming Ophee for missing these points, but shame on him as a publisher
for making accusations that could affect an artist's reputation. 

 Ophee suggests that the collection Simple Gifts which contains this solo
recording was done simply for the money.  Few people know (until now) that
all artist's proceeds for the album, as well as the arrangers' mechanical
license fees, go to a charitable trust to feed the poor. 

 The bottom line is, Parkening comes prepared for his sessions.  I once
saw him record "El Noi de la Mare" for a video promoting his Segovia
tribute album.  He only made one take; it was flawless.  As an artist he
is endowed with superb musical gifts, and has worked hard to perfect them.
  

 As to the comment by another reader regarding some rumor Parkening
recorded the Chaconne "incrementally":  Parkening started at Angel Records
as a complete unknown, and producer Dick Jones never allowed him more than
five or six takes per piece--sometimes less, because there was a lot of
music to cover in order to release two albums simultaneously for his
recording debut.  He had to record the Chaconne and Renaissance dances in
a single session.  Some time ago we talked about that session, and he
recalled that even for a work as complex as the Chaconne he was allowed a
maximum of five or six takes.  Those conditions were typical.  
 
 I enjoyed the book of correspondence between Segovia and Ponce published
by Mr. Ophee's company, and was disappointed to see his name attached to
such a poorly researched e-mail article.  If any of your readers are in
doubt about Parkening's ability, they could simply listen to his
recordings (there are at least fifteen), attend his concerts, or visit his
annual master class at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana where
he candidly fields many questions related to his profession. 
 
 If Mr. Ophee ever prints a retraction in this venue most of the music
world will probably miss it, but I hope he'll do it.

       Patrick Russ

| To:             news@ih (News:rec.music.classical.guitar)
| From:           mail@ih (News:rec.music.classical.guitar-Susan Baker)
{...@u.washington.edu}
| Subject:        Parkening cheating?
| Date sent:      13-Mar-95 21:31:03 -0800
| Originally to:  /wg33/sub/.arti...@u.washington.edu

|  I spent years trying to play that piece at that tempo, fortunately
Goran 
| Sollchers recording eventually saved me the effort! I heard that the 
| engineer sped up the tempo...it sounds cool, but i dont think its real.
I 
| also heard that his chaconne was learned and recorded incrementally. 


Now that the cat is out of the bag, here is the Parkening story I
mentioned here a couple of months ago:

Back in the late sixties, when we were much younger, much better
looking and could play the guitar pretty damn well and living in
New York City, Edgard Dana and myself decided to form a guitar
duo. Ida Presti just died, and the guitar duo idea was in the
air. In preparation, I set out to make a rather large number of
arrangements for our duo. The Prelude, Fugue and Variation Op. 18
by Cesar Franck, the Schubert Arpeggione Sonata, and a few Bach
pieces. The Dana-Ophee Duo never really got off the ground as both 
Edgard and I moved a lot in those days, and in different directions. 
He went back to Israel, I went up to Boston.

When I started Editions Orphe'e in 1978, my duo arrangements were
first on the list. I thought they were pretty good, and so was
told by several guitarists I had the chance to read them through
with. The Franck, published in 1981, became an international
best-seller. It's been recorded several times, performed by
numerous duos, and ripped off more than once. My arrangement of
the Sinfonia from the Cantata No. 29 by J.S. Bach, also published
in 1981, fared quite well, but perhaps had not become as well
known as the Franck arrangement. However, the very first order I
received for it, came from a guitarist living in Bozman Montana
whose name I never heard before, or since. I actually tried to
call the fellow to congratulate him personally on his good taste
for being the first buyer of the edition, but there was no such
listing in the Bozman, MT phone directory. As Kurt Vonnegut used
to say: So It Goes.

One year later, I chanced upon the Sacred Music for Guitar LP by
Christopher Parkening. (EMI Angel No. DS-37335). This is a
religious artifact in which the performer dedicates the entire
proceedings to "Glorify my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," as go a
Personal Note by Parkening at the beginning of the liner notes. A
man's religion is his own affair, and far be it for me to
belittle, or even to scoff at someone else's feelings. I do feel
a bit embarrassed when confronted by personal religious outbursts
in public, because I feel that such matters are better left alone
between the person and his or her God. It's also ok to share such
things in mutual fellowship, but it is not OK to impose these
things on unwary outsiders who may or may not share the same
religion. Anyway, it is my problem, and not Parkening's. What
_is_ my problem is that directly or indirectly, the glorification
of the deity has been somewhat diluted in the very first
selection on the record, a piece purported to be J.S. Bach's
_Sinfonia_ from the Cantata No. 29 but isn't. What was recorded
was a transcription of the Prelude from the third violin partita
in E Major, BWV 1006. The way it has been allowed into this
recording, was by the application to it of the sub-title of the
Cantata No. 29. This one is titled the Rahtswal Kantata, composed
by Bach for the dedication of the local town-hall and the sub-
title says: "Wir danken Dir Gott", (We Thank Thee, Lord.)

The liner notes, by one Patrick Russ, state that the same work was
adopted by Bach for many different instruments, a true statement
on the surface. What Mr. P.R. does not tell us, is that in
adopting the work for the Cantata, where it is played by organ
and orchestra, not only did Bach change the key from E to D
Major, but also re-wrote entire sections within the piece and added 
to the original music, here played by the organist's right hand, a 
complex polyphonic accompaniment by the left hand and the orchestra. 
To assign the Cantata's subtitle to a violin or a lute piece written
years before, something Bach himself had not seen fit to do, is
to re-write history to fit the needs of the P.R. man and if Mr.
Parkening was party to this, and I fail to see how it was
possible for him not to know about it, he is guilty of violating
the Fourth Commandment which says: Thy shalt not take the name of
the Lord in vain. 

Now, if the LP was given away as a free offering to the faithful,
I can accept that a minor alteration of historical truth cannot
be such a bad thing. But this record was not a free offering. It
was a commercial venture, sold by EMI in record stores (I bought
my copy at the Harvard Coop in Cambridge) on which they paid, it
stands to reason, good royalties to Mr. Parkening. That kind of
distortion of history is just as reprehensible as a straight
theft or deception. You tell me what law of Christian morality is
broken by this.

So far, this may seem like much ado about nothing. But bear with
me for a moment. As you recall, we said above the violin version
played by Parkening is in E Major. On _listening_ to the record,
when placed on a well calibrated turntable, the music _sounds_ in
F Major, one semi-tone higher. It takes Parkening 3:35 (three
minutes and thirty-five seconds) to rip through the piece (that's
157 beats per minute). By all accounts, an astounding piece of
digital pyrotechnics, a true virtuoso playing on the highest
level. To place this in perspective, we note that the majority of
guitarists who play this, usually take from 4:30 to 5:00 full
minutes to play it. I once timed Barrueco in concert at 4:20,
(that's 128 beats per second) and he is not by any means
technically feeble. The only guitarist in my record collection
that plays this faster than Parkening is Yamashita (Crown
Classics CRCC-7001-2) at 3:22, which is about the same as Wendy
Carlos (in the days she was still known as Walter Carlos)
performance on the Switched-On Bach record (Columbia MS 7194)
which clocks in at 3:20. 

I would like to believe that Parkening told us the truth when he
said that he played the piece in E Major. Now if it sounds in F,
there is only one explanation: the recording engineer speeded it
up by about 6%, so as to fit that much more music on the vinyl.
Did Parkening condone this action, which effectively portrays him
in a virtuosic guise to which he is not entitled? we have no way
of knowing and for the sake of argument, I would like to give him
the benefit of the doubt. For the moment. He cannot be held
responsible for technical modifications of his playing which may
have taken place without his knowledge or authorization.

A short time later, Jim Sherry published Parkening's Bach album,
in which this piece is featured. We can discuss at great length
what parts of this transcriptions are taken from others that were
available at the time and which are original. One item though, is
most certainly a Parkening original. This is the direction at the
beginning of the Prelude to place a capo on the first fret. No
explanation for this is given anywhere in the album and we have
no idea why. The clear impression, in any edition of the sort by
a leading performer, is that this is the way he prefers to play
the piece. When you place a capo on the first fret in a piece in
E Major, it sounds in F Major. Right? In other words, in so many
words, Parkening tells us that on his Sacred Music LP, he did
play the piece in F Major, and he did in fact play it at 3:35. Do
you believe this?

I, for one, do not. And the reason is another recording by
Parkening, appearing in 1985. This one is a tape I bought in Los
Angeles (EMI ANGEL 40s-37343), in which the same piece, the
Sinfonia from the Cantata No. 29, is played by Parkening, this
time with orchestral accompaniment. This is a really problematic
recording, where the guitar and the orchestra seldom match each
other in speed or articulation, to the point that one gets the
impression that both tracks were recorded separately and put
together by the recording engineer. The whole concoction is in E
Major, and it shows Parkening in his true colors. It takes 4:55
to complete (that's 112 beats per minute.) Besides the issue of
taking a Bach orchestral piece in D Major and transposing it to E
so as to suit a soloist, without mentioning the fact, there is a
good question in my mind if the actual guitar track on both
recording is not, God Forbid, the very same recording. When
slowing down the earlier recording so that it sounds in E, the
articulations of the entire piece sound to me identical in both
the LP and the tape. With today's technology, it is possible to
prove or disprove the point with absolute precision. I do not
possess the necessary equipment, and I do have better things to
occupy my time with. However, enough shenanigans have been
already committed here, even without this technical
investigation. Please allow me my skepticism, any time the name
of Christopher Parkening is mentioned. 

Matanya Ophee