Sunday, July 11, 2010

Zuill Bailey Plays Bach


Music can be such a beautiful way to tell a story, and when a musician plays a piece that was written by someone else they have the chance to tell that story again, but in their own way. I love it when I find a musician who tells me a story that I love to hear in the way I want to hear it. Zuill Bailey has done just that.


In this video Zuill Bailey plays 3 J.S. Bach pieces:
  1. Prelude No. 1 in G Major
  2. Solo Cello Suite No. 2 - "Sarabond"
  3. Prelude No. 3 in C Major

All three pieces are fascinating to watch and listen, but I especially enjoyed his first and last choices.

I love the beautiful melody and style of the first piece, and that it reminds me of a scene in "Master and Commander" where Paul Bettany's character plays this very tune. It is not that Bettany's version is my favorite version (played by Yo-Yo Ma) , but it is the context of the song that truly defines its elegance. Bettany's ship had just gone through a fierce naval battle off the coast of South American in the Pacific ocean where cannons pounded, wood splintered, and many men died. At the end of the day, surrounded by this carnage, he sits down to drink tea from a white porcelain cup and play his cello.

The third piece, to me, shows Bailey's expert skill and the full dynamic prowess of the cello. This piece is intense and all the dissonance in the build up to the ending is masterful.

Few things can transport me to another time and place like music.

2 comments:

moolib said...

Erm...I love the Cello also...and this sounds lovely...however Crowe did not play the cello in Master and Commander, Paul Bettany's character did, and in fact although the actors learned to do so in order to be more accurate, the versions we hear in the theater are virtuoso versions, not those played by the actors....:)

sbackholm said...

Moolib,

You are correct. Bettany not Crowe.


I was aware that professional versions are the ones actually heard in films, with the actors merely faking it, but my phrasing was confusing and your note is appreciated.

I have updated the post to be more accurate.

Regards,
Stephen