Bart van Oort

Netherlands (residence) °1959

Bart van Oort studied piano and fortepiano at the Royal Conservatory in The Hague. In 1986 he won the first prize and the Audience prize at the Mozart Fortepiano Competition in Brugges, Belgium. He subsequently studied with Malcolm Bilson at Cornell University (Ithaca, NY), receiving a Doctor of Musical Arts degree in Historical Performance Practice in 1993.

Bart van Oort has given lectures and masterclasses and performed all over the world. He teaches fortepiano and is a lecturer in Historical Performance Practice at the Royal Conservatory in The Hague. Since 1997 Van Oort has made more than fifty recordings of chamber music and solo repertory. 


Exposition: Historical Clarinet Mouthpieces: An Analysis and Re-creation studyHistorical Clarinet Mouthpieces: An Analysis and 3D Re-creation study (21/02/2023) by Sergio Sánchez Martín
Bart van Oort 23/02/2023 at 00:33

Approved 22 March 2023

Bart van Oort

Exposition: Man's struggle for salvation: A programmatic interpretation of Franz Liszt's B minor Sonata (16/11/2022) by Leone Monaco
Bart van Oort 20/02/2023 at 21:22

Approved on February 20, 2023

Bart van Oort, supervisor

Bart van Oort 20/02/2023 at 21:21

Approved on February 20, 2023

Bart van Oort, supervisor

Exposition: The evolution between the Toccatas in “Toccate e Partite I (1615)” and “Toccate e Partite II (1627)” by G. Frescobaldi (22/02/2022) by Seung Gyun Yu
Bart van Oort 28/02/2022 at 21:56

Research approved

Bart van Oort


Exposition: Rediscover the Structure of Goldberg Variations (09/01/2021) by Shengqi Chen 
Bart van Oort 24/02/2022 at 23:57



Exposition: The evolution between the Toccatas in “Toccate e Partite I (1615)” and “Toccate e Partite II (1627)” by G. Frescobaldi (22/02/2022) by Seung Gyun Yu
Bart van Oort 22/02/2022 at 23:13

Research not approved

1. I feel that you have not taken the most important second step of artistic research, namely of assessing what your findings mean for your interpretation and performance of the works and what they may mean to other performers (objectivate). 
2. The access to the sound examples needs to be improved: it is better if they are embedded in your exposition. 
3. The footnotes are insufficient.
detailed comments:
-Writing: your English writing is not really sufficient. Most of the time I understand what you mean but there obviously has been no time for you to run this by a native english speaker. In addition, your writing is repetitive and sometimes redundant. This does not help to improve the clarity of your arguments, although I sometimes feel that the arguments have not been worked out well enough before writing them down. 
One example (p. 12):
‘The Toccatas in the second book are very different with Merulo’s Toccata but the first book toccatas are similar and a bit different’. 
-Embedding the sound examples: When I listen to a sound example, the link takes me out of your research page to YouTube. But going back to the RC means restarting the entire exposition and a lot of scrolling, since your examples are not embedded. This also means that it is impossible to listen to your playing and simulteneously follow the score on the page. 
I tried to remedy this by opening up a second window just for YouTube but your sound examples are not numbered in the exposition. Therefore I do not know how to match the (numbered) examples in that Youtube file with the RC examples which have no number. 
(I gave up listening to any of your sounding examples after about the tenth time I had to restart your RC exposition from scratch and find back where I had clicked on the sound example).
-Attribution of scores: the passages taken from scores in your exposition have no composer name. When you start mentioning Merulo, the only way to identify the composer of a certain score is by looking at the publisher. I think you can be a little bit more informative here.
-The second step of artistic reearch: you are listing the compositional differences and similarities which you have noticed between the Toccatas in Book 1 and Book 2. Is this sufficient as research findings in artistic research? Listing differences sounds to me like ‘collecting material’, which is the ground work for any research. The most important part comes after that, namely assessing the material, critically evaluating it, experimenting, drawing conclusions and finally sharing the findings in a sufficiently objectivated way (on the RC and in your live presentation) for others to be able to follow your argumentation. I feel that this crucial second step is not really there.
-Performance practice: I read nothing about what the differences between the Toccatas in Book 1 and Book 2 mean for performance. Do the compositional differences imply a changing performance practice between the two books as well? Should we all - or do you personally - apporoach these two books differently? Can the performance practice be related to what you would do in a performance of Merulos Toccatas? 
-Clear definition of ideas: your ideas sometimes tumble over each other, for instance in the paragraph called “Leaps”. Your text is a bit repetitive and several ideas are presented within one paragraph without sufficient definition; as a result they get mixed up a bit. It would be helpful to have bullet points or charts to clarify what happens where / with which composer (I sometimes do not know if some idea is related to Merulo or to Frescobaldi) / in which piece (include bar numbers or musical example) / and a clear explanation of the ‘why'.
-Footnotes and Bibliography: you list a number of sources in your bibliography, but nowhere in the exposition you have footnoted any of these books and articles. Therefore we do not know what is your own idea and what you found in other sources. Moreover, the historical source that you mention (Banchieri 1605) is not in your bibliography. You do mention some of he prefces to the scores which you have quoted; but only the titles of the scores and the publisher appear in your bibliography. The modern prefaces to these editions should be in the bibliography as well, of course with the names of their authors (the editor, in most cases). 
-You have footnoted only two online articles (fn 3 and 6) - is this the only info from the internet which you have used? If not, make sure that we also now the other pages with their URL, as well as the date of access. 
-Footnote 5 is incomplete (no reference to the preface of page number)
-your few footnotes do not usually have page numbers
-I do not understand how fn 7 can refer to Fiori Musicali by Frescobaldi, while it is footnoting a translation of Banchieri? Did the Banchieri page appear in a preface of a Frescobaldi edition, perhaps? If so we really need to know this, as well as the name of the musicologist who wrote this preface. 

Exposition: Rediscover the Structure of Goldberg Variations (09/01/2021) by Shengqi Chen 
Bart van Oort 21/02/2022 at 20:11

NOT YET approved: what needs to be done will take quite some time

still missing:

- sound examples demonstrating what one or the other structure means for performance

- scores illustrating which variations are crucial for certain of the possible views on the structure (readers do not have them memorized)

- conclusions should not only list the methodology and list the various possible views on the structure, but also evaluate them. Which one is most successful, even if only subjectively. This should be accompanied by a demonstration of why it the structure of choice is more (or othes less) successful.