Klarinet Archive - Posting 000206.txt from 1993/11

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Authenticity
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 13:55:51 -0500

I also join the team of those who want to play in a way that the
audiences will find worth listening to. To insist that one play
a certain way because it is correct while violating the musical
needs of an audience is foolishness indeed. And I am glad that
Cary brought that point up so precisely.

But audiences, like performers, get used to doing things in a certain
way and will often prefer that way because they have become used to
it, because they are familiar with it, because they perceive it has having
historical tradition even when it does not.

Let me give an example: today we play minuets and trios in a certain way.
It is so common that one does not have to tell informed players what
to do when encountering such a form. One plays the minuet with all
repeats and then the trio with all repeats. On the da capo, one plays no
repeats. That is what we do. That is what the audience expects to hear.
Deviate from that, and you could be in for trouble.

But there is no evidence that minuets and trios were played that way in
Mozart's epoch. On the contrary, there is evidence that all repeats were
made all the time, not a lot of evidence, but some.

Therefore, should one consider restoring the original practice simply
because it was the original practice (if indeed it was), or should one
consider the effect of this kind of change on an audience? Will they
rise up and attack? Will the additional repeats make the movement boring?

That is an important issue and I do not dismiss it for a moment.

There is no doubt that this is not only a controversial issue, it is
a complicated one too, one whose resolution is a good deal more than
decision by fiat. Another example: if one decided to institute the
performance of minuets and trios differently (i.e., in the way that I
think may have been the case in the Classic era), one immediately finds
that one is missing certain musical skills that will enable that fiat
to be accomplished by the average classically-trained clarinet player.

I suggest that the purpose of all those repeats was to encourage
shoot-from-the hip improvisation by the soloists during those
additional repeats. When soloists lost that ability, the need for
those repeats disappeared and that is why we no longer play them today.
But if one tried to reinstate them, how many of us could do
spontaneous improvisation in a fashion that would be satisfactory?

So legislation of performance issues by fiat is not the instantaenous
answer.

It is indeed unfortunate that so many wonderful players do not get
around to addressing these issues during their formative years. And
when they get to be professional level players, there is little time
to devote to them what with Mahler 5, two Nutcrackers, and six jingles
a week. And then, one gets hardened and starts to believe that these
things aren't really important. And maybe in the larger scale of things
they aren't. But I would prefer, for the moment, to focus on the smaller
scale of things.

Doesn't anyone else want to join into this discussion?? It really must
be more than Cary and me, though I enjoy reading his precise, well-
articulated, knowledgeable posts.

====================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
(leeson@-----.edu)
====================================