Klarinet Archive - Posting 000048.txt from 1993/12

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: David Shea's comments on performance
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 11:42:36 -0500

I had practically finished a rather long note on the subject and
had a village power failure so I don't know if my previous and
incomplete note went down some Orwellian sink hole, or if it is
going to be sent to everyone at some time in the future.

I begin again.

I have kept a note from David Shea (of Indiana University) on
the subject of performance for several days while I mused on
what might be a response to such well-stated remarks about
performance. I am not sure I have it right yet, but I don't
want to delay too long or the whole subject will get cold.

David says: "As for your reference to Mozart and the fermatas, I
agree that 18th century players embellished/improvised on these
cadences [in K. 622]... since there is no music written down for these
fermatas, doesn't the attention shift to what the player's personal
expression or ability is capable of providing at this point? As an
audience we are made aware of the player's ability to play the
instrument."

David, lots of good stuff there! But I have problems with almost
all of it. (Up front: that doesn't mean that I'm right in which
case you are wrong. It is not like that at all. This is not a
zero sum game where either of us winning means the other loses.)

1) The issue of the fermatas: the fact that there is no music
written down for these fermatas does not mean that there was no
guidiance from the composer on what s/he wanted done. The
fermata in 18th century music gave to the soloist a variety of
opportunities that were spelled out by the underlying chord
structure at the moment of the fermata. If the chord structure
was a tonic in the 2nd inversion, the composer was explicitly
requesting a cadenza (whose purpose and architecture have changed
since the late 1700s). If the chord structure was a dominant 7th,
the the composer was asking for something else, and it was a big
something else. In English, the word is "lead-in" and he who
makes a mistake and plays a cadenza when the composer is asking for
a lead in, makes a BIG mistake. What one does during a lead-in is
so radically different from what one does during a cadenza, that it
is essential to know the differences so that you don't show up at
a hoe-down weaking white tie and tails (pardon the analogy).

Those three points in the Mozart concerto about which we are speaking
are dominant seventh chords, all three of them. The soloist is NOT
being asked to embellish or improvise at these cadential points. S/he
is simply being asked to make the connection to the next measure
(which is always the resolution of the dominant 7th) in a simple fashion,
by improvising no more than a dozen notes (though the precise number is
not anywhere written down).

2) Re: the shifting of attention to the player's personal expression.
It is true that when the signal for the cadenza does appear (which is
nowhere in Mozart's clarinet music), the attention does shift to
the player, but not in the fashion that you imply. At that juncture
of the composition, all the themes have been heard. We are close to
the end of the work, and the soloist is being asked to create a
fantasy based on the previously articulated themes. It works best
with an instrument that can harmonize with itself such as a piano or
a violin. It was the soloists imagination in doing this thing that was
being challenged. Could he or she take all those themes that the
composer had given and weave them into a seamless and clever fabric?
Did the player have that kind of improvisatory imagination? Could he
or she do it at that moment?!! And if the soloist ever did the work
again, could he or she do a different one next time, again as a challenge
to his or her inventiveness?

I point out that absolutely none of this is called for in K. 626 because
no cadenza is requested. Just a simple lead-in to the next section. It
is true that it should be improvised but the scale is so small, that
almost anyone can do it having been shown once or twice what to do.

3) Re: being made aware of the player's ability to play the
instrument.

If one looks at a music encyclopedia of, say, 50 years ago, that is what
you will find when you look up the word cadenza: "It is the place where
the soloist shows their technical ability." What horse-hockey! What
absolute ca-ca!! The soloist has been killing himself/herself up
to that point in the work and no one knows if the soloist has
technical proficiency??

More recent and more scholarly (and much more correct) descriptions
of the purpose of cadenzas state that the purpose of the cadenza was
to show the soloist's imagination in being able to create a fantasy
on the main themes on the spot. The skill being requested was imagination
not mechanical dexterity.

===========================================

The purpose of all of this discussion is simply to reinforce my
original argument that it is not possible to play a work in the
style that the composer expected if one is not familiar with what
the performance practices were for that time.

David, in his note, gave absolutely perfect answers to the question
of what one would do when one came to a fermata in a Weber concerto
or a Mendelssohn concerto (which unfortunately we don't have) or a
Rossini concerto (ditto) or even a Brahms concerto. One would dazzle
the hell out the audience with how fast you could play because that
was the practice then and special, unalterable cadenzas were written
by the composer to demonstrate exactly that facility. But that same
answer, when applied to the fermatas in the Mozart concerto is simply
not to the point, nor even correct.

Somehow, when I began this discussion a few weeks ago, I got the
reaction that everyone presumed that the purpose of the fermata
points in K. 622 was to play cadenzas (which God knows they are not),
and that when doing this thing, the faster one could play, the better
(which is equally untrue).

And I remind you that the Leduc edition of K. 622 as edited by
Jacques Ibert himself, includes a cadenza of fantastic difficulty
that is two full pages long, a testament to just how far lack of
knowledge can take one.

Finally, this note to David: I meant no disrespect when I said that
you entered into this discussion with prejudices, but I meant that
those prejudices were based on a historically incorrect perception
of certain musical terms when these terms are applied to Mozart's
music. And until one learns what these terms meant when Mozart used
them, one will NEVER play his music in a fashion that was consistent
with his thinking.

That may not be the worst thing in the world, but it is factual. If
one says, "I really don't give a damn what he had in mind when he
wrote the work" that's OK with me. I disagree but it's a free
country. But when has an incorrect perception of what he had in
mind and then appliesthat to a performance of his work, that is no
longer OK with me. It is a musical decision based on misinformation
and it needs fixing.

I respect the fact that so many of the younger people on this board
are working hard to created beautiful sounds and superior technical
facility. But instrumental musicians have always been of the opinion
that a knowledge of how the instrument was played at various moments
of music history is not terribly necessary to a successful career.
And until recently, this was very true. Now one sees basset
clarinets, new editions of the Mozart concerto, expectations from
instrumentalists that were never previously demanded and one
realizes that the world is changing. It will belong to those who
change with it. It is not longer enough to play well!

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