Klarinet Archive - Posting 000542.txt from 1995/09

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: Neidich and the Mozart concerto performance
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 21:48:21 -0400

A comment on the board made reference to Neidich's recording of the
Mozart concerto and the submittor said that he liked it very much.

I then suggested that he take a moment to tell us exactly what he did
like about it. My comments were not suggestive of a confrontation
(though they may have sounded that way), but rather from two perspectives:

1) we clarinetists have a duty to be a great deal more specific
when we speak of recorded performances because we are expected
to know of what we speak when it comes to performance of the
repertoire that was written explicitly for us. It is one thing
for the music reviewer of the NY Times to say that a recording of
the Mozart concerto was well or badly played, and quite another
thing for a professional clarinetist to say that same thing and
in those same unspecific words.

2) Neidich's recording was very idiosynchratic, quite unique,
and open either to great praise or considerable criticism; it
all depended on how you perceive the way the Mozart concerto
should be played. I was very interested in whether or not the
submittor was positive because of the unusual things that Neidich
did or if he payed any attention to them. I refer, of course,
to the fact that Neidich did a great deal of on-the-spot
improvisation and people have strong feelings about that as a
suitable or unsuitable act.

It is for these reasons that I poked. After all, if we clarinetists hear
a performance of a work for solo clarinet and anything, we should be
articulate and observant enough to say exactly what it was we found
satisfying and what it was that disappointed us. If all that comes out
of our mouths consists of platitudes about "it was a nice performance
and s/he played very well," then we do a disservice to ourselves, our
repertoire, and our duty to report on how that repertoire should be
executed.

Reviewers should not be in the business of telling us how to play. We should
be in the business of telling them what it is that they should be
listening for. I want to hear a reviewer say, "The clarinetist executed
the C clarinet movements if Schubert's C major symphony on the wrong
clarinet." Today, a reviewer would not know how to address that question
if a broomstick were shoved up his backside. They are unable to distinguish
in any articulate way the various things that a clarinetist does that,
for example, a flutist does not do in the same way. To them, it is all
blue. To us, it is green and heliotrope and white and purple. And it is
our duty to say things in ways that enable them to see green and heliotrope
and white and purple.

It is bad enough when the general public is inarticulate about our
repertoire, but when we don't fix the problem by the depth and insight
of our commentary but, instead, join them in their inarticularity, then
we deserve it when someone say, "s/he played nice" when we perform the
Neilsen concerto. It is not a piece that should be "played nice." One
should tear up the roadways with a performance of that work.

Now, what did you think of the Neidich performance of the Mozart concerto?

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

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org