Klarinet Archive - Posting 000058.txt from 1995/12

From: Lisa Gartrell Yeo <ux403@-----.CA>
Subj: Re: Copland
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 14:40:30 -0500

Thank you to Bob Yoon for forwarding me the messages on this topic. I
was accidentally unsubscribed recently and missed some of the earlier
postings.
It is really interesting to hear everyone's views on the various
recordings of this piece (of which there are MANY) Like Fred Jacobwitz,
I also instinctively feel that the second Goodman/Copland recording of
the 1960's is the most convincing recording of this piece. The
interpretation is by no means dry: there is a great deal of flexibility
of tempi in the first movement (which is played much slower than 69, by
the way) The orchestra is absolutely luscious! On the other hand, I
find many other recordings to be guilty of being just a bit too matter-of-
fact. There are many variations of tempi, types of articulations, and
"swinging notes" or not, but to me what is successful about a recording is
its overall concept. The Goodman/Copland recording has a remarkably
unified playing style, which although not romantic, is certainly
expressive. Stolzman's recording is on the other end of the spectrum.
While his playing is beautiful, it sometimes loses the feeling of
continuity (you can't see the forest for the trees). Other recordings
seem to be too detached, which I feel is a fault of Drucker, and
Shifrin. In Shifrin's recording, the tempos are so fast I feel that the
music can't breathe.
Another important aspect of the Goodman/Copland recording is the rhythmic
energy of the piece. The syncpated rhythms are played unself-consciously,
and always with a view of the overall line. The piece "chugs" along.
Other recordings of the piece seem to get bogged dwon. It does not
necessarily mean you have to play fast, but that you play with a sense of
propulsion, of forward motion.
As to the "jazz elements" in the piece, they are irrelevant. If you
want to add them, fine. If not, don't. If you analyse the piece, you
will realize that they are unimportant; what makes the piece great is how
Copland manipulates his materials into a unified whole. Besides,
Copland does not actually tell you to "swing" anything.
Well, I've rambled long enough. Just to clarify about the
Goodman/Copland recordings. There are two, both made with the Columbia
strings. The first was made in the 1950, the second in the 1960's. Both
Goodman and Copland preferred the second recording; Copland was glad they
had a second chance at recording the piece because he felt he conducted
the first movement too slowly the first time. The recording everyone
knows is this second recording. The first is no longer commercially
available. There is no information about a recording being made in Italy
in Copland's autobiography. Sorry, Bob, but your opinion that the
recording we all know and love doesn't reflect Copland's intentions does
not hold up.
I like the idea about the dynamics in the score being similar to Mahler,
could you elaborate on that?

Lisa Gartrell Yeo