Klarinet Archive - Posting 000559.txt from 1996/01

From: Fred Jacobowitz <fredj@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: Is that it? Is it all over?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:38:20 -0500

Hey, Dan,
OK, I'll bite. I think that the work should still be performed as
often as possible. However, I'd dearly love to hear anything new about
its geneology. And you are right about the third movement being very
un-Mozartean.
In fact, I've noticed that in general, Mozart was amazingly
adventurous with chord progressions and runs but he was extremely
conservative in form. Whereas, Haydn was usually the other way around. His
treatment of form is about as adventurous as one can get, while his tonal
palate is rather conservative. This is why, I believe, his music was
more respected in his day, especially by the non-composers, who couldn't
really figure out form all that well but definitely understood wierd
modulations, technical flights of fancy, etc. They were nonplussed by
Mozart's near-revolutionary use of tonality (listen to Sym #41 and you'll
hear sections which could almost be inserted into Beethoven's early
symphonies) and didn't know what to make of them, while they weren't good
enough musicians to understand (and thus, be threatened by) Haydn's
formal deviations.
I am also reminded of the Baermann "Adagio" (formerly believed to be
by Wagner and STILL published with that attribution). Has it been played
less because it isn't by Wagner? I don't think so. The Sinfonia
Concetante is still a real nice piece and I think the reason it is not
done so much is that it isn't quite as good as many of Mozart's other
pieces and there are fewer opportunities to do ensemble concerti. I
mean, in my Orchestra, they'll happily bring in a soloist or even two
but for some reason, music directors don't want to schedule such works.
Maybe they believe it's too expensive to have four soloits. I don't know,
but it really is a question to ask music directors. Any music directors
out there want a crack at that one?

Fred Jacobowitz

On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:

> Is that it? Are we done discussing the Sinfonie Concertante? Think
> about it, friends. When we spoke together and shared our views on
> the subjects of vibrato, dark/light sounds, use of the C clarinet in
> performance, reeds, mouthpieces, that is, all things associated with the
> mechanics of clarinet playing, we spent months exhausting the topics.
> Some of these topics have not yet been exhausted and will perpetually
> appear on this list. Reeds, cork grease, mouthpieces, are constantly
> appearing as topics on this board (as they should). New things
> happen and we are the beneficiaries of this kind of information.
>
> But whenever an in-depth discussion of repertoire (the very heart of
> our business) is begun, it generally poops out in a matter of days.
> There are few exceptions. And that puzzles me. It would seem that
> the interest of a clarinet player's list such as this would be somewhat
> equally divided between some very detailed discussions of major (and
> minor) works in the repertoire on one hand, and the mechanical
> aspects of clarinet playing on the other.
>
> As an example, for more than 3 years I have tried unsuccessfully to
> discuss in detail the subject of spontaneous improvisation in Mozart.
> I think it to be a terrific discussion topic to say nothing of the fact
> that it is important for people in this business to know about the
> current state of thinking of these things. And it is we who should be
> at the center of that thinking, generating the knowledge, not recipients
> of the largesse of some scholarly Austrian pianist. But this topic, like
> all having to do with in-depth discussions of repertoire and how to
> play it, just doesn't get anywhere on this board. It is almost as if each
> of us has a vision about how that particular piece should or should
> not be played, and we are unwilling to become enculturated with any
> other perspective, particularly if it differs radically from ours. And
> even more so when the differences in our thinking become more
> polarized towards opposite ends of the interpretive spectrum.
>
> It is we who should be poking at conductors to suggest "Are you sure
> you want to do the clarinet version of the Concertante in light of new
> research on the subject?", as painful as that is. It is we who should
> be saying to conductors "Would you object if I improvised during the
> performance of the Mozart concerto?" It is we who should be pushing
> the envelope about all aspects of how to play our repertoire, and on
> what instrument, and with what performance practices.
>
> But if this list is doing much in that arena, I don't think I have seen
> much of it. Tell someone that his or her mouthpiece selection is a
> piece of junk and you have a flame on your hands. Tell someone that
> the reeds they love are nothing but dog turd, and death threats fly
> over cyberspace. But suggest that the way we all (me too, folks, I'm
> not immune) have played composition X for clarinet is all screwed up,
> and, after a few "Up yours, Irving!" we go back to discussing those
> elements that center on the mechanics of the instrument.
>
> Are we just another generation of players who are manipulated by the
> thinking process of others or are we a generation of innovative players
> who create movement on our own? Are we leaders in the musical
> world, or are we a bunch of followers? Does the clarinet playing world
> tolerate aberrant views? Is that what hurt Kell? Is that why so many
> players don't like Stolzman? Is that why Neidich is in trouble?
> Because so many of us are sheep instead of wolves?????
>
> >From my perspective, whenever a 10 year old kid comes on this board
> and says "I can't get a good sound on high G" we do a service to him
> and the music world by the time and effort we spend to get that kid
> on track. Equally important is it for us to speak of the significant
> issues of the repertoire on which so many of us make a living. And I
> mean in depth, not some superficial restatement of what is our
> unchanging view or what our teachers told us; i.e., don't tell me the
> facts, my mind is made up.
>
> Nowhere was that more clearly seen than in a comment made with
> respect to an element of the very brief discussion on the Sinfonie
> concertante. The matter had to do with architecture and I put
> forward what I thought were cogent, reasoned, rational arguments to
> defend the thesis that Mozart could not have done a certain thing. In
> effect I tried to be absolutely objective, divorced from the "It sounds
> good to me so it must be right" philosophy so often espoused by so
> many musicians. The response was iron hard in its position: the
> status quo is correct and the things suggested are probably not the
> case because Mozart could very well have decided to abandon all form,
> all practice, all structure, and all reason in order to obtain the
> architectural abortion that we call the Sinfonie Concertante (in its
> current form); i.e., don't tell me the facts, my mind is made up.
>
> Every one of us has a story to tell about how this or that older clarinet
> player - generally a well-respected but advanced-in-age, retired
> orchestral player or teacher - made some statement about how to play
> this or that solo. And we smile in our beard, barely hiding our
> contempt for such old-fashioned ideas because we recognize that the
> world knows a lot more than it did when this old fart was in his prime.
> Right?
>
> Well that is the way we are all behaving. Me too; i.e., as if there are
> no more worlds to conquer. Insofar as repertoire is concerned, we
> know it all. And don't try to change it. We know how these pieces go.
> We've played them a million times.
>
> Sound familiar?
>
> No flames please. I like you all (except for one guy in NJ whose wife
> has a terrific recipe for peanut butter cookies that he will not share
> with me, and he can go to hell).
> ====================================
> Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
> (leeson@-----.edu)
> ====================================
>