Klarinet Archive - Posting 000239.txt from 1996/04

From: "Jonathan A. Cohler" <cohler@-----.NET>
Subj: Re: Performance Lattitude
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:55:22 -0400

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Ken Cook wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
> I really like the idea of interpretation within the context the
> composer has constructed. That gives me the opportunity to be more
> than a robot, and keeps Mozart from sounding like Shoenberg.
>
> What about advances in mechanism. Surely the ability to slur between
> certain notes, which before was not possible and is now, would be an
> example of a hair too fine to split. Wouldn't articulation in this
> context be an example of the performer using the tools available to
> him, and not be a deviation of the composers intention.
>
> My comment about the audience being a part of the equation was
> unclear. The audience should be considered when choosing *what* to
> play, not *how* to play.
>

Certainly, articulation that has not been explicitly specified by the
composer leaves us some latitude. But it is not always true that no
markings means no specified articulation. In most instances, no marking
specifically means to tongue. Some composers were less vigilant than
others in specifying all the markings, however.

Mozart was rather specific. Weber was not. Therefore, taking more
liberties with articulation in Weber makes more sense.

-------------
Jonathan cohler
cohler@-----.net