Klarinet Archive - Posting 000354.txt from 1996/04

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.NET>
Subj: Re: Miscellaneous
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:18:33 -0400

At 2:14 PM 4/12/96, mlfl%vax.ox.ac.uk%UKACRL.BITNET@-----.EDU wrote:
>Jonathan C.
>I actually *agree* with everything you say except the bit about leaving more to
>the performer. "There is no way to 'discover'" .... - this is exactly what I
>meant. Why should deliberately ignoring or countermanding Baermann's markings
>lead to an *equally* valid interpretation to Baermann's? I am not trying to
>talk about slation, general dymanic levels and tempi.
>Roger Shilcock
>
>about articu;a

To my knowledge, Weber never gave his official imprimatur to the Baermann
score. Nor did he, to my knowledge, say anything to the contrary.

Certainly, the style of ornamentation, articulation and cadenza writing
that Baermann used should be considered authoritative, but that does not
mean his exact notations are the only way to play it.

Baermann did not write the piece. Weber did. So there is nothing wrong
with playing differently than Baermann. It should be played according to
Weber's written score with appropriate (based on the period and the
composer) stylistic ornamentation, articulation and other modifications.

Baermann's score is just one example of a valid rendering of the piece, and
certainly it gives us much insight into stylistic issues. There are an
infinite number of other valid (valid here means that it fits within the
stylistic constraints dictated by the composer and the performance practice
of the time) renderings as well.

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