Klarinet Archive - Posting 000374.txt from 1996/04

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Jennifer Hefferlin's comments on K. 622
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 13:30:28 -0400

I want to thank Jennifer for her touching and warm remarks regarding
her study of the Mozart concerto in St. Petersburg. I would hope
that every player feels the same love and affection for that work
as does she, and are also able to express it in the same clear way.

But (and there is always a but), she did make one point that caused
me to come to a screeching halt. She said that the concerto had
become sacred to her teacher and it is possible that she meant only
that the glory of that music was respected above all other concerti.
Unfortunately, I get very worried whenever a work becomes "sacred"
because that can also mean "frozen, unchangeable, immovable, unalterable,
and static."

Now Jenniefer said nothing that could tolerate this interpretation.
I'm just running scared. For whenever, in the past, I heard someone
make a remark that the Mozart concerto was sacred, then the possibility
of a new and different perspectice ceased to exist. There was only one
view: the view of the person who held the work as sacred.

And the issue is very practical. With the closer examination of the
autograph of the basset horn version of the concerto (even though
it is a fragment and breaks off before the movement is half way
thgough and is as sketchy as can be up to that point in any case),
the matter of a certain note began to be focused on. It occurs in
two places, once for the violin and once in the solo clarinet.

There is no doubt at all what Mozart wrote for the basset horn version
of the concerto, but in the absence of the autograph for the clarinet
version, there is no knowledge of what note was intended there. Is
is possible or even desirable to make a change in the clarinet version
corresponding to the basset horn version at that point.

I speak of m. 109, 6th note. Is it F or is it F-sharp?

Reasonable people can discuss this matter with great sincerity and
come to opposing views on what is meant. That's OK. That's just
the way things should be.

But when people consider this concerto as "sacred" they are unwilling
to discuss a change even as important, as imposing, and is well-
documented as this one under the guise that "the Mozart concerto must
not be changed -- it is sacred."

Now I am doing an unfair and almost unreasonable thing. Jennifer
simply used a single word and I have jumped on it and said, like
chicken little, "the sky is falling in!!"

Of all works that should be approached with friendliness, with
affection, and with good humor, K. 622 is the top of the list.
But with the view that it is "sacred" (read "unchangeable") is a
very dangerous attitude.

You all know that I am a bull about improvising in the Mozart
concerto. I don't think it is unchangeable. Drop a hat and
I'll change it in a minute, every time, for every performance.
To do it the same way twice in a row, is sacrilege.
I don't think the piece is sacred in the least. Of course,
I could be very wrong in my attitude about what to do when one
plays the work. But my respect, affection, and love for this
great work is as much as anyone's.

"Sacred" is not the word I would think any of us ever want to
use. And then again, I could be full of bananas.

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