Klarinet Archive - Posting 000289.txt from 1996/11

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Note from Craig Hill
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:56:16 -0500

I received the note below from Craig Hill in Australia who comments on
my use of the word "rough" when speaking about the character of the
surface of the music achieved through tonguing as contrasted with
slurring.

I have a comment at the end.

> From: MX%"hutchill@-----.79
> Subj: Re: Articulation in Mozart

> Regarding Mozart's articulation for the clarinet Dan Leesson wrote:
>
> >The two big Mozart works, K. 581 and K. 622 have no autographs to
> >consult so editors are at liberty to do whatever they want. Most
> >such editors overedit, and, worse, with no sense of what constituted
> >Mozart's woodwind articulation styles.
> >
> >Of the works that exist in Mozart's hand, the Kegelstat trio, the
> >Gran Partita, the two wind octets, the piano/wind quintet, the
> >3 piano concerti that use clarinets, etc., the rule is this:
> >
> > less is more!
> >
> >Mozart was very sparing in his use of articulation symbols for
> >rapid passage work. This has been taken to mean that the player
> >was at liberty to do what s/he wished. The more obvious answer -
> >that the surface texture of music of that era was more rough than
> >the later romantic era - is generally ignored.
>
> I am sure I am not the only person who would take issue with this last
> assertion that more articulation equals roughness! None of the well known
> eighteeth century sources (Quanz, C.P.E. Bach, Leopold Mozart) or writers of
> early clarinet methods(Backoffen, Lefevre) mention anything that could be
> taken to have this meaning - not that they would nesecarily have perceived
> as rough then what we would today of course.
>
> In fact when Mozart was pleased with a performance he reported that " It
> went as smoothly as oil", a comparison that is still used in Germany today.
>
> Leopold Mozart's description of the attack of a note is most revealing -
>
> "Every tone, even the strongest, has a small even if barely evident;
> softness at the beginning of the stroke; for otherwise it would be no tone
> but only an unpleasant and unintelligible noise. This same softness must be
> heard at the end of the stroke." Violinschule, 1756 translated E.
> Knocker.
>
> Mozarts violin concerti, like the clarinet concerto, contain many semiquaver
> (sixteenth note) passages which have no slurs indicated, which good
> violinists manage to execute all separately bowed but without roughness.
> There appears no reason not to expect the same from the clarinet.
>
> >Worse. Lots of
> >tonguing is avoided both because it is hard to do and because it
> >sounds less pleasant to the romantic ear than slurred articulations.
>
> Our present day mouthpieces *do* make this hard. They are, in the main,
> designed to give a large dynamic range, flexibility, and palette of colours.
> The generally smaller classical mouthpiece may not have all these advantages
> but it does articulate beautifully. On our modern instruments slurs *do*
> sound better - they probably would to any ears - classical, romantic or
> otherwise! Because articlation of semiquavers on the modern clarinet is
> often unacceptably coarse, at best sounding like a precision laser but
> without warmth and too much "tu" in the sound; at the other end of the
> spectrum a sentitive player tries not to play so short and the effect is of
> little dumplings! It's just a fact of life - you can't have everything in a
> mouthpiece! So why not slur a bit more if you are using modern instruments,
> quite a bit less if you happen to be playing on a classical set-up. Nothing
> is served by doggedly tonguing every note if it doesn't have that happy
> bubbling sound Mozart *really* would have expected.
>
> Rough bubbles...now thats an oxymoron!
>
Craig is quite right. The word "rough" does not describe what it is
I am trying to picture with words.

The traditional reference to a line played without interruptions
(i.e., slurred) is "smooth" and Craig uses the German "smooth as
oil." So we are in agreement about a word-picture of what is
attempting to be achieved when no articulation is used.

Well, what happens when that articulation - and that character -
is achieved in a lesser degree by not slurring (i.e., tonguing)?
The character of the line becomes "less smooth" and the word
I used to describe that is "rough," though perhaps "rougher"
might have been a better choice.

Certainly, by my choice of words I was not intending to give a
negative or pejorative impression to that kind of articulation.
And it is true that there are players who can, with the right
mouthpiece and lots of practice, produce something very
melifluous even when tonguing. But no matter how effectively
it is done, tonguing a passage produces a surface texture of
the music that differs in very objective ways from the surface
texture of the same passage when slurred.

But I still wind up at the same conclusion. The surface texture
of many rapid passages of Mozart's clarinet music is left
deliberately "rougher" (read, "less smooth") than if the passage
were slurred and this effect is what I believe was intended
by the composer. And I don't say this because I like or dislike
it, only because I have seen enough Mozart autographs to realize
that there is a consistent pattern to the way he wrote for the
instrument in rapid passagework.

And that was the original question, which had to do with
articulation in Mozart.

And Craig is right that "rough" is too negative a word. Perhaps
more and less textured is less severe, but it also (for me)
has less imagery.

Just like "dark" and "light" are essentially meaningless when
referring to clarinet sound.

Yours for a more picturesque and accurate speach when referring
to clarinet things,

Dan Leeson
>
>
>
>
> Craig Hill
> 163 Bambra Rd
> Caulfield Sth
> Victoria 3162
> Australia
> Tel/Fax: + 61 3 9532 9703
>
====================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
(leeson@-----.edu)
====================================