Klarinet Archive - Posting 000402.txt from 1997/05

From: "Michael D. Moors" <mdmoors@-----.us>
Subj: Re: Re[2]: 20th century clarinet
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 09:34:28 -0400

At 09:10 AM 5/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
It seems to me that the definitiveness (if there is such a word) of
>Goodman's performance is irrelevant to the original question. Nobody has
>ever made the assertion that Stadler or Muhlfeld created the definitive
>interpretations of the Mozart or Brahms.

I wasn't referring to the recording being definitive (at least
intentionally). I was trying to make the point that Goodman at least
inspired the piece so Copland must of had his sound on his mind when he
made it. There are many great recordings of it. Shifrin and Stoltzman
come to mind immediately. I was trying to make a point that it isn't
productive to be critical of one person's performance. Especially when the
piece was written for his playing. I am more of the mind to listen to as
many fine recordings as I can get my hands on an learn from them all. An
attitude that has developed with experience. It is healthier to be positive.

>It seems to me that the point, as a number of others have noted, is that
>the clarinet in question served as a catalyst of inspiration to some
>composer and that as a result the rest of us have benefited by an addition
>to the repertoire.
>
>Barry
>

I could't agree more!

Best regards and thanks for a good discussion.

Mike Moors

>I'm not particularly fond of the Copland Concerto and haven't actually
>heard Goodman's recording of the work, but have an opinion non-the-less!
>Just because music was written for (or by) a given artist doesn't
>necessarily ensure that a definitive performance results.
>Stravinsky, for example, conducted recordings of many of his own works.
> These recordings are not generally regarded as the better recordings of
> his
>works.
>Goodman may well have made the definitive recording of the Copland for all
>I know. Whether or not he did (for most listeners), why would you assume
>that his verson could not be challenged, simply because it was written for
>him.
> After all, we are talking about art, not whether 2 + 2 @-----.
> Don Yungkurth (DYungkurth@-----.com)
>
>
>
>