Klarinet Archive - Posting 000216.txt from 1997/06

From: Jrykorten@-----.com
Subj: Improvisation & A Clarinet Sound, Related Topics?
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:42:50 -0400

Wow! I'm having a crisis of identity.

I will admit to having a rather conservative standpoint on performance. That
a composition is a work of creative genius - not to be tinkered with - and
interpreted by the performer within the bounds of musical expression. A piece
written for A clarinet should be performed as such. A piece written for Oboe
and transcribed for Clarinet must be presented as such (and apologized for,
but given the paucity of great compositions for Clar. I am all in favor of
borrowing when it feels good :-) ). Likewise to perform a piece with notes
not written, or just completely different would also be unprofessional or
outrage! A performer has a different role than that of composer.

But, has the way music performance evolved (as a separate act from
composition) biased me?

As recently as the early 1900's great performers were also usually great [or
capable] composers (Rachmaninoff, Rubenstein - the previous). At earlier
times, let's say the 1700's and early 1800's, I'm not sure if anybody would
conceive of a performer who wasn't a composer (Brahms, Chopin, Beethoven...).
My understanding of the time was that certain performers were admired because
of their compositions more than their technique (but I may be wrong).

But with modern times brings specialization. Gone are the days of Benjamin
Franklin
a great scientist of his time who could be a physicist, naturalist and a
doctor. Not to mention musician and art lover. Likewise the degree of
technical development in the musical world has forced most to choose whether
they want to become a performer or a composer. Although I'm sure they still
exist. Today we have a creative artist (composer) and an interpretive artist
(performer).

So here I am with my classical training that says "Play what is written,
these are the areas where you can be creative...." and people talking heresy
about "Sure they improvised during Mozart's time...go ahead live a little!"
What am I taking so seriously then? Is there no firm ground?

If the same person says it is necessary to use the same Clarinet that the
composer specified - period, and that the notes written are not cast in stone
as it was typical to improvise during performance. Where is the justification
to adhere to anything. Help me out a bit folks!

Jerry Korten
Having an existential crisis in NYC

In a message dated 97-06-15 22:22:39 EDT, Olive Leeson writes:

<<
SNIP
... Music of the period to which
we are referring (and only that period, I should add) was definitely
created with the assumption that it was going to be improvised upon
during performance. The fact that you have a thing against doing it
simply speaks to how far we have gone away from the original
intentions of a composer of the late 18th century. Because if you
were a colleague of Stadler and performing ca. 1785, and did not
do this thing, then you would have put an extreme restriction on
your career, just as if today you could not transpose. It was a
required skill then. >>

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org