Klarinet Archive - Posting 000223.txt from 1997/06

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: Improvisation & A Clarinet Sound, Related Topics?
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 11:36:41 -0400

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.90
> Subj: Improvisation & A Clarinet Sound, Related Topics?

> 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?

Absolutely. You are a victim of contemporary history and a bit
of romanticism. As an 18th century musician you would not make
a living without the ability to improvise intelligently. When
the romantic era blossomed, classical-era music took on a special
and untouchable patina. People stopped doing it and the skill
has been lost for almost two centuries. That has resulted in the
freezing of attitudes which now state, as you have done, that
improvisation within Mozart is anatematic.

In effect, the attitude you take on this, while respectful, does not
have a historical leg on which to stand. No one in Mozart's day
played a solo work the same way twice, and no audience in Mozart's
day would have tolerated it had it happened.

>
> 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,

That is what your teachers told you classical tradition was. But it was
never classical tradition. It is a romantic perspective of classical
performancepractice.

> 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?

But it is not a game to be entered into casually. You have to know
a great deal to be able to do it effectively.

>
> 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!

For the life of me, I can't see the relationship between the two events. One
has to do with sonic palette and the other has to do with performance
practice. The two have hardly any overlap. Using the clarinet that is
called for is one issue. What you do to the melodic line when playing
is quite another.

What's the conflict?

>
> Jerry Korten
> Having an existential crisis in NYC
>
Take two asperin and call me in the morning. That will be $5, please.

>
> 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. >>
>
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================