Klarinet Archive - Posting 000333.txt from 1997/06

From: "Cadenza " <Cadenza@-----.com>
Subj: RE: Mozart, K. 622: Oh No!! Not again...
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:42:10 -0400

Until recently I always found the clarinet concerto to be less interesting
than the late piano concertos but now I'm not sure. I do feel that the first
movt. and to a degree the last movt. rambles a bit. The character of the
melodies of 622 is not as well defined as the piano concerti. I would have
loved a more militant section in 622 with Mozart's typical quarter followed by
dotted eighth and sixteenth rhythms (He does this in the majority of the piano
concerti).

However at this point (it is amazing how one's perspective changes with age) I
find it a much more complete work. Problems that seem to be inherent with
performances are an overly fast last movt. and overly slow (although this is
less a problem now than used to be) middle movt. Incidentally one of the
worst versions is the Marcellus/Szell, at least for tempo in the slow movt.
Just my opinion.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-klarinet@-----.us On Behalf Of Dan Leeson:
LEESON@-----.edu
Subject: Re: Mozart, K. 622: Oh No!! Not again...

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.29
> Subj: Re: Mozart, K. 622: Oh No!! Not again...

> Craig E. Countryman wrote:
>
> > Well, I just had to comment that after our fruitful discussion that I
> > heard Mozart's Clarinet Concerto on Public Radio tonight. I must admit
> > that while to had the regular beauty of any Mozart piece it was a little
> > boring. [...]
>
> By chance the other night, I stumbled upon a performance (from disc)
> that I'd not heard before. It had very little ornamentation, and the
> `cadenzas' (at the pause points) came to very little.

Robin, there are no cadenzas in K. 622 and the fact that you
refer to them as such (as do most clarinet players - this is not
a slam at you) shows how much of what was required of 18th
century clarinet players has come down to the 20th century.

Those pause points that you refer to are a specific request for a
performer to do a specific thing. And if one does not know how
these pause points are identified or what it is that one is
supposed to do at those points, the performance becomes less and
less attuned to music of late 1700.

>
> I found it revelatory.
>
> > I think the reason many people avoid it is because it does take effort,
> > and extra study of his other various works. However, the time is well
> > worth it to breath new life into his music. Certainly it is beautiful
> > music, but its true beauty is only shown when it is played as it should
> > be: with spontaneous improvisation in EVERY performance.
>
> And I think that one can get a very long way playing Mozart's
> (supposed) notes as they appear on the page. In the right hands,
> ornamentation, improvisation and whatever can be great. But they're
> *not* *necessary*.
>
This is opinion based, to a great extent, on personal prejudice
and lack of information about music of this period. It does not
necessarily represent fact.

> We're listening to interpretations of a classic. When performed in a
> less-than-inspired way (whether by a poor performer, or by a good one
> on an off day), we can come away feeling let down, or even bored.

True, but the boredom can also come from the inherent repetitious
nature of classical form in unornamented fashion.

>
> But, listen to that classic performed by a great performer on the top
> of his/her form, and I come away walking on air. In whatever
> tradition that performer plays...
>
> Robin Fairbairns

How do you know that you might not walk away on even softer air
if you heard a well-crafted but ornamented version of the same work?

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