Klarinet Archive - Posting 000360.txt from 1997/06

From: Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: Opinions sought re classical improvisations
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:51:34 -0400

Dan wrote:

> Some very good and thoughtful people have come right out on the
> list and said, "I don't believe in improvisation during performances
> of K. 622." I have no objections to anyone holding a belief that
> is different from mine, and to whatever degree. But I need more
> than simply a stake in the ground; i.e., "I don't believe in doing it,
> and that's that."

<aol>
Me too.
</aol>

I'm not sure, but perhaps this remark was aimed at me. Just in case,
let me reiterate my position: I don't believe that I will inevitably
find a performance of K622 boring if it doesn't include
ornamentation.

I understand (in so far as one who can't really do it himself _can_
understand) the reasoning behind the assertion that ornamentation has
to be a part of `informed' performances of K622. I also know that
essentially no-one did it in the '50s when I was growing up and
learning to love the work. Since it became a common part of
performance practice, I have heard some revelatory ornamented
performances. I have also heard some dull ornamented performances,
just as I have (all through my life) heard dull un-ornamented
performances.

I believe K622 _can_ be lovable without ornamentation. I accept the
reasoning behind Dan's assertion that Mozart would have intended that
it be ornamented. But I don't want (for example) to rule out the
historic performances that didn't ornament, on the simple ground of
that lack. I learnt to love music in an environment very different
from today's; I still love the same music and I still get a kick, once
in a while, from listening to pre-WW2 performances that formed my
listening pleasure before I was rich enough to buy my own LPs (and my
father deigned to own a player that would play the ;-).

Robin