Klarinet Archive - Posting 000049.txt from 1997/07

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: Jerry Korten on improvisation
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 07:57:49 -0400

I very much enjoyed reading Jerry's long and thoughtful comments
about improvisation. There are two items in his note on which
I wish to comment.

"Clearly the performer must be a contemporary of the composer in
order to understand and successfully execute embellishment or
improvisation."

I couldn't agree less. To assert that only musicians contemporary
to a specific era are really capable of executing music with the
performance practices of that era is equivalent to suggesting
that no living person can ever be successful in the performance
of any music written 30 or more years earlier.

I am also immediately alerted to a revolutionary statement (such
as Jerry's, but in fact anyone's) that begins with the word
"clearly." That is the psychospeak equivalent of "I'm not really
sure but I'll throw it out and maybe it will get by."

End of item one.

Item two comes at the conclusion of Jerry's comments. After
being very supportive of the idea of improvisation, and citing
a half dozen references in clear recognition of the importance
of the practice, he then makes a statement that appears to
reverse himself: "I guess I don't see the justification for using
improvisation in our time in the representation of classical
music. If we are guessing our audience won't tolerate it
then why are we doing this? If we are displaying our own
compositional prowess wouldn't it be better not to do so on
other's coat tails and stand on our own?"

The performance of any music -- from any period -- requires
a knowledge of and adherance to the performance practices of
that period. We don't play Beethoven as we play Bartok, and
we don't play Mozart as we play Gershwin. If you don't believe
that to be an accurate statement, then try playing K. 581
in the same style and with the same performance practices
(particularly those related to rhythm) as "Walking the Dog."

The bottom line here is that we are all prisoners of performance
practice. We have to know something about it in order to
represent properly the music that we are payed to represent.
For Jerry to say that one practice is important while another is
beyond our reach simply because he doesn't see any real
justification for doing it, strikes me as disingenuous.

The real reason (and I should not be so dictatorial either,
but I am trying to make a point so the reasoning is extreme)
Jerry takes this position is because improvisation as a
performance practice is such a radical departure from today's
understanding of how to play Mozart's music. But I suggest
that it is today's understanding that is flawed, not the
assertion that improvisation needs to be revived as a practice.

In effect, Jerry has a cart and a horse. Today he moves
ahead by having the horse push the cart. He gets to where
he is going, to be sure. So someone comes along and says,
"Why not have the horse pull the cart instead of pushing it?"
And Jerry's response is "I see no reason to change the
contemporary way of moving along in a cart. Even if it
is true that, in years past, people went forward in that
fashion, that mechanism is no longer applicable to the
engineering of today's transportation needs."

Either one accepts that knowledge of performance practices
is an important part of the kit bag of every player's
set of working tools, or one either does not accept this
or accepts it only to the extent of his or her personal
beliefs and says "While the overture in the French style
was fine for Louis XIV, we don't have to do that any longer
when playing French overtures, because there is no longer
a king on the throne of France."

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