Klarinet Archive - Posting 000189.txt from 1997/07

From: Jrykorten@-----.com
Subj: Ornamentation, Improvisation and Cadenzas, long.
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 10:32:21 -0400

I have spent some time learning about improvisation in music of the class=
ical

period. I must admit, my lack of involvement with music on an academic le=
vel
for=20
the past 15 years has rendered me completely ignorant of the practice. I =
do
try to=20
read a biography of a composer now and then, but have not been reading=20
anything related to the topic of classical improvisation. So Klarinet was=
a
true=20
resource for me in alerting me to this more recent study of performing
styles. I=20
discussed thread this with my erstwhile piano teacher Bruce Brubaker - wh=
o=20
teaches a class in musicology at Julliard and it turns out they were on t=
he
same=20
cyberwavelength at the same time as Robert Levin was just sitting in on h=
is
class=20
speaking of this same issue! I recommend interested Klarinetters to the
chapter=20
written by Levin in "Performance Practice Music After 1600", W.W. Norton =
&
Co.=20
the chapter - Instrumental Ornemantation, Improvisation and Cadenzas.

I think the topic of improvisation is more complicated than "they did it,=
it
was=20
expected, so we should do it." To paraphrase a previous thread.

Classical music was written - (according to my interpretation of this
chapter) with=20
the assumption that performers of the day would ornament or embellish=20
repeated sections as either 1) this was understood because composers wro=
te
in=20
short hand (not necessarily spelling out every detail, the performer will
know=20
what to do if a theme repeats) or 2) that the practice of the day was so=20
widespread that the performer was expected to embellish whether or not th=
e=20
composer liked.

There are very good examples of the types of ornamentation, embellishment=
or=20
improvisation that composers expected as Mozart wrote out in plain form a=
nd=20
embellished form the same composition. Leading me personally to agree tha=
t=20
many times composers were using a short hand in published manuscripts. A=20
knowledgeable performer of the time would know how to work the "changes" =
or=20
the embellishments of the repeated sections. (See Levin=92s article for m=
any
good=20
examples.)

That performers were expected to embellish can be seen most easily in the=
=20
willingness of publishers to print pieces with "cadenza by=85" A Beethov=
en=20
cadenza for a Mozart piano concerto is sited by Levin in particular. This
practice,=20
I believe, is also tied to the notion that performers of that day were
typically=20
composers as well, and if they presented another composer=92s work they l=
iked
to=20
interpret it with their own signature. A statement to the audience that t=
he=20
performer is also a creative artist, while still acknowledging the creati=
ve=20
accomplishment of a colleague, the composer.

Clearly the performer must be a contemporary of the composer in order to=20
understand and successfully execute embellishment or improvisation.

But the current critical voice of Levin goes on to state with what
trepidation the=20
embellisher/improviser must tread as even the Beethoven cadenza is way ou=
t of

character and a poor fit for a Mozart piece. Sounds lousy, in other words=
.=20
Granted Beethoven was next generation compared to Mozart. But his=20
compositional prowess is still held in awe. Those of us with lesser talen=
t
should=20
beware.

Further reading reveals that the practice of improvisation grew so out of
hand=20
that many composer=92s of the day grew scornful of what performers were d=
oing,=20
noting that they had destroyed the work entirely (Clementi [Levin]) or ev=
en=20
negotiating contracts for performance with guarantees that no improvisati=
on=20
would occur in the performance of their work (Rossini [Brubaker via Levin=
])!=20

Brubaker related to me how Levin referred to the situation as - "it was
dixieland=20
out there!"

So we have a performing practice that was expected by composers at the ti=
me.=20
And a performer of the time who required a musical background of his/her=20
contemporaries which allowed them to fully participate in the process (wi=
th=20
attempts by next generation composers failing badly). And we in the 20th
century=20
are left to tease apart whether music should be played as written (probab=
ly
not=20
always) or improvised upon (probably with poor results as Beethoven Himse=
lf=20
demonstrated according to an arbiter of current taste). I am left to wond=
er -
Is it=20
possible to fairly represent a composition from that period?

The other half of the discussion that has been completely left out of the
equation=20
so far (again in my opinion, and from my limited study so far) is the
audience of=20
that time compared to the audience of our times. I am sure that in an era
before=20
the radio, before the ubiquitous performing bands, before the media, the =
ear
of=20
the common audience member and the way that they processed music was far=20
different from today. To illustrate, a book on contemporary music (publis=
hed
at=20
the turn of the century) describes Ravel=92s compositions as "filled with
tortuous=20
harmonies." Yet today these compositions are a soothing balm compared to=20
even Bartok (more related to Ravel@-----.

What effect did the powers of attention of the classical audience have on=
the

composer of the day? All of this improvisation - was it late stage practi=
ce?
Had=20
audiences already evolved through the process of listening to the Sonata =
form

when they easily tolerated repeats as they could concentrate the second t=
ime=20
through with the same freshness as the first time through? It certainly
stretches=20
my limits to take a repeat such as that in the second section of the firs=
t=20
movement Haydn@-----. It really is a chance to study it on=
e more

time, but hardly a smooth compositional flow to these 20th century ears. =
Had
late=20
stage classical audiences developed an impatient ear?

With improvisation are we seeing the "MTV" effect of upping the pace of
change=20
in order to maintain the attention span of the audience? Even Bach in his=
=20
keyboard method admonishes the performer not to stray from the written no=
te=20
(with a pretty funny statement at that). The tendency was obviously there
from=20
an early point in time.

While I am fascinated by the topic of improvisation, and do not doubt tha=
t it
had=20
its place, I@-----. A h=
yping
up for an=20
even bored audience that was getting a little too much of the same thing?=
=20

My own choice would be to skip the performance if I=92ve heard or played =
it too

often, or if I anticipate the audience cannot tolerate it. I would, if pa=
id
to produce=20
yet another recording of Mozart=92s Clarinet Concerto, probably be forced=
to
used=20
embellishment, as a marketing tool, that is maintain the interest of the
audience=20
or differentiate myself in the market place. But if it comes to this leve=
l of

ossification, I think it=92s time to give it a rest and start performing
something else=20
for a while.

I guess I don=92t see the justification for using improvisation in our ti=
me in
the=20
representation of classical music. If we are guessing our audience wont
tolerate=20
it then why are we doing this? If we are displaying our own compositional=
=20
prowess wouldn=92t it be better not to do so on other=92s coat tails and =
stand on
our=20
own?

Jerry Korten
NYC

PS - Please commission a work for Clarinet from a composer you know.