Klarinet Archive - Posting 000211.txt from 1997/10

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: clarinet works
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:54:52 -0400

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.89
> Subj: Re: clarinet works

> I think I'll just throw in my 2 cents on this subject.
>
> Although I like many composers (Brahms, Weber, and especially Mendelson), I
> would pick Mozart's clarinet concerto as the quintessential clarinet piece. My
> personal, purely subjective reasons are as follows:
>
> 1. Mozart's works were (I believe) the earliest to effectively showcase the
> clarinet.
>
> 2. When well played by a true master, my reaction is "what beautiful clarinet
> music" rather than "what great technique". In other words, it showcases the
> clarinet itself rather than the clarinet player.
>
> 3. I find the adagio movement to be the greatest stress reliever in the
> world. When I listen to it, I can feel all my tension just drain away and my
> spirit is filled with a deep sense of peace.
>
> 4. In both the first and third movements, there is a light hearted
> cheerfulness that I have always found appealing.
>
> 5. When I am playing the piece myself, I love the arpeggio runs that Mozart
> used in this piece (that's because I just happen to like playing arpeggios in
> general).
>
> 6. The adagio is probably the most difficult thing to play well. It is so
> exposed and MUST have exquisite tone to really be effective. In fast pieces,
> minor mistakes don't show but in something like the adagio there is no play to
> hide.
>
> True the work is probably played too often and recorded too much but still I
> could listen to it fairly often without tiring of it.
>
> Dee Hays
> Canton, SD
> deerich@-----.net

A very intelligent and interesting posting, but one that attempts the
impossible, which tries to put in words the emotion: "Why I like this
piece."

The reasons why this work (or for that matter any work) creates in the
listener a feeling of awe at its craft are so complex and different
from person to person that we often try to explain it in technical
ways; i.e., "the second movement is beautiful because it has really
great arpeggios" or "because it is so sad" (or happy), or "because it
lies so well under the fingers." But in the final analysis, words
simply fail to explain the touching of our soul by a heavenly finger.
And certainly, attempts to explain the wondrous effect it has on
our lives by talking technical, fail utterly. In effect, I suggest
that it is somewhat like praying. It is very, very personal and
any attempt to describe a dialog with God in some technical sense
would be equally doomed to failure.

In the absence of that ability, we try and speak of the mechanics of
the work without emotion; i.e.,"the sf on the 5th note of measure
162 should be played with an intensity exactly twice as great
as the preceding and following notes." And that kind of thing
fails too, mostly because it avoids any effort to be emotional
in favor of pure science. It's a hard problem.

Mostly what one hears from teachers when they instruct a student
on how to play this work is "Play that passage this way" and
then it is demonstrated, often very beautifully. But all that is
happening is the teacher telling the student how he (the teacher)
likes it to be played. The students then gets the impressions
that this is how Mozart (or Weber or Brahms or Stravinsky or
Bartok) wanted it played and that is how information is passed
from generation to generation.

So, with respect to Dee Hays really interesting note, let me
add a perspective to chew on when speaking about the Mozart
concerto which I am very glad he is favorably inclined to. This
is an opinion, I state that now.

In the last 30 years (with only about 3 or 4 exceptions) every
recorded performance of K. 622 has been mechanically wonderful
but with almost no individuality; i.e., you could unplug one
great player, insert another, and few could tell the difference.
In effect, I am suggesting that that we haven't played that
work in a way that Mozart or his contemporaries would have agreed
is appropriate since maybe 1800. We've been marching up the
down staircase with respect to that work, and what we hear when
we hear the very best performance is a shadow of what we should
be hearing: mechanical perfection with very questionable even
occasionally major errors in execution of an 18th century piece
with a 20th century perspective.

Well, that should get the list a little awakened!

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