Klarinet Archive - Posting 000093.txt from 1998/07

From: "Steven J Goldman, MD" <gpsc@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Mozart and the V word
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 18:37:21 -0400

Dan, I always take your criticisms seriously, but I think you read too much
into my last comment (it was put there more to distance me from the more
radical early music practitioners who harshly condemn any performance style
that does not pass their authenticity tests - usually all but their own).
The key phrase is "as long as you understand what your doing." This means
that the interpretation should be well thought out and emotion or affect
should make musical sense. And, the music should always come before the ego
(I wish). However, the performer in a modern interpretation should not feel
bound to use only those conventions that were thought appropriate in the
1790's. Now, my personal preference of pre-romantic music is with "original"
instruments, played by first rank players knowledgeable about historical
performing practices (Anthony Pey is just one example that comes to mind),
or modern instruments played by people who have a working knowledge of the
old instruments and what they could do. Yet, it's not every ones cup of tea,
and I accept this. Remember, playing Mozart as Brahms has a long tradition,
and there are those who prefer it that way. While I don't think it does the
music justice, it is a viable alternative and I don't condemn it (just don't
listen to it or play it that way). Now, taken to an extreme it will ruin the
music, but so would many an interpretation taken to the extreme.

Finally, in my defense, I was not cloaking myself in the dead when I stated
that 18th c. composers would agree. I was following the advise of CPE Bach,
L. Mozart, J. Quantz, and many lesser known instrumentalists/theorists.
Without subjecting the list to a long didactic monologue, emotion (affect)
was of tremendous importance to these men, and there were many subtitles
that have been lost in the last 250 years. Also, they did not differentiate
between newly written pieces and "old" works (old was 25 to 50 years). If an
old work was played, "modern" performing practices were used. You can get a
feel for some of this by looking at the differences between Handle's Messiah
and Mozart's performing version of it. Therefore, I think my statement is
consistent with what we know these gentlemen thought.

-----Original Message-----
From: leeson@-----.edu]On Behalf Of
Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu
Subject: RE: [kl] Mozart and the V word

I believe this to be a thoughtful note with some very interesting
elements to it, but one point is, in my opinion, rife with error.
See below........

>
> Finally, there is nothing wrong with playing a piece in a manner
> inconsistent with the way it was performed at the original concerts, just
as
> long as you understand what you are doing, and are not pretending to be
> playing it as composer x would have imagined it. In a non early music
> performance, you should play the piece in the any manner that most allows
> you to project the emotion you intend to the audience. No good 18th
century
> composer would disagree with you on that.

There is a great deal wrong with playing a piece in a manner
inconsistent with the way it was performed at the original concerts.
In fact, if you execute in this fashion, you do not understand what you
are doing.

A piece of music is not a collection of notes that can be executed
in any way that pleases the performer. A piece of music has
historical context and cannot be divorced from that context. That
context includes, but is not limited to, performance practices,
interpretation of markings that are consistent with their definition
at the time of the work's composition, and something called "style."
To play a Mozart work in a Brahmsian style is to compliment neither
the work nor the style. It's a gimmick, a show off element, but not
intelligent music making.

People who play a piece "in any manner that most allows you to project
the emtotion you intend to the audience" generally have no idea what
it is they are doing with an instrument in their hands. Their attitude
is ego-driven and reverses the roles of composer and performer in terms
of importance. What the performer thinks is not as important as what
s/he knows. And the slightest knowledge of performance practice mandates
that a performance divorced from the practices of the epoch in which
the work was written is doomed to artistic and musical failure.

To suggest that any 18th century composer would agree with such a
questionable thesis signs your view with someone else's name? How
do you know what an 18th century composer would agree to? It is
generally the case that the less one knows about performance practices,
the less the importance given to them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional commands, e-mail: klarinet-help@-----.org
For other problems, e-mail: klarinet-owner@-----.org