Klarinet Archive - Posting 000133.txt from 1998/07

From: Alexis <jisa@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] Reeds, and Vibrato (it's not a dirty word, after all)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 20:15:39 -0400

Reeds:
Working with reeds is something that I personally think should be
introduced to
clarinet students much earlier than it is. It may not make a huge
difference at
the introductory level, but it will make the students accustomed to working
with reeds and perhaps result in them being more educated about choosing and
working with reeds as they progress. If the kids are "break a reed a day"
students, then it's probably better to wait. As to brand preference: it's a
matter of taste, finances, and the emcouchure development and personal habits
of the student. Regarding plastic reeds: maybe kids wouldn't play on nasty,
moldy reeds if they knew that it was much better not to.
Dee wrote:
<<The backs and fronts of these reeds [Ricos] are extremely rough and
unpleasant and they need a lot of polishing before they are acceptable (or
am I
the only one that notices this roughness? And can't anyone else taste the
chemical residue in these?).>>
I never noticed either, actually. All my old Ricos that I still have seem as
smooth as any other reeds I've used. All reeds have a funny taste to start out
with and I don't think Ricos are worse than, say, Vandorens.

Vibrato.
Wow. An interesting and heated discussion. All started by a few innocent
questions. It may be getting a bit out of hand, though.
While it is clear that it is irresponsible to disregard the rules of
performance practice, it is not at all clear in which ways one might slightly
deviate without offending. I wouldn't start a trill in Mozart on the written
note, and out of preference, I don't use vibrato anywhere in his works.
BUT! If
I heard somebody, in K. 622, add just a touch of vibrato to a long note in the
slow movement, I wouldn't think that was inappropriate. I'm not going to talk
about what any composer might have said, or what the literature says,
because I
haven't any idea. But I don't think that tasteful, light, sparing, vibrato is
truly inappropriate.
We perform in order to please the audience and to please ourselves. It would
please me to know that the way in which I performed was largely (and smally)
consistent with the performance practice of the correct historical and musical
period, and if I played well technically and in terms of sound. It would
probably please the audience if I played well also, and it might please them
and me if I added just a few dramatic techniques that were perhaps not
used, or
used differently, in the musical period, such as vibrato. If it pleases others
to perform in different ways--Dan would probably be far more true to the
period
style than I would be, for instance--that's wonderful. Nobody should play a
piece exactly the same way, and nobody has suggested that we should. Just that
there should be some things done in common in performances of a certain piece.
<<mandates that a performance divorced from the practices of the epoch in
which
the work was written is doomed to artistic and musical failure.>>
Ahem. What exactly is "failure" in this context? See above. Also regarding
Michael Kolos' point on the matter: he is right, today's listeners are not
those of the 18th century, and they are generally not as educated about the
music. Whether they should be or not is a moot (arguable) point. We are trying
to please them as well as ourselves. And if they are--great. Play for them.
Regarding the questions, I too would like to know the answers. I'm curious.

Tristan said:
<<I apologize for starting this s#!t up again... >>
It's not s#!t. It's an interesting discussion, and it was bound to come from
any comment like that :).

Robert wrote:
<<What horsesh-t the first correspondant has written. >>
This is offensive, and also far more inappropriate than vibrato in the slow
movement of K.622.
And also wrote:
<<If you do this, no one will care if. . .your trills begin on the upper or
lower neighbor...>>
No one who? Both of my clarinet teachers and all three of my flute teachers,
for a start.

Mario wrote:
<<On the other hand you've forgotten that this list is composed of
musician of many levels and you could have been a little more tolerate in your
criticism. >>
I agree. Being only of intermediate level myself, and not having time to
devote
my life to music, I try to do my best based on my own judgement and knowledge
and what my teachers tell me.

Dan again:
<<And if you start reading the literature now, you might by 102 when you get
about half way through it.>>
See my point just above.
and:
<<Insofar as music coming from the heart, that is the kind of remark
that is heard from an amateur on the fringe of the music business.
It is a hollywood understand of music. Music comes from the head
and the heart has little to do with it.>>
I've actually been struck something close to speechless for once in my life.
[[pause]] Music is made for performance. Any performance, not just Hollywood,
requires interpretation. This is something done with the head, certainly. But
music played without the "heart" (emotions) is just notes. Well-executed,
well-phrased, correctly performed notes. But notes nonetheless. And I've heard
it over and over (and over). My teachers say: play with emotion. Play with
your
heart. They don't mean I ought to leave my head backstage, because I'd have a
hard time playing without it. But if my heart is not involved, I sound dry and
uninterested. I love music, and if that doesn't show through, than nothing I'm
doing is of much good anyway. I feel strongly about that.
Dan again (about Chris):
<<You are assuming that music played with an intellectual perspective must,
of necessity, be dull. I don't assume that. On the contrary, I think
that it is the intellect that is the source of music, and not something
as ephemeral and incomprehensible as the heart. There are not two organs
in the body to be actived in an either/or fashion: one the heart for good
things and one the mind for boring things.>>
I don't believe Chris is assuming anything of the sort. Don't put your
words in
his mouth if you don't Robert's and Steve's in yours. want I think he's trying
to make the point that I just tried to make: music played without getting the
emotions involved--love of music, love of the piece, feelings-perhaps sadness,
or joy-that the piece evokes--is not really music, or is boring music.

I know that by now I've said too much. But I've said what I believe and I'm
standing by it.
Respectfully,
Alexis

ps. Sorry for the long post. I did try to cut out anything not directly
relevant.

------------ :-) --------------- :-) --------------- :-) ------------ :-)
--------------
"After silence, that which comes closest to expressing the
inexpressible is music."
--Aldous Huxley

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