Klarinet Archive - Posting 000412.txt from 1998/10

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: [kl] 1234/2341
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:50 -0400

I see that in the introduction to "The Upbeat Baermann Melodic Scales
and Arppeggios", David Blumberg writes the following:

> The great Woodwind teacher Marcel Tabuteau taught melodic direction of
> playing to give direction to the musical phrase. A 4 note pattern
> became 2341 2341, instead of 1234 1234. Avrahm Galper has
> incorporated those ideas into a new volume, the Baermann Melodic Scale
> Studies, in a most effective way.

Though I haven't read Avrahm Galper's book, which may well contain much
wisdom, my attention is caught by the principle of carrying phrasing
over the barline suggested by the '2341' grouping mentioned above.

This is a modern, not a classical idea. I am prepared to argue that to
accept this principle across the board constitutes a backward step in
the understanding of the performance of classical music.

I find that in my teaching, conducting and playing, I am constantly
obliged to combat this 1234 -> 2341 shift. My job is rather to have
students, or orchestras, understand that the grouping 1234 1234 is
'normal' for classical music, and that classical slurs have the function
both of supporting and of showing deviation from this norm.
Interpreting the structure of the 'slur' notation in what I contend is a
very a natural way, we can then begin to appreciate how the slurs
written by the composer in (say) Mozart's clarinet concerto turn out to
have their own expressive meaning, though modern editions often alter
them. These alterations, of course, have often obscured the nature of
the problem.

Classical music is music that works under many interpretations. I do
not need to denigrate the playing of Marcel Tabuteau in order to argue
against his theories. However, I do find that looking at bar-structure
and phrasing in what one could call a 'beginning-oriented' rather than
an 'end-oriented' way significantly clarifies the performance of
classical music, and has further implications for effective playing,
both solo and orchestral. The validity of the viewpoint is in many ways
supported by evolutionary considerations of how our ears and brain have
come to process sound, and fits in well with the observed surface
structure of speech. So it is often useful in later music, too.

I hasten to add that my intention is to elucidate a powerful expressive
device for performers, not to limit performers' expressivity. The
discussion is therefore somewhat extended.

To begin with, I'd like to call attention to a reference in a published
journal: Antony Pay, "Phrasing in Contention", in "Early Music",
published by Oxford University Press May 1996, pp 291 - 321. I think
this sets out in a coherent form, with some examples, the essential
argument.

I should say that the device itself, and its flexible application, is in
no way new. It has been appreciated by a continuing tradition, more or
less obscured by developments in musical language, that I would say goes
back to classical times.

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339

.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------