Klarinet Archive - Posting 000417.txt from 1998/10

From: "Kevin Fay (LCA)" <kevinfay@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] 1234/2341
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:38:23 -0400

Can't disagree more. (Actually, I can--but was looking for a catchy
opening).

Year after year I suffered under an ensemble conductor who insisted on
hearing the "pulse"--every measure was to have an accented downbeat. No
matter that the phrase extended over 4 bars, no matter that other accents
were placed in the score. Consequently, ever piece performed sounded like a
Sousa march--fine for Sousa, lousy for Debussy.

The Tabuteau approach was designed to train the player to remove this
crutch. In a string of 16th notes, *none* should be accented unless there
is a musical reason for doing so.

Many pieces call for emphasis of the downbeat. Many fool with the accent,
however--because we're thinking oboe, take the Scherzo of Beethoven 6 as an
example--where the emphasis is emphatically not on the bar line.
Tchaikovsky 4, or Romeo & Juliet. The Grand Partita. These are not
marches--why play them like one?

Which leads to the real rule--"no false accents!"

kjf

-----Original Message-----
From: John Gates [mailto:cadenza@-----.com]
Subject: Re: [kl] 1234/2341

Agreed. As time goes on I become more emphatic about a well placed first
beat, especially in classical and baroque music. Its seems to solve all
sorts of phrasing problems.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Pay <Tony@-----.uk>
Date: Friday, October 09, 1998 3:08 PM
Subject: [kl] 1234/2341

>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
>
>
>.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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

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