Klarinet Archive - Posting 001111.txt from 1998/10

From: HatNYC62@-----.com
Subj: [kl] Weber Concertos
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:58:35 -0500

Various People wrote:

>>I don't get it . . . Weber too fast? Destroys the music? Puh-lease. There
>are great, deep works in the literature. This is not one of them. Lighten
>up!

>

>Weber's clarinet stuff was written as cheap pot-boiler opera, a showpiece

>for the virtuoso, created for the sole purpose of dazzling the audience.

>It's not--and was never intended to be--"great serious music." That

Charlie

>tongues the last page would have met with both Weber's and Baermann's

>approval (and probably a standing ovation).

>

>kjf

Shakespeare's plays were also pot boilers for the purpose of entertaining the
masses and making money.

However it does not negate the fact that despite their original purposes of
pleasing and impressing people, both the playwright and composer created works
of art.<<<

In trying to decide if a clarinet piece is 'great' or not, one can still apply
common standards. My own is: if the work was a violin concerto, would anyone
play it? The only pre 20th century concerto I could honestly answer "yes" to
is the Mozart K. 622. Does that make the Weber "bad" music? Certainly not. But
let's face it, we can only play what we have. If we had concerto repertoire
like violinists, we would not take the Weber works as seriously as we now do.
Taking essentially second-rate virtuoso fare and trying to play it like late
Beethoven does a disservice to both Weber and the audience. The pieces are
supposed to be fun, the pathos of the slow movements notwithstanding.

I am not saying that it is impossible to overdo the less serious elements in
these pieces, it has definately been done. But there is no way I can think of
to make the Rondos in either concerto particularly 'profound.' And if I could
think of a way, I wouldn't want to anyway. I think they are supposed to be a
little silly. That is why so many early clarinet concertos are complete
failures; they try to acheive the noble greatness of Mozart without the
requisite compositional inspiration. Weber's works achieve their purpose of
entertainment without aspiring to be enlightening as well. Their content is of
sufficient quality for that purpose. That is why they are still popular with
audiences and clarinetists.

David Hattner, NYC

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