Klarinet Archive - Posting 001112.txt from 1998/10

From: "Craig Earl Countryman" <cegc@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Weber Concerto number 2--Sabine Meyer & Charlie Neidich
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:18:09 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Fay (LCA) <kevinfay@-----.com>
Date: Monday, October 26, 1998 11:49 AM
Subject: RE: [kl] Weber Concerto number 2--Sabine Meyer & Charlie Neidich

>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!

I don't quite understand where this statement is coming from because Weber's
are, to me, some of the greatest literature our instrument has. If Weber
isn't, then I'd be interested to hear what is a "great, deep work". Also,
whether a work is a classic or some rinky-dink beginning band piece it still
deserves to be played in a fashion that keeps with its indicated dynamics,
articulation, etc. If the composer didn't care about that stuff then why
did he bother to write it in there. For example, if Weber wanted it ALL
slurred at the end of the second movement of Op. 74 (you know, the part with
all those 16th note triplets) why did he indicate that only groups of 6 were
to be slurred and why does he make a point to change the articulation in the
fifth measure of that section? If he wanted it as fast as possible why is
there no marking other than "brillante"? This is an indication of a style
more than anything else. There is no tempo change from the Polacca, (m.m.
100 on my version)!

>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."

It may or may not have been intended to last as great music, but what
composer writes to be famous years in the future? If that is the sole
purpose in writing something then chances are that person isn't going to do
very well. Why did Mozart write? Was it notoriety? Did he sit down and
specifically write with the intent of greating works that would like on
through the ages? I would be inclined to think it would be more a practical
matter -- he was an entertainer also, just as much as Weber...

>That Charlie tongues the last page would have met with both Weber's and
Baermann's
>approval (and probably a standing ovation).

Maybe, maybe not. You are entitled to your opinion on these
interpretations, and I respect the position you are taking, but let's not go
so far as to portray Weber's works as below other "classics". Even if they
weren't masterworks, does that mean we should just disregard all that
articulation written in?

----------------------------------------------
Craig Earl Countryman
cegc@-----.net
http://www.sneezy.org/clarinet/YPP/Craig.html
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1711/
----------------------------------------------

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