Klarinet Archive - Posting 000872.txt from 1999/09
From: Gregory Smith <Gregory_Smith_Clarinet@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Mozart K. 622 - to D. Leeson
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:37:53 -0400
DAN LEESON WROTE:
"Gregory Smith of Evanston, IL has given us an interesting
perspective of J. Shouryu Nohe's comments about Marcellus'
recording of K. 622 as conducted by Szell. Nohe wanted to hear
some improvisation in the performance and Smith speaks about this
very issue saying:
=
"... this performance did not need the eingang [sic] and
improvisation that you speak of - due to the quality of
Marcellus' playing of this sublime concerto's deepest,
richest, and most profound utterances."
=
Smith then continues his comments with the following:
=
"Fine instrumentalists have instinctively sensed this of the
recording for decades - given, many say, by the clarinetist's
clarinetist. Would it have been a `more' sublime performance
had Marcellus/Szell added these things? Perhaps. But by so
little it seems, that, in the grand scheme of this powerful
performance, they would have been of little additional
importance."
=
There are several completely separate ideas in this submission and
I have arbitrarily separated them into two quotations for the
purpose of commenting on each one individually.
=
The first idea was that this performance did not need
improvisations because Marcellus' playing of the work was of such
a high quality. =
=
The second idea was that fine instrumentalists are in agreement
with this lack of need (at least with respect to this recording)
and have sensed this for decades. =
=
Third, Smith suggests that even had Marcellus done what Nohe was
looking for, it would not have materially added anything to the
performance.
=
I've taken the time to try and find the central issues of Smith's
posting because they are important ones and may even be a
reflection of the current state of thinking of other players
(perhaps many) on this subject.
=
However, and it is a big however, I find his posting so wrongheaded
and closed minded that I feel myself compelled to comment on its
contents. There is nothing personal here. Just business.
=
First, there is no universal agreement, as Smith implies, about the
quality of Marcellus' performance of the work. Some like it. =
Others do not. I am not speaking of Marcellus' clarinet playing
but of how he perceived and presented the music of K. 622. I have
no arguments with those who like his interpretation of this work. =
In makes no sense to argue with a subjective opinion. But for
those who do not like his performance of the Mozart concerto (and
I am one of these), the very things about which we are speaking
appear to be the impetus of this negative opinion; i.e., except for
the excellence of the mechanics of execution, he brings no
personality whatsoever to the composition. I perceive him solely
as a re-creator of this concerto, not in any sense a participant in
the creative process that I believe should be a result of every
performance. =
=
Therefore, when Smith speaks of his affection and appreciation of
the performance, that's fine. But when he presumes, without
justification or confirmation, that all players feel this way, he
leaves me confused as to how he came to this conclusion. I know of
no evidence that he or anyone else has gathered rating performances
of K. 622, and that this suggested consensus supports his point of
view. =
=
Second, Smith suggests that, due to "the quality of Marcellus'
playing" he did not need to improvise. The converse of this
statement (if you need to improvise, your playing doesn't have any
quality) is empty, vacuous, and without material substance, this
having serious negative consequences to the validity of the =
statement itself.
=
Third, it is inconceivable to me how Smith concludes that the
absence of improvisation has been "instinctively sensed by fine
instrumentalists" as being at the heart of what he suggests is such
a superior performance. This is a statement without any content
whatsoever. Even accepting his view that this is a superior
performance (and I have already said that some unknown number of
people might disagree with him on this perspective), how on earth
does he conclude that this belief in the excellence of Marcellus'
performance has been arrived at by an instinctive reaction to his
lack of improvisation?
=
Smith then concludes his note by suggesting, again with no evidence
other than his opinion on the matter, that even had Marcellus done
what Nohe wanted, the performance would not have been any better,
or by, at most, so little as not to have been worthwhile.
=
This last conclusion is so flawed and biased that it is hard not
simply to dismiss it out hand. How does Smith know what the
performance would have been like if Marcellus had improvised and
had presented us with his musical ideas on how to do this sort of
thing? It is not materially different than saying, if Mozart had
written a second clarinet concerto, it would have been better (or
worse) than the first. One cannot make supportable conclusions on
hypotheses about unknown circumstances.
=
Smith's bias to improvisation for music of this epoch is so vast,
and his mind so closed on this matter, that he concludes that doing
this thing could not possibly have any effect on the end product. (I
suspect, but really do not know, that Smith has no knowledge base
on this element of music history. As such he is on quicksand even
as he speaks. But maybe I'm wrong. His note did not give any
indication of the state of his learning in this arena though its
content, particularly with respect to his comment on eingange,
allowed me to draw some conclusions.)
=
I don't mind if Smith doesn't find value in this important 19th
century performance practice. It's his right to like or dislike
things as they strike him. What I mind are his assertions about
what is right and what is wrong in the grand scheme of things and
the impression that a great many responsible clarinet players agree
with him. In effect, his prejudice on this matter is so strong
that he is signing the names of anonymous "fine instrumentalists"
to his personal speculations.
=
For those who are of the opinion that improvisation in music of
this epoch adds a thing of value to performances, there is
something very outdated about Smith's suggestion that doing it has
no purpose whatsoever and that, whatever it might add, it is "by so
little ... that in the grand scheme of [things]" it is of little
importance.
=
It is my belief that Marcellus himself did not agree with performer
alterations to the text of the Mozart concerto. His mind was made
up on this subject and his performance reflects that state of his
thinking. This is not a criticism of either him or his ideas on
the matter, rather a statement of why his approach to the work was
what it was. I suspect that, like most players (and like most great
players) his years of association with the work confused his thinking
in one important respect; i.e., he believed that his knowledge of
the notes of the work and how well he performed them was equivalent
to knowing something about both what was in Mozart's head at the
time of its composition and what performance practices were in vogue
in 1791 (to say nothing about the purpose of those practices)."
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
*************************************************************************=
**
********************************
*************************************************************************=
**
********************************
Dan,
It is unfortunate that my post has been so misinterpreted. I will=
explain my opinion as to why you have perhaps jumped to some wrong
conclusions about my response to Nohe.
I did say that fine instrumentalists (not "all" fine
instrumentalists) have sensed the depth with which Marcellus interprets t=
he
profound Mozart K. 622. For a long time the performance has been held in=
high esteem for many reasons - at least with whom I've spoken to and read=
about the performance over the years - and I suppose in some part remain=
s
in the catalog today because of its high musical quality. =
=
I did not say as you
assert that it was a profound interpretation "because" of its lack of
improvisation but alternatively IN SPITE OF the lack of improvisation. Yo=
u
missed the entire point of my post!!! I also did not say that fine
instrumentalists are in agreement with a lack of need for improvisation i=
n
performance, but instead that fine instrumentalists (again, not "all" fin=
e
instrumentalists) simply sense instinctively the depth of Marcellus'
interpretation (once again IN SPITE OF the lack of improvisation).
I did say that the quality of Marcellus' interpretation was
persuasive and powerful and that perhaps improvisation would have added t=
o
his performance but relatively little to the profundity of the basic
underlying expressive quality of his playing.......that the interpretatio=
n
is ALREADY profound. You state correctly that what one subjectively
percieves as a simple re-creation of a work, another percieves as profoun=
d
music making off of the printed page.
I did not say that improvisation would not have been worthwhile. =
I
did not say that improvisation would have added nothing to Marcellus'
performance.
What I believe is that you have read a little too much into my
comments - to lose the forest for the trees so to speak.
I use improvisation in my performances of Mozart and believe I kn=
ow
of its value first hand. I also admire clarinetists' performances on
recording which take advantage of this practice (Tony Pay and Colin Lawso=
n
come to mind). But the fact that Marcellus didn't use it in his performan=
ce
doesn't automatically turn it from a profound interpretation for me into
something any less fundamentally profound - despite the lack of
improvisation.
Perhaps I could have been more clear about my beliefs in advance =
-
knowing that they might be disected in the way that they were - but I
really don't think so.
By the way, your inflammatory use in discourse of the words or
phrases "prejudiced", "biased", "closed minded", and even "having no
knowledge base about the subject" doesn't really trouble me.....it's your=
disclaimer that it is just business, not personal. In my opinion this is
intellectually dishonest - you're trying to have it both ways. It doesn't=
seem to me to be a very constructive way of carrying on discussion. Perha=
ps
others disagree. =
=
Also,
coming from a scholar, I'm suprised that speculations and conclusions abo=
ut
my own knowledge and practice of improvisation would themselves be
unscholarly.
Gregory Smith
*************************************************************************=
**
********************************2737 Hurd Avenue
Evanston, IL 60201-1209 USA
Tel: 847-866-8331
Fax: 847-866-9551
Email: Gregory_Smith_Clarinet@-----.com
Web Site: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gregory_Smith_Clarinet=
/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
