Klarinet Archive - Posting 000896.txt from 1999/09

From: "Steven J. Goldman" <sjgoldman@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] Improvisation, Marcellus, Leeson and Smith
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:43:23 -0400

------@-----.10FBF340
charset="iso-8859-1"

The subject title is begining to sound like a law firm!

Reading this thread, I'm a bit surprised that there are not more posts
supporting Dan. I've tried to be more of a "lurker" as of late because 1) I
seem to have always become embroiled in circular arguments, and 2) I've had
to put less time in on the clarinet due to an increased need of my baroque
flute "ability" and have had to do quite a bit of woodshedding (and I'm not
quitting my day job). However, I cannot sit on the sidelines on this one.

Now I may be projecting, but I get the sense that Dan's post was in part due
to frustration at the lack of respect that many of our great
instrumentalists continue (after thirty years and more of evidence to the
contrary) to show for idiomatic interpretations of works of the past. While
Greg Smith (who's playing I admire greatly and am lucky enough to enjoy on a
regular bases, living close to "ShiKauwgo") may not have gone as far as some
seem to think Dan indicated, there IS an underlying feeling that IF you play
as well as Marcellus you somehow transcend or can overcome the need to
perform a piece in the style that the composer expected (or that somehow
Mozart transcended his time and did not really think the performance
practice of his time was necessary). One (read I) really gets the feeling
that Greg feels that while performing the piece in a manner consistent with
the practice of the time is nice, it is of very secondary importance. While
this view is an improvement over the majority view of the great professional
players in this area from a while back (there has always been a small group
of CSO wind and brass players since my student days who were much more
understanding), it is still a a whole lot closer to the late 19th and
earlier 20th century view of how to interpret this music than what some of
us consider a more enlightened (or at least more open-minded) view that has
developed. My feeling when reading Mr. Smith's original post was, G-d, are
we still where we were 20 years ago. Perhaps this was Dan's feeling too.

Now just to get everyone angry with me, let me say that I am not in complete
agreement with Dan either. We had a thread one this about a year ago so I'll
just summarize my view. I do think that you can have a musically effective
performance totally ignoring the performing techniques expected by the
composer. You can have a performance that can "move" people. But you have to
be honest with yourself in that you are not being true to the original
conception of the work.

One thing I find interesting, is that once composers left almost nothing to
the performer (in other words notating to the smallest detail what the
composer whished), performers have happily slaved to follow these
directions. During the 18th C. (slowly decreasing as time past), however, it
was really part of the composers instructions, and absolutely expected, that
the performer add to the piece. It's not written simply because it was so
much a part of ones musical training that it was not felt to be necessary to
indicate it (sort of like having to explain that an Adagio goes slower than
an Allegro). Yet, while nobody would do the opposite of the written
instructions of a more "modern" work, they happily, even aggressively,
ignore the unwritten expectations of these older pieces.

Off soapbox,
Exit stage right

Steve Goldman
Glenview, IL

sjgoldman@-----.com

------@-----.10FBF340--