Klarinet Archive - Posting 000162.txt from 1999/11

From: ShawThings@-----.com
Subj: [kl] Re: klarinet Digest 5 Nov 1999 (specifically Tony Pay's posting)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 02:29:02 -0500

Dear Tony & others
I've been fascinated with the continuous ("ongoing", if you must) discussion
about K.622 which I'm sure most subscribers would regard as incontestably the
greatest clarinet concerto. (Are there any other contenders? - Slow movt of
Copeland seems a poor second). It stimulated me to retrieve and re-listen to
various versions which I seem to have accumulated at the rate of about 1 per
year over the past 30 or so years.
Most notably, these include recordings of

Reginald Kell
Jack Brymer (several versions)
Gervase de Peyer
Emma Johnson
Thea King (basset clarinet)
Richard Hosford (basset clarinet)
Tony Pay (basset clarinet)

Leopold Wlach
Karl Leister (several versions)
Alfred Prinz
Deiter Kloker
Sabine Meyer

Robert Marcellus
David Glazer
Benny Goodman
Franklin Cohen
Richard Stolzman
Sharon Kam

Jaques Lancelot
Michel Portal

All of them sound fantastic to me! For what it's worth, my feelings on
comparing these recordings follows. What does everyone else think? What
distinguishes a really brilliant reading of this concerto? Is there any
consensus on contemporary favourites? Is there any single "correct" approach?
Surely good "modern" and "authentic" interpretations are equally valid. On
the other hand - assuming that one had the technique & could keep the bloody
things (esp. sop) in tune - would it be unreasonable to adapt it for
alto/saxophone, considering that this would remove all the between-register
tone colour contrasts?

Apart from the most obvious differences in the solo part between the basset
clarinet and standard A clarinet versions, a few differences in tempo are
noticable. Basset clarinet versions aside, the tone of the German/Austrian
players especially Wlach, Prinz and Leister seems fairly distinctive ( I find
them a bit too constrained) and there seems to be an "English" sound
personified by de Peyer, Brymer, Johnson and (I think, Sharon Kam, my current
favourite) which I personally like, although I'm sure the Americans will
disagree. I find the some of the American versions (especially Saint
Marcellus) technically fabulous and wonderfully recorded, but overall a bit
slick (I know Stolzman's Canadian). Other than the Kell (1941) recording, I
found the recording balance between soloist and orchestra seemed to be the
most immediately recognisable difference.
The Kell recording is in a class of its own and has a sort of nostalgic
pre-war newsreel quality. Apart from acoustic limitations, Kell seems to be
using a solo part which is different (esp. articulation) from most post-war
editions and he also has a tone which seems to be more watery and
basset-like (perhaps this is just the recording).
Since K622 is such a cornerstone of the repetoire, I think it would be very
instructive and interesting to hear others' preferences and reasons for those
preferences.
I hope this stirs up a bit of a response!
Best wishes,
Tim Shaw
Melbourne, Australia.

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