Klarinet Archive - Posting 000671.txt from 2000/10

From: Bilwright@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: Re: [kl] And while we are at it ...
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:45:28 -0400

It's hard to find a proper reply when the other person believes
very strongly in something.
Historical discussions *do* add to the music. I am *always*
grateful when a performer takes the microphone before the music begins
and explains (say) the 'clownish' background of Prokofiev's overture and
then wears a clown hat while performing, or explains the misery of
Smetana's life when we wrote his trio.
Knowing about the uncertainties of Mozart's high and low notes adds
to his music for the same reason. Hearing the piece exactly as the
composer wrote it certainly has value. If the performer makes a
special claim that he is going to play it as Mozart wrote it, then the
performer should deliver on the promise.

But on the other hand, I often wonder at the smoldering anger about
improvisation or adaptation to modern conditions that appears in
discussions about classic music. I wonder at the tendency of
discussions to mutate away from historical accuracy and towards the
implication of sinful behavior. Phrases such as "cannot tolerate that
thing if it is put in by a contemporary musician" and "we have no
business playing that note" imply that something is ethically wrong.
I know some people feel this way, and I accept that in many cases
the composer *does* know better than the casual performer, but still....
I don't feel like a dirty rotten scoundrel when I play something 'my
way'.
I suppose that it boils down to this: Was the music written to
hear or to play? The answer is: For both purposes, of course. Why does
it become so sinful to cross this line?

-Bill

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