Klarinet Archive - Posting 000390.txt from 2001/11

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] The worth of things
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:59:09 -0500

Oliver, there are probably many differences between our separate
approaches to music, but they can be summarized by noting that we have a
fundamental difference in priorities. That does not mean that mine are
better than yours, only different, and vice versa.

The bottom line is that when we spoke about your file of that music, I
tried to give you the objective reasons why that measure does not belong
there. It is simply a matter of what the manuscript says, nothing more,
nothing less. How it sounds is, from my perspective, a very much
secondary issue. Those were my priorities.

Yours were different and guided to some extent by what I perceived to be
a devil-may-care, what-difference-does-it-make perspective. I have no
complaint with you thinking that way, it is only that I don't.

While you may see these kinds of things as not terribly important, I
think them to be a matter of life and death. Tony Pay, for whom I have
the greatest respect both as a player and an independent thinker who is
willing to consider a variety of perspectives, says that after 10 years
its about 50-50. I don't know, I've only listened to new recordings of
the work and there it is 90%-10% removal of the measure, which is
comforting to me, because the measure does not belong there.

One conductor (and a very important one too), did not record it that
way, and when we spoke about it in correspondence he simply told me that
the players didn't like it. So what else is new? Decisions made on
personal taste will always favor the way it was played for the last 30
years. Should one expect anything different?

Now in the UK it could well be 50-50, as Tony suggests, but I am willing
to bet bangers and mash that the 50% who don't like the removal of the
measure have not spent 30 milliseconds of time examining what the
technical issues are. Either they have not been brought to their
attention or else they don't want to be bothered seeing that piece any
way but how they have been playing it for 30 years. At one time those
players may have been prepared to do radical things, but today they have
become (as most of those my age are) old farts.

Dan

Oliver Seely wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 09 Nov 2001 11:31:19 -0800, leeson0@-----.net said:
>
> >Do you remember the discussion we had in San Diego about the infamous
> >missing measure in K. 361's fifth movement?
>
> Dan and I have had a discussion about that measure also and it is with some
> embarrassment that I have to admit to having received dozens of complaints
> from people who say they feel they must play it with the measure left in
> because its in the file on my Web page and they are obligated to do so.
> (The Devil made them do it?)
>
> Notwithstanding the awareness that every minute spent arguing about that
> measure is a minute that could be spent playing beautiful music, I'll offer
> simply that I talked to Wolfy about the matter the other day. (Billy
> Graham used to claim that he discusses things with God every morning, but
> I've never gotten beyond Mozart.) I told him that there are some wags on
> KLARINET who are most indignant about that measure remaining in the piece.
> "What's happened to musicians in the 21st century, Ollie?" was his reply
> (he calls me Ollie). "Have your musicians forgotten how to improvise? Do
> they ever play their instruments or do they just argue? Why, when I was a
> boy I improvised 10 things before breakfast every morning! Now, get
> yourself back to my Grande Partitititita and play it again, and right this
> time!" So there you have it, from the horse's mouth. And you folks know I
> wouldn't lie to you. 8-)
>
> Oliver
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
***************************
** Dan Leeson **
** leeson0@-----.net **
***************************

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