Klarinet Archive - Posting 000446.txt from 2001/11

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] The worth of things
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:00:29 -0500

An extract from what Tony wrote includes the following interesting item:

> I can give some indications why I have such doubts -- for example, the
> instruments that stop, seem to stop 'too abruptly'.

This is a common counterargument against the removal of the measure, but
it is only Sophistry. There are, by my count, at least 3 other
compositions by Mozart that do exactly the same thing, which is to say,
that certain instrument are left hanging in mid-process on an unresolved
dominant seventh chord. So the elimination of the measure in K. 361
cannot be justified on the basis of its uniqueness.

The oldest of all counterarguments in all musical research is the one
that suggests "but Mozart never did this thing." And the reason why it
is a good counterargument is because so few people are prepared to
dispute it at the instant that it is given. I mean, after all, how many
of us have enough breadth in our knowledge of a composer's output to be
able to re-counter by saying, "But he does the same thing here, and
here, and here."

I remember the same kind of argument being made in a discussion of the
Symphonie Concertante for winds and orchestra. One person who was
convinced that the work was not authentic said, "But that piece has
three movements all in E-flat, and Mozart NEVER wrote a single
composition with all the movements in the same key."

Now, go find someone who can counter that statement in the blink of an
eye. But, amazingly, there was such a person present, and he said, and
very calmly too, "There are at least 27 works by Mozart with all the
movements in the same key," and he gave, as examples, the wind serenade
in E-flat, K. 375 a work that has five movements in the same key of
E-flat, and several others works, too, including piano sonatas, two
symphonies, three church works, etc. It was impressive.

However the original naysayer responded by tightenting his criteriae,
saying "Well, I meant a concerto, of course." And if a counter had been
given to that argument, the naysayer would have made up an even more
stringent case until no counter was possible. "Well I meant a concerto
from the late 18th century," or "Well I meant a concerto for wind
instruments by a Catholic composer who died young..."

The fact that instruments are cut off in mid-process and a dominant 7th
is left hanging (which was Tony's correct observation) ceases to be an
argument when it can be demonstrated that there are other such cases in
the Mozart repertoire. Tony's argument is designed to make the
situation singular. If the statement "He never did this anywhere else
in his entire repertoire," were correct it becomes very powerful. This
is because precedent (or absence of precedent) is a very strong
statement and holds great value in this kind of discussion, but only if
it is true.

In this case, it is an argument that is patently false by virtue of the
fact that there is ample precedent. In effect, the argument is often
used in a Sophistic attempt to cloud the real reason, which is that it
is significantly different from the way the parties have been playing it
for years, plus the fact that almost all wind players are very
protective of the integrity of K. 361 and are bitterly opposed to an
alteration in it as significant as this. Changes to this piece leads to
fistfights.

I also suggest that an explanation of the rationale behind removing the
measure without having a copy of the manuscript to show the details of
the evidence is a very difficult thing to do. I don't know if Tony
merely explained it or if he had the manuscript in hand to show the key
points of the argument.

Tony then continues with:

>
> You can minimise the uncomfortableness by clever playing, and in fact
> I'd argue that that's the best solution. But because I have to trust my
> unconscious as a determinant in *how* I play, it seems to me silly to
> refuse to acknowledge its importance as an element in deciding *what*
> we're going to play. After all, this relationship with the unconscious
> is what players and audiences share, and is one of the reasons why music
> is -- *has to be* -- mysterious in some way.

To which one can say that this is equally Sophistic in that it uses the
often-voiced argument of "taste" being the final determinant, an
argument which many people find themselves unwilling to challenge.

Finally this: the fact that 5 people did not, in effect, cast a vote may
have some statstical value. With them on the positive side instead of
the neutral or negative side, the day would have been won for the
elimination of the measure, and the people at the Bath festival would
have heard what at least one person thinks is what Mozart wrote instead
of what several people think sounds better.

By the way, there is a performance in Salzburg at the end of January and
I am thinking of going. I already had an email conversation with the
conductor and there, in the shrine of authenticity in Mozart
performances, the measure will be left out, not because I inquired, but
because that conductor, Milan Turkovich, thinks that there is no other
solution to the problem.

Win some. Lose some. In a century, I'll have won them all.

DNL

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

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