Klarinet Archive - Posting 000100.txt from 2001/12

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Beethoven 2, embellish Larghetto?
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:55:25 -0500

If, as David wrote, the material presented was designed by Zinman, that
is indeed unfortunate. The entire purpose underlying improvisation is
defeated if it is (1) not impetuous, (2) not instantaneously created,
and (3) not different from performance to performance.

And while we're on the subject, the word "embellish" in the subject line
has a slight problem with it that does not occur when the word
"improvisation" is employed. The thing about an embellishment is that,
without further clarification, one does not know if that embellishment
is specified by the composer (such as in the case of an ornament whose
interpretation is fixed by rules of performance practice), or created
spontaneously by the performer (thus satisfying the conditions of
improvisational performance).

In general, to distinguish between the two quite different acts, one can
say that the composer ornaments, while the performer improvises. The
ornament (such as a trill, a mordent, a grupetto, etc.) is simply an a
symbol asking to be interpreted. The composer writes the symbol
requesting a trill, for example, and the performer interprets the
ornament consistent with the definition of that symbol on the spot.
(There are added complications such as how one begins a trill and how
one ends it, but the symbol for the trill is an ornament specified by
the composer and defined to some degree by the rules of music notation.)

The performer improvises by virtue of doing things to the composer's
text that are NOT specified by symbol; i.e., the performer choses (for
example) to trill on a certain note even though not requested to do so
by the composer, and no ornamental symbol is present. So in a sense, the
performer ignores the directives of the composer and trills when not
requested to do so. That activity is impetuous, instantaneously created
in the absence of any explicit request for it, and supposedly different
from performance to performance.

In effect, improvisation is entirely the province of the performer and
the things added by him or her are improvisations, not ornaments. This
is somewhat of an oversimplification because the composer (at least from
Mozart up to middle Beethoven) always hinted that the performer
improvise in very specific ways. The most well-known hint is the
request for the cadenza or the invitation for an eingang (lead-in) and
even an invitation for melodic alteration by giving the extreme highest
and lowest notes of a passage with expectations that the passage would
be filled-in in some way. Repeat passages are also examples of explicit
invitations to improvise melodically. Think of the 3rd measure of the
Mozart concerto and you have "f-d, f-d." The second pair of "f-d" is an
invitation and a hint from the composer. The fact that we don't do it
does not diminish what it is in any case.

DNL

It is for these reasons that the word "embellishments" is somewhat
ambiguous, while ornaments and improvisations are not.

HatNYC62@-----.com wrote:
>
> I remember speaking about Zinman's Beethoven with Steve Barta, who worked
> with him for many years in Baltimore. Zinman wrote out those embellishments.
>
> David Hattner, NYC
> www.northbranchrecords.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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