Klarinet Archive - Posting 000611.txt from 2002/07

From: @-----.uk>
Subj: [kl] ...for the A clarinet? Yes!
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:53:13 -0400

--- Michael Bryant <michael@-----.uk> wrote, in part:

> 1849 Schumann Op 73 (for cello originally)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oo, boo, poo.

Not so, though they (the 'cellists) would like to think so.

I remember hearing the Russian'cellist Natalia Gutman give an execrable
performance of this piece, and go on to give a wonderful account of the
Britten Sonata.

There was a Russian colleague of mine with me who knew her (I didn't),
and afterwards, when we went round, she said to him, "Well, do you
*still* think it's better on the clarinet?"

I didn't actually say this to her, but the only response was that like
many 'cellists, what she had played wasn't the 'it' that Schumann
wrote. She had played something completely different, changing mood,
dynamics, phrasing and, often, notes, almost always for the worse, and
in a way that perfectly communicated her own self-importance.

I have an idea why the Britten was so much better. It's that, with a
modern composer, people think that the job is to *play* what's written.
Whereas with Schumann, they think that the job is to *change* what's
written.

It's a common misconception.

Just so that I'm not misunderstood here, there is still an infinite
variety of possible performances of a piece available to a player who
*doesn't* change what's written.

Tony

Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com