Klarinet Archive - Posting 000247.txt from 2003/02

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: Re: [kl] Klarinet 101: Performance
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 14:42:33 -0500

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 12:16:08 -0700, cactus@-----.net said:

> You are being too literal.

I'm not 'being' anything about Marlena's post. I think what she wrote
brings up an interesting question, one that many students and even many
professionals find confusing. That's why I put it in the form of an
essay topic, in order to suggest that understanding its resolution
requires thought and, probably, personal experience.

> What I understood her to say was that in general, the personal
> expression/interpretation (as opposed to merely a robotic rendering of
> the notes) that the performer brings to the piece is what tends to
> makes it interesting.

But in fact, if you read the full text of what she wrote, she was
suggesting not only that you have to "...change tempo, dynamics, right?"
but also that changing the notes could count as more of the same.

I wasn't being rude to Marlena. I understand that she was taking an
attitude that ensures that the performer is 'present' in a performance,
as opposed to being a robot. She wanted Stephen to do what *he* wanted
to do, rather than worrying about what he *should* do.

The thing is, that's only half the story.

And when you say,

> ..the personal expression/interpretation (as opposed to merely a
> robotic rendering of the notes) that the performer brings to the piece
> is what tends to makes it interesting.

...I think that the 'bringing to' bit, that seems to imply an 'addition'
of some sort, is the metaphor that creates the difficulty. It's as
though you have to 'make it interesting', then.

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE http://classicalplus.gmn.com/artists
tel/fax 01865 553339

... See that buzzer, That's your sound card that is.

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