Klarinet Archive - Posting 000250.txt from 2003/02

From: "Andy Raibeck" <cactus@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Klarinet 101: Performance
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 15:48:28 -0500

From: "Tony Pay" <Tony@-----.uk>
Subject: Re: [kl] Klarinet 101: Performance

> 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.

Sorry, I didn't know we got homework assignments on this forum! :-) :-)

> > 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.

Agreed that one shouldn't arbitrarily change the notes. And if this is a
well-known error in the printed music, then I would vote to play C natural
if that is what the composer intended.

> 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.

I'm not sure why this is difficult, unless it is a language usage issue that
is getting in the way.

As a "for example", Richard Stolzman, Harold Wright, Emma Johnson, Sabine
Meyer, etc., all play K. 622 a little differently from each other, don't
they? They don't change the composition in a fundamental manner, but each
"brings to the piece" their own expression and interpretation. This is what
I was referring to as "making it interesting". Maybe that is what you call
being "present" in the performance?

Regards,

Andy

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

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org