Klarinet Archive - Posting 000260.txt from 2003/02

From: "Raycraft" <raycraft@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Klarinet 101: Performance
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 17:10:02 -0500

Right on, Andy!
Sue

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Raibeck" <cactus@-----.net>
Subject: Re: [kl] Klarinet 101: Performance

> From: "Tony Pay" <Tony@-----.uk>
> To: <klarinet@-----.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 12:20
> 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
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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