Klarinet Archive - Posting 001240.txt from 2003/04

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: Re: [kl] Stravinsky 3 pieces (& "sombrer le son")
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:14:12 -0400

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:51:16 +0200, joseph.wakeling@-----.net said:

> Hi Tony,
>
> I did a search yesterday evening and found the post you cite below,
> http://www.woodwind.org/Databases/Logs/1999/07/000178.txt
>
> Anyway, this seems to make sense. Actually I dug out a recording of
> it made in the mid-80's by Alain Damiens, the Ensemble
> Intercontemporain soloist, and compared the last movement to my
> (Nicholas Hare revised) copy of the Stravinsky; he "corrected" bar 10
> as you suggest, but left the other parts alone (so, a slur on the last
> *3* notes of bar 23, and staccato throughout bar 44, and of course a B
> natural in bar 19).
>
> In all other respects I didn't notice any textual differences, so I
> presume that (B flat in bar 19 aside) the Nicholas Hare edition is
> actually on the money...?-)

Hare has provided some, though not all, of the information. It would be
good if someone did a complete transcription of the manuscript -- after
all, in a way, the more differences between the MS and JWC1151 the more
likely it is that Stravinsky was responsible for the latter. (They
can't *all* be mistakes:-)

But as Hare points out, Stravinsky was happy with JWC1151. (See the
archive references at the end of this.)

I'm less happy with using Damiens's recording as a reference point for
textual accuracy.

> I have to say I'm not convinced either way about bar 23. I quite like
> the "feel" of the long legato phrase from bar 23 to 25, with the
> 3-semiquaver slurred phrase being a repeat of that found in bar 22.
> Same with bar 44. I think one could probably make arguments either
> way, no?

I personally find the positioning of the accent dominates other musical
considerations in both of those bars, and also that the short second
note helps the accent. I'd say that varying accent-density is worth
more, performance-wise, than is often appreciated.

> *But* while I was looking at this I noticed something that really
> *didn't* make sense to me, which is the staccato dot on the first
> quaver of bar 2. Throughout the movement quavers are used as *long*
> notes (sole exception: quaver in bar 13, but here it makes more sense
> because there is a breath & phrase break here) and the basic rhythmic
> motifs "Daaa-dat-dat" or "Daaa-da-ya" seem to be consistent
> throughout. I can't quite settle the idea of a *short* note at this
> point in the piece. It occurred to me that what might be wanted was
> the effect of two tied semiquavers with the staccato on the second.
> Any thoughts?

Just that the Bb is variably stressed or unstressed in comparison with
the Ab. I think I read the dot as an 'unstressing' of the first beat
rather than a shortening.

> PS. One little thing---I recall back in the dark days of the dark
> tone debate, someone referred to Stravinsky's "sombrer le son" as an
> instruction to darken the tone. At the time that surprised me because
> I had always instinctively taken it as an instruction to have a sudden
> dip in volume and intensity, with the following crescendo bringing us
> back. But I realised I had never actually checked.
>
> Anyway, I *did* check, and while "sombre" does indeed mean "dark", the
> *verb* "sombrer" does *not* mean "darken", it means "sink". A good
> translation of Stravinsky's phrase I guess would then be, "Lower the
> sound suddenly"...?

It's certainly been reported that Stravinsky intended this, rather than
a darkening. See

http://www.woodwind.org/Databases/Logs/1996/03/000527.txt

http://www.woodwind.org/Databases/Logs/1996/03/000529.txt

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

... Hey! Your Trakball is upside down!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/