Klarinet Archive - Posting 000577.txt from 2003/10

From: <tony-w@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Who speaks?
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:02:44 -0400

> > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:39:11 -0400, joseph.wakeling@-----.net said:
> > > > Here's something worth bearing in mind: you are *always* expressing
> > > > yourself, or at least some part of yourself, when you play. How can
> > > > it be otherwise?
> >
> >Tony Pay siad:
> > > I couldn't put it better.
> > > Another way of expressing it is: what's required of you is in the
realm
> > > of 'being' rather than in the realm of 'doing'.
> > > (I'll leave you to judge where "How to sell slow movements" lies in
all
> > > of this:-)
> >
> >The article - cut short, and T.P`s short remark , "I couldn't put it
> >better";
> >and previous posts re this seems to be so logically summarised, yet I
can`t
> >help but think of a 'more obvious?' teaching.
> >*Learn about the composer, and how he/she may have wanted the music to be
> >played*.
>
> What if the composer just got lucky and created something sublime by
mistake?
> What if the composer was of detestable character and learning about him
> severely alters your ability to perform his work well?
> Composers compose. Performers perform. Composers do not necessarily know
> the best way to perform their work.

True, and with this statement you have to add "and neither do a lot of pro
players" to balance what seems to be some bias against composers.

> > What we have seen in this discussion is of course a break down of
> >how to go about this. We may all have different ideas, but no matter how
> >much or how little of our own personality or technical skill we input
into
> >our playing, the composer`s intentions will to some degree become
submerged
> >by our own choices, which IMO is not too good. When we play, we always
put
> >ourselves on the line - to be judged - and we will always 'reap the
benefit'
> >of someone`s comment, be it favourable or otherwise. So I would summarise
in
> >this way (as above) composer first and foremost, and performer`s
judgement
> >to be always based on this.
>
> Regardless of what a composer intends it is his music we are stuck
> with. There is enough not so great music which composers intended to be
> played by great artists in filled concert halls. That was the scope of
> their intention. I do not feel traitorous for not fulfilling their
wishes.

Why then do we emphasise in colleges, in schools, in private teaching, in
master classes and to a large extent on radio, the importance of searching
for composers` intentions. Is this not important at all, for the reason that
the composer may have been a real sod? This is silly. We all of have this
ability in us, not least of all the performers, who wouldn`t work for the
pay check that composers receive.
>
> > There is therefore, to me, not much room for
> >personal preferences, unless one is a 'showman'.
>
> What the heck is that supposed to mean?

Yes, this was probably not phrased too well, due to my wanting to get the
e-mail off as I wasn`t feeling too well. But in fact it means exactly what
you have said below: >In fact - - - - etc. So there *are* similarities in
our thinking.

> In fact that assertion caught my eye because the thing that drives me
buggy
> is the performer that does not get out of the way of the music. Little
> idiosyncrasies like adding a dash of vibrato here, some rubato there,
> swells every measure in the quest to help out the performance distract and
> mess it up. Too fussy and busy.

> "That was so boring everyone should have left the hall so the tumble weeds
> and crickets could come in."
> Eric Sutherland age 9, after hearing his dad and 3 other clarinettists
> perform Anderson's "Clarinet Candy" in concert.

So who was at fault here - the composer or the performers? : )

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org

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