Klarinet Archive - Posting 000408.txt from 2004/04

From: Tony Pay <tony.p@-----.org>
Subj: RE: [kl] Checking the clarinet part with the piano score
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:19:36 -0400

In message <NGBBJONLHKPEJHCPFHBBIECNEAAA.karlkrelove@-----.net>
"Karl Krelove" <karlkrelove@-----.net> wrote:

> Your last example raises a related point, though: what goes into the
> decision about which is correct?

Everything.

> In cases where there are note (pitch) discrepancies, obviously you get a
> lot of help from the accompaniment. What is the chance in the case of those
> last 5 measures of the Bernstein movement that the crescendo was lost in
> condensing the layout of the piano part? Or that the crescendo in the
> clarinet part was (sloppily) engraved too long (intended to take only one
> beat) and the p at the end is simply misplaced because of it? The part and
> the accompaniment score agree that the tied pick-up to the alla breve is
> ppp and by the end of the measure the clarinet is p. The only point of
> difference is whether there is a crescendo or a subito change and if there
> is a crescendo, where it is - i.e. when is the clarinet p and how quickly
> does it get there? Poor layout (engraving) could be as responsible as the
> original editing for the ambiguity.

I suppose that it's a question of probability. Given that (I assume) the
printed representation of the score comes before the production of the
clarinet part, I give greater weight to the former. It's what the composer
would have seen when he was correcting proofs, after all.

Further, in this case, though there is no crediting of an editor, I'd say
it's absolutely certain that someone else has been involved in the production
of the clarinet part. There are just too many changes -- for example, of
slurs -- for the differences to be explained by error. And if there are
changes by someone other than the composer, you want to ask yourself, on what
basis have the changes been made?

The last five bars involve the clarinet taking the leading voice from the
very beginning of the bar. That's a musical point, and comes from an
understanding of the overall musical argument. (What happens there is
related to what happens at the very beginning of the piece, for example.)

So even when I believed the crescendo -- yes, I have to admit I played the
piece several times before I checked! -- I made the density of sound quality
I produced at that moment reflect my understanding of the musical argument.
Therefore, for the un-named editor to change the clarinet part from what is
in the score didn't damage my performance significantly.

But I'm much better off now with what is in the score.

> Not meaning to belabor the point, but just by way of example, in this case
> which is right:
> 1. ppp, then subito p (as the piano score indicates)
> 2. ppp, then quick crescendo to p over the bar line (nearly but not exactly
> the same as 1)
> 3. ppp, crescendo over 4 beats to p (as printed in the part)

I'd say that you change character from being a part of the descending piano
line 6 bars before the end, to being a thematic voice 5 bars before the end.
That's something like your (1) or (2).

(3) is just bullshit, along with the other bullshit changes produced by some
un-named idiot -- possibly some Legendary American Clarinet Player -- Who
Thought He Understood The Piece Better Than The Composer, And Perhaps Even
Felt That He Was Making A Contribution To Those Of Us Who Might Be
Significantly Disadvantaged Were We To Play The Piece As Bernstein Wrote It
In Some International Competition.

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

... Suburbia: where they tear out the trees & then name streets after them.

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