Klarinet Archive - Posting 000092.txt from 2005/01

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] RE: Klocker
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:00:03 -0500

I am afraid that you still do not have a grasp of what the
problem is with respect to Cadenzas and Lead-ins..

Putting a cadenza in a work that does not call for one is not
much different than putting a square peg in round hole. It
doesn't work functionally and does nothing but distort the music.
That does not mean that people have not been doing it. Of course
they have. But what they really have done is changed the
structure of the piece putting something in that does not fit and
does not work. Unknowingly, they have uglified the piece.

A cadenza has a specific technical and musical purpose. It is
not simply pretty music stuck in a piece like a geranium in a
flower pot. Ask yourself, "What is the purpose of a cadenza?"
Can you answer this accurately? I'm not putting you down, but
just pointing out that from the kinds of inquiries you have made,
it is clear to me, at least, that the nature and function of
cadenzas, and why they are there in the first place, is not yet
part of your musical knoweldge base.

If you are of the opinion that a cadenza is put in place to show
the audience the technical capacity of the performer, then you
need to get your head shaped right, because that romantic and
completely incorrect story derives from about 1865, by which time
the nature and purpose of cadenzas in the classsic period had
been forgotten.

Furthermore, you do not understand that what is generally played
by guys and gals who know what they are doing (such as Pay and
Schiffrin) are not cadenzas at all. What Pay and Schiffrin play
are "lead ins," something that is not only technically different
but has a completely different purpose.

The cadenzas for 622 that have been written and called that, such
as the famous one of Jacques Ibert, which is at least 7 minutes
long, may be very nice music, length notwithstanding. But there
no hole in the concerto for the square peg that they have
written. And no one in their right mind would do the Ibert
Cadenza in a performance of 622 and get away with it.

You should listen to a Mozart piano concerto that has cadenzas in
it both to see how the composer requests the cadenza and what the
soloist does, because, no disrespect intended, I do not think you
know what a cadenza is and what its purpose is. And it is also
clear to me that you may not know what a "lead in" is and what
completely different purpose it serves.

This lack of precise information about the clichés of classical
performance is a very common phenomenon among clarinet players
(others too). It is unfortunate, but our musical education is
much more attuned to gaining technical ability than developing
musical knowledge.

One final thing: I am not "sticking to my guns" as if I have some
authority to tell people what to do and what not to do. I'm
simply stating what are facts. You don't like them, ignore them.
But any clarinet player who gives a performance of 622 with one
or more cadenzas in it, and who has a knowledeable critic in the
audience, is going to have their reputation ruined by the
scathing remarks that say, in effect, "Doesn't this guy (or girl)
know anything about classic form? What was that ridiculous thing
played in the slow movement?"

25 years ago this would not have happened. Today you play a real
cadenza in 622 at your own peril.

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

-----Original Message-----
From: pwHarris1 [mailto:pwharris1@-----.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 11:27 AM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: Re: [kl] RE: Klocker

----- Original Message -----
From: "pwHarris1" <pwharris1@-----.net>
To: <klarinet@-----.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [kl] RE: Klocker

> Well it is to bad. When you stick to your guns and tell the
world not to
> play a cadenza in the piece, your are dismissing some very
beautiful
> writing, some short and some way to long by performers playing
the piece,
> starting(I am sure there are earlier examples) with Carl
Baermann through
> wonderful contemporary players such as Tony Pay and David
Schiffren among
> many who put a cadenza in this particular place and ornament
the work
> profusely.--
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
> To: <klarinet@-----.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 9:57 AM
> Subject: RE: [kl] RE: Klocker
>
>>
>> None of this history has anything to do with the presence or
>> absence of the cadenza, but I thought you should know
generally
>> what happened to the work and why there is a question of the
>> authority of what is played today. But there is no question
that
>> the work as we know it HAS NO CADENZAS in it.
>>
>> Dan Leeson
>

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

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