Klarinet Archive - Posting 000139.txt from 2005/01

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] RE: Klocker
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:25:31 -0500

The eingang of the slow movement of the clarinet quintet is the
most popular choice of an eingang for the slow movement of the
clarinet concerto. This gives the false impression that this
practice is authoritative, that it belongs in the concerto, and
that playing anything else is inappropriate.

An Eingang is supposed to be created on the spot by the
performer. It doesn't have any of the technical problems
associated with creating a cadenza, but it should be the
performer's idea. And if one were to give several performances of
K. 622, the eingang should change from performance to
performance. This is antithetical to the practice of most players
performing the same eingang over and over again as if it were
wrong to do any other. And when I hear it in almost every
performance, my face gets all squnched up at the lack of
imagination demonstrated. Heaven help the play who does it when I
am reviewing. (And I add that there is no authority for using
this same eingang even in K. 581 where almost every edition
includes it as if it were Mozart's intentions. The fact is that
we have no idea where that eingang comes from.)

So, to answer your question, what is unclear about it is that a
single eingang is used by so many people as if Mozart himself had
not only authorized it but had excluded any other eingange.

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Michlin [mailto:amichlin@-----.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:47 AM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] RE: Klocker

At 05:57 AM 1/11/2005 -0800, dnleeson wrote:
>Well, I am not sure why speculating about his intentions for not
>request cadenzas would be of value. I speculated on one and was
>quite incorrect. What is most important is that there are no
>cadenzas. What is there is something else, and contemporary
>clarinetists are not comfortable with this 18th century custom
of
>improvising a lead in.

I disagree, somewhat, about the value of speculation. It
certainly allows
for a discussion which can bring to light factual information. I
draw the
line at presenting such speculation as factual information or
drawing
further "factual" conclusions based only on the assumption of our
speculation as fact.

You speculated that the clarinet being monophonic played a role
in Mozart's
choice not to include a cadenza in K.622. We now know that is not
the case,
but we've also furthered our collective understanding of how
K.622 fits
into Mozart's concept of the concerto. Not such a bad thing, in
the end.

As for being wrong, I'm just shocked and dismayed that you aren't
perfect
=). Would that I could have your track record for accurate
factual information!

>It has come to the point of using the Eingang for K. 581 in the
>absence of any good ideas of what else to do. While the idea is
>not a bad one, it is an overworked solution to the problem.

I have not spent any significant time analyzing K.581, so I am
curious as
to what is unclear about it.

-Adam

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

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