Klarinet Archive - Posting 000141.txt from 2005/01

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Re: Eingang (was Klocker)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:01:23 -0500

Once the fermata ends, just go step wise in a scale down to the
7th of the scale, Your last note must reinforce the fact that
the NEXT note will be the tonic.

If it your first efforts take you more than 6 notes, you are
doing too much.

Less is more. It is simply a way to lead into the tonic. It is
not a demonstration of how fast you can play.

In the words of Thoreau, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY.

Only when you are very comfortable in doing a 5 or 6 note
Eingange about 100 times, should consider becoming more
imaginative. Try ending your Eingang on the 2nd of the same, but
the implication should clear in the predecessor notes that your
desitnation is the tonic.

Use the Eingang of K. 581 as a guide, but NEVER play that one.
Study it because it is a good Eingang. Now make up your own.

That will be $3.50 plus a pizza.

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Seely [mailto:oseely@-----.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:54 AM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: [kl] Re: Eingang (was Klocker)

O.K., but before I make up my own Eingang for a performance
scheduled for
January 16, I want to make sure we're talking about the
unaccompanied
section of the 2nd movement of K.581 starting at measure 49
(maybe it was
said before, but I haven't been following this thread). I don't
know if I
have the nerve to do it, but it'll be something to try and to
cause heart
failure among the other players during our two dress rehearsals.

Something in a minor key, perhaps? 8-)

Oliver

At 08:24 AM 1/11/2005, you wrote:
>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

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

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