Klarinet Archive - Posting 000172.txt from 2005/01

From: Oliver Seely <oseely@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: [kl] Re: Eingang (was Klocker)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:28:39 -0500

Sounds good to me. Thanks, Dan.

Oliver

At 08:59 AM 1/11/2005, you wrote:

>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

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