Klarinet Archive - Posting 000340.txt from 2005/02
From: Adam Michlin <amichlin@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] composer's intentions
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:22:12 -0500
Let us, for sake of argument, assume Mozart and (J.S.) Bach are resurrected
(logically, of course, my argument fails with my opening premise, but I'm
too ignorant to let such silly things stop me). As a completely random
aside, Dan should really consider writing a horror movie revolving around
Mozart coming back from the grave to avenge all the people who have
dishonored his music. Much more profitable than the book business, from
what I hear.
Ahem... So our now resurrected Bach and Mozart might have *very* different
opinions about the suitability of transcribing works. Transcription was par
for the course in Bach's day (Bach, of course, appropriating some Vivaldi
here, some Marcello there). Yes, I know, how dare he? Well, that was just
what they *did* back then before mundane things like copyright laws
existed. I do believe transcription and "borrowing" was, in fact,
considered something of a compliment (Handel being the master at both
complementing others as well as himself). You try writing a 2 hour Catholic
Mass without reusing some old material! Do some research on "Parody Masses"
and no, that doesn't mean for the composer to make fun of Catholic
religious services. For even more fun and excitement in ancient music (it
is possible.. honest.. well, ok, YMMV), check out the quodlibet. Ah, my
kingdom to have created copyright laws and the L'Homme Arme melody at the
same time.
I do believe it has been well proven that Beethoven wasn't fond of
performers altering his music in regards to ornamentation. It isn't much of
a stretch (but it is a stretch, nonetheless) to say he might not be too
thrilled with someone transcribing his music. Luckily, Beethoven wasn't
resurrected by my opening premise, so we really don't have to worry about
much more than the taste police coming to arrest us.
Now Mozart... there's a tricky case. Certainly classical in his music, but
with some last vestiges of the baroque creeping in here and there. For fun,
ask your local string section what the correct policy for trills in Mozart
is (start on the principal note or above the principal note) and then stand
back and watch the resin fly. People take this stuff very seriously, you
know. Somewhere I have a 500 page book discussing ornamentation in baroque
and post baroque music. I have never actually read all of it, but I always
offer it to students who really want to know the answer to all things
ornamental. Surprisingly, not one of them has taken me up on it. I know, I
am a bad teacher.
For those of you dying of curiosity, I use both trilling methods depending
on the context when I play Mozart (I have some theoretical opinions, but
they are no more than opinions). No, I don't have a good reason for this (I
could argue "I like the way it sounds", but having recently escaped Dan's
wrath...). Yes, I am going to hell. Oh well.
Anyway, we really don't know what Mozart would have approved of. He didn't
seem to have a problem appropriating the work of J.C. Bach,, Eckhard,
Schobert (not Schubert, despite what my spelling checker is telling me),
and C.P.E. Bach for his own purposes. It really could go either way and in
such situations we really must err on the side of caution.
I do have to say I am biased. As a young student I spent much time on this
list reading the writings of the then only slightly self righteous bass
clarinetist of my local symphony. It has been drilled into my head
(rightfully so, I might add) that it is silly to speculate as to the
thoughts of a dead composer (even if I partially did so above, please
re-read my opening paragraph before shooting me). Sometimes I think it is
silly to speculate as to the thoughts of a live composer. Ask them, you
say? Try it. It is a fascinating experience.
My thoughts then are: Transcribe away. Arrange away. Don't make me listen
to it and I wont hurt you. Don't tell me "Mozart would have approved" or
any variation thereof and I wont kill you.
<shrug>
-Adam
PS: Dan may be a pompous self righteous ass, but he's *our* pompous self
righteous ass, thank you very much.
At 06:25 PM 2/22/2005 -0500, Vann Joe Turner wrote:
>Dan, I always look forward to your posts, and have learned from you. Thanks
>for that. But at times -- and I'm sure you know this -- you can be a real
>pompous and self-righteous xxx.
>
>You maintain no change in instrumentation, but I think the great composers
>would laugh at you on that.
>
>I think Bach smiles and raises a glass of ale when he hears one of his lute
>pieces performed on the guitar. When he hears a piano playing a work
>originally for harsichord, he applauds.
>
>If the music has musical interest to start with, it can withstand a change
>in instrumentation, without violation of the music itself. If it can't
>withstand that, it probably isn't worth listening to in the first place.
>
>Mozart would be thrilled to hear a gondaleer with an accordion doing one of
>his arias. Could you argue this otherwise? I doubt it.
>
>If you had it your way, Till Eulenspeigel could never be played on the Eb,
>only the D. And to think of the sacreledge of having a bass clarinet play
>the bassoon solo in Tchaikovsky 6.
>
>Purity for purities' sake defiles the living/breathing nature of music
>itself. You know that. I think your original assertions were asserted for
>the sole purpose of getting a broohaha going.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Mon Feb 21 - still 63 donations short of the goal. Nothing |
| in life is free - including 5 servers and bandwidth. A reed |
| costs a couple of bucks - what is the list worth? |
| https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
