Klarinet Archive - Posting 000165.txt from 2007/03

From: "J W" <claireannette@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] three pieces/sound differences
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:17:04 -0400

I studied that with Peter Hadcock a long time ago (though it seems like
yesterday). Preferring not to go into further details in an email format as
it would be difficult, I will note that he requested that I play it and
interpret the rhythmic aspects "as if there were no bar lines" in the
measures.

That makes it sort of like an extended "cadenza" maybe? Or perhaps it was
composed and printed before the elimination of bar lines in a piece became
more commonplace? At any rate, to me, now, it is the only way that makes
sense oddly enough.

I believe that precise strict rhythmic performance is something that
identifies Stravinsky and one of the things that made his music "new" at the
time. (Professional historians, I am only stating this in a general sense,
from a performer's point of view:-) )

Hadcock gave me the impression that the "breath marks" were placed by the
composer to indicate the way he wanted the performer to play the phrases.
Breath marks, commas; can be another way to describe phrases. To me, some of
the breath marks/phrasing marks are not where one would necessarily
naturally place a phrase or take a breath; so these were placed here to make
it clear. After all, it is a solo part for an individual instrument and
otherwise there are no other "hints" as to how the piece would be phrased,
is there? When it was conceived there were no recordings to listen to
either! So the composer took it upon himself to make it very clear.

The dynamic marks are played exactly as written also.

This is how I was instructed, at any rate; and how I approach it to this
day.

I don't always hear it performed this way; and personally that bothers me
since the composer did go to the trouble to notate this it was apparently
important to him. As a performer, this should consequently be important to
me. Conversely, I suppose there is artistic freedom also. Others can argue
that point.

I think the character of the movements, the first being sort of brooding and
thoughtful; "asks" for an A clarinet, and I think that the composer wanted
the specific characteristics of the A. On the other hand, the last one is
sort of "jazzy" (excuse me serious jazz players, I am only describing an
effect) and "asks" for the Bb characteristics. So, I think the composer,
again, was providing hints as to what he wanted the resulting performance to
sound like.

As far as the fingering being marked for the one note. I don't know how I
got this idea, but I thought that it stated something to the effect: " If
performed on a boehm clarinet..." which to me would indicate it was
directions meant for a player who usually performs on a different key system
who might be switching to a boehm clarinet to play the piece.

Remember the time period in which this was written, I suspect that not all
clarinettists played on boehm system clarinets. Also, on clarinets
manufactured at the time; perhaps there was some difference the composer
noted. Perhaps he is hinting that he wants the smoothest transition at this
point. However, I think the varying key systems is the most logical
explanation.

P.S. On identifying sound of a player:

I will open up a bag of worms here I think, and remember; I am just bringing
up some PERSONAL musings to see what others think. Please do not pick apart
a sentence here and there and attack it as some are apt to do. I never
claimed to be a professional writer and it is very difficult to know if what
one means comes out exactly as one intends. That said:

I have only skimmed over all the posts on identifying different players.
Sure, I think just like recognizing someones voice on the telephone that you
know well; in some cases it is possible to identify someone by how they
sound. HOWEVER; it is my impression that currently it is more difficult to
do so and that many clarinet studios at the
colleges/universities/conservatories are producing students with a similar
sound. It is very difficult to detect the difference for me. When I was
studying, after a student had the foundations of playing firmly set;
students were ENCOURAGED to develop their own style within acceptable
standards. Today, sometimes I hear students that attempt to produce a
"style" of their own; unfortunately, they miss some of the foundations; and
the attempt hurts them severely. In the end, they do not sound like they
are very accomplished, despite playing fairly technical works; because they
are missing dynamics/phrasing/rhythms etc.

Of course, as one grows musically and "matures", gets more varied
experiences in music and life; and changes attitudes in life; ones concepts
of the desired style or result changes some I believe. For me, I know that
is the case and I actually prefer the process a whole lot more now; it is
almost like the longer I play; the more the instrument and I become friends
and communicate much better with each other. One also begins to rely more on
their own self than on trying to play like someone else that they admire.

In the end, even though I "only" graduated college 26 years ago; it seems
that the care and insistence on foundations: then on style; has resulted in
my concept and style of performance being highly different from the majority
of players that are graduating today.

I don't know if I am "old fashioned" or not; but generally people familiar
with how I play CAN tell the difference between my playing and one of the
current graduates.

Now, what I can't determine is which is more desired by those in the hiring
positions? But, I continue as I was "brought up". I was taught by some of
those that brought the clarinet to this country and some of those that were
students of those clarinettists. So, I feel like I was taught as close to
how those original clarinettists instructed as possible in this day and
time. I was; at the time; on the young end of this group to have been in
that position. I have always felt that I was carrying those
traditions/tricks/hints/methods forward.

One example I ran into in one case: Even on playing an excerpt EXACTLY the
tempo indicated by one of these players (or by the tempo it was played by a
great conductor); I have been critiqued for not playing a passage "faster"
(?).

Aain, recent graduates, in GENERAL, tend to play faster even if it is faster
than a piece would be performed. I have analyzed this carefully. For one
thing, a section played very accurate and up to speed TENDS to SOUND as if
it is played more slowly than that same section played the same tempo but
less accurately (or evenly). (People may comment on THAT one, that is just
my gut feeling. Take Daphnis: played VERY accurately, up to speed; it
almost sounds SLOW!) i don't know if this is really true or if this is an
acoustical effect; or what? Others can discuss that idea.

Well, I have had two responses to this. One, I tend now to submit two tempi
for an excerpt if there could be any question; a traditional tempo and a
faster tempo that "sounds" technically flashier yet is not really the
traditional tempo. (I do this because the issue is NOT that I cannot play
it faster, but that my concept of how fast it should be played seems to
differ from what is "desired" by those used to hearing recent academic
graduates.) And two, to play the faster version JUST as accurately as I did
the "slower" version; in which case it is the faster tempi to show I can do
that. However, the faster one sounds better than the faster less accurate
player. But, this seems a lot of trouble to me. So, for those that are in
the know more than I, what is going on here? I attest that the method and
"style" of clarinet performance has changed in 26 years. THIS is why some
people say they CAN hear a difference and others say they cannot. I can
recall, as a college student; most any of the players whether student or
professional could identify if a player was taught in the "East" in the
"Midwest" or in the "West"...US. Sometimes, a specific teacher could be
identified from the student's performance. I kid you not. But now, I can't
tell the difference that well and I am pretty sure it is not because I am
deaf or addle-minded! So, I suggest that TODAY, the US players at least
have become more homogenized than they were back when I learned and that
this is encouraged. Back when I studied; the teachers having come either
directly or almost directly from different parts of the world, there was
more variation. ALSO, at the time I studied; there were not THAT many
clarinettists with solo recordings, and certainly not that much of an
opportunity for a young player looking to emulate a tone to hear
international players because things like the Internet and the like did not
exist. I KNOW I sound old now, but I look with envy at the theory/ear
training; music; ability to write and hear scores/compose; books; recording
techniques; advanced tuners and metronomes; electronic accompaniments that
are now available for a young person learning music. If I had only had all
of those...(took bravery to go out on a limb.)

Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

------------------------------------------------------------------