Klarinet Archive - Posting 000255.txt from 2007/05

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Kell's Stravinsky
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 18:33:10 -0400

Tony's comments are partly a statement about the facts of Kell's
performance, which he has every right (indeed, a duty) to
document. These are not arguable issues and I am presuming that
Tony is correct in his assertion of facts even though I have not
checked them and confirmed them to be true.

But when Tony leaves the field of objective criticism, I don't
find that he has anything but ridicule and sneering in mind. He
says that, "we have [Kell's] cutesy self-absorption to contend
with." Now that's an opinion for which there is no corroboration
except in Tony's mind. I'm not even sure that it is possible to
play with demonstrable "cutesy self-absorption." Exactly how is
that done? What physical posture or playing attitude produces
"cutesy self-absorbtion"?

Tony is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but this psychiatric
interpretation of Kell's playing has, in my opinion, no broad
value. Further, when Tony says, "The only reason people like
[Kells playing of the Stravinsky this way] is because it's
DIFFERENT, and the only reason it's different is that for most of
us it's too embarrassing to play that way...," he is making a
broad statement not only about what he thinks (which he is always
welcome to do), but he is also making statements about what "most
of us" think. I know of no study made of players around the world
that asked them if they liked Kell's Stravinsky performance
because it is DIFFERENT. This use of the quantitative "most of
us," is as easy as pie to throw out. What evidence exists to
confirm what "most of us" think about Kell's playing of the
Stravinsky. It's about as valid and as useful as, "some of my
best friends think that ..."

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

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