Klarinet Archive - Posting 000259.txt from 2007/05

From: Tony Pay <tony.p@-----.org>
Subj: RE: [kl] Kell's Stravinsky
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 13:55:34 -0400

On 27 May, "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net> wrote:

> 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.

...have you even heard this performance? Do you possess the text? (Your
previous posts about the transposition make me wonder.)

> But when Tony leaves the field of objective criticism, I don't find that he
> has anything but ridicule and sneering in mind.

Yes, that's right. In the face of the sort of blanket approbation of Kell's
playing YOU produce, which lives in the world of rhetoric no less than my
rather more selective assessments, I am concerned to dismiss and ridicule the
things about his playing that are worthy of dismissal and ridicule. That is
no less my duty. I am also concerned to acknowledge what's good about
Kell's performances when I can.

> 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.

The very reason I made my post was to explain 'what was in my mind' when I
gave that opinion, of course. And what was in my mind about it can't be
considered in isolation from what you call the 'facts' about Kell's
performance -- though you pretend that it can, above.

> 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"?

Well, in my book, what you do is this.

You play the Stravinsky Three Pieces in the presence of the composer,
apparently satisfying his well-known canons of performance sufficiently well
to earn his grateful approbation. You parade that approbation to some
extent, displaying your concert programme signed by him, making yourself
thereby an 'accredited' interpreter of Stravinsky.

Then, years later, you agree to record the pieces -- and proceed to traduce
them wholesale. You not only change notes -- you add dynamics, play faster
when the composer writes 'slower' and slower when he writes 'faster', alter
rhythms gratuitously -- in short, you put your middle finger up to the
composer's request that you follow his notation. You 'do it YOUR way' -- no,
that's not quite right -- you do it ANYTHING BUT HIS WAY, perhaps even only
BECAUSE he asked you to do it his way.

That's the 'self-absorption' bit.

The 'cutesy' bit is the way you apply your well-known and highly predictable
performance quirks to what's left. You make it 'yours' in that way.

> Tony is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but this psychiatric
> interpretation of Kell's playing has, in my opinion, no broad value.

Other than psychiatry, what discipline of enquiry would you consider
appropriate to the behaviour described above?

Notice, I'm not talking about ALL of Kell's playing. There are some pieces
in which he demonstrates admirable qualities, and I have mentioned and will
continue to mention those pieces and those qualities. The purpose of this
enterprise -- of discussing this particular set of discs -- was to try to get
beyond both the uncritical reverence you give him, and the unqualified
dismissal of others.

> 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.

Well, clearly I'm putting forward a THEORY of why Kell's playing of the
Stravinsky attracts people precisely at the points where it repels me.

Werner Erhard used to identify a mechanism he called 'different and better'
that often gets hold of people. You can see it in operation in yourself; and
it explains why some people continually change their relationships, and why
someone who's been doing, say the job of temporary first flute very
satisfactorily in an orchestra, having moved up from second, is very unlikely
to be appointed permanent principal over a newcomer. (NEW=DIFFERENT=BETTER.)
I contend that quite a lot of the attraction that Kell has for people is to
be explained by this mechanism.

As some sort of confirmation, I notice that what struck me in this regard in
Kell's playing in general when I was a youngster I now find less appealing.
It's because I can now do 'that sort of thing' without trouble myself that I
can see how ANECDOTAL it is. It's DIFFERENT for me in a different way, a way
that isn't attractive because I wouldn't do that -- for good reasons that I
can now explain a little more. I have other important things to make clear
about the music -- things that the details of Stravinsky's notation have
bearing on. The passing whim is not so important -- I'm not so interested in
'how I play', whatever that is.

'Different' is actually an important feature that you can identify in Kell's
musical approach. (I'll talk about it in more detail later.) Meanwhile,
consider this as an aside: Debussy wrote 'Meme mouvement' (which is
crotchet=72) just after figure 6 in the Rhapsodie. Now, I once played the
Debussy with Boulez conducting, and when we got to that point, there was no
question but that we would take a faster tempo -- he starts it off, of course
-- even though he's a stickler for the letter of the score. ALMOST EVERYONE
takes it a bit faster, because the music seems to demand it. In fact I've
never heard anyone do it as written -- except Kell.

I wonder why? What was it about doing it the way the composer wrote it that
attracted him, for once in his life?

> 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 ..."

My use of the words 'most of' didn't apply to the 'different' bit; I wrote:
"for most of us it's too embarrassing to play that way -- we'd be too ashamed
of ourselves"; and it's clearly justified in that most good players don't,
thank God, play the Stravinsky like Kell. (They don't because they don't
want to -- it isn't because they CAN'T -- as I've said, there's nothing
easier to do, for an expert player.)

As for those who 'like' what he does, I don't want to CANVASS them; I want to
ACCUSE them of irresponsibility with regard to this particular music, in the
sense that they don't bother to take the trouble to understand what's
'really' interesting about it. Clearly, the reasons they have for liking
Kell's way with it can be very little to do with Stravinsky's conception,
quite a lot of which Kell ignores or contradicts.

Finally, there is much music that reponds well to -- indeed demands -- a
looser approach. I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is the idea that ALL music has to be that way --
which is the implication of Kell's raspberry of a performance of the
Stravinsky Three Pieces.

Tony
--

_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339
mobile +44(0)7790 532980 tony.p@-----.org

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