Klarinet Archive - Posting 000156.txt from 2009/10

From: Joseph Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] New articles published on the web!
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:35:44 -0400

Alexander Brash wrote:
> For example, Dan Leeson's expositions on Mozart performance practice, I
> think, are liberating, not restrictive at all, even though it seems to
> eliminate a lot of "choices". Jonathan's arguments on vibrato, similarly.
> It seems perscriptive in some way, but I view it as being prescriptive
> about adding an entirely new dimension to the space of decisions you can
> make, thereby expanding your total possible choice.

Well, it would be, except that Jonathan doesn't use his arguments in
that way. The sources he's referred to are interesting, but rather than
use them to expand the range of possible interpretations, he uses them
to shut down discussion and belittle people who approach things a
different way.

I mean, take this quote: "Brahms suggested that the entire quartet make
use of vibrato in the central section of the Adagio to create a
mysterious effect." There are at least two interpretations that can be
placed on this. One, as Michael pointed out, is that Brahms was not
expecting vibrato to be used in general and so was stressing its use
here. Another is that he wanted a particular character or quality of
vibrato in this particular section.

What bothers me is that as far as Jonathan seems to be concerned raising
the first interpretation (which is after all the more natural English
interpretation of that phrase) is somehow a threat: that rather than
offering an interesting alternative approach to vibrato in the Quintet,
it's somehow casting aspersions on _his_ interpretation. So instead of
valuing the possibility opened up by Michael's offering, he stamps all
over it and belittles Michael.

It's interesting, too, that he sneers at Roger Norrington, who, far from
being the dogmatic 'You must play it this way' caricature that he's
often presented as, has done so much to open up new and exciting ways of
approaching the classical repertoire. Take the following:

"What's exciting about going back to the text and the way they
played and so on is not that it's 'historically correct' in
some way, or that the scholarship is impeccable -- what's
exciting is that you get very, very exciting _musical_ results
from this."
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okWQQL3wu6c ]

I can't think of a greater contrast -- between a person who uses study
of the sources and historical performance techniques to open up
expressive possibilities and someone who uses them as a weapon to shut
down diversity of interpretation and insist upon a particular way of
playing.

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