Klarinet Archive - Posting 000343.txt from 1996/04
From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.NET>
Subj: Re: Miscellaneous
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:32:21 -0400
At 8:55 AM 4/12/96, Roger Shilcock
>2) Someone recently made the extraordinary statement that because Weber
>didn't put much in the way of directions on his music, he is open to more
>freedom in matters such as articulation and tempo than, say, Mozart.
>Weber knew what he wanted. The fact that he apparently chose not to say
>what it was confers more responsibility upon his
>interpreters to discover it, not more freedom
>to do one's own thing.
But that makes absolutely no sense.
When one looks at Weber's original scores, one finds very sparse and very
general articulation markings. From this, one can get only a very general
sense of what Weber wanted.
One can then look at the detailed articulation markings in the Baermann
editions, and get a very specific idea of how Baermann performed the works,
which was, presumably, one acceptable way to perform the works (given that
they were written for him by the composer, and the composer no doubt heard
him perform the works many times).
One can also make extrapolations based on period practice (and starting
from the original scores) and determine other acceptable ways of performing
But most certainly, the fact that Weber was *less* specific with his
markings leaves much *more* freedom to the performer. There is no way
"discover" what a composer wanted other than by studying various
communication that he or she left behind.
Mozart was much more specific in his written communication to us.