Klarinet Archive - Posting 000635.txt from 1997/09
From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: Brahms, etc.
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:11:44 -0400
I think you've just raised a controversial point re chamber music in
general. WHy should being part of the texture mean "nobody can hear his
part"? I couldn't agree less. What do other klarinetters think?
With all due respect, but ....
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Fred Jacobowitz wrote:
> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Fred Jacobowitz <fredj@-----.edu>
> Reply-To: klarinet@-----.us
> To: klarinet@-----.us
> Subject: Re: Brahms, etc.
> NEVER BELIEVE WHAT YOU HEAR ON RECORDINGS!!!!!!!!!! They can
> do anything with the sound nowadays. With all due respect to Mr. Pay, who
> I greatly admire, if he could always be heard, even in the chalumeau, and
> "was never smothered by the'cello" (I fing it difficult to believe that
> ANYONE could ever be smothered by a cello) then he was playing just too
> loud. Either that or the mike placement was unfortunate. This piece is NOT
> a mini-concerto a la Weber. It is chamber music in the truest of senses -
> all voices are equal and most do NOT have the melody. When they don't they
> should be part of the texture and not heard distinctly. So, if Mr. Pay was
> not often part of the texture and out of the way of both the melody and
> countermelody, he was playing the piece wrong.
> Fred Jacobowitz
> Clarinet/Sax Instructor, Peabody Preparatory
> On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Roger Shilcock wrote:
> > A couple of evenings ago, the BBC Promenade concert included a performance
> > of the Brahms Clarinet Quintet by Hausmusik with Anthony Pay playing an
> > alleged replica of Muhlfeld's clarinet. I heard the broadcast, which
> > obviously made some difference, but what struck me was that Anthony Pay
> > sounded more or less as he generally does, with perhaps a bit of