Advertising and Web Hosting on Woodwind.Org!

Klarinet Archive - Posting 000404.txt from 2004/12

From: "dnleeson" <>
Subj: [kl] =?us-ascii?Q?RE:_Klocker_doing_too_many_cadenzas?=
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:57:13 -0500

The definition of how a composer requested a cadenza in the
classic and much of the romantic period can be found in Groves,
or for that matter, almost any book on form. But even if no
description survived, one could figure out what a "request for a
cadenza" was by using the Mozart piano concerti as teaching
examples. You would have to figure that if he creates a tonic
chord in the second inversion and sticks a fermata symbol in at
that point, and he does exactly that about 40 times in his
various concerti (some of which have two or even three cadenzas
in them), then empirically one can conclude that that that had to
be the officially understood and only mechanism for indicating
the presence of a cadenza at that point in the composition.

It is precisely the absence of this mechanism in the several
places of the clarinet concerto (two in the first movement and
one in the second) that demonstrate the COMPLETE ABSENCE of
cadenzas in K. 622. And this is the case despite the fact that a
large body of intelligent and mature clarinet players keep asking
"Which cadenza shall I use for K. 622?" And when one responds,
"There aren't any cadenzas in K. 622," they look at you as if you
had said "xtawplgh awelh jvqwv slvm."

Now I apologize to Fred for having answered his question in a
responsible way. He wanted to know if Klocker played too many
cadenzas. So the natural response is, "It's easy to find out if
a composer is requesting a cadenza because there is a formal
mechanism for requesting one. So is Klocker doing as many as
asked for by the composer, or is he doing more, or is he doing

And if he is doing exactly as many cadenzas as requested by the
composer, then why is Fred unhappy with Klocker's work?

Dan Leeson

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith []
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 1:49 AM
Subject: [kl] Re: [k] Klocker


That was most interesting. I am curious as to how this is known.
Is there an
eighteenth century performance manual that says "Thou shalt do a
when thou hast a fermata upon a chord of ye second inversion, and
if thou
failest to do it or makest it an eingang instead thou shalt be
strung up by
thy nether regions with used catgut and denied pizza for three
weeks"? In
other words, do we have documentary evidence? Or textual musical
such as a large number of pieces in which "cadenza" is indicated
which all
have the same underlying chord? Or is it a performance tradition,
to more elliptically? Or a guess?

Keith Bowen

> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:01:20 -0800
> To: <>
> From: "dnleeson" <>
> Subject: RE: [kl] Klocker
> Message-ID:
> There are really two issues involved in this question, the
> first of which cannot be answered on the basis of taste.
> Does Klocker execute a cadenza at the place(s) indicated by
> the composer? That's easy enough to figure out. A cadenza is
> called for by the intersection of two events: (1) there must
> a fermata indicating a pause of indefinite duration while the
> cadenza is executed; (2) the underlying chord structure must
> be a tonic chord in the second inversion; i.e., with the
> fifth in the bass.

> So if the composer requests five cadenzas in the manner just
> described and Klocker creates them at the five places
> indicated, the answer to your question is "No." In fact one
> could argue that if he did only four cadenzas he is
> underachieving rather than overachieving.
> But if the fermata occurs and the underlying chord structure
> is not a tonic chord in the second inversion (but is instead
> a dominant seventh chord), and Klocker interprets this as if
> it were a request for a cadenza (instead of a request for an
> Eingang, or lead in), then the answer to your question is
> But somehow, I don't think Klocker misundstands the situation,
> so that gives rise to the second of the two issues involved.
> Let's assume that he is putting cadenzas in where they have
> been called for. Then we leave the safe world of classical
> form and enter the world of subjective opinion; i.e., are his
> cadenzas intelligent?, do they do what they are supposed to
> do?; is the length of each cadenza adequate and neither too
> long nor too short?; has he created a cadenzas whose purpose
> it is to show only his technical skill and command of the
> instrument?; blah, blah, blah?
> As for answering this second issue, I can't respond unless I
> heard him do two performances of the same work. That
> statement is made seriously. If two performances had him
> executing the same cadenzas again, that is one perspective to
> be discussed. If the cadenzas change from performance to
> performance, that is another issue.
> So which question are you asking?
> Why do you always answer a question with a question?
> Who always answers a question with a question?
> Dan Leeson

Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc.

Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc.

     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact