 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-01-13 04:39
There is a passage in mvt. 1 of Mozart (K.622)--it's a minor key cadence, actually--that consists of three successive trills in a row, followed by (written) A5 (the tonic of the relative minor key). The subject of this post is how one goes about executing the trills.
I was listening to the Sabine Meyer recording (w/ Claudio Abbado & Berlin Phil.) of this piece in the car today, and for whatever reason, it stuck out at me that instead of starting the trills "from above" with an appoggiatura (i.e., holding the "above" note still before beginning the trill itself), which is how I've been playing all three trills up to now, she started the first one "on the note" (i.e., the written note) with the same kind of appoggiatura-type initial holding of the note (perhaps I should call it an "arutaiggoppa"--an appoggiatura in reverse ). The next two trills she also started "on the note," but with less of an initial "hold." None of the three trills are followed by grace notes, as I would have expected. I think through pretty much the rest of the piece, she played the trills "from above," as I would have expected she'd do.
When I got home, I pulled out a couple of other recordings to see how they execute the same figure--turns out both of them are quite different. On the Tony Pay/Christopher Hogwood recording, Tony plays all three trills "from above," but the "hold" is on the last of the three, rather than the first. Tony ends each trill with grace notes. On the Marcellus/Szell recording, Marcellus sounds like he starts all three trills "on the note," and plays all three as "plain vanilla" 19th-century trills with no appoggiaturas or grace notes.
I used to have a recording of Jost Michaels playing this piece, but I seem to have misplaced it. I can't remember what he did in that passage.
Anyway, the curious thing to me is that none of these recordings is quite the way I would "guess" the passage would be played, from just looking at it. Not knowing any better, I would have assumed that all three trills would be started from above with an appoggiatura/hold and end with grace notes. At least that's the way I would expect to play a single run-of-the-mill cadential trill of that era. Yet, this isn't just a single trill--it's a sequence of trills. And while I have a nice rule for handling a single trill from the baroque or classical eras (or at least I think I do), it occurred to me that the rule might not be quite as applicable to a passage like this one, where you have a sequence of trills, and that perhaps I don't really understand classical performance practice as it relates to trills as well as I thought I did.
So my question(s) is/are: Is there something more to this classical trill business that I'm missing? What sort of considerations should I be making when figuring out how to play these sorts of "atypical" trilled passages in 18th century music?
Post Edited (2009-01-13 04:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-01-13 06:56
I've played these trills by holding onto the actual written note before starting the trill (rather than starting the trill straight away), and then ending the trill with a turn. With the last trilled note in the group being over several beats, I start this one slowly and gradually increase speed.
Depending on how you feel, you can either start the trill on the note above or go to the note above, though the general acceptance with Classical era trills is to start them on the written note rather than the note above. But some people do and others don't.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2009-01-13 08:08
I have thought a lot about these trills, too. It is interesting that many performers start these trills ON the note, but the same performers will play all other trills ABOVE. My logic is that starting ON the note allows a smooth scale motion, but starting from above creates a skip.
Which is more historically correct? I don't know. "Normal" instruction tells us that trills should probably start above for Mozart, but then again most trills in Mozart's works are singular; this musical situation of a series of trills is fairly rare (does anyone know any others like this?) so the "rules" *might perhaps maybe* be different... maybe.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-01-13 08:24
Mike wrote:
>> Is there something more to this classical trill business that I'm missing?>>
If you look 'behind' the classical rule that trills start on the upper note, I think you see that the rule exists because following it allows you to use the appoggiatura structure (dissonance/consonance; or, not belonging/belonging) in all its various expressive forms in order to characterise any particular trill. In fact, it's more of a 'tool' than a rule: I guess it was something used for affective reasons by the great composer/performers in their improvisations, and then became a convention in written music.
I feel that in this passage it's worthwhile suppressing the first appoggiatura (by playing it fast) because it interferes with the chromatic sequence. But because it's nevertheless THERE, you can make it slightly more evident in the second trill, and then use the dissonance to make the final one really long and waily, leading naturally into the turbulent tutti.
That way, the passage has a unity, because you're using just the one structure, even though you're modulating it.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-01-13 10:33
With the different interpretations of playing trills and ornaments in Classical-era music, would it be wise to assume this is a transitional period when there were still some Baroque tendencies lingering on as well as there being a more standardised or set way of playing ornaments?
Recently I've noticed far more of a trend towards freer ornamentation in Classical music (though not so much freedom as is expected in Baroque), some players even going as far as doing this in Romantic music.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-01-13 15:45
Tony wrote:
<<If you look 'behind' the classical rule that trills start on the upper note, ...
...But because it's nevertheless THERE, you can make it slightly more evident in the second trill, and then use the dissonance to make the final one really long and waily, leading naturally into the turbulent tutti.>>
OK. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2009-01-13 17:00
I've always played those trills like Marcellus, but your explantion makes a lot of sense to me as well. Thanks, as well.
Tony, I wonder, having no access to any original manuscript that may exist, did Mozart make any special notation regarding the first trill??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-01-13 17:16
William wrote:
>> Tony, I wonder, having no access to any original manuscript that may exist, did Mozart make any special notation regarding the first trill??>>
No, unfortunately the Winterthur fragment doesn't get that far into the movement.
The first editions, both Andre and Breitkopf, just have 'tr' written above the the three notes, and a nachschlag after the final trill (but nothing after the first two); Andre's simultaneous publication of the viola arrangement has nachschlags after all three trills.
Best I can do, I'm afraid!
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-01-13 21:06
If we're thinking about what Mozart might have expected to hear in these bars, then I suppose we should take into account his knowledge of the nature of the clarinets of the time.
We don't really know anything about Stadler's basset clarinet, which was said by one reviewer to be 'almost overloaded with keys'. Those keys might have been just the basset ones, or they might have included other keys facilitating a more even chromatic scale. I suspect the latter, given the importance of chromatic chalumeau notes in the piece.
But on the standard 5-key clarinet of the time, the note G sharp is relatively weak. Therefore, the first trill would be most naturally begun on the A, and the RH xxo (plus possibly other keys, depending on the characteristics of the instrument) used to produce the trill, favouring the A over the G sharp. The second trill is unproblematic; but the third has various possible fingerings, of which I'd say that spToxo/oxx/(F/C) for the C and trilling with LH3 is the most likely. This trill also favours the C over the B.
The upshot is that Mozart, a consummate professional who knew the characteristics of the instruments he wrote for, would have expected the upper notes to predominate in at least the first and third trills on a standard clarinet.
Whether WE should go along with that in modern performance is of course another matter.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2009-01-14 04:36
Tony Pay wrote:
"The upshot is that Mozart, a consummate professional who knew the characteristics of the instruments he wrote for, would have expected the upper notes to predominate in at least the first and third trills on a standard clarinet."
The idea that Mozart's expectations regarding ornamentation may actually have been instrument-specific is an interesting point that never occurred to me before. In Interpreting Mozart on the Keyboard, the Badura-Skodas include an extensive section on Mozart's ornamentation. They comment that they were able to listen to an eighteenth-century barrel-organ playing K.616. They observe that "most of the trills ... start with the main note" and give the opinion that the fact "this piece was originally composed for barrel-organ indicates that in all probability this was Mozart's intention." They go on to say that "ince there were also a few trills starting with the upper note, our theory, that this was a time of transition and that there was a certain freedom of execution allowed, seems to be confirmed."
Later they conclude that, "in [a number of] cases, it seems right to begin the trill on the main note." In each case, they provide examples from specific Mozart works along with logical explanations of why it makes more sense to begin the trill on the main note. One such case is chains of trills such as the one that motivated this thread.
The Badura-Skodas obviously put alot of time into the study of Mozart's works. (They quote symphonies, violin concerti, et al., in addition to piano works.) Their position is largely informed opinion (with the emphasis on informed). It does, however, suggest that the oft-stated position that trills in classical music are to be done from the upper note (unless the passage that approaches the trilled note arrives from below) is probably an over-simplification when applied to Mozart's works.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-01-14 17:17
Jack Kissinger wrote:
>> The idea that Mozart's expectations regarding ornamentation may actually have been instrument-specific is an interesting point that never occurred to me before. >>
I don't think I was trying to deduce anything in particular about Mozart's ornament PREFERENCES from my observations about early clarinets. After all, with someone like Stadler behind the gun, anything would be possible; and even something as demanding as the clarinet part in Verdi's Alzira was written with Cavallini and his 5-key clarinet in mind. I was just reporting something about what Mozart would have been used to hearing.
My own attitude to working out how to play such things is to take the 'tool' over 'rule' approach, and always to try to have a view on how a stylistic element 'cashes out' in musical terms, instead of having a fixed view on how it is 'in itself'. (In other words, what do we get out of using it? What did THEY get out of using it?) So as I explained, we can produce a variety of 'upper note first' trills, and use them just as we would use varying types of appoggiatura, because of the way trills are habitually harmonised in classical music. A notated trill isn't something fixed, but offers a choice between different musical flavours.
Another example of such a thing, in a different musical style, would be 'swing': that, too is 'something whose degree of application can be modulated' -- and great players do modulate it, though inferior players may not.
The same is true of 'inegal' in early French music. Asking "How inegal should this be played?" always invites the return question, "Well, what musical effect are you trying to create at that point?"
Similarly, as explained in the external link posted by Claire in the 'Hypermeter' thread, the use of hypermetre tends to lighten the texture. But such lightness always invites the contrast of powerful rhythmic accentuation, and it's how this relationship is managed within a piece that gives the musical affect.
So I'd argue that taking earlier stylistic elements as prescriptive, and always doing them in the same way, puts us in the same camp as the BAD players of the time. Copying the surface of something may be fashionable; but that, of course, is exactly what makes mere fashion ultimately unsatisfying.
Anyway, because the effect of a trill is context-dependent, and therefore not ultimately to be governed by prescriptive rules, I'd rather keep the conversation in the world of 'what you get out of it'; and perhaps that's what you meant when you said:
>> ...[the Badura-Skodas] provide examples from specific Mozart works along with logical explanations of why it makes more sense to begin the trill on the main note.>>
But, does that 'making sense' include that there may be different kinds of 'making sense' to choose from? You can after all play a trill starting on either upper or lower note in a variety of ways; just saying that it's one way or the other doesn't capture that.
I don't have the book to hand, so I don't know whether, for example, what I wrote about those trills -- namely, that you want to have the last one start on the upper note because of the heightened emotion, and the first one on the lower note because of the chromatic introduction, and you don't want to change types of trill midstream -- fits with the sort of thing they write.
Does it? If not, can you give an example of one of their arguments?
Tony
Post Edited (2009-01-15 12:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-01-15 10:46
By the way, another interesting example of a Mozart 'chain' of ascending trills occurs towards the end of the first movement of the clarinet quintet. Here, I'd say that the musical context makes it natural for the trills to begin with the upper note: the written out appoggiaturas in bars 180/1 set the model for appoggiaturas in the ascending sequence that begins in bar 182.
You have to be careful not to dominate the texture too much though, because both 'cello and viola are important lines.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-01-15 12:45
Same era, different piece - Weber concerto No.1 at the end of the Rondo there's a string of eight trills (bars 347-350 ending on 351).
Aren't these trills best played by starting on the written note rather than the note above?
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-01-15 13:16
Chris P wrote:
>> Same era, different piece - Weber concerto No.1 at the end of the Rondo there's a string of eight trills (bars 347-350 ending on 351).
>> Aren't these trills best played by starting on the written note rather than the note above?>>
I'd certainly say so. You wouldn't gain anything from either appoggiatura or nachschlag; in fact, you'd have to work very hard -- much TOO hard -- in order not to lose bigtime.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-01-15 13:52
...but actually, having said that, I just went and tried with both fast and brilliant upper note start and nachschlag; and though it's of course much more awkward, it's...well, for me the jury's still out. Because that way you can get the entire coda to sound more and more virtuoso, having started a little palely by comparison with the codas of both quintet and second concerto.
Context again, you see.
Tony
Post Edited (2009-01-15 14:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-01-15 16:10
(...AND another thing:-):
If you do the beginning of a trill quite fast, and with a dense sound, it can be hard to hear which note you started on anyway, especially in a resonant acoustic, and/or from a distance. If you're after brilliance, what we want to hear is a sufficient number of notes.
That being so, a good reason for starting the Weber trills on the upper note if you're doing a nachschlag is that you only have to play 6 notes in the whole gesture to get a good, brilliant effect; whereas if you start on the lower note you have to play 7 -- 5 isn't quite enough. And 7 is asking a lot at a fast tempo. (Actually, 6 notes brings the coda at this point into line with the quintet and the second concerto, each of which makes its brilliant effect with sextuplets;-) You can do exactly the same in the first half of each of the previous 3 bars, too.
On another tack, a further way of modulating a longer trill is to spend more time proportionally on one or the other note. That changes its character. (See the long trill in the Messiaen Abime, which starts off with more upper note and ends with more lower note, I'd say.)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-01-16 00:45
Sarah Elbaz wrote:
> Thank you, Tony.
I second that! This has been a really informative thread. (and now I'm itching to pull out Weber No. 1 again after lo these many years! )
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-01-16 21:39
Well finally, having written:
>> ...a good reason for starting the Weber trills on the upper note if you're doing a nachschlag is that you only have to play 6 notes in the whole gesture to get a good, brilliant effect; whereas if you start on the lower note you have to play 7 -- 5 isn't quite enough. And 7 is asking a lot at a fast tempo.>>
...I decided that if you're going to do a nachschlag, starting on the lower note and doing 7 is the best solution. I couldn't really make the sextuplets 'work' the other way.
The decision is still a function of context, though:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2009-01-16 22:03
Back, momentarily, to the Mozart trills, I wonder if Mozart's interest in the Masonic symbol of three had anything to do with building trills from beginning, through middle, to end. I''ve noticed that there has been some interest in Mozart's connection to Masonry, and of course, this piece was written for Anton Stadler, a fellow Mason. Any insight?
Post Edited (2009-01-16 22:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-01-16 22:54
FDF wrote:
>> I wonder if Mozart's interest in the Masonic symbol of three had anything to do with building trills from beginning, through middle, to end?>>
Well, absolutely. You can see that the chromatic introduction to the trills is a decoration of the ascending sequence D sharp, F sharp, A natural; and the trills themselves are decorations of the ascending sequence G sharp, A natural, B natural.
The first is the 'interval' representation of two ascending minor thirds, and the second the 'filled-in' representation of one ascending minor third.
[added later: I don't know what I thought I was talking about in the first bit, because the chromatic doesn't actually go up to A!]
Both of these, and their inversions, recur incessantly throughout the concerto -- even to the extent that you could say that the whole concerto is 'about' the number 3.
Actually, in this concerto, Mozart's inventive genius was informed by a motivic obsession.
Haven't I posted about that here?-)
Tony
Post Edited (2009-01-17 09:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2009-01-16 23:50
"Haven't I posted about that here?-)"
Yes, you have. Although, I don't recall the specific reference to the trills. Thanks for a very concise explication of the use of three (3) in this instance. I hope you publish a paper on this concept. I find it quite interesting.
Thanks,
Forest
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-01-17 00:07
Forest wrote:
>> "Haven't I posted about that here?-)"
Yes, you have. Although, I don't recall the specific reference to the trills.>>
No, sorry, I didn't mean to undermine what you said.
In fact, I hadn't noticed that particular example of the general idea, so thank you.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2009-01-17 00:53
Ah. TGIF. I dug out my copy of the Badura-Skoda book. The section on trills is a sub-part of a much larger section on ornamentation in general. With regard to unprepared trills (starting on the note that carries the trill sign) and prepared trills (starting on the upper auxiliary), the Badura-Skodas argue that "a prepared trill ... is distinguished by a certain acuity and brilliance. It satisfies old-fashioned theorists because it can be analyzed as a succession of accented passing-notes and their resolutions. Its disadvantage is that it can obscure the flow of the melody, since it accents the upper auxiliary. For instance, in a rising scale, it will anticipate the succeeding note, and this can often rob a line of some of its sense of direction (109)."
"The unprepared trill ... does, on the other hand, make the main note quite unmistakable, and this eases matters for the listener. But it has a duller effect than a prepared trill because one misses the acuity of the accented dissonance (109)."
As I look again, after all these years at their comment regarding chains of trills (my earlier post in this thread was actually excerpted from a longer post I sent to the Klarinet list back in 1998), I see now that they may not have intended it to apply to a chain like the one in the clarinet concerto but it's not entirely clear to me. In their list of situations where they believe a trill would best start on the main note, they write, "in chains of trills, e.g., in the second movement of the Concerto K.482, bars 151-2, 173-6 (115)." In this, the only example they supply, the chain of trills is on three chromatically ascending notes and their reasoning is specific to that kind of chain -- "to start on the upper auxiliary would obscure the chromatic progression, since ... there would be two trills starting on the same note (115)." So it may be that they are only referring to chromatic chains, though then I wonder why didn't they say so. Or perhaps the scope is broader because there is still the issue of "sense of direction" in a rising scale.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
