 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2003-06-14 04:43
I've always wondered this! What is so great about the Mozart concerto?!?! I understand the historical significance of the piece, and it's a well written piece, but in my opinion there are pieces written after it that completely superpass it in structure, intellect, beauty, and virtuosity.
Obviously, music is a field that builds on accomplishments of past composers, so it's safe to argue that without Mozart, the path that clarinet music took might have been different, so we owe him that... However, to say the Mozart Concerto is the greatest piece for clarinet seems a little short-sided. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so I'm not gonna question anyone personally thinking the Mozart is their favorite piece, but it seems like the general opinion of the clarinet community is that it's the greatest piece, but I have yet to get a satisfactory reason as to what's so great about it (but maybe I'm just stubborn).
I'm not being flippant (well, I am a LITTLE)... I just really need some motivation to give the piece the attention and passion that it apparently deserves (besides the fact that it's such an important audition piece...)
Help me out!
Don
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
PS - Maybe this will help you see where I'm coming from. Two pieces I think far surpass the Mozart are -
Concerto, Corigliano
Concerto, Copland
Both are structurally perfect (in my opinion), beautiful, intellectually satisfying, and perfectly suited for the clarinet....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2003-06-14 10:16
The Mozart Concerto is the best that was written. The harmonic genius, the fluent technique you need as a player to get all the passages even. The piece is a thing of beauty, if you sat down to learn it you may realise this. The Nielsen is the next best after the Mozart. Corigliano is good but it's just an excuse to bluff your way round the notes especially the beginig
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-06-14 10:44
Qu'avez-vous dit au sujet de ma mère?
******
I suppose the combination of broad appeal and clever scoring works out.
I play more of the stuff Crussel and Hummel wrote than Moze...
I suppose the concerto in question is over-exposed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Stéphane
Date: 2003-06-14 10:49
Beejay, tu as raison, à chacun son goût, however, apart from all the beauty that I personnally find in the Mozart, and indeed, this is subjective, I am always amazed each time I'm listenning to it to realize that nothing is missing to serve the instrument (registers, musicality, atmosphere, brio, feelings, technique, etc.). The clarinet was relatively new at Mozart's time, and I find it fascinating that Mozart was able to embrace almost everything about the instrument in the concerto.
But again, as Beejay said, à chacun son goût.
Stéphane.
After you've heard a work by Mozart, the silence that follows, this is still by Mozart.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-06-14 12:33
Ooh, those Frenchies are at it again. As someone said long ago, "If you don't know why then there's no point in my telling you."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2003-06-14 14:36
I once asked a physcian (and fellow musician) friend of mine how much a recent vacation cost him. He replied, "If you have to ask, you can't afford it."
When I first startd learning the Mozart Concerto, I had the same question--why is this music great? And the answer occurred to me after many years of playing the work and never tiring of it. However, unfortunately, the answer cannot be expressed in words but rather only be "felt" somewhere inside by the human spirit.
There is always just something extra special about the music of Mozart.......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2003-06-14 14:40
In my defense, I have studied and performed all three Movements of the Mozart Concerto in the past, plus I have listened to and compared several recordings of it, so advice like "The piece is a thing of beauty, if you sat down to learn it you may realise this" doesn't give me nearly enough credit.
I'm still not convinced. "Harmonic Genius" is cited, but in my opinion most of mozart's music sounds extremely similar (the Concerto and the Quintet alone have enough harmonic similarities that I'd hardly consider the Concerto a harmonic landmark in Mozart's career). Flowing lines and being suited for the clarinet are also cited, and these are certainly valid points, but what about Weber? His pieces require greater technique and are equally musical, if not more so.
DON'T GET ME WRONG.... I'm don't have some crusade against Mozart. I like the piece a lot, but for it to be considered "UNQUESTIONABLY THE BEST" across the boards, I think there needs to be some pretty concrete evidence to that fact. If you think I'm just a stubborn idiot (and you're probably right!) just ignore me, but if you can logically give me something here, I'd really appreciate it!
Don
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
ps - I guess this is a touchy subject (for some reason...), but I love a good debate, so let's go about this intelligently and avoid condescending remarks or assumptions... Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-06-14 15:01
theclarinetist wrote:
> If you
> think I'm just a stubborn idiot (and you're probably right!)
> just ignore me, but if you can logically give me something
> here, I'd really appreciate it!
There's no "logic" in stating what is "the best" in music; there's only a growing appreciation of the music.
Do I think the Mozart Concerto is "the best"? I personally don't believe in such a sweeping statement. Is it one of "the best"? Certainly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jeff Forman
Date: 2003-06-14 15:03
I think that the Mozart is the most beautiful piece because it embodies what I believe made Mozart the musical genius he was. To me, the elements of his genius are:
1) Aesthetically pleasing - This may sound like I am stating the obvious, but I find that Mozart, more than almost any other composer, can be pleasing to the ear the first time you hear one of his pieces. Many other composers have wonderful pieces, but you sometimes have to listen to them several times before you "like" them. Mozart, on the other hand, right out of the blocks can make you smile.
2) Simplicity - I find that Mozart's music is simple and straight forward. I have felt for a long time that the notes you leave out are as important as the notes you play (or write in). So for my money, give me a piece that has a melody line that is powerful but simple. That way, the occasional "tension/resolve" is meaningful and sends chills up your spine because it breaks pattern and gets you back home quickly, when you least expected it. More complex musical pieces can't use a simple flatted seventh to move you. It has much more work to do to get you to even hear that one note. That, to me, is part of the real genius of Mozart. The ability to move you with very little effort because he is so soothing most of the time. So when he oes want a reaction, he doesn't have far to travel to get it.
3) Scales, Scales, Scales - What I love about Mozart is his use of scales (again straight forward and simple). This may be what others find boring about Mozart. But I love his use of going up and down scales in the various modes of the key signature. Like in the Rondo Allegro movement, it just goes up and down the scales with a fluidity that is tough to improve on. And this adherence to the use of scales is what I find makes Mozart instantly recognizable in just a few measures.
Just my humble opinion.
Jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-06-14 15:45
Reminds me of a song, "Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-06-14 17:05
The "best" concerto ever? A statement that means nothing....
Is it a work of genius? Absolutely...
Why?
To appreciate the Concerto you have to first put it in historical perspective. Mozart composed the work for an instrument which was relatively young and certainly had not yet earned its way into the orchestra. However the great insight Mozart used to exploit its expressive sound with the contrasts between the different registers had never been done by any composer previously. He then combined shifting key centers and subtle changes from major to minor to create both joy and pathos within minutes of each other. The feelings of searching, longing and optimism are all present (although we all know about the personal turmoil in Mozart's life in the year 1791) and quickly draw the listener in.
But all of that is only half of the story. You must also look at the scoring. Mozart chose the lightest texture possible for the orchestration (no oboes, no trumpets) to enhance the beauty of the clarinet. Listen for the use of the 2 flutes. Listen for the foreshadowing of the themes by the lower strings. Listen for the countermelodies by the violins. The list goes on...
The melodic line is a thing of genius. Entire thesis have been written strictly on the use of the interval of the third in this work. Someday, sit down with the score and trace the ascending and descending thirds, and you will see how this simple germ is the entire basis of the concerto. Simple, yet deeply complex...
The sweeping scales and gently formed melodies are a thing of beauty which seem perfectly appropriate for the clarinet. How did Mozart know?
After 212 years, we still don't know... GBK
Post Edited (2003-06-14 17:43)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2003-06-14 19:30
Remembrances from the old geezer:
It's like recalling your first lover. The first time ever.
Many of us lost "our virginity" laboring over this piece. Over and Over and Over.
And then--when we finally got it (at least to our limited satisfaction) THE BLISS!
Nuff said.
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2003-06-14 21:33
Glen Gould wrote he disliked Mozart because everythings Mozart composed were somthing same and even that Mozart died so young.
Each person has his own gout.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wyatt
Date: 2003-06-14 21:56
are we talking about k622 or all of his works?ˇ
bob gardner}ÜJ
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph G
Date: 2003-06-15 00:12
It's enticing simple to play, yet you have to be an extremely fluent musician to do it well. If you're not an extremely fundamentally sound clarinetist, it will expose exactly what abilities you're lacking. There's no jumbled musical forest to hide behind -- when you don't nail a passage, you'll know it, and everybody listening will know it.
________________
Artistic talent is a gift from God and whoever discovers it in himself has a certain obligation: to know that he cannot waste this talent, but must develop it.
- Pope John Paul II
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim E.
Date: 2003-06-15 04:09
To echo BobD and William, If you have to ask, you won't get it.
All Mozart the same? Not hardly! Give a listen to the sections of the Requiem (K626) to hear great variations of texture in a single work. (Yes, the first and last sections ARE the same though with diferent text. Mozart didn't live to finish the work.) Contrast these with his other works, though some elements are similar, there are great diferences.
Take some time to listen to the whole of his body of work, the symphonies, concertos, piano works and the choral music to begin to appreciate the genius of this great composer. And then, try to imagine where he would have gone musically if he had lived longer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2003-06-15 07:19
Mozart was a master violinist and studied with his father, also a violinist. This shows in his compositions and the phrasing appropriate to playing them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dawne
Date: 2003-06-15 07:29
I am just learning the K622 for the first time...(except for some of the 3rd movement) and I agree with every word Ralph G wrote above...every word. By the way, I am progressing nicely with it...forturnately.
Dawne Morgan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2003-06-15 08:22
Forgive me for nitpicking. I believe he played the viola, not the violin.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-06-15 08:46
beejay...Mozart was first taught the violin and the keyboard by his father. He later played viola, and actually preferred it over the violin (especially when playing string quartets with friends). It should also be noted that when Mozart conducted the premiere of his Sinfonia Concertante for violin and viola he played the principal viola part...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-06-15 15:11
Thank goodness I don't have gout. Ha, re Gould's attributed comment about Mozart.....he should know.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Leonard Buchanan
Date: 2003-06-15 22:53
Glenn Gould was a pianist. It is also to be noted that although I don't know if he was a lefty or not, he was fluent in both hands enough. Thus, he loved harmonic and canonic variations in the left hand; something that Mozart chose not to put in his piano works too often. That is the reason why Gould detested Mozart.
And the fact that Mozart knew how to play violin or viola has no relation whatsoever in his music. It just gives him a basic understanding in how the instrument works.
He was also a piano virtuoso, and it shows in his concertos.
Granted, Mozart proabably never knew how to play the basset horn when he was alive, but Anton Stadler played enough for Mozart to know what he was doing.
The principle to understanding Mozart's wind works are his operas.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-06-16 05:24
Glenn Gould ... hmm, hate his piano playing - or at least I love his piano playing just don't like his vocalisations. As to his very famous Mozart comment: phui!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-06-16 18:36
I really dislike the Corigliano Concerto comparison on the grounds it is simply show and very shallow at that.
On the other hand it is effective as a clarinet piece, but doesn't hold a candle to the Mozart.
The slow music in the Mozart is the among the most tastefully written exhibitions of what a clarinet can do....or any instrument for that matter.
the Coriliagno gets bogged down in chromaticism and an overabundance of technical things that will never make it as popular as the Mozart among clarinetist or audiences....
sometimes a simple melody is the true test of a great concerto....
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2003-06-16 19:57
D Dow -
I realize I posted this to get info on the Mozart concerto, but I must take an aside to defend Corigliano
I've met Corigliano and taken masterclasses under him, and have studied the clarinet concerto (as a clarinet piece and a compositional masterpiece). I guarantee that the work is not shallow at all. The themes and material may be harder to recognize because of their complexity and the "busy-ness" of much of the piece, but they are there. The key to the Corigliano concerto (from what I can tell) is to let the extreme technical demands compliment the musical content, not distract from it (which they easily can if not done carefully).
It seems to ME, like many people just assume that a piece like the Corigliano is nothing but technique, but I find that this is not the case. I've read several of your posts, and you appear to be very passionate and well-informed, so I doubt your opinion is based on assumption...
I also realize comparing Mozart and Corigliano is like apples and oranges, and ultimately doesn't really lead anywhere... However, if so many people are willing to label the Mozart Concerto the best concerto EVER written (for any wind instrument), then a comparison has already taken place... Personally, I don't think the Corigliano is the greatest concerto for clarinet, but it's certainly not shallow and deserves to be ranked with among the best (as does the Mozart)....
Don Hite
PS - Just for the sake of honesty, I think the Copland is the best clarinet conerto that I've heard (of course, I haven't heard every concerto ever written for clarinet, obviously). Corigliano and Mozart (believe it or not) are close behind, as well as many others... One concerto that I don't really care for is the Nielsen which I find to be wandery and hard to follow, but I'll probably just get accused of "not getting it" -->an argument used many times during this thread that I find weak at best... but that's enough for now... I actually found most of the comments on this thread very helpful and actually think of the Mozart a little differently now, so I thank everyone for that...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2003-06-17 02:46
don hite wrote:
"I also realize comparing Mozart and Corigliano is like apples and oranges..."
I must take exception to that statement - in fact, it is very easy to compare apples to oranges: oranges are citrus fruits usually grown in tropical climates, whereas apples are fruits of a deciduous tree most commonly found in temperate zones; orange skins are rough, while apple skins are smooth; oranges segment easily, but apples don't. One could go on, but the basic point is that one can easily compare apples to oranges - doesn't mean they're the same, as a good comparison study will prove. It's not rocket science (actually, rocketry is much more easy and understandable than other sciences, brain surgery, for example).
larry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-06-17 02:47
Yes well, this is all very well but it was NOT written for a "clarinet" as we know it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2003-06-17 02:58
I realize that any two items can be compared (obviously)... You can compare and contrast apples and oranges, but your findings will lead you no closer to the answer of "which tastes better"...
If someone told you that "apples are the best tasting fruit and anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously just missing something", wouldn't many people question this? Why should the Mozart Concerto be any different?
Don
PS - I have no problem comparing Mozart to Corigliano, and I have no problem comparing apples to oranges... but when I start comparing Mozart to Apples, I think I need to re-evaluate my priorities in life = ) J/K
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2003-06-17 03:03
maybe not Mozarts to Apples, but certainly a Mozart to a Pleyel
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ella
Date: 2003-06-17 06:12
Ahh, Mozart. It is to be noted that the clarinet concerto may be considered his "death piece", although the Requiem is often given this title. I have to say that in relation to the works he amassed through the short years of his life that I find the clarinet concerto to be more representative of his artistic height than the requiem. But then there's also the Jupiter Symphony, and I'm not entirely sure where that fits in. Regardless, my view of the clarinet concerto is that it shows very rich joy through tones of sorrow. This is best exemplified in the second movement. The first movement plays with shadow and light, it is somewhat reminiscent (to me) of Dvorak's eighth symphony. Whatshisname the famous violinist complains that people play Mozart to stiffly, trying to be "elegant" or "light", though the true spirit of Mozart is shown in his operas, which are full of tragedy, longing, and heart. To me part of the beauty of the clarinet concerto is that only lightness is needed to show the full spirit of the piece. It is not Weber; exaggerated tones that in my opinion do not reflect human nature, one minute slow and agonizingly beautiful and the next fiery and malicious (first concerto, second mvmt). And with this comment I will add the obligatory statement that I know this is in one or many ways an extremely short-sighted thing to write. But while I can play a decent Weber, I still can't play Mozart for beans. I know how it's supposed to sound, but I just can't get it. So at least for me, that piece has been and I imagine will continue to be one tough cookie. But the first couple of times I heard it I missed it entirely, and I used to hate Mozart, so I think I know where you (the original poster) are coming from. But trust me, the motivation, attention, and passion is worth it. I apologize for the long-winded (haha) post!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-06-17 10:41
I think this discussion just goes to show how truly difficult the Mozart is to interpret.
Many fine clarinetists just don't see the glory of the part writing of the first movement for example...the tremendous play of interwining lines and colors.
the Bassoon part alone is one of the glories of this piece, as well as the wonderful flutes in the slow music!!!
I know of no Concerto ever written that has such a beautiful opening introductory statement. Later the double development section has some of the most exquisite orchestration ever made!!!
I think sometimes clarinetists put blinders on and only worry about the clarinet contribution, rather than the subltle interplay of themes and ideas.
Others may write Concertos but fail to see beyond pyrotechnics.....
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: katchow
Date: 2003-06-17 12:53
..."the fluent technique you need as a player to get all the passages even"
...that is a perfect example of what turns me off about some of the classical listening crowd...
sorry to run off topic but i always shudder when i hear this...as if difficulty=greatness....maybe some truly believe this, and if that keeps them playing/listening i guess there is nothing wrong with it, but ideally i'd like to see music appreciation come from its ability to stir some kind of emotion in us. no doubt the mathmatical intricacies are of interest but they seem to miss the point in my opinion...
(not really a rant)
just a little sleepy....
mozart makes me feel like i'm seeing the blueprints of nature...
debussy makes me weep like a little girl...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-06-17 15:33
I also think that audiences don't hear sometimes what clarinet players hear.
Audiences return to Mozart constantly and are amazed by its beauty and poise....
I also have seen audience grow weary quickly of the more "modern" music......especially alot of the recent clarinet concerto form concotions....
try forcing an audience through a bunch of Boulez....
should set attendance records....not!!!
The thing with this Mozart guy is to achieve the most with the barest melodic material...
instead of blitizing the audiences with multiphonics and a conudrum of chromatic cacaphony he elicits an inner pleasure in listeners that has been proven to have beneficial health effects even on the most hardened case....
go to the Magic Flute and this tells part of the vein of the Mozart thing I am trying to get across...
much in agreement with the previous statement relating the Clarinet Concerto K622 to the Magic Flute!!!
.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-06-17 17:46
So Glenn Gould thought all Mozart was the same? Well, should that be a condemnation of either Mozart or Gould? Sameness does not equal poor quality. I especially enjoy restaurants that are consistent. Often, I will order the same dishes as I ordered before, and they're always enjoyable. Almost everyone goes to concerts over and over again to hear the same pieces. So? This is bad? Of course not. If it's great, so what.
Mozart's style is pretty unmistakeable, and there is a consistency among his works that is wonderful to hear (although I do wonder a bit about some parts of the K622). Anyway, I'll continue to enjoy them. YMMV.
And to diz, who hates Gould's piano playing: if everyone in Australia had felt the same, maybe he wouldn't have wanted to play there.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2003-06-17 20:05
FWIW, the Mozart concerto scares the s*** out of me!
I find it the most FRIGHTENING piece to play!
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2003-06-17 20:22
I don't understand why everyone makes such a big deal about how hard the Mozart concerto is to play! People always say stuff like "you really need flawless technique and perfect tone, blah, blah, blah to perform this piece"... I think that is definitely a true statement, but people often use this argument to raise the Mozart concerto above other pieces...
Call me crazy, but if you can think of a legitimate clarinet piece that DOESN'T require flawless technique and perfect tone, I'd like to know what it is???? Of course, depending on what piece you are performing, the concept of what constitutes a "perfect" tone can change, but that doesn't really make a difference (I'm just trying to pre-empt the argument that other pieces let you "get away" with more)...
An informed listener could pick out mistakes made during any song, no matter who composed it! I'm sorry, what is so magical about the Mozart that makes it SOOO much more difficult than other pieces to perform?
Don
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2003-06-18 03:45
Mozart is great for what is not there, as much as for what is. His music is exactly as complicated as it needs to be, no more and no less. The space between the notes is as important as the notes.
A reasonably accomplished clarinetist can "play the notes" of K 622 fairly early on. But in Mozart the music is much more than just the notes. The apparent simplicity of the technique exposes every shortcoming in musicality.
I came to appreciate Mozart much later than Bach and Beethoven. The slow movements did it. They are exquisite, including that of K 622.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2003-06-18 04:20
Don,
I've found the Mozart concerto so difficult since I worked on the Nielsen. I think that Nielsen provides so many more opportunities to hide faults than Mozart. If you're wiggling your fingers fast enough, MOST people will not notice a missed articulation...
I also became more and more frightened of the Mozart when preparing for my grad school auditions. For some reason, playing it unaccompanied in front of clarinetist x, y, or z, made it soooo much scarier. And I am most definitely a perfectionist, to boot...that doesn't help either...
I guess I just think that pieces like Nielsen (have played) and Corigliano (haven't played) feature a lot more "effect" type playing...
Katrina
Post Edited (2003-06-18 16:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-06-18 05:22
J McAulay
If you'd bothered to read what I said - I actually said I LOVED his piano playing I just don't care for his vocalisations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-06-18 15:12
Music is its own language that words cannot explain
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-06-18 17:01
Once again feel that there a few things that need to be sorted out in the Mozart discussion in my own mind.
In relationship to western art music the Syphonies of Mozart (41 in all) the Operas of Mozart(among the greatest ever written) and the Piano Concertos(which contain some of the greatest clarinet parts written) I can honestly state Mozart occupies a towering place way over lesser commposers like Corigliano and even Copland.
I am in no way slighting the greatness of the Corigliano and Copland works, but in some ways the genius of Mozart can be looked at in numerous ways. I truly doubt the Clarinet as we know it would exist if it was not for the relationship between Anton Stadler and Mozart. the fact that Mozart also wrote a great Quintet and the Kegelstatt trio alone shows that this Mozart guy was also not a Johnny one note either!
Then if Clarinet players also want to look into this inherent gift Mozart had with the Clarinet, look no further than all of the Clarinet Book of theMagic Flute, which in istsef is a total masterpiece of tonal beauty! For two clarinets...what a blast to play!!!
After that sample of playing, then move toward the Requiem which contains some of the most eloquent and music lines...ie Opening Movement with the Basset Clarinets in close harmony. This goes beyond the norm of his day, and even standards of today. What dark and brooding music! What Colours!!!
Then go straight headlong into the Piano Concerto no. 23 in A major into the F# minor slow movement for one of the greatest arching solo clarinet lines ever written......I must admit as a player and listener I can't honestly say any other composer understands the sonic beauty of clarinet so well as good old Wolfgang Amadeus.....the economy of means and depth of thought achieved with perfect balance.
Really in terms of knowing the capability and bringing expression of the clarinet to its total best, I would say Mozart is the composer who could offer the clarinet its character in a way that no other can.....compare the incredible and high quality output of good clarinet stuff W. A. Mozart wrote...and others pale....
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-06-20 00:44
D Dow
I completely agree with you on your point about Mozart's beautiful clarinet writting. His symphonic parts are very good indeed ... Haydn's clarinet writting (in the later symphonies) is, by comparison very pedestrian. He must have just assumed the London clarinetists weren't particularly gifted. The London Symphony is a joy, but it's a bit of bore for the clarinets ... unlike Mozart's Symphony No. 39 (and the horn concerto with the clarinets atop - sorry can't remember which one it is) is just devine clarinet writting.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Leonard Buchanan
Date: 2003-06-20 00:54
Seems like this topic has been hot lately.
Time to bring it back a bit.
As to why I adore the Mozart concerto, it is because it is SIMPLE. Contrary to people who say the Corigliano Concerto cannot compare with the Mozart, I can't say I agree with that. Both were written because each of the composers had something to say. Corigliano appernatly saw it fit to synthesize more virtuostic passages with what he wanted to express.
Mozart, on the other hand, could reduce music to its most basic elements, and the result is that what is left; is music cuts right into your heart.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
