 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: wjk
Date: 2003-12-16 13:41
I recently read a review that stated a performer was able "to get inside" of Brahms' Op. 120. This notion fascinates me---how do we, as performers, "get inside" of a piece? Does this mean we come as close as possible to what the composer has intended the piece to be? Or is it that we by necessity impose our own interpretations of the piece that may or may not appeal to the listener/critic? For example, I find Karl Leister's performance of this piece to be highly emotional. Was this intentional, or is it possible he was going through a very emotional period in his own life at the time of the recording? Or, could it be that emotional events in my life at the time of listenening have "shaded" my interpretation of the performance?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-12-16 17:05
A few years ago at a Clarinetfest I asked Karl Leister about how he prepares to record something as daunting as the four Spohr concerti, and his answer was that he listened to EVERYTHING ELSE that Spohr had written. Only then, he said, can you appreciate and understand the composer's intentions and where the pieces fit in his compositional output. Leister said that the recording aspect was the easy part, but the studying was the most difficult.
I also asked him if he ever listened to his older recordings, as I thought his first Mozart Concerto recording with Kubelik was stunning. He surprised me by saying that he generally does not listen to his older recordings, as they represent his feelings, emotions and interpretation at that particular moment - merely a musical photograph in time.
He said that your emotions and your ideas are always changing and evolving. Thus, his multiple recordings of Brahms or Mozart are all slightly different and represented, at that time, his current thoughts.
He made a point to emphasize, however, that he didn't forsee any new recordings by him of Mozart or Brahms in the near future ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-12-17 03:45
Karl Leister ... ah, now there's a fantastic clarinetist if ever there was one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-12-17 16:41
Karl Leister is a genius of a player, and also to boot an extemely intelligent music personality. In the music business this does not always happen. I would also add the inhernent danger of Brahms playing is sticking to the middle of the road interpretations that have been the bore of the music world. Leister is also the type of artist who never committs to an interpretation unless he is on sound ground.
For example, listening to various recordings is an ideal way learning what a composter is about. Brahms is clearly one of the musical personalities of the 19th Century who we hear most often, but how well done. Listening to various interpretations of a composer's music is way to go.
Good players really are quite the opposite, one has to manufacture emotion in some regards.
The reason why, is that we all have to work on getting the music across without distracting from the music itself, instead a wacky vibrato and tone just won't cut it in the Opus. 120. However, one must play the music with a freedom and relaxed technique as not to exhaust oneself, and for that matter the audience as well
...so what this means is developing the ability to contrate on matters of tone and ensemble for a long period of time. Only that way can an artist of the instrument intepret the music and also emote it to an audience without losing sight of the goal. Brahms is one great example of a composer who is not easy to interpet.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
