 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-01-09 07:55
I was thinking today (doesn't happen often!)...
Is there a tendency to prefer more simple and economical music as one musically matures? I know this sounds like a weird question, but I'll try to explain...
When I first started listening to clarinet music and getting decently familiar with the rep, I was a complete "virtuosity junky". Some of the first pieces that I heard that were virtuosic (spelling?) were the Weber Concertos in high school. Since then, I've collected a large amount of clarinet music of a variety of styles. I find that as I mature musically (and I'm only 21 and have a lot more musical maturing to do...), I find simple pieces more satisfying and virtuosic pieces a little annoying (or at least shallow) at times. For example, I just finished listening to Victoria Soames playing Romance from 5 Bagatelles and find it beautiful, simple, and immensely satisfying. I guess I'm more able to appreciate "the notes that aren't there" (I find that phrase trite and pretentious, but it seems to work here, so I'll run with it). I have experience similar feelings with pieces that I once found boring (Mozart Mov. 2 in particular is one that I am growing more to appreciate and once found long and drawn out). On the other hand, I find some pieces that are mainly flashy to be somewhat monotonous... It sort of like when there are that many notes, they all just blend together.
I have a couple theories that may explain this, and feel free to share experiences or let me know what I'm missing...
1) There is a natural tendency to gravitate towards music that is more economical as one matures. I've read about some composers that felt this way. For example, Rachmaninoff felt his 3rd Piano Concerto was "overly elaborate" and, favoring ecomony later in life, performed the piece with several cuts. I've also just noticed in some composer than their compositions tend to drift more in this direction as they get older. Many people seem to "downsize" and appreciate the smaller things in life as they age, so why should it be any different with one's musical tastes.
2) Virtuosic music is like a drug to which you build up a tolerance. At first Stamitz and Weber will wow you. When they becomes mundane, you move on to harder pieces, which all successively become "normal" for you. It's not that simple is inherently better, it's just that appreciating pieces based on their "extremeness" will only lead to a desire for further extremes and ultimately leave you unsatisfied. On the other hand, simpler pieces leave more to the imagination, allowing the listener to infinitely fill in what is not there, providing unlimited possibilites...
3) Tastes just naturally fluctuate. This appears to be true for me (though I haven't been listening to clarinet music long enough to make a definitive call on this one). Sometimes I want simple and find plain virtuosity tedious. Other times I just want to hear a clarinet player go to town and could care less about economy. This is probably true to some extent, but even as tastes fluctuate, they still seem to drift in a certain direction over time (as I said, I haven't been listening enough to determine which direction and why for myself). I also find that I have to be in the "mood" for slower, simpler music, whereas faster more flashy stuff can usually keep my attention even when I'm distracted or doing other things. I can enjoy Weber while cleaning my room or reading emails... more simpler things seem to demand more attention.
These are the three ideas I thought of, and (as is always the case) the real cause is probably different for everyone and lies in the gray areas between them. Any ideas, or personal experiences that would speak to this question?
Thanks
DH
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
