 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Melissa
Date: 2004-01-19 22:50
For University I need to pick a 20th century work and the only one that comes to my mind is Copeland's clarinet concerto. What other pieces have been written for the clarinet during the 20th century?
Melissa
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Snowy
Date: 2004-01-19 23:00
My vote would be for the Finzi concerto, but that's only a start
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-01-19 23:25
A new 21st (?) century got premiered in Ontario last week ... my thanks to Brenda, Janet and the Upper Canada Clarinet Choir.
My suggestion - if you really want a challenge: Nielsen's concerto. There is a very beautiful new Australian clarinet concerto composed by Gordon Kerry ... it had it's premiere with the Sydney Symphony's Associate Principal last year. It is available via "Sounds Australian" ... they've changed their name but they are the national body that promotes Australian composers, if you'd like more info (contact info) just let me know.
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
Post Edited (2004-01-19 23:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-01-20 00:27
The Poulenc Sonata comes to mind first.
Messiaen's Abime des oiseaux (Abyss of the Birds) is a delight.
If you're daring, there's always Berio's Sequenza IX
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-01-20 01:31
EEBaum ... yes, perfect! And I adore Messiaen's compositions ... my favourite modern indeed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-01-20 06:31
Oh my, Nielsen is everything but a challenge, neither to the performer nor to the listener. EEBaum is absolutely right - go for Berio´s "Sequenza ix" , THIS is 20ieth century. Or I. Yun´s "Ryul", in the version for cl and p. If it is possible to do a solo piece, Jarrell´s "Assonance" is great; ot Boulez´s "Domaines" (!!!!), either with or without ensemble; or, my favourite, because it is played so rarely (which is a shame) ´d be Donatoni´s "Clair"; or Bucchi´s "Concerto" (an awesome concerto for solo cl). Pick something MODERN, not this well-tempered dolce-cantabile-stuff. And you will discover the beauty of the contemporary, indeed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-01-20 09:19
You could be perverse and play the Saint-Saens sonata, which was written about 1920 but sounds more like 1850. Or does the University stipulate that 20th Century really means squeaky gate?
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-01-20 11:03
Willson Osborne, Rhapsody for Solo Clarinet. Very nice solo work.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2004-01-20 14:58
Hi Melissa,
You might ask your teacher to recommend something for you. (Might as well work on something s/he knows well.) Then listen to recordings of as many of the recommended works as you can find and select something you think you would enjoy. You should start developing an awareness of the repertoire, in any case.
I think the following (in no particular order, except as they come to mind) are fairly standard "study works" at the college level:
Debussy, Premiere Rhapsody
Poulenc, Sonata
Hindemith, Sonata
Bernstein, Sonata
Arnold, Sonatine
Lutoslawski, Dance Preludes
Sutermeister, Capriccio
Osborne, Rhapsody
Babin, Hillendale Waltzes
Copland, Concerto
Rabaud, Solo de Concours
Messager, Solo de Concours
Pierne, Canzonetta
All (except perhaps the Osborne and Rabaud, which are, IMO, of somewhat less technical difficulty) might be useful as audition pieces later.
Personally, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Debussy -- particularly since it sounds like this is your first foray into the 20th century. It is relatively short, the sheet music is inexpensive, it has interesting contrasts, has some not-insurmountable technical challenges, is, IMO, fun to play and highly listenable and is very effective with piano or with orchestra.
Best regards,
jnk
P.S. Markus, when I read your recommendations, for no reason that I can think of, the first thing that popped into my mind was Dan Welcher's comment on the first movement of his "Dante Dances."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-01-20 16:32
Here are some nice 20th century pieces that are nice to listen to. Don't think that 20th century means it has to be ultra-modern sounding. The 20th century spans 100 years during which a lot of different styles were utilitzed. You could find any style you like in the 20th century.
Francaix, Concerto or Theme and Vartiation
Bozza (anything)
Tomasi Concerto
Muczynski, Time Pieces
Cooke, Sonata or Concerto
Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Sonata
Ireland, Fantasy-Sonata
Milhaud (anything) - Sonatine is particularly great
Wilder, Sonata
Martino, Set for Clarinet
Smith, Five Pieces
Stravinsky, Three Pieces
Many other great pieces were mentioned above.
Don Hite
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-01-20 21:58
Markus wrote: "Pick something MODERN, not this well-tempered dolce-cantabile-stuff."
Why???? There's a lot more to music of the 20th century than just "modern" stuff. Anyway, this "modern" movement has largely failed. Audiences don't want to listen to it, and most musicians don't want to play it.
Pick something you would like to play. Many good suggestions above!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-01-20 23:30
Liquorice said
Anyway, this "modern" movement has largely failed. Audiences don't want to listen to it, and most musicians don't want to play it.
Interesting ... then why has the Sydney Symphony's 20th century music series often sold out? ... that does not indicate to me that audiences do not want to hear this music - unless i'm wrong here.
You also state that the modern music movement has largely failed. Howso, please quantify your comment for me, I don't see how.
thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joel Clifton
Date: 2004-01-21 01:04
There's a totally amazing piece called Subtrains O' StratusFEARS or something like that that Robert spring played for the clarinet students at Miami University last year during his master class, but I think that Robert Spring is the only person in the world who can play it.
-------------
"You have to play just right to make dissonant music sound wrong in the right way"
Post Edited (2004-01-21 01:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2004-01-21 02:29
Rochberg concerto. Tosses in some quotes from "cantabile" stuff.
Martino Set mentioned above...heard it once...sounds difficult.
depends on your level.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-01-21 12:20
diz - coz the rich want to be seen as 'cultured'? Because it's true, no-one wants to hear it so it's never performed, but when Sydney symphony does it of course it's going to sell out because it's the only opportunity to listen to it?
Just a completely un-educated estimation which you will tear to shreds to support yours and numerous other's egos, don't mind me for having an opinion or anything.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-01-21 17:01
I happen to agree with Liquorice, though it's just my opinion and I can't speak for how others feel. The really "modern" stuff (and what we mean by really modern can even be hard to define... when I say modern, pieces like Berio's Sequenza mentioned above come to mind), is much more demanding on the listener. This doesn't mean it's inherently better. Many people assume that the harder something is to "stomach" or sit-through, whether it be a piece of music, a novel, a play, or whatever, the "better" it is. This isn't the case. Conversely, pieces like that are not inherently worse than pieces which are easier to listen to. I think it's a matter of taste. For me, I find the modern pieces to be more of an over-all experience. Take Stravinsky's 3 Pieces. I can get into this piece if I'm watching someone perform it or listening to it very carefully. I have to be absorbed by the piece to really enjoy it. Something more melodic like, say, Saint-Saen's Sonata or Bucolique by Bozza are easier to listen to. I could listen to and enjoy them while doing other things like writing emails or cleaning my room. I think the "modernness" of the piece you piece should be based on the audience of circumstances of the performance. If you're playing for an "interested" audience who you think will get into it, you might want to pick a real modern piece. If you are playing for recital hour (or whatever it's called at your college) to people who probably don't care that much or aren't willing to exert the effort needed to get into a more modern piece, you might pick one that's easier to listen to. This doesn't mean that you should make unwarranted presumptions about your audience's listening abilities, but some common sense is often called for (or, if you don't care about the audience's perception, do whatever you want)
Just some thoughts
DH
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-01-21 17:09
The Khachuturian Trio is a blast, or give the Nielsen Concerto a shot...there is a lot of truly wondeful repetoire...it may be more about how you manage your practice time...
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-01-21 17:11
The Berio Sequenza for Clarinet is a truly lyric masterpiece, and is a staple of my teaching career...
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-01-21 17:12
That´s amazing, how bluntly somebody can just come with the idea, the bit he/she understood of "modernity" is subject to "failure". It never was a movement, it is the way music´s evolution went. Indeed there are audiences who don´t want to listen to "it", and performers who don´t wat to play it, but those stick to themselves, and keep their purses shut. It always has been like that, avantgarde never was mainstream by defintion, was it? And as every aera has its avantgarde, we mingle there on the margins, never make too much money, always have to argue why we "don´t sound nice". What nonsense about the the "cultured rich"! Wealth doesn´t have anything to do with it, it confuses reputation with quality, always has, the money-people. The contemporary never had much of the money, instead of a striving young New Music composer the companies rather record another one of "the complete Bach" or something. There are niches and nooks, where the contemporary hides out, and there still is hope that music will find its way sooner or later. Like Boulez said, we want creators of music, not its museum-clerks!
(diz, thank You for Your supportive comment, I didn´t expect it from Your side, which made it all the more pleasant. And now I´ll be hurrying of to one of those "nobody wants to listen to-nor play-it-concertos...! In Berlin there´s the "UltraSchall"-festival on, a blast, really.)
)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-01-21 20:54
Diz- you're right, such sweeping statements deserve some kind of explanation.
I must first differentiate between "modern" and "20th century". The term "modern" has so many uses that it becomes almost meaningless. Markus considers Boulez's 'Domaines' to be modern, even though it is over 40 years old. Boulez began working on it in 1961, before Poulenc wrote his clarient sonata. So "modern" in this sense doesn't mean new. Markus is clearly referring to some kind of style. And we all know the style that he's talking about- it's the kind of music that if you only played 50% of the correct notes, most of the audience wouldn't even notice!
Some composers are still writing in this style. The audience for this kind of music is very small. If you put on a concert of say, music by Brain Ferneyhough, you would be lucky to get 100 people to come to the concert. And some of them would probably leave before the concert is finished! Perhaps more to the point- the audience for the music of Brian Ferneyhough is certainly not going to grow in the coming decades. I'll be suprised if much of his music is played 50 years from now.
I once played a new piece by a composer for B-flat clarinet and piano. In the presence of the composer at a rehearsal, I played it on the A clarinet. He didn't even notice!
Of course, someone like Pierre Boulez would notice. But the fact is that much government sponsorship is going to these kinds of "modern" composers, and I think many of them are charlatans who are able to hide behind this kind of musical style.
One has to be suspicious of a style of music in which an audience can't tell if the piece is good or not. "You don't understand it" or "you're not open minded enough" are usually the excuses given. Sure- "The Rite of Spring" didn't go down well in it's first performance, but it's being played all over the world now, and is recognised for the masterpiece that it is, 91 years after it was written. Much "modern" music won't be.
I do enjoy some "modern" music. I've played Boulez, Stockhausen, Donatoni, Jarrell and Berio, and enjoyed them very much. I think they are great pieces! I'm thrilled to hear that 20th century music is so successful in Sydney! My concern is that the style has drifted so far away from what most people are able to listen to, that there is a real danger of losing a living contemporary music. And I don't think snobs like Markus help much.
I guess my comments have just been intended to irritate Markus, and take a contrary stand. When somebody puts down Nielsen because it's "well-tempered dolce-cantabile-stuff", I'd say their opinions were more than a little bit unbalanced!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2004-01-22 00:13
I probably shouldn't get involved in this argument, but there is a lot of 20th century music that is neither "well-tempered dolce-cantabile-stuff" nor "squeaky gate stuff". I think that abrasiveness for abrasiveness' sake is just as annoying and pointless as some of the sentimental rubbish that has been composed in the past 100 years.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-01-22 04:07
I don't care if I'm right or wrong, frankly.
History speaks for itself ... Bach was told his harmonies were confusing and too modern. God help us if he'd gotten the grumps and just given up!! Mozart was often criticised for being too forward looking and his audiences couldn't even understant his "dissonance" quartet. God help us if he'd gotten the grumps and just given up!! More recently, Strauss (Richard) was given a serve for his music in Electra and Salome ... shall I go on?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2004-01-22 04:49
diz,
As several people have noted above "20th Century" covers alot of territory and a wide range of composition style. I was curious to see what the Sydney Symphony was programming for their 20th Century series so I went to their website but I couldn't find any mention of it in this year's calendar. I may have missed it but the closest thing I saw was a Sibelius series -- which, I guess, could be replacing it this year. In the past, how many concerts have there typically been in the series? And can you remember some representative works that they've programmed in it?
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-01-22 08:45
Yes, right, - just to call it "modern" or "contemporary" does tend to be a bit foggy; using it in a context where most participants are northern American probably leads to misunderstandings. As far as Europe is concerned - there´s such a retro-tendency in terms of composing and performing, but that is a lot smaller compared to the main thrust in contemporary composition in Europe, I´d say (although even such a spearhead like Penderevski now considers the turn he took from "The St. Lukas´ Passion" his best move...exactly half of his former worshippers don´t, no, not at all...). When I use "New Music", "contemporary" or "modern", I refer to a post-dodecaphonic, timbre - oriented, interdisciplinary, technically all-encompassing way of composing, clearly dependant on Schoenberg´s ratio and at the same time Strawinsky´s abundant colourful intensity. A new plateau of what it means to realise a musical peice of art was reached then, and what I referred to was music so to say after those two composers (bearing in mind, though, that a great deal of renaissance and medieval music, as it is preserved, consists of mindstaggeringly mordern stratae in terms of intonation, timbre, rhythm). No ensemble I play in, and literally none of the big guys considers a composition 40 yrs old not modern. Modernity does not refer to a timeline but to the composition´s structure and complexity.
And as far as the number of composers is concerned - "a few are still writing in this style" and "its audience is very small": true, compared to the happy masses a Mozart- and Schubert - concert is able to attract. But where is this notion derived that the avantgarde manages to occupy a whole of money?? From the curricula of the musical academies to the funding of composers and concerts - this is, oeconomicaly speaking, peanuts, on the money side. Even the most famous (in respect to their "scene") performers and ensemble have to fight over refunding of travel-expenses, rehearsal times, and composers have to answer blase statements like "I need something about 15 min long, and no ppppp please, and there should be a percussion part, within the next 4 months" by publishing companies, literally. None of us here makes much money, believe me.
Considering "if the audience can say whether the piece is good or not" - honestly, Liquorice, is this a criterium for the music´s quality??! In Your shoes I wouldn´t be so daring to say whether a compositon will be played in a 100 yrs´ time - but this "test of time" thing is dependant on too many variables like performance rate, entrance to the musical academies´curricula, cultural politics in particular, all of which have nothing to do with musical quality. A subjective judgement refers only to liking, and we don´t want to hand over art to the same kind of decision as whether I like pasta or not, do we! But there´s clearly a lack in the audience ripeness for nowadays music, that much is true. None taught them anything past the 19th century, their notion of music as affecting their feelings and such is unable to relate to most of what has been composed and performed during the last and the present century. that is not arrogance speaking but musicology. Who´s a snob then? Handing over music to the same people who turn their unability of dealing with the newly-won liberty in the production of sounds into slating those who enjoy it being out there: That´s poor to me, as well as it is looking down on the minority which is happy of being just left on its own, without uncalled for judgements like "unlistenability" thank You. As Diz posted, history will speak for itself, heaven forbid if it ever stops to listen to "what people like"...Schoenberg was just right in saying that the question of harmony and dissonance is just a question of what we´re used to. I love "The Spring Rite", it´s revolutionary, as well as the works of Stockhausen, Berio, Donatoni and Jarrell mentioned, audiences better learn to listen to it, with their hearts as well as with their heads, and better soon. But the latter does not touch the quality of those pieces, they´re of the same immaculate brilliance, even time doesn´t touch this.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-01-22 12:45
Although not the only criteria, why can't the listening public's response be one of the indications of what makes a piece good? Besides the fact that Mozart's works exhibit absolute technical and musicla mastery, the fact is that many people love listening to them. Isn't that also part of what makes his music great?
Otherwise it's like saying that some top chef came up with an amazingly good dish, but unfortunately there are only about 3 people on the planet that enjoy the taste of it! Apparently the rest of us are just gastronomically uneducated...
Talking about money- at least in Switzerland (where I live) cultural organisations sponsor composers to write new pieces. Unfortunately they only seem to sponsor the composers who write "modern" music. There are many other excellent composers who write in other styles (eg. jazz) who don't receive this kind of money. Needless to say, a lot the pieces written are rubbish, and the money could have been far better spent on some of these real composers. It's a pity that style dictates where the money goes rather than quality.
Markus write: "As far as Europe is concerned - there´s such a retro-tendency in terms of composing and performing"
I'd be interested to know what you mean by this?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-01-22 23:10
The 20th century series is commonly in the Sydney Town Hall (not the Opera House) and features Australian contemporary composers. Although, a lot of music from other famous "modern" composers is featured. John Adams is very popular. His "transmigration of souls" was performed last night in the Opera House Concert Hall. I was so moved by it I found myself chocking back tears.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-01-25 12:02
Because allowing a work of art being dependant on audience-response turns art into logically and phenomenologically into the same thing as food, or any other thing that is subject to liking or disliking. We two may not have much common ground to trod on, but we agree for certain that a masterpiece is itself regardless of whether it is taken as such by the people listening to it. There’s no such thing as a poll about whether something is a piece of art or isn’t – it is always already decided when we face it and we know that, and it is not decided upon by reception. Of course liking has a say in this area, but in regard to our psychology only, to the same degree as I like beer or don’t; it is pleasing for my psyche when the audience likes what my ensemble performed, but the audience doesn’t decide about whether it was a work of art or just noisy sounds. It is the reputation of a historical person that makes audiences assume that Mozart is “technical and musical mastery”, just as this other lengthy resume (around here on the BB) about the concert of a Berlin Staatskapelle orchestra is full of metaphysical prejudices and absolutely subjective opinions, not a single thing can be explained and shown in the actual score of the music. If it were for that, Salieri would outrun Mozart by far, in regard to weight in academic curricula as well as to performance rate. Even the often made difference between musical and technical dimension relates heavily to the highly questionable metaphysical assumption that a work of art transcends “mere technique” – it is very hard to put down what this “other” should be, as if there were the technique important for execution…and then some, and voila there’s art. Contemporary, New Music knows nothing of this, it is extremely cautious about dealing with anything else but the factual dimensions of music, timbre, dynamics, tone-height, spatial direction, duration. That’s all there is, and everything else is talking about things that aren’t there.
Switzerland is still a country where New Music has sort of a say, on the money side, but even there there’s no way to match the sums given away for the classical mainstream. Once more, what we refer to now as modern music, this is not a style amongst others, it is a plateau of musical evolution. Of course one can write in Chopin-style, as well as one can discuss historical conditions of staging 18th century- music, but this is not what it means to be contemporary, as far as works of art are concerned. I don’t know wherefrom You´ve got the notion that the “modern style” is at all able to dictate where the money goes, just the opposite is true, just sum up the costs for all those concerts of 18th and 19th century music and compare it to what New Music is able to draw up. Most often contemporary music is tried to be sold to the mainstream by slipping it in in between a Wagner and a Haydn, and “not too long a piece, please”. That is part of what I meant by “retro-tendency”, cultural politics nowadays are guided by what is publicly termed “the healthy middle”, which is short for letting the performance schedule being dictated by the numbers of tickets sold and the costs a performance demands. There’s not a single musical academy where New Music isn’t an exotic subject short to the end of classes and exams altogether, students are nowhere taught the extended techniques and the understanding for nowadays music, in respect to performing even more than to composing. “Retro” are those towering aspects of cultural policy and academic proliferation which favour by far more those mentioned classical centuries than the music of our time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-01-25 18:13
Liquorice, you wrote:
"I once played a new piece by a composer for B-flat clarinet and piano. In the presence of the composer at a rehearsal, I played it on the A clarinet. He didn't even notice!"
Do you mean you played the correct notes but on the "wrong" clarinet?
Or do you mean - and I very much fear you do - that you played the whole piece to sound a semitone flat relative to the piano part, and the composer didn't notice????!!!!!
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katfish
Date: 2004-01-26 01:27
Most people will disagree but I really like New York Counterpoint by Steve Reich.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ksclarinetgirl
Date: 2004-01-26 02:20
I agree with LeWhite, Willson Osborne's Rhapsody is somewhat challenging both technically and lyrically for me. It really gave me the chance to grow as a musician. I actually performed it last night at a benefit concert and it went very well!
Stephanie :o)
"Vita Brevis, Ars Longa"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-01-26 18:33
Markus- I wasn't comparing modern music to classical. I was comparing composers of what you called "dodecaphonic.. " something-or-other, to composers of new music which is more listenable to the average listening public. For some reason, more money seems to go to the composers who write the less listenable stuff, at least in this country.
"There’s not a single musical academy where New Music isn’t an exotic subject "
I studied in Geneva, and was required to play post 1960 pieces in all of my exam recitals. During my studies I was able to play both "Domaines" and "Assonance" in the presence of the composers of those pieces. So it's not really true what you say about ALL music academies.
David- yes, it is as you feared- I played the whole piece a semitone too low!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-01-26 19:04
Liquorice - the only way to improve that story would be if actually the composer did notice, preferred your version, and crossed out "Bb" on the clarinet part to replace it with "A".
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-01-26 19:15
This academy in Geneva should be a role-model indeed, "Domaines" and "Assonance" with the composers present, and post ´60ies compositions for exam stuff: Impressive, really. So there are green spots in the desert, I envy that. / Perhaps a more unambiguous way to refer to compsotions in mind instead of referring to shaky style-ideas is doubtlessly to refer to a certain time, like this "post 1960" or "last decade" or so.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
