 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-05-19 14:46
Hey all. I know there are probably a good amount of actual music written for solo clarinet. And I know that I can search it using the composer database here in this forum. I'm just wondering if anyone has any good ideas on what bits and pieces I could play from the following compositions (the few that I own). The reason is that a city around the corner is starting some open mic nights and I thought it'd be fun to play a couple minutes of solo clarinet there. Maybe I'll run into a piano player there and play things more properly.
Weber Concertino
Weber Clarinet Concerto #1
Mozart Clarinet Concerto
That's all I have right now. I'll also pick up Stravinsky's works for solo clarinet and work on those.
Just wondering for some fun on a Friday night.
Alexi
Retired, playing more sax than clarinet, but still playing clarinet and still loving it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2004-05-19 15:40
Sutermeister Capriccio is really cool too.
Also the Sonatina for solo clarinet by Miklos Rosza. I can never remember the correct spelling for his name despite years of trying...the "z" might come before the "s"...lol!
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-05-19 15:50
Also, to facilitate this, is there any place (some internet site perhaps) that shows a glance at the music? Or a few seconds clip of it being played? That way I know whether I even want to order that particular piece or not. I mean, everyone's heard of Stravinsky's three pieces for solo clarinet. And even on this website it lists it as a "standard" among clarinet literature. So I'll definitely pick that one up sooner or later. But I've never heard of the above two. And how will I know that I will like them? Or that they won't be too hard for me to consider right now?
Just to help me decide in the future.
Alexi
Retired, playing more sax than clarinet, but still playing clarinet and still loving it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarinetist
Date: 2004-05-19 16:03
Stravinsky´s three pieces for solo clarinet isn´t on the simplest side of the clarinet literature. If you have the technique to play that, then I would think you have the technique to play quite a bunch of pieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-05-19 16:26
I haven't really seen it. But my old instructor thinks that it's something that I have the ability to work on and work with. And I trust him.
Alexi
Retired, playing more sax than clarinet, but still playing clarinet and still loving it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-05-19 18:12
Fantasy, by Malcolm Arnold is a nice piece. Not too hard, but very accessible to listeners.
Depending on the crowd, some transcribed bach cello suites or something similiar also make for nice listening while providing a decent challenge.
Another suggestions is perhaps get a book of transcribed arias or themes from symphonic works that lots of people might know. While some purists might be offended by your playing transcriptions instead of actual clarinet rep, the average listener would, I think, prefer a lovely aria to Stravinsky Three Pieces (you didn't say what kind of place these open mic nights were at... I'm imagining a coffee shop or something...). If the audience will be mostly trained musicians, than maybe something like Stravinsky would be more appropriate (although, as a trained musician myself, I love hearing clarinet play transcribed melodies from operas/symphonic works. They really showcase the lyrical/vocal qualities of our instrument).
Just some suggestions,
DH
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-05-19 18:28
Pretty good ideas Don. It would be an audience of 'average' demographics (meaning some non-musical people, some musical). And thinking more about it, they might not like a contemporary work or Stravinsky's Three Pieces (after listening to a one minute clip of each VIA amazon.com, I concluded that it's probably too wierd even for ME to enjoy.)
I can always go the route of getting one of those accompaniment CDs and playing something with that. Whether it'd be an opera/symphonic work, some mainstream or broadway showtunes, or maybe even try my hand at jazz (with the Aebersold).
I didn't think about those . . .
Alexi
Retired, playing more sax than clarinet, but still playing clarinet and still loving it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: woodwind650
Date: 2004-05-19 18:43
the osborne rhapsody for solo clarinet would be great for an open mic situation and would take an extreme amount of time to learn either.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-05-19 18:46
woodwind650 wrote:
> the osborne rhapsody for solo clarinet would be great for an
> open mic situation and would take an extreme amount of time to
> learn either.
I hope you meant "would NOT take an extreme amount of time to learn either." . . . . ![[huh]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie11.gif)
Retired, playing more sax than clarinet, but still playing clarinet and still loving it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tara
Date: 2004-05-19 19:06
I like Arlequin by Louis Cahuzac (along with the others mentioned above!) It is not too lengthy or difficult. For this venue, perhaps you could pick a favorite etude?
Tara
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin
Date: 2004-05-19 21:30
Messiaen's "Abyss of the Birds" (a long movement for clarinet solo) from the "Quartet for the End of Time". However, the score may not be easy to obtain without buying the entire score and parts for the whole quartet.
Stravinsky's 3 Pieces are very difficult to learn and perform, and in my opinion very ambitious pieces for serious study, not exactly ideal for those who just wish to have some fun playing it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2004-05-20 01:36
Kevin...so do you think that the Abyss is a piece of cake???
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-05-20 01:38
IF you did play an aria or broadway type song with CD, don't think it can't be artistic or that it's just some stupid popular song (I'm not assuming you would feel this way, though some might).
YOu could always take a more popular type piece and personalize by adding ornamentation or even making up a theme and variations on some popular theme.
Open mic situations seem to be a place to try new things. It isn't a formal recital or orchestra audition, so don't feel inhibited or like you have to stay in the classical box. Have fun and make the performance your own, no matter what you play. I think it's important not to under-estimate the listening ability of the "average" listener. That leads to arrogance and assuming that "those people" can't handle real classical music. However, in reality, I would say that most people aren't going to like Stravinsky or Abyss of the Birds (think about the first time you heard these pieces... Even if you liked them, it takes many listenings before you can realize their full potential and genius... How is a person not trained in what to listen for going to appreciate them when hearing it for the first time when many trained musicans require repeated listenings??).
DH = )
PS - if you want some ideas, check out Richard Stoltzman's CD "Aria". It has some great transcriptions from operas and the piano reductions in a book from most sheet music websites.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-05-20 09:18
Do the Strawinsky.
Do the Strawinsky.
Do the Strawinsky.
Or Penderecki´s "Three little Pieces" (won´t last long, but are beautiful "stay away from me with all that saccharine stuff"-pieces). Though, if I were You and my teacher had suggested already something apart from the pretty´n-nice-music -departement, I would stick to the Strawinsky. (And absolutely drop any regard in respect of audience - music isn´t dependent on people´s reaction to it: if only that would be played which people dig, then exactly that would happen, and only the stuff people like would be played, just the most common ground, mainstream, all that pretty horses, those dinner/vernissage/promnight- sort of music. Music is not a piece of cake.).
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-05-20 10:26
Markus wrote:
"And absolutely drop any regard in respect of audience"
If anything will kill classical (in the broad sense) music, it is that attitude.
You have to meet your audience half-way. Stretch them a bit, by all means. If all they know is Acker, give them Mozart. If all they know is Mozart, give them Brahms. If they know and love Brahms, then Penderecki by all means.
But I agree with Markus, stay away from the saccharine stuff.
-----------
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: 2004-05-20 17:36
If contemporary music has such friends as You, D.Peacham, foes are a more comfortable company for me. What is that supposed to mean "that attitude will kill classical music"?! Would it be such a pity to have less of the saccharine Salzburgian, Vienna´ese and and all that comfy harmonic(al) stuff from metaphysical ages, and instead play a decisive number of more Stockhausen,Xenakis,A.Braxton, G. Crumb et al?! It is always easier to sell 18th and 19th century stuff to all those subscribers who want to show themselves off and otherwise just want to have their own narrow horizons confirmed - no Mozart endangeres one´s own self, but a Ferneyhough does for certain. T.Kantor wrote 1938 that the inner turmoils and discrepancies shall find their own terrible solutions and turn into NEW ones, because it has always been so and shall be so in the future - what then, D. Peacham, is art´s worth if it is just there to ascertain their own sluggishness and blasé attiutde?! Why record for the x-th time a Rachmaninov concerto, if there´s a whole new world to be invented,visited and explored? Yes indeed it all boils down to a monetary question sooner or later, and I have rather often than not attended concerts where even Ives and Messiaen were regarded as "ohjeh, that´s pretty modern". No I don´t want to rant about people in fine coats queuing for their romantic concerto grosso, because the contemporary is still alive, on the margins more often than not, where I meet those idiots in their black turtlenecks and rimless glasses, but the music stays there, how many "the complete chopin" editions people will continue to buy, there´s no way back to pre-dodecaphonic harmonics, swingjazz, and electronics, tapes and computer will never leave again those nice arcadian concert halls. I don´t regard it as just a feat for not-quite-grown-ups to "be part of the revolution" but to do everything which is possible on my clarinet, and if I reach someone with what our ensemble(s) perform, so the better, but it does not affect the work of art itself. Here in Berlin the symphony orchestra now mixes the classical oeuvre with the modern 3:1, perhaps that is a way to have less Brahms and more Penderecki. One must not give up hope that the audience learns, bit after bit.
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: contragirl
Date: 2004-05-20 19:16
I just played Cahuzac's Cantilene. Really quite easy, and it's pretty. I think ppl like to listen to it.
Or go for a clarinet arrangement of "Oops, I did it again."
--Contragirl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-05-20 19:20
Markus, I'm not an enemy of modern music. One of the half-dozen finest and most memorable concerts I have ever been to was of Penderecki.
The point I'm making is that you have to meet audiences half-way. I didn't say "If they ask for Mozart, give them Mozart and Mozart only". I agree that it is good to broaden people's horizons. But you won't do that - in most cases - by playing them something that they will find incomprehensible. You need to lead people on step by step.
This is nothing to do with any "monetary question", exactly the same rules apply when I'm choosing which CD to play to a friend. I agree that there's little point playing something he's heard a hundred times before, but equally there's no point playing something which will simply confirm his prejudices that this classical stuff isn't for him.
-----------
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: 2004-05-21 10:31
In those cases, David, I´d doubt whether this guy is a friend, simply. If she/he is played to a Yun or Ballif and just ressorts to "this isn´t for me", I get a bit choleric. That "not for me thanx"- attitude is just too narrow and lazy. I don´t want to do paedagogics or "make the audience believe" New Music is art, or meet them half-way - I rather drag them along, if at all. Or hit them over their barocco-Kunst der Fuge-stuffed ears, repeatedly. No one has said that art is fun or entertainment.
With "monetary question" I wanted to say that I do see the tight situation of larger ensembles and orchestras, that they have to sell their work, and if the obese majority of their concert-subscribers insists on their 19th century because they´ve always listened to it and want to do so in the future, I agree that it is a crucial decision whether to confront the audience repaeatedly or give them what they want.
If something seems incomprehensible to me, musically speaking at least, I have to make up my mind (how you express this so neatly in English), that´s how it is.
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-05-21 13:00
Markus says:
"No one has said that art is fun or entertainment".
This is crap. What is the point then? To create for creation's sake?? I suppose you could argue that, but then don't expect people to want to hear it. You insist that people don't have to like modern music, yet you want to stuff if down their throats?? They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder... It seems that there can be no beauty if very is no eye that is willing to behold it!
I agree that it is your pompous attitude that turns people off from classical music. I like modern music, but I have performed enough concerts to know that most people don't really like it, or at least understand how to appreciate it in one listening.
You are like a chef who throws a backyard barbeque and tries to force the guests to eat pate and escargot! If you want to "fancy" up a barbeque, you stick out dijon insted of yellow mustard, you don't serve champagne and cavier (sorry for the food analogy, I'm hungry). Sure you can serve whatever you want, but don't be surprise when guests leave and go to McDonald's instead. This is not to say that either barbeque or "fancy" food is better than the other, both are good but most of the time, most people prefer the former.
You can think whatever you want, obviously, but please don't be under the impression that you are somehow more a friend to the arts or something because you feel this way. As I said, like what you want and think that "stupid people who go to the symphony" are just ignorant morons there to be seen, but that attitude won't win any converts to you tastes. You claim that you don't care if people like it, but it's pretty obvious you do, or you wouldn't care enough to have this discussion. We can debate which style of music is better, but I really don't think it's debateable which style of music most people prefer. That is my argument. It isn't a value judgment of modern music per se, it's just the way it is, and anyone in tune with their audience will realize it (of course, you apparently have no interest in being in tune with your audience, so why would you care?).
Don Hite
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-05-22 08:54
Quite accurate, to my eyes, this analogy between between people frequenting the mainstream concerts and also McDonald´s...I coudn´t have put it better. This whole blasé attitude You spread here,D.Hite, is just another "one cannot argue people´s tastes"-thingy, which was proven naive by Plato already. But sorry, perhaps this reference is just one more hitch of the despised "munching through erudition"-stuff...might be. This food analogy makes me puke (sic), really, it is not the first time that the distinction between quality and acceptance by audiences/ensembles has been nivellated thus. As if great works of art are such by the tastes of masses (neither are they by the tastes of so-called authorities). Who´s pompous, then, in this regard? You, surrendering the works of art to the fancies of the audience, who today digs this, tomorrow that, listenes to their Debussy for teatime, some larger Brahms for a nice evening out, nobody gets hurt, nobody gets moved to no edge whatsoever, all leave with that radiant imbecile smile on their faces of having had some fine art yessir. Or me, creating for creaition´s sake indeed, because the performance of art is not about making people glad,or sad, or make them better, or frightening them, it´s is all and solely about the work of art, its beauty and its differentiated integrity. Exactly like Celan said , "there are songs to sing beyond man", mind "beyond", and not "for". And leave it to the muses, please, to judge who´s a better friend to art.
It is very pleasing, if people liked what we played (that happens, certainly), and of course I try to make other people hear what I hear and love it, that´s just human, but all that doesn´t touch anything of a work of art; There are always less poeple attending, agreed, to modern music concerts, but hey, this January there has been a frenetically cheered performance of two major Xenakis pieces, and more than a dozen people indeed were listening, and they didn´t just say "oh I liked it" afterwards. I don´t have the impression that modern music makes people hate classical music, just because the former is said to be more difficult than the latter (which isn´t true, it is just differently made). What makes me mad is just this shorthand and unrfelctive confusion of art as art on one hand and socio-, psycho- and cultureological processes. Not to differentiate here is simply to make it too simple. I strive to be in tune with the music, certainly not the audience.
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom A
Date: 2004-05-22 13:42
David Peacham, even Stravinsky wrote saccharine stuff. Surely you've heard of Le Sucre du Printemps? ![[happy]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley12.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-05-22 19:07
"I strive to be in tune with the music, certainly not the audience"...
That's great. You can quote whomever you want and champion the modern stuff all you like, but that doens't change the fact that the average person (from my experiences) would prefer something more traditional.
You obviously don't disagree with this assertion (or if you do, you've failed horribly in disproving it). In the context of an open-mic situtation (which was the original question, if you remember), I feel you should try to entertain the audience to a certain degree - this doesn't mean playing Britney Spears, but I wouldn't do Stravinsky Three Pieces either. As you've stated, you couldn't care less if the audience likes what you play or not, so we really have nothing else to discuss.
DH
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-05-23 05:11
Ironically, I played Chyrshinsky´s "Quasi Kwasi 3" at exactly such an open-mike- opportunity, an evening where everyone else interpreted the theme "Eastern Composers" thus that it included nothing more recent than 1860 - it was a success, as the gleefull judge said, he hadn´t expected something "that modern" (there wasn´t even a single multiphonic in the score...). The retro-attitude of everyone else made the not too in your face "Quasi Kwasi" all the more avantgarde, and this can be a chance, regarding the initial question.
(I just wonder why the starter of this thread didn´t partake at all any more...? What will be played in the end then?)
M
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-05-23 05:54
Quote:
(I just wonder why the starter of this thread didn´t partake at all any more...? What will be played in the end then?) Because the starter decided to lay back and see what other people think. Also, this Friday didn't work out due to previous engagements and me finding out too late, however, given the opportunity again in the future (which will more than likely happen as open mic's are pretty easy to come across), now I have a TON of information to look at and a ton of songs to consider. Thanks all!
Alexi
Retired, playing more sax than clarinet, but still playing clarinet and still loving it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ken
Date: 2004-05-25 03:32
Dude, why do I envision poor sfalexi standing on an outdoor stage on a muggy spring night surrounded by cheesy patio lanterns somewhere in a bad section of Skokie or Evanston? He's beautifully and effortlessly performing the Mozart Rondo when suddenly a half empty bottle of Maker's Mark arches from the crowd plants firmly on his puss and in a snap, it's the life of Al Hirt all over again except for the brick!??
I think it's an outstanding, admirable if not gutsy notion bringing beauty and culture to "mic night" (wherever that is) but just make sure the right sort of people are around to respect what you're doing and have open minds and ears to match. I wouldn't think Mozart or Weber would want to see (if they could) a brave young soul risk life and limb just to play their solos. Best of luck. v/r Ken
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-05-25 14:25
Ken,
Thanks for the luck. BTW, I'm a fairly agile person and hopefully will be able to dodge any refuge thrown at me. Also, I have a feeling the crowd will be mostly an older crowd and so hopefully I will be able to outrun them.
Chuck,
An 'open mic' typically is a stage with a microphone. You show up and sign your name up for a performance. Then you go up the microphone and perform whatever you like (sometimes there is a time limit such as 5 minutes or sometimes there isn't, but generally it's just one relatively short piece per person, and then if there's time you can go around again after everyone who'se wanted to gets at least one shot). Common performances are an accoustic guitar piece, someone singing with a guitarist or accopello, a dramatic poetry reading (sometimes just a reading, not so dramatic), if there's access to a nearby piano or keyboard sometimes one of those pieces, a violin solo, a five minute standup comedy routine, etc. Lots of variety.
For all,
While I'm trying to figure out what to do solo for the future, I've arranged for my student (Yea! I now have a dedicated student! The first of what I hope grows into, well, a few ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif) ) and I to go one night and perform a duet that she has been working on for a while. It's a beautiful piece (I believe by Beethoven . . . I'll repost after Thursday when I look at it again with her) and she's doing very well with it and said she'd be more than happy to do it for an open mic night.
Alexi
Retired, playing more sax than clarinet, but still playing clarinet and still loving it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-05-25 16:06
Got it. The duet that shall be performed at the next open mic will be "Adagio and Menuetto - From the sextette Op. 71 for 2 clarinets, 2 horns, and 2 Bassoons - Beethoven" And in front of the piece is a giant roman numeral XIII.
Alexi
Retired, playing more sax than clarinet, but still playing clarinet and still loving it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
