 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Gazebo Dealer
Date: 2004-07-16 05:18
This is my first post here, and I am a bit confused by recordings I have listened to of the Copland. I'm sure the topic of interpretation in the Copland Concerto has popped up before, but in each of these 3 recordings I have listened to, there are different notes played at the end of the first cadenza. In the print I'm using, the notes are the same as the ones BG plays. Stolzman smears the notes, and Manasse plays something different. Where's this from? Another question I have is, why didn't Benny smear? (Was it because Copland found it inappropriate? B/C I know clarinetists had smeared prior. ) And who's approach should I use with the piece? I found BG and Manasse's approach overall more relaxing. But the main question I have is if I were to choose one of the 3 as a model recording, which should I lean towards most in terms of musicality and technique (cause we all know Manasse has the overall better sound)? Sorry for so many questions in one post.
Thanks for your time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-07-16 06:41
Perhaps Benny didn't smear because he didn't want to? Just because everyone plays it one way doesn't mean you should or have to.
I'd listen to them all and take from each what parts I like.
I haven't heard the Stolzman or Manasse (I'm getting to it!), but I've heard the Goodman, as well as the Gary Gray recording. Partially through my own interpretation, and also through recommendations from my teacher, I play the cadenza a bit differently than anyone I've heard. Whether or not that's any good is, of course, very subjective. (I have a questionable-taste version that I don't play for anyone, though a bit of it sometimes slips into my "good" version... kept in moderation, I think it adds spice )
This cadenza is very much open to interpretation. Speeds, articulations, phrasing, grouping, dynamics, etc. can be adapted to different extents. As long as you are thoughtful (i.e. not just blasting through a passage and calling it "my personal style"), there is a lot of leeway to personalize it.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeOpus1190s
Date: 2004-07-16 07:28
I'm a Manasse fan and feel his work is far superior to the other two, but that is just me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-07-16 13:20
Every player should bring something to a performance, something personal that may not appear on the page.
Sabine Meyer has made a career of her lovely sound and unwritten ornamentation to breathe fresh life into older pieces.
For what it's worth, I like Benny's small group sessions with Lionel Hampton
after years of Big Band charts.
John Manassee is one of the nicest people, anywhere and has a prodigious technique tempered by a deep sense of music and its communication.
I wouldn't put a Stoltzman CD under my coffee cup, but that's just me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph G
Date: 2004-07-16 13:40
It's been years since I've heard the BG recording and I just recently checked out the Stoltzman recording from the library, listened to it once and figured that was enough. Meanwhile, I have the Manasse recording committed to memory. Are you talking about the final notes in the cadenza before the low E? To me, Manasse makes the most logical progression of the pattern (up to an altissimo C#, I believe?). Stoltzman ends it as written, I believe, which if memory serves is at the altissimo A, but the progression does point to the C# as the climax. I feel Manasse gets points for taking it to its logical conclusion. As for BG, too many years have passed for me to remember.
(Hope everyone cuts me some slack if I got the notes above wrong; I'm going by ear and by memory.)
t
________________
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: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-07-16 20:24
Hey Ralphie...
I would have just said, "When he plays the high ones."
Your ears are more discerning than mine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-07-16 23:13
Is it just me, or does Benny Goodman play some wrong notes in this recording? In measures 413 and 415 he plays (what sounds like) C naturals when the key signature indicates a C flat. This has always annoyed me... I believe that the recording (from the Collector's Edition CD) is conducted by Copland, so I doubt such a mistake would be ignored. Is it possible that the concerto was edited after this performance to make the Cs flat or did Goodman just screw it up??
DH
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gazebo Dealer
Date: 2004-07-17 00:14
Hahaha,
Yeah I think they might have edited that note to a Cb...it sounds pretty weird. The C# changes the character of the moment, and I like the Cb better. But anyway thanks for all the responses, they were all helpful.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-07-17 02:56
theclarinetist wrote:
> Is it just me, or does Benny Goodman play some wrong
> notes in this recording?
and
Gazebo Dealer wrote:
> Hahaha, etc. etc. ..........
This has been discussed in detail before. Goodman isn't the only clarinetist that played C natural.
Read this entire thread, which also includes comments from John Moses, who performed the Concerto for Copland:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=95372&t=95100
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fuffy442
Date: 2004-07-17 03:25
Benny has recorded the concerto 3 times. The second recording, the "Meeting At The Summit" album is, in my opinion, the definitive recording of the piece. I haven't heard all of the recordings out there, but so far nobody's ever played the Stop Time sections like Benny did.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-07-17 04:41
fuffy442 wrote:
> Benny has recorded the concerto 3 times.
He actually recorded it 4 different times...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-07-17 12:17
The same way Herbie Mann and Kenny G sell, so does Richard.
He's laughing at his critics, all the way to the bank.
The comparison was between three players and I'm entitled to my opinion.
I know you're a fan Bradley.
I don't particularly like the Copland piece. I believe the clarinet is best orchestrated as a "bridge" between various instruments, as in a wind quintet setting.
Particularly, where the various tendencies of the design are allowed to color the passages. Too much playing tends to homogenize the timbres available to interpret a score.
Manassee lets the instrument shine in so many ways, that I consider his approach deeper into the music. Richard's approach is broader into an audience.
*******
I would also suggest that sounding different is appropriate to each; Andy Firth is a good example, as is Kenny Davern.
Ricardo Morales has a glorious command of the clarinet in both a chamber and orchestral setting, too.
Now where did I leave my "Aria" coaster....??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-07-17 14:55
SO... back to my original question. Was the piece edited to change the Cs to Cbs or did Benny Goodman (and the others who play C nat, though Goodman is the only one I've heard) just mess it up. In a previous post people blasted Stoltzman for "changing" the piece beyond what the composer would have wanted and said Goodman's was much closer to "what the composer wrote"... Well, it would be delightfully ironic if Goodman, in his allegedly definitive performance, missed two big fat accidentals.
Are there two versions of the piece? If not, who's right and who's wrong? I don't have a grudge against Goodman, and his version is fine, but I think if we are going to criticize some artists for adding a gliss or two, we shouldn't ignore the ones who play wrong notes...
DH
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ken
Date: 2004-07-17 15:39
Synonymous Botch wrote: "I don't particularly like the Copland piece. I believe the clarinet is best orchestrated as a "bridge" between various instruments, as in a wind quintet setting."
.... it's a solo, not a 3rd clarinet part.
It's always re-assuring to know we're entitled to someone else's opinion.
theclarinetist wrote: "Well, it would be delightfully ironic if Goodman, in his allegedly definitive performance, missed two big fat accidentals."
.... not in this "Kiss" world. I could never believe one mis-read not alone two. The written key I believe is Cb so if it were a C natural the accidentals would be written in, if not it would be a copyist/print typo. I own only the Boosey & Hawkes edition, there indeed could be two different versions but there's most definitely a reason the man played C naturals. And, I have to ask myself, what's so delightful about someone playing wrong notes?
This irksome Stoltzman bashing begins to smell as bad as an old man from Wisconsin, and if we don't monitor ourselves the thread will be soon closed.
GBK's reference link (and infamous steel trap memory) is bullet proof and convincingly addresses the issue. To piggy back on the C natural vs. Cb scenario and attempt to relate things to a mechanical perspective there a several cause and effect factors at work here. 1) Enter non-functional harmony (parallel or symmetric). Within chordal motion our ears hear the sequence of a pattern and it "feels" correct. The most common form is parallel movement by half or whole steps either up or down, i.e., some ears hear the "resolution" as Cb while others C natural. Still, others are traditionally or dogmatically driven and even tone deaf. They cannot or will not hear the distinction and play the ink without question. 2) Our ears deceive us and are conditioned to hear a dominant cadence as the defining sense of key. How many times has your ear recoiled from a note insisting it "sounds" and tonally "fits" better as another pitch even though the written page is theoretically correct?
Moses' personal account of "the note" reminds me of a pick-up gig at the Waldorf-Astoria. It was a background quintet finger-food reception and Copland was present amidst a sea of white glove, champagne-sipping celebrities. During a break, I adjourned to a side bar to buy a drink and walked into a reporter from the Village Voice peppering Copland with questions. One I vividly recall is why Copland consented for Emerson, Lake, and Palmer to use Fanfare for the Common Man in one of their LPs (Works Vol.I, I believe). Copland's response was a quick, symbolic gesture rubbing his thumb and forefinger together.
For the sake of discussion, loosely comparing Copland's' ELP reaction to his non-response of Moses' "the note", perhaps he could care less it was a C natural or Cb (and you know he heard it). Let's get real; we'll all surely die of frustration second-guessing the motive and rationale of an artist .... particularly dead ones. v/r Ken
Post Edited (2004-07-17 16:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-07-17 16:13
ken wrote:
>
> This irksome Stoltzman bashing begins to smell as bad as an old
> man from Wisconsin, and if we don't monitor ourselves the
> thread will be soon closed.
Geez, somkeone says they don't like Stoltzman's playing and all of a sudden it's "bashing"?
It seems people are oversensitive to this player - he's very polarizing, which I personally think is a good thing, but rational discussion seems to be impossible on this bboard ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-07-17 16:58
Ken, so are you saying that because Goodman may have felt the C natural was better that he is at liberty to change what the composer wrote? There was a very different consensus in a previous post discussing smears at the end, and whether or not to swing the middle section. I personally don't care if someone changes a piece a little bit, but if we expect one player to strictly adhere to the printed page, we should expect it of all players.
My only point is that we shouldn't criticize some players for making small changes (like Stoltzy) and just dismiss the changes of others (like Goodman, assuming it was an "artistic decision" and not just a typo in his part) because he thought it sounded better?
DH
theclarinetist@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-07-17 20:02
theclarinetist wrote:
> Ken, so are you saying that because Goodman may have felt the C
> natural was better that he is at liberty to change what the
> composer wrote?
I don't believe that is what Ken is saying.
I suggest you read The Clarinet Volume 19 Number 2 which addresses "Editions and Misprints in Copland's Concerto for Clarinet".
Although his article is the subject of some debate because the author, Charles Stier, did not catch ALL the differences between the clarinet/piano reduction and the full orchestral score, he makes a case that the orchestral score (Boosey & Hawkes No. 17942 ©1952) should be used as the primary source because the editor at Boosey & Hawkes has no listed corrections in his errata file for the orchestral score.
But, as others have said - if Copland were alive today and we asked him if it is Cb or C natural, his response would probably just be: "Yes" ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gazebo Dealer
Date: 2004-07-18 00:49
Ken wrote:
> The most common form is parallel movement by half or whole steps either
>up or down, i.e., some ears hear the "resolution" as Cb while others C
>natural.
I hear it as Cb mostly because the first recording I obtained was the Stolzman. I don't like the C...but the C is just another way of distuinguishing character. And I respect Goodman VERY much to say that I can agree with him on his edit. The note change could have not been due to that it was too hard for BG so it had to do with his/Copland's preference. On the issue of Stoltzman, he has been the "IT" clarinetist for nearly 20 years regardless whether everyone likes him. He and Neidich are some of the elite few who are pushing the envelope to new ideas and pushing the clarinet over what we have considered correct or accurate. We should all respect Stoltzman's accomplishments because he is a great musician, and if you don't agree that his opening of the Copland is just superb, I say, "shame on you". A thought that I think may resolve this argument would be, what did Charles Neidich play in the section with the marked Cb? He had the original score and his recording of the "unedited Copland" is out there. His recording isn't my "cup of tea", but his technical ability is out of this world.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-07-18 04:20
ahhh!!! I feel like my head is going to explode! Has the clarinet-world gone mad?!?!?! One minute we're shaming people for using a bit of vibrato or sounding too "British", the next we're agreeing when they change notes!!! According to the philosophy, as expressed many times before on this board, that we should honor the printed music (and obstensibly the composer's intentions), there would be no hearing it as a Cb or a Cnat. It would be what the music says because that's what the composer wrote (or did he??). Why not hear the Mozart Concerto in A minor, and play it accordingly??
From looking at the piano part that I have (Boosey and Hawkes), I see no reason why it would be C nat... but anyway, I'm no musicologist... I'm not so much concerned with Goodman changing a note (assuming he did, which appears likely since - from what I can gather - a C nat makes no sense). It's the fact that it doesn't appear to bother anyone (especially after so many other clarinetists have been criticized for less...). Why the double standard?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ken
Date: 2004-07-18 23:50
Gazebo Dealer wrote: "But the main question I have is if I were to choose one of the 3 as a model recording, which should I lean towards most in terms of musicality and technique"
--I haven't heard the Manasse rendition so I cannot speak to that, but I really like your description of BG's version as "relaxed". That it is. If it were me I'd select the best qualities of all 3 and build my own set of values.
the clarinetist wrote: "there would be no hearing it as a Cb or a Cnat. It would be what the music says because that's what the composer wrote (or did he??).
--without hearing theoretical concepts and sounds in the mind there would be no improvisation and nearly impossible to convert transposition.
the clarinetist wrote: " Ken, so are you saying that because Goodman may have felt the C natural was better that he is at liberty to change what the composer wrote?
--perhaps we could refer to Benny playing C naturals as an "alternative pitch system?" No, I didn't mean Goodman (or any musician) is ethically free to pencil-in notes on the spot; doing so would be a breach of composer/artist trust and show a lack of integrity. The composer's pen must be readily honored and a half step is as reprehensible as a #13. There is a difference between making imprudent changes in notation and "acceptable interpretation" (I hate the phrase artistic license). And, I'm at a loss why Benny (CBS 1955) is scrutinized for two non-scored notes when otherwise he plays the part as written and does his swing-thing. In sharp contrast, Stoltzman's "Essential Clarinet" recording is seemingly the loose cannon. He's all over the place being his inimitable self. I still think he's great; it's good we have choices and there's honest, open freedom of expression. There is however, playing within stylistic boundries, with taste and reasonable discretion.
The Copland contains jazz elements from North American and Brazilian pop melodies. As a foundation for form, I hear simulated (or written-out) improvisation adding stop time and BG signature licks for ornamentation. This is still a 20th Century "in the box" classical solo screaming to be jazz. A skilled performer can be daring and push the envelope of musical consent.
As for "the note", I support Benny's playing of C naturals based on these observations:
Referring to the Goodman/Copland 1955 CBS studio recording, I don't believe Benny would roll tape and make indiscriminate note changes without first consulting the composer. This is professionalism 101 and I strongly resist the idea he would act independently.
From the article, "Too Difficult For Benny Goodman - The Original Version of the Copland Concerto" the author, Robert Adelson cites four passages where Goodman requested changes from Copland - in each case for technical reasons. If Benny requested note changes of the composer for technique concerns he would predictably confer with Copland on all facets of musical logistics and recording process.
There are three firsthand witnesses and performances of the work where "C naturals" were played and Copland was directing the orchestra, (i. Goodman/Copland 1955 CBS Symphony. ii. Wright/Copland, Boston Symphony, Live at Tanglewood 1980. iii. John J. Moses, Moses/Copland, for motion picture, "Love or Money", early 1980s)
A fourth witness, Gary Gray's/Newstone, Royal Philharmonic recording also contains C naturals. Gray claims he played it for (and apparently worked with) Copland.
Another issue, Goodman recorded the Copland four times. I own and have only heard the 1955 CBS recording. If anyone has or heard these other recordings, particularly the 1950 premiere I'd welcome a consensus. If BG played C naturals on all 3 that's iron clad proof the CBS session wasn't a fluke. But, if others were with Cbs he would definitely have some explaining to do.
More reasoning for the smattering of C naturals is a simple case of "follow the leader". It's perfectly natural for people to imitate their idols, and musicians are no exception. Moses, Wright, and Gray could've just been following suit or at the very least being, "stylistically and historically authentic". If memory serves, Moses actually spelled Benny on that movie score. It was originally Goodman's gig but he was unavailable. In plain language, these cats did their homework. And, in jazz, looking back to Benny as the example it's customary when performing live or recording "repertoire" to play the stock solos, i.e., "In the Mood", "Little Brown Jug", "Tuxedo Junction". I'm not speaking for these gentlemen directly, just that it is the general mindset of a seasoned professional when preparing any piece for performance.
In closing, there are clearly more Copland recordings out there with world class clarinetists playing the written Cb. Ultimately, both the orchestral score and B&H piano reduction have printed Cbs (concert A) for both measures 413 & 415 .... the C natural is not supported by either score.
Hey, pick your poison. Warmest regards, Ken
Post Edited (2004-07-19 03:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gazebo Dealer
Date: 2004-07-19 02:24
I was practicing the Copland tonight on the section in dispute whether it's C natural or Cb. The first time I played C natural...the progression of the notes SOUNDS more "ritmico". I hope that doesn't confuse anyone, but I think of the ritmico as very aggressive. And the C natural seems more agressive than Cb, but it's just my taste. And I don't have any real experience performing this piece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-07-19 05:03
I realize I've already dug this into the ground and broken it off (so for my sanity, I won't add to this thread anymore), but whether or not you think it sounds better with a different note is irrelevant (operating under the philosphy that you should honor the printed music). I mean, we could take every piece of music ever written and argue which notes we think should have been different...
DH
PS - yes, I am aware of the irony of my making these statements and simultaneously worshipping the ground Stoltzman improvises on. But on that subject, why is it that Stoltzman is widely criticized for adding some smears, but when Goodman changes written pitches, we all automatically sympathize/rationalize and try to figure out why he might have done it. I personally can understand Stoltzman's changes much more than Goodman's C naturals. This is not me having a Stoltzman-chip on my shoulder (well, maybe a little bit). I just don't get it (okay, as promised, I will not add anything else to this already redundant thread! Thanks for indulding me, though).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-07-19 16:20
I can only imagine what some would think of the improvised embellishment of the Mozart Clarinet Quintet which Alessandro Carbonare...at least he pushes the envelope.
The clarinet world can be one very conservative place...
I believe you can never satisfy everyone's taste...
I love Leister and Brymer for very different reasons...I also think players like Pascal Moragues are rarely heard because they live in France. It is too bad we are forgetting that a divergence of ideals and ideas is what the world is about.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-07-21 17:55
I just heard the Mozart Quintet with Stoltzman and the Tokyo Quartet..very nice although I found the slow movement to be the least favorite on my part in terms of phrasing. I was amazed at the cleaness of Mr. S' articulation. I find Stotzman can do technically anything...so maybe his biggest fault is the incredible technique he has at his command.
I still admire Stoltxman though...in spite of the inconsistency of his interpreting he is a definite powerhouse.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-07-21 18:36
I have not heard the Stolzman Nielsen...is that on RCA ?
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-07-21 18:52
Yes. It is on RCA. The CD also includes Dance Preludes (Lutoslawski) and Sonata Op. 94 (Prokofiev), both with orchestral accompaniment.
I like Stoltzman's version of these pieces. His Nielsen is good, though I think the other recording I have (Kevin Banks on Naxos) is better.
DH
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kchan ★2017
Date: 2004-07-21 19:16
I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall reading an interview in the past year or so where Stolzman mentioned that it was a great honor for him to be invited to play the slow movement of the Mozart quintet at Casals funeral.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2004-07-21 19:56
Goodman? Stoltzman? Manasse?
In which style to play?
Is C natural or flat?
Did Benny miss that?
Sorry, only Copland can say.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-07-21 20:03
C nat'ral? C flat? What the heck.
It's really a pain in the neck.
If Copland were here,
He'd probably sneer,
And ask: "Where is my royalty check?" ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-07-21 21:07
From far beyond the back row,
he sits cackling, you know
"Such a nice nudnick, I'll write him a treat"
"And with my thumb, smear this next beat"
"That should raise shemozzle, my fellow!"
-oy, this town gives me such schpilkes...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-07-21 21:52
Stoltzman is a really great man,
though his sounds is like a bagpipe in a tincan,
he tells convention to stick it,
and sells lots of tickets
with his vibrato that's wide as a van
Hehe. I'm no poet... sorry
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}
