 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: BlockEyeDan
Date: 2005-02-05 02:56
Hello all,
I'm trying to figure out what piece to perform for my spring recital. I have a professional pianist as an accompanist, and I have narrowed down my choices to a select few. I've dismissed the Mendelssohn sonata after doing some research on this BB, and I'm left with: Poulenc (WAY too difficult for me), Weber's Variations (beautiful piece), Brahms op. 120 Nos. 1 and 2, and Saint-Saens's op. 167. I've been unable to find out anything about the Saint-Saens. Has anybody performed this piece? I've never heard it, either. Beautiful? Dumb? Boring? Sublime? 
Thank you all in advance,
Dan
P.S. I just returned from an all-Beethoven performance by the Hartford Symphony. Egmont, Symphony No. 4, and Emperor. Not a bad way to pass a Friday evening!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2005-02-05 06:26
Do a BB search...there's about a million and half posts about the Saint-Saens. It's a wonderful piece, but I would say comporable in difficulty to the Poulenc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aussiegirl
Date: 2005-02-05 06:29
Not wanting to spark an argument here, but id think that the brahms are just as hard to pull off as the poulenc....maybe not as many notes, but endurance-wise and musicality-wise...
just some food for though!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2005-02-05 08:50
To summarise the Saint-Saens:
- The first movement is technically quite easy, you may find it a bit of a non-event musically.
- The second movement is a scherzo; it's pretty enough, but not profound.
- The third movement is ---- a bit weird. It is very slow, very simple technically. Your audience may wonder why you're playing something so easy.
- The last movement is a flurry of notes, eventually recapping to the first movement. It's the most fun of the four, but because of the recap it makes no sense to play it as a stand-alone piece.
In the UK exam system, movements 1,2,4 are grades 7,6,8 respectively. It surprises me they are not 6,7,8.
In profundity of musical expression, none of it comes within a million miles of Brahms.
Worth bearing in mind also that the piano part of the Saint-Saens is very easy; your pianist may find it a bore.
-----------
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: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-02-05 12:21
The Brahms is very difficult and musically very, very advanced. The Saint-Saens is in a different class and is much simpler. It still is a very beautiful piece.
If the Poulenc is too difficult technically, than the Brahms will most likely be a bit advanced musically.
Here's another option for you and the Piano part is a bit of a bear too:
Schumann OP 73 Fantasy Pieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2005-02-05 19:58
David Peacham's comments on the Saint-Saens may show a lack of understanding for the piece. In other words, it's just his opinion, and shouldn't put you off playing the sonata. I think it's a great piece (and of course, that's just my opinion!). So- you have to listen to it yourself and see if it's something you'd like to play.
Comparing music from different periods and styles is impossible. How do you compare Bach to Mozart, Schumann to Debussy, Charlie Parker to John Cage?
So to say "In profundity of musical expression, none of it comes within a million miles of Brahms" is something I can only passionately disagee with!
Post Edited (2005-02-05 20:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 3dogmom
Date: 2005-02-05 21:09
I agree with Liquorice. I also think it's a mistake to think a piece is not worthwhile if it' s not full of technical stuff. As it is a piece from the Impressionist Era, though, it may not appeal to everyone, just as some don't like more "old fashioned" sounding classical music.
When I was involved in juries and auditioning it was certainly valued as a competitive piece.
Sue
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2005-02-06 10:57
3dogmom wrote:
"I also think it's a mistake to think a piece is not worthwhile if it' s not full of technical stuff."
I hope I didn't give the impression I think that. Indeed I have a horror of the sort of conservatory showpiece that is all fireworks and no soul.
I was actually trying to assess the Saint-Saens in terms of audience appeal; not to a specialist audience of clarinet players, but to a more generalist classical music audience. I think such an audience might well react badly to the slow movement, which is not just simple, but very very simple indeed. (Yes, I know even the simplest music is hard to play really well. A C major scale is hard to play really well, but you wouldn't play one as a recital piece.)
Of course the bottom line is that you should listen to it for yourself. But the point of the question was that no recording was to hand.
-----------
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: Liquorice
Date: 2005-02-06 11:21
"I think such an audience might well react badly to the slow movement, which is not just simple, but very very simple indeed."
I don't believe complexity is a prerequisite for great music. The slow movement in the Saint-Saens sonata is very atmospheric and expressive. I've known audiences to react very favourably to it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 3dogmom
Date: 2005-02-06 13:12
Certainly, there's deceptively simple, and then there's just simple. You need to have some sense of your audience. Barring that, my suggestion would be to go with your feelings about the piece, and those of your teacher. My mother used to say, "If in doubt, don't. You'll always regret it if something goes wrong". Trust your instincts.
IMHOP - the Saint Saens is beautiful and not that easy to play well and true to the style. But that's just me.
Best of luck. I'm sure you'll make the right decision.
Sue
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: zzzzz
Date: 2005-02-06 13:22
the saint-saens is really great - but so are the Brahms and Poulenc - Poulenc is my fav!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2005-02-06 18:41
I think you should try the Brahms. It's truly masterful. Would show not only some technical prowess, but also some musicality and your ability to play the style well. Good luck...let us know what you choose.
Btw, the Poulenc is probably the most fun to play of all of those.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-02-06 18:54
clarinetist04 wrote:
> I think you should try the Brahms. It's truly masterful.
If you do not have a fine pianist - forget about it.
The piano part is fiendishly difficult and a major undertaking to learn.
Much of the charm of the Brahms Sonatas lies in the rhythmic and melodic interplay between the clarinet and piano. The pianist must be sensitive, have impeccable rhythm, and possess superlative technique to make the performance successful ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BlockEyeDan
Date: 2005-02-07 20:51
Thank you all for your excellent input!
As of now, I believe that I'm going to go with the Saint-Saens. It doesn't seem to be especially difficult from a technical perspective, but it seems to be quite pretty from a lyrical standpoint. I'm unsure as to whether I will be performing the whole piece, or just selected movements, but I am meeting with my accompanist for the first time tomorrow, and I will keep everyone posted about how this works out.
Thanks again!
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
