 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: bflatclarinetist
Date: 2005-07-31 07:29
For my first time I would like to participate in a woodwind concerto competition at a music festival (possibly a sonata competition as well but anyway). I can't just play 1 movement from a concerto, I have to play atleast 2 movements or the whole concerto. At my level there aren't many good concertos. So these are my choices:
-Rimsky-Korsakov Concerto
-Stamitz Concerto no. 3
Mozart is out because everyone's gonna play that one for sure and judges will be able to pick a mistake out easily if happens so. I'm not expecting to win personally but I just think maybe there's some hope for atleast being a finalist. Should I just wait until next year when I become a greater player so I have more options or enter the sonata competition because there's more sonatas at my level than concertos (right now)?
Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-07-31 11:25
Morrigan wrote:
> There's a Rimsky-Korsakov concerto?
Yes, there is, but it's not considered one of the better pieces in the clarinet repertoire and is seldom played or heard. I would be picking something else ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ben Redwine
Date: 2005-07-31 11:32
Hello,
I suggest playing Mozart. It is one piece that everyone should know. This competition will force you to study it more than you might otherwise. You should also approach this competition as though you are going to win. If you can do both, I would also suggest entering the sonata competition as well. Good luck.
Ben Redwine
RedwineJazz, LLC
410 798-8251
clarinet@redwinejazz.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-07-31 12:10
The Korsakov Concerto is "a piece o' crap". Stamitz is much better of a work.
Stamitz composed several Concerto's and you maybe should check out some of his others.
Maybe consider doing the sonata competition with the Saint Saens Sonata
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bflatclarinetist
Date: 2005-07-31 13:40
Ok thanks, yeah I thought that the Rimsky-Korsakov was bad, but wanted to give it a chance. I liked the Stamitz Concerto no. 3 but I don't believe it will be good enough against the other competitors who will be playing Weber and all those. David, I was actually considering learning the Saint Saens Sonata for the sonata competition. I'm going to buy the music for the Stamitz Concerto no. 3 and for the mozart (yeah I know I don't have mozart; never learned it yet). I'll decide when the time comes, Thank you
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-07-31 14:47
There are other stamitz'zzes which are much better and more "virtuostic" to me.
Get Sabine Meyer's recording of the Stamitz to hear some.
EMI Label title is "Johann & Carl STAMITZ Clarinet Concertos
Cool recording
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-07-31 15:01
The Rimsky-Korsakov Concerto in Eb for clarinet and military band is on my short list of the worst pieces in the clarinet repertoire.
It is seldom, if ever performed. Listen to it and you'll soon see why.
It is just barely surpassed in "awfulness" by the Mendelssohn clarinet sonata.
BTW - It's coincidental that the Rimsky-Korsakov was mentioned, as just yesterday I was organizing my music library and noticed not one, but two copies of it .
Funny thing, I don't remember even buying the first one.
Perhaps they are multiplying ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2005-07-31 15:12
haha...agreed.
Certainly go into it with a good head and a lot of confidence. If you think you're going to lose, don't expect anything else.
Repertoire? If I'm gathering your level correctly the following may be worth while:
Rossler: Concerto
Beer: Concerto
Walter Ross: Concerto (not very well known, but not too overwhelmingly difficult either)
Good luck.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2005-07-31 15:35
There are actually two volumes in Sabine Meyers' (incomplete) set.
Vol. I: Johann Stamitz (which, IMO, would be an alternative to Karl's No. 3)
Karl Stamitz, No. 3 (Bb), 10 (Bb), 11 (Eb)
Vol. II: Karl Stamitz, No. 1 (F), 7 (Eb), Bb for Bassett Horn and Orchestra
Bb for Clarinet, Bassoon and Orchestra
There is also a 2-volume (incomplete) set by Kalman Berkes on Naxos, which includes most of the Karl Stamitz concertos on Meyer's set (except for the Bassett Horn concerto) and includes No. 4 (for clarinet and violin or 2 clarinets) and No. 8.
For my money, the best set was Eduard Brunner's on the Tudor label. There are three volumes, though I was only able to obtain the first two. It follows the alternative numbering system, though. Also, it is out-of-print and AFAIK impossible to obtain.
If you have some time to prepare, for a modest increase in level of difficulty over the Stamitz (comparable, I think to the Saint Saens Sonata), you could obtain, IMO a big increase in appeal by playing the Krommer, Op. 36 concerto.
I'm surprised no one has yet pointed out that Rimsky-Korsakov is for clarinet and wind BAND, not orchestra. [Edit: Oops. I see that GBK did indeed point this out earlier.]
Best regards,
jnk
Post Edited (2005-08-01 04:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2005-07-31 16:24
As I've mentioned several times here, but never recieved any reinforcement, I want to agree with clarinetist04 that the Franz Anton Rossler concerto is really worth a look.
The Rubank University Series, edited by Himie Voxman (U.S. NO. 1) has some wonderful hints at playing it expressively. (There are also some debatable Voxman revisions to the grace notes.)
The (obligatory c.a. 1780) triplets at measures 158 and 166 of the first movement don't do anything for me, but the rest of the piece is just gorgeous.
The cadenza at the end of the first movement in Himie's edition is an interesting mini-lesson in constructing a cadenza from the underlying thoughts of the composition. It was written by Richard Hervig (who did the piano reduction). It can use some fiddling, but is accessible as written. It encourages subtlety.
If you take the time to look it over, I'd be more than happy to discuss some of the phrasing issues off-line.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bflatclarinetist
Date: 2005-07-31 19:24
These are my left choices:
-Malcolm Arnold Concerto no. 1
-Hoffmeister Concerto
-Krommer Concerto
-A Stamitz Concerto
-(possibly) Rossler
I will look at the sheet music soon to decide myself but I would just like to know your opinion about the pieces I've mentioned above.
David, the only recording I've heard of the Stamitz Concerto no. 3 was Sabine's recording, I like the Johann Stamitz Concerto as well but I'm not sure about the level of that...Is the Johann Stamitz approximately the same difficulty of the mozart?
GBK, the only recording of the Rimsky-Korsakov Concerto I've heard was the Anthony Gigliotto (laugh at me if I spelt his name wrong) recording. I could probably imagine him wanting to kill someone when playing that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Drenkier_1
Date: 2005-07-31 19:31
The Stamitz Concerto # 3 is I believe far too easy for someone to play in a concerto competition. I would leave the Stamitz Concerto 3 for 8th graders who are trying to become serious clarinet players and need to play a solo for contests. I wouldn't advise the Stamitz but I'm no expert. The Rimsky-Korsakov is not a good one either. Mozart is probably the way to go.
Kevin Collins
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2005-07-31 19:40
From the list you made......KROMMER! I don't know if you meant the more popular one for Bb clarinet, but I like that one.
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bflatclarinetist
Date: 2005-07-31 19:46
My past solo was the Scherzo and Trio from the 5 Solo Pieces for clarinet by Gordon Jacob (I'm still working on increasing the tempo). Other pieces that I'm working on (for fun) are Concerto in G minor-Handel, Romance-Jean Becker, Estilian Caprice-forget.
Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2005-07-31 20:04
Hi Bob,
You've recommended the Rossler (Rosetti) Clarinet Concerto on several threads and, each time, mentioned Mr. Voxman's revisions to the grace notes. This comment has always piqued my curiosity. So, out with it! What is it that Mr. Voxman does to the grace notes that you find so objectionable? Also, have you heard Dieter Klocker's recording and, if so, which approach does he follow (if either), the Langenus or Mr. Voxman's.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2005-07-31 20:14
Look at the Paessler. I picked it up a couple years ago, and more recently there was a writeup in The Clarinet. It's at about the Stamitz difficulty level and era, and is quite a fun piece of music. OK, not Malcolm Arnold Sonatina fun, but fun nonetheless.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2005-08-01 01:03
OK,
I don't have the Langenus version of the Rossler Concerto in Eb, but will now go looking for it.
I'm glad that we are to discuss some of the things in the Rossler that bother me. I've been able to finally get some local discussion going on this, too.
It looks like Mozart and Rossler were contemporaries, both German, so may have had the same aesthetic rules of perofrmance (leaf-shaped phrases?). The Rossler preceeded the Mozart by several years.
The Voxman edition preface says that Rossler took his concerto to Paris "where clarinet virtuosi were available. "
Here are my curiosities, all pointing to measures in the Rubank/Voxman edition:
Voxman' preface says that "the solo clarinet part has been edited in accordance with modern practice."
FIRST MOVEMENT
In measure 63, a grace note leads into an eigth note on the first beat. The upbeat consists of two 1/16ths. Voxman suggests playing the phrase as 4-1/16th notes. MAYBE, but that would make it like the first beats of measures 62 and 64. My preference is to play it as an appogiatura.
A similar situation occurs in measures 81 and 82, where a fluid, legato-tongued passage seems better to me with appogiatura instead of the recommended conversion of grace-noted 1/4s into two 1/8ths.
For the 4th beat of measure 96, the grace-1/8th -1/16 -1/16 occurs again, with Voxman wanting it played as 4-1/16ths. In this case, the third beat is an 1/8th 2-1/16ths; and it feels better to me to play the 4th beat as anappogiatura -1/8 -1/16 -1/16. Otherwise, the punctuation is just another of many slured 4-1/16ths.
In measure 146, a shake on the upbeat of beat 3 apears over a written A. Since the key signature calls for Bbs, the short trill should be from A to Bb. BUT, the next note is a B-Natural. I'm told that, considering the vintage of the music, the performer can chose his/er own decoration --that it's ok to trill to B-natural.
I previously mentioned that the triplet figures starting in measures 158 and 166 are kind of dead, usless --particularly compared to the nice triplet in the Stamitz 3rd.
In several places, turns between notes are written out --much as Mozart did in the Kegelstaat Trio.
SECOND MOVEMENT
Measure 4 advises that the 3rd beat 1/4 note be extended and played as a dotted 1/4 (the annotation shows the quarter played as a 1/4 tied an (unwritten) 1/8. This annotation ignores the grace note tied to the 1/4!
Similarly, in measure 39, the grace note is ignored, and the annotation emphasizes the written tie from the first beat 1/2 note to the first of the following1/16th.
In general, the advice to reinforce and to quickly (smorzando, = subito) drop volume seems to set a good base for phrasing this delicious Romance movement.
THIRD MOVEMENT
Again, we have several places where Voxman wants to substitue equal 1/16ths for written [grace -1/8 -1/16 -1/16] combinations. These occur in measures 112, 116,141, 143.
In contrast, the grace note in measure 123 is replaced by an appgiatura!
Closure:
Locally, folks tell me that
1. The performer can ad-lib the ornamentation;
and, on the other hand,
2. Voxman can be trusted.
What do you folks think? I'm actually wavering. After all, my history with the Langenus method does lend some support to Voxman's edits.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2005-08-01 01:25
I think that Voxman's edits are consistent. What you've noted as where he arbitrarily places appoggiaturas (haha, that was the winning word of this year's national spelling bee) is actually very proper in itself. For example, you say that he asks for one thing in mm112 (mvt. 3) and another in mm123. In fact, he is correct in his edition: look at where the grace note is placed. In mm112 it is before the eighth while in mm123it is before the sixteenth. If you were to stick with Voxman's edits and make ALL the grace notes like written notes, you would have two eights and four sixteenths in mm112 and 3 eighths, 2 32nd and 1 sixteenth in mm123. That would be rediculous to write at the speed this should be at (referring to mm123). As for the 2nd movement, mm4 that has the tie as Voxman's preference, I think you're reading his edition wrong. I think he means that you play the four eighths and hold the E as the 1/4 note and slur to the D (the eighth note). However, I agree with you about the bad suggestion in mm41. I think all of your complaints in movement one are due to a matter of preference. I think that Voxman's edits are reasonable, as most of the music I've seen from this time period have editors suggesting the same performance techniques.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2005-08-04 02:35
I'm at a disadvantage here because I don't have a copy of Mr. Voxman's edition. I thought I did but I can't find it anywhere. In any case, I can't see the actual notation that he is describing (which he may have edited from the original, in any case) and I am having trouble visualizing some of the situations you describe. I have a bias toward believing him over Gustave Langenus because, writing later, he has the advantage of additional scholarship. On the other hand, he did this edition quite a few years ago and understanding of period practices may have changed.
In any case, the general rule of thumb that I heard from my teacher, who was one of Mr. Voxman's students, was that a grace note with a slash through it should be played short and before the beat whereas a grace note with no slash should take half the value of the note it is attached to and be played on the beat. In other words, a grace note attached to an eighth note would be played as two sixteenth notes.
Here, however, things get muddy (and, Tony Pay, if you happen to read this, please come to my aid and correct me). This business seems to have changed over time. Working backwards, I have a "Pronouncing Dictionary of Musical Terms" by Hugh Clarke with a copyright date of 1898. In that dictionary, Clarke defines an "appoggiatura" as "An ornamental note foreign to the harmony, one degree above or below a member of the chord, always on an accent or on a beat. It takes half the value fo the note it precedes but, if the note it precedes is dotted, it takes two-thirds of its value." (This definition covers 2 of the 3 "rules" set down by Turk around 1789 and, therefore, probably in common use when Rosetti (Rossler) wrote the concerto. (A little more about Turk later.) Clarke shows the notation as a "grace note" without any slash and contrasts the appoggiatura with the acciacatura (let's see the spelling bee kid get that one!), which he defines as: "A short grace note written thus [here he shows a grace note with a slash through it] takes the place in the harmony of the note it precedes; is played rapidly." It's not entirely clear whether this ornament is to be played on the beat or before it but, to me, it sounds as though it is to be played on the beat. Presumably, this defines practice around 1898 but it is not clear whether that was the practice when Rosetti wrote the concerto.
The information I have from Rosetti's period is from Gotthold Frotscher's "Performance Practices of Early Music." Frotcher quotes several sources from this period including Johann Quantz, Leopold Mozart and Daniel Gottlieb Turk. Among the more relevant comments:
From Quantz: "The appoggiaturas .... receive their length through the notes which they precede. It just does not mean a thing whether they have more than one stroke or none."
According to Frotscher, there were two types of appoggiatura during this period, the short appoggiatura (played quickly) and the long appoggiatura. It appears from Frotscher that the short appoggiatura was only appropriate in limited specific situations, at least some of which Leopold Mozart identifies (These do not correspond to anything close to what appears in the Rosetti so we may ignore them.) The rest are long appoggiaturas. Turk gave three rules for long appoggiaturas
"First Rule: The appoggiatura acquires half of the value of the following note, it the latter can be divided into two equal halves.
Second Rule: Before dotted (three-part) notes, the appoggiatura acquires two parts, i.e., the full value of the note, while there remains only one part (or the value of the dot) for the main note.
Third Rule: The appoggiatura acquires the full value of the following note, when the latter is attached to another note of equal pitch (usually of shorter value)."
I'm wondering if the third rule explains the situations I cannot visualize in your description.
Finally, if things aren't confusing enough, Frotscher quotes Agricola (a pupil of Bach in a 1757 translation of earlier writings of Tosi): "It is impossible to set specific rules for every single place where appoggiatures [sic] are required, and what their value ought to be. There always remains a certain amount of discretion, depending on the taste or perception of composer or interpreter."
Frotscher adds: "This explains why the value of an appoggiatura cannot definitely be established, and the only advice would be to use, in case of doubt, a long one rather than a short one."
Well, there you have everything I can find about it. Perhaps someone with more detailed specific knowledge/experience can add to/correct my comments. FWIW, I listened to Dieter Klocker's recording and while I heard a few short grace notes, they were never (at least as far as my ears could tell) part of 16th note runs.
One final comment FWIW. I was told by my teacher, to his students, and usually his student's students, he is never Himie or Voxman but always Mr. Voxman.
Best regards,
jnk
Post Edited (2005-08-04 04:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
