 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2005-06-20 13:36
Hi All;
Having played our Naumburg Orchestra concert at NYC's Central Park last night, I have some questions for you.
We featured two soloists who are both Naumburg Award winners from past years. One was a violinist who played the Bernstein Serenade, the other was Charlie Neidich, the famous clarinet soloist, who played the Copland Concerto.
Here's my question:
Are you aware there are a least 2 versions of the Copland Concerto? It seems Neidich has found an old score and notes from Copland with some changes from the printed edition dedicated to Benny Goodman. Goodman, as the story goes, asked for certain changes to be made to make the Concerto more playable for him. Since it was dedicated to Benny, Copland made the changes. Then along comes Neidich, finds the original score at the Library of Congress, and decides to put back in the "original" notes and changes.
The performance last night featured those changes.
I have never heard the Concerto played any differently than the printed edition we all have. I've performed it quite a few times, and added a few scoops, bends, and a jazz feel to various sections of the piece. But I pretty much stick to the printed page. Neidich, on the other hand, changed lots of notes, played some of the cadenza much higher than written, and added some completely new notes to other sections of the Concerto. Interesting, to say the least!
He seemed to be having fun, the audience loved it, and I was surprised by his additions to a piece I know well.
I'm just wondering if any of you were there last night, and what your reactions were to Neidich's performance?
Charlie and I had a nice chat after the performance and he seemed pleased with his work. I, of course, told him I was thrilled the clarinet was getting so much exposure with his playing, and grateful to have heard him in a live performance after so many years.
So, any thoughts or comments?
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin
Date: 2005-06-20 15:58
Hi Mr. Moses. I was at the concert last night (just the first half). I also noticed that Neidich's playing was very different, with many small changes here and there, than what I'm used to hearing on commercial recordings by Goodman and others.
Neidich served the piece well. Although, his constant waving sideways violently to the music during his rests got old. And I started getting nervous for him as he got to the end of the cadenza. His breath started running short and he may have flubbed a couple of runs, but I guess that makes it all more exciting.
I was impressed by his circular breathing which allowed for some ridiculous long pauseless playing in the slow section.
The audience definately enjoyed it. During the applause, almost everyone around me was looking at the person next to them, nodding and chuckling.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-06-20 17:39
The Clarinet magazine Volume 23 Number 1, had an in-depth article on the original and revised versions of the Copland Concerto, entitled "Too Difficult for Benny Goodman - The Original Version of the Copland Clarinet Concerto"
I assume that Neidich played the original draft of the Copland work.
In the article, the author examines the 4 different passages from the original version which were changed to accomodate the requests of Benny Goodman. For the most part, the changes were made to facilitate technique.
Did Neidich play both the written clarinet B6 and C#7 in the cadenza, and A#6, C#7 at the end of the piece, as was in the original draft?
BTW - Neidich has recorded the "original" version of the Copland Concerto on Chandos records #9848 ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2005-06-20 20:42
Glenn,
As it turns out my earliest edition of "The Clarinet" is Volume 23, Number 4, so I can't track the article down quickly and I'm hoping you might be able to answer a couple of questions I have. First of all, who is the author of the article and what is his/her basis for concluding that Copland revised the work because it was too difficult for Benny Goodman. I'm looking at Charles Neidich's liner notes for his 2000 recording of the original version for Chandos. There, he seems to suggest that Copland made the revisions on his own to conform to his idea of technical standards of the time. Does the author of "The Clarinet" article have specific quotes from Copland or Goodman to support his/her conclusions or are the merely speculation on the author's part. (Or was Charles Neidich the author?)
On the recording, it sounds to me like Neidich plays the notes you identify. The biggest difference to my ear, however, is the section between 443 and around 470. He starts this an octave higher than the published part and things get pretty wild with more notes and higher notes than the published part. That section sounds like a bear and I can see Benny Goodman (and probably just about any other clarinetist of that era) finding it a challenge. That is about the only part that I could see giving Goodman any particular trouble, however. Unfortunately, in the recording, quite a bit of this is somewhat covered by the orchestra. To be honest, while I find the original version interesting to compare with the published version, I don't think the piece lost much in revision -- but I could be biased in favor of what I'm used to.
One other point. In the Chandos recording, Neidich (to my ear, anyway) plays the piece pretty "straight" -- not a jazzy interpretation. I think that is also true of Goodman's approach. This interpretation is in line with my bias. I have always felt the piece is more an American concerto (in the vein of Piston) than a jazz concerto (in the vein of, e.g., Siegmeister). The fact that it can stand up to so many different interpretations, however, is perhaps testimony to its greatness.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-06-20 21:12
Jack...
The author of the article in The Clarinet is Robert Adelson, who is both a clarinetist (Colorado Symphony) and musicologist.
He does use written and published quotes from both Copland and Goodman concerning the changes made to the piece.
One in particular (concerning playing a written C#7 for clarinet):
"...Benny made a few other suggestions - one concerned a high note in the cadenza... [snip]...He explained that although he could comfortably reach that high note when playing jazz for an audience, he might not be able to if he had read it from a score or for a recording. Therefore we changed it..."
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-06-20 21:26
>> To be honest, while I find the original version interesting to compare with the published version, I don't think the piece lost much in revision -- but I could be biased in favor of what I'm used to.>>
I agree.
>> One other point. In the Chandos recording, Neidich (to my ear, anyway) plays the piece pretty "straight" -- not a jazzy interpretation. I think that is also true of Goodman's approach. This interpretation is in line with my bias.>>
I've never understood why anyone with any degree of musical sensitivity would want to 'jazz up' any part of the Copland concerto. That Goodman himself didn't, simply shows that he was more intelligent and more stylistically aware than many people who have come after him.
What I want to say is: never mind Goodman's Copland, or Neidich's Copland, or Stolzman's Copland -- how about *Copland's* Copland???
I wrote a sequence of posts about this to the Klarinet list. You can find them in the archives, but they're referenced in a post on another subject:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2004/08/000358.txt
It probably won't interest the likes of Bob A, but it might interest some of the rest of you.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2005-06-21 03:07
"Did Neidich play both the written clarinet B6 and C#7 in the cadenza, and A#6, C#7 at the end of the piece, as was in the original draft?"
Yes! He did, GBK. It was awesome, and very much "Copland's Copland Clarinet Concerto."
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2005-06-21 09:17
Mr. Moses ... so (apart from Goodman/Neidich) what other performances do you recommend of this fabulous work?
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2005-06-21 13:18
A few recordings of the Copland that I have, and like, are:
Clarinet Concerto 17:51
Composed by Aaron Copland
Conducted by Leonard Bernstein
Performed by Stanley Drucker and New York Philharmonic
Clarinet Concerto 16:16
Composed by Aaron Copland
Conducted by Yuli Turovsky
Performed by Charles Neidich and I Musici de Montréal
Clarinet Concerto 18:19
Composed by Aaron Copland
Conducted by Lan Shui
Performed by Martin Frost and Malmö Symphony Orchestra
Clarinet Concerto 18:21
Composed by Aaron Copland
Conducted by Harry Newstone
Performed by Gary Gray and Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
Post Edited (2005-06-21 13:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-06-21 14:47
John Moses, this is not on the topic of this thread but I have a question. I saw a DVD with a clarinetist and his last name was Moses. I think his first name wasn't John but I am not sure. He was American and our teacher said there are a few brothers from the Moses family that play a lot of woodwinds. Maybe it was your brother?
This clarinetist was a little old it seemed (sorry I didn't wear my glasses so all of them looked old), I think he had glasses but not sure, and he had white hair I think.
The DVD was of a live concert of Mel Trome. The group was singer, vibraphone, clarinet, bass, drums, and they played swing but in a more modern style.
Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2005-06-21 17:29
Hi claribass:
I am old, I have white hair (just a little now), there are no other Moses musicians that I know about, other than my daughter, Rachel, who plays piano and bass guitar.
I worked with Mel Torme many years ago, but I don't think it was ever taped.
Perhaps it was, Bobby Moses (no relation), on that DVD. He's a great jazz and commercial drummer?
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2005-06-21 22:39
Tony, Oh Tony. What did I do to make you unhappy. I only regret that I can play neither version. Enjoyed your articles though!. And I don't think John Moses is 'stupid'.
Bob A
Post Edited (2005-06-21 22:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2005-06-22 03:53
Thanks, Bob A..."And I don't think John Moses is 'stupid'."
I don't think Tony meant that either, but then again...?
Many years ago, I think it was in the early 1980s, I played the Copland Concerto for a film called, "Love & Money." It was a flop, but I had a chance to play for Aaron Copland himself! He conducted the sessions, and Benny Goodman was hired to be his soloist. Benny dropped out of the project (smart move), so I was brought in at the last minute to do the film with Copland...what a treat!
My point is:
Copland liked my "jazz" feel in the more swinging sections of the Concerto.
He encouraged me to do more, so when I perform or teach the piece these days, I try to convey what Copland had in mind. I always feel I'm playing Copland's Copland Concerto...it's not about me.
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-06-22 05:56
Thanks for your answer John.
Well the Moses one definitely was the clarinetist. I am pretty sure now it wasn't a John, I remember his first name was a name I've never heard before. He had a lot of hair but all gray.
By the quality of the film, I would say it is from the 90s (but I could be completely wrong about this).
I remember this clarinetist because he played REALLY high without sounding harsh at all. He played up to written E (D in concert pitch) by our teacher with perfect pitch (although our teacher wasn't really paying attention so he said he thought it was a D but didn't really notice).
I'll ask my teacher who it was if I see him.
Post Edited (2005-06-22 05:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-06-22 13:51
> Tony, Oh Tony. What did I do to make you unhappy?
I dunno; perhaps ıt was an overreactıon to your:
> Boy, wasn't that interesting! :-D
> Bob A
....on a prevıous post.
Anyway, I'm glad I was wrong.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-06-22 13:57
...and to suggest that 'John Moses ıs stupıd' couldn't have been farther from my ıntentıons.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2005-06-22 14:21
"...and to suggest that 'John Moses ıs stupıd' couldn't have been farther from my ıntentıons." Tony Pay
"And I don't think John Moses is 'stupid'." Bob A
Hey guys, thanks, you made my day. I'm in at WICKED for 2 shows today at 2:00 & 8:00, so I can now tell the guys at work that I am, in fact, not "stupid." You wouldn't believe what they call me!
Back to Copland; he was quite old when I played for him during those sessions for the film. Quite coincidentally, the following summer I was in a sextet with the American String Quartet, and Ursala Oppens, a pianist, which performed Copland's Sextet at the Aspen Music Festival. He was our "coach" and that was another thrill. I asked him to sign my clarinet part, and, as old as he was, he said, "Didn't I do this for you on the Concerto?" What a mind!
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2005-06-22 16:59
Tony, as we get older our memory slips a bit. If you review those klarinet site messages you will find that you said (wrote) to John Moses "you are ignorant...and stupid". I rest my case. But I love yah anyway.
GBK says we must be careful what we say for it still comes back to haunt us after five years.
Bob A
Post Edited (2005-06-22 17:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-06-22 17:06
Bob A wrote:
> If you review
> those klarinet site messages you will find that you said
> (wrote) to John Moses "you are ignorant...and stupid". I rest
> my case.
Bob A - you're wrong on both counts. Tony said, to John Gibson, with more context:
"So, you say I'm grouchy.
But I say you're irresponsible -- and stupid.
Tony"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2005-06-22 20:14
Mark, and Tony--"Sorry 'bout Dat!" As we get older our eyesight gets bad as well.
Apologies to ALL. Of course Tony will get even. ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-06-23 13:50
> Of course Tony will get even. :-D)
I have no intention of doing so:-)
(Of course, it might happen accidentally -- but not by design.)
John, I'm interested in what Copland said to you about how you played the Concerto, and how he encouraged you to play in a more 'jazzy style', whatever that means.
(I should say to start with that I'm not a subscriber to the idea that the composer *always* knows how his piece works best. I've even sometimes said that I don't particularly want to consult a composer like Berio about small things, because *he might tell me what to do*! And if you think that's crazy, I have several anecdotes that might sway you in the other direction.)
So, I don't know whether you read what I wrote about 'passage Q' in the concerto, but perhaps you would be willing to look at that in the posts I referenced.
To start with, did he want you to go so far as to 'swing' that bit?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2005-06-24 03:06
Hi Tony:
You asked;
"John, I'm interested in what Copland said to you about how you played the Concerto, and how he encouraged you to play in a more 'jazzy style', whatever that means."
You've written extensively on the Copland Concerto, and it sounds like you've pretty much made up your mind about the "swing" factor when you perform the Concerto yourself. So, all I can say is that I play the Concerto with a "swing feel" in various sections of the piece. My feelings about how much I swing or where it happens depends on my mood, at the time, or the group I'm playing for or with. I'm sure you're not serious about "jazzy style, whatever that means." I'm sure you know a lot about jazz, and you know what many of us do when we're asked to "jazz up" a passage in a jingle, or a show tune, or a contemporary classical piece. The Copland Concerto has always felt jazzy to me, and that's why I "swung" some sections of the piece for Copland when we worked together on the film project. He liked the little bit of swing I tried, and it seemed to work for the film. After he watched the spot, and listened to the playback, he liked my style, and suggested I do more.
I've played the Concerto quite a few times, and I change my "jazz feel" from time to time. I think the piece has grown since it was written, and passed through many fine clarinetist's hands. Copland was charming, and liked creativity and change from musicians. He enjoyed the "jazzy style" I brought to our time together working on the Concerto. I think Aaron Copland understood "jazzy style" better than any of us mere mortals.
(I should say to start with that I'm not a subscriber to the idea that the composer *always* knows how his piece works best. I've even sometimes said that I don't particularly want to consult a composer like Berio about small things, because *he might tell me what to do*! And if you think that's crazy, I have several anecdotes that might sway you in the other direction.)
I worked closely with Luciano Berio for many years. I was his clarinetist in the first Berio Ensemble, which toured the US and Europe. We played Luciano's music along with many other talented contemporary composers.
When we performed Berio's music, and played pieces like "Folk Songs" with Cathy Berberian, or many of the "Sequenza"s, we discussed them at great length, and got a lot of input from the man himself. It was invaluable to us, and made our performances more vital and musical. I miss the great and talented Luciano Berio, he was a wonderful musical spirit, and an inspiration to many of us who worked so closely with him for so long.
PS Not only was Berio a great composer, but also a very generous human being. With no place to live, as a young contemporary clarinetist, Luciano let me live in his house in Weehawken, NJ for over a year!
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
Post Edited (2005-06-24 03:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SueSmith
Date: 2005-06-24 03:22
John Moses -
Do you have a recording of the Sequenza available? Or any insight into the piece?
Perhaps this is the start of another thread?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2005-06-24 03:42
Sue:
Luciano wrote some of the Sequenzas for the members of the Berio Ensemble. We were, I'm sure, recorded at some of the concerts where we performed the Sequenzas. Perhaps Juilliard has our earliest recordings in it's archives, as we performed them at the School when Berio taught there. At that time, in the mid-1960s, we were the Juilliard Ensemble.
The solo Sequenzas have been recorded since our early performances, and I'm sure they're out there in the CD world. My own collection is only on the old LPs.
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
Post Edited (2005-06-24 03:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SueSmith
Date: 2005-06-24 03:50
Thanks, I live close to NY...perhaps I can break into Juilliard one of these days.
I was interested in the Clarinet Sequenza...IXa. I haven't tackled that piece yet, although I suppose I should give it a look one day soon. It would be nice to have a reference (like your recording) as a study guide.
Thanks for the heads up!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-06-24 19:55
> > You've written extensively on the Copland Concerto, and it sounds like you've pretty much made up your mind about the "swing" factor when you perform the Concerto yourself.> >
Well, certainly in 'passage Q' I have. I wanted to know whether you agreed with what I wrote about that. Indeed, I'd still like to know.
> > I'm sure you're not serious about "jazzy style, whatever that means." I'm sure you know a lot about jazz, and you know what many of us do when we're asked to "jazz up" a passage in a jingle, or a show tune, or a contemporary classical piece. The Copland Concerto has always felt jazzy to me, and that's why I "swung" some sections of the piece for Copland when we worked together on the film project.> >
The difficulty about that is that different people have different ideas of what playing 'jazzily' consists of. I haven't heard you play the Copland, and it's very possible that I might like what *you* do, but not what other people do, in the name of 'jazzing up'.
As an illustration, I remember playing a concert with the London Sinfonietta under Simon Rattle which attempted to recreate a Paul Whiteman concert at the Carnegie Hall. (I didn't do the record, but it was much the same as the performance, as I recall.) We did rather badly compared to a similar New York recording, because we sounded like classical musicians trying to play jazzily, whereas they sounded like people who really understood the style in their bones. (That's what I meant when I contrasted 'stylistic elements' with 'surface features'.)
> > So, all I can say is that I play the Concerto with a "swing feel" in various sections of the piece. My feelings about how much I swing or where it happens depends on my mood, at the time, or the group I'm playing for or with.> >
How about 'passage Q', which is the bit that I'm most interested in? You see, I have an 'argument' to present about why it might be said to be wrong to swing that passage, whereas other things that you might do -- a slightly different sound, an inflexion -- wouldn't bother me.
And beyond that, I have another agenda, which is to promote the idea that our fundamental job as players is to try to find a way in which the score makes sense, rather than just playing what we happen to like.
> > He liked the little bit of swing I tried, and it seemed to work for the film. > >
I suppose it might be possible that what was required for the film might be different from what was required for a performance. But I defer to you on that.
> > I think Aaron Copland understood "jazzy style" better than any of us mere mortals.
Having worked with very many composers in my time -- even with Copland on one occasion, recording Appalachian Spring under his baton -- I would have to say that genius in the direction of composition doesn't always go hand in hand with genius in the direction of performance. Of course, it may have been so with Copland -- you know more than me.
I wrote:
> > I've even sometimes said that I don't particularly want to consult a composer like Berio about small things, because *he might tell me what to do*! > >
You wrote:
> > I worked closely with Luciano Berio for many years. I was his clarinetist in the first Berio Ensemble, which toured the US and Europe. We played Luciano's music along with many other talented contemporary composers. When we performed Berio's music, and played pieces like "Folk Songs" with Cathy Berberian, or many of the 'Sequenzas', we discussed them at great length, and got a lot of input from the man himself. It was invaluable to us, and made our performances more vital and musical. I miss the great and talented Luciano Berio, he was a wonderful musical spirit, and an inspiration to many of us who worked so closely with him for so long.> >
Well, I don't want to get into a competition about how well we each knew Berio, but I too worked closely with him, and with Cathy. I did many first performances: Recital, Points on the Curve to Find, etc, and recorded the Clarinet Concertino and other works on RCA with him conducting.
The Clarinet Sequenza was written around 1983, and I did the second London performance of the piece under Luciano's supervision, and several times in his presence afterwards.
What I was on about in my remarks above was as follows: composers are sometimes extremely difficult to take seriously as sources for how to play their pieces. Stravinsky, for example, famously said so many contradictory things about his works that, as someone once put it, it made you doubt whether there actually was such a person as Stravinsky.
On the occasion of this performance in London in 1983, Berio asked me to play it sitting down.
I thought this was quite a good idea: the piece is quite 'inward' in many places, reminiscent at the beginning of the first of the Stravinsky pieces.
In fact, as an aside, I have something to contribute here: Berio once heard me play these pieces in a concert directed by him in Rome in the 70's, and said afterwards, "I'd forgotten how wonderful these pieces are -- I especially like the bit in the second movement, where you get the tune, then the accompaniment; then the tune again, then the accompaniment again; and then, the accompaniment becomes the tune!
"When I write a Sequenza for clarinet, I shall dedicate it to Stravinsky."
He didn't -- perhaps he forgot -- but I think the influence is there (Berio was a clarinettist himself, of course).
Anyway, to go on with the story, I played the piece sitting down, and using a full Boehm clarinet (you can't get the chords on the standard instrument without low Eb).
Years passed, and I played the Sequenza a few times. One solution I adopted for the chords was to put, first a C clarinet bell, and then a device I made out of a shampoo bottle into the bell of my standard clarinet, so that I could play the chords as written. It was too much trouble to borrow a complete Boehm instrument every time.
Anyhow, I then played it again in Brussels in Berio's presence, I suppose around 1990. He was very pleased with my performance -- he was almost effusive -- but then said, "You can't use that...that suppository. We must find another solution.
"But, why do you play sitting down?" he went on.
"Well, because you asked me to."
"No...never!"
"But, when I played it in London, you did!"
"No!"
Subsequently, I stayed at Berio's house in Radicondoli (though not for a year, I admit:-), and we worked out a solution that could be played on a standard Boehm clarinet. It involved changing some of the notes around the chords, because Berio said -- and I agreed with him -- that different notes in the chord meant that what was originally written before and after didn't fit. He also asked me to write an introduction and explanation of the piece, to be published with the new solution to the chords.
I said that I didn't want to do that, because my ideas about the piece would just get in the way of how other people might want to play it. The piece is quite explicit as to what you do, after all.
Later I played it in London (from memory, and that's another story) and gave him what I'd written out as the solution we'd come up with.
"But, you've changed some notes!" he said.
"I didn't change them, Luciano. You did."
"No...never!"
Another similar rewriting of history was told me by Aldo Bennici, for whom Berio wrote 'Voci'. Aldo had been playing the viola sequenza, and Berio asked him how he saw the piece.
"Well, I think of it as a modern Chaconne -- you know, like the Bach," Bennici said.
"Rubbish!" replied Luciano. "How can you think that? I've never heard anything so stupid! If anything, it's like Paganini -- virtuoso string writing that stretches the instrument! Bach, indeed!"
A few days later, Aldo heard a radio broadcast of an interview with Luciano, about the Sequenzas, among other things.
"Ah yes, the viola Sequenza," said Luciano. "You know, in many ways, it is like the Bach Chaconne...."
> > PS Not only was Berio a great composer, but also a very generous human being. With no place to live, as a young contemporary clarinetist, Luciano let me live in his house in Weehawken, NJ for over a year!> >
You saw the good side of him, as indeed I mostly did. In fact, he was always generous to people he felt were a part of his family.
On the other hand, he could be gratuitously sadistic to random orchestral players who showed weakness. I saw several ugly scenes of that nature, where even if someone wasn't playing particularly badly, he would have them play badly in the end, and therefore justify his attacking them.
He was a complex man, and a wonderful musician. I'm glad to have known him, but he wasn't always easy.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-06-24 22:26
SueSmith wrote:
> >I was interested in the Clarinet Sequenza...IXa. I haven't tackled that piece yet, although I suppose I should give it a look one day soon. It would be nice to have a reference (like your recording) as a study guide.> >
The thing to do, Sue, is rather to look at the score, and try to make sense of it for yourself.
You might find that trying to play it gave you some ideas, and that those ideas gave you another way to play it...
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SueSmith
Date: 2005-06-24 23:55
Tony Pay wrote:
>
> The thing to do, Sue, is rather to look at the score, and try
> to make sense of it for yourself.
>
> You might find that trying to play it gave you some ideas, and
> that those ideas gave you another way to play it...
>
> Tony
To me, Berio Sequenza is still a mystery...and I confess I don't "get" his compositions on the whole. Yet, it seems that his music is more or less required once you delve into the modern literature and sometime soon I will have to embark on my Berio education. So far, Persichetti and Martino are as modern as I get - although in the past I had spent a horrific few days learning two pages of squeaks in Carter's "GRA" - blah.
I've recently decided to delve into Artie Shaw's Concerto as well as some Klezmer, in order to expand my previously narrow view of "classical" clarinet literature and technique. But, since I have not exposed myself to these styles in the past, I've been listening to many different recordings in order to understand the style and mood of these genre's.
Likewise, Berio is not my thing naturally...and in order to comprehend what this man was trying to say, I have to understand his style. I understand your comment - and it is appreciated, but I'm still going to be studying and listeing to a lot of Berio (not just the Sequenza) before I will even embark on the journey of Sequenza IXa. Hence, usage of the word "reference" in regards to John Moses recording.
Imagine, if the first composition of Stravinsky's you ever saw (without even aural exposure to his works) was Three Pieces. I'm sure someone of your caliber would be able to decipher the style quite adequately, yet by studying (through scores and aurally) the style of Stravinsky before hand - you would certainly have a greater understanding of the work and Stravinksy's style as a whole. Likewise, by studying the history and influences of lesser known composers, even though there may be fewer or no recordings available, you gain insight into the work. I've heard enough students in many a masterclass with no reference point for the work they are performing ... in fact one of these experiences was during a Berio Masterclass held by Tom Martin.
In my world, there is a difference between using a recording as "reference" material as opposed to "copying" a recorded performance. Too many students do fall into the latter catergory, imitating the sound and style of a certain peformer's recording. In fact, an entire thread can be created on the reasons behind the lack of creativity among student performers - but I wont expand upon my theory in this thread.
Anyway, this is where I'm coming from.
Post Edited (2005-06-24 23:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-06-25 01:30
I understand what you're saying.
Still...I've dealt with many students who play the Sequenza to me.
What do I (mostly) find myself saying to them?
I find myself saying to them, look, he tells you to play legato there...but you don't play legato. Look, he says wait ten seconds there...but you don't wait ten seconds there. Look, he doesn't write a crescendo there...but you do one. Look, he writes an accent there...but I don't hear it. Look, he says 'sempre forte' there...but you do lots of diminuendos. Look, he starts to write diminuendos and crescendos there...but you don't do them.
And so on.
If you can actually do all the things he asks you, you're in a much better place to find out what the piece is 'about', for you.
There is one thing you might want to know about the pauses: which is that originally, during those pauses, there was a computer program that transformed (a favourite Berio word) the material you had just played.
Why Berio left them in, unaltered (when it turned out in the first performance that the computer program didn't work properly) I don't know. I felt I had to find a way to motivate their existence in my own performance, and came up with the image that they were like a freeze-frame in a video. When they occurred, I imagined that that video had been paused for the duration.
I found that helped me.
Tony
Post Edited (2005-06-25 01:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ken
Date: 2005-06-25 03:14
If the referred to "Q passage" is mm. 297-322 and 350-378, I agree this section should be played with rhythmic precision and dogmatically straight. More, the Q&A dotted 8-16ths must not be swung and remain strictly metered. In my own small circles, I’ve debated many who felt the passage should be lightly swung, even shaped and developed into hard swing. The two primary justifications for swing are: 1) The underlying half pizz, walking bass line demands a "bending and stretching of meter" 2) The melody is a quote of a Brazilian pop tune and thus stylistically replicated.
Examining harmonic structure, Copland undeniably applies "jazz elements" and influences, namely sections where he incorporates revolving non-functional harmony that switch from specific to varying tonal centers, (i.e., mm. 130-145, 206-222, culminating in m. 245.)
One other observation comparing to the Gould Derivations; Morton Gould purposefully included Benny “signature licks” (last 2 mm in 4th movement, descending 3-octave F Major broken arpeggio) to promote a jazzy feel and personalize the work. Copland neglected to do this, however, when composing for specific “clients” he easily flowed from style to style --- his 1927 Concerto for Piano and Orchestra is a text book example within the “framework” of symphonic jazz. One could surmise, when composing his Concerto for Goodman he strived to highlight the soloists' strongest musical attributes and place emphasis on "themes and style". v/r Ken
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-06-25 15:05
SueSmith wrote:
> > Imagine, if the first composition of Stravinsky's you ever saw (without even aural exposure to his works) was Three Pieces. I'm sure someone of your caliber would be able to decipher the style quite adequately, yet by studying (through scores and aurally) the style of Stravinsky before hand - you would certainly have a greater understanding of the work and Stravinsky's style as a whole.> >
I thought about this a bit more.
Of course, in general, you're right. It's really worth tracking down related material.
But actually, my own experience of coming to understand the Stravinsky Three Pieces a bit better, occurred really without my hearing anyone else playing them.
I remember saying to my then teacher, "I don't really understand the first piece, or how I should play it."
In the end I came to see it first as melody, and then rather abstractly as a dialogue between groups of notes that 'belong together' modally, and others that introduce themselves as 'strangers' -- and then take over, redefining the first group as 'strangers'. I also came to appreciate how the gracenotes operate in the scheme, and a double-vision of seeing the melody as 'intervals' rather than 'notes' helped too.
Similar 'abstract' things are true about the Berio. If you look at it, you see that a sequence of rhythmic patterns are applied to a sequence of notes, the sequences being of different lengths. And gracenotes are important, again.
When you begin to appreciate that sort of structure, it generates a feel for what is important about what is written. That's a very powerful interpretative stimulus, and I'd say you should trust it over and above any recording you might hear. And, just as an aside, I have to say that I don't care for any of the recordings of the Sequenza I've heard.
Also, I don't care for the version for saxophone, that Berio came (I'd have to say, in my opinion, wrongly) to prefer to the one for clarinet, because....wait for it ...."it sounds more 'jazzy'". Yet the clarinet version, well played, has much more intimacy and much more depth, because the instrument can do many more of the things required, and I'd say necessary, in the piece.
So, pfui to him. What a trivial response from a worldclass composer. Still, if you'd played Wagners 'Siegfried Idyll' with Berio conducting, or heard him conducting Schoenberg's 'Ode to Napoleon', you wouldn't be so surprised.
Finally, why would any of the guys who organise to get their recordings out there understand all of this more than us, Sue?-)
Trust your judgement.
Tony
Post Edited (2005-06-25 17:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SueSmith
Date: 2005-06-25 17:44
Tony,
Again, I appreciate your comments on Berio. In fact, those in direct reference to the character and style of Berio are extremely helpful. To condense your statements, it seems you have characterized Berio as a composer who intends what he writes to be performed as is. It's also interesting that in his life, it appears he could never admit he was wrong. I am curious about this "computer program" aspect to the Sequenza IXa - and what it was intended to contribute. Was it to condense the aural material into synthesized sound or visual art on a monitor?
As for Stravinsky, I've personally found historical research equally helpful...and I should have expanded upon that in my post. We can all agree that Stravinsky was a composer who drew many of his themes from Folk Music - and not too long ago there was an interesting thread on this board about the origins of the theme of the First Piece. Rightly or wrongly, a former instructor of mine classified the First Piece as a dialogue between a man and woman based on African tribal themes. Whether you agree with this assessment or not, this idea certainly caused me to reexamine the First Piece and do more research.
Studying music is not just about studying the notes on the page, but keeping your eyes and ears open to new experiences and ideas, regardless of your professional status. Although, the analysis of what is on the page is extrememly important - its not the only thing. And if listening to a recording does nothing except show you why a piece shouldn't be played at a certain tempo, or style - at least you have gained new insight. Although you have not found value in several recordings of the Sequenza, does not mean there is not something to be learned from them. In music and there are no absolutes.
A few years ago, there was a young girl who posted on the BBoard. She was just a "no name" student, whose original teacher (whom I also studied with) told her to seriously consider NOT going the performance route in college. The teacher felt that this student did not have the raw ability to make it professionally. However, this girl proved many people wrong and is now 2nd chair in a major NYC group. So, on this mostly anonymous BBoard, you never know whom you are addressing...a "no name" today can be the next Principle chair of a major orchestra tomorrow...or perhaps the next Managing Director of the symphony in which you are performing.
Although this board is a great opportunity to hear the anecdotes and opinions of major players in the clarinet community...I don't take every word said by these professionals as an absolute doctrine (especially when their points of view usually conflict). As well, I wont dismiss an insightful comment by a HS/college student or "no name" adult just for the fact that they have no public/professional reputation. In opposition I've heard ridiculous statements on this board from both seasoned professionals and the mere mortals.
Almost everyone has something to offer if they choose to contribute and we choose to listen. A seemingly simple question posed by a HS student can spark a lively debate and address issues "more experienced" players rarely ponder. It's up to us, as an individual, to keep our ego in check and our head out of our A**.
Post Edited (2005-06-25 17:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-06-25 22:23
I'm totally in agreement with the notion that it is the consideration of the context of musical notation that is the most important thing.
But of course, the very statement of that assumes that the content of musical notation is read accurately. And strangely enough, we insist on accurate content in order to give ourselves greater, not lesser freedom:
"Every task involves constraint
Solve it now without complaint.
There are magic links and chains
Forged to loose our rigid brains;
Structures, strictures, though they bind
Strangely liberate the mind"
(James Falen, translator of 'Eugene Onegin')
If we can too easily change the notes (or whatever else is in the content, like dynamics) in order to conform to a quickly arrived at context, we risk being condemned to what we 'merely like'. And as Bastien found out in 'The Neverending Story', what you merely like is very different from what you 'really want'.
The content of the musical notation is like a map, including everything that we know about how, why and and by whom that map was constructed, and how to read it (including the composer's history and obiter dicta) -- and the musical performance is like a corresponding territory, instances of which there may well be a very large number.
So it's in the possibilities of how we might read the map that I'd want you to include your High School student's ideas, weighted appropriately, and I'd want you to include there what your audience and teachers said too.
But the final job of embodying a possible territory is always yours -- and it essentially consists of producing a 'making sense' of the map from within yourself, at the moment of performance.
My suggestion then, is that you start out with the notion of your making sense of it (which, you'll notice, inevitably involves you).
Possibly interesting references:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2002/09/000553.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2002/10/000263.txt
Tony
Post Edited (2005-06-26 12:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2006-02-19 19:22
David Breeden is the former principal of the San Francisco Symphony and he performed the Copland Concerto at Tanglewood with Copland conducting and Copland told him the piece should not be swung.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2006-02-20 00:45
Ryan -
On the other side of the coin, Copland wrote the Clarinet Concerto for Benny Goodman and recorded it with him at least twice. On each recording, Goodman plays most of it straight, but swings several passages, particularly in the cadenza and the beginning of the finale. For me at least, it works best that way. In addition to the first Goodman recording, my two favorites are by Bill Blount and Gary Gray, both of whom are fine jazz and classical players.
Also, John Moses is an excellent and highly experienced jazz player. Near the top of this string, he tells about his own performance of the concerto for a film, with Copland conducting, in which Copland approved of John's swinging the passages that needed it.
Of course any swing should be subtle. David Breeden is a great classical player, but if he has no jazz chops, I can undertand Copland telling him to lay off the swing.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2006-02-20 03:26
Ken Shaw wrote: >>...Goodman plays most of it straight, but swings several passages, particularly in the cadenza and the beginning of the finale.>>
Not, though, 'passage Q', which is the one in which swing is stylistically offensive for reasons outlined elsewhere in this thread and its references.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2006-02-20 12:24
The problem with this discussion is in the definition of not swung or " Straight" playing. It seems to me that any playing that's not totally absolutely "even", rhythmically perfect, to the point of not expressing meter, is considered by a lot of clarinetist as being "swung". In my opinion Goodman doesn't "swing" the Copeland, nor does he use that "boring, classical wind playing rhythm," that is so incredibly prevalent in clarinet playing these days.
I've spent a lot of time listening to violin and cello students over the last few years. To my ears they're being taught how to "Divide" a beat into more musical subdivision while wind players are trying to play sixteenths with a Dr. Beat.
So I would like someone to answer this question, so I can understand it. If you play the clarinet and it's improper to use vibrato, you get a tone that is not capable of any flexibility, and you divide up a beat into perfect subdivisions of a beat, just how are you supposed to play something and make any kind of music out of it what so ever?
I've been lucky my whole professional career to have computer equipment for writing and playing back compositions. Anytime I heard playback of something I put on the computer played back, I always considered the playback the way of playing that should be avoided at all cost. The people making these programs have been working hard over the years to get a playback that more closely resembles "human" performance, why have clarinetists been busting tush to sound like the computer?
Tom Puwalski, former soloist with the US Army Field Band, Clarinetist with Lox&Vodka, and Author of "The Clarinetist's Guide to Klezmer"and most recently by the order of the wizard of Oz, for supreme intelligence, a Masters in Clarinet performance
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2006-02-20 15:13
Ken,
David Breeden had an amazing jazz sound. He didn't start classical until college. His father is the man responsible for the jazz program at North Texas. Dave could swing like no other.
Ryan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-02-20 15:51
Tom P,
You ask some very good questions! I'll add to yours: why do clarinetists these days strive for absolutely even tone? One of my all-time favorite recordings is th late-50's Los Angeles Philharmonic recording (conducted by Alfred Wallenstein) of Rachmaninoff's Sym. #2 --- the clarinet solo in the 2nd movement, played by Kalman Bloch I've been told, is one of the most gorgeous sounds I've ever heard -- and every note he plays has a different timbre! His tone is not at all even like with most modern players -- each of his notes has an individual character. I find the machine-like smoothness of the 'modern' orchestral player's tone quality as uninteresting as the rigid rhythmic 'metronomicity' you describe.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2006-02-20 17:14
Dave, the defacto standard of a clarinet sound in the United States has become that of a Korg tuner. I have no idea why, is it because clarinet teachers insist that one can learn to perform music without listening to music. Youngins are being taught that listening and copying fine performances are wrong, that artistically and musically you should be able to figure it out all by yourself. I have to admit, When I listen to Colin Lawson's recording of K622, he adds some great ornamentation, the next time I perform that piece, some of those will creep into my performance.
We are living in an age where it is possible to hear great music, historic performances by some of the great players of yesteryear. It is possible to hear Bonade, Harold Wright, McClane, De Santos, and a host of great European clarinetists. The easier it seems to be to hear these performances the less it seems to me that people are listening and learning.
You take your really talented Jazz alto player at a major school that teaches jazz, they know all of Bird's licks, they've listen and soaked up every recording of every sax player, since they invented recording. They've transcribed solos, and try to learn everything about the chord progression and harmonic movement of the music they can find. Meanwhile the "classical" clarinetist is trying to learn excerpts for an audition of music many hadn't ever listened to. For some reason ear training and general music skills are thought not to matter, it's really sad. Wind performance instruction in the U.S SUCKS!!!
When I was in the US Army Field band, I auditioned clarinetist some in debt for damn near $100, 000 and they couldn't cut the audition. What is wrong with this picture?
Yogi Bera once said, " You can observe a whole lot by just watchin" I say you can learn a whole lot of clarinet by just listening.
Tom Puwalski, former soloist with the US Army Field Band, Clarinetist with Lox&Vodka, and Author of "The Clarinetist's Guide to Klezmer"and most recently by the order of the wizard of Oz, for supreme intelligence, a Masters in Clarinet performance
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2006-02-20 17:16
Jazz stying ability obviously varies from player to player, as does the ability to play by ear. This is particulary true on the classical side of things because they have often been frowned upon or considered unnecessary by generation after generation of lesser pedagogues.
It is obviously a low priority for players on the orchestral career track, and I feel sure that those with a strong feel develop it either as an early influence, a healthy dose of curiosity, or through commercial demands such as pit gigs.
Unfortunately there is a plethora of capable 'legit' clarinetists who have a blind spot in this area, and who try to produce jazz feel by some self-contrived formula. I cannot tell you some of the horrors that I have heard from college classmates who were "practicing jazz." Then comes the inevitable embarrassment of playing a "jazz piece" at the recital--along with inept program notes.
Some folks can do it and some can't. It may be this issue that Tony is addressing, rather than the evils of 'jazz style' per se. A lot of players will try to give you their 'impression' of jazz style, but it usually works about as well as an opera singer trying to do a pop song. John Moses has worked both sides of the fence for quite a while, and I would expect his jazz styling on the Copeland to be far more authentic and nuanced than the average orchestral player.
Perhaps Benny Goodman restricted his own jazz styling for the same reason that he wanted to dodge the C#--he was not completely comfortable in both contexts, and wanted to play it a little safe. In addition, he was actively studying on the classical side during his post big band years, and may have felt the influence of this pedagogy when making these kinds of decisions. This may be some of the taste and discretion that Tony pointed to.
As for Charles Neidich's performance, it appears to have been an exciting one, even with some additional variations. We have talked before about 'clarinetism' and the heavy orthodoxy that we try to put on everything clarinet-related. A lot of lesser pedagogues are deeply trapped in this, but perhaps Neidich transcends these kinds of limitations.
Bottom line, I agree with John Moses that there isn't a problem with stretching the limits, as long as you know where yours are. And I agree with Tony (if I'm getting him right) that the problem with much 'jazz' performance on the classical side is that many players don't know their limits, and end up producing phrases that no jazzer would be caught dead playing. [perhaps it would help if all M.M. candidates actually had to develop some competence in mimicing phrases and playing by ear]
On working with composers and arrangers, I agree with Tony that you have to be careful just how much you take them at their word. I had a chance a few years ago to work with Danny Holgate (of "Three Mo' Tenors" fame) and was encouraged to take a lot of liberties with what was already some very well-written jazz styling. I generally kept it pretty conservative (mostly to avoid upstaging performers) and later had kudos from Mr. Holgate passed on to me from my MD. I feel sure that these kudos cam because the arranger found his writing to be still-recognizable when I played it. A number of liberties where taken both musically and dramatically in that show and some of them made me absolutely cringe. It was a graphic lesson to me that it's important to be conservative when expanding on anything that already works.
Even as a local-yokel musician like me, you're always one clam away from your 15 minutes of fame!
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crnichols
Date: 2006-02-20 17:21
David,
I'll have to agree with you on that statement about the homogenous tones and mechanical rhythm people are striving for today, it's quite boring. One example of such would be much of the playing of the Chicago Symphony in their recording of Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony under Barenboim, and it's not just the clarinets. The whole orchestra sounds synthetic. I have a recording of the Philadelphia under Muti performing the same repertoire, it's not as perfect as the Barenboim recording of 10 years later as far as intonation goes, but they sure make a much more exciting representation of the music! I suppose we could start a new Renaissance in wind playing and enjoy the acoustic tendencies of our instrument instead of trying to eliminate them... My question regarding rhythmic precision is, most conductors wouldn't ask you to play the opening to the 5th symphony perfectly in time, rather they like to push and pull the phrases to emphasize the direction of the music. So, when preparing for auditions, why is it considered necessary to learn how to execute this music as if with metronome accompaniment?
Christopher Nichols
1st Infantry Division Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2006-02-20 18:36
Just to add my two cents to this older thread:
A few years ago the NY Philharmonic decided to do Stephen Sonheim's great Broadway show, "FOLLIES." They did it at Lincoln Center in a "concert version" format; that is, no costumes or sets, just singers up in front of that great orchestra.
A few of us from Broadway, recordings, and Sondheim show players, were asked to join the ranks of the Phil. To add a little color and "feel" to the production.
When we got to a particularly "swinging" section of FOLLIES, many of the
"legit" players dropped out, not having a clue as to how to play the Jazz rhythms. The conductor advised them to listen to us play it through, then join in with the right style swing-feel as best they could.
I felt a little awkward having Stanley, Peter, and Steve, sit there to hear us "swing," but after a few times through, they joined in and the performance was a huge success for the Philharmonic and Stephen Sondheim, played by that huge orchestra with great gusto.
Luckily it was recorded, and it remains one of the best Broadway Concert Recordings.
FOLLIES recorded 1985 on RCA (2CD set)
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: aberkow
Date: 2006-02-20 22:02
Hi everyone,
This seems to be a fairly long thread and since I didn't get a chance to read all of it so, I hope I'm not repeating. If you are interested in the original sketches and edits of Copland's score, you can find it online through the Library of Congress's American Memories website. I used this resource earlier in the year for a research project. The images are extremely high quality.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/achtml/achome.html
Adam B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2007-09-18 18:30
Clarinbass wrote (to John Moses): "John Moses, this is not on the topic of this thread but I have a question. I saw a DVD with a clarinetist and his last name was Moses. I think his first name wasn't John but I am not sure. He was American and our teacher said there are a few brothers from the Moses family that play a lot of woodwinds. Maybe it was your brother?"
Perhaps Abe Most (not Moses) is the clarinetist you are thinking of:
http://home.pacbell.net/mostabe/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2007-09-18 22:44
Isn't it comforting to realize that John Moses words will live forever for us to savor.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark G Simon
Date: 2007-09-19 14:43
The familiar masterworks have now been performed and recorded so many times that performers now feel compelled to dig up preliminary and alternate versions of a score to create interest (for instance Osmo Vänska and the original versions of Sibelius' 5th, and the various components of the Leminkainen Suite). I don't think there's any question that these alternate takes should supplant the official published versions. For instance, the Sibelius estate gave Vänska a one-time permission to record the 1915 Sibelius 5th, but forbid other orchestras from performing it. The Copland estate is giving Neidich much more leeway with use of the original clarinet concerto, but I don't think we should assume that the standard version as published is anything other than Copland's final and definitive thoughts on the work.
Clarinetist, composer, arranger of music for clarinet ensemble
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2007-09-19 17:35
"What I want to say is: never mind Goodman's Copland, or Neidich's Copland, or Stolzman's Copland -- how about *Copland's* Copland???"
How can we know what "Copland's Copland" is meant to be? Unless the composer recorded the solo part himself, how can we know exactly what he had in mind?
Copland conducted the Goodman recording in 1948. Perhaps if he'd had a chance to conduct another recording later, he might have asked for different things from the soloist. We'll never know. I heard Copland conduct the National SO with Loren Kitt as the soloist, but that was decades ago, and I don't recall any details.
To what extent is a soloist permitted to use his/her part as raw material for subjective expression. Is there only one "right" way to perform any given piece, with all others "wrong"? If a single 64th note is out of place, does that invalidate the entire performance?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
