 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bret Pimentel
Date: 2006-03-25 18:56
Hi folks,
My copy of the Stravinsky Three Pieces (Int'l Music Co. edition) says at the top: "The breath marks, accents and metronome makrs indicated in the 3 Pieces should be strictly adhered to."
Grammatical issues aside, this seems to be sage (and oft-repeated) advice. But does anyone know whether this printed instruction comes from Stravinsky himself, or from some other source?
Bret
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2006-03-25 19:19
Bret Pimentel wrote:
>>...does anyone know whether this printed instruction comes from Stravinsky himself, or from some other source?>>
It comes from Stravinsky himself.
It's an invitation, in my view, to do a bit of research about Stravinsky's concerns at that time. And there is other material, like Mazzeo's interaction with Stravinsky, to consider. Search the Klarinet archives.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2006-03-26 16:06
Just my .02 worth, I consider Reginald Kells interpretation(s) to be the most musically effective recorded performance available although he did not strictly adhere to the given instructions, supposedly from Igor, himself.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2006-03-26 19:39
William wrote:
>> Just my .02 worth, I consider Reginald Kells interpretation(s) to be the most musically effective recorded performance available..>>
Would you be willing to say why?
How does he diverge from what is written, and what is the advantage, according to you, of that divergence?
Or would his performance, had it not so diverged, have still been the most musically effective?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2006-03-26 20:33
Kell's recording is very different from any other.
#1 is dreamy, with extensive rubato. He plays it as if it had traditional harmony, shaping his phrases as if they were laid over familiar chords. He plays slower and softer at the very end, whereas most players interpret the instruction as louder and faster.
In #2, he shapes the quick passages, starting slowly and accelerating, whereas most players play fast "rips." He plays the middle section as two voices, one with the low notes and the other the higher graced notes. He slows down dramatically before the third part and then accelerates to the end, with a dying fall on the final gesture.
He plays #3 as "jaunty" rather than "jazzy," noticeably slower than most players, and slows down romantically at the end, with lots of vibrato.
In the recently issued Kell boxed set, the notes say that Stravinsky preferred Kell's performance to any other, and there is a photo of Stravinsky's very complimentary autograph on Kell's manuscript copy.
I have mixed feelings about Kell's Stravinsky. He goes against a number of the markings, and I don't think he gets the jazz affect in #3. However, his phrases are always alive, and you hear him taking chances and bringing them off. Stravinsky famously said that he wanted his pieces played exactly as written, with no attempt at "musicianly phrasing." On the other hand, Kell's story is not the only one where Stravinsky was effusive about a "musical" performance that didn't follow the letter of what he wrote.
As to whether Kell's performance would have been as musically effective if he had not diverged from Stravinsky's markings, I think that with Kell the two are inseparable. I met Kell only once, quite briefly, so I can't say what he thought, but on his recordings I hear a constant striving for maximum expression. Some people don't like the lengths he went to. Sometimes I don't like it either. But any note he played was worth hearing.
At a recent master class, Charles Neidich said that there were probably 50 errors in the printed version, and he worked extensively with a student to correct them. There were far too many for me to write down. I hope he publishes his own edition and records it soon.
I think the Kell recording is an essential version, but it's outside the mainstream.
Slightly off topic, but in a recent newspaper article on Ricardo Morales, he was quoted as saying that he had been listening in to Kell's recordings, marveling at Kell's expression and willingness to take chances.
Tony - I would love to have your comments on Kell's recording.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2006-03-26 23:41
Ken Shaw wrote:
>> Tony - I would love to have your comments on Kell's recording.>>
I don't know the recording in question; but anyway, I find I don't know what to do with your request.
Because, in a way, I'm not now interested in other performers' interpretations.
I am of course interested in other performers' ideas -- and I get those in abundance from listening to performances of music of all sorts having nothing to do with the clarinet.
But frankly, after fifty years of knowing the Stravinsky pieces, I feel I've allowed them to mature enough. They've matured in the mix of my own understanding of music, which has included classical, romantic and a prolonged and stiff dose of the avant garde. I find my own performance varies quite a bit from one occasion to another, and I don't think it's 'stuck' at all.
Yet it couldn't be said to contradict Stravinsky's score in any way.
As I've explained before, it's always an example of a 'territory' that corresponds to Stravinsky's 'map'. Because our job, it seems to me, is to create such territories, of which there are countless numbers, without contradicting the composer's map.
Why do we bother to do this? Well, it's because there are great composers. If there were not great composers, we wouldn't be bothered. Why take someone else's maps seriously? See:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2005/08/000322.txt
So now, someone says that Kell's performance, that doesn't respect the map, is 'more musically effective' than other recordings, and therefore at least possibly 'more musically effective' than my own.
Well, could be. I'll have to listen, won't I?
From what I know of Kell, I doubt I'll agree, even though he was my childhood hero. As I say in another thread, he had different priorities.
But, I'll listen to it. I'll probably say that from my point of view, it's out of the question.
Where do I get it?
Tony
Post Edited (2006-03-26 23:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2006-03-27 00:28
The simple fact that there is no one perfect way to interprete any piece of music is what makes musical performance so timelessly interesting and compelling. Thanks, Ken for helping me out.....................
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: anonrob
Date: 2006-03-27 00:43
In this discussion of whether or not to follow Stravinsky's detailed instructions, don't forget that Stravinsky was know formarking very specific tempi which he did not always follow when he was conducting.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-03-27 01:24
Tony said:
"As I've explained before, it's always an example of a 'territory' that corresponds to Stravinsky's 'map'. Because our job, it seems to me, is to create such territories, of which there are countless numbers, without contradicting the composer's map."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So wise and so true!
That map, which I refer to as a blueprint from which a performer uses to create their own territory or domain, is a sort of "context capsule". It's a snapshot that, through "contextualizing", can be brought to life in a way that is informed by what we understand the composer wanted or envisioned. We attain that through experience, study, listening...in all sorts of ways.
The most important thing though is that the interpretation has to flow from Stravinsky's own blueprint BUT without going too far the other direction, taking instruction from the text in much the same way that an over-zealous literalist in any disipline would.
Post Edited (2006-03-27 01:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2006-03-27 03:01
Tony,
You can get the Stravinsky 3 pieces from itunes by simply searching for Reginald Kell. It's $0.99 for each piece in the US.
They are also on the complete decca recording box set:
Reginald Kell - the Complete American Decca Recordings
Label: Deutsche Grammophon
Looking forward to your comments about the performance.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
Post Edited (2006-03-27 13:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2006-03-27 13:58
There is something about these pieces that IMHO suits the french clarinet players better than anybody else. Of course this a gross generalization, but the stereotypical brighter sound, very light and precise staccato typical of Meyer/Deplus/Damiens and others really does it for me. Paul Meyer recording is one of my favorite, he has all the technical abilities to play exactly what is on the page with all of its nuances between staccatos, accents, dynamics as marked by Stravinsky.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
Post Edited (2006-03-27 18:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jez
Date: 2006-03-27 17:55
I believe it was hearing Kell's performance that prompted Stravinsky to add the instructions about breath-marks etc., so he can't have been too impressed.
jez
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2006-03-27 18:54
jez wrote:
>> I believe it was hearing Kell's performance that prompted Stravinsky to add the instructions about breath-marks etc., so he can't have been too impressed.>>
Source?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2006-03-27 20:09
William wrote:
>> The simple fact that there is no one perfect way to interprete any piece of music is what makes musical performance so timelessly interesting and compelling. Thanks, Ken for helping me out...>>
So, I'm not going to let this pass.
First, that there is no perfect way to interprete (sic) any piece of music isn't what makes musical performance so timelessly interesting and compelling.
Musical performance is timelessly interesting and compelling even if you only have ten records on a desert island.
And you, contra that, far from allowing that there are different ways to interpret 'any piece of music', chose to say that Kell's version -- which is not an interpretation of what Stravinsky wrote, but a change to what Stravinsky wrote -- is "the most musically effective performance available."
But, how would you know? How indeed, do you know that it's a performance of Stravinsky's piece? Do you even have a copy of the score?
Ken didn't help you out of my question, which still stands:
"How does he diverge from what is written, and what is the advantage, to you, of that divergence?"
(You notice that Ken didn't say what you said -- namely, that Kell's version is "the most musically effective performance available.")
I believe Patrick O'Brien, on being congratulated by a fan on his novel sequence, said, "Sir, I beg you to consider the value of your approbation."
So, in that strain -- convince me.
Post Edited (2006-03-27 20:12)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
