 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-05-25 05:09
Hi,
I have been thinking about the 2nd of Sravinsky's 3 pieces.
In particular, I have a question about a few notes right after the double bar.
First, Why are the first 2 low E's have natural signs in parenthisis, but the third is not.
And the bigger question is about the 4th E (on the first line). I have always heard it as Eb and played it as Eb, but... the first 3 E's are Eb; they all have the flat written-in, but the 4th has nothing. This leads me to think that it may be an E-natural.
What do you all think?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetTex
Date: 2007-05-25 09:02
I will answer this backwards. It is an e-flat because the accidental typically follows through the measure without having to write the flat everytime.
The previous "e" is flat so it carries through. All e's in that measure would be e-flats until indicated otherwise.
The e-flats are written in because the low E's are indicated as natural, to avoid confusion.
As far as why the third E does not have a parenthesis, I don't know but I can say that it is an e natural. In my opinion it's just an editing quark.
That's my best attempt but I do love this composition. I'm glad you are playing it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2007-05-25 13:45
For example I always play the last piece with fp and cresendo in the end like it supposed to be in the manuscript. It's very interesting to listen to Reginald Kell's version of these pieces because it's very different from the norm and Stravinsky is supposed to have liked it alot.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-05-25 16:56
Iceland clarinet wrote:
>> For example I always play the last piece with fp and cresendo in the end like it supposed to be in the manuscript.>>
Why? Stravinsky clearly revised the ending for publication, and it makes musical sense, particularly considering how the other movements end.
>> It's very interesting to listen to Reginald Kell's version of these pieces because it's very different from the norm...>>
Yes, he wilfully ignores what's written. Is that interesting? In fact, in these pieces, Kell just sets a very bad example to young players. He should have been ashamed of himself.
<<...and Stravinsky is supposed to have liked it alot.>>
I can find no evidence for this assertion. Do you have any? See:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=237009&t=236814
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2007-05-25 21:57
Tony it ia stated in the booklet of Reginald's Kell complete american decca recordings(6 cds) released by Deutsche Grammophon in 2005
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetTex
Date: 2007-05-25 22:42
I think the other 2 have hijacked this thread. They are not attempting to answer the question. What they are saying has nothing to do with why the 2 low e's in the 2nd movement have a parenthesis and the third does not. I tried my best to answer for you. Good luck
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-05-26 00:23
ClarinetTex wrote:
> I think the other 2 have hijacked this thread. They are not attempting to answer the question. What they are saying has nothing to do with why the 2 low e's in the 2nd movement have a parenthesis and the third does not. I tried my best to answer for you.>>
OK, fair enough, it's inconsistent notation. But I think that it's musically very clear what's required.
Sometimes such questions need to be reopened, and I wouldn't want to say that the impulse behind that sort of question is misguided. But in this particular case, I think that the answer is clear.
Compare the second page of the Poulenc Sonata for two clarinets -- first clarinet E# or E natural in the second half of the first bar? That's a genuine controversy, even if I know what I think personally:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-05-26 00:26
Iceland clarinet wrote:
>> Tony it ia stated in the booklet of Reginald's Kell complete american decca recordings(6 cds) released by Deutsche Grammophon in 2005>>
No, it's not.
Read what I wrote again. Stravinsky commended Kell's (apprehensive, because in his presence) performance in the Wigmore Hall. The RECORDING is another thing.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2007-05-26 01:28
I also don't understand the question about the notes as it's correct in the 1993 Chester Music edition. I wonder what edition skygardener is using.
Tony if you say that the Reginald Kell's version is so bad then you should also revile Glen Gould's version of Beethoven's Appassionata sonata.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-05-26 10:50
Iceland clarinet wrote:
>> Tony if you say that the Reginald Kell's version is so bad then you should also revile Glen Gould's version of Beethoven's Appassionata sonata.>>
Why?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2007-05-26 22:07
Because he sets bad example to student's by playing the sonata 1/2 speed slower than the norm. It also clearly says in my 1993 Chester edition edite by Nicholas Hare "No proofs or related correspendence from the composer appear to have survived. Thus we have to assume that J.W.C.1151(Plate number,copy in the British Libary) represents Stravinsky's final thoughts, particularly as he was apparently happy for the work to be reprinted unaltered for the rest of his life." So the are no evidence that state that what is marked in the manuscript is wrong or right.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-05-27 16:17
Iceland clarinet wrote:
>> It also clearly says in my 1993 Chester edition edite by Nicholas Hare "No proofs or related correspendence from the composer appear to have survived. Thus we have to assume that J.W.C.1151 (Plate number,copy in the British Libary) represents Stravinsky's final thoughts, particularly as he was apparently happy for the work to be reprinted unaltered for the rest of his life." So the are no evidence that state that what is marked in the manuscript is wrong or right.>>
The printed edition J.W.C.1151 (which is the one we all had until Hare's rather scruffy effort appeared) differs from the manuscript in a very significant way at the end of the third piece -- it can't have been an error. I'd have thought that was clear evidence that STRAVINSKY revised the manuscript to produce J.W.C.1151. Who else would have dared?
Quite apart from that, Stravinsky talked about that final measure, eg to Rosario Mazzeo, who had a lesson on the piece from the composer. About the last (throat) Bb, Mazzeo wrote:
"[Stravinsky] recommended holding it until you felt sure that the audience understood it as the end of the piece at which point you would abruptly surprise them, and play a very flippant, soft, last Bb, preceded by its grace note."
I don't know Gould's Appassionata recording, but I have to say that Gould's general approach is always at the service of a vision of the music, quite unlike Kell's constant application of his irritating mannerisms -- things like starting passagework slowly and speeding up -- TO the music.
And it doesn't stop at mannerisms. In movement I of the Three Pieces, he completely ignores the tempo, dynamic and atmosphere markings, and often changes the articulation. (You could also say that he plays ALL the wrong notes in both first and second movements, by playing on the wrong clarinet in movement I AND transposing up an additional semitone, and by playing on the wrong clarinet in movement II. Apropos choice of instruments, Mazzeo reports Stravinsky's opinion that "the use of the A and Bb clarinets was indicated so that the proper character of each piece would best be portrayed, especially the quietness of the first, and the brilliance of the third movement.")
In movement II Kell adds an extra D after the first three semiquavers of the second phrase -- an almost unthinkably arrogant attitude to Stravinsky's carefully notated score -- then, another twiddle of his own in the sextuplet demisemiquaver, and a wrong note at the last of the septuplets starting on low F. At the end of the movement, he does an accelerando instead of the notated ritardando.
But movement III is the most gratuitously perverse. In bar 1 he omits the gracenote, in bars 2 and 4 adds slurs, in bar 11 gives us B natural instead of C, in bar 14 adds a slur, changes bar 18 from 2/4 to 9/16, adds a slur in bar 23, plays A# instead of A in bar 33, does the wrong articulation in bar 41, gives us Eb followed by F instead of F# followed by E natural on the second beat of bar 54, and plays Eb instead of E natural in bar 60.
In all of that, we have his cutesy self-absorption to contend with.
People sometimes say, all of this isn't important, because his playing is so INTERESTING, compared to conventional playing. But, take it from me, it's not difficult to do a passable imitation of Kell's playing in these pieces. The only reason people like it is because it's DIFFERENT, and the only reason it's different is that for most of us it's too embarrassing to play that way -- we'd be too ashamed of ourselves.
And that's why I say it's a bad influence on students -- it's not an example of 'thinking for yourself' -- it's an example of 'NOT thinking for yourself'.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pelo_ensortijado
Date: 2007-05-27 21:39
one have to know why he did it to say he's a bad influence and plays it wrong!
just because stravinsky wrote one thing doesn't mean its the law and one shall allways stick to it.
without lawbreakers we wouldn't have much at all...
maybe Kell thought that stravinsky had made the movements wrong and correctred him?! :P
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-05-28 04:23
pelo_ensortijado- "maybe Kell thought that stravinsky had made the movements wrong and correctred him?!"
That's fine and dandy if we know WHY he did it. If he said, "I had such-and-such conversation with some-special-person and they said that I should change A, B, and C." THEN he can change things (maybe, depending on the importance of the special person).
Does he have a reason? Does anyone really know WHY he did it in that way?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-05-28 05:02
One more thing about the second piece that just got me.
After the double bar, all the D grace notes have a flat in front of them. This would seem unnecessary as there is nothing between the D-flats to cancel the previous flat. This leads me more to think that maybe the 4th bottom line E is an E-natural.
By a phenomenal minutia the plot thickens!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pelo_ensortijado
Date: 2007-05-28 09:32
skygardner wrote:
Does he have a reason? Does anyone really know WHY he did it in that way?
doesn't seem so here on the bb. but if someones got the answer please tell us!! :D
until then, we cant tell if he plays it right or wrong. and thereby we can not judge him for the "wrong" notes in the recording! :D
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2007-05-28 09:40
Tony,
Bad example is not always bad influence. Young people should be introduced to all kinds of musicians, good and bad. Our duty is to teach them to choose.
Few days ago, when I was listening to Kell playing Brahms Quintet (with the Busch Quartet), one of my students, Dana, came in and asked what is this piece? I was surprised and said : you don't know the Brahms Quintet?
and she answerd: I didn't recognize the piece.. She got a very good example how not to play Brahms.
Sarah
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2007-05-29 11:33
>>Bad example is not always bad influence. Young people should be introduced to all kinds of musicians, good and bad. Our duty is to teach them to choose.>>
Yes! In fact, I'd argue that the best way to help a student to develop a good ear and discriminating taste is to *encourage* students to listen to perormances the teacher considers "bad influences" and then discuss the reasons. My piano teacher, Artur Eisler, did something rather clever along those lines.
In the early 1960s, Glenn Gould made one of his last public appearances at a live concert in San Francisco. Soon afterwards, he stopped performing in public and only made recordings. My piano teacher showed me the newspaper advertisement for the concert and absolutely, positively forbade me to go to it. He said Glenn Gould was the worst possible influence on a young piano student. In lessons, if he caught me playing with poor posture, he'd fulminate, "Not to 'unch over like zat, not to play ze notes mit your nose! You vant to look like -- GLENN GOULD?!!" He said that name as if it were the worst obscenity in his lexicon.
I'd also overheard him forbidding the Glenn Gould concert to the student who took his lesson just before mine. That student was fighting the bad habit of vocalizing while he played. Mr. Eisler ranted at him, "Never to 'ummmm while you play! Not to be moanink, groanink! Vhat, you got the bubonic plague? Go home zen -- no throwink up in my piano! You vant to sound like -- GLENN GOULD?"
Well, naturally, we all went to the concert. In fact, a lot of us sat together. We pretended we didn't see Mr. Eisler in the audience and he pretended he didn't see us. And Glenn Gould really did have the most horrible posture I've ever seen in a professional pianist, and hummed and moaned so loudly that some people in the audience began snickering uncontrollably. His interpretations of the music were strange, too--brilliant, in a way, but weird enough to terrify any teacher with the threat that students might imitate this type of playing and then the teacher would get the reputation of turning out students who "played like -- GLENN GOULD!"
As a matter of fact, I would have died happy to play like Glenn Gould or any other great pianist -- but already by then, I would have died much happier to play like someone else, someone whose audience didn't laugh. I thought much harder about posture and mannerisms after that concert.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-05-29 12:11
better yet, the students go to and listen to as many performances as possible and discover what THEY like and dislike.
but none of this answers my stupid little question about the sloppy accidentals in the second piece.
easy come easy go...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-05-29 12:28
Hello,
This is a very interesting discussion, in my opinion.
I must say that my logic and debate skills are not nearly on par with Mr. Pay, so I don't wish to argue with him, but I would be most interested to hear his response to my way of playing and thinking.
Let me preface this by saying that, aside from the very precise playing that I have to do as a member of the US Naval Academy Band, the majority of my playing is either in jazz or in a very liberal classical chamber music group with which I perform in Washington, D.C.
My thinking about classical music in the very near past has been that a composer's job is to transfer the music that he conceives in his head onto a sheet of paper. Our notational system is not perfect, so my assumption is that a composer writes the closest representation of what he is thinking on this paper. Then, the performer's job is to interpret this notation into a (hopefully) great performance.
I must admit that I do take liberties when performing classical music. Perhaps it's my jazz influence, or perhaps I'm arrogant enough to decide that what I change actually sounds better.
The first example that comes to mind is a piece that was written for me. I am actually very good friends with the composer, who is an excellent composer. In my practicing, there is a long phrase of sixteenth notes, followed by a resolution of two eighth notes. No matter how I played it, the eighth notes sounded wrong. When I joined the piano for the first time, I mistakenly played them as sixteenth notes, and it was perfect (for my ears). So, I've performed it that way several times now. The composer did notice and wasn't sure he liked it, but after a few times, he said that he prefers my way now.
In a piece like Stravinsky, I would definitely play the first movement very strictly, because of the sounds that Mr. Stravinsky creates. The second movement, I would take a bit more liberty with timing, and in the third movement, I would take quite a bit of liberty with lengths of notes, etc., because it sounds like a "jazzy" piece to me. One of my teachers, in fact, related this story, although I do not know if it has any truth in it, it is a good story nonetheless: "Stravinsky was commissioned to write this work by a rather bad jazz clarinetist. Stravinsky obliged, but made it so technically difficult that the commissioning clarinetist had no chance of being able to play it". If this story is true, then my interpretation is that the last movement is Stravinsky's mocking of the clarinetist because at that time in the history of jazz, most of the music would be in 4 or in 2, so Stravinsky implies bad time in all of the mixed meters.
My last point to make is that, except for my composer friends that use computers to compose, the composers I know that write with a pen and paper turn their work over to a copyist to make the notes legible. My assumption is that mistakes are inevitable, so could some rhythms, notes, phrase marks, etc. be mistakes in our favorite publications?
Thanks for shooting my bad arguments down!
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-05-29 13:56
Here's one thing that bothers me and I'd like to put to rest. When people say the 3rd piece sounds 'jazzy' what exactly are they talking about? I have never been able to hear any jazz-like things about it (especially as I have never heard any jazz from that era that is even slightly similar).
I hear more disco in the Mozart concerto than I do jazz in the Stravinsky!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2007-05-29 17:32
Ben,
Your story is interesting but I don't think it's historically accurate. Rosario Mazzeo published an article in the May/June, 1991 issue of "The Clarinet" relating conversations he had with Stravinsky regarding the "Three Pieces."
This article was posted (in two parts) to the Klarinet list some years ago by David Niethamer. You can read those postings here:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1996/03/000527.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1996/03/000529.txt
and I think they are worthwhile reading.
In the first segment, Mazzeo relates that Stravinsky told him that he wrote the pieces for Werner Reinhart. Reinhart was an amateur clarinetist and an enthusiastic patron of the arts who was, according to the limited anecdotal evidence I have seen, generally well-liked and respected by the music community. I think it unlikely that Stravinsky would have poked fun at him in the piece.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-05-29 17:42
As Jack mentioned, Stravinsky wrote the 3 Pieces in 1919 and dedicated them to Werner Reinhart, an amateur clarinetist. This was done as a token of gratitude by Stravinsky for the generous way Reinhart had financed the first production of L'Histoire du Soldat in 1918.
The original manuscript of the 3 Pieces was originally given to Reinhart as a
gift, but now is in the museum in Winterthur, Switzerland.
The first performance of this work was in Lausanne in 1919. The work was published by Chester in 1920...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-05-29 20:36
Hello,
Thanks for setting me straight. I must say the untrue story is more interesting, but I appreciate the truth! Now I have to decide, when I play it in public, whether I will lie or not!
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-30 02:38
The idea of taking Reginald Kell and decimating his clarinet playing and interpretive skill is oversimplified and in rather poor form.
Whatever Reginald Kell did was interesting and musical, and while it may not have been accurate he played with a certain sense of style which got your attention, especially mine and every clarinet student at the time.
Kells playing taught all of us much even if was only after discussion. The Stravinsky as played by Kell was wildly innovative, imaginative, though not accurate at all. Accurate to what? To exactly what actually was printed on the page of whatever edition you had.
So too, were all of his recordings, his wild liberties creating the stuff of what is real discernment on the part of the honest clarinetist.
It seemed to have been discussed only amongst students, not so much with teachers who dismissied him out of hand.
As far as the Stravinsky Three Pieces are concerned I studied them carefully with both Rosario Mazzeo and with someone even closer to Stravinsky, Mademoiselle Nadia Boulanger. She was the teacher of Aaron Copland and many others and one of the great teachers of and in music . She was extremely close to Stravinsky.
There are no jokes about anyones playing in the composition of the first piece, in which every breath and pratically every eighth is meticulously given.
Mademoiselle Boulanger taught me to play it all in time and she characterized the first movement as almost "a series of variation on, "the Volga Boatman" With that in mind it simplified its meaning as being distinctly Russian, which it is, and to be played exactly in tine, save for the last statement, as I recall.
The second movement also in strict time as Stravinsky marked, but with that little dance in the middle section having its own forward rhythm, to be played in a quiet playful manner.
Finally, the last allegro is in the most strict time possible, breaths and all, except for the last measures, all leading to the Bb, tenuto, and then playfully to the grace at the octave, as has been stated here.
Reginald Kell was a great inspirational figure of his time and his contribution was that he showed us that total accuracy comes first.(It became preferable to his purple phrasing) and when that is achieved, perhaps then within those parameters. leeway is possible. But only then.
Sherman Friedland
Post Edited (2007-05-30 14:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-05-30 15:06
Hello,
I wish to thank Mr. Friedland for taking me to task (privately) regarding the Stravinsky. In fact, I wholeheartedly believe that one must be thoroughly familiar with all the notes, all the markings, and even the history of the music and the composer to properly perform any piece. One must also be thoroughly comfortable with one's instrument so the technicalities don't get in the way of making music.
Once you've mastered all of the above criteria, then you can "personalize" any piece of music by taking some liberties to interpret the composers wishes. The degree to which you take the liberties is dependent upon you, your understanding of the music, the context in which you are performing (I would play the Stravinsky 3 Pieces differently if I were performing at the ICA or if I were performing at a chamber music concert), and if the piece you are performing involves other players or a conductor.
My analogy that I wrote back to Mr. Friedland (privately) was that the reason I appreciated a work like Il Guernica (Picasso) is because when you look at his study drawings of a hand or a bird, they are perfect. Only when you master your technique (in art or the art of music) can you create something new.
I wish to publicly endorse Mr. Friedland as one of the gems of the clarinet world. His long prosperous career gives him great credentials and his writings show a keen educational perspective. I have not met him in person, only through e-mail, but I do hope to meet him sometime soon and play for him to get his critique. I'm sure it will be a rewarding experience.
I wish to thank another e-mail friend, George Huba, for introducing Mr. Friedland to me. My cyber world has been much enhanced by "meeting" the two of them!
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-05-30 15:53
Excellent comments above..as to the jazz element remember Stavinsky is giving us a classical russian composer's view of jazz. Not a verbatim photocopy of what jazz is but rather how classical russian musician perceives jazz is about...
The final movement of the Stravinsky 3 pieces should defitely be played with articulation and tempi as indicated...Stavinsky's breathe marks may be more a cause for arguement..
when I teach these pieces I tend to go with the breathe marks as indicated.
I am not going to criticize an artist as great as Kell over one or two facets of their playing...I think Kell really brought the clarinet a singing style to the fore. The vibrato arguement is entirely outside the discussion but I feel many simply slam Kell because of his style of vibrato...the same goes for Leister because his sound is so straight.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-05-30 15:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-30 17:28
Thank you Ben.
One time, I received a mouthpiece with the name Gennusa on it. I knew that Iggy Gennusa, had been Principal in Baltimore and I have a tape of him playing Brahms 3rd, and it is quite beautiful.I think he was one of the Bonade students, though it could have been Mclane.
I played the mouthpiece and found it to play, but it seemed to me at the time to be very muffled in quality; perhaps dark may be a better word.
Time passed and I began to play the mouthpiece more and more. Then I read a bit more about the process that Gennusa used in processing the hard rubber, and finally began to prefer it over both my Van Doren mouthpieces, and more importantly the Zinner blank as well.
I decided I needed another and because I had found that Mr Redwine had purchased the Gennusa mouthpiece, I wrote to him to see if I could get another.I sent him mine. He replied that he could copy the mouthpiece. He did and he returned the mouthpiece I have been playing for a year or so. The combination (apparently) of the material and his ability to copy the mouthpiece gave me a lot very fine results.
Let me then, salute Ben Redwine and his mouthpiece ability as well.
Sherman Friedland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-05-30 21:29
sherman wrote:
>> The idea of taking Reginald Kell and decimating his clarinet playing and interpretive skill is oversimplified and in rather poor form.>>
My assessment was, and is, that Kell is an interesting phenomenon: a performer who requires us to re-evaluate our criteria of judgement. We find we want to say one thing, and we want to say the opposite, too. And, different things about different sorts of music.
In that context, it's rather striking that remarks that I carefully chose to apply to a particular performance (recording) of the Stravinsky Three Pieces have been taken to be doing what you rather clumsily characterise above.
Let me be clear: I abhor what Kell did in that recording, and I've explained why. That doesn't mean that I abhor everything about his playing in general.
Tony
Post Edited (2007-05-31 04:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-31 10:28
Tony:
Please. I am totally aware of what you said, what you meant and your consideration of yourself, and I am not impressed.
Sherman Friedland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-05-31 13:02
sherman wrote:
>> Tony: Please. I am totally aware of what you said, what you meant and
your consideration of yourself, and I am not impressed.>>
Wow, thanks Sherman, you've made my day! Definitely one to print out and frame;-)
I'm glad to know that you understand what I meant. (Sometimes, that you understand something is difficult to deduce from the actual words you write.) Anyway, I'll be sure to give you the heads up if ever I want to decimate someone.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2007-05-31 13:45
Back to the original subject:
Looking over my Score, the Chester Music, Revised Edition - 1993, I do agree with ClarinetTex as far as that Eb is concerned.
Another issue with the 2nd Piece though is after the 2nd formata (in the 2nd section of the 2nd Piece - end of 6th line of this edition), we have low F, grace d to G, same pattern repeats, then we have a written grace d to C, G, grace d to A. Now, I believe the grace d to C should be a grace e to C as this is how it is written in the repeat of the pattern (beginning of 7th line).
Any thoughts?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2007-05-31 14:28
>> Whatever Reginald Kell did was interesting and musical, and while it may not have been accurate he played with a certain sense of style which got your attention, especially mine and every clarinet student at the time.>>
When you get seduced by someone’s personality or artistry it’s easy to get carried away. In my opinion Sherman here gives expression only for his own opinion about Kell’s playing and the statement is far from objective.
Again in my opinion, Kell show’s too much narcissism in his playing to be a “complete” musician. Fact remains that his interpretation of Stravinsky is nowhere near what the composer intended and that goes for very many of his recordings. To be spectacular isn’t enough.
Alphie
Post Edited (2007-05-31 15:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-05-31 14:52
grifffinity wrote:
>> Back to the original subject:>>
I suppose that one of the reasons why this went so easily off-topic is that it's very unlikely that what has always been played by everyone (I except Kell's 'version' from consideration) is actually wrong. Mazzeo played it to Stravinsky, and recorded very carefully what he said.
>> Looking over my Score, the Chester Music, Revised Edition - 1993, I do agree with ClarinetTex as far as that Eb is concerned.>>
...namely, that the fourth Eb on line 5 of this edition IS an Eb, though it has no accidental. If you want further confirmation, six quavers later is an E natural with an unbracketed accidental.
>> Another issue with the 2nd Piece though is after the 2nd formata (in the 2nd section of the 2nd Piece - end of 6th line of this edition), we have low F, grace d to G, same pattern repeats, then we have a written grace d to C,>>
...not in my copy, we don't. I have grace e to C, and it's that in J.W.C.1551 too.
So your:
>> I believe the grace d to C should be a grace e to C as this is how it is written in the repeat of the pattern (beginning of 7th line).>>
...is borne out, though I don't understand how you can have something different.
An annoying thing about this edition is that in bar 19 in the last movement, Hare reverts to the MS, with Bbs in the second half of the bar instead of B naturals as in J.W.C.1551, which as I've said before is effectively endorsed by Stravinsky.
Of course, this is then an opportunity to discuss with a student WHY Stravinky probably changed it; but still, it's a nuisance which need not have arisen. (Hare could have put it in a footnote rather than the main text, as he did with the 'different' last bar.) I now have all three, J.W.C.1151, the 1990 reprint, and Hare.
I made four posts in all to the Klarinet list about this last edition of the Stravinsky 3 pieces, including discussionof that change. Here they are, beginning with the one by David Niethamer that started the thread:
http://www.woodwind.org/Databases/Logs/1999/06/000452.txt
http://www.woodwind.org/Databases/Logs/1999/07/000178.txt
http://www.woodwind.org/Databases/Logs/1999/07/000207.txt
http://www.woodwind.org/Databases/Logs/1999/07/000245.txt
http://www.woodwind.org/Databases/Logs/1999/07/000287.txt
The last two are quite short, about analysis of the last movement. I invite anyone interested to look at them, particularly Sherman Friedland -- HEY! YOU THERE IN THE CORNER! -- since it turns out he's such an admirer of mine;-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-05-31 15:20
Tony wrote..
I'm glad to know that you understand what I meant. (Sometimes, that you understand something is difficult to deduce from the actual words you write.) Anyway, I'll be sure to give you the heads up if ever I want to decimate someone.
Jolly good show old Tony!!! Indeed a bitter cup of tea!
this is the battle of clarinetti...wonderful jostling with the verbal fisticuffs..remember you are setting an example for which all of us low life here to live by. ie. remember the previous coment you made about Kell being a poor "musical example".
Maybe your students read this web site Tony when your not looking?
Lovely critic but appalling manners.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-05-31 15:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-05-31 15:25
And, FWIW, one does not decimate an individual or a work. Groups (such as audiences) can easily be decimated, though. ![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-05-31 15:28
tictactux wrote:
> And, FWIW, one does not decimate an individual or a work.
> Groups (such as audiences) can easily be decimated, though.
>
An individual can be decimated ... provided you're the taxman.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-05-31 15:49
tictactux wrote:
>> And, FWIW, one does not decimate an individual or a work. Groups (such as audiences) can easily be decimated, though.>>
My thought exactly, tictactux. It was his word, not mine, if you go back and look.
One of the difficulties of this forum is that people don't READ properly. It causes lots of trouble.
Tony
Post Edited (2007-05-31 15:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-05-31 16:06
Sherman read what you said Tony...
he did not comment however.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-05-31 16:09
Alphie wrote:
"In my opinion Sherman here gives expression only for his own opinion about Kell’s playing and the statement is far from objective. "
Could Alphie please tell us when any comment is objective?
When one comments on a player are we judging against ourselves..other players etc. ???
From a more philosophic viewpooint...is any comment on this board ever objective...I truly doubt it.
As for Stravinksy we have cited three different editions...some with different indications..
so of what value of this unless one has all three editions...one here has cited a problem of Kell in his interpretation..
.however are we going to use one error or oversight to view or denigrate a clarinetist who has brought the clarinet to public light or no?
Terminology aside I tend to find all of this rather pedantic...others here are much better at this on some levels...but are we not trying to educate the public on this board. Can this be done without insult by some...<
I rather wonder if you took a room full of clarinet players and had them play a given piece by the end of the day you would probably have a battlefield...
I prefer the idea that maybe they would all agree they play the clarinet and head out for a beer or at least ice cream.
for the best definition of a clarinet go to
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Clarinet
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-05-31 16:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-05-31 16:22
Tony,
...that's why I wrote "individual OR work". I did notice it was mentioned twice.
Side note to Mark: Decimate means "to reduce in number", not to denote annihilation. I know, the IRS man has a different view on things, though...
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dgclarinet
Date: 2007-05-31 16:23
Most of the time, when you have a room full of clarinet players...it's much preferable to just skip the clarinet and go straight to the beer (and ice cream).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-05-31 16:27
tictactux wrote:
> Side note to Mark: Decimate means "to reduce in number", not to
> denote annihilation. I know, the IRS man has a different view
> on things, though...
ICYDK - to "decimate" an individual is to impose a 10% tax. Dictionary definition ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-31 16:38
Tony:
"kill" is an accepted meaning for decimate. It is in the dictionary.That is what you did in the case of Kell. There are many implications made and inferences taken on this board. There are also perceptions. Whatever you said, the generalization was that you abhor the work of Kell.Why? Simple. Abhor is a very strong word and implies more than the word itself. Yes, true. That was my perception. You enjoy holding forth and making your opinions felt. Perhaps we all do.Sometimes however people will not accept what you say.
I accept little of what you say, especially in your repeated criticisms of Mr. Kell. I admire his courageous work and absolutely revere his short time with us, and his legacy as well. I love all of his playing, without reservation.
He made the clarinet a solo instrument and each clarinetist owes Reginal Kell a debt of gratitude. He elevated the clarinet to the status of a solo instrument in his time. Anyone can argue to their hearts content, but my perception is stated.
Sherman Friedland
Post Edited (2007-05-31 16:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-31 17:22
Tony:
to regard with extreme repugnance or aversion; detest utterly; loathe; abominate.
Above is the meaning of the word abhor. Is that what you meant in speaking about Kells Stravinsky?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2007-05-31 17:45
Tony Pay:
Quote:
though I don't understand how you can have something different.
My copy was purchased in 1994. A fellow student who had purchased the Chester 1993 ed. at the same time had the same error as in my copy. Both copies were purchased from Patelson's Music, NYC. It is possible that this error was in the original copy from the 1993 publication, but corrected for subsequent printings, such as the one you own.
Quote:
An annoying thing about this edition is that in bar 19 in the last movement, Hare reverts to the MS, with Bbs in the second half of the bar instead of B naturals as in J.W.C.1551, which as I've said before is effectively endorsed by Stravinsky.
When I first studied the 3rd Piece, my teacher insisted on the B natural and I never gave it much thought at the time. Looking now, at MM 17, 18 and 19, and then MM 19 to down beat of 25 - I could make a case for either the Bb or B natural. While Bb's in MM 19 echo the transition in MM 17 and 18, playing B natural sets us up for the G# to B natural in MM 25 downbeat. To my ear, the B naturals in MM 19 take away some of the surprise leading up to MM 25.
Since it has been concluded that J.W.C. 1151 was Stravinsky's last word on this work, I also find it curious as to why Hare would print the Bb from the Manuscript.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-05-31 20:36
sherman wrote:
>> Tony: to regard with extreme repugnance or aversion; detest utterly; loathe; abominate.
>> Above is the meaning of the word abhor. Is that what you meant in speaking about Kells Stravinsky?>>
I'm not convinced that you actually want to know what I meant. However, I'll play along one last time. Other people may find what I say more understandable, after all.
Here it is in context, quoting the post from which it comes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sherman wrote:
>> The idea of taking Reginald Kell and decimating his clarinet playing and interpretive skill is oversimplified and in rather poor form.>>
My assessment was, and is, that Kell is an interesting phenomenon: a performer who requires us to re-evaluate our criteria of judgement. We find we want to say one thing, and we want to say the opposite, too. And, different things about different sorts of music.
In that context, it's rather striking that remarks that I carefully chose to apply to a particular performance (recording) of the Stravinsky Three Pieces have been taken to be doing what you rather clumsily characterise above.
Let me be clear: I abhor what Kell did in that recording, and I've explained why. That doesn't mean that I abhor everything about his playing in general.
Tony
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, here we're considering a wonderful piece by a master composer, of which a significant part is the structuring of the events in it. It requires the performer to be sensitive to variety of phrase-lengths, to harmonic implication, to compositional techniques like ellipsis, and so on. The composer, presumably aware of this, requests that the performer obey his notation, which is what allows him to do something like -- for example -- organise that the three movements occur within progressively heightened dynamic ranges: the first piano, the second mezzo-forte (as a maximum), and the third forte.
As a player, of course, you need to find ways of making the music 'live' in some way, so mechanicalness is not an option. Still, there are an infinite number of ways of approaching it that don't run counter to the tempo, dynamic and phrasing instructions. There is no shortage of opportunity for a performance to be an individual statement, because the piece is so rich. Two different performers cannot but produce two different performances, even though they may both follow the letter of the score. As I like to put it, there are many different 'territories' that may correspond to the one 'map'.
I also find that the three pieces occupy different REGISTERS, the first being personal and inward; the second narrative -- it tells a story, with different characters in it, if you like -- unlike the first, which is the inner 'inner' musing of just one person; the last is personal but outward, like a frantic solo dance.
This sort of musical thinking tilts the expressive markings, too, without disobeying them.
For me, the Three Pieces are a wonderful opportunity, particularly so because Stravinsky has constrained me in a way THAT LEAVES ME STILL FREE. I think of the little poem:
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)
Stravinsky somewhere makes this mixture of freedom and constraint explicit, saying that they are 'snapshots of improvisations'. So, we need to play them AS THOUGH THEY WERE IMPROVISED, even though we must satisfy their structural demands.
It's not a bad approach for a great deal of music, actually. Really great music doesn't need to be changed in order to speak, and I think the Stravinsky is just an example of the attitude being made perfectly explicit by the composer IN WORDS.
A part of the background is that I find that much of my work with students is to do with having them represent the inner life of the music as well as the outer life, and like James Falen above, I want to convince them that we can get in touch with deeper parts of ourselves when our attention is on 'what the music wants to say' rather than on ourselves. Just 'what I like' isn't so easily to be equated with 'what I find I really want' (as Bastian found out in 'The Neverending Story') -- there's a process to be gone through, in which the great composers are in a sense our teachers, see:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2005/08/000322.txt
So now, how does Kell stand up as an example of the sensitive performer approaching this masterpiece?
Well, I say, very poorly. As a talented player, he of course 'makes sense' of what he does -- his harmonic understanding of the first piece is beyond doubt, for example -- but what he 'makes sense of' ISN'T THE STRAVINSKY, first on the level of notes, which he changes for what I consider very superficial reasons -- the added D at the beginning of the second piece is premeditatedly criminal, in my book; then in tempo and dynamics, up through rhythm to INTENT -- and including, finally, responsibility to the language, and responsibility to the processes that inexperienced students have to go through in order to become mature musicians.
So given all that, what I find him to be saying is, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME!
And when people say, it's very interesting, I don't find it interesting at all, because it just doesn't interact with what I take the piece to be. In short, I think Stravinsky is more interesting than Kell.
If it were only a performance, that would be a bit better. But it's a document too, being a disc. People applaud its attitude, and say things like, "Kell shows what possibilities there are in the Stravinsky pieces." Ugh!
So yes, I abhor it. I think it's irresponsible and thoughtless in conception, and boringly anecdotal in fact.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-31 20:47
As I have already mentioned "decimate" is commonly used for destroy or kill.
This was my business for 35 years , developing curriculum, attending committee meetings, writing curriculum. The archaic utilization, the decimal system and all the rest of it was abandoned years ago, which is why it has caused all these ridiculous little , emoticoms, pr whatever they are called.
On the other hand "abhor" is really a foul and repugnant term, unquestionably.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-05-31 20:50
sherman wrote:
> As I have already mentioned "decimate" is commonly used for
> destroy or kill.
I'm sorry, that's not one of its accepted meanings in the singular in any dictionary I could find. It's meaning is commonly to destroy or kill some significant proportion of group or collective.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-31 20:51
Tony, so glad you enlightened me yet again, calling a measly little work by Stravinsky as recorded by a dead famous clarinetist abhorrent. (read repugnant) What does that word mean to a reader?
If you want to play dictionary you have come to the right place.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-31 20:54
Sorry, you do not know the meanings of the word.
They have cute little machines to assist you.
You want to go the sarcasm route? fine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-31 20:56
Bad choice of word. Any soloist has a component of narcissism within his personality. It is part of the gig.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-31 21:03
The Three Pieces for Clarinet by Igor Stravinsky is first and foremost no masterpiece. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
And with that, I bid you all good day
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2007-05-31 23:32
Sherman, -if the Tree Pieces by Stravinsky is no masterpiece, is your opinion that Kell improved the piece and made it more interesting by not following the composer’s instructions?
-Would you advice students to do the same if they are imaginative and skilful enough, given that they already know the piece inside out and have adequate information?
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-06-01 00:01
I can certainly say that I was not expecting the thread to turn out like this.
Since Sherman has bid us a good day, I will put my neck out (I expect I might be shot down by a few people for this).
Alphie, to answer your question- Yes. I would advise and do, on occasion (actually I have only done it once or twice) change the score for my performance. But, I do this more in older music in which there is often disagreement as to how to play something. I would probably not change anything from the last 130 years and I see no reason to change any part of the three piece- except maybe to pull back the tempo a click or two =).
I would advise this for one reason- I find that many students look at the page and think that THAT is the music. They read it the same way they would a bus schedule. Not only as a performer, but as I composer, I find that the EXACT sound I want to express and put on the page is not possible without a verbal explanation of each phrase. Therefore, I do the best I can with the notational system. I assume that many, if not all, composers have felt this once in a while. Therefore, as a performer, it is my job to find out what the composer wanted and fill in the huge blanks that exist between the page and what the audience hears.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2007-06-01 06:47
sherman- I found a small error in your analysis of the first piece. It is eighth note= 100 on the metronome and quarter note=50. If the quarter note was 100 then the eighth note would be 200!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-06-01 13:09
Yes, you are correct. I found that when first I wrote the analyses, then forgot to change it. Sorry.
It does revert back to "50 for the eighth" later in the analyses.
I will certainly fix it right now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2007-06-02 12:45
Mr. Friedland,
Although I've visited your site in the past, I never looked in the archives.
What a treasure trove of information from an accomplished artist! Master class after master class. I'm going to study each one line by line, and apply your instruction / analysis. Thanks for them and thanks even more for your generosity in making such freely available.
On the Stravinsky: To Stravinsky, with such a large body of work, he probably considered the 3 Pieces little more than a ditty, though to us clarinetists those 3 Pieces form a corner-stone of our repetroire.
Best wishes,
Vann Joe
(amateur)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-06-02 15:09
Thank you, sir. Your comments are deeply appreciated. I hope reading the players instructions and analyses will help you. Thank you again.
Sherman
Post Edited (2007-06-03 00:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-06-03 17:43
Griffinity wrote:
>> When I first studied the 3rd Piece, my teacher insisted on the B natural and I never gave it much thought at the time. Looking now, at MM 17, 18 and 19, and then MM 19 to down beat of 25 - I could make a case for either the Bb or B natural.>>
Yes, clearly Stravinsky's original intention was the Bb, with the Ab/Bb bit of the [Ab/Bb]/[GACBAGB or subset of that] alternation (battle?) dying out at bar 23, when the C# enters, and we're 'in E maj/min' -- also the moment of return to forte.
>> While Bb's in MM 19 echo the transition in MM 17 and 18, playing B natural sets us up for the G# to B natural in MM 25 downbeat. To my ear, the B naturals in MM 19 take away some of the surprise leading up to MM 25.>>
It seems to me that there is no surprise at bar 25 either way -- of course, there's an ictus because of the crescendo, but the B natural sounds like part of E major by then.
Rather, the surprise, in the 'new' version, IS the change to B natural in bar 19; particularly the second accented one, which dominates the subsequent bars, making the Bb at the end of bar 20 sound like an A#/B appoggiatura, and the A/B in bar 22 like another one. The initial Ab/Bb hegemony is thus dealt a blow in bar 19 from which it never really recovers:-)
One of the great things about this movement is that you can identify and embody several such 'battles'; and there are surprises other than the one I just mentioned in addition to the obvious 'sombrer' indications -- eg the suddenly increased accent-density in bars 30/31, the two ADJACENT accents in bar 42 and the mini 'squirt' crescendo in bar 48 (btw the only plausible jazz reference I can detect); plus of course the one eliminated by Kell in bar 54, the F#/E -- that modulate the ongoing drive of the movement without destroying the build of tension.
Whilst on the subject of Hare's edition, there is a strange extra 'floating' accent between semiquavers 2 and 3 in bar 56 that doesn't appear in either J.W.C. 1151 or the 1990 reprint. This might either come from the MS and be supposed to be attached to the first note of the bar -- or just be a computer glitch.
Either way its appearance is further evidence of carelessness on the part of all concerned with this edition of a work for a solo wind instrument that is in my view the only modern effort in that genre able to stand comparison with Debussy's Syrinx.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2007-06-03 19:08
Quote:
It seems to me that there is no surprise at bar 25 either way -- of course, there's an ictus because of the crescendo, but the B natural sounds like part of E major by then. Rather, the surprise, in the 'new' version, IS the change to B natural in bar 19; particularly the second accented one, which dominates the subsequent bars, making the Bb at the end of bar 20 sound like an A#/B appoggiatura, and the A/B in bar 22 like another one. The initial Ab/Bb hegemony is thus dealt a blow in bar 19 from which it never really recovers:-)
From my view, all of the grace note to an 8th note figures up until and after that point (MM 19) are the interval of a Major 2nd. What he does in his revision of MM 19 is write an augmented 2nd - which actually sounds jarring to my ear as that interval hasn't been heard in that rhythmic pattern. From your synopsis, this was Stravinksy's purpose. So, I agree that the Ab to B natural is more of a surprise in MM 19, but I don't know if I prefer it or if it makes much sense in the grand scheme of the 3rd piece. It appears we both agree that the revision to MM 19 changes the feel of approach to MM 25.
The Surpise for me, is hearing the Grace Note in MM 25, now written as a Minor 3rd - and also part of a new pattern - grace note to 16th note. This pattern and interval are also part of the last two notes of the piece - G to Bb. Interesting, in the MS he had the last measure crescendo in the same manner as in MM 25, but later changed it to a decrescendo.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-06-03 20:34
Grifffinity (misread you before as just a fortissimo Griffin:-) wrote:
>>The Surpise for me, is hearing the Grace Note in MM 25, now written as a Minor 3rd - and also part of a new pattern - grace note to 16th note.>>
This I find I can't play, really, as a surprise. It might LOOK like a surprise on paper, but I don't think you can make an audience feel it like that. As a listener, you're not thinking, oh I see, all the gracenote intervals are major seconds; nor that all the notes that have gracenotes before them are quavers not semiquavers. In fact, you'd be hard put to it to tell the difference between demisemiquavers and gracenotes in bars 11 through 13.
Whereas, the B natural in the second half of bar 19 interrupts the pendulum swing between Ab/Bb and the sequence of (Cmajor) naturals, which interruption IS a surprise to the ear (you called it 'jarring' because it's a change of interval, but I find 'interruption of a regular alternation between tonalities' captures at least my feelings about it better); moreover, it CAN be intensified for the audience with tone colour change -- and the lack of accents and diminuendos in bars 22 and 23 can be played as more 'continuously' insistent, further consolidating the effect.
>>...but I don't know if I prefer it or if it makes much sense in the grand scheme of the 3rd piece.>>
I find the 'sense' it makes to be a DRAMATIC sense: bars 11 through 13 constitute the first change of tone, which is almost inevitably a 'lightening', because of the material (rests, dotted rhythm, wider intervals, diatonic rather than chromatic implications); but THIS change of tone is towards the 'menacing'.
If you want a syntactic as opposed to a semantic motivation for it, then I doubt there is one -- as indeed you suggest.
And.....WOW!! I was looking at it in J.W.C. 1551 -- but I now see that Hare contains ANOTHER misprint, right at this point: bar 24 has E semiquaver instead of the correct quaver!!
Any more for any more????
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-06-04 00:22
I came upon the Hare edition many years ago and noticed a pile of inconsistencies...so it should be avoided. LIFE goes on...
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-06-04 00:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-06-04 00:35
There has also been a number of conjectures as to what Stravinky really felt about a number of interpretations of his pieces... I met Robert Craft after a lecture and he stated; "
(this at a lecture in Boston U,)
IN fact it has been noted Stravinsky was not always consistent across the board on a number of aspects about conductors and his music. "
In fact as Stravinsky got older many of his harsher earlier views softened and on the contrary certain views of his works hardened."
this from my personal notes taken at the lecture.
back to Reginald
As to Kell his greatness as a clarinetist is his popularization of the clarinet..something in which he exceeds myself and Mr. Pay...in fact I can honestly say there are very few clarinetists today who arouse such controversy as Kell...whether or not that makes him great is aguable..but in light of recent history Kell certainly made a huge career of the clarinet.
His interpretations of Romantic works fare far much better under such scrutiny as to the Stravinsky...Guy Deplus also has come under criticism by playing a wrongly in the finale of the three pieces...
ie.Stravinksy's opinion of Karajan in the Rite in simply a reflex over an overtly polished performance..and by the way Karajan re-recorded it again in 76 after Stravinsky's death. The later intepretation is far more sharply articulated...it is a very fine interpretation on all accounts...
"Ansermet made a number of superb recordings of Stravinsky's works and was severely reprimanded by the composer for being too "literal' and too "scorebound"...(Robert Craft in lecture)
Mr Craft also stated later;
With Bernstein after a performance of the Rite he told Bernstein it was
"wrong, wrong wrong..." According to Robert Craft it was simply a Rite that was faster than even Stravinsky's early account...so I may add even composers may change their views not only on tempi but dynamics etc. al.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-06-04 00:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-06-05 22:36
D Dow wrote:
>> I came upon the Hare edition many years ago and noticed a pile of inconsistencies...so it should be avoided.>>
Easier said than done. It's all you can buy if you're a young player who wants to own an accurate copy of the piece -- so I'm going to write to Chester Music and complain.
But of course, saying anything helpful wasn't the purpose of your post, was it? -- and so you wouldn't do that sort of thing, would you?
<<LIFE goes on...>>
...exactly.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-06-06 12:40
Dear Tony
I think it is great you are going to complain...however, do you think the publishers are going to listen? I wish you the best of luck on this one..
Maybe you could inform us if the publishers contact you in regards to changing the problems with this edition?
Best of luck on this one...I do tend to find music publishers like many business people...slow to change and very indifferent to customers.
keep us posted please...
ps. maybe you could print a copy of your letter for the BB here..?
My remark was made about publishers and their indifference to the music buying public...the amazing amount of misprinting that is allowed is truly awful...maybe in this case you could make a difference.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-06-06 12:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ABerry
Date: 2007-06-07 21:56
Greetings All,
I have found this thread to be quite interesting….
With all due respect to; Mr. Friedland, Mr. Pay, and the late Mr. Kell…
Regarding specifically, the Kell recording of the Stravinsky Three Pieces. One question comes to mind, what if the name of the recording artist was someone other than Reginald Kell? Let’s say (for arguments’ sake) my name is on that recording, (playing the pieces exactly as Mr. Kell did, note for note, articulation for articulation, nuance for nuance), would I also be lauded as, “wildly innovative, imaginative” or would I be accused of taking wild liberties and not adhering to Stravinsky’s markings? I would also say, had I played the Three Pieces for either of my teachers, the way Mr. Kell did in the recording, I would have received a very swift & stern rebuke…
Again, with all due respect to Mr. Kell and his artistic freedom, the Kell recording of the Stravinsky Three Pieces, may not be the best recording for someone learning the pieces to listen too. Just my opinion…
Best regards,
Allan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2007-06-07 23:41
kia ora Allen
yes- that is in fact the point that i had wanted to make, not only about this recording. At the same time, i often hear recordings that i know i couldn't get away with, when it's bad intonation 50 years ago i can let it slide, when it's whole semiquaver/16th note passages left out (Royal Phil Ginastera Variations) i get very annoyed.
However, experience (abusive emails from someone who should be ashamed of himself) has taught me never to be frank about anything on the Woodwind Bulletin Board.
That said- this thread has had some very informative and interesting postings (including those from both Sherman and Mr Pay). How it got quite so nasty is a mystery. Well, no it's not.
keep playing the good tunes
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 53engine
Date: 2007-11-29 22:22
I have followed the threads about Kell with great interest. In the 50's, when I was a kid, with a few exceptions, the only recordings available were by Kell. His playing was superb. More importantly, however is the lasting legacy that he left. Music is not only about the "correct" interpretation or playing the piece on the exact instrument that it was written for. So Kell played all 3 pieces on the B flat horn, who cares? Do we play the Mozart Concerto on the instrument that it was written for? Only fairly recently could we approximate this instrument.
Now, many excellent players record, Tony Pay being one of them. But how many of them make young players go home, take the clarinet out of the case and try to emulate what they have heard. For me, only Kell and Stoltzman have had that effect. I wonder how many other older players had the same experience with Kell's music. Most of the other stuff sounds "hammered out" to me. But, these 2 guys, it's like they have such a strong relationship with the intersection of their playing and the music that they create a new dimension.
I've been playing for 54 years and I've taken lessons for much of that time. Every teacher that I had tried to break me of hearing the Brahms Sonatas in the Kell version. And why not hear it in the Kell version?. Really, none of us knows what it really should sound like.
So, I ask myself the question. How many mature players, now in the final stages of their careers, would have stuck with it enough so that they could become the ones to teach these recording stars, who now know the right way for Debussy to sound.? What legacy do players like Kell and Stoltzman really leave?. I believe that there are many of todays great teachers and players that can say " I wanted to play because I had recordings of Reginald Kell playing, Mozart, Hindermith, Debussy, Brahms and those were pivotal moments in my decision to continue with the clarinet.
By the way, for a real treat, go to UTube and listen to Richard Stoltzman and Judy Collins do "For Free" the old Joni Mitchell tune.
Music has to be more that just
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cass Tech
Date: 2007-11-30 16:03
Wonderful, humorous story, Lelia! I had the privilege of hearing Glenn Gould live on two occasions. The first was at the Stratford Festival, where he played trios with Oscar Schumsky and Leonard Rose. The second was in a recital at Detroit's Masonic Temple Auditorium, where he performed Hindemith's 3rd Sonata, Beethoven's #30, a Bach English Suite and - as an encore - Brahms' opus 118, number 3. (I was a kid at the time, and remember having been proud to identify the last number to my beaming parents. I had bought Gould's recording of Brahms' Intermezzi for one of my dad's birthdays.) Since then I have purchased any number of his recordings and regard him as one of the greatest musicians I've ever heard. In addition to his wonderful Bach, I (maybe alone among mortals) adore his supersonic Mozart Sonatas; and, as for the traditionalists who can't stand it, I can only reply that the ghost of Mozart appeared to me in a dream and whispered to me: "It can be done that way, too."
Cass Tech (aka leatherlip)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
