 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-09-05 01:23
I first put this in another thread, but I think my question is a bit different.
My main question is- What do you all think about changing things in the score, especially with respect to tempi, ritardando, and rubato? Below I have used the Debussy Premire Rhapsodie as an example; in many live and recorded performances of this piece, I have noticed the addition of some of the following things. These are tempi changes that are not written in the score, but are qute cosistantly played by most clarinetists. They are as follows:
- accelerando before 'Un peu retenu', after (4).
- at (6) we have 'a Tempo (moderement anime)'. I have always read this to mean the same tempo as (5) 'moderement anime', quarter-72. However I always hear (6) played significantly faster than (5).
- towards the end we have 'Plus anime' which is often followed by a gradual accelerando up to (11).
If I were to perform the Debussy and, for example, at the first 'Le Double plus vite' I were to keep the tempo from before and not play it any faster. In that case, I think, most people would say that I am playing it wrong and some might say, "Debussy wrote 'Le Double plus vite' so you should play it that way". Now, that's fine and all, but in the places that Debussy did NOT write some ritardando or accelerano, would it not be equally wrong to add it? If I should play what he wrote than I should also play what he didn't write, right?
Again, this is a general question about style and I am only using Debussy as an example.
Your thoughts, please.
Post Edited (2007-09-05 03:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-09-05 03:36
but in the places that Debussy did NOT write some ritardando or accelerano, would it not be equally wrong to add it?
Musicians have tradition and interpretation to contend with when performing the works of everyone from Bach to Rzewski. So unless you can cite a specific example of the liberties you're considering taking with any one piece, my feeling is that your question is generally too vague to be answerable.
But generally speaking...
When a composer hasn't annotated the score, unless otherwise directed elsewhere in the score, the lack of markings should speak as loudly as those parts that are marked. Out of respect for the composer and his/her music, a lack of markings should not be looked upon as a "loophole" for a performer to indulge in great interpretational latitudes and liberties.
This isn't to say that there's only one way to play/interpret a piece of music. A general idea of the latitude you may indulge in can be gleaned by studying various recordings of the piece(s) you have in mind to perform. From there you can learn some generally accepted guidelines, and decide for yourself if you prefer one interpretation to another.
Performers who have broken new interpretive ground, such as Glenn Gould and his interpretations of Bach, were subject to great scrutiny by traditionalists inasmuch as he was revered by others as a visionary. Who knows, maybe you have a Gould-like gift to interpret the great master composers' music in new ways that are more meaningful than novelty, or at the very least has serious (and not rebellious for the sake of it) intent. Or maybe you're just trying to find a way to sidestep the rigors of practicing/performing the piece in a traditional manner, the "ad libitum" approach being the easier one. But of course it's impossible to understand your motivations for wanting to take liberties unless you explain your motivations.
If you haven't learned these pieces yet, I'd say you owe it to yourself as well as the composers to play what's written, adding expressive touches that don't reek havoc with the composer's intentions. Once you've explored these works, i.e., "paid your dues", if your creative soul is absolutely aching to express something else through them, you are certainly free to do so in the privacy of your own practice room, but you will be taking a big chance performing your interpretations in public.
Post Edited (2007-09-05 03:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-09-05 05:03
As a composer, I intend my markings as a way of saying "try it this way, it's cool!" Sometimes, people doing things I didn't marked ends up lousy to my ears, other times it's some other cool thing I haven't expected. I hope that the performer would try it my way first, then, if they like, see what else they can do with it.
Performing a piece, I approach it the same way, and decide for myself which I like better... lots of times it's exactly as written, sometimes it's not.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-09-05 05:22
Ski- I suppose this is a bit of a vague question in a way. I have learned these pieces for a few years so this is not a "new thought" that just popped into my head.
Let's just refer to Debussy for the time being-
I always look at the score (any score) for instruction of what I should do, can do, might be able to do and for what I should not do. I gather the evidence and the lack of "Ritardando" written in one composer's work is very different than another's. For me, this is not only dependent on the time the piece was written and the composer in question, but to what the composer wrote in that piece proper. And I will now state the problem in Debussy, as an example.
Debussy, throughout the piece, wrote many tempo indications. He clearly thought about the tempo and wrote instructions as to speeding up and slowing down. Therefore, it seems obvious to me that the places he did not write any tempo change would mean that the tempo should not change- at the very least, not drastically.
Is there something I am not seeing?
Post Edited (2007-09-05 05:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-09-05 05:55
Hi Sky, Ski here... ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
You wrote, "What do you all think about changing things in the score" so it seemed that you were asking a general question about taking liberties, using the Debussy as an example without intending to dwell on that particular piece; so I offered an opinion accordingly.
As a composer myself, I must admit that seeing a question asking if it's OK to change some things about a score raised a few hackles. But they didn't stay up for long.
I also said, "Musicians have tradition and interpretation to contend with when performing..." so if you're hearing consistent interpretations of specific phrases in recordings that are not notated as such on the score, well, indeed you have that to contend with, as I stated
But it seems that you want some particular direction on the Debussy piece, so I'll bow out of the conversation. But in principle, I'll keep with my original opinion as a general way of approaching the subject.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-09-05 06:01
BTW, I am also getting ready for a performance of the Debussy and some other pieces, so I am probably going a little over critial with things.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nes
Date: 2007-09-05 09:30
I'm in agrreance with sky. i am learning it too, but you should play what the composer intended. They go to the trouble of setting tempo markings et al and we ignore them. We should play as written, and within that, if there's room to, we can interpret the music how we feel.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bubalooy
Date: 2007-09-05 20:02
I'm a firm believer in analysis. Of course we should observe what the composer has written and what he has not written. But if a composer writes very little in terms of say dynamics, it doesn't follow that the piece should be played with no dynamic variation. How then to decide? From the score. I don't believe that with "through composed music" the answer is to just do what feels good. Can you justify what you are doing based on what is there in the score? Also, keep in mind that unless you have the original manuscript, it is hard to know what the composer wrote. I mentioned in another thread that I have some pieces marked "urtext" but they are very very different so what did the composer write and what did an editor deicide should be written, or not written. Therefore, you need to study the piece and make decisions based on what you see in it and what you believe the music is "trying" to do.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-09-06 04:00
Okay, I think that my question is a little misunderstood.
My question is has to do with the difference between what one reads and what they hear from performers and teachers.
Continuing to use the Debussy as an example, I have noticed the "unwritten" things to be fairly consistant among clarinet performances. Let's also take into account that the piece is not ancient and that some professors of today are only 2-3 generations removed from those that played for Debussy. That is, we are generationally rather close to the original performers.
Most professors, students, and recordings of the piece support, by consensus, that the accellerani etc. that I outlined are the correct way to play the piece. Some people do it to a further extent than others, but they all seem to do it.
I notice similar things in the Stravinsky 3 Pieces. Lessons I have had, and recordings are rather consistant as to where to place little pauses, ritadandi. etc. However, they are not at all in the score and the indication at the top says that the tempi should be "strictly" followed as indicated.
Now here is my stupid question- taking into account that we are close to the original performers who played for and knew the composer, and taking into account that many performers play these unwritten things as I mentioned, is that possibally the "authentic" way to play a piece? -regardless that the score does not indicated it?
And further (going into personal experiences)- if THOSE things are okay to do, why is it that I am not allowed to place OTHER pauses in different places? Of the 4-5 teachers I have played the Stravinsky for, the pauses, ritardando, articulation changes that "I" decided were "wrong", but the same people had not problem changeing the same variables in other places.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-09-06 04:36
Food for thought...
A composer will sometimes make a compositional decision by NOT including a particular piece of information, not because they don't want you to do it, but because too much information can be stifling to the performer.
Imagine if every note or two had a new dynamic, and if every half bar had an accel or rit and a new tempo marking. It would quite possibly make the performer crazy, AND it could make the performer strictly adhere to something that the composer might want to feel more loose and flowing.
There's a balancing act between writing everything you want the performer to do and leaving the performer enough room to do it.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nes
Date: 2007-09-06 07:20
I agree with adhering to general dynamic principles, ie. doing some variation which is not written in. But, I do not agree with changing the tempi. I also do not agree with playing mf in a p section. There is a little room to make the music yours, but not as much as is unfortunately observed these days.
If you take too much liberty, you are unjustly recreating Weber's or Stravinsky's or Debussy's or Brahms' pieces, and not only branding it as theirs, but taking away their hardwork and reputation as a composer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-09-06 18:15
I've played my OWN pieces at tempi wildly above or below what I intended, both intentionally and unintentionally. I've liked some, disliked others. The tempo I write down is probably the first one I thought of, or the one I hummed in my head most often. People want a tempo, so I pick one and write it down. Doesn't mean I want them to avoid exploring other options.
People know what the by-the-books version sounds like. I hardly think taking liberties with Sonata #2 damages Brahms' reputation.
Heck, I've heard some darn lousy by-the-books interpretations of Beethoven 3. Only when Fuhrtwangler takes (took) a bucketload of liberties does it really come alive.
If we want to set limits on how much can be done with music, we might as well record it once and be done with it.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bubalooy
Date: 2007-09-06 22:06
Just a quick note on the dynamics. "I do not agree with playing mf in a p section".
Of course since the dynamics are only relative to each other. I might start a piece louder or softer than the next player. Al long as my "p" is softer than my "mf" it is no problem, assuming that the other players have roughly the same concept of the volume. If the loudest marking is mf, it may be possible to play p a bit louder than if the loudest marking is fff.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2007-09-06 22:46
As I expostulated in another thread, intepretive choices have ranged across extremes, certainly since recordings were being made, and according to historical accounts, long before that. Composers performing their own work have in many cases departed radically from what they wrote.
Familiarity with the composer, his oeuvre, historical practices, musical theory, interpretations by other people, other musical works, and life in general are all important in assisting with interpretive choices. But (to me) music remains a performing art, and the next performance will be more important than all that has gone before.
So, look at the score, and with an open mind ask, "what does this suggest to me, here, now, in this day and age, and to people I know and want to communicate with?" Ask it many times. The answers might include things that the score does not literally indicate. It might even include things the score specifically says not to do - How? Because like other written documents, scores can sometimes be enigmatic, or even self-contradictory.
Another question: are you playing for people immersed in scores in their laps, tallying up differences, or for people listening to the flow of music in time, experiencing something beyond the little black marks?
Some geniuses - the "great" composers - have tapped deep into aspects of people that remain in force across centuries, and across many widely varied interpretations. Most of their music is in fact very accomodating to different approaches. Some of those composers objected to performers in their own time who transformed their works into show-off music, but that's a very specific case, and I'm certainly not limiting my suggestions to that set of choices (though in some pieces and contexts, even the show-off treatment may be justified.)
Are we disrespecting composers if we add or subtract from their literal score? I think it depends on the motivation, and maybe on the results. Someone indicated such changes create something new, something that's no longer the music of the composer. I disagree. As a composer here pointed out, the music of the composer, to the extent it exists outside his/her head, is a printed list of suggestions. Ideas. No performance will ever match what was in the composer's head. Further, if the same composer tried to write it down again, it would be different, probably a great deal so. That happens all the time.
Good music is virtually alive - it changes.
Should people who feel this way just write their own music and stick to playing that?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-09-06 23:53
On the heels of what you wrote, Phillip, I guess I'm just not that "democratic" of a composer. When I write something I expect it to be played as written. When something isn't played as written but I end up liking what I heard, I'll consider making a change to the score; I'm not that inflexible.
I'll often work with performers to understand where performance difficulties might lie and change the score if something's just a little too complicated to play. I'm more concerned in having my musical gestures and melodies well-represented than I am interested in taxing a performer needlessly.
In my music, when there are no indications for a given length of time it means, quite plainly -- as it does on most pieces of music -- that the mood, dynamic, tempo, continue as they were last indicated. And that's a convention I didn't learn on my own.
Like Alex said before, an overly-marked score can itself present an emotionally stifling situation. I strive not to overmark my scores so that the peformer feels a sense of freedom within the confines of the composition. My composition is an expression of me which I hope other people can find expressive for themselves as well. But at the end of the day, when I write something I'm not doing it to have it become a wiki-composition where everyone can come in and change its meaning. Some music is more "democratic" than others I guess, but I see nothing wrong with that.
Post Edited (2007-09-06 23:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
