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.
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
