 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: nes
Date: 2008-05-27 09:27
I am doing this for an honours project.
In the 2nd movement, the 8th and 7th bars from the end: do you recommend slurring or tounging these triplets? and in the 7th bar from the end, what notes do you recommend playing? Apparently the edition I have may not be correct. I believe it starts on G, then A and F?
It could be: A flat and F, or A flat and F#, or A flat and F, or A and F?? What Mozart wanted I am not sure of. What do you guys and girls recommend? What do you play? What editions do you have?
Any other suggestions and/or tips on the 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd movement would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.
Post Edited (2008-05-27 09:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2008-05-27 13:35
It may be my aging eyes, but I canNOT tell what the "squiggles" above the triplets are! Are they slurs? Accents? Something else?
But thanks for the MS Tony. I couldn't remember which notes I played back in school, and had dug it out again recently.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nes
Date: 2008-05-27 14:21
Thank you very much Tony. It is different to the edition I have.
So according I will play the triplets tongued,
The second to last clarinet 3 note motive in the 2nd movement, i will play G A F, and the last i will play G A F# .. I believe this is correct?
Thanks again - i believe the things above the triplets are "3"s to technically make them triplets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nes
Date: 2008-05-27 14:29
Hi Tony, and anyone else who might try answering this,
Why do all the 3 different Naxos recordings have the players playing not according to the MS in you attachment. It appears they are not playing GAFG and then GAF#G. note the MS appears to have a F natural on the 2nd to last motive in the clarinet part. Does noone want to play what Mozart wanted the notes to be?
Thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2008-05-27 15:28
tongue the triplets
the run up:
rest, G, A; B, C, D; E,F,F#.
And the following quarter notes:
G, A, F# (My Harold Wright mark-up instructs to play the A flattened, and tenuto.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tacet
Date: 2008-05-27 19:36
Just checked with "Neue Mozart Ausgabe" (BTW: available online at http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/nmapub_srch.php?l=1 , free for private use) and learned the following.
As ssen from the above post, the MS shows massive signs of haste. Hence most editors also use the first print (from 1788) as an additional source of input. In this print, bars 97, 148 and 152 had been "corrected" wrt the MS as follows:
97 -- MS: G A F first print: G A F#
148 -- MS: G A F first print: G A F#
152 -- MS: G A F# first print: G Ab F#
Apparently, various mixed forms also exist in print.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-05-27 21:42
You will never get every one to agree, just like the Debussy Rhapsodie near the end. Most of the old recording will have Ab and F#, that’s how I learned it and still play it that way because the other way just sounds wrong to me. I used to slur the triplets but the last time I articulated them. One can argue forever what Mozart really wanted so just play it the way you think it sounds best. One person will say they know what is correct, and another reputable person will disagree. Does that make one person right and the other wrong, I don’t think so? Many of the great players from the past played it right, or wrong. Depends on your opinions. ESP, www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-05-27 23:00
Attachment: 01.jpeg (127k)
Attachment: 09.jpeg (123k)
tacet wrote:
>> As ssen from the above post, the MS shows massive signs of haste. Hence most editors also use the first print (from 1788) as an additional source of input.>>
I think it's more likely that later publications (apart from the latest Henle and NMA) just followed the first print and then each other because the idea of returning to the MS wasn't a priority. BTW, I do think the word 'massive' is an exaggeration.
>> In this print, bars 97, 148 and 152 had been "corrected" wrt the MS as follows:
97 -- MS: G A F first print: G A F#
148 -- MS: G A F first print: G A F#
152 -- MS: G A F# first print: G Ab F#>>
The scare quotes round "corrected" are right, I think. I've attached the MS page that includes bar 97 (as well as the opening of the piece); it's a little difficult to see whether the MS has an F# or not there from the photocopy, but NMA obviously had access to the original, which is in the Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, so F natural it is. (Bar 148 is SURELY unequivocal.)
It's interesting that the first print was called: Trio per il Clavicembalo o Fortepiano con l'accompagnmento d'un Violino e Viola...La parte del Violino SI PUO ESEGUIRE ANCHE CON UN CLARINETTO (my capitals). That gives some indication ("you can also play the violin part on a clarinet") of the extent to which that edition might be said to concern itself with Mozart's intentions.
An interesting facet of the MS of the first movement is that all the sudden fortes (eg, bars 16, 18 and 20) simply aren't there. So it's rather likely that they aren't compositionally integral; in contrast to, say, Beethoven's sudden fortes, which ARE integral. (I personally think they're best regarded as an attempt to ensure the persistence of the long note in the fortepiano part -- that instrument sustains much less than a modern pianoforte, where the forte dynamic is almost redundant.)
As to nes's question: Why do all the 3 different Naxos recordings have the players playing not according to the MS in your attachment? -- the answer is either that they don't know about the MS, or that they're not interested in addressing the problem of getting used to, and making work, something that initially seems wrong to them.
That's a well-known human foible, that you could go so far as to say is responsible for much evil in the world.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-05-28 05:20
Ed Palanker wrote:
>> You will never get every one to agree, just like the Debussy Rhapsodie near the end.>>
I'm sure that you would want to say to a student that the object of the exercise is not to get every one to agree; the object of the exercise is to get each of us to be true to ourselves artistically, and to accept the need to be true to ourselves in that way as a moral responsibility. The great American pianist and writer Charles Rosen had it right, I think, when he wrote:
"It is the moral duty of a performer to choose what he thinks is the musically superior version, whatever the composer's clearly marked intention -- it is also the moral duty of a [performer] to try to convince himself that the composer knew what he was doing." ("The Frontiers of Nonsense", in "The Frontiers of Meaning," ISBN 1 81082 65 X)
>> Most of the old recording will have Ab and F#, that’s how I learned it and still play it that way because the other way just sounds wrong to me.>>
Apropos this, Rosen also writes, in the same essay:
"Giving up a wrong reading or wrong style of performance can be as difficult as changing one's breakfast cereal or one's drinking habits, or the time one gets up in the morning...nothing is too silly to be sung or played, once you get used to it...[but] in the long run wrong meanings are finally found out. Traditions of performance that no longer make sense are eventually changed -- except perhaps in Vienna."
I'm not saying that you yourself approach this matter lightly; I just think it's important to be clear publicly that, contra the attitude of several people on this list, it DOES matter how we encourage our students to comport themselves in the face of these great texts. That involves their taking responsibility for their decisions, and making them work in their own terms, rather than just copying their favourite players (some of whom, despite their considerable abilities, I know from personal experience to be morally lacking in this regard.)
The magnitude of the task isn't quite captured by your:
>> One can argue forever what Mozart really wanted so just play it the way you think it sounds best.>>
...even though that's what it ultimately comes down to, as Rosen says.
I think myself that nes is right to be amazed that he hasn't found a recording that follows Mozart's MS, and right therefore to be confused about what he 'should' do. But it's not that there is no right or wrong -- it's that he has to create his OWN 'should' in performance, as Bastian found he had to in "The Neverending Story".
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nes
Date: 2008-05-28 07:13
Thank you everyone and Tony for all the feedback!
One important question: If Mozart didn't write sudden fortes at bars 16, 18 and 20, in the first movement, when why are they placed in (I think) every edition, atleast most? Did Mozart tell the players at the first performance he accidently left out the sudden fortes that add a certain uniqueness to the movement?
Basically is it true Mozart didn't intend for the music to be played with sudden fortes?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tacet
Date: 2008-05-28 09:15
According to the NMA comment, the MS has little dynamics but the first print has. So that's probably where the fortes come from, too.
Just to add some more confusion: the publisher of the Eulenburg pocket partition claims that "... the violin part, as an alternative to the clarinet, appears in the first editions, which were issued during Mozart's lifetime, and therefore it probably originates from Mozart himself ...".
Given that no evidence seems to be available, IMO one may or may not follow this argument (I would not).
BTW: In this partition, all three bars in question read G A F#...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-05-28 10:49
>> One important question: If Mozart didn't write sudden fortes at bars 16, 18 and 20, in the first movement, when why are they placed in (I think) every edition, atleast most? >>
The answer to this is as given by tacet in his latest post -- plus, for me, the experience of playing the music on period instruments.
You have to understand that the modern problem of the viola line being weaker than the other instruments turns into the period problem of the fortepiano line beinig weaker than the other instruments. From that point of view, a strong beginning helps the connection between the first and second halves of bars 16 and 18 in the fortepiano part.
Balance considerations can also influence the discussion of the Coda of the Menuetto: you usually hear the viola triplets in bars 150 and 154 considerably foregrounded, obliterating the keyboard line. Yet the three-note Trio motif is taken up by the fortepiano RH in those bars; playing that as the principal line, answering the clarinet and fortepiano LH versions, can have a considerable influence on making the MS version of the clarinet notes 'work'. (Try asking the viola player to 'sketch in' their part in those bars.)
>> Did Mozart tell the players at the first performance he accidently left out the sudden fortes that add a certain uniqueness to the movement?>>
You must be joking, surely?
>> Basically is it true Mozart didn't intend for the music to be played with sudden fortes?>>
All I can say is that I always felt uncomfortable having them be 'shocking' in effect; and so was happy to have it confirmed by the MS that Mozart didn't have it as an integral part of his musical conception -- initially, at any rate.
But you must think about it, struggle with it, and make up your own mind. (You don't have to do it the same way every time, of course; I recorded the piece twice, and as I recall, played the MS version the second time.)
What NOT to do is be a lily-livered, I-follow-in-the-footsteps-of-a-legendary-American-clarinet-player, head-in-the-sand, OSTRICH;-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Noqu
Date: 2008-05-28 11:26
nes,
from my point of view, it is futile to argue about "right" and "wrong" here. The important point is to see the question, to consider the options, to study the sources, to ask the opinion of others, to discuss the pros and cons and thus to come to your own conclusion. Whatever the outcome, I would respect your decision as "right" if you know what you are doing and why you are doing it.
I would take the fact that you opened this interesting discussion as an indication that whatever you are going to play will be "right" at the time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-05-28 14:57
I agree mostly with everyone , but more importantly, what is the tempo of the first movement? This tempo makes the difference between three allegro"ish" movements and a work of considerable contrast. This is a work I have played on both contemporary instrument and a eight-keyed replica(yes, Alphie,you are correct), but always in a slow tempo for the first movement. It works beautifully if you can find someone who is not wedded to "in an andante two" for the first movement, and this is harder to find than an intune wurlitzer. Please note, each turn is written out. Were they meant to be played as they are usually? I think not. Try it one time at an andante 6, the beauty of the first movement will emerge, and I guarantee it.
Post Edited (2008-05-29 01:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2008-05-28 20:51
Sherman, you must have had more keys than three! You must have had at least five or you wouldn’t have passed bar 10 and 12 in the first phrase.
Why do you think the first movement was played considerably much slower at Mozart’s time?
I usually find a good Andante thinking of four quarters within the same time frame as 6/8. An andante in two would be too fast and in six much too slow.
What would be your ideal tempo for the first movement? 1/8=? bpm?
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-05-28 21:00
I always try to play it at about 92 for the beat, in 6, but it always gets faster, not because of anything more than the "in two" habit, but I am always happy to play it.....and drag. (I'm hated) and I don't care.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-05-29 00:33
If everyone played a piece exactly the same way there would be no individual interpretation. It would be just like playing a piece on a computer with different tone qualities. I don’t want to hear everyone play something the same way, just with good taste. When someone plays a classic with a different articulation than was written, if there are no or very few articulations written, I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t have to agree with them. The same goes for a controversial note. I do believe in playing the notes the compose wrote, as well as their articulations if they indicated them, as Brahms did. But when there is not an absolutely clear indication of what note a composer wrote I go by what I think sounds best, be it what I was taught, heard or experience. I encourage my students to use their own judgment on that and do not insist that they play it as I do. I tell them the different ways players perform it and let them make up their own mind. Unless one can prove to me that one way is undisputabley correct and another way is not I think one should rely on their musical experience, knowledge, tradition and ear, that’s what music is all about, It is meant to be a type of self expression and therefore, with some exceptions of course, there is not necessarily a right or wrong way only opinions of what is right or wrong. Some great cellists, Yo Yo Ma as only one example, play the Bach cello suites in a romantic style, are they not good, some as he even great, musicians? ESP, www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2008-05-29 11:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nes
Date: 2008-05-29 04:58
Thank you everyone, you have helped enormously. It has reinforced the idea that there may not be a right or wrong. Be it as it may, I still find it disturbing that one plays the 1st movement with sudden fortes, and the other without. This is obviously an important differennce. I understand tempi, and phrasing and articulation may change, but Mozart knew what he was doing, and he would have intended for there to be a traditional phrasing away at bars 16, 18 and 20, or in contrast, as the editions suggest, a STRONG reinforcement of the note. I understand that maybe even if Mozart didn't write forte, you may still play it louder, but one playing it piano and the other a strong forte is a different matter for me.
I will discuss this with my colleauges, particuarly the second mvt as that is where our main score quiries come from. Thanks everyone! Particuarly Tony not only for his wealth of knowledge but the magnificent manuscript provided for me to observe.
Post Edited (2008-05-29 04:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-05-29 13:41
Ed:
I agree with you totally, but I am also of the opinion that this particular piece has achieved a tradiion of boring, (same tempo for every movement) that is a pain to hear, and my thoughts are only to expose what I think is great beauty, instead of banality.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-05-29 13:46
I take it you are from UK?
Harold Wright's recording is perfect, beautiful and inventive. The held Ab is reflective of his time and his life. Ostrich? Lilly-livered? I think not,sir.
Sherman Friedland
Post Edited (2008-05-29 13:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-05-29 16:16
Sherman Friedland wrote:
>> I take it you are from UK? Harold Wright's recording is perfect, beautiful and inventive. The held Ab is reflective of his time and his life.>>
I haven't heard it, but I can imagine it's good. Heck, I'll even take your word for it.
>> Ostrich? Lilly-livered? I think not,sir. Sherman Friedland >>
You're a hoot, you know that, Sherm?-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-05-29 19:11
Well Tone:
here is what you said
"What NOT to do is be a lily-livered, I-follow-in-the-footsteps-of-a-legendary-American-clarinet-player, head-in-the-sand, OSTRICH;-)"
would you care to elaborate?
Sherm
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-05-29 20:54
Sherman Friedland wrote:
>> Well Tone: here is what you said
"What NOT to do is be a lily-livered, I-follow-in-the-footsteps-of-a-legendary-American-clarinet-player, head-in-the-sand, OSTRICH;-)"
would you care to elaborate?>>
OK; though the last time I tried to explain myself to you I didn't get very far. Perhaps I'll be luckier this time.
Some context -- though not the complete context -- was the previous paragraph, which I add here:
>> But you must think about it, struggle with it, and make up your own mind. (You don't have to do it the same way every time, of course; I recorded the piece twice, and as I recall, played the MS version the second time.)
What NOT to do is be a lily-livered, I-follow-in-the-footsteps-of-a-legendary-American-clarinet-player, head-in-the-sand, OSTRICH;-)>>
The point is: if you're a performer, deciding that something is the right solution based solely upon the fact that someone else (however eminent) did it that way, gets you nowhere.
Bud Wright's great performance (I haven't heard it, but let's assume it IS great) wasn't great BECAUSE HE PLAYED THE NOTES HE PLAYED. It was great because of all sorts of other things about his playing, to do with his continuing response to what he'd played the moment before, to what his colleagues had played the moment before...and many other things besides, adding up to an ALIVENESS of presentation, both individually and as a group.
That aliveness has its roots in how you prepare. As a young player, you have to get into the habit of taking responsibility for your relationship with great composers. See:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2005/08/000322.txt
That responsibility means not only that you strike out for yourself courageously (you're not lily-livered) but also (and here's the paradox) you're prepared to question the basis on which you strike out courageously, as and when a different viewpoint presents itself. A sort of balance between questioning and assertion is required, so that when you come to perform, that 'assertion plus openness' can inform and enliven your playing.
A good teacher will understand which side of this balance needs to be strengthened and which frustrated in a particular student, at a particular time. If the student is too sure that their way of doing it is RIGHT, then they need to develop their ability to produce workable alternative versions. If the student is too concerned that they may be WRONG, then they need to be encouraged by being told that in the end, trust of oneself in performance is what excellent playing consists of.
In nes's case, not having heard him, we don't really know which side to support more; and anyway, I wasn't just writing for him. So, taking an even-handed approach, and having having presented the Mozart MS/ first edition evidence (casting 'doubt' on how it 'should' be played) I wanted to say something that represented COURAGE in the face of contrary evidence (namely, that a LEGENDARY AMERICAN CLARINET PLAYER played it a different way.) And, since nes is Australian, I used the metaphor 'one shouldn't be an ostrich' to do that. (BTW, what IS your name, nes? And, send me your email address, and I'll mail you the complete MS.)
So of course, the 'ostrich' wasn't 'Wright'. It was 'someone looking outside the workability of the music for justification of a textual decision' -- eg, to a legendary American clarinet player.
Notice how this fits in with my disparagement of the 'clarinet part annotated by Wright' as any sort of path towards excellence.
Does anyone really think that those trivial pencillings can capture anything important about his playing?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nes
Date: 2008-06-01 04:58
So, the tempo and dynamics play a huge role in especially the first movement. As a result I would like to hear your input on:
The speed being a quaver pulse, keeping in mind the 2 feel, however ??
Such as quaver= approx 106?
The subito fortes at bars 16, 18, 20? They are not marked forte, on Mozart's original manuscript. Does anyone here not play them subito forte? What do people play/ think in regards to these matters?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-06-01 14:31
The first movement of this work which I have both played and recorded more thanI can remember has a tempo of 6 beats, not two. This is of course contrary to what many say but is the result of a considerble amount of study, both of Mozarts works (there is a piano trio with the same kind of 'written-out" turns, obviously to be played more slowly ) and the question of why each turn is written out? If the original manuscript has only the turn marked and not written, some support may be made for the movement in two(however the manuscript has them written out as well). Finally, after the initial difficulty with a slow tempo, (things must be played really in-time, which the "turns" are never ) and all phrases must be finished, tapered and artistically rendered, the first movement emerges as slow and rather stately, offering a contast to the other movements which are quicker. The proportions of the performance are than more generous, the work not presented as a flip quick melodious plaything.
I would add that this is not the "given" for this movement, but I am convinced it is the more musical and logical. It is also considerably more difficult than throwing turns off as they usually are. Try playing them exactly intime and you are probably "on" to the reason for the "in two" tempo usually played for the first movement.
The big trap of playing it in two is that it makes the first and second movements frequently in similar tempi, which for me are to be avoided.
Sherman Friedland
Post Edited (2008-06-01 20:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nes
Date: 2008-06-02 05:38
If you can make it sound convincing in 6, then I reckon that would work. It might be harder to work it in 6 while keeping a forward motion.
The "turns" are difficult to match, but I find that in my trio, 2 of the 3 members prefer the 2 feel. That's because it might suit us better, whether it be an instant fix or not. Maybe if we worked on the quaver pulse style, it may make more sense.
Our masterclasses have had contrasting views, just like which has been expressed here. We have had tutorial, all very respected musicians, saying oposing things. That's the thing about music, it how it works for you, given you have to play something within reason.
The marking is Andante, which is easier to make it sound Andante in a 2 feel.
If you played it in 6, would you apply the walking pac indication to the quavers instead of dotted crotchets?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-06-02 13:31
It's much easier, friendlier in two, no question, however if one will just attmpt to play what is written it is a different story and few can execute it correctly, if anyone, hence the two feeling and the destroying of what Mozart wrote. That is the problem. If there were any question of his intent, it would be one thing. What is the norm is to distort the notation, which I do not accept, nothwithstanding any tempo one wishes. Opinion is respected from all, but play it as written first, if not I need not join the discussion. Or euphemistically, just ignore all notation and play it the way one "feels".
Sherman Friedland
Post Edited (2008-06-04 17:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-02 14:00
nes wrote:
>> If you can make it sound convincing in 6, then I reckon that would work. It might be harder to work it in 6 while keeping a forward motion.>>
'In 6', 'in 2' aren't indications of tempo. One of the important characteristics of 6/8 is that it allows bars to be 'in' a number of things within one movement. Hence a bar can be 'in' 1, hierarchical 2, equally divided 2 (consisting essentially of two 3/8 bars), or 6. There's also the possibility of hemiola, which Mozart quite often employs.
All of these occur in the Kegelstatt -- and, of course, in the final movement of the Concerto.
I don't find that a speed of say, quaver 120 creates difficulties for the turn, and it allows all of the subdivisions above.
I'm away from home in Spain at the moment and so have limited computer time to give to this; but I'll go into more detail, and say something about the fortes, later.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-02 20:32
I wrote:
>> ...I'll go into more detail, and say something about the fortes, later.>>
Meanwhile, nes, I invite you to consider what you mean by this:
>> It might be harder to work it in 6 while keeping a forward motion.>>
What do you mean here by 'a forward motion'??
It's a non-trivial question, because of course, any bar subdivision has a forward motion -- it has to yield to the next bar, as and when it finishes.
What exactly is it that you're trying to capture with these words?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2008-06-03 23:37
This is a very unique piece. A piece for 3 musicians, with 3 movements (most trios have 4) all 3 mvts. in the same key (3 flats). There is no fast movement, only an Andante, a Minuet, and an Allegretto. I think it is a mistake to try to make the piece more "normal" by turning the 1st mvt. into a fast mvt. I think the tempo should be Mvt. 1 eighth note=Mvt. 2 quarter note=Mvt. 3 half note-all 3 mvts. have the same basic pulse. This may be boring, as Mr. Palanker said, but it is also boring to have 3 mvts. in the same key, and we don't transpose the Minuet to the dominant to make it more interesting. Mozart had non-musical reasons (mystical, Masonic reasons) for writing the piece the way he did. Btw, I heard Eric Hoeprech play this and he took the 1st mvt in a surprisingly fast 2. Since he knows as much as anyone about performance practice it would be interesting to hear his opinions about the trio.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-05 14:26
I wrote:
>> One of the important characteristics of 6/8 is that it allows bars to be 'in' a number of things within one movement. Hence a bar can be 'in' 1, hierarchical 2, equally divided 2 (consisting essentially of two equal 3/8 bars), or 6.>>
Perhaps I was wrong to single out 6/8 in this regard. Of course, 4/4 is equally open to different subdivisions: 1, hierarchical 2, equally divided 2 (consisting essentially of two equal 2/4 bars), or 4 -- or even 8 (cf bars148 and 149 of the Mozart clarinet concerto). Missing only is hemiola.
Unthinking modern players tend not to have these considerations at the front of their awareness -- nor deeply inside them, which would be better -- because for them barlines pass almost unnoticed. Of course, you need to be AWARE of a bar as an entity before you can consider the question of how it may be subdivided.
It has to be admitted that when 'period' players started to re-establish the barline in the second half of the last century, some of them did so in too enthusiastic a manner; and their performances were mocked, sometimes justifiably, as 'barline-bashing'. But a rather better way of characterising how a sensitive player USES the barline is to say that they see that a barline has VARYING importance; therefore that variation has expressive potential.
It's possible, for example, for a particular barline to be stronger than the subsequent one, creating a pair of bars as a hierarchical structure one level up. That's true of the first two bars of the minuet of the Kegelstatt, for example, which form a two-bar unit that is answered by two equal one-bar units in bars 3 and 4.
Another notion that is useful in the performance of the Kegelstatt is that of 'tilting'. (This isn't an accepted terminology, I should say; I made it up:-) It occurs rather obviously in the opening of the clarinet concerto Rondo, where the unequal dividing of the accompaniment of the first and fifth bar ('dah (rest) dah dah dah dah') 'tilts' our perception of those bars towards being in 1 rather than 2. (So the rhythmic scheme, bar by bar, is: 1,1, equal 2, hierarchical 2; 1, 1, equal 2, hierarchical 2.)
A rather more subtle example of the idea is the first bar of the Kegelstatt. This might be thought to be in 2 -- the LH (of the Klavier) definitely looks in 2. But the bar is 'tilted' toward being perceived in 1 by the unequal subdivision of the bar in the viola and RH. Unequal subdivision of a bar has the effect of tilting our perception of it towards unity -- even a subdivision like this, which is VERY NEARLY equal. And the same is true for the clarinet melody in bars 9ff. It's what gives it that wonderful, suspended quality, over the top of the simple, normal (hierarchical 2) accompaniment.
I should be clear that I don't think that an intellectual grasp of this sort of thing in any way guarantees excellent performance. Notions like bar-hierarchy, phrase-shape and so on, that are commonly thought to be RULES of the classical style, can be just as dead in the wrong hands as anything else.
Rather, these things are TOOLS: devices that are always alive, yet capable of being either expressive or 'normal', that were developed by the great composer-performers. We need to practise in order to be able to use them with that understanding.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-05 15:58
I wrote:
>> ...[I'll] say something about the fortes, later.>>
Given that both barlines and bar-structure are to be shown to a greater or lesser degree in the style -- and that it's how you MODULATE that showing that gives you expressive and rhetorical power -- the fortes are less problematic. They could have been put there by some 'helpful' someone other than Mozart (who we know didn't have them as part of his conception at least when he wrote the manuscript) in order to emphasise what I would say is already implicit -- namely, that the bar needs to be heard as is in 1. You might want to play the downbeat quite strongly -- though not shockingly -- even without the forte marking.
Actually, these four bars, 16-19, are in several ways the trickiest of the movement to bring off. I think the best solution (you must find your own, of course) is to play the last quaver of bar 16 and the first quaver of bar 17 quite 'shaped', particularly the first, so that the first half of bar 17 has an 'in 6' feel; then the next quaver in bar 17 slightly less 'shaped', shading into a light 'in 2' feel for the second half of bar 17; and back into 1 for bar 18 -- notice that the beginning of bar 18 is stronger than the middle of bar 17 (the 'hierarchical 2' requirement, hence the forte implication at the beginning of bar 17). The next two bars repeat the process.
That sounds ridiculous in words, which is why we hardly ever use words to describe such things in detail. A better way of going about communicating it might be to say that the bit of the phrase with separated quavers 'dances', or 'speaks' for a moment before returning almost immediately to song.
And as I hinted before, considerable trial and error may be necessary before the idea turns into something that feels natural to all three players and that they are happy with -- particularly since clarinet and viola have octave Gs that must match in both shape and intonation. (Our written A is not the easiest of notes to shape, after all.)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
